Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The Gang Bang Details From The Sun
- Thread starter GUNTER
- Start date
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
edna krabappel said:
Bruises?
Its difficult to tellw hat would be argued, but so far in the details that are proovable or disproovable are.
Bruises
Multiple sex partners
She was sober.
She appears to come from a good home as well. That may mean nothing to you but it does in the leagal system.
GG
You are an arsehole and by your attitude a single one at that I would guess.
Shizuoka Dolphin
NSC M0DERATOR
Well, you know what they say...
Shizuoka Dolphin
NSC M0DERATOR
Still waters run deep - and in my experience Catholic schoolgirls are no angels!
Too many cooks spoil the broth ?
After the game, the king and the pawn go into the same box?
Sorrel
Well-known member
Doesn't anyone else think the law should protect the identity of both the accuser and the accused until after a conviction?
It would stop the tabloids printing this kind of thing until after any court case. And surely that would be good.
It would stop the tabloids printing this kind of thing until after any court case. And surely that would be good.
Just in alleged rape cases ? or all 'sexual' allegations ?
'Until after a conviction' would mean court trials behind closed doors - or gagging orders on the press - but what about websites etc... where the information would be just as public ?
'Until after a conviction' would mean court trials behind closed doors - or gagging orders on the press - but what about websites etc... where the information would be just as public ?
BrightonBird
New member
Titanic said:
When I first read that I thought it said something else
Being quite vulger today.
Jambo Seagull
Well-known member
trueblue said:
If any of these players get formally charged, their names will automatically be in the public domain. They have no legal right of anonymity unlike the alleged victim. The Sun is the biggest selling Newspaper in the UK. Whilst I don't think we should overestimate the importance of football I think this will be such a big story that it will be very difficult to see how anyone cannot have an angle on it. I find it hard to believe that the Hull jurors in the Bowyer Woodgate case came to that case without any prejudices.
In any event, whether or not they get a fair trial, if they are charged then their names will be in the public domain and their "reputations" (such as they are) will be in tatters. The Sun should not have had a sniff of this unless or until someone is charged. Who told them about it? If it's the police that is scandalous, if it is the girl then if I was the defence counsel of any of these footballers that would be my major line of attack.
Shizuoka Dolphin
NSC M0DERATOR
Duncan H said:
I agree.
Jambo Seagull
Well-known member
Titanic said:
It worked in the Jonathan King case. No one knew anything about this until he had been convicted, although it came as no surprise!
I agree with Duncan H. There MUST be anonymity for the accused. In my view the pendulum has swung too far in favour of the alleged victims in these cases. It should be in all cases where the accused is likely to be placed on the sex offenders register at the end of the case if found guilty.
Jambo - first, I agree with you about the scandal of police releasing details. May not have happened in this case, but there are many, many times when arrests are more like press conferences these days - only for no charges to be brought. That's a serious problem.
As for the names coming out after charges, that's true, but from that point onwards the publicity would largely die down because stories then run a much higher risk of being in contempt of court.
By then, some damage to the defendants' reputations may have been done which would only be repaired by an acquittal in court, which is not good. But I don't think anything said so far would be likely to have prejudiced a jury against any defendants. Just from reading this message board, it's pretty clear that most of the prejudice is against the accuser who's already being seen as a 'money-grabber'. As courts are only worried about prejudice against defendants (the onus being on the prosecution to prove the case) it's pretty unlikely anything said so far would collapse a trial.
Must say I find it fairly amusing that the mass reaction is to lay into the press for their reporting. The internet frenzy shows how much interest there is in the story, which makes us all hypocrites! The only way to stop newspapers going over the top on stories like this is to take away the demand - in other words, don't buy them.
As for the names coming out after charges, that's true, but from that point onwards the publicity would largely die down because stories then run a much higher risk of being in contempt of court.
By then, some damage to the defendants' reputations may have been done which would only be repaired by an acquittal in court, which is not good. But I don't think anything said so far would be likely to have prejudiced a jury against any defendants. Just from reading this message board, it's pretty clear that most of the prejudice is against the accuser who's already being seen as a 'money-grabber'. As courts are only worried about prejudice against defendants (the onus being on the prosecution to prove the case) it's pretty unlikely anything said so far would collapse a trial.
Must say I find it fairly amusing that the mass reaction is to lay into the press for their reporting. The internet frenzy shows how much interest there is in the story, which makes us all hypocrites! The only way to stop newspapers going over the top on stories like this is to take away the demand - in other words, don't buy them.
BrightonBird
New member
I made the mistake of posting on here what I thought - please no more! Everyone gets heated on this topic.
Bono
Member
I still find it strange that no-one is yet 'helping police with their enquiries'.
I would have thought that after the initial examinations by a doctor etc. there would have been enough in his report to suggest what did or did not take place.
I would have thought that after the initial examinations by a doctor etc. there would have been enough in his report to suggest what did or did not take place.
If this did happen, 9 times out of ten it seems to be the girls own fault, IMHO. And her being a goody-2-shoes 17yo Catholic girl too. Not so angelic is she, agreeing to have a shag with the first one. Still, it doesn't forgive the fact about the other ones. How many other 1-nighters has she had?
Makes me
Apologies to any DAFT bints that tend to dissagree.
Makes me
Apologies to any DAFT bints that tend to dissagree.
Last edited:
BrightonBird
New member
Everest said:If this did happen, 9 times out of ten it seems to be the girls own fault, IMHO. And her being a goody-2-shoes 17yo Catholic girl too. Not so angelic is she, agreeing to have a shag with the first one. Still, it doesn't forgive the fact about the other ones. How many other 1-nighters has she had?
Makes me
Apologies to any DAFT bints that tend to dissagree.
No I completely agree. Whatsoongoal had a complete fit when I posted this myself.
Anyway, the situation is dodgy and my "contact" says that it's very likely making it up.
Also, she was seen 3 hours later talking to the players on ctv
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
Looney - It takes an arsehole to know one and I am married. I feel very strongly that both parties in a situtation like this should either both have anonmity or both have their names released in the public domian.
This is a discussion board and that is what I am doing. Based on the details and the fact that the girl has relived the supposed horrific details to the press that my hunch is its a load of rubbish the same as the Hamilton and Leslie accusations were.
It is obvious accusations of rape will predominantly be made by Women because of the nature of the act. True rape is horendous but I don't think people should be able to make accusations that can destroy people's lives/careers/relationships and then hide behind being anonymous.
I don't think the facts add up on this and a true rape victim would not want to relive the tale to the press 3 days afterwards.
This is a discussion board and that is what I am doing. Based on the details and the fact that the girl has relived the supposed horrific details to the press that my hunch is its a load of rubbish the same as the Hamilton and Leslie accusations were.
It is obvious accusations of rape will predominantly be made by Women because of the nature of the act. True rape is horendous but I don't think people should be able to make accusations that can destroy people's lives/careers/relationships and then hide behind being anonymous.
I don't think the facts add up on this and a true rape victim would not want to relive the tale to the press 3 days afterwards.