Gylfi Sigurdsson - cleared & will face no further action

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Announced today that there will be no further action taken against him and he's been cleared of all charges.

[Cooclaret]

Really interesting how so many cases are failing to reach CPS threshold.

Always intrigued how this plays out with the fans. Greenwood back in August, Gylfi back in August…

Both won’t face charges but you can’t unhear or unsee the ‘evidence’ as it is.

[KRBFC]

Really interesting how so many cases are failing to reach CPS threshold.

Always intrigued how this plays out with the fans. Greenwood back in August, Gylfi back in August…

Both won’t face charges but you can’t unhear or unsee the ‘evidence’ as it is.

I agree about Greenwood but what is the public evidence on Sigurdsson?

[NottsClaret]

Yeah, if you heard the recording you don't need the CPS or a judge to tell you Greenwood's a scumbag. Up to Man Utd how they deal with that.

No idea what the deal is with Sigurdsson, I guess he resumes what's left of his career if he wants to.

[NewClaret]

Is he still under contract at Everton?

[Cooclaret]

Yeah, if you heard the recording you don't need the CPS or a judge to tell you Greenwood's a scumbag. Up to Man Utd how they deal with that.

No idea what the deal is with Sigurdsson, I guess he resumes what's left of his career if he wants to.

I think United would have told the world if they were to get rid. Instead they’ve reinstated him to training.

[colne-claret]

Is he still under contract at Everton?

No he released at the end of his contract last season I think.

[bobinho]

How Greenwood is going to re integrate back into public life interests me greatly.

Most people have seen the video and heard the recording - it’s absolutely disgusting. How that doesn’t make it to trial is a stain on our society. Can only be money that does that to someone,…. When you have that much of it and you’ve been fawned over since you were a small boy, some people end up believing they can do what they want to whoever they want without any repercussions. And peoples lust for some of that money makes them ignore what is right.

[Cooclaret]

I agree about Greenwood but what is the public evidence on Sigurdsson?

Twitter and Tik Tock are awash with the evidence. Think Adam Johnson.

[Cooclaret]

How Greenwood is going to re integrate back into public life interests me greatly.

Most people have seen the video and heard the recording - it’s absolutely disgusting. How that doesn’t make it to trial is a stain on our society. Can only be money that does that to someone,…. When you have that much of it and you’ve been fawned over since you were a small boy, some people end up believing they can do what they want to whoever they want without any repercussions. And peoples lust for some of that money makes them ignore what is right.

Ched Evans: all over the papers and this board about his injury and the empathy people have for him. He managed to make it back into football…the evidence was pretty clear in that case.

[DCWat]

I think United would have told the world if they were to get rid. Instead they’ve reinstated him to training.

I’m not sure that they’d have much other choice, if there are now no charges to answer.

It’ll be interesting to see what they do with him.

As a player he’s obviously a valuable asset, though even moving him on for nothing might be better financially than the implications of bringing him back to the first team.

How many of United’s sponsors would want to be associated with Greenwood?

It’d probably better for all parties if they shifted him abroad somewhere.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Twitter and Tik Tock are awash with the evidence. Think Adam Johnson.

He's just been cleared as they feel there's no case to answer, not one of those dropped due to lack of evidence

[Raconteur]

Ched Evans: all over the papers and this board about his injury and the empathy people have for him. He managed to make it back into football…the evidence was pretty clear in that case.

Was the evidence pretty clear in the Evans case?
I don't know the details but I know he had jail time but he was equitted and eventually found not guilty?

[dsr]

Was the evidence pretty clear in the Evans case?
I don't know the details but I know he had jail time but he was equitted and eventually found not guilty?

It was a disgusting tale and he behaved appallingly, but the question was whether a drunk woman was conscious and had given consent to sex with him or not. Could not reasonably be proved either way.

[Raconteur]

It was a disgusting tale and he behaved appallingly, but the question was whether a drunk woman was conscious and had given consent to sex with him or not. Could not reasonably be proved either way.

