| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters 11:01 - Jan 10 with 39817 views | _ |
I've not been around for a little while enjoying Christmas and the new year but been checking in from time to time.
I understand you have banned two Planet Swans legends and why?
I've noticed your over reactions time and time again of late and I think you forget you are the Trust Chairman when you react so. You have repeatedly banned Spratty also and it's all too pathetic.
Don't cross swords with these guys if you can't take it Phil. I've read your comebacks to them and me and sitting in front of the buttons doesn't give you carte blanche to decide who stays or not.
This site would be nothing without its characters and for every person thatgets on your tits there's others that enjoy what they have to say.
You clearly can't take any heat and that worries me in your position especially with big decisions about to be made.
There are posters you let run havoc on here that are universally hated, even by your close friends and associates and there are many a good poster that has left because of them. We've all got the option to ban by simply pressing ignore as you keep instructing posters to do....that is until you lock horns with them, they make you look silly and you ban them.
Grow up, grow a set and don't post if you can't take a little flak. If you allow the likes of Darran, Jackfath and Dick free roam on here you should be man enough to allow Shaky and Parlay.
I look out for these guys posts along with selected others and they make the place worth visiting.
It's petty and childish and you should be above that in your important position, don't forget that.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 14:05 - Jan 14 with 1209 views | mbl1966 |
Christ on a bike! Half the population of South Wales must be the product of rape if you can only give permission whilst being sober. Life seems to have got very complicated in the last 20 or so years. There is evidently a market here for disposable breath testing machines with camcorders attached so revellers can state on camera that they are proved to be sober and "would like a shag please". |  |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 14:20 - Jan 14 with 1175 views | _ |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 14:05 - Jan 14 by mbl1966 |
Christ on a bike! Half the population of South Wales must be the product of rape if you can only give permission whilst being sober. Life seems to have got very complicated in the last 20 or so years. There is evidently a market here for disposable breath testing machines with camcorders attached so revellers can state on camera that they are proved to be sober and "would like a shag please". |
You can also tell straight up from the posters on this thread who gets a bit of action here and there and who doesn't ;-) [Post edited 14 Jan 2015 14:46]
| |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 14:51 - Jan 14 with 1139 views | mbl1966 |
I've been married so long I don't know what constitutes 'action' any more!
A couple of nights ago I didn't go to bed until after 11pm, does that count? | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 15:01 - Jan 14 with 1124 views | Pacemaker |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 12:56 - Jan 14 by _ |
Why do you think it was changed circa 2003? |
The old act was from 1956 and despite numerous amendments was no longer fit for purpose as it left too many loopholes and was not fit for purpose.
It did not cover areas like Voyerism, Pseudo images of children etc. It needed to be fit for the modern world, it also covered penetration of the mouth as rape. |  |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 15:35 - Jan 14 with 1090 views | _ |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 15:01 - Jan 14 by Pacemaker |
The old act was from 1956 and despite numerous amendments was no longer fit for purpose as it left too many loopholes and was not fit for purpose.
It did not cover areas like Voyerism, Pseudo images of children etc. It needed to be fit for the modern world, it also covered penetration of the mouth as rape. |
Iesu Mawr, you seem to know a lot about this subject 
I'm sure that amongst the other things you mention it had a lot to do with some drug related date-rape cases at the time - Rohypnol or whatever it is etc.... | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:03 - Jan 14 with 1038 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 10:35 - Jan 14 by Darran |
She may not have been drunker through having more to drink but she could have been in a worse state through falling to sleep from the alcohol and as everyone knows can be very difficult to revive someone from hence her being in a worse state I know this for a FACT.
You are a rape apologist end of. |
Oh great, we have some new evidence come to light it seems.
Can you show me which part of the transcripts clearly show she was in a drink induced sleep coma then, that would really help everybody out and put this case to an end.
Step forward Mr Prosser.
(Maybe now he will realise there is a difference between proof and assumption) |  |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:06 - Jan 14 with 1032 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 12:30 - Jan 14 by Pacemaker |
The act from 2003 is the law and that is that, nothing to do with do-gooders. The law changed in 2003 significantly to protect all types of victims in all types of scenarios.
Many on this forum seem to have a narrow view of what is rape, if you do not have consent during sexual intercourse it is rape and that is the end of the matter. If you want to check out some of the offences under the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 you will see it is a very thorough act and covers all sorts of situations.
