Glasgow United, you know who, and GCC

[ClydeTon]

14 minutes ago, Dunfermline Jag said:

David Goodwillie is no better or worse than many guys playing football in the Scottish pyramid. There are players with actual convictions - sex, drugs and domestic abuse among them -  taking the field each week with nary a word spoken and no thought given to their victims or those who might have to come into contact with them, let alone Councils and others acting outraged at their presence on Council facilities.

Lets not pretend that this is all out of principle. NLC, who threatened to terminate their lease with Clyde when he re-signed for them, said nothing during his first spell. The Clyde Women's team who resigned en masse had joined the club when he was there, some of them when he was captain. I also wonder how many folk on here, outraged at Goodwillie, mourned the passing of Adam Strachan

never having spoken out against him continuing to play football, despite his "troubled past" which involved repeated convictions for domestic abuse and drug dealing.

Football is full of bad people. It is often some of the worst that can kick a ball and are lauded for it, their particular sins being overlooked when expedient. Surely the same standards should be applied to all, or to none?

 

Unfortunately we have a situation where Goodwillie is the only one being called out. They all should be.

However, to say that Goodwillie, the highest profile of them all, should get away with it because the "who are they?" ones do sets a precedent that nobody wants.

Sometimes making an example out of someone is necessary.

[welshbairn]

Bit of background on the decision not to prosecute.

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/decision-to-drop-goodwillie-case/

[Dunfermline Jag]

41 minutes ago, ClydeTon said:

Unfortunately we have a situation where Goodwillie is the only one being called out. They all should be.

However, to say that Goodwillie, the highest profile of them all, should get away with it because the "who are they?" ones do sets a precedent that nobody wants.

Sometimes making an example out of someone is necessary.

I see your point but I disagree. This will go the way these these things always seem to go:-

We recognise football has a problem with the character of some of its players.

We identify Goodwillie as representing that problem.

We hound him out of the game.

We all feel that our righteous indignation has been satisfied and go away knowing that football is in a better state.

Other players get to fly on under the radar and football continues to have the same problem.

 

[ClydeTon]

6 minutes ago, Dunfermline Jag said:

I see your point but I disagree. This will go the way these these things always seem to go:-

We recognise football has a problem with the character of some of its players.

We identify Goodwillie as representing that problem.

We hound him out of the game.

We all feel that our righteous indignation has been satisfied and go away knowing that football is in a better state.

Other players get to fly on under the radar and football continues to have the same problem.

 

Same reason we talk more about Messi than Muirhead- the profile of the person means they get more attention, that's how life works.

It's the reason when celebrities get accused, it's on national- sometimes international- news. But if the guy doon the street gets accused, most you'll have is the local paper.

Yes, having one down satisfies alot of people's want to get them to f**k, rather than pushing more out. However to suggest that it's a bad thing because other people are left alone is simply daft. One rapist gone is better than no rapist gone.

Edited July 24, 2023 by ClydeTon
Last comment in bold. Just to hammer that one home.

[Guest]

@Pareidolia Can I suggest you end this topic my friend. 

The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

[Derry Alli]

3 hours 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, 

He does make a living. A rather comfortable one - or he certainly was. He may have left that to chase this dream of being a mid thirty footballer.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

Bit of background on the decision not to prosecute.

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/decision-to-drop-goodwillie-case/

That leaves a lot of questions, i think it should be reopened by the crown office. 

[scottsdad]

2 hours ago, Dunfermline Jag said:

David Goodwillie is no better or worse than many guys playing football in the Scottish pyramid. 

You cannot be serious. The reason this rapist gets so much press is because of what he did. The reason we have threads and threads on this site and elsewhere is because of the seriousness of what he did. 

Your comment suggests that "many" players have committed acts as serious as, or worse than, the rapist's. 

I doubt you can back this up. Who are these "many guys"?

[oneteaminglasgow]

Goodwillie is not the only one being called out. Jordon Forster was recently emptied by Tranent for domestic abuse charges (which he plead guilty to), Paul Tansey was emptied by Whitehill Welfare for the same reason. Harry Paton is now at Motherwell but had a spell out of the game while his own domestic abuse charges were investigated, and only got signed after they were dropped. That’s just off the top of my head.

There’s still an awful long way to go, and there’s others who are still allowed to play despite a history of violence against women, but I think things are improving in that regard. 

[invergowrie arab]

4 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

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. 

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.

Licensing is decided on set objective criteria. If you think your local council have failed to apply that correctly you should raise it with them.

Leasing of council property isn't and they can decide to look at the leaseholders obligations not to bring the council into disrepute or any other condition they feel the leaseholder might be in breach of here.

After Clyde and their sponsors did him a turn brazening it out he could have probably quite happily slid down the levels.

He decided to raise his profile by signing for Raith and continues to raise his profile with his mewling social media posts and self serving podcast appearance.

It's inconceivable this won't have been raised with council officers or elected members as a result of this so they will have to look into it.

[KirkyRobRoy]

Are GCC going to background check everyone playing on their pitches going forward?

It needs to be made clear he was found guilty in a civil court, on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt as per the requirements of a criminal court 

Can one of the part time lawyers on here give a list of occupations/activities someone who has NOT been convicted in a criminal case they would be ok with?

 

[Shanner]

5 hours 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. 

I think most are concerned with him being in a position if influence at a football club.

If he was a self employed joiner folk could let their individual conscience decide whether or not to fling work his way and I doubt there would be a thread on here about it.

 

[ClydeTon]

If there was ever a time to cut a post down to half a sentence...

38 minutes ago, KirkyRobRoy said:

It needs to be made clear he was found guilty

...this would have been it.

