Dudu Dahan pal Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Hopefully whatever loan wages United would be paying towards GMS is enough to tip them into administration once they fail to go up in the play offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartyftd1 Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Things seem to be moving far too slow. We need a couple in pronto. We are one paced have no imagination going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladdin Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Granny Danger said: I'm not trying to defend Goodwillie or Robertson, if they did what they did then they deserve everything they get. However there's an interesting legal issue here. If I was accused of a crime I wouldn't want my rights reduced by the level of proof that was required to be offered to find me guilty. This whole case has been bizarre, I'm fairly sure the woman was awarded compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme though neither of her alleged (still need that qualification now?) attackers were tried for the attack, let alone found guilty. As an aside the "he does what he wants" chant about Goodwillie was disgusting. I'd like to think it was a few dozen stupid teens who didn't know any better but I'm pretty sure it was more widespread than that. CICA will pay compensation if they deem someone to be a victim of a crime of violence, irrespective if the identity of that person has been confirmed, providing the crime was reported etc. The woman will require to pay back the money if she recovers the sum awarded to her from Goodwillie and Robertson. Pursuers can bring a civil case for compensation if they have been a victim of a crime - its only really worth it though if the Defender has money though. I imagine this woman may have wished to prove her case given what was written and said about her by some fans following it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 1 minute ago, Aladdin said: CICA will pay compensation if they deem someone to be a victim of a crime of violence, irrespective if the identity of that person has been confirmed, providing the crime was reported etc. The woman will require to pay back the money if she recovers the sum awarded to her from Goodwillie and Robertson. This is a bit different though. Had she been raped and the police could not find/identify the assailant(s) then I can understand a CICA payment. In this case there was deemed to be insufficient evidence to prosecute therefore technically she was not a victim of a crime. I'm not saying it was the wrong decision just a strange one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladdin Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: This is a bit different though. Had she been raped and the police could not find/identify the assailant(s) then I can understand a CICA payment. In this case there was deemed to be insufficient evidence to prosecute therefore technically she was not a victim of a crime. I'm not saying it was the wrong decision just a strange one. If there has been no prosecution or no conviction CICA will apply the same balance of probabilities test to determine if she was a victim of the crime for the purposes of awarding compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 48 minutes ago, Aladdin said: If there has been no prosecution or no conviction CICA will apply the same balance of probabilities test to determine if she was a victim of the crime for the purposes of awarding compensation. Interesting. It seems to prejudge any criminal prosecution. Would she be entitled to an award if there had been an unsuccessful prosecution? Would it be different if the verdict in said prosecution was not proven rather than not guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumigoo Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 McKinnon admitting on ArabZone that we are unlikely to have anyone new by the weekend but he is still hopeful. He also confirmed Edward Ofere is training with us but purely for fitness purposes (organised by Ofere and his agent). We still have a bid in for one player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedLoon63 Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 McKinnon admitting on ArabZone that we are unlikely to have anyone new by the weekend but he is still hopeful. He also confirmed Edward Ofere is training with us but purely for fitness purposes (organised by Ofere and his agent). We still have a bid in for one player. Hope we aren't pinning our hopes on that Stirling Albion boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boostin' Kev Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Heard stewartyftd1 is going to put his shades and ill fitting VG shirt on and get an immediate start up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladdin Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 4 hours ago, Granny Danger said: Interesting. It seems to prejudge any criminal prosecution. Would she be entitled to an award if there had been an unsuccessful prosecution? Would it be different if the verdict in said prosecution was not proven rather than not guilty? Wouldnt make a difference. As long as the victim has cooperated with the police investigation the outcome of the criminal case is irrelevant as CICA apply the different standard of proof. Obviously if there has been a successful prosecution there's no assessment for CICA to make with regards to whether the applicant was a victim of crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabianKnight Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 4 hours ago, stumigoo said: McKinnon admitting on ArabZone that we are unlikely to have anyone new by the weekend but he is still hopeful. He also confirmed Edward Ofere is training with us but purely for fitness purposes (organised by Ofere and his agent). We still have a bid in for one player. Wouldn't mind Ofere playing for us again tbh. He wasn't a stand out but he wasn't completely terrible either. :ninja: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 I'm not trying to defend Goodwillie or Robertson, if they did what they did then they deserve everything they get. However there's an interesting legal issue here. If I was accused of a crime I wouldn't want my rights reduced by the level of proof that was required to be offered to find me guilty. This whole case has been bizarre, I'm fairly sure the woman was awarded compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme though neither of her alleged (still need that qualification now?) attackers were tried for the attack, let alone found guilty. As an aside the "he does what he wants" chant about Goodwillie was disgusting. I'd like to think it was a few dozen stupid teens who didn't know any better but I'm pretty sure it was more widespread than that. You say you're not trying to defend the two, but the above and subsequent posts might contradict that.They were found to have been guilty of rape by a court under the legal system in this country. The fact that it is not the legal system you would obviously prefer it to be is immaterial t.b.h. I'm sure the victim would have preferred the same legal system as you but didn't get the chance due to the pragmatic approach of the CPS. Their rights were in no way eroded or ignored by this judgement, they faced a civil action and lost. It was hardly a judgement arrived at by a group of sweetie wifies in the local library. You say "...if they did what they did..." - no ifs about it considering they have just lost their case with the judge hardly mincing his words. For the sake of argument even the more onerous requirements