Victims lawyer urges Celtic to set millions aside

Said many times on here whoever advised them to say " Seperate Entity " has landed them right in the shyte now. They keep saying that they know there is a mountain of evidence that disproves it, they show any kind of admition now and they will have shown themselves to be liars. It's a lose lose situation from where i'm sitting.
I’ve been following your posts for a while mate.You seem to be itk and seem very confident these scumbags will be taken to task...I really hope you’re right!
 
Consecutive Celtic FC boards of Directors have been all too aware of the “open secret” that has existed over many years.There has been and remains a total lack of acknowledgement of the club like no other’s involvement in this lingering atrocity .No apology nor empathy towards the victims only vain attempts to distance the club from the despicable actions of its employees directly and indirectly.
The simple fact is that Directors and the club have a Duty of Care for all
employees and voluntary personnel whether in direct employment or training schemes sponsored by the club.This utter lack or disregard of the responsibility of the board of Directors of their role would suggest that perhaps subsequent safeguarding measures have not been adopted with the correct attitude.
The premise being that even today no child that has footballing aspirations is safe at Celtic FC.
 

BlueKop

Well-Known Member
When i first started uni one of the first cases we learned about was Lister v Hesley Hall 2002 an abuse case and it refers to the scope of Vicarious Liability - employers responsibility for employee during the scope of their employment.

If any tim says cfc aren't responsible tell them to read the judgement of this case and to google vicarious liability
 

jf1960

Well-Known Member
I’ve been following your posts for a while mate.You seem to be itk and seem very confident these scumbags will be taken to task...I really hope you’re right!
Just passing on what i've been told obviously if they don't want anything on here or elsewhere they don't tell me. This is not the end i have been assured of that it's only the beginning still a bit stunned that celtic have so far said nothing
 

johnkp

Well-Known Member
It's not on the guardian app front page at all, and hasn't been. Which is remarkable.
I posted this in another thread earlier today ...

The Guardian online has a story about a Crewe Alexandra (again) coach found guilty of grooming an underage girl.

These are the last six lines of the story ...
'In an unrelated case, the former Celtic kit man James McCafferty was jailed at the high court in Edinburgh for six years and nine months after he admitted a string of historic sexual offences against young boys.

The 73-year-old, of Lisburn, Northern Ireland, pleaded guilty to 11 charges related to paedophile activity against 10 victims, which took place over several decades.'
 
Just when does it get to a point where other media outlets or journos will call out the BBC for treating this as a non story??

It's the biggest scandal ever to rock the British game yet you would think nothing happened with the way in which the BBC have covered it.

BBC = Britains Shame
I’ve noticed a trend with them GF. On smaller stories in recent years that were ‘negative’ they’ve really taken their time until more or less everyone else has it covered.
They need to be dragged to report bad stories towards that mhob.
 

daven37

Well-Known Member
I’ve noticed a trend with them GF. On smaller stories in recent years that were ‘negative’ they’ve really taken their time until more or less everyone else has it covered.
They need to be dragged to report bad stories towards that mhob.
The BBC will say their Disclosure team with Mark Daly is working on a documentary to cover the history of the scandal.

The key is obtaining evidence that senior celtic directors were not only aware of what was happening but were active in covering up the abuse..

If there is proof of NDA's out there with links to senior people at Parkhead then they will surely be in the shit.

I have watched that film Spotlight again tonight and the story somewhat mirrors the celtic scandal.
 

flootbon

Well-Known Member
If, in making a documentary, does a research team have to disclose to the police something that was unknown before the investigation eg collusion, cover up, etc ?

When such a documentary is "aired" and a member of the public, or the police, see something "untoward" is action taken ?

I mean if McCafferty is linked with Bennell, does anyone do anything ?
 
The BBC will say their Disclosure team with Mark Daly is working on a documentary to cover the history of the scandal.

The key is obtaining evidence that senior celtic directors were not only aware of what was happening but were active in covering up the abuse..

If there is proof of NDA's out there with links to senior people at Parkhead then they will surely be in the shit.

