Celtic face threat of multimillion pound compensation claim(The Times)
- Thread starter Haining84
- Start date
davydumper
Well-Known Member
Bumped into an old work colleague late this afternoon, turns out he goes to the same chapel service as McGinn, I got talking to him about the bold Jacks injury and as far as he knows is he had fallen and that he was all bruised down one side of his face, I told him it was reported as a car accident in the paper, he said he had never heard anything about that and he knows some of the family, what he did say was McGinn is quite poor at walking and shuffles about, and is very old and frail looking, this accident is starting to look like a huge pile of shite imo, will keep asking about though.
Talktalk
Well-Known Member
Do you think he is a major cog ? I wouldn’t be shocked if he ends up as a fall guy for others
Blues and Royals
Well-Known Member
I utterly detest this country now. Ruined by Nationalist racists and Republican bigots. Getting devolution was the worst thing to happen to us. Just think what life under independence would be like ?
IndonesiaBlue
Well-Known Member
Given the length of time Cairney was around Celtic, the number of other convicted paedophiles involved with the club and the apparent geographic scattering of abuse locations, yea, I’d think he should be treated as a major cog by investigative authorities.
For certain if that is the case, he’d maybe have great incentive to be the fall guy. I mean, he’s already got rent free lifetime occupation of the house he formerly owned, courtesy of Neil Watt of Ross Liddell factors. What other nice wee assets has he salted away out of reach of the victims?
And how many other facilitators like Neil Watt are out there, protecting the ‘good name’ of their beloved club?
Allybear
Well-Known Member
Bbc now reporting that cairney could qualify for early release as a result of todays decision, reporting at pains to emphasized that it was a miscarriage of justice! If this is the case, it surely has be the undoing of this shambolic form of justice that we have in Scotland. This is now becoming surreal, what does it take for the public to see how utterly wrong this is. This has to be the turning point
Fox & Hounds
Well-Known Member
A major protest on his release. It’s a must.
Lone Star
Well-Known Member
It’ll come as no surprise to many on here that Lord Carloway was a member of the appeal board.
Ian Livingstone is the former BT Group chairman and is apparently a season ticket holder at the sty and has been that for many years.
walt mcmurty
Well-Known Member
He was caught on camera saying something along the lines off " I suppose I was as bad as the rest of them . " Said in a very matter of fact way . In any normal society this would require a visit from the Police for clarification of said statement .
EDIT . My mistake . It was McCafferty that said it .
Last edited:
Alexmci
Well-Known Member
Good Chance Lord Carloway is a beast as well. Certainly seems to be OK with it going by his track record.
AYEBrox
Well-Known Member
Would it be too much of a stretch of the imagination for those judging on the appeal to ponder the fact that perhaps this guys life had gone done a particular path more than likely as a direct effect of the slimey beast that they are hearing the appeal on behalf of?
Off to bang my head off the nearest wall .
Scottish justice... They’re having a laugh FFS
well the SNP are heading for an increased majority..so your going to get more of the same!!
We were in contact with Michelle yesterday Jan. To say she was angry and upset would be an understatement.
The simshill one
Well-Known Member
Understandable as that decision yesterday was sickening to the bottom of your stomach.
Humbug
Well-Known Member
Just for clarity, I'm sure that was McCafferty as he was entering the Belfast Police station. Easy mistake to make all the same, with so many paedophiles, enablers and facilitators linked to this club the facts seem entwined in some way.
walt mcmurty
Well-Known Member
yes mate , my mistake , got them mixed up it was McCaffery .
Bobafett Bear
Well-Known Member
Listen that rat bastard Cairney is a set back and a kick in the teeth for survivors but let’s not take the eye of the prize and focus on the facts,facts and truth are keystone in this and the they were up to their knees in sex cases in and around their club and that wont change ever and their directors and business ties connections as well.
BN94 and others have worked tirelessly behind the scene’s,they have led folk this far so trust these guys.
The amount that of didgital data that has been removed to save and protect these bastards is unreal and shows not only their guilt,but the whole fûcking religious cult brotherhood of them is truly disgusting.
a new PR mob into “limit the damage” coppers bagging evidence,the list goes on and on,a book or movie should be made one day on Epstein fc and all proceeds should go to survivors.
it’s still early in the fight guys unfortunately for survivors,let’s get those writs served now.
