comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 22 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by Luke, I Am Your Admin 3 (U1250)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
Jesus christ, Don, Stretty and Anthony
Really disturbing characters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate I have just seen you insulting someone’s mum on abortion on this thread. Come on, not sure Dazza stoops anywhere near those low levels of “disturbing”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a response to an insult. And I did not insult his mom, clearly she was happy with my request.
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
Stretty should be aborted, not a weird request.
As for them 3 defending Greenwood and already have decided the girlfriend will go back to him because of money. AND convinced that there is no better package than Greenwood as a partner is downright the train of thought of psychopaths.
No one has defended anyone.
Saying they will more than likely get back together is not a defence of his actions whatsoever.
You really need to work on your English language skills, they are very, very poor.
comment by Luke, I Am Your Admin 3 (U1250)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 22 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by Luke, I Am Your Admin 3 (U1250)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
Jesus christ, Don, Stretty and Anthony
Really disturbing characters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate I have just seen you insulting someone’s mum on abortion on this thread. Come on, not sure Dazza stoops anywhere near those low levels of “disturbing”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a response to an insult. And I did not insult his mom, clearly she was happy with my request.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This does not even remotely make sense.
Pigeon English at best.
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 49 minutes ago
I think if this was too go to trial it would probably be record with how quick a verdict is returned, just my tuppence worth. However I do respect don's defence of due process, that is important, and it should be rigorously defended so people saying he is just doing it to go against the grain is just another case on this site of people trying to scream down someone else when their view does not align with the majority.
Funnily enough, he is probably the only one that would be cleared for jury duty on this entire thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See, psychopath defending a psychopath
I don't think you know what psychopath means, which given your difficulty with English is not a surprise.
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 1 minute ago
No one has defended anyone.
Saying they will more than likely get back together is not a defence of his actions whatsoever.
You really need to work on your English language skills, they are very, very poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You need to brush up on your English because its not going too trial.
And I never said that them going back together was a defence of Greenwood. The two are separate.
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 24 seconds ago
I don't think you know what psychopath means, which given your difficulty with English is not a surprise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychopaths don't see themselves as psychopaths, so that confirms it then that you are one.
comment by Luke, I Am Your Admin 3 (U1250)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 24 seconds ago
I don't think you know what psychopath means, which given your difficulty with English is not a surprise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychopaths don't see themselves as psychopaths, so that confirms it then that you are one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Champ, after your recent nervous breakdown the only one with any mental instability here is you.
comment by Luke, I Am Your Admin 3 (U1250)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 1 minute ago
No one has defended anyone.
Saying they will more than likely get back together is not a defence of his actions whatsoever.
You really need to work on your English language skills, they are very, very poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You need to brush up on your English because its not going too trial.
============================
Yet again another WTF comment. Not relevant to anything that has been said, also potentially not true, we do not know if it is going to trial. What a bizarre thing to say.
And I never said that them going back together was a defence of Greenwood. The two are separate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well seeing as no one has defended him, I'll have to ask what the feck are you on about?
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 8 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 3 hours, 28 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 5 hours, 13 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 26 minutes ago
Fingers crossed we know soon so we can put Elvis and Sally out of their misery.
They refuse to even consider he isnt the monster they have made him out to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another lie. I have said repeatedly that there is a chance that it was a s£x game. I think that chance is very small due to several reasons, which we have discussed at length. No point going over them all again.
I also believe that, irrespective of whether he is charged or found guilty, he has likely played his last game for United. The audio is just too damaging. If Harriet comes out and says it was a s£x game then it is still possible, but otherwise I don't see it happening. And the way things have progressed, it looks more likely she has given a statement against him.
I am quite happy where I stand on the matter, which is aligned with the vast majority of posters on the board. You on the other hand are being viewed as a bit of a wrong-un, looking for excuses and what -ifs everywhere. The investigation will run its course and we will have our answer eventually. But at this time, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the audio wasn't what it sounds like. And the video of her injuries only serves to support the fact that she has been in an abusive relationship. We shall see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't make me a wrong un for considering the fact he might be innocent of what he has been accused of.
