(NHC) goodwillie and robertson - rapists

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38651041


A former Scotland international footballer and his ex-teammate have been ruled to be rapists and ordered to pay £100,000 damages despite never facing a criminal trial.


i didn't realise goodwillie was also at plymouth...along with that drunken murderer luke McCormick,

[--------]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38651041


A former Scotland international footballer and his ex-teammate have been ruled to be rapists and ordered to pay £100,000 damages despite never facing a criminal trial.

i didn't realise goodwillie was also at plymouth...along with that drunken murderer luke McCormick,


So their victims have been allowed to bring a civil action? Good. And good on the security lassie for stepping up.

I don't think I'm about to shed any tears over this ...

... or lose any sleep.




I do hope Liverpool gut them in the replay.

[Andy74]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38651041


A former Scotland international footballer and his ex-teammate have been ruled to be rapists and ordered to pay £100,000 damages despite never facing a criminal trial.


i didn't realise goodwillie was also at plymouth...along with that drunken murderer luke McCormick,

As far as I'm aware McCormick hasn't murdered anyone.

[Smartie]

Without getting into the rights and wrongs about what may or may not have been done - how can you be branded a rapist without having been found guilty of rape in a court?

[AndyB_70]

As far as I'm aware McCormick hasn't murdered anyone.

As good as......

McCormick, the highly-rated Plymouth Argyle goalkeeper, admitted causing death by dangerous driving and being twice over the drink drive limit and was jailed for seven years and four months.

He killed 2 kids and only got 7 years. Absolute disgrace. The lives that were ruined by him being a ****. Letting him rot in jail would have been a far better sentence.

As for the other 2 that outcome opens up a big can of worms with regards to self conduct and being in control of yourself. I may or may not have had a few drunken nights in my long long ago past. Maybe I should try and sue.

[cabbageandribs1875]

So their victims have been allowed to bring a civil action? Good. And good on the security lassie for stepping up.

I don't think I'm about to shed any tears over this ...

... or lose any sleep.




I do hope Liverpool gut them in the replay.


i wonder if this ruling will be challenged doddie, if not i expect their will be quite a few civil actions in the future





As far as I'm aware McCormick hasn't murdered anyone.

i beg to differ andy, and so did the courts, i wonder what the family of the kids he killed think, nah scrap that, i already know what they will think of him, do you think he's a killer then instead ? and he got out on parole after 3 and half years, 23 months each kids life was worth, sickening

[Andy74]

i wonder if this ruling will be challenged doddie, if not i expect their will be quite a few civil actions in the future






i beg to differ andy, and so did the courts, i wonder what the family of the kids he killed think, nah scrap that, i already know what they will think of him, do you think he's a killer then instead ?

No, like the courts I believe he caused death by dangerous driving. I'm sure you know there's a clear difference between that and murder.

[JimBHibees]

Without getting into the rights and wrongs about what may or may not have been done - how can you be branded a rapist without having been found guilty of rape in a court?

They were found guilty in court, this was a civil case in the court of session.

Testimony of the security person would appear to be key to this judgement.

[2016 Delivered]

i wonder if this ruling will be challenged doddie, if not i expect their will be quite a few civil actions in the future






i beg to differ andy, and so did the courts, i wonder what the family of the kids he killed think, nah scrap that, i already know what they will think of him, do you think he's a killer then instead ? and he got out on parole after 3 and half years, 23 months each kids life was worth, sickening

Yes he's a killer not a murderer. He didn't set out to intentionally kill anyone but I agree his term for his actions was scandalous.

[2016 Delivered]

They were found guilty in court, this was a civil case in the court of session.

Testimony of the security person would appear to be key to this judgement.

Why wouldn't the police step in at this time then further to the testimony of the security officer?

[--------]

i wonder if this ruling will be challenged doddie, if not i expect their will be quite a few civil actions in the future

They have the right to appeal. I'd imagine they'll be considering their options right now.

But since their victim has found the courage to stand up in court and testify to what happened to her, which couldn't have been easy or pleasant, given the usual tactics of defence agents in such circumstances ...

If they do, I hope the Appeal Court tells them to get lost.




i beg to differ andy, and so did the courts, i wonder what the family of the kids he killed think, nah scrap that, i already know what they will think of him, do you think he's a killer then instead ? and he got out on parole after 3 and half years, 23 months each kids life was worth, sickening

:agree: We can argue on the semantics of what exactly it was he did - murder, manslaughter, homicide - lots of words with all sorts of nuances of meaning, but he committed a crime when he got in the car drunk; he committed another one driving at 90 mph which isn't legal anywhere in this country; and IIRC he also left the scene - which is also a crime, apart from the fact that he left three people on the scene severely injured, dying ...

Two children died, and their father is now irretrievably disabled. Family destroyed.

He might not be a murderer as the term is defined by the law, but he ain't St Francis of Assisi.

[Oscar T Grouch]

No, like the courts I believe he caused death by dangerous driving. I'm sure you know there's a clear difference between that and murder.

In the eyes of the law he still killed two kids. He was drunk behind the wheel of a motor vehicle travelling at speed. He murdered those two kids plain and simple, it is the same in my eye as hitting them over the head with a baseball bat, the poor excuse for a human decided to use a 2 tonne vehicle instead. Murderer plain and simple

[heretoday]

Degenerate, drunken individuals. How disgusting.

[Peevemor]

In the eyes of the law he still killed two kids. He was drunk behind the wheel of a motor vehicle travelling at speed. He murdered those two kids plain and simple, it is the same in my eye as hitting them over the head with a baseball bat, the poor excuse for a human decided to use a 2 tonne vehicle instead. Murderer plain and simple

Eh - no.

[CropleyWasGod]

Why wouldn't the police step in at this time then further to the testimony of the security officer?

The law is different in civil and criminal cases.

IIRC, the criminal case against these two didn't go ahead; the Crown decided not to prosecute. In that Court, the judgement is on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt". In the civil Court, it's "on the balance of probabilities", ie the burden of proof is lower.

[HoboHarry]

They were found guilty in court, this was a civil case in the court of session.

Testimony of the security person would appear to be key to this judgement.

The BBC is reporting that they never faced a criminal trial which is what I recall as well......

[2016 Delivered]

In the eyes of the law he still killed two kids. He was drunk behind the wheel of a motor vehicle travelling at speed. He murdered those two kids plain and simple, it is the same in my eye as hitting them over the head with a baseball bat, the poor excuse for a human decided to use a 2 tonne vehicle instead. Murderer plain and simple

No it's not. He didn't set out to murder the poor kids he acted dispicably and took the while blootered and killed them. There is a massive difference regardless of how shocking the crime is.

[2016 Delivered]

The law is different in civil and criminal cases.

IIRC, the criminal case against these two collapsed. In that Court, the judgement is on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt". In the civil Court, it's "on the balance of probabilities", ie the burden of proof is lower.


Thanks Crowley. Doesn't make it right but it explains it.

[HoboHarry]

In the eyes of the law he still killed two kids. He was drunk behind the wheel of a motor vehicle travelling at speed. He murdered those two kids plain and simple, it is the same in my eye as hitting them over the head with a baseball bat, the poor excuse for a human decided to use a 2 tonne vehicle instead. Murderer plain and simple

Nonsense. Without defending him, it's not even close to being the same.

[MWHIBBIES]

The Chelsea left back who scored twice at the weekend also killed someone because he was driving dangerously. Didn't stop Chelsea spending huge money on him in the summer. Football has no morals

[JimBHibees]

Why wouldn't the police step in at this time then further to the testimony of the security officer?

