Glasgow United, you know who, and GCC

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Casper Wilson said:

Perhaps the advice is to say nothing.

 

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing."

And on that note I am bowing out of this.

Will finish with:

To compare any other crime with the life-changing impact of a sexual motivated crime is wrong.

[Casper Wilson]

9 minutes ago, HorseyGhirl said:

I understand that and not expecting them to reply directly to me. I would like to believe they are concerned and at management level have discussed it and even taken legal advice on what they can do or say regarding it. Silence condones it. 

Other than my son's involvement I don't support a club as such. I will after speaking with my son be approaching his club about it and would encourage other clubs and fans in the WOS to do the same.

To what end?

[Cosmic Joe]

39 minutes ago, Casper Wilson said:

At no time in any of his previous moves did any football authority get involved, but now that his move has been to a 3rd Division WoS team, it seems that the horse guy wants the WoS to wade in with their big tackety boots.

Rights and wrongs don't come into it as far as the actual administration body is concerned. They have to keep clear of any conflict and I'd like to think they've taken advice on the situation from higher. 

The player has had higher profile moves thwarted by fan power. Problem here is that the team involved don't have any fans and we all know who holds the power in that club.

Clearly we don't all know who holds power. I certainly don't.

[ClydeTon]

Don't think anyone's posted this yet, here's a further statement from the club, given to the BBC - I've cut some filler text.

Quote

a spokesperson for Glasgow United FC told BBC Scotland the club would not walk away from him "like every other club".

They said:

"David Goodwillie has never been charged for this offence. He has no criminal record and has never appeared on any offenders register.

How can he show contrite or remorse for something he staunchly claims he did not do?

We do a lot of work in our community helping those in need and this is only an extension of that work.

We are supporting David with his mental health and will continue to do so. This witch hunt has gone on for far to long and the use of any person's life as a political football is unacceptable."

Article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66290174.amp

A couple of things of note here:

1. The Club are using the same rhetoric as the Goodwillie Apologists in this thread; "he hasn't been criminally convicted" - that doesn't matter. He was found guilty in the civil trial (which, on its own, says a lot considering the lack of firm evidence) and that in itself is a problem.

Sure, it won't go down on his record the same way as a criminal case would, however that doesn't mean they can just say "oh well it's not on his record so it must not have happened, lol"

2. Why on earth would a club that "does a lot of work for the community" think that signing and supporting a rapist is the best thing for said community. If there was ever a 'perfect' way to alienate people - it's exactly that, and in particular alienate women and girls who may be involved with the club.

To welcome him in to "support him" the same way as they support the community sets the impression that Goodwillie should be, in their eyes, treated like any other. He may be free to be employed, but employers are free to not employ him, and if they truly cared about their supporters/community, they'd get him to f**k.

In a similar vein to posts above- if Morton signed Goodwillie I would be going nowhere near cappielow until he was punted. He's not a welcome member in any, reasonable, club - or a welcome part of society in general - for what he did and his refusal to admit it and show a bit of remorse. It's pure evil.

Edited July 24, 2023 by ClydeTon
Added article link

[btw lads]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

With respect, that's absolute nonsense. Their role is administrative. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of registered footballers with some sort of criminal conviction to their name before we even talk about the likes of Goodwillie and his civil one. If the legal system of this country allows him to be a free man and remain in the employment pool (which it does, rightly or wrongly) then the WoSFL have no business involving themselves in deciding they know better. It's up to the moral fibre of clubs and their fans to decide if they are willing to work with him.

sure i was at a game at this level with a player wearing a tag.

glasgow council looking into glasgow utd's pitch lease agreement.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66282782

Edited July 24, 2023 by btw lads

[Skyline Drifter]

3 minutes ago, btw lads said:

sure i was at a game at this level with a player wearing a tag.

glasgow council looking into glasgow utd's pitch lease agreement.

Paul McGowan infamously played for Dundee wearing a tag for a period, and couldn't play away games midweek due to his curfew restrictions.

[Basile Boli]

Did DG rape that woman? Clearly without any full idea of what happened on the night, on the balance of probabilities, and in my own personal opinion, yes.

Was DG found guilty in a civil court of rape? Absolutely.

Should the Government and Local Councils (hand-in-hand in Scotland) be threatening football clubs with who they can and cannot employ? Absolutely not and it’s verging on scandalous that they are.

