|
Post by GoBoks on Feb 4, 2022 0:13:00 GMT
To be fair perhaps they were innocent. What I find shocking is that those who accuse individuals of such crimes and are found to be lying are not prosecuted. Is way too easy to accuse someone knowing that the no smoke without fire stigma will never leave them. Just saw a case of a gal of 18 accusing her step father of similar just to get rid of him. Imagine what he went through. She walks away from it despite later admitting she made the whole story up. I can understand that point of view and you’re not alone by any means in feeling that way. For me personally, I think it’s best to try and make a distinction between the act and the person, so in that sense it can be easier to forgive the person but of course, not what they have done. From what I’ve seen and heard, there are very few details out there on the specifics of the civil case - but what we do know is that the burden of proof for a criminal conviction could not be met……so perhaps some caution in how the public in general view this situation is warranted. British society is becoming increasingly litigious and while that is in general a good thing, with the good will come people who are in it only for money. I’m not sure if you have been following the Tim Paine case at all but the ‘victim’ is attempting to settle on that case which the mind boggles at - there are many examples where high profile people are targeted in this way. The general approach seems to be - CANCEL HIM! The UK has become USA You don't like what someone has said/done - never forgive them - erase them from society. Until the day you're the one who said did something a little off, then everyone needs to understand that no harm was meant/done.
|
|
|
Post by biddulphchav on Feb 4, 2022 4:46:20 GMT
I can understand that point of view and you’re not alone by any means in feeling that way. For me personally, I think it’s best to try and make a distinction between the act and the person, so in that sense it can be easier to forgive the person but of course, not what they have done. From what I’ve seen and heard, there are very few details out there on the specifics of the civil case - but what we do know is that the burden of proof for a criminal conviction could not be met……so perhaps some caution in how the public in general view this situation is warranted. British society is becoming increasingly litigious and while that is in general a good thing, with the good will come people who are in it only for money. I’m not sure if you have been following the Tim Paine case at all but the ‘victim’ is attempting to settle on that case which the mind boggles at - there are many examples where high profile people are targeted in this way. The general approach seems to be - CANCEL HIM! The UK has become USA You don't like what someone has said/done - never forgive them - erase them from society. Until the day you're the one who said did something a little off, then everyone needs to understand that no harm was meant/done. Yeah I agree totally. First it was trial by media, and now it has become trial by social media. Far too many sitting in permanent judgement in many cases without the full facts. I struggle with the moral outrage that’s exhibited, which doesn’t mean I condone the acts, but the outrage levels and effective erasing of people is a problem. All the people with some kind of profile indicating they will boycott x,y,z in public as a means to reverse a decision like are in some form attempting blackmail too. And you’re bang on, wait until you are in the position of having done something wrong (or someone you know is), only then can you appreciate how destructive this crap is.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 4, 2022 5:51:44 GMT
To be fair perhaps they were innocent. What I find shocking is that those who accuse individuals of such crimes and are found to be lying are not prosecuted. Is way too easy to accuse someone knowing that the no smoke without fire stigma will never leave them. Just saw a case of a gal of 18 accusing her step father of similar just to get rid of him. Imagine what he went through. She walks away from it despite later admitting she made the whole story up. I can understand that point of view and you’re not alone by any means in feeling that way. For me personally, I think it’s best to try and make a distinction between the act and the person, so in that sense it can be easier to forgive the person but of course, not what they have done. From what I’ve seen and heard, there are very few details out there on the specifics of the civil case - but what we do know is that the burden of proof for a criminal conviction could not be met……so perhaps some caution in how the public in general view this situation is warranted. British society is becoming increasingly litigious and while that is in general a good thing, with the good will come people who are in it only for money. I’m not sure if you have been following the Tim Paine case at all but the ‘victim’ is attempting to settle on that case which the mind boggles at - there are many examples where high profile people are targeted in this way. The full transcript is attached…… www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=d22e28a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
|
|
|
Post by biddulphchav on Feb 4, 2022 7:39:26 GMT
