Raith Rovers Controversy

[AndySmith1990]

I'm all for rehabilitation and second chances if there is genuine remorse and intent to change for the better (by the sounds of it, this isn't the case with this guy) . But regardless, it leaves a sour taste when a person strolls back into a highly paid and privileged job whilst there are millions of decent, hard working, and law abiding folk struggling to get by in life.

 

[soapythecat]

This situation shouldn’t and isn’t just relative to football. If my wife worked for a company that was going to employ a convicted rapist, then I’d be pissed and support her decision 100% if she felt she should leave the company. Whether that decision was based an her not feeling safe or on the ethics, I’d support her. Similarly, if my company employed a female with a past conviction of rape/abuse then I’d be asking serious questions and considering my position. Not that I’d feel unsafe but I’d like to think the company wouldn’t stoop so low.

The club will have to own this decision, which in my eyes, has been made purely on getting a footballer on the cheap who is actually very talented. It’s good to see so many staff walking on principle and they will lose fans, but how awful that they have to lose their jobs for having standards of decency.

 

[Smores]

Except this specific case is about 2 (well 3) people having sex whilst all of them were very drunk. The two men gave evidence that she consented. However, the court concluded (on balance of probabilities) that the woman was too drunk to have validly consented and effectively ignored the fact the two men were also very drunk, and probably weren’t themselves in the best condition to judge how drunk she was.

I find these type of cases troubling. Here, the CPS understandably decided that the criminal threshold wouldn’t be reached but he is still being labelled a rapist on the back of a civil decision (to a much lower standard of proof) and people saying he shouldn’t be able to continue his career ten years down the line.

Have you ever been so drunk you wouldn't tell the difference between consent or not?

 

[McGrathsipan]

This says it all

"First and foremost, this was a football related decision."

Exactly - feck the victim and feck the fact he is a sex offender - he is good at football.

Scummy organisation

 

[DRJosh]

There is consistency. Nobody wants these predators at their club. it’s that simple

Perfectly put. This needed saying.

 

[Doracle]

Have you ever been so drunk you wouldn't tell the difference between consent or not?

No but that’s not relevant to this case. The only evidence before the court was that she was a willing verbally consenting participant. The Court concluded that was not relevant because she was, on balance of probabilities, probably too intoxicated to give valid consent. That seems more difficult to me to be certain that the two men concerned, who themselves gave evidence that they were extremely drunk, should have been able to pick up on whether the consent they were getting was valid or not. It’s a really difficult area.

Anyway, I don’t think there is much benefit in going over the rights and wrongs of the judgment. My main point was that there’s a lot more nuance to this case than most rape cases.

 

[IRN-BRUno]

Interesting looking at their attendances, seems to have been a fairly big drop-off last night.

League games only;
1569
1640
1781
2876
1748
1900
1902
1640
2426
474
464
1005

I assume the two in the 400s were when Scotland had restricted attendances so ignoring them, last night's game had over 500 less than any other this season.

 

[HTG]

The obvious morale issues aside, this doesn’t even make sense from a football or business perspective. Just a severe lack of judgement altogether.

 

[Plant0x84]

Justice is not defined by "what makes the victim feel good".

Very crude example incoming

Someone has stolen my car before. Up until now, it would make my day if I discovered that the thief got hung, drawn and quartered with a rusty cutlass. But that's not justice is it?

In my very humble opinion, justice is

1. The victim being made whole as much as possible. Probably not possible for a murder victim, but as much as possible, the victim should be made whole through financial compensation for the damage caused, and support from the state and community to heal from the trauma inflicted

2. The perpetrator being punished for their crime. Through incarceration (simply the removal of liberty, not being raped in the butt by noble prisoners acting upon the wishes of people on the internet), fines, community service, or other means that also serve as a deterrent to other would be criminals.

3. Rehabilitating ex-cons so that upon release they don't go back to a life of crime.

The wishes of the victim when it comes to the fate of the criminal, are (or should be!) a very insignificant part of how justice is served. I would not want a convicted rapist to be let free just because the victim was a Christian and desired he be forgiven. And the wishes of the victim should absolutely NOT influence the (legal) line of work an ex-con pursues. No matter how henious the crime (and beyond a certain threshold they aren't leaving jail anyways).

