| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters 11:01 - Jan 10 with 40217 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 22:23 - Jan 12 with 1470 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:20 - Jan 12 by Pacemaker |
The important point of this conviction was that Evans needed to show he had obtained consent, the victim stated she was so inebriated she could not have consented, on that basis he was convicted by the jury. |
Absolutely incorrect, Ched did not have to prove he got consent. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defence.
The woman never accused Ched of rape, she just simply couldn't remember what happened. |  |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:40 - Jan 12 with 1431 views | Pacemaker |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:23 - Jan 12 by Parlay |
Absolutely incorrect, Ched did not have to prove he got consent. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defence.
The woman never accused Ched of rape, she just simply couldn't remember what happened. |
You are wrong I am afraid the law is quite clear.
This is the transcript of the court of appeal hearing
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans
I have previously posted the definition of Rape under the 2003 SOA but for your info it is here.
1Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if–
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
It was obviously a decision for the jury having seen and heard all the evidence and they found him guilty. The prosecution had their case and the defence theirs,
Rape is a very difficult case to defend but also to prosecute it quite rightly was decided by a jury of his peers. |  |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:41 - Jan 12 with 1428 views | Lord_Bony |
I ve just started réading this thread from where I last left off on Sunday....
feck my eyes,!
I can't do it...my head is hurting too... |  |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:41 - Jan 12 with 1428 views | Sweyns_Eye |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:23 - Jan 12 by Parlay |
Absolutely incorrect, Ched did not have to prove he got consent. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defence.
The woman never accused Ched of rape, she just simply couldn't remember what happened. |
The judgement of consent was referred to the jury to decide. |  |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:47 - Jan 12 with 1407 views | skippyjack |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:23 - Jan 12 by Parlay |
Absolutely incorrect, Ched did not have to prove he got consent. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defence.
The woman never accused Ched of rape, she just simply couldn't remember what happened. |
They just won't accept it... Evans got convicted because she couldn't remember.. that's the reality of it.. which the law states as unable to give consent..
It's so flimsy.. a man got a 5 year sentence because the victim couldn't remember.. I'm only going by the transcripts.. the world has clearly gone potty. |  |
| 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 22:50 - Jan 12 with 1389 views | Pacemaker |
Ha ha spot on I recognise myself there | |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:51 - Jan 12 with 1384 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:40 - Jan 12 by Pacemaker |
You are wrong I am afraid the law is quite clear.
This is the transcript of the court of appeal hearing
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans
I have previously posted the definition of Rape under the 2003 SOA but for your info it is here.
1Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if–
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
It was obviously a decision for the jury having seen and heard all the evidence and they found him guilty. The prosecution had their case and the defence theirs,
Rape is a very difficult case to defend but also to prosecute it quite rightly was decided by a jury of his peers. |
How does that state I am wrong?
I am not wrong and the law is simple. the onus isn't on you to prove your innocence it is for someone else to prove your guilt.
there is no proof currently presented that Ched raped the woman.
that simple | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:54 - Jan 12 with 1366 views | blueytheblue |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:50 - Jan 12 by Pacemaker |
Ha ha spot on I recognise myself there |
Well, I was being somewhat flippant there. My eldest son went through that stage, well beyond the terrible twos.
Established the boundaries, disengaged. When he wants the argument, giving him that argument just feeds the problem more hence a vicious circle.
His behaviour has thankfully improved recently, so...
Fits internet message boards quite nicely. |  |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:56 - Jan 12 with 1360 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:41 - Jan 12 by Sweyns_Eye |
The judgement of consent was referred to the jury to decide. |
Nobody is disputing that.
Their decision is what is being questioned. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:00 - Jan 12 with 1352 views | Pacemaker |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:51 - Jan 12 by Parlay |
How does that state I am wrong?
I am not wrong and the law is simple. the onus isn't on you to prove your innocence it is for someone else to prove your guilt.
there is no proof currently presented that Ched raped the woman.
that simple |
There was no argument that sex took place the argument was over consent.
Therefore the prosecution only had to ask the jury to decide was she in a fit state to consent? The prosecution do not have to prove anything else under those specific circumstances.
The prosecution claimed she was too drunk to consent he claimed she consented therefore under the law he has to show she consented, he couldn't to the juries satisfaction, the prosecution produced several witnesses and cctv to show she was very drunk and therefore could not give consent.