I can understand that point of view and you’re not alone by any means in feeling that way. For me personally, I think it’s best to try and make a distinction between the act and the person, so in that sense it can be easier to forgive the person but of course, not what they have done. From what I’ve seen and heard, there are very few details out there on the specifics of the civil case - but what we do know is that the burden of proof for a criminal conviction could not be met……so perhaps some caution in how the public in general view this situation is warranted. British society is becoming increasingly litigious and while that is in general a good thing, with the good will come people who are in it only for money. I’m not sure if you have been following the Tim Paine case at all but the ‘victim’ is attempting to settle on that case which the mind boggles at - there are many examples where high profile people are targeted in this way. The full transcript is attached…… www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=d22e28a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7Thanks for posting it. I read some of it. You can see why it didn’t go to a criminal trial. I would encourage more people to read it, thanks again for sharing it
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Feb 4, 2022 10:28:20 GMT
There isn't a football club in the country I suspect who would turn down the chance of signing a player who is better than their level on the cheap. Ched Evans didn't have a problem (I know his conviction was quashed but on evidence which was a bit dodgy). Lee Hughes made a good career for himself after being released from prison for killing someone through dangerous driving. I can see the argument that they served their punishment but I object to them being given the opportunity to make good money in a high profile job. Start again in a job where you won't be on public view. Good on Val Mcdermid and Raith Rovers supporters. If you commit a crime which effects someone's life you should suffer the consequences for the rest of your life just as the victims and their families do. Sorry but that makes no sense. Let's say a talented artist is locked up for x years for a heinous act. Are you saying when he comes out he should be allowed to paint houses but not lucrative artwork? A player who has served their punishment and is free to ply their trade (not banned/suspended, etc) should be allowed to ply their trade, not be forced to be a janitor. The big question for me is if the guilty verdict is in a civil court, why on earth would he not be prosecuted in a criminal court? Perhaps there is more to the story than would stand intense scrutiny? An artist isn't in the public view every week. He doesn't have the publicity that a footballer has The victims and their families don't have to see his name or face in the media every week. Just suppose you were a family member of the bloke killed by Lee Hughes and you like football. There is no escaping the reminders. Even if you liked art there would not be the same reminders everywhere of how the bloke who killed your dad/husband/son is going about enjoying his life making a lot of money. If Lee Hughes wants to be an artist fine as long as the media don't give him the publicity. The same goes for Goodwillie. I'm glad to see that public pressure has lead to Raith changing their mind.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Feb 4, 2022 10:39:21 GMT
This guy was convicted in a civil court and not a criminal one - so you’ve got to consider that when he’s labeled as a ‘convicted rapist’ and this should be part of how the public perceive this. Often a conviction in a civil case will be followed by criminal proceedings, the fact that it didn’t happen this way indicates there was either a lack of evidence or the evidence was not overly robust. But aside from that, we’ve had footballers like Luke McCormick and Lee Hughes who’ve been responsible for the deaths of people but have allowed to rehabilitate themselves - and part of doing that is resuming their careers. I think as a general comment we’ve become far too judgemental in these situations - the justice system is there for a reason and once justice has been served it is the sign of a cultured society that we would forgive and try to help the perpetrator rebuild their life. Even more poignant in this case where there was no criminal act committed in the eyes of the law. I imagine he will have his contract paid up (and he should if he disclosed the information prior to signing), and all the moral crusaders will feel vindicated. All in all a sad episode. The rape conviction rate is disgracefully, disgustingly and shockingly low. I would never forgive a murderer, paedophile or rapist. I hate trail by social media/media, but I hope this episode is a lesson to people who think it's okay to sexually assault someone. Exactly. It doesn't matter how the woman was behaving or had behaved in the past if she says no to sex that should be the end of it. Too many men use the excuse of 'I thought it was what she wanted' or 'She changed her mind after inviting me back' and seem to be given the benefit of the doubt. The overturning of Ched Evan's conviction was based on the fact that he managed to 'find' three witnesses who stood up in court and said the woman he alledgedly raped had behaved in the same way with them on previous nights as she had with Evans meaning that because she'd done the same thing with them willingly she must have wanted it from Evans? There was even doubt cast on the validity of their claims and some suspicion cast that they received money for it.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 4, 2022 10:56:12 GMT
Thanks for posting it. I read some of it. You can see why it didn’t go to a criminal trial. I would encourage more people to read it, thanks again for sharing it I'm genuinely torn by this as I do believe that in rehabilitation and people being able to get one with their lives and as you say the burden of proof required in a Civil Court is simply not the same. That said he's never shown any remorse as far as I'm aware (even for his shitty behaviour and actions, he of course denies the rape claim) which troubles me, so I can understand why this is an issue particularly for those around the club, the women's team, female fans, families with kids. It's a really tough one.......
|
|
|
Post by independent on Feb 4, 2022 12:41:44 GMT
Be interesting to see how Mason Greenwood fares with the publicly available evidence that exists. Would you like him to play for Stoke if he became available?
