Translate

Showing posts with label Clayton McDonald. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clayton McDonald. Show all posts

Monday, 24 November 2014

If you cannot answer this question correctly, are you a feminazi, a feminazi apologist, or the jury who convicted Ched Evans?

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

That accurately reflected the way in which the verdict should be interpreted. 

The judges involved were:


  • Lord Chief Justice Judge
  • Justice Mitting 
  • Justice Griffith Williams
  • Judge Merfyn Hughes QC 

http://www.debretts.com/people-of-today/profile/7318/%28Thomas%29-Merfyn-HUGHES
Judge Merfyn Hughes was Labour Party candidate Caernarfon 1979. This would be the same party as the former Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer a Labour Party supporter who hopes to become a Labour MP for Holborn and St Pancras.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/31/keir-starmer-labour-mp-bid

Keir Starmer was the one who initiated the policy of favouring the accuser - female - at the expense of the defendant - male, and started the ball that is "Victim's Law" rolling.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/britain-criminal-justice-system-victims-law-public-prosecutions

The Labour Party is a party that promotes feminism. Lord Glasman, a Labour Peer, had his career destroyed by the feminazis of the Labour Party when he proposed policies these women found offensive and alarming.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dan-hodges/2011/07/blue-labour-maurice-glasman

Last month Labour Justice spokeswoman Helen Goodman circulated a critique of Blue Labour to all members of the Parliamentary Labour Party in which she claimed, "[Glasman] characterises as female all the aspects of New Labour he dislikes, whereas all the characteristics he applauds he draws as male. It looks more like something suitable for the psychotherapists' couch than a political tract."


What are we to make of their judgment?
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

The treachery of feminism


The patriarchy is transparent because whoever is in charge really is in charge.

 1. Feminists turn men into women.

2. Feminists mock men for having been emasculated.

3. Feminists then proceed to reject men of their own race and nation in order to fornicate with and marry men of other races and other nations.

4. Feminism creates all manner of social problems - widespread illegitimacy leading to higher crime and lower educational attainment and even Muslim terrorism - and then take away our liberties and increase our taxes in its incompetent attempts to solve the problems it has created.

5. Feminism has created "rape culture" and the historical sexual offence - concepts designed to find men guilty without a fair trial while lowering the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction.

6. Men should fear and hate feminism, but they are kept quiescent because feminism promotes premarital sex and bribes them with sexual liberation.

7. Feminism, by ensuring that men have no place in public to call their own, have all but destroyed male solidarity with the result that most men would happily destroy another man's career and reputation at the behest of a woman with obviously low standards of sexual morality, such as the woman who was roasted in Rhyl by two footballers.

8. Feminism has seen to it that the black defendant was acquitted while the white defendant was convicted, presumably to throw a bone to the complainant who would otherwise have been completely humiliated and ostracised if both had been acquitted and possibly charged with perverting the course of justice, as Eleanor De Freitas was.

9. Feminism has seen to it that the government is run on the totalitarian Political Correctness favoured by white middle class professional women whose orders are followed unthinkingly and unquestioningly by malleable deferential white middle class men.

10. Feminism can be destroyed by repealing the Equality Act 2010 and all anti-discrimination legislation.

11. Feminism can be destroyed by abolishing no fault divorce.

12. But have you noticed that no white man and no leader of a political party will propose this, including UKIP?

13. No leader of any political party will propose anything that would alienate the female vote - that is the nature of this system of government we call democracy.

14. No male politician will discuss this problem with any other male politician because they are so afraid and corrupt they do not trust each other.

15. Feminism prevents grave and continuing errors from being corrected.

16. Feminism is the evil that men bribed with cheap sex are determined to indulge in until their civilisation falls.

17. Why do men not act promptly and decisively in response to all of the above which is obvious and undeniable? Forgive them, for they have turned to women indulging in the feminine vice of DENIAL.

18. Is it because they also fear to be accused of rape or a historic sexual offence?

19. Is it also because the conquered always take on the habits and views of those who have conquered them?

20. The habits and views of the prevailing political orthodoxy are FEMINAZI.

THE ANSWER IS CLEAR: SMASH FEMINISM BEFORE IT DOES EVEN MORE DAMAGE.