That was why he was unsuccessful in his first appeal as no court will change a decision by a correctly directed jury. They saw and heard all the evidence. | |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:01 - Jan 12 with 1345 views | jackb |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 19:57 - Jan 12 by sixpenses |
You (either deliberately or not) totally miss the point
It is about censorship - of all types
Attention seeking troll
I am a season ticket holder and regular away supporter (Phil will be along to mock me shortly for even mentioning that and true I should not need to except for the repeated attitudes of some on this site) I am a trust member. I am rarely anything but polite I support my opinions with facts and stats.
Actually I could accuse you of being a troll for twisting a very important issue but sadly I fear you just totally fail to understand. |
I didn't call you an attention seeking troll |  | | |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:05 - Jan 12 with 1333 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:00 - Jan 12 by Pacemaker |
There was no argument that sex took place the argument was over consent.
Therefore the prosecution only had to ask the jury to decide was she in a fit state to consent? The prosecution do not have to prove anything else under those specific circumstances.
The prosecution claimed she was too drunk to consent he claimed she consented therefore under the law he has to show she consented, he couldn't to the juries satisfaction, the prosecution produced several witnesses and cctv to show she was very drunk and therefore could not give consent.
That was why he was unsuccessful in his first appeal as no court will change a decision by a correctly directed jury. They saw and heard all the evidence. |
I've not said there was an argument over if sex happened.
The jury are made up of members of the public like you and I. None of them were there so could only assume.
None of the people that were there said consent wasn't given and everybody who could remember said consent was given.
Being drunk does not mean consent cannot be given. This is clearly evident in the law. If the CCTV showed her in a drunk state (I have seen evidence of the opposite in the hotel) then she was also too drunk to consent to the other man. Yet he was not guilty.
So we are discussing a group of public members assuming someone was too drunk to consent, not the result of clear evidence proving she was. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:15 - Jan 12 with 1317 views | VetchitBack |
This case keeps getting more interesting.
Those who seem happy with the jury's decision and can evidently see no reasonable doubt are in parts quoting law which states in laymans terms that even if consent is given this is invalidated when you're drunk.
And also bemoaning how hard it is to get a rape conviction.
I'm struggling to square the two viewpoints I must say.
But I do think the fact the prosecution (on here) keep mentioning things like the low conviction rate and misogyny to be quite telling when the defence seem to be focusing much more closely on the facts that are in the public domain. [Post edited 12 Jan 2015 23:16]
|  |
| The orthodox are always orthodox, regardless of the orthodoxy.
|
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:18 - Jan 12 with 1306 views | Sweyns_Eye |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:56 - Jan 12 by Parlay |
Nobody is disputing that.
Their decision is what is being questioned. |
For what its worth, from what I've read I'm sceptical about their verdict.
However on saying that, no one can doubt (me included) that the 12 members of the jury reached their decision based on more evidence presented before them than is available for you, I, or anyone else to read or be told of. So my scepticism is based only on the limited details I have gleaned and a decision has been reached by people with more access to the facts.
He's had 2 previous attempts to get re-trials and his legal team have failed to provide any new evidence or mis-direction of the jury. On that basis he remains a convicted rapist.
Thats my two pennyworth and I'm not commenting on this anymore. There's a young woman at the heart of this case too and she's the victim. Unfortunately that often gets forgotten. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:18 - Jan 12 with 1301 views | perchrockjack |
Seems many posters were in court or are legal reps.
Are you still in finance parlay.
Was your other degree in law | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:23 - Jan 12 with 1289 views | Musical_Swan |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:18 - Jan 12 by Sweyns_Eye |
For what its worth, from what I've read I'm sceptical about their verdict.
However on saying that, no one can doubt (me included) that the 12 members of the jury reached their decision based on more evidence presented before them than is available for you, I, or anyone else to read or be told of. So my scepticism is based only on the limited details I have gleaned and a decision has been reached by people with more access to the facts.
He's had 2 previous attempts to get re-trials and his legal team have failed to provide any new evidence or mis-direction of the jury. On that basis he remains a convicted rapist.
Thats my two pennyworth and I'm not commenting on this anymore. There's a young woman at the heart of this case too and she's the victim. Unfortunately that often gets forgotten. |
For me, a great conclusion to the argument.