Cairney now is not active case that’s the last I think??
let’s get onto the Nazi party and get this exposed more before the GE.
Votes before justice for survivors!
BN94 and others have worked tirelessly behind the scene’s,they have led folk this far so trust these guys.
The amount that of didgital data that has been removed to save and protect these bastards is unreal and shows not only their guilt,but the whole fûcking religious cult brotherhood of them is truly disgusting.
a new PR mob into “limit the damage” coppers bagging evidence,the list goes on and on,a book or movie should be made one day on Epstein fc and all proceeds should go to survivors.
it’s still early in the fight guys unfortunately for survivors,let’s get those writs served now.
Cairney now is not active case that’s the last I think??
let’s get onto the Nazi party and get this exposed more before the GE.
Votes before justice for survivors!
Last edited:
Kbhblue
Well-Known Member
For 9 charges of abusing children, or even 1 charge, I honestly can't see how a society's legal system can deem a 4 year sentence appropriate.
I haven't seen how many charges out of the 9 were linked to the lad whose evidence they deemed unreliable yesterday... But if it has went down from 9 charges to 8... Or even to 1... Under what normal human thought processes can that warrant a 25% reduction of a 4 year sentence for child abuse.
What is almost as sickening is how it's absolutely no surprise at all that the Scottish courts have cut his sentence.
47blue
Well-Known Member
Clearly a reduced sentence to buy his silence.
ghoulishworm
Well-Known Member
I am wondering just how close to the truth this throwaway line really is 47blue.
Commentator
Well-Known Member
There's Carloway again.
Rathcool Kai
Well-Known Member
Email sent to Humza, Nikkla, Carloway, Drummond Young, Turnbull, Collins and sms editors
28 Nov at 11:44
I feel compelled this morning to sit in front of my keyboard and attempt to focus the spotlight on the frailties that is the dysfunctional Scottish Legal system, yesterday Wednesday 27th November 2019 this aforementioned legal system was a faultering rudderless ship, today that ship has sunk, Scottish Justice is Dead.
The system has been on a downward spiral, tail-spinning into oblivion since the inception of the S.N.P. Government who seized control of our once proud nation. The cabinet Minister for "Justice" has navigated us all down a path where we accept corrupt, unethical, immoral, and erroneous decisions, as standard, with regard to criminal conviction, where the general public disregard our one time unsurpassed British Legal system which was the envy of most countries the world over. Now, it's nothing short of a laughing stock in foreign legal circles.
It defies belief that yesterday, the beast that is Frank Cairney had his derisory 4 year sentence reduced by 1 year on appeal, against the dishonesty of one of his poor victims. What signals does this extrude to would be abusers and criminals?
By logic we can deduct that Cairney's 4 year sentence equated to 5 months and 10 days confinement as "punishment?" for each of his victim's, incidentally only the ones who came forward, or 6 months for each of the 8 "Honest" victims. Therefore by the same logic would it not be unreasonable to expect that his successful appeal against this dishonest victim should result in a reduction of 5 months and 10 days?, certainly not 1 year.
From the outset the sentence of 4 years was unworthy and an insult to the poor victims, for the torture that they endured at the hands of the beast Cairney and his accomplice Torbett, who also received a derisory 6 year, second sentence for which the punishment doesn't suit the crime.
Please take a Moment to reflect the equation that stares us in the face, 5 months and 10 days at Her Majesty's Pleasure, for the sexual abuse of children, perhaps numerous times over a prolonged period of time, Is that Justice Humza? Is that Justice Nicola?, Is that Justice Simon Collins? Is that Justice Lord Carloway? incidently the miscarriage of justice you referred to yesterday, in my opinion should be the farcical short sentence handed out to the deviant beast in the first instance. Is that Justice Lord Drummond Young? Is that Justice Lord Turnbull?, not in my book.
To all the editors of the Scottish mainstream media, it is glaringly obvious to the discerning eye that you reluctantly, occasionally drip feed snippets regarding the 5 decade long historic sexual abuse scandal within Scottish football, there is no appetite to further expose the ring enablers and confidants, you are in the main a disgrace to your profession.
If you can all happily look yourself in the mirror and sleep comfortably at night, then you should not worry about Lucifer and the Real Justice that awaits Hades style.
Yours Disgustedly
R.K.
Kbhblue
Well-Known Member
I'm not too clued up on legal terminology and wasn't sure if 8 out of the 9 convictions still stood.
