Mason Greenwood

[willie loman]

Well there is enough people in Kirkcaldy who think he is guilty. Sponsors pulling out including lifelong fan and home shirt sponsors author Val Mcdermid and the away shirt sponsors are also clear that they no longer wish to be sponsors of th,e club. A number of directors and club staff have also resigned over this. If he was not guilty why was he ordered to pay the woman £100,000 in damages    For a small club like Raith Rovers this is going to cost them a lot of money.

i am not offering an opinion on his guilt, merely the double standards, as for mcdermid she has her own agenda.

[nbarnes]

Well there is enough people in Kirkcaldy who think he is guilty. Sponsors pulling out including lifelong fan and home shirt sponsors author Val Mcdermid and the away shirt sponsors are also clear that they no longer wish to be sponsors of th,e club. A number of directors and club staff have also resigned over this. If he was not guilty why was he ordered to pay the woman £100,000 in damages    For a small club like Raith Rovers this is going to cost them a lot of money.

Because it is inherently flawed that the protections-by-design of the legal system can essentially be loopholed by purposefully presenting criminal as civil charges?

This was abuse of process made legal - and because we don't seem to be able as a nation to resolve our dogma\obsession with sexual offences, no one is asking what happened to justice for the defendent?

[Squire Haggard]

I have no doubt that judges are swayed by public opinion. In the last few years there's been several high profile cases of sex offences by footballers. Maybe the judge in this civil case did not want the public outcry if the two footballers were seen to ''get away with it'' because its obvious that ''so many of them are at it anyway.''  Double jeopardy, because if the criminal case collapses, there's always the civil case with its lower burden of proof.

[GingerNuts]

I have no doubt that judges are swayed by public opinion. In the last few years there's been several high profile cases of sex offences by footballers. Maybe the judge in this civil case did not want the public outcry if the two footballers were seen to ''get away with it'' because its obvious that ''so many of them are at it anyway.''  Double jeopardy, because if the criminal case collapses, there's always the civil case with its lower burden of proof.

Have you read both decisions of the Court of Session before passing judgement on the judges?

External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

[Squire Haggard]

Have you read both decisions of the Court of Session before passing judgement on the judges?

External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

No, I did not read it until you posted it. My judgement about judges comes from a lawyer friend who is 100% convinced that they are swayed by public opinion. There was ''not enough evidence'' for a criminal case, but enough for the civil case.

[GingerNuts]

No, I did not read it until you posted it. My judgement about judges comes from a lawyer friend who is 100% convinced that they are swayed by public opinion.

I've no doubt judges are aware of public opinion but you're suggesting they fudged their decision so as not to go against it.

There was ''not enough evidence'' for a criminal case, but enough for the civil case.

There was enough evidence for a civil case where the burden of proof is different. Four judges determined David Goodwillie (and David Robertson) more likely than not raped Denise Clair.

[Squire Haggard]

I've no doubt judges are aware of public opinion but you're suggesting they fudged their decision so as not to go against it.

There was enough evidence for a civil case where the burden of proof is different. Four judges determined David Goodwillie (and David Robertson) more likely than not raped Denise Clair.

I'm certain, not suggesting, that judges are swayed by public opinion.

They have no criminal record since David Goodwillie and David Robertson did not face a criminal trial over the alleged rape after prosecutors of Scotland's Crown Office decided not to charge them.


 

[paper5]

Regardless of how it ends, I would presume that due to the high profile nature of the case that the female will be offered lucrative incentives by the tabloids to tell her story.

[GingerNuts]

I'm certain, not suggesting, that judges are swayed by public opinion.

They have no criminal record since David Goodwillie and David Robertson did not face a criminal trial over the alleged rape after prosecutors of Scotland's Crown Office decided not to charge them.

Apparently you're certain because your mate told you so. I'll give due weight to your certainty.

David Goodwillie and David Robertson do not have criminal convictions for rape, but both have been judged to be more likely than not rapists. David Goodwillie does have several criminal convictions for assault.

And if I may go back to your earlier post:

I read this, and how the civil court just needs the clear the lower bar of ''the balance of probabilities'' in the eyes of the judge. It must be very difficult to judge a case based on how drunk the woman was, when he was not there to see it. Scary stuff.