I have watched that film Spotlight again tonight and the story somewhat mirrors the celtic scandal.
Brilliant film Dave. That film not only gave me hope in mankind & goodness, but there was that wee bit of me that thought forward to this situation too.
Wonder if that paper still has their Spotlight section ? Was it the Boston Globe ?
 

daven37

Well-Known Member
Brilliant film Dave. That film not only gave me hope in mankind & goodness, but there was that wee bit of me that thought forward to this situation too.
Wonder if that paper still has their Spotlight section ? Was it the Boston Globe ?
Yeah Boston Globe it was. Would love a team like that working in Scotland - would certainly get to the bottom of this scandal.

I wonder what Daly will come up with.
 
Would take a lot of money to pull a specialist team together. 4 people for 5months works at 10k each a month.

What's that, am shit a maths..... 200k?
Yep, 200k Dave. You sure 10K a month average is right though ? Could we not get 3 willing & available bears & they support an expert ?

Get it to say 60k and then if 600 bears can do 100 each were in there ?
 
Anyone know what rules they’ve broken with regards SFA articles and regulations? I know it’s nothing in comparison but they should be hammered by the SFA as well as through the courts.

I don’t know if there would be a specific rule(s) to cover this it’s so heinous but at the very least they are certainly bringing the game into disrepute. They knew that some of their employees were abusing kids yet done nothing about it. There must be some rules to ensure clubs provide a safe environment for kids.

As I say I know it’s not much in comparison but lack of rules to punish this or punish it sufficiently might lead to wider calls for SFA inquiry.
 

bpfurian

Well-Known Member
What do you think we can do to help JF ? You seem to be very knowledgeable about this.
Not a lot to do mate,their arrogance and refusal to take responsibility for covering up a paedophile ring at the rancid pit will most likely lead to their very own downfall.
Plus we are always going to be here to remind them now and in the future of what a vile bunch of fuckin animals that they really are.
 
Not a lot to do mate,their arrogance and refusal to take responsibility for covering up a paedophile ring at the rancid pit will most likely lead to their very own downfall.
Plus we are always going to be here to remind them now and in the future of what a vile bunch of fuckin animals that they really are.
They just fucking infuriate me with their arrogance & their bigoted government followers mate. Disgusting when you read that twitter thread. That b&&&&&d Dornan was basically lying to Mrs Gray. Lowlifes.
 

muttley

Well-Known Member
Not a lot to do mate,their arrogance and refusal to take responsibility for covering up a paedophile ring at the rancid pit will most likely lead to their very own downfall.
Plus we are always going to be here to remind them now and in the future of what a vile bunch of fuckin animals that they really are.
The first compensation claim that is dragged out of that cesspit should then trigger demands for SFA and SPFL punishments.
 

tintin69

Well-Known Member
Sadly I think yesterday will be as bad as it gets for the scum. The coverage was the most intensive and damning yet. However today it's went strangely quite. Not a murmur from press or politicians calling for an enquiry. Scum did not even feel need to comment.
It will all blow away. The criminal cases now appeal to be all over and with them the appetite from the media to explore deeper. Only thing now to keep it in the spotlight will be the civil compensation cases and not ever sure if they will go ahead. Thompson's appear to be all bluster hoping for out of court but scum don't appear to be buckling. These firms rarely go to court unless they are sure of winning. They know that the scum will use the best lawyers money can buy.
Hope I am well off the mark but I can see the cùnts never being banged to rights for their sickening cover up.
 

muttley

Well-Known Member
If their kit manufacturer and other significant sponsors start pulling out then we'll know they are in trouble.

Until then I expect nothing but the club and the media and politicians to hide in the basement and let the tornado pass.

