Adam Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 If it was my Daughter? Rape or Taking advantage because she is intoxicated. Still cutting his knackers off...... Rape is rape, both of the above scenarios are rape. Why are people finding this so difficult to understand? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggy Snake Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Whilst I wish we weren't in such a desperate situation in the league that we've signed Goodwillie, a little perspective is helpful. The alleged rape happened in 2011 - not including Clyde, he's played for 8 clubs since then. It's not as though he's caused issues at all those clubs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakebite Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 (edited) Goodwillie is an utter scumbag, but I can't say I'm a fan of the media witch hunt led by the likes of the headline splashed across the daily record today. Will they only be satisfied if he does himself in? Edited April 1, 2017 by Snakebite 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sao Paulo Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 37 minutes ago, Savage Henry said: 1. There's nothing alleged about it. A civil court (which is of no lesser legal standing than a criminal court) has considered him to have done so. Purely factual point. Courts have may be said to have jurisdiction or competence; they do not have standing. That concept describes something else. When one talks about a conviction, one is talking about a sanction imposed by the criminal law; typically a criminal court. So, in point of fact, Goodwillie's criminality is alleged; at least as far as the law is concerned. I know that I'll be disdained for pointing this out, and I dislike intensely the didactic delivery which I've been unable to avoid here, but I do care passionately about the presumption of innocence; it being fundamental to individual liberty. Mob-mentalities like that in evidence on this thread are precisely why it has been chipped-away at so successfully in the last fifty-odd years. Of course, if you'd like my sincere opinion on Goodwillie, I'd refer you to the post I made earlier on this thread; tenaciously ignored by the indignanti. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Purely factual point. Courts have may be said to have jurisdiction or competence; they do not have standing. That concept describes something else. When one talks about a conviction, one is talking about a sanction imposed by the criminal law; typically a criminal court. So, in point of fact, Goodwillie's criminality is alleged; at least as far as the law is concerned. I know that I'll be disdained for pointing this out, and I dislike intensely the didactic delivery which I've been unable to avoid here, but I do care passionately about the presumption of innocence; it being fundamental to individual liberty. Mob-mentalities like that in evidence on this thread are precisely why it has been chipped-away at so successfully in the last fifty-odd years. Of course, if you'd like my sincere opinion on Goodwillie, I'd refer you to the post I made earlier on this thread; tenaciously ignored by the indignanti. Thank you for that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sao Paulo Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 (edited) Indeed. Mantras like 'Rape is rape' are vacuous; they only operate to purify the soul of the person uttering them. And one wonders why a soul would need such purification... There used to be an STV interview with Donald Findlay QC on YouTube. Topical, I suppose, him being a Cowden man (restrain your giggles of incredulity, please). Alas, I can't find it any longer. If I could, I'd link it up. About halfway through it, he explained that the principle upon which our system of justice is built is - paraphrasing - that it's better that many guilty walk free than that one innocent be imprisoned. It takes a dispassionate mind to understand that. The knee-jerk reaction is of course: 'Whit!? So 1000 murderers can walk just so as one innocent punter gets spared the nick!?'. Well, actually, yes. Though the ratio mightn't be quite so great; it's impossible to say. It's better put like this: if it's easy for the state to remove liberty, it will. That's why it ought to be difficult to remove liberty. History shows that states, if given an inch, will invariably take a mile. Again, the ratio is inexact...! But if you don't accept that, you're probably extremely left, right or 'progressive' in your outlook. Edited April 1, 2017 by Sao Paulo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toma_BullyWee Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Signing rapists. What a fucking mess. Just let us go down, go bust and get it all fucking over with. The signing doesn't sit well with me. Murky waters it may be but I'm pretty sure we can all agree the guy is a scumbag. This has sapped any remaining interest I had. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde01 Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 As a CIC should the members not have been consulted on a significant decision, with likely backlash, such as this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spider Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Utter respect to those Clyde fans who are putting their moral beliefs before their support of their club...........utter contempt for those who are actively supporting this "initiative". Also the suggestion that because Goodwillie hasn't done the decent thing and paid the award yet somehow makes this okay is totally abhorrent. It actually makes the situation even worse as Clyde are now effectively partly funding that payment when it eventually gets made. No doubt there will be those who applaud the signing as a brave move by the board, but this smacks of desparation given that your main recent problem is conceding goals rather than scoring them (from what I can gather Gormley has turned into a decent striker for you, so this will do wonders for his confidence). Also, whilst you may still get the results you need to stay up, the irony of signing a 'keeper and a defender from a club who lost 7-0 at home last night at least brought a bit of perspective to this tawdry affair. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sao Paulo Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 On 26/03/2017 at 14:25, Sao Paulo said: Is Scott Linton injured [...]? Can we have some word on [...] how long away from recovery he is? Clyde OS [31/03/17]: "Scott Linton will also be missing again and it looks likely that he will be out of the rest of the campaign due to a groin problem, as JP McGovern explained:- "Scott is currently getting advice from different people but he's been struggling for a while. We had a chat with him and it wasn't doing him any good to be playing through the injury, so it's best for him to get the problem sorted out first and foremost." Cheers lads. Disappointing, of course. Thee most profound miss for us, IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthLanarkshireWhite Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 1 hour ago, The Spider said: Utter respect to those Clyde fans who are putting their moral beliefs before their support of their club...........utter contempt for those who are actively supporting this "initiative". Also the suggestion that because Goodwillie hasn't done the decent thing and paid the award yet somehow makes this okay is totally abhorrent. It actually makes the situation even worse as Clyde are now effectively partly funding that payment when it eventually gets made. No doubt there will be those who applaud the signing as a brave move by the board, but this smacks of desparation given that your main recent problem is conceding goals rather than scoring them (from what I can gather Gormley has turned into a decent striker for you, so this will do wonders for his confidence). Also, whilst you may still get the results you need to stay up, the irony of signing a 'keeper and a defender from a club who lost 7-0 at home last night at least brought a bit of perspective to this tawdry affair. Pitchforks at the ready, lets all get a lynch mob ready! I have new respect for Shrek. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haufdaft Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 (from what I can gather Gormley has turned into a decent striker for you, I'm sorry but your arguement lost all credibility with that one statement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gannonball Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Clyde01 said: As a CIC should the members not have been consulted on a significant decision, with likely backlash, such as this? Much like Goodwillie, they did not seek consent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haufdaft Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Much like Goodwillie, they did not seek consent. According to some on here, it didn't matter. To paraphrase them, "There but for the grace of God" and " we've all done it' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Clyde and David Goodwillie, what a perfect fit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 3 hours ago, Sao Paulo said: Purely factual point. Courts have may be said to have jurisdiction or competence; they do not have standing. That concept describes something else. When one talks about a conviction, one is talking about a sanction imposed by the criminal law; typically a criminal court. So, in point of fact, Goodwillie's criminality is alleged; at least as far as the law is concerned. I know that I'll be disdained for pointing this out, and I dislike intensely the didactic delivery which I've been unable to avoid here, but I do care passionately about the presumption of innocence; it being fundamental to individual liberty. Mob-mentalities like that in evidence on this thread are precisely why it has been chipped-away at so successfully in the last fifty-odd years. Of course, if you'd like my sincere opinion on Goodwillie, I'd refer you to the post I made earlier on this thread; tenaciously ignored by the indignanti. It's much more simple than you're making it. He left Plymouth voluntarily because he wasn't focused on football because of the case. Either he or any interested club should have agreed to await the outcome of his appeal. I don't think this course benefits either party. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverarover Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 1. There's nothing alleged about it. A civil court (which is of no lesser legal standing than a criminal court) has considered him to have done so. A civil court runs under the balance of probability rule. A criminal court is run under beyond reasonable doubt. Completely different. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogs_Dollox Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 1. There's nothing alleged about it. A civil court (which is of no lesser legal standing than a criminal court) has considered him to have done so. A civil court runs under the balance of probability rule. A criminal court is run under beyond reasonable doubt. Completely different. You've just contradicted yourself there 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sao Paulo Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 10 hours ago, Bogs_Dollox said: You've just contradicted yourself there With the first line, foreverarover meant to quote an earlier poster; his comment is the second line. And he's right, of course. The standard of proof differs, and it is a profound difference. There needn't be - and rarely is - a jury empanelled to be master of fact in a civil case. There wasn't in Goodwillie's. A judge ruled on both the law and facts; a jury would always do the latter re rape in criminal procedure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haufdaft Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 With the first line, foreverarover meant to quote an earlier poster; his comment is the second line. And he's right, of course. The standard of proof differs, and it is a profound difference. There needn't be - and rarely is - a jury empanelled to be master of fact in a civil case. There wasn't in Goodwillie's. A judge ruled on both the law and facts; a jury would always do the latter re rape in criminal procedure. The link in my previous post suggests the reason why he didn't face a jury trial. It may have been better for him to face a criminal trial if he was innocent of the charges.Currently he's being labeled a rapist but has never been found to be criminally guilty. 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.