Goodwillie

He will be getting some amount of payoffs. Believe raith rovers had to pay him 9 figures
quick-maths-mans-not-hot.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: GR3
I don’t want to say the clubs are just as bad (comes across totally wrong) but they know what they are signing up for.

The best thing he should have done was just stay at Clyde as nobody was bothering
That’s the mad thing, even after all this he was at Clyde for a couple of years, scoring goals and nobody cared, in the slightest.

It was only after he signed for Raith it became an issue as one of the ultra feminists with friends in the media kicked off about it.
 
Sturgeon mysteriously really concerned about the safety of women in this case. Bizarre.
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
 
Why would he be allowed to work in a trade?
Lemme think
Complete apprenticeship, then you can work in a trade.
You see mature apprentices all the time.

He can do whatever he wants really, go to uni, work on tesco, whatever

But its pretty clear hid time as a pro footballer in Scotland is well and truly over
 
Wonder if Sturgeon would use pronouns or if Goodwillie is just a rapist.

The one that got me was it Clyde? and their Council facilities banning him. Sentenced served, back in society with no restrictions on integrating…you’re banned mate, eh? There’s likely fellow rapists and ex cons with brutal pasts playing 5s and up the swimming.
Be great if we could keep offenders of crimes like this in jail forever but we can’t and we don’t. Should they move away and take a profession stacking shelves and living a life away from football, probably but it’s their choice not to and playing abroad is probably the best shout
Declan Gallacher did a year for a brutal assault on a man at a wedding anniversary function. David Martindale did 4 years for drug and money laundering offences. Both are rightly allowed to resume their career. Sentence served.

Goodwill is is not a nice person and his behaviour repugnant. His conduct through his case and after was awful as well. But is it right he is hounded out of football while a violent man and a drug dealer are welcomed?

Doesn’t sit right with me.
 
There was a post on a previous thread that claimed everyone in Armadale knew he was innocent. Wonder if the poster's still around?

I read the court transcript and his evidence was self serving or he couldn't remember. He certainly do himself any favours on the stand.
 
Lemme think
Complete apprenticeship, then you can work in a trade.
You see mature apprentices all the time.

He can do whatever he wants really, go to uni, work on tesco, whatever

But its pretty clear hid time as a pro footballer in Scotland is well and truly over
The people hounding him will go after him in a trade also. He will be shown in a paper and they’ll be onto his company right away
 
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.
 
Will stress again that Celtic gave Griffiths game time after he got caught trying to nonce an underage girl.

Not that it’s a defence for Goodwillie but you’d have expected the same level of treatment.
 
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.
So do you not think that civil courts should be a thing then?
Or just that the verdicts passed in them should be ignored

FWIW I think the judge ruled on the balance of probabilities, not a hunch

I could be wrong, but I don't think the victim has seen a red cent of her damages from him either.
 
Whilst we have bawbags who have done time for battering folk with baseball bats playing in our top flight.

Actually convicted in a criminal court and jail time.
 
The people hounding him will go after him in a trade also. He will be shown in a paper and they’ll be onto his company right away
So log as he was upfront with his employer about his history (however having never been convicted I doubt if he would need to disclose anything) then he will be protected by his rights as an employee.
 
So log as he was upfront with his employer about his history (however having never been convicted I doubt if he would need to disclose anything) then he will be protected by his rights as an employee.
??? You do know he’s been chased from several jobs already? A football club is still an employer surely
 
It's an invidious position - justice hasn't been served here for anyone.

Imagine if Martindale had been hounded out of the game forever.
 
I don't know him and if he is a scumbag or not but he does seem to be unfairly treated when you have sexual predators like Salmond who is allowed to carry on and even set up a new political party or Patrick Grady who was suspended for sexual harassment openly supported by the snp and welcomed back in and to hell with their victims.There is also the willfull ignorance of the biggest sexual acandal of all.
 
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 .
There was no trial. Goodwillie and his Co-accused were never indicted.

The Court of Session judgment is here if anyone wants to read it: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=d22e28a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Of particular note is the bouncer's description of the pursuer:
He [the co-accused] had said to Ms McGregor that he was going to take the pursuer away with him, and she had replied by saying that what the pursuer really needed was an ambulance. She was not making sense and was not in control of herself.

Given that description along with the other evidence surmised by his Lordship in the judgment it is little surprise that he found that the pursuer was unable to consent to sex and therefore, on the balance of probabilities, was raped.