Thanks dsr, i didn't know much about this case, just that he was sent to jail and then got aquitted years later. It must have been very abhorrent. It is disgusting to think about and very worrying with people like this in the world, especially when you have a daughter

[KRBFC]

Thanks dsr, i didn't know much about this case, just that he was sent to jail and then got aquitted years later. It must have been very abhorrent. It is disgusting to think about and very worrying with people like this in the world, especially when you have a daughter

To be fair though Evans had a drunk threesome with a girl and one of his mates, weird behavior sure but some people are into group sex. The lines are blurry though around consent, so two drunk adults cannot legally have consensual sex? If the women wakes up in the morning and regrets her drunken choice does it now become rape?

[daveisaclaret]

To be fair though Evans had a drunk threesome with a girl and one of his mates, weird behavior sure but some people are into group sex. The lines are blurry though around consent, so two drunk adults cannot legally have consensual sex? If the women wakes up in the morning and regrets her drunken choice does it now become rape?

An Andrew Tate fan is a rape apologist? That surely can't be right.

[KRBFC]

I understand passed out drunk cannot be consensual just the same as being asleep but I’m not sure how you proven the level of drunk ness of both adults without actual video evidence

[GodIsADeeJay81]

To be fair though Evans had a drunk threesome with a girl and one of his mates, weird behavior sure but some people are into group sex. The lines are blurry though around consent, so two drunk adults cannot legally have consensual sex? If the women wakes up in the morning and regrets her drunken choice does it now become rape?

She definitely consented to sex with the first man.

The issue was around whether or not she consented to sex with Ched and that's what he was jailed for.
Eventually acquitted at a retrial, but it was iffy behaviour

[KRBFC]

An Andrew Tate fan is a rape apologist? That surely can't be right.

What part is apologist? Evans was found not guilty but that doesn’t entirely mean he’s innocent just the line is blurry

[KRBFC]

She definitely consented to sex with the first man.

The issue was around whether or not she consented to sex with Ched and that's what he was jailed for.
Eventually acquitted at a retrial, but it was iffy behaviour

Very weird behavior, not sure why he’d want seconds

[pushpinpussy]

You guys need to check out the case of R v Bree. This case changed all the rules on consent and incapacity. In a a nutshell a complainant does not consent if they are incapacitated through drink anymore.

[Claretforever]

With Ched Evans he was never actually accused of rape by the lady from memory, her only claim being that she thought her drink had been spiked. Not 100%, but was it that she remembered consenting to the first guy, but couldn’t remember consenting with Evans? Evans admitted to consensual sex which the prosecution turned into a rape case.

The prosecution missed loads out though, didn’t treat the scene as a crime scene, no DNA evidence or proof of force etc. I remember reading about it years ago and it seemed dodgy back then. I think that’s why the re-trial was won?

He was a total knob for cheating on his girlfriend though.

[AlargeClaret]

The flip side to these not guilty /no case to answer verdicts etc is that they are just that, as laid down by law . Millionaire young footballers and the hangers on /groupies /endless supply of young women , models ,money ,power, fame, VIP,drugs , parties ,sex ,fast cars and alcohol is an explosive cocktail with often predictable ugly ( and criminal )outcomes

There’s clearly a gulf between CPS charging and “ hard evidence “ Are they ( footballers) getting away with “ murder “ ? or are the lines of blurred inebriation so inconsistent it’s impossible to build a watertight case ?

[timshorts]

Duplicated, sorry

[timshorts]

With Ched Evans he was never actually accused of rape by the lady from memory, her only claim being that she thought her drink had been spiked. Not 100%, but was it that she remembered consenting to the first guy, but couldn’t remember consenting with Evans? Evans admitted to consensual sex which the prosecution turned into a rape case.

The prosecution missed loads out though, didn’t treat the scene as a crime scene, no DNA evidence or proof of force etc. I remember reading about it years ago and it seemed dodgy back then. I think that’s why the re-trial was won?

He was a total knob for cheating on his girlfriend though.

That's a bit closer to accurate. The retrial came about as it transpired that the lady in question had history of similar behaviour. The evidence at the first trial from the males was that the woman was definitely conscious at the time and was telling evans to **** her harder (which is pretty difficult if you are unconscious). The woman was so drunk that she couldn't remember what she had done the previous night, and couldn't therefore remember consenting to sex, and therefore it was assumed that it was non-consensual sex and thus rape.

