By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
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
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 07:41 - Jan 13 by 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.
There are TWO posters being bloody minded here, not just Parley!
Just saying like, in the interests of equality in all things.
Top Mark
1
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 09:05 - Jan 13 with 1967 views
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 20:50 - Jan 12 by Parlay
Having an opinion is being a troll? Ironically your post there is more trolling than anyone banned has done in a lifetime here.
I am a firm hater of faux outrage, especially when a post has to be twisted in order to play the card.
Nobody is comparing anything to murder or terrorism, to suggest so is terrifyingly stupid at best or deliberately trolling and provocative at worst.
The underlying reasoning for the attacks in Paris was to oppress freedom of speech. The oppression of freedom of speech, no matter in what trivial medium should be frowned upon as it is the seed to which an evil ideology is born from.
It is like saying bullying kids in school is fine because its comparable physical bullying at adulthood is a lot worse. NO bullying is acceptable, NO oppression of fair minded free speech is acceptable and it is the extreme cases which show the world why it shouldn't be tolerated on any level.
Now i hope thats the end of the pre school posts about comparing a message board to murder.
One superb post
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 21:23 - Jan 12 by londonlisa2001
surely what has happened on this board though is just a mild example of the oppression of free speech...
It's a shame that your stance on freedom of speech and bullying isn't consistent with your stance on rape - perhaps that is also an area where the extreme cases show the world why it shouldn't be tolerated on any level eh?
So wide of the mark and women's right campaigners do more harm for women's rights than they'll ever know. You want equality right up until the point where you can't use the poor little woman card any longer.
Just get on with it FFS. I have strong women in my life and work and they'd be embarrassed of such bleating.
BOO!!!
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 09:18 - Jan 13 by _
I didn't...
I just picked up on your obvious hatred of Parlay after he ruined you on the refereeing debate and the chance you took AGAIN to have a pop at him.
Tell me, in your opinion, are women generally more vindictive? Just curious as to what you think?
IMO any damage men can do with their fists, women can do ten times better with their tongues. I found through my working career (and personal experience of certain female acquaintances) that the female of the species is indeed more vindictive and deadly than the male
2
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 09:29 - Jan 13 with 1933 views
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 07:41 - Jan 13 by 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.
Deja vu. All over again...
0
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 09:46 - Jan 13 with 1916 views
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 07:41 - Jan 13 by 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.
In fairness mate, Lisa is ten times worse.
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
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]
"You can obviously give consent when drunk"
Then you seem to go on to say "er, it doesn't really count"
For possibly the first time in my life I'm glad that I'm not one of those lotharios that can go to town and go home with a girl seemingly at will.
But my mates who can, could not be further from the description of rapist.
The legal definition of rape seems to have been widened to stop scumbags getting off which is a good motivation but the inevitability of this is that some will get convicted who don't fit our accepted notion of what a rapist is. Having learned these things and if I've understood them then for me this raises the probability that this is a miscarriage of justice.
The orthodox are always orthodox, regardless of the orthodoxy.
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 10:40 - Jan 13 by VetchitBack
"You can obviously give consent when drunk"
Then you seem to go on to say "er, it doesn't really count"
For possibly the first time in my life I'm glad that I'm not one of those lotharios that can go to town and go home with a girl seemingly at will.
But my mates who can, could not be further from the description of rapist.
The legal definition of rape seems to have been widened to stop scumbags getting off which is a good motivation but the inevitability of this is that some will get convicted who don't fit our accepted notion of what a rapist is. Having learned these things and if I've understood them then for me this raises the probability that this is a miscarriage of justice.
Good post.
And I've seen a photo of Pacemaker and no wonder he is of this viewpoint. He's not ever likely to be in a position of this nature ;-)
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 07:41 - Jan 13 by 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.
I will absolutely change mind.
The minute a single piece of evidence comes to light which suggests Ched certainly raped someone.
