HSS Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38651041 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flareybob Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 Jail them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 With the evidence of the security staff and the taxi driver, it beggars belief that the case never got put to a criminal trial Evil scumbags, here's hopingtheir foorballing days are now over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottd Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 What will hurt Goodwillie more is that the BBC report refers to him as a 'former Scotland international'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSS Posted June 28, 2023 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2023 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66040554 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted June 28, 2023 Report Share Posted June 28, 2023 7 hours ago, HSS said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66040554 Hounded out again, as he should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted June 28, 2023 Report Share Posted June 28, 2023 A terrible situation, forever branded and no opportunity to get on with life. It seems if you murder someone, or some other hideous crime, judged guilty, serve your time, then you are, RIGHTLY, given an opportunity to show you can be a decent human being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guinness Posted June 28, 2023 Report Share Posted June 28, 2023 Why on earth did they sign him? They must have known the reaction they would get. Either do not sign him,probably correct , or sign him and have the courage to see if through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted July 23, 2023 Report Share Posted July 23, 2023 I might be in the minority but, given Goodwillie was NEVER found guilty in a court of law, I applaud Glasgow United for there stance. I fear they won't be able to continue to continue with it because people just can't forgive even when the authorities couldn't charge the man. David Goodwillie ‘deserves a chance’ insist Glasgow United as they stand firm over disgraced striker - Football Scotland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Monster Posted July 23, 2023 Report Share Posted July 23, 2023 I might be in the minority but, given Goodwillie was NEVER found guilty in a court of law, Yes he was.It was decided in a civil court where the burden of proof isn't as high as a criminal court. Nevertheless the two are courts of law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted July 23, 2023 Report Share Posted July 23, 2023 11 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said: Yes he was. No he wasn't. It was a civil lawsuit. Not the same thing. It didn't have a jury of his peers and the onus was of proving his innocence rather than his guilt. Ergo he was found "not innocent. There was no proof he was guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Monster Posted July 23, 2023 Report Share Posted July 23, 2023 You don't need a jury in a criminal case. [emoji1787]The judges sentencing contradicts what you now claim.https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/who-is-david-goodwillie-what-did-a-judge-rule-3551381"In these circumstances, the pursuer having proved her case, I shall pronounce decree against the first and second defenders, jointly and severally, in the agreed sum of £100,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted July 23, 2023 Report Share Posted July 23, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Cookie Monster said: You don't need a jury in a criminal case. The judges sentencing contradicts what you now claim. https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/who-is-david-goodwillie-what-did-a-judge-rule-3551381 "In these circumstances, the pursuer having proved her case, I shall pronounce decree against the first and second defenders, jointly and severally, in the agreed sum of £100,000. It wasn't a criminal case and, as I said, Goodwillie needed to prove his innocence as opposed to the crown proving his guilt. It is also the case that the burden of proof required is far less than a criminal case. The judge didn't need the same amount of evidence to decide on the lack of innocence. So I suggest he didn't contradict what I claimed. No matter the language used. ETA. This would have been a case of they said, she said if it went to a criminal trial. I am not saying he was or was not guilty. I'm saying the evidence is weak enough that his life shouldn't be completely destroyed. Edited July 23, 2023 by stlucifer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted July 23, 2023 Report Share Posted July 23, 2023 He might have been playing regularly by now, if he’d ever shown any remorse for (or acknowledgement of)the impact of his actions. Own worst enemy, it appears. Like other clubs in Goodwillie’s recent “career”, Glasgow United may reconsider… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted July 23, 2023 Report Share Posted July 23, 2023 49 minutes ago, antrin said: He might have been playing regularly by now, if he’d ever shown any remorse for (or acknowledgement of)the impact of his actions. Own worst enemy, it appears. Like other clubs in Goodwillie’s recent “career”, Glasgow United may reconsider… I say again. I am not passing judgement either way but... Has it never occurred to you that the very reason he has shown no remorse is because he didn't actually commit the crime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted July 23, 2023 Report Share Posted July 23, 2023 Just now, stlucifer said: ... Has it never occurred to you that the very reason he has shown no remorse is because he didn't actually commit the crime? 