Sheamaker
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone is on Goodwillies side as such. It's more that some of us are a bit less willing to use the word rapist towards a man who has never even been tried for that offence due to lack of evidence.
Raith Rovers - Darkest day in our history claim re Goodwillie
- Thread starter ChildOfGoth
- Start date
Johnny Fontane
Well-Known Member
He's obviously a bit of a fanny but this is a witch-hunt led by the highest politician in the land. It's tabloid politics that the News of the World would have been proud of. The guy will never get another club in Scotland, will struggle to get work in any line of business, and will doubtlessly be called a rapist for the rest of his days. And all because the Furher decided to cast her judgement on something that has absolutely nothing to do with her. She's decided he's guilty and made it public knowledge. And he's never even stood trial let alone been found guilty of the crime in any criminal court. If I was him if be speaking to a lawyer because she has overstepped the mark here and destroyed his career.
Helanders Beard
Well-Known Member
You only have to read posts in this thread and in the other threads on the same subject to see there are plenty on his side.
People are so blinkered by that cow Sturgeon it clouds their judgement.
Johnny Fontane
Well-Known Member
He doesn't need to stand trial as it was decided there was insufficient evidence so it can't go to trial. So it's slander already. He's been publically accused of committing a crime that he was never convicted for.
Last edited:
The gate money from playing in the cup this weekend in front of 60,000 of the Fiddlers will pay goodwillie off with cash tae spare.
I agree with every single word.
I have no problem with the outcry from Raith fans - including McDermid.
But, I do with the politicians looking to make political capital out of it.
Ibroxmassive
Well-Known Member
It's not defamation to say that he's a rapist.
GovanFront4
Well-Known Member
I don't think pointing out hypocrisy is being on Goodwillie's side. Raith Rovers deemed him employable. so they must pay him.
Alex Venters
Well-Known Member
So that'll be a no then.
Grigo Yossarian
Well-Known Member
It was highlighted at the time, 2017, by John Mason, MSP, who purports to be a Clyde fan. He’s also the bawbag who claimed tax avoidance is as bad as child abuse.
Sturgeon was FM at the time, and ignored this.
Unbelievable.
I am not on "his side".
I do feel that some of the judgement doesn't add up to me. And there wouldn't enough for me to find him guilty if I was a juror.
Isn't he also the one who said "Sometimes a woman doesn't say yes at first"
????
Helanders Beard
Well-Known Member
Oh they absolutely must pay them I’m not disagreeing with that in the slightest, he signed a contract worth 150k, nobody is going to just walk away from that.
GovanFront4
Well-Known Member
They have handled it terribly. His history is well known, clubs will do due diligence and discuss whether the signing is suitable for the club. They should have more courage in their convictions.
Ibroxmassive
Well-Known Member
The four remaining Directors could have sat in an empty office and talked about how strong they were for standing by their decision, but I doubt it'd have helped the club day-to-day.
Ferrybear73
Well-Known Member
It's because they hate the UK, especially England, and is nothing to do with making Scotland a better place in the future.
The current CEO of Scottish Women's Football, serial opportunist Aileen Campbell, couldn't wait to get involved.
Interestingly she was the Sports Minister when he signed for Clyde (who have a Women's Team), I don't remember her making a peep then..
FWIW I think it was abhorrent Clyde signed him and Raith signed him.
But Scottish Womens Football, aside from offering support to Raith Rovers Women, should not be getting involved or making statements ay further than that.
There seems to be a common thread between SNP, Aileen Campbell and staff deserting SWF in droves...
Grigo Yossarian
Well-Known Member
I didn’t know that BT, hypocrisy.
Last edited:
It’s a real minefield of case of you ask me
We all want blood when it comes to rapists for me they are disgusting vile creature who basically end people life’s with there actions
On the other hand at what point are you rehabilitated ? What kind of job is ok ? And why oh why was this cretin only an issue when he left Clyde ?
We all want blood when it comes to rapists for me they are disgusting vile creature who basically end people life’s with there actions
On the other hand at what point are you rehabilitated ? What kind of job is ok ? And why oh why was this cretin only an issue when he left Clyde ?
Northampton Lodger
I love honking my horn
It is a difficult situation to share an opinion on. I am 100% against what Sturgeon done, however that does not make me 100% in agreement with Goodwillie.
The Celtic situation is almost unprecedented in sport or business yet no one is allowed to speak about it. They would love to say it was in the past and has been dealt with it, it hasn't. The authorities continue to treat each case as a stand-alone incident, and Celtic continue to say nothing to do with us. Like the SNP, they seem to have very strong opinions on everything that is happening in the world unless it is happening in their house, in which case it is silence.
The Celtic situation is almost unprecedented in sport or business yet no one is allowed to speak about it. They would love to say it was in the past and has been dealt with it, it hasn't. The authorities continue to treat each case as a stand-alone incident, and Celtic continue to say nothing to do with us. Like the SNP, they seem to have very strong opinions on everything that is happening in the world unless it is happening in their house, in which case it is silence.
bluetonic
Well-Known Member
Looks like it
He was never found guilty of rape mate..he has no criminal record.
