BlueStar

This genius http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/sunderland-arsonist-who-torched-ferry-7801036

I was going to say, stupid mackems, pissed mackems, angry mackems. Just mackems, basically.

Surely it depends if it's horizontal or vertical.

Shrewd move to go for the branch of Islam that lets you have two wives and a mistress but still lets you grog on with champagne.

Why is Trevor Sinclair dressed like Darkwing Duck?

Remind you of anyone

Mate of mine from uni at the time was an Everton fan and had been texting me shit whe they went 1-0 up. Didn't bite until straight after that goal, just sent back "Pick that out."

Don't use it now. The transfer window one just lasts for January, your other one you can use at any time. Might as well wait and use the temporary one.

These #lad bellends then

Also, a word cloud of words used in tweets mentioning Phil Dowd as he reffed a game between Arsenal and Man City http://www.bootifulgame.com/portfolio/phil-dowd-is-a/

Golden Boot winners, by hair http://www.bootifulgame.com/portfolio/premier-league-golden-boot-winners-by-hair/

I though restraint of trade was a contract thing, where you make an agreement with a competitor or partner not to encroach on each others business, rather than something which applied to individuals as employees? Edit: Example definition from the Oxford Dictionary of Law Enforcement http://i.imgur.com/Dxv6uO3.png Doesn't seem like it applies here and doesn't seem like it's always illegal.

http://31.media.tumblr.com/7bb3fa9729cb172ef4f81016cddf68fe/tumblr_nfc18ytBfe1qz7guco1_500.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Wd4QQR0.jpg

Except in your example the 'victim' is instigating the act, in this case the suggestion that Ched come along and join in was made by the defendants in the case, by their own admission. So, more like my original example. The fact that the girl initiated going back to the hotel room with McDonald may explain why he was found not guilty.

I've been wondering how the whole thing might have went down like: Hi I woke up in a hotel room at 11.30 after drinking shitloads of booze and don't remember what happened. I was naked and I'd p*ssed the bed. I think I had sex as well but don't remember. (Rape test later presumably confirms sex with 2 people and no signs of violence, no signs of roofies or whatever, the two people involved are identified) Did you consent to have sex with the 2 guys? I don't know, I was very drunk and have zero recollection of the events whatsoever. I absolutely cannot say I did or did not consent to sex with either guy. OK love I'm very sorry but the two guys involved state you consented to have sex with both of them, in the absence of any recollection from your side, and no signs of sexual violence or coercion I'm afraid there's very little we can do here. ... Isn't that how it should have went? Surely. Any sane being would argue this. But in todays PC climate the conclusion = " you cant remember consenting? Well thats rape then - you should report them etc". You got drunk, went home with a guy and ended up having sex. Thats life. Dont want to have drunken sex, simple 1. dont get that drunk and 2. Dont go home with a bloke. If you go home with a guy he is going to attempt to shag you, you are free to say so and go home. If you are so drunk that are unable to object then obviously the guy SHOULD know better but in reality this rarely happens. Does it make him a bit of an arsehole if he is sober enough to see it? Yes, but locking him up for several years and labelling him as a sex offender is very very harsh. Im sure most of us would have experienced similar without never really having had that intention. Pretty much this, if you consented to consume enough alcohol to put you in a situation where you can't remember then surely you are consenting to these sorts of possibilities. Lets reverse the situation, what happens if a girl was more sober than a guy and the guy woke up with a big heffa next to him the next morning and runs like fuck. The guy is classed a dick for just running off yet no one blames the girl for taking advantage. How many bi-sexual or straight men get drunk and wake up with another guy next to them after getting so drunk?, who is to blame there, my guess is people will blame the straight guy for getting so drunk. If you reverse the situation where a man is victim to the affects of alcohol no one says he was raped, if a girl does though then it's rape, double standards. Isn't it about time we started realising that women have just as much freedom to do what they want as men do and can be just as bad? How the fuck is it possible to hold such dangerously right wing viewpoints? My points was showing the difference in accountability between genders, and if we are to assume being intoxicated makes you in able to consent then it should be equal across both genders and surely someone has take responsibility for being so drunk? If being intoxicated means you can no longer consent then surely a lot of people will be guilty of rape by having a drunken 1 night stand, or even by having a few drinks with their partner and then having sex? You can't say being intoxicated and then having sex is rape and only apply it to women on a night out, if your going to do that then it has to be applied to everyone. "if you consented to consume enough alcohol to put you in a situation where you can't remember then surely you are consenting to these sorts of possibilities" You're views are incredibly rigid, like. I cannot even be bothered to explain the differences between the 2 scenarios though, they're obvious, but if a bloke believes he was 'raped' he has every right to report it and it'll be dealt in the same manner as if a female was to. We have to be responsible for our actions even when drunk. If someone got drunk and drove and caused an accident then they are responsible, if someone dies then usually they go down for manslaughter because their intention wasn't to hurt someone but they took actions that resulted in it. In the eyes of the law they are still responsible, so if someone is responsible for killing someone when they are drunk then surely they are responsible for having sex? So if you're semi conscious on the metro with your phone in your hand and someone says "Can I have your phone mate" and you confusedly hand it over, presumably it's not robbery, you've just given someone a gift and later regretted it. Your fault for being pissed. There's rules about why you can't tattoo someone while they're pissed, why you can't get people to sign legal documents when they're intoxicated, why you can't get your gran to change her will when she's off her tits on anesthetic. Not being able to consent to things when you're intoxicated is a pretty well established concept, it's not special treatment for women.