I wonder if the Big Jock New Balance reps have even contacted them to find out what the &^*( is going on.
Some of these horrific crimes took place on American soil. I'm surprised that no US lawyers have been contacted to sue over there.
 

bpfurian

Well-Known Member
They just fucking infuriate me with their arrogance & their bigoted government followers mate. Disgusting when you read that twitter thread. That b&&&&&d Dornan was basically lying to Mrs Gray. Lowlifes.
Likewise mate,I detest that shower of vermin with every bone in my body and want them brought to their knees along with their lap dogs in the SNP and media.
Pressure is mounting on a daily basis now,and what the end result is going to be we can only guess at the moment.
But what I do know is that they will be forever known as the football club who enabled a paedophile ring to operate with impunity and looked the other way while children where abused.
This shit will never ever go away and we shall always be here to remind them.
 

muttley

Well-Known Member
Likewise mate,I detest that shower of vermin with every bone in my body and want them brought to their knees along with their lap dogs in the SNP and media.
Pressure is mounting on a daily basis now,and what the end result is going to be we can only guess at the moment.
But what I do know is that they will be forever known as the football club who enabled a paedophile ring to operate with impunity and looked the other way while children where abused.
This shit will never ever go away and we shall always be here to remind them.

ITN News Report

The truth and the link between McCafferty and Barry Bennell is now out there for all to see.

 

bpfurian

Well-Known Member
ITN News Report

The truth is now out there for all to see.

Exactly mate, no amount of heads in the sand from these vile animals will hide the facts which are in black and white and the evidence that these rancid shitebags tried to cover up a paedophile ring and are complicit by the very fact they stayed silent.
No matter what they say or think it will hang over them and quite rightly so.
 

George Goudie

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer

George Goudie

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
That would be outstanding mate. Penn State got 60m was it ?
Four times that it is forecast to be. Over $400m it will get to. Unbelievable. The punishments were commensurate with the crimes.

In Scotland.... The SNP obviously view child molestation as a 'lesser' crime. Nikla will say a few hail hail Mary's and pay penance for 50 years of abuse and absolve a certain diaspora within her electorate.


Dark dark times in shady shady SNP land.

But we were warned many years ago it was coming:

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?img...cid=NWp39l9LkbWNYM&w=624&h=351&source=sh/x/im
 
Sadly I think yesterday will be as bad as it gets for the scum. The coverage was the most intensive and damning yet. However today it's went strangely quite. Not a murmur from press or politicians calling for an enquiry. Scum did not even feel need to comment.
It will all blow away. The criminal cases now appeal to be all over and with them the appetite from the media to explore deeper. Only thing now to keep it in the spotlight will be the civil compensation cases and not ever sure if they will go ahead. Thompson's appear to be all bluster hoping for out of court but scum don't appear to be buckling. These firms rarely go to court unless they are sure of winning. They know that the scum will use the best lawyers money can buy.
Hope I am well off the mark but I can see the cùnts never being banged to rights for their sickening cover up.
Ffs mate, did you honestly think that as soon as McCafferty's case was finished the padlocks would be fastened on the piggery? Yes, the press & the authorities (both footballing & government) aren't calling for for enquiies. Ce*tic hvent issued a statement & the civil cases seem to have gone quiet.

It's 2 days. The press & the authorities may try & keep quiet, but just 1 of the 2 scheduled documentaries should shame them into action, 'cause if they continue they'll then be openly complicit in the cover up, & st least 1 of them will b UK wide. Ce*tic have made no statement as I think they've fucked it with the St Pat's carry on. McCafferty has seen to the separate entity nonsense. They can't come out with that again, but they still cnot apologise - it will hammer them in the civil cases. And again, the civil cases had to wait on McCafferty being tried, so they will take time. ITV have natonally linked McCafferty, Torbett & Barry Bennell. There is now publicly talk of a possible nation wide ring.

It may not happen his week, this month or possibly even this calendar year, and the outcome my not close them down, but I'm sure that they will face the consequences of these scumbag's actions & their years of inaction.
 
I'm no expert on time-limits on criminal offences committed in the USA. However, this implies that cases might be brought over there ?

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/ne...frank-cairney-paedophile-child-abuse-america/

I was told that contact has been made from the US and a fairly decent legal firm that has had a few high profile cases in the last few years in the US are involved.

