Goodwillie

Jeema said:
Doesn't exactly support your position on non jury trials does it?
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. The author would only object to them being mandatory but is open to the possibility of them being included as a right for the defence - who may prefer an experienced, informed judge rather than 12 numbskulls - and also acknowledges that they run without any controversy in other countries. Support for non-jury trials in the wider legal profession is significant.

I'm not sure what your brain found difficult to process with any of that.
 
Bluefin221 said:
Yes, it does. The author would only object to them being mandatory but is open to the possibility of them being included as a right for the defence - who may prefer an experienced, informed judge rather than 12 numbskulls - and also acknowledges that they run without any controversy in other countries. Support for non-jury trials in the wider legal profession is significant.

I'm not sure what your brain found difficult to process with any of that.
Click to expand...
When you refer to juries as numbskulls its says more about you than anything else!

You're argument is futile, as there is provision within the CJA of 2003 for non jury trials, but the article you've posted doesn't support your argument at all, she also states "But the immediate opposition of many barristers has....." Thus clearly stating that many are against it, yet you claim otherwise.

1 individual against many, is not suggesting that many are in favour of non jury trials, does it? It suggest 1 lone voice!
 
Bluefin221 said:
Yes, it does. The author would only object to them being mandatory but is open to the possibility of them being included as a right for the defence - who may prefer an experienced, informed judge rather than 12 numbskulls - and also acknowledges that they run without any controversy in other countries. Support for non-jury trials in the wider legal profession is significant.

I'm not sure what your brain found difficult to process with any of that.
Click to expand...
"12 numbskulls" ?

Do you think everyone that serves on a jury is a numbskull? I have served on a jury multiple times and people I have served with have not been "numbskulls" .
 
Jeema said:
When you refer to juries as numbskulls its says more about you than anything else!

You're argument is futile, as there is provision within the CJA of 2003 for non jury trials, but the article you've posted doesn't support your argument at all, she also states "But the immediate opposition of many barristers has....." Thus clearly stating that many are against it, yet you claim otherwise.

1 individual against many, is not suggesting that many are in favour of non jury trials, does it? It suggest 1 lone voice!
Click to expand...

It's "your argument is futile".

It's not my intention to flood the thread with numerous examples but merely to point to one such example.

In Lady Dorrian's review of the management of sexual offence cases in Scotland, one judge gave evidence that he presided over several rape trials each year in which the evidence was clear to him of guilt beyond reasonable doubt but the jury returned verdicts of acquittal, usually not proven. The difficulty of juries in rape cases is considered a factor in low conviction rates. But, as you say, one lone voice.
 
Jeema said:
All he has done is attack on a personal level, thats second time he's made a derogatory comment concerning jurors....
Click to expand...
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but, my personal experience of serving on a jury multiple times is that every other juror was most certainly not a "numbskull"..
 
Bluefin221 said:
Who's more likely to be 'informed'? An experienced judge who has been involved in numerous criminal trials and knows how to read evidence and witnesses? Or 12 Senga's fae Sighthill?
Click to expand...

Why bother with juries at all then?

Just leave everyone's fate up to one person sitting wielding the power.

I find the entire circus around Goodwillie ridiculous tbh.

He'd been playing (and captaining) Clyde for years without any bother. Then Sturgeon and her daft bint pal at Raith Rovers decide to go on a crusade against him. The fallout from that was laughable as well, didn't North Lanarkshire Council effectively ban him from Broadwood? Again, despite the fact he'd been playing there for years?

How often do you hear about folk being banned from leisure centres fs.
 
Bluefin221 said:
It's "your argument is futile".

It's not my intention to flood the thread with numerous examples but merely to point to one such example.

In Lady Dorrian's review of the management of sexual offence cases in Scotland, one judge gave evidence that he presided over several rape trials each year in which the evidence was clear to him of guilt beyond reasonable doubt but the jury returned verdicts of acquittal, usually not proven. The difficulty of juries in rape cases is considered a factor in low conviction rates. But, as you say, one lone voice.
Click to expand...
Drat the grammar police got me

In a jury trial the jury are directed by the judge on the law before retiring to consider their verdict... again you are highlighting 1 individuals opinion, against 12 people that he himself directed, so is that a fault of the jury or the judge?
 
Bluefin221 said:
It's "your argument is futile".

It's not my intention to flood the thread with numerous examples but merely to point to one such example.

In Lady Dorrian's review of the management of sexual offence cases in Scotland, one judge gave evidence that he presided over several rape trials each year in which the evidence was clear to him of guilt beyond reasonable doubt but the jury returned verdicts of acquittal, usually not proven. The difficulty of juries in rape cases is considered a factor in low conviction rates. But, as you say, one lone voice.
Click to expand...