If he is charged and found guilty then yeah, punish him to he full extent of the law, but until then, lets cut all the judgement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This from the man that interpreted the audio as Harriet giving consent at the end. Yeh, lets hold off judgement.
And that's what also makes you a wrong un. Not for considering the fact that he might somehow be innocent, which I have said all along could be the case. The fact you heard that audio and interpreted it as a girl giving consent to have s£x. Disturbing. As many other posters have pointed out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said the consent could be non verbal you moron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of 6th sense do you possess that enables you to see audio files and thus allow you to interpret the audio in such a way?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats why i said could. Jesus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No o you didn't.. We've already done this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes i did. Go look. Il await the apology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what you said:
My interpretation of the audio.
He tries to instigate s3x. She is upset with him over something (possibly him being unfaithful). He crudely pursues her for s3x. She is initially reluctant, but eventually, for want of a better word, complies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is thr bit about non verbal consent you moron?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not there. You added that but later didn't you? Either way, tell me more about this 6th sense that allowed you to see the non verbal consent through an audio file.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consent can be non verbal. This was what i said. You omit this from your post because you k ow it nakes sense and screws your argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don, you said that you interpretation of the audio was the at the end she "complies".
No one has said that consent can't be non-verbal. No idea why you keep going on about this.
My issue is that you listened to that audio and the last thing we hear is Mason threaten her. And your interpretation was that at the end she "complies" to have s£x. So, unless you have this magical ability to see what is happening in audio files, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that she agreed to have s£x with him. Noe. Which makes your interpretation of the audio very creepy and extremely disturbing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We dont even know if they had 5ex, let alone if it was consensual or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No we don't. But this is you just moving the goalposts to try and deflect from what you have said.
Please explain to us all exactly what from the audio led you to interpret it as Harriet giving consent at the end. Either verbally or non verbally. Because all I can hear is a scared young girl being coerced/forced into doing something that she doesn't want to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
What you hear is him making demands and her saying no.
What is the offence committed?
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially what I meant is that she may have gone on to consent, comply, concede.
If i didnt convey that, then thats my mistake.
The point stands that we do not know how they normally converse with each other when discussing 5ex, what if anything the threat was, if they had 5ex on this occasion, or even if the audio forms part of the alleged offences.
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 8 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 3 hours, 28 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 5 hours, 13 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 26 minutes ago
Fingers crossed we know soon so we can put Elvis and Sally out of their misery.
They refuse to even consider he isnt the monster they have made him out to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another lie. I have said repeatedly that there is a chance that it was a s£x game. I think that chance is very small due to several reasons, which we have discussed at length. No point going over them all again.
I also believe that, irrespective of whether he is charged or found guilty, he has likely played his last game for United. The audio is just too damaging. If Harriet comes out and says it was a s£x game then it is still possible, but otherwise I don't see it happening. And the way things have progressed, it looks more likely she has given a statement against him.
I am quite happy where I stand on the matter, which is aligned with the vast majority of posters on the board. You on the other hand are being viewed as a bit of a wrong-un, looking for excuses and what -ifs everywhere. The investigation will run its course and we will have our answer eventually. But at this time, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the audio wasn't what it sounds like. And the video of her injuries only serves to support the fact that she has been in an abusive relationship. We shall see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't make me a wrong un for considering the fact he might be innocent of what he has been accused of.
If he is charged and found guilty then yeah, punish him to he full extent of the law, but until then, lets cut all the judgement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This from the man that interpreted the audio as Harriet giving consent at the end. Yeh, lets hold off judgement.