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Feb 4, 2022 18:04:35 GMT
Sorry but that makes no sense. Let's say a talented artist is locked up for x years for a heinous act. Are you saying when he comes out he should be allowed to paint houses but not lucrative artwork? A player who has served their punishment and is free to ply their trade (not banned/suspended, etc) should be allowed to ply their trade, not be forced to be a janitor. The big question for me is if the guilty verdict is in a civil court, why on earth would he not be prosecuted in a criminal court? Perhaps there is more to the story than would stand intense scrutiny? An artist isn't in the public view every week. He doesn't have the publicity that a footballer has The victims and their families don't have to see his name or face in the media every week. Just suppose you were a family member of the bloke killed by Lee Hughes and you like football. There is no escaping the reminders. Even if you liked art there would not be the same reminders everywhere of how the bloke who killed your dad/husband/son is going about enjoying his life making a lot of money. If Lee Hughes wants to be an artist fine as long as the media don't give him the publicity. The same goes for Goodwillie. I'm glad to see that public pressure has lead to Raith changing their mind. So it boils down to money? Somehow, if I can prevent xyz person from making money it makes me feel better about my loved one being dead? If Goodwillie has enough money to buy a villa in south France and live a life of ease and pleasure, that is ok, but heaven forbid that he should try and be productive in the area where his special talents lie? As mentioned above, before blindly condemning someone, read the transcript. Then if you still think he is as guilty as can be, think about the concept of forgiveness. If countries take a no quarter stance, the world would be in a constant state of war.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Feb 4, 2022 18:38:16 GMT
The general approach seems to be - CANCEL HIM! The UK has become USA You don't like what someone has said/done - never forgive them - erase them from society. Until the day you're the one who said did something a little off, then everyone needs to understand that no harm was meant/done. Yeah I agree totally. First it was trial by media, and now it has become trial by social media. Far too many sitting in permanent judgement in many cases without the full facts. I struggle with the moral outrage that’s exhibited, which doesn’t mean I condone the acts, but the outrage levels and effective erasing of people is a problem. All the people with some kind of profile indicating they will boycott x,y,z in public as a means to reverse a decision like are in some form attempting blackmail too. And you’re bang on, wait until you are in the position of having done something wrong (or someone you know is), only then can you appreciate how destructive this crap is. Hasnt Whoopi just fallen on her own sword.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2022 18:39:49 GMT
Yeah I agree totally. First it was trial by media, and now it has become trial by social media. Far too many sitting in permanent judgement in many cases without the full facts. I struggle with the moral outrage that’s exhibited, which doesn’t mean I condone the acts, but the outrage levels and effective erasing of people is a problem. All the people with some kind of profile indicating they will boycott x,y,z in public as a means to reverse a decision like are in some form attempting blackmail too. And you’re bang on, wait until you are in the position of having done something wrong (or someone you know is), only then can you appreciate how destructive this crap is. Hasnt Whoopi just fallen on her own sword. Be the first time have laughed at her if true
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Feb 4, 2022 19:17:08 GMT
An artist isn't in the public view every week. He doesn't have the publicity that a footballer has The victims and their families don't have to see his name or face in the media every week. Just suppose you were a family member of the bloke killed by Lee Hughes and you like football. There is no escaping the reminders. Even if you liked art there would not be the same reminders everywhere of how the bloke who killed your dad/husband/son is going about enjoying his life making a lot of money. If Lee Hughes wants to be an artist fine as long as the media don't give him the publicity. The same goes for Goodwillie. I'm glad to see that public pressure has lead to Raith changing their mind. So it boils down to money? Somehow, if I can prevent xyz person from making money it makes me feel better about my loved one being dead? If Goodwillie has enough money to buy a villa in south France and live a life of ease and pleasure, that is ok, but heaven forbid that he should try and be productive in the area where his special talents lie? As mentioned above, before blindly condemning someone, read the transcript. Then if you still think he is as guilty as can be, think about the concept of forgiveness. If countries take a no quarter stance, the world would be in a constant state of war. I haven't said that. In my opinion it boils down to respect for the victim. I can forgive as long as remorse is shown. You should earn forgiveness. I am all for the opinion that once penance has been served we should move on but I think the perpetrator should not get more sympathy than the victim. Sorry I'm not sure which transcript you are referring to. I will read it when I know.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 4, 2022 19:19:52 GMT
So it boils down to money? Somehow, if I can prevent xyz person from making money it makes me feel better about my loved one being dead? If Goodwillie has enough money to buy a villa in south France and live a life of ease and pleasure, that is ok, but heaven forbid that he should try and be productive in the area where his special talents lie? As mentioned above, before blindly condemning someone, read the transcript. Then if you still think he is as guilty as can be, think about the concept of forgiveness. If countries take a no quarter stance, the world would be in a constant state of war. I haven't said that. In my opinion it boils down to respect for the victim. I can forgive as long as remorse is shown. You should earn forgiveness. I am all for the opinion that once penance has been served we should move on but I think the perpetrator should not get more sympathy than the victim. Sorry I'm not sure which transcript you are referring to. I will read it when I know. Further up in one of my earlier posts, it’s the full transcript of the Civil case……..
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Feb 4, 2022 20:15:15 GMT
I haven't said that. In my opinion it boils down to respect for the victim. I can forgive as long as remorse is shown. You should earn forgiveness. I am all for the opinion that once penance has been served we should move on but I think the perpetrator should not get more sympathy than the victim. Sorry I'm not sure which transcript you are referring to. I will read it when I know. Further up in one of my earlier posts, it’s the full transcript of the Civil case…….. Having read the transcript I cannot see any reason to exonerate Goodwillie. It seems to boil down to how drunk the victim was and the evidence of everybody but the defenders was that she was extremely drunk, one even suggesting she needed an ambulance not a taxi. Most of the expert witnesses suggest that she was too drunk be considered to have given consent. I have no sympathy for Goodwillie and see no reason for wanting to see him with a contract at a football club. I can assure you that there are several professions where his behaviour would preclude him from continuing a career in them not just football.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Feb 4, 2022 23:25:14 GMT
Further up in one of my earlier posts, it’s the full transcript of the Civil case…….. Having read the transcript I cannot see any reason to exonerate Goodwillie. It seems to boil down to how drunk the victim was and the evidence of everybody but the defenders was that she was extremely drunk, one even suggesting she needed an ambulance not a taxi. Most of the expert witnesses suggest that she was too drunk be considered to have given consent. I have no sympathy for Goodwillie and see no reason for wanting to see him with a contract at a football club. I can assure you that there are several professions where his behaviour would preclude him from continuing a career in them not just football. So if you're trying to pick up someone you should first establish how drunk they are? The fact that he was never prosecuted means there was insufficient evidence. Last I looked, it was innocent until proven guilty. Disclaimer: I don't agree with his behaviour and don't know anything about him (or her) as a person. It just surprises me that there is a rush to judgement and a moral outrage when he is not guilty of a crime.