He lost a civil case for compensation .but in the eyes of the law he is innocent. Notvat any point saying he is innocent but legally he is.
That is your opinion nothing more.legally he isn,t . He lost a civil case. But he has never been taken o court by the cps has he.
bluetonic
Well-Known Member
It’s too late for any sort of fair trial in Scotland now
bilkobear
Well-Known Member
I agree.
He isn't someone you want to defend because there is a fair a bit about the lad that suggests he is exactly as you say.
However, the question for all of us is do we believe that this is how our society should function?
We had a tried and tested system that may not have been perfect but did serve to protect the freedoms of the individual, even if at times it meant protecting the rights of someone, who as you say, is a bit of a fanny.
The future constructed under the SNP, where the Fuhrer decides who works and who doesn't, what particular crimes constitute a public witchhunt and which ones we aren't even allowed to discuss, and where people telling naughty jokes and even those who are in the audience should all be prosecuted, is a road we go down at our peril.
We are more or less there already and the time to resist this is either now or never.
The top womens clubs are on the verge of a breakaway to SPFL and there is distain and lack of confidence in her since she took over the role.
Its a move that has been on the horizon for some time which the previous CEO was aware of and actually keen to broker, but I am being told by several people involved AC is impossible to work with and her ego has not adjusted she is no longer a high profile politician.
Seems to make sense she couldn't wait to get into the public eye again.
Ibroxmassive
Well-Known Member
It's not my opinion, he was found to have raped a woman. Defamation can't occur if the thing that you're being 'defamed' about is true.
If you weren't legally able to call him a rapist, he'd be making more money in libel cases than he ever would with Raith. But he can't sue anybody, because truth is an absolute defence against defamation, and he raped a woman. So did Robertson. Some papers will hedge their bets and say something like 'Goodwillie was found to have raped a woman' to avoid any potential liability, but that's just editors being massively risk averse.
Kinghornloyal
Well-Known Member
How can someone deem to need to be rehabilitated for a crime they havnt been officially charged or appeared in court with
I've spoken about this a lot with my friends, a couple of which have teenage daughters who in a few years, will be going to pubs and clubs. A Civil Case is still a legal judgement - he has been judged as a rapist alongside Robertson. A civil case simply does not carry a jail time penalty.
Society I think is set in sexual assault / rape is 100% wrong and is the one people will have no forgiveness for - arguably even ahead of murder.
Think of it this way, a workmate of yours is charged for rape but the charges were then dropped due to lack of evidence. What would your reaction be to that person when they came back to work?
I genuinely think the vast majority of us would ultimately be wary of that person due to the type of charge it was.
Change that charge for assault, a punch up outside a pub that is dropped due to lack of evidence. Your reaction is completely different. I am not saying that is right or wrong, but society still dictates what is "acceptable" or "forgivable" in terms of a crime.
IIRC there was some vocal Clyde fans but as a while fan base, they are smaller than Raith Rovers and like it or not, RR have a high profile supporter. The backlash has come on the back of those fans - the media, SNP et al have jumped on the bandwagon because RR made it a huge story.
I genuinely feel for my mates - in the world we live in today I wouldn't ever stop worrying if I had teenage girls out with friends.
Moreloslaces
Well-Known Member
amazing that they're all over this but silent about what went on at The Piggery.
I,ll explain this again to you . The case as a civil case .not a case brought by the cps . Who have never charged him .the lady in question won her compsation but was only given20% of what she asked for . You can correct me if I,m wrong on that.
So going by your logic he is 20% rapist 80% not if you go by the compsation award.
The cps as far as I can remember Don,t proceed with the case due to lack of evidence.
A civil case is a private case brought by abn individual or group.
His guilt has never been proved by th crown so as far as I remember in this country he is still innocent till proven guilty.
No where exactly did I mention deformation . I didn,t you did.
Kinghornloyal
Well-Known Member
I understand what your saying however flip it another way. Why should your workmates life be ruined by an allegation that has no evidence it happened. Shouldn't you stick by him. What if it was you and you know you.did nothing wrong, how would you feel going back to work. Would you expect all your colleagues to be wary of you. I don't think so if you know you didn't commit this act.
All these debates seem to, wrongly in my opinion, taken one side and one side only. The alleged victim. Surely we have to have belief in the legal system that although mistakes happen but generally have a system that gets the correct decisions. Like on this occasion when all the evidence the police could find could not gove enough for the PF to even chance taking it to trial. As in there was no actual proof or evidence it happened as the girl alleged.
There is always 3 sides to a story. The victims, the accused and then the truth. On this occasion the evidence didn't back up the victims allegation.
I will add the civil court can find in her favour all it wants however as it has no sway on criminality and cannot be used as a guilty verdict mo matter how people want it to. The civil court system is about money only and is equivalent to Judge Rinder.
Why isn't there any issues around Ronaldo who paid a girl £300,000 to buy a girls silence in a rape allegation in America. His actions are worse.
Once again I would say it is your opinion. Does he have a criminal record for rape. The answer as far as I,m aware is no . So legally he is innocent.
Civil cases work differently from crown cases.
