Goodwillie Court case.

mouldyoldgoat wrote:

Did he set the dog on you or get her to rip up a favoured pillow of yours as well?

The dog didn't listen to anything any of us ever said!

Czarcasm wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Angry wrote:

i still dont get the way scottish law works when their legal system clears him yet their civil court doesnt  and both had the same evidence presented.

I can see Raith deciding to send him back to Clyde and annul the transfer due to this outcry.

For a criminal conviction, the jury has to be satisfied "beyond reasonable doubt" of a person's guilt.

In a civil case they have to be satisfied that "on the balance of probability" the person is guilty

Same rules apply North & South of the border.

It is odd that a person carries the stigma of being a rapist all their life, without ever been criminally convicted of it.

thats what i dont get about the whole civil court thing. If your found not guilty in a court of law that should be it but if a civil court rules that you probably aren't but cant prove that you didnt in the eyes of the public your guilty as sin. If thats the case then surely a retrial should be called seeing as double jepody is no longer a thing rather than leave it at that. No justice has been rewarded to the victim here.

Angry wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Angry wrote:

i still dont get the way scottish law works when their legal system clears him yet their civil court doesnt  and both had the same evidence presented.

I can see Raith deciding to send him back to Clyde and annul the transfer due to this outcry.

For a criminal conviction, the jury has to be satisfied "beyond reasonable doubt" of a person's guilt.

In a civil case they have to be satisfied that "on the balance of probability" the person is guilty

Same rules apply North & South of the border.

It is odd that a person carries the stigma of being a rapist all their life, without ever been criminally convicted of it.

thats what i dont get about the whole civil court thing. If your found not guilty in a court of law that should be it but if a civil court rules that you probably aren't but cant prove that you didnt in the eyes of the public your guilty as sin. If thats the case then surely a retrial should be called seeing as double jepody is no longer a thing rather than leave it at that. No justice has been rewarded to the victim here.

He wasn't cleared by the Scottish court. He didn't go to trial because of the "corroboration" law in Scotland. This only applies in criminal court, not civil cases.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The CPS don't take cases to court unless they think they have a very strong chance of winning - they don't like wasting public money on frivolous cases. This is why you hear the phrase "its not in the public interest" - meaning its not worth the cost and risk. If they had taken this case to court it would have been kicked out on a technicality.




The burden of proof is lower in Civil cases as the consequences of being found guilty are less.

Quote :

What is the fundamental difference between criminal and civil law?

Criminal law seeks to punish for an offence. Civil law seeks to achieve a remedy such as compensation for the injured party. Other important distinctions include:

By handing out a punishment or penalty, criminal law aims to deter offenders and others in society from offending
Criminal law has the ultimate aim of maintaining the stability of the state and society
Civil law aims to deal with disputes between individuals or organisations
Civil law cases generally involve compensation or an agreement or judgement relating to finances
Civil law cases are filed by private parties, while criminal cases are usually filed by the state
The decision of the court in a criminal case is guilty or not guilty. In a civil court, it is liable or not liable
The outcome of civil cases where one party is found liable is usually the awarding of compensation, while for criminal cases, a guilty verdict means conviction and punishment in the form of a custodial sentence, fine or community service

This case was the first of its type in Scotland. The woman was awarded £11,000 by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority who ruled she had been raped. The judge in the civil case ruled she had been raped. The players appealed but 3 judges upheld the ruling. The players did not pay any of the compensation as they declared themselves bankrupt.

shonbojr wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

I have had white Labourers who calls girls bitches as though normal and that's all because they loved their R&B and they are following their role models.

Again, really lazy to blame white misogyny on black people. Many of my friends that dislike rap music are perfectly capable of misogyny on their own!

And the "Muslim attitude towards women" is again, very lazy. You must know Muslims yourself that don't practice what you have said, so it feels very sloppy to tarnish a huge religion with one stroke of a misogynistic brush. By all means, call out religious fundamentalists, or specific countries if you want to, but when you generalise a huge population by picking out qualities of a minority then that's when people rightly throw around words like "racist".

Dad would have very much enjoyed this conversation, one of his favourite things to do was wind me up about race and religion before/after calling me a moron!

