mrmojorisin75

There's no guarantee that dropping Gerrard will allow them to start winning games. He is a problem but not the only big problem they have Of course there's no guarantee but imo it would be a major step in the right direction. It's all very Pardew-esque tbh and look what happened to him once injuries allowed, or in his case forced, him to change it.

Rodgers has backed himself into a corner with Gerrard really, he's talked him up so much he can't drop him now without looking like an idiot and incurring the wrath of a 'club legend' behind the scenes. He must be praying Gerrard gets injured to take the decision away from him. It'll define Rodgers imo, if he has the bottle to drop him now and start getting results then he'll get a lot of respect and more time but if he just keeps Pardewing it then he's done.

Think he'll go to Roma on a free and be fucking class myself.

Our best hope now is success, win the cup and finish high in the league then hope some daft cunts come along to poach him. Defeats aren't going to see the back of him within a year, we should be honest with ourselves about that now really.

this is the truth of it, just wait until we concede a goal from a FB position and lose the game, he'll be falling over himself to put sissoko back out wide in his "best" position

sorry like but i think you'd have to be fucked to choose wenger these days like

wow, we're not looking terrible and devoid of ideas at home are we? who knew?

hm, the only question is how are the colombian birds gonna look in that? something suggests to me not as good as the last one, don't know why

what i can't understand about rodgers is why he's not falling back on just winning the possession again until they can pull themselves together

christ i've just caught up to this whelan stuff presume he'd be unveiling ched evans today flanked by a a group of cheerleaders in skimpy gear?

I can't help but wonder if the large media interest was mostly because it was an international week which don't have much going on for the journos to write about at the best of times. No doubt it would have gotten some coverage regardless but I think it might have gotten buried under premier league or champions league instead of a not very exciting qualifying campaign for England. the media interest has mostly been driven by the petition and then celebrities coming out and kicking off hasn't it? he's knackered in britain now like, just can't see anyone being willing to take a chance on him as they'll know the backlash that's coming their way if they do

look at the fucking coupon the kid in the thumbnail he'd turn me to violence i reckon

Ergo any sex with someone who is intoxicated (to any degree) is sex without consent and is therefore by definition rape should that person later decide they would not have made the same decision if sober. That is the logical conclusion of this line of argument, and I'd suggest that if that is the case, then there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of non-convicted rapists (of either sex) walking the streets of Britain today. Some of these rapists will be famous footballers, pop stars, actors, etc, others will be treating you at the doctors or in hospital, and many will even be teaching your children. Frightening. This is the actual stance of the law btw: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/ and this would seem to be the most relevant section to this case: It would seem that the jury decided that at the point of getting into the taxi and going back to the hotel the woman was capable of offering consent, but subsequently lost that capacity later in the evening without further consumption of alcohol or drugs. another good post

That's complete rubbish. Using that methodology you'd like to adopt a guilty until proven innocent system? I think there should be more emphasis on defendants looking to provide evidence of consent (including if no verbal consent is given then things like, prior knowledge of the person, actions leading up to the event, how pissed the victim was, whether or not the person was high). Basically I think that if you're going home with a girl who has been described as 'extremely drunk', or sitting mortal on the ground, you need to put your dick back in your trousers. Rather than the 'opportunistic sex' described on here. How would you ever provide evidence of how pissed someone was? You can drink the same drinks on different nights and have massively different reactions to it depending on a number of circumstances. A person could be wasted in public then sober up in private enough to want a shag, it's all so arbitrary and subjective. I kind of get what you're saying but it's nonsense really.

Aye, because you're talking about a man's life so really the burden of proof should be considerably stronger than the lass not remembering anything at all and then a jury deciding she wasn't capable to consent to it when they weren't there and there's no evidence to point to that being actually true. As I said it's possible he did rape her, I don't know (but I doubt it), but in the absence of actual evidence that he did I'm afraid it should never have got where it did. Honestly how could anyone reasonably expect Evans, or anyone taking a lass home from a nightclub they just met, to know with absolute certainty that the lass was on the right side of 'the line'? It's an insane idea really. Totally different if she was unconscious or whatever but by all accounts she was actively involved.

Yeah but the whole thing it's unquantifiable; it's impossible to say either way what her decision making was like at that particular moment in time. I'm pretty sure it was fucking terrible (obviously) but alcohol consumption and it's effects vary so much from person to person it's impossible to pin it down enough to send some fucker to prison for RAPE like, fucking rape man. From that appeal summary it really seems like the judge led the jury to make a massively subjective decision based on very little but their opinion. It should not be enough to convict someone in 2014 like, it just shouldn't. Again granted there may be more to the story that I'm/we're all unaware of.

this is where it starts and ends for me, how the fuck wasn't the appeal upheld man? The other element of fresh evidence was expert evidence prepared by Professor John Birch, a consultant pharmacologist, a professor of biomedical science. His specialist field is psycho-pharmacology. Towards the end of his report he says: "From the evidence of [the complainant] she appears to have suffered anterior-grade amnesia as a result of the high dose of alcohol which she consumed, and in particular that she consumed a substantial dose of alcohol during the last hour or so prior to leaving the nightclub. It appears from the evidence that her short-term memory was functioning at the time around the incident, but that the long-term record of that memory has been ablated by the high concentration of alcohol. There is, therefore, no memory record of those events and attempts to jog the memory may lead to confabulation. The fact that she has no memory of events does not mean that she was not able to participate in a meaningful way in events at that time, and I am quite clear that this includes the ability to make informed decisions in relation to consent. Acute alcohol intoxication may lead to substantial disinhibition and that may in itself lead to unwise judgments being made. But the fact that she does no longer remember having made a decision is a failure of the memory process and not of the decision-making process. Evidence of memory loss as a result of anterior-grade amnesia does not in itself prove that she lacked the capacity to consent." he may have raped her, but there's simply no evidence to that effect

Yeah there may very well be more to it all as that was dealing with the grounds for the appeal etc. End of the day though what we do know is a man has been sent to prison without the slightest shred of evidence that a crime even took place The lass herself doesn't even know if there was a crime. I can't get past it, I also can't understand why Evans isn't getting on every talk show or paper interview he can to make this very clear, he's got nothing to lose.

Is that directed at me? Absolutely not.

Providing that the jury had to make a decision without reasonable doubt, no I don't think he should have. The opinions that have gone beyond that which are more in line with saying that she should have expected something bad to happen to her through getting pissed and sleeping around is honestly making me feel sick though. It's fucking revolting and those saying it should be fucking ashamed of themselves. I'm not getting involved in that shit like, if that wasnt clear from my posts, I'm just genuinely astounded the lad went down.

Is that directed at me?

Does anyone who has read that link KI posted think the lad should have gone down for rape? Genuine question.

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 pissed 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.

Spot on. Theres even talk of a law change where the girl has to give verbal consent before you can go any further, if she doesnt give it its rape :lol: "So just to be clear, you are fine with me having sex with you?" - oohh how arousing, should probably tape that as well in case she changes her mind the next morning. It's utter madness to deprive a man of his freedom and livelihood based on what is written in that thing KI posted, unless there's more to the case I'd say he's paid an unbelievably high price like. I mean the lass doesn't even know if she fucking consented at the time or not, how did it even get to trial nevermind a conviction?