And that's what also makes you a wrong un. Not for considering the fact that he might somehow be innocent, which I have said all along could be the case. The fact you heard that audio and interpreted it as a girl giving consent to have s£x. Disturbing. As many other posters have pointed out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said the consent could be non verbal you moron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of 6th sense do you possess that enables you to see audio files and thus allow you to interpret the audio in such a way?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats why i said could. Jesus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No o you didn't.. We've already done this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes i did. Go look. Il await the apology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what you said:
My interpretation of the audio.
He tries to instigate s3x. She is upset with him over something (possibly him being unfaithful). He crudely pursues her for s3x. She is initially reluctant, but eventually, for want of a better word, complies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is thr bit about non verbal consent you moron?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not there. You added that but later didn't you? Either way, tell me more about this 6th sense that allowed you to see the non verbal consent through an audio file.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consent can be non verbal. This was what i said. You omit this from your post because you k ow it nakes sense and screws your argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don, you said that you interpretation of the audio was the at the end she "complies".
No one has said that consent can't be non-verbal. No idea why you keep going on about this.
My issue is that you listened to that audio and the last thing we hear is Mason threaten her. And your interpretation was that at the end she "complies" to have s£x. So, unless you have this magical ability to see what is happening in audio files, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that she agreed to have s£x with him. Noe. Which makes your interpretation of the audio very creepy and extremely disturbing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We dont even know if they had 5ex, let alone if it was consensual or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No we don't. But this is you just moving the goalposts to try and deflect from what you have said.
Please explain to us all exactly what from the audio led you to interpret it as Harriet giving consent at the end. Either verbally or non verbally. Because all I can hear is a scared young girl being coerced/forced into doing something that she doesn't want to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
What you hear is him making demands and her saying no.
What is the offence committed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't said that an offence was committed. Although you are downplaying the obvious physical contact that was going on, which Greenwood himself confirms by telling her to stop pushing him. Stop trying to deflect and answer the question.
Why specifically from the audio led to interpret it as her giving consent at the end. Either verbally or non verbally.
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially what I meant is that she may have gone on to consent, comply, concede.
If i didnt convey that, then thats my mistake.
The point stands that we do not know how they normally converse with each other when discussing 5ex, what if anything the threat was, if they had 5ex on this occasion, or even if the audio forms part of the alleged offences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic attempt to wriggle out of what you said. We've discussed this at length and you knew what you had said and tried to back it up previously. Now it is making you uncomfortable because you don't like how your are being perceived on the forum, it is suddenly all a mistake? There is nothing whatsoever in the audio to suggest that she consented to anything.
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially what I meant is that she may have gone on to consent, comply, concede.
If i didnt convey that, then thats my mistake.
The point stands that we do not know how they normally converse with each other when discussing 5ex, what if anything the threat was, if they had 5ex on this occasion, or even if the audio forms part of the alleged offences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic attempt to wriggle out of what you said. We've discussed this at length and you knew what you had said and tried to back it up previously. Now it is making you uncomfortable because you don't like how your are being perceived on the forum, it is suddenly all a mistake? There is nothing whatsoever in the audio to suggest that she consented to anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'you are downplaying the obvious physical contact that was going on'
What contact was going on and what kind of 6th sense do you possess that enables you to see audio files and thus allow you to interpret the audio in such a way?
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially what I meant is that she may have gone on to consent, comply, concede.
If i didnt convey that, then thats my mistake.
The point stands that we do not know how they normally converse with each other when discussing 5ex, what if anything the threat was, if they had 5ex on this occasion, or even if the audio forms part of the alleged offences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic attempt to wriggle out of what you said. We've discussed this at length and you knew what you had said and tried to back it up previously. Now it is making you uncomfortable because you don't like how your are being perceived on the forum, it is suddenly all a mistake? There is nothing whatsoever in the audio to suggest that she consented to anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. I don't care 1 jot what people think of me. Im just saying what i meant.
where's gold member gotten off too?
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially what I meant is that she may have gone on to consent, comply, concede.
If i didnt convey that, then thats my mistake.
