Goodwillie and Robertson..........

[faraway saint]

7 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

already found guilty

i know a lot of peple have difficulty with that

Not in a court of law, jeezo, what part don't you understand? 

Read, slowly, the post from @stlucifer. 

Edited July 24, 2023 by faraway saint

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

I’m not familiar with the case in detail, but after being found guilty in the civil case, would it not maybe have been sensible to at least show a bit of humility. Maybe say something along the lines of despite believing they are innocent, they’ve learned a huge lesson about consent and how can it really be established when all parties are in such a state of intoxication. This has been a horrible episode for all concerned and in future I/we will make sure we never find ourselves in such a position again? 

[beyond our ken]

25 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

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.

How many judges do you want?

However you dress it up, many people are convicted on the judgement of one individual and in this case Lord Armstrong presided.  You really think the opinion of a bunch of guys on the internet trumps that of a person of this experience and knowledge?  Get real, buddy!  Would you argue with the tetimony of the bouncers who watched them pour the girl into a taxi?  Then get real on that score too.  And if you think the background to the charges being dropped was sound, then get fukkin real, buddy because you are living in a dream world where it's OK for men to get away with these things just because there weren't enough judges to satisfy your arbitrary notion of the burden of proof.

I don't think eother Goodwillie or Robertson has to carry the impact of this case for the rest of their lives, but they did it!  They can leave it all behind if they 'fess up, apologise and demonstrate remorse.

And my second statement is hypothetical, I don't think the fall back option of a civil case serves anyone's needs very well.  Maybe i expressed a daft notion, it is not one that is half as daft as the ones being purported by the apologists though.

You cite Glasgow United's claim that they are rehabillitating Goodwillie and performing a public service, well they should start with the crime and the interests of the victim instead of going straight to the defence of a person a judge found guilty of a serious crime.  I'd have more respect for their so-called work in the community if they provided some proof of what they do for victims

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, beyond our ken said:

 

I don't think eother Goodwillie or Robertson has to carry the impact of this case for the rest of their lives, but they did it!  They can leave it all behind if they 'fess up, apologise and demonstrate remorse.

 

Fecking jesus. 

[beyond our ken]

8 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

I’m not familiar with the case in detail, but after being found guilty in the civil case, would it not maybe have been sensible to at least show a bit of humility. Maybe say something along the lines of despite believing they are innocent, they’ve learned a huge lesson about consent and how can it really be established when all parties are in such a state of intoxication. This has been a horrible episode for all concerned and in future I/we will make sure we never find ourselves in such a position again? 

They can and should say something like that, it would lead to their cases being re-opened but they would have their day in court and the chance to apologise to their victim  

Goodwillie has never paid a penny to his victim, so are GU proposing that they start payingoff his debt on the basis of appearances?  are they fukk!

[beyond our ken]

1 minute ago, faraway saint said:

Fecking jesus. 

You refuse to accept their guilt, that is fair enough.  Maybe i recall wrongly, but did you ever mention collecting compensation for an injury?  Maybe it was someone else.

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

You refuse to accept their guilt, that is fair enough.  Maybe i recall wrongly, but did you ever mention collecting compensation for an injury?  Maybe it was someone else.

I refuse to accept that this guy has not been found guilty in a criminal court, aye, that's correct.

WTF has my compensation claim got to do with it?

Where's the popcorn? 🍿

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

6 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

They can and should say something like that, it would lead to their cases being re-opened but they would have their day in court and the chance to apologise to their victim  

Goodwillie has never paid a penny to his victim, so are GU proposing that they start payingoff his debt on the basis of appearances?  are they fukk!

I don’t see why saying something like that would lead to their cases being reopened. They still wouldn’t be admitting anything. Just acknowledging the vulnerability of the situation (for all parties) and stating clearly that valuable lessons have been learned. Maybe also adding something about letting their clubs and their fans down through at the very very best being extremely unprofessional and acting in a manner not befitting of a role model. 