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 10:40 - Jan 13 by VetchitBack
"You can obviously give consent when drunk"
Then you seem to go on to say "er, it doesn't really count"
For possibly the first time in my life I'm glad that I'm not one of those lotharios that can go to town and go home with a girl seemingly at will.
But my mates who can, could not be further from the description of rapist.
The legal definition of rape seems to have been widened to stop scumbags getting off which is a good motivation but the inevitability of this is that some will get convicted who don't fit our accepted notion of what a rapist is. Having learned these things and if I've understood them then for me this raises the probability that this is a miscarriage of justice.
I suppose the point I was trying to make was if you had arranged a date with a person you did not know that well and you ended up in bed after a few drinks. You could both be drunk and happy that consent was given, but if that person claimed the following day it wasn't it is very difficult to prove either way.
In this case the difference was I think how Evans 1) Had not spoken to or met the victim until he entered the bedroom using a duplicate key he had obtained from the night porter. 2) CCTV showed her falling over drunk and several witnesses described her as drunk or very drunk.
The jury based their decision on the evidence given by all the witnesses, your are correct to say most peoples perception of rape is completly different to what the law says and has been since 2003.
It will not be a miscarraige of justice on the basis of some people think the jury was wrong, it will have to be a point of law or an error by the judge in giving direction to the jury.
It is there to protect the vulnerable, if in doubt you should probably not go ahead.
Life is an adventure or nothing at all.
0
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 13:21 - Jan 13 with 1710 views
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 12:44 - Jan 13 by Pacemaker
I suppose the point I was trying to make was if you had arranged a date with a person you did not know that well and you ended up in bed after a few drinks. You could both be drunk and happy that consent was given, but if that person claimed the following day it wasn't it is very difficult to prove either way.
In this case the difference was I think how Evans 1) Had not spoken to or met the victim until he entered the bedroom using a duplicate key he had obtained from the night porter. 2) CCTV showed her falling over drunk and several witnesses described her as drunk or very drunk.
The jury based their decision on the evidence given by all the witnesses, your are correct to say most peoples perception of rape is completly different to what the law says and has been since 2003.
It will not be a miscarraige of justice on the basis of some people think the jury was wrong, it will have to be a point of law or an error by the judge in giving direction to the jury.
It is there to protect the vulnerable, if in doubt you should probably not go ahead.
CCTV also showed her completely fine in the hotel, falling over when drunk again does not point to being incapable of making decisions, by her own words, she was not out of control. The side effect of alcohol is loss of balance, hence the balance tests to determine of a driver has drunk alcohol prior to the breathalyser. This does not point to her being incapable of consent, it points to her being drunk something long established - doesnt go hand in hand with invalid consent.
The fact he hadnt spoken to her prior to entering the room also doesnt show he clearly raped her either. This is what i mean by assumption.
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 09:23 - Jan 13 by jacksinceever
IMO any damage men can do with their fists, women can do ten times better with their tongues. I found through my working career (and personal experience of certain female acquaintances) that the female of the species is indeed more vindictive and deadly than the male
"Hell hath no fury like a woman's wrath"
Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turn'd / Nor Hell a fury, like a woman scorn'd."
How can women turn from love to hatred instantly if they are dumped?
A perplexing question indeed for mankind
PROUD RECIPIENT OF THE THIRD PLANET SWANS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.
"Per ardua ad astra"
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 12:44 - Jan 13 by Pacemaker
I suppose the point I was trying to make was if you had arranged a date with a person you did not know that well and you ended up in bed after a few drinks. You could both be drunk and happy that consent was given, but if that person claimed the following day it wasn't it is very difficult to prove either way.
In this case the difference was I think how Evans 1) Had not spoken to or met the victim until he entered the bedroom using a duplicate key he had obtained from the night porter. 2) CCTV showed her falling over drunk and several witnesses described her as drunk or very drunk.
The jury based their decision on the evidence given by all the witnesses, your are correct to say most peoples perception of rape is completly different to what the law says and has been since 2003.