The point stands that we do not know how they normally converse with each other when discussing 5ex, what if anything the threat was, if they had 5ex on this occasion, or even if the audio forms part of the alleged offences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic attempt to wriggle out of what you said. We've discussed this at length and you knew what you had said and tried to back it up previously. Now it is making you uncomfortable because you don't like how your are being perceived on the forum, it is suddenly all a mistake? There is nothing whatsoever in the audio to suggest that she consented to anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'you are downplaying the obvious physical contact that was going on'
What contact was going on and what kind of 6th sense do you possess that enables you to see audio files and thus allow you to interpret the audio in such a way?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't need a 6th sense to hear Mason telling her to stop pushing him or to hear the struggle as he tells het to get her legs up. And I think she also tells him to stop putting his deck there, or similar?
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially what I meant is that she may have gone on to consent, comply, concede.
If i didnt convey that, then thats my mistake.
The point stands that we do not know how they normally converse with each other when discussing 5ex, what if anything the threat was, if they had 5ex on this occasion, or even if the audio forms part of the alleged offences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic attempt to wriggle out of what you said. We've discussed this at length and you knew what you had said and tried to back it up previously. Now it is making you uncomfortable because you don't like how your are being perceived on the forum, it is suddenly all a mistake? There is nothing whatsoever in the audio to suggest that she consented to anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. I don't care 1 jot what people think of me. Im just saying what i meant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You care so little that you threatened to get me banned you little wimp .
You dont think an offence was committed, so what are you suggesting all of this contact amounts to?
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially what I meant is that she may have gone on to consent, comply, concede.
If i didnt convey that, then thats my mistake.
The point stands that we do not know how they normally converse with each other when discussing 5ex, what if anything the threat was, if they had 5ex on this occasion, or even if the audio forms part of the alleged offences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic attempt to wriggle out of what you said. We've discussed this at length and you knew what you had said and tried to back it up previously. Now it is making you uncomfortable because you don't like how your are being perceived on the forum, it is suddenly all a mistake? There is nothing whatsoever in the audio to suggest that she consented to anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. I don't care 1 jot what people think of me. Im just saying what i meant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You care so little that you threatened to get me banned you little wimp .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
These are the site rules. Its me being threatened with banning for absolutely no reason, so only fair it applies to everyone else.
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 11 minutes ago
You dont think an offence was committed, so what are you suggesting all of this contact amounts to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say I didn't think that an offence was committed. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said from the off that the remainder of the audio will be very important in determining whether an offence has been committed. Hopefully the police have access to the full recording so that they are able to ensure justice is done either way.
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially what I meant is that she may have gone on to consent, comply, concede.
If i didnt convey that, then thats my mistake.
The point stands that we do not know how they normally converse with each other when discussing 5ex, what if anything the threat was, if they had 5ex on this occasion, or even if the audio forms part of the alleged offences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic attempt to wriggle out of what you said. We've discussed this at length and you knew what you had said and tried to back it up previously. Now it is making you uncomfortable because you don't like how your are being perceived on the forum, it is suddenly all a mistake? There is nothing whatsoever in the audio to suggest that she consented to anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. I don't care 1 jot what people think of me. Im just saying what i meant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You care so little that you threatened to get me banned you little wimp .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
These are the site rules. Its me being threatened with banning for absolutely no reason, so only fair it applies to everyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea what you are talking about. What are the site rules? Who is threatening you with banning?
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 11 minutes ago
You dont think an offence was committed, so what are you suggesting all of this contact amounts to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say I didn't think that an offence was committed. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said from the off that the remainder of the audio will be very important in determining whether an offence has been committed. Hopefully the police have access to the full recording so that they are able to ensure justice is done either way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, based on what we heard, what offence do you think the contact constitues?
Sign in if you want to comment
Mason Greenwood
Page 14 of 15
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 22 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by Luke, I Am Your Admin 3 (U1250)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
Jesus christ, Don, Stretty and Anthony
Really disturbing characters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate I have just seen you insulting someone’s mum on abortion on this thread. Come on, not sure Dazza stoops anywhere near those low levels of “disturbing”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a response to an insult. And I did not insult his mom, clearly she was happy with my request.