Edited July 24, 2023 by Basile Boli

[Boo Khaki]

If Goodwillie took a job working in a corner shop, would the Council rescind the owner's trading licence?

I get all the points about 'setting examples' and so on, but he'd still be working with the public, encountering women and girls in a corner shop, so would the council dissociate themselves from one employer but not another?

It seems that there is an attitude that Goodwillie should not be free to earn any sort of living no matter what, and while I can understand that to an extent, I don't think rendering him unemployable so the Welfare State becomes his crutch is particularly palatable either. 

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

7 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Paul McGowan infamously played for Dundee wearing a tag for a period, and couldn't play away games midweek due to his curfew restrictions.

Goal for Raith Rovers nets striker court appearance | The Scotsman

[invergowrie arab]

7 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

If Goodwillie took a job working in a corner shop, would the Council rescind the owner's trading licence?

I get all the points about 'setting examples' and so on, but he'd still be working with the public, encountering women and girls in a corner shop, so would the council dissociate themselves from one employer but not another?

It seems that there is an attitude that Goodwillie should not be free to earn any sort of living no matter what, and while I can understand that to an extent, I don't think rendering him unemployable so the Welfare State becomes his crutch is particularly palatable either. 

The council couldn't rescind a trading license on that basis.

If the corner shop was leased from council property and it was in the papers that the leaseholder was employing a  rapist then yes, the council would likely look at whether or not the shop owner was in breach of their lease.

It's a moronic false equivalence to say you can't object to one thing unless you object to everything. Football fans will naturally be interested in people like DG being employed by football clubs. Particularly given their status as community assets and representative of a community wider than the 11 players in the field.

I haven't seen anyone saying he shouldn't be employed as a binman, hairdresser or airline pilot.

[Pareidolia]

There's a difference about being safe in the community (otherwise the person would be incarcerated) vs being a public role model. No child is dreaming to be a guy in a corner shop backroom compared to someone scoring goals for their local team.

Glasgow United doubling down is car crash worthy media. Just googling "Glasgow United" shows the reputational damage they have caused themselves.

Actions have consequences. Being declined a job based on conduct is not a protected characteristic.

Edited July 24, 2023 by Pareidolia

[ClydeTon]

25 minutes ago, Basile Boli said:

Did DG rape that woman? Clearly without any full idea of what happened on the night, on the balance of probabilities, and in my own personal opinion, yes.

Was DG found guilty in a civil court of rape? Absolutely.

Should the Government and Local Councils (hand-in-hand in Scotland) be threatening football clubs with who they can and cannot employ? Absolutely not and it’s verging on scandalous that they are.

Glasgow City Council (and, in Clyde's case, North Lanarkshire) have every right to remove tenants from their facilities. They are under no obligation to allow them to remain. 

Football clubs, especially at the smaller scale such as the WoSFL aren't exactly isolated from their communities like the OF are - considering Glasgow United claim to be a club that 'support the community' and offer a rapist - one found guilty at that - the same support is ridiculous.

GCC are totally within their rights to get Glasgow Utd moved out.

[Boo Khaki]

Just now, invergowrie arab said:

The council couldn't rescind a trading license on that basis.

If the corner shop was leased from council property and it was in the papers that the leaseholder was employing a  rapist then yes, the council would likely look at whether or not the shop owner was in breach of their lease.

It's a moronic false equivalence to say you can't object to one thing unless you object to everything. Football fans will naturally be interested in people like DG being employed by football clubs. Particularly given their status as community assets and representative of a community wider than the 11 players in the field.

Well surely if the Council feels it can not provide a service to a club because of who they are choosing to employ, they have to be consistent, lest they are guilty of rank hypocrisy. If you apply one set of standards in a high profile case, while simultaneously ignoring identical instances simply because they do not have the same profile, then  not only is that hypocritical, patently and inherently unfair, but it also screams of nothing more than virtue signalling.

There are countless people with historical criminal convictions for rape and murder walking the streets, no doubt using council facilities every day of the week, so why the clamour on the part of the council to divest themselves of involvement with Goodwillie's club when they do not apply the same standard to all persons with convictions? 