But who has just coined the phrase White mysogyny? You are twisting the argument again to make the point that only white people are myogynists when I didn't even try and make the point that only Blacks and Muslims were the culprits. What I said was that no one is blaming the black gangsta rap and Muslim cultures that we have imported into the country which have a huge bearing on the debate if you can get past the black good/white bad bullshit that debate has become in this country.
We have had a massive debate about racism in this country post BLM yet we still aren't allowed to talk about Black people stabbing and shooting other black people and what is the answer to that, just go and google that and see what the search results return, it will be inversion of the argument blaming white people for racist behaviour which has somehow led to the black on black violence.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Angry wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Angry wrote:

i still dont get the way scottish law works when their legal system clears him yet their civil court doesnt  and both had the same evidence presented.

I can see Raith deciding to send him back to Clyde and annul the transfer due to this outcry.

For a criminal conviction, the jury has to be satisfied "beyond reasonable doubt" of a person's guilt.

In a civil case they have to be satisfied that "on the balance of probability" the person is guilty

Same rules apply North & South of the border.

It is odd that a person carries the stigma of being a rapist all their life, without ever been criminally convicted of it.

thats what i dont get about the whole civil court thing. If your found not guilty in a court of law that should be it but if a civil court rules that you probably aren't but cant prove that you didnt in the eyes of the public your guilty as sin. If thats the case then surely a retrial should be called seeing as double jepody is no longer a thing rather than leave it at that. No justice has been rewarded to the victim here.

He wasn't cleared by the Scottish court. He didn't go to trial because of the "corroboration" law in Scotland. This only applies in criminal court, not civil cases.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The CPS don't take cases to court unless they think they have a very strong chance of winning - they don't like wasting public money on frivolous cases. This is why you hear the phrase "its not in the public interest" - meaning its not worth the cost and risk. If they had taken this case to court it would have been kicked out on a technicality.




The burden of proof is lower in Civil cases as the consequences of being found guilty are less.

Quote :

What is the fundamental difference between criminal and civil law?

Criminal law seeks to punish for an offence. Civil law seeks to achieve a remedy such as compensation for the injured party. Other important distinctions include:

By handing out a punishment or penalty, criminal law aims to deter offenders and others in society from offending
Criminal law has the ultimate aim of maintaining the stability of the state and society
Civil law aims to deal with disputes between individuals or organisations
Civil law cases generally involve compensation or an agreement or judgement relating to finances
Civil law cases are filed by private parties, while criminal cases are usually filed by the state
The decision of the court in a criminal case is guilty or not guilty. In a civil court, it is liable or not liable
The outcome of civil cases where one party is found liable is usually the awarding of compensation, while for criminal cases, a guilty verdict means conviction and punishment in the form of a custodial sentence, fine or community service

This case was the first of its type in Scotland. The woman was awarded £11,000 by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority who ruled she had been raped. The judge in the civil case ruled she had been raped. The players appealed but 3 judges upheld the ruling. The players did not pay any of the compensation as they declared themselves bankrupt.

so a waste of time had by all then. CPS are joke in anycase but if three judges can rule goodwille and friends guilty then they would have had the evidence to take it to court and maybe the victim would have had true justice and not a token gesture and a loophole exploited to get out of paying it.

reminds me of the OJ civil court case he had the money but moved to Florida so he didnt have to pay it.,

Angry wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Angry wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Angry wrote:

i still dont get the way scottish law works when their legal system clears him yet their civil court doesnt  and both had the same evidence presented.

I can see Raith deciding to send him back to Clyde and annul the transfer due to this outcry.

For a criminal conviction, the jury has to be satisfied "beyond reasonable doubt" of a person's guilt.

In a civil case they have to be satisfied that "on the balance of probability" the person is guilty

Same rules apply North & South of the border.

It is odd that a person carries the stigma of being a rapist all their life, without ever been criminally convicted of it.

thats what i dont get about the whole civil court thing. If your found not guilty in a court of law that should be it but if a civil court rules that you probably aren't but cant prove that you didnt in the eyes of the public your guilty as sin. If thats the case then surely a retrial should be called seeing as double jepody is no longer a thing rather than leave it at that. No justice has been rewarded to the victim here.

