Quite clearly the Chinese player took out Elise - and from behind. So what do the advocees of television replays in sport think of the referees finding ? - corruption ? Personally, if I was Elise I might now ( after three red cards in as many games ), be tempted to tell the officials to 'official off' http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/winter-olympics/26070442
Probably will need it on/before 3rd., May... wonder if can you get a discount for groups ( of around 5000 ) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26255462
Anyone see the draw...think I might support Gibraltar some excellent games and i always love supporting the underdog.
I said a few season back after that racist outburst on a player, the same game that saw constant strong abuse towards Evans who was then at Crawley, that it will only be a matter of time before people will find themselves, either ejected, banned or arrested for such behaviour. The thought police know no bounds and every rule leads to another. Of course the BBC could have made the alternative decision make the game more enjoyable, a silent broadcast, while playing 'God Save the Queen' in the background. I know...I'm not taking this seriously am i.
I recall years ago, in the pre-Sky days of live first tier football when, I think, the games were shown on ITV, a Sunday afternoon match between, probably, Burnley, and Manchester United, certainly a North-West derby. The home team dared to score against the mighty Rags, which prompted a repeating chant shortly after the re-start from the United 'fans' of "F*** off Burnley", which was clearly audible through the TV feed. The commentator (whose name is also lost to ancient memory), no doubt in a desperate effort to try to reduce the number of complaints from offended parents whose children might have been watching, then came up with the wonderful line - ".. and the United supporters have turned against their own team, they're chanting 'come on Burnley'" Don't know how many were fooled.....
Lol...I'm tempted just been looking at their home fixtures...Germany on the 13th June next year...tempting...just wondering if there will be room on the island haha
There's no UEFA approved stadium in Gib - you'll have to go the Algarve to watch the home games. There are probably more Brits there anyway!
I am alwaysright - but when I'm wrong it's just my cognitive bias. I've made so many mistakes that I've learned never to be wrong again. the article is actually quite a good read ! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26258662
[video]https://v.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/8971F714C71046236191013441536_1328d9df123.3.2.mp4? versionId=he3x5vQOi7j5ZPZ3nNnk.y8yA6aHiEIP[/video]
Just because he plays for Swindon doesn't make him a bad person http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-26322393 So the 'victim' had been 1. To a hotel room with the accused, on a previous occasion.(presumably voluntarily as no 'kidnap' was reported) 2. The accused had previously tried to kiss the 'victim' [allegedly] 3. The accused had previously 'touched' the 'victim's leg [allegedly] 4. The 'victim' had not reported these previous sexual assaults 5. The 'victim' had been texting the 'accused' for some time before the day of the 'offence'(but this 'pestering' had not been reported) 6. The 'victim' had been in a bar with the 'accused' on the night in question.(this harassment had not been reported at the time) 7. The 'victim left the bar with the 'accused' ( what - dragged kicking and screaming ? ) 8. The 'victim' got into the same taxi as the 'accused' (presumably the taxi driver did not suspect a 'kidnapping' as none was reported) 9. The 'victim' goes into a hotel room with the 'accused' (presumably the staff did not suspect a 'kidnapping' as none was reported) In the next part of the story the 'victim' can't remember what happened. It was the 'accused' who claims that consenting sexual intercourse took place (rather than rape) --- the point here is that the 'victim' did not know if sexual intercourse didn't take place ! (I have been in circumstance No.9 and decided NOT to take 'advantage' of the situation - even though the girl wanted IT ) ** I'll be surprised if it doesn't all end in tears - for the 'victim' ** it was my fiancee (at the time) in case you all start thinking of me as a sexual predator
The issue here as i see it is points 1-9 do not indicate the woman consented to sex. I accept if the woman went into a hotel room with an individual, any prior accusations of pestering over a course of time would raise questions of doubt but only on the matter of pestering alone. It is in no way an indication by entering that hotel room of consenting to sex. If a woman is under the influence of alcohol or any other drug that affects her ability to think, then any defendent in such situation has a sense of responsibility towards that woman. Maybe she is sick/unwell, maybe she needs a lay down, maybe she is disorientated, maybe she needs a toilet/bathroom, maybe she merely is just being friendly and would welcome a cup of coffee and a chat. How many of us have been so drunk we do not know how we got home. So rather than any male thinking of his testosterone and taking possible 'advantage' of a situation (not referring to actual case), he maybe should think of the consequences. Any prior woman's claims may be an attempt to build a prosecution case against any defendent, no matter how weak that evidence may be, because after all only two people know what went on in that room, unless one is disorientated and under the influence, then you may be facing a jury.
Only the 2 people who were there can ever know the truth of what went on, hopefully the jury will make a decision based on what evidence is presented. The real tragedy here is that any names are made public before a verdict is known, the woman is allowed anonymity by law, until proven guilty the man should enjoy the same basic human right, if he is found guilty then name, shame, and hang him.
brb I understand what you are saying - but ( from what little information that has been disclosed ) It would appear that the 'victim' only knew that sexual intercourse had taken place after the accused told her to get a 'morning after' pill. Any suggestion that sex/rape had taken place came from a claim by the accused ( was he bragging ?) If (whatever form of) sex did take place - all of the peripheral evidence of what took place before the event ( not just on the night ) gives credence that there was 'consent' by the 'victim' to just about everything leading up to the main event. The whole story does neither the victim or accused any good. In view of the peripheral evidence leading to given and implied consent, I made the title to this post to reflect the impossibility of a guilty verdict ( on the grounds that there is more than enough 'consent' in the (whole) circumstances to easily cast doubt.
My view would be from a prosecution point of view is that if the victim did not know sex had taken place until the defendant had told her, then it was not consented sex in my opinion. Just because you sleep with someone does not mean they consented to sex. Let me give a scenario; if i came back from a bar with a mate and that mate was a male friend, and he had booked a hotel room for us for the night because he knew we were going to get plastered. Then when we got to that hotel room and found a double/kingsize bed instead of two singles, would you be consenting to your male friend to have gay sex with you just because you shared the same bed. Obviously your mate not be gay but its the same principle, sleeping with someone does not make it consented.
brb thank you for making me feel sick ! I would say that it doesn't matter the gender / sexual orientation of the people involved. The jury will have to weigh up the evidence. It doesn't help the victim's case that she doesn't remember the 'physical act' - therefore she cannot dispute any claim by the accused that she did give consent. No jury can be sure that she refused sex ( because she can't remember saying "No" ) - the defence lawyer will have a field day when presenting all of the history of this relationship - in which it is obvious that the 'victim' has been a willing player of the game. ( or at least the warm up ) It might be that the victim NOW regrets what took place (with consent ?) and has made the accusation against a 'fairly well paid' footballer ( alwaysright stop being cynical ) edit - I'm telling you now - I'm straight & will NEVER give any consent to your disgusting 'scenario' ( you wait til I tell Mrs brb )
This is way I always get the mrs to sign a 20 page sexual consent form before we get down to business (so to speak)
This scenario is so sad. Consent to sex being seen as whether or not a women (or man) is in a state that they can remember saying No Surely consent is a thought out process where the person agrees that they want something & says Yes Imagine a surgeon doing an operation without consent of the patient She wakes up to find something missing ..... She is advised by the Dr that she now needs medication because of his decision. She says I didn't agree to that His defence is .... Well you were so pissed you didn't say No & I really, really wanted to practice that op. She says why didn't you wait until I was sober & ask me He says but I really wanted to that op ..... I love it & it pleases me & if you had been sober you would probably have said No ..... cause that's what you said last time I asked
