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

[Slarti]

I'll start by saying that I don't know whether or not a rape occurred but ...

There is no "guilty" (or "not guilty") verdict in a civil case, it's "liable" (or "not liable") so Goodwillie was NOT found guilty by any court.

If they were all severely intoxicated then surely none of them were in any state to consent and either all or none of them should have been accused of rape, why just the males (if they actually so happen to identify as such)? I once woke up (still drunk) to find a mouth (female's, for clarity) around my cock - was that rape?

If DG believes he is innocent then there is no way he should be showing any remorse.

Almost everything about this is hearsay or opinion, not cold hard fact.

Guilty or not, he brings lots of baggage so I wouldn't want him at St Mirren (not that he will be), no matter how good he is (or was). I suspect most fans of most clubs would feel the same.

And I'll finish by saying that nobody else on here knows whether or not a rape occurred.

[HSS]

58 minutes ago, Slarti said:

If they were all severely intoxicated then surely none of them were in any state to consent and either all or none of them should have been accused of rape, why just the males (if they actually so happen to identify as such)? I once woke up (still drunk) to find a mouth (female's, for clarity) around my cock - was that rape?



 

No mate,that was Sexual Assault and I’m very sorry to hear that happened to you

The good news is you could still bring a Historical Action against your abuser I urge you to see a Lawyer or pay a visit to your local Police Station 

[Slarti]

No mate,that was Sexual Assault and I’m very sorry to hear that happened to you
The good news is you could still bring a Historical Action against your abuser I urge you to see a Lawyer or pay a visit to your local Police Station 

Not sure if you're being serious or not. [emoji1787]

However ...

Even though there was no prior consent was it still sexual assault when I enthusiastically joined in?

Did it turn to rape after she mounted me?

As I was still drunk would it have mattered if I "gave consent" as I was in "no fit state" to do so?

Maybe she was in no fit state to give consent when I mounted her?

Or was it all just drunken sex?

[stlucifer]

5 hours ago, Slarti said:

Not sure if you're being serious or not.

However ...

Even though there was no prior consent was it still sexual assault when I enthusiastically joined in?

Did it turn to rape after she mounted me?

As I was still drunk would it have mattered if I "gave consent" as I was in "no fit state" to do so?

Maybe she was in no fit state to give consent when I mounted her?

Or was it all just drunken sex?

Or simply an erotic, drunken dream? 🤣

[Cookie Monster]

You wrote

It's a fact that there is NO evidence against them.

Yet YOU, provide the evidence yourself

The only FACT is that they were ALL drunk.

A fact or as defined in court as evidence that is corroborated by several witnesses for the pursuer including a toxicoligy report with the stated conclusions that the pursuer would have been obviously intoxicated at 3 am – 4 am on 2 January 2011, and that she would have fallen within the range of blood alcohol concentrations associated with alcoholic blackouts and memory impairment.

Please also note the following quotes from Lord Armstrong.


Did the Defenders Have a Reasonable or Honest Belief that the Pursuer was Consenting to Sexual Activity?

[339] In this regard, also, the onus of proof lay on the pursuer.



Decision
[344] Having carefully examined and scrutinised the whole evidence in the case, I find the evidence for the pursuer to be cogent, persuasive and compelling. In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision‑making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her.

[345] 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.

[faraway saint]

34 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

You wrote
 

 

Yet YOU, provide the evidence yourself



A fact or as defined in court as evidence that is corroborated by several witnesses for the pursuer including a toxicoligy report with the stated conclusions that the pursuer would have been obviously intoxicated at 3 am – 4 am on 2 January 2011, and that she would have fallen within the range of blood alcohol concentrations associated with alcoholic blackouts and memory impairment.

Please also note the following quotes from Lord Armstrong.


Did the Defenders Have a Reasonable or Honest Belief that the Pursuer was Consenting to Sexual Activity?

[339] In this regard, also, the onus of proof lay on the pursuer.



Decision
[344] Having carefully examined and scrutinised the whole evidence in the case, I find the evidence for the pursuer to be cogent, persuasive and compelling. In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision‑making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her.

[345] 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.

 

 

We've all been "blootered" ,some fall by the wayside, other's can keep going.

It's, IMO, impossible to say how every individual is with the same amount of alcohol. 

