David Goodwillie

[1van Sprou7e]

Signs for Clyde once again

Absolute embarrassment of a club

[Paulie Walnuts]

Wondering we’ll see Sturgeon kicking off again now that her pals not involved?

[hibee]

Wondering we’ll see Sturgeon kicking off again now that her pals not involved?

She’s already tweeted her thoughts.

[Paul1642]

Will be interesting to see if there is any backlash. Not sure why the thought of him playing for Raith sparks national backlash but Clyde not an issue.

[Lago]

Wondering we’ll see Sturgeon kicking off again now that her pals not involved?
Yip just launched a twitter rant

[Lago]

Wondering we’ll see Sturgeon kicking off again now that her pals not involved?<br>
Yip just launched a twitter rant

[He's here!]

Signs for Clyde once again

Absolute embarrassment of a club

He's signed on loan from Raith, though I'd have thought there will be attempts made to make the move permanent.

As I posted on another thread, Clyde's view of the player appears to be the polar opposite of most:

Clyde boss Danny Lennon said: "He's a perfect professional. He's taken on everything, courses, hearings, done talks. He's worked ever so hard to get his life back in order, happily married, wee baby girl, and he's doing an electrician's apprenticeship. He's now club captain and that's because of the qualities and character we see in him every day. It's important that you see that and give people an opportunity to get their lives back. In any walk of life, not just football."

Knowing nothing of Goodwillie as a person myself I'm playing devil's advocate, but don't the views of the people who've been working with him for the last five years carry some weight here?

[He's here!]

Wondering we’ll see Sturgeon kicking off again now that her pals not involved?

Mentioned this on another thread. I'm unclear why she feels moved to weigh in on this now and put the boot into Clyde. He's been playing for them for most of the last five years and I don't recall her getting so exercised about it during that time.

McDermid's anger that Raith are still paying his wages is more understandable given her stance on this issue and her lifelong devotion to the club.

[greenlex]

He's signed on loan from Raith, though I'd have thought there will be attempts made to make the move permanent.

As I posted on another thread, Clyde's view of the player appears to be the polar opposite of most:

Clyde boss Danny Lennon said: "He's a perfect professional. He's taken on everything, courses, hearings, done talks. He's worked ever so hard to get his life back in order, happily married, wee baby girl, and he's doing an electrician's apprenticeship. He's now club captain and that's because of the qualities and character we see in him every day. It's important that you see that and give people an opportunity to get their lives back. In any walk of life, not just football."

Knowing nothing of Goodwillie as a person myself I'm playing devil's advocate, but don't the views of the people who've been working with him for the last five years carry some weight here?
Of course they do but as far as I know he has shown no remorse for his actions or empathy with his “victim” whatsoever. If he had acknowledged what he did was wrong that in itself might have helped his full rehabilitation. But like I said as far as I know he seems indifferent.certainly publicly.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Of course they do but as far as I know he has shown no remorse for his actions or empathy with his “victim” whatsoever. If he had acknowledged what he did was wrong that in itself might have helped his full rehabilitation. But like I said as far as I know he seems indifferent.certainly publicly.

What if he maintains he didn’t do it?

There was apparently insufficient evidence to press criminal charges. If he doesn’t think he’s done anything wrong then I’m not sure why he has to show remorse.

I fully believe he would have done it btw, but from his point of view and the laws point of view, he’s not a criminal. He should really just be left to carry on with his life, whether that’s in football or somewhere else imo. Folk can shun him all they want but he shouldn’t be stopped from playing football. Even worse that the First Minister thinks she should be campaigning for that.

[He's here!]

Of course they do but as far as I know he has shown no remorse for his actions or empathy with his “victim” whatsoever. If he had acknowledged what he did was wrong that in itself might have helped his full rehabilitation. But like I said as far as I know he seems indifferent.certainly publicly.

Yep, I'm not disagreeing with that but is it actually true that he's never acknowledged the error of his ways or attempted to apologise? This just seems to be an accepted fact because (as far as I'm aware) we've seen nothing in the public domain to indicate he has. I just find it surprising that Clyde speak so highly of him if he's never shown any remorse.

I guess the other possibility is that he (and Clyde) believe he's not guilty.

[HoboHarry]

Of course they do but as far as I know he has shown no remorse for his actions or empathy with his “victim” whatsoever. If he had acknowledged what he did was wrong that in itself might have helped his full rehabilitation. But like I said as far as I know he seems indifferent.certainly publicly.
Why on earth would he do that? Aside from the fact that he may well truly believe that he did nothing wrong, even if he had, he would be admitting to rape and looking at a jail sentence when there was previously insufficient evidence for a criminal case. He would have to be off his rocker to admit to rape at this point.

[Coco Bryce]

Wondering we’ll see Sturgeon kicking off again now that her pals not involved?

Not a Sturgeon fan in the slightest but I can clearly remember her expressing her concern when he originally signed for Clyde and also again today on Twitter.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Not a Sturgeon fan in the slightest but I can clearly remember her expressing her concern when he originally signed for Clyde.

The victim certainly doesn’t seem to think that happened. Infact she’s specifically come out and criticised Sturgeon for not coming out when he signed for Clyde previously.

She (and me) may well have missed it but you’d have thought that would have been pointed out to her before she was in the papers talking about it.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/rape-victim-slams-first-minister-26152758.amp

[Paul1642]

Mentioned this on another thread. I'm unclear why she feels moved to weigh in on this now and put the boot into Clyde. He's been playing for them for most of the last five years and I don't recall her getting so exercised about it during that time.

McDermid's anger that Raith are still paying his wages is more understandable given her stance on this issue and her lifelong devotion to the club.

Do they legally have any option not to pay his wages?

[Coco Bryce]

The victim certainly doesn’t seem to think that happened. Infact she’s specifically come out and criticised Sturgeon for not coming out when he signed for Clyde previously.

She (and me) may well have missed it but you’d have thought that would have been pointed out to her before she was in the papers talking about it.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/rape-victim-slams-first-minister-26152758.amp

Tried to find it mate but could only find this. Strangely not a mention of Sturgeon on it.
https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/party-leaders-pile-pressure-on-club-directors-over-david-goodwillie-while-msp-calls-on-local-authority-to-actif-the-clubs-directors-do-not-understand-why-playing-anunrepentant-rapi/amp/

[Paulie Walnuts]

Do they legally have any option not to pay his wages?

Na. They wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. They gave a guy with no criminal convictions a contract and then decided they didn’t want him because their fans didn’t like it. They’d have to honour every penny of it.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Tried to find it mate but could only find this. Strangely not a mention of Sturgeon on it.
https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/party-leaders-pile-pressure-on-club-directors-over-david-goodwillie-while-msp-calls-on-local-authority-to-actif-the-clubs-directors-do-not-understand-why-playing-anunrepentant-rapi/amp/

:aok:

I’ve got to say I’m a huge bit cynical as to Sturgeons motives with regards to getting involved this time round if she hasn’t previously.

Did she get involved when Edinburgh City signed Craig Thomson?

[Coco Bryce]

:aok:

I’ve got to say I’m a huge bit cynical as to Sturgeons motives with regards to getting involved this time round if she hasn’t previously.

Did she get involved when Edinburgh City signed Craig Thomson?

Don't think so. He never actually raped anybody. He was grooming young girls and was convicted for it.

[He's here!]

Tried to find it mate but could only find this. Strangely not a mention of Sturgeon on it.
https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/party-leaders-pile-pressure-on-club-directors-over-david-goodwillie-while-msp-calls-on-local-authority-to-actif-the-clubs-directors-do-not-understand-why-playing-anunrepentant-rapi/amp/

Quote from Denise Clair from this Sunday Post interview:

“The first minister was correct to condemn Raith Rovers (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-calls-scottish-football-26119135) last week but I don’t remember her saying anything at all four years ago about why he was still playing for Clyde or why the case against him was dropped. I certainly do remember and still appreciate the very few politicians who did their best to raise it and being met with indifference."

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/denise-clair-goodwillie/

[cameronw-hfc]

He's signed on loan from Raith, though I'd have thought there will be attempts made to make the move permanent.

As I posted on another thread, Clyde's view of the player appears to be the polar opposite of most:

Clyde boss Danny Lennon said: "He's a perfect professional. He's taken on everything, courses, hearings, done talks. He's worked ever so hard to get his life back in order, happily married, wee baby girl, and he's doing an electrician's apprenticeship. He's now club captain and that's because of the qualities and character we see in him every day. It's important that you see that and give people an opportunity to get their lives back. In any walk of life, not just football."

Knowing nothing of Goodwillie as a person myself I'm playing devil's advocate, but don't the views of the people who've been working with him for the last five years carry some weight here?


I'd say his victims opinion of him is the most accurate. You don't rape someone and then become a good person. It's an abhorrent crime that takes someone's dignity away from them, and leaves them living with the mental scar for their whole life. Don't care if he's nice to folk now, or if he tries to be a better person, he done that to someone and plays football in the Scottish League system, that's a privilege he doesn't deserve. Especially given the fact he's never paid the victim a penny of the money he was ordered to.

[JimBHibees]

Quote from Denise Clair from this Sunday Post interview:

“The first minister was correct to condemn Raith Rovers (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-calls-scottish-football-26119135) last week but I don’t remember her saying anything at all four years ago about why he was still playing for Clyde or why the case against him was dropped. I certainly do remember and still appreciate the very few politicians who did their best to raise it and being met with indifference."

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/denise-clair-goodwillie/

Think fair to say the coverage now was much higher profile. Pretty sure if FM was asked at the time her opinion would have been the same.

[JimBHibees]

:aok:

I’ve got to say I’m a huge bit cynical as to Sturgeons motives with regards to getting involved this time round if she hasn’t previously.

Did she get involved when Edinburgh City signed Craig Thomson?

Probably because she wasn't asked about it previously

[He's here!]

Probably because she wasn't asked about it previously

Was she asked about it this time? It seems she's responded due to her friendship with Val McDermid. Think it's fair to say her knowledge of the football world is patchy.

[hibby rae]

Was she asked about it this time? It seems she's responded due to her friendship with Val McDermid. Think it's fair to say her knowledge of the football world is patchy.

Do you often chat to her about football then?

As an aside, I believe her husband is a season ticket holder at ER

[hibby rae]

It's interesting that on a thread about David Goodwilie, a known rapist still working for a football club, a large number of the posts are just about criticising Nicola Sturgeon

[Paulie Walnuts]

Probably because she wasn't asked about it previously

Was she asked about it this time?

She seemed to just jump straight onto Twitter because it backs up her donor/pal..

She’s never been bothered enough to go onto Twitter and quote news articles when he signed for Clyde or when Craig Thomson signed for Edinburgh City or Cowdenbeath recently. Funny that..

[JimBHibees]

No idea just surmising

[JimBHibees]

It's interesting that on a thread about David Goodwilie, a known rapist still working for a football club, a large number of the posts are just about criticising Nicola Sturgeon

Indeed

[Hibernia&Alba]

Not a good look for Clyde, given the recent controversary at Raith, but Goodwillie didn't seem to receive the same adverse reaction there last time.

[evy]

Was she asked about it this time?

She seemed to just jump straight onto Twitter because it backs up her donor/pal..

She’s never been bothered enough to go onto Twitter and quote news articles when he signed for Clyde or when Craig Thomson signed for Edinburgh City or Cowdenbeath recently. Funny that..

She was definitely asked about it by a reporter in a TV interview that day, whether that is before or after she had tweeted I'm unsure.

[Fuzzywuzzy]

Blackburn, Crystal Palace, Dundee United, Aberdeen, Ross County & Plymouth Argyll

These clubs seemed to have escaped all aspects of this discussion. All at the height of the time the rape and civil case took place. All these clubs knew the situation and the circumstances but still signed him, those particularly after 2016 knowing the outcome of the civil case

[hibby rae]

Not a good look for Clyde, given the recent controversary at Raith, but Goodwillie didn't seem to receive the same adverse reaction there last time.

There was definitely a reaction the last time, it may have not been as big as when he signed for Raith, but it did happen. Just like there would have been a bigger reaction still had he signed for someone bigger than Raith, or been called up to Scotland.

[hibby rae]

Was she asked about it this time?

She seemed to just jump straight onto Twitter because it backs up her donor/pal..

She’s never been bothered enough to go onto Twitter and quote news articles when he signed for Clyde or when Craig Thomson signed for Edinburgh City or Cowdenbeath recently. Funny that..

On the scales of what Thomson and Goodwillie did, although both abhorrent, the latter is far far worse. There is also a big difference in that Thomson admitted his guilt, which is the first step to rehabilitation.

Your first point about only doing it because it 'backs up her pal', seems ironic to me as it seems to me you're only criticising her because you are opposed to her in general and this is an opportunity to do so?

Maybe I'm be wrong, but that's how it reads to me.

[Northernhibee]

It's absolutely true that people need to have the chance to rehabilitate themselves. It's part of a society that works well.

However there are also some privileged positions where if people, like it or not, find themselves as role models. A footballer is one of those and given the seriousness I'm uncomfortable with him plying his trade as a footballer and having people in the stands singing his name.

If someone in a similar position had applied to be, say, a teacher who would be looking after peoples children then I wonder how different the attitude would be.

[easty]

It's absolutely true that people need to have the chance to rehabilitate themselves. It's part of a society that works well.

However there are also some privileged positions where if people, like it or not, find themselves as role models. A footballer is one of those and given the seriousness I'm uncomfortable with him plying his trade as a footballer and having people in the stands singing his name.

If someone in a similar position had applied to be, say, a teacher who would be looking after peoples children then I wonder how different the attitude would be.

Being a teacher and being a footballer aren't really comparable in these circumstances.

[Mcbizz1998]

Well done Clyde.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

There was definitely a reaction the last time, it may have not been as big as when he signed for Raith, but it did happen. Just like there would have been a bigger reaction still had he signed for someone bigger than Raith, or been called up to Scotland.