How far on they are now since I heard a few months ago is a guess,but the fella has been spot on for info all through these cases so far.

I hope and pray this is another avenue the filth are perused from,let’s wait and see.
 

jf1960

Well-Known Member
What do you think we can do to help JF ? You seem to be very knowledgeable about this.
I don't even know what I'm doing is right just spreading the word really on twitter on here not daft rumours though, getting this sort of thing out there contacting News and Media online and of course partners and sponsors. I've got a lot of time on my hands being retired lol
You know what to do
 

BackJardine

Well-Known Member
Prediction on events taken from reddit:

I actually do work in the law and you seem to be asking in good faith, so I'll have a bash:

Intro

Might have more success here , would anybody with knowledge on the subject be able to fill me in on the validity of all this ‘tick tock court case is coming’ talk , what’s true and what’s bullshit and how this could affect the club ?

I'll assume you know the outlines of the Celtic Boys Club child abuse scandal: In short, a paedophile ring at a Celtic-affiliated youth club abused children for decades. Some Celtic FC staff probably knew or ought to have known that this was happening.

Personal Injuries Claims

tick tock court case is coming’ talk

Patrick McGuire, a solicitor with Thompsons, is acting for at least 20 men who allege that they were abused by staff at Celtic Boys Club.

The Scottish Parliament recently passed the Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017, which abolished the Scottish law of limitation for childhood abuse cases. Previously, survivors of childhood abuse had to launch their cases within 3 years of turning 18. Now, however, anybody abused after 26 September 1964 may sue for personal injury. This is important, because the "current" Celtic Boys Club scandal is essentially the same scandal as was revealed in the 1990s when Torbett was prosecuted for the first time - but this time, as attitudes towards male survivors of sexual abuse change, more survivors have had the courage to come forward. Parliament's move has also opened up - for the first time - the prospect of these men receiving just compensation for what they were subjected to.

So far as I know, legal proceedings haven't actually begun yet - even if they do, cases of childhood abuse are generally heard confidentially. Thompsons are most likely waiting until the police investigation is over. There may be other PI firms involved, like Digby Brown or Slater Gordon, but Thompsons have been the most visible.

Celtic and Survivors' Positions

Celtic's position is outlined in their infamous statement of 7th November last year:

Although Celtic Football Club is an entirely separate organisation, we have always taken these allegations extremely seriously because of our historic contacts with Celtic Boys’ Club. All investigations by the police and other inquiries were given our full support. (emphasis mine)

Generally speaking, organisations cannot be sued for the actions of other organisations. Celtic FC is - legally - correct to say that Celtic Boys Club was never part of Celtic FC. It was a private youth football club given permission to use the Celtic name and crest by Kevin Kelly.

However, Celtic Boys Club had close links with Celtic FC - they shared the Barrowfield training ground, Celtic highheidyins attended CBC functions, Celtic directors gave money to CBC directors, it was a funnel club for the Celtic first team, and - allegedly - Celtic lawyers became involved when the abuse allegations first came to light and Jock Stein removed Torbett from CBC upon hearing rumours of his crimes (although the Kellys let him back in after Stein's death). The survivors state that Celtic FC effectively controlled the Boys Club and that Celtic FC staff a) knew (or ought to have known) what was happening b) could have done something to stop it, and c) didn't do so.

Suing Celtic

The law says that companies are "jointly and severally liable" for the actions of their employees in the course of their employment. What that means is that, where an employee of a company causes injury, the injured person can sue the company, the employee, or both. So, if you get run down by a DHL van, rather than being limited to suing the driver (who won't have enough assets to cover the cost of your injuries) you can instead sue DHL (who will).

what’s true and what’s bullshit

Personally, I don't want to make sweeping proclamations before everything is tested in a court case, and most of the websites talking about this are pretty dubious-looking Rangers fansites (whose motives I don't trust). I also just don't like reading about child abuse. We know, of course, that ex-CBC staff have been convicted of various offences (if not the gory details, which are rightly kept private). We know as well that Hugh Birt testified Jock Stein removed Torbett from CBC but didn't inform the police. We also know that Kevin Kelly was in business with Torbett during the period he was abusing, but Kelly maintains he didn't know.