Not sure assuming the civil action had already started. Maybe they didnt question the security officer. This type of offence tends to lead to not many convictions. Wonder if it could now be open to a further criminal investigation.

[21.05.2016]

As far as I'm aware McCormick hasn't murdered anyone.

You're right, he hasn't, murder is when you intend to kill someone. He didn't. Nevertheless he's a selfish ****bag for getting behind the wheel of a car drunk. A family ripped apart because this arrogant moron thought he was above the law. Shame on Plymouth for making him club captain, if justice was really done he would still be behind bars not living the dream and playing professional football.

[CropleyWasGod]

Not sure assuming the civil action had already started. Maybe they didnt question the security officer. This type of offence tends to lead to not many convictions. Wonder if it could now be open to a further criminal investigation.

It wasn't the police's decision not to prosecute. It was the Crown office's.

The civil case only went ahead after that decision.

[JimBHibees]

It wasn't the police's decision not to prosecute. It was the Crown office's.

The civil case only went ahead after that decision.

I didnt say they did however maybe the case the police put forward wasnt as strong as it might have been.

[Oscar T Grouch]

OKay I overstated the case as I have personal feelings about people who get into cars and drive whilst drunk. He is a man-slaughterer then, but his direct actions caused the death of those two wee ones and he should still be in jail. Death by dangerous driving? He was pissed and travelling at high speed in an urban area, what did he think the outcome of that would be? He should have been done with manslaughter at the minimum. If someone had chosen to swing a golf club around a load of kids and hit two and killed them, that is the same to me. Sorry if you have a different opinion but I don't care.

[J-C]

It wasn't the police's decision not to prosecute. It was the Crown office's.

The civil case only went ahead after that decision.


TBH I've never got this, either there was enough evidence or there was not. Still don't understand how a civil action can be taken when the other legal one was seen as not having the evidence to back it up.

In USA it's even more bizarre, OJ Simpson was acquitted and found not guilty of murder, whether we agree or disagree about that is neither here nor there but he was then found guilty in a civil case a year or so later and lost everything having to pay out millions.

[CropleyWasGod]

TBH I've never got this, either there was enough evidence or there was not. Still don't understand how a civil action can be taken when the other legal one was seen as not having the evidence to back it up.

In USA it's even more bizarre, OJ Simpson was acquitted and found not guilty of murder, whether we agree or disagree about that is neither here nor there but he was then found guilty in a civil case a year or so later and lost everything having to pay out millions.

Like i say, the burden of proof is lower in a civil case. Therefore the evidence she presented doesn't have to be as strong as it would be in a criminal case.

It should also be remembered that DG was his own defence counsel. That can't have helped his case.

[J-C]

Like i say, the burden of proof is lower in a civil case. Therefore the evidence she presented doesn't have to be as strong as it would be in a criminal case.

It should also be remembered that DG was his own defence counsel. That can't have helped his case.

I get that bit, I just don't understand how a civil case can be brought when the prosecution deemed it not strong enough to put a case against them.

DG doing his own council is also laughable.

[JimBHibees]

Like i say, the burden of proof is lower in a civil case. Therefore the evidence she presented doesn't have to be as strong as it would be in a criminal case.

It should also be remembered that DG was his own defence counsel. That can't have helped his case.

Really :confused: as you say not the brightest decision in the world.

[21.05.2016]

OKay I overstated the case as I have personal feelings about people who get into cars and drive whilst drunk. He is a man-slaughterer then, but his direct actions caused the death of those two wee ones and he should still be in jail. Death by dangerous driving? He was pissed and travelling at high speed in an urban area, what did he think the outcome of that would be? He should have been done with manslaughter at the minimum. If someone had chosen to swing a golf club around a load of kids and hit two and killed them, that is the same to me. Sorry if you have a different opinion but I don't care.

Nah I totally agree with you. The drink drive law is very clear and those who defy it are selfish for putting other people at risk.

[Dashing Bob S]

I get that bit, I just don't understand how a civil case can be brought when the prosecution deemed it not strong enough to put a case against them.

DG doing his own council is also laughable.

I'd feel just as comfortable with him handling the Brexit negotiations as 'Eddie' May.

[CropleyWasGod]

Really :confused: as you say not the brightest decision in the world.

Yep.

He couldn't afford the fees. So how he's going to pay the damages......:confused:

[Killiehibbie]

Yep.

He couldn't afford the fees. So how he's going to pay the damages......:confused:Probably bright enough to have nothing in his name and paying nothing.

[CMurdoch]

TBH I've never got this, either there was enough evidence or there was not. Still don't understand how a civil action can be taken when the other legal one was seen as not having the evidence to back it up.

In USA it's even more bizarre, OJ Simpson was acquitted and found not guilty of murder, whether we agree or disagree about that is neither here nor there but he was then found guilty in a civil case a year or so later and lost everything having to pay out millions.

The burden of proof is different in criminal and civil cases.

To get a Criminal conviction the prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.
To be successful in a Civil action they only need to prove that on the balance of probability the accused committed the act.
Accordingly you can fail to get a conviction in a criminal court but be successful with a civil action.
In a civil action the accused liberty is not at stake and damages are generally awarded if the action is successful.

[Lago]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38651041


A former Scotland international footballer and his ex-teammate have been ruled to be rapists and ordered to pay £100,000 damages despite never facing a criminal trial.


i didn't realise goodwillie was also at plymouth...along with that drunken murderer luke McCormick,
Civil court action not a criminal court, less testing evidence required.

[Monts]

It's interesting the two cases being discussed on this thread almost contradict themselves. I don't mean the two exact cases, but more the law behind them.

In one we have a man that was drunk, and being held accountable for his actions in that state.

In the other we have a woman that was drunk, and deemed unable to be held accountable for her actions in that state.

[Hibby Bairn]

This shouldn't be on Main Forum which imo is for on the field football chat.

[lord bunberry]

So is he a rapist or not in the eyes of the law?

[Billy Whizz]

Can they appeal this?

[CropleyWasGod]

Can they appeal this?

They can, but I don't think DG can afford to.

[lapsedhibee]

So is he a rapist or not in the eyes of the law?

Probably, but not definitely.

[CMurdoch]

So is he a rapist or not in the eyes of the law?

He will not have a rape conviction

[Future17]

Yep.

He couldn't afford the fees. So how he's going to pay the damages......:confused:

Goodwillie previously had assets frozen by the Court to cover the damages which would be awarded if the decision went against him. According to him, this freeze meant he was unable to afford representation and, therefore, had to defend himself.

I'm not sure whether this ultimately transpired, as his representation does not seem to have been mentioned in the media reports that I've seen. It will be interesting to see if he did, as the Judge had previously ruled he would not be allowed to examine the Pursuer (his accuser) if he represented himself.

Regardless of your opinion of Goodwillie, and regardless of his guilt or otherwise, there are certainly some questions to be asked and answered with regard to access to justice. Based on the scant details currently available, it looks as though this decision is the sort that would be appealed 99% of the time. However, whether Goodwillie even has the funds to do that is another matter.

[21.05.2016]

So is he a rapist or not in the eyes of the law?

He wont have a rape conviction on his record. I'm sure the same happened in the OJ simpson case, he was cleared of murder in the court of law (unbelievably!) but he lost a civil case an had to pay out money to his victims families.

[CMurdoch]

It's interesting the two cases being discussed on this thread almost contradict themselves. I don't mean the two exact cases, but more the law behind them.

In one we have a man that was drunk, and being held accountable for his actions in that state.

In the other we have a woman that was drunk, and deemed unable to be held accountable for her actions in that state.

In the case of McCormack, he was not drunk in the conventional sense.
The alcohol level in his breath or blood exceeded the prescribed limit for driving.