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
posted on 22/4/22
Stretty should be aborted, not a weird request.
As for them 3 defending Greenwood and already have decided the girlfriend will go back to him because of money. AND convinced that there is no better package than Greenwood as a partner is downright the train of thought of psychopaths.
posted on 22/4/22
No one has defended anyone.
Saying they will more than likely get back together is not a defence of his actions whatsoever.
You really need to work on your English language skills, they are very, very poor.
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Luke, I Am Your Admin 3 (U1250)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 22 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by Luke, I Am Your Admin 3 (U1250)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
Jesus christ, Don, Stretty and Anthony
Really disturbing characters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate I have just seen you insulting someone’s mum on abortion on this thread. Come on, not sure Dazza stoops anywhere near those low levels of “disturbing”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a response to an insult. And I did not insult his mom, clearly she was happy with my request.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This does not even remotely make sense.
Pigeon English at best.
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 49 minutes ago
I think if this was too go to trial it would probably be record with how quick a verdict is returned, just my tuppence worth. However I do respect don's defence of due process, that is important, and it should be rigorously defended so people saying he is just doing it to go against the grain is just another case on this site of people trying to scream down someone else when their view does not align with the majority.
Funnily enough, he is probably the only one that would be cleared for jury duty on this entire thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See, psychopath defending a psychopath
posted on 22/4/22
I don't think you know what psychopath means, which given your difficulty with English is not a surprise.
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 1 minute ago
No one has defended anyone.
Saying they will more than likely get back together is not a defence of his actions whatsoever.
You really need to work on your English language skills, they are very, very poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You need to brush up on your English because its not going too trial.
And I never said that them going back together was a defence of Greenwood. The two are separate.
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 24 seconds ago
I don't think you know what psychopath means, which given your difficulty with English is not a surprise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychopaths don't see themselves as psychopaths, so that confirms it then that you are one.
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Luke, I Am Your Admin 3 (U1250)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 24 seconds ago
I don't think you know what psychopath means, which given your difficulty with English is not a surprise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychopaths don't see themselves as psychopaths, so that confirms it then that you are one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Champ, after your recent nervous breakdown the only one with any mental instability here is you.
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Luke, I Am Your Admin 3 (U1250)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 1 minute ago
No one has defended anyone.
Saying they will more than likely get back together is not a defence of his actions whatsoever.
You really need to work on your English language skills, they are very, very poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You need to brush up on your English because its not going too trial.
============================
Yet again another WTF comment. Not relevant to anything that has been said, also potentially not true, we do not know if it is going to trial. What a bizarre thing to say.
And I never said that them going back together was a defence of Greenwood. The two are separate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well seeing as no one has defended him, I'll have to ask what the feck are you on about?
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 8 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 3 hours, 28 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 5 hours, 13 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 26 minutes ago
Fingers crossed we know soon so we can put Elvis and Sally out of their misery.
They refuse to even consider he isnt the monster they have made him out to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another lie. I have said repeatedly that there is a chance that it was a s£x game. I think that chance is very small due to several reasons, which we have discussed at length. No point going over them all again.
I also believe that, irrespective of whether he is charged or found guilty, he has likely played his last game for United. The audio is just too damaging. If Harriet comes out and says it was a s£x game then it is still possible, but otherwise I don't see it happening. And the way things have progressed, it looks more likely she has given a statement against him.
I am quite happy where I stand on the matter, which is aligned with the vast majority of posters on the board. You on the other hand are being viewed as a bit of a wrong-un, looking for excuses and what -ifs everywhere. The investigation will run its course and we will have our answer eventually. But at this time, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the audio wasn't what it sounds like. And the video of her injuries only serves to support the fact that she has been in an abusive relationship. We shall see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't make me a wrong un for considering the fact he might be innocent of what he has been accused of.