It will not be a miscarraige of justice on the basis of some people think the jury was wrong, it will have to be a point of law or an error by the judge in giving direction to the jury.
It is there to protect the vulnerable, if in doubt you should probably not go ahead.
Yes, I still don't get why people don't get (or are wilfully ignoring because it doesn't suit their purpose) that the guy she 'went home with' was NOT convicted of rape. The jury were clearly able to distinguish between the two, so all this guff about 'you can't get drunk and go home with a girl any more' is just so much red herring sh1t.
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 08:31 - Jan 14 by monmouth
Yes, I still don't get why people don't get (or are wilfully ignoring because it doesn't suit their purpose) that the guy she 'went home with' was NOT convicted of rape. The jury were clearly able to distinguish between the two, so all this guff about 'you can't get drunk and go home with a girl any more' is just so much red herring sh1t.
Nobody you refer to is missing any point, be that on purpose or otherwise.
The point being, which ironically you have missed, that she was drunker when she had sex with the "innocent" man than she was when she had sex with the "guilty" man. Yet the conviction seems purely based on level of intoxication.
Whether consent was given is something that nobody can decide on with any certainty as they were not there and nobody there denied it was given.
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 10:17 - Jan 14 by Parlay
Nobody you refer to is missing any point, be that on purpose or otherwise.
The point being, which ironically you have missed, that she was drunker when she had sex with the "innocent" man than she was when she had sex with the "guilty" man. Yet the conviction seems purely based on level of intoxication.
Whether consent was given is something that nobody can decide on with any certainty as they were not there and nobody there denied it was given.
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.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 10:17 - Jan 14 by Parlay
Nobody you refer to is missing any point, be that on purpose or otherwise.
The point being, which ironically you have missed, that she was drunker when she had sex with the "innocent" man than she was when she had sex with the "guilty" man. Yet the conviction seems purely based on level of intoxication.
Whether consent was given is something that nobody can decide on with any certainty as they were not there and nobody there denied it was given.
And arguably the first guy is just as much to blame, if not more so than Ched, as he was the one that seemingly instigated adding a third party to the occasion? Or maybe she did too....who knows?!
Not Guilty.
Far too many disingenuous "do-gooders" in this thread and the other one who have lost the basic grasp on what a crime is or isn't.
I think the act from 2003 that Pacemaker is continually popping on here more relates to cases where the poor victim has been drugged by their attacker. This is completely different.
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
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.
What a disgusting human being you are.
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 10:41 - Jan 14 by _
And arguably the first guy is just as much to blame, if not more so than Ched, as he was the one that seemingly instigated adding a third party to the occasion? Or maybe she did too....who knows?!
Not Guilty.
Far too many disingenuous "do-gooders" in this thread and the other one who have lost the basic grasp on what a crime is or isn't.
I think the act from 2003 that Pacemaker is continually popping on here more relates to cases where the poor victim has been drugged by their attacker. This is completely different.
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.
Life is an adventure or nothing at all.
0
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 12:51 - Jan 14 with 1347 views
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 08:31 - Jan 14 by monmouth
Yes, I still don't get why people don't get (or are wilfully ignoring because it doesn't suit their purpose) that the guy she 'went home with' was NOT convicted of rape. The jury were clearly able to distinguish between the two, so all this guff about 'you can't get drunk and go home with a girl any more' is just so much red herring sh1t.
My comments were specifically aimed at Pacemaker's "Someone can give consent whilst drunk but if they put in a complaint you're on shaky ground" (or similar) and not the now famous goings-on.
No he wasn't convicted of rape or any such crime. Which given it was his sole idea to invite the rapist, engage in a threesome with the rapist and make no effort to stop the rape is a strange one to me.
The orthodox are always orthodox, regardless of the orthodoxy.
0
Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters on 12:56 - Jan 14 with 1334 views
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.
Why do you think it was changed circa 2003?
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
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.
I thought that the burden of proof was up to the prosecution ?,
Continually being banned by Planet Swans for Porthcawl and then being reinstated.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