[CMurdoch]

He wont have a rape conviction on his record. I'm sure the same happened in the OJ simpson case, he was cleared of murder in the court of law (unbelievably!) but he lost a civil case an had to pay out money to his victims families.

Easy

Criminal Court = Criminal Conviction
Civil Action = Money

[Dashing Bob S]

Any visiting Huns looking in, the thread title described the players as 'rapists' not 'papists'. So no need to have that hearts attack. But do feel free if you must.

[Fisherrow Harp]

Yes he's a killer not a murderer. He didn't set out to intentionally kill anyone but I agree his term for his actions was scandalous.

Sorry but if you you sit drinking and get in a car and kill folk, for me that's premeditated and you should get life!

[CMurdoch]

Any visiting Huns looking in, the thread title described the players as 'rapists' not 'papists'. So no need to have that hearts attack. But do feel free if you must.

:wink:

[Andy74]

Sorry but if you you sit drinking and get in a car and kill folk, for me that's premeditated and you should get life!

Probably best we have reasonably sensible people administering the law then.

[hibeemikey21]

Sorry but if you you sit drinking and get in a car and kill folk, for me that's premeditated and you should get life!

Premeditated driving? If you're even remotely suggesting premeditated murder/manslaughter, I'm sure even you know how ridiculous that is. Or you simply don't understand what the word means.

[Monts]

Sorry but if you you sit drinking and get in a car and kill folk, for me that's premeditated and you should get life!

Only if you were getting in the car to intentionally run people down.

[Fisherrow Harp]

Only if you were getting in the car to intentionally run people down.

Really? Goodness ..

[Fisherrow Harp]

Premeditated driving? If you're even remotely suggesting premeditated murder/manslaughter, I'm sure even you know how ridiculous that is. Or you simply don't understand what the word means.

I think I am well aware what words mean. People drinking and getting into cars then killing people is wrong and they should have the book thrown at them. When will we get out the culture of "its only a couple of pints" while familes get ripped apart through no fault of their own, so count yourself back.

[CMurdoch]

Sorry but if you you sit drinking and get in a car and kill folk, for me that's premeditated and you should get life!

It's not premeditated.
It is a reckless act.

[21.05.2016]

Easy

Criminal Court = Criminal Conviction
Civil Action = Money

:confused:

[Fisherrow Harp]

It's not premeditated.
It is a reckless act.

Nah sorry if you sit and drink 5 or 6 pints in full knowledge that you are getting in a car you know what you are doing.

[hibeemikey21]

I think I am well aware what words mean. People drinking and getting into cars then killing people is wrong and they should have the book thrown at them. When will we get out the culture of "its only a couple of pints" while familes get ripped apart through no fault of their own, so count yourself back.

I don't disagree that it's wrong, nor do I condone in any way what he did.

I was merely pointing out that your suggestion that it was premeditated murder is madness. That means he set out with the intent of killing the children. Which you know isn't the case.

[Fisherrow Harp]

I don't disagree that it's wrong, nor do I condone in any way what he did.

I was merely pointing out that your suggestion that it was premeditated murder is madness. That means he set out with the intent of killing the children. Which you know isn't the case.

I see what you are saying, though sitting getting pished and getting behind the wheel, for me you know what you are doing. If you happen to hit folk and kill them through your own selfish act, is that not premeditated. Goodness you are mad with it and get into to a car and Rob someone of their children then you need to be sent down for a very long time, zero tolerance for that. It's completely avoidble!

[CMurdoch]

Only if you were getting in the car to intentionally run people down.

Correct

[silverhibee]

The law is different in civil and criminal cases.

IIRC, the criminal case against these two didn't go ahead; the Crown decided not to prosecute. In that Court, the judgement is on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt". In the civil Court, it's "on the balance of probabilities", ie the burden of proof is lower.

After this verdict in the civil court, what are the chances of them being charged again (double jeopardy) ?

[CropleyWasGod]

After this verdict in the civil court, what are the chances of them being charged again (double jeopardy) ?

It depends on whether the Crown Office think that there's a chance of a conviction. If the evidence is the same as it was before, i'd say probably not.

[CropleyWasGod]

I see what you are saying, though sitting getting pished and getting behind the wheel, for me you know what you are doing. If you happen to hit folk and kill them through your own selfish act, is that not premeditated. Goodness you are mad with it and get into to a car and Rob someone of their children then you need to be sent down for a very long time, zero tolerance for that. It's completely avoidble!

Nope.

[CMurdoch]

Lots of folk on here getting wired into Goodwillie and McCormick.

However I suspect a large number of the population including many of those on this forum have driven their vehicle after they have consumed alcohol exceeding the prescribed limit.
A very small number will have been caught and the rest will have arrived home safely. If you are one of these people are you any better than McCormick or are you just lucky.

As regards Goodwillie, the case against him is that the woman could not give meaningful consent to having sexual intercourse with him because she was so drunk. Again many members of the male community including some on this forum will have had sex with a woman who was drunk. Do they consider themselves rapists. Are they any better than Goodwillie.

[JimBHibees]

I see what you are saying, though sitting getting pished and getting behind the wheel, for me you know what you are doing. If you happen to hit folk and kill them through your own selfish act, is that not premeditated. Goodness you are mad with it and get into to a car and Rob someone of their children then you need to be sent down for a very long time, zero tolerance for that. It's completely avoidble!

It is premeditated to drive while drunk not to drive and end up crashing causing death to others.

[silverhibee]

Yep.

He couldn't afford the fees. So how he's going to pay the damages......:confused:

He made £100,000 from the sale of his house, which i think was put aside to pay the victim if found guilty but never had enough to pay for legal representation for the case.

He is obviously still earning money but obviously not enough to pay for a lawyer to represent him and wouldn't be able to get legal aid due to him earning a decent wage.

[silverhibee]

It depends on whether the Crown Office think that there's a chance of a conviction. If the evidence is the same as it was before, i'd say probably not.

Is the security officer new evidence in the civil case.

[CropleyWasGod]

Is the security officer new evidence in the civil case.

No idea, TBH.

Not sure that anyone outside of the police or CO will know that, as the criminal case didn't get to Court.

[hibeemikey21]

I see what you are saying, though sitting getting pished and getting behind the wheel, for me you know what you are doing. If you happen to hit folk and kill them through your own selfish act, is that not premeditated. Goodness you are mad with it and get into to a car and Rob someone of their children then you need to be sent down for a very long time, zero tolerance for that. It's completely avoidble!


I don't want to labour the point on the basis that I'm conscious of the fact you, or someone you know, may have been affected by a drunk driver, but it wouldn't be premeditated.

For something to be premeditated means that you have thought it out or planned it to a degree, with the intent of achieving the end result. Luke McCormack was an absolute prat who simply chose to get behind the wheel and intended to get home sooner than he should've. That's it.

[J-C]

So did this girl bring a civil case just to get money from them, what about getting them done as rapists is that not on her agenda?

[JDHibs]

Lots of folk on here getting wired into Goodwillie and McCormick.

However I suspect a large number of the population including many of those on this forum have driven their vehicle after they have consumed alcohol exceeding the prescribed limit.
A very small number will have been caught and the rest will have arrived home safely. If you are one of these people are you any better than McCormick or are you just lucky.

As regards Goodwillie, the case against him is that the woman could not give meaningful consent to having sexual intercourse with him because she was so drunk. Again many members of the male community including some on this forum will have had sex with a woman who was drunk. Do they consider themselves rapists. Are they any better than Goodwillie.

This.

[Peevemor]

So did this girl bring a civil case just to get money from them, what about getting them done as rapists is that not on her agenda?

A civil action was her decision to take, a public prosecution wasn't.