Yes, it's all relative, depending upon the size of the club involved and how much media focus is upon it. That said, Clyde's support were unable to force the club's hand in relation to Goodwillie, unlike at Raith. Of course there may be reasons for that I don't know about.


It's absolutely true that people need to have the chance to rehabilitate themselves. It's part of a society that works well.

However there are also some privileged positions where if people, like it or not, find themselves as role models. A footballer is one of those and given the seriousness I'm uncomfortable with him plying his trade as a footballer and having people in the stands singing his name.

If someone in a similar position had applied to be, say, a teacher who would be looking after peoples children then I wonder how different the attitude would be.

Indeed. Rehabilitation should be at the centre of the criminal justice system, in my humble opinion, but, like you say, sex offences are always more difficult to forgive than most other categories of crimes. It puts fans in a difficult position; they want to support their team but don't want to cheer on someone with such a record, nor contribute to his wages.

[SHODAN]

Not a good look for Clyde, given the recent controversary at Raith, but Goodwillie didn't seem to receive the same adverse reaction there last time.

Clyde fans by and large seem to love him which just makes it worse.

[PatHead]

Blackburn, Crystal Palace, Dundee United, Aberdeen, Ross County & Plymouth Argyll

These clubs seemed to have escaped all aspects of this discussion. All at the height of the time the rape and civil case took place. All these clubs knew the situation and the circumstances but still signed him, those particularly after 2016 knowing the outcome of the civil case

I do not for one second believe that he should be left to get on with his life without being taken to task for his crime. I do however take issue with you having a go at all the clubs who signed him,btw you missed criticism of Blackpool who had him on loan and the old Rangers who tried to sign him at the time he went to Blackburn.

Until 2016 Goodwillie was not found guilty of any crimes in either a civil or private prosecution. There may have been a lot of rumours and accusations going around but at that stage he was guilty of nothing. Surely the phrase innocent until proven guilty applies?

Finally for all those posters having a go at Raith and Sturgeon, where were you when he signed for Clyde first time around? There were only murmurings nothing like the condemnation of today.

The world has moved on a lot since #Metoo arrived. For the better I would add. Sex crimes and the treatment of minorities has changed completely with previously acceptable behaviour now no longer acceptable.

It's very easy to criticise but we have also to consider our own actions at the time.

[Renfrew_Hibby]

I feel for the Clyde fan who was quoted somewhere that he was just looking forward to watching his team for the first time in five years.

[hibby rae]

Yes, it's all relative, depending upon the size of the club involved and how much media focus is upon it. That said, Clyde's support were unable to force the club's hand in relation to Goodwillie, unlike at Raith. Of course there may be reasons for that I don't know about.



Indeed. Rehabilitation should be at the centre of the criminal justice system, in my humble opinion, but, like you say, sex offences are always more difficult to forgive than most other categories of crimes. It puts fans in a difficult position; they want to support their team but don't want to cheer on someone with such a record, nor contribute to his wages.

Not sure either, but I would wager Raith's U-Turn had a lot to do wit loss of revenue, I don't know if Clyde have experienced the same, yet. Perhaps a higher proportion of the Raith support actively opposed the decision as well.

[hibby rae]

Being a teacher and being a footballer aren't really comparable in these circumstances.

A teacher is just one example. There will be numerous jobs you can't return to after. Footballer is just one of them.

[Paulie Walnuts]

It's absolutely true that people need to have the chance to rehabilitate themselves. It's part of a society that works well.

However there are also some privileged positions where if people, like it or not, find themselves as role models. A footballer is one of those and given the seriousness I'm uncomfortable with him plying his trade as a footballer and having people in the stands singing his name.

If someone in a similar position had applied to be, say, a teacher who would be looking after peoples children then I wonder how different the attitude would be.

Being a footballer and being a teacher are nowhere near comparable here.

As an aside, I’d much rather my kids were watching David Goodwillie playing football for their team than have David Goodwillie left alone working as a spark (which he’s training to do) in my house with my teenage daughter around. I’m also willing to accept he should be able to work as a spark as well though.

If he shouldn’t be able to play football then imo he shouldn’t be able to do all that much. And that completely defeats the point of rehabilitation, especially when he isn’t even a criminal.

[hibby rae]

Being a footballer and being a teacher are nowhere near comparable here.

As an aside, I’d much rather my kids were watching David Goodwillie playing football for their team than have David Goodwillie left alone working as a spark (which he’s training to do) in my house with my teenage daughter around. I’m also willing to accept he should be able to work as a spark as well though.

If he shouldn’t be able to play football then imo he shouldn’t be able to do all that much. And that completely defeats the point of rehabilitation, especially when he isn’t even a criminal.

Rape is a crime, and he is a criminal. He just wasn't convicted in a criminal court. DB Cooper, the hijacker, was never caught, but he was still a criminal.

Goodwillie hasn't been rehabilitated, as he hasn't shown any contrition for his actions. The only time I'm aware of him commenting on it, he gave the old 'oh poor me'. More concerned with the kind of car he had to drive.

[Malthibby]

What if he maintains he didn’t do it?

There was apparently insufficient evidence to press criminal charges. If he doesn’t think he’s done anything wrong then I’m not sure why he has to show remorse.

I fully believe he would have done it btw, but from his point of view and the laws point of view, he’s not a criminal. He should really just be left to carry on with his life, whether that’s in football or somewhere else imo. Folk can shun him all they want but he shouldn’t be stopped from playing football. Even worse that the First Minister thinks she should be campaigning for that.


Our system prosecutes a tiny percentage of rapes and produces a guilty verdict in a tiny percentage of those. Even if you accept what was done wasn't rape (& I don't) he & his mate both had sex with a very drunk woman. One or both of them were sober. There's been nothing to stop him publicly acknowledging that was sordid and plain wrong, nothing to stop him showing some remorse for that behaviour. He hasn't. He's clear that he doesn't think they did anything wrong. Utterly inexcusable.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Rape is a crime, and he is a criminal. He just wasn't convicted in a criminal court. DB Cooper, the hijacker, was never caught, but he was still a criminal.

Goodwillie hasn't been rehabilitated, as he hasn't shown any contrition for his actions. The only time I'm aware of him commenting on it, he gave the old 'oh poor me'. More concerned with the kind of car he had to drive.

He’s never been convicted of any crime. He’s not a criminal.

He might also be showing no remorse because he doesn’t believe he done it. Something that the authorities clearly aren’t sure of either since they didn’t bother taking the case to trial.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Our system prosecutes a tiny percentage of rapes and produces a guilty verdict in a tiny percentage of those. Even if you accept what was done wasn't rape (& I don't) he & his mate both had sex with a very drunk woman. One or both of them were sober. There's been nothing to stop him publicly acknowledging that was sordid and plain wrong, nothing to stop him showing some remorse for that behaviour. He hasn't. He's clear that he doesn't think they did anything wrong. Utterly inexcusable.

How do you know one or both of them was sober? The fact you can’t tell us how many of the two were sober would suggest you don’t actually know at all..

You’re right, our system does only prosecute a tiny percentage of rape accusations. That doesn’t mean we just decide that anyone accused of such doesn’t get to do a job in which they’re probably less of a danger to the public than they are in most other jobs.

[Malthibby]

How do you know one or both of them was sober? The fact you can’t tell us how many of the two were sober would suggest you don’t actually know at all..


One of them drove them all to the house; hope you're not suggesting one of them was drink-driving as well?

[Paulie Walnuts]

One of them drove them all to the house; hope you're not suggesting one of them was drink-driving as well?

They might well have been, I’ve no idea? Being drunk doesn’t mean you can’t drive.

Regardless, what if it was the other boy that drove and Goodwillie was Infact drunk?

As I said earlier, I don’t doubt for a second they did rape her. Goodwillie also seems like an utter prick. He’s never been convicted though and as such he should be able to carry on working in his chosen career, especially when he’d be more of a danger in most other ones.

[Scouse Hibee]

Rape is a crime, and he is a criminal. He just wasn't convicted in a criminal court. DB Cooper, the hijacker, was never caught, but he was still a criminal.

Goodwillie hasn't been rehabilitated, as he hasn't shown any contrition for his actions. The only time I'm aware of him commenting on it, he gave the old 'oh poor me'. More concerned with the kind of car he had to drive.

It is indeed a crime, one that he has never been convicted of.

[Allant1981]

One of them drove them all to the house; hope you're not suggesting one of them was drink-driving as well?

They got a taxi

[CropleyWasGod]

It is indeed a crime, one that he has never been convicted of.

Yet 😏

Denise Clair may be going down the private prosecution route.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sundaypost.com/fp/goodwillie-private-prosecution/amp/

[hibby rae]

He’s never been convicted of any crime. He’s not a criminal.

He might also be showing no remorse because he doesn’t believe he done it. Something that the authorities clearly aren’t sure of either since they didn’t bother taking the case to trial.

So you think a person is only a criminal if they are convicted in criminal court? Not the act of committing a crime itself.

So who ever the Zodiac killer was, they weren't a criminal in your eyes, because they were never convicted yeah?



Under Scots Law they needed someone to say they witnessed the act to pursue a criminal conviction, I forget the legal term, Denise Claire had no memory it as she very intoxicated (which meant she could not consent to sex). However, there was evidence that rape took place. And 4 judges and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority ruled rape took place. Although if the same thing happened today, a criminal case probably would be sought.

[Dashing Bob S]

I'd say his victims opinion of him is the most accurate. You don't rape someone and then become a good person. It's an abhorrent crime that takes someone's dignity away from them, and leaves them living with the mental scar for their whole life. Don't care if he's nice to folk now, or if he tries to be a better person, he done that to someone and plays football in the Scottish League system, that's a privilege he doesn't deserve. Especially given the fact he's never paid the victim a penny of the money he was ordered to.

It’s a heinous crime and I agree. Rehabilitation is now often a cynical facile industry designed to camouflage

[Paulie Walnuts]

So you think a person is only a criminal if they are convicted in criminal court? Not the act of committing a crime itself.

So who ever the Zodiac killer was, they weren't a criminal in your eyes, because they were never convicted yeah?



Under Scots Law they needed someone to say they witnessed the act to pursue a criminal conviction, I forget the legal term, Denise Claire had no memory it as she very intoxicated (which meant she could not consent to sex). However, there was evidence that rape took place. And 4 judges and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority ruled rape took place. Although if the same thing happened today, a criminal case probably would be sought.

Yes, somebody is only a criminal if they’re convicted in court of a criminal act.

[Paulie Walnuts]

They got a taxi

In that case I’d highly suspect they’d all been drinking. Not that it excuses anything that’s potentially happened of course.

[hibby rae]

Yes, somebody is only a criminal if they’re convicted in court of a criminal act.

You should look in a dictionary

[Paulie Walnuts]

You should look in a dictionary

Someone who has committed a crime.

In Goodwillies case, we don’t know if he has committed a crime. It never went to a criminal trial because their wasn’t enough evidence to prove he’d committed a crime.

Regardless of the ins and outs of whether he’s technically a criminal or not, he’s never been convicted of anything and should be able to continue with his life and chosen career as any other person with no outstanding convictions or restrictions on their freedom (such as being on the sex offenders register) would be.

[hibby rae]

Someone who has committed a crime.

In Goodwillies case, we don’t know if he has committed a crime. It never went to a criminal trial because their wasn’t enough evidence to prove he’d committed a crime.

Regardless of the ins and outs of whether he’s technically a criminal or not, he’s never been convicted of anything and should be able to continue with his life and chosen career as any other person with no outstanding convictions or restrictions on their freedom (such as being on the sex offenders register) would be.

So not someone convicted as you previously said.

And yes, we do know he did it. There are very few convictions that you can 100% be sure of.

He forfeited the privilege if being a footballer the night he raped Denise Clair.

[Paulie Walnuts]

So not someone convicted as you previously said.

And yes, we do know he did it. There are very few convictions that you can 100% be sure of.

No, we don’t know he did it.

Just the fact you hate the guy isn’t enough to confirm his guilt.

[LaMotta]

Someone who has committed a crime.

In Goodwillies case, we don’t know if he has committed a crime. It never went to a criminal trial because their wasn’t enough evidence to prove he’d committed a crime.

Regardless of the ins and outs of whether he’s technically a criminal or not, he’s never been convicted of anything and should be able to continue with his life and chosen career as any other person with no outstanding convictions or restrictions on their freedom (such as being on the sex offenders register) would be.


No, we don’t know he did it.

Just the fact you hate the guy isn’t enough to confirm his guilt.


:agree::agree::agree:

There is a lot of emotion getting in the way of logic on this thread.

[hibby rae]

No, we don’t know he did it.

Just the fact you hate the guy isn’t enough to confirm his guilt.

What I think about the guy isn't relevant. What 4 judges thought of the evidence is. He's a rapist.

[NYHibby]

Why are people arguing if he is a rapist because he wasn't tried in a criminal court? He has been found by the Court of Session to have raped the victim. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38651041) The finding was upheld on appeal by Scotland's 2nd most senior judge. If you are trying to split hairs that he is a rapist but not a criminal, he has been convicted of multiple other criminal offences.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Why are people arguing if he is a rapist because he wasn't tried in a criminal court? He has been found by the Court of Session to have raped the victim. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38651041) The finding was upheld on appeal by Scotland's 2nd most senior judge. If you are trying to split hairs that he is a rapist but not a criminal, he has been convicted of multiple other criminal offences.

But he still wasn’t found guilty in a criminal court of rape. He’s not on any register, he’s not got any restrictions on his employment when it comes to being a footballer and as such the First Minister of our country shouldn’t be putting pressure on private companies not to employ/terminate the employment of an individual with absolutely no unspent convictions. If she does decide she wants to down that route though, then I’d love to know why she’s ignored other footballers who have committed sex crimes and actually been convicted of them ending up back in professional football. If only there was an SNP donor with an interest in the clubs that employed Craig Thomson..

