| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic 12:17 - Jan 4 with 55649 views | exiledclaseboy |
Apparently. Cue a few days of outraged reaction until Oldham change their mind. |  |
| |  |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 23:31 - Jan 8 with 1994 views | Starsky |
Has the mopping up begun yet? |  |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 07:10 - Jan 9 with 1909 views | trampie |
If I heard correctly then last night a brave person on the panel of Question Time said she had read all about the Evans case and if she was on the jury she would not have convicted him (she did say at the risk of being kicked out of the sisterhood mind you).
Don't think she was a politician, think she was a columnist/journalist type.
The point was also made by the audiance as regards certain convicted people that some say should not do a high paid job then does that mean that its ok for such people to do low paid jobs working alongside ordinary people but they should not work alongside high earners. [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 7:20]
|  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 07:36 - Jan 9 with 1886 views | Phil_S |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 23:31 - Jan 8 by Starsky |
Has the mopping up begun yet? |
Early spring cleaning, the sooner you start the less time it takes |  | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 09:40 - Jan 9 with 1840 views | epaul |
|  |
| The hair and the beard have gone I am now conforming to society, tis a sad day
The b*stards are coming back though |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 09:58 - Jan 9 with 1816 views | veritas |
Watching QT last night a panelist said the victim had no 'recollection of the event' in the case notes. How did this even make Court, let alone get a conviction?
I mean in case law there is more than a bit of room for doubt, wouldn't you say [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 9:59]
|  | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 10:12 - Jan 9 with 1795 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 09:58 - Jan 9 by veritas |
Watching QT last night a panelist said the victim had no 'recollection of the event' in the case notes. How did this even make Court, let alone get a conviction?
I mean in case law there is more than a bit of room for doubt, wouldn't you say [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 9:59]
|
Being unable to recollect is generally a good sign the victim was in no fit state to give consent.
Like it or not, the incredibly low rate of convictions for rape historically have been telling. Thse who complain about "room for doubt" fail to understand in the overwhelming majority of rapes it's "he said, she said"; "She said yes your honour". Some would have you believe all women, or the overwhelming majority, lie about rapes.
A jury hearing all the evidence, being present in the court to hear the intonations of speech, see the body laguage determined guilt. A court of apeal backed that ruling.
It's quite damning of modern day morals "lads" would rather take advantage of inebriated women rather than helping them get home safely. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 10:20 - Jan 9 with 1778 views | veritas |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 10:12 - Jan 9 by reddythered |
Being unable to recollect is generally a good sign the victim was in no fit state to give consent.
Like it or not, the incredibly low rate of convictions for rape historically have been telling. Thse who complain about "room for doubt" fail to understand in the overwhelming majority of rapes it's "he said, she said"; "She said yes your honour". Some would have you believe all women, or the overwhelming majority, lie about rapes.
A jury hearing all the evidence, being present in the court to hear the intonations of speech, see the body laguage determined guilt. A court of apeal backed that ruling.
It's quite damning of modern day morals "lads" would rather take advantage of inebriated women rather than helping them get home safely. |
I agree with pretty much all you're saying but the reality is how you can say definitively that this was a 'rape' I struggle with.
Every weekend people have drunken one night stands, if the girl wakes up and can't remember the night is that then rape? [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 10:21]
| | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 10:26 - Jan 9 with 1764 views | VetchitBack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 10:12 - Jan 9 by reddythered |
Being unable to recollect is generally a good sign the victim was in no fit state to give consent.
Like it or not, the incredibly low rate of convictions for rape historically have been telling. Thse who complain about "room for doubt" fail to understand in the overwhelming majority of rapes it's "he said, she said"; "She said yes your honour". Some would have you believe all women, or the overwhelming majority, lie about rapes.
A jury hearing all the evidence, being present in the court to hear the intonations of speech, see the body laguage determined guilt. A court of apeal backed that ruling.
It's quite damning of modern day morals "lads" would rather take advantage of inebriated women rather than helping them get home safely. |
"Being unable to recollect is generally a good sign the victim was in no fit state to to give consent."