[CropleyWasGod]

So did this girl bring a civil case just to get money from them, what about getting them done as rapists is that not on her agenda?

Only she can answer that, but if the latter is on her agenda, she has achieved that.

IIRC, her identity was in the public domain even before this case. So there is also the issue of her reputation at stake.... ie disprove the notion that she went to the police with a false allegation.

[oldbutdim]

Again many members of the male community including some on this forum will have had sex with a woman who was drunk. Do they consider themselves rapists. Are they any better than Goodwillie.

Crikey!

I must admit that alcohol often plays a major part in my sex life - either by means of my own beer goggles, or more likely by weakening the resolve of my prey. Sorry, I meant to say "wife".

However, plying her with a glass or two of Pinot is a bit removed from sexual intercourse with a woman who is off her face and incapable, although the level of enjoyable participation may be identical now that I've thought that through.


I'm much better than Goodwillie thanks.
:wink:

[J-C]

A civil action was her decision to take, a public prosecution wasn't.

I get that but a civil action only gets you money whereas a public one gets you justice, I'd have thought she'd be knocking down the door to get the public one started again.

[JimBHibees]

I get that but a civil action only gets you money whereas a public one gets you justice, I'd have thought she'd be knocking down the door to get the public one started again.

She was trying to clear her name I am assuming.

[Hibbyradge]

Nah sorry if you sit and drink 5 or 6 pints in full knowledge that you are getting in a car you know what you are doing.

The drinking and driving was premeditated.

Killing the bairns was not, but it was a result of him drink driving.

It's not murder, but why it's not manslaughter, I don't understand.

[Hibby Bairn]

Can we get back to football chat please and bump this thread elsewhere for ongoing discussion?

[Shrekko]

I get that but a civil action only gets you money whereas a public one gets you justice, I'd have thought she'd be knocking down the door to get the public one started again.

The whole reason she took the civil action was because she was devastated that a criminal prosecution didn't go ahead.

How do you know that she's not 'knocking the door down' anyway? I think bringing the civil action is as good a way as any to bring attention to the case. There's only so much she can do!

[Tom Hart RIP]

I think there is a difference in Scottish and English law regarding levels of corroboration required in prosecutions. The case sounds very similar to Adam Johnson's.
Had DG had sex with a drunk woman in England there is a good chance that he would have been prosecuted and if found guilty jailed.
In Scotland the level of corroboration was insufficient for the prosecutor to go ahead with the case.

[Tom Hart RIP]

Sorry I meant Ched Evans and not Adam Johnson

[21.05.2016]

I think there is a difference in Scottish and English law regarding levels of corroboration required in prosecutions. The case sounds very similar to Adam Johnson's.
Had DG had sex with a drunk woman in England there is a good chance that he would have been prosecuted and if found guilty jailed.
In Scotland the level of corroboration was insufficient for the prosecutor to go ahead with the case.

Em no, Adam Johnson had sex (or sexual contact) with an underage girl, nothing to do with drunken consent. Whether the girl was drunk or sober, he was still illegal to do anything with her because she was a minor.


EDIT: Apologies! Just realised your second post that you meant to say Ched Evans. Sorry.

[silverhibee]

No idea, TBH.

Not sure that anyone outside of the police or CO will know that, as the criminal case didn't get to Court.


Just watching SSN and they had some legal expert on talking about Goodwillie and Robertson, was saying that with the new evidence brought forward in the civil case that it will be up to the PF in Scotland if they are charged with rape after today's outcome, didn't say what the new evidence was though.

[beensaidbefore]

Lots of folk on here getting wired into Goodwillie and McCormick.

However I suspect a large number of the population including many of those on this forum have driven their vehicle after they have consumed alcohol exceeding the prescribed limit.
A very small number will have been caught and the rest will have arrived home safely. If you are one of these people are you any better than McCormick or are you just lucky.

As regards Goodwillie, the case against him is that the woman could not give meaningful consent to having sexual intercourse with him because she was so drunk. Again many members of the male community including some on this forum will have had sex with a woman who was drunk. Do they consider themselves rapists. Are they any better than Goodwillie.

Furthermore, if a man cannot remember giving consent before a one night stand etc could he have been raped?

I appreciate this is a sensitive subject, and not trying to be a total prick, but having studied the attitudes and approaches of social workers towards male victims of domestic abuse, I wonder if consent to sex will be treated equally, or will there be different rules depending on the sex/gender of the victim/perpetrator.

In the age of 'equality' there is no justification for men and women being treated differently.

[Brightside]

Lots of folk on here getting wired into Goodwillie and McCormick.

However I suspect a large number of the population including many of those on this forum have driven their vehicle after they have consumed alcohol exceeding the prescribed limit.
A very small number will have been caught and the rest will have arrived home safely. If you are one of these people are you any better than McCormick or are you just lucky.

As regards Goodwillie, the case against him is that the woman could not give meaningful consent to having sexual intercourse with him because she was so drunk. Again many members of the male community including some on this forum will have had sex with a woman who was drunk. Do they consider themselves rapists. Are they any better than Goodwillie.

Jesus.

[Brightside]

Just watching SSN and they had some legal expert on talking about Goodwillie and Robertson, was saying that with the new evidence brought forward in the civil case that it will be up to the PF in Scotland if they are charged with rape after today's outcome, didn't say what the new evidence was though.

some security girl came forward with more evidence.

However, a security firm employee working at the nightclub told the court that she had been in need of an ambulance.
Gayle McGregor said: "She wasn't in control of herself. Her eyes were rolling in her head. She couldn't stand up straight. She couldn't speak to me properly. She wasn't compos mentis."

[SRHibs]

The drinking and driving was premeditated.

Killing the bairns was not, but it was a result of him drink driving.

It's not murder, but why it's not manslaughter, I don't understand.

AFAIK the former wasn't premeditated. He planned to sleep but only got a couple of hours because he'd heard rumours that his GF had cheated on him. He then stupidly chose to rush to sort those issues out while he was still over the limit.

[beensaidbefore]

some security girl came forward with more evidence.

However, a security firm employee working at the nightclub told the court that she had been in need of an ambulance.
Gayle McGregor said: "She wasn't in control of herself. Her eyes were rolling in her head. She couldn't stand up straight. She couldn't speak to me properly. She wasn't compos mentis."

Bit beasty if that's true.

[CropleyWasGod]

Furthermore, if a man cannot remember giving consent before a one night stand etc could he have been raped?

I appreciate this is a sensitive subject, and not trying to be a total prick, but having studied the attitudes and approaches of social workers towards male victims of domestic abuse, I wonder if consent to sex will be treated equally, or will there be different rules depending on the sex/gender of the victim/perpetrator.

In the age of 'equality' there is no justification for men and women being treated differently.



The definition of rape is:-

(1) If a person (“A”), with A's *****—
(a) without another person (“B”) consenting, and
(b) without any reasonable belief that B consents,
penetrates to any extent, either intending to do so or reckless as to whether there is penetration, the vagina, anus or mouth of B then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of rape.


The law is not gender-specific, as you'll see. It does need a *****, though.

If the man is incapable of giving consent, and he is penetrated by another man, that's rape.

If he has sex with a woman, whilst being incapable, IMO that's sexual assault by her.

[trev the hat]

Like i say, the burden of proof is lower in a civil case. Therefore the evidence she presented doesn't have to be as strong as it would be in a criminal case.

That makes the Glasgow bin lorry Civil case rejection baffling to say the least.

[CropleyWasGod]

That makes the Glasgow bin lorry Civil case rejection baffling to say the least.

That was different, no?

That was a private prosecution, which is different from this civil case. Had that gone ahead, it would have been on the same basis as a criminal case.

