The Annexed Goodwillie Thread

[itzdrk]

32 minutes ago, RB-Scotland said:

Watching the podcast, and then reading the court papers after, you have to say that English does a poor job, he should have been quoting from key parts of that and giving Goodwillie the chance to respond. Letting him just speak unopposed, including or excluding things as he sees fit, fails to really illuminate anything and just serves to make observers not familiar with the case side with him.

 

FWIW, he and Robertson are guilty in my book, probably in part down to being too dense to realise what they were doing was wrong, and it is striking that even now, 12 years later, young people seem to be far more informed about consent in those circumstances.

That was literally the point of the podcast.  

[Richey Edwards]

James English smears dog shite on himself.

[Jaggy McJagface]

1 hour ago, Highlandmagar said:

That's one a hell of an assumption of the older generation. I am 63 and have NEVER thought like that. Rather blinkered view from you. 

I said some, not all. Already replied to someone else clarifying that.

[Aufc]

3 hours ago, D'Jaffo said:

Yeah and it begs the question why he hasn’t followed suit with Goodwillie? Maybe because he knows what happened and realises he doesn’t have a leg to stand on and they got very lucky in the criminal case. 

In the podcast, GW mentioned there was no evidence of David Robertson having sex with her. He actually went to the police himself to tell him he had had sex with her. Not sure how true that is

2 hours ago, Fifes Elite Force said:

Question for someone who has listened to the podcast. Did he say that any of the witnesses in the civil case or their statements were not true? I assume the host would have read him some of the evidence back so he can give his point of view on it if he disagrees with it(given its all online). From memory folk like the bouncer or taxi driver(maybe bar staff or other people that seen her on the night out)?

I have abour 20 minutes left. It’s clear James english hasn’t read any of the court stuff as he never once mentioned any of the witness stuff

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

I don't think Goodwillie or Robertson ever paid the money to Denise Clair that the court ordered.  Both declared bankruptcy following the ruling.  I don't know what impact that has on your requirements to pay a civil ruling.  The rumour at the time was that he waited until 2022 to sign for Raith as he was out of bankruptcy proceedings so he could keep more money.

It's also worth saying that Goodwillie and Robertson offered Denise Clair money to drop her legal case before the civil case.

I read that somewhere, too.

[Rovers_Lad]

4 hours ago, Molotov said:

Please educate yourself. 
 

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/statistics-sexual-violence/

No thanks

 

Get off your high horse

[Rovers_Lad]

4 hours ago, Shuggie_Murray7 said:

The reason there was no criminal case to answer was that, in Scots Law, every single element of the charges must have 2 different forms of evidence. So in a rape case you need 2 forms of evidence that penetration took place, 2 forms of evidence that there was no consent, 2 forms of evidence of mens rea (criminal intent).

The burden of proof is exceptionally high in rape cases.

Thanks

[D'Jaffo]

Aye the whole point of a podcast is it’s supposed to be a discussion but it’s also a platform where people can challenge each other on it. At least that’s what I’d used to be until every man and their dug started a podcast thinking it was cool and trendy. 
 

James English giving David Goodwillie a platform to speak is fine in my book but he has to have the balls to challenge him on certain points. He’s probably not intelligent enough to do so and if he did so he likely wouldn’t get these fuds on in the first place. I’d actually like to see Goodwillie sit down with someone of some degree of intelligence, let him talk and challenge him on the points he’s making. The man wants a platform so much let’s give him one and make him squirm in his chair. 

[Molotov]

24 minutes ago, Rovers_Lad said:

No thanks

 

Get off your high horse

I was not trying to score any points. I just suggested you educate yourself on what is freely available on such a complex issue. You are obviously too close minded to actual facts and real life statistics that clearly explain why there are few prosecutions with sexual assaults relating to rape of all ages and sexes. 
Your attitude says more about your outlook on this subject than mine. 
 

[PossilYM]

14 minutes ago, D'Jaffo said:

Aye the whole point of a podcast is it’s supposed to be a discussion but it’s also a platform where people can challenge each other on it. At least that’s what I’d used to be until every man and their dug started a podcast thinking it was cool and trendy. 
 

James English giving David Goodwillie a platform to speak is fine in my book but he has to have the balls to challenge him on certain points. He’s probably not intelligent enough to do so and if he did so he likely wouldn’t get these fuds on in the first place. I’d actually like to see Goodwillie sit down with someone of some degree of intelligence, let him talk and challenge him on the points he’s making. The man wants a platform so much let’s give him one and make him squirm in his chair. 

Let's face it, yer man running the podcast comes across like a Possil groupie for old anti social elements who the state allowed to run wild as long as they didn't leave the ghetto.

Yer man treats them all as though they were Robin Hood.

The crime doesn't pay silly talk obviously goes out the window with some of them sitting in serious pads most Blackhillers could only dream about.

Eventually yer man will run out of script.

