| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters 11:01 - Jan 10 with 39466 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 23:37 - Jan 12 with 1492 views | perchrockjack |
Parlay.
I ll help you.
Lord bony and I have had some sharp exchanges.
What he posted ,to me, was wrong , but no abuse,insult,personal attack.
It's what makes him a great poster. Great posts aren't made by anyone's chums . |  |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:39 - Jan 12 with 1485 views | Pacemaker |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:33 - Jan 12 by Parlay |
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. |
Intercourse without true consent is rape and that is the law I am afraid. I am not arguing with you, I was attempting to point out some of the factors in the juries decision making process.
You are obviously fixed in your opinion but I am afraid on matters of law you are wrong, I am sorry I have not been able to help you. |  |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:42 - Jan 12 with 1472 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:39 - Jan 12 by Pacemaker |
Intercourse without true consent is rape and that is the law I am afraid. I am not arguing with you, I was attempting to point out some of the factors in the juries decision making process.
You are obviously fixed in your opinion but I am afraid on matters of law you are wrong, I am sorry I have not been able to help you. |
Yes, but nobody who wasn't there has any idea if consent was given. the ones that were there either suggest there was or that they didn't remember either way.
There is absolutely nothing I have been wrong on in terms of the law and am certainly not fixed on my opinion.
If someone can show me some evidence that points to Ched clearly raping the woman then my opinion will be changed in a second. |  |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:44 - Jan 12 with 1468 views | perchrockjack |
Pace.
I tried too but frankly parlay imo is on a massive wind up.
This thread is evidence surely..
Consent, folks, is what it is all about....
Just ensure your sons are aware,,,,if in doubt....dont | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:45 - Jan 12 with 1465 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:44 - Jan 12 by perchrockjack |
Pace.
I tried too but frankly parlay imo is on a massive wind up.
This thread is evidence surely..
Consent, folks, is what it is all about....
Just ensure your sons are aware,,,,if in doubt....dont |
aye a massive wind up, someone asking for proof?
proof by damned? who needs that eh?
grow up. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:48 - Jan 12 with 1455 views | VetchitBack |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:39 - Jan 12 by Pacemaker |
Intercourse without true consent is rape and that is the law I am afraid. I am not arguing with you, I was attempting to point out some of the factors in the juries decision making process.
You are obviously fixed in your opinion but I am afraid on matters of law you are wrong, I am sorry I have not been able to help you. |
Pacemaker
I'll defer to your greater legal knowledge.
Is the concept of "true consent" (as you word it) consent given only whilst sober?
And does this only apply to rape cases? |  |
| The orthodox are always orthodox, regardless of the orthodoxy.
|
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:51 - Jan 12 with 1439 views | perchrockjack |
You can't answer because you re a fraud.
Who the fack are you... You seen that before...
Joke over.. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:52 - Jan 12 with 1437 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:51 - Jan 12 by perchrockjack |
You can't answer because you re a fraud.
Who the fack are you... You seen that before...
Joke over.. |
Answer what? there was no question in your post. put the bottle down for Gods sake.
fraud? eh? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:01 - Jan 13 with 1419 views | Pacemaker |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:48 - Jan 12 by VetchitBack |
Pacemaker
I'll defer to your greater legal knowledge.
Is the concept of "true consent" (as you word it) consent given only whilst sober?
And does this only apply to rape cases? |
You can obviously give consent when drunk but you would be skating on thin ice if a complaint was made, usually it would be quite easy to show as a result of the general evidence leading up to the act, but anybody can say no even during the act so you can start with consent but refuse to stop and find yourself in trouble (unlikely to be charged but under certain circumstances especially if injury caused you would be).
The issue here was I suspect was Ched Evans coming in with no previous contact and straight into sex with her, I suspect he jury didn't like that and didn't believe he had true consent.
the issue was raised as a result of numerous allegations of drug rape by both males and females together with vulnerable adults with a learning or mental disorder giving consent without having a true understanding of the consequences.
The law changed in 2003 and there has been little in the way of reporting until this high profile case. Consent is an issue in most sexual offences and obviously things like theft if you have consent to take property it is not theft. [Post edited 13 Jan 2015 0:06]
| |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:08 - Jan 13 with 1402 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:01 - Jan 13 by Pacemaker |
You can obviously give consent when drunk but you would be skating on thin ice if a complaint was made, usually it would be quite easy to show as a result of the general evidence leading up to the act, but anybody can say no even during the act so you can start with consent but refuse to stop and find yourself in trouble (unlikely to be charged but under certain circumstances especially if injury caused you would be).