Goes without saying that I'm not pro-the bloke in the OP (feck him whichever way his career goes), I'm anti-an ultra punitive system that leaves ex-cons with no way back to a legal life. Because this side of the pond is ample proof of what happens afterwards. We don't have the highest incarcerated population in the world for nothing.

‘What makes the victim feel good’ isn’t what I was getting at. Justice is about making things right again. A quick google found this definition:-

At its most basic level, justice refers to a situation where there is fairness in the way the situation is handled and in the result. ... The Scales of Justice represent the balance of the individual against the needs of society and a fair balance between interests of one individual and those of another.

So taking Goodwillie as the example, he has a human right to work and earn a living. He does not have any right to be a footballer, just because he was before. He can retrain in another profession just as many footballers do when they retire. That is his interests, which should be balanced against the interests of his victims not to have to see him in the paper or the TV every week. I hope that explains a bit better what I mean, I was tired last night so may not have been clear.

 

[padzilla]

It's a daft decision to hire a high-profile rapist just because he's good at football, the few goals he scores won't come close to making up for the damage this has done to the club's reputation.

Thankfully the outcry around it might suggest these caveman attitudes towards these issues are on the way out, if you're having sex with a woman who is so drunk she has blacked out and is not aware of her surroundings then you are an utter scumbag and yes it's rape.

 

[SirScholes]

No but that’s not relevant to this case. The only evidence before the court was that she was a willing verbally consenting participant. The Court concluded that was not relevant because she was, on balance of probabilities, probably too intoxicated to give valid consent. That seems more difficult to me to be certain that the two men concerned, who themselves gave evidence that they were extremely drunk, should have been able to pick up on whether the consent they were getting was valid or not. It’s a really difficult area.

Anyway, I don’t think there is much benefit in going over the rights and wrongs of the judgment. My main point was that there’s a lot more nuance to this case than most rape cases.

Without getting into the weeds of how off I find your judgement.
Sportsmen need to be held a much higher standard than most other professionals
They are role models for future generations, where their actions speak so much louder than I think people realise.

 

[pratyush_utd]

Without getting into the weeds of how off I find your judgement.
Sportsmen need to be held a much higher standard than most other professionals
They are role models for future generations, where their actions speak so much louder than I think people realise.

Never understood why this should be the case. They should not be role models for future generations.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

What a start to 2022. Football makes me sick sometimes. It is simply not the sport I used to love as a kid anymore.

It's the exact same sport. You were just a child so missed the news of this crap.

 

[K Stand Knut]

Never understood why this should be the case. They should not be role models for future generations.

Completely agree.

Feel there should be much more emphasis that parents ensure their children choose good role models and explain to them that people, even role models do bad things and that they should not be put on any kind of pedestal for adulation.

 

[padzilla]

Never understood why this should be the case. They should not be role models for future generations.

I guess people use other professions for a service, like a lawyer, accountant, you don't pay money to see them perform which is the case with footballers.

Young people and children don't walk about with jerseys with their favourite plumber on the back but there are plenty of kids with Greenwood jerseys out there - for example.

 

[Doracle]

Without getting into the weeds of how off I find your judgement.
Sportsmen need to be held a much higher standard than most other professionals
They are role models for future generations, where their actions speak so much louder than I think people realise.

This is plain wrong I’m sorry to say. We should not be holding 21 year old footballers to any higher standard than anyone else. In circumstances where they have not been found guilty of a crime, we should also not be treating them as though they have been.

We’ve got people commenting on here who clearly don’t have a clue about the facts of this case. For example, there is literally no suggestion that she was blacked out in the court judgment but that doesn’t stop one of the posters above suggesting that she was.

