I think maybe some of you maybe need to educate yourselves about rape. That includes male on male rape. Of course you may not want to but telling victims of rape how they should feel is perhaps ignorant of you.
Very disappointed in Mr Bruce he should have kept his thoughts to himself on such a sensative subject. And whilst arying his views during the club's press conference he his also opening the club to more abuse, I would expect the Allam's to be having a word with him.
Fortunately with the other events that have happened today, bruces comments will get less attention in the national news than would have been the case otherwise.
It legally doesn't exist, even if they drugged you with Viagra and Rohypnol and jumped on top of you it would only be sexual assault, so that seems fair...
Whoops, there, Charlie 1. Great, at last something I have missed, please enlighten me. I thought MacDonald invited him by text message. But that's not really my point, as you seem to be privvy to what was discussed between MacDonald and the woman prior to Evans arriving. You know, for a fact, that he never said his mate, the local celebrity footballer was coming over, that he never asked her if Evans could have a trip down the carnal tunnel, you know she said no? Is this in the evidence available to us? Did the woman remember? But you know, so share, please.
I may once have been sexually assaulted. I was in my teens, and I'll put some background to this story to stop everyone thinking wtf. Anyway there was this bird I'd been sweetening up for weeks who I know liked me but just didn't trust me (no idea why not) and I was finally getting somewhere with her. We all went knocking about in town with my mate and his missus, her mate and one of our other mates. I'd never met his birds mate before but she was quite fit and making advances all day and made it very clear that she wanted my bob speciale. And I'll make it clear if it wasn't for that girl I was trying to nail being around I'd have smashed that other girl without second thought. She stuck about for the day and decided to come to this house party with us that night. Once pretty much everyone had gone including the girl I was trying to get one, the other bird struck. I don't really remember much as I was utterly ****faced, don't remember giving consent, just remember her being on top of me. I regretted it deeply the next morning when I woke up to find the bird I was trying to sweeten up had come round before I woke and had heard all about it. That was my chance blown for good. (Thank **** anarl coz she's turned into a right munter now). The bird played it out patiently and fair play got what she wanted, but I had the last laugh because I only lasted about 5 seconds so she didn't get much more than a week of harassment from myself about the morning after pill So whilst I certainly would have consented when in a reasonable state so long as the girl I was trying to pull wasn't there, I was in no fit state to decide for myself when she took advantage. Indeed I could barely stand up straight according to my mate. Was I raped?
He didn't, he just texted "got a bird". Evans said he went to the hotel room to see if she knew her with him being local.
Thought this was an interesting read. Its from 2003 mind http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...fers-no-defence-against-sexual-terrorism.html Last week, columnist Lynda Lee-Potter was in full flight in the Daily Mail. She was commiserating with the pain of Newcastle manager Bobby Robson, who apparently wept over allegations that one of his club's players had been involved in the footballers' alleged gang rape. I thought he was weeping for financial reasons, but Ms Potter offered a more lyrical reading. "He wept, I suspect," she wrote, "for a world where men respected women, where sex was equated with love, and only hookers had sex with strangers." Ah, yes, that world. Her column, always fun to read, was headlined: "Why do girls let themselves be treated like whores?" Columnist Marina Hyde had an answer for her that very evening in the Evening Standard. Her conclusion was that the alleged rape in question had "homoerotic undercurrents almost too obvious to mention". My conclusion is that there is something in the drinking water at Associated Newspapers. Group sex is a common sexual variation and always has been. You meet staunch heterosexuals, just as you meet staunch homosexuals, who like group sex: they may also be eminent people. Group sex is not unlawful. In the 1970s, New York City was notorious for "Plato's Retreat", a club devoted to group sex. Bath-houses flourished in the homosexual community and Paris had its clubs privés, where just about anything went until Aids put the brakes on. Literature is replete with group sex from Plato to Gay Talese. When you have young footballers, who are both superb athletes and entertainers, who make millions of pounds for their owners and deservedly get millions of pounds themselves, there is a natural consequence. They are magnets for groupies. They are