I'm amazed that you have such certainty about the judicial system (gleaned from your friend) but were completely unaware of the different burden of proof in criminal and civil proceedings. Judges make decisions based on the evidence available. In this case there was evidence from the pursuer (claimant), CCTV, eye witnesses and expert witnesses. David Goodwillie was found to be an unimpressive witness with selective memory.

[webpunter]

IMO worth putting up an info guidance thread
Any breaches means an instant ban, end of
[& the post is removed rapidly when noticed hopefully before any damage done]

In this case it takes as long as it takes to type into google to find out who the player is
Its very hard to find a UK based / orientated website that references who it
For obvious reasons, CofC
And it doesn't need referencing on here 

Take note what DM mentions bout those wanting desperately to see UKP closed down
& think b4 posting
Had themes / posts from a few years ago continued [i was far from being innocent, b4 anyone comments],
we would all be fcuked with our fave forum potentially shut-down [for me my only forum]
Fortunately those in charge foresaw what was / is happening & changed what UKP is about

I honestly can't believe you are asking this.   

The Rugby player you refer to is/was the subject of a court order that did not allow him to be named and naming him could bring legal action for contempt of court. Mason Greenwood was not subject to any similar court order so he can be named.

There are enough people who would love to see this site closed down and do everything in their power to try and make it happen yet we still get members wanting to give them ammunition to help the in their endeavours.   

[GingerNuts]

IMO worth putting up an info guidance thread
Any breaches means an instant ban, end of
[& the post is removed rapidly when noticed hopefully before any damage done]

In this case it takes as long as it takes to type into google to find out who the player is
Its very hard to find a UK based / orientated website that references who it
For obvious reasons, CofC
And it doesn't need referencing on here 

Take note what DM mentions bout those wanting desperately to see UKP closed down
& think b4 posting
Had themes / posts from a few years ago continued [i was far from being innocent, b4 anyone comments],
we would all be fcuked with our fave forum potentially shut-down [for me my only forum]
Fortunately those in charge foresaw what was / is happening & changed what UKP is about

The player is named in the thread title and in the UK media, External Link/Members Only for example.

Davie's comments relate to a different player, in a different sport being discussed in a different thread.

[webpunter]

You don't have to be a genious to work out a different player
As a different sport for starters
Thanks anyways for clarifying 
DM's post holds true whoever the person whatevva the sport or other situation

The player is named in the thread title and in the UK media, External Link/Members Only for example.

Davie's comments relate to a different player, in a different sport being discussed in a different thread.

[GingerNuts]

You don't have to be a genious to work out a different player
As a different sport for starters

Good for you if you're dying to know.

Thanks anyways for clarifying 
DM's post holds true whoever the person whatevva the sport or other situation

Anonymity doesn't apply to this thread and what needed to be said on the subject had already been said. Members shouldn't have to be held by the hand and told not to post a name when the person has anonymity.

[Squire Haggard]

Apparently you're certain because your mate told you so. I'll give due weight to your certainty.

David Goodwillie and David Robertson do not have criminal convictions for rape, but both have been judged to be more likely than not rapists. David Goodwillie does have several criminal convictions for assault.

And if I may go back to your earlier post:

I'm amazed that you have such certainty about the judicial system (gleaned from your friend) but were completely unaware of the different burden of proof in criminal and civil proceedings. Judges make decisions based on the evidence available. In this case there was evidence from the pursuer (claimant), CCTV, eye witnesses and expert witnesses. David Goodwillie was found to be an unimpressive witness with selective memory.

My friend the lawyer has spent several decades daily defending people in court. I rate his opinions about judges and courts over yours every time. Judges, like many other people are concerned about getting bad press. I fully agree with my friend on this.

I'm astonished that you think that I was unaware of the different burden of proof in civil and criminal cases. Perhaps you could point out where you got this idea from? I have been FULLY aware of the difference for years.

So we can conclude that they are ''probable'' rapists, not  ''beyond reasonable doubt'' rapists. It wont make any difference to their treatment by the media, of course.