 

[Smores]

No but that’s not relevant to this case. The only evidence before the court was that she was a willing verbally consenting participant. The Court concluded that was not relevant because she was, on balance of probabilities, probably too intoxicated to give valid consent. That seems more difficult to me to be certain that the two men concerned, who themselves gave evidence that they were extremely drunk, should have been able to pick up on whether the consent they were getting was valid or not. It’s a really difficult area.

Anyway, I don’t think there is much benefit in going over the rights and wrongs of the judgment. My main point was that there’s a lot more nuance to this case than most rape cases.

That whole argument is only valid if you accept there's a level of inebriation where you're unable to identify a lack of consent sufficiently. Especially in the context of 2 guys jointly being unable to identify consent.

Doesn't seem remotely plausible does it? Your argument is dangerously close to excusing non-consexual sex involving drink as one of those things.

Quite simply if you're unable to not take advantage of a wasted women then don't drink.

 

[SilentWitness]

This is plain wrong I’m sorry to say. We should not be holding 21 year old footballers to any higher standard than anyone else. In circumstances where they have not been found guilty of a crime, we should also not be treating them as though they have been.

We’ve got people commenting on here who clearly don’t have a clue about the facts of this case. For example, there is literally no suggestion that she was blacked out in the court judgment but that doesn’t stop one of the posters above suggesting that she was.

Eh....

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=d22e28a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

When referred to a report by Dr Sharp and Dr Skett, forensic pharmacologists, dated 29 July 2016, he agreed 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.

 

[Doracle]

Eh....

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=d22e28a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

There’s a difference between an alcoholic blackout, which is relevant to her lack of memory the next day, and being blacked out. From elsewhere in the judgment;

The experience of a blackout was not equivalent to a loss of consciousness. An individual could be awake, alert and conscious, and could carry out conscious acts, yet later have no memory of the period concerned.

 

[SilentWitness]

There’s a difference between an alcoholic blackout, which is relevant to her lack of memory the next day, and being blacked out. From elsewhere in the judgment;

The experience of a blackout was not equivalent to a loss of consciousness. An individual could be awake, alert and conscious, and could carry out conscious acts, yet later have no memory of the period concerned.

(200-249 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood)
Needs assistance walking; total mental confusion. Dysphoria with nausea and vomiting; possible blackout.”

An appropriate back calculation indicated that, on that basis, and applying average metabolism rates, at 3am on 2 January 2011, the pursuer would have had a blood alcohol concentration of 275mg/100ml, and at 4am, one of 257mg/100ml.

Also this. You said there was no suggestion of blackout, when the court proceedings do suggest it was possible. I'd also say if someone is in a state of needing assistance walking/total mental confusion it's not particularly a state of consent. I assume the person above was meaning this and got confused between blacked out and blackout.

 

[Doracle]

Possible yes but there is no suggestion, on the facts of this case, that she was blacked out. She definitely wasn’t at the point they entered the flat.

Look, it’s obviously plausible that they got to the flat and she passed out. From my reading of the medical evidence, it’s also possible that she was able to participate in the way the two men suggest. No one, other than the two men, is able to give direct evidence on that point.

There’s a reason this case didn’t reach the criminal court and its because the evidence isn’t strong enough. I find it difficult in those circumstances to say it’s right that he shouldn’t be permitted to continue his career.

 

[SilentWitness]

Possible yes but there is no suggestion, on the facts of this case, that she was blacked out. She definitely wasn’t at the point they entered the flat.

Look, it’s obviously plausible that they got to the flat and she passed out. From my reading of the medical evidence, it’s also possible that she was able to participate in the way the two men suggest. No one, other than the two men, is able to give direct evidence on that point.

There’s a reason this case didn’t reach the criminal court and its because the evidence isn’t strong enough. I find it difficult in those circumstances to say it’s right that he shouldn’t be permitted to continue his career.

that’s fair, but the civil court did rule them to be rapists and I don’t think anyone here has suggested that they are actually ‘banned‘ from football, or not that I’ve read anyway.

 

[antohan]

Goodwillie looks a Rottenapple, but I do wonder where this leaves society re rehabilitation.

Playing the "lack of empathy with the victims" card equally applies to battery, abduction, murder... Do we just believe in rehab for petty crimes?

