Celtic face threat of multimillion pound compensation claim(The Times)

Barry Bennell: Men lose case against Manchester City over abuse https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-59934051
The only semi-positive thing to come from that is the fact that, as pointed out by a number of posters, Man City employed Bennell, whereas it’s legally proven and isn’t in any doubt whatsoever that Celtic employed multiple paedophiles, all either at the same time or at different periods but all employed under the same umbrella as Celtic fc.

Not that this will bring any happiness to these victims and their families, but Bennell is responsible for his crimes as an employee of many different clubs, Celtic employed many, many paedophiles and we all know that this will eventually be their downfall along with their seperate entity nonsense.

Shame for those victims of course, one day they will receive the redress they deserve one way or another.
 
What a terrible precedent set by the court.
Not really.

To show vicarious liability and hence, culpability, you have to show that what he did was done, ostensibly, during the course of employment. If it can be shown that he wasn't an employee at the relevant time, then employer liability can't be established

Celtic, on the other hand...
 
I’d understood City did employ and contract BB but the court allowed the escape because they say the youths had no contract of any type directly to the club and therefore they see it as BB acting as unlicensed on there behalf . Does that sound coherent and at all valid ?
 
Just to reiterate other people's points.

The abuse of boys at Celtic happened when the abusers were employed by Celtic, on Celtic's grounds or while the boys were in the care of Celtic officials (i.e. games abroad).

A bag of photos of naked children also found at Celtic's premises.
 
I don’t think the fhilth have a hope in hell of putting up the same defense as City,Their only hope is that the authorities in Scotland continue to demonstrate a complete lack of interest in pursuing justice for the victims.
 
The Scottish FA notorious inquiry found instances of a football team when made aware of children being sexually abused centralised responses to protect it's standing and reputation. How can they claim to have not had any duty of care when their chairmen was holding internal inquiries about the behaviour of these paedophiles and finding them to be unsubstantiated whilst also centralising responses to protect its fucking standing.

This is why that bastardised team is vicariously liable. kids were needlessly abused to allow that fucking team to win a fucking game, that needs corrected.

The Manchester City court case has no relevance whatsoever.
 
The Scottish FA notorious inquiry found instances of a football team when made aware of children being sexually abused centralised responses to protect it's standing and reputation. How can they claim to have not had any duty of care when their chairmen was holding internal inquiries about the behaviour of these paedophiles and finding them to be unsubstantiated whilst also centralising responses to protect its fucking standing.

This is why that bastardised team is vicariously liable. kids were needlessly abused to allow that fucking team to win a fucking game, that needs corrected.

The Manchester City court case has no relevance whatsoever.
Based only on a couple of legal summaries & not having read the full judgement, that's my (unqualified) view too. Firstly, there's no historic CSA time bar in Scotland. And the critical witnesses are still alive. Secondly, for a number of reasons, the CBC claims look more likely to survive Lady Hale's 2-stage test. Time will tell.
 
The Scottish FA notorious inquiry found instances of a football team when made aware of children being sexually abused centralised responses to protect it's standing and reputation. How can they claim to have not had any duty of care when their chairmen was holding internal inquiries about the behaviour of these paedophiles and finding them to be unsubstantiated whilst also centralising responses to protect its fucking standing.

This is why that bastardised team is vicariously liable. kids were needlessly abused to allow that fucking team to win a fucking game, that needs corrected.

The Manchester City court case has no relevance whatsoever.
Correct.
 
I’d understood City did employ and contract BB but the court allowed the escape because they say the youths had no contract of any type directly to the club and therefore they see it as BB acting as unlicensed on there behalf . Does that sound coherent and at all valid ?
If I caused damage to the public in the course of my employment my employers would be vicariously liable even if victims were not employees. Look at corporate manslaughter charges being sought by police against NHS trusts. If judge shares it not liable because victims not employees then appeal would be likely to succeed.
 
Just to reiterate other people's points.

