[Football] Raith Rovers and David Goodwillie

[Poojah]

Complex case this, given that he’s been found guilty in a civil court but not in a criminal one. What I can’t quite fathom though is why the sudden furore; he’s been playing for Clyde in the division below since 2017.

Is it because of the timing alongside the other very high profile case in the headlines right now, the fact that Raith are professional, the fact that Raith have a women’s team, or a combination of all three. It’s not that I’m surprised or take issue with it kicking off, more that I’m surprised that it didn’t attract this kind of attention when he signed for Clyde previously, in much closer proximity to the court case.

I know the world has changed a lot in the time since, but Ched Evans certainly didn’t have an easy time finding a club before his rape conviction was quashed around the same time as Goodwillie’s civil case.

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

Or maybe he’s a remorseless, heartless, entitled rapist? Who knows? The victims probably. Well, them and the civil court. Well, victims, the civil court and the court of appeal. Well, the victims, the jury, the civil courts, and the court of appeal. I suppose.

Maybe all your maybes are right - as you say, who knows?

Was there a jury in this case, being a civil hearing? I don't know, as I don't follow Scottish law?

Going back to my very original point, why should someone "never play football again" for an offence that had nothing to do with football?

Also, mistakes do happen, as Ched Evans knows to his cost.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37659009

 

[lawros left foot]

I don’t know how relevant this is, but about 10 years ago, a good friend of my son was accused of rape.
He met the woman, who was 10 years older than him, in a seafront bar, they went onto the beach and had sex. He then put her in a taxi home, and they parted amicably. The next morning, 2 police officers arrived at his house and arrested him. The woman had apparently arrived home and told her partner that she had been raped. They had made a complaint to the Police, and after the usual procedures the lad was arrested, questioned under caution, and, after a brief court appearance, released on bail.

When it eventually got to court, it came out that the partner of the woman was a convicted domestic abuser, who had served a prison sentence for assault on a previous partner. The woman had told him that she was working late,but had gone on the lash with a couple of friends, met my sons mate and fully consented to what occurred on the beach. On getting home late, tipsy and disheveled, the partner had been more than a little annoyed with her, so she had made up the rape story to prevent herself from getting battered.

The jury took 25 minutes to kick the charge out, and the lad was found not guilty.

I suppose my point is, the Police had pursued the case beyond what appeared to be a guilty verdict. To me, having spoken to the defendant, and having read the taxi drivers statement, the woman was laughing and joking with him in the cab, and what my son told me about the on going investigation I was baffled how it ever got to court.
It has affected the young man, he now has a pretty bad drink problem,but, is getting help with it and is hopefully on the road to recovery.

 

[The Clamp]

Maybe all your maybes are right - as you say, who knows?

Was there a jury in this case, being a civil hearing? I don't know, as I don't follow Scottish law?

Going back to my very original point, why should someone "never play football again" for an offence that had nothing to do with football?

Also, mistakes do happen, as Ched Evans knows to his cost.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37659009

You are quite right, I am being too combative. I apologise.
My understanding is that civil courts use a jury if the stakes are over 40k but I’m not 100 on that.

 

[keaton]

I think the biggest question is why whenever this sort of thing is raised are so many people on this message board so quick and eager to stick up for rapists and sexual offenders?

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

I think the biggest question is why whenever this sort of thing is raised are so many people on this message board so quick and eager to stick up for rapists and sexual offenders?

I'm not sure who is "sticking up for a rapist" - certainly in my mind, if I am one of those you refer to, my question has only ever been to ask why people feel he should "never play football again" - as if that would make some difference to his victim?

 

[drew]

Complex case this, given that he’s been found guilty in a civil court but not in a criminal one. What I can’t quite fathom though is why the sudden furore; he’s been playing for Clyde in the division below since 2017.

Is it because of the timing alongside the other very high profile case in the headlines right now, the fact that Raith are professional, the fact that Raith have a women’s team, or a combination of all three. It’s not that I’m surprised or take issue with it kicking off, more that I’m surprised that it didn’t attract this kind of attention when he signed for Clyde previously, in much closer proximity to the court case.

I know the world has changed a lot in the time since, but Ched Evans certainly didn’t have an easy time finding a club before his rape conviction was quashed around the same time as Goodwillie’s civil case.