What the survivors need to prove, essentially, is this:-

A) They were abused at Celtic Boys Club.

B) Staff working for Celtic FC either abused them or knew it was taking place.

C) Those Celtic staff did not tell anyone -or-

D) Those Celtic staff did tell someone higher up at Celtic.

E) Having become aware that children were being abused at CBC, Celtic -or- their staff took no action (or at least took no action that was effective.)

F) If Celtic had taken action, their abuse could have been stopped.

G) Their abuse continued after Celtic staff knew it was occurring and should have taken action to stop it.

The civil standard of proof is "more likely than not".

Financial Consequences for Celtic

how this could affect the club ?

It depends, but Celtic aren't about to get liquidated over this. There is no "tick-tock".

Unlike in the United States, Scots law does not have punitive damages. In other words, damages in Scotland are designed to compensate the victim, not to punish the wrongdoer. So the big seven/eight figure damages awards you read about in American cases like this one (Sandusky's victims received over $100m) aren't going to happen. One benchmark would be the recent case of Ian Samson, a beast who abused children at a Kirk home in Edinburgh. The Kirk agreed to pay £500,000 to one girl who was made pregnant by him and £250,000 each to her siblings. However, that was a private settlement between the Kirk and the victims - courts would likely have been less generous. The family of a man who died of mesothelioma recently received £340,000. Assuming all 20 of Thompsons' clients were to be awarded £500,000 (which they won't be) and their legal fees, Celtic would be looking at a payout in the £12.5m figure. Which would hurt, but not sink it - Celtic could have paid that entire sum last year and still make a pretax profit of £4.8m.

In reality, of course, not all the victims of the CBC paedophiles will have been as horrifically abused as Mr Samson's victims were, and Celtic may well win if this is taken to court. So the actual financial effect on Celtic will be much lower and may be as little as the cost of fighting the court cases, which I would imagine would come to around £1.5m at most.

All of this, of course, assumes that Celtic aren't insured for these claims - I suspect that they are, and that their insurers are the ones who have decided not to accept liability If Celtic are insured, then the only direct cost to them will be higher premiums going forward.

What happens next?

The criminal cases against ex-CBC staff will end. Then Thompsons will raise their claims.

I predict one of two things happens then:

• Celtic admit liability and enter negotiations to compensate the survivors.

• Celtic deny liability and force Thompsons to take it to court.


Once this goes to court, Celtic will say that Thompsons' pleadings are irrelevant because Celtic was not Celtic Boys Club. Thompsons will ask for a debate on that point. Thompsons will get their debate. At the debate, Celtic will argue that the case should be tossed. Thompsons will argue that the court should fix a proof (i.e, a hearing with evidence) on the issue of Celtic's connection with CBC only. At the proof, Thompsons will present evidence that Celtic controlled Celtic Boys Club. Celtic will present evidence it did not. The court will decide one way or another. If Thompsons wins, Celtic will negotiate with them to settle the cases. If Celtic wins, the action will be dismissed.

Either way, a giant humiliating trial is the last thing either Thompsons or Celtic want.
 

Div1872

Well-Known Member
48 hours since the sentence for ex CFC kit man was announced and the sleekit rancid club have still not released a statement

Sums the vile bastards up

They have no shame and no doubt think that by confessing to a priest absolves them of all guilt and responsibility

Well Shame FC it f.ucking doesn’t

The longer they take to issue a statement the more the worse it will get

I hope the rumours of US based lawyers is correct

Cairney could be extradited to the US as child sexual abuse is a big crime and the people in Scotland at CBC and CFC who covered the abuse up will be on charges too

A national disgrace that the SNP Govt have not commented on the biggest scandal in British football

The Bennell link too is also damning and a disgrace

An independent inquiry into the events is a must but given the extent of the crimes the beasts at CFC will make sure that doesn’t happen to protect the enablers and facilitators
 
Prediction on events taken from reddit:

I actually do work in the law and you seem to be asking in good faith, so I'll have a bash:

Intro

Might have more success here , would anybody with knowledge on the subject be able to fill me in on the validity of all this ‘tick tock court case is coming’ talk , what’s true and what’s bullshit and how this could affect the club ?