 

[Slarti]

We've all been "blootered" ,some fall by the wayside, other's can keep going.
It's, IMO, impossible to say how every individual is with the same amount of alcohol. 
 

It also depends on what you've been drinking. I can drink cider all night and feel fine but lager gets me "quite drunk" after 6 or 7 pints.

Although, maybe she had enough alcohol to make anybody drunk, I don't know. Did she have any alcohol afterwards that could have affected the reading? Again, I don't know, though I assume that the accused never said that she did.

[Slarti]

Or simply an erotic, drunken dream? [emoji1787]

Now you've got me questioning myself. [emoji1787]

[W6er]

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

You wrote
 

 

Yet YOU, provide the evidence yourself



A fact or as defined in court as evidence that is corroborated by several witnesses for the pursuer including a toxicoligy report with the stated conclusions that the pursuer would have been obviously intoxicated at 3 am – 4 am on 2 January 2011, and that she would have fallen within the range of blood alcohol concentrations associated with alcoholic blackouts and memory impairment.

Please also note the following quotes from Lord Armstrong.


Did the Defenders Have a Reasonable or Honest Belief that the Pursuer was Consenting to Sexual Activity?

[339] In this regard, also, the onus of proof lay on the pursuer.



Decision
[344] Having carefully examined and scrutinised the whole evidence in the case, I find the evidence for the pursuer to be cogent, persuasive and compelling. In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision‑making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her.

[345] 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.

 

 

'...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? 

[beyond our ken]

10 hours ago, Slarti said:

Not sure if you're being serious or not.

However ...

Even though there was no prior consent was it still sexual assault when I enthusiastically joined in?

Did it turn to rape after she mounted me?

As I was still drunk would it have mattered if I "gave consent" as I was in "no fit state" to do so?

Maybe she was in no fit state to give consent when I mounted her?

Or was it all just drunken sex?

The obvious point is about initiation, she initated the contact but did you think she was in a fit state to know what she was doing?

You should remember that it is sexual assault up to the point of penetration, thereafter you are talking about a possible rape.  The police will help you work that one out..

[beyond our ken]

14 hours ago, stlucifer said:

 

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 CCTV evidence and the accounts of the witnesses outside the club were more than enough for the judge to determine that the girl was in no fit state to look after herself or consider matters such as consenting to sex, so the fact that she was unable to give consent was established by someone who actually saw the tapes, read the statements and interviewed the witnesses, he was also a very experienced judge.

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.

Again I ask, how many judges do you want?  Do we continue to pass this before judges until the point one of them says it's ok to shag a woman who is incapable?

It's also on what basis the decision was made. It could come down to who's the better lair.

You could say that about any court case, many people who are guilty plead not guilty and offer conflicting accounts, judges are trained to be able to consider evidence, challenge it in their own minds and then offer the challenges to the parties involved.  They need to be able to stand by their judgements and that is why there is a written summary that explains who had the most persuasive case.  Did you read the summary,? it is very detailed and methodical.

Who has the better lawyer.

Goodwillie and Robertson retained a very high-powered team to defend them.

What the judge thought about the individuals on a personal level. All manner of things could have influenced that judge.

Yeh, that is the whole point of the judge being there.  He described the defenders as not being candid, selective with what they wanted to say and unreliable as witnesses.

What is CERTAIN is that no one outside that room could be certain of what happened in that room.

It has been proven and admitted that both had sex with her, the DNA evidence was strong enough for the police to bring charges,  The judge made his decision based on the weight of evidence from a range of people, which persuaded him that the girl was in no fit state for consent and he is backed up in that by toxicology reports and expert witness statement.

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.

It would always occur to me, Goodwillie himself says that he has been advised by lawyers to save nothing in case he incriminates himself.  I am pretty sure that any expression of contrition would indicate an acceptance of responsibility that would see him and Robertson back up on a range of charges.

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.