The issue here was I suspect was Ched Evans coming in with no previous contact and straight into sex with her, I suspect he jury didn't like that and didn't believe he had true consent.
the issue was raised as a result of numerous allegations of drug rape by both males and females together with vulnerable adults with a learning or mental disorder giving consent without having a true understanding of the consequences.
The law changed in 2003 and there has been little in the way of reporting until this high profile case. Consent is an issue in most sexual offences and obviously things like theft if you have consent to take property it is not theft. [Post edited 13 Jan 2015 0:06]
|
Well your first paragraph screams supposition. Remember we are looking for evidence. The woman had no idea if she consented or not and told police "I felt tipsy but not out of control".
It is not up to the jury to like or dislike someone sexual practices. The jury must decide if rape had taken place. Having had no previous contact with someone and then having sex does not mean rape.
Consent has to be proven, that it was not given. Not assumptions that it wasn't. Proof that it wasn't. Where is this proof? Not remembering either way is not proof. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:12 - Jan 13 with 1397 views | sixpenses |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 23:01 - Jan 12 by jackb |
I didn't call you an attention seeking troll |
But I was one of the banned that you refer to - yet I broke no rules = censorship | | | |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:13 - Jan 13 with 1397 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:08 - Jan 13 by Parlay |
Well your first paragraph screams supposition. Remember we are looking for evidence. The woman had no idea if she consented or not and told police "I felt tipsy but not out of control".
It is not up to the jury to like or dislike someone sexual practices. The jury must decide if rape had taken place. Having had no previous contact with someone and then having sex does not mean rape.
Consent has to be proven, that it was not given. Not assumptions that it wasn't. Proof that it wasn't. Where is this proof? Not remembering either way is not proof. |
Parlay, despite all attempts you continue to argue on the wrong point of law. The case did not hinge on whether she could remember or not.
I posted the reasons why they found as they did (in relation to both men) the other day.
It wasn't to do with whether she could remember or not. It also didn't boil down to whether she actually said 'yeah' or not if or when either of the men asked her (which was in doubt anyway given their conflicting testimony). It was all to do with whether she was capable of consent and there was a lot of evidence presented by both sides on this point of law. | | | |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:13 - Jan 13 with 1396 views | sixpenses |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 19:04 - Jan 12 by exiledclaseboy |
Do you feel Phil has broken any laws? |
Not picking up any previous from PNC - but think clearly law may cover some of the posts on here. Was it you who accused the McCanns of certain things which seemed fairly libelous to me.
Knowingly allowing the use of dual IDs to repeatedly harass other posters including falsely accusing them of serious criminal behaviour would also I think be frowned upon
Allowing your chief mod to allow and instigate racism, serious vile abuse and massively repeated and targeted bullying may also be a bit of a no no especially when repeated reports are ignored and even ridiculed.
Would the rules of the website not form a contract which the website owner has a responsibility to reasonably police and prevent repeated abuse especially when reported.
And given some of the comments on here maybe breach of Danelaw - but that may be more by way of a geographical location than actual guidelines | | | |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:14 - Jan 13 with 1395 views | Starsky |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 21:29 - Jan 12 by jackonicko |
I hope Starksy is taking notes on how to get to a 30 page thread.
This is textbook! |
Duly noted... |  |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:14 - Jan 13 with 1395 views | skippyjack |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:08 - Jan 13 by Parlay |
Well your first paragraph screams supposition. Remember we are looking for evidence. The woman had no idea if she consented or not and told police "I felt tipsy but not out of control".
It is not up to the jury to like or dislike someone sexual practices. The jury must decide if rape had taken place. Having had no previous contact with someone and then having sex does not mean rape.
Consent has to be proven, that it was not given. Not assumptions that it wasn't. Proof that it wasn't. Where is this proof? Not remembering either way is not proof. |
These prostitution orgies the upper echelons are meandering towards should be questioned. |  |
| 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 00:17 - Jan 13 with 1385 views | Darran |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:13 - Jan 13 by sixpenses |
Not picking up any previous from PNC - but think clearly law may cover some of the posts on here. Was it you who accused the McCanns of certain things which seemed fairly libelous to me.
