Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Brendan's Roger's lad and his scummy mates


Murphman

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why isn't she accusing them of rape? Something not quite adding up there, she was out cold and they took a few pictures? She was so bladderered she couldn't remember the pictures. How does she know who undid her dress etc?

 

I'd have thought the defence brief will have a field day with that. Not saying it's right, but am not sure she's that reliable going off that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why isn't she accusing them of rape? Something not quite adding up there, she was out cold and they took a few pictures? She was so bladderered she couldn't remember the pictures. How does she know who undid her dress etc?

 

I'd have thought the defence brief will have a field day with that. Not saying it's right, but am not sure she's that reliable going off that.

 

 

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why isn't she accusing them of rape? Something not quite adding up there, she was out cold and they took a few pictures? She was so bladderered she couldn't remember the pictures. How does she know who undid her dress etc?

 

I'd have thought the defence brief will have a field day with that. Not saying it's right, but am not sure she's that reliable going off that.

 

That's been claimed so you'd think there's evidence and the photographs are in the police's posession, the sex aside and the circumstances being unproven, taking photo's of a pissed naked unconcious girl is pretty disgusting behaviour on it's own.

Edited by Murphman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why isn't she accusing them of rape? Something not quite adding up there, she was out cold and they took a few pictures? She was so bladderered she couldn't remember the pictures. How does she know who undid her dress etc?

'kinell. They may well be innocent but f*** me that is one sh*tty post.

 

Anyway, Anton Rodgers... when did this happen... sometime between 'May to December'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fcking hell calm down you lot, you're carrying on like a bunch of coppers. I realise that might not have come across as the most compassionate post, and yes taking photos while she was out cold was a s***ty thing to do.

 

The rest of it though could all well be tabloid fantasy. They've only reported the prosecution case there, none of the defence. They've all entered a plea of 'not guilty' to sexual assault, which is what they are up for is it not? There's two sides to that, and I'm not going to wade in with the 'footballers are total scum' line til I've heard it.

 

My point is (and I admit, probably didn't make it very well), the law deals in cold hard facts. Apart from a few pictures of lads with their lash out, there's not much to go on there.

 

'kinell. They may well be innocent but f*** me that is one sh*tty post.

 

Tell you what, if it was you being accused and you were innocent, you'd want those questions asked.

 

f***ing hell like are we supposed to try and place responsibility on her because one of those involved is the son of our manager?

 

Nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed the Wool, meet Mr Baton.

 

:unsure::macca3:

 

Never mind, rather than look at the evidence lets go with the Mail, becuase they never tell lies, exaggerate or sensationsalise things, especially involving sex or footballers. Stick them on the register for the rest of their lives.

Edited by Ed the Wool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

who's going with the Mail. If they've a good defence it'll come out I don't know we have to preempt it. You're asking about why they aren't being charged with rape when there's no suggestion they raped her

 

Had only given it a cursory glance at that point. And that wasn't your point at all. But carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had only given it a cursory glance at that point. And that wasn't your point at all. But carry on.

 

What do you think my point was?

 

I'd consider me thinking there was an attempt to place responsibility on her and the preempting of a defence to be pretty consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:unsure::macca3:

 

Never mind, rather than look at the evidence lets go with the Mail, becuase they never tell lies, exaggerate or sensationsalise things, especially involving sex or footballers. Stick them on the register for the rest of their lives.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-21146344

It's here as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Tell you what, if it was you being accused and you were innocent, you'd want those questions asked.

Oh I see - it's not a proper sexual assault. Or only a bit of one. That's fine then - carry on lads, top bantz.

 

My problem with your post, other than the above and that you haven't specified the exact number of photographs that is allowed to be taken of a vulnerable person before it becomes a problem, is that regardless of innocence or guilt - or even this case as a whole - is that you infer total recollection is necessary before a conviction can be made (or even before an accusation can be made) and seem to completely miss the whole concept of group culpability; if the lads' defence is basically "well, do you even know which one of us took your clothes off" then they're fecked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell you what, if it was you being accused and you were innocent, you'd want those questions asked.

Tell you what, if it was your daughter Id bet youdve have a bit more of an issue with "a few pictures" being taken of your daughter by a group of lads.

 

fair enough if she was a willing participant and that....but if she was that drunk....c**** game that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why isn't she accusing them of rape? Something not quite adding up there, she was out cold and they took a few pictures? She was so bladderered she couldn't remember the pictures. How does she know who undid her dress etc?

 

I'd have thought the defence brief will have a field day with that. Not saying it's right, but am not sure she's that reliable going off that.

 

That is a really ignorant, stupid thing to say.

Edited by Snookie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I see - it's not a proper sexual assault. Or only a bit of one. That's fine then - carry on lads, top bantz.

 

My problem with your post, other than the above and that you haven't specified the exact number of photographs that is allowed to be taken of a vulnerable person before it becomes a problem, is that regardless of innocence or guilt - or even this case as a whole - is that you infer total recollection is necessary before a conviction can be made (or even before an accusation can be made) and seem to completely miss the whole concept of group culpability; if the lads' defence is basically "well, do you even know which one of us took your clothes off" then they're fecked.

 

The definition of sexual assault includes rape, it's not a lesser offence.

 

She might have gone back to the room with four of them after pestering them all night bladdered, fooled around a bit with one or more of them, passed out. They took a few photos while she was still awake and then after because she's been game for all sorts until that point. She's woken up, felt a bit ashamed of herself. Gone home. 6 months later she's reported it. I'm not saying what they did is right, but there's a potential whole different context.

 

There's two sides. All I did was point out there might be another one while a few of you got the hoods and the burning torches ready.

 

Tell you what, if it was your daughter Id bet youdve have a bit more of an issue with "a few pictures" being taken of your daughter by a group of lads.

 

fair enough if she was a willing participant and that....but if she was that drunk....c**** game that.

 

Not disagreeing with that at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always find it weird when people instinctively sympathise with the blokes in these stories.

 

This bit of the BBC report is particularly telling:

Mr Barker told the jury some of the defendants had accepted "something inappropriate did happen, but point the finger at someone else, denying their own involvement".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...