I would suggest the furore is because it appears Raith have fans that do find this distasteful and they are in a position to publicise that fact.

 

[lizard]

Whilst I wouldn't want this scum anywhere near our club, why is this all coming to a head now?
Over the last decade he's played for: Blackburn, Palace, Dundee Utd, Blackpool, Aberdeen, Ross Co, Plymouth and Clyde.

 

[drew]

Maybe all your maybes are right - as you say, who knows?

Was there a jury in this case, being a civil hearing? I don't know, as I don't follow Scottish law?

Going back to my very original point, why should someone "never play football again" for an offence that had nothing to do with football?

Also, mistakes do happen, as Ched Evans knows to his cost.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37659009

Legally there is of course no reason why he can't play football again however there is a moral reason whether a club should employ him or not. I certainly wouldn't want my club to employ someone that is considered by a court to be a rapist.

 

[keaton]

I'm not sure who is "sticking up for a rapist" - certainly in my mind, if I am one of those you refer to, my question has only ever been to ask why people feel he should "never play football again" - as if that would make some difference to his victim?

Not just you, I understand your question, I think it's been answered enough times on this thread(and many threads previously).

Some people think football teams should stand for a bit more than others. I wouldn't be happy if signed a such a player. But my wider point was, footballers accused or found guilty of such things seem to find a lot of defenders or"just asking" on this board and I find it a little odd

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

Not just you, I understand your question, I think it's been answered enough times on this thread(and many threads previously).

Some people think football teams should stand for a bit more than others. I wouldn't be happy if signed a such a player. But my wider point was, footballers accused or found guilty of such things seem to find a lot of defenders or"just asking" on this board and I find it a little odd

Understood - I guess there is still a mentality of she was asking for it in some people's minds - I feel comfortable that our football club would never knowingly put themselves in this position, by giving a player found guilty, either in a civil or law court.

At the end of the day I guess it is down to the judgement of Raith Rovers, in this case, and how they felt this would pan out, I am not sure they fully expected the backlash and financial repercussions of sponsors withdrawing their support.

 

[Mr Putdown]

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.

Actually the last time I waved a flag in support of Brighton was 25 years ago this coming Monday.

I’m surprised you can’t recall when Fan’s United happened.

 

[wellquickwoody]

I think the biggest question is why whenever this sort of thing is raised are so many people on this message board so quick and eager to stick up for rapists and sexual offenders?

In your eyes, is the accused always guilty? Are there never errors in our justice system?

 

[jackanada]

He's "most probably" a rapist, not definitely a rapist.
If other stories about him from the last ten years surface I'll change my opinion but otherwise to adapt the old legal maxim it's better that ten rapists get to play football than that one innocent man does not.

 

[keaton]

In your eyes, is the accused always guilty? Are there never errors in our justice system?

Those arguments don't seem to get made, or certainly not in as large numbers where other crimes are concerned.

 

[The Clamp]

He's "most probably" a rapist, not definitely a rapist.
If other stories about him from the last ten years surface I'll change my opinion but otherwise to adapt the old legal maxim it's better that ten rapists get to play football than that one innocent man does not.

The eleventh man would be a bit nervous in the locker room.

 

[beorhthelm]

Complex case this, given that he’s been found guilty in a civil court but not in a criminal one. What I can’t quite fathom though is why the sudden furore; he’s been playing for Clyde in the division below since 2017.

thats a twist not heard in reports.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Those arguments don't seem to get made, or certainly not in as large numbers where other crimes are concerned.

That is because it is a difficult topic. Mainly due to forensics not being of much use in cases like the one being discussed here.

 

[keaton]

That is because it is a difficult topic. Mainly due to forensics not being of much use in cases like the one being discussed here.

But all evidence suggests that difficulty results in rape cases being difficult to prove, yet despite that many people's go to response on here is to query any guilty verdict or judgement.

 

[wellquickwoody]

But all evidence suggests that difficulty results in rape cases being difficult to prove, yet despite that many people's go to response on here is to query any guilty verdict or judgement.

Where a case is proven beyond reasonable doubt I see very few people questioning the verdict. That has not happened in this case.