No it isn't. It may well make it slightly more likely but it isn't proof of anything.
And very revealing that you chose to use the word "generally" as your post and many others from many different people are big on the "general" but wafer thin on the "specific" in this case.
I seriously think some posters can't see past things like:
Rape is horrific
Rich footballers are often tw@s
Evans and McDonald are hardly Mr Darcy
The conviction rate of rape is low
...and are deciding based on this.
I'd argue the above is true but none of these things are proof that rape occurred. |  |
| The orthodox are always orthodox, regardless of the orthodoxy.
|
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 10:40 - Jan 9 with 1742 views | trampie |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 10:12 - Jan 9 by reddythered |
Being unable to recollect is generally a good sign the victim was in no fit state to give consent.
Like it or not, the incredibly low rate of convictions for rape historically have been telling. Thse who complain about "room for doubt" fail to understand in the overwhelming majority of rapes it's "he said, she said"; "She said yes your honour". Some would have you believe all women, or the overwhelming majority, lie about rapes.
A jury hearing all the evidence, being present in the court to hear the intonations of speech, see the body laguage determined guilt. A court of apeal backed that ruling.
It's quite damning of modern day morals "lads" would rather take advantage of inebriated women rather than helping them get home safely. |
There is a reason why convictions rates are low (although I would not necessarily subscribe to that, if the evidence is not there its not there) its because its hard to prove one way or the other, but that is no reason to convict anybody if there is a degree of doubt, yet you seem to be saying that it is ok to convict because you think the conviction rate is low, with respect that is crazy and would end up with innocent people in prison, it could be friends and family of yours, people need to be careful what they wish for . [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 10:43]
| |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 10:52 - Jan 9 with 1724 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 10:40 - Jan 9 by trampie |
There is a reason why convictions rates are low (although I would not necessarily subscribe to that, if the evidence is not there its not there) its because its hard to prove one way or the other, but that is no reason to convict anybody if there is a degree of doubt, yet you seem to be saying that it is ok to convict because you think the conviction rate is low, with respect that is crazy and would end up with innocent people in prison, it could be friends and family of yours, people need to be careful what they wish for . [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 10:43]
|
Based upon your rationale then, keep the status quo, rapists go free. Because is a "he said, she said", here will always be doubt.
It's the same side of the coin as Saville; a reluctance to believe victims because they must be lying liars.
I refer to the generalisation because I'm talkin about the general topic. Simples.
As far as Ched Evans, the evidence in the court transcripts is incredibly damning - and damning from his own mouth for the part of it.
The fact that rape convictions are at an incredibly low level yet Ched was convicted, a conviction upheld at appeal in telling. Very telling, as someone would say. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 11:16 - Jan 9 with 1657 views | trampie |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 10:52 - Jan 9 by reddythered |
Based upon your rationale then, keep the status quo, rapists go free. Because is a "he said, she said", here will always be doubt.
It's the same side of the coin as Saville; a reluctance to believe victims because they must be lying liars.
I refer to the generalisation because I'm talkin about the general topic. Simples.
As far as Ched Evans, the evidence in the court transcripts is incredibly damning - and damning from his own mouth for the part of it.
The fact that rape convictions are at an incredibly low level yet Ched was convicted, a conviction upheld at appeal in telling. Very telling, as someone would say. |
The status quo has been there for a reason mun, not to convict when its no more than one word against another, you seem to be advocating lowering the level required to convict in such cases, which would be very worrying imo.
You are calling men all sorts, yet men are equal to women in every way, you should not believe a female over a male just because she is a female.
You do know women have falsely accused men in the past dont you ?
A couple of questions since you want the 'test' lowered to get more convictions, (1) Are you for the death penalty for murder ?,(2) Are you for the death penalty for attempted murder ?, (3) Are you for parents being jailed if their off spring commit crimes and its shown that their lack of good parenting contributed ?
