David Goodwillie

[Not a Bee]

5 minutes ago, Swordfishtrombone said:

Most who cast the first stone haven't been found guilty by all probability of rape.

For the avoidance of doubt, here is a summarisation of the two legal systems in Scotland.

Summary

The main differences between the two legal systems can be summarised as follows:

Aim

• Criminal – to punish criminals for offences against individuals and society as a whole
• Civil – to regulate relationships between individuals, and between individuals and organisations

Commencement of Action

• Criminal – by the police and the CPS
• Civil – by an individual or an organisation suing another individual or organisation

Burden of Proof

• Criminal – on the Crown to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt
• Civil – on the claimant to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities

Venue

• Criminal – Magistrates Court or Crown Court
• Civil – County Court or High Court

Outcome

• Criminal – conviction or acquittal
• Civil – defendant is or is not liable to claimant

Remedy

• Criminal – sentence to a punishment imposed by the state
• Civil – damages or other remedy such as injunction

 

And finally,

(1) I was caught speeding on the A90 between Perth and Aberdeen and this was captured on calibrated police cameras so beyond reasonable doubt. 

(2) I was convicted of speeding on the A90 between Perth and Aberdeen based on the balance of probabilities because I arrived in Aberdeen 5 minutes earlier than I should have based on the speed limits.  I argue that I took the quickest and straightest way at the speed limit by changing lanes and cutting corners but this was rejected.

That is how the balance of probabilities works.  Stupid isn't it?

[Sergeant Wilson]

23 minutes ago, Not a Bee said:

- because a civil court is not a criminal court and therefore no evidence. forensic or otherwise, is used to determine probabilities.  

What evidence do they use then?

[Millions]

He added: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday January 2, 2011 at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) 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.”

Never change Clyde

[Pride Of The Clyde]

4 hours ago, big al said:

There’s a father out there, somewhere, who has had to hear a civil court declare this person has raped his daughter. 

Meanwhile the Clyde fans sing his name as if he is some kind of messi/ god.

if that was my daughter, be sure he wouldn’t be playing for Clyde, or anybody.

There is also a mother out there who got a chap at their door from the police being told someone has accused her son of rape, as it turns out the accusations and lack of evidence were not deemed strong enough to be heard in a criminal court.  I don't know what happened or didn't happen that night and neither do you but you have clearly made your mind up. 

[Not a Bee]

19 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

What evidence do they use then?

See post above yours.

 

[chazas_]

I’d take him back at Tannadice. The big beautiful b*****d.  

[Melanius Mullarkey]

6 hours ago, chazas_ said:

I’d take him back at Tannadice. The big beautiful b*****d.  

With a midfield of Tobin, Worboys and Savile no doubt.

[Sergeant Wilson]

8 hours ago, Not a Bee said:

See post above yours.

 

 

That's  doesn't explain it. You said evidence wasn't used. How can a civil court, make a decision on the balance of probabilities burden of proof, without taking evidence?

[Jacksgranda]

18 hours ago, Ross. said:

So when do Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding start their trial with Clyde?

Give them a break, they've just had a trial.

[Jacksgranda]

9 hours ago, Not a Bee said:

With all due respect you do not know the girl nor David Goodwillie to make any statement of intent to support one over the other.  I was careful to also point out that I had no opinion to state whether he was guilty or innocent - for the same reason that I do not know the character of either party - because a civil court is not a criminal court and therefore no evidence. forensic or otherwise, is used to determine probabilities.  Until Goodwillie is tried in a criminal court and found guilty, he is by definition, not a criminal.  You only have to look at the number of rape cases that have been withdrawn in recent months due to evidence coming to light which contradicts or in best case, weakens the prosecution argument.  I am not a Clyde fan so have no empathy with Goodwillie.  I am not a rival fan because my team are in a different league and have got a great chance to go up to the Championship via the play offs.  So as a neutral observer and supporter of the National team, I am just glad that an ex Scottish internationalist is getting his career back on track.  He who cast the first stone.....

started the fight?

[Ross.]

9 hours ago, Not a Bee said:

For the avoidance of doubt, here is a summarisation of the two legal systems in Scotland.

Summary

The main differences between the two legal systems can be summarised as follows:

Aim

• Criminal – to punish criminals for offences against individuals and society as a whole
• Civil – to regulate relationships between individuals, and between individuals and organisations

Commencement of Action

• Criminal – by the police and the CPS
• Civil – by an individual or an organisation suing another individual or organisation

Burden of Proof

• Criminal – on the Crown to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt
• Civil – on the claimant to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities

Venue

• Criminal – Magistrates Court or Crown Court
• Civil – County Court or High Court

Outcome

• Criminal – conviction or acquittal
• Civil – defendant is or is not liable to claimant

Remedy

• Criminal – sentence to a punishment imposed by the state
• Civil – damages or other remedy such as injunction

 

And finally,

(1) I was caught speeding on the A90 between Perth and Aberdeen and this was captured on calibrated police cameras so beyond reasonable doubt. 

