Hayne~NFL~RU~Tits~Eels~Dad~Jailed~Mistrial~Jailed 5yrs~Retrial~Jailed~Appeal~Quashed-Sued

[T-Boon]

I love how she keeps laying the boot into him saying it was awkward when he sang the Ed Sherrin song. Surely the weirdness starts when Hayne gets there and realizes this footballer groupie invited him over to her mums house for their hook up.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

I love how she keeps laying the boot into him saying it was awkward when he sang the Ed Sherrin song. Surely the weirdness starts when Hayne gets there and realizes this footballer groupie invited him over to her mums house for their hook up.

There’s a lot of weirdness, the most critical being the stupidity of Haynsey.

Not a crime though.

If it was, most of us would be doing a life sentence for having an interest in the NRL…

No parole.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

"He did not do anything he thought was wrong.”

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/jarryd-haynes-trial-hears-of-text-messages-exchanged-between-alleged-victim-and-best-friend/news-story/8d7cbe11bcc60974d3f25fc216fd3462

The problem is he doesn’t understand consent. A lot of men still think No Means No, whereas the modern definition is that she has to be begging for it.

The injury is irrelevant and not proof of lack of consent. However Hayne’s testimony made pretty clear that he thought he had consent when she stopped resisting. He’s guilty by the modern definition but not by the 90s definition.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I love how she keeps laying the boot into him saying it was awkward when he sang the Ed Sherrin song. Surely the weirdness starts when Hayne gets there and realizes this footballer groupie invited him over to her mums house for their hook up.

She’s definitely feeling vindictive, as you would if you were raped. But also if you were just feeling used.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The presumption in that statement is that he had done something wrong ( unproven) and also, it’s her opinion of his state of mind.

It’s impossible to rely upon someone’s opinion of what someone else is thinking.

You can’t see, hear, touch, feel or smell what someone else is thinking. Thoughts are intangible.

They are, but thoughts are central to the idea of consent. Miscommunication happens all the time, though usually it doesn’t result in one party going to prison.

 

[the phantom menace]

The problem is he doesn’t understand consent. A lot of men still think No Means No, whereas the modern definition is that she has to be begging for it.

Really? Am pretty sure No still means No. What sufficiently proves a Yes might be a different evolving thing, but a No is clearly not consent.

 

[the phantom menace]

The injury is irrelevant and not proof of lack of consent. However Hayne’s testimony made pretty clear that he thought he had consent when she stopped resisting. He’s guilty by the modern definition but not by the 90s definition.

What Hayne thought and what the law thinks and protects might be two different things.

And since the incident happened in the 2020s, what the 1990s (or 1970s) definition for consent might have been is pretty irrelevant.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Really? Am pretty sure No still means No. What sufficiently proves a Yes might be a different evolving thing, but a No is clearly not consent.

Right, but a no now doesn’t mean a no later. Horny merkins think they’re entitled to keep trying, and they would all have personal success stories, converting a no to a yes. The problem is many of them don’t understand they have to stop trying after the first no.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

What Hayne thought and what the law thinks and protects might be two different things.

And since the incident happened in the 2020s, what the 1990s (or 1970s) definition for consent might have been is pretty irrelevant.

Exactly. However what he thought is evidence of what she said (or didn’t say). There are no other witnesses here. If Hayne doesn’t incriminate himself (and I reckon he probably has) then he will be found not guilty.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

The problem is he doesn’t understand consent. A lot of men still think No Means No, whereas the modern definition is that she has to be begging for it.

The injury is irrelevant and not proof of lack of consent. However Hayne’s testimony made pretty clear that he thought he had consent when she stopped resisting. He’s guilty by the modern definition but not by the 90s definition.

I’m not sure about this pou.

You are making a conclusion about Haynes understanding based on her version as he’s said it’s all consensual.

I’m not sure about your next statement.

The injury is relevant where there is a dispute about nails v teeth. Where one party asserts it was caused by teeth, there should be impressions to verify or vice versa.

And that goes to the witnesses credibility, that is, whether or not their version is true according to facts that are undisputed.

The idea is that if they are caught lying, and caught lying several times, then what they say about what happened ( in terms of consent or lack of it) is undermined.

Beware of the media reports ( as you would say to me).

 

[the phantom menace]

A No now has to become a definite Yes later before it is a green light. No longer resisting doesn't mean the previous No has changed... it could just mean she's asleep and the hypothetical guy involved in a hypothetical situation is a rapey merkin.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Where one party asserts it was caused by teeth, there should be impressions to verify or vice versa.

I heard one grizzled detective near retirement got hold of one of Hayne’s old mouthguards. He’s getting too old for this shit.

 

[T-Boon]

The guilty verdict was overturned by the higher court because the racist white woman judge (who has since been forced into retirement) from that trial refused to allow a very important piece of evidence in (some text message from the girl). The supreme court thought it was crucial evidence so that going to be interesting.

 

[T-Boon]

A No now has to become a definite Yes later before it is a green light. No longer resisting doesn't mean the previous No has changed... it could just mean she's asleep and the hypothetical guy involved in a hypothetical situation is a rapey merkin.

Do they have to say "yes"?
What if they dont speak English?

 

[Incorrect]

If it was, most of us would be doing a life sentence for having an interest in the NRL…

No parole.

Dude, you're in a Parra forum.... We're already there and have been for going on 37 years....

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Dude, you're in a Parra forum.... We're already there and have been for going on 37 years....

You’re not the one whose mounted to the wall via a wooden spoon through thy anus for an entire season with Brooksy smiling at you on his way for a second pronging.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Do they have to say "yes"?
What if they dont speak English?

Google translate and a Bunker?

It’s just getting very difficult, abstinence might be the best policy these days.

 

[Incorrect]

You’re not the one whose mounted to the wall via a wooden spoon through thy anus for an entire season with Brooksy smiling at you on his way for a second pronging.

Yeah fair call... Keep in mind though that if you need a "less soiled" wooden spoon, we've got a fair few spare you can borrow...

 

[the phantom menace]

The guilty verdict was overturned by the higher court because the racist white woman judge (who has since been forced into retirement) from that trial refused to allow a very important piece of evidence in (some text message from the girl). The supreme court thought it was crucial evidence so that going to be interesting.

See previous post earlier in the thread which has exactly the two grounds why the second trial (not the verdict) was overturned and a third one is taking place.

Also worth noting the two grounds which the higher court refused to accept from Hayne's team... equally telling that those two assertions were not considered the problem Hayne's team badly wanted them to be.

 

[the phantom menace]

Do they have to say "yes"?
What if they dont speak English?

Happy reading...

New sexual consent laws in NSW say you must ask first - Crime - Criminal Law - Australia

People in NSW are now required by law to give and obtain consent before they engage in a sex act.

www.mondaq.com