Wish others would feel the same.  |  |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:23 - Jan 12 with 1288 views | perchrockjack |
Car crashes are box office too. It's like some can't help gawping. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:25 - Jan 12 with 1278 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:18 - Jan 12 by Sweyns_Eye |
For what its worth, from what I've read I'm sceptical about their verdict.
However on saying that, no one can doubt (me included) that the 12 members of the jury reached their decision based on more evidence presented before them than is available for you, I, or anyone else to read or be told of. So my scepticism is based only on the limited details I have gleaned and a decision has been reached by people with more access to the facts.
He's had 2 previous attempts to get re-trials and his legal team have failed to provide any new evidence or mis-direction of the jury. On that basis he remains a convicted rapist.
Thats my two pennyworth and I'm not commenting on this anymore. There's a young woman at the heart of this case too and she's the victim. Unfortunately that often gets forgotten. |
having an appeal isn't easy. for an appeal the onus is then on you to prove your innocence, something you can not do in a case where there is no evidence either way. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:26 - Jan 12 with 1277 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:18 - Jan 12 by perchrockjack |
Seems many posters were in court or are legal reps.
Are you still in finance parlay.
Was your other degree in law |
You told us all how you have seen incorrect decisions in court.
I assume you have a degree in law to say that? | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:27 - Jan 12 with 1272 views | Pacemaker |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 22:51 - Jan 12 by Parlay |
How does that state I am wrong?
I am not wrong and the law is simple. the onus isn't on you to prove your innocence it is for someone else to prove your guilt.
there is no proof currently presented that Ched raped the woman.
that simple |
My initial answer to your query was because you claimed the prosecution had to prove His guilt that he raped the victim, the only issue of rape here was one of consent not if intercourse took place.
The whole point of ordinary members of the public being jurors is that they use their own judgement having heard and seen all the evidence (which nobody else outside of that courtroom has).
I have not seen any cc tv but the evidence of the hotel porter was that the victim was v drunk.
The evidence from the victim that she could not remember was presumably used by the prosecution to illustrate how drunk she was, the explanatory notes attached to the 2003 Sexual Offences Act highlight that consent must be truly given.
This is to protect vulnerable victims, the jury formed the opinion she was not in a position to give consent and that was why they found him guilty, why they found his friend NG could have been for all sorts of reasons that we are not aware of but presumably because of the conversation and taxi ride beforehand? | |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:32 - Jan 12 with 1263 views | perchrockjack |
When pressed, like your spiritual mentor you avoid answering a direct question.
Whatvs your real job
Where you live.
You really have taken over this board, been banned returned and continue where you left off.
You don't argue, you do not debate. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:33 - Jan 12 with 1263 views | Pacemaker |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:25 - Jan 12 by Parlay |
having an appeal isn't easy. for an appeal the onus is then on you to prove your innocence, something you can not do in a case where there is no evidence either way. |
An appeal on a matter of law or mis direction is quite easily obtained an appeal on a decision by a jury is very rarely obtained.
The jury system may be flawed but it is without doubt better than a judge or some other sort of establishment figure deciding your guilt or innocence. | |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:33 - Jan 12 with 1257 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:27 - Jan 12 by Pacemaker |
My initial answer to your query was because you claimed the prosecution had to prove His guilt that he raped the victim, the only issue of rape here was one of consent not if intercourse took place.
The whole point of ordinary members of the public being jurors is that they use their own judgement having heard and seen all the evidence (which nobody else outside of that courtroom has).
I have not seen any cc tv but the evidence of the hotel porter was that the victim was v drunk.
The evidence from the victim that she could not remember was presumably used by the prosecution to illustrate how drunk she was, the explanatory notes attached to the 2003 Sexual Offences Act highlight that consent must be truly given.
This is to protect vulnerable victims, the jury formed the opinion she was not in a position to give consent and that was why they found him guilty, why they found his friend NG could have been for all sorts of reasons that we are not aware of but presumably because of the conversation and taxi ride beforehand? |
Intercourse does not mean rape. The prosecution had to prove his guilt that he raped her - there isn't any however, apart from supposition. Toxicology reports do not show any date rape drug, only a drug she was proven to be lying about taking - cannabis and cocaine.
the evidence from the victim was in fact her statement to the police "I felt tipsy but not out of control". Not being able to remember does not mean she did not consent, there are a host of things I have consented for that I cannot remember doing. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