He wasn't cleared by the Scottish court. He didn't go to trial because of the "corroboration" law in Scotland. This only applies in criminal court, not civil cases.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The CPS don't take cases to court unless they think they have a very strong chance of winning - they don't like wasting public money on frivolous cases. This is why you hear the phrase "its not in the public interest" - meaning its not worth the cost and risk. If they had taken this case to court it would have been kicked out on a technicality.




The burden of proof is lower in Civil cases as the consequences of being found guilty are less.

Quote :

What is the fundamental difference between criminal and civil law?

Criminal law seeks to punish for an offence. Civil law seeks to achieve a remedy such as compensation for the injured party. Other important distinctions include:

By handing out a punishment or penalty, criminal law aims to deter offenders and others in society from offending
Criminal law has the ultimate aim of maintaining the stability of the state and society
Civil law aims to deal with disputes between individuals or organisations
Civil law cases generally involve compensation or an agreement or judgement relating to finances
Civil law cases are filed by private parties, while criminal cases are usually filed by the state
The decision of the court in a criminal case is guilty or not guilty. In a civil court, it is liable or not liable
The outcome of civil cases where one party is found liable is usually the awarding of compensation, while for criminal cases, a guilty verdict means conviction and punishment in the form of a custodial sentence, fine or community service

This case was the first of its type in Scotland. The woman was awarded £11,000 by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority who ruled she had been raped. The judge in the civil case ruled she had been raped. The players appealed but 3 judges upheld the ruling. The players did not pay any of the compensation as they declared themselves bankrupt.

so a waste of time had by all then. CPS are joke in anycase but if three judges can rule goodwille and friends guilty then they would have had the evidence to take it to court and maybe the victim would have had true justice and not a token gesture and a loophole exploited to get out of paying it.

reminds me of the OJ civil court case he had the money but moved to Florida so he didnt have to pay it.,

Its not the CPS that are the joke, it's the whole system. Law and Order costs money and time and time again we show that we are not willing to pay for it. Police, CPS, Courts, Prisons - they could all do so much more if they had more funding. But we are where we are.

At least the victim in the Goodwillie case got to have the evidence heard in court, and those that heard it were convinced that Goodwillie and co raped her. Goodwillie avoided a prison sentence and any financial penalty, and was able to continue his career for years. Apart from being labelled a rapist he has got off pretty lightly.

Czarcasm wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Angry wrote:

i still dont get the way scottish law works when their legal system clears him yet their civil court doesnt  and both had the same evidence presented.

I can see Raith deciding to send him back to Clyde and annul the transfer due to this outcry.

For a criminal conviction, the jury has to be satisfied "beyond reasonable doubt" of a person's guilt.

In a civil case they have to be satisfied that "on the balance of probability" the person is guilty

Same rules apply North & South of the border.

It is odd that a person carries the stigma of being a rapist all their life, without ever been criminally convicted of it.

The people calling him a rapist are technically wrong as he has no Criminal conviction.

He could sue them for slander/libel, but he would have to prove he wasn't a rapist. (Best of luck with that, fella.)

Even if he proved his case, the jury might decide his reputation is worth nothing and just award him £1 damages.


Prince Andrew has never been convicted of any criminal offence, and no one is accusing him of anything that's illegal in the UK, but a powerful man in his 50's having sex with a teenage girl probably means his reputation is worthless

[quote="Grovehill"]

Czarcasm wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Angry wrote:

i still dont get the way scottish law works when their legal system clears him yet their civil court doesnt  and both had the same evidence presented.

I can see Raith deciding to send him back to Clyde and annul the transfer due to this outcry.

For a criminal conviction, the jury has to be satisfied "beyond reasonable doubt" of a person's guilt.

In a civil case they have to be satisfied that "on the balance of probability" the person is guilty

Same rules apply North & South of the border.

It is odd that a person carries the stigma of being a rapist all their life, without ever been criminally convicted of it.

The people calling him a rapist are technically wrong as he has no Criminal conviction.

He could sue them for slander/libel, but he would have to prove he wasn't a rapist. (Best of luck with that, fella.)

Even if he proved his case, the jury might decide his reputation is worth nothing and just award him  £1 damages.


