The question isn't about being able to work again, as the person in question clearly is doing so. It's a question of whether a sponsor is able to end their association with the sponsored organisation. Unless there was something in the sponsorship contract which guaranteed sponsorship for x years with no conditions, it is surely up to the sponsor.
Further to my earlier post ... I think that were I to be in Val McDermid's position, before I made up my mind, I would want to talk to the man involved and try to gauge his attitude to what he was accused of and how he feels about it now ...
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
It seems like lines to me again - and we all have our own.
If you take out the emotive crime and replace that, and also take out the uncertainty and replace that, I think we could all agree on:
If the person (male or female) had not been found guilty, although charged, of any crime then they are innocent and should be treated as such. So Val would be wrong?
Would Val then be justified withdrawing the sponsorship if the crime was proven and:
...
Shoplifting
Fraud
Murder
Manslaugther
Mugging
Grievous bodily harm
Theft
Driving accident
Child molestation
...
...where is your line? I'd guess that all the crimes that include fear and violence will have you thinking more.
We'd all have our own lines. In my brain, I believe that the justice system is about punishment and paying dues to society - and that after the sentence, the 'sins' should be washed clean. But that doesn't work in reality does it - well to me it doesn't. The more emotive the crime, the more you think the person should suffer the same as the victim and potentially victims' families.
What if the person/people is/are responsible for mass hardship and suffering? -ie remote damage. Should they still be supported and backed?
The fact that the man is in the public eye emphasises the emotive element doesn't it?
I don't know enough about the case to say about Val's actions, but presumably she has confidence that he is guilty as claimed.
Would Val then be justified withdrawing the sponsorship if the crime was proven and:
...
Shoplifting
Fraud
Murder
Manslaugther
Mugging
Grievous bodily harm
Theft
Driving accident
Child molestation
...
...where is your line? I'd guess that all the crimes that include fear and violence will have you thinking more.
I wonder how many footballers / sportsmen have never had a parking ticket , fiddled their expenses / tax returns, broken the speed limit?
I'd never heard of the man in question and I've always respected Val's opinions when I've seen her on Question Time etc, but as has been said: he was never prosecuted. Unless we all want to pay for folk to be locked up forever, then even those convicted and "done their time " should, surely be allowed back into society?
The issue is not really with him, though. If we all had confidence in the justice system, we would conclude that as he wasn't prosecuted there manifestly was not a case to answer, therefore he is innocent, having not been proven guilty. But we aren't so sure, are we?
The non-prosecution of rape in particular undermines that whole argument and we are left always wondering whether he is innocent or if he just got away with it, because, surely, a great many people - men - are getting away with rape. That leaves both the public questioning whether someone really is innocent and the person accused left forever with the question hanging over him.
In the end, he can still work, of course he can. This fuss is because he is a footballer and therefore visible. There are other jobs, not in the public eye, where the fact he does not have a criminal record would mean there is no bar to his employment.
So another way to ask that question; given that he was never convicted of a sexual offence, should he be able to get a job working with vulnerable adults or with children? because I imagine he can.
The problem is not him, or Val's response. It's that our legal system is letting everyone down - victims and those accused all serve a life sentence and the public are left fearful.
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
What would you advocate here though? If you have certain standards for proving any crime and a CPS that evaluates evidence to see if criteria are met, then what else can you do? Do you reduce standards to accommodate certain crimes? That can't be right either. How do you go about proving a crime where there is no obvious evidence? And do you take a case to court where you think you can't win? I would assume that if there was obvious evidence, then the case would have gone to court in this case.
I'm aware of holding two contradictory feelings that cannot be reconciled. On the one hand, I do believe in innocence until proven guilty, and that after a penalty is paid, the offender should be able to have a fresh start. On the other, I would never employ or welcome into my home a person who had committed a serious crime. I think a lot of people feel this way, but I have encountered better human beings who go out of their way to support ex-offenders.
He was never even charged with rape, never mind found guilty. Yes, rape is a horrible crime, but i'm uneasy about folk being sued in a civil case for what should be a criminal matter.
For info - A snip from Wikipedia
Criminal convictions and rape judgment
In June 2008, Goodwillie was convicted of assaulting a man in a Stirling nightclub,[62] and was fined £250.[63]
In September 2009 Goodwillie was arrested after a nightclub doorman was knocked unconscious.[64] Two months later, Goodwillie was convicted of assault and received a £200 fine.[65][66]
In 2012, Goodwillie was convicted of assault for striking John Friel after the latter had launched an unprovoked attack from behind on Goodwillie's teammate Danny Swanson at a late-night takeaway in Glasgow in 2010.[67] He was sentenced to a 12-month probation order and to carry out 80 hours of unpaid work.[67] Friel was ordered to carry out 240 hours of unpaid work for his part in the incident.[67]
Goodwillie and David Robertson, who was then a teammate of Goodwillie, were accused of committing rape in January 2011.[68] Goodwillie was charged with rape, but the Scottish legal authorities decided not to pursue a criminal prosecution.[68] The complainer instead took civil action against Goodwillie and Robertson, whom the judge ruled to be rapists,[68] ordering them to pay £100,000 in compensation.[68] The civil case was judged on the balance of probabilities and did not need corroboration of evidence, unlike in a Scottish criminal case.[68] Goodwillie left his club, Plymouth Argyle, soon after the case concluded.[39] A club statement said that Goodwillie had asked to leave as he was considering an appeal.[39] In November 2017, three appeal judges at the Court of Session upheld the ruling.[69]
The case hinged on whether Ms Clair was too drunk to give consent to have sex with the players.