 

It doesn't matter what type of court found him guilty, it doesn't matter if the basis was probability or not. A civil court is a court of law and said court found David Goodwillie and that David Robertson guilty of rape. It's as simple as that.

The reason it was thrown out of the criminal is the court is reason so many rape cases are, because it's really hard to say, definitively, that consent was not given. There won't be video or audio recordings of it (you'd hope not, anyway) and there is no other form of proof.

However the Blood Alcohol levels of the woman, in particular, indicate that she we in no fit state to consent, never mind have sex.

The Civil Court (a Court of Law), found the b*****ds guilty of rape and that is the bottom line of it.

Edited July 24, 2023 by ClydeTon

[KirkyRobRoy]

1 minute ago, ClydeTon said:

If there was ever a time to cut a post down to half a sentence...

...this may just be it.

 

It doesn't matter what type of court found him guilty, it doesn't matter if the basis was probability or not. A civil court is a court of law and said court found David Goodwillie and that David Robertson guilty of rape. It's as simple as that.

The reason it was thrown out of the criminal is the court is reason so many rape cases are, because it's really hard to say, definitively, that consent was not given. There won't be video or audio recordings of it (you'd hope not, anyway) and there is no other form of proof.

However the Blood Alcohol levels of the woman, in particular, indicate that she we in no fit state to consent, never mind have sex.

The Civil Court (a Court of Law), found the b*****ds guilty of rape and that is the bottom line of it.

It does matter though doesnt it?

IF they had gone through a criminal trial and been found guilty, he would either be in jail, and there isnt a club in the land that would go near him.

IF he had been found not guilty in a criminal trial, then it would be bordering on harassment if he was  prevented from living a normal life having been found not guilty

There is CCTV, there is also supportive evidence (for DG) from both the taxi driver and flatmate that consent was given (the civil case swung on whether or not you accept the girl in question was in a fit state to give it)

"Balance of probabilities" doesnt give conclusion to either party in the sorry situation.

[oneteaminglasgow]

4 minutes ago, KirkyRobRoy said:

(the civil case swung on whether or not you accept the girl in question was in a fit state to give it)

She absolutely definitely wasn’t.

So, case closed basically. 

Edited July 24, 2023 by oneteaminglasgow

[KirkyRobRoy]

5 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

She absolutely definitely wasn’t.

So, case closed basically. 

I'll take your word for it, I wasnt there

[ClydeTon]

20 minutes ago, KirkyRobRoy said:

It does matter though doesnt it?

IF they had gone through a criminal trial and been found guilty, he would either be in jail, and there isnt a club in the land that would go near him.

IF he had been found not guilty in a criminal trial, then it would be bordering on harassment if he was  prevented from living a normal life having been found not guilty

There is CCTV, there is also supportive evidence (for DG) from both the taxi driver and flatmate that consent was given (the civil case swung on whether or not you accept the girl in question was in a fit state to give it)

"Balance of probabilities" doesnt give conclusion to either party in the sorry situation.

Bit of irony coming from your "part-time lawyers" comment, you clearly fancy your chances.

DG & DR both claimed to be taking the woman to different places. One instance, they claimed it was to her mother's. Another instance, it was to her home. It's abundantly clear she was not in control of where she was going.

They got her drunk off of her head so she didn't have a clue, and in turn, they could rape her.

The court case involved 20 witnesses, and the woman's memory pretty much begins the next morning, in a house she didn't recognise, in a town she hadn't been in for a year, with pain around the vagina and thighs.

DNA samples were taken, and a friend of the victim was able to identify the David's (or at least one of them), and they were seen on CCTV between bars/clubs. Even by the victim's own admission, she was drunk out of her mind.

There is absolutely no chance on the earth that she wasn't raped. To sit and say "oh but it wasn't in a criminal court", to be incredibly blunt, is moronic and downright disgusting.

Thank you.

PS: To anyone who has a similar view of the case to the quoted poster, read the f**king court's judgement. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=d22e28a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

EDIT: You know you've got them when they give up arguing their point and just resort to disliking everything anyone else says 

Edited July 24, 2023 by ClydeTon

[Hillonearth]

Ooft...this thread.

Sticking purely to the football side of it, I'm just glad they got emptied from our division last year and in all likelihood we won't have to play them. I'm sorry for the clubs that will though...

Given that the league are essentially powerless to stop a signing like this and Shettleston now seem intent on doubling down, the sides they will be playing are however not completely powerless to show they're not tarred with the same brush as another team in their league.

The ones that want to can make the fact incredibly clear TBH...each team in their division could reach out to a local rape charity/crisis centre and offer to display signage at their ground, they can hand out literature before games against Shettleston and blanket coverage of the charities in all their socials on the run up to that game. Likewise, most/many usual sponsors would probably be fine about switching their match programme adverts to some more of the above for one week only.

Shit - invite some local women's groups to the game to make it a genuinely uncomfortable experience

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

Police Scotland investigating leaked confidential documents shortly after the podcast released.

Unsure who is responsible for the leak.

[Rugster]

42 minutes ago, KirkyRobRoy said:

It does matter though doesnt it?

IF they had gone through a criminal trial and been found guilty, he would either be in jail, and there isnt a club in the land that would go near him.

IF he had been found not guilty in a criminal trial, then it would be bordering on harassment if he was  prevented from living a normal life having been found not guilty

There is CCTV, there is also supportive evidence (for DG) from both the taxi driver and flatmate that consent was given (the civil case swung on whether or not you accept the girl in question was in a fit state to give it)

"Balance of probabilities" doesnt give conclusion to either party in the sorry situation.

Beast