|
|
|
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Feb 4, 2022 23:59:04 GMT
Further up in one of my earlier posts, it’s the full transcript of the Civil case…….. Having read the transcript I cannot see any reason to exonerate Goodwillie. It seems to boil down to how drunk the victim was and the evidence of everybody but the defenders was that she was extremely drunk, one even suggesting she needed an ambulance not a taxi. Most of the expert witnesses suggest that she was too drunk be considered to have given consent. I have no sympathy for Goodwillie and see no reason for wanting to see him with a contract at a football club. I can assure you that there are several professions where his behaviour would preclude him from continuing a career in them not just football. I read the transcript as well. I had a failed career in criminal defence law, but at one point I was really enthusiastic about it, got through all the entrance exams and interviews to be a trainee crown prosecutor. I read the transcript and thought about the exams I'd taken which I passed with flying colors, all about assessing the chances of getting a guilty verdict. I can see why they didn't prosecute. There is no chance you'd get a jury to convict them on that evidence. I've no doubt that a lot of what has happened in this case is wrong, but it's a difficult case, based on that evidence. I don't feel comfortable with any aspects of it. I can see why the cps didn't get involved. As Prestwich says, the balance of probabilities in a civil case is very different. In all though on a moral level, this behavior is wrong, the two men deserve punishment, consequences, but then what? What do we do with men like that after? Stop them from working?
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Feb 5, 2022 0:51:52 GMT
Having read the transcript I cannot see any reason to exonerate Goodwillie. It seems to boil down to how drunk the victim was and the evidence of everybody but the defenders was that she was extremely drunk, one even suggesting she needed an ambulance not a taxi. Most of the expert witnesses suggest that she was too drunk be considered to have given consent. I have no sympathy for Goodwillie and see no reason for wanting to see him with a contract at a football club. I can assure you that there are several professions where his behaviour would preclude him from continuing a career in them not just football. I read the transcript as well. I had a failed career in criminal defence law, but at one point I was really enthusiastic about it, got through all the entrance exams and interviews to be a trainee crown prosecutor. I read the transcript and thought about the exams I'd taken which I passed with flying colors, all about assessing the chances of getting a guilty verdict. I can see why they didn't prosecute. There is no chance you'd get a jury to convict them on that evidence. I've no doubt that a lot of what has happened in this case is wrong, but it's a difficult case, based on that evidence. I don't feel comfortable with any aspects of it. I can see why the cps didn't get involved. As Prestwich says, the balance of probabilities in a civil case is very different. In all though on a moral level, this behavior is wrong, the two men deserve punishment, consequences, but then what? What do we do with men like that after? Stop them from working? Yes exactly right about why they weren't prosecuted for rape, it would have been difficult as there was obviously some alcohol driven consent on the woman's behalf. That doesn't mean the men were innocent. They took advantage of a woman in a very vulnerable state and the way they behaved towards her was despicable. She has to share the guilt(and obviously does) because she allowed herself to drink enough to get into that state but that is where the difference between men and women come in. Wrong though it is why should a woman not be able to get into that state without the risk that some men will take advantage? We have all seen very drunk women attracting the wrong sort of attention from men who know what they are doing and why - there is no attraction, they don't fancy her, they just want to take advantage. As this woman, does she will obviously carry her guilt around for the rest of her life but Goodwillie seems to be able to get on with his life with no shame. Of course no one should be stopped from working but teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, police amongst others I suspect would not be able to continue in their chosen profession in similar circumstances so he isn't being treated differently from a lot of others. I had to do a speed awareness course not long ago (36mph In a 30 zone on a road that I knew well and knew the camera was there but before second lock down it had been 40 grrr) and the bloke running it said that had he been caught on speed cameras he'd lose his job. In the end it comes down to the employer and we all talk about signing the wrong sort of characters. It is difficult to see how Raith or any other club could consider Goodwillie, Lee Hughes Ched Evans, Joey Barton or similar as the sort of characters they want to employ.