[mr.bluesky]

In Scotland, we have this outrage at David Goodwillie, who has signed for Raith Rovers.  So Raith Rovers are losing support over this, on the account that he is a rapist, but never found guilty in court

Only court he was found guilty was a civil court case, and had to pay £100,000 compensation

Why is everyone so sure that David is a rapist, and he wasn't even found guilty of this, as police couldn't prove this in court

So it now appears that after all the outcry and threat from sponsors to pull out, Raith Rovers have backed down over the signing of David Goodwillie. I assume he had signed a contract so now the club will have to compensate him for terminating his transfer. A big mistake all round for the chairman who suggested signing him .

[Gordon Bennett]

I don't understand how Goodwillie has been happily turning out for Clyde before it all kicked off on signing for Raith. I imagine Raith chairman is equally baffled.

[willie loman]

I don't understand how Goodwillie has been happily turning out for Clyde before it all kicked off on signing for Raith. I imagine Raith chairman is equally baffled.

there was a bit of controversy i think about him playing for clyde,  but the uproar over him being with raith seemed to come from nowhere, the offense happened a while back.

[mr.bluesky]

there was a bit of controversy i think about him playing for clyde,  but the uproar over him being with raith seemed to come from nowhere, the offense happened a while back.

I guess things like that never get swept under the carpet. People have long memories. At least Raith Rovers have seen the error of their ways.

[GingerNuts]

My friend the lawyer has spent several decades daily defending people in court. I rate his opinions about judges and courts over yours every time. Judges, like many other people are concerned about getting bad press. I fully agree with my friend on this.

It seems your friend thinks the judiciary should remain static and still make decisions as if it were 50 or a 100 years ago.

I'm astonished that you think that I was unaware of the different burden of proof in civil and criminal cases. Perhaps you could point out where you got this idea from? I have been FULLY aware of the difference for years.

A previous post indicated it was news to you, "I read this, and how the civil court just needs the clear the lower bar of ''the balance of probabilities'' in the eyes of the judge."

So we can conclude that they are ''probable'' rapists, not  ''beyond reasonable doubt'' rapists. It wont make any difference to their treatment by the media, of course.

He was ruled to be a rapist and the media are entitled to report on that basis. If he turned up to take your granddaughter to a night club you'd be fine with it because he's only a "probable" rapist (and several times convicted of assault)?

[Squire Haggard]

It seems your friend thinks the judiciary should remain static and still make decisions as if it were 50 or a 100 years ago.

A previous post indicated it was news to you, "I read this, and how the civil court just needs the clear the lower bar of ''the balance of probabilities'' in the eyes of the judge."

He was ruled to be a rapist and the media are entitled to report on that basis. If he turned up to take your granddaughter to a night club you'd be fine with it because he's only a "probable" rapist (and several times convicted of assault)?

Your first statement about my friend is an idiotic one. No surprises since its coming from you.

Your second sentence proves that you have serious problems with interpretation as well. As I've previously said, I've known about the ''lower bar'' for years.

He was ruled to be a rapist based on probabilities, unlike the majority who are convicted ''beyond reasonable doubt'' in a criminal court. It looks like you would be happy to see people hang based on probabilities rather than ''beyond reasonable doubt.''

[GingerNuts]

Your first statement about my friend is an idiotic one.

Why is it idiotic to think a modern judiciary should reflect modern times and not be stuck in the past?

No surprises since its coming from you.

Don't you like people disagreeing with you?

Your second sentence proves that you have serious problems with interpretation as well. As I've previously said, I've known about the ''lower bar'' for years.

You should note the order of your posts. "I read this, and how the civil court just needs the clear the lower bar of ''the balance of probabilities'' in the eyes of the judge." came before "I have been FULLY aware of the difference for years."

He was ruled to be a rapist based on probabilities, unlike the majority who are convicted ''beyond reasonable doubt'' in a criminal court. It looks like you would be happy to see people hang based on probabilities rather than ''beyond reasonable doubt.''

I don't think there have been any hangings in the UK for quite a few years. Anyway, I've never said other than David Goodwillie was judged a rapist based on the civil standard of proof and I don't confuse that with the criminal standard.

If a female member of your family had a choice of going to a nightclub with a person who has been judged to be a rapist on the balance of probabilties, or a person not so judged, which would you prefer?