He's already interviewed the same sociopath about 6 times.

[oneteaminglasgow]

14 minutes ago, D'Jaffo said:

James English giving David Goodwillie a platform to speak is fine in my book but he has to have the balls to challenge him on certain points. He’s probably not intelligent enough to do so and if he did so he likely wouldn’t get these fuds on in the first place.

The reality of these sorts of interviews, and indeed the vast majority of interviews, is that they exist primarily as a transaction. The interviewee gets to say what they like and sell their product (which in many cases is their own reputation) and the interviewer gets to attract viewers and listeners to their podcast to make them richer.

English is a grifter - he isn’t interested in actually having a meaningful discussion with anyone, he’s just happy to facilitate dreadful human beings trying to rehabilitate their images in exchange for money.

Having said that, it’s also undeniable that he’s a very, very stupid guy so even if he wanted to have these meaningful conversations, he wouldn’t be capable of doing it. 

[PossilYM]

3 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

The reality of these sorts of interviews, and indeed the vast majority of interviews, is that they exist primarily as a transaction. The interviewee gets to say what they like and sell their product (which in many cases is their own reputation) and the interviewer gets to attract viewers and listeners to their podcast to make them richer.

English is a grifter - he isn’t interested in actually having a meaningful discussion with anyone, he’s just happy to facilitate dreadful human beings trying to rehabilitate their images in exchange for money.

Having said that, it’s also undeniable that he’s a very, very stupid guy so even if he wanted to have these meaningful conversations, he wouldn’t be capable of doing it. 

Looked up what the average successful YouTuber earns in the UK.

It's 30K btw, I'd imagine yer man would be happy with that.

He's absolutely no chance of getting anywhere other than podcasts simply because he ain't that bright and being Possil street wise will only take you so far before you're found out 

[PossilYM]

On 19/07/2023 at 18:57, diegomarahenry said:

I have only ever listened to one of his podcasts.

Living quite close to Johnny “mad dog’” Adair at the time, I was interested in what he had to say. 
English came across as a thick as f**k Tracey Dooley. Imagine being that thick. The idiots idea of a smart person, calling him a a pound shop Joe Rogan would be doing Joe Rogan a massive disservice. 
No research done,  no calling out obvious bollocks that was mentioned.

If he hasn’t improved then I can see why stupid people could watch Goodwillie give his version of events ( that were legally disproven)  unchallenged and believe him. 

I've watched a number of his podcasts usually out of boredom.

Tbf some of these pavement pirates all come across thick as mince all be it violent. One chap did 16 years for conspiracy to rob a bank and never saw 50p yet claimed to come out to a string of flats in the west end of Glasgow.

Although he admitted now to staying in a high flat next to the bus station.

A lot of them didn't strike me as that bright.

A bit like the YouTuber.

[Guest]

On 19/07/2023 at 19:06, Richey Edwards said:

Hopefully that c**t gets hit by a car soon.

Now now. That would be a waste of a good car

[Fifes Elite Force]

4 hours ago, Aufc said:

I have abour 20 minutes left. It’s clear James english hasn’t read any of the court stuff as he never once mentioned any of the witness stuff

Fucking pointless then. Goodwillie was found guikty in the civil case based on those statements mostly and the interviewer never thought to bring them up. Cheers for clarifying.

Edited July 20, 2023 by Fifes Elite Force

[McGuigan1978]

Aye, the podcast isn't in my list of things I want to catch up on, so I won't be giving it a watch, but just one thing I wanted to touch on, as I feel it's generally latched onto on by people sticking up for him, and was alluded to earlier in the thread. 

It's the whole matter of Val McDermid's opinion, and after that, the fact Nicola Sturgeon was asked for her thoughts. 

I'm not trying to downplay their involvement, and of course, if the First Minister has an opinion, then it's very much at the forefront of the news cycle.

However, I don't think David Goodwillie's transfer to Raith Rovers was annulled by a main sponsor and a couple of other high profile people who were asked their opinion. 

It was thankfully brought to an end by dozens of volunteers who contacted the club to tell them they wouldn't be able to help out anymore because they were disgusted by the actions of the club, and by hundreds of fans who simply didn't show up for the first two games immediately after the signing. 

Val McDermid and Nicola Sturgeon's opinions are all very good, but if you don't have anyone to run the website, or Raith TV, and have no ball boys, and no-one to produce the programme, or man the turnstiles, and approximately a third of your home support disappear for the next two games after the signing is announced, then that forces the club to act, and I'm glad they eventually did.

Raith Rovers rid themselves of Goodwillie because of a groundswell of their support, and that's a great thing, so lets not play it down. if "James English" was much of an interviewer, he'd be asking him about that, but I sense that's not the case. 

 

[Pens_Dark]

4 hours ago, D'Jaffo said:

Aye the whole point of a podcast is it’s supposed to be a discussion but it’s also a platform where people can challenge each other on it. At least that’s what I’d used to be until every man and their dug started a podcast thinking it was cool and trendy. 
 