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Feb 5, 2022 1:31:14 GMT
Further up in one of my earlier posts, it’s the full transcript of the Civil case…….. Having read the transcript I cannot see any reason to exonerate Goodwillie. It seems to boil down to how drunk the victim was and the evidence of everybody but the defenders was that she was extremely drunk, one even suggesting she needed an ambulance not a taxi. Most of the expert witnesses suggest that she was too drunk be considered to have given consent. I have no sympathy for Goodwillie and see no reason for wanting to see him with a contract at a football club. I can assure you that there are several professions where his behaviour would preclude him from continuing a career in them not just football. I agree with you re. the transcript. Goodwillie's explanation as to what transpired was not persuasive for me. Where I disagree with you is that he is a footballer. I can't see why he should be excluded from continuing his career.. other than a desire to punish him above that imposed by law. It is not as if he is a social worker where, quite rightly, more safeguards would be in place. The fact is that he has been 'cancelled' because it will cost Raith more money to keep him than to let him go. They could have easily avoided this mess but, perhaps they thought, his civil conviction was punishment enough. As somebody mentioned earlier, where was the outcry when he was playing for his last club or is morality now based on potential earnings opportunity rather than a desire to do the right thing. Does his civil conviction preclude him from doing anything in the future that has a public profile? As a society do we want him just to fade away and pursue a career out of the public eye? I don't have the answers to these questions and to some of them my views are conflicted. E.g.I think he should be allowed to play football but I would be more accepting if he had expressed some remorse (I am assuming he hasn't based on the comments in this thread). Even if he truly believes he is innocent he could perhaps acknowledge the trauma that the girl has gone through. Reading the transcript it is clear that the night in question had a severe emotional impact on her. I understand the argument that criminals serve their time and move on whereas some victims carry the trauma for a lifetime. It seems very unfair but what can you realistically do? If we think the law is weak then change the law but I don't think we should continue to punish people for the same offence they have been covicted of, however lenient or unfair the original sentence appears to be. It's a tricky one.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Feb 5, 2022 9:25:07 GMT
Having read the transcript I cannot see any reason to exonerate Goodwillie. It seems to boil down to how drunk the victim was and the evidence of everybody but the defenders was that she was extremely drunk, one even suggesting she needed an ambulance not a taxi. Most of the expert witnesses suggest that she was too drunk be considered to have given consent. I have no sympathy for Goodwillie and see no reason for wanting to see him with a contract at a football club. I can assure you that there are several professions where his behaviour would preclude him from continuing a career in them not just football. I agree with you re. the transcript. Goodwillie's explanation as to what transpired was not persuasive for me. Where I disagree with you is that he is a footballer. I can't see why he should be excluded from continuing his career.. other than a desire to punish him above that imposed by law. It is not as if he is a social worker where, quite rightly, more safeguards would be in place. The fact is that he has been 'cancelled' because it will cost Raith more money to keep him than to let him go. They could have easily avoided this mess but, perhaps they thought, his civil conviction was punishment enough. As somebody mentioned earlier, where was the outcry when he was playing for his last club or is morality now based on potential earnings opportunity rather than a desire to do the right thing. Does his civil conviction preclude him from doing anything in the future that has a public profile? As a society do we want him just to fade away and pursue a career out of the public eye? I don't have the answers to these questions and to some of them my views are conflicted. E.g.I think he should be allowed to play football but I would be more accepting if he had expressed some remorse (I am assuming he hasn't based on the comments in this thread). Even if he truly believes he is innocent he could perhaps acknowledge the trauma that the girl has gone through. Reading the transcript it is clear that the night in question had a severe emotional impact on her. I understand the argument that criminals serve their time and move on whereas some victims carry the trauma for a lifetime. It seems very unfair but what can you realistically do? If we think the law is weak then change the law but I don't think we should continue to punish people for the same offence they have been covicted of, however lenient or unfair the original sentence appears to be. It's a tricky one. My post above probably explains my stand point on his career. There are several jobs where he would not be allowed to continue because he has broken what is expected of someone of his professional standing, some for far less than abusing a woman. My problem with allowing him to continue in the limelight as a footballer is that losing a civil case the punishment is paying financial compensation to the victim. How much punishment is that really to him? As you say he has shown no remorse and as the judge said, seems to have completely forgotten, giving the excuse of too much alcohol, all aspects of the night showing him to have behaved badly but has a clear memory of everything that exonerated his behaviour. I hate stereotypes but he seems to be a stereotypical example of an arrogant footballer. He felt bad leaving her in a strange place where she didn't know where she was with no phone or money but he didn't think to wake her, put her in a taxi, leave some money in the room for her or go back to check her? Really felt bad didn't he? EDIT: As you say there is no law to prohibit him continuing as a footballer but my gripe is as much with football clubs who offer contracts to these sort of people without considering the moral aspect. For example I hope that a plumbing or electricial company wouldn't employ him. As a woman I would hate to think I was letting a potential rapist into my house to carry out repairs.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Feb 5, 2022 9:47:14 GMT
Having read the transcript I cannot see any reason to exonerate Goodwillie. It seems to boil down to how drunk the victim was and the evidence of everybody but the defenders was that she was extremely drunk, one even suggesting she needed an ambulance not a taxi. Most of the expert witnesses suggest that she was too drunk be considered to have given consent. I have no sympathy for Goodwillie and see no reason for wanting to see him with a contract at a football club. I can assure you that there are several professions where his behaviour would preclude him from continuing a career in them not just football. So if you're trying to pick up someone you should first establish how drunk they are? The fact that he was never prosecuted means there was insufficient evidence. Last I looked, it was innocent until proven guilty. Disclaimer: I don't agree with his behaviour and don't know anything about him (or her) as a person. It just surprises me that there is a rush to judgement and a moral outrage when he is not guilty of a crime. No but you should at least fancy them and take reasonable care of them after the act not abandon them without money, phone or any way of knowing where they are. He doesn't deny that he had sex then left. Hardly innocent.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Feb 5, 2022 12:24:05 GMT
Having read the transcript I cannot see any reason to exonerate Goodwillie. It seems to boil down to how drunk the victim was and the evidence of everybody but the defenders was that she was extremely drunk, one even suggesting she needed an ambulance not a taxi. Most of the expert witnesses suggest that she was too drunk be considered to have given consent. I have no sympathy for Goodwillie and see no reason for wanting to see him with a contract at a football club. I can assure you that there are several professions where his behaviour would preclude him from continuing a career in them not just football. So if you're trying to pick up someone you should first establish how drunk they are? The fact that he was never prosecuted means there was insufficient evidence. Last I looked, it was innocent until proven guilty. Disclaimer: I don't agree with his behaviour and don't know anything about him (or her) as a person. It just surprises me that there is a rush to judgement and a moral outrage when he is not guilty of a crime. You should actually, yes if she was falling all over herself, as the transcript suggests, then that’s a pretty reasonable indicator that she’s too drunk to consent.
