We have such tinpot fans..

[hogesar 9,671]

5 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Between 2012 and 2016, Ched Evans satisfied your criteria of what constitutes a rapist. Between that timescale you couldn't know a retrial was going to happen, so he was, in your eyes, a rapist. And then after the retrial, not one. Bit odd that.

For me, a rapist is someone who has, you know, raped someone.

Take a look at this;

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/23/fewer-than-one-in-60-cases-lead-to-charge-in-england-and-wales

Go and tell some of those poor victims that for the vast, vast majority, their attacker isn't actually a rapist.

I cant believe you're having to explain this.

[Greavsy 2,413]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

Between 2012 and 2016, Ched Evans satisfied your criteria of what constitutes a rapist. Between that timescale you couldn't know a retrial was going to happen, so he was, in your eyes, a rapist. And then after the retrial, not one. Bit odd that.

For me, a rapist is someone who has, you know, raped someone.

Take a look at this;

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/23/fewer-than-one-in-60-cases-lead-to-charge-in-england-and-wales

Go and tell some of those poor victims that for the vast, vast majority, their attacker isn't actually a rapist.

Your argument conveniently ignores the fact of the legal argument that wasn't permitted at the first trial, relating to the claiments sexual history and subsequently costing his initial legal firm a £800k settlement. 

For the record, any man (or lady) who is a convicted rapist is deplorable....

Serious question, have you ever done anything like jury service? Genuinely interested. 

[HazzaJet 252]

I’ve always hated Ronaldo. As he’s heading towards the end of his career I think the main threat he carries nowadays are his ballet dancing skills, which he used to win the game. Had he missed the penalty and Manure failed to gain 3 points I would have laughed at him

[Duncan Edwards 2,236]

Some abhorrent stuff on here.

Imagine it was someone you knew, someone you were close to. Sexual history? Let’s say it’s your son or daughter that got raped (God knows, I hope that it isn’t and never will be).

“Did you once enjoy impromptu rough or vigorous sex with your partner?”

”Yes”

”I rest my case..”

It’s completely irrelevant, EVEN IF IT IS WITH THE SAME PERSON. And it’s attitudes like this that allow and enable these sick ****s to continue with impunity.

It’s an incredibly difficult crime to prove because of the need to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt. But, for heavens sake, please let’s not simplify it to even for a millisecond think that a not guilty verdict equates a declaration of innocence.

Ugh.

Having read a bit about the Evans case and the letting other people into the room and the sneaking out, it’s a murky and unpleasant affair, the legal process is complete but, as I’ve said, a not guilty is not the same as being pronounced innocent. Unless I misunderstand the law of the land, which, as a poorly educated pleb, is entirely feasible. 

[Greavsy 2,413]

6 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

not guilty is not the same as being pronounced innocent.

There is no such thing as pronounced innocent,  you are innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt.  It is the prosecutions role to prove guilt. Its not up to the accused to prove innocence. 

 

[Duncan Edwards 2,236]

1 minute ago, Greavsy said:

There is no such thing as pronounced innocent,  you are innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt.  It is the prosecutions role to prove guilt. Its not up to the accused to prove innocence. 

 

Glad you agree. Getting a “not guilty” doesn’t make you innocent of the crime. 👍 

[Greavsy 2,413]

2 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Glad you agree. Getting a “not guilty” doesn’t make you innocent of the crime. 👍 

In the eyes off the law it does.

Doesn't necessarily mean you didn't do it, just possibly not enough evidence to attain a guilty verdict.

Or you had a decent (read expensive) lawyer defending you. 

Every case is different.  

[Duncan Edwards 2,236]

12 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

In the eyes off the law it does.

Doesn't necessarily mean you didn't do it, just possibly not enough evidence to attain a guilty verdict.

Or you had a decent (read expensive) lawyer defending you. 

Every case is different.  

No, in the eyes of the law it doesn’t make you innocent, as you - correctly - contradict in your next paragraph.

Rape is an abhorrent crime and one that is incredibly difficult to prove as in so many cases involve parties known to each other. It becomes a matter of word. That’s why so few cases make it to court. It’s an imperfection of the laws of the land but not one easily rectified. It wouldn’t be right to accept the testimony of the accuser over the accused.

With such a minuscule amount of accusations getting to court, and then only something like 1 in 60 resulting in conviction, unless you have your eyes shut, surely you agree that there are far too many rapists walking the streets? Unless you GENUINELY believe that 59 out of every 60 accused rapists (IGNORING the enormous amount that never even get that far) are being maliciously accused?

Edited December 13, 2021 by Duncan Edwards

[canarydan23 4,060]

8 hours ago, Greavsy said:

For the record, any man (or lady) who is a convicted rapist is deplorable....

And those that get away with it aren't?

Also, for a person who seems to hold such a fundamental belief in the UK justice system, putting "or lady" in brackets rather undermines your position.

A woman cannot be convicted of rape in UK law.