(2) I was convicted of speeding on the A90 between Perth and Aberdeen based on the balance of probabilities because I arrived in Aberdeen 5 minutes earlier than I should have based on the speed limits.  I argue that I took the quickest and straightest way at the speed limit by changing lanes and cutting corners but this was rejected.

That is how the balance of probabilities works.  Stupid isn't it?

So he is probably, but not definitely, a rapist.

I actually don’t have strong feelings on him playing for Clyde, beyond the chance to get some cheap laughs. If anything he is an excellent example to use to other young sportsmen and women over the dangers of their conduct and the need to be professional in outlook at all times. With no disrespect intended to Clyde, he has gone from international football and signing for an EPL team to being semi professional at the arse end of the Scottish game, all because he is, at best, a sleazy c**t. That fall is huge and should be used by the PFA as a warning to others that they really need to watch their personal conduct at all times, and where possible, don’t be in the least bit rapey.

[Dunning1874]

15 hours ago, Not a Bee said:

 in my mind the girl's action to pursue this route was purely for financial gain.  

 

12 hours ago, Clyde01 said:

What if the manager seemed very keen to sign him and continued to pursue him with a lucrative contract offer, only to change his mind once it had been signed?

 

For f**k's sake.

It's entirely possible to point out the lack of a criminal conviction in defence of Goodwillie without descending into victim blaming, but no, you just have to be shameless horrible c***s.

[Sergeant Wilson]

21 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

 

For f**k's sake.

It's entirely possible to point out the lack of a criminal conviction in defence of Goodwillie without descending into victim blaming, but no, you just have to be shameless horrible c***s.

Among his other points earlier was, no-one on here knows her, yet is happy to speculate on her motivation for raising a civil case.

Apart from a route to a form of Justice,  a civil court can award for injury, lost earnings, reputational damage etc. The award if it's paid is unlikely to fully compensate these. By claiming she is mitigating her losses, rather than gaining financially.

[BrigtonClyde]

10 hours ago, Not a Bee said:

(1) I was caught speeding on the A90 between Perth and Aberdeen and this was captured on calibrated police cameras so beyond reasonable doubt. 

(2) I was convicted of speeding on the A90 between Perth and Aberdeen based on the balance of probabilities because I arrived in Aberdeen 5 minutes earlier than I should have based on the speed limits.  I argue that I took the quickest and straightest way at the speed limit by changing lanes and cutting corners but this was rejected.

That is how the balance of probabilities works.  Stupid isn't it?

You've raised a lot of valid points.

But with the example you've given, average speed cameras don't operate like that although the impression is given that they do for obvious reasons.  They can't track every single vehicle, only speeding past one triggers off their system.   But even allowing for that and in the case of calibrated police cameras, only a VIN number formally identifies a vehicle, not a registration plate...  

Sgt Wilson raises a good point which feeds into the problem.  There is the public understanding of the basics of law in criminal cases, all of which are correct - all equal under the eyes of the law, the right to a fair hearing, the obligation to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt which relies on strength of evidence.  All of which applies where proceedings are heard by a jury.    

Then there's Civil Cases and Criminal Summary hearings where there's no jury.  Sgt Wilson is correct when he says the Civil court considered evidence, because technically everything is evidence, it's not qualified by the strength or validity.  There is an almost identical process happening in criminal summary hearings where safeguards the public understand should, but don't necessarily, apply.

The COPFS / CPS should only ever operate and issue guidelines in direct reference to laws passed by Acts of Parliament, irrespective of the pressure applied "behind the scenes" by Holyrood / Westminster for  targets to be reached for specific forms of alleged offences.  Of course Edinburgh and London shouldn't be issuing these instructions anyway, but instead pass specific legislation and accept the consequences when the public realise they are prejudiced and contradict the principle of fairness.  

While the Civil court is currently entitled to consider a case such as the severity of Goodwillie's, they shouldnt be.  The man has now been branded a rapist on the basis of hearsay, a lot let substantiative evidence than should be the case leading to a verdict of whatever they feel like, or whatever target guidelines they've received.    He was right to appeal his case, but the "balance of probability" was that at no time did he have a hope in hell of winning it.    

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 minutes ago, BrigtonClyde said:

You've raised a lot of valid points.

But with the example you've given, average speed cameras don't operate like that although the impression is given that they do for obvious reasons.  They can't track every single vehicle, only speeding past one triggers off their system.   But even allowing for that and in the case of calibrated police cameras, only a VIN number formally identifies a vehicle, not a registration plate...  

