Jump to content
Kris.

The Falkirk FC Thread

Recommended Posts

Based on probabilities, yes. So this entirely refutes the claim of a previous poster with whom many of us were disagreeing; namely, that innocence and guilt were 'equally likely'. 
On the balance of probabilities, as you say, the findings of 4 judges were that he was probably guilty. 
Ergo, not equally likely. So you are agreeing with those of us who were taking that particular claim to task. 


I think that was a poor choice of words from that poster but labelling someone a rapist on a basis of likely rather than proven doesn’t sit right with me.

An earlier poster asked what Clyde fans felt about the situation but there’s no point in discussing it further as it’s all been covered before and it’s impossible to say anything other than he’s a rapist without being shouted down as some kind of rape apologist by mouthpieces on here.

As for the repeated what if it was your daughter/sister comments, maybe consider what if that was your brother/son/friend being accused. Would you not want more scrutiny than ‘aye they probably did it.’

The 3 main questions for me are:
1- is it appropriate to judge a crime of the severity of rape in a civil court with no burden of proof?

2- why was this particular case pursued in this manner?

3- why have many more cases not been pursued in this manner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I think that was a poor choice of words from that poster but labelling someone a rapist on a basis of likely rather than proven doesn’t sit right with me.

An earlier poster asked what Clyde fans felt about the situation but there’s no point in discussing it further as it’s all been covered before and it’s impossible to say anything other than he’s a rapist without being shouted down as some kind of rape apologist by mouthpieces on here.

As for the repeated what if it was your daughter/sister comments, maybe consider what if that was your brother/son/friend being accused. Would you not want more scrutiny than ‘aye they probably did it.’

The 3 main questions for me are:
1- is it appropriate to judge a crime of the severity of rape in a civil court with no burden of proof?

2- why was this particular case pursued in this manner?

3- why have many more cases not been pursued in this manner?



On a larger scale, Weinstein has paid 25M to victims in a civil suit. This option is the only option to women in cases where the defendant is a high profile individual with power/status/influence etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Clyde01 said:


1- is it appropriate to judge a crime of the severity of rape in a civil court with no burden of proof?

2- why was this particular case pursued in this manner?

3- why have many more cases not been pursued in this manner?

 

1) Yes because it's virtually impossible to get a conviction for rape in a criminal court due to the need for corroborating evidence. This is why rape has such a low conviction rate.

2) See above. PF decided not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt. However PF is not a judge and a senior judge stated he was guilty on the basis of the evidence presented. 3 more judges concurred so it's actually very possible he would have been convicted in a criminal court.

3) In a civil case, the victims have no right to anonymity. Most rape victims find trials traumatic and just want to get on with their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Clyde01 said:

 


I think that was a poor choice of words from that poster but labelling someone a rapist on a basis of likely rather than proven doesn’t sit right with me.

An earlier poster asked what Clyde fans felt about the situation but there’s no point in discussing it further as it’s all been covered before and it’s impossible to say anything other than he’s a rapist without being shouted down as some kind of rape apologist by mouthpieces on here.

As for the repeated what if it was your daughter/sister comments, maybe consider what if that was your brother/son/friend being accused. Would you not want more scrutiny than ‘aye they probably did it.’

The 3 main questions for me are:
1- is it appropriate to judge a crime of the severity of rape in a civil court with no burden of proof?

2- why was this particular case pursued in this manner?

3- why have many more cases not been pursued in this manner?

 

You can say that again. It read like plain old excuse making to me at the time, flat-out blatant ignorance of fact, hence the pile on that ensued, but like you I can only suppose, I do not know the true thought process of that poster. 

The rest seems irrelevant to me and/or the topic itself, i.e should Falkirk sign him.

One cannot really blame the Falkirk fans for being concerned at the suggestion that they might be signing the player, nor their decision to make a point of not actively supporting such a move were it to come to pass by withdrawing attendance and cash support ion the short term. They have every right to take that stance without being compared to a lynch mob, as has happened already. 

Nobody is denying the guy's right to gainful employment. There are just many who would rather it wasn't done at their club and in their name. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Clyde01 said:

 


I think that was a poor choice of words from that poster but labelling someone a rapist on a basis of likely rather than proven doesn’t sit right with me.

An earlier poster asked what Clyde fans felt about the situation but there’s no point in discussing it further as it’s all been covered before and it’s impossible to say anything other than he’s a rapist without being shouted down as some kind of rape apologist by mouthpieces on here.

As for the repeated what if it was your daughter/sister comments, maybe consider what if that was your brother/son/friend being accused. Would you not want more scrutiny than ‘aye they probably did it.’

The 3 main questions for me are:
1- is it appropriate to judge a crime of the severity of rape in a civil court with no burden of proof?

2- why was this particular case pursued in this manner?

3- why have many more cases not been pursued in this manner?

 

1- Im pretty sure I can remember their being evidence in the criminal court (was there not something about injuries?)  but the police fucked up with the  protocols so Goodwillie got let off. She actually still got money from the criminal injuries compensation as they believed she was attacked.

2 - Probably because of the criminal court f**k up

3- Because Im guessing most people cant afford shit hot lawyers that found the anomaly and get let off like he did so don't get pursued as well in the civil courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, we seem to be overlooking the fact that esteemed judges have got it wrong in numerous criminal cases before, with “rapists” wrongfully having their lives completely ruined as a result.