If you or Parley cannot accept that is the way it is then speak to your MP and lobby to change the law.
The jury system in this country was introduced at the time of the Magna Carta and has served this country well. |
You keep telling us the law changed in 2003 and how nobody can accept it. It seems more of a case of you wanting to show you know the law rather than make an actual point. Not one person has not accepted the law change in 2003 (as you repeatedly have said).
Nowhere in this law, does it state, people can be sent to prison with purely circumstantial evidence. That is what you are failing to see.
We are all happy what constitutes rape, it does not need to be clarified. What we are not happy with is the fact that this man has seemingly been sentences with little to no evidence what so ever. [Post edited 14 Jan 2015 17:07]
| |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:08 - Jan 14 with 1029 views | Darran |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:03 - Jan 14 by Parlay |
Oh great, we have some new evidence come to light it seems.
Can you show me which part of the transcripts clearly show she was in a drink induced sleep coma then, that would really help everybody out and put this case to an end.
Step forward Mr Prosser.
(Maybe now he will realise there is a difference between proof and assumption) |
I've no idea I havent read them but just because she hadn't had another drunk it's quite feasible that she could have been in a worse state than when she went into the hotel especially after being shagged by the other person.
It's a FACT that that does happen to human beings. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:10 - Jan 14 with 1023 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 13:44 - Jan 14 by trampie |
I thought that the burden of proof was up to the prosecution ?, |
It is, he is wrong.
The case was not relying on Ched being able to prove he got consent. How in Gods name can you prove you got consent from a woman who cannot remember?
The case relied on the prosecution proving he didn't get consent, or that she was in no fit state to give it. They gave circumstantial evidence to which a jury then had to guess.s
Hence the surprising outcome and the confusion regarding this verdict being shown by an awful lot of people. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:13 - Jan 14 with 1018 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:08 - Jan 14 by Darran |
I've no idea I havent read them but just because she hadn't had another drunk it's quite feasible that she could have been in a worse state than when she went into the hotel especially after being shagged by the other person.
It's a FACT that that does happen to human beings. |
Im sure it does Darren.
But what you have to understand, is in order for you to be sent down for that, there has to be clear evidence there.... But there isnt. You cant just go around guessing.
This is the point you are continually missing. Which is pretty frightening really. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:34 - Jan 14 with 993 views | Pacemaker |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:10 - Jan 14 by Parlay |
It is, he is wrong.
The case was not relying on Ched being able to prove he got consent. How in Gods name can you prove you got consent from a woman who cannot remember?
The case relied on the prosecution proving he didn't get consent, or that she was in no fit state to give it. They gave circumstantial evidence to which a jury then had to guess.s
Hence the surprising outcome and the confusion regarding this verdict being shown by an awful lot of people. |
Parley to quote a famous Judge "Young man, I have forgotten more law, than you will ever remember".
The only topic you are correct on is it is the prosecutions job to prove the offence.
HOWEVER in this particular case it was agreed that sexual intercourse had taken place....therfore the only issue for the prosecution to prove was had D obtained true consent and the case rested on that matter. That was the only issue the Jury had to decide on.
You have continually referred to the Jury "making assumptions" every Jury uses their experience of life, the evidence put before them to come to a decision, because they were not present as in about 90% of cases before a court it is one or two persons word against another, more often than not there is little compelling evidence from CCTV, independent witnesses or forensic evidence.
The Jury do not guess they assess the evidence, their opinion of the quality of the witness and their answers to questions from the defence or prosecution barrister after that the judge directs them on points of law in this case he points out case law in relation to consent and they form an opinion is D innocent or guilty.
Go along to Swansea Crown Court and sit in the back of a court and watch a trial in session and see if your opinion is the same as a jury and how difficult a job it is.
I hope should I find myself in the dock the jurors are not as inflexible as you.
You do not need to introduce DNA evidence if both parties agreed they had sex, it is agreed! | |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:45 - Jan 14 with 984 views | VetchitBack |
After all these posts I still cannot see how the jury could convict beyond "reasonable doubt"
How can anyone be sure she didn't give consent? Or that she was too drunk to consent?
Unless under this 2003 change in the law you are required to keep evidence of consent?