Sgt Wilson raises a good point which feeds into the problem.  There is the public understanding of the basics of law in criminal cases, all of which are correct - all equal under the eyes of the law, the right to a fair hearing, the obligation to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt which relies on strength of evidence.  All of which applies where proceedings are heard by a jury.    

Then there's Civil Cases and Criminal Summary hearings where there's no jury.  Sgt Wilson is correct when he says the Civil court considered evidence, because technically everything is evidence, it's not qualified by the strength or validity.  There is an almost identical process happening in criminal summary hearings where safeguards the public understand should, but don't necessarily, apply.

The COPFS / CPS should only ever operate and issue guidelines in direct reference to laws passed by Acts of Parliament, irrespective of the pressure applied "behind the scenes" by Holyrood / Westminster for  targets to be reached for specific forms of alleged offences.  Of course Edinburgh and London shouldn't be issuing these instructions anyway, but instead pass specific legislation and accept the consequences when the public realise they are prejudiced and contradict the principle of fairness.  

While the Civil court is currently entitled to consider a case such as the severity of Goodwillie's, they shouldnt be.  The man has now been branded a rapist on the basis of hearsay, a lot let substantiative evidence than should be the case leading to a verdict of whatever they feel like, or whatever target guidelines they've received.    He was right to appeal his case, but the "balance of probability" was that at no time did he have a hope in hell of winning it.    

The only bit I would argue with there is conviction on hearsay. Hearsay and opinion are permissable evidence in civil cases but weighting can be applied to such evidence, and an outcome based on hearsay alone would be unlikely.

If it's one (or two in this case) against the other, the balance should be in his favour. It's possible his own, and Robert son's evidence didn't actually provide much support for his case.

[BrigtonClyde]

2 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

 Hearsay and opinion are permissable evidence in civil cases but weighting can be applied to such evidence, and an outcome based on hearsay alone would be unlikely.

If it's one (or two in this case) against the other, the balance should be in his favour. It's possible his own, and Robert son's evidence didn't actually provide much support for his case.

They are indeed, hearsay being verbal testimony, and where there is no other form of evidence to back up the statements then there's no alternative but to form an opinion.  This is where it's potentially wide open to abuse depending the nature of the case and why of course Civil Courts were designed to consider what's supposed to be comparitively minor cases.  

But when it moves up to summary hearings, hearsay alone is also often now being deemed sufficient to the point that if any two individuals want to make an allegation against a 3rd party who has no witnesses to call on, and there is no other form of evidence, there's an increased probability - subject to nature of the allegation and people involved - that a guilty verdict is almost inevitable, assuming the accusers manage not to drop the ball in a very obvious way.  This is going on in our courts every day, the entire legal profession know about it and they know who's behind it .

So your understanding of how things "should be" is correct Sarge, but that's not what's happening in too many cases.   It's what I mean about operating contrary to the public's understanding of basic rights in law.

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 minute ago, BrigtonClyde said:

They are indeed, hearsay being verbal testimony, and where there is no other form of evidence to back up the statements then there's no alternative but to form an opinion.  This is where it's potentially wide open to abuse depending the nature of the case and why of course Civil Courts were designed to consider what's supposed to be comparitively minor cases.  

But when it moves up to summary hearings, hearsay alone is also often now being deemed sufficient to the point that if any two individuals want to make an allegation against a 3rd party who has no witnesses to call on, and there is no other form of evidence, there's an increased probability - subject to nature of the allegation and people involved - that a guilty verdict is almost inevitable, assuming the accusers manage not to drop the ball in a very obvious way.  This is going on in our courts every day, the entire legal profession know about it and they know who's behind it .

So your understanding of how things "should be" is correct Sarge, but that's not what's happening in too many cases.   It's what I mean about operating contrary to the public's understanding of basic rights in law.

Probably guilty is nearer the mark in this case rather than a "guilty verdict".

[Not a Bee]

7 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

 

For f**k's sake.

It's entirely possible to point out the lack of a criminal conviction in defence of Goodwillie without descending into victim blaming, but no, you just have to be shameless horrible c***s.

I can assure you I am neither shameless nor a horrible c**t but then again your mind is closed on the matter.  I don't even support Clyde and haven't seen Goodwillie play except on Sportscene years ago!!!!

[1320Lichtie]

Watch all the Scottish highlights and the guys really come on to a game the last 2 month. The goal against Montrose and Stenny in particular my favourites. Looks fitter and faster than I’ve seen in a long time.

[Scary Bear]

10 hours ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

With a midfield of Tobin, Worboys and Savile no doubt.

If Worboys was any good at football Clyde would be first in the queue to sign him.