If you want to use those other offences as a reason for him not to be a footballer then we’d be wiping out a large amount of the Scottish leagues players. A good amount of our recent players have had criminal convictions.

[Paulie Walnuts]

What I think about the guy isn't relevant. What 4 judges thought of the evidence is. He's a rapist.

And the Procurator Fiscal didn’t think there was enough evidence to convict him of being a rapist. The burden of proof in a civil court is a hell of a lot lower. Being convicted in a civil court doesn’t make you a criminal and it doesn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did. As such, you, me, or anyone else on this board can’t say either way whether he’s definitely a rapist or not, no matter how many times you repeat it.

I get you don’t like the guy, I think he seems like an utter walloper as well.

[hibby rae]

And the Procurator Fiscal didn’t think there was enough evidence to convict him of being a rapist. The burden of proof in a civil court is a hell of a lot lower. Being convicted in a civil court doesn’t make you a criminal and it doesn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did. As such, you, me, or anyone else on this board can’t say either way whether he’s definitely a rapist or not, no matter how many times you repeat it.

I get you don’t like the guy, I think he seems like an utter walloper as well.

My personal opinion of him isn't relevant and has no bearing on what I'm saying. It's not a hell of a lot lower, they were lacking the corroboration of an eye witness for the actual act (a requirement under Scots Law which affects a lot of rape cases due to the nature of the crime), and since she wasn't aware what was going on, that couldn't be provided.

The evidence in this case was very very strong, they had 20 witnesses, including forensic and medical witnesses (I'd suggest you read what these witnesses said, security at the club, the taxi driver etc). The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority also determined she was raped. For 4 of the best legal minds in the country that was enough.

Once again, you don't need to be convicted to be a criminal. You are a criminal if you commit a crime. Which they did.

[Paulie Walnuts]

My personal opinion of him isn't relevant and has no bearing on what I'm saying. It's not a hell of a lot lower, they were lacking the corroboration of an eye witness for the actual act (a requirement under Scots Law which affects a lot of rape cases due to the nature of the crime), and since she wasn't aware what was going on, that couldn't be provided.

The evidence in this case was very very strong, they had 20 witnesses, including forensic and medical witnesses (I'd suggest you read what these witnesses said, security at the club, the taxi driver etc). The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority also determined she was raped. For 4 of the best legal minds in the country that was enough.

Once again, you don't need to be convicted to be a criminal. You are a criminal if you commit a crime. Which they did.

And it couldn’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they committed a crime. Hence why they didn’t proceed with a criminal trial.

Also, a civil case is judged on the balance of probability. All that they have to think is that it was more likely to have happened than not. As such, there can still be a significant level of uncertainty in a judges head for them to deem someone to have committed whatever act they’re accused of. It’s far from a cut and dry ‘he absolutely raped her’ as you’re making it out to be and a civil case most certainly carries a hell of a lot lower of a burden of proof.

From ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to ‘I’m 51% certain’ is a massive difference.

[CropleyWasGod]

And it couldn’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they committed a crime. Hence why they didn’t proceed with a criminal trial.

..although Denise Clair's current legal team think that she still has a case.

[PatHead]

..although Denise Clair's current legal team think that she still has a case.

Which could be why he has never apologised for it?

[silverhibee]

Do you often chat to her about football then?

As an aside, I believe her husband is a season ticket holder at ER

Maybe her husband should be pointing out the ira pish that was sung during the game by 1000s of away fans to her.

[Paulie Walnuts]

..although Denise Clair's current legal team think that she still has a case.

Yup. But that also doesn’t mean that he’s guilty.

[hibby rae]

And it couldn’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they committed a crime. Hence why they didn’t proceed with a criminal trial.

Also, a civil case is judged on the balance of probability. All that they have to think is that it was more likely to have happened than not. As such, there can still be a significant level of uncertainty in a judges head for them to deem someone to have committed whatever act they’re accused of. It’s far from a cut and dry ‘he absolutely raped her’ as you’re making it out to be.

And it sounds like you're trying to make it out that there's a strong chance it never happened. Sorry, that is just not the case. They were lacking only one eye witness, under Scots Law, that is all. This isn't one of those cases that could have went either way, the evidence available was cut and dry.
.
There was no 'significant level of uncertainty' in the judge's head.

"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 (the footballers) 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."

[Paulie Walnuts]

And it sounds like you're trying to make it out that there's a strong chance it never happened. Sorry, that is just not the case. They were lacking only one eye witness, under Scots Law, that is all. This isn't one of those cases that could have went either way, the evidence available was cut and dry.
.
There was no 'significant level of uncertainty' in the judge's head.

"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 (the footballers) 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."

You’ve obviously missed my posts where I’ve said I’ve no real doubt he did it, mainly because he seems like a ****bag.

For the judge to find that to be the case though, they only have to be 51% certain of it.

For all your ‘there was no significant levels of uncertainty in the judges head’ I could just as easily say there was 49% uncertainty in the judges head, because neither of us know the level of certainty the judges had.

Anyway, my last post on this will be to say that imo someone with no criminal conviction with regards to the rape and no restrictions placed upon their employment should not have the FM sticking their nose in trying to have their employment at a private company terminated, especially in a post where the offence in question doesn’t make them all that much of a danger in that field of employment. Oh, and also not purely because her pal wants the employment terminated. A complete misuse of power imo.

[hibby rae]

You’ve obviously missed my posts where I’ve said I’ve no real doubt he did it, mainly because he seems like a ****bag.

For the judge to find that to be the case though, they only have to be 51% certain of it.

For all your ‘there was no significant levels of uncertainty in the judges head’ I could just as easily say there was 49% uncertainty in the judges head, because neither of us know the level of certainty the judges had.

If you also agree he did it, then I don't see why you kept trying to argue he's not a criminal on the basis he wasn't convicted in a criminal court. Because that isn't what makes a criminal.

And this is where we differ, I'm saying he did it because of the available evidence, not because of his personality.

If you read what the judge said, it's clear he isn't only 51% certain, he's sure what happened, because the evidence was so strong. So it doesn't matter that civil cases aren't subject to the same conditions as criminal courts, because when discussing this case, the evidence was clear.

[HoboHarry]

FFS give it a rest with this aye he did/naw he didnae crap. Supposed to be a Hibs site.

[Paulie Walnuts]

FFS give it a rest with this aye he did/naw he didnae crap. Supposed to be a Hibs site.

It’s a David Goodwillie thread. I’m not sure what you’re expecting in terms of Hibs content.

[WeeRussell]

It’s a David Goodwillie thread. I’m not sure what you’re expecting in terms of Hibs content.

Could he do a job?

[Paulie Walnuts]

Could he do a job?

:greengrin

[Paulie Walnuts]

If you also agree he did it, then I don't see why you kept trying to argue he's not a criminal on the basis he wasn't convicted in a criminal court. Because that isn't what makes a criminal.

And this is where we differ, I'm saying he did it because of the available evidence, not because of his personality.

If you read what the judge said, it's clear he isn't only 51% certain, he's sure what happened, because the evidence was so strong. So it doesn't matter that civil cases aren't subject to the same conditions as criminal courts, because when discussing this case, the evidence was clear.

I know I said my last post would be my last but what the judge has said doesn’t indicate anything as to their certainty. Once they reach the 51% threshold, the statement will read pretty much the same regardless of how certain they are, because at that point they believe he’s raped her. They’re not going to come out and say ‘we’re not really sure tbh but we’ve just dropped ever so slightly on the side of believing that he done it’

On the balance of probability the judge believes he did, that much we know.

Whether he’s absolutely certain of that or whether he still has significant doubts we’ve absolutely no idea.

Anyway, this really will be my last post as I originally got into the discussion more on the Sturgeon sticking her nose in side of things.

[MWHIBBIES]

FFS give it a rest with this aye he did/naw he didnae crap. Supposed to be a Hibs site.

and football in general, as it clearly says.

Leave the moderating to the moderators.

[He's here!]

Not a good look for Clyde, given the recent controversary at Raith, but Goodwillie didn't seem to receive the same adverse reaction there last time.

Is it any worse a look for them than when they signed him five years ago? He played for them for half a decade and they were full of praise for him during that time, making him club captain. On that basis it would make little sense for them to deem him a pariah now.

[NYHibby]

I know I said my last post would be my last but what the judge has said doesn’t indicate anything as to their certainty. Once they reach the 51% threshold, the statement will read pretty much the same regardless of how certain they are, because at that point they believe he’s raped her. They’re not going to come out and say ‘we’re not really sure tbh but we’ve just dropped ever so slightly on the side of believing that he done it’

On the balance of probability the judge believes he did, that much we know..

I hope this doesn’t come across as rude, but have you ever read a judgment before? What you are saying here is simply not true.

If it was a 51-49 decision, the judge effectively would say “we’ve just dropped ever so slightly on the side of believing that he done it”. That would be clear from the discussion on the evidence. The judge would say that the defendants’ evidence was credible, that he believed they were being truthful, etc but that he slightly preferred the claimant’s evidence. This is how close civil cases are decided every day across the country.

But as hibby rae said, that is not what happened here. The judge does not accept large parts of Goodwillie’s evidence. He comes about as close to saying that he was lying as a judge will get. “his evidence was given with a view to his own interests rather than in accordance with the oath which he had taken. I did not find his evidence to be persuasive.”

[Mike Berry]

Looks like there could be a private prosecution.


https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/thomas-ross-qc-on-private-prosecution-of-david-goodwillie-and-david-robertson


Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

[Malthibby]

They might well have been, I’ve no idea? Being drunk doesn’t mean you can’t drive.

Regardless, what if it was the other boy that drove and Goodwillie was Infact drunk?

As I said earlier, I don’t doubt for a second they did rape her. Goodwillie also seems like an utter prick. He’s never been convicted though and as such he should be able to carry on working in his chosen career, especially when he’d be more of a danger in most other ones.



Aldot1981 has just corrected me, they apparently got a taxi.

[heid the baw]

If he had been caught betting on the outcome of a game in which his team was involved he would be out of football indefinitely. Same would apply if he tested positive for performance enhancing drugs. Neither if these activities would be matters which the courts would be interested in, so it doesn't follow that you need to be convicted to be denied the"right" to play football professionally.

The judge's damning summing up in the private prosecution was pretty clear. I don't think anyone except Goodwillie believes his version of events. Because of this, I don't think the guy has any right to expect to be allowed to continue in football because it is, by nature, a career which puts you in the public eye. I think Clyde made a huge error in signing him originally, but what's done is done. As for taking him back, I think it will not be good for them given the recent publicity

Also this is not about rehabilitation because he's never admitted guilt or been subject to any court mandated sanction.

[TAHibby]

You can read the full civil case here

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=d22e28a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Whilst a civil case is not 'beyond all reasonable doubt' and the burden of proof is lower, this does not mean in any way that the case holds no weight. The report is very thorough and should put to bed the idea that he is not a racist. Unfortunately some would rather go on about how there was no criminal conviction (rape convictions are scarily low btw across the board) rather than take the time to read the evidence in the report

[chrisski33]

Interesting that rapist Goodwillie declared gimself bankrupt when he was fined and didnt pay fhe compensation. Funny how its men saying he should be given a second chance and be allowed to play football still. How many of these men would feel the same if he done what he did to their daughter?

[Paulie Walnuts]

Interesting that rapist Goodwillie declared gimself bankrupt when he was fined and didnt pay fhe compensation. Funny how its men saying he should be given a second chance and be allowed to play football still. How many of these men would feel the same if he done what he did to their daughter?

I don’t advocate the death penalty at all. Infact I couldn’t be further from it yet if someone raped my daughter I’d fully suspect that’s exactly what I’d be wanting.

That doesn’t mean that people are wrong for looking at it from a position where they can afford to be more logical than emotional. In fact, the idea of someone who is making a decision based purely on that sort of emotion being best placed to be making the right one is simply mental.

[Paulie Walnuts]

You can read the full civil case here

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=d22e28a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Whilst a civil case is not 'beyond all reasonable doubt' and the burden of proof is lower, this does not mean in any way that the case holds no weight. The report is very thorough and should put to bed the idea that he is not a racist. Unfortunately some would rather go on about how there was no criminal conviction (rape convictions are scarily low btw across the board) rather than take the time to read the evidence in the report

Again though, he has no outstanding convictions and no restrictions on his employment.

Rape is abhorrent. But as far as the law is concerned, it’s not a case of certain crimes being more palatable than others. They’re either crimes or not. Football allows all sorts of criminals to continue working in the industry. We’ve got a couple ourselves and just sold one for £3m.. It’s not really the first ministers place to be actively calling for someone’s rightful employment at a private company to be terminated because she feels that it’s a worse crime than others.

[chrisski33]

I don’t advocate the death penalty at all. Infact I couldn’t be further from it yet if someone raped my daughter I’d fully suspect that’s exactly what I’d be wanting.

That doesn’t mean that people are wrong for looking at it from a position where they can afford to be more logical than emotional. In fact, the idea of someone who is making a decision based purely on that sort of emotion being best placed to be making the right one is simply mental.

Who is advocating the death sentence? As mentioned its funny how its men that are saying he should be allowed to play football and saying he should be allowed a second chance. Havebt heard many women share the same opinion.

[hibby rae]

Again though, he has no outstanding convictions and no restrictions on his employment.

Rape is abhorrent. But as far as the law is concerned, it’s not a case of certain crimes being more palatable than others. They’re either crimes or not. Football allows all sorts of criminals to continue working in the industry. We’ve got a couple ourselves and just sold one for £3m.. It’s not really the first ministers place to be actively calling for someone’s rightful employment at a private company to be terminated because she feels that it’s a worse crime than others.

Actually under the law it is the case. Which is why some crimes come with a life sentence and others come with community service.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Who is advocating the death sentence? As mentioned its funny how its men that are saying he should be allowed to play football and saying he should be allowed a second chance. Havebt heard many women share the same opinion.