Im all for stiff sentences but for those that are guilty but with a high test, but you seem to want a low test, so im wondering if you want a low test and stiff punishment or just a low test and low punishments ? [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 13:35]
| |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 11:32 - Jan 9 with 1630 views | VetchitBack |
What a dreadful article.
Why on earth would he show remorse if he didn't do it?
And as far the "It's not mob rule cos some of the mob are of different ages/genders/professions" bit - it's still a mob. Just because you agree with it doesn't make it it less so.
The "some professional footballers have a problem with misogyny" angle seems to have made him forget about unimportant concepts like reasonable doubt. | |
| The orthodox are always orthodox, regardless of the orthodoxy.
|
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 13:34 - Jan 9 with 1569 views | veritas |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 10:26 - Jan 9 by VetchitBack |
"Being unable to recollect is generally a good sign the victim was in no fit state to to give consent."
No it isn't. It may well make it slightly more likely but it isn't proof of anything.
And very revealing that you chose to use the word "generally" as your post and many others from many different people are big on the "general" but wafer thin on the "specific" in this case.
I seriously think some posters can't see past things like:
Rape is horrific
Rich footballers are often tw@s
Evans and McDonald are hardly Mr Darcy
The conviction rate of rape is low
...and are deciding based on this.
I'd argue the above is true but none of these things are proof that rape occurred. |
Spot on.
To convict someone you don't go on possibilities, you deal in specifics.
It does strike me that this has a lot to do with envy. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 13:43 - Jan 9 with 1548 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 11:16 - Jan 9 by trampie |
The status quo has been there for a reason mun, not to convict when its no more than one word against another, you seem to be advocating lowering the level required to convict in such cases, which would be very worrying imo.
You are calling men all sorts, yet men are equal to women in every way, you should not believe a female over a male just because she is a female.
You do know women have falsely accused men in the past dont you ?
A couple of questions since you want the 'test' lowered to get more convictions, (1) Are you for the death penalty for murder ?,(2) Are you for the death penalty for attempted murder ?, (3) Are you for parents being jailed if their off spring commit crimes and its shown that their lack of good parenting contributed ?
Im all for stiff sentences but for those that are guilty but with a high test, but you seem to want a low test, so im wondering if you want a low test and stiff punishment or just a low test and low punishments ? [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 13:35]
|
Look at the conviction rates for rape cases. Just look them up.
Are you seriously claiming because *some* women have made false accusations that therefore means the overwhelming majority are false? Of course not. Calling men all sorts? Don't be dumb. The fact morals in society have gone downhill is something people want to ignore; people, male or female shouldn't be getting bladdered, there should be more respect.
So you're basically advocating the status quo is working with rape cases? That's a farcical thing to claim, encourages rapes to not be reported due to not being believed. Which is precisely what happened with Saville et al. It seems some don't want to address that because of an inability to think of a way to do so.
1) Death penalty, no.
2) No.
3) No. Blaming parenting is an excuse.
I want a low test? No. It's recognition that rapists are getting away with rape. if you're more than happy with that, then great. Fact is, Donaldson was found innocent based upon the evidence. Ched Evans was found guilty based upon the evidence. Yet people whine justice wasn't done? | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 13:55 - Jan 9 with 1539 views | FearOfAJackPlanet |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 13:34 - Jan 9 by veritas |
Spot on.
To convict someone you don't go on possibilities, you deal in specifics.
It does strike me that this has a lot to do with envy. |
The judge and jury were jealous of Chedwyn?
The lower league footballer they'd never heard of who cheats on his fiancée by opportunistically shagging comatose women his mates pick up at kebab joints at 4am? |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 13:57 - Jan 9 with 1531 views | Uxbridge |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 13:34 - Jan 9 by veritas |
Spot on.
To convict someone you don't go on possibilities, you deal in specifics.
It does strike me that this has a lot to do with envy. |
Oh FFS. Who on their right mind would envy a gog anyway ...