rich. And they have the maturity of most 19- and 20-year-olds, namely not much. Many will be adolescent children with no financial restraint on their ability to indulge in adolescent male fantasies, whether driving fast cars or serially sharing the same girl for 15 minutes. Female groupies in see-through tops and micro-minis, trawling spots where footballers hang out, are tinsel-wrapped bait. One can hardly blame footballers for their inability to resist what middle-aged presidents of the United States cannot. Rape is something else. No one defends it and I can't think of a society that ever has. Along with murder and treason, rape was the last crime covered by the death penalty. But precisely because the crime is so abhorrent, great care must be taken in laying rape charges and in prosecuting them. The (unnamed) 17-year-old in the alleged footballers' gang rape was out clubbing. She met a stranger who appeared to be part of the football community. She went to another club with him and then accepted an invitation to go back to the Grosvenor House Hotel for consensual sex. A number of hours later, she left. What happened during those hours? According to the victim's "media adviser" - the unfortunate Max Clifford - her consensual sex with one man was interrupted by several other men (including three Premiership footballers she may have recognised, attesting to a formidable knowledge of the game even under vile circumstances), five of whom raped her. The chap who had consensual sex with her disagrees: "No one got heavy with her. She didn't say no, she didn't push anyone off." In America, a not dissimilar case is now going to trial. Basketball star Kobe Bryant, the squeaky clean golden boy of multi-million-dollar endorsements, checked in at a Colorado hotel. The young female receptionist flirted, showed him around and went to his room where she willingly engaged in some sexual byplay. When Kobe wanted more, she claims she said no. Kobe then allegedly picked her up, bent her over a chair and had his way. Next day, she accused him of rape. Thirty-five years ago, neither of these cases would have led to rape charges. If, on her own undisputed evidence, a woman goes to a room for the purpose of voluntarily intercourse or heavy "petting" and then claims rape, there is simply no way to determine beyond a reasonable doubt who is telling the truth, at least not in the absence of some indisputable corroboration. Corroboration can be forensic of course. But some bruising and scratch marks - even a bit of blood - isn't necessarily sufficient. Anyone who has engaged in passionate sex knows that it can result in such markings. On the facts of the situations so far, in both the Kobe and the football case, the charges are incapable of being proved beyond a reasonable doubt unless we disregard the plain meaning of "reasonable" and "doubt." It may be that some strong corroboration will yet emerge in the footballers' case as the investigation continues, but in its absence no charges can or should be laid. A lot, though, has changed in the past 35 years. Our society is fast becoming a matriarchy. And like any other group in ascendancy, the matriarchy needs to demonstrate that it can do anything. A woman can look and behave like a slut - it's her right - and there will be no consequences. She may consent to intercourse on Thursday night, but if the chap is discourteous on Friday morning, the previous evening's sizzling sex will cool into rape. A number of legal changes were necessary to allow matters to get this far. The traditional warning to juries about the dangers of convicting without corroboration were disallowed (courtesy of the Runciman Commission), as were questions about a woman's sexual history, her background, even previous and proximate voluntary intercourse with the accused. The complainant's name is now kept secret. Men can be charged on the uncorroborated say-so of a woman who voluntarily entered into a sexual situation with them and whose motives, name, background and psychiatric record cannot be questioned or disclosed. This is sexual terrorism. Rape charges can be laid one week or 20 years later, without the judge having to instruct juries that they may draw an adverse inference from the delay. Men have only the protection of a jury's common sense - and juries have been acquitting some - but even the acquitted find their names besmirched and their jobs wrecked. Meanwhile, the Government is hellbent on cutting back the right to trial by jury. In the past, any woman crying rape under such factual circumstances would have had to show feeble-mindedness to warrant society's protection. Going voluntarily up to a stranger's room for intercourse or its preliminaries, and expecting a man to behave as a light switch that can be turned off at will, may be technically her right, but it is both biologically and logically mad. But then our current laws are divorced from sanity and justice. What they do show is that the matriarchy can get away with anything - which is, I suppose, the purpose of all terror.