Nobody is. Suggesting that someone who’s daughter has been raped is the person best placed to be deciding what jobs someone who hasn’t even been convicted of rape should and shouldn’t be allowed to do is ridiculous.

My death penalty analogy shows how far from making an acceptable, logical decision someone who’s put in that position could possibly be.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Actually under the law it is the case. Which is why some crimes come with a life sentence and others come with community service.

In terms of sentencing, yes.

In terms of severity of crimes, no. There’s no tier system or ranking of severity.

If that’s the case and you agree with it, would you agree that certain frauds that have been committed are worse than some rapes for example? Some of them carry longer sentences after all.

[chrisski33]

Nobody is. Suggesting that someone who’s daughter has been raped is the person best placed to be deciding what jobs someone who hasn’t even been convicted of rape should and shouldn’t be allowed to do is ridiculous.

My death penalty analogy shows how far from making an acceptable, logical decision someone who’s put in that position could possibly be.

I never said that those whose daughters had been raped should have the decision about what jobs or punishment the rapist should have. Get ur facts right.

[hibby rae]

In terms of sentencing, yes.

In terms of severity of crimes, no. There’s no tier system or ranking of severity.

If that’s the case and you agree with it, would you agree that certain frauds that have been committed are worse than some rapes for example? Some of them carry longer sentences after all.

There absolutely is a hierarchy of crime, hence the sentencing that directly follows on from it, the opinion from the general public towards different crimes, and, I would imagine, the resources police will assign to investigations.


And no, in my opinion rape in general should carry far more severe sentences, as it's a far more severe crime than pretty much everything bar murder.

[heid the baw]

In terms of sentencing, yes.

In terms of severity of crimes, no. There’s no tier system or ranking of severity.

If that’s the case and you agree with it, would you agree that certain frauds that have been committed are worse than some rapes for example? Some of them carry longer sentences after all.

There is a teir system of crimes. You have summary and indictment, you have aggravators, you have degrees of the same crime eg assault, assault to injury, assault to severe injury, permanent disfigurement and so on.
You need to do a bit reading

[Stokesy's on fire]

Not a Sturgeon fan in the slightest but I can clearly remember her expressing her concern when he originally signed for Clyde and also again today on Twitter.

She's off her head

[hibby rae]

https://twitter.com/mumbosteve/status/1499108439687114758?s=21

Brilliant stuff from Sky

[Mike Berry]

https://twitter.com/mumbosteve/status/1499108439687114758?s=21

Brilliant stuff from SkyThat's....astounding.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

[Paulie Walnuts]

I never said that those whose daughters had been raped should have the decision about what jobs or punishment the rapist should have. Get ur facts right.

You asked whether people would be saying the same if it was their daughters who had been the victim, the suggestion quite clearly being that you’re wrong if your opinion doesn’t align with the parent of a victim.

[heretoday]

He's free to walk the streets, travel, go into shops etc. Football is his profession and he is apparently good at it. Are there certain jobs he is not allowed to be employed in?

[Mike Berry]

He's free to walk the streets, travel, go into shops etc. Football is his profession and he is apparently good at it. Are there certain jobs he is not allowed to be employed in?He should be in prison. There's a private prosecution apparently being brought against him, so maybe it'll happen soon. He's never expressed regret for what he did or even accepted that he did wrong. I've no sympathy for him.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

He should be in prison. There's a private prosecution apparently being brought against him, so maybe it'll happen soon. He's never expressed regret for what he did or even accepted that he did wrong. I've no sympathy for him.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk
Why would he? No charges were brought in criminal court so why would he implicate himself and risk a jail sentence? Would be interesting to know if the lawyers involved are working on the private prosecution pro bono on the grounds that it's the right thing to do?

[Mike Berry]

Why would he? No charges were brought in criminal court so why would he implicate himself and risk a jail sentence? Would be interesting to know if the lawyers involved are working on the private prosecution pro bono on the grounds that it's the right thing to do?Why would he? He's raped someone, that's why. There's a high court judge that's looked at the evidence and concluded that he's a rapist and a liar. If he admitted his guilt, expressed regret, served his time, he'd maybe be rehabilitated. But he's not rehabilitated. So he shouldn't be in a position where he's a role model for young guys.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

[LaMotta]

He should be in prison. There's a private prosecution apparently being brought against him, so maybe it'll happen soon. He's never expressed regret for what he did or even accepted that he did wrong. I've no sympathy for him.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

Or the crown office will reject the calls for a private prosecution. Given that there was a review that backed up the initial decision not to prosecute, this seems likely.

If the private prosecution does go ahead it's also a chance for the accused to have a verdict delivered of not proven or even not guilty. I wonder what would happen to the previous civil verdict in that scenario?

I do think its worrying that people believe someone should go to prison based on the balance of probabilities.

[Mike Berry]

Or the crown office will reject the calls for a private prosecution. Given that there was a review that backed up the initial decision not to prosecute, this seems likely.

If the private prosecution does go ahead it's also a chance for the accused to have a verdict delivered of not proven or even not guilty. I wonder what would happen to the previous civil verdict in that scenario?

I do think its worrying that people believe someone should go to prison based on the balance of probabilities.The crown office would have to provide clear justification for blocking a private prosecution. The lawyer that's planning it seems very clear that there's a case to answer and that the original decision not to prosecute was flawed. And a private prosecution would provide a definitive conclusion. Any conviction or acquittal would carry the same weight as a public prosecution, as in the Carol X case.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

[Since452]

https://twitter.com/mumbosteve/status/1499108439687114758?s=21

Brilliant stuff from Sky

Phew. Here was me thinking he was a racist. Only a rapist thank goodness.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Why would he? No charges were brought in criminal court so why would he implicate himself and risk a jail sentence? Would be interesting to know if the lawyers involved are working on the private prosecution pro bono on the grounds that it's the right thing to do?

Yup.

The constant calls for him to apologise etc are ridiculous really.

He maintains his innocence. Of course he’s not going to apologise.

He shouldn’t have to apologise to carry on working when he’s not been found guilty of any criminal wrongdoing and there’s no restrictions on him in terms of working in the field of work he’s working in.

He’s got absolutely no outstanding convictions/punishments. He’s got no restrictions on his freedom and no restrictions as far as I’m aware on his employment, although he definitely doesn’t have any on his current employment of being a footballer.

It’s a dangerous world when we’re starting to demand peoples right to employment is diminished simply because a rich author doesn’t like it.

[weecounty hibby]

Clyde Ladies players have said they don't want to play for the club anymore.

[grunt]

It's all kicking off at Clyde FC.

[hibby rae]

Yup.

The constant calls for him to apologise etc are ridiculous really.

He maintains his innocence. Of course he’s not going to apologise.

He shouldn’t have to apologise to carry on working when he’s not been found guilty of any criminal wrongdoing and there’s no restrictions on him in terms of working in the field of work he’s working in.

He’s got absolutely no outstanding convictions/punishments. He’s got no restrictions on his freedom and no restrictions as far as I’m aware on his employment, although he definitely doesn’t have any on his current employment of being a footballer.

It’s a dangerous world when we’re starting to demand peoples right to employment is diminished simply because a rich author doesn’t like it.

Maybe you should consider becoming an author after spinning a nice wee false narrative there.

[LaMotta]

The crown office would have to provide clear justification for blocking a private prosecution. The lawyer that's planning it seems very clear that there's a case to answer and that the original decision not to prosecute was flawed. And a private prosecution would provide a definitive conclusion. Any conviction or acquittal would carry the same weight as a public prosecution, as in the Carol X case.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

If it was a not proven verdict (which would seem to be the most likely outcome) then that wouldn't really provide a definitive conclusion though.....

[Paulie Walnuts]

Maybe you should consider becoming an author after spinning a nice wee false narrative there.

Aye? What part?

That’s exactly what has happened here.

He was employed for years at Clyde with little chat. The first minister never uttered a word.

He moves club, rich author kicks off, first minister that accepts lots of her money decides to misuse her power and publicly back her and demand that he isn’t allowed to be employed for a private company despite the fact there’s absolutely no legal reason for that to be the case.. pretty much how it’s unfolded.

Sturgeons party themselves have indicated that they think there’s a “need to allow people to move on, seek gainful employment and support families” yet because Val McDermid has kicked up a fuss NS has realised she needs to give something back to her pal for her money and has completely went against her own parties beliefs and attempted to make someone with no criminal convictions effectively unemployable in their chosen field.

So yes, we are starting to demand someone’s right to employment is diminished because a rich author says so.

[danhibees1875]

The council have banned him from attending the stadium.

They have addressed the reason this wasn't the case before by saying the stadium wasn't under direct control... Did that really just change last month though? :dunno:

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/david-goodwillie-banned-from-clydes-broadwood-stadium

[LunasBoots]

The crown office would have to provide clear justification for blocking a private prosecution. The lawyer that's planning it seems very clear that there's a case to answer and that the original decision not to prosecute was flawed. And a private prosecution would provide a definitive conclusion. Any conviction or acquittal would carry the same weight as a public prosecution, as in the Carol X case.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

The problem is its pretty much all been in the media, defence would just argue the case wouldn't be fair and could be flawed.

[Mike Berry]

If it was a not proven verdict (which would seem to be the most likely outcome) then that wouldn't really provide a definitive conclusion though.....It would, actually. People don't like the "not proven" verdict, but it really means the same thing. People think it means "we think you did it but we can't prove it" but it's effectively a not guilty. Conviction rates for rape are extremely low, and most cases never get to court, largely because often there are no witnesses. In this case both men admit having sex with her. The issue is consent.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

Why would he? He's raped someone, that's why. There's a high court judge that's looked at the evidence and concluded that he's a rapist and a liar. If he admitted his guilt, expressed regret, served his time, he'd maybe be rehabilitated. But he's not rehabilitated. So he shouldn't be in a position where he's a role model for young guys.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk
Yes because there's long lines of people queuing up everywhere to incriminate themselves sufficiently to get themselves jailed for an extended period. FFS. There is however a long list of judges who have got it wrong in their careers. Goodwillie maintains his innocence and he has the right to do that. Anyway, I'm out of this.....

[hibbysam]

NL council surely never just took full control of the stadium at the start of February? And if they did surely they had a decent say beforehand? Clyde ladies wouldn’t have just started at the beginning of February. All bandwagon jumping.

I don’t think he should be playing, however if you accept it for 5 years, including when he was captain and star player, then you shouldn’t be in uproar about it now.

[LaMotta]

It would, actually. People don't like the "not proven" verdict, but it really means the same thing. People think it means "we think you did it but we can't prove it" but it's effectively a not guilty. Conviction rates for rape are extremely low, and most cases never get to court, largely because often there are no witnesses. In this case both men admit having sex with her. The issue is consent.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

It legally means the same thing ie aquittal but in the present day not proven is typically used by a jury when there is a belief that the defendant may still be guilty but the crown has not provided sufficient evidence. No way it means the same thing in perception of the public.

Yes, the issue is consent. The difficulty is proving unequivocally that reasonable belief of consent wasn't there at the time of the encounter.

[Mike Berry]

It legally means the same thing ie aquittal but in the present day not proven is typically used by a jury when there is a belief that the defendant may still be guilty but the crown has not provided sufficient evidence.

The issue is consent. The difficulty is proving reasonable belief of consent wasn't there at the time of the encounter.There are witnesses as to the state the woman was in before the 2 men took her away in the taxi. They told the door staff they were taking her home. They didn't.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

NL council surely never just took full control of the stadium at the start of February? And if they did surely they had a decent say beforehand? Clyde ladies wouldn’t have just started at the beginning of February. All bandwagon jumping.

I don’t think he should be playing, however if you accept it for 5 years, including when he was captain and star player, then you shouldn’t be in uproar about it now.
Was the me too movement jumping on the bandwagon or do you think it was women feeling empowered because the first one took a very brave step? I have my own views on Goodwillie noy just the rape but his overall character. I also have family experience of rape and know how difficult it is to prove and get convictions even when everyone is saying they have no doubt it happened.

[LaMotta]

There are witnesses as to the state the woman was in before the 2 men took her away in the taxi. They told the door staff they were taking her home. They didn't.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

Yeah I've read all that. But there is a time lag between that and events occuring.

[hibbysam]

Was the me too movement jumping on the bandwagon or do you think it was women feeling empowered because the first one took a very brave step? I have my own views on Goodwillie noy just the rape but his overall character. I also have family experience of rape and know how difficult it is to prove and get convictions even when everyone is saying they have no doubt it happened.

The council taking a brave step? A football club taking a brave step?

I get it when it’s other victims coming out, but not just simply showing principles. The head of Clyde women (sorry not sure the title) that resigned was male.

[Mike Berry]

Yeah I've read all that. But there is a time lag between that and events occuring.Let them put it all before a jury.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

The council taking a brave step? A football club taking a brave step?

I get it when it’s other victims coming out, but not just simply showing principles. The head of Clyde women (sorry not sure the title) that resigned was male.
What's your point? They are showing principles as you say. Again maybe they now feel better placed to take these decisions

[Mike Berry]

Yes because there's long lines of people queuing up everywhere to incriminate themselves sufficiently to get themselves jailed for an extended period. FFS. There is however a long list of judges who have got it wrong in their careers. Goodwillie maintains his innocence and he has the right to do that. Anyway, I'm out of this.....The vast majority of rapists get away with it. Goodwillie admits having sex with this woman. She maintains she was in no condition to consent, and there witnesses to support that fact. I hope the **** gets what's coming to him.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

[Mcbizz1998]

It legally means the same thing ie aquittal but in the present day not proven is typically used by a jury when there is a belief that the defendant may still be guilty but the crown has not provided sufficient evidence. No way it means the same thing in perception of the public.

Yes, the issue is consent. The difficulty is proving unequivocally that reasonable belief of consent wasn't there at the time of the encounter.

In Scots law it was alway proven or not proven as the 2 verdicts.