100%, Why would anybody "show remorse" if they hadn't commited a crime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Monster Posted July 23, 2023 Report Share Posted July 23, 2023 It wasn't a criminal case and, as I said, Goodwillie needed to prove his innocence as opposed to the crown proving his guilt. It is also the case that the burden of proof required is far less than a criminal case. The judge didn't need the same amount of evidence to decide on the lack of innocence. So I suggest he didn't contradict what I claimed. No matter the language used. ETA. This would have been a case of they said, she said if it went to a criminal trial. I am not saying he was or was not guilty. I'm saying the evidence is weak enough that his life shouldn't be completely destroyed.I know it wasn't a criminal trial, you claimed it wasn't held in a court of law when it was.Regarding the burden of proof, I did write that in my 1st reply after an edit.The edit was after I mentioned to an ex Prosecutor Fiscal and ex Police Officer I was having a coffee with and we had a discussion about said case. (I can swear on oath that this is true, cause even I'm laughing thinking it sounds so like if the stirling liar had posted it. [emoji1787])You again seem to think it is for defendant to prove they are innocent rather than the pursuer to prove they have been a victim. So here is more proof of you being wrong and actually contradicting you. [emoji14] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W6er Posted July 23, 2023 Report Share Posted July 23, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slarti Posted July 23, 2023 Report Share Posted July 23, 2023 The edit was after I mentioned to an ex Prosecutor Fiscal and ex Police Officer I was having a coffee with and we had a discussion about said case. (I can swear on oath that this is true, cause even I'm laughing thinking it sounds so like if the stirling liar had posted it. [emoji1787])At least it wasn't a dinner party. [emoji6] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Monster Posted July 24, 2023 Report Share Posted July 24, 2023 At least it wasn't a dinner party. [emoji6]If eating a custard cream with my coffee constitutes a dinner party then I will have to plead guilty. [emoji54] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted July 24, 2023 Report Share Posted July 24, 2023 7 hours ago, Cookie Monster said: I know it wasn't a criminal trial, you claimed it wasn't held in a court of law when it was. Regarding the burden of proof, I did write that in my 1st reply after an edit. The edit was after I mentioned to an ex Prosecutor Fiscal and ex Police Officer I was having a coffee with and we had a discussion about said case. (I can swear on oath that this is true, cause even I'm laughing thinking it sounds so like if the stirling liar had posted it. ) You again seem to think it is for defendant to prove they are innocent rather than the pursuer to prove they have been a victim. So here is more proof of you being wrong and actually contradicting you. Read between those lines. At the end of the day. In a criminal court the defendant doesn't need to provide any evidence of innocence. In a civil case they do. Therefore they NEED to justify why they believe they are not guilty. Quite a big difference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted July 24, 2023 Report Share Posted July 24, 2023 On 6/28/2023 at 8:19 PM, faraway saint said: A terrible situation, forever branded and no opportunity to get on with life. It seems if you murder someone, or some other hideous crime, judged guilty, serve your time, then you are, RIGHTLY, given an opportunity to show you can be a decent human being. Unless some fecker hangs you in the meanwhile. It's a strange point you seem to be making, Goodwillie & Robertson served no time in jail and their opportunity to show how they have changed must involve contrition & remorse. They don't seem to have embraced either so the comparison doesn't work. And as for "forever branded", that is no worse than what they would experience after a criminal conviction. We are all the products of what we have done and if part of a person's make up is the fact that they committed a serious crime then that is what they are. What I would say is that the status of private prosections is not clear and the option seems to be there as a second attempt when the burden of proof threshold for a criminal case is not met. Private prosecutions should be discontinued or be given a special legal status whereby the crown has to look at the proceedings and decide if they need to review the original decision not to prosecute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted July 24, 2023 Report Share Posted July 24, 2023 1 hour ago, beyond our ken said: Goodwillie & Robertson served no time in jail and their opportunity to show how they have changed must involve contrition & remorse. If they are innocent? 🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted July 24, 2023 Report Share Posted July 24, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, beyond our ken said: Unless some fecker hangs you in the meanwhile. It's a strange point you seem to be making, Goodwillie & Robertson served no time in jail and their opportunity to show how they have changed must involve contrition & remorse. They don't seem to have embraced either so the comparison doesn't work. And as for "forever branded", that is no worse than what they would experience after a criminal conviction. We are all the products of what we have done and if part of a person's make up is the fact that they committed a serious crime then that is what they are. What I would say is that the status of private prosections is not clear and the option seems to be there as a second attempt when the burden of proof threshold for a criminal case is not met. Private prosecutions should be discontinued or be given a special legal status whereby the crown has to look at the proceedings and decide if they need to review the original decision not to prosecute. You are making assumptions based on ONE judge's opinion. Glasgow United say it best. "How can he show contrite or remorse for something he staunchly claims he did not do?" They added: "We do a lot of work in our community helping those in need and this is only an extension of that work. "We are supporting David with his mental health and will continue to do so. This witch hunt has gone on for far too long and the use of any person's life as a political football is unacceptable." ETA. As for the second statement. It changes NOTHING as far as the burden of proof is concerned so how can they decide to prosecute at the behest of, again, ONE judge's opinion? Get real buddy. Edited July 24, 2023 by stlucifer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted July 24, 2023 Report Share Posted July 24, 2023 4 hours ago, faraway saint said: If they are innocent? 🙄 already found guilty i know a lot of peple have difficulty with that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.