of criminal law do not require absolute certainty, just beyond reasonable. So, would you still say "if" had they been found guilty in a criminal case? If not, why?As you say, they were not tried under Criminal Law which obviously means they were not found innocent of the attack - see what I did there? Pragmatism rules when it comes to deciding which cases go to court and which don't, not necessarily the interests of justice.I'm not sure where you're going with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme thing t.b.h. unless you're trying to paint the victim as a money grabber, but you wouldn't be doing that would you.Fair play ref. the disgusting chants condemnation though.If they weren't former players of UTD would you have the same opinion - I'll leave you to take the tap in on that.Sorry Granny, but you're fighting the cause of people hardly deserving of it I.M.O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 22 hours ago, stewartyftd1 said: Things seem to be moving far too slow. We need a couple in pronto. We are one paced have no imagination going forward. I could quote you and post that on our board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 1 hour ago, hk blues said: You say you're not trying to defend the two, but the above and subsequent posts might contradict that. They were found to have been guilty of rape by a court under the legal system in this country. The fact that it is not the legal system you would obviously prefer it to be is immaterial t.b.h. I'm sure the victim would have preferred the same legal system as you but didn't get the chance due to the pragmatic approach of the CPS. Their rights were in no way eroded or ignored by this judgement, they faced a civil action and lost. It was hardly a judgement arrived at by a group of sweetie wifies in the local library. You say "...if they did what they did..." - no ifs about it considering they have just lost their case with the judge hardly mincing his words. For the sake of argument even the more onerous requirements of criminal law do not require absolute certainty, just beyond reasonable. So, would you still say "if" had they been found guilty in a criminal case? If not, why? As you say, they were not tried under Criminal Law which obviously means they were not found innocent of the attack - see what I did there? Pragmatism rules when it comes to deciding which cases go to court and which don't, not necessarily the interests of justice. I'm not sure where you're going with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme thing t.b.h. unless you're trying to paint the victim as a money grabber, but you wouldn't be doing that would you. Fair play ref. the disgusting chants condemnation though. If they weren't former players of UTD would you have the same opinion - I'll leave you to take the tap in on that. Sorry Granny, but you're fighting the cause of people hardly deserving of it I.M.O. Yeah you're misinterpreting what I'm saying; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's not deliberate. There was an earlier thread on this matter and if it's still about you will see exactly where I stand. I find it ridiculous that the woman can be awarded compensation yet the Fiscal's Office say they don't have enough evidence to prosecute. The damning comments by the judge in the civil case calls into question the unwillingness of the Fiscal not to prosecute. I am not trying to excuse the perpetrators or in any way criticise the victim. The fact that she waived anonymity shows enormous courage; it certainly looks like she got the verdict she deserved. What I said, and I stand by it, is that if I were being tried on a criminal matter I would like the burden of proof to be that used in a criminal case not a civil one. Maybe you're different, maybe if you were being tried in a criminal case you would be happier to have that case determined upon a lesser burden of proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemePaynesSocks Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 You say you're not trying to defend the two, but the above and subsequent posts might contradict that.They were found to have been guilty of rape by a court under the legal system in this country. The fact that it is not the legal system you would obviously prefer it to be is immaterial t.b.h. I'm sure the victim would have preferred the same legal system as you but didn't get the chance due to the pragmatic approach of the CPS. Their rights were in no way eroded or ignored by this judgement, they faced a civil action and lost. It was hardly a judgement arrived at by a group of sweetie wifies in the local library. You say "...if they did what they did..." - no ifs about it considering they have just lost their case with the judge hardly mincing his words. For the sake of argument even the more onerous requirements of criminal law do not require absolute certainty, just beyond reasonable. So, would you still say "if" had they been found guilty in a criminal case? If not, why?As you say, they were not tried under Criminal Law which obviously means they were not found innocent of the attack - see what I did there? Pragmatism rules when it comes to deciding which cases go to court and which don't, not necessarily the interests of justice.I'm not sure where you're going with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme thing t.b.h. unless you're trying to paint the victim as a money grabber, but you wouldn't be doing that would you.Fair play ref. the disgusting chants condemnation though.If they weren't former players of UTD would you have the same opinion - I'll leave you to take the tap in on that.Sorry Granny, but you're fighting the cause of people hardly deserving of it I.M.O. Alternatively, you're only posting because they used to play for United. If they were former dundee players, i very much doubt this would be your stance.The fickle nature of football fans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Wilkos Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Cammy Smith heading back to the Dons by the sound of things, lads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumigoo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 46 minutes ago, Steve_Wilkos said: Cammy Smith heading back to the Dons by the sound of things, lads. It was expected I suppose. I don't think he has really been given enough of a chance but the system we use means that he and Van der Velden have both been behind Andreu in the pecking order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladdin Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Given that he scored 3 against Thistle playing up front I would have like to have seen him being given more of a chance in that role. If it allows us to get another couple in though, not too fussed if he goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibby82 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 1 minute ago, stumigoo said: It was expected I suppose. I don't think he has really been given enough of a chance but the system we use means that he and Van der Velden have both been behind Andreu in the pecking order. Aye. But for our gluttony of number 10 style players, he would have done alright for us I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibby82 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 3 minutes ago, Aladdin said: Given that he scored 3 against Thistle playing up front I would have like to have seen him being given more of a chance in that role. If it allows us to get another couple in though, not too fussed if he goes. Was Tope not up front that night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.