[Football] Raith Rovers and David Goodwillie

[albion534]

Since the rape he has been employed by 8 other clubs, either on loan or permanent contracts.

And each club should be ashamed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dazzer6666]

Given he’s been playing for other clubs since the hearing, it’s really a case of Raith very badly misjudging (or ignoring) the mood of some of it’s key people isn’t it ? They had the warnings as far as I’ve read (McDermid in particular) so were taking a fair degree of risk in going ahead and signing him. Perhaps the mood might have been different if he’d shown remorse at some point but given he wasn’t criminally convicted I imagine he’d have to be extremely careful about how that was done.

 

[cjd]

He played his 1 and only game 4 years before he was accused…. So I presume no one but the poor girl and the two men knew about it.

In 2016 Goodwillie and David Robertson, who was then a teammate of Goodwillie, were accused of committing rape in January 2011.[68] Goodwillie was charged with rape, but the Scottish legal authorities decided not to pursue a criminal prosecution.[68]

I would like to know who the palace fans are that come onto this forum and say such things ?

Yet again your ignorance has been clearly and unequivocably answered by others .

Your pathetic "Away supporters " forum is littered with false and disgusting insults towards our club captain.Your football forum moderators are equally guilty as the scum who post on there. Some of those scum are allowed to post on our forum.

I wont waste anymore time replying to your ignorance and stupidity. I suppose it really isn't your fault, but probably just a quirk of awful fate that you at one time belonged that dreadful area of the club you champion on here.

 

[Seagull58]

I couldn't think why I remember his name apart from his convictions. He was signed by Crystal Palace on loan just a very short time after he raped that poor girl.

Sickening that the Crystal Palace supporters on here are allowed with impunity from our moderators, to slate our club captain on their forum who did nothing wrong .

They really are absolute filth .

And they are still at it on twitter today calling Bissouma a rapist. I report them every time I see it. Some get banned and some don't. I seriously believe that the players and clubs targetted should open slander cases against these people every time.

 

[Seagull58]

Can I just ask, to those saying “he should never play football again”, is there a list of jobs that are acceptable for rapists to pursue? If he had been a farmer, would you say he should never farm again?

I understand if there was risk involved, i.e. the victim had been a minor then he would be excluded from ever working with children. I don’t understand in this case, why he shouldn’t play football, if a club is stupid enough to employ him and are prepared to put up with the grief it will cause, then that’s their prerogative.

He has never admitted guilt, expressed remorse or apologised to the victim.

 

[portlock seagull]

I think you have summed up why there are only 5% of rape cases prosecuted, and only 2% of convictions. ( these numbers may not be 100% correct, but it in this area)

The burden of proof in a criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt, in a civil case, it’s within the bounds of probability.

Beyond reasonable doubt (of a jury, many of whose don’t take it seriously and just want out asap or are full of prejudices themselves as we all are probably). It’s amazing anyone gets convicted of anything these days, especially given the growing fractures along tribal lines is considered. Depressing isn’t it? Watching programmes like 24hrs IPC tells you more than enough that the system is utterly broken to criminals gain.

 

[Seagull58]

He played his 1 and only game 4 years before he was accused…. So I presume no one but the poor girl and the two men knew about it.

In 2016 Goodwillie and David Robertson, who was then a teammate of Goodwillie, were accused of committing rape in January 2011.[68] Goodwillie was charged with rape, but the Scottish legal authorities decided not to pursue a criminal prosecution.[68]

I would like to know who the palace fans are that come onto this forum and say such things ?

I'm not going to criticise Palace or their fans in this case. She reported it to the police immediately. They investigated and did not open a criminal prosecution. Where I will vehemently criticise Palace fans is the horrible morons on twitter who persist in calling Dunk a sex offender and a rapist and, now, have turned their attention to Bissouma with the same vile, baseless nonsense. One scummy fan today was even claiming that Bissouma was a rapist who is only not in prison because the police haven't yet gathered enough evidence.

