W6er

The hyperlink wasn't working from the page I was viewing. Thanks for this.

I have the Dundee Ut/Falkirk game on and there's no coverage of anything else. The BBC aren't doing live updates, either. What's everyone else using for updates?

It could be that both judges got it right, given the different standards of proof! 😉 😆 Of course, we also have the 'not proven' verdict in Scotland, too. Ach, come to think of it, I don't think this will ever end unless new evidence comes to light.

Also known as cause for 'reasonable doubt'. To be honest, I hope there's a criminal trial. If the evidence stands up to that standard of proof, then fine. It's an emotive topic. Of course there are some predatory males who go out with the intention of plying women with drink in the hope of obtaining sexual intercourse. Sad and pathetic. However, when I was at university I woke up next to a number of lassies I'd met at parties and clubs and could barely recall the events of the night before. I shudder to think what would have happened if one of them had claimed she was too drunk to consent, or how I would have explained the previous night's events.

That's an idea! I will follow on here, P&B, the radio and the BBC's live feed. Hopefully some of you going tonight will be good enough to provide some updates?

I take it there will not be live commentary of our game, though? Just updates?

My point is simply that there is reasonable doubt. The issue here is whether she consented or not. The Judge has stated that she was '...incapable of giving meaningful consent...', but as @Slarti notes, she could have consumed alcohol afterwards, which would have affected her readings. I have stated all along that I don't know the full facts, and I do not believe the Judge does, either. I think that if the case was provable beyond reasonable doubt, which is the criminal standard, then they would have been prosecuted. Until that happens I would suggest there IS reasonable doubt, and perhaps that's why Goodwillie is maintaining he's innocent. At the end of the day, this appears to be an incident that involved three drunk adults in a private space. I doubt there will ever be clear, objective evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt what happened. To try to make me sound like a rape apologist for holding this opinion is simply just nasty and an ad hominem response likely due to you not having the evidence to substantiate your opinion. You're just showing yourself up.

'...incapable of giving meaningful consent...' So, she could have initiated sex, but because she was too drunk to remember it, they're rapists? And what were the males' blood alcohol readings? '...she would have fallen within the range of blood alcohol concentrations associated with alcoholic blackouts and memory impairment.' But if they were pished too, would they have been aware of that?

I have to say that I reached the same conclusion independently from @faraway saint. It really is hearsay, for the reasons I posted above. Also, as I have shown, I don't believe it is possible to defame a dead person's character. Even accepting the quote as true, which I do not, it's not evidence that Mr Ogg acted unprofessionally. The Scottish legal profession is not huge and people will know and be friendly with others. Let's look at it again: Now forgetting the fact that the author is claiming to know something Ogg said, which unless he was present when he said it, would be the very definition of hearsay. Forget that both Ogg and McBride are dead. 'Ogg was close to McBride and said "we have been very close friends all our lives...". What exactly does that prove? It's hearsay and insinuation. The author is only intimating something underhand has occurred. He's speculating based on hearsay.

I'm not sure that's the convincing proof you think it. A reporter (hack?) states that the deceased Mr Ogg made recommendations to Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland and the inference is that the recommendation was made as a favour to a friend, Paul McBride, who was representing Goodwillie? It's very convenient that both Ogg and McBride are dead and therefore cannot be sued for defamation of character (libel in England). That means that any old hack can pretty much invent anything about a dead person with impunity. But, of course, we all know that journalists are scrupulous types who would never dream of publishing lies to sell newspapers. "Ogg, who died two years ago, would later say..." - so there's not even a written record of it, then? No source? Nothing. It's basically hearsay, if not a total fabrication. BTW, I'm happy to change my mind if there's evidence. I have no problem condemning a man whose guilt's proven 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

I think it would be interesting to see how other cases would fare with a lower standard of proof. Take the Birmingham Six, who were travelling to an IRA funeral, had apparently held collections for the IRA and were in the vicinity of the pubs in which the bombs had been planted at the right time. Of course, they had the confessions beaten out of them and the tests conducted which showed they were handling semtex were ultimately not considered reliable enough for the criminal courts, but considered at the lower standard of proof there would surely be a compelling case against them. Maybe we should just jettison the higher standard - 'beyond a reasonable doubt' - and go with the lower standard of proof? Certainly many on here apparently think that standard's enough. 😕 It would secure more convictions and Goodwillie will serve porridge.

I meant Forfar, as you all know... 😆 The loss to Montrose is still ever present in my mind.

We should beat Montrose. If we don't and Forfar beat Arbroath, then I am not going to spend £15 + train fare + 4 hrs of my weekend watch what is a meaningless game. I'm a season ticket holder, SMISA member and I was at the Arbroath game...but even I have my limits.

The balance of probabilities essentially means the judge will determine which account is most likely to be true. I don't know the facts of the case, so I will reserve judgement. I have read snippets and heard people's comments, from which I understand the three parties were drinking heavily and the female returned to a flat with the two men, where the alleged incident took place. That's all I know, and I will reiterate that I am not in possession of all the facts. I cannot imagine there would be tangible evidence in this case, and so it would rely on the individuals' testimonies, plus those of any other witnesses. If it is true that all three were heavily intoxicated, then I would have to question how any of their testimonies could be considered reliable. Certainly when I have woken up after drinking heavily, I will have hazy memories of the night before. I think a trial like this can hinge on the skill of the parties' respective legal representatives. Also, the fact two men were accused might mean there would be inconsistencies in the evidence they gave, when considered in the round. Does that mean they lied, or that being drunk meant they were unable to recall events clearly? There is a reason that criminal trials have such a high standard of proof, 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I'm guessing the procurator fiscal must have believed that there was reasonable doubt for them not to have pressed charges.

Same. If we have a chance of progressing I will 100% go, but if not I will give it a miss.

Absolutely delighted. We played brilliantly - defended well, limiting them to a single shot on goal, IIRC; we were attacking, creative and genuinely could have been 3-0 up at half time. My only complaint is that the fans didn't seem to know how to use the recycling bins, despite the illustration.

Jim Goodwin?

Excellent! At least our game plan isn't to 'lay down and die'...

Was that not including 1/2 tickets, though? I thought we had a counter last season and it got to ~3,500.

It was my attempt at a joke. If someone's 'full of shit', they could have a very bad case of constipation. 6. There are bound to be two clubs teams worse than us, as Rascal has pointed out.

Have all his other suspected aliases gone quiet, too? 😕 To be honest I'm not sure what other aliases he has.

Nothing a decent laxative cannae sort out!

5) So, Robinson's has the appearance of a man with a plan!

3) Robinson was able to get the best out of Main, transforming him from a donkey into one of our best players. It may take some time for him to do the same with some of our recent signings.

Seriously, the guy's been a member since 2005. I hope he's okay.