[Squire Haggard]

Why is it idiotic to think a modern judiciary should reflect modern times and not be stuck in the past?

Don't you like people disagreeing with you?

You should note the order of your posts. "I read this, and how the civil court just needs the clear the lower bar of ''the balance of probabilities'' in the eyes of the judge." came before "I have been FULLY aware of the difference for years."

I don't think there have been any hangings in the UK for quite a few years. Anyway, I've never said other than David Goodwillie was judged a rapist based on the civil standard of proof and I don't confuse that with the criminal standard.

If a female member of your family had a choice of going to a nightclub with a person who has been judged to be a rapist on the balance of probabilties, or a person not so judged, which would you prefer?

I dont know what you are on about with ''judiciary reflecting modern times.'' It sounded like you were being critical of a very capable lawyer, my friend.

I was aware of the ''lower bar'' but had forgotten the term ''balance of probabilities.''

Rather than hangings, would you be happy if people were given life with no chance of parole in civil courts on ''the balance of probabilities''?

[Colston36]

blurt
/bləːt/
verb
say (something) suddenly and without careful consideration

Perfect word for her actions I'd say.

UNless the reports are piffle she planned it with very careful consideration.

[GingerNuts]

I dont know what you are on about with ''judiciary reflecting modern times.'' It sounded like you were being critical of a very capable lawyer, my friend.

I was aware of the ''lower bar'' but had forgotten the term ''balance of probabilities.''

Rather than hangings, would you be happy if people were given life with no chance of parole in civil courts on ''the balance of probabilities''?

Answer the question I've asked you twice, in slightly different forms, and I might indulge you further.

[Herts_Outcaller]

Probably the main reason that she recorded the incident and posted it on social media is that she wouldn't be believed otherwise.

[webpunter]

Kunt Zouma is on the back & front pages
He must be thinking phew TFFT

[radioman33]

Kunt Zouma is on the back & front pages
He must be thinking phew TFFT

Exactly,and Boris finally someone else taking all the shit.

[Blackpool Rock]

Exactly,and Boris finally someone else taking all the shit.

My Spidy senses are indicating Boris will be back sometime soon   

[Blackpool Rock]

Allegedly broke his bail conditions so now arrested and charged with attempted rape; controlling behaviour and assault, due in court Monday

External Link/Members Only

[shaft10]

Allegedly broke his bail conditions so now arrested and charged with attempted rape; controlling behaviour and assault, due in court Monday

External Link/Members Only

completely fucked his promising career .. what an idiot

[chrishornx]

completely fucked his promising career .. what an idiot

complete pillock

[shaft10]

so according to some media reports, he breached his bail conditions by being photographed on Thursday in his car with the alleged victim (his bird) .... so the CPS have decided to charge him, as they do. I'd imagine his bird has tried to drop charges, but once CPS get hold of it they are like dogs with a bone .. not withstanding he's still a fucking idiot for getting himself in that situation in the first place.

[jackdaw]

so according to some media reports, he breached his bail conditions by being photographed on Thursday in his car with the alleged victim (his bird) .... so the CPS have decided to charge him, as they do. I'd imagine his bird has tried to drop charges, but once CPS get hold of it they are like dogs with a bone .. not withstanding he's still a fucking idiot for getting himself in that situation in the first place.

Without her going into witness box, surely trial is just a waste of time, and taxpayers money?

[daviemac]

so according to some media reports, he breached his bail conditions by being photographed on Thursday in his car with the alleged victim (his bird) .... so the CPS have decided to charge him, as they do. I'd imagine his bird has tried to drop charges, but once CPS get hold of it they are like dogs with a bone .. not withstanding he's still a fucking idiot for getting himself in that situation in the first place.

Without her going into witness box, surely trial is just a waste of time, and taxpayers money?

I can't find any reference to who the victim is can someone link to an accurate report that says who it is and that it was the same person that he breached his bail conditions with.

If he's facing a charge of controlling and coercing he must be brain dead to be seen in a car with the victim, that's him controlling her more.

[Adoniron]

Without her going into witness box, surely trial is just a waste of time, and taxpayers money?

It is possible to bring a prosecution without the cooperation of the victimr provided you have other evidence

[myothernameis]

I can't find any reference to who the victim is can someone link to an accurate report that says who it is and that it was the same person that he breached his bail conditions with.

