CLYDE FC Season 2017-18 Thread

[Sarto Mutiny]

20 hours ago, BrigtonClyde said:

That's fine, but you knew that's what I meant and decided to point to that as opposed to anything else to try and pour doubt on what's written

You used the term expertise. That comes from experience and that's where the difference lies. You are speculating without it

I've already said that for any interested enough to double check what's written, speak with a lawyer who regularly attends criminal court. It's an "understood" within legal circles this is what's happening verified to me by such a source. 

The first procedure in a criminal hearing is a "diet hearing". Purpose of this should be a formality, defence and prosecution confirming they have all the evidence and witnesses in place to go to trial usually a month later. Where both confirm, the date is confirmed

If you doubt what I've written, but have access to a lawyer as suggested, ask them if it's true that such is the level of adjournments due to prosecution not in fact having the required evidence / witnesses, the COPFS are seriously considering removing this due process

Everyone understands a basic principle of law that an accused should be deemed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's your basic legal right

If you have access to a lawyer as suggested in the Glasgow area, ask them their understanding of a current sheriff's default position who was once the chief prosecutor, and the level of evidence, or lack of it, he would deem necessary to pass judgement. Again this is only in the case where a jury isn't present

Some criminal cases can be heard without a jury. These are deemed relatively minor, where if found guilty in the opinion of one person, no imprisonment is possible and there are lesser consequences such as a fine and usually short term minor criminal record

In a like for like courtroom situation, a lesser civil case has been empowered to label someone a criminal in the public domain, not based on conclusive evidence, but an instinct. This is why civil courts should only handle cases for which they were originally designed

So a little tip for future reference, don't speculate, if in doubt, double check. Good lad. 

Thanks. Whatever else I may have accused you of, I cannot fault your use of copy and paste. Textbook.

It's interesting that you use the fact that civil courts should not be competent to try criminal matters, given that this was an argument that not even the lawyers for the two footballers made. Indeed, (seeing as I can use copy and paste too) if you read the judgement, paragraph 267 explicitly states that neither party disputes that rape is an actionable civil wrong. You'd think that their lawyer might have at least tried to argue otherwise, given how sure you seem to be. In other similar cases, although admittedly there haven't been that many, lawyers generally will try to at least argue that the court should not be trying what is, as you say, essentially a criminal matter given that the burden of proof is no much lower in civil cases. I'm surprised someone as obviously clued up as yourself missed that tbh.

It was addressed and taken into consideration in the summing up, as you can see below. It's also worth remembering that three Court of Session judges saw nothing wrong with this application of the law, and I would suggest that they know a hell of a lot more about it that you or I.

Quote

[267]    There was no dispute among the parties that the act of rape is an actionable civil wrong, and that, whether the act was to be viewed as criminal or delictual, no material distinction arose in respect of its constituent elements (Hume, Lectures, Volume 13:  Obligations ex delicto, page 120;  Personality, Confidentiality and Privacy in Scots law, Elspeth Reid, paragraph 2.01;  Anatomy, Consent and the Body in Delict, Alistair MacLean (SULS) Chapter 11, paragraph 11.79;  and generally, Stair Encyclopedia, Volume 15, Obligations Arising from a Wrongful Act, paragraphs 2.13 ‑ 2.16).

[273]    However, it was recognised that the gravity of an allegation might require proof by evidence of particular weight (Mullan, at paragraph 851F).  Thus, the more grave the allegation made, the greater the requirement that the evidence should be cogent (1^st Indian Cavalry Club Limited v HM Commissioner of Customs and Excise 1998 SC 126, at 138B).

[274]    Although I was referred to Mullan, at 851F, for the proposition that in certain cases the evidence necessary for proof should be “careful and precise”, that was a test considered appropriate in circumstances where, for success, it was necessary to overcome a presumption.  Since that was a situation not comparable to this case, I do not consider it appropriate to apply such a test framed in these terms.  I do accept, however, that in determining the issues arising in this case, it is appropriate that, in applying the civil standard of proof, the evidence should be carefully examined and scrutinised.

I can't use the quote function. f**k it.

Of course, you are within your rights to believe otherwise, and I can't stop you, nor would I really want to. I would have slightly more sympathy for your argument had I got the impression you arrived at your conclusion after reading the facts of the case rather than vice versa, but not to worry. You don't have to think David Goodwillie is a rapist, of course you don't, but I find it curious that anyone would arrive at that conclusion after reading the judgement. No matter. If you're comfortable with someone who has been found in a court of law to be a rapist, if you're happy to pay his wages to go towards this failed appeal, happy to give money to a club who employs a man who fucks women when they are too drunk to be able to give consent, that's up to you. He had the right to appeal, and he failed. You can believe who you like, ultimately.