1. The prosecution obviously didn't do their job properly.
2. Wouldn't the discussion be better looking at the 'cop out' of the not-proven verdict being a possibility?
 
Madjid Moments said:
So he’s not been convicted in a criminal court due to lack of evidence but was found guilty in a civil court, been fined etc.

Is he allowed to move on in life or just lock himself away in a house forever?

Sturgeon absolutely ruined him because of her friend, she was happy with him having a career at Clyde until his move to Raith came up. If she targeted him straight away I’d see her point but now it was just point scoring against a guy who can’t win either way.
Click to expand...
He should lock himself away in a house forever. He's a monster who thought he could do what he wanted because he was "Famous". Fŭck him he deserves everything that's coming to him and Fŭck Wee Nippy as well.
 
Bluefin221 said:
I would not trust myself to a jury in Scotland, no.
Click to expand...

You'd prefer your fate in the hands of a judge with the following view?

".. would add that, even if it was the pursuer who said “Don’t come inside me, I don’t want to have another baby”, I would not accept that such language is necessarily consistent with consensual sexual intercourse."
 
captcaveman said:
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but, my personal experience of serving on a jury multiple times is that every other juror was most certainly not a "numbskull"..
Click to expand...
Selected twice and sat on 4 Juries, each Juror brings their own experience to the situation.....to refer to them as numbskulls is derogatory and lacking
 
HarryBosch said:
You'd prefer your fate in the hands of a judge with the following view?

".. would add that, even if it was the pursuer who said “Don’t come inside me, I don’t want to have another baby”, I would not accept that such language is necessarily consistent with consensual sexual intercourse."
Click to expand...

Yes. As explained above, it is not necessarily consistent. The judge is correct.
 
Just think the guy should be allowed to get on with his life, earn any money to support himself using any skills he has. That happens to be football.
 
Jeema said:
Without a proper criminal trial we will never know re Goodwillie, only way he can clear his name or for accuser to get justice. A civil case is not the answer.

Too many genuine cases never get to court and it is those victims I feel most sorry for, the false accusers only make it harder for these victime to get the justice they deserve
Click to expand...

How can you say they are “genuine cases” if no one has been found guilty in a criminal court? Going by your logic here.
 
One further, and hopefully final, comment on this.

The Judge in the civil proof heard the evidence. He made his decision on credibility and reliability and consistency with other evidence on the basis not only of the evidence delivered but how it was delivered. Posters appear to be deciding on evidential issues based on what they are reading (and reading into) the comments in the judgement. I’m not in any doubt the Judge was best placed to assess the evidence and reach a reasoned judgement.

Reference has been made to comments allegedly made by the Pursuer (“Don’t come inside me….”) and to the neighbour hearing “giggling” as being proof she wasn’t raped. The key question in this case is “Was she capable of consenting?” If, due to the amount of alcohol she had consumed she was incapable of consenting, it wouldn’t matter how often or loudly she giggled or how often she used explicit words of consent. If she’s incapable of consent, then that’s the end of it.

She doesn’t need to say no. Her condition makes it an absolute red flag!!

Finally, I had no sympathy for Goodwillie at the time. I had less when he used the “Tommy Sheridan” defence and declared himself bankrupt to avoid paying the award.
 
blue216 said:
One further, and hopefully final, comment on this.

The Judge in the civil proof heard the evidence. He made his decision on credibility and reliability and consistency with other evidence on the basis not only of the evidence delivered but how it was delivered. Posters appear to be deciding on evidential issues based on what they are reading (and reading into) the comments in the judgement. I’m not in any doubt the Judge was best placed to assess the evidence and reach a reasoned judgement.

Reference has been made to comments allegedly made by the Pursuer (“Don’t come inside me….”) and to the neighbour hearing “giggling” as being proof she wasn’t raped. The key question in this case is “Was she capable of consenting?” If, due to the amount of alcohol she had consumed she was incapable of consenting, it wouldn’t matter how often or loudly she giggled or how often she used explicit words of consent. If she’s incapable of consent, then that’s the end of it.

She doesn’t need to say no. Her condition makes it an absolute red flag!!

Finally, I had no sympathy for Goodwillie at the time. I had less when he used the “Tommy Sheridan” defence and declared himself bankrupt to avoid paying the award.
Click to expand...
In this case as you well know it was a CIVIL case and the burdon of proof very much comes down to the whim of a judge, in a criminal case the evidence needs to be beyond reasonable dobt not so here!

I've seen a judge fail to consider a signed contract, the testimony of 3 witnesses over 1 witness, to the point the pursuing solicitor questioned it and asking why they had had trouble with said judge on their last x amount of cases!

preponderance of the evidence
the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.
 
