Gary
Well-Known Member
He will be getting some amount of payoffs. Believe raith rovers had to pay him 9 figures
He will be getting some amount of payoffs. Believe raith rovers had to pay him 9 figures
He will be getting some amount of payoffs. Believe raith rovers had to pay him 69 figures
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.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
She wasn’t until goodwillie signed for railth .Sturgeon mysteriously really concerned about the safety of women in this case. Bizarre.
So should child abusers..
Why would he be allowed to work in a trade?but on the balance of probabilities, he did.
He would be best either going abroad to play in Turkey or something, or rapping it and try and get a trade.
At least ....could be more though..Nine figures is 100m my guy
Lemme thinkWhy would he be allowed to work in a trade?
He wasnt, CPS never brought a case against him, something fishy in that in itself.he was
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.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
SNP.Still don't understand why no outrage or anyone giving a f*ck when he was captain of Clyde for all those years prior to signing for Raith.
Shahoorsir......dinnae start wi that pishKen?
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 awayLemme 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
Mob mentality and bullying are as prevalent as they always were. You just need to be “allowed” to do it.Still don't understand why no outrage or anyone giving a f*ck when he was captain of Clyde for all those years prior to signing for Raith.
So do you not think that civil courts should be a thing then?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 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.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
??? You do know he’s been chased from several jobs already? A football club is still an employer surelySo 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.
Can't remember is the standard defence for all things dodgy in Scotland these days.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.
and he will have been fully paid up for his contracts I am sure.??? You do know he’s been chased from several jobs already? A football club is still an employer surely
There was no trial. Goodwillie and his Co-accused were never indicted.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 .
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.
I think he should be, despicable that a convicted drug dealer can be fit and proper to manage a top level football club.It's an invidious position - justice hasn't been served here for anyone.
Imagine if Martindale had been hounded out of the game forever.
Yeah he’s a lucky man. Not sure what his Raith contract was but I doubt he gets anything but pay as you play deals now.and he will have been fully paid up for his contracts I am sure.
He has actually won out of it
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.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.
hardly surprising.Yeah he’s a lucky man. Not sure what his Raith contract was but I doubt he gets anything but pay as you play deals now.
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.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.
You can’t go around saying someone is a rapist unless they have been convicted of this in a criminal court.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.
For criminal matters, such as rape? Absolutely not.So do you not think that civil courts should be a thing then?
So you don't think there is a place for the civil courts in this type of thing?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.
Celtic would love you to be in charge I'm sure.For criminal matters, such as rape? Absolutely not.
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.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.
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.So you don't think there is a place for the civil courts in this type of thing?
There is sufficent corroboration in that judgement for me to come to the same conclusion as the court did.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.
correct, on the purpose partIt 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.
There is no criminal proof he raped anyone. Civil proceedings have no legal standing in relation to criminalityhardly surprising.
He should consider not raping in the future and life may improve a tad
A pair of pricks?My dad went to school with a Chris goodwillie and a couple years above there was a Chris badcock.
It's like a superhero villain alter ego
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.There is sufficent corroboration in that judgement for me to come to the same conclusion as the court did.