|
|
|
Post by TrentValePotter96 on Feb 5, 2022 13:20:12 GMT
One problem with saying people should be able to continue their trade after their sentence is football is not like any other trade. Imagine the grief Adam Johnson would have got if he played lower league? Raith have learned a very hard lesson.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Feb 5, 2022 13:42:05 GMT
Be interesting to see how Mason Greenwood fares with the publicly available evidence that exists. Would you like him to play for Stoke if he became available? No I wouldn't. He seems to be a repeat offender. Reminds me of Berahino. Not only was he a shit football player but was regularly getting into trouble with women and the police. I dont think Southgate will ever pick him for England again. Foden is another one that needs to be careful or he will waste his career. On the other hand Grealish went from being a complete idiot a few years ago, drink driving and all that but seems to have got himself on the straight and narrow the last couple of years. I reckon Greenwood's career is all but over despite being a great talent
|
|
|
Post by biddulphchav on Feb 5, 2022 14:33:25 GMT
I agree with you re. the transcript. Goodwillie's explanation as to what transpired was not persuasive for me. Where I disagree with you is that he is a footballer. I can't see why he should be excluded from continuing his career.. other than a desire to punish him above that imposed by law. It is not as if he is a social worker where, quite rightly, more safeguards would be in place. The fact is that he has been 'cancelled' because it will cost Raith more money to keep him than to let him go. They could have easily avoided this mess but, perhaps they thought, his civil conviction was punishment enough. As somebody mentioned earlier, where was the outcry when he was playing for his last club or is morality now based on potential earnings opportunity rather than a desire to do the right thing. Does his civil conviction preclude him from doing anything in the future that has a public profile? As a society do we want him just to fade away and pursue a career out of the public eye? I don't have the answers to these questions and to some of them my views are conflicted. E.g.I think he should be allowed to play football but I would be more accepting if he had expressed some remorse (I am assuming he hasn't based on the comments in this thread). Even if he truly believes he is innocent he could perhaps acknowledge the trauma that the girl has gone through. Reading the transcript it is clear that the night in question had a severe emotional impact on her. I understand the argument that criminals serve their time and move on whereas some victims carry the trauma for a lifetime. It seems very unfair but what can you realistically do? If we think the law is weak then change the law but I don't think we should continue to punish people for the same offence they have been covicted of, however lenient or unfair the original sentence appears to be. It's a tricky one. My post above probably explains my stand point on his career. There are several jobs where he would not be allowed to continue because he has broken what is expected of someone of his professional standing, some for far less than abusing a woman. My problem with allowing him to continue in the limelight as a footballer is that losing a civil case the punishment is paying financial compensation to the victim. How much punishment is that really to him? As you say he has shown no remorse and as the judge said, seems to have completely forgotten, giving the excuse of too much alcohol, all aspects of the night showing him to have behaved badly but has a clear memory of everything that exonerated his behaviour. I hate stereotypes but he seems to be a stereotypical example of an arrogant footballer. He felt bad leaving her in a strange place where she didn't know where she was with no phone or money but he didn't think to wake her, put her in a taxi, leave some money in the room for her or go back to check her? Really felt bad didn't he? EDIT: As you say there is no law to prohibit him continuing as a footballer but my gripe is as much with football clubs who offer contracts to these sort of people without considering the moral aspect. For example I hope that a plumbing or electricial company wouldn't employ him. As a woman I would hate to think I was letting a potential rapist into my house to carry out repairs. The overriding factor here is that he has not committed a crime. At least, he has not committed a crime per the law. Now if the company or organisation that intends to employ a person like him and have created a policy to provide safeguards (like the one you mention below), then that’s one thing. But, for me, it’s another to ban or erase him from football where he poses no risk as such. The desire to exclude this person from their profession based on a civil judgement against them is problematic for me, and it is not a risk based decision or a footballing / professional decision. Having read the transcript myself it’s difficult to say one way or another if he was guilty of anything other than acting like an arsehole at the end of the night, but if that’s the yardstick we’re going to use then there are going to be a lot of people out there who need to be erased!
