Goodwillie Transfer to Raith

[vanderark14]

Its kicking off now

their main sponsor has withdrawn sponsorship, a female player has quit and now Sturgeon is commenting on the transfer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nicola Sturgeon

 

@NicolaSturgeon

The stances that @valmcdermid and women’s team captain @Tyler_RattrayX have taken are principled - though difficult for both of them. But the fact they’re in this position at all reminds us that our society still has a way to go to make zero tolerance of sexual violence a reality

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STV News

 

@STVNews

Val McDermid says she has ended her lifelong support and sponsorship of Raith Rovers after the club signed David Goodwillie. https://news.stv.tv/sport/val-mcdermid-ends-raith-rovers-sponsorship-over-goodwillie-signing…

11:43 AM · Feb 1, 2022

 

719

 

Reply

 

Share

[Debian]

Was there a similar out cry when he went to Clyde?

 

Raith making a total cunt of it.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mccaughey85]

1 hour ago, Debian said:

Was there a similar out cry when he went to Clyde?

 

Raith making a total cunt of it.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeh it's strange, why is it suddenly become unacceptable for him to sign for raith. 

This probably won't go down well but goodwillie and Robertson were never convicted in a criminal court, I know they were ordered to pay compensation by a civil court but is it possible that they are innocent? I haven't read alot on the matter so not sure what to think. Seems like social media and society has found them definitely guilty. 

[kumnio]

Stadium announcer has quit now. Raith have royally fucked up. 

[mccaughey85]

10 minutes ago, kumnio said:

Stadium announcer has quit now. Raith have royally fucked up. 

Raith must be a beacon of morals compared to clyde. 

[Diamond Scot]

Not sure where I stand on this one to be honest. Firstly Goodwillie hasnt ever been convicted in criminal court of law. A sheriff ruled with the complainer in a civil court which has a much lower burden of proof.

As such Goodwillie hasnt "served him sentence" but he did need to pay the compensation so effectively has been punished by the court.

My concern is that our society is meant to be based on punishment and rehabilitation. Taking the debate away from the specifics of Goodwillie. If somebody has committed a crime and served their punishment, should they then be banned from making a living in their choosen profession?

On the flip side I can see why people might not want to associate themselves with a club who employs such a person.

[mccaughey85]

11 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

Not sure where I stand on this one to be honest. Firstly Goodwillie hasnt ever been convicted in criminal court of law. A sheriff ruled with the complainer in a civil court which has a much lower burden of proof.

As such Goodwillie hasnt "served him sentence" but he did need to pay the compensation so effectively has been punished by the court.

My concern is that our society is meant to be based on punishment and rehabilitation. Taking the debate away from the specifics of Goodwillie. If somebody has committed a crime and served their punishment, should they then be banned from making a living in their choosen profession?

On the flip side I can see why people might not want to associate themselves with a club who employs such a person.

Yeh it's a hard one to judge because of him not being convicted in criminal court. It seems ppl are keen to dismiss this fact. The whole ched Evans case showed that the public can get it wrong in certain cases. Going by what I have read online(not the most reliable source I know) i would guess he's guilty but the criminal court was unable to convict so he deserves a certain benefit of doubt rather than a Lynch mob. 

Also why is it suddenly a massive issue with nicola sturgeon(I am a fan of hers BTW), should she not expressed this view when he was signing for clyde or aberdeen. 

[phart]

Was it a "sherrif"? I thought it was Lord Armstrong who is currently a judge of the supreme court of Scotland.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=d22e28a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

 

[aaid]

2 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

Yeh it's strange, why is it suddenly become unacceptable for him to sign for raith. 

This probably won't go down well but goodwillie and Robertson were never convicted in a criminal court, I know they were ordered to pay compensation by a civil court but is it possible that they are innocent? I haven't read alot on the matter so not sure what to think. Seems like social media and society has found them definitely guilty. 

Maybe better to actually read up on things before commenting then.

 

[mccaughey85]

4 minutes ago, aaid said:

Maybe better to actually read up on things before commenting then.

 

Well I have read what most ppl have read online but as you will surely know that's not the best source when making a judgement on a rape case. If a court couldn't find him guilty with the evidence at hand then I am willing to give the guy a certain benefit of the doubt. I take it you don't trust that the court and the lawyers made the right decision? If yes then what are you basing that on? Perhaps you can enlighten me rather than making smart arse comments. 

[aaid]

31 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

Not sure where I stand on this one to be honest. Firstly Goodwillie hasnt ever been convicted in criminal court of law. A sheriff ruled with the complainer in a civil court which has a much lower burden of proof.

As such Goodwillie hasnt "served him sentence" but he did need to pay the compensation so effectively has been punished by the court.