If he is charged and found guilty then yeah, punish him to he full extent of the law, but until then, lets cut all the judgement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This from the man that interpreted the audio as Harriet giving consent at the end. Yeh, lets hold off judgement.
And that's what also makes you a wrong un. Not for considering the fact that he might somehow be innocent, which I have said all along could be the case. The fact you heard that audio and interpreted it as a girl giving consent to have s£x. Disturbing. As many other posters have pointed out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said the consent could be non verbal you moron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of 6th sense do you possess that enables you to see audio files and thus allow you to interpret the audio in such a way?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats why i said could. Jesus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No o you didn't.. We've already done this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes i did. Go look. Il await the apology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what you said:
My interpretation of the audio.
He tries to instigate s3x. She is upset with him over something (possibly him being unfaithful). He crudely pursues her for s3x. She is initially reluctant, but eventually, for want of a better word, complies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is thr bit about non verbal consent you moron?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not there. You added that but later didn't you? Either way, tell me more about this 6th sense that allowed you to see the non verbal consent through an audio file.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consent can be non verbal. This was what i said. You omit this from your post because you k ow it nakes sense and screws your argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don, you said that you interpretation of the audio was the at the end she "complies".
No one has said that consent can't be non-verbal. No idea why you keep going on about this.
My issue is that you listened to that audio and the last thing we hear is Mason threaten her. And your interpretation was that at the end she "complies" to have s£x. So, unless you have this magical ability to see what is happening in audio files, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that she agreed to have s£x with him. Noe. Which makes your interpretation of the audio very creepy and extremely disturbing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We dont even know if they had 5ex, let alone if it was consensual or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No we don't. But this is you just moving the goalposts to try and deflect from what you have said.
Please explain to us all exactly what from the audio led you to interpret it as Harriet giving consent at the end. Either verbally or non verbally. Because all I can hear is a scared young girl being coerced/forced into doing something that she doesn't want to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
What you hear is him making demands and her saying no.
What is the offence committed?
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially what I meant is that she may have gone on to consent, comply, concede.
If i didnt convey that, then thats my mistake.
The point stands that we do not know how they normally converse with each other when discussing 5ex, what if anything the threat was, if they had 5ex on this occasion, or even if the audio forms part of the alleged offences.
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 8 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 3 hours, 28 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 5 hours, 13 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 26 minutes ago
Fingers crossed we know soon so we can put Elvis and Sally out of their misery.
They refuse to even consider he isnt the monster they have made him out to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another lie. I have said repeatedly that there is a chance that it was a s£x game. I think that chance is very small due to several reasons, which we have discussed at length. No point going over them all again.
I also believe that, irrespective of whether he is charged or found guilty, he has likely played his last game for United. The audio is just too damaging. If Harriet comes out and says it was a s£x game then it is still possible, but otherwise I don't see it happening. And the way things have progressed, it looks more likely she has given a statement against him.
I am quite happy where I stand on the matter, which is aligned with the vast majority of posters on the board. You on the other hand are being viewed as a bit of a wrong-un, looking for excuses and what -ifs everywhere. The investigation will run its course and we will have our answer eventually. But at this time, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the audio wasn't what it sounds like. And the video of her injuries only serves to support the fact that she has been in an abusive relationship. We shall see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't make me a wrong un for considering the fact he might be innocent of what he has been accused of.
If he is charged and found guilty then yeah, punish him to he full extent of the law, but until then, lets cut all the judgement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This from the man that interpreted the audio as Harriet giving consent at the end. Yeh, lets hold off judgement.
And that's what also makes you a wrong un. Not for considering the fact that he might somehow be innocent, which I have said all along could be the case. The fact you heard that audio and interpreted it as a girl giving consent to have s£x. Disturbing. As many other posters have pointed out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said the consent could be non verbal you moron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of 6th sense do you possess that enables you to see audio files and thus allow you to interpret the audio in such a way?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats why i said could. Jesus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No o you didn't.. We've already done this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes i did. Go look. Il await the apology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what you said:
My interpretation of the audio.