[beyond our ken]

19 hours ago, W6er said:

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. 

guessing gets you fukk all in this game, i posted a referrence to the decision to drop the criminal case earlier.  The decision was made by a man who took advice from another who spoke at the funeral of Robertson's solicitor. The victim had been previously told that the evidence was strong by the same man

[faraway saint]

5 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

guessing gets you fukk all in this game, i posted a referrence to the decision to drop the criminal case earlier.  The decision was made by a man who took advice from another who spoke at the funeral of Robertson's solicitor. The victim had been previously told that the evidence was strong by the same man

As you have a history of making things up could you post proof of the highlighted section?

Thanks. 

[beyond our ken]

18 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

I refuse to accept that this guy has not been found guilty in a criminal court, aye, that's correct.

WTF has my compensation claim got to do with it?

Where's the popcorn? 🍿

Your claim may not have gone to court, if it had, the judgement would have been made by one person IN A COURT OF LAW.  If an out-of-court settlement was made it ws because you had the civl courts to back you up and ensure justice was done. If the defendant had refused to pay the fact that the judgement was made in a court of law would have allowed a court to sieze assets, or appoint an agent to do so on your behalf.  Are you saying you shouldn't have been compensated because your payout was made under the civil system, which is there to protect people by ensuring that remediation is made when harm is suffered?  

[W6er]

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.  

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by W6er

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, beyond our ken said:

Your claim may not have gone to court, if it had, the judgement would have been made by one person IN A COURT OF LAW.  If an out-of-court settlement was made it ws because you had the civl courts to back you up and ensure justice was done. If the defendant had refused to pay the fact that the judgement was made in a court of law would have allowed a court to sieze assets, or appoint an agent to do so on your behalf.  Are you saying you shouldn't have been compensated because your payout was made under the civil system, which is there to protect people by ensuring that remediation is made when harm is suffered?  

It didn't as it was an open and shut case.

My particular case was factually impossible to defend, completely different to the case we're discussing where there is no concrete evidence.

That, my friend, makes the rest of your post irrelevant. 

[beyond our ken]

4 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

As you have a history of making things up could you post proof of the highlighted section?

Thanks. 

Listen, you are the only liar on here just now, I already posted that but a muppet such as you is prepared to argue on without reading what is already there in front of him.  But an apology is in order-I got it wrong.  It was Goodwillie's solcitor whose funeral address was delivered by the Lord Advocate who made the decison to drop the charges based on a recommendation of a lifelong friend of Goodwillie's solicitor

So for the determinedly hard of thinking (you)  here is the relevant passage since you are so hot on "proof"

Ogg, who died two years ago, would later say the decision was taken by then Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland but on his recommendation. Goodwillie was then being represented by Paul McBride, a leading QC. He died suddenly in 2012 and Mulholland spoke at his funeral. Ogg was close to McBride and, after his death, said: “We have been very close friends all our professional lives and a light has gone out of the life of Scotland.”

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, beyond our ken said:

Listen, you are the only liar on here just now, I already posted that but a muppet such as you is prepared to argue on without reading what is already there in front of him.  But an apology is in order-I got it wrong.  It was Goodwillie's solcitor whose funeral address was delivered by the Lord Advocate who made the decison to drop the charges based on a recommendation of a lifelong friend of Goodwillie's solicitor

So for the determinedly hard of thinking (you)  here is the relevant passage since you are so hot on "proof"

Ogg, who died two years ago, would later say the decision was taken by then Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland but on his recommendation. Goodwillie was then being represented by Paul McBride, a leading QC. He died suddenly in 2012 and Mulholland spoke at his funeral. Ogg was close to McBride and, after his death, said: “We have been very close friends all our professional lives and a light has gone out of the life of Scotland.”

Charming. 

You're "hot", when it suits you, about people throwing out abuse yet you, clearly rattled, resort to this whenever it suits you.

The passage is, at best, hearsay, hardly evidence to back up your slavering on this issue. 

 

[beyond our ken]

1 minute ago, faraway saint said:

It didn't as it was an open and shut case.

My particular case was factually impossible to defend, completely different to the case we're discussing where there is no concrete evidence.

That, my friend, makes the rest of your post irrelevant. 