Personally, I couldn't give a shiney shite about Goodwillie's career or lack thereof, but I just find it a bit odd that the Council feel compelled to look at terminating the club's lease when I know the same council has handed trading licences to convicted rapists and nobody seems to give a shit about that. Fair enough, people who are convicted and later released on parole have usually taken active part in rehab programs and shown some degree of contrition, but then, Goodwillie has not been criminally convicted, so he isn't even subject to the same conditions as people with criminal convictions anyway. 

Quote

I haven't seen anyone saying he shouldn't be employed as a binman, hairdresser or airline pilot.

Probably because nobody has, as of yet, attempted to employ him in any of these roles, but I'm sure there would be plenty of noise made if someone walked into a barbers or hairdressers to find him standing there brandishing a pair of scissors.

[Peil]

46 minutes ago, ClydeTon said:

Don't think anyone's posted this yet, here's a further statement from the club, given to the BBC - I've cut some filler text.

Article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66290174.amp

A couple of things of note here:

1. The Club are using the same rhetoric as the Goodwillie Apologists in this thread; "he hasn't been criminally convicted" - that doesn't matter. He was found guilty in the civil trial (which, on its own, says a lot considering the lack of firm evidence) and that in itself is a problem.

Sure, it won't go down on his record the same way as a criminal case would, however that doesn't mean they can just say "oh well it's not on his record so it must not have happened, lol"

2. Why on earth would a club that "does a lot of work for the community" think that signing and supporting a rapist is the best thing for said community. If there was ever a 'perfect' way to alienate people - it's exactly that, and in particular alienate women and girls who may be involved with the club.

To welcome him in to "support him" the same way as they support the community sets the impression that Goodwillie should be, in their eyes, treated like any other. He may be free to be employed, but employers are free to not employ him, and if they truly cared about their supporters/community, they'd get him to f**k.

In a similar vein to posts above- if Morton signed Goodwillie I would be going nowhere near cappielow until he was punted. He's not a welcome member in any, reasonable, club - or a welcome part of society in general - for what he did and his refusal to admit it and show a bit of remorse. It's pure evil.

Someone needs to explain to them (Glasgow Utd/Shettleston) that Limmy skit  "Don't back doon, double doon" wasn't actually serious advice for every situation.

[JagsCG]

38 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

It seems that there is an attitude that Goodwillie should not be free to earn any sort of living no matter what, and while I can understand that to an extent, I don't think rendering him unemployable so the Welfare State becomes his crutch is particularly palatable either. 

I doubt he’d be earning much playing part time for Glasgow United/Shettleston Juniors. In fact someone elsewhere who’d listened to the English podcast said that DG had another full time job and said he would play football for free. 

Edited July 24, 2023 by JagsCG

[Boo Khaki]

1 minute ago, JagsCG said:

I doubt he’d be earning much playing part time for Glasgow United/Shettleston Juniors. In fact someone elsewhere who’d listened to the English podcast said that DG had another full time job and said he would play football for free. 

Aye, right enough, I'd forgotten about that part.

It would be interesting to know what that other full-time job involves. Did I hear someone mention plumbing, or am I confusing that with something else?

[ICTChris]

I had thought he was an electrician or an electrician's labourer but someone on the other thread said he's a delivery driver.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Imagine that c**t turning up at your door. 

[PB1234]

I'm in no way defending this guy but if any councils want to get involved and cancel leases etc then surely they shouldn't be giving or paying for social housing to rapists peados etc this should be called out aswell can't just use football or a sport as an example 

[ClydeTon]

10 minutes ago, PB1234 said:

I'm in no way defending this guy but if any councils want to get involved and cancel leases etc then surely they shouldn't be giving or paying for social housing to rapists peados etc this should be called out aswell can't just use football or a sport as an example 

Sportspersons are role models to the people that are watching, particularly the younger supporters.

Sure, Glasgow United don't have a massive following by any stretch of the imagination (most of us SPFL lot hadn't ever heard of them until this), however to the people that are there, it's not wise. Again, the club bang on about helping their "community".

"Community" and "Rapist" should be totally separated from each other.

The difference with Social Housing is, you hardly stare up at a block of council houses and go "see that guy in the 3rd window fae the right, 4th floor. I want tae be him!"

Whereas it's fairly common to say "see that guy who's just banged 23 goals in this year? Aye, I want to be him." - and for kids in particular they'll see those goals going in and like the player, oblivious to who he really is and what he's done.

That's the difference.