He tries to instigate s3x. She is upset with him over something (possibly him being unfaithful). He crudely pursues her for s3x. She is initially reluctant, but eventually, for want of a better word, complies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is thr bit about non verbal consent you moron?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not there. You added that but later didn't you? Either way, tell me more about this 6th sense that allowed you to see the non verbal consent through an audio file.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consent can be non verbal. This was what i said. You omit this from your post because you k ow it nakes sense and screws your argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don, you said that you interpretation of the audio was the at the end she "complies".
No one has said that consent can't be non-verbal. No idea why you keep going on about this.
My issue is that you listened to that audio and the last thing we hear is Mason threaten her. And your interpretation was that at the end she "complies" to have s£x. So, unless you have this magical ability to see what is happening in audio files, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that she agreed to have s£x with him. Noe. Which makes your interpretation of the audio very creepy and extremely disturbing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We dont even know if they had 5ex, let alone if it was consensual or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No we don't. But this is you just moving the goalposts to try and deflect from what you have said.
Please explain to us all exactly what from the audio led you to interpret it as Harriet giving consent at the end. Either verbally or non verbally. Because all I can hear is a scared young girl being coerced/forced into doing something that she doesn't want to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
What you hear is him making demands and her saying no.
What is the offence committed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't said that an offence was committed. Although you are downplaying the obvious physical contact that was going on, which Greenwood himself confirms by telling her to stop pushing him. Stop trying to deflect and answer the question.
Why specifically from the audio led to interpret it as her giving consent at the end. Either verbally or non verbally.
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially what I meant is that she may have gone on to consent, comply, concede.
If i didnt convey that, then thats my mistake.
The point stands that we do not know how they normally converse with each other when discussing 5ex, what if anything the threat was, if they had 5ex on this occasion, or even if the audio forms part of the alleged offences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic attempt to wriggle out of what you said. We've discussed this at length and you knew what you had said and tried to back it up previously. Now it is making you uncomfortable because you don't like how your are being perceived on the forum, it is suddenly all a mistake? There is nothing whatsoever in the audio to suggest that she consented to anything.
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially what I meant is that she may have gone on to consent, comply, concede.
If i didnt convey that, then thats my mistake.
The point stands that we do not know how they normally converse with each other when discussing 5ex, what if anything the threat was, if they had 5ex on this occasion, or even if the audio forms part of the alleged offences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic attempt to wriggle out of what you said. We've discussed this at length and you knew what you had said and tried to back it up previously. Now it is making you uncomfortable because you don't like how your are being perceived on the forum, it is suddenly all a mistake? There is nothing whatsoever in the audio to suggest that she consented to anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'you are downplaying the obvious physical contact that was going on'
What contact was going on and what kind of 6th sense do you possess that enables you to see audio files and thus allow you to interpret the audio in such a way?
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially what I meant is that she may have gone on to consent, comply, concede.
If i didnt convey that, then thats my mistake.
The point stands that we do not know how they normally converse with each other when discussing 5ex, what if anything the threat was, if they had 5ex on this occasion, or even if the audio forms part of the alleged offences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic attempt to wriggle out of what you said. We've discussed this at length and you knew what you had said and tried to back it up previously. Now it is making you uncomfortable because you don't like how your are being perceived on the forum, it is suddenly all a mistake? There is nothing whatsoever in the audio to suggest that she consented to anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. I don't care 1 jot what people think of me. Im just saying what i meant.
posted on 22/4/22
where's gold member gotten off too?
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially what I meant is that she may have gone on to consent, comply, concede.
If i didnt convey that, then thats my mistake.