But your ultimate recourse would have been via a court that you would say is not a court of law, open & shut case or not.  Anyway the idea of an open and shut case is made on previous case law where judges that you don't recognise have ruled   now you are implying that the civil judgement is not a safe one because it was not made in your idea of a court of law, so hand back the money, eh? You are clearly not entitled to it.

[faraway saint]

3 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

But your ultimate recourse would have been via a court that you would say is not a court of law, open & shut case or not.  Anyway the idea of an open and shut case is made on previous case law where judges that you don't recognise have ruled   now you are implying that the civil judgement is not a safe one because it was not made in your idea of a court of law, so hand back the money, eh? You are clearly not entitled to it.

Too late spent it. 

[alanb]

What the Judge said...

 

DC AGAINST (FIRST) DG AND (SECOND) DR (scotcourts.gov.uk)

What Goodwillie still says...

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by alanb

[faraway saint]

32 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

guessing gets you fukk all in this game, i posted a referrence to the decision to drop the criminal case earlier.  The decision was made by a man who took advice from another who spoke at the funeral of Robertson's solicitor. The victim had been previously told that the evidence was strong by the same man

So, are you saying that ANYONE who has committed a crime should, forever, have this used against them to prevent them from carrying on with their life? 

Asking for a friend. 

[W6er]

2 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Listen, you are the only liar on here just now, I already posted that but a muppet such as you is prepared to argue on without reading what is already there in front of him.  But an apology is in order-I got it wrong.  It was Goodwillie's solcitor whose funeral address was delivered by the Lord Advocate who made the decison to drop the charges based on a recommendation of a lifelong friend of Goodwillie's solicitor

So for the determinedly hard of thinking (you)  here is the relevant passage since you are so hot on "proof"

Ogg, who died two years ago, would later say the decision was taken by then Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland but on his recommendation. Goodwillie was then being represented by Paul McBride, a leading QC. He died suddenly in 2012 and Mulholland spoke at his funeral. Ogg was close to McBride and, after his death, said: “We have been very close friends all our professional lives and a light has gone out of the life of Scotland.”

 

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).

Quote

35. The Scottish Government have previously given consideration to some of the key issues relating to protections available in Scotland for a deceased person’s reputation.^[13] This included the principle of whether the law should be extended to allow relatives to bring a defamation action on behalf of a deceased person in circumstances where defamatory comments are made posthumously about the deceased. The Scottish Government, after consultation, took the view that extending the law to protect the reputation of a recently deceased person may not be the most appropriate means of achieving the aim.^[14]

 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'. 

[beyond our ken]

Just now, faraway saint said:

Charming. 

You're "hot", when it suits you, about people throwing out abuse yet you, clearly rattled, resort to this whenever it suits you.

The passage is, at best, hearsay, hardly evidence to back up your slavering on this issue. 

 

Unbelievable, you accused me of lying and complain about being called a muppet in return.  We know who is rattled, you are not even in denial, just refusing to acknowledge the truth then brand ad "hearsay" some serious journalism that CLEARLY would have seen the reporter taken to court had it not been true since it is about rich and influential legal figures.  You think the Sunday Post's lawyers would have cleared that if there was even a hint of untruth given the people involved?  Really?

Mty final word is that the evidence was considered by an experienced judge who was more than happy to convict, his opinion has never been successfully challenged.  Goodwillie should pay up, he has the money now.

[W6er]

1 minute ago, beyond our ken said:

Unbelievable, you accused me of lying and complain about being called a muppet in return.  We know who is rattled, you are not even in denial, just refusing to acknowledge the truth then brand ad "hearsay" some serious journalism that CLEARLY would have seen the reporter taken to court had it not been true since it is about rich and influential legal figures.  You think the Sunday Post's lawyers would have cleared that if there was even a hint of untruth given the people involved?  Really?

Mty final word is that the evidence was considered by an experienced judge who was more than happy to convict, his opinion has never been successfully challenged.  Goodwillie should pay up, he has the money now.

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:

Quote

Ogg, who died two years ago, would later say the decision was taken by then Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland but on his recommendation. Goodwillie was then being represented by Paul McBride, a leading QC. He died suddenly in 2012 and Mulholland spoke at his funeral. Ogg was close to McBride and, after his death, said: “We have been very close friends all our professional lives and a light has gone out of the life of Scotland.”

