Jump to content
R&Y99

Clyde vs Thistle -17th October opening day

Recommended Posts

Each and every one of those fans behaved appallingly by lining the pockets of a rapist. 

 

If I was you I'd boycott Falkirk as the vast majority of their away fan base "condone rape". 

 

Then again, they could just be supporting their team

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ad Lib said:

I'm not giving Clyde a penny because it pays a court-confirmed rapist money. Nothing to do with what you did or didn't vote for.

I mean, this is fair. Also no one cares, and I think you'd probably just get bullied by us anyway so it's probably best you stay away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Karpaty Lviv said:

First league game in many months and their hatred of Clyde is stronger than their love for Thistle. Funny how the mask slips when match day approaches. 

How do you work that one out? Those who aren't paying money to Clyde to watch a stream of the match, will be paying money to Thistle to listen to the match, as well as potentially donating ordinary matchday money to the club too, like many fans do every week. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brian Carrigan said:

I mean, this is fair. Also no one cares, and I think you'd probably just get bullied by us anyway so it's probably best you stay away.

Bully Wee fund the beasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's how this works:
1. A court finds that David Goodwillie is a rapist.
2. All non scummy clubs don't touch him with a barge pole.
3. A scummy club touches him.
4. Its fans fail to boycott their club until he's off the payroll.
5. Clyde fans therefore fund a rapist.


A civil court that doesn’t have to worry about the burden of proof decided he was a rapist on ‘the balance of probabilities’. For such a serious conviction there should be more evidence required than ‘aye he probably did it’.

Shame trial by pie and Bovril wasn’t an option, as there are so many experts on the case in here...

Share this post


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

A civil court that doesn’t have to worry about the burden of proof decided he was a rapist on ‘the balance of probabilities’. For such a serious conviction there should be more evidence required than ‘aye he probably did it’.

Shame trial by pie and Bovril wasn’t an option, as there are so many experts on the case in here...

The balance of probabilities *is* a burden of proof you walloper. It’s just a less demanding burden of proof than for criminal trials. A criminal trial also requires corroboration in Scotland: a standard not required in other countries and which is notoriously difficult to secure in sexual offences cases.

Let’s just remember what the judge said:

“Having carefully examined and scrutinised the whole evidence in the case, I find the evidence of the pursuer to be cogent, persuasive and compelling.”

“I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her.”

”My general impression of the first defender was that, particularly in relation to his assessment of the pursuer’s condition, his evidence was given with a view to his own interests rather than in accordance with the oath which he had taken. I did not find his evidence to be persuasive.”

Bear in mind that the two men admitted that they carried out sexual acts on the woman in question. Their defence was that the acts were consented to. That they were merely total creeps.

They were complete and utter beasts, and the judge was in no doubt whatsoever about that. In all probability but for the archaic corroboration requirement, the reasonable doubt as to consent threshold would have been met for a criminal conviction and a jury would have found as such.

But still, if it makes you feel any better about funding the rapers of intoxicated women, by all means cling to the fact that it’s merely a judge in a civil court’s conclusion that the lying shits did it.

Share this post


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

 


A civil court that doesn’t have to worry about the burden of proof decided he was a rapist on ‘the balance of probabilities’. For such a serious conviction there should be more evidence required than ‘aye he probably did it’.

Shame trial by pie and Bovril wasn’t an option, as there are so many experts on the case in here...

 

Aye okay David, keep telling yourself that 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Falkirk09Bairn said:


Each and every one of those fans behaved appallingly by lining the pockets of a rapist. 

Still hurling racist abuse at your own players?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

I'm not giving Clyde a penny because it pays a court-confirmed rapist money. Nothing to do with what you did or didn't vote for.

John Hart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BrigtonClyde said:

Still hurling racist abuse at your own players?

Yeah to be fair that didn’t happen, the board made it up or something along those lines. Still, this boy Ad Lib spending his whole Friday on the Clyde v Thistle thread foaming at the mouth is quite funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Brian Carrigan said:

Yeah to be fair that didn’t happen, the board made it up or something along those lines. Still, this boy Ad Lib spending his whole Friday on the Clyde v Thistle thread foaming at the mouth is quite funny.

So sad to see yet another beast apologist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BullyWeeStonehouse said:

Is there a football match on tomorrow?

Judge Judy's Gypos vs Judge Rinder's Red n Yella Army....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matchday looms and I can't really give a shit. I'll maybe give the commentary a go but having forked out for Sky Sportd I'll watch whatever pish is on there at 3pm.

The Goodwillie thing is a bit staid now. Don't get me wrong he'll forever be a beast. But I like to look at it from the pov that ending up kicking a ball in part-time football in front of a few hundred fans is part of his punishment.

The actual crime was when he was a general Arsehole at Dundee Utd. The court case has fucked his career and most clubs higher up the food chain wouldn't touch him with a barge pole. He was declared bankrupt so he's lost the money and relative fame that made him act in a beastly fashion in the first place. 

In their recent existence Clyde would be nowhere near capable of getting a player of his ability so I can see why they took the chance. I don't agree with it but it is what is is. 

Anyway, get into these racist, gypo rape apologists. 

12-0 Thistle or McCall can gtf!

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...