The abuse of boys at Celtic happened when the abusers were employed by Celtic, on Celtic's grounds or while the boys were in the care of Celtic officials (i.e. games abroad).

A bag of photos of naked children also found at Celtic's premises.
Over 250 Photos and somehow Police Scotland or prob Strathclyde Police at the time didn't try and find out the identity of any of them
 
The uneducated Celtic apologists will see the Bennell decision today as a small victory. Believe us, they couldn’t be further from the truth.
All our thoughts today should be with the victims of Bennell. Like ourselves, they will fight on.
In a way it is a small victory for the cvnts.
If City had lost the case we would all have thought it would have had huge repecussions. Today raises a couple of fears. The victims of the beast Bennell might not get continued support as an appeal will be extremely risky for the solicitors. By the same taken I hope that the Thompsons firm dont get cold feet by today's result and not proceed with the action against the east end beasts.
As with all these no win no fee cases the law firms always do a risk assessment. Their main focus is on profit, not victims.
 
In a way it is a small victory for the cvnts.
If City had lost the case we would all have thought it would have had huge repecussions. Today raises a couple of fears. The victims of the beast Bennell might not get continued support as an appeal will be extremely risky for the solicitors. By the same taken I hope that the Thompsons firm dont get cold feet by today's result and not proceed with the action against the east end beasts.
As with all these no win no fee cases the law firms always do a risk assessment. Their main focus is on profit, not victims.
It raises no fears whatsoever as the two cases are completely different.
 
From what I remember of the documentary last year, Bennel case was very different to the celtc case if iirc. I think city refused him use of their name etc and there was a degree of separation. There’s no separation between celtc and it’s boys club. A full inquiry should’ve been carried out long ago to get to the bottom of it all though. People are supposed to believe a 19yo just walked in off the street off his own back and a big European club just gave him use of their name, colours and facilities? Somebody with more power than him wanted it to happen.
And celtc gave all the power to various abusers from that day forward while various celtc officials had plum jobs in abusers companies. Who weaved the web?
 
Not really.

To show vicarious liability and hence, culpability, you have to show that what he did was done, ostensibly, during the course of employment. If it can be shown that he wasn't an employee at the relevant time, then employer liability can't be established

Celtic, on the other hand...

In Grubb v Shannon in Scotland, the sheriff awarded compensation to Grubb. Grubb had been injured in a beauty salon. The damage was not done by Shannon, but by a woman who was self employed.

The self employed woman rented space fom Shannon.

It was Shannon who had to pay compensation.

The Sheriff found that the relationship between Shannon and the self employed woman was akin to employment and it was fair, just, and reasonable to impose vicarious liability upon Shannon.

I'm not a legal eagle, perhaps someone who is, could indicate how this could affect the goings on at Celtic Park and other locations.
 
Last edited:
From what I remember of the documentary last year, Bennel case was very different to the celtc case if iirc. I think city refused him use of their name etc and there was a degree of separation. There’s no separation between celtc and it’s boys club. A full inquiry should’ve been carried out long ago to get to the bottom of it all though. People are supposed to believe a 19yo just walked in off the street off his own back and a big European club just gave him use of their name, colours and facilities? Somebody with more power than him wanted it to happen.
And celtc gave all the power to various abusers from that day forward while various celtc officials had plum jobs in abusers companies. Who weaved the web?

It would be difficult to prove who at Celtic FC, prior to 1967, was an abuser, and put these wheels in motion for a random, unqualified 19yo to come in.

However, it may be easier to see who within Celtic, management or senior representatives (and had the power to make that call), was already working with children? At youth groups, other youth teams, religious groups etc.

Their underlying thought being that they needed easier access to children, ergo arrange to set up a boys club on their grounds, in their name, for the "purpose of bringing through youth to the first team".

Of course, Celtic did benefit from having their boys club and the youth coming through. Some of their key players and "heroes" were through the Boys Club.