Knowingly allowing the use of dual IDs to repeatedly harass other posters including falsely accusing them of serious criminal behaviour would also I think be frowned upon
Allowing your chief mod to allow and instigate racism, serious vile abuse and massively repeated and targeted bullying may also be a bit of a no no especially when repeated reports are ignored and even ridiculed.
Would the rules of the website not form a contract which the website owner has a responsibility to reasonably police and prevent repeated abuse especially when reported.
And given some of the comments on here maybe breach of Danelaw - but that may be more by way of a geographical location than actual guidelines |
God you're a pr*ck. |  |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:17 - Jan 13 with 1384 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:13 - Jan 13 by londonlisa2001 |
Parlay, despite all attempts you continue to argue on the wrong point of law. The case did not hinge on whether she could remember or not.
I posted the reasons why they found as they did (in relation to both men) the other day.
It wasn't to do with whether she could remember or not. It also didn't boil down to whether she actually said 'yeah' or not if or when either of the men asked her (which was in doubt anyway given their conflicting testimony). It was all to do with whether she was capable of consent and there was a lot of evidence presented by both sides on this point of law. |
I didn't say the case relied on her remembering or not. The case relied on proving that she did not or was unable to give consent. Something that wasn't done which only allowed assumption by a group of public members who were not there.
If she was not in a place to consent to Ched then she wasn't in a place to consent to the other man.
An hour after you stop drinking, a unit of alcohol leaves the body meaning you get more sober not drunker (something i read you state the opposite of in previous threads) - this is accelerated with the consumption of foods, especially carbohydrates.
There is not one piece of evidence available to read that proves she was incapable to give consent. Not one. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:34 - Jan 13 with 1367 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:17 - Jan 13 by Parlay |
I didn't say the case relied on her remembering or not. The case relied on proving that she did not or was unable to give consent. Something that wasn't done which only allowed assumption by a group of public members who were not there.
If she was not in a place to consent to Ched then she wasn't in a place to consent to the other man.
An hour after you stop drinking, a unit of alcohol leaves the body meaning you get more sober not drunker (something i read you state the opposite of in previous threads) - this is accelerated with the consumption of foods, especially carbohydrates.
There is not one piece of evidence available to read that proves she was incapable to give consent. Not one. |
Why do you keep using the word 'assumption'. The jury didn't 'assume' they decided beyond reasonable doubt (in their view after hearing all evidence) that she was not in a state where she was able to give consent.
The other man I also talked about in the other thread, saying that whether right or wrong, the jury decided that there was a reasonable doubt that consent was given, or crucially that there was reasonable doubt over whether the man could assume that consent was given. (Which is also valid - see the earlier post which states the law). I do not know, but I assume (and this is only an assumption) that they believed that in agreeing to go back to the hotel with the first man, he could reasonably assume (or at least they weren't sure that he couldn't beyond a reasonable doubt) that she was consenting to have sex with him, when it was taken in conjunction with other events. This didn't happen with Evans, hence the difference in verdict.
There is loads of evidence that she was unable to give consent on that basis whilst in the hotel. There is CCTV (not only the bit on his web site), the evidence of the night clerk, the evidence of the men themselves and the medical evidence. You saying all the time that there wasn't evidence is simply not true.
By the way - re the getting drunker or more sober, it actually depends on where you are in the cycle of digestion and absorption. Once you stop drinking (physically drinking) for a while you will get drunker as the alcohol you have consumed gets absorbed into your blood stream. That is, assuming that you have consumed alcohol more quickly than your body can eliminate it (using your figures of 1 unit per hour - it actually depends on a whole host of things including gender, body weight, what you've eaten and so on). Once the final drink has been absorbed, you then start getting more sober as your body flushes it away. | | | |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:37 - Jan 13 with 1364 views | Starsky |
Is this now another Ched Evans threads? | |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:39 - Jan 13 with 1361 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:37 - Jan 13 by Starsky |
Is this now another Ched Evans threads? |
not from me. I only repeated some points to make sure that the argument could not continue to be used that no one was answering any questions.
