Eelementary
Post Whore
- Messages
- 57,844
He's only 21 though. There's plenty of upside.
That's true.
He's only 21 though. There's plenty of upside.
He's doing OK. On the mend apparently.News is that Peter Wynn had a heart attack.
Any further news?
How did he know she didn't want to have sex if she gave an "act of consent"? Mate, he gave himself away as soon as he admitted she said no. There's no partial sex under the new rules and no partial consent.The information he provided was that she helped him in the act of pulling her pants down which is obviously an act of consent after which she would sensibly then need to say "no, I've changed my mind stop" making it clear which it was under the old common sense law but arguably isnt under this new stupid emotional law. So stop talking utter shit.
News is that Peter Wynn had a heart attack.
Any further news?
How did he know she didn't want to have sex if she gave an "act of consent"? Mate, he gave himself away as soon as he admitted she said no. There's no partial sex under the new rules and no partial consent.
Well, neither of us actually sat through the trial and heard all of the presented evidence. So who knows what is 'reasonable doubt'. Intuitively I sorta agree with you, but it's not a very well-informed hunch.
It was one of the most publicised court cases in NSW history. So I dont think there was much the jury knew that we didnt. The police had the whole story in front of the jury pool 2 years ago and each day of the trial there were almost as many media in the court room as jury members so I doubt they had much we didnt have - except demeanour and such.
People surely can change their mind, some of them many times. But as soon as a person has said no to sex you're pretty much f**ked if they then say yes and then decide they meant no after the fact. In 2021 men need to be careful.The pulling down of the pants was after the no so unless you are saying a person cannot change their mind (for the third time in this girls case) you are just being stupid.
It is the job of lawyers to 'undo' the coaching of opposition witnesses when they get them up on the stand. This would've been Hayne's "barrister of emmense experience" watching him under cross-examination:At least in terms of trying to hang Hayne on his own evidence. Which is stupid of course because his own barrister of emmense experience would not hang him out to dry like that.
There is a whole Hayne thread. Take it there.
There is a whole Hayne thread. Take it there.
Just say NO!!totally. I havent been in that thread in 3 months because I want to stay away from it then, it starts up in here, I see it and get dragged in without my own consent.
You're just pissed that it's proven Waqa Blake wasn't the problem.if swapping sides for waqa is kidwells right side defence solution can we swap kidwell for a real defence coach