Presuming this article is correct.. I would like to know....
a) how is there any difference at all between 8 convictions relating to child abuse and 9 convictions relating to child abuse? I honestly can't think of any single reason how there could be the slightest difference in the sentences.
b) how is the sentence for 9 convictions relating to child abuse only 4 years. 4 years?
c) how is the sentence for 8 convictions relating to child abuse only 3 years with the possibility of early release?
It does go to show once again though that when a public enquiry is finally held, it is vital that overseas involvement is pushed very hard for.
THEGOVANFRONT
Well-Known Member
With yesterdays appeal now dealt with I see no reports from the numerous organisations that stated they couldn't comment on the scandal whilst there was ongoing court action outstanding.
So, is there another court case outstanding or is their subsequent silence after yesterday just proof of their attempt to cover this up?
So, is there another court case outstanding or is their subsequent silence after yesterday just proof of their attempt to cover this up?
KYBear_74
Well-Known Member
I hope this 3 part expose is going to include all the different organizations involved including the judicial side of things.
Lenzie Loyal
Well-Known Member
Sturgeon and Yousless will see Hell freeze over before they allow an Independent Inquiry into this.
They are an integral part of the cover up of the cover-up.
There will be no independent inquiry as long as the SNP are calling the shots in Scotland.
Lethenger
Well-Known Member
Reply back from HMRC FOI:
Freedom of Information Team S1715
6 Floor
Central Mail Unit
Mr ************ Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE98 1ZZ
By email: *******@btinternet.com
Email foi.request@hmrc.gov.uk
Web www.gov.uk
Date: 28 November 2019
Our ref: FOI2019/02455
Dear Mr *****
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Thank you for your request, which was received on 14 November, for the following information:
“Can you tell me if any HMRC employee, who has worked on the Rangers Football Club's tax case between the years 2001 and 2013 ever been disciplined for leaking sensitive information about the case?”
Some information held by HMRC is exempt from release under FOIA. This is because it relates to an identifiable person, including living individuals and legal entities, that we are legally required to keep confidential under the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (CRCA). The FOIA therefore acknowledges that, where another law prevents the release of information, it is exempt and should not be released. There are specific circumstance in the CRCA where confidential information can be released, but this would never be under the FOIA. We will always respond to a request under the FOIA, but where the information being sought is exempt, we will ensure our reply does not release any confidential information or even indicate if anything is held.
Under section 44(2) of the FOIA we can therefore neither confirm nor deny whether information falling within scope of your request is held by the department. The legal position for this is provided below.
Outside of the FOIA, you may find HMRC’s Information Disclosure Guide useful as it explains the restrictions around disclosing HMRC information and the limited circumstances in which we can lawfully disclose information about our customers.
Legal position
Section 44 of the FOIA applies when the requested information, if held, would be prohibited from disclosure by another piece of legislation.
In this instance, section 18(1) of the CRCA gives HMRC a duty of confidentiality which applies to all information it holds in connection with its functions. The prime examples of a function are the assessment and collection of tax; and the payment and management of tax credits. This is to make sure that information held on people and businesses would be protected and released only in controlled and limited circumstances.
Information is available in large print, audio and Braille formats. Text Relay service prefix number – 18001
When deciding whether we are prohibited from releasing information under FOIA by our duty of confidentiality, CRCA section 23(1) sets the following two questions:
Would the requested information be held in connection with a function of HMRC?
Would the information relate to a "person" who could be identified from the information requested?
The term "person" includes legal entities such as companies, trusts and charities, as well as living individuals (see Schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978).
In this case, the answers to both questions is "Yes". Our duty of confidentiality therefore applies under CRCA section 18(1) and we are exempt from releasing the information under FOIA section 44(1)(a).
Sometimes even just confirming whether we hold the information could tell you something about this person. So FOIA section 44(2) exempts us from either confirming or denying whether we hold information as it would also breach the duty of confidentiality set out in section 18(1) of the CRCA.
If you are not satisfied with this reply you may request a review within two months by emailing foi.review@hmrc.gov.uk, or by writing to the address at the top right-hand side of this letter.