Maybe filming you sexual exploits isn't just a crass and brainless thing to do after all?! |  |
| The orthodox are always orthodox, regardless of the orthodoxy.
|
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:48 - Jan 14 with 979 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:34 - Jan 14 by Pacemaker |
Parley to quote a famous Judge "Young man, I have forgotten more law, than you will ever remember".
The only topic you are correct on is it is the prosecutions job to prove the offence.
HOWEVER in this particular case it was agreed that sexual intercourse had taken place....therfore the only issue for the prosecution to prove was had D obtained true consent and the case rested on that matter. That was the only issue the Jury had to decide on.
You have continually referred to the Jury "making assumptions" every Jury uses their experience of life, the evidence put before them to come to a decision, because they were not present as in about 90% of cases before a court it is one or two persons word against another, more often than not there is little compelling evidence from CCTV, independent witnesses or forensic evidence.
The Jury do not guess they assess the evidence, their opinion of the quality of the witness and their answers to questions from the defence or prosecution barrister after that the judge directs them on points of law in this case he points out case law in relation to consent and they form an opinion is D innocent or guilty.
Go along to Swansea Crown Court and sit in the back of a court and watch a trial in session and see if your opinion is the same as a jury and how difficult a job it is.
I hope should I find myself in the dock the jurors are not as inflexible as you.
You do not need to introduce DNA evidence if both parties agreed they had sex, it is agreed! |
Judging from your first line, it seems i was correct in my deduction that indeed you have no other point other than showing everybody you are aware the law changed in 2003 (even though it has nothing to do with what is being discussed at all). Its all well and good knowing the law my friend, how about applying that to this debate then because your continued "i know more than you but still dont have a point to make" is getting a bit yawn worthy,
So in summary, you can quote whoever you like, but you are still wrong. The case DID NOT and will never (unless it is a court of appeal) hinge on the defence proving their innocence. It is the prosecution that has to prove guilt. This is fact.
Yes it was clear sexual intercourse had taken place due to their testimonies. So now the prosecution had to prove Ched DIDNT get true consent. Very subtle difference in language, HUGE difference in practicality. There now needs to be proof Ched didn't get consent. A very different scenario to him proving he did.
The job of the jury is not to assume anything. They listen to the evidence, and if there isn't any solid evidence to convict then their decision should be not guilty regardless of life experience or indeed personal feelings. Personal feelings should in no way come into this. Very scary indeed that a few people have said "you look at this case differently if you have daughters" - these words from people that had just as much chance of being on that jury as anybody else.
Of course the jury guess. Unless you have some hard evidence showing what clearly took place the only thing you can do is assume. However the correct thing to do in light of no evidence, is assume innocence not guilt.
I couldn't care less how hard a jurors job is, they will go back to their daily life regardless of decision they come to. I am more concerned about people being sent to prison when there is no clear evidence showing their guilt. [Post edited 14 Jan 2015 17:51]
| |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:55 - Jan 14 with 970 views | Starsky |
You are all off topic... This thread isn't supposed to be about Ched Evans, the convicted rapist. |  |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:58 - Jan 14 with 965 views | Pacemaker |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:48 - Jan 14 by Parlay |
Judging from your first line, it seems i was correct in my deduction that indeed you have no other point other than showing everybody you are aware the law changed in 2003 (even though it has nothing to do with what is being discussed at all). Its all well and good knowing the law my friend, how about applying that to this debate then because your continued "i know more than you but still dont have a point to make" is getting a bit yawn worthy,
So in summary, you can quote whoever you like, but you are still wrong. The case DID NOT and will never (unless it is a court of appeal) hinge on the defence proving their innocence. It is the prosecution that has to prove guilt. This is fact.
Yes it was clear sexual intercourse had taken place due to their testimonies. So now the prosecution had to prove Ched DIDNT get true consent. Very subtle difference in language, HUGE difference in practicality. There now needs to be proof Ched didn't get consent. A very different scenario to him proving he did.
The job of the jury is not to assume anything. They listen to the evidence, and if there isn't any solid evidence to convict then their decision should be not guilty regardless of life experience or indeed personal feelings. Personal feelings should in no way come into this. Very scary indeed that a few people have said "you look at this case differently if you have daughters" - these words from people that had just as much chance of being on that jury as anybody else.
Of course the jury guess. Unless you have some hard evidence showing what clearly took place the only thing you can do is assume. However the correct thing to do in light of no evidence, is assume innocence not guilt.