I'll assume you know the outlines of the Celtic Boys Club child abuse scandal: In short, a paedophile ring at a Celtic-affiliated youth club abused children for decades. Some Celtic FC staff probably knew or ought to have known that this was happening.

Personal Injuries Claims

tick tock court case is coming’ talk

Patrick McGuire, a solicitor with Thompsons, is acting for at least 20 men who allege that they were abused by staff at Celtic Boys Club.

The Scottish Parliament recently passed the Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017, which abolished the Scottish law of limitation for childhood abuse cases. Previously, survivors of childhood abuse had to launch their cases within 3 years of turning 18. Now, however, anybody abused after 26 September 1964 may sue for personal injury. This is important, because the "current" Celtic Boys Club scandal is essentially the same scandal as was revealed in the 1990s when Torbett was prosecuted for the first time - but this time, as attitudes towards male survivors of sexual abuse change, more survivors have had the courage to come forward. Parliament's move has also opened up - for the first time - the prospect of these men receiving just compensation for what they were subjected to.

So far as I know, legal proceedings haven't actually begun yet - even if they do, cases of childhood abuse are generally heard confidentially. Thompsons are most likely waiting until the police investigation is over. There may be other PI firms involved, like Digby Brown or Slater Gordon, but Thompsons have been the most visible.

Celtic and Survivors' Positions

Celtic's position is outlined in their infamous statement of 7th November last year:

Although Celtic Football Club is an entirely separate organisation, we have always taken these allegations extremely seriously because of our historic contacts with Celtic Boys’ Club. All investigations by the police and other inquiries were given our full support. (emphasis mine)

Generally speaking, organisations cannot be sued for the actions of other organisations. Celtic FC is - legally - correct to say that Celtic Boys Club was never part of Celtic FC. It was a private youth football club given permission to use the Celtic name and crest by Kevin Kelly.

However, Celtic Boys Club had close links with Celtic FC - they shared the Barrowfield training ground, Celtic highheidyins attended CBC functions, Celtic directors gave money to CBC directors, it was a funnel club for the Celtic first team, and - allegedly - Celtic lawyers became involved when the abuse allegations first came to light and Jock Stein removed Torbett from CBC upon hearing rumours of his crimes (although the Kellys let him back in after Stein's death). The survivors state that Celtic FC effectively controlled the Boys Club and that Celtic FC staff a) knew (or ought to have known) what was happening b) could have done something to stop it, and c) didn't do so.

Suing Celtic

The law says that companies are "jointly and severally liable" for the actions of their employees in the course of their employment. What that means is that, where an employee of a company causes injury, the injured person can sue the company, the employee, or both. So, if you get run down by a DHL van, rather than being limited to suing the driver (who won't have enough assets to cover the cost of your injuries) you can instead sue DHL (who will).

what’s true and what’s bullshit

Personally, I don't want to make sweeping proclamations before everything is tested in a court case, and most of the websites talking about this are pretty dubious-looking Rangers fansites (whose motives I don't trust). I also just don't like reading about child abuse. We know, of course, that ex-CBC staff have been convicted of various offences (if not the gory details, which are rightly kept private). We know as well that Hugh Birt testified Jock Stein removed Torbett from CBC but didn't inform the police. We also know that Kevin Kelly was in business with Torbett during the period he was abusing, but Kelly maintains he didn't know.

What the survivors need to prove, essentially, is this:-

A) They were abused at Celtic Boys Club.

B) Staff working for Celtic FC either abused them or knew it was taking place.

C) Those Celtic staff did not tell anyone -or-

D) Those Celtic staff did tell someone higher up at Celtic.

E) Having become aware that children were being abused at CBC, Celtic -or- their staff took no action (or at least took no action that was effective.)