 

[portlock seagull]

I'm not going to criticise Palace or their fans in this case. She reported it to the police immediately. They investigated and did not open a criminal prosecution. Where I will vehemently criticise Palace fans is the horrible morons on twitter who persist in calling Dunk a sex offender and a rapist and, now, have turned their attention to Bissouma with the same vile, baseless nonsense. One scummy fan today was even claiming that Bissouma was a rapist who is only not in prison because the police haven't yet gathered enough evidence.

Never been on Twitter but I see why people are always demanding tech giants do more to expose the perpetrators of such vile and malicious content. Is it the sheer volume of or inability to trace that prevents prosecutions? People surely can’t be saying that sort of thing without Law getting involved?

 

[dsr-burnley]

Beyond reasonable doubt (of a jury, many of whose don’t take it seriously and just want out asap or are full of prejudices themselves as we all are probably). It’s amazing anyone gets convicted of anything these days, especially given the growing fractures along tribal lines is considered. Depressing isn’t it? Watching programmes like 24hrs IPC tells you more than enough that the system is utterly broken to criminals gain.

Looking at the evidence of the civil case, it's not surprising there was no prosecution. The only witnesses to what happened were the two drunk men, who both said the woman gave consent. The woman couldn't remember anything about it because she was too drunk to remember anything. The crux of the case was twofold, that the drunk woman was too drunk to give legitimate consent and that the drunk men were not too drunk to realise that the woman was too drunk. You can't say beyond reasonable doubt what happened between three drunk people. You can only guess.

If it had been a criminal trial, it would never have reached a jury because the men would have (presumably) refused to give evidence and the woman couldn't because she couldn't remember anything.

The moral is, don't get drunk and have sex, and don't have sex with someone who is drunk.

 

[Seagull58]

Never been on Twitter but I see why people are always demanding tech giants do more to expose the perpetrators of such vile and malicious content. Is it the sheer volume of or inability to trace that prevents prosecutions? People surely can’t be saying that sort of thing without Law getting involved?

When you report a poster to twitter they, supposedly, investigate and you get a response a few days later saying either that the poster has violated their posting rules and been suspended or that the post has not violated their rules and so no action has been taken. That is as far as it goes. I doubt it will ever get as far as a prosecution unless you report it directly to the police. I'm fairly certain twitter will never do so.

 

[Seagull58]

Looking at the evidence of the civil case, it's not surprising there was no prosecution. The only witnesses to what happened were the two drunk men, who both said the woman gave consent. The woman couldn't remember anything about it because she was too drunk to remember anything. The crux of the case was twofold, that the drunk woman was too drunk to give legitimate consent and that the drunk men were not too drunk to realise that the woman was too drunk. You can't say beyond reasonable doubt what happened between three drunk people. You can only guess.

If it had been a criminal trial, it would never have reached a jury because the men would have (presumably) refused to give evidence and the woman couldn't because she couldn't remember anything.

The moral is, don't get drunk and have sex, and don't have sex with someone who is drunk.

The evidence given by the two men was highlighted by the judge as being inconsistent, particularly in that they appeared to remember the parts that were beneficial to their case but could not remember the parts that were detrimental to their case. There were also a number of discrepancies between the evidence that each of them gave, also discrepancies between the statements they made at the time and the evidence they gave in court. There was also a good deal of CCTV evidence that conflicted with their evidence. I think, but obviously I don't know, that a jury would have concluded they were lying toerags who knew what they were doing and they would have been convicted.

 

[portlock seagull]

Looking at the evidence of the civil case, it's not surprising there was no prosecution. The only witnesses to what happened were the two drunk men, who both said the woman gave consent. The woman couldn't remember anything about it because she was too drunk to remember anything. The crux of the case was twofold, that the drunk woman was too drunk to give legitimate consent and that the drunk men were not too drunk to realise that the woman was too drunk. You can't say beyond reasonable doubt what happened between three drunk people. You can only guess.

If it had been a criminal trial, it would never have reached a jury because the men would have (presumably) refused to give evidence and the woman couldn't because she couldn't remember anything.

The moral is, don't get drunk and have sex, and don't have sex with someone who is drunk.

Thank you for explaining / surmising.

 

[super-seagulls]

Wrong thread!
I can’t delete the photo.