Not rhetorical, I'm actually asking. I don't know really. My idealism on second chances with crimes that are fundamentally about character is not what it used to be.

 

[adexkola]

@adexkola you talk about rehabilitation but is remorse not a factor in that for you? You say he's served his dues by paying the civil proceedings fine, but he's also made several failed attempts to overturn the decision, so he's not only a rapist, but an unrepentant one, with a string of violent convictions.

First of all, a convict exercising their right to appeal is not an indictment on them or their character, the same way pleading not guilty doesn't mean someone is a scumbag.

Remorse is a personal feeling. Regardless of how he feels inside, what is of material concern to society is that he pays (in prison time or money) for his crime, and that he sticks to staying out of trouble. I mean, on this issue, would anyone's opinion be different if he was remorseful after the fact?

Without getting into the weeds of how off I find your judgement.
Sportsmen need to be held a much higher standard than most other professionals
They are role models for future generations, where their actions speak so much louder than I think people realise.

No they don't, and no they are not

Jesus, you don't become Mandela because you have a wicked shot from outside the box

 

[Chris-Red]

Footballers as role models just happens. You have millions of young people who watch football on TV, look up to the players and want to be like them. Every parent would need to have discussions with their kid about not doing this and why they should look up to others, and that just wouldn't work. Given this fact, I think footballers, anyone in the public eye with such a massive audience, should have a higher expectation placed on their behaviour. (Edit to add, should go without saying but not raping people is an expectation that should be placed on everybody.......)

Seen a few posters mention the fact the girl was deemed too drunk to validly consent. I agree this is a very dodgy area. It is a bit strange how being drunk is used in defence of consenting but not the other way around. i.e. We know you consented, but you were too drunk and shouldn't have vs We know you had sex when she said yes, but you were too drunk to tell that she was in no state to validly consent. Not defending idiots who get totally wasted and do this, just agreeing its messed up.

In saying all of this, rape is a disgusting act and anyone guilty of it should have the book thrown at them.

 

[mu4c_20le]

Footballers as role models just happens. You have millions of young people who watch football on TV, look up to the players and want to be like them. Every parent would need to have discussions with their kid about not doing this and why they should look up to others, and that just wouldn't work. Given this fact, I think footballers, anyone in the public eye with such a massive audience, should have a higher expectation placed on their behaviour. (Edit to add, should go without saying but not raping people is an expectation that should be placed on everybody.......)

Seen a few posters mention the fact the girl was deemed too drunk to validly consent. I agree this is a very dodgy area. It is a bit strange how being drunk is used in defence of consenting but not the other way around. i.e. We know you consented, but you were too drunk and shouldn't have vs We know you had sex when she said yes, but you were too drunk to tell that she was in no state to validly consent. Not defending idiots who get totally wasted and do this, just agreeing its messed up.

In saying all of this, rape is a disgusting act and anyone guilty of it should have the book thrown at them.

Agreed. When I was a kid, I thought it was unfair how footballers were not allowed to do what us regular people could without being scrutinzed. But it is what it is, it's a responsibility.

 

[Gio]

Pressure amplifying on the club:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Not quite sure how the SPFL should intervene given he's been playing for Clyde for years in the division below.

 

[Lay]

Pressure amplifying on the club:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Not quite sure how the SPFL should intervene given he's been playing for Clyde for years in the division below.

Yeah, why didn’t they ask for the SPL to intervene when he was at Clyde

 

[adexkola]

Yeah, why didn’t they ask for the SPL to intervene when he was at Clyde

Why does decision not based on consistent logic, not make sense? More at 11

 

[SilentWitness]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00140b6

Good listen by Val from roughly 48 mins onwards.

Raith Rovers Womens Team intend to completely dissociate themselves from the club.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

Yeah, why didn’t they ask for the SPL to intervene when he was at Clyde

Because the media.

This is the kind of inconsistency that people are talking about.

It’s just based on sensationalism and whipping people up into an emotional frenzy and thus changing the goal posts constantly.

