Footballer jailed for 5 years for Rape!

i'm all for rapists getting sent down, but little has been said about the dizzy bint involved in all this. she was 19, not 12, very much an adult and it was really stupid of her to get so drunk in the first place, but even more stupid to go to the hotel with these players. she didn't deserve to be raped, but to me there is a world of difference between a rapist who drags a woman into the bushes in the local park, to one who takes advantage of a drunken woman who consented to be in the "rapists" company. 5 years is too extreme.

Even getting so drunk you can't open your eyes is not an invitation to be raped.

sad that some think it is.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Even getting so drunk you can't open your eyes is not an invitation to be raped.

sad that some think it is.

I don't think anyone said that. You sound like a right clever bastard. Just a word of warning, my nickname is Crusher, so just be careful who you aim your smart remarks at because it would be a shame for a fellow Bolton fan to spend a week or two in hospital.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Even getting so drunk you can't open your eyes is not an invitation to be raped.

sad that some think it is.

Surely you agree this woman was foolish?

We all do stupid things - doesn't mean we deserve to get raped for them though.

Sluffy wrote:We all do stupid things - doesn't mean we deserve to get raped for them though.

No, but you have to take responsibilty for your actions. I have a real issue with this verdict, and I'm the last one to defend a footballer.

Michael Bolton wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Even getting so drunk you can't open your eyes is not an invitation to be raped.

sad that some think it is.

I don't think anyone said that. You sound like a right clever bastard. Just a word of warning, my nickname is Crusher, so just be careful who you aim your smart remarks at because it would be a shame for a fellow Bolton fan to spend a week or two in hospital.

Mich you bloody idiot it's me Le'God, Yes i am clever, extremely clever but i don't boast about it.

Why haven't you got one of your bodybuilding pictures as an avatar, i like seeing where you're at in making your arms the size of fcuking massive ham joints.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Even getting so drunk you can't open your eyes is not an invitation to be raped.

sad that some think it is.

Surely you agree this woman was foolish?

I actually don't know the circumstance.

Hundreds of people go out every weekend with the intention to get blind drunk, to the point where they can't stand.

so I'm not sure just that is so foolish you deserve to be raped by the end of the night.

Again i don't know the circumstance, but if the girl was unconscious while being raped then what can you say, that is foul and clearly not the fault of the girl.

You'd think a gent, even in this day and age, would be able to see a girl is extremely worse for wear and get her home, or at least get her in a bloody taxi. To take her somewhere with the intention to rape her unconscious body is slightly odd.

Oh Le god, I take it all back, I didn't realise it was you.
Well, McDonald didn't rape her, she went back for sex with him. McDonald invited him to come along and she didn't say no or resisted. Is that really rape? If it was rape then surely McDonald is guilty of something as he invited him to come over and didn't stop him.
Lots of young people will go home tonight with people they meet at nightclubs and most will be pretty drunk. If a girl is drunk and goes back to some guy's house and they have sex and she doesn't say no or resist, is that rape?

Michael Bolton wrote:If a girl is drunk and goes back to some guy's house and they have sex and she doesn't say no or resist, is that rape?

Isn't this how you get your "girlfriends"?

For me it all depends on the circumstance, which i clearly don't know.

Anyone who's been out on a friday, or has been to uni will know the state some girls get into is absolutely atrocious, so much so if you said you were taking them out back of a disused butcher and were going to slaughter them with a flick knife they'd probably go "Yeahhhgggjh dohh fcukkk yeahh i lovee you i dooo"

now obviously that isn't a come on to do it, they're so fcuking pissed they can't understand english.

I think it's extremely sad that any man would see a girl in that condition and consider her "fair game"

that said it's sad that men and women feel the need to get in that condition as well.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Michael Bolton wrote:If a girl is drunk and goes back to some guy's house and they have sex and she doesn't say no or resist, is that rape?

Isn't this how you get your "girlfriends"?

What girlfriends? I am about as handy with the women right now as you are with the men!
Anyway, I am at the age now that if I went to a nightclub people would be pointing and saying what's that old tosser doing here?

largehat wrote:

I don't care what the CPS thought though. They only consider the prosecution's evidence when reaching a decision.

Bollocks. The CPS are only interested in a case if they think they have a 60% chance of getting a conviction. They clearly did in this case and that's why they charged McDonald.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:You'd think a gent, even in this day and age, would be able to see a girl is extremely worse for wear and get her home, or at least get her in a bloody taxi. To take her somewhere with the intention to rape her unconscious body is slightly odd.

This.

Well I hear where you are coming from le god but as you know lots of people do end up getting off when drunk and going back to their house and having sex stupidly with people they wouldn't if sober.
It just sounds wrong to say that if some woman who is pretty drunk after a night out goes back with a guy to their house/hotel and they have sex and the woman doesn't say no or resist that its rape because she is too drunk to be in control of her actions.

I agree with you mich, there's drunk and then theres drunk and thats the divide.

I don't know how drunk this girl was.

If we're talking 3 rum and cokes then obviously this decision is wrong but if she was being dragged by her knees and was a slurring mess then not much you can say.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Mich you bloody idiot it's me Le'God...

Are you both happy with your current user names or would you like me to change them to Le God and Mich Upson / Michael Caine / Shaft / Sweet Ramsey McDonald / Malcolm / something else?

Nah i love my name, cheers though!

Reebok Trotter wrote:

largehat wrote:

I don't care what the CPS thought though. They only consider the prosecution's evidence when reaching a decision.

Bollocks. The CPS are only interested in a case if they think they have a 60% chance of getting a conviction. They clearly did in this case and that's why they charged McDonald.

What's bollocks about it? You're the one who suggested the decision to charge had anything to do with likely culpability, and you're attempting to discredit my view that they only consider the prosecution evidence by quoting me a 60% likelihood of conviction as grounds for your basic premise that 'he must be guilty, he sent a text'.

Sorry, I misread your post. What I meant was that the CPS have the final say in whether someone is charged. Their yardstick has always been that there must be sufficient evidence for securing a conviction. The CPS are notorious for not pressing charges in some cases claiming that they are unlikely to secure a conviction or the case is not in the public interest. They clearly felt they had enough evidence to secure a conviction against McDonald but the jury thought otherwise.

We clearly have different views on this case and we are not likely to change our opinions. Actually I find it quite stimulating reading different viewpoints but in this case I have made my mind up about McDonald and I have decided he is a loathsome reptile.