F) If Celtic had taken action, their abuse could have been stopped.

G) Their abuse continued after Celtic staff knew it was occurring and should have taken action to stop it.

The civil standard of proof is "more likely than not".

Financial Consequences for Celtic

how this could affect the club ?

It depends, but Celtic aren't about to get liquidated over this. There is no "tick-tock".

Unlike in the United States, Scots law does not have punitive damages. In other words, damages in Scotland are designed to compensate the victim, not to punish the wrongdoer. So the big seven/eight figure damages awards you read about in American cases like this one (Sandusky's victims received over $100m) aren't going to happen. One benchmark would be the recent case of Ian Samson, a beast who abused children at a Kirk home in Edinburgh. The Kirk agreed to pay £500,000 to one girl who was made pregnant by him and £250,000 each to her siblings. However, that was a private settlement between the Kirk and the victims - courts would likely have been less generous. The family of a man who died of mesothelioma recently received £340,000. Assuming all 20 of Thompsons' clients were to be awarded £500,000 (which they won't be) and their legal fees, Celtic would be looking at a payout in the £12.5m figure. Which would hurt, but not sink it - Celtic could have paid that entire sum last year and still make a pretax profit of £4.8m.

In reality, of course, not all the victims of the CBC paedophiles will have been as horrifically abused as Mr Samson's victims were, and Celtic may well win if this is taken to court. So the actual financial effect on Celtic will be much lower and may be as little as the cost of fighting the court cases, which I would imagine would come to around £1.5m at most.

All of this, of course, assumes that Celtic aren't insured for these claims - I suspect that they are, and that their insurers are the ones who have decided not to accept liability If Celtic are insured, then the only direct cost to them will be higher premiums going forward.

What happens next?

The criminal cases against ex-CBC staff will end. Then Thompsons will raise their claims.

I predict one of two things happens then:

• Celtic admit liability and enter negotiations to compensate the survivors.

• Celtic deny liability and force Thompsons to take it to court.


Once this goes to court, Celtic will say that Thompsons' pleadings are irrelevant because Celtic was not Celtic Boys Club. Thompsons will ask for a debate on that point. Thompsons will get their debate. At the debate, Celtic will argue that the case should be tossed. Thompsons will argue that the court should fix a proof (i.e, a hearing with evidence) on the issue of Celtic's connection with CBC only. At the proof, Thompsons will present evidence that Celtic controlled Celtic Boys Club. Celtic will present evidence it did not. The court will decide one way or another. If Thompsons wins, Celtic will negotiate with them to settle the cases. If Celtic wins, the action will be dismissed.

Either way, a giant humiliating trial is the last thing either Thompsons or Celtic want.
BJ. It's a little unclear who the author of this piece is.Are these your words or those of somebody on Reddit.It would be helpful to know who the writer is for the sake of clarity.
 
Prediction on events taken from reddit:

I actually do work in the law and you seem to be asking in good faith, so I'll have a bash:

Intro

Might have more success here , would anybody with knowledge on the subject be able to fill me in on the validity of all this ‘tick tock court case is coming’ talk , what’s true and what’s bullshit and how this could affect the club ?

I'll assume you know the outlines of the Celtic Boys Club child abuse scandal: In short, a paedophile ring at a Celtic-affiliated youth club abused children for decades. Some Celtic FC staff probably knew or ought to have known that this was happening.

Personal Injuries Claims

tick tock court case is coming’ talk

Patrick McGuire, a solicitor with Thompsons, is acting for at least 20 men who allege that they were abused by staff at Celtic Boys Club.

The Scottish Parliament recently passed the Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017, which abolished the Scottish law of limitation for childhood abuse cases. Previously, survivors of childhood abuse had to launch their cases within 3 years of turning 18. Now, however, anybody abused after 26 September 1964 may sue for personal injury. This is important, because the "current" Celtic Boys Club scandal is essentially the same scandal as was revealed in the 1990s when Torbett was prosecuted for the first time - but this time, as attitudes towards male survivors of sexual abuse change, more survivors have had the courage to come forward. Parliament's move has also opened up - for the first time - the prospect of these men receiving just compensation for what they were subjected to.