In the eyes of the law he is innocent.if you can,t accept that thn that is really up to you.
As for your libel part of your post . You would really have to ask his legal advisor what advice he has been given..
The truthnis an absolute defence the truth is h lost a civil case not a crown case . Crown cases you have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil case tend to work more on probability if I re correctly.
Since he dosn,t have a criminal record for the crime as the cps dropped the case and have never recharged him what you are saying is opinion .your option nothing more.
In days gone bye, when clubs like Raith Rovers were struggling financially they’d make a wee call to Ibrox and, hey presto, a wee friendly would by organised, coach loads of our fans would fill their ground and the blue pound would fill their coffers.
Well, note to Scottish football, you can’t try to kill The goose and still expect the Golden eggs.
Well, note to Scottish football, you can’t try to kill The goose and still expect the Golden eggs.
As far as I remember the lady in question didn,t get the full amount of compensation.
Very good post mate.
Should also point out to you a civil court verdict can,t be used as proof of criminality. So at the end of the day it is nothing more than your opinion,.
Per the judgement:
[18] She had subsequently been granted an award under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
This would have been prior to the civil case.
It doesn't mention the sum she was paid.
Ibroxmassive
Well-Known Member
I'm aware it was a Civil case.
The PF did fail to charge the two defendants. This, in my opinion, was a mistake, and they should
have been criminally charged.
There's no record of a request for £500,000 in any of the records. The judgement decrees the payment, but that is the only mention of any sort of money other than how the taxi was paid for in the piece. There may have been other disputes over costs later that I'm not aware of.
The PF can decline to move forward for any reason, in this case it's reported that they didn't believe they'd win. That's different to 'a lack of evidence'. Personally I think they would have won the case given the evidence presented in the civil action.
He can be guilty of rape, but still not found to have committed the crime of rape. Realistically, the distinction is fuzzy. He is legally a rapist, but not criminally one. This is why the split between criminal and civil actions is usually so distinct, but in this case, given the PF's decision, probably the only way to achieve something approaching justice for the victim.
I mentioned defamation in the initial post you responded to, talking about whether people could be sued/whether he could legally be described as a rapist.
Sorry where are you getting this 500 000 from not from me. A civil verdict has no baring on a crown case and vise a versa.
A civil case is not heard by a jury if I remember correctly .you can correct me on that.
Once again you are giving your opinions quote personally I think they would have won the case. This is not a fact but an opinion mate.should also point out the the pf did not proceed with the case even after the civil judgement.
Last edited:
Ibroxmassive
Well-Known Member
You said she was awarded only 20% of what she'd requested. She was awarded £100,000.
No, this would be on top of what Goodwillie and Robertson were ordered to pay.
Sorry see where you are coming from t he the compensation claim.
Last edited:
Kinghornloyal
Well-Known Member
Sorry mate you are talking nonsense. In what capacity can you say it was a mistake by the PF not to take the case to trial. I will give you some actual info. The statements taken by the police did not shown anywhere that the girl was steaming. Did not show she was unsteady on her feet. It did not show she was being helped out of the club by Goodwillie and Robertson. It did not show that she didn't want to be in the taxi. Now the above was the evidence by testimony that the same witnesses gave at the civil hearing. Their testimony was in complete contracts to what they provided to the police.
So all the details the police had was the girl claiming she was that drunk she didn't know what she had consented to and that by being so drunk it was rape. They had no evidence to back this up at any trial. Even moreso because all the witnesses actually said she wasn't steaming, she wasn't stumbling, she actually walked out arm in arm with the 2 men actually appearing in a good mood. The taxi driver did not state she seemed uncomfortable. Etc etc. So thisnwas sent to the PF who quite rightly could see there was no evidence to corroborate her accusation that she was too drunk. She hasn't denied agreeing to having sex with both men but is blaming being drunk with no witness or cctv evidence to back this up. I actually find it shameful especially by men to take the decision by a kangaroo Court as actual guilt when it bares no similarities to what constitutes Criminality. I know 2 different individuals who went through an false allegation and had to go all the way to High Court. The NOT GUILTY verdict may seem like it clears it all up but it doesn't. 19 years later one is still hampered by the false allegation. It's too easy for woman to do what they want and then cry rape the next day. I find that more disgusting.
Kinghornloyal
Well-Known Member
You are correct a lawyer decided to take this on as a high profile test case due to the media storm it had created. It would never have went to civil court if it was joe Bloggs after a night out at the Fubar etc. she applied for £500,000 through the civil courts. She was awarded £100,000
Johnny Fontane
Well-Known Member
On what basis is he a rapist? He may well have done it. He is undoubtedly a scumbag. But he's never been convicted in a criminal trial, therefore whatever you think of him, he is not a rapist in the eyes of the law. (By the way, I'm not defending him nor denying that he may have been involved in a situation where he forced somebody to have intercourse against their will, just pointing out the facts).
Kinghornloyal
Well-Known Member
Understand your point however he wasn't even found to have forced her to have sex. They found she was too drunk to say no. Even if she was saying Yes a thousand times. So they were found to have taken advantage of her.