How is this to be done? For the moment, just discuss this amongst yourselves and look away from the simmering pot, for a watched pot never boils ...




at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, 23 November 2014

The point not made or not taken at the trial of Chad Evans and the obviously perverse verdict of the jury

'When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

That accurately reflected the way in which the verdict should be interpreted. No force had been used on the complainant and no injury had been caused in the course of the rape. But the long-term psychological consequences to her could not be ignored. The judge took the view that they were not lessened by the fact that she had no direct recollection of the events.'

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

Why did the jury decide that black footballer was not guilty of rape but that the white footballer was?

If she was too drunk to give consent to Ched Evans, was she also too drunk to give consent to Clayton McDonald?

But Clayton McDonald was acquitted.

It is possible that she could have consented to sex only with McDonald and not Evans, but it was Evans' claim that he did obtain her consent by doing as she asked, ie "lick her out", which he did.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ched-evans-and-clayton-mcdonald-rape-798633

Evans told the court he watched them having sex for about "10/20 seconds" and then McDonald "asked" if his mate could "get involved".

"Then she looked at me and said yes," Evans said.

The footballer then said he carried on watching "for a minute or two" before McDonald got up to close the bedroom curtains, as there was "giggling" coming from the window, where Evans' brother and a friend were trying to watch from.

Evans said that when McDonald got up the girl asked him to perform oral sex on her, which he did.

He said: "I performed oral sex on her for maybe two or three minutes and then she turned over on all fours and then asked to be f***** basically".

He said the girl asked him to "f*** her harder".

"They were the words she was using," he said.

Evans then said they changed position so he was facing her while McDonald "watched for a bit" before leaving.

"As he left the room we stopped having sex," Evans told the jury.

http://chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-facts

Having obtained the keycard, Ched walked down the corridor and entered Room 14. From this point onwards it should be remembered that the only evidence as to what happened in Room 14 came from the accounts given by the two accused men who were in the room and the night porter who was listening at the door outside. The complainant claimed that she could not remember anything of what happened in the room.

On entering the room Ched said that he did not know what to expect but he quickly realised that his friend, Clayton, was engaged in sexual intercourse with a girl. In his evidence he stated that the door clunked behind him and this caused both Clayton and the complainant to turn around and to look at him. He said that he made direct eye contact with the complainant. At this point according to the evidence of both Clayton and Ched the question of whether Ched could “join in” was asked of the complainant, they both said that she replied with a positive “yeah”. Both of the accused thought that the other had asked the question but both agreed that the question was asked.

Whilst this was happening, outside, Ched’s brother and his friend had gone to the window of Room 14. They were fooling around, giggling and laughing (caught on the soundtrack) and attempting to film on a mobile phone what was happening in Room 14. They made two short clips but did not obtain any discernible footage.

According to the testimony of Ched, he watched his friend having sex for a minute or two and then, after Clayton had moved away from the bed, he engaged in sexual activity himself with the complainant on the basis that she had agreed to his participation by replying “yeah” to the request of whether or not he could join in.

Ched stated that the complainant asked him to perform oral sex upon her by telling him to “lick me out”. He did so and then followed this act by having intercourse with her. This was all corroborated by Clayton. Both men stated in evidence that the complainant was verbally encouraging Ched to have more vigorous sex with her by calling out to him on numerous occasions to “F**k me harder”. Both men also said that she was in control of the situation and activity as she was changing the sexual positions herself. (It is worth noting that the complainant stated in her police interviews that “licking out” is the phrase she understands to mean male on female oral sex).

Clayton decided to leave the room. He went and sat in the reception area. He spoke to the night porter and requested that he ‘keep an eye out’ for the girl in Room 14. Unbeknownst to Clayton, the night porter had only minutes earlier been listening at the door of Room 14 because he was concerned that the occupancy of Room 14 was more than the hotel rules allowed. The night porter stated in Court that he had heard the sounds of people having sex – when pushed on this he said that he had heard both female and male voices “squealing, panting and groaning”. He also said that he heard a male voice ask for oral sex in a “playful” manner.