[trev the hat]

That was different, no?

That was a private prosecution, which is different from this civil case. Had that gone ahead, it would have been on the same basis as a criminal case.

Ah yes it was, thanks for clarifying.

[Malthibby]

some security girl came forward with more evidence.

However, a security firm employee working at the nightclub told the court that she had been in need of an ambulance.
Gayle McGregor said: "She wasn't in control of herself. Her eyes were rolling in her head. She couldn't stand up straight. She couldn't speak to me properly. She wasn't compos mentis."

:agree:Which was I imagine a major factor in determining guilt, as was the acceptance that she was offered a lift home by them but then taken to the flat they were using.
The idea that we are all capable of having sex when drunk & with folk who are drunk, is very, very different from the above.
They have got away with jail-time; I hope we never hear their names again.

[2016 Delivered]

:agree:Which was I imagine a major factor in determining guilt, as was the acceptance that she was offered a lift home by them but then taken to the flat they were using.
The idea that we are all capable of having sex when drunk & with folk who are drunk, is very, very different from the above.
They have got away with jail-time; I hope we never hear their names again.

Yep. Vile, vile. Behaviour. Ched Evans done a lot less and look what he went through.

[CMurdoch]

some security girl came forward with more evidence.

However, a security firm employee working at the nightclub told the court that she had been in need of an ambulance.
Gayle McGregor said: "She wasn't in control of herself. Her eyes were rolling in her head. She couldn't stand up straight. She couldn't speak to me properly. She wasn't compos mentis."

Brilliant show stopping evidence

[Hibernia&Alba]

As good as......

McCormick, the highly-rated Plymouth Argyle goalkeeper, admitted causing death by dangerous driving and being twice over the drink drive limit and was jailed for seven years and four months.

He killed 2 kids and only got 7 years. Absolute disgrace. The lives that were ruined by him being a ****. Letting him rot in jail would have been a far better sentence.

As for the other 2 that outcome opens up a big can of worms with regards to self conduct and being in control of yourself. I may or may not have had a few drunken nights in my long long ago past. Maybe I should try and sue.


How can he live with that? I honestly think I would kill myself in those circumstances.

[2016 Delivered]

How can he live with that? I honestly think I would kill myself in those circumstances.


Must be a lot lot tougher than being a murderer that's for sure.

[CMurdoch]

How can he live with that? I honestly think I would kill myself in those circumstances.
It would be the first thing you thought about when you woke up.
It would destroy you.

[Hibernia&Alba]

It would be the first thing you thought about when you woke up.
It would destroy you.

Certainly anyone with a developed conscience. How could you ever enjoy anything in life again, or even laugh again, after doing something like that? I'm sure many people would think they had no right to derive anything from life again; it would be pointless.

[Scouse Hibee]

It would be the first thing you thought about when you woke up.
It would destroy you.

It hasn't destroyed him,or at least it doesn't appear to have. Maybe that tells you something about him?

[CMurdoch]

It hasn't destroyed him,or at least it doesn't appear to have. Maybe that tells you something about him?

I suspect his head is fairly ****ed up.
The ability to continue to play football is no barometer.

[Andy74]

It hasn't destroyed him,or at least it doesn't appear to have. Maybe that tells you something about him?

Let's not pretend we have any idea on that front.

[silverhibee]

AFAIK the former wasn't premeditated. He planned to sleep but only got a couple of hours because he'd heard rumours that his GF had cheated on him. He then stupidly chose to rush to sort those issues out while he was still over the limit.

Yeah that was his defence for driving while drunk, whether you believe it or not though, did he really have a sleep, no one can prove that, was it ever proven that his girlfriend did cheat on him, could all be BS and and his girlfriend hadn't cheated on him.

He served 3 and a half years of the 7 year sentence, he was in a open prison for most of it, he was being released at the weekends, it was reported that his girlfriend visited him while pregnant with his child in a open prison, all while a mother had to come to terms with losing her 2 children and having to give up her job to look after her husband who was seriously injured in the crash, the mother now has to live of benefits from the government to get by while looking after her husband and have to come to terms with losing her 2 kids because a idiot allegedly heard his girlfriend was cheating on him, you have to wonder why he never took his girlfriend to the doo he was attending, and not forgetting he showed no remorse for it to the family at the time he was given 7 years, it seemingly took him over a year to get in touch with the mother through a letter from prison to say how sorry he was.

[Brightside]

Brilliant show stopping evidence

Are you agreeing it is or taking the piss? Hard to tell on forums sometimes. basically they have taken a girl who the pub had already called an ambulance for back to a flat.... I fully expect the PF to open the case again and find them guilty.

[silverhibee]

Bit beasty if that's true.

The 2 of them assured the security officer that they would drop her of at her house but that never happened and they took her to another house where a party was taking place.

[J-C]

Let's not pretend we have any idea on that front.

No one can 2nd guess what his state of mind is now, he could be waking up every morning having nightmares for all we know. One thing for sure is killing anyone with his car was not in his mind when he drove, it was a tragic costly error of judgement that he's been punished, length of jail time is something else.

[Scouse Hibee]

Let's not pretend we have any idea on that front.

I'm not pretending anything!

[Dashing Bob S]

Perhaps maybe best to agree that this pair and Evans are undesirables and let people who are inclined to do so fantasise about their brutal punishment or saintly exoneration on the non-football thread?

[Hibernia&Alba]

No one can 2nd guess what his state of mind is now, he could be waking up every morning having nightmares for all we know. One thing for sure is killing anyone with his car was not in his mind when he drove, it was a tragic costly error of judgement that he's been punished, length of jail time is something else.

Yes, he's served his time according to the law, but I imagine it's the living with oneself which must be the most difficult thing in a situation like that. Drunk at the wheel and two children dead; I don't think I'd be able to deal with it. Life would be continual torture.

[J-C]

Yes, he's served his time according to the law, but I imagine it's the living with oneself which must be the most difficult thing in a situation like that. Drunk at the wheel and two children dead; I don't think I'd be able to deal with it. Life would be continual torture.

Hence why I said in my post we don't know his mental state of mind, he could be moments away from suicide but we'll never know. People with depression and problems tend to hide these things very well, he'll not sleep well at night that's for sure.

[21.05.2016]

Yes, he's served his time according to the law, but I imagine it's the living with oneself which must be the most difficult thing in a situation like that. Drunk at the wheel and two children dead; I don't think I'd be able to deal with it. Life would be continual torture.

Must say, if it was my wee boys and this idiot was out of jail, i'd be hoping it did haunt him.


Might sound bad to some but if it was my kids I just could never forgive that. He got in the car KNOWING he was well over the limit. If he had got in the car sober and had unfortunatly lost control which resulted in the deaths then I could forgive and even feel sorry for him. But in this instance I would just constantly think that If it wasnt for him and his selfish actions I would still have my children so I would wish that he suffered.

[McD]

I think I am well aware what words mean. People drinking and getting into cars then killing people is wrong and they should have the book thrown at them. When will we get out the culture of "its only a couple of pints" while familes get ripped apart through no fault of their own, so count yourself back.

I wouldn't say There is a culture of 'it's only a couple of pints' anymore, it is a minority who act in this way. The vast majority of people either don't drink or don't drive within an appropriate timeframe.

drink driving is a selfish, arrogant, reckless act, and in this situation has resulted in a terrible terrible price for an innocent family, to whom my heart goes out.