I couldn't care less how hard a jurors job is, they will go back to their daily life regardless of decision they come to. I am more concerned about people being sent to prison when there is no clear evidence showing their guilt. [Post edited 14 Jan 2015 17:51]
|
You win I give up you are correct, it is a very strange case that luckily you have picked up this anomaly in law despite two appeal court hearings and some of the best barristers money can buy.
I think we can all agree you are Indeed a tenacious advocate for the innocent victims of the current judicial system. | |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:59 - Jan 14 with 960 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:55 - Jan 14 by Starsky |
You are all off topic... This thread isn't supposed to be about Ched Evans, the convicted rapist. |
Oh you bad boy, all us Ched Evans and pro rape fans are going to be seething that you called him that. 
Nobody is denying he was convicted of rape my friend. Whether he should have been, given the evidence (or lack of) is what is being discussed. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 18:03 - Jan 14 with 953 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:58 - Jan 14 by Pacemaker |
You win I give up you are correct, it is a very strange case that luckily you have picked up this anomaly in law despite two appeal court hearings and some of the best barristers money can buy.
I think we can all agree you are Indeed a tenacious advocate for the innocent victims of the current judicial system. |
You are confusing setting the same standards for an appeal and the original case. If the incorrect decision is given in the original case then you are in all sorts of trouble as you then have to satisfy appeal guidelines. Almost impossible in a case like this.
In order to have an appeal granted you then must, as you say, have evidence proving you did get consent. Lets be honest, the chance of you proving you got consent out of a woman that cant remember either way is slim to none.
Having an appeal rejected is obviously going to be the case. So to use it as a tool to show his guilt is ridiculous.
This is not an anomaly in law, but just the law. Appeals and original cases have differing standards to satisfy, something you have failed to differentiate and assumed they are the same. [Post edited 14 Jan 2015 18:05]
| |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 18:12 - Jan 14 with 934 views | Pacemaker |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 18:03 - Jan 14 by Parlay |
You are confusing setting the same standards for an appeal and the original case. If the incorrect decision is given in the original case then you are in all sorts of trouble as you then have to satisfy appeal guidelines. Almost impossible in a case like this.
In order to have an appeal granted you then must, as you say, have evidence proving you did get consent. Lets be honest, the chance of you proving you got consent out of a woman that cant remember either way is slim to none.
Having an appeal rejected is obviously going to be the case. So to use it as a tool to show his guilt is ridiculous.
This is not an anomaly in law, but just the law. Appeals and original cases have differing standards to satisfy, something you have failed to differentiate and assumed they are the same. [Post edited 14 Jan 2015 18:05]
|
I would love to meet you as you are one of the strangest people I have ever come across, I have worked with people from all backgrounds and from all over the world, but I have never ever come across someone as deluded as yourself, I am sure it would be a unique experience for me ( and probably exhausting).
I shall not be carrying on with this surreal topic as you are fixed on your own interpretation of this case and cannot accept another persons point of view, but good luck I am sure you will find others who will keep you entertained.
My worst case scenario sitting as a juror with Parlay also selected......any trial would go on for months? | |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 18:19 - Jan 14 with 929 views | _ |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:48 - Jan 14 by Parlay |
Judging from your first line, it seems i was correct in my deduction that indeed you have no other point other than showing everybody you are aware the law changed in 2003 (even though it has nothing to do with what is being discussed at all). Its all well and good knowing the law my friend, how about applying that to this debate then because your continued "i know more than you but still dont have a point to make" is getting a bit yawn worthy,
So in summary, you can quote whoever you like, but you are still wrong. The case DID NOT and will never (unless it is a court of appeal) hinge on the defence proving their innocence. It is the prosecution that has to prove guilt. This is fact.
Yes it was clear sexual intercourse had taken place due to their testimonies. So now the prosecution had to prove Ched DIDNT get true consent. Very subtle difference in language, HUGE difference in practicality. There now needs to be proof Ched didn't get consent. A very different scenario to him proving he did.
The job of the jury is not to assume anything. They listen to the evidence, and if there isn't any solid evidence to convict then their decision should be not guilty regardless of life experience or indeed personal feelings. Personal feelings should in no way come into this. Very scary indeed that a few people have said "you look at this case differently if you have daughters" - these words from people that had just as much chance of being on that jury as anybody else.