James English giving David Goodwillie a platform to speak is fine in my book but he has to have the balls to challenge him on certain points. He’s probably not intelligent enough to do so and if he did so he likely wouldn’t get these fuds on in the first place. I’d actually like to see Goodwillie sit down with someone of some degree of intelligence, let him talk and challenge him on the points he’s making. The man wants a platform so much let’s give him one and make him squirm in his chair. 

I reckon you’re giving this English lad too much credit if you think he read through the whole court transcripts. 
 

I don’t think his interest is in challenging him whatsoever.

I get the impression that his target audience is generally people who also like Andrew Tate, refer to people with more than 1 brain cell as ‘woke’ and NPC’s. 
 

I also like a few others have commented wanted to fucking curl up in a ball and die when he suggested that he could get them both on the podcast together to talk it out. What a fucking balloon. 

[D'Jaffo]

8 minutes ago, Pens_Dark said:

I reckon you’re giving this English lad too much credit if you think he read through the whole court transcripts. 
 

I don’t think his interest is in challenging him whatsoever.

I get the impression that his target audience is generally people who also like Andrew Tate, refer to people with more than 1 brain cell as ‘woke’ and NPC’s. 
 

I also like a few others have commented wanted to fucking curl up in a ball and die when he suggested that he could get them both on the podcast together to talk it out. What a fucking balloon. 

No I know he’s got no interest in challenging him hence why the whole thing is a farce. My point was I’d like to see Goodwillie sat down with someone that wouldn’t just let him spout pish but the chances of that happening are slim. 

[Pens_Dark]

5 minutes ago, D'Jaffo said:

No I know he’s got no interest in challenging him hence why the whole thing is a farce. My point was I’d like to see Goodwillie sat down with someone that wouldn’t just let him spout pish but the chances of that happening are slim. 

That would definitely be good to see. He’d never agree to that though because he knows he would get tied in knots. 

[ICTChris]

9 hours ago, McGuigan1978 said:

Aye, the podcast isn't in my list of things I want to catch up on, so I won't be giving it a watch, but just one thing I wanted to touch on, as I feel it's generally latched onto on by people sticking up for him, and was alluded to earlier in the thread. 

It's the whole matter of Val McDermid's opinion, and after that, the fact Nicola Sturgeon was asked for her thoughts. 

I'm not trying to downplay their involvement, and of course, if the First Minister has an opinion, then it's very much at the forefront of the news cycle.

However, I don't think David Goodwillie's transfer to Raith Rovers was annulled by a main sponsor and a couple of other high profile people who were asked their opinion. 

It was thankfully brought to an end by dozens of volunteers who contacted the club to tell them they wouldn't be able to help out anymore because they were disgusted by the actions of the club, and by hundreds of fans who simply didn't show up for the first two games immediately after the signing. 

Val McDermid and Nicola Sturgeon's opinions are all very good, but if you don't have anyone to run the website, or Raith TV, and have no ball boys, and no-one to produce the programme, or man the turnstiles, and approximately a third of your home support disappear for the next two games after the signing is announced, then that forces the club to act, and I'm glad they eventually did.

Raith Rovers rid themselves of Goodwillie because of a groundswell of their support, and that's a great thing, so lets not play it down. if "James English" was much of an interviewer, he'd be asking him about that, but I sense that's not the case. 

 

Without wishing to turn this into a P&B ding-dong, this post is excellent and really highlights how poorly Clyde behaved.  None of the above happened with Clyde fans - there might be one or two individual cases of fans being opposed to him signing, John Mason said something about it but overall pretty much all Clyde fans seemed happy to have him at the club.  Nobody in terms of sponsors or people higher up in the club did anything and they ended up offering the worst types of defence for him.  

To be fair to Clyde, no-one else really did anything either.  In one of Denise Clair's interviews after Raith signed him she pointed out that she had tried to speak to the football autorities and politicians about Goodwillie when he signed for Clyde but nothing happened.  The interview is here - https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/denise-clair-goodwillie/

Quote

 

The first minister was correct to condemn Raith Rovers last week but I don’t remember her saying anything at all four years ago about why he was still playing for Clyde or why the case against him was dropped.

I certainly do remember and still appreciate the very few politicians who did their best to raise it and being met with indifference. I’m glad Val McDermid spoke out last week but Goodwillie’s continuing career was not some secret that has just been exposed. It should not have needed a celebrity endorsement for people to be revolted by it.

I have to ask why it has taken so long for people to stand up and say all the things that are now being said? This is about more than him, it is about sexism and misogyny and women being listened to and having their voices heard.

In my civil action, one of Scotland’s most senior judges, backed by three more on appeal, the same judges who preside over criminal cases of rape, decided I was raped and one of the men responsible continued playing senior football without a word of remorse or a murmur of protest from many of the same people speaking out now.