Not guilty was only reintroduced during a case where the jury did not want to convict the defendant (resulting in his hanging), despite the fact that the murder was in fact “proven”. They asserted their right to find him “not guilty” and persuaded the court to allow it. It meant that although he was proven to have murdered the guy (the Earl of Strathmore, in this case) he was not guilty of murder. Since then the “not guilty” verdict was introduced into Scots law.

Personally I would do away with Not guilty and go back to proven and not proven. It’s been 400 years though so maybe unlikely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Malthibby]

The environment now is very different to what it was 5 years ago (a good thing in most people's opinion), Goodwillie managed to get back into football with Clyde & they were far enough down the food chain to have avoided too much attention.
That changed when Goodwillie decided to promote himself to a bigger team & he's now paying for not keeping his head down & accepting his good fortune at Clyde. He's had to try & go back but the world has changed, as shown by the Clyde women's
team walking now; his profile is now probably damaged beyond repair.
As I've said before, he could have expressed remorse for what happened without legally implicating himself as a rapist, instead he's always chosen to insist he (& his pal/accomplice) did nothing wrong; the civil case proved otherwise but
his lack of self-awareness and insight is what has brought him to where he is today.
Zero sympathy.

[hibbyfraelibby]

Yes, somebody is only a criminal if they’re convicted in court of a criminal act.

Eh...naw.

If you are convicted you are a convicted criminal.

If you indulge in criminal activity but have not yet been caught or convicted it doesn't make you any less of a criminal.

[He's here!]

The council have banned him from attending the stadium.

They have addressed the reason this wasn't the case before by saying the stadium wasn't under direct control... Did that really just change last month though? :dunno:

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/david-goodwillie-banned-from-clydes-broadwood-stadium

A very woolly excuse from North Lanarkshire Council. As you say they didn't just take direct control this week. They've essentially turned a blind eye to Goodwillie playing on their premises but now seem to think they can ban him from the stadium.

There's a barrowload of hypocrisy being tipped on to this issue. Five years without a peep then suddenly it's a nationwide outrage pile-on.

[LunasBoots]

So what line of work should Goodwillie take up then, appears he's not allowed to work for a lot of people as a unconvicted man, life of benefits?

[hibby rae]

Aye? What part?

That’s exactly what has happened here.

He was employed for years at Clyde with little chat. The first minister never uttered a word.

He moves club, rich author kicks off, first minister that accepts lots of her money decides to misuse her power and publicly back her and demand that he isn’t allowed to be employed for a private company despite the fact there’s absolutely no legal reason for that to be the case.. pretty much how it’s unfolded.

Sturgeons party themselves have indicated that they think there’s a “need to allow people to move on, seek gainful employment and support families” yet because Val McDermid has kicked up a fuss NS has realised she needs to give something back to her pal for her money and has completely went against her own parties beliefs and attempted to make someone with no criminal convictions effectively unemployable in their chosen field.

So yes, we are starting to demand someone’s right to employment is diminished because a rich author says so.

You're being very selective with the full version of events to suit the narrative you have created, which you have zero evidence for ie. Nicola Sturgeon commented because Val McDermid did, and this was only because McDermid is an SNP donor. Nicola Sturgeon didn't 'misuse her power', because the FM office doesn't have any power in this situation. She commented on social media, which like any other citizen she is entitled to do, and which many other citizens of varying profiles did do, and she answered questions when posed them by journalists, and I would prefer politicians to do so when this happens.

You are ignoring the mass uproar among the majority of Rovers fans, other members of the public, numerous other politicians, sponsors, and the fact that this was a story in the media in more than one continent.

And no one is saying he can't seek employment, they are saying he forfeited the privilege of being a footballer. There is a difference between the two things. Frankly, it's boring that this still has to be explained.

[MWHIBBIES]

So what line of work should Goodwillie take up then, appears he's not allowed to work for a lot of people as a unconvicted man, life of benefits?

He is a time served spark as well I think, or at least he was doing an apprenticeship, so he'll just do that I guess.

He should apologise and pay the money to the victim. That would be a good first step.

[Stokesy's on fire]

What a shambles this is. Not a conviction in sight and yet a civil court came to the conclusion he was guilty..The justice system is a shambles and it has got much worse under this government. Political football at play here.

[Mr Grieves]

I'm amazed how some folk will defend a rapist just so they can have a dig at Nicola Sturgeon.

[hibbyfraelibby]

The council have banned him from attending the stadium.

They have addressed the reason this wasn't the case before by saying the stadium wasn't under direct control... Did that really just change last month though? :dunno:

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/david-goodwillie-banned-from-clydes-broadwood-stadium

Having read the statement in full it would appear, correctly ,that the stadium was under the control of North Lanarkahire Leisure Ltd and yes indeed that situatuon has only recently changed as the Council took back control from the outsourced management company, the terms of the contract preventing them from interfering in the running o it.

Further more Clyde have been notice to quit and have 14 mo ths to find a new home.

[Paulie Walnuts]

You're being very selective with the full version of events to suit the narrative you have created, which you have zero evidence for ie. Nicola Sturgeon commented because Val McDermid did, and this was only because McDermid is an SNP donor. Nicola Sturgeon didn't 'misuse her power', because the FM office doesn't have any power in this situation. She commented on social media, which like any other citizen she is entitled to do, and which many other citizens of varying profiles did do, and she answered questions when posed them by journalists, and I would prefer politicians to do so when this happens.

You are ignoring the mass uproar among the majority of Rovers fans, other members of the public, numerous other politicians, sponsors, and the fact that this was a story in the media in more than one continent.

And no one is saying he can't seek employment, they are saying he forfeited the privilege of being a footballer. There is a difference between the two things. Frankly, it's boring that this still has to be explained.

Ah yeah, the first minister tweeting on the very day a large donor to her party decided to kick off about this was pure coincidence. I mean, it could have happened over any of the 1000+ days since he signed for Clyde for example.. but no, it just so happened to be on the day her pal kicked off as well. You’re right though, I do have no evidence for suspecting that’s why she’s Tweeted straight after her pals went nuts. It’s clear as day that’s why she’s done it though.

She tweeted on her First Minister Twitter account. Not some personal account. It was her account as First Minister of this very country. Let’s not make out like these tweets were seperate from her role as First Minister. She was making these comments in her capacity as First Minister.

He didn’t forfeit his privilege to play as a professional footballer at all. There’s nothing to stop him being a professional footballer. Fans can moan all they want. I didn’t want us to sign Kyle Lafferty for jo reason other than he’s a hearts *******. I said as much.

The first minister is a whole different ball game though. She’s effectively made this guy unemployable in a completely legitimate line of employment with her comments because someone that makes significant financial donations to her party wanted her to. That’s a misuse of power.

[He's here!]

Ah yeah, the first minister tweeting on the very day a large donor to her party decided to kick off about this was pure coincidence. I mean, it could have happened over any of the 1000+ days since he signed for Clyde for example.. but no, it just so happened to be on the day her pal kicked off as well. You’re right though, I do have no evidence for suspecting that’s why she’s Tweeted straight after her pals went nuts. It’s clear as day that’s why she’s done it though.

She tweeted on her First Minister Twitter account. Not some personal account. It was her account as First Minister of this very country. Let’s not make out like these tweets were seperate from her role as First Minister. She was making these comments in her capacity as First Minister.

He didn’t forfeit his privilege to play as a professional footballer at all. There’s nothing to stop him being a professional footballer. Fans can moan all they want. I didn’t want us to sign Kyle Lafferty for jo reason other than he’s a hearts *******. I said as much.

The first minister is a whole different ball game though. She’s effectively made this guy unemployable in a completely legitimate line of employment with her comments because someone that makes significant financial donations to her party wanted her to. That’s a misuse of power.

I've never really got the 'playing pro football is a privilege' line tbh. It's not some sort of exclusive right conferred on you like a title or being a member of the royal family. You have to work at it, especially if you want to make a living from the game. Is part-time League 1 football really a privilege? He could make a lot more working as an electrician.

[He's here!]

The environment now is very different to what it was 5 years ago (a good thing in most people's opinion), Goodwillie managed to get back into football with Clyde & they were far enough down the food chain to have avoided too much attention.
That changed when Goodwillie decided to promote himself to a bigger team & he's now paying for not keeping his head down & accepting his good fortune at Clyde. He's had to try & go back but the world has changed, as shown by the Clyde women's
team walking now; his profile is now probably damaged beyond repair.
As I've said before, he could have expressed remorse for what happened without legally implicating himself as a rapist, instead he's always chosen to insist he (& his pal/accomplice) did nothing wrong; the civil case proved otherwise but
his lack of self-awareness and insight is what has brought him to where he is today.
Zero sympathy.

The world, or to be more specific, the Me too movement, was gathering pace all through Goodwillie's first spell at Clyde yet the club did not see fit to cut ties or condemn him. Instead they made him club captain and spoke in glowing terms of him as a person and professional. From their point of view I can't see what's changed and their decision to take him back on loan seems logical enough.

[grunt]

Ah yeah, the first minister tweeting on the very day a large donor to her party decided to kick off about this was pure coincidence. I mean, it could have happened over any of the 1000+ days since he signed for Clyde for example.. but no, it just so happened to be on the day her pal kicked off as well. You’re right though, I do have no evidence for suspecting that’s why she’s Tweeted straight after her pals went nuts. It’s clear as day that’s why she’s done it though.

She tweeted on her First Minister Twitter account. Not some personal account. It was her account as First Minister of this very country. Let’s not make out like these tweets were seperate from her role as First Minister. She was making these comments in her capacity as First Minister.

He didn’t forfeit his privilege to play as a professional footballer at all. There’s nothing to stop him being a professional footballer. Fans can moan all they want. I didn’t want us to sign Kyle Lafferty for jo reason other than he’s a hearts *******. I said as much.

The first minister is a whole different ball game though. She’s effectively made this guy unemployable in a completely legitimate line of employment with her comments because someone that makes significant financial donations to her party wanted her to. That’s a misuse of power.I think you've got that back to front. I could be wrong, but I believe she did not use her First Minister account to post about Goodwillie. She used her own personal account.

So I think you are completely wrong in the assertion you make.

[heid the baw]

Yeah I've read all that. But there is a time lag between that and events occuring.

What are you suggesting? If she was incapable of giving consent then that means anyone having sex with her is commiting rape. Even if someone consents then changes their mind, any person who has sex with them after consent is withdrawn is commiting a rape. The law is worded in a way that unless you are certain of consent you can be commiting an offence. The onus is on you to make sure you stay within the law. This is fundamental in this case. The woman was in no fit state to consent to having sex with 2 men at once, yet they created an opportunity to do this. Who's needs are being met here? They gave no thought to her and just did what they wanted.
Men deliberately preying on women too drunk to resist has been happening for years. Only now are courts taking it seriously.

[Mcbizz1998]

It is truly a scary world for young men (lesser extent women) and consent these days

I wouldn’t like to mention how many times in my younger days I took part in completely consensual activities, when both I and the other party were blind drunk.

It now seems to be responsibility of the man to decide if a woman is in a fit state to have sex - when he may be just as drunk.

I’m not saying that’s what happened in this case btw, I have no idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LaMotta]

What are you suggesting? If she was incapable of giving consent then that means anyone having sex with her is commiting rape. Even if someone consents then changes their mind, any person who has sex with them after consent is withdrawn is commiting a rape. The law is worded in a way that unless you are certain of consent you can be commiting an offence. The onus is on you to make sure you stay within the law. This is fundamental in this case. The woman was in no fit state to consent to having sex with 2 men at once, yet they created an opportunity to do this. Who's needs are being met here? They gave no thought to her and just did what they wanted.
Men deliberately preying on women too drunk to resist has been happening for years. Only now are courts taking it seriously.

I'm suggesting that by the time the event occurred she may have been able to give off the impression that she was capable of consenting to the defenders. This possibilty was backed up by comments from some of the witnesses including expert Alcohol witnesses, the taxi driver and a neighbour at the premises. I'm not saying she def did just that the possibility was there hence why a criminal conviction would be so difficult to obtain. Ultimately the civil judge decided on balance of probability that she likely was not. He may well be right, but no one knows that with 100% assurance.

[Callum_62]

It is truly a scary world for young men (lesser extent women) and consent these days

I wouldn’t like to mention how many times in my younger days I took part in completely consensual activities, when both I and the other party were blind drunk.

It now seems to be responsibility of the man to decide if a woman is in a fit state to have sex - when he may be just as drunk.

I’m not saying that’s what happened in this case btw, I have no idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you sure you want to?

Ooooh, scary

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Mcbizz1998]

Are you sure you want to?

Ooooh, scary

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

What are you on about?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Callum_62]

What are you on about?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI mean I'm nearing 40 and never been in a situation where the consent of what I was doing would ever be in question

Its really not a hard situation to avoid

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Mcbizz1998]

I mean I'm nearing 40 and never been in a situation where the consent of what I was doing would ever be in question

Its really not a hard situation to avoid

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Neither have I. But neither have I ever paused in the throws of passion to say “are you sure?” - it’s always been obvious the other person was through their actions.

Even if you do that though, is it that simple? I mean if, for example, the following day the woman says that although she said yes at the time, she was too drunk to know what she was doing. How does that fit into consent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibbysam]

What's your point? They are showing principles as you say. Again maybe they now feel better placed to take these decisions

What’s my point? They had 5 years to do something. Simply doing something because of a public backlash is wrong. They were happy with an alleged rapist captaining and scoring in their ground for years and now because Raith sponsors took a stand they’ve decided to follow suit.

They’re not better placed now, they simply turned a blind eye previously.

[SlickShoes]

What’s my point? They had 5 years to do something. Simply doing something because of a public backlash is wrong. They were happy with an alleged rapist captaining and scoring in their ground for years and now because Raith sponsors took a stand they’ve decided to follow suit.

They’re not better placed now, they simply turned a blind eye previously.

So if you don't do something right away, never do it because the moment has passed. Great.

Some of the stuff on here is absolutely sickening, mods should probably shut this thread down.