 

[dsr-burnley]

The evidence given by the two men was highlighted by the judge as being inconsistent, particularly in that they appeared to remember the parts that were beneficial to their case but could not remember the parts that were detrimental to their case. There were also a number of discrepancies between the evidence that each of them gave, also discrepancies between the statements they made at the time and the evidence they gave in court. There was also a good deal of CCTV evidence that conflicted with their evidence. I think, but obviously I don't know, that a jury would have concluded they were lying toerags who knew what they were doing and they would have been convicted.

I don't doubt they are lying toerags. I don't doubt they did appalling things to the drunken woman and if ever either of them were seen near my (non-existent) daughter I would move heaven and earth to get them out of her orbit. But this wasn't a rape case where an innocent victim was dragged into an alleyway and raped at knifepoint. This was an act between consenting adults and the only question is whether both parties were on the too-drunk-to-know-what-they-were-doing side of the line. The judged guessed, on the basis of the very limited evidence, that she was and he wasn't. But even the judge would accept that she might well be wrong, and by up to 49% chance at that.

 

[Seagull58]

I don't doubt they are lying toerags. I don't doubt they did appalling things to the drunken woman and if ever either of them were seen near my (non-existent) daughter I would move heaven and earth to get them out of her orbit. But this wasn't a rape case where an innocent victim was dragged into an alleyway and raped at knifepoint. This was an act between consenting adults and the only question is whether both parties were on the too-drunk-to-know-what-they-were-doing side of the line. The judged guessed, on the basis of the very limited evidence, that she was and he wasn't. But even the judge would accept that she might well be wrong, and by up to 49% chance at that.

It was an act between adults. On the basis of the evidence, not consenting adults.

 

[dsr-burnley]

It was an act between adults. On the basis of the evidence, not consenting adults.

Fair enough. It's a legal nicety. According to all evidence of what happened in that room, she consented, but on balance of probability she was in no fit state to give legal consent.

My issue isn't so much whether drunken females should be protected from predators, because of course they should, but whether drunken males should be held responsible for drunken females' behaviour. It's a bad law in itself, and when compounded by the removal of presumption of innocence, I don't like it.

 

[drew]

Sorry. Understood. I don’t know anywhere near enough about criminal or civil law to really have an informed opinion. Only a moral one. It does seem daft you can be guilty in one but not the other for such a serious offence. I guess that’s why he won’t show any remorse. Because that’s admitting criminal guilt, of which he isn’t. Clearly if you’re guilty in the civil sense then most people judge you to be in criminal sense too. There’s a big difference though which most of us don’t observe seemingly, yes?

It all boils down to the burden of proof, ie criminal conviction must be 'beyond reasonable doubt' whereas civil court is just greater than 50/50. Same thing happened to OJ. Got off in the criminal court but had to pay damages in a civil case.

As for other comments, legally there is nothing to stop him playing and there is nothing stopping a club employing him, legally. But morally, Raith, and for that matter any club that employed him after the court decision, shouldn't have taken him on. It's on their conscience. It's unfortunate for Raith that they seem to have some higher profile fans that have objected. They clearly didn't 'read the room'.

 

[wellquickwoody]

It was a CIVIL prosecution, there are no other restrictions. He had to pay a share of £100,000 compensation to his victim.

That’s it.

There was no other punishment.

No restrictions, no supervision,no prison time, no sex offenders register, nothing, nada , zilch.

It would be interesting to know the differences in 'evidence' required to gain either a criminal or civil conviction. It would seem sensible that a criminal conviction would be required to impose legally enforceable penalties, but it seems not in Scotland.

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

He has never admitted guilt, expressed remorse or apologised to the victim.

And that means he can't work?

So if he apologised it would all be OK?

Not sure that's how the legal system works.

 

[father_and_son]

Fair enough. It's a legal nicety. According to all evidence of what happened in that room, she consented, but on balance of probability she was in no fit state to give legal consent.

My issue isn't so much whether drunken females should be protected from predators, because of course they should, but whether drunken males should be held responsible for drunken females' behaviour. It's a bad law in itself, and when compounded by the removal of presumption of innocence, I don't like it.

Which is exactly the reason why rapes are hard to prosecute and gain conviction. F**king idiots victim blaming.