The irony is I think there are generalisations on both sides. True a lot is being made of the conviction rate as if that's any guide towards young Chedwyn's case, which of course it isn't. However a lot is being made regarding people's personal prejudices regarding footballers, the women they often attract and their view of the impact of alcohol.
I must admit I find the whole notion of being "too drunk to consent" a little concerning to say the least however there was plenty of other evidence around the case that convinced a jury that is what took place. It's also worth noting the case was made based on the CPS' review of the evidence as no actual allegations were ever made ... which makes this witchhunt against the victim all the worse. |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 13:58 - Jan 9 with 1522 views | veritas |
Just because you have a low conviction rate doesn't mean you lock people up without overwhelming evidence.
That's like saying there's been a spate of armed robberies in an area but actually having the evidence to convict is thin. Johnny Mcdodgy was seen in the area - therefore there's no smoke without fire, convict the bastard he's clearly not a nice piece of work and probably up to mischief.
If you had this type of legal system you would have miscarriages across the board. To convict someone in a Court of Law you have to have 'evidence.' | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 14:11 - Jan 9 with 1499 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 13:58 - Jan 9 by veritas |
Just because you have a low conviction rate doesn't mean you lock people up without overwhelming evidence.
That's like saying there's been a spate of armed robberies in an area but actually having the evidence to convict is thin. Johnny Mcdodgy was seen in the area - therefore there's no smoke without fire, convict the bastard he's clearly not a nice piece of work and probably up to mischief.
If you had this type of legal system you would have miscarriages across the board. To convict someone in a Court of Law you have to have 'evidence.' |
That's an entirely different scenario, you do realise that? And indeed utterly irrelevant.
Johnny Mcdodgy in your example is NOT PRESENT at the incident. It then needs to be proven he was indeed present for a conviction ( or should be amongst other things ). You'd expect no prosecution under the situation with hopefully very few miscarriages of justice.
In many rape cases, there is no debate the accused is PRESENT. A "get out of jail card" is, "well, she said yes". In that situation, you're automatically saying, well there's doubt so acquit. So then no rape would ever get a conviction under your perfect situation, right?
If you magically seem to think there was no evidence against Ched, then ask yourself why he was convicted and Donaldson wasn't. Spot the differences between their actions and work out why; and work out why the appeal failed. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 14:14 - Jan 9 with 1493 views | veritas |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 14:11 - Jan 9 by reddythered |
That's an entirely different scenario, you do realise that? And indeed utterly irrelevant.
Johnny Mcdodgy in your example is NOT PRESENT at the incident. It then needs to be proven he was indeed present for a conviction ( or should be amongst other things ). You'd expect no prosecution under the situation with hopefully very few miscarriages of justice.
In many rape cases, there is no debate the accused is PRESENT. A "get out of jail card" is, "well, she said yes". In that situation, you're automatically saying, well there's doubt so acquit. So then no rape would ever get a conviction under your perfect situation, right?
If you magically seem to think there was no evidence against Ched, then ask yourself why he was convicted and Donaldson wasn't. Spot the differences between their actions and work out why; and work out why the appeal failed. |
I should have said been in the area at the time recognised by members of staff i.e.there was thin evidence to link him to crime
In my example there is a high chance that he committed the crime as he has a long history of armed robbery and would be a prime suspect.
But where is the evidence to convict? [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 14:15]
| | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 14:14 - Jan 9 with 1491 views | jackonicko |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 13:57 - Jan 9 by Uxbridge |
Oh FFS. Who on their right mind would envy a gog anyway ...
The irony is I think there are generalisations on both sides. True a lot is being made of the conviction rate as if that's any guide towards young Chedwyn's case, which of course it isn't. However a lot is being made regarding people's personal prejudices regarding footballers, the women they often attract and their view of the impact of alcohol.
I must admit I find the whole notion of being "too drunk to consent" a little concerning to say the least however there was plenty of other evidence around the case that convinced a jury that is what took place. It's also worth noting the case was made based on the CPS' review of the evidence as no actual allegations were ever made ... which makes this witchhunt against the victim all the worse. |
Too drunk to consent is only one piece of the jigsaw. One piece of the evidential base. Which is why Ched was convicted and the other defendant wasn't, with the same drunk female. The other evidence in the case was very different for the two defendants - resulting in different outcomes.