[Mcbizz1998]

So if you don't do something right away, never do it because the moment has passed. Great.

Some of the stuff on here is absolutely sickening, mods should probably shut this thread down.

You want the mods to shut down a thread because someone has a different opinion to you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Unseen work]

The issue with these sort of debates if you like is that it’s such a sensitive subject and peoples emotions come into play.

Points are lost in translation and at times people interpret a post completely different from how it was intended.

It’s unfortunately never going to end well on a football forum.

[hibbysam]

So if you don't do something right away, never do it because the moment has passed. Great.

Some of the stuff on here is absolutely sickening, mods should probably shut this thread down.

Sickening 😂 someone has a difference of opinion (and not even on goodwillie himself) and your losing the plot.

If the Council were happy for him to be on their grounds for 5 years, absolutely nothing has changed since for them to change their tune apart from a failed transfer and a lot of media coverage, including from the first minister. The cynicism in me would say the councillors themselves are maybe looking for some goodwill 2 months before facing re-election.

[hibby rae]

Ah yeah, the first minister tweeting on the very day a large donor to her party decided to kick off about this was pure coincidence. I mean, it could have happened over any of the 1000+ days since he signed for Clyde for example.. but no, it just so happened to be on the day her pal kicked off as well. You’re right though, I do have no evidence for suspecting that’s why she’s Tweeted straight after her pals went nuts. It’s clear as day that’s why she’s done it though.

She tweeted on her First Minister Twitter account. Not some personal account. It was her account as First Minister of this very country. Let’s not make out like these tweets were seperate from her role as First Minister. She was making these comments in her capacity as First Minister.

He didn’t forfeit his privilege to play as a professional footballer at all. There’s nothing to stop him being a professional footballer. Fans can moan all they want. I didn’t want us to sign Kyle Lafferty for jo reason other than he’s a hearts *******. I said as much.

The first minister is a whole different ball game though. She’s effectively made this guy unemployable in a completely legitimate line of employment with her comments because someone that makes significant financial donations to her party wanted her to. That’s a misuse of power.

Except, it wasn't the very first day as Val McDermid had already made clear what she would do weeks before, and again it wasn't just Val McDermid and Nicola Sturgeon talking about this. She also tweeted from her personal account, not the FM account. Rovers decision to not play him was not decided upon because Nicola Sturgeon made her feelings known. Again, you have zero evidence for the narrative you are trying to spin.

You really are only seeing the bits you want to see here.

Clearly, when I say people are saying he's forfeited the right, I didn't mean in a legal sense. Even if he was a convicted murderer, he there would be no legal reason barring him from being a footballer. But most people realise it isn't morally acceptable in this context, given the profile footballers have and their influence and status for fans, especially fans of a younger nature.

I honestly don't know why some people find this difficult to understand.

[Mcbizz1998]

The issue with these sort of debates if you like is that it’s such a sensitive subject and peoples emotions come into play.

Points are lost in translation and at times people interpret a post completely different from how it was intended.

It’s unfortunately never going to end well on a football forum.

HOW DARE YOU! [emoji28]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1van Sprou7e]

Sickening 😂 someone has a difference of opinion (and not even on goodwillie himself) and your losing the plot.

If the Council were happy for him to be on their grounds for 5 years, absolutely nothing has changed since for them to change their tune apart from a failed transfer and a lot of media coverage, including from the first minister. The cynicism in me would say the councillors themselves are maybe looking for some goodwill 2 months before facing re-election.


Or, the whole Raith debacle has made people realise that they can actually force a change

That's the Clyde Ladies quit now, good on them

[SlickShoes]

Sickening 😂 someone has a difference of opinion (and not even on goodwillie himself) and your losing the plot.

If the Council were happy for him to be on their grounds for 5 years, absolutely nothing has changed since for them to change their tune apart from a failed transfer and a lot of media coverage, including from the first minister. The cynicism in me would say the councillors themselves are maybe looking for some goodwill 2 months before facing re-election.

I don't know what you think of someone saying in relation to this issue "its a truly scary world for young MEN", that is horrible to me.

Things have changed as someone already pointed out with regard to the stadium, plus like someone else pointed out people now feel empowered to make change they don't have to just accept that a rapist is playing professional football.

[hibbysam]

I don't know what you think of someone saying in relation to this issue "its a truly scary world for young MEN", that is horrible to me.

Things have changed as someone already pointed out with regard to the stadium, plus like someone else pointed out people now feel empowered to make change they don't have to just accept that a rapist is playing professional football.

I mean it was under stewardship of north Lanarkshire leisure which is owned by north Lanarkshire council. The council will always have had a say over it.

And if the Council needed Raith to lead the way in regards to Goodwillie to feel ‘empowered’ then we’re in trouble.

[Paulie Walnuts]

I think you've got that back to front. I could be wrong, but I believe she did not use her First Minister account to post about Goodwillie. She used her own personal account.

So I think you are completely wrong in the assertion you make.

She’s only got one account as far as I can see. And on that account her description has “First Minister” and the website linked to the account is first minister.gov.scot. The tweets on that account are the vast majority political.

So I would say I’m completely right in the assertion I make.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Except, it wasn't the very first day as Val McDermid had already made clear what she would do weeks before, and again it wasn't just Val McDermid and Nicola Sturgeon talking about this. She also tweeted from her personal account, not the FM account. Rovers decision to not play him was not decided upon because Nicola Sturgeon made her feelings known. Again, you have zero evidence for the narrative you are trying to spin.

You really are only seeing the bits you want to see here.

Clearly, when I say people are saying he's forfeited the right, I didn't mean in a legal sense. Even if he was a convicted murderer, he there would be no legal reason barring him from being a footballer. But most people realise it isn't morally acceptable in this context, given the profile footballers have and their influence and status for fans, especially fans of a younger nature.

I honestly don't know why some people find this difficult to understand.
Yeah you’ve already told us you don’t get why people don’t understand. It’s not that people don’t understand, it’s that people don’t all have the same opinion as you. It’s really quite simple.

[hibbyfraelibby]

I mean it was under stewardship of north Lanarkshire leisure which is owned by north Lanarkshire council. The council will always have had a say over it.

And if the Council needed Raith to lead the way in regards to Goodwillie to feel ‘empowered’ then we’re in trouble.

I dont think you understand how it works.

North Lanarkshire Leisure is a C.I.C. This is a special company type for Community Interest Companies and is strictly regulated

They cannot be politically motivated (regulation 3 of the Community Interest Company Regulations 2005).

Whilst Broadwood was being managed by The CIC the directors were prohibited from taking a stance on Goodwillie, even though the board were heavily influenced by serving councillors and officers of NL Council.


Having removed the CIC from the contract to manage Broadwood the councillors escaped from the regulatory constraint and did the decent thing. Perhaps best not to make baseless assumptions with a background of limited understanding and a pre-disposition to a certain cynical attitude.

[gbhibby]

Salmond got found not guilty by a jury trial wonder what the result would have been in a civil case?

[hibbyfraelibby]

Salmond got found not guilty by a jury trial wonder what the result would have been in a civil case?

You are about to find out...he's suing Kirsty Wark and her husbands production company and the BBC over their accusatory program. Playing with fire

[grunt]

This is so tedious. You said:


She tweeted on her First Minister Twitter account. Not some personal account. It was her account as First Minister of this very country. Let’s not make out like these tweets were seperate from her role as First Minister. She was making these comments in her capacity as First Minister.


She’s only got one account as far as I can see. And on that account her description has “First Minister” and the website linked to the account is first minister.gov.scot. The tweets on that account are the vast majority political.

So I would say I’m completely right in the assertion I make.

She has (at least) two accounts:

1. Her First Minister account, which is the official account of the role of First Minister. The clue is in the name of the account, "First Minister". https://twitter.com/ScotGovFM?s=20&t=d0I8Zcl_hCKkglkPATOJrg

2. Her personal account, Nicola Sturgeon https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon?s=20&t=d0I8Zcl_hCKkglkPATOJrg where she describes her job, which is that of being First Minister.

You even said that "she tweeted on her First Minister account" thus implying that you knew she had her own separate account.

[Mcbizz1998]

I don't know what you think of someone saying in relation to this issue "its a truly scary world for young MEN", that is horrible to me.

Things have changed as someone already pointed out with regard to the stadium, plus like someone else pointed out people now feel empowered to make change they don't have to just accept that a rapist is playing professional football.

Yeah that was me. And you cut off the bit where I mentioned women and the whole context of my comment and it relating to consent.

Pretty poor stuff mate. Nothing I said was “sickening” and was part of a broader conversation. Not everything is as cut and dry as you seem to think. It’s ok to disagree and have opinions, even with difficult subject matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[heid the baw]

I'm suggesting that by the time the event occurred she may have been able to give off the impression that she was capable of consenting to the defenders.This possibilty was backed up by comments from some of the witnesses including expert Alcohol witnesses, the taxi driver and a neighbour at the premises. I'm not saying she def did just that the possibility was there hence why a criminal conviction would be so difficult to obtain. Ultimately the civil judge decided on balance of probability that she likely was not. He may well be right, but no one knows that with 100% assurance.

Unbelievable, How does that work, giving of the impression.of consent ? You sound like some old relic victim blaming judge going on about skirt lengths

[Mcbizz1998]

Unbelievable, How does that work, giving of the impression.of consent ? You sound like some old relic victim blaming judge going on about skirt lengths

Surely that doesn’t need to be spelt out to you? You can let someone know you want to have sex with them without saying the words….

And btw, before any offence is taken - I am not saying that happened in this case. But you can very much give the impression of consent without having a conversation about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gbhibby]

You are about to find out...he's suing Kirsty Wark and her husbands production company and the BBC over their accusatory program. Playing with fire
He better think twice. If one of the women waive anonymity he might get found out.

[Paulie Walnuts]

This is so tedious. You said:





She has (at least) two accounts:

1. Her First Minister account, which is the official account of the role of First Minister. The clue is in the name of the account, "First Minister". https://twitter.com/ScotGovFM?s=20&t=d0I8Zcl_hCKkglkPATOJrg

2. Her personal account, Nicola Sturgeon https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon?s=20&t=d0I8Zcl_hCKkglkPATOJrg where she describes her job, which is that of being First Minister.

You even said that "she tweeted on her First Minister account" thus implying that you knew she had her own separate account.

I didn’t know the first account existed. Hence why I said she only appears to have one account. As I said, what is her personal account has so many references to her being first minister that I presumed it was an account used in her official capacity as first minister.

The first account is however managed by Scotgov communication. So the account that she actually uses herself and still links to the first minister website etc is the one she personally used.

So basically, if it had been on the first minister account, it could quite easily have been someone else that tweeted it. As it’s on her account, it’s quite clearly her tweeting it off an account that is at pains to point out she’s the first minister pretty much everywhere you look.

So regardless of whatever way you want to dress it up, she’s using her role as first minister to attempt to make someone unemployable whilst her party claim they support the rehabilitating of offenders. And she’s done it off the back of someone who donates significant sums of money to her party kicking off about it. She never had anything to say about it in the years upon years before that where the situation really was exactly the same.

I’ll quite happily stand by my opinion that it’s a complete misuse of power and also that her actions completely go against the beliefs of her party.

Oh, and if it’s so tedious you’re in no way duty bound to respond :aok:

[LaMotta]

I didn’t know the first account existed. Hence why I said she only appears to have one account. As I said, what is her personal account has so many references to her being first minister that I presumed it was an account used in her official capacity as first minister.

The first account is however managed by Scotgov communication. So the account that she actually uses herself and still links to the first minister website etc is the one she personally used.

So basically, if it had been on the first minister account, it could quite easily have been someone else that tweeted it. As it’s on her account, it’s quite clearly her tweeting it off an account that is at pains to point out she’s the first minister pretty much everywhere you look.

So regardless of whatever way you want to dress it up, she’s using her role as first minister to attempt to make someone unemployable whilst her party claim they support the rehabilitating of offenders. And she’s done it off the back of someone who donates significant sums of money to her party kicking off about it. She never had anything to say about it in the years upon years before that where the situation really was exactly the same.

I’ll quite happily stand by my opinion that it’s a complete misuse of power and also that her actions completely go against the beliefs of her party.

Oh, and if it’s so tedious you’re in no way duty bound to respond :aok:

You are right. The official FM account is one for the "office of FM". She won't ever go near that, it's her comms team that operate it. When she is tweeting from her "personal" account she is still tweeting as FM.

[hibbysam]

I dont think you understand how it works.

North Lanarkshire Leisure is a C.I.C. This is a special company type for Community Interest Companies and is strictly regulated

They cannot be politically motivated (regulation 3 of the Community Interest Company Regulations 2005).

Whilst Broadwood was being managed by The CIC the directors were prohibited from taking a stance on Goodwillie, even though the board were heavily influenced by serving councillors and officers of NL Council.


Having removed the CIC from the contract to manage Broadwood the councillors escaped from the regulatory constraint and did the decent thing. Perhaps best not to make baseless assumptions with a background of limited understanding and a pre-disposition to a certain cynical attitude.

And this was all done post Goodwillie transfer was it? Interesting.

[Paulie Walnuts]

You are right. The official FM account is one for the "office of FM". She won't ever go near that, it's her comms team that operate it. When she is tweeting from her "personal" account she is still tweeting as FM.

Yup.

If her ‘personal’ account had no reference to her role as first minister and she was tweeting it I’d still feel it was a misuse of power but could at least accept that it’s her own personal views outside of her role as FM. When her personal account links to her website as First Minister and the first thing mentioned in her bio is First Minister and it’s the only account she personally tweets from then she’s absolutely tweeting from that account in her role as first minister imo.

[CropleyWasGod]

Does anyone know where Clyde train?

And would DG be available for away games?

[LaMotta]

Unbelievable, How does that work, giving of the impression.of consent ? You sound like some old relic victim blaming judge going on about skirt lengths

:rolleyes: I mean I've no idea how you've managed to get to that conclusion. Your second sentence is one of the most ridiculous I've read on this forum.

