[Football] Raith Rovers and David Goodwillie

[Deportivo Seagull]

How do you know he hasn’t, and is that conditional (genuine question) as part of former prisoners reform and if so how is it judged or measured? Sorry, not familiar with the inner most details of justice system. My basic understanding is you’re allowed to work again with exceptions to certain jobs depending on conviction obviously.

Post #12.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[El Presidente]

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.

I don’t like rape.

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

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.

Agree with this. I don’t see how, if two people are both heavily intoxicated, one can be held more accountable for their behaviour. If being heavily intoxicated means you can’t give consent, then if two heavily intoxicated people have sex, by definition aren’t they’re raping each other?

 

[portlock seagull]

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'.

Very true! They certainly didn’t read the room. In football parlance, an own goal of ever there were

 

[Mr Putdown]

I would imagine that most careers are still open to character like Goodwillie.

It depends on who his future employer is.

In Goodwillie,s case the obvious answer despite his assault convictions in 2008...then again 2009.....and again in 2010....and then the rape in 2011......the obvious "go to " employer in 2012 would be Crystal Palace Football Club.

His employer was Blackburn Rovers, he was loaned to Palace for a grand total of 47 days before the loan was cancelled during which time he made just one second half appearance.

I agree it was 47 days too many, but maybe your ire should also be aimed at the club that actually bought him in 2011.

 

[Guinness Boy]

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 .

This is factually incorrect.

I’ve banned two Palace fans permanently for Dunk slander and somewhere on moderating decisions on the most recent one I said it would happen to any others who did it. If you have evidence of a post from a Palace fan doing it who is still on here please report it and, if we agree, that poster will also be banned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Springal]

I would imagine that most careers are still open to character like Goodwillie.

It depends on who his future employer is.

In Goodwillie,s case the obvious answer despite his assault convictions in 2008...then again 2009.....and again in 2010....and then the rape in 2011......the obvious "go to " employer in 2012 would be Crystal Palace Football Club.

Genuine question - what's the difference between this and then continuing to play a player who is on bail for sexual assault offences?

 

[Biscuit]

This is factually incorrect.

I’ve banned two Palace fans permanently for Dunk slander and somewhere on moderating decisions on the most recent one I said it would happen to any others who did it. If you have evidence of a post from a Palace fan doing it who is still on here please report it and, if we agree, that poster will also be banned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just to nit-pick, it's not slander but libel - which is much more serious.

It amazes me how many dimwitted Palace fans type libellous nonsense about Dunk.

 

[cjd]

His employer was Blackburn Rovers, he was loaned to Palace for a grand total of 47 days before the loan was cancelled during which time he made just one second half appearance.

.

If memory serves me correctly he was signed to play on loan for your club for about 5 months.

The loan period ended ( about 47 days later ) because he wasn't a good enough footballer to enable him to have a regular place in your team. It had bugger all to do with the fact that he had multiple criminal convictions against him and ( at that time ) an alleged rape assault . All those issues were perfectly acceptable to your scummy little club.

We all know after 'poogate' how honesty and your club have absolutely nothing in common.

 

[rippleman]

As we know from the case of the nonce Adam Johnson, footballers have the "image", the high profile and often the money that can help ensnare young naive women to be abused.

How would those advocating "give him a chance" react if BHAFC decided to employ Goodwillie?

 

[cjd]

Genuine question - what's the difference between this and then continuing to play a player who is on bail for sexual assault offences?

Personally , I think you should edit your post before Bozza gets into trouble.

 

[Springal]

Personally , I think you should edit your post before Bozza gets into trouble.

Why? I am speaking generally. You're criticising Palace for 'signing' him after he had been arrested, but not enough evidence for the police to bring a criminal case. But clubs have continued to play a player who is on bail or under investigation for serious sexual offences. Is there any difference?

 

[father_and_son]

Agree with this. I don’t see how, if two people are both heavily intoxicated, one can be held more accountable for their behaviour. If being heavily intoxicated means you can’t give consent, then if two heavily intoxicated people have sex, by definition aren’t they’re raping each other?

Because one (or two in this particular case both males) were deemed to be intoxicated but aware enough to be expected to make an informed decision and the other (the victim) was deemed to be not able to give consent. Presumably, given there is mention of CCTV, the circumstances were self-evident... no consent, therefore the text book definition of rape. Had all 3 been shown to be completely sh*t-faced then perhaps, "on balance of probabilities" (the burden of proof required), the two men would have won either the first case or the appeal. To fail both suggests the CCTV is pretty damning.