My concern is that our society is meant to be based on punishment and rehabilitation. Taking the debate away from the specifics of Goodwillie. If somebody has committed a crime and served their punishment, should they then be banned from making a living in their choosen profession?

On the flip side I can see why people might not want to associate themselves with a club who employs such a person.

The whole case shows up one of the inherent problems with Scots Law and the extremely low rate of convictions for rape and sexual assault.

Scots Law requires any evidence to be corroborated.  In the general case, this is good as it acts to prevent innocent people from being convicted unfairly.

In the case of rape however as generally speaking the crime is unwitnessed, forensics may show that there was sexual contact but there is generally no corroboration as to whether or not that was consensual.

It was on this basis that the criminal case did not proceed and charges were dropped.

A civil case does not require the same level of corroboration and he was found to have committed rape by Lord Armstrong.  David Goodwillie is a rapist.

 

[aaid]

6 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Well I have read what most ppl have read online but as you will surely know that's not the best source when making a judgement on a rape case. If a court couldn't find him guilty with the evidence at hand then I am willing to give the guy a certain benefit of the doubt. I take it you don't trust that the court and the lawyers made the right decision? If yes then what are you basing that on? Perhaps you can enlighten me rather than making smart arse comments. 

The original case didn't even get to court, it was dropped by the PF due to the lack of corroboration.

[mccaughey85]

8 minutes ago, aaid said:

The original case didn't even get to court, it was dropped by the PF due to the lack of corroboration.

Ok so I take it you are basing his guilt on the civil case which obviously they lost. Thats fair enough, there are witnesses saying she was far too drunk and probably needed assistance to get home, so your opinion is valid. I have never said I think hes innocent, hes probably guilty but it's not something I know for sure and I doubt you do either. 

 

[McTeeko]

Fitba fans are fickle. If he rattles in a hat-trick v Dunfermline most of them will be back 😏

[Diamond Scot]

3 minutes ago, aaid said:

The whole case shows up one of the inherent problems with Scots Law and the extremely low rate of convictions for rape and sexual assault.

Scots Law requires any evidence to be corroborated.  In the general case, this is good as it acts to prevent innocent people from being convicted unfairly.

In the case of rape however as generally speaking the crime is unwitnessed, forensics may show that there was sexual contact but there is generally no corroboration as to whether or not that was consensual.

It was on this basis that the criminal case did not proceed and charges were dropped.

A civil case does not require the same level of corroboration and he was found to have committed rape by Lord Armstrong.  David Goodwillie is a rapist.

 

Scots law doesnt require all evidence to be corroborated but in general you are correct about the difficulties this causes in sexual cases due to there nature. More often than not its he said / she said which on its own rarely passes the reasonable doubt standard.

Sexual cases therefore naturally have a very low conviction rate. Alot has been done over the last 20 years to try and change this. Victim shaming quite rightly has been forbidden (ie asking questions or bringing up a complainers sexual history), making negative reference to what a complainer was wearing etc. S275 applications rarely allow any evidence other than the specifics of the assault to be placed before a jury. Whilst the thinking behind this is correct, it sometimes has the affect of not permitting the accused to present a full defence about why he believed there was consent which causes its own problems. Its a very emotive and difficult area of law to navigate. As much as any reasonable person would want to see conviction rates rise dramatically, that needs to be tempered against the possibility of changing the rules so much that wrongful convictions occur.

That aside my point was more about earning a living after conviction. Say a footballer is convicted of rape and was guilty, serves his time in prison and is still good enough to play on his release. Should he be effectively cancelled from being allowed to do so. The obvious answer is yes but where do you draw the line, who chooses what crimes are acceptable and which ones arent? 

That being said I wouldnt want a rapist at my club.

 

[aaid]

9 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

That aside my point was more about earning a living after conviction. Say a footballer is convicted of rape and was guilty, serves his time in prison and is still good enough to play on his release. Should he be effectively cancelled from being allowed to do so. The obvious answer is yes but where do you draw the line, who chooses what crimes are acceptable and which ones arent? 

 

 

AFAIK, he’s shown zero contrition and made no attempt at rehabilitation.  Both of those should be prerequisites for a return to society. 

[mccaughey85]

7 minutes ago, aaid said:

AFAIK, he’s shown zero contrition and made no attempt at rehabilitation.  Both of those should be prerequisites for a return to society. 

If he believes he is innocent then why would he go to rehab. Surely that would be an admission of guilt, pretty sure he tried to appeal the civil court decision so he is not going to show remorse for something that he is trying to prove he never did. 

[Diamond Scot]

1 minute ago, aaid said:

AFAIK, he’s shown zero contrition and made no attempt at rehabilitation.  Both of those should be prerequisites for a return to society. 