If you are not content with the outcome of an internal review you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Yours sincerely,
Freedom of Information Team
Freedom of Information Team
6 Floor
Central Mail Unit
Mr ************ Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE98 1ZZ
By email: *******@btinternet.com
Email foi.request@hmrc.gov.uk
Web www.gov.uk
Date: 28 November 2019
Our ref: FOI2019/02455
Dear Mr *****
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Thank you for your request, which was received on 14 November, for the following information:
“Can you tell me if any HMRC employee, who has worked on the Rangers Football Club's tax case between the years 2001 and 2013 ever been disciplined for leaking sensitive information about the case?”
Some information held by HMRC is exempt from release under FOIA. This is because it relates to an identifiable person, including living individuals and legal entities, that we are legally required to keep confidential under the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (CRCA). The FOIA therefore acknowledges that, where another law prevents the release of information, it is exempt and should not be released. There are specific circumstance in the CRCA where confidential information can be released, but this would never be under the FOIA. We will always respond to a request under the FOIA, but where the information being sought is exempt, we will ensure our reply does not release any confidential information or even indicate if anything is held.
Under section 44(2) of the FOIA we can therefore neither confirm nor deny whether information falling within scope of your request is held by the department. The legal position for this is provided below.
Outside of the FOIA, you may find HMRC’s Information Disclosure Guide useful as it explains the restrictions around disclosing HMRC information and the limited circumstances in which we can lawfully disclose information about our customers.
Legal position
Section 44 of the FOIA applies when the requested information, if held, would be prohibited from disclosure by another piece of legislation.
In this instance, section 18(1) of the CRCA gives HMRC a duty of confidentiality which applies to all information it holds in connection with its functions. The prime examples of a function are the assessment and collection of tax; and the payment and management of tax credits. This is to make sure that information held on people and businesses would be protected and released only in controlled and limited circumstances.
Information is available in large print, audio and Braille formats. Text Relay service prefix number – 18001
When deciding whether we are prohibited from releasing information under FOIA by our duty of confidentiality, CRCA section 23(1) sets the following two questions:
Would the requested information be held in connection with a function of HMRC?
Would the information relate to a "person" who could be identified from the information requested?
The term "person" includes legal entities such as companies, trusts and charities, as well as living individuals (see Schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978).
In this case, the answers to both questions is "Yes". Our duty of confidentiality therefore applies under CRCA section 18(1) and we are exempt from releasing the information under FOIA section 44(1)(a).
Sometimes even just confirming whether we hold the information could tell you something about this person. So FOIA section 44(2) exempts us from either confirming or denying whether we hold information as it would also breach the duty of confidentiality set out in section 18(1) of the CRCA.
If you are not satisfied with this reply you may request a review within two months by emailing foi.review@hmrc.gov.uk, or by writing to the address at the top right-hand side of this letter.
If you are not content with the outcome of an internal review you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Yours sincerely,
Freedom of Information Team
Ricksen
Well-Known Member
In the UK or not, being in Scotland will never be good for Rangers. We have far too many enemies here who make it their life’s goal to damage us, and protect the Bheasts at any cost. By hook or by crook we need to find a way out of Scottish domestic football and leave the corrupt bastards to it.
Cutty/Young
Well-Known Member
You never asked them to name anyone, you simply asked if anyone had been disiplined, should respond and make it the point you didn't ask to name anyone and simply asked them to clarify if a member of their staff has been dealt with for leaking information.
You could also ask them what action they propose to take in relation to an HMRC employee leaking private and confidential Government documents to the BBC and what investigation they have done or intend to do. Well done for challenging them.
Lenzie Loyal
Well-Known Member
Sturgeon in an ITV interview there just said the future of the Royalty needs debating. Also mentioned the victims of Epstein.
No mention of the victims on her own doorstep.
She's still covering up the cover up.
No mention of the victims on her own doorstep.
She's still covering up the cover up.
coolatballet
Well-Known Member
Tell them that you are not satisfied and that you want the decision reviewed. As mentioned in the previous reply, you did not ask for any names. It is not quite as simple as that though, whether or not you ask for names, which you didn't, they can still refuse if by answering some individual could be identified.
Tell them that you intend to complain to the Information Commissioner if you are not happy with their response after the decision is reviewed.
They have not answered the question you asked. Instead they have refused to answer a question that you did not ask.
As your well aware BB, the frustrating thing for us is the time it takes to get answers when dealing with MSP’s. This has gone on for a long time and you are correct when you say we work tirelessly.
It also doesn’t help when your up against a certain level of corruption that govern Scotland. Especially a justice secretary that puts his beloved club before his actual duty.
