Gaz Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 You do feel a bit for Clyde, it's not like there's any precedent of all the misery that can befall your club if you choose to sign a rapist 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufc Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 IIRC the CPS didn't believe that the case would be successful.Not really down with the legal detail but bizarre that he can be found guilty in one court but not the other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 3 minutes ago, Aufc said: Shambles all round. I’m genuinely interested with this. Why did it not go to criminal court? The conviction rates for sexual crimes is horrifically low. Very few of them make it to court, even less of them result in conviction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Jaffo Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 IIRC the CPS didn't believe that the case would be successful.Aye Like any rape or sexual assault case, it is notoriously hard to prove it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyBear Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Aufc said: Not really down with the legal detail but bizarre that he can be found guilty in one court but not the other. Not really as he did not stand trial in a criminal court. In criminal case it has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. In a civil case I think it is just the balance of probabilities. Edited March 3, 2022 by FuzzyBear 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 The why-not-five-years ago argument is a red herring. That's not to say it's not a reasonable question in and of itself, but the circumstance now is different to the one five years back - or even five weeks back. Like someone said above, landscapes change, and that means behaviour has to be viewed in the context of that landscape. So sign him right at this moment in time, in the teeth of the publicity, is a quite deliberate choice and statement and a deliberate f**k you to victims of sexual violence over and above the prior history. With apologies to the Clyde fans on here - at least, the ones who matter - I'm afraid my first reaction to this news was, get in. But in fairness to me I'm equally indifferent to the fate of Raith, who I've been following to some extent for forty years. The fate and wellbeing of my football club is not more important to me than the state of society. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiG Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Aufc said: Not really down with the legal detail but bizarre that he can be found guilty in one court but not the other. https://www.hoddergibson.co.uk/media/Gibson-Documents/Updates-and-Extras/Introductory-Scots-Law/Chapter-1/QR-1-9.pdf Quote In a civil trial, the pursuer must prove his/her case on the balance of probabilities, whereas in criminal trials the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crimes in question. The criminal standard of proof is therefore a more rigorous standard of evidence Whilst some might argue this essentially means it's "easier" to prove someone's guilt in a civil trial one should remember that the judge in the civil course found Clair's evidence to be "cogent, persuasive and compelling" whilst evidence from Goodwillie and Robertson was described as "inconsistent" and "not impressive". Supporting evidence experts for Clair were also considered credible as well. All in all Clair and her argument were far more compelling and trustworthy than Goodwillie and Robertson. Edited March 3, 2022 by RiG 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 51 minutes ago, TheScarf said: He should just retire. Is that Clyde looking for a new ground in a years time too? They usually are TBF. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hauzen Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 "EK Clyde" back on again then if they need to find a new stadium and home town? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Clown Job Posted March 3, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2022 Spoiler 26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 36 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said: The only way out now is for Clyde to make a Raith-style apology Tweet confirming that DGW will neither train with nor play for the club. Even avoiding the moral argument, because the club don't seem to have any, trying to beg, steal and borrow stadiums for the rest of his stay is financial suicide. Take your medicine, Clyde. You fucked up, the bare minimum you can do is apologise and not pick him again. If Clyde want to take the Raith approach they will need to release a double-down statement regarding Goodwillie’s qualities as a goal scorer first 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufc Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 Whilst some might argue this essentially means it's "easier" to prove someone's guilt in a civil trial one should remember that the judge in the civil course found Clair to be a very credible witness whilst Goodwillie and Robertson weren't. Indeed, Robertson's evidence was described as being "internally inconsistent". Supporting evidence experts for Clair were also considered credible as well. All in all, civil case or not, Clair and her argument were far more compelling and trustworthy than Goodwillie and Robertson. To be honest, reading the female bouncers statement was pretty chilling. Was Robertson convicted with the same?I do wonder whether, if he had came out and apologised, would that have made a difference to most people? Would people be happy with him playing football if he came out and apologised for that night? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blootoon87 Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 RIP Clyde. I'd say it's been fun, but............ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadStar Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 Just now, Aufc said: I do wonder whether, if he had came out and apologised, would that have made a difference to most people? Would people be happy with him playing football if he came out and apologised for that night? Are you dense? "I'm sorry I raped someone" probably wouldn't cut it for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 2 minutes ago, ribzanelli said: If Clyde want to take the Raith approach they will need to release a double-down statement regarding Goodwillie’s qualities as a goal scorer first I would not be even the slightest bit surprised. They need to apologise and confirm that he won't play for the club again very quickly. Then announce that they intend to stand down when someone is willing to take the club on. I suspect... they'll do none of that. They'll double down and pick him on Saturday and make lots of noises about "exploring opportunities" to play elsewhere. Then end up homeless and bankrupt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufc Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 Are you dense? "I'm sorry I raped someone" probably wouldn't cut it for me.That’s what I’m saying. Loads of people are saying that he has shown no remorse etc. However, how can he apologise for raping someone? It wouldn’t make any difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufc Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 I would not be even the slightest bit surprised. They need to apologise and confirm that he won't play for the club again very quickly. Then announce that they intend to stand down when someone is willing to take the club on. I suspect... they'll do none of that. They'll double down and pick him on Saturday and make lots of noises about "exploring opportunities" to play elsewhere. Then end up homeless and bankrupt. I don’t think anyone would be that stupid… surely 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monthefife Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 19 minutes ago, Yoss said: The why-not-five-years ago argument is a red herring. That's not to say it's not a reasonable question in and of itself, but the circumstance now is different to the one five years back - or even five weeks back. Like someone said above, landscapes change, and that means behaviour has to be viewed in the context of that landscape. So sign him right at this moment in time, in the teeth of the publicity, is a quite deliberate choice and statement and a deliberate f**k you to victims of sexual violence over and above the prior history. With apologies to the Clyde fans on here - at least, the ones who matter - I'm afraid my first reaction to this news was, get in. But in fairness to me I'm equally indifferent to the fate of Raith, who I've been following to some extent for forty years. The fate and wellbeing of my football club is not more important to me than the state of society. Exactly this, couldn't have put it better myself. Embarrassing from Clyde FC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smpar Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 IIRC the CPS didn't believe that the case would be successful. ETA: From this article the CPS said there was insufficient evidence to bring the case to court and days later charges were dropped. https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/courts/2867958/goodwillie-civil-rapist/ Denise Clair in her recent interview with the Sunday Post mentioned the dropping of the charges and how that left her feeling: https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/david-goodwillie-criminal-case/CPS is down south, PF for Scotland. Not really down with the legal detail but bizarre that he can be found guilty in one court but not the other. The difference is essentially probability vs beyond all reasonable doubt. Given the context/circumstances, it would have been extremely difficult to prove in a criminal court. Knowing the details, however, it is surprising that the PF didn’t even entertain it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.