The more precise legal test is in my post on page 17, cut and pasted from the judge's own summing up in this case. What is clear is you can still be very drunk and consent, either by words or by actions. |  | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 14:18 - Jan 9 with 1483 views | trampie |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 13:43 - Jan 9 by reddythered |
Look at the conviction rates for rape cases. Just look them up.
Are you seriously claiming because *some* women have made false accusations that therefore means the overwhelming majority are false? Of course not. Calling men all sorts? Don't be dumb. The fact morals in society have gone downhill is something people want to ignore; people, male or female shouldn't be getting bladdered, there should be more respect.
So you're basically advocating the status quo is working with rape cases? That's a farcical thing to claim, encourages rapes to not be reported due to not being believed. Which is precisely what happened with Saville et al. It seems some don't want to address that because of an inability to think of a way to do so.
1) Death penalty, no.
2) No.
3) No. Blaming parenting is an excuse.
I want a low test? No. It's recognition that rapists are getting away with rape. if you're more than happy with that, then great. Fact is, Donaldson was found innocent based upon the evidence. Ched Evans was found guilty based upon the evidence. Yet people whine justice wasn't done? |
Wishy washy liberal hey ?, when it comes to being tough on crime.
You cant put innocent people behind bars without evidence, there always have been miscarriages of justice and there always will be miscarriages of justice but those miscarriages need to be kept to a minimum by using the beyond reasonable doubt test, jailing a man on a woman's word is not good enough, there needs to be evidence. [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 14:34]
| |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 14:41 - Jan 9 with 1445 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 14:18 - Jan 9 by trampie |
Wishy washy liberal hey ?, when it comes to being tough on crime.
You cant put innocent people behind bars without evidence, there always have been miscarriages of justice and there always will be miscarriages of justice but those miscarriages need to be kept to a minimum by using the beyond reasonable doubt test, jailing a man on a woman's word is not good enough, there needs to be evidence. [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 14:34]
|
oh for God's sake - the rewriting of evidence in this case to suit the fallback position of total misogyny is simply breathtaking.
They didn't jail him on her word. In fact, that's pretty much the one thing that absolutely didn't happen.
There was evidence and quite a lot of it. From independent witnesses, from CCTV, from blood tests and from the statements of the two men involved as well. The problem is, people are only seeing the evidence that the Evans camp wants them to see. Yesterday we had a whole load of the 'she doesn't look drunk to me' crap because of (illegal) CCTV pictures on his web site. Are people aware that there is CCTV evidence (obviously not on his web site) which shows her lying flat on her face on the ground, not moving, for quite some time?
They did use the beyond reasonable doubt test - and convicted him - unanimously. According to some on here, the jury (which included men by the way) were obviously totally unable to see the reality staring them in the face that the girl was 'right up for it' - and that's after hearing the evidence. What a bunch of idiots eh?
The one thing that this case proves beyond any reasonable doubt, is that someone with the money to fund an incessant smear campaign can get away with all sorts of stuff, because the people looking at chedevans.com or the constant biased leaks from the Evans camp onto social media are seemingly unable to realise that what they are reading is the equivalent of the Itay Shechter '20 greatest goals' you tube clip.
Even yesterday, where the Evans camp released stuff about 'mob rule' and it quickly became accepted fact that people had been threatened with rape and violence if he was taken on - do you realise that Greater Manchester Police stated categorically that there had not been a single reported threat to anyone connected with Oldham- not one (apart from what they termed as low level social media abuse that they didn't take seriously). Oldham pulled out, not because of 'threats from the mob' but because every single one of their sponsors told them they were pulling out of the club. But the Evans camp went into overdrive, again trying to show their little angel as a victim.