I see what you are saying, though sitting getting pished and getting behind the wheel, for me you know what you are doing. If you happen to hit folk and kill them through your own selfish act, is that not premeditated. Goodness you are mad with it and get into to a car and Rob someone of their children then you need to be sent down for a very long time, zero tolerance for that. It's completely avoidble!

no, it is not premeditated. Premeditated means setting out with a specific act in mind determined to complete it - i.e., it's premeditated to go out with a knife hell bent on stabbing someone, and doing so.

what McCormick did was despicable, reckless, and yes he should have had the book thrown at him imo also. However, he cannot be described as carrying out a premeditated action or as a murderer.

[CMurdoch]

Are you agreeing it is or taking the piss? Hard to tell on forums sometimes. basically they have taken a girl who the pub had already called an ambulance for back to a flat.... I fully expect the PF to open the case again and find them guilty.

No piss take, a third party is corroborating that the woman was out of it and thus unable to give real consent. Game ,set, match.
I presume this witness wasn't found by the Police at the time of the original enquiry. Mr Goodwillie and chum will be getting a visit from Police Scotland.

[CMurdoch]

Yes, he's served his time according to the law, but I imagine it's the living with oneself which must be the most difficult thing in a situation like that. Drunk at the wheel and two children dead; I don't think I'd be able to deal with it. Life would be continual torture.

The jail would be the easy bit to deal with.
He will be haunted for the rest of his life and I suspect when he no longer has football to occupy his mind each day it will worsen.
The mind is strong and you can't leave it somewhere or run away from it.

One day, one act and a lifetime of pain for all parties.
He has done something that many of us have done at least once in our lives and has destroyed a family and himself.
Would be a very effective drink driving story to push at young men.

[aljo7-0]

No piss take, a third party is corroborating that the woman was out of it and thus unable to give real consent. Game ,set, match.
I presume this witness wasn't found by the Police at the time of the original enquiry. Mr Goodwillie and chum will be getting a visit from Police Scotland.

I suspect they will get visit but it will still be up to the PF to decide if there is now sufficient evidence to get proof beyond reasonable doubt and if it is in the public interest to prosecute. I suspect from what we have read/heard they probably will.

[lapsedhibee]

Would be a very effective drink driving story to push at young men.
You think? :confused:

[CMurdoch]

You think? :confused:

Probably not, human beings are stupid and young men are the worst.

I certainly wouldn't suggest using McCormick but a similar story line.
The PFA could certainly use it for young footballers as part of their education process.
They probably already do.
A portfolio of footballer falls has certainly built up in the last few years.

[CropleyWasGod]

No piss take, a third party is corroborating that the woman was out of it and thus unable to give real consent. Game ,set, match.
I presume this witness wasn't found by the Police at the time of the original enquiry. Mr Goodwillie and chum will be getting a visit from Police Scotland.

The witness would be subject to aggressive cross-examination by experienced defence counsel, and the trial would be decided by a jury. I'm not so sure that it would be as clear-cut as you think.

One question which would need addressing at a criminal trial.....why did the witness come forward now, and not at the time? Or, if she did, did the PF decide that she wasn't a reliable witness?

[CMurdoch]

The witness would be subject to aggressive cross-examination by experienced defence counsel, and the trial would be decided by a jury. I'm not so sure that it would be as clear-cut as you think.

One question which would need addressing at a criminal trial.....why did the witness come forward now, and not at the time? Or, if she did, did the PF decide that she wasn't a reliable witness?

I am surprised the Police missed this witness so there is an issue there.
Not enough in the media to make any judgement on that.
The judge in the civil case must have thought both the witness and the victim were credible.

[WhileTheChief..]

Rape, murder and bin lorries.

Why is this thread here?:confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

I am surprised the Police missed this witness so there is an issue there.
Not enough in the media to make any judgement on that.
The judge in the civil case must have thought both the witness and the victim were credible.
We don't know that they missed her. She may have been seen as unreliable by the PF.

It wouldn't be the judge who would interrogate her in a criminal trial. It would be someone more aggressive and experienced than DG.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Future17]

The witness would be subject to aggressive cross-examination by experienced defence counsel, and the trial would be decided by a jury. I'm not so sure that it would be as clear-cut as you think.

One question which would need addressing at a criminal trial.....why did the witness come forward now, and not at the time? Or, if she did, did the PF decide that she wasn't a reliable witness?

The witness would only be subject to cross-examination by experienced defence counsel if Goodwillie can afford to instruct such representation.

Any evidence or information (including the existence of witnesses) which suggest a crime has been committed and which haven't previously been passed to the police, must be made known to them without delay. So, even if the police were not aware of the witness when the PF decided not to proceed initially, they will have been made aware a long time before now.

Cases like this come up every now and then (albeit not frequently) and COPFS rarely change their previous decision. The only thing that might make a difference in this case is the publicity which the Crown Agent may feel would help secure a conviction.

[Newcastlehibby]

I get that bit, I just don't understand how a civil case can be brought when the prosecution deemed it not strong enough to put a case against them.

DG doing his own council is also laughable.

Because the standard of proof is lower in a Civil Case.

[cleanyman]

I just read the judgement.

This is not the case of two guys picking up some drunk lassie and having sex, this is far more serious. Its truly grim to read.

Goodwillie is a thug and now a rapist. He'll never play football again along with his ****bag pal Robertson.

Good riddance.

[CMurdoch]

The witness would only be subject to cross-examination by experienced defence counsel if Goodwillie can afford to instruct such representation.

Any evidence or information (including the existence of witnesses) which suggest a crime has been committed and which haven't previously been passed to the police, must be made known to them without delay. So, even if the police were not aware of the witness when the PF decided not to proceed initially, they will have been made aware a long time before now.

Cases like this come up every now and then (albeit not frequently) and COPFS rarely change their previous decision. The only thing that might make a difference in this case is the publicity which the Crown Agent may feel would help secure a conviction.

Had a look at the BBC report the last part of which purports to be a statement in response to the civil case judgement and attributed to a Crown employee which would suggest they were aware of all the evidence at the time of the criminal investigation and considered there was insufficient evidence to proceed.
Another interesting aspect in the BBC report was the judges summing up in which he stated he found the victims evidence to be credible and the footballers evidence of consent to be unreliable.

[pacoluna]

Rape, murder and bin lorries.

Why is this thread here?:confused:

Why do people get all agitated with the placement of a thread, seems petty. If you have no interest in the thread ignore it. It involves an ex Scotland international As well as a player who has been regularly brought up in the past as a possible signing for us. The football side if the forum is as good a place as anywhere to discuss it.

[Future17]

Why do people get all agitated with the placement of a thread, seems petty. If you have no interest in the thread ignore it. It involves an ex Scotland international As well as a player who has been regularly brought up in the past as a possible signing for us. The football side if the forum is as good a place as anywhere to discuss it.

I think some people believe that if a thread is moved off the main board, it may be forgotten about it and nobody will continue to post on it.

No evidence of that here though...

[--------]

It's interesting the two cases being discussed on this thread almost contradict themselves. I don't mean the two exact cases, but more the law behind them.

In one we have a man that was drunk, and being held accountable for his actions in that state.

In the other we have a woman that was drunk, and deemed unable to be held accountable for her actions in that state.


I just read the judgement.

This is not the case of two guys picking up some drunk lassie and having sex, this is far more serious. Its truly grim to read.

Goodwillie is a thug and now a rapist. He'll never play football again along with his ****bag pal Robertson.

Good riddance.


Goodwillie had form before this IIRC. Thoroughly nasty piece of work.

Can you tell me where I can find the judgement?

[Sir David Gray]

Goodwillie had form before this IIRC. Thoroughly nasty piece of work.

Can you tell me where I can find the judgement?

He's been in trouble with the law since he's been a schoolboy.

Absolute arse.