Jeema said:
You know exactly what I was saying don't you, so stop playing the fool!
Click to expand...

I genuinely don’t know what you’re saying.

Your argument seems to be that someone can’t be called a rapist unless they’ve been found guilty in a criminal court. Am I wrong?
 
Mrs_Prso said:
I genuinely don’t know what you’re saying.

Your argument seems to be that someone can’t be called a rapist unless they’ve been found guilty in a criminal court. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing, that's exactly what I'm saying, and to be blunt calling someone a rapist when they have not been found guilty is defamatory.
A civil case carries a lesser burdon of proof and is very much based on 1 individual opinion who can decide what evidence they choose to believe. As someone else said, all 3 were drunk, just so happens the judge decided he preferred her version to 3 other versions
 
Rickety Cricket said:
He should lock himself away in a house forever. He's a monster who thought he could do what he wanted because he was "Famous". Fŭck him he deserves everything that's coming to him and Fŭck Wee Nippy as well.
Click to expand...
And you know that for a fact aye or are you just following the media portrayal?
 
Jeema said:
I'm not arguing, that's exactly what I'm saying, and to be blunt calling someone a rapist when they have not been found guilty is defamatory.
A civil case carries a lesser burdon of proof and is very much based on 1 individual opinion who can decide what evidence they choose to believe. As someone else said, all 3 were drunk, just so happens the judge decided he preferred her version to 3 other versions
Click to expand...

So these “genuine cases” haven’t been raped then if they’re not getting to court?

Your logic is flawed.
 
Morton Goal said:
In what way did he act appallingly? Plenty people get drunk and end up having one nighters and threesomes all the time.
Click to expand...
Maybe you think the way he treated that woman was acceptable. I don’t and most normal men would not in any circumstances behave like that.

Suppose it is a question of personal morals. I don’t know or associate with anyone who behaves in that manner.
 
Hipster Dashie said:
Maybe you think the way he treated that woman was acceptable. I don’t and most normal men would not in any circumstances behave like that.

Suppose it is a question of personal morals. I don’t know or associate with anyone who behaves in that manner.
Click to expand...
He was drunk with the woman and she engaged in having sex with him. A very young laddie by the way pissed out his head the same as the lady.

You don't know anyone who has had a drunken one night stand? Seriously?
 
blue216 said:
One further, and hopefully final, comment on this.

The Judge in the civil proof heard the evidence. He made his decision on credibility and reliability and consistency with other evidence on the basis not only of the evidence delivered but how it was delivered. Posters appear to be deciding on evidential issues based on what they are reading (and reading into) the comments in the judgement. I’m not in any doubt the Judge was best placed to assess the evidence and reach a reasoned judgement.

Reference has been made to comments allegedly made by the Pursuer (“Don’t come inside me….”) and to the neighbour hearing “giggling” as being proof she wasn’t raped. The key question in this case is “Was she capable of consenting?” If, due to the amount of alcohol she had consumed she was incapable of consenting, it wouldn’t matter how often or loudly she giggled or how often she used explicit words of consent. If she’s incapable of consent, then that’s the end of it.

She doesn’t need to say no. Her condition makes it an absolute red flag!!

Finally, I had no sympathy for Goodwillie at the time. I had less when he used the “Tommy Sheridan” defence and declared himself bankrupt to avoid paying the award.
Click to expand...

What if he was in a similar state?
 
DKRangers said:
Behaving "appallingly" shouldn't stop you from being able to work without being publicly hounded out the job.
Click to expand...
Agree with that. The pseudo legal eagles are trying to argue his guilt or innocence my point is that is not the issue. The legal process is over in this case his punishment as it is is over.

I struggle to see why he is different to Martindale or Gallacher.
 
Rt. Hon. Bearman said:
So let me get this straight.

There wasn’t sufficient evidence to bring his case to a proper court where these serious charges are normally tried.

Yet his life has been ruined as a result of a judge in a civil court who thinks he ‘probably’ did it, whose opinion was egged on by Nicola “we cannot comment on individual cases…except ones like this where we can virtue signal” Sturgon?

Do me a favour.

If he’s a rapist, let’s see the evidence and get him convicted in court.

You either believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty (in a criminal trial) or you don’t.

I don’t have any particular fondness for the guy but to have his life ruined on what is basically a judge’s hunch is absolutely mental.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more.

Let him have his day in criminal court or let him get on with his life.

Also say that as someone who has no particular fondness for him.
 
The difference is that no club will give him a game, the ones that do abruptly about turn.
There is nothing legally preventing him from playing professionally.
He is toxic now
 
blueballsbear said:
The difference is that no club will give him a game, the ones that do abruptly about turn.
There is nothing legally preventing him from playing professionally.
He is toxic now
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that a council apparently banned him from being in a stadium and the First Minister said he shouldn’t be playing football.