Defending him is all very well and I appreciate people have genuine concerns regarding the burden of proof, however misguided I think they are, but the victim blaming and the borderline cheerleading of rape culture I have seen on this thread from certain individuals (not yourself, I hasten to add) is genuinely fucking abhorrent. I only hope those people who have chosen to act this way would all adopt a more sympathetic attitude if someone you loved was fucked by a sexual predator when they were too paralytic to give consent. I hope every bit as much that none of you ever find your way onto a jury. David Goodwillie fucked someone who was too paralytic to give consent. Ergo, he raped her. There was not a criminal trial as we all know, but according to the civil law he is a rapist and I am entirely comfortable given what I know and what I have read to refer to him as such. Despite it legally only being on the balance of probabilities.

I don't really feel the need to contribute to this thread any more, so you can all go shouting at the moon as much as you like. I don't care.

Thanks also for your explanation of the difference between summary and solemn procedure. It was appreciated, but entirely unnecessary given it was covered rather early on in that law degree I did about 20 years ago. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

19 minutes ago, Sarto Mutiny said:

Thanks. Whatever else I may have accused you of, I cannot fault your use of copy and paste. Textbook.

It's interesting that you use the fact that civil courts should not be competent to try criminal matters, given that this was an argument that not even the lawyers for the two footballers made. Indeed, (seeing as I can use copy and paste too) if you read the judgement, paragraph 267 explicitly states that neither party disputes that rape is an actionable civil wrong. You'd think that their lawyer might have at least tried to argue otherwise, given how sure you seem to be. In other similar cases, although admittedly there haven't been that many, lawyers generally will try to at least argue that the court should not be trying what is, as you say, essentially a criminal matter given that the burden of proof is no much lower in civil cases. I'm surprised someone as obviously clued up as yourself missed that tbh.

It was addressed and taken into consideration in the summing up, as you can see below. It's also worth remembering that three Court of Session judges saw nothing wrong with this application of the law, and I would suggest that they know a hell of a lot more about it that you or I.

Bu its Clyde n sheez a hoor. Ma mate noes ur da n even he sais it n hes in ra polis

[lionel wickson]

22 hours ago, BrigtonClyde said:

That's fine, but you knew that's what I meant and decided to point to that as opposed to anything else to try and pour doubt on what's written

You used the term expertise. That comes from experience and that's where the difference lies. You are speculating without it

I've already said that for any interested enough to double check what's written, speak with a lawyer who regularly attends criminal court. It's an "understood" within legal circles this is what's happening verified to me by such a source. 

The first procedure in a criminal hearing is a "diet hearing". Purpose of this should be a formality, defence and prosecution confirming they have all the evidence and witnesses in place to go to trial usually a month later. Where both confirm, the date is confirmed

If you doubt what I've written, but have access to a lawyer as suggested, ask them if it's true that such is the level of adjournments due to prosecution not in fact having the required evidence / witnesses, the COPFS are seriously considering removing this due process

Everyone understands a basic principle of law that an accused should be deemed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's your basic legal right

If you have access to a lawyer as suggested in the Glasgow area, ask them their understanding of a current sheriff's default position who was once the chief prosecutor, and the level of evidence, or lack of it, he would deem necessary to pass judgement. Again this is only in the case where a jury isn't present

Some criminal cases can be heard without a jury. These are deemed relatively minor, where if found guilty in the opinion of one person, no imprisonment is possible and there are lesser consequences such as a fine and usually short term minor criminal record

In a like for like courtroom situation, a lesser civil case has been empowered to label someone a criminal in the public domain, not based on conclusive evidence, but an instinct. This is why civil courts should only handle cases for which they were originally designed

So a little tip for future reference, don't speculate, if in doubt, double check. Good lad. 

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no circumstances where a sheriff sitting alone, without a jury, cannot impose a term of imprisonment? If you are, then that is patently wrong.

[Clyde01]

There are so many elements of this case that don’t sit easily with branding someone a rapist as an outcome.

At no point throughout the evening of flirting, touching, enjoying each other’s company, did the victim seem concerned or attempt to leave the company.

The accused were drinking too and at no point was consent not given, so were they in an inebriated state to make that call (clearly yes but another grey area).

There is a distinct whiff of looking to absolve oneself of any responsibility about the whole thing. If I get hammered and murder someone, drive a car etc is the fact I was paralytic an excuse? What if a guy gets absolutely wasted has sex with a girl and then wishes he hadn’t done it when he sobers up? Where does a drunken misjudgement become something more.

Someone being raped is likely to be more distressed than ‘making normal sex noises’ and shouting things like ‘don’t cum inside me’.

Also where is the logic in the day after the appeal was lost getting involved in a front page national news article trying to lose the guy his job. You want the money but don’t want him to be able to earn?

[Sarto Mutiny]

33 minutes ago, lionel wickson said:

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no circumstances where a sheriff sitting alone, without a jury, cannot impose a term of imprisonment? If you are, then that is patently wrong.

Ah, I missed that. Our learned friend is wrong about this too. With summary complaints, where the trials do not have juries, a sheriff can impose a custodial sentence of up to three months for a first offence.

It's unfortunate that someone who knows so much about law keeps making so many basic errors. Oh well.