Goodwillie and Robertson admitted having sex but said it was consensual.
As well as witnesses who testified to Ms Clair being extremely drunk
when she left a club in a taxi with the pair, medical and forensic
witnesses backed her story.
Of Goodwillie, he said: “My general impression was that, particularly
in relation to his assessment of the pursuer’s condition, his evidence
was given with a view to his own interests rather than in accordance
with the oath which he had taken.
“I did not find his evidence to be persuasive.”
Robertson was slammed as “selective as to what he was prepared to tell the court”.
Lord Armstrong said his evidence “directed as it was entirely to his own interests, was partial and partisan.”
On the other hand, Ms Clair was “cogent, persuasive and compelling”.
Lord Armstrong went on: “Both defenders 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.”
On that basis I wouldn't put any sponsorship into the club either. i wouldn't want either of the men working with any female I know.
Posts
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
I'd never heard of the man in question and I've always respected Val's opinions when I've seen her on Question Time etc, but as has been said: he was never prosecuted.
Unless we all want to pay for folk to be locked up forever, then even those convicted and "done their time " should, surely be allowed back into society?
The non-prosecution of rape in particular undermines that whole argument and we are left always wondering whether he is innocent or if he just got away with it, because, surely, a great many people - men - are getting away with rape. That leaves both the public questioning whether someone really is innocent and the person accused left forever with the question hanging over him.
In the end, he can still work, of course he can. This fuss is because he is a footballer and therefore visible. There are other jobs, not in the public eye, where the fact he does not have a criminal record would mean there is no bar to his employment.
So another way to ask that question; given that he was never convicted of a sexual offence, should he be able to get a job working with vulnerable adults or with children? because I imagine he can.
The problem is not him, or Val's response. It's that our legal system is letting everyone down - victims and those accused all serve a life sentence and the public are left fearful.
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
For info - A snip from Wikipedia
Criminal convictions and rape judgment
In June 2008, Goodwillie was convicted of assaulting a man in a Stirling nightclub,[62] and was fined £250.[63]
In September 2009 Goodwillie was arrested after a nightclub doorman was knocked unconscious.[64] Two months later, Goodwillie was convicted of assault and received a £200 fine.[65][66]
In 2012, Goodwillie was convicted of assault for striking John Friel after the latter had launched an unprovoked attack from behind on Goodwillie's teammate Danny Swanson at a late-night takeaway in Glasgow in 2010.[67] He was sentenced to a 12-month probation order and to carry out 80 hours of unpaid work.[67] Friel was ordered to carry out 240 hours of unpaid work for his part in the incident.[67]
Goodwillie and David Robertson, who was then a teammate of Goodwillie, were accused of committing rape in January 2011.[68] Goodwillie was charged with rape, but the Scottish legal authorities decided not to pursue a criminal prosecution.[68] The complainer instead took civil action against Goodwillie and Robertson, whom the judge ruled to be rapists,[68] ordering them to pay £100,000 in compensation.[68] The civil case was judged on the balance of probabilities and did not need corroboration of evidence, unlike in a Scottish criminal case.[68] Goodwillie left his club, Plymouth Argyle, soon after the case concluded.[39] A club statement said that Goodwillie had asked to leave as he was considering an appeal.[39] In November 2017, three appeal judges at the Court of Session upheld the ruling.[69]
Lord Armstrong, presiding, heard from 20 witnesses.
The case hinged on whether Ms Clair was too drunk to give consent to have sex with the players.
Goodwillie and Robertson admitted having sex but said it was consensual.
As well as witnesses who testified to Ms Clair being extremely drunk when she left a club in a taxi with the pair, medical and forensic witnesses backed her story.
Lord Armstrong ruled Ms Clair had been raped and awarded her around £100,000 in damages.
The judge was scathing of the players’ testimony.
Of Goodwillie, he said: “My general impression was that, particularly in relation to his assessment of the pursuer’s condition, his evidence was given with a view to his own interests rather than in accordance with the oath which he had taken.
“I did not find his evidence to be persuasive.”
Robertson was slammed as “selective as to what he was prepared to tell the court”.
Lord Armstrong said his evidence “directed as it was entirely to his own interests, was partial and partisan.”
On the other hand, Ms Clair was “cogent, persuasive and compelling”.
Lord Armstrong went on: “Both defenders 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.”
On that basis I wouldn't put any sponsorship into the club either. i wouldn't want either of the men working with any female I know.