But someone, pre 1967, could have had more sinister reasons. And they knew just the man to set it up. An unqualified 19yo.
 
In Grubb v Shannon in Scotland, the sheriff awarded compesation to Grubb. Grubb had been injured in a beauty salon. The damage was not done by Shannon, but by a woman who was self employed.

The self employed woman rented space fom Shannon.

It was Shannon who had to pay compensation.

The Sheriff found that the relationship between Shannon and the self employed woman was akin to employment and it was fair, just, and reasonable to impose vicarious liability upon Shannon.

I'm not a legal eagle, perhaps someone who is, could indicate how this could affect the goings on at Celtic Park and other locations.
It all hangs on the relationship and I can see why the court in the case you cite would find that the link between the salon and the individual was such that it bore all of the elements of 'employment'.
 
In a way it is a small victory for the cvnts.
If City had lost the case we would all have thought it would have had huge repecussions. Today raises a couple of fears. The victims of the beast Bennell might not get continued support as an appeal will be extremely risky for the solicitors. By the same taken I hope that the Thompsons firm dont get cold feet by today's result and not proceed with the action against the east end beasts.
As with all these no win no fee cases the law firms always do a risk assessment. Their main focus is on profit, not victims.
I’m sorry but I really can’t agree with anything in this post. Hopefully the Marc Horne article above will answer your post.
It does get frustrating as we can’t show everything that we have in our possession, and we do understand that posters always fear the worst.
We’ve said it many times throughout this thread that patience is required.
I also ask you not to think I’m being abrupt with you. Those that follow this thread know that not to be the case.
Spotlight will always state facts and release what we can when we can.
Over 30 survivors have come forward with Thompsons and some are also on this forum. We speak to them personally. I can assure you Thompsons won’t get cold feet from the result of the Bennell case. Both cases are completely different in the sense of legalities where the clubs are involved.
 
“What you know of this scandal is only the tip of the iceberg.”

That last sentence is very telling but not surprising to anyone following this thread or even with an anecdotal inkling of what was going on back then. The same names and faces are recurring time and time again whether it be articles in the Celtic View, press cuttings or even photographs with Savile.

As Spotlight has clearly demonstrated, this wasn’t just about P#1 and P#2. This was a tangled web of people all linked and facilitating each other over a period of decades.
 
In a way it is a small victory for the cvnts.
If City had lost the case we would all have thought it would have had huge repecussions. Today raises a couple of fears. The victims of the beast Bennell might not get continued support as an appeal will be extremely risky for the solicitors. By the same taken I hope that the Thompsons firm dont get cold feet by today's result and not proceed with the action against the east end beasts.
As with all these no win no fee cases the law firms always do a risk assessment. Their main focus is on profit, not victims.
Mount, all legal firms in that line of business carry out a legal merits assessment at a very early stage and if there is only a minimal chance of success they will not proceed for fear of losing, not just from a finance perspective but in reputation too.

For any firm to get a civil case to this stage, the billing hours will be in or near £100k and agreement to proceed from majority or all the partners will need to have been granted.

This isn’t free advertising for Thompsons, this is serious outlay for them all.

I am not being naive in suggesting they aren’t doing it for the credibility of winning as the fees they will pick up will be huge, as will potential income for other or similar claims, but rest assured, no legal firm would go this far if they didn’t feel they had a high percentage chance of success.
 
I think today’s ruling has saved Celtic in all honesty.

I hope I’m wrong. Would be such a shame for the families and life’s they have ruined.
No chance. Being a scout is kinda freelance and not directly employed. Some of the scum involved with CBC were direct employees of CFC and even welcomed back after being sacked. That to me is the difference
 
In the next half hour Spotlight will be releasing a post asking to identify a certain individual.
If anyone recognises this person, or knows this individual, then please could you PM myself or Grigo.
We have a rough idea who it is but are looking for confirmation.
We’d like to keep the name off the big thread at this stage. Thank you.
 
Back
Top