eejay the dj 31,964 Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 7 hours ago, Jimbeamjunior said: given the amount of times ive woken up in the morning with a good 4 inches of rager, i highly doubt that if i was plastered out my tits and some bird started going tonto on my cock like it was an ice lolly, that my cock would say "nah no the night hen, the big mans a bit pissed" honestly going over a speed bump gives me a semi, so i doubt being pissed would impede anything Subtle as a brush Jim but many men can relate to that and being in that position The bit about the speed bump makes me worried about you ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
born a blue nose 90,717 Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 av been took advantage of when i was sleepin/ko'd drunk once woke up half way through my ex of 5 years on top with my cock up her arse. i hadn't even had anal of the bitch before then and i think it was about 2 years into the relationship. I think i only ever rattled her arse a couple of times after that too, fuck knows why she wanted to do it while a was asleep, rapey bitch. would I fuck call it a crime either lol (obviously the other way round would be though) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WadeWilson 4,670 Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Some of the dregs in this thread could do with some serious education. Waking up steaming while in the process of being spitroasted by two 'bears' would perhaps do the trick. For me, it's a simple matter of penetration / invasion... I don't even like letting the gasman into my hall. In reality, there is no consensual sex or non-consensual sex. As George Carlin famously described, it's nothing but the softening of language. There is only sex... and the other thing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearson83 1,059 Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 David badwillie it seems Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDak 786 Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Just to go against the flow of the tide here. How about we word it not that Goodwillie is innocent and never raped the lassie but that, instead, there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict him in a criminal trial. Just because he was found not guilty or that it didn't go to trial doesn't mean he didn't do it. The fact that he unsuccessfully defended himself in a Civil trial means that against the balance of probabilities he did do it. I think that should tell you all something. Maybe instead of this lassie being a wee midden crying rape it's actually that Goodwillie is a dirty, rapist bastard who got away with it coz there wasn't sufficient proof to put it beyond any doubt that he had sex with her without her consent. So the argument is she's got out her nut and he's had sex with her - but was it consensual? Without any traces of violence it's almost impossible to prove beyond any doubt that she never consented but on a balance of probabilities someone whose eyes were rolling in her head and can't hold herself up probably couldn't consent to having sex with 2 guys. I feel sorry for guys who get accused of rape coz some lassie has been drunk and against her better judgement gone home with him and then regretted it in the morning. But there's nae excuse for taking advantage of a girl who's absolutely steaming and can hardly control herself. Where's even the enjoyment in that? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LochendBilly 8,410 Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 One of the children I foster, came from parents who have been proved to harm a child in a civil case as the PF for whatever reason, decided not to go through with a criminal trial. The parents have previous for it too(More than once but not with this child), so along with social services we took them to civil case and the case was proven against them via balance of probability. Had this option not been available, the wean would be with them and could have been in danger. I am glad we had this route and the wean is now safe and loved and we have him until adulthood. Been a long, hard road but well worth it to see a wee bear develop. Our law has its faults as we all know but I think it's a pretty fine and mostly fair legal system we have. Just my opinion of course. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingKirk 25,603 Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 what if she consented then fell asleep whilst shagging? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EatDolphins 5,355 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Are you even obliged to attend a civil court? And are you under obligation to adhere to its findings? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDak 786 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 18 minutes ago, EatDolphins said: Are you even obliged to attend a civil court? And are you under obligation to adhere to its findings? Aye. Otherwise you'll get done for contempt of court which then ends up a criminal matter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EatDolphins 5,355 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 17 minutes ago, BigDak said: Aye. Otherwise you'll get done for contempt of court which then ends up a criminal matter. So what's the point in separating the 2? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
folkestoneger 8,084 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 On 22/01/2017 at 9:31 AM, BigDak said: Just to go against the flow of the tide here. How about we word it not that Goodwillie is innocent and never raped the lassie but that, instead, there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict him in a criminal trial. Just because he was found not guilty or that it didn't go to trial doesn't mean he didn't do it. If you use that reasoning then nobody that gets tried for anything and found not guilty is innocent Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz52 11,837 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 The appeal will be on Judge Rinder. They'll need to pay for the munchie box and taxi home that night Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Nosed Babe 20,527 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Robertson has just retired from football. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 On 22/01/2017 at 9:31 AM, BigDak said: Just to go against the flow of the tide here. How about we word it not that Goodwillie is innocent and never raped the lassie but that, instead, there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict him in a criminal trial. Just because he was found not guilty or that it didn't go to trial doesn't mean he didn't do it. The fact that he unsuccessfully defended himself in a Civil trial means that against the balance of probabilities he did do it. I think that should tell you all something. Maybe instead of this lassie being a wee midden crying rape it's actually that Goodwillie is a dirty, rapist bastard who got away with it coz there wasn't sufficient proof to put it beyond any doubt that he had sex with her without her consent. So the argument is she's got out her nut and he's had sex with her - but was it consensual? Without any traces of violence it's almost impossible to prove beyond any doubt that she never consented but on a balance of probabilities someone whose eyes were rolling in her head and can't hold herself up probably couldn't consent to having sex with 2 guys. I feel sorry for guys who get accused of rape coz some lassie has been drunk and against her better judgement gone home with him and then regretted it in the morning. But there's nae excuse for taking advantage of a girl who's absolutely steaming and can hardly control herself. Where's even the enjoyment in that? That's the whole basis of a criminal court system in the first place, it isn't actually about innocence or guilt it's about whether the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, rightly so as well because jailing someone or even executing them in places where there's still the death penalty based on probabilities would be very wrong It's irrelevant whether it gets worded as innocence or not Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDak 786 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 23 hours ago, EatDolphins said: So what's the point in separating the 2? Because the criminal ones are brought at the behest of the Crown through the PF and result in a criminal record and the civil ones are instigated by private individuals (normally for things like divorces, personal injury or contract disputes) and don't end up with the defender getting a criminal record, as long as he/she abides by the ruling. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDak 786 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 On 23/01/2017 at 11:46 AM, folkestoneger said: If you use that reasoning then nobody that gets tried for anything and found not guilty is innocent I see what you're saying and on the face of it that looks like what I've said, but it's not. What I'm saying is that morally there's a difference between being found not guilty because the evidence points towards you not being the culprit and being found not guilty just because there's no enough evidence to prove it. You can't say that you believe everyone who gets found not guilty in court is actually innocent? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
folkestoneger 8,084 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 1 hour ago, BigDak said: I see what you're saying and on the face of it that looks like what I've said, but it's not. What I'm saying is that morally there's a difference between being found not guilty because the evidence points towards you not being the culprit and being found not guilty just because there's no enough evidence to prove it. You can't say that you believe everyone who gets found not guilty in court is actually innocent? 1 hour ago, BigDak said: I see what you're saying and on the face of it that looks like what I've said, but it's not. What I'm saying is that morally there's a difference between being found not guilty because the evidence points towards you not being the culprit and being found not guilty just because there's no enough evidence to prove it. You can't say that you believe everyone who gets found not guilty in court is actually innocent? I think 90% of people who go to court are guilty as fuck. The amount of cases that get dropped before then is a shocker. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
folkestoneger 8,084 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 1 hour ago, BigDak said: I see what you're saying and on the face of it that looks like what I've said, but it's not. What I'm saying is that morally there's a difference between being found not guilty because the evidence points towards you not being the culprit and being found not guilty just because there's no enough evidence to prove it. You can't say that you believe everyone who gets found not guilty in court is actually innocent? 1 hour ago, BigDak said: I see what you're saying and on the face of it that looks like what I've said, but it's not. What I'm saying is that morally there's a difference between being found not guilty because the evidence points towards you not being the culprit and being found not guilty just because there's no enough evidence to prove it. You can't say that you believe everyone who gets found not guilty in court is actually innocent? I think 90% of people who go to court are guilty as fuck. The amount of cases that get dropped before then is a shocker. However in these type of cases where it is all about how drunk the woman is without any thought that the mans judgement may also be impaired I believe we should be very very careful about convicting with so little evidence to go on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDak 786 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 7 hours ago, folkestoneger said: I think 90% of people who go to court are guilty as fuck. The amount of cases that get dropped before then is a shocker. However in these type of cases where it is all about how drunk the woman is without any thought that the mans judgement may also be impaired I believe we should be very very careful about convicting with so little evidence to go on. I agree there are definitely grey areas and it's certainly a very thin line between a woman being steaming' but still being responsible for herself and a woman being steaming and not knowing if it was Tom, Dick or Harry (or all three!) who was riding her. However, I'll admit it's been some time since I've been out on the ran dan, getting steamin' and pulling, but I like to think that no matter how drunk I was I would have realised it was wrong to have sex with a bird with her eyes rolling around in her head and who can hardly talk. As I said before, where's even the fun in having sex with a girl who's in that state? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Nosed Babe 20,527 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 He is no longer playing football. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Soprano 13,964 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 40 minutes ago, Blue Nosed Babe said: He is no longer playing football. Goodwillie as well now? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Nosed Babe 20,527 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 18 minutes ago, Mr Soprano said: Goodwillie as well now? Yes Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeWallaceRFC 3,920 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 He's only quit the club to focus on appealing, he's not retired. Although I doubt many clubs will be interested if he does decide to look for another one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 On 24/01/2017 at 10:14 PM, BigDak said: I see what you're saying and on the face of it that looks like what I've said, but it's not. What I'm saying is that morally there's a difference between being found not guilty because the evidence points towards you not being the culprit and being found not guilty just because there's no enough evidence to prove it. You can't say that you believe everyone who gets found not guilty in court is actually innocent? Again it amounts to the same thing, and if there's no circumstantial evidence at all then it likely won't go to court in the first place Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDak 786 Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 On 26/01/2017 at 2:43 PM, simplythebest said: Again it amounts to the same thing, and if there's no circumstantial evidence at all then it likely won't go to court in the first place That's true but that's why I said "morally", although maybe "theoretically" would've been more appropriate. However ,there are often cases brought to court which don't have the most solid evidence simply due to the private nature of the crime. Don't get me wrong I'm no on some one man mission to beat down my fellow man - and I actually think there's a good argument for anonymity for the accused in some cases - but I just think that the circumstances surrounding the Goodwillie case dictate that folk shouldn't be too quick to refer to his "innocence". Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.