I think we should move any further discussion on the ChedEvans case over to your ongoing thread now ;-)
One. | | | |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:41 - Jan 13 with 1357 views | Starsky |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:39 - Jan 13 by londonlisa2001 |
not from me. I only repeated some points to make sure that the argument could not continue to be used that no one was answering any questions.
I think we should move any further discussion on the ChedEvans case over to your ongoing thread now ;-)
One. |
what thread is that?
2 | |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 01:00 - Jan 13 with 1343 views | Parlay |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:34 - Jan 13 by londonlisa2001 |
Why do you keep using the word 'assumption'. The jury didn't 'assume' they decided beyond reasonable doubt (in their view after hearing all evidence) that she was not in a state where she was able to give consent.
The other man I also talked about in the other thread, saying that whether right or wrong, the jury decided that there was a reasonable doubt that consent was given, or crucially that there was reasonable doubt over whether the man could assume that consent was given. (Which is also valid - see the earlier post which states the law). I do not know, but I assume (and this is only an assumption) that they believed that in agreeing to go back to the hotel with the first man, he could reasonably assume (or at least they weren't sure that he couldn't beyond a reasonable doubt) that she was consenting to have sex with him, when it was taken in conjunction with other events. This didn't happen with Evans, hence the difference in verdict.
There is loads of evidence that she was unable to give consent on that basis whilst in the hotel. There is CCTV (not only the bit on his web site), the evidence of the night clerk, the evidence of the men themselves and the medical evidence. You saying all the time that there wasn't evidence is simply not true.
By the way - re the getting drunker or more sober, it actually depends on where you are in the cycle of digestion and absorption. Once you stop drinking (physically drinking) for a while you will get drunker as the alcohol you have consumed gets absorbed into your blood stream. That is, assuming that you have consumed alcohol more quickly than your body can eliminate it (using your figures of 1 unit per hour - it actually depends on a whole host of things including gender, body weight, what you've eaten and so on). Once the final drink has been absorbed, you then start getting more sober as your body flushes it away. |
Because assumption is exactly what it was that is why. Just because a jury made up of members of the public decided, it doesn't mean it wasn't an assumption.
If she had sex with Evans AFTER Donaldson then she would be more drunk when consenting to Donaldson than Evans. As i said, you sober up not get drunker, they have been to a takeaway, ordered food got a taxi and travelled to a hotel remember... Not to mention then have sex. I think thats a fair assessment to assume her last drink was absorbed so is now getting sober by the second.
Surely agreeing to have sex in a capable state and then being in an incapable state later on in the night, consent is still needed?
Medical evidence showed she was not drugged. The night porter said she seemed drunk. Cctv footage showed mixed results. One part we have not seen and the part we have she appears completely fine.
So on that basis to then have people who were not there decide what was said in a room is utterly bizarre. Especially when not one person in that room had the same outcome as the jury.
Being drunk, is not being incapable of making decisions or giving consent as outlines by the law. So being drunk is not what they have to prove, being UNABLE to give consent is what they have to prove and they haven't, they have just assumed she wasn't able to regardless of the above.
3 [Post edited 13 Jan 2015 1:02]
| |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 01:53 - Jan 13 with 1326 views | BobJack |
Parlay / Lisa, please stop, there is debate and then there is trying to bore one another into submission.
Seriously over the top for a forum. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 06:59 - Jan 13 with 1268 views | Pacemaker |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 00:08 - Jan 13 by Parlay |
Well your first paragraph screams supposition. Remember we are looking for evidence. The woman had no idea if she consented or not and told police "I felt tipsy but not out of control".
It is not up to the jury to like or dislike someone sexual practices. The jury must decide if rape had taken place. Having had no previous contact with someone and then having sex does not mean rape.
Consent has to be proven, that it was not given. Not assumptions that it wasn't. Proof that it wasn't. Where is this proof? Not remembering either way is not proof. |
I was not answering a question from you but from vetchitback on consent in law generally. As previously mentioned i had completed my discussion with you. | |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 07:41 - Jan 13 with 1243 views | Neath_Jack |
Why don't you all agree to disagree? How many times can you all keep saying the same things, over and over and over again? You all know that Parlay will never, ever change his stance and you will not break him, just tell him that he is right and you were wrong all along, you won't lose any forum kudos points mun, everyone knows what he is like, he's done it for years, on every forum that he has ever posted on.
You're all stark raving bonkers. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
