AllyMonc Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 https://stv.tv/news/east-central/1403235-footballers-lose-appeal-against-ruling-they-raped-woman/ Wonder what impact if any this will have on any potential bids in January. Would imagine they'll be non existent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Sally Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 17 minutes ago, AllyMonc said: Would imagine they'll be non existent. The whole farce of this case is that Goodwillie, if he chooses could decide to start a career working with vulnerable women tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxruby Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 He's unlikely to do that. He's working with disadvantaged people already. Young men who think they are footballers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adolfo Rios Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Would imagine they'll be non existent. Then from a purely selfish football perspective I’d be delighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyMonc Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 The whole farce of this case is that Goodwillie, if he chooses could decide to start a career working with vulnerable women tomorrow. I'd imagine that would be at the discretion of the employer. As it is with Clyde at the moment. I actually don't think he should be legally banned from football I would however want clubs to refuse to employ him (I feel the same thing about my team and Craig Thomson) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mamtora Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Many more footballing matters to discuss rather than questions of morality and ethics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Sally Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 59 minutes ago, AllyMonc said: I'd imagine that would be at the discretion of the employer. As it is with Clyde at the moment. I actually don't think he should be legally banned from football I would however want clubs to refuse to employ him (I feel the same thing about my team and Craig Thomson) Craig Thomson has a conviction and a criminal record. David Goodwillie was not convicted of rape and a rape conviction is not even on his record. It's not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mamtora Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 16 minutes ago, Elementary Penguin said: You mean like the advancement of a respectful tone of dialogue on the OS when answering legitimate questions (at least legitimate in their sentiment, if not for expressing opinion as fact)....yes, that needs discussed alright. I'm still waiting on my answers about Ferguson. And i'll fucking get them, no worries there!! Sorry if I offended you. I'm new to this.I agree that it would be good if fans were kept informed as to how their club is administered and how the future plans were being implemented. I believe Clyde's future is bright as I think the Club has a fine group on the board now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mamtora Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Thank you. I'm looking forward to having some good intercourse with everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyMonc Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Craig Thomson has a conviction and a criminal record. David Goodwillie was not convicted of rape and a rape conviction is not even on his record. It's not the same. Deary me, you've completely missed my point about clubs taking a moral decision not to employ someone based on their actions, legality is not the same as morality and for all he wasn't convicted he was eviscerated by the civil judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxruby Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Eviscerated? Messy! Know the definition of your words, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Clyde Man Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Daren't speak for anyone else in these diverse, inclusive, tolerant times....but my own broon-chute is strictly Goods-Out only. Feel free to batter in as you go, though. The only rules that i can see are f**k off means no, and no means maybe. My shirt will remain doon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyMonc Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Eviscerated? Messy! Know the definition of your words, please. Sorry lad, didn't know it was no artistic license allowed on the Clyde page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxruby Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Sorry lad, didn't know it was no artistic license allowed on the Clyde page. Lad! Brilliant. Thanks for the compliment. Usually I'm called a "Pedantic Twat". Nice of you to bite by the way. Need to work on your sentence construction too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyMonc Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 I think, and by think i mean 'know', that whatever the accusations Goodwillie appealed, however unsuccesful....he wasn't sexting weans pictures of his throbbibg cock, or pressurising one for months on MSN. Someone put a price on rape suffering here. It wasn't David Goodwillie. Sleep well, won't you!! I think and I know that under no circumstances am I qualified to comment on the respective severity of rape or sending sexual images to a minor so I won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentDaleCooper Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Big difference between a convicted paedo and two footballers who were not found guilty of anything - yet adjudged to have had non consensual sex whilst hammered with someone who was hammered, whilst making "normal" sex noises according to the neighbour! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyMonc Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 So you're saying you don't see the major difference in the two crimes? You do know that Thomson, if his choice (for thats exactly what it was) gave written consent even in her own blood, still wouldn't have been legal for two years? Comparing the two, and the fact that you have the vote believing that shite, terrifies me. Im not one for patronage, i've never been close to either subject, so 'understanding' doesn't come into it for me. I'd be as guilty as a perpetrator of attempting to rob genuine victims of the ownership of their own experience. Environments and conditions for either, are a different matter altogether. Maybe Sao Paulo was right, and the polis should follow every taxi that leaves Sauchiehall Street after 10pm....to protect the falsely accused, as much as genuine potential victims. Maybe Thomson should just never own a computer or Android phone either. I said I wasn't qualified to comment on the respective severity of rape or sending sexual images to a minor so I won't. My voice doesn't need to be heard here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde4life Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 7 minutes ago, AllyMonc said: My voice doesn't need to be heard here. No - it does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyMonc Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 No - it does not. Thank goodness we've managed to find some common ground to end on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGuigan1978 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 I’d be gobsmacked if the Clyde fans on here were still defending him if he played for some other bottom-of-the-table jobbers rather than The Bully Wee. Could be wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.