 

(shit, I said I wouldn't post any more on this thread. dammit)

[Sarto Mutiny]

8 minutes ago, Clyde01 said:

There is a distinct whiff of looking to absolve oneself of any responsibility about the whole thing. If I get hammered and murder someone, drive a car etc is the fact I was paralytic an excuse? What if a guy gets absolutely wasted has sex with a girl and then wishes he hadn’t done it when he sobers up? Where does a drunken misjudgement become something more.

To address your questions in turn:

1. No, don't be ridiculous

2. Nothing, aside from self loathing and getting on with his life

3. Somewhere before you start raping people

[Sergeant Wilson]

3 minutes ago, Clyde01 said:

There are so many elements of this case that don’t sit easily with branding someone a rapist as an outcome.

At no point throughout the evening of flirting, touching, enjoying each other’s company, did the victim seem concerned or attempt to leave the company.

The accused were drinking too and at no point was consent not given, so were they in an inebriated state to make that call (clearly yes but another grey area).

There is a distinct whiff of looking to absolve oneself of any responsibility about the whole thing. If I get hammered and murder someone, drive a car etc is the fact I was paralytic an excuse? What if a guy gets absolutely wasted has sex with a girl and then wishes he hadn’t done it when he sobers up? Where does a drunken misjudgement become something more.

Someone being raped is likely to be more distressed than ‘making normal sex noises’ and shouting things like ‘don’t cum inside me’.

Also where is the logic in the day after the appeal was lost getting involved in a front page national news article trying to lose the guy his job. You want the money but don’t want him to be able to earn?

She might have wanted it with one or other, even both at one stage, but if later she loses the ability to consent the game is a bogey. 

Eg

 

She agrees to sex back at the house but specifies it must be after 1.00am. She the gets pished by 10.00 clock, they decide to carry on with the act at midnight. There is no consent, therefore it is rape.

[Karpaty]

Munro wants to stay at Clyde but Forfar are going to recall him so we’ll need to come to some sort of fee for him I’d imagine. 

[haufdaft]

I always come away from the agm/fan meetings full of optimism. It's the same this time

The chairman spoke very well. I got the impression that he seems to be keeping our options open regarding our future location. Looks like we're staying in Cumbernauld for the short to medium term at least.

Wasn't too enamored about the suggestion from the floor of changing the club name to Cumbernauld Clyde. It went down like a lead balloon.

[clyde_darren]

Munro wants to stay at Clyde but Forfar are going to recall him so we’ll need to come to some sort of fee for him I’d imagine. 

Use the funds gained from the Dylan Easton fund and get it done. Would be great to have him for the rest of the season.

[Bridgeton Clyde Boy]

Heard that Dylan Easton’s surgery cost us £7.5 grand ! so he got a double wage played something like 10 games and fucked off.. what a kick in the teeth that is. I’ve actually always defended him but now he can f**k his other leg as well. 

[FREDDYFRY]

The guy even used Livingston as a role model for name change .....Jeez!

[haufdaft]

Heard that Dylan Easton’s surgery cost us £7.5 grand ! so he got a double wage played something like 10 games and fucked off.. what a kick in the teeth that is. I’ve actually always defended him but now he can f**k his other leg as well. 

I've heard this argument. I don't agree with the sentiment of it.

We shouldn't forget that he was injured playing for Clyde not falling out a taxi pished.

[Adolfo Rios]

I don’t imagine Jim Weir will go out his way to do us any favours.

[SLClyde]

After the success of the name change to ek Clyde when that suggestion was about, I can see why Cumbernauld Clyde would be suggested. 

Cant see how anyone would think that'll help. 

[BullyWeeLad]

For the younger generation, Clyde have always been in Cumbernauld anyway so a name change will do nothin 

[cfcuk]

Having had a go at innes in past spoke very well looks like he has increased revenue streams with more to come , basically admitted that he got it wrong with Chapman no excuses which I particularly liked . I haven't heard a better more positive chairman's address since the McDonald days if it comes off then good times ahead as said staying at broadwood and going to engage with cumbernauld business and people build the club sees great potential
And as for the suggestion about incorporating cumbernauld into the club name didn't go down well

On a lighter side some famous Catalan composer is all set to write a Clyde anthem [emoji32]

New assistant for under 20 has come in from Motherwell

Looking to bring players in January looks like money will be made available to Lennon

Munro wants to stay loves it at Clyde but depends on Forfar

[shawfield shed boy]

Munro was saying in bar58 forfar wanted him back before jan though theirs a clause keeping at us till Jan which he was happy to do.

 

Would like him to stay but cant see us paying a fee. Only hope would be signing him on a pre contract for next season or if forfar release him,Not looking likely

 

 

[Finch road]

Can't wait for you scumbags to be toiling in the lower tiers of the pyramid. Poetic justice

[cfcuk]

Munro was saying in bar58 forfar wanted him back before jan though theirs a clause keeping at us till Jan which he was happy to do.
 
Would like him to stay but cant see us paying a fee. Only hope would be signing him on a pre contract for next season or if forfar release him,Not looking likely
 
 

Innes certainly gave the impression we were spending in January if I heard right he isn't bothered about going into a bit of debt to improve product on park quiete clear revenue streams opening up at broadwood and from businesses