The second trial revealed that this had been something that was a standard modus operandi with her, including telling her ex to [as above where one word is presumably coming out as ****].

As it states above, a total knob, but not a rapist. Hence he got let off.

The lesson, therefore, is don't have sex, even oral, with someone who seems so intoxicated that he/she might not remember what happened in the morning. How many films can you think of where one person wakes up and asks "did we have sex last night?" (or something similar?)

[RickyBobby]

Innocent until proven guilty. Neither Sigurdsson or Greenwood have been found guilty so by law they are as innocent as all of us.
Many players have been to prison and continued playing, found guilty and still played. These two will play for some desperate club, if not here then abroad, and will make money by selling their stories to the sun.

[dsr]

Getting proof is the beggar. If two people voluntarily choose to go to bed together and then one says rape took place and the other denies it, how can there be proof beyond reasonable doubt? That Scottish player (can't remember his name) was never convicted of rape, but the judge who tried the civil case said that on balance she didn't believe his evidence, and the woman offered no evidence because she was too drunk to remember anything, and the verdict was that on balance of probabilities he was a little less drunk than she was so she couldn't consent to sex while he was just on the right (or wrong!) side of the sober line. No way could a criminal case be made of that.

[Jakubclaret]

How Greenwood is going to re integrate back into public life interests me greatly.

Most people have seen the video and heard the recording - it’s absolutely disgusting. How that doesn’t make it to trial is a stain on our society. Can only be money that does that to someone,…. When you have that much of it and you’ve been fawned over since you were a small boy, some people end up believing they can do what they want to whoever they want without any repercussions. And peoples lust for some of that money makes them ignore what is right.

You are assuming he's going to rub shoulders with Joe public, he won't really need to interact with anybody outside of a certain circle to exist, you won't really see him roaming about the trafford centre on a shopping spree, he'll keep himself to himself & probably well advised to keep a low profile for the foreseeable.

[Devils_Advocate]

The lesson, therefore, is don't have sex, even oral, with someone who seems so intoxicated that he/she might not remember what happened in the morning. How many films can you think of where one person wakes up and asks "did we have sex last night?" (or something similar?)

I think the lesson is don't have sex with someone unless its clear they are consenting and if you aren't capable of comprehending if consent has been given then don't have sex.

We don't excuse people from doing something stupid like driving when they are drunk just because they were too drunk to realise what they was doing so why the hell should we excuse someone from f*cking someone without consent just cos they were too drunk to realise what they were doing.

Also for anyone who thinks the ownership and responsibility sits unfairly with the males then educate yourself to realise how much power, control and privilege also firmly sits with the males

[Jakubclaret]

I think the lesson is don't have sex with someone unless its clear they are consenting and if you aren't capable of comprehending if consent has been given then don't have sex.

We don't excuse people from doing something stupid like driving when they are drunk just because they were too drunk to realise what they was doing so why the hell should we excuse someone from f*cking someone without consent just cos they were too drunk to realise what they were doing.

Also for anyone who thinks the ownership and responsibility sits unfairly with the males then educate yourself to realise how much power, control and privilege also firmly sits with the males

1 comparison can be determined by a breathalyzer & a blood sample in straightforward terms of law breaking, the other less so because it’s afterwards & conflicting accounts & evidence lost assuming there was any to begin with.

[Devils_Advocate]

1 comparison can be determined by a breathalyzer & a blood sample in straightforward terms of law breaking, the other less so because it’s afterwards & conflicting accounts & evidence lost assuming there was any to begin with.

The principle of it is still the same, If you're too p*ssed to drive then don't drive and if you're to missed to comprehend consent then dont f*ck. In both scenarios being p*ssed is not an acceptable excuse.

All your comment addresses is the difficulty and the lottery of getting the correct judicial outcome whereas what I address is the idea of self responsibility to not put yourself into the lottery to begin with because if you do you only have yourself to blame for the outcomes

At the end of the day Jakub if you want to absolve people from all self responsibility and leave it for the state to micro manage our lives then so be it but for me I think taking ownership and responsibility for your own actions is where we should be

[Jakubclaret]

The principle of it is still the same, If you're too p*ssed to drive then don't drive and if you're to missed to comprehend consent then dont f*ck. In both scenarios being p*ssed is not an acceptable excuse.

