"rape ruling footballer"

[roseshippy]

misogynist language from the BBC here.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38718879

"Rape ruling footballer David Robertson retires from the sport"

"A footballer judged to have raped a woman, with ex-Scotland international David Goodwillie, has retired from the game.
David Robertson, 30, and his ex-teammate Goodwillie were last week ordered to pay £100,000 damages. They have never faced a criminal trial."

"The two former Dundee United players had claimed the sex was consensual."

Why do they not call him a rapist? He has been found on the balance of probabilities to have raped someone. Therefore he is a rapist.

I think that you require a criminal conviction (beyond reasonable doubt) before the media can legally assume you to be guilty.

A civil judgement is only balance of probabilities and so is not sufficient.

I don't think that's right, sunnie. The footballers' legal recourse would be to sue the media outlet for libel. but given there's a court ruling to the effect that they did it, I don't see a problem with calling them rapists.

It may be that the BBC are taking the cautious view because an appeal is potentially pending - I don't know whether this is the case or not. If the answer is 'not', I think it's a bit mealy-arsed for them not to be referred to as rapists.

I am agreeing with Sunnie - it makes a lot more sense for a criminal conviction to warrant the label, rather than a civil court's point of view.
And of course outlets may be being cautious - there is probably v little prior case study to work from.

Fuck that, they're rapists. Why would the offer to pay her off to the tune of £110k if that wasn't the case? Why would the victim choose to waive her right to anonymity and appear variously on the telly talking about the case.

We should be allowed to call a spade a spade.

They are rapists, other media organisations are calling them that.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rapist-footballers-offered-victim-115000-9671167

I'm not saying they aren't rapists. It's nice to see them get what they deserve even if the CPS didn't prosecute.

I'm just saying that the BBC are probably being careful how they label them. They haven't been found guilty in a criminal court so it's not clear where the media stand with regards to libel.

They are. It's unbelievable that this poor girls case wasn't taken up by the PPS so she had to go down the civil route.

original story

the law lord said

" 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, she was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her.'"

that was made by a judge in court, there is no question of libel.

they are rapists.

I think some papers are calling them rapists because it was a giving court ruling that on the balance of probability they were rapists and slander is also dealt with in the civil courts. So they will not be able to get a civil court to say they are not rapists on the balance of probability if another has already decided they are

Sorry for typo meant to say civil court rulings not giving court ruling