This is what I meant when I said if Rashford did what Alonso did, the media reaction, and the outcome for the player would be COMPLETELY different.

The media don’t care in the slightest about social issues, they don’t care about victims or rehabilitation, in truth they love this shit, the Greenwood case etc, they love it - they shouldn’t be the deciding factor in how these type of complex societal issues play out.

In fact, they shouldn’t really be ANY factor at all.

 

[FromTheBench]

Who says he isnt allowed to earn? What right does he have to be imposed on a fanbase that finds him repulsive?
He can be hired, this is the reaction that follows him.

Well he hasnt been convicted in a criminal case and has been largely out of trouble for 10 years playing football.

How long do fanbases find him repulsive? Because as a result is ability to be employed is affected for a thing which hasn't been criminally proven even.

 

[FromTheBench]

that’s fair, but the civil court did rule them to be rapists and I don’t think anyone here has suggested that they are actually ‘banned‘ from football, or not that I’ve read anyway.

Well the leader of the country/state is asking spl to intervene because of "opinion".

It's more or less asking for a ban isn't it?

 

[Jippy]

First of all, a convict exercising their right to appeal is not an indictment on them or their character, the same way pleading not guilty doesn't mean someone is a scumbag.

Remorse is a personal feeling. Regardless of how he feels inside, what is of material concern to society is that he pays (in prison time or money) for his crime, and that he sticks to staying out of trouble. I mean, on this issue, would anyone's opinion be different if he was remorseful after the fact?



No they don't, and no they are not

Jesus, you don't become Mandela because you have a wicked shot from outside the box

Sure, obviously you'd appeal if you were innocent or believed you were but they all failed. Contrition at least makes the rehabilitation argument a starter, which it isn't currently.

Also I don't get how people can refute the role model argument. Yeah they may not ask for it but you know full well millions of kids around the world grow up wanting to be them.

 

[SilentWitness]

Well the leader of the country/state is asking spl to intervene because of "opinion".

It's more or less asking for a ban isn't it?

That was said after I made that post and perhaps she is advocating for a ban from participating in Scottish football, yeah. I can't imagine another club wholly accepting him though. People keep going on about why didn't Clyde fans kick up a fuss etc. They did. That was also in 2017, we know how quickly the world changes. 5 years is relatively quite long in the social media world we are now in.

 

[adexkola]

Sure, obviously you'd appeal if you were innocent or believed you were but they all failed. Contrition at least makes the rehabilitation argument a starter, which it isn't currently.

Also I don't get how people can refute the role model argument. Yeah they may not ask for it but you know full well millions of kids around the world grow up wanting to be them.

Are you genuinely worried that this hire will send the message to millions of kids around the world, that rape is acceptable?

 

[HTG]

I love that the women's team is trying to distance themselves from the club. They should obviously never be in a position like this, but now that they unfortunately are, kudos to them. Now the men need to find some courage and follow in their footsteps.

 

[WeePat]

Because the media.

This is the kind of inconsistency that people are talking about.

It’s just based on sensationalism and whipping people up into an emotional frenzy and thus changing the goal posts constantly.

This is what I meant when I said if Rashford did what Alonso did, the media reaction, and the outcome for the player would be COMPLETELY different.

The media don’t care in the slightest about social issues, they don’t care about victims or rehabilitation, in truth they love this shit, the Greenwood case etc, they love it - they shouldn’t be the deciding factor in how these type of complex societal issues play out.

In fact, they shouldn’t really be ANY factor at all.

To be fair, this particular issue is being talked about on a mass level because the people associated with this club have kicked up a fuss. People tend to discuss what's in the news. I don't remember coming across this news item when his presence at Clyde was being questioned. Raith Rovers having a high profile local sponsor/fan helps spread the story and a Scottish member of this forum started the conversation on here.

 

[Lightbringer]

The player in question, is he like the Rooney or Drogba for that division? I mean, he must be fantastic to be worth all the drama?

 

[SirScholes]

Never understood why this should be the case. They should not be role models for future generations.

Because they are the heroes of children?