Edited December 13, 2021 by canarydan23

[Greavsy 2,413]

10 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

And those that get away with it aren't?

Also, for a person who seems to hold such a fundamental belief in the UK justice system, putting "or lady" in brackets rather undermines your position.

A woman cannot be convicted of rape in UK law.

No all rapists are deplorable, convicted or not, of course. But just because they have been accused doesnt mean they are guilty by default. 

Added that to be inclusive, apologies if it was wrong terminology. Wasn't intended. 

Also, wasn't aware of that, I thought they could. I'll investigate further when I get time. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

17 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

No all rapists are deplorable, convicted or not, of course. But just because they have been accused doesnt mean they are guilty by default. 

So we're making progress, you now accept that someone can be a rapist without a conviction, contrary to your previously disclosed position?

[Midlands Yellow 3,984]

It’s a deplorable crime and I’ve been accused of it. Thanks to cameras and the fact I wasn’t even at the said place enquiries were concluded in minutes. Other than murder it’s the most shocking crime but unfortunately so hard to prove. 

[Harry53 209]

On 12/12/2021 at 07:43, Midlands Yellow said:

Agreed it not good, would have more respect if the male fans had got their old lad out and waved it at him. 

I could have filmed him scoring and celebrating for my Matchday video but that was the last thing I needed, unless I wanted to pi** off all my YouTube subscribers !!

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

13 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Between 2012 and 2016, Ched Evans satisfied your criteria of what constitutes a rapist

Oh good god, did you have problems keeping up at school as well? 

Between 2012 and 2016 Ched Evans satisified his criteria of what constituted a convicted rapist. 

Doesn't mean Greavsy wants to deny anybody the right of appeal.

The problem with calling people rapists when they haven't been convicted of being a rapist is that they could sue you for libel couldn't they, so its not a very wise thing to do. 

The charges were dropped due to a lack of evidence - I'm supposed to believe some chap on the internet that strong evidence exists, but disbelieve police and prosecutors? No thanks. 

You are one step away from calling for throwing suspected witches into the River Wensum to see if they float.

Edited December 13, 2021 by TeemuVanBasten

[canarydan23 4,060]

33 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I'm supposed to believe some chap on the internet that strong evidence exists, but disbelieve police and prosecutors?

What about the prosecutor in the US who made reference to the existence of these documents you seem almost as desperate to not exist as Ronaldo himself? Or the police who have "determined" to hand documents to the New York Times, prompting Ronaldo's legal team to desperately explore all avenues to prevent their release?

The prosecutors have not pursued the case because the documents Der Spiegel printed the contents of were illegally obtained, judged as a matter exclusively between Ronaldo and his legal team and therefore unable to be used as evidence of a crime. Not because he isn't a rapist. Hell, he forked out the best part of half a million dollars to shut the matter down at the time.

Let's just be honest here, you only believe people or sources that validate your own, flimsily formed opinions. I don't blame you, it's the level you operate at. I don't think you've the cognitive capability to behave any other way.

If you are going to tie yourself in logical knots and make yourself look a bit of a **** in defence of something or someone, don't you think you should look for a topic more worthy than Cristiano Ronaldo?

Oh, and you are of course right about German libel laws. Three years from the end of the year that the claimant became aware of the publication to take action. Given that it was apparent Ronaldo's legal team were aware of Der Spiegel coverage even before it was printed as they failed in an attempt to get an injunction preventing its release, that gives them 17 days and 13 hours with which to instigate proceedings.

Want a little bet on whether that happens?

[ncfcstar 291]

10 hours ago, Greavsy said:

There is no such thing as pronounced innocent,  you are innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt.  It is the prosecutions role to prove guilt. Its not up to the accused to prove innocence. 

 

Not beyond reasonable doubt in the UK, I'm pretty sure the judge isn't allowed to say that.  The have to direct to jury to be 'sure' that the defendant committed the crime in question.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

What about the prosecutor in the US who made reference to the existence of these documents you seem almost as desperate to not exist as Ronaldo himself? Or the police who have "determined" to hand documents to the New York Times, prompting Ronaldo's legal team to desperately explore all avenues to prevent their release?

The prosecutors have not pursued the case because the documents Der Spiegel printed the contents of were illegally obtained, judged as a matter exclusively between Ronaldo and his legal team and therefore unable to be used as evidence of a crime. Not because he isn't a rapist. Hell, he forked out the best part of half a million dollars to shut the matter down at the time.

Let's just be honest here, you only believe people or sources that validate your own, flimsily formed opinions. I don't blame you, it's the level you operate at. I don't think you've the cognitive capability to behave any other way.

If you are going to tie yourself in logical knots and make yourself look a bit of a **** in defence of something or someone, don't you think you should look for a topic more worthy than Cristiano Ronaldo?