You seem to be saying that a witness is required to determine whether or not a rape took place.  What we do know is referred to above, the judge has to make his judgement on the balance of probabilities and he is quite daming of Robertson & Goodwilie as witnesses.  it is clear sex took place and the experts back that up as well as the determining that being  5 and a half times the drink-drive limit at the time of the incident would render her incapable of giving consent.  You seem to think there is no responsibility on the man to look at the situation and say" no, this isn't right" , well that would apply in cases of age, developmental levels and mental  capacity too.  We all have the responsibility to reel back when something isn't right and remeber this is 2 men who took a drunk woman in a taxi to a different town to a house she didn't know and  they only chose that place because it was empty that night.  Finaly, you don't have a word on the victim, who woke up in a strange, empty house and even had to ask people in the street where she was?  That she then had to undergo intimate examination and questioning?  She had a partner and a child, so what about her family?

What we are seeing in this debate is the refusal to accept the competency of the judge in this case by people who would willingly rely on the same person to get them justice in a civil case (which does take part in a court of law, which is not defined by the presence of a "jury of my/his peers" as offered by one poster).  One judge is sufficient and is relied upon in our system and there is nothing unusual about that.  If Goodwillie and Roberston wanted the opnion of a panel of judges then all they had to do was appeal the decision instead of declaring themselves bankrupt to avoid paying compensation.  They didn't even challenge the expert evidence or offer any of their own.

Now this IS opinion, reading the judges comments and the summary it's my view that the whole defence case was based on damage limitation and avoiding self-incrimination while disposing of financial assets as damage limitation in the hope that this would all have gone away at some point.  The only evidence they led seems to be from their own party of friends and their legal team were reduced to picking up on collolquial turns of phrase and an article in the record to try and offer some sort of defence.

[beyond our ken]

3 hours ago, W6er said:

'...incapable of giving meaningful consent...'

So, she could have initiated sex, but because she was too drunk to remember it, they're rapists? 

So the debate is moving way from "nobody knows what happened" to "well, maybe this could have happened"  

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? 

She was drunk so she deserved it, they were drunk and are therefore not responsible?  Is that what you are saying? The defenders had the chance to offer their excuses in court, they don't need you to do it for them.

Anyway, the defenders never offered any evidence on their own readings.

Being drunk might be a reason for bad behaviour, but is never an excuse.

Some people have really shown themselves up as what they are in this thread.

[beyond our ken]

16 hours ago, faraway saint said:

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? 

You were accused of being "determinedly hard of thinking"  now if you can't work out that it means you were determined to pursue a stupid point then I can't help you.  You ignored the material that would have saved you making an arse of yourself on that.  Tell you what, I will apologise for that and just say that you declared something not to exist when it had already been put in front of you.  Maybe you just wanted a go without checking you were on good ground, I dunno, maybe you can work THAT one out for yourself.

As for made up, you seem to apply this term randomly to posters who have had a more interesting life than you.  It says volumes more about you than anything I can come up with.

You lied when you said i made up the passage that i subsequently posted and which you had already had the chance to read.  Now if you are saying that you did not mean to lie and simply posted without checking then feel free to apologise.

And, historically, on this forum, you stated that a member of my family was the outcome of interbreeding (a lie) and the former chairman of St Mirren was forced to stop on his way to a game at Ross County to phone me and apologise profusely for liking your post, which didn't get him off the hook.  You never apologised but did, i recall, acknowledge and express regret for that so if you want recourse through legal means.....?

[faraway saint]

9 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

You were accused of being "determinedly hard of thinking"  now if you can't work out that it means you were determined to pursue a stupid point then I can't help you.  You ignored the material that would have saved you making an arse of yourself on that.  Tell you what, I will apologise for that and just say that you declared something not to exist when it had already been put in front of you.  Maybe you just wanted a go without checking you were on good ground, I dunno, maybe you can work THAT one out for yourself.

As for made up, you seem to apply this term randomly to posters who have had a more interesting life than you.  It says volumes more about you than anything I can come up with.

You lied when you said i made up the passage that i subsequently posted and which you had already had the chance to read.  Now if you are saying that you did not mean to lie and simply posted without checking then feel free to apologise.

And, historically, on this forum, you stated that a member of my family was the outcome of interbreeding (a lie) and the former chairman of St Mirren was forced to stop on his way to a game at Ross County to phone me and apologise profusely for liking your post, which didn't get him off the hook.  You never apologised but did, i recall, acknowledge and express regret for that so if you want recourse through legal means.....?