It could have been pre-meditated, it could have been opportunistic, it could have been nobody was in a position to consent, it could have been completely made up. We will probably never know.

But I’m not willing to demonise somebody ‘on the balance of probablilties’ like most of the flock of melts on here.


And what esteemed legal position do you hold and what years of legal experience do you have to be considered to become a judge? Compared to the judge that ran the civil suit and the three appeal judges? I know who my bet is on...and it’s not you only live twice.

Not denying judges get it wrong, that’s why there is an appeal process, the odds of four judges getting it wrong within their legal remit is very unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, You Only Live Twice said:

Again, we seem to be overlooking the fact that esteemed judges have got it wrong in numerous criminal cases before, with “rapists” wrongfully having their lives completely ruined as a result.

It could have been pre-meditated, it could have been opportunistic, it could have been nobody was in a position to consent, it could have been completely made up. We will probably never know.

But I’m not willing to demonise somebody ‘on the balance of probablilties’ like most of the flock of melts on here.

Not one judge, not two judges, not three judges, but all 4 judges got it wrong then? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, You Only Live Twice said:

Again, we seem to be overlooking the fact that esteemed judges have got it wrong in numerous criminal cases before, with “rapists” wrongfully having their lives completely ruined as a result.

It could have been pre-meditated, it could have been opportunistic, it could have been nobody was in a position to consent, it could have been completely made up. We will probably never know.

But I’m not willing to demonise somebody ‘on the balance of probablilties’ like most of the flock of melts on here.

Have you actually read the court transcripts?  Both took advantage of a woman who was, as confirmed by toxology reports, absolutely legless on the night of the event.  You are defending the indefensible.     All of the judges agreed that she was an honest and reliable witness and all cast doubts over the consistency of the evidence provided by Goodwillie and his rapist chum.

I'm sure he's not coming to Falkirk, if he does then he will be made less than welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, You Only Live Twice said:

Again, we seem to be overlooking the fact that esteemed judges have got it wrong in numerous criminal cases before, with “rapists” wrongfully having their lives completely ruined as a result.

It could have been pre-meditated, it could have been opportunistic, it could have been nobody was in a position to consent, it could have been completely made up. We will probably never know.

But I’m not willing to demonise somebody ‘on the balance of probablilties’ like most of the flock of melts on here.

At least you'll now be accepting that it is not as 'equally likely' that he was innocent and the multiple judges got it wrong as it is that they made a series of informed, reflective and evidence based conclusions based on testimony and examination of facts that found it likely that a rape took place upon this person by these two other persons. 

His status as the best player for the team you support is of course pure happenstance. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, we seem to be overlooking the fact that esteemed judges have got it wrong in numerous criminal cases before, with “rapists” wrongfully having their lives completely ruined as a result.


So every guilty verdict made by a judge we should assume that they are not guilty because judges have been wrong in the past?

Have a fucking word with yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said:

The guys been done for assault twice as well he is a scumbag of the highest order.

Judges probably fucked up there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see Miller staying on, versatile and is coming into form as he gets more and more match fit.

Leitch getting a new deal is baffling and seems like a waste of a wage. If we lose Longridge over a couple of hundred quid a week and we've used a wage to keep Leitch then that will come back to bite us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should the SFA look to introduce a system whereby they can refuse to accept a players registration? Eg
Drink driving - 1 year
Assault - 1 year
Drug possession- 1 year
Drink driving that leads to injury or fatality, serious assault, drug dealing, sex offences - permanent 


Maybe every employer should adopt this no future employment for criminals of any type zero tolerance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

Good to see Miller staying on, versatile and is coming into form as he gets more and more match fit.

Leitch getting a new deal is baffling and seems like a waste of a wage. If we lose Longridge over a couple of hundred quid a week and we've used a wage to keep Leitch then that will come back to bite us.

He's probably on absolute peanuts and we will still need a squad of players at the end of the day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news about Gary Miller staying he’s really turned into quite an important player for us. A great driving force from midfield and his versatility will come in handy as well. Agree with the shouts that he’s more of a leader than Buchanan.

Really don’t understand Leitch getting a new deal he’s made 1 10 minute cameo appearance in the league this season and just seems like cheap shite squad filler. Also really concerned that we’ve not announced anything about Louis yet. He’s such a massive player for us and him leaving will completely damage any chance we have of winning the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, You Only Live Twice said:

To suggest I’m questioning his involvement simply because he happens to wear a particular shirt and kick a ball into a net for a living is absolutely disgusting.

No really, what a shameful and idiotic thing to say.

Rape is an abhorrent crime, and it is a travesty the conviction rate is so low. This must be addressed, and in all honesty I’m not entirely sure how best to even begin to go about that. What I’m damn sure of though is that the solution is not to tar every single individual who has a finger pointed at them with the same brush, assume guilt, stick labels on individuals without a fair trial and cast them from society.

Do you honestly envisage a crime of this nature being taken to a civil court and not ruling in favour of the accuser? That is not to suggest that it is any way fabricated. Unless criminally indicted beyond any doubt or an admission comes from the party involved then it is impossible to say. Goodwillie has denied the accusations and actively appealed the civil verdict since it was administered, and it takes a very special kind of cretin to do that in good conscience.

But please, continue to knock yourself out by spewing vitriol and self righteously abusing anyone who doesn’t agree with your simple views.

I'm going to put my trust in four High Court Judges who say Goodwillie is a rapist.

 

You can f**k off though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...