Yeah, nothing im saying here is in defence of Goodwillie. Just raises the general point in respect of people cancelling etc.

I understand that Goodwillie maintains his innocence. In that regard he doesnt believe that he has anything to apologise for and as far as im aware there has been no allegation of repeat offending. Not that this in itself makes the original allegation more or less credible.

Its a difficult one as the court was the lesser standard. It wasnt designed to try such cases, hence the criminal courts with the higher burden. To then prohibit somebody from earning a living in football seems harsh but at the same time sexual violence is a huge issue in this country and sometimes morality should come before sport.

Courts in general are a minefield but sexual cases in particular. More often than any other type of case you leave unsure of what actually happened. 

 

[kumnio]

16 minutes ago, aaid said:

AFAIK, he’s shown zero contrition and made no attempt at rehabilitation.  Both of those should be prerequisites for a return to society. 

I wouldn't want him at my club, some fans wouldn't care from the start, some would be against it but cave in if he performed well. I don't think there's a simple 'right' answer for people being rehabilitated and getting back into normal society, especially when in the public eye.

I believe he is guilty. However, if he believes he is innocent, then why would he do that?

The silence from Raith is both surprising but understandable, there's almost nothing that they can say to make this go away, or even diminish. There was minor pushback when he signed for Clyde, but this is a totally different scale, Id guess with the Greenwood case last week, and the death of Sarah Everard last year, these issues will be more significant.

[aaid]

9 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

Yeah, nothing im saying here is in defence of Goodwillie. Just raises the general point in respect of people cancelling etc.

I understand that Goodwillie maintains his innocence. In that regard he doesnt believe that he has anything to apologise for and as far as im aware there has been no allegation of repeat offending. Not that this in itself makes the original allegation more or less credible.

Its a difficult one as the court was the lesser standard. It wasnt designed to try such cases, hence the criminal courts with the higher burden. To then prohibit somebody from earning a living in football seems harsh but at the same time sexual violence is a huge issue in this country and sometimes morality should come before sport.

Courts in general are a minefield but sexual cases in particular. More often than any other type of case you leave unsure of what actually happened. 

 

I’d need to go back and check the contemporary reports however civil prosecutions of this type are incredibly rare, from memory, I think there was some controversy over the decision not to proceed with the criminal trial and not just because of the high profile nature of the defendant. 

[kumnio]

2 minutes ago, kumnio said:

The silence from Raith is both surprising but understandable, there's almost nothing that they can say to make this go away, or even diminish. 

https://www.raithrovers.net/52429/club-statement-10.htm

Think they released a statement when I was typing.

Yep, they've made it worse, what an almighty clusterfuck of a statement.

[Diamond Scot]

3 minutes ago, aaid said:

I’d need to go back and check the contemporary reports however civil prosecutions of this type are incredibly rare, from memory, I think there was some controversy over the decision not to proceed with the criminal trial and not just because of the high profile nature of the defendant. 

They are rare in part due to the fact most accused dont have the money to pay. Ie if you are a normal earner then theres no point going after you for a million quid.

I remember the case at the time but must confess to not remembering any of the details now.

What I would say is that there is a right to appeal any decision to not prosecute and its likely that in a case such as this any decision would have been taken by the highest up prosecutors in copfs. Its easier for copfs to put into court and have a jury find not guilty or have a no case to answer than take the decision to not proceed. 

The statement by Raith hardly assists. It basically reads, we are aware of the history but he is good at football.

[0Neils40yarder]

2 hours ago, Diamond Scot said:

Not sure where I stand on this one to be honest. Firstly Goodwillie hasnt ever been convicted in criminal court of law. A sheriff ruled with the complainer in a civil court which has a much lower burden of proof.

As such Goodwillie hasnt "served him sentence" but he did need to pay the compensation so effectively has been punished by the court.

My concern is that our society is meant to be based on punishment and rehabilitation. Taking the debate away from the specifics of Goodwillie. If somebody has committed a crime and served their punishment, should they then be banned from making a living in their choosen profession?

On the flip side I can see why people might not want to associate themselves with a club who employs such a person.

Exactly where I am with this...if he signed for Motherwell, I wouldn't be happy at all, but at the same time, the man needs to earn a living

[ParisInAKilt]

I’d have a bit more understanding for Goodwillie’s situation, if that’s the right word, if he acknowledged that he didn’t know the girl was too drunk to consent but to my knowledge he’s never did that, mind you it’s been awhile since I read about what happened. 

PR disaster for Raith. 

[aaid]

Full judgement here for anyone interested.

tl;dr the woman was seriously intoxicated and the judge found the evidence from Goodwillie and Robertson to not be compelling
 

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=d22e28a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7