Our thanks to David W for this. The start of the piece:
A former Scotland international footballer and his ex-teammate have been ruled to be rapists and ordered to pay £100,000 damages despite never facing a criminal trial. [my emphasis]
Denise Clair, who was left “devastated” by a Crown decision not to prosecute, sued striker David Goodwillie.
She also sued Goodwillie’s then Dundee United colleague David Robertson.
She claimed they raped her at a flat in Armadale, in West Lothian, after a night out in Bathgate in January 2011.
It was the first civil rape case of its kind in Scotland.
Ms Clair, who previously waived her right to anonymity, said she could not remember what happened after being in a Bathgate bar and woke up in a strange flat the following morning.
The 30-year-old originally sought £500,000 in compensation, [my emphasis] but damages were later agreed at £100,000 in the civil action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
The mother-of-one maintained she was incapable of giving free agreement to sex because of her alcohol consumption, but Goodwillie, 27, who now plays with Plymouth Argyle, and Robertson claimed that intercourse had been consensual.
A judge said: “Having carefully examined and scrutinised the whole evidence in the case, I find the evidence of the pursuer (the woman) to be cogent, persuasive and compelling.”
Lord Armstrong said: “In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her.”
The parallels with the Ched Evans case are too obvious to need explaining.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Justice for Men & Boys 
I just heard about this. This is so scary. Totally illogical.
LikeLike
Alas, totally ‘logical’, in feminist terms. The type of judgement feminists want passed, regardless of the rights and wrongs in individual cases. The men evidently didn’t have the required acting skills to sway the gynocentric judge (Lord Armstrong). Hell, this was such a weak case the CPS didn’t want to press charges!
LikeLike
Surely they aren’t legally obligated to pay her then, if it hasn’t been proven?
LikeLike
Yes they are. It has been proven, in a civil action, in which the burden of proof is very much lower.
LikeLike
How was it proven? Surely what you mean is an appointed judge made a guess. This reminds me of Rolf Harris. How can it be proven when it’s he said she said? It’s not possible. If I say Frankie Boyle raped me at one of his concerts (he didn’t , thank God), by the logic of the judge , Frankie Boyle raped me because I said he did.
LikeLike
‘How was it proven?‘
With the evidence given. The burden of proof is much lower for civil actions than it is for criminal. This sort of verdict is going to be the norm if the burden of proof in rape trials is lowered, as is currently under consideration.
‘ Surely what you mean is an appointed judge made a guess.‘
Pretty much. In the opinion of the judge the case was proven.
LikeLike
Also, if it was ‘proven’, then they would be able to charge them with rape. This makes no sense to me whatsoever. But then I’m capable of critical thought while the normies in the upper echelons of power are living in a fantasy world.
LikeLike
‘Also, if it was ‘proven’, then they would be able to charge them with rape.‘
No. Notwithstanding that, if I recall correctly, they were originally charged with rape, there was insufficient evidence for a criminal conviction, hence the civil action. Suing for damages is a way of getting a de facto guilty verdict where the evidence for a criminal conviction is insufficient. That seems to be unjust to me but that is the law as it stands, as I understand it, with no legal expertise whatsoever.
LikeLike
That’s mad. The law is retarded.
LikeLike
Everything to do with the CJS is gynocentric in practise, if not always in theory.
LikeLike
And they have “targets” to reach. So there must indeed have been some holes in the case.
LikeLike
This is just sickening.
Gestapo rulings just keep on coming.
LikeLike
How long before bartenders get sued for not stopping drunk women from driving. How long before women can’t be prosecuted for driving drunk on the same logic that women aren’t responsible for their actions while drunk.
LikeLike
That’s the logical outcome.
LikeLike
They’ll deny their own logic though, as all normies do. E.g. FGM is barbaric. “Circumcision” is ‘different’. Abortion is okay because ‘it’s not human and isn’t conscious’ …. yet they will say necrophilia should remain illegal because ….. er …… mental gymnastics lol
LikeLike
Vagina is a useful synonym for mental gymnastics (it’s a woman’s privilege to … [mental gymnastics])
LikeLike
The two men should have learned by now that having sex with women who have been drinking is a very bad idea. They’re paying the price of ignorance and stupidity. It does not matter that the law is an ass, it matters only that the law actively discriminates against men and so we need to protect ourselves against women who exploit those laws that exploit us.
Hopefully they’ve learned a lesson and they should thank their lucky stars that they don’t have criminal records and are not now staring at cell walls. The next lesson they need to learn is that only the red pill can save them; it is the antidote to all feminist poisons, but only if swallowed whole.
PS: ‘A judge said: “Having carefully examined and scrutinised the whole evidence in the case, I find the evidence of the pursuer (the woman) to be cogent, persuasive and compelling.”‘
The best fiction always is.
LikeLike
Thing is, chances are, both these men were drunk too. So why is this drunk thing only being applied one way? If they were both drunk, this ruling is in contravention of equality legislation.
LikeLike
Get yourself down to Specsavers, buy a pair of clitoris tinted spectacles and you’ll see how it all makes sense.
LikeLike
I totally agree its important men are aware of the danger of Laws loaded against them. I don’t know Scottish Law but it sounds about the same as English Law. As Williams Collins piece makes clear the roots of our Gynocentricism go deep. In effect the Judge is no doubt congratulating himself on rescuing a damsel .
Sadly the equality act doesn’t cover the operation of the Law.
LikeLike
I just don’t get it. The woman’s an obvious slapper. Men don’t respect slappers. The two footballers also behaved in a way i don’t approve of. No idea why the judge would feel sorry for her. She made the choice to get drunk and pick up footballers. I didn’t choose to have my genitals mutilated by the NHS but i can’t get them charged or sue them.
LikeLike
‘No idea why the judge would feel sorry for her.‘
Politicised and feminised judiciary.
‘I didn’t choose to have my genitals mutilated by the NHS but i can’t get them charged or sue them.‘
You’re a man, you don’t matter.
LikeLike
dropping the gentleman conduct at workplaces would go a very long way to send women a message of discontent.
LikeLike
Mike, thank you very much for this. Whatever the law says, drunken consent is still consent. To illustrate why, I’m going to borrow a notion from the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. What does giving consent mean? It means, simply, that you consent, by words (ie language) or gestures, to sex. This means you enter what Lacan calls the Symbolic: the world of language, which WE ARE ALL BOUND BY. Once the consent for sex is understood, the circle is complete. To make the point a bit clearer, if, while drunk, I go into a fish and chip shop and order fish and chips, does my being drunk invalidate the order for fish and chips? Of course not.
The news as a whole makes me deeply pessimistic. The growth of MGTOW, while entirely understandable, will eventually lead to complete economic and social collapse. Perhaps that’s the only consolation, really; once that happens, we can start again, this time on a sensible basis.
LikeLike
Mansplaining.
LikeLike