This case is not black and white. The facts are available in public for people to make their minds up about David Goodwillie. I am no expert on employment law, but I can say two things with certainty:

1. I would not knowingly choose to associate with a man who behaves in such a fashion;
2. I would be concerned to hear of my sister or daughter consorting with such an individual.
 
Last edited:
Do you think that Mason Greenwood should be fine to play football again now that his rape charges have been dropped?

Id say not a chance, and hope he is hounded also
 
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.
Think you are underestimating the severity of the judges view. To be convicted of rape the allegations need to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. That is a high bar. Rightly so for such a serious charge that would have put him to prison for a serious amount of time.

A civil case the judge sees all the evidence and hears the arguments in exactly the same way with the same cross examinations. Difference the judgement is based on a balance of probabilities.

It is still a detailed and serious legal process. Not in anyway based on a judges hunch. That comment trivialises the whole situation.
 
hardly surprising.
He should consider not raping in the future and life may improve a tad
Fair enough. Back to the original point though, there is no job he can do, including a trade that there wont be attempts to chase him from, as you’ve just shown.
 
Fair enough. Back to the original point though, there is no job he can do, including a trade that there wont be attempts to chase him from, as you’ve just shown.

There is plentiful work in the country if you want to do it.
He wont be the only rapist working will he?
I appreciate he is a higher profile, but that is because he is in a high profile environment.
If he was shoveling crap on a farm, digging a ditch or whatever normal jobs there would not be the same spotlight on him.
 
Think you are underestimating the severity of the judges view. To be convicted of rape the allegations need to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. That is a high bar. Rightly so for such a serious charge that would have put him to prison for a serious amount of time.

A civil case the judge sees all the evidence and hears the arguments in exactly the same way with the same cross examinations. Difference the judgement is based on a balance of probabilities.

It is still a detailed and serious legal process. Not in anyway based on a judges hunch. That comment trivialises the whole situation.
You can’t go around saying someone is a rapist unless they have been convicted of this in a criminal court.

I don’t know whether Goodwillie is a rapist. What I do know is that he wasn’t convicted. In fact, it never even got to court.

It’s very sinister for a judge to decide someone is ‘probably’ a rapist when it’s already been established that there is insufficient evidence.
 
You can’t go around saying someone is a rapist unless they have been convicted of this in a criminal court.

I don’t know whether Goodwillie is a rapist. What I do know is that he wasn’t convicted. In fact, it never even got to court.

It’s very sinister for a judge to decide someone is ‘probably’ a rapist when it’s already been established that there is insufficient evidence.
So you don't think there is a place for the civil courts in this type of thing?
 
There was no trial. Goodwillie and his Co-accused were never indicted.

The Court of Session judgment is here if anyone wants to read it: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=d22e28a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Of particular note is the bouncer's description of the pursuer:


Given that description along with the other evidence surmised by his Lordship in the judgment it is little surprise that he found that the pursuer was unable to consent to sex and therefore, on the balance of probabilities, was raped.

This case is not black and white. The facts are available in public for people to make their minds up about David Goodwillie. I am no expert on employment law, but I can say two things with certainty:

1. I would not knowingly choose to associate with a man who behaves in such a fashion;
2. I would be concerned to hear of my sister or daughter consorting with such an individual.
That same bouncer told police in his official statement that she walked away happily arm in arm with the 2 men. A witnesses gave different accounts to the civil trial than they did to the police.

You are basing your opinion on accepting the wors of a bouncer who either lied to the police or lied at the civil trial. Either way it is true he is a liar.
 
So you don't think there is a place for the civil courts in this type of thing?
It was the first ever civil trial for rape in Scotland and there hasn't been any since I believe. Possibly wrong. Civil cases are to obtain money and that's it. They are not recorded against the person as a conviction.
 
That same bouncer told police in his official statement that she walked away happily arm in arm with the 2 men. A witnesses gave different accounts to the civil trial than they did to the police.

You are basing your opinion on accepting the wors of a bouncer who either lied to the police or lied at the civil trial. Either way it is true he is a liar.
There is sufficent corroboration in that judgement for me to come to the same conclusion as the court did.
 
It was the first ever civil trial for rape in Scotland and there hasn't been any since I believe. Possibly wrong. Civil cases are to obtain money and that's it. They are not recorded against the person as a conviction.
correct, on the purpose part
not sure on the quantity of
 
There is sufficent corroboration in that judgement for me to come to the same conclusion as the court did.
In a hearing where all witnesses changed their stories. If you want to believe them that's your prerogative. Insufficient evidence to actually prove any crime was committed.
 
Back
Top