It's pathetic - stop listening to the crap that's emanating from their side all the time and actually look at the reports from people that know what they're talking about - read David Conn in the Guardian (together with Henry Winter probably the best commentator on football in the country) and read what he says about the case, about the web site and about the events of yesterday. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 14:53 - Jan 9 with 1423 views | trampie |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 14:41 - Jan 9 by londonlisa2001 |
oh for God's sake - the rewriting of evidence in this case to suit the fallback position of total misogyny is simply breathtaking.
They didn't jail him on her word. In fact, that's pretty much the one thing that absolutely didn't happen.
There was evidence and quite a lot of it. From independent witnesses, from CCTV, from blood tests and from the statements of the two men involved as well. The problem is, people are only seeing the evidence that the Evans camp wants them to see. Yesterday we had a whole load of the 'she doesn't look drunk to me' crap because of (illegal) CCTV pictures on his web site. Are people aware that there is CCTV evidence (obviously not on his web site) which shows her lying flat on her face on the ground, not moving, for quite some time?
They did use the beyond reasonable doubt test - and convicted him - unanimously. According to some on here, the jury (which included men by the way) were obviously totally unable to see the reality staring them in the face that the girl was 'right up for it' - and that's after hearing the evidence. What a bunch of idiots eh?
The one thing that this case proves beyond any reasonable doubt, is that someone with the money to fund an incessant smear campaign can get away with all sorts of stuff, because the people looking at chedevans.com or the constant biased leaks from the Evans camp onto social media are seemingly unable to realise that what they are reading is the equivalent of the Itay Shechter '20 greatest goals' you tube clip.
Even yesterday, where the Evans camp released stuff about 'mob rule' and it quickly became accepted fact that people had been threatened with rape and violence if he was taken on - do you realise that Greater Manchester Police stated categorically that there had not been a single reported threat to anyone connected with Oldham- not one (apart from what they termed as low level social media abuse that they didn't take seriously). Oldham pulled out, not because of 'threats from the mob' but because every single one of their sponsors told them they were pulling out of the club. But the Evans camp went into overdrive, again trying to show their little angel as a victim.
It's pathetic - stop listening to the crap that's emanating from their side all the time and actually look at the reports from people that know what they're talking about - read David Conn in the Guardian (together with Henry Winter probably the best commentator on football in the country) and read what he says about the case, about the web site and about the events of yesterday. |
I never said they did jail him on her word, she could not remember anything from what i remember reading, i've been in conversations for several posts about rape cases in general and the level of probability to get a conviction and when I have been talking about one word against another I have been talking in general and not about the Evans case.
I don't know what the Evans camp has been saying, I have not seen their website or video's, I followed the case at the time it happened a few years ago and have read very little since, I did listen to the panel debate it on Question Time last night, where a woman on the panel that had studied the case said if she was on the jury she would not have found Evans guilty but she excepted the juries verdict, that is about the only outside content I have seen since its been back in the news.
So you Lisa are the one judging by your posts that is influenced by what people are currently saying ?, some would say there is a witch hunt and a mob mentality out there going on and it looks like you are taking it all in. [Post edited 9 Jan 2015 14:57]
| |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic on 15:01 - Jan 9 with 1414 views | perchrockjack |
Idoing y n m doing my level best to stay out of this god awful thread but things need to be said.
Some obvious mysogony peeping through with beauts like "on the word of a woman".
Some massive disgusting turd speak Ive not seen for ages and its Welsh people of all people.
Some clearly have old non conformist values of women being suitable only for certain things at certain times.
Some old outdated tenets of Old Testament drivel metered out for all to puke over here.
If those actually looking to mitigate Evans antics are genuine then they have big issues to deal with in life. Im older than most on here and trust me, you re soul will be found it and all the posturings on an internet chat room to invisible mates will be of no avail.
To help, it matters not if a woman bends over and has a pizza en route and gives every intention of having sex, when times comes and pants are down and flesh is willing, if she changes her mind and the chap carries on he is GUILTY. The onus is ALWAYS on the man.
Now please ,Phil, shut this thread down | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