All your comment addresses is the difficulty and the lottery of getting the correct judicial outcome whereas what I address is the idea of self responsibility to not put yourself into the lottery to begin with because if you do you only have yourself to blame for the outcomes

At the end of the day Jakub if you want to absolve people from all self responsibility and leave it for the state to micro manage our lives then so be it but for me I think taking ownership and responsibility for your own actions is where we should be

Not like for like comparisons though, because drink driving is open & shut it’s a closed case, a woman might give consent to have sex with a man drunk the man can’t gauge how much she’s had to drink & then the woman regrets it & says rape, instead of a condom does a man need to carry a breathalyzer test with him before he takes his trousers off? Things aren’t as simple as you make them out to be.

[Devils_Advocate]

Not like for like comparisons though, because drink driving is open & shut it’s a closed case, a woman might give consent to have sex with a man drunk the man can’t gauge how much she’s had to drink & then the woman regrets it & says rape, instead of a condom does a man need to carry a breathalyzer test with him before he takes his trousers off? Things aren’t as simple as you make them out to be.

Its simple, if drink is involved and there is any doubt then don't do it. Also if you are too drunk to take the logical position of my first sentence then also dont do it.

That is not an unfair or difficult position to take and the only reason you wouldn't take this position is because a) you dont care and will do what you want or b) you're too p*ssed to think rationally which in that case it is no different to the drink driver who irrationally thinks he is capable of driving their car

[Jakubclaret]

Its simple, if drink is involved and there is any doubt then don't do it. Also if you are too drunk to take the logical position of my first sentence then also dont do it.

That is not an unfair or difficult position to take and the only reason you wouldn't take this position is because a) you dont care and will do what you want or b) you're too p*ssed to think rationally which in that case it is no different to the drink driver who irrationally thinks he is capable of driving their car

When alcohol is involved caution gets thrown to wind & passions run wild, you are advocating a stance that just isn’t possible with the inhibitions that are released with alcohol, you want to witness self control go into the city centres after closing time on a Friday & Saturday night on that note, goodnight.

[Devils_Advocate]

When alcohol is involved caution gets thrown to wind & passions run wild, you are advocating a stance that just isn’t possible with the inhibitions that are released with alcohol, you want to witness self control go into the city centres after closing time on a Friday & Saturday night on that note, goodnight.

Mate if you don't think you can exercise control of yourself in relation to having sex when drunk then thats one of your many problems but I know I certainly can and Id estimate at least 95%+ of adult males can do the same as me.

You really are a pathetic case advocating for anyone who is as pathetic as you

[Jakubclaret]

Mate if you don't think you can exercise control of yourself in relation to having sex when drunk then thats one of your many problems but I know I certainly can and Id estimate at least 95%+ of adult males can do the same as me.

You really are a pathetic case advocating for anyone who is as pathetic as you

Some people regret drunken sex all the time especially young people with active hormones, in an ideal world of course sex should always be consensual it often is when the deed is carried out under the influence of alcohol it’s when the psychological effects of alcohol diminish the regrets kick in.

[Devils_Advocate]

Thought you'd said goodnight but seen as your back let me explain how you are either ignorantly or deliberatly conflating two separate scenarios.

If someone comprehensively consents and then regrets and subsequently accuses then that is wrong and the responsibility is with them.

If someone is to drunk to understand if consent has been given and recklessly goes ahead regardless then they are responsible and leave themselves open to how the other party perceives it

For want of repeating myself you should only have sex if consent is clearly given and if you are to drunk to comprehend this then you should not have sex.

If drunken consent was clearly given and then retracted after the event then that is an entirely different scenario and the ownership and responsibility changes.

Trouble is you are using the one extreme scenario to justify why you and your ilk shouldn't bare responsibility for having sex with women who haven't given consent.