[Colr]

Disgusting ****bags. I'm concerned that the attitude they shiwed towards women and sex is all too prevalent.

Not a good reflection on how we raise boys - look at India - its a worldwide issue.

[johnbc70]

Goodwillie had form before this IIRC. Thoroughly nasty piece of work.

Can you tell me where I can find the judgement?

Scottish Courts website, under Judgements and Court of Session.

[--------]

Scottish Courts website, under Judgements and Court of Session.


Thanks.

Not pleasant reading.

[--------]

I just read the judgement.

This is not the case of two guys picking up some drunk lassie and having sex, this is far more serious. Its truly grim to read.

Goodwillie is a thug and now a rapist. He'll never play football again along with his ****bag pal Robertson.

Good riddance.


You're not kidding. The judge wasn't impressed with either of them, was he?

[Colr]

You're not kidding. The judge wasn't impressed with either of them, was he?

Could a criminal trial follow this judgement?

[CropleyWasGod]

Could a criminal trial follow this judgement?
Depends if the PF thinks that there's a reasonable chance of getting a conviction.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Future17]

Could a criminal trial follow this judgement?

I think the COPFS have already stated they have reviewed the initial decision not to prosecute and decided it was the correct one.

I see Robertson has announced his retirement today.

[--------]

I think the COPFS have already stated they have reviewed the initial decision not to prosecute and decided it was the correct one.

I see Robertson has announced his retirement today.


And now that this judgement's gone through, the defence agents could argue that their clients couldn't get a fair trial, I suppose.

Of course, with this on public record, they'd would have a hard job talking their way out of trouble if they were ever charged with rape again ...

[silverhibee]

BOMBSHELL CLAIMS Mum raped by David Goodwillie and David Robertson claims the footie fiends tried to buy her silence for £115,000
Denise Clair alleges the ex-Dundee United teammates offered her cash to drop her civil case
BY LISA BOYLE 22nd January 2017, 11:00 pm

THE mum raped by David Goodwillie and David Robertson claims the footie fiends tried to buy her silence for £115,000.

Denise Clair, 30, said the shamed ex- teammates made three out-of-court offers to drop the civil case against them.

But the defiant victim insists she was “never for sale”.

Denise, of Fauldhouse, West Lothian, said: “They tried to buy me off — not the action of men who still claim they did nothing wrong.

“Do innocent men who’ve done nothing wrong offer £115,000 to settle a case in private? I don’t think so.

“The three offers made to settle would all have involved me keeping quiet — it was their way of trying to gag me.


“Truth doesn’t have a price. I wanted the truth to emerge and no amount of money would have bought my silence or made up for the suffering.

The victim — raped during a boozy blackout in 2011 — rejected the first offer of £40,000 plus expenses in 2015 made by both players’ legal advisors in a call.

Goodwillie’s team hiked it to £50,000 including expenses at a meeting of advocates in Edinburgh last July.

Then the pair offered £115,000 a month before her case opened in October.

Denise added: “I’d have never accepted anything out of court. It was never about money. It was about exposing them for who they are.”

The mum of one blasted the aces’ bid to have her legal aid withdrawn which would have derailed her case.

And she’s “devastated” prosecutors refuse to hit them with criminal charges.

We told how ex-Scotland striker Goodwillie, 27 — considering an appeal — and Robertson, 30, deny rape and insist she consented to sex.

Last week the former Dundee United stars were told to pay £100,000 damages by the capital’s Court of Session.

Backing Denise, Lord Armstrong ruled “both took advantage” and “each raped her” in Armadale.

After hearing the result, Denise sobbed with happiness and clung to her one-year-old daughter saying: “It’s over baby, it’s over.”


So the Crown thought there was not enough evidence for it to go to trial but the pair of them have been trying to buy her silence for a number of years, why would you offer her anything if they had done nothing wrong.

Believe Plymouth will make a statement regards DG in the next few days, that should be interesting.

[northstandhibby]

BOMBSHELL CLAIMS Mum raped by David Goodwillie and David Robertson claims the footie fiends tried to buy her silence for £115,000
Denise Clair alleges the ex-Dundee United teammates offered her cash to drop her civil case
BY LISA BOYLE 22nd January 2017, 11:00 pm

THE mum raped by David Goodwillie and David Robertson claims the footie fiends tried to buy her silence for £115,000.

Denise Clair, 30, said the shamed ex- teammates made three out-of-court offers to drop the civil case against them.

But the defiant victim insists she was “never for sale”.

Denise, of Fauldhouse, West Lothian, said: “They tried to buy me off — not the action of men who still claim they did nothing wrong.

“Do innocent men who’ve done nothing wrong offer £115,000 to settle a case in private? I don’t think so.

“The three offers made to settle would all have involved me keeping quiet — it was their way of trying to gag me.


“Truth doesn’t have a price. I wanted the truth to emerge and no amount of money would have bought my silence or made up for the suffering.

The victim — raped during a boozy blackout in 2011 — rejected the first offer of £40,000 plus expenses in 2015 made by both players’ legal advisors in a call.

Goodwillie’s team hiked it to £50,000 including expenses at a meeting of advocates in Edinburgh last July.

Then the pair offered £115,000 a month before her case opened in October.

Denise added: “I’d have never accepted anything out of court. It was never about money. It was about exposing them for who they are.”

The mum of one blasted the aces’ bid to have her legal aid withdrawn which would have derailed her case.

And she’s “devastated” prosecutors refuse to hit them with criminal charges.

We told how ex-Scotland striker Goodwillie, 27 — considering an appeal — and Robertson, 30, deny rape and insist she consented to sex.

Last week the former Dundee United stars were told to pay £100,000 damages by the capital’s Court of Session.

Backing Denise, Lord Armstrong ruled “both took advantage” and “each raped her” in Armadale.

After hearing the result, Denise sobbed with happiness and clung to her one-year-old daughter saying: “It’s over baby, it’s over.”


So the Crown thought there was not enough evidence for it to go to trial but the pair of them have been trying to buy her silence for a number of years, why would you offer her anything if they had done nothing wrong.

Believe Plymouth will make a statement regards DG in the next few days, that should be interesting.

100% respect for this girl. God bless her.

Glory Glory

[JohnM1875]

David Goodwillie: Plymouth Argyle striker leaves club after rape case ruling

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38743687

[Allant1981]

David Goodwillie: Plymouth Argyle striker leaves club after rape case ruling

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38743687

unfortunately there will be a club out there that will sign him at some point

[CropleyWasGod]

unfortunately there will be a club out there that will sign him at some point

According to the report, he's asked to leave so that he can concentrate on an appeal.



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Future17]

BOMBSHELL CLAIMS Mum raped by David Goodwillie and David Robertson claims the footie fiends tried to buy her silence for £115,000
Denise Clair alleges the ex-Dundee United teammates offered her cash to drop her civil case...

So the Crown thought there was not enough evidence for it to go to trial but the pair of them have been trying to buy her silence for a number of years, why would you offer her anything if they had done nothing wrong.


Lots of civil claims settle out of court and the court system (for want of a better term) actively encourages parties to try and resolve matters. Having the court make a ruling should be a last resort.

I know Goodwillie had issues with obtaining (or keeping) representation but, whoever was advising him would be providing an inadequate service if they did not at least discuss the prospect of settling the matter with him. Such a discussion would likely involve a "worst case scenario" being considered and what the benefits of settling would be versus that scenario. There would also be a discussion on prospects of success, which would include some reference to how likely the worst case scenario would be to transpire.

Unfortunately, in civil cases, the outcome will rest almost entirely on which party's evidence the judge prefers. Accordingly, it a "your word against theirs" case, prospects of success are 50-50. With that in mind (and considering what Goodwillie had to lose) I don't think it's surprising that he made an offer to settle the matter. In any event, it's certainly not an admission of guilt.