In his evidence, Ched stated that when his friend had left the room he had suddenly become nervous that his girlfriend may ring him. He spoke to Clayton on the phone who was by now outside of the hotel. He said he stopped having sex with the complainant and decided to join his friend outside. He left the complainant on the bed who he said huffed in disgust that he was leaving her and pulled the covers over as if to go to sleep. Ched left the room and then left the building by the fire exit.


McDonald confirmed that he was in the room while Evans complied with this request so Evans' testimony was CORROBORATED.

The complainant herself could not say one way or another if this happened because her case was that she had no memory of that evening AT ALL.

Now, why would the jury COMPLETELY IGNORE this point?

The defence either did not make that point or it was not taken.

 If the defence lawyers did not make that point they must have been incompetent or negligent.

If the point was made but not taken then the judge was guilty of clear bias against the defendant.

Basically, the complainant was saying that she was not the sort of woman who would accompany a strange black man she has just met after falling over drunk in a kebab shop and then have sex with him and his friend, one after another, in the same room.

If that was what she was claiming then her sexual history should have been examined more closely.

Also, if she had not known they were professional footballers, would she have called the cops?

http://chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-facts
According to her evidence, the complainant awoke on Monday **th ***** 201* in the Premier Inn totally unaware as to how she had got there. Having searched for her bag and mobile phone she then proceeded to Reception. Her mother picked her up and took her to her friend’s house. Later that day she returned to work. At the end of her shift at 11pm she went to the reception of the Premier Inn and requested to see CCTV footage to see, she claimed, if she could find out how she got there earlier that morning. She did not get to see the CCTV footage but was told by the receptionist that the room had been booked and was occupied by footballers.




Why was the complainant's previous sexual history NOT admitted?
at 10 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Points I hope will be raised by Ched Evans before the Criminal Cases Review Commission


at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, 22 November 2014

Ched Evans is innocent, so let him play football again

http://chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-facts

Ched stated that the complainant asked him to perform oral sex upon her by telling him to “lick me out”. He did so and then followed this act by having intercourse with her. This was all corroborated by Clayton. Both men stated in evidence that the complainant was verbally encouraging Ched to have more vigorous sex with her by calling out to him on numerous occasions to “F**k me harder”. Both men also said that she was in control of the situation and activity as she was changing the sexual positions herself. (It is worth noting that the complainant stated in her police interviews that “licking out” is the phrase she understands to mean male on female oral sex).

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2844065/PFA-hopes-Evans-gets-chance.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2845107/Is-Ched-Evans-career-Rapist-footballer-s-escape-route-foreign-league-blocked-Ministry-Justice-say-difficult-impossible-sex-offender-work-abroad.html

According to her evidence, the complainant awoke on Monday **th ***** 201* in the Premier Inn totally unaware as to how she had got there. Having searched for her bag and mobile phone she then proceeded to Reception. Her mother picked her up and took her to her friend’s house. Later that day she returned to work. At the end of her shift at 11pm she went to the reception of the Premier Inn and requested to see CCTV footage to see, she claimed, if she could find out how she got there earlier that morning. She did not get to see the CCTV footage but was told by the receptionist that the room had been booked and was occupied by footballers.

If the complainant had not known that she had been pumped and dumped by two professional footballers would she have bothered making her complaint? What do you think, dear reader?

What do you think of this video  of the complainant going in and out of the Premier Inn clearly sober enough to remember her pizza? Is she staggering? Is staggering and appearing to be drunker than you are a way of getting a man's attention if you are a woman who is up for it?



Clayton McDonald, Ched Evans' friend  was found not guilty of raping the complainant.
He is black and Ched Evans is white and Welsh. 

Do you think the matriarchy made up of white middle class professional women secretly and not so secretly despise men of their own race, especially if they are low status?

Do you think they might despise white males like Ched Evans who have made good in football, even more?

Do you think they might delight in destroying his career and seeing to it that he will not be allowed to play football while he is still young enough to make what remains of his youth, just for the sheer malice of it. just to show men who are in charge?

Do you think women have taken over football and should they be kicked out before they do even more damage?

White middle class women in charge of public affairs don't care about low status white males

The Complainant's ‘When I win big’ Tweets
at 7 comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...