Unbelievable Jeff

I see them everywhere...

She wouldnt be guilty of rape...sexual assault maybe. There is also the reasonable man test so as you were asleep there was obviously no intent on your side.

He's the cun t.

We kind of covered this earlier, but I believe it is based on whoever does the, err, penetrating.

Funny, I was sure you said we should stop this conversation? Of course it's not the same. What I would like to know is where does sexual assault become serious sexual assault? And I assume that if a footballer 'does' a normal sexual assault, that's ok, judging by what's above?

Fairplay, that is awesome. Much love guys. X

Apparently he is linked to the Hebdo killers...

Obviously to a point...

I think that just makes you normal mate.

Another hostage taken in a Kosher Grocery store in Paris...

That's completely untrue. You say that nobody decides to go to church, or to a Mosque etc because they want something else in their life, it has to be under coercion of some kind?

Both ultimately as pointless as the other. And well done Bletch.

Great Christmas tune. Underrated story teller...

This is one of the (many) reasons that rape convictions are so low, as it is difficult to judge as every case is different. The culpability is usually pushed onto the other party, and whether a reasonable man would have said she was in a state to consent. I suppose to a degree it shows intention.

Just in case others didn't!

Good post.

What a nutcase.

It was a genuine question, I genuinely don't know what his reasons for it were.

How would Hitlers persecution of the Jews be classed? Essentially it was to remove a religion, but based on what, political ideas, race or religion?

Classy!

But my point is the ambiguity means this is something the FA should push onto the clubs - it's not feasible and every single case will be very difficult to judge. Is someone who drink drove and injured someone more worthy of playing football than one who groped a girl in a bar, or one that sold drugs, or one that downloaded child porn, and so on and so forth. It will become far too messy for a governing body to intervene.

At the moment it's nothing? If you want the FA to administer and judge who can and cannot play then you need to draw that line otherwise there would be too much ambiguity and it would be too difficult. You would do it based on length of incarceration or (if over 2 years at her majesty's), or guilty of any criminal offence. Football clubs should take on the responsibility of this, like normal businesses do.

And that's the whole point, either it's all or nothing as there is too much ambiguity. Glad you've finally got it.

So normal sexual assault is alright then? Good to know. So how would you quantify it. If he rapes her, no, if he just touches her fanny, then that's fine? I am very interested as to how you're going to make this work.

Duplicate