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.

 

[faraway saint]

3 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Unbelievable, you accused me of lying and complain about being called a muppet in return.  We know who is rattled, you are not even in denial, just refusing to acknowledge the truth then brand ad "hearsay" some serious journalism that CLEARLY would have seen the reporter taken to court had it not been true since it is about rich and influential legal figures.  You think the Sunday Post's lawyers would have cleared that if there was even a hint of untruth given the people involved?  Really?

Mty final word is that the evidence was considered by an experienced judge who was more than happy to convict, his opinion has never been successfully challenged.  Goodwillie should pay up, he has the money now.

You omitted that I'm "hard of thinking".

You also said I'm the only liar on here, can you give me some proof as this sound like more of your made up stuff? 

You might want to be careful, isn't there a law against that? 

[faraway saint]

19 minutes ago, alanb said:

What the Judge said...

 

DC AGAINST (FIRST) DG AND (SECOND) DR (scotcourts.gov.uk)

What Goodwillie still says...

 

Quickly reading through this it appears that all parties concerned were the worse for wear.

Convenient memory loss, and inconsistent versions all equal a right mess.

I can see why a judge came to the conclusion and could easily have come to the reverse conclusion.

All of the above points towards why no criminal case was pursued. 

A disaster for all concerned, but I strongly disagree with the continual witch hunt that has been following Goodwillie around since this sorry event. 

 

 

 

[stlucifer]

1 hour ago, beyond our ken said:

How many judges do you want?

However you dress it up, many people are convicted on the judgement of one individual and in this case Lord Armstrong presided.  You really think the opinion of a bunch of guys on the internet trumps that of a person of this experience and knowledge?  Get real, buddy!  Would you argue with the tetimony of the bouncers who watched them pour the girl into a taxi?  Then get real on that score too.  And if you think the background to the charges being dropped was sound, then get fukkin real, buddy because you are living in a dream world where it's OK for men to get away with these things just because there weren't enough judges to satisfy your arbitrary notion of the burden of proof.

I don't think eother Goodwillie or Robertson has to carry the impact of this case for the rest of their lives, but they did it!  They can leave it all behind if they 'fess up, apologise and demonstrate remorse.

And my second statement is hypothetical, I don't think the fall back option of a civil case serves anyone's needs very well.  Maybe i expressed a daft notion, it is not one that is half as daft as the ones being purported by the apologists though.

You cite Glasgow United's claim that they are rehabillitating Goodwillie and performing a public service, well they should start with the crime and the interests of the victim instead of going straight to the defence of a person a judge found guilty of a serious crime.  I'd have more respect for their so-called work in the community if they provided some proof of what they do for victims

 

46 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Unbelievable, you accused me of lying and complain about being called a muppet in return.  We know who is rattled, you are not even in denial, just refusing to acknowledge the truth then brand ad "hearsay" some serious journalism that CLEARLY would have seen the reporter taken to court had it not been true since it is about rich and influential legal figures.  You think the Sunday Post's lawyers would have cleared that if there was even a hint of untruth given the people involved?  Really?

Mty final word is that the evidence was considered by an experienced judge who was more than happy to convict, his opinion has never been successfully challenged.  Goodwillie should pay up, he has the money now.

FFS. You really have it in for these guys. It's a fact that there is NO evidence against them. It is the definition of They said, she said. The only FACT is that they were ALL drunk. What happened in that room is something you DEFINITELY don't know. Your belief in this journalist more than proves you have decided in your own head of their guilt. It's not just the fact one man made the decision. It's also on what basis the decision was made. It could come down to who's the better lair. Who has the better lawyer. What the judge thought about the individuals on a personal level. All manner of things could have influenced that judge. What is CERTAIN is that no one outside that room could be certain of what happened in that room. Has it ever occurred to you that, if Goodwillie WAS guilty he could have made some sort of statement of contrition to appease the fork carriers like yourself. What you consider definite proof is nothing of the sort. You seem to be at the front of the queue in the witch hunt trying to drive this guy either mad or to an early grave. Don't forget his family too.