Stu101 Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 4 hours ago, Kirk said: Just what I think, could very well be wrong though. You are, Read the judgement. Pretty compelling stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil r Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 4 hours ago, Debian said: Stay classy? It was Lord Armstrong who stated they raped her. Was it Lord Armstrong who came on a messageboard using the apparant rape of a lassie to score points though? You are aware this was a civil case Debs and there has been nothing proven in a court of law? Stay classy Debs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, neil r said: You are aware this was a civil case Debs and there has been nothing proven in a court of law? What you talking about? It was a civil case heard in the Court of Session- the highest civil legal court in Scotland Edited January 17, 2017 by Stu101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil r Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 8 minutes ago, Stu101 said: What you talking about? It was a civil case heard in the Court of Session- the highest civil legal court in Scotland What bit are you finding difficult? It was a civil case and the judge ruled in his opinion 'the balance of probabilities' indicated they raped her. Now that is a huge difference to the 'beyond reasonable doubt' needed to convict in a law court. The pair were tried under civil law and not criminal law. Ergo no record, no prison sentence and no signing on the dotted line in the big register. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Just now, neil r said: What bit are you finding difficult? It was a civil case and the judge ruled in his opinion 'the balance of probabilities' indicated they raped her. Now that is a huge difference to the 'beyond reasonable doubt' needed to convict in a law court. The pair were tried under civil law and not criminal law. Ergo no record, no prison sentence and no signing on the dotted line in the big register. Just now, neil r said: What bit are you finding difficult? It was a civil case and the judge ruled in his opinion 'the balance of probabilities' indicated they raped her. Now that is a huge difference to the 'beyond reasonable doubt' needed to convict in a law court. The pair were tried under civil law and not criminal law. Ergo no record, no prison sentence and no signing on the dotted line in the big register. You said that it hadn't been proven in a court of law. The Court of Session is a court of law. As is the High Court. Legally they were found guilty in law court, where the penalties are civil, rather than criminal. (This is unless it has changed since yesterday, being the last time I was up at Court). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_fadiator Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 11 minutes ago, neil r said: What bit are you finding difficult? It was a civil case and the judge ruled in his opinion 'the balance of probabilities' indicated they raped her. Now that is a huge difference to the 'beyond reasonable doubt' needed to convict in a law court. The pair were tried under civil law and not criminal law. Ergo no record, no prison sentence and no signing on the dotted line in the big register. It is a court of law, regardless of whether it's a criminal or civil case and the associated burden of proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 38 minutes ago, neil r said: Was it Lord Armstrong who came on a messageboard using the apparant rape of a lassie to score points though? You are aware this was a civil case Debs and there has been nothing proven in a court of law? Stay classy Debs You've had a nightmare ??? Cheers @Stu101 - saved me the hassle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil r Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 6 minutes ago, the_fadiator said: It is a court of law, regardless of whether it's a criminal or civil case and the associated burden of proof. 6 minutes ago, Stu101 said: You said that it hadn't been proven in a court of law. The Court of Session is a court of law. As is the High Court. Legally they were found guilty in law court, where the penalties are civil, rather than criminal. (This is unless it has changed since yesterday, being the last time I was up at Court). Nae bother. For the sake of one poorly written sentence... 2 minutes ago, Debian said: You've had a nightmare ??? Cheers @Stu101 - saved me the hassle. Hahaha aye right Debs because you knew that... You're one classy dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 27 minutes ago, neil r said: Hahaha aye right Debs because you knew that... You're one classy dude. I did. It's you who's had their arse handed to them. What a disaster you're having. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil r Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Debs. Its an internet message board full if generally anonymous people and class acts who use rape cases to score points. If you honestly believe anyone can "have their arse handed to" them via such a medium speak volumes about you and your life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Dennis Nilsen worked in a Job Centre so I suppose you could say they employ serial killers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 7 hours ago, Debian said: So, Dundee United employed rapists... Weren't rangers (rip) desperate to sign him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 16 minutes ago, scoobydoo said: Weren't rangers (rip) desperate to sign him? I believe they were at one point ? He's done the rounds since Dundee Utd and been at continuously mediocre clubs I see. Now he's been suspended at his current club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 1 hour ago, neil r said: Debs. Its an internet message board full if generally anonymous people and class acts who use rape cases to score points. If you honestly believe anyone can "have their arse handed to" them via such a medium speak volumes about you and your life. I can assure you my life is f***ing immense old chap ? I don't see anyone point scoring over rape. I'm more concerned these guys are still involved in football. You've taken a post and blown it out of proportion and I'm sure if this was ruled at the time DU would have punted them both. Try and chill out a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil r Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 7 hours ago, Debian said: I can assure you my life is f***ing immense old chap ? I don't see anyone point scoring over rape. I'm more concerned these guys are still involved in football. You've taken a post and blown it out of proportion and I'm sure if this was ruled at the time DU would have punted them both. Try and chill out a bit. I'm perfectly chilled. Im f***cking immensly chilled. So in what context should your original post be taken? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlueGaz Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 9 hours ago, scoobydoo said: Weren't rangers (rip) desperate to sign him? Was finding it a bit strange we had a thread that didn't include Rangers. Thanks for bringing us back to normal in amongst a silly argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan cake Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 what would happen to these guys if they done an ordinary job? iv worked beside folk that have been sacked for bringing the company into disrepute by being found guilty in court of criminal charges but they (goodwillie and robertson) havent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDYER63 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 4 hours ago, neil r said: I'm perfectly chilled. Im f***cking immensly chilled. So in what context should your original post be taken? Please God, do not take David Goodwillie from us this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 interesting this area between "balance of probabilities" and "beyond reasonable doubt". I wonder if it is used a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 3 hours ago, BlueGaz said: Was finding it a bit strange we had a thread that didn't include Rangers. Thanks for bringing us back to normal in amongst a silly argument. His boyhood heroes at the time apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reevesy Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 12 hours ago, Debian said: I can assure you my life is f***ing immense old chap ? I don't see anyone point scoring over rape. I'm more concerned these guys are still involved in football. You've taken a post and blown it out of proportion and I'm sure if this was ruled at the time DU would have punted them both. Try and chill out a bit. It seems strange that the law allows someone who hasn't been convicted as a criminal to be "convicted" in a civil matter. I find that hard to understand. No idea how I have ended up quoting you btw Debian, tried to delete it but no joy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 17 minutes ago, Reevesy said: It seems strange that the law allows someone who hasn't been convicted as a criminal to be "convicted" in a civil matter. I find that hard to understand. No idea how I have ended up quoting you btw Debian, tried to delete it but no joy. It's pretty simple and straightforwards. There are two routes in law, one is the criminal courts and the other is the civil courts and there are different levels of proof applied in each case. One does not overrule the other. It's worth pointing out that while Goodwillie has no criminal conviction and therefore is free of any implications that has. That said, the criminal case was never put before a court as one person - the PF - decided that there wasn't a chance of getting a conviction, presumably that test itself is one that is on the "balance of probabilities". The judge in the civil case heard the evidence and felt differently. I've no huge problem with this practice in principle as it stops people being prosecuted maliciously where there really is no case to answer but in this case it would be interesting to know on what basis the case was dropped especially if that was to do with the credibility of the victim as a witness. The law was changed in 2015 to allow victims of crime to request a review of a decision not to prosecute, perhaps if that had been the case in 2012 then Goodwillie may have faced a criminal trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Reevesy said: It seems strange that the law allows someone who hasn't been convicted as a criminal to be "convicted" in a civil matter. I find that hard to understand. No idea how I have ended up quoting you btw Debian, tried to delete it but no joy. If on a mobile ... click the persons username and press delete or the 'x' and it usually clears it. If on a pc, right click the username and it gives you options to delete. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reevesy Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Debian said: If on a mobile ... click the persons username and press delete or the 'x' and it usually clears it. If on a pc, right click the username and it gives you options to delete. ? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 50 minutes ago, aaid said: ... That said, the criminal case was never put before a court as one person - the PF - decided that there wasn't a chance of getting a conviction, presumably that test itself is one that is on the "balance of probabilities". Would that not be "unlikely to get a conviction due to reasonable doubt" as it is a criminal case? 50 minutes ago, aaid said: I've no huge problem with this practice in principle as it stops people being prosecuted maliciously where there really is no case to answer but in this case it would be interesting to know on what basis the case was dropped especially if that was to do with the credibility of the victim as a witness. Do you think that David Goodwillie could face a criminal trial now if the fiscal had another look? 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.