If he's facing a charge of controlling and coercing he must be brain dead to be seen in a car with the victim, that's him controlling her more.

In the Sun, they have reported that

He has now been arrested on suspicion of contacting his alleged victim in a breach of those conditions.

[daviemac]

In the Sun, they have reported that

[myothernameis]

It is possible to bring a prosecution without the cooperation of the victimr provided you have other evidence

I would say, if she has made a statement to the police, and it has been recorded, and if now if she refuses to co-operate, the video evidence will be brought into play.  It more like she would now be asked, did you make this statement to the police, and for what reason have you changed
your mind

[jackdaw]

I would say, if she has made a statement to the police, and it has been recorded, and if now if she refuses to co-operate, the video evidence will be brought into play.  It more like she would now be asked, did you make this statement to the police, and for what reason have you changed
your mind

I must admit it one (of many!) areas of law where I know naff all…I wasn’t sure if she could actually be compelled into witness box. (Dr Google suggests she can be.)

But if she has to be led into box very reluctantly, pretty sure she would then make a terrible witness…and really don’t think any video is likely to prove case beyond a reasonable doubt. Can see a lawyer arguing “role play”, etc.

Don’t envy any one on jury, because think it’s one case where it will be incredibly hard to approach with an open mind. I don’t think I could.

[Blackpool Rock]

I would say, if she has made a statement to the police, and it has been recorded, and if now if she refuses to co-operate, the video evidence will be brought into play.  It more like she would now be asked, did you make this statement to the police, and for what reason have you changed
your mind

For most people they struggle to get any action whatsoever from the police, couple of weeks ago there were the statements from a few forces that they would commit to coming out to every house that got burgled, like as if it was some sort of fucking achievement   

Anyway this is a high profile case and given the serious nature of the allegations and on the back of a number of recent high profile cases where women have been assaulted or murdered by men then they would get slaughtered if they simply dropped the case

[myothernameis]

Think for one thing, his career as a footballer is over, even if this case gets dropped, he will still have the stigma as a rapist

[myothernameis]

If the case is dropped due to the witness withdrawing her statement, will this be the end of the court case, or will it take a turn for the worse, for the victim

Now just wonder, will the police bring any charges against her, for now making a false rape allegation.   A woman called Jemma Beale made four allegations against one guy, and these were found to be false, and she was jailed for 10 year

[daviemac]

If the case is dropped due to the witness withdrawing her statement, will this be the end of the court case, or will it take a turn for the worse, for the victim

Now just wonder, will the police bring any charges against her, for now making a false rape allegation.   A woman called Jemma Beale made four allegations against one guy, and these were found to be false, and she was jailed for 10 year

The latest reports I can find are that he is being held in custody again tonight before court tomorrow. Where is the report the victim has withdrawn her statement. 

[myothernameis]

Where is the report the victim has withdrawn her statement.

Maybe confusion on this, I said "If the case was dropped" and also going on by what others have said

I'd imagine his bird has tried to drop charges, but once CPS get hold of it they are like dogs with a bone ..

Without her going into witness box, surely trial is just a waste of time, and taxpayers money?

[daviemac]

Maybe confusion on this, I said "If the case was dropped" and also going on by what others have said

Definitely some confusion somewhere, people seem to be making things up as they go along.   

[Blackpool Rock]

Definitely some confusion somewhere, people seem to be making things up as they go along.   

Yeah well when people start quoting "The Sun" as the source then you know it's not necessarily the full story 

[Gordon Bennett]

Looks a right scruff. Should've spruced himself up really.



Hidden Image/Members Only

[Adoniron]

I see he's been remanded in custody so will be in prison until the next hearing in 5 weeks time unless his solicitors make another bail application.

[daviemac]

Looks a right scruff. Should've spruced himself up really.

How's he supposed to do that?? ask them nicely to let him out so he can go and get changed.   

[lillythesavage]

How's he supposed to do that?? ask them nicely to let him out so he can go and get changed.   

I am sure there are barbers and beauty salons in every cop shop and remand centre  , and a friendly cop would pop out to Hugo, just for him  .

What a waste of a promising career, should have gone punting.