If the case went to criminal court, a jury would have to decide on the test of "reasonable belief". This test is a subjective test with an objective element. It can be dealt with by asking two questions:



Did the suspect genuinely believe the complainant consented?This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent ( subjective)
If so, did the suspect reasonably believe it? It will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable (the objective element).


The complainant could still be drunk, can still not have remembered anything the next day, but could still have been capable of giving the impression of consent (verbally or non verbally) despite it being something they would not do under normal circumstances. In such a case it could be argued the suspect had a reasonable belief of consent and therefore they could not be convicted.

I am not saying that is what happened here - but the fact it is a possibility ( and it can't be ruled out) would make it difficult to convict.



Surely that doesn’t need to be spelt out to you? You can let someone know you want to have sex with them without saying the words….

And btw, before any offence is taken - I am not saying that happened in this case. But you can very much give the impression of consent without having a conversation about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That too.

[weecounty hibby]

Yup.

If her ‘personal’ account had no reference to her role as first minister and she was tweeting it I’d still feel it was a misuse of power but could at least accept that it’s her own personal views outside of her role as FM. When her personal account links to her website as First Minister and the first thing mentioned in her bio is First Minister and it’s the only account she personally tweets from then she’s absolutely tweeting from that account in her role as first minister imo.

What would you expect her bio to say?

[LaMotta]

Yup.

If her ‘personal’ account had no reference to her role as first minister and she was tweeting it I’d still feel it was a misuse of power but could at least accept that it’s her own personal views outside of her role as FM. When her personal account links to her website as First Minister and the first thing mentioned in her bio is First Minister and it’s the only account she personally tweets from then she’s absolutely tweeting from that account in her role as first minister imo.

:agree:She def was tweeting as FM. By the way I'm very much a fan of hers, however I do feel that getting involved in this case the way she has was not the right thing to do.

[He's here!]

And this was all done post Goodwillie transfer was it? Interesting.

Indeed.

And the claim that the councillors who apparently carried such clout at board level were shackled by the CIC set-up doesn't wash either. If they were privately so upset about having Goodwillie on the books then why sanction his signing in the first place?

As I said earlier this is a club which has effectively given a footballing pariah a chance that nobody else would. It would appear from the praise they have subsequently showered on him and their decision to make him club captain that they feel (as a body of people who have arguably got to know him better than anyone bar his family) that he has more than repaid their decision to give him a second chance.

Based on that it would be irrational for them to hang him out to dry now and I can see why they offered him a loan deal.

[He's here!]

I should add that I'm not sticking up for Goodwillie as a person. I'm simply uncomfortable with the haste by which so many seem suddenly qualified to make a judgement they could just as easily made at any time over the past five years.

[SHODAN]

Clyde have now cancelled the loan.

[dp00]

Clyde have now cancelled the loan.

The world has went mad , guy has done wrong but he has played there for years before with no issue , he was even there captain

Are the council banning every criminal from the stadium ? If livi get Clyde in the cup are they going to refuse Martindale access to the game


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paulie Walnuts]

What would you expect her bio to say?

If the account is to be nothing to do with her role as first minister as people suggest I’d not expect it to have First Minister as the first thing you read and the website linked to the account to be the First Ministers website that’s for sure.

It’s the only account she posts personally from and is plastered from top to bottom with first minister references. She’s posting from that as the First Minister.

[CropleyWasGod]

Clyde have now cancelled the loan.

Which means he can't play for anyone else in the SPFL this season.

If he wants to play football,the best solution for all is to go abroad.

[HibsIntl]

Boo Hoo.
He has to get a normal job like everyone else. Why feel sympathy he’s been convicted by a judge.
Of all the injustices in the world to feel bad about this isn’t one.

We are better than this as a fanbase.

[Steven79]

Clyde have now cancelled the loan.I thought Raith had to agree to cancel it?

What a shambles for both clubs...

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Steven79]

Which means he can't play for anyone else in the SPFL this season.

If he wants to play football,the best solution for all is to go abroad.He's only actually played for one club this season so surely he can still play for another.

Not that hes going to have many offers...

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[pacoluna]

The world has went mad , guy has done wrong but he has played there for years before with no issue , he was even there captain

Are the council banning every criminal from the stadium ? If livi get Clyde in the cup are they going to refuse Martindale access to the game


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Or what about if they draw Edinburgh city who's captain is a convicted peadophile

[HoboHarry]

Boo Hoo.
He has to get a normal job like everyone else. Why feel sympathy he’s been convicted by a judge.
Of all the injustices in the world to feel bad about this isn’t one.

We are better than this as a fanbase.
Yes quite. Perhaps a bouncer where he will have loads of access to drunk women. Or maybe a painter where he is entering people's houses every day?

[HoboHarry]

The world has went mad , guy has done wrong but he has played there for years before with no issue , he was even there captain

Are the council banning every criminal from the stadium ? If livi get Clyde in the cup are they going to refuse Martindale access to the game


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'd be curious to see the player challenge the ban in court. I suspect he might win that one.

[LunasBoots]

Clyde have now cancelled the loan.

I imagine it won't be the last we hear of it, I'd imaginehis lawyer is about to have a feild day in court certainly against the council amongst others

[HibsIntl]

Yes quite. Perhaps a bouncer where he will have loads of access to drunk women. Or maybe a painter where he is entering people's houses every day?

Can’t believe this has been posted. What’s your point? If he’s a footballer he might abuse less women than if he gets a normal job. Sober up and delete this comment, you’re embarrassing yourself, humanity and this club.

[HoboHarry]

Can’t believe this has been posted. What’s your point? If he’s a footballer he might abuse less women than if he gets a normal job. Sober up and delete this comment, you’re embarrassing yourself, humanity and this club.
It's a long time since I've been drunk., probably as long as your sarcasm detectors been broken in fact. You stated he would have to go get a normal job like everyone else no? Or did you mean one that keeps him away from meeting members of the public? I get the feeling you are pretty young, don't worry, you'll get the hang of this eventually.

[RIP Bestie]

It's a long time since I've been drunk., probably as long as your sarcasm detectors been broken in fact. You stated he would have to go get a normal job like everyone else no? Or did you mean one that keeps him away from meeting members of the public? I get the feeling you are pretty young, don't worry, you'll get the hang of this eventually.

Well said.

[green day]

I imagine it won't be the last we hear of it, I'd imaginehis lawyer is about to have a feild day in court certainly against the council amongst others

A contract merely says that a club pays you for X period, not that you will be picked for the first team or play, taking Clyde to court would be a total waste of time and his money.

He has a contract with Raith Rovers - a very decent contract which they are obliged to honour, but David Goodwillie will never play professional football again in Scotland, he is (always was tbqhwy) damaged goods.

I believe he was in training to be an electrician in Stirling area before the Raith move. Its possible that Raith will offer him a deal and he goes back to that.

Or, he sits on his erse and takes Raiths money for the remainder of his contract.

[Paulie Walnuts]

I'd be curious to see the player challenge the ban in court. I suspect he might win that one.

I’d suspect the same. Banned from a publicly owned building with no criminal charges. He’d win that I reckon although we won’t find out if his loan has been cancelled.

[JimBHibees]

I’d suspect the same. Banned from a publicly owned building with no criminal charges. He’d win that I reckon although we won’t find out if his loan has been cancelled.

Publically owned but they likely would have the right to decide who is able to access it however you would need to ask why they weren't so outraged previously he was playing for the same team.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Publically owned but they likely would have the right to decide who is able to access it however you would need to ask why they weren't so outraged previously he was playing for the same team.

I’m not sure that would apply to a publicly owned building? I’d suspect they’ll not be able to just ban people for no apparent reason.

Unless they’re banning all those with criminal charges then I’d suspect they’d certainly be open to a legal challenge. Someone may be able to clarify though.

Think someone explained further up why things may be different compared to last time he was at Clyde.

[hibbysam]

I dont think you understand how it works.

North Lanarkshire Leisure is a C.I.C. This is a special company type for Community Interest Companies and is strictly regulated

They cannot be politically motivated (regulation 3 of the Community Interest Company Regulations 2005).

Whilst Broadwood was being managed by The CIC the directors were prohibited from taking a stance on Goodwillie, even though the board were heavily influenced by serving councillors and officers of NL Council.


Having removed the CIC from the contract to manage Broadwood the councillors escaped from the regulatory constraint and did the decent thing. Perhaps best not to make baseless assumptions with a background of limited understanding and a pre-disposition to a certain cynical attitude.

Reading that this happened in 2019, if this is correct then they’ve had 3 years to step in and blows the argument wide open. They’ve had an alleged rapist in their home for 3 years and all of a sudden they’ve changed their tune.

Again, I’ll reiterate that I fully agree with fans up in arms about it (I’d be the same if it was Hibs), but not bandwagon jumpers and especially when I feel it’s politically motivated.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Reading that this happened in 2019, if this is correct then they’ve had 3 years to step in and blows the argument wide open. They’ve had an alleged rapist in their home for 3 years and all of a sudden they’ve changed their tune.

Again, I’ll reiterate that I fully agree with fans up in arms about it (I’d be the same if it was Hibs), but not bandwagon jumpers and especially when I feel it’s politically motivated.

:agree:

[Since452]

What Goodwillie did was abhorrent and appalling, of course it was but there seems to be a massive witch hunt against him now when there didn't appear to be before. That cant be good for the guys mental health and is actually pretty alarming. I don't know the full details but has he shown remorse to his victim? Has he sought help? Has he been rehabilitated in any way? If he has then where does it end? What happens if the guy tops himself? If he has done none of those things then he's obviously a ****bag and deserves to be slaughtered publicly but if he has then aren't people allowed to change for the better?

[pacoluna]

What Goodwillie did was abhorrent and appalling, of course it was but there seems to be a massive witch hunt against him now when there didn't appear to be before. That cant be good for the guys mental health and is actually pretty alarming. I don't know the full details but has he shown remorse to his victim? Has he sought help? Has he been rehabilitated in any way? If he has then where does it end? What happens if the guy tops himself? If he has done none of those things then he's obviously a ****bag and deserves to be slaughtered publicly but if he has then aren't people allowed to change for the better?

He has shown absolutely no remorse, none whatsoever. If he had done he would still be playing football. His contract income from RR should be used to compensate his victim, she's not received a penny as he applied for bankruptcy.

[Corstorphine Hibby]

I'd be curious to see the player challenge the ban in court. I suspect he might win that one.

You've got a 50/50 chance of being correct

[Since452]

He has shown absolutely no remorse, none whatsoever. If he had done he would still be playing football. His contract in one from RR should be used to compensate his victim, she's not received a penny as he applied for bankruptcy.

If thats the case then he's a ****.

[brianmc]

If thats the case then he's a ****.

He's shown no remorse because he's always maintained he was innocent of the charges brought against him.
Remember, he was found guilty in a civil case not a criminal one.
If he subsequently showed remorse for his actions that could be interpreted as an admission of guilt - leaving him open to be prosecuted in criminal court.

[pacoluna]

He's shown no remorse because he's always maintained he was innocent of the charges brought against him.
Remember, he was found guilty in a civil case not a criminal one.
If he subsequently showed remorse for his actions that could be interpreted as an admission of guilt - leaving him open to be prosecuted in criminal court.

You can show remorse without accepting guilt!

[brianmc]

You can show remorse without accepting guilt!
If you were in his position how would you go about it?

[LunasBoots]

You can show remorse without accepting guilt!

It's only in the media that's being said, nobody knows what's actually knows what's happened behind the scenes in regards to remorse around the incident

[pacoluna]

It's only in the media that's being said, nobody knows what's actually knows what's happened behind the scenes in regards to remorse around the incident

Have you read the judges statement in his judgement? Or the victims statement?

[LunasBoots]

Have you read the judges statement in his judgement? Or the victims statement?

I've read some of the transcript points and can certainly see why it would be difficult to convict in a criminal court room rather than a civil one. Again just because a judge says doesn't mean that's the case, judges aren't always correct as many will tell you when it comes down to these things, the only people that can really tell if there's any remorse are those around Goodwillie on a day to day basis.

[mixumatosis]

Reading that this happened in 2019, if this is correct then they’ve had 3 years to step in and blows the argument wide open. They’ve had an alleged rapist in their home for 3 years and all of a sudden they’ve changed their tune.

Again, I’ll reiterate that I fully agree with fans up in arms about it (I’d be the same if it was Hibs), but not bandwagon jumpers and especially when I feel it’s politically motivated.

If you move into a house next to a pub, you don't get to object to the fact that there is a pub next door to you, or any of the normal disturbances that come with that - noisy deliveries, a moderate degree of noise at night etc - as you moved in knowing there was a pub there.

Now, imagine you move in next to a pub, then the building is sold and re-opened as a completely different type of business. If the owners want to change back to a pub you would be entitled to object to that change, irrespective of the fact the premises were originally a pub when you moved in.

They inherited Goodwillie when the contract reverted to them in 2019 and likely couldn't do anything about it as a valid contract existed between him and Clyde FC. With that contract having been terminated when he moved to RR, they are now in a position to object to a new contract being agreed and have done so.

[Aldo]

He's shown no remorse because he's always maintained he was innocent of the charges brought against him.
Remember, he was found guilty in a civil case not a criminal one.
If he subsequently showed remorse for his actions that could be interpreted as an admission of guilt - leaving him open to be prosecuted in criminal court.

an admission of guilt by the accused is insufficient evidence to convict in Scotland, because that evidence needs to be corroborated by another source.

Or in some cases specialist knowledge only the perpetrator would know about!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LaMotta]

You can show remorse without accepting guilt!

He maintains he is innocent though. It really would make no sense at all for him to show remorse. Why do some people not understand this relatively simple point?