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Feb 5, 2022 19:29:26 GMT
So if you're trying to pick up someone you should first establish how drunk they are? The fact that he was never prosecuted means there was insufficient evidence. Last I looked, it was innocent until proven guilty. Disclaimer: I don't agree with his behaviour and don't know anything about him (or her) as a person. It just surprises me that there is a rush to judgement and a moral outrage when he is not guilty of a crime. No but you should at least fancy them and take reasonable care of them after the act not abandon them without money, phone or any way of knowing where they are. He doesn't deny that he had sex then left. Hardly innocent. Innocent of what??? It's ok to have had sex with her but not ok to leave?? Good Grief. What's your crime ..... I didn't spend the whole night in bed with the bird I picked up? Again, I absolutely do not condone the behaviour of any of the participants (including the woman), but people really need to get over themselves. A person made a bad decision. They were punished for it. Let's all move on.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Feb 5, 2022 20:01:29 GMT
No but you should at least fancy them and take reasonable care of them after the act not abandon them without money, phone or any way of knowing where they are. He doesn't deny that he had sex then left. Hardly innocent. Innocent of what??? It's ok to have had sex with her but not ok to leave?? Good Grief. What's your crime ..... I didn't spend the whole night in bed with the bird I picked up? Again, I absolutely do not condone the behaviour of any of the participants (including the woman), but people really need to get over themselves. A person made a bad decision. They were punished for it. Let's all move on. Perhaps it's because I'm from a different age but to me if you want consensual sex it's because you like the person and feel an attraction for them. The fact that he left straight afterwards with no thought for her wellbeing suggests to me that if it wasn't rape it was at least taking advantage of the fact that she was too drunk to make rational judgements. There is no doubt that the alcohol had made her behave in a way she would not normally have acted and has to live with that for the rest of her life. He meantime having paid her compensation which I have no doubt was no particular hardship to him expects to carry no stigma for the rest of his life. I have already said that Raith are just as despicable as him for wanting to employ a man with no morals.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Feb 5, 2022 23:39:09 GMT
Innocent of what??? It's ok to have had sex with her but not ok to leave?? Good Grief. What's your crime ..... I didn't spend the whole night in bed with the bird I picked up? Again, I absolutely do not condone the behaviour of any of the participants (including the woman), but people really need to get over themselves. A person made a bad decision. They were punished for it. Let's all move on. Perhaps it's because I'm from a different age but to me if you want consensual sex it's because you like the person and feel an attraction for them. The fact that he left straight afterwards with no thought for her wellbeing suggests to me that if it wasn't rape it was at least taking advantage of the fact that she was too drunk to make rational judgements. There is no doubt that the alcohol had made her behave in a way she would not normally have acted and has to live with that for the rest of her life. He meantime having paid her compensation which I have no doubt was no particular hardship to him expects to carry no stigma for the rest of his life. I have already said that Raith are just as despicable as him for wanting to employ a man with no morals. We're from the same age, but clearly the 2 involved are not. We'll have to agree to disagree. There are a myriad of possible reasons for leaving, not wanting to be caught breaking curfew, early morning activities the next day, whatever. One would imagine that a woman who consents (knowingly or not) wants to do the deed. Why would a guy (or woman) feel that he/she has to stick around to "comfort" the other one in case she/he was traumatised by doing what she/he wanted to do the previous night? "OK Quasimodo, I'll close my eyes while have sex with you, but please stick around the next day to assure me it was actually Prince Charming" Finally, he had also had a number of drinks. His decision-making capability was also impaired. He probably thought she meant what she said. To Punish him by destroying his career for NO CRIME, and her poor decision making, just seems over the top!
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Feb 6, 2022 15:34:10 GMT
Perhaps it's because I'm from a different age but to me if you want consensual sex it's because you like the person and feel an attraction for them. The fact that he left straight afterwards with no thought for her wellbeing suggests to me that if it wasn't rape it was at least taking advantage of the fact that she was too drunk to make rational judgements. There is no doubt that the alcohol had made her behave in a way she would not normally have acted and has to live with that for the rest of her life. He meantime having paid her compensation which I have no doubt was no particular hardship to him expects to carry no stigma for the rest of his life. I have already said that Raith are just as despicable as him for wanting to employ a man with no morals. We're from the same age, but clearly the 2 involved are not. We'll have to agree to disagree. There are a myriad of possible reasons for leaving, not wanting to be caught breaking curfew, early morning activities the next day, whatever. One would imagine that a woman who consents (knowingly or not) wants to do the deed. Why would a guy (or woman) feel that he/she has to stick around to "comfort" the other one in case she/he was traumatised by doing what she/he wanted to do the previous night? "OK Quasimodo, I'll close my eyes while have sex with you, but please stick around the next day to assure me it was actually Prince Charming" Finally, he had also had a number of drinks. His decision-making capability was also impaired. He probably thought she meant what she said. To Punish him by destroying his career for NO CRIME, and her poor decision making, just seems over the top! I agree to disagree but would just like to point out that she was taken to the flat by Goodwillie and his mate in a car, had no idea where it was and had lost her phone and purse so not a case of comforting her but making sure she could get home. As for decision making when drunk it seems from the transcript that Goodwillie was able to make a fair few decisions. She went with his mate but Goodwillie turned up in the bedroom and can't remember why? At no point did she say anything to Goodwillie about having sex with him but the question is whether she told him she didn't want to or was compliant when he arrived in the bedroom. It also seems apparent from the transcript that she has had her life ruined by the poor decision making of both of them so why is that OK? It is also very difficult for a woman to force a man to have sex. I think men find it very difficult to understand the trauma a woman suffers from this type of situation and that men rarely worry about the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy. I am assuming that you are a man which perhaps explains why we will never agree. You are seeing it from Goodwillie's point of view I am seeing it from hers. He would not be the only person to have his career ended by poor decision making. As I said before driving instructors or the people who present the speed awareness courses lose their jobs if they commit a driving offence no matter how minor and I read of a teacher yesterday who lost her job and was banned from teaching for 5 years because she was caught drink driving with her children in the car. There wouldn't be many footballers left if that was applied to footballers. Professional people including footballers have to accept that there are consequences for their behaviour which may affect their career. Perhaps if Goodwillie had thought about that his decision making would have been different on the night.