Plus this bit goes against this idea she was fine because she walked into the hotel

He's on the sex offender's register. I think Joe Bloggs Sex Offender Register would probably not be guaranteed to walk back into the same role he was in before, particularly if that role was as an entertainer - which is basically what footballers are. You don't just play on the field, you do signings, publicity events, community stuff, you're the face of the sponsors of the kit. Is Rolf Harris going to walk out in 5 years and start suing people because he's not welcome on Animal Hospital any more? If you're a drunk driver and you're a barman or a footballer, you can probably go back into your own profession. If you're a taxi driver or an MP you might not find it so easy. That's life.

I think people are putting too much stead in the fact the other guy didn't go down for it. Being acquitted isn't the same as being found innocent though, is it? It just means there's not enough evidence for a conviction. It's not like the accuser had been tried and convicted of a false allegation. You don't get a not guilty verdict only if you can prove conclusively the crime didn't occur, just if you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that it did. There may well be different evidence, different statements from the accused etc which means one holds up and the other didn't. Wasn't Evan's later encounter filmed by his mates while the other guy's wasn't? There's been times when I've had a skinful and been able to play FIFA and engage in conversation and 30 minutes later, without having drunk anything else I'm flat out and you could shave my eyebrows off. A lot of people seem to be dismissing the court judgement which was made by a jury after studying both sides of the evidence for a considerable period of time based on having an 'aha!' moment based on a soundbite.

To be fair like, from what I saw it's the same shit Rooney, Gerrard and co do every fucking week without any punishment at all.

It's too shameless to even get annoyed about, it's just hilarious "OK, that guy's done that independent review. You can't see the report but it basically says the Russia and Qatar bids were fine and dandy and the real bad guys are the people who said they were corrupt. Especially England, they're the most corrupt out of everyone" "Uh, had on, that's not what I said at all." "Shut up. " Honestly wouldn't be surprised if it's announced this guy has committed suicide by shooting himself four times in the back of the head, leaving a note saying he couldn't live with the lies he told about his own report.

I'd be pretty surprised if they did. http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/mushrooms/drugtests.htm

It's alright lads, calm down, it was just an accident http://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/perez-goal.991298/

His appearances are brief Ayooozee