🤣🤣🤣

What a rant. 😴

[beyond our ken]

Just now, faraway saint said:

🤣🤣🤣

What a rant. 😴

So no solicitors letter then, I take it we move on following your usual emoji- capitulation?

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, beyond our ken said:

So no solicitors letter then, I take it we move on following your usual emoji- capitulation?

Take this, why don't you increase your medication as you're having another meltdown. 

As enjoyable as it is you're making a right cnut of yourself.  

Oh, here......🤣😜🤪🤡

[beyond our ken]

54 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Take this, why don't you increase your medication as you're having another meltdown. 

As enjoyable as it is you're making a right cnut of yourself.  

Oh, here......🤣😜🤪🤡

O wow, "take this"  I'm trembling

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, beyond our ken said:

O wow, "take this"  I'm trembling

Me anaw. 🤣

[W6er]

1 hour ago, beyond our ken said:

She was drunk so she deserved it, they were drunk and are therefore not responsible?  Is that what you are saying? The defenders had the chance to offer their excuses in court, they don't need you to do it for them.

Anyway, the defenders never offered any evidence on their own readings.

Being drunk might be a reason for bad behaviour, but is never an excuse.

Some people have really shown themselves up as what they are in this thread.

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. 

[beyond our ken]

25 minutes ago, W6er said:

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. 

You seem to think the opinion of a judge is worth nothing, did you read his written judgement?  

As previously mentioned, the crown originally stated the case was strong.  No-one associated with the case claimed she drank more, what Slarti threw in to the debate is truly meaningless, you could say a Gryphon could have flown in the room and gave her more drink as she slept, the list of "could haves" is endless and irrelevant and to ponder on what could have happened is to discredit the victim and the judge. It's nothing more than hypothetical victim blaming to say she could have gotten more alcohol and flies in the face of the expert evidence.  But we know better on a fitba' forum, eh?

The judge was in the court, spoke to everyone concerned, read the written evidence, viewed the CCTV and a whole lot more.  I clearly marked out what i had an opinion on, but few other posters on this seem able to accept a judge's findings and cant separate their opinion from what was decided, which is very sad in this case.  We pay people like him to do these kinds of messy jobs for us and if they find in our favour, or the side we favour, then no-one has a complaint.  I really don't understand people's refusal to accept the ruling based on their handy list of "could have" items.  I also don't understand why so many people are so keen to discredit the victim and stand by the defenders.

The young woman got nothing from this case other than to restore her good name and it seems al ot of people don't want to even allow her that, few people get personal damages as it is common for losing parties to go bankrupt and her solicitor would have been duty bound to tell her that from the start so why did she go for it and why is SHE still willing to go in to a private prosecution 11 years on?  

It will take a while but hopefully the crown allows the private prosecution to proceed

[stlucifer]

9 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

You wrote
 

 

Yet YOU, provide the evidence yourself



A fact or as defined in court as evidence that is corroborated by several witnesses for the pursuer including a toxicoligy report with the stated conclusions that the pursuer would have been obviously intoxicated at 3 am – 4 am on 2 January 2011, and that she would have fallen within the range of blood alcohol concentrations associated with alcoholic blackouts and memory impairment.

Please also note the following quotes from Lord Armstrong.


Did the Defenders Have a Reasonable or Honest Belief that the Pursuer was Consenting to Sexual Activity?

[339] In this regard, also, the onus of proof lay on the pursuer.



Decision
[344] Having carefully examined and scrutinised the whole evidence in the case, I find the evidence for the pursuer to be cogent, persuasive and compelling. In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision‑making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her.

[345] 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.

 

 

The only proof I've given is that they were ALL drunk. As for the rest. It's not conclusive that she DID have memory blackouts or that she didn't at least give the impression that she was cognitive. Only that some people can be in such a state. Even if that were the case. 

I don't know what happened in that flat. Neither did the judge. His point is that he THINKS it MORE likely that what the girl says is what happened. What he calls "evidence" is, IMO, circumstantial. He needs to listen to the people involved and decide who he believes. It really is as simple as that.

My point is. In my opinion. There is not enough proof to ruin a mans life and lively-hood forever. 

 

[Slarti]

The obvious point is about initiation, she initated the contact but did you think she was in a fit state to know what she was doing?
You should remember that it is sexual assault up to the point of penetration, thereafter you are talking about a possible rape.  The police will help you work that one out..