Oh, and you are of course right about German libel laws. Three years from the end of the year that the claimant became aware of the publication to take action. Given that it was apparent Ronaldo's legal team were aware of Der Spiegel coverage even before it was printed as they failed in an attempt to get an injunction preventing its release, that gives them 17 days and 13 hours with which to instigate proceedings.

Want a little bet on whether that happens?

Nah you are alright, if its ok with you I'll just stop communicating with an armchair detective and carry on subscribing to the presumption of innocence principle, innocent until proven guilty. It is a legal right which we should value. 

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Nah you are alright, if its ok with you I'll just stop communicating with an armchair detective and carry on subscribing to the presumption of innocence principle, innocent until proven guilty. It is a legal right which we should value. 

Will you actually stop communicating with me this time, or is it just another "I'm blocking you" hissy fit but not actually doing it?

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

Just now, canarydan23 said:

Will you actually stop communicating with me this time, or is it just another "I'm blocking you" hissy fit but not actually doing it?

[canarydan23 4,060]

Just now, TeemuVanBasten said:

Much better. Your post quality increases immeasurably when you use content other people have created. Stick to that, rather than actually typing anything yourself, and people (peple?) might stop thinking you're either an imbecilic weapon or an incel. Or both.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

23 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Much better. Your post quality increases immeasurably when you use content other people have created. Stick to that, rather than actually typing anything yourself, and people (peple?) might stop thinking you're either an imbecilic weapon or an incel. Or both.

If you want to talk about the legal system canarydan23, then perhaps you ought to consider the source of these alleged documents, a short lived website called Football Leaks which tried to be a Wikileaks for football. The source isn't Die Spiegal as you claim, they only claim to have seen what was purported to be a copy of these documents. 

The founder of Football Leaks was arrested in Hungary and extradited to Portugal where he is currently on trial for 147 alleged crimes including numerous charges of attempted blackmail, he is alleged to have been involved in serious crime since 2008 when he was linked to the theft of 300,000 euros from a bank. For all we know one of his attempted blackmail charges could involve Cristiano Ronaldo couldn't it.

That is who you are hanging your hat on.... you are calling one man a rapist, because a career fraudster involved in a serious criminal trial claims a document exists. A document you have never seen, yet alone had tested for authenticity, even die Spiegal don't claim to have seen the original and we both know that could mean don't we.

Die Spiegal don't care because their in house laywers can cite their source in court and say "sorry, we were duped by this criminal", good luck doing that yourself because you don't have in house lawyers and can't claim that Rui Pinto has shown you a document can you.

Like I said, you are a moron, a top tier thicko, happy to spout "whatever" without checking your sources, will be your downfall one day.

Edited December 13, 2021 by TeemuVanBasten

[canarydan23 4,060]

29 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I'll just stop communicating with an armchair detective

How's that working out for you?!

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

How's that working out for you?!

[canarydan23 4,060]

14 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

The founder of Football Leaks was arrested in Hungary and extradited to Portugal where he is currently on trial for 147 alleged crimes including numerous charges of attempted blackmail, he is alleged to have been involved in serious crime since 2008 when he was linked to the theft of 300,000 euros from a bank.

Did you get that from an anecdote then?

Because he's not currently on trial you total drip. Been free since August. Might want to heed your own warnings about libel there, moron.

You should just ignore or block me like you said you would (twice), it's much less humiliating for you. Letting me run rings around you isn't very edifying for either of us if I'm being completely honest.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

9 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Did you get that from an anecdote then?

Because he's not currently on trial you total drip. Been free since August. Might want to heed your own warnings about libel there, moron.

You should just ignore or block me like you said you would (twice), it's much less humiliating for you. Letting me run rings around you isn't very edifying for either of us if I'm being completely honest.

Oh look out, had a desperate google of Rui Pinto did you, rather than admitting you'd f*cked up and didn't have a clue about the source of these alleged documents which may not exist...

... then didn't read properly again, because you never do, like the low calibre dropout you are?

Released 7th August 2020, put on house arrest.

Moved to witness protection on 11th August. 

Trial started 4th September 2020. Awaiting resumption of trial, still in witness protection. 

Absolute melt, having a manic 60 mile per hour google search argument again about things you clearly know nothing about, this is really really embarrassing. 

 

Edited December 13, 2021 by TeemuVanBasten

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Nah you are alright, if its ok with you I'll just stop communicating with an armchair detective and carry on subscribing to the presumption of innocence principle, innocent until proven guilty. It is a legal right which we should value. 

 

39 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

The founder of Football Leaks was arrested in Hungary and extradited to Portugal where he is currently on trial for 147 alleged crimes including numerous charges of attempted blackmail, he is alleged to have been involved in serious crime since 2008 when he was linked to the theft of 300,000 euros from a bank. For all we know one of his attempted blackmail charges could involve Cristiano Ronaldo couldn't it.

Your commitment to subscribing to the presumption of innocent until proven guilty lasted about as long as your pledge to ignore me.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

[canarydan23 4,060]

You're heeding my advice, good boy. This is much more your level.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]