The point stands that we do not know how they normally converse with each other when discussing 5ex, what if anything the threat was, if they had 5ex on this occasion, or even if the audio forms part of the alleged offences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic attempt to wriggle out of what you said. We've discussed this at length and you knew what you had said and tried to back it up previously. Now it is making you uncomfortable because you don't like how your are being perceived on the forum, it is suddenly all a mistake? There is nothing whatsoever in the audio to suggest that she consented to anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'you are downplaying the obvious physical contact that was going on'
What contact was going on and what kind of 6th sense do you possess that enables you to see audio files and thus allow you to interpret the audio in such a way?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't need a 6th sense to hear Mason telling her to stop pushing him or to hear the struggle as he tells het to get her legs up. And I think she also tells him to stop putting his deck there, or similar?
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially what I meant is that she may have gone on to consent, comply, concede.
If i didnt convey that, then thats my mistake.
The point stands that we do not know how they normally converse with each other when discussing 5ex, what if anything the threat was, if they had 5ex on this occasion, or even if the audio forms part of the alleged offences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic attempt to wriggle out of what you said. We've discussed this at length and you knew what you had said and tried to back it up previously. Now it is making you uncomfortable because you don't like how your are being perceived on the forum, it is suddenly all a mistake? There is nothing whatsoever in the audio to suggest that she consented to anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. I don't care 1 jot what people think of me. Im just saying what i meant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You care so little that you threatened to get me banned you little wimp .
posted on 22/4/22
You dont think an offence was committed, so what are you suggesting all of this contact amounts to?
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially what I meant is that she may have gone on to consent, comply, concede.
If i didnt convey that, then thats my mistake.
The point stands that we do not know how they normally converse with each other when discussing 5ex, what if anything the threat was, if they had 5ex on this occasion, or even if the audio forms part of the alleged offences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic attempt to wriggle out of what you said. We've discussed this at length and you knew what you had said and tried to back it up previously. Now it is making you uncomfortable because you don't like how your are being perceived on the forum, it is suddenly all a mistake? There is nothing whatsoever in the audio to suggest that she consented to anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. I don't care 1 jot what people think of me. Im just saying what i meant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You care so little that you threatened to get me banned you little wimp .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
These are the site rules. Its me being threatened with banning for absolutely no reason, so only fair it applies to everyone else.
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 11 minutes ago
You dont think an offence was committed, so what are you suggesting all of this contact amounts to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say I didn't think that an offence was committed. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said from the off that the remainder of the audio will be very important in determining whether an offence has been committed. Hopefully the police have access to the full recording so that they are able to ensure justice is done either way.
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 2 minutes ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what he has said in that instance and you're better than that Elvis.
He clearly has an open mind on the outcome of the case and I think others have either already made up their mind or are leaning in a direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not misrepresenting anything at all. He has clearly said that is his interpretation of the audio and you have said that you think he is the only one of here that would be cleared for jury duty. I haven't twisted anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially what I meant is that she may have gone on to consent, comply, concede.
If i didnt convey that, then thats my mistake.
The point stands that we do not know how they normally converse with each other when discussing 5ex, what if anything the threat was, if they had 5ex on this occasion, or even if the audio forms part of the alleged offences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic attempt to wriggle out of what you said. We've discussed this at length and you knew what you had said and tried to back it up previously. Now it is making you uncomfortable because you don't like how your are being perceived on the forum, it is suddenly all a mistake? There is nothing whatsoever in the audio to suggest that she consented to anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. I don't care 1 jot what people think of me. Im just saying what i meant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You care so little that you threatened to get me banned you little wimp .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
These are the site rules. Its me being threatened with banning for absolutely no reason, so only fair it applies to everyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea what you are talking about. What are the site rules? Who is threatening you with banning?
posted on 22/4/22
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 11 minutes ago
You dont think an offence was committed, so what are you suggesting all of this contact amounts to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say I didn't think that an offence was committed. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said from the off that the remainder of the audio will be very important in determining whether an offence has been committed. Hopefully the police have access to the full recording so that they are able to ensure justice is done either way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, based on what we heard, what offence do you think the contact constitues?
Page 14 of 15
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15