How the feck would I know, iwas pushed too.

But she never penetrated she, eh, enveloped (?).

[stlucifer]

58 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

You seem to think the opinion of a judge is worth nothing, did you read his written judgement?  

I seem to think that any person's judgement is personal to them. Even a judge can be wrong.

As previously mentioned, the crown originally stated the case was strong.  No-one associated with the case claimed she drank more, what Slarti threw in to the debate is truly meaningless, you could say a Gryphon could have flown in the room and gave her more drink as she slept, the list of "could haves" is endless and irrelevant and to ponder on what could have happened is to discredit the victim and the judge. It's nothing more than hypothetical victim blaming to say she could have gotten more alcohol and flies in the face of the expert evidence.  But we know better on a fitba' forum, eh?

Isn't the whole "evidence", (except for the fact they were all drunk to some extent when they went to the flat), technically hypothetical as it can't be proven conclusively? Hence why there was no criminal case.

The judge was in the court, spoke to everyone concerned, read the written evidence, viewed the CCTV and a whole lot more.  I clearly marked out what i had an opinion on, but few other posters on this seem able to accept a judge's findings and cant separate their opinion from what was decided, which is very sad in this case.  We pay people like him to do these kinds of messy jobs for us and if they find in our favour, or the side we favour, then no-one has a complaint.  I really don't understand people's refusal to accept the ruling based on their handy list of "could have" items.  I also don't understand why so many people are so keen to discredit the victim and stand by the defenders.

It's also the judges "opinion" in the face of what he believes is "evidence". Most of which is now in the public domain. Yet still there is enough doubt to stop a criminal prosecution. And. "Can't separate their opinion from what was decided"? WTF!?  You mean like sheep or Lemmings?

The young woman got nothing from this case other than to restore her good name and it seems al ot of people don't want to even allow her that, few people get personal damages as it is common for losing parties to go bankrupt and her solicitor would have been duty bound to tell her that from the start so why did she go for it and why is SHE still willing to go in to a private prosecution 11 years on?  

11 years on and still there is definite doubt as to the validity of the judgement is exactly why I don't believe we should continuously hound someone and stop them from making a living. Get your pitchfork back in the field.

It will take a while but hopefully the crown allows the private prosecution to proceed

I get the impression you are revelling in someone's pain and misery. Someone who, remember, 11 years on, still professes innocence. To the extent he's making his life impossible because he refuses to apologise for something he feels he didn't do. Think on this. It would probably have been easier on his life to have made a pretence of contrition and slinked off into the sunset IF he truly felt he had a case to answer.

 

Edited July 25, 2023 by stlucifer

[W6er]

52 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

You seem to think the opinion of a judge is worth nothing, did you read his written judgement?  

As previously mentioned, the crown originally stated the case was strong.  No-one associated with the case claimed she drank more, what Slarti threw in to the debate is truly meaningless, you could say a Gryphon could have flown in the room and gave her more drink as she slept, the list of "could haves" is endless and irrelevant and to ponder on what could have happened is to discredit the victim and the judge. It's nothing more than hypothetical victim blaming to say she could have gotten more alcohol and flies in the face of the expert evidence.  But we know better on a fitba' forum, eh?

The judge was in the court, spoke to everyone concerned, read the written evidence, viewed the CCTV and a whole lot more.  I clearly marked out what i had an opinion on, but few other posters on this seem able to accept a judge's findings and cant separate their opinion from what was decided, which is very sad in this case.  We pay people like him to do these kinds of messy jobs for us and if they find in our favour, or the side we favour, then no-one has a complaint.  I really don't understand people's refusal to accept the ruling based on their handy list of "could have" items.  I also don't understand why so many people are so keen to discredit the victim and stand by the defenders.

The young woman got nothing from this case other than to restore her good name and it seems al ot of people don't want to even allow her that, few people get personal damages as it is common for losing parties to go bankrupt and her solicitor would have been duty bound to tell her that from the start so why did she go for it and why is SHE still willing to go in to a private prosecution 11 years on?  

It will take a while but hopefully the crown allows the private prosecution to proceed

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.  

[HSS]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66298242