 

[Questions]

“He shows no remorse”

Well perhaps he didn’t do it. With Scotland still being able to deliver not proven verdicts in their courts then there was obviously scant evidence that could have been held against him…. I don’t understand the civil cases…..

 

[Hamilton]

The bloke has been convicted and appealed, and had his appeal turned down. I don't think a series of Scottish judges have an axe to grind against him.

He has certainly showed no remorse.

Add to this his previous convictions and you have an individual who I would not want to watch play.

By all means get rehabilitated, but not as a role model on a football pitch.

 

[Mr Putdown]

If memory serves me correctly he was signed to play on loan for your club for about 5 months.

The loan period ended ( about 47 days later ) because he wasn't a good enough footballer to enable him to have a regular place in your team.It had bugger all to do with the fact that he had multiple criminal convictions against him and ( at that time ) an alleged rape assault . All those issues were perfectly acceptable to your scummy little club.

The highlighted part is factually incorrect, but I doubt that will bother you.

https://www.eurosport.com/football/...loan-back-at-blackburn_sto3461022/story.shtml

 

[father_and_son]

The bloke has been convicted and appealed, and had his appeal turned down. I don't think a series of Scottish judges have an axe to grind against him.

He has certainly showed no remorse.

Add to this his previous convictions and you have an individual who I would not want to watch play.

By all means get rehabilitated, but not as a role model on a football pitch.

...and any club signing him can't then claim to be a "community" club as they continue to do so here.
If you employ someone like him, for his footballing talent but regardless of everything else, then you are a commercial enterprise and absolutely nothing else.

 

[cjd]

The highlighted part is factually incorrect, but I doubt that will bother you.

https://www.eurosport.com/football/...loan-back-at-blackburn_sto3461022/story.shtml

You will know very well, that the " he found it difficult to settle in London etc etc " is utter tripe...!

He wasn't good enough with his talents as a footballer.

What mattered was that your scummy little club thought nothing of his previous criminal convictions or his rape of a young woman. What mattered to your scummy little club was that possibly he could help you in (from memory), what I think was a relegation battle to stay in the Championship league.

Your scummy little club cared for nothing of morality.

You come on this forum with your provocative username, to enjoy yourself correcting the incredibly few of 10,s of thousands of posts on this forum as and when you see fit.

Would you be kind enough to inform us of your username on the BBS so we can see how...and if...you spend your time correcting the posters on your own forum with 'facts' as you seem to enjoy doing on here....? And please don't pretend you don't have an account with your scummy little clubs main football fan forum.

I am fully aware that at some stage about 15 years ago , that you waved a flag in support of the Albion when going through its troubled times.....and you have probably shared a pint or two with a few posters on here. That alone doesn't give you the moral right to come into our family football fan lounge and spend your time here looking for faults.


I personally find your desire to be liked on here on a rivals forum quite pathetic. Much as I dislike the idiot Dougie....I prefer him to your kind.

 

[Pavilionaire]

...and any club signing him can't then claim to be a "community" club as they continue to do so here.
If you employ someone like him, for his footballing talent but regardless of everything else, then you are a commercial enterprise and absolutely nothing else.

Spot on. You can't suspend your core values to sign a player that might fire you to promotion. Signing a rapist is completely incompatible with running a club that has women's teams, girl's teams, or purports to be a community club.

If anyone deserves criticism it is Clyde, who have employed him for the last 5 years. They have women's teams and girl's teams and their 'Community' page on their website states: "We provide an enjoyable environment for players of all ages and genders to develop their skill and abilities."

I don't know how enjoyable it would have been for everybody playing alongside a man found guilty of rape by both a judge and an appeal court, but there you go.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

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 .

I'm sorry, but seriously, what are you asking of the NSC moderators?

If a Palace fan or anyone else, posts slanderous / libellous allegations of that nature, about Dunk (for example) on here, then bring it to our attention, and I for one will take great delight in banning them.

If you are suggesting that you expect us to take action against posters' accounts on NSC, for things they may have written on their own (or any other) forum then that is absolutely bananas. Are we to start identifying people from their sign up info here, then constantly trawl their twitter, facebook, etc accounts to check they haven't written something, somewhere that you don't like?

That's insane.