If clubs decided off their own back not to employ him that’s fair enough, but powerful figures in both local and national government are effectively stopping him from playing despite never having been convicted of a crime.

It feels dangerous.
 
knightswood_bear said:
I think the problem is that a council apparently banned him from being in a stadium and the First Minister said he shouldn’t be playing football.

If clubs decided off their own back not to employ him that’s fair enough, but powerful figures in both local and national government are effectively stopping him from playing despite never having been convicted of a crime.

It feels dangerous.
Click to expand...
What was the script with Radcliffe then?
Surely the Scottish government has no clout down there?
 
Morton Goal said:
He was drunk with the woman and she engaged in having sex with him. A very young laddie by the way pissed out his head the same as the lady.

You don't know anyone who has had a drunken one night stand? Seriously?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I've took from it all and I read the full court stuff. A couple of young lads went on a night out, a couple off young lasses went on a night out. They've all met up and ended up drinking the night away. They were all drunk and one girl decides to go home, the other girl decides to continue the night and go with the lads. They've ended up having a 3 some, and that should have been the end of it.

This happens all over the country every weekend and its normal behaviour for thousands of people. There will be several people in this thread alone that have went out and ended up sleeping with someone they just met that night. What shouldn't of happened is the mess that followed afterwards where people have had their life's ruined and its still ongoing over 10 years later.
 
Rangerslion said:
That's exactly what I've took from it all and I read the full court stuff. A couple of young lads went on a night out, a couple off young lasses went on a night out. They've all met up and ended up drinking the night away. They were all drunk and one girl decides to go home, the other girl decides to continue the night and go with the lads. They've ended up having a 3 some, and that should have been the end of it.

This happens all over the country every weekend and its normal behaviour for thousands of people. There will be several people in this thread alone that have went out and ended up sleeping with someone they just met that night. What shouldn't of happened is the mess that followed afterwards where people have had their life's ruined and its still ongoing over 10 years later.
Click to expand...
You and me both mate. Completely what I made of it too.
 
blueballsbear said:
The difference is that no club will give him a game, the ones that do abruptly about turn.
There is nothing legally preventing him from playing professionally.
He is toxic now
Click to expand...
Very strange situation. Forgetting the guilty or not guilty of the case I find it weird that he managed 5 years at Clyde and captained the club with very little noise around it at all until he left.
 
Davie Weir said:
Very strange situation. Forgetting the guilty or not guilty of the case I find it weird that he managed 5 years at Clyde and captained the club with very little noise around it at all until he left.
Click to expand...
This is where my issue with the whole situation is, he had been playing pretty much continuously, 5 years at Clyde and then a transfer to Raith so teams obviously didn’t have an issue employing him.

Then local and national government step in and he now can’t get a club at any level. I would have no problem if it was clubs who had decided they don’t want to employ him, but that’s clearly not what happened here.

Regardless of any feeling towards DG, it’s a dangerous game where the ruling party of the day can decide that someone is no longer allowed to earn a living at their trade, despite them having never been convicted of breaking the law.
 
Calvinist said:
She wasn’t until goodwillie signed for railth .

Raith fan and SNP party benefactor Val McDermid took offence at goodwillie playing for the club and used Sturgeons influence to hound him out of the club and , it would appear , and ruin his career completely .

Goodwillies criminal trial was abandoned due to a lack of evidence (the standard of evidence is far higher than that of civil trials) and he was never found guilty or convicted .

You can get second chances as long as the SNP approve
Click to expand...
You can be a sex pest and a member of parliament with the snp and they’ll turn and blind eye and welcome you back with open arms. So much hypocrisy and double standards as can be expected from that lot.
 
Rt. Hon. Bearman said:
So let me get this straight.

There wasn’t sufficient evidence to bring his case to a proper court where these serious charges are normally tried.

Yet his life has been ruined as a result of a judge in a civil court who thinks he ‘probably’ did it, whose opinion was egged on by Nicola “we cannot comment on individual cases…except ones like this where we can virtue signal” Sturgon?

Do me a favour.

If he’s a rapist, let’s see the evidence and get him convicted in court.

You either believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty (in a criminal trial) or you don’t.

I don’t have any particular fondness for the guy but to have his life ruined on what is basically a judge’s hunch is absolutely mental.
Click to expand...
It’s disgusting mate. This modern trait of trial by social media has to stop. That prick sturgeon basically jumps on the bandwagon and ruins his life. He has never been found guilty in a court of law and it’s disgusting. Fair enough if he was but he hasn’t. This is the norm now and it stinks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top