Prince Andrew has never been convicted of any criminal offence, and no one is accusing him of anything that's illegal in the UK,  but a powerful man in his 50's having sex with a teenage girl probably means his reputation is worthless
[/quote

Not sure this would have seen the light of day in UK am I right in saying that VG was underage for sex in the states but not in UK as she was seventeen at the time?

David Goodwillie has returned to Clyde on loan from Raith Rovers, who had faced a public outcry for signing the striker ruled to be a rapist.

The 32-year-old former Scotland international was ordered to pay damages in a civil case in 2017, six years after being initially charged.

Rovers agreed an undisclosed fee with Clyde when signing Goodwillie on a two-and-a-half year contract in January.

But, after the backlash, they then decided he would never play for them.

Jethro wrote:

David Goodwillie has returned to Clyde on loan from Raith Rovers, who had faced a public outcry for signing the striker ruled to be a rapist.

The 32-year-old former Scotland international was ordered to pay damages in a civil case in 2017, six years after being initially charged.

Rovers agreed an undisclosed fee with Clyde when signing Goodwillie on a two-and-a-half year contract in January.

But, after the backlash, they then decided he would never play for them.

and now clyde is getting backlash for letting him comeback on loan...

can you guys imagine the heat would have had in todays woke world when we re signed McCormick or even when we brought Goodwillie here.

The entire playing squad and general manager of Clyde's women's team have quit the club after the men's side re-signed David Goodwillie.

The striker, who was judged in a civil court in 2016 to be a rapist, this week returned to the part-time Scottish League 1 club after a backlash met his January move to full-time Raith Rovers.

Rovers said the 32-year-old would not play for them following several high-profile sponsors and board members leaving in protest and loaned him back to Clyde - where he spent five years.

However, the former Scotland international's return to Broadwood has now sparked more anger.

"All of the players in the ladies team have discussed the situation with the general manager/secretary and are all in agreement that we no longer wish to play for Clyde FC," the women's team said in a statement.

"As a group of female footballers, all we wish to do is play the sport that we love but due to the current circumstances we are unable to do this.

"At this time we wish to ensure the well-being and privacy of our players therefore we would ask that players are not approached personally for comment regarding this matter."

Jethro wrote:

The entire playing squad and general manager of Clyde's women's team have quit the club after the men's side re-signed David Goodwillie.

The striker, who was judged in a civil court in 2016 to be a rapist, this week returned to the part-time Scottish League 1 club after a backlash met his January move to full-time Raith Rovers.

Rovers said the 32-year-old would not play for them following several high-profile sponsors and board members leaving in protest and loaned him back to Clyde - where he spent five years.

However, the former Scotland international's return to Broadwood has now sparked more anger.

"All of the players in the ladies team have discussed the situation with the general manager/secretary and are all in agreement that we no longer wish to play for Clyde FC," the women's team said in a statement.

"As a group of female footballers, all we wish to do is play the sport that we love but due to the current circumstances we are unable to do this.

"At this time we wish to ensure the well-being and privacy of our players therefore we would ask that players are not approached personally for comment regarding this matter."

yet only a few months ago they were happy for several seasons when he was there and only now with the faux outrage caused by snp and raith they suddenly have an issue. Its a crazy world

How woke, the entire Ladies team at Clyde have quit!

Dear oh dear.

I think it's safe to say that Goodwilies football career is well and truly over, why don't the club just quietly pay up his contract and announce he is leaving the club due to mutual agreement?

Earwegoagain wrote:

I think it's safe to say that Goodwilies football career is well and truly over, why don't the club just quietly pay up his contract and announce he is leaving the club due to mutual agreement?

I think they did offer that but he turned it down for whatever reason probably wasnt the worth the 2 years he signed for or near abouts and to be fair, Raith signed him knowing his past so its not like they only became aware of the fact he was found to have probably raped a woman in a civil court so they cant force him out.

I'm sure eventually he will be paid off and accept he wont be able to play anywhere due to the media lead hysteria everywhere he goes and retire and go play the game for a highland league team that wont be so picky about his reputation.

He’d previously spent 5 years at Clyde before his transfer, it didn’t seem too matter much then, so why now are they getting so arsy?