Of course the jury guess. Unless you have some hard evidence showing what clearly took place the only thing you can do is assume. However the correct thing to do in light of no evidence, is assume innocence not guilt.
I couldn't care less how hard a jurors job is, they will go back to their daily life regardless of decision they come to. I am more concerned about people being sent to prison when there is no clear evidence showing their guilt. [Post edited 14 Jan 2015 17:51]
|
A winning summary of the case as Pacemaker beats a rapid retreat, tail between his legs and slumps into his seat head in hands.
The judge's hammer slams down and Ched turns to celebrate with Parlay like he's just scored the winner at the Top Rank Bar, err I mean, Wembley, free at last to carry on with the mediocrity of scoring freely in the market towns of England and Wales.
Police are now said to be looking for someone in a wheelchair seen hurriedly getting the fack out of Dodge to assist them further with their enquiries.
Disclaimer: the names, descriptions and characters above are fictitious and and are not based on any real person either in the past or present. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 18:20 - Jan 14 with 924 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 18:12 - Jan 14 by Pacemaker |
I would love to meet you as you are one of the strangest people I have ever come across, I have worked with people from all backgrounds and from all over the world, but I have never ever come across someone as deluded as yourself, I am sure it would be a unique experience for me ( and probably exhausting).
I shall not be carrying on with this surreal topic as you are fixed on your own interpretation of this case and cannot accept another persons point of view, but good luck I am sure you will find others who will keep you entertained.
My worst case scenario sitting as a juror with Parlay also selected......any trial would go on for months? |
If all else fails - get personal and start insulting. Now if only i could say the same thing about that being unique. Im afraid that is old hat and will never get any points for originality or indeed practicality. That is the death knell for anything that was left of your opinion I'm afraid.
Where is the delusion? I am stating a fact. In the original case relied on the prosecution proving consent was not given. In an appeal it relies on the convicted proving it was given.
There is no point of view. You are quoting terms of appeal as terms of the original case and assuming they are the same thing. You are then telling everybody how much you know about law and how little they do, yet your whole viewpoint is based upon something basic you have got completely wrong.
Your last sentence is shocking by the way. You would rather conclude a case quickly for your own personal convenience rather than get it right and it take longer? This, added with other peoples comments in this thread, shows why a jury system, is far from infallible.
Terrifying. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 18:23 - Jan 14 with 921 views | Starsky |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 17:59 - Jan 14 by Parlay |
Oh you bad boy, all us Ched Evans and pro rape fans are going to be seething that you called him that.
Nobody is denying he was convicted of rape my friend. Whether he should have been, given the evidence (or lack of) is what is being discussed. |
I was laughing my head off at the thought have you reading that while not being able to discredit it.
My biggest regret was that I should have ended it with... 'FACT'
 | |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 18:29 - Jan 14 with 913 views | _ |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 18:12 - Jan 14 by Pacemaker |
I would love to meet you as you are one of the strangest people I have ever come across, I have worked with people from all backgrounds and from all over the world, but I have never ever come across someone as deluded as yourself, I am sure it would be a unique experience for me ( and probably exhausting).
I shall not be carrying on with this surreal topic as you are fixed on your own interpretation of this case and cannot accept another persons point of view, but good luck I am sure you will find others who will keep you entertained.
My worst case scenario sitting as a juror with Parlay also selected......any trial would go on for months? |
I'll see your Parlay and raise you a Pacemaker any day of the week in strangest weirdo's out there.... | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 18:30 - Jan 14 with 912 views | skippyjack |
Ched went down the Kermit.. on very flimsy grounds.. that's the only point Parlay wanted to make.. Jesus f*ck it's always camaraderie when Parlay gets going. |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 18:31 - Jan 14 with 908 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 18:23 - Jan 14 by Starsky |
I was laughing my head off at the thought have you reading that while not being able to discredit it.
My biggest regret was that I should have ended it with... 'FACT'
|
Everybody needs a hobby i guess  | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 18:32 - Jan 14 with 904 views | _ |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 18:30 - Jan 14 by skippyjack |
Ched went down the Kermit.. on very flimsy grounds.. that's the only point Parlay wanted to make.. Jesus f*ck it's always camaraderie when Parlay gets going. |
Italian left back?
What's he in for? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