[hibbysam]

If you move into a house next to a pub, you don't get to object to the fact that there is a pub next door to you, or any of the normal disturbances that come with that - noisy deliveries, a moderate degree of noise at night etc - as you moved in knowing there was a pub there.

Now, imagine you move in next to a pub, then the building is sold and re-opened as a completely different type of business. If the owners want to change back to a pub you would be entitled to object to that change, irrespective of the fact the premises were originally a pub when you moved in.

They inherited Goodwillie when the contract reverted to them in 2019 and likely couldn't do anything about it as a valid contract existed between him and Clyde FC. With that contract having been terminated when he moved to RR, they are now in a position to object to a new contract being agreed and have done so.

They’ve not moved in next door. They own the building.

If I rent a house from a landlord and that landlord then sells on to someone else, he can boot me out there and then if he really wants to.

Goodwillies contract situation is irrelevant, as shown here, he has a contact and they’ve barred him. They could’ve done that 3 years ago and chose not to. If Clyde play Edinburgh City then I’d hazard a fairly competent guess that they wont bar Craig Thomson from playing.

[Paulie Walnuts]

They’ve not moved in next door. They own the building.

If I rent a house from a landlord and that landlord then sells on to someone else, he can boot me out there and then if he really wants to.

Goodwillies contract situation is irrelevant, as shown here, he has a contact and they’ve barred him. They could’ve done that 3 years ago and chose not to. If Clyde play Edinburgh City then I’d hazard a fairly competent guess that they wont bar Craig Thomson from playing.

Craig Thomson has moved to Cowdenbeath. Funnily enough, another move that received absolutely no comment from most as you can see from the fact next to nobody seems to even realise he’s moved.

If only there was a rich author with a First Minister pal who’s ready to go against her own parties beliefs to repay her donors..

[pacoluna]

He maintains he is innocent though. It really would make no sense at all for him to show remorse. Why do some people not understand this relatively simple point?

And why do people not understand that just because he's been found guilty in a civil court that The standard of proof is indeed different, however this does not mean that there is a lack of evidence. A substantial level of evidence is required, multiple statements and testimonies.

[KWJ]

He maintains he is innocent though. It really would make no sense at all for him to show remorse. Why do some people not understand this relatively simple point?

He can hold a different opinion that he thought it was consensual yet still have remorse at the suffering the woman has gone through.

[Paulie Walnuts]

He can hold a different opinion that he thought it was consensual yet still have remorse at the suffering the woman has gone through.

I can just see the frothing at the mouth when that statement comes out.

“I’m really sorry she feels that way but as far as I’m concerned it was consensual”.

People would be going ****ing bananas.

He’s quite rightly kept quiet and tried to just carry on with his career/life imo. He’d make matters worse for himself trying to maintain his innocence whilst expressing remorse for the woman feeling like he’s not In any way innocent.

[CropleyWasGod]

Craig Thomson has moved to Cowdenbeath. Funnily enough, another move that received absolutely no comment from most as you can see from the fact next to nobody seems to even realise he’s moved.

If only there was a rich author with a First Minister pal who’s ready to go against her own parties beliefs to repay her donors..

How much does VM donate to the SNP? I'm struggling to find any reference to that, other than claims that "she doesn't ".

[LaMotta]

And why do people not understand that just because he's been found guilty in a civil court that The standard of proof is indeed different, however this does not mean that there is a lack of evidence. A substantial level of evidence is required, multiple statements and testimonies.

I've not seen anyone that doesn't understand that point. There is still a lack of evidence that would secure a criminal conviction though. A different civil judge may have come to a different conclusion as well.

[LaMotta]

I can just see the frothing at the mouth when that statement comes out.

“I’m really sorry she feels that way but as far as I’m concerned it was consensual”.

People would be going ****ing bananas.

He’s quite rightly kept quiet and tried to just carry on with his career/life imo. He’d make matters worse for himself trying to maintain his innocence whilst expressing remorse for the woman feeling like he’s not In any way innocent.

:agree:

[ACLeith]

One person who is never mentioned is his co-accused. He retired from football shortly after the civil case verdict. I don't know if he paid his share of the damages; I don't know what he is now doing in society.

[hibbysam]

Craig Thomson has moved to Cowdenbeath. Funnily enough, another move that received absolutely no comment from most as you can see from the fact next to nobody seems to even realise he’s moved.

If only there was a rich author with a First Minister pal who’s ready to go against her own parties beliefs to repay her donors..

Case in point, thanks for correcting me. Hadn’t heard a peep around that.

[hibee]

One person who is never mentioned is his co-accused. He retired from football shortly after the civil case verdict. I don't know if he paid his share of the damages; I don't know what he is now doing in society.

The Sun managed to write a “where is he now” story on him last month without saying where he was or what he was doing!

Looks like when he initially quit football he was selling boilers for a Bathgate company and going round to peoples houses to give quotes but no idea where he is now.

[hhibs]

Craig Thomson has moved to Cowdenbeath. Funnily enough, another move that received absolutely no comment from most as you can see from the fact next to nobody seems to even realise he’s moved.

If only there was a rich author with a First Minister pal who’s ready to go against her own parties beliefs to repay her donors..


:rolleyes:

[hibby rae]

Case in point, thanks for correcting me. Hadn’t heard a peep around that.

Different situations.

Thompson pled guilty, showed contrition, served his sentence and so began the process of rehabilitation.

I'd pay no attention to the unfounded conspiracy theory that this is a plot between McDermid and the First Minister.

[hhibs]

Case in point, thanks for correcting me. Hadn’t heard a peep around that.



Do not feed the troll.

[theonlywayisup]

Is it not time to move this to the Holy Ground? The points being discussed / debated have got little to do with football apart from the fact that he is a footballer (:doh:).

[silverhibee]

Which means he can't play for anyone else in the SPFL this season.

If he wants to play football,the best solution for all is to go abroad.

Just guessing here but think that his football career is over now.

Will be down to Raith to pay out his contract.

[HoboHarry]

Just guessing here but think that his football career is over now.

Will be down to Raith to pay out his contract.
Maybe the sponsor lady will pay up his contract so he is off the books. Yeah well probably not....

[He's here!]

Case in point, thanks for correcting me. Hadn’t heard a peep around that.

Nor on this it would appear:

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/celtic-boys-club-scottish-government-26376066

[He's here!]

Just guessing here but think that his football career is over now.

Will be down to Raith to pay out his contract.

Clyde must be feeling upset about that given how they've looked out for him but I guess if they've been threatened with losing access to their home ground they've been put in a difficult position.

[CropleyWasGod]

Just guessing here but think that his football career is over now.

Will be down to Raith to pay out his contract.

The money from the Celtic cup tie will come in handy, although many Rovers fans want the Board to pay personally. You can see their point.

[pacoluna]

Maybe the sponsor lady will pay up his contract so he is off the books. Yeah well probably not....

Maybe with the pay off he can pay his victim the compensation that she was awarded or maybe not.. as he declared bankruptcy.

[Malthibby]

Craig Thomson has moved to Cowdenbeath. Funnily enough, another move that received absolutely no comment from most as you can see from the fact next to nobody seems to even realise he’s moved.

If only there was a rich author with a First Minister pal who’s ready to go against her own parties beliefs to repay her donors..


Dearie, dearie me. Tedious, repetitive, boring. :rolleyes:

[LaMotta]

Maybe with the pay off he can pay his victim the compensation that she was awarded or maybe not.. as he declared bankruptcy.

Victim is not the correct terminology in this case (no matter of what anyone thinks about what happened). She was the 'pursuer' in a civil trial.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Different situations.

Thompson pled guilty, showed contrition, served his sentence and so began the process of rehabilitation.

I'd pay no attention to the unfounded conspiracy theory that this is a plot between McDermid and the First Minister.

Of course they’re different situations. One of them is a criminal convicted of noncing 12 year olds online and sending them dick pics and has admitted he’s guilty.

The other has been accused of a crime that there wasn’t evidence to convict them of and maintains their innocence.

[hibby rae]

Of course they’re different situations. One of them is a criminal convicted of child sex offences and has admitted he’s guilty.

The other has been accused of a crime that there wasn’t evidence to convict them of and maintains their innocence.

Bizarrely you seem to think the first situation is more socially acceptable.

Did I say that? Nope, twisting the truth again I see.

[hibby rae]

Victim is not the correct terminology in this case (no matter of what anyone thinks about what happened). She was the 'pursuer' in a civil trial.

Survivor.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Of course they’re different situations. One of them is a criminal convicted of child sex offences and has admitted he’s guilty.

The other has been accused of a crime that there wasn’t evidence to convict them of and maintains their innocence.

Bizarrely you seem to think the first situation is more socially acceptable.

Did I say that? Nope, twisting the truth again I see.

Did you say it? No. That’s why I said you seem to, because your previous post certainly insinuates it.

[LunasBoots]

Maybe I'm the only one but this thread is pointless, nobody is going to agree on this.

[weecounty hibby]

It's probably a fair reflection on why only a very small % of rapes end in a conviction and why lots of women don't even come forward of it happens to them. Not a victim!!?? FFS

[hibby rae]

[QUOTE=hibby rae;6879703]

Did you say it? No. That’s why I said you seem to, because your previous post certainly insinuates it.

Except it didn't, you're just trying to see what you want to see, as you have been throughout this entire thread.

[Paulie Walnuts]

It's probably a fair reflection on why only a very small % of rapes end in a conviction and why lots of women don't even come forward of it happens to them. Not a victim!!?? FFS

She’s not though..

She’d be an alleged victim throughout a criminal case. There’s not even been one of them because there wasn’t enough evidence.

[Paulie Walnuts]

[QUOTE=Stubbsy90+2;6879706]

Except it didn't, you're just trying to see what you want to see, as you have been throughout this entire thread.

Ah the good old “if you don’t agree with me then you can’t see the whole picture” patter.

[weecounty hibby]

She’s not though..

She’d be an alleged victim throughout a criminal case. There’s not even been one of them because there wasn’t enough evidence.
I'm am bowing out now because it is ****ing pointless as a couple of you are determined to defend a rapist. You continue to use semantics all you want he is a rapist. As I said earlier I have first hand knowledge of a close family member being raped. Everyone and I mean everyone, involved believed it happened. Lack of DMA evidence and no corroboration meant that a very young girls attacker went unpunished. The reason for lack of DNA evidence? She was scared to tell anyone because she didn't think anyone would belive her, so left it too late. Goodwill is a ****bag who raped a girl and then when found guilty and ordered to pay her claimed bankruptcy. Even if he didn't want to accept guilt in case it went back to court he could have St least paid her the money. As I say ****bag rapist

[Paulie Walnuts]

I'm am bowing out now because it is ****ing pointless as a couple of you are determined to defend a rapist. You continue to use semantics all you want he is a rapist. As I said earlier I have first hand knowledge of a close family member being raped. Everyone and I mean everyone, involved believed it happened. Lack of DMA evidence and no corroboration meant that a very young girls attacker went unpunished. The reason for lack of DNA evidence? She was scared to tell anyone because she didn't think anyone would belive her, so left it too late. Goodwill is a ****bag who raped a girl and then when found guilty and ordered to pay her claimed bankruptcy. Even if he didn't want to accept guilt in case it went back to court he could have St least paid her the money. As I say ****bag rapist

It’s clearly a very emotive subject for you but that doesn’t change the fact that the terminology used was incorrect, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

Someone used incorrect terminology, a poster corrected it and you kicked off disagreeing with it. All the poster has done was point out the correct terminology to use in what is a complex legal matter.

[McD]

She’s not though..

She’d be an alleged victim throughout a criminal case. There’s not even been one of them because there wasn’t enough evidence.


if someone is mugged and assaulted, but there’s no witness and not enough evidence, you think they’re not a victim? What about someone who is indecently assaulted in their workplace where no witnesses are present? Or someone who’s verbally abused and bullied, where it’s one persons word against another?

lack of proof does not mean lack of crime, or a lack of victims

I'm pretty sure the press use the word ‘victim’ when reporting on a crime or a court case (of any variety of court)

[Paulie Walnuts]

if someone is mugged and assaulted, but there’s no witness and not enough evidence, you think they’re not a victim? What about someone who is indecently assaulted in their workplace where no witnesses are present? Or someone who’s verbally abused and bullied, where it’s one persons word against another?

lack of proof does not mean lack of crime, or a lack of victims

I'm pretty sure the press use the word ‘victim’ when reporting on a crime or a court case (of any variety of court)

If someone is mugged and assaulted but there’s no witness or evidence to prove it then nobody actually knows whether they were mugged or not. So it’s alleged.

They wouldn’t be declared a victim unless the accused is found guilty because that suggests guilt on the part of the accused.

In terms of civil cases, as pointed out, there is simply a pursuer, not a victim.

[CropleyWasGod]

If someone is mugged and assaulted but there’s no witness or evidence to prove it then nobody actually knows whether they were mugged or not. So it’s alleged.

They wouldn’t be declared a victim unless the accused is found guilty because that suggests guilt on the part of the accused.

In terms of civil cases, as pointed out, there is simply a pursuer, not a victim.

Victim Support Scotland think otherwise about your definition of a victim.

https://victimsupport.scot/information-support/get-support/how-we-can-help/

[NYHibby]

If someone is mugged and assaulted but there’s no witness or evidence to prove it then nobody actually knows whether they were mugged or not. So it’s alleged.

They wouldn’t be declared a victim unless the accused is found guilty because that suggests guilt on the part of the accused.

In terms of civil cases, as pointed out, there is simply a pursuer, not a victim.

So if you were my employee and the employment tribunal found that I subjected you to vile racist comments and direct racial discrimination, you would think that you were not the victim of racism?

And because I was not convicted by a criminal court, I would not be a racist?

[Paulie Walnuts]

Victim Support Scotland think otherwise about your definition of a victim.

https://victimsupport.scot/information-support/get-support/how-we-can-help/

They might well think that. Some on here also think that.

In terms of the case in question though, it was a civil case and the correct terminology is ‘pursuer’.