I’ve also had posters saying that nothing is happening behind the scenes and that we are wasting our time. They couldn’t be further from the truth. There are certain individuals that have been brought to light that was our doing, but we’re not here for a pat on the back or praise. We are here for the victims and families.
We also believe the issue goes deeper than the individuals already convicted. Our aim is to uncover each and every last one of them no matter what it takes or what we come up against, and believe me there has been a lot of effort to hide these guilty individuals tracks.
It’s no secret what’s gone on at Celtic for longer than 40 years. We strongly believe there are still more guilty individuals and apologists that are hiding the facts. Our aim is to find them and some on this forum definitely know we’ve done ok so far.
Like I’ve said previously, there is nothing more than what we would like than to put everything on here but by doing that would not achieve anything.
I urge people again to be patient. This is a very complex issue. I noticed recently a few posters saying as long as the nationalists are governing, then there will be no independent inquiry. That maybe so. Our aim is to keep working until they have no choice.
One of the most frustrating issues is the devolved government that exists. We believe an inquiry would be well underway if it wasn’t for this. It’s so angering when we get the reply from Westminster MPs that they can give us a personal opinion but can’t act professionally.
The upcoming election also hasn’t helped reference action from MSP’s. This could also be beneficial though when it’s over as hopefully there are different MSP’s in place. I would then urge everyone who has been active to go at it again and keep this subject in the limelight.
Bobafett Bear
Well-Known Member
Well put BN and totally agree brother,excellent post and advice,we now need to ask about live cases,there should be answers now as Cairney as I’m led to believe was last on that fûcking upheld appeal to knock a year of his sentence for that rat bastard.
these nazi bastards can’t hide behind this forever and should be against the wall.
BlueNose94; You have made a slight error in this post & post 18359; with regards
to" hopefully there are different MSP's". This election is only for MP's for HM
Government at Westminster, not the plastic house in Edinburgh, though hopefully
their day will come soon and F*CK the SNP NAZIS.
Cheers Will. The beer in Rotterdam has obviously affected meBlueNose94; You have made a slight error in this post & post 18359; with regards
to" hopefully there are different MSP's". This election is only for MP's for HM
Government at Westminster, not the plastic house in Edinburgh, though hopefully
their day will come soon and F*CK the SNP NAZIS.
wontoofree
Well-Known Member
What an awfully long way to say "Go f**k yourself"
Bluechip
Well-Known Member
A fine effort nevertheless. A lot of heroes on this thread in my humble opinion.
alexg123
Well-Known Member
He obviously abused the person whatever he might be now when that person was a child so there is no way on this earth did Cairney NOT sexually abuse the guy when he was a vulnerable youngster unable to defend himself . Whatever he turned to be may well be due to Cairney’s abuse of him and how any Court could find Cairney “Innocent” enough to get a year chopped off the paltry sentence he is serving is beyond belief and shows the World just what a laughing stock the Justice system in Scotland really is . It’s like sending a message out Worldwide “ IF YOU ARE A PAEDOPHILE THEN SCOTLAND IS THE PLACE TO BE ! "
Last edited:
Carson no1
Well-Known Member
Well done mate and all who are exposing theses sick individuals and a football club ( CELTIC FC ) that has no shame
Keep the effort up we all are behind you
alexg123
Well-Known Member
Martin Henry SFA Review into Football Child Abuse Chairman: Roles at LGBT Youth, which he founded with James Rennie paedophile, and RC Church compromise any SFA Report.
Martin Henry’s Child Protection Bonafides Martin Henry is SFA Review Chairman tasked to be leading the SFA Independent Review of Sexual Abuse in Football. Mr Henry’s track record in chi…footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com
Grigo Yossarian
Well-Known Member
jim_baxter1960
Well-Known Member
I would qualify this to what cult you belong to and what you know(!!!!)
Cairney celebrates Celtic Boys Club cup triumph in haunting snap ripped by victim
FOOTIE paedophile Frank Cairney celebrates a Celtic Boys Club cup triumph in a haunting snap ripped by one of his victims. The beast coach, 84, stands feet away from the tormented lad in the pic ta…
www.thescottishsun.co.uk
Share this page
Latest posts
-
Looks like we will have to beat them at their midden to win the league.- Latest: spirit_of_93
-
-
-
-