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Feb 6, 2022 18:11:47 GMT
We're from the same age, but clearly the 2 involved are not. We'll have to agree to disagree. There are a myriad of possible reasons for leaving, not wanting to be caught breaking curfew, early morning activities the next day, whatever. One would imagine that a woman who consents (knowingly or not) wants to do the deed. Why would a guy (or woman) feel that he/she has to stick around to "comfort" the other one in case she/he was traumatised by doing what she/he wanted to do the previous night? "OK Quasimodo, I'll close my eyes while have sex with you, but please stick around the next day to assure me it was actually Prince Charming" Finally, he had also had a number of drinks. His decision-making capability was also impaired. He probably thought she meant what she said. To Punish him by destroying his career for NO CRIME, and her poor decision making, just seems over the top! I agree to disagree but would just like to point out that she was taken to the flat by Goodwillie and his mate in a car, had no idea where it was and had lost her phone and purse so not a case of comforting her but making sure she could get home. As for decision making when drunk it seems from the transcript that Goodwillie was able to make a fair few decisions. She went with his mate but Goodwillie turned up in the bedroom and can't remember why? At no point did she say anything to Goodwillie about having sex with him but the question is whether she told him she didn't want to or was compliant when he arrived in the bedroom. It also seems apparent from the transcript that she has had her life ruined by the poor decision making of both of them so why is that OK? It is also very difficult for a woman to force a man to have sex. I think men find it very difficult to understand the trauma a woman suffers from this type of situation and that men rarely worry about the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy. I am assuming that you are a man which perhaps explains why we will never agree. You are seeing it from Goodwillie's point of view I am seeing it from hers. He would not be the only person to have his career ended by poor decision making. As I said before driving instructors or the people who present the speed awareness courses lose their jobs if they commit a driving offence no matter how minor and I read of a teacher yesterday who lost her job and was banned from teaching for 5 years because she was caught drink driving with her children in the car. There wouldn't be many footballers left if that was applied to footballers. Professional people including footballers have to accept that there are consequences for their behaviour which may affect their career. Perhaps if Goodwillie had thought about that his decision making would have been different on the night. Woah! If the woman can't remember what happened, how can anyone say "she was forced to have sex"? But, let's just disagree, but your comments do open a whole different train of thought. What are the consequences of cheating; telling a lie; watching films that portray unacceptable behaviours; etc, etc.? Perhaps the real problem is we live in a world where eternal consequences are simply ignored in the vast majority of our decisions?
|
|
|
Post by biddulphchav on Feb 7, 2022 7:22:00 GMT
I agree to disagree but would just like to point out that she was taken to the flat by Goodwillie and his mate in a car, had no idea where it was and had lost her phone and purse so not a case of comforting her but making sure she could get home. As for decision making when drunk it seems from the transcript that Goodwillie was able to make a fair few decisions. She went with his mate but Goodwillie turned up in the bedroom and can't remember why? At no point did she say anything to Goodwillie about having sex with him but the question is whether she told him she didn't want to or was compliant when he arrived in the bedroom. It also seems apparent from the transcript that she has had her life ruined by the poor decision making of both of them so why is that OK? It is also very difficult for a woman to force a man to have sex. I think men find it very difficult to understand the trauma a woman suffers from this type of situation and that men rarely worry about the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy. I am assuming that you are a man which perhaps explains why we will never agree. You are seeing it from Goodwillie's point of view I am seeing it from hers. He would not be the only person to have his career ended by poor decision making. As I said before driving instructors or the people who present the speed awareness courses lose their jobs if they commit a driving offence no matter how minor and I read of a teacher yesterday who lost her job and was banned from teaching for 5 years because she was caught drink driving with her children in the car. There wouldn't be many footballers left if that was applied to footballers. Professional people including footballers have to accept that there are consequences for their behaviour which may affect their career. Perhaps if Goodwillie had thought about that his decision making would have been different on the night. Woah! If the woman can't remember what happened, how can anyone say "she was forced to have sex"? But, let's just disagree, but your comments do open a whole different train of thought. What are the consequences of cheating; telling a lie; watching films that portray unacceptable behaviours; etc, etc.? Perhaps the real problem is we live in a world where eternal consequences are simply ignored in the vast majority of our decisions? I see the links you are making, and agree. A driving instructors attitude to road safety is important because his integrity as an instructor is at stake if he or she doesn’t observe the rules themselves. Where I’m struggling is the link between football and this assault (not a criminal offence mind you). What other indiscretions should footballers have their careers ended for? Should everyone in the public eye be judged this way? If the offence isn’t directly linked to the profession then surely this is effectively trial by media? Lots of questions marks!
|
|