Its in no way surprising that your defence for this behaviour is to push it completely on to the women and let them take responsibility for the abuse they receive

[Jakubclaret]

Thought you'd said goodnight but seen as your back let me explain how you are either ignorantly or deliberatly conflating two separate scenarios.

If someone comprehensively consents and then regrets and subsequently accuses then that is wrong and the responsibility is with them.

If someone is to drunk to understand if consent has been given and recklessly goes ahead regardless then they are responsible and leave themselves open to how the other party perceives it

For want of repeating myself you should only have sex if consent is clearly given and if you are to drunk to comprehend this then you should not have sex.

If drunken consent was clearly given and then retracted after the event then that is an entirely different scenario and the ownership and responsibility changes.

Trouble is you are using the one extreme scenario to justify why you and your ilk shouldn't bare responsibility for having sex with women who haven't given consent.

Its in no way surprising that your defence for this behaviour is to push it completely on to the women and let them take responsibility for the abuse they receive

I returned back because you insulted me, ideally both/multiple partners regardless of gender/sexuality/race (I’m hopefully covered there) should all consent to have sex in simplistic straightforward terms, I’m not going down a rabbit hole with this subject you can call me all the names under the sun you are looking for an argument you won’t find 1 from me, you are trying to find something that isn’t there.

[SocialistClaret]

An Andrew Tate fan is a rape apologist? That surely can't be right.

Ah. I was thinking of replying but if he's a Tater Tot then you've saved me some time.

[SocialistClaret]

Getting proof is the beggar. If two people voluntarily choose to go to bed together and then one says rape took place and the other denies it, how can there be proof beyond reasonable doubt? That Scottish player (can't remember his name) was never convicted of rape, but the judge who tried the civil case said that on balance she didn't believe his evidence, and the woman offered no evidence because she was too drunk to remember anything, and the verdict was that on balance of probabilities he was a little less drunk than she was so she couldn't consent to sex while he was just on the right (or wrong!) side of the sober line. No way could a criminal case be made of that.

Goodwillie?

I'm not proud of the reason I remember that case.

[Bigbopper]

How has this thread gone down this track?

Consent, and alcohol are all irrelevant in this case. The charges leveled against Sigurdsson involved sexual activity with a minor.

Still it gave all the usual culprits the opportunity to display their vast range of knowledge on every subject under the sun.

[bobinho]

The thing about alcohol is that it removes crucial elements of the decision making process.

Simply saying “if you are too drunk to comprehend what she is saying, then you shouldn’t be having sex” is utterly moronic. By that stage, any chance anyone has of making a good decision is long gone. The ability to understand the difference between right and wrong has been interfered with.

[Jakubclaret]

The thing about alcohol is that it removes crucial elements of the decision making process.

Simply saying “if you are too drunk to comprehend what she is saying, then you shouldn’t be having sex” is utterly moronic. By that stage, any chance anyone has of making a good decision is long gone. The ability to understand the difference between right and wrong has been interfered with.

It is, it's sadly completely predictable that the scenario that 2 people may be drunk prior to agreeing hasn't been explored, it's all the man's fault that he can't take NO for an answer or he's like a dog with 2 wotsits & the urge to not properly judge the mood is the common denominator.

[dsr]

In practice, as in David Goodwillie's case, there is no possibility of getting a conviction where both parties are drunk. The law is intended for use when a sober man takes a drunk woman home (or just possibly, a sober woman with a drunk man, though it's obviously an awful lot more difficult to commit rape in that circumstance.)

There is no other element of criminal law, so far as I'm aware, where being drunk is a valid excuse. If you can't avoid committing crime when you're drunk, then don't get drunk. Same as with any other mind-altering drug. If you can get drunk and avoid committing crime (and anti-social behaviour), then it's your business.

[CoolClaret]

I’m all for defending blokes that go through the ringer and get falsely accused for all sorts but what I won’t defend is the borderline stuff on nights out.

I’ve been on plenty of nights out and seen guys get super handsy with girls that clearly don’t have a clue what they’re doing. It really is revolting.

Nights out can be good fun but there’s so much that can go wrong, can only say if there’s any young lads reading to enjoy yourself but try to keep in control at all times and aware of your surroundings. Being totally wankered in a club will never end well.