Raith Rovers statement. Goodwillie is basically done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kinghornloyal said:
A civil court judgment due to how the findings are made mean they have no sway whatsoever in relation to criminal convictions.

I will ask you this. If you went out and pulled a girl and you were both a bit drunk. Even in your opinion not steaming, but the next day she shat herself and decided to go to the police to say she didn't give consent. You plead your innocence to police and they rightly send all the details to the PF who say no case to answer as there isn't any evidence. At this point you feel pleased bit still angered by the false allegation. You try and carry on with your life. Next thing this girl decided to try and fleece you and they take it to a civil court case where its judged on the balance of probability and not evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The girl presents better in court acting as a victim even though the PF has said there was evidence to confirm her allegation. So the 4 judges sitting judging you decide aye ok she maybe was a bit too drunk. You did take advantage and you raped her. You must pay her £100,000. How do you feel after that. Do you just say you know what ok then judges even though there is no evidence I will just say aye ok I did it so that I'm showing remorse and can get on with my life but guess what, 11 years down the line I cannot get on with my life cause I havnt been charged or convicted of rape but as key mouse court decided I was.
Click to expand...

The girl in this case wasn’t “a bit drunk” , did you even read some of the evidence led? She didn’t change her mind the day after, she was abused and taken advantage of when she was in a state that she couldn’t give consent. She didn’t try to “fleece” him, she looked for justice when the crown failed her. Your scenario isn’t what happened so read up on consent and stop trying to mitigate rape here. Maybe reel in your misogyny too.
 
SenoraCuellar said:
The girl in this case wasn’t “a bit drunk” , did you even read some of the evidence led? She didn’t change her mind the day after, she was abused and taken advantage of when she was in a state that she couldn’t give consent. Your scenario isn’t what happened so stop trying to excuse rape here.
Click to expand...
either way, the case was examined by the PF and no charges were made.
He is being persecuted for a crime that he has not been found guilty of doing in a court of law.
 
SenoraCuellar said:
The girl in this case wasn’t “a bit drunk” , did you even read some of the evidence led? She didn’t change her mind the day after, she was abused and taken advantage of when she was in a state that she couldn’t give consent. She didn’t try to “fleece” him, she looked for justice when the crown failed her. Your scenario isn’t what happened so read up on consent and stop trying to mitigate rape here. Maybe reel in your misogyny too.
Click to expand...

His pathetic hypothetical fails to counter in the fact this assault wasn't carried out by one person. She was raped by two men. It's an entirely different dynamic altogether than the one he just attempted to present. Besides not reading any of the evidence or any of the details of the case. He's wilfully misrepresenting the victims actions to support his own theory, which seems to be pretty misogynistic.
 
SenoraCuellar said:
The girl in this case wasn’t “a bit drunk” , did you even read some of the evidence led? She didn’t change her mind the day after, she was abused and taken advantage of when she was in a state that she couldn’t give consent. She didn’t try to “fleece” him, she looked for justice when the crown failed her. Your scenario isn’t what happened so read up on consent and stop trying to mitigate rape here. Maybe reel in your misogyny too.
Click to expand...
No I'm telling you she wasn't in the state you say. Did you read what I had posted earlier. The witnesses in the civil case gave evidence which was contrary to the statements they gave the police. The crown didn't fail her. If she was that drunk then the witnesses failed her when giving details to the police. The police gave their evidence to the PF. There was no evidence in the court that matters. So if you want to believe a civil court ruling then that's upto you.
 
Time and again women have been victims of sexual crimes against them. Carnal knowledge of a female whereby she is so incoherent she's been unable to consent has been prevalent for years and will so again. Women also, sometimes in their drunken state, consent and show regret in their behaviour almost immediately. The problem is that the courts are reluctant to convict as they cannot satisfy the legal threshold for a conviction. Sexual crimes are a nightmare to both prosecute and more importantly prove.
 
ronadamus_prime said:
He was fined £100,000 pounds and was branded a rapist. Because he's a rapist. Him and Robertson raped that girl. She was unable to consent, 4 judges ruled that to be the case.
Click to expand...
He was not fined £100,000, he was ordered to pay compensation of £100,000
The case was heard using entirely different boundaries from a legal prosecution.

Either way, the PF has ruled there was insufficient evidence to prosecute, and the civil court has made their findings of liability.

Why though, 11 years after the alleged rape and 6 years after the civil case is the government restricting the guys ability to work?
 
ronadamus_prime said:
His pathetic hypothetical fails to counter in the fact this assault wasn't carried out by one person. She was raped by two men. It's an entirely different dynamic altogether than the one he just attempted to present. Besides not reading any of the evidence or any of the details of the case. He's wilfully misrepresenting the victims actions to support his own theory, which seems to be pretty misogynistic.
Click to expand...
Pish. I played out a scenario for the other person to put them into a position they didn't agree with. What I will say is I doing believe the civil court outcome. The witnesses who changed their stories from the police to the civil case is enough for me to believe that they lied either to police or in the civil case. So to me they are unsltrustworthy. The outcome of the civil case was based on their evidence
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top