[lapsedhibee]

100% respect for this girl. God bless her.

Glory Glory

Whole judgment is a very long read, and I'm afraid at the end of it I certainly didn't feel "100% respect" for the girl.

[Hibs Class]

Whole judgment is a very long read, and I'm afraid at the end of it I certainly didn't feel "100% respect" for the girl.

You will have seen this para at the end of the judgement.

“In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision‑making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her.”

What did you feel? That the judgement was broadly appropriate? That some degree of justice was done? Or that she somehow brought it on herself?

[silverhibee]

According to the report, he's asked to leave so that he can concentrate on an appeal.



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk


Plymouth had to tread very carefully how they dealt with DG, it wouldn't surprise me that he was paid up in his full contract on the agreement that he left the club.

[lapsedhibee]

You will have seen this para at the end of the judgement.

“In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision‑making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her.”

What did you feel? That the judgement was broadly appropriate? That some degree of justice was done? Or that she somehow brought it on herself?

Don't disagree with any part of the judgement that you've quoted. No, wouldn't say that she 'brought it on herself'. But she did act badly in at least two obvious ways: firstly, she appears to have got so drunk that she didn't know what she was doing; secondly, she repeatedly ignored advice from someone she knew about someone she didn't know (including before she was very drunk). As a result, I don't have '100% respect' for the victim. I do see some difference between her case and the case of someone who has had their drink spiked in a pub, or is dragged kicking and screaming into the bushes while out jogging in a park.

On a broader note, Scotland would be a better place if our culture abandoned completely the idea that being very drunk is ever a valid reason for bad behaviour. Drink driving laws are a good sign - being drunk is no longer an acceptable excuse for bad driving - but there's a long way to go. Someone who stands up in court and argues, as Goodwillie did, that he couldn't give the victim a lift home because he'd been drinking, should be laughed out of it. (As I understand it he was already breaking the law by drink-driving, but he was expecting sympathy from the court for showing care towards the victim because he'd been drinking. A hoot, though maybe a titter did run round the courtroom at that point - impossible to tell from the judgement.)

[Colr]

Don't disagree with any part of the judgement that you've quoted. No, wouldn't say that she 'brought it on herself'. But she did act badly in at least two obvious ways: firstly, she appears to have got so drunk that she didn't know what she was doing; secondly, she repeatedly ignored advice from someone she knew about someone she didn't know (including before she was very drunk). As a result, I don't have '100% respect' for the victim. I do see some difference between her case and the case of someone who has had their drink spiked in a pub, or is dragged kicking and screaming into the bushes while out jogging in a park.

On a broader note, Scotland would be a better place if our culture abandoned completely the idea that being very drunk is ever a valid reason for bad behaviour. Drink driving laws are a good sign - being drunk is no longer an acceptable excuse for bad driving - but there's a long way to go. Someone who stands up in court and argues, as Goodwillie did, that he couldn't give the victim a lift home because he'd been drinking, should be laughed out of it. (As I understand it he was already breaking the law by drink-driving, but he was expecting sympathy from the court for showing care towards the victim because he'd been drinking. A hoot, though maybe a titter did run round the courtroom at that point - impossible to tell from the judgement.)

I understand your point and do very much agree with your point on drinking culture in Scotland.

I've been away in the smoke for quite a few years now but find myself a little taken aback when I'm exposed to the hedonistic approach to drinking that I see when I'm back home - drinking to get as absolutely out of your face as possible! Thing is, I was exactly the same myself.

Bottom line on this though, is that if you came across someone who had passed out with drink and you took their wallet you would still be guilty of theft. Same with rape.

We've all been drunk and incapable, I'm sure. If someone anally raped you in that state, you may have been unwise but in no way would you feel you had "asked for it".

I think the point on our drink culture is well made and important though but it is a seperate point.

[Pretty Boy]

I think the point about women putting themselves in increased positions of danger is both a valid and invalid one.

On one hand some responsibility re alcohol and/or drug consumption would go a long way to removing people from vulnerable positions. I also take the point about the poor relationship with alcohol in Scotland. On the flip side if a lady is walking home at night and chooses to use a side street rather than a well lit main road should she be partially responsible if she is attacked and raped? I'd apply the same thinking to someone who has had too much to drink. Ultimately an error in judgement may have been made, it may be a one off or a regular occurence, but the decision to commit the crime of rape lies with the rapist and the rapist alone.

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38975818

and so it continues

Two footballers branded rapists by a judge in a civil action have begun an appeal which could lead to a full legal challenge against the finding.

Former Dundee United teammates David Goodwillie and David Robertson were ordered to pay damages to Denise Clair following a hearing in January (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38651041).

[Future17]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38975818

and so it continues

Two footballers branded rapists by a judge in a civil action have begun an appeal which could lead to a full legal challenge against the finding.

Former Dundee United teammates David Goodwillie and David Robertson were ordered to pay damages to Denise Clair following a hearing in January (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38651041).

We obviously don't know the specifics of the application but, based on what we do know, I would think it's extremely unlikely they'll get funding from legal aid.

[Andy74]

I think the point about women putting themselves in increased positions of danger is both a valid and invalid one.

On one hand some responsibility re alcohol and/or drug consumption would go a long way to removing people from vulnerable positions. I also take the point about the poor relationship with alcohol in Scotland. On the flip side if a lady is walking home at night and chooses to use a side street rather than a well lit main road should she be partially responsible if she is attacked and raped? I'd apply the same thinking to someone who has had too much to drink. Ultimately an error in judgement may have been made, it may be a one off or a regular occurence, but the decision to commit the crime of rape lies with the rapist and the rapist alone.

I'm not certain the decision to commit the crime of rape is as clear cut as all that PB.

Things have changed in that respect in the wording - previously there used to have to be some form of overcoming the will of someone to have sex with them. That's a deliberate act.

Now you can be guilty for not proactively gaining consent. Thinking back to when I was a lad it is never quite as clear as everyone agreeing to what's about to happen is it? most of the time it just gets to that point and there may have been some persuading required at times! When you chuck in the modern approach to selling stories and claiming compensation a lot more people are at risk of being technically a rapist - particularly if they are well known but also if they are not.

[ColinNish]

I'm not certain the decision to commit the crime of rape is as clear cut as all that PB.

Things have changed in that respect in the wording - previously there used to have to be some form of overcoming the will of someone to have sex with them. That's a deliberate act.

Now you can be guilty for not proactively gaining consent. Thinking back to when I was a lad it is never quite as clear as everyone agreeing to what's about to happen is it? most of the time it just gets to that point and there may have been some persuading required at times! When you chuck in the modern approach to selling stories and claiming compensation a lot more people are at risk of being technically a rapist - particularly if they are well known but also if they are not.

Your post brought this back to my mind.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-38917557

Not quite as cut and dried as you'd think.

[pacoluna]

DG just signed for clyde.

[Moulin Yarns]

DG just signed for clyde.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39495940

[snooky]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39495940

No need for Mason to go public on this IMO. While he may have his own strong views on the situation, the cynic in me says he is using this as a vote-catching opportunity.
FWIW, I don't like Goodwillie and in no way am I defending him or any of his actions in the past.

[CropleyWasGod]

No need for Mason to go public on this IMO. While he may have his own strong views on the situation, the cynic in me says he is using this as a vote-catching opportunity.
FWIW, I don't like Goodwillie and in no way am I defending him or any of his actions in the past.

Mason has form for latching on to what he thinks is feminism.

An organisation I'm involved with has crossed swords with him in the past. The facts of that case fit with this.