So far as I know, legal proceedings haven't actually begun yet - even if they do, cases of childhood abuse are generally heard confidentially. Thompsons are most likely waiting until the police investigation is over. There may be other PI firms involved, like Digby Brown or Slater Gordon, but Thompsons have been the most visible.

Celtic and Survivors' Positions

Celtic's position is outlined in their infamous statement of 7th November last year:

Although Celtic Football Club is an entirely separate organisation, we have always taken these allegations extremely seriously because of our historic contacts with Celtic Boys’ Club. All investigations by the police and other inquiries were given our full support. (emphasis mine)

Generally speaking, organisations cannot be sued for the actions of other organisations. Celtic FC is - legally - correct to say that Celtic Boys Club was never part of Celtic FC. It was a private youth football club given permission to use the Celtic name and crest by Kevin Kelly.

However, Celtic Boys Club had close links with Celtic FC - they shared the Barrowfield training ground, Celtic highheidyins attended CBC functions, Celtic directors gave money to CBC directors, it was a funnel club for the Celtic first team, and - allegedly - Celtic lawyers became involved when the abuse allegations first came to light and Jock Stein removed Torbett from CBC upon hearing rumours of his crimes (although the Kellys let him back in after Stein's death). The survivors state that Celtic FC effectively controlled the Boys Club and that Celtic FC staff a) knew (or ought to have known) what was happening b) could have done something to stop it, and c) didn't do so.

Suing Celtic

The law says that companies are "jointly and severally liable" for the actions of their employees in the course of their employment. What that means is that, where an employee of a company causes injury, the injured person can sue the company, the employee, or both. So, if you get run down by a DHL van, rather than being limited to suing the driver (who won't have enough assets to cover the cost of your injuries) you can instead sue DHL (who will).

what’s true and what’s bullshit

Personally, I don't want to make sweeping proclamations before everything is tested in a court case, and most of the websites talking about this are pretty dubious-looking Rangers fansites (whose motives I don't trust). I also just don't like reading about child abuse. We know, of course, that ex-CBC staff have been convicted of various offences (if not the gory details, which are rightly kept private). We know as well that Hugh Birt testified Jock Stein removed Torbett from CBC but didn't inform the police. We also know that Kevin Kelly was in business with Torbett during the period he was abusing, but Kelly maintains he didn't know.

What the survivors need to prove, essentially, is this:-

A) They were abused at Celtic Boys Club.

B) Staff working for Celtic FC either abused them or knew it was taking place.

C) Those Celtic staff did not tell anyone -or-

D) Those Celtic staff did tell someone higher up at Celtic.

E) Having become aware that children were being abused at CBC, Celtic -or- their staff took no action (or at least took no action that was effective.)

F) If Celtic had taken action, their abuse could have been stopped.

G) Their abuse continued after Celtic staff knew it was occurring and should have taken action to stop it.

The civil standard of proof is "more likely than not".

Financial Consequences for Celtic

how this could affect the club ?

It depends, but Celtic aren't about to get liquidated over this. There is no "tick-tock".

Unlike in the United States, Scots law does not have punitive damages. In other words, damages in Scotland are designed to compensate the victim, not to punish the wrongdoer. So the big seven/eight figure damages awards you read about in American cases like this one (Sandusky's victims received over $100m) aren't going to happen. One benchmark would be the recent case of Ian Samson, a beast who abused children at a Kirk home in Edinburgh. The Kirk agreed to pay £500,000 to one girl who was made pregnant by him and £250,000 each to her siblings. However, that was a private settlement between the Kirk and the victims - courts would likely have been less generous. The family of a man who died of mesothelioma recently received £340,000. Assuming all 20 of Thompsons' clients were to be awarded £500,000 (which they won't be) and their legal fees, Celtic would be looking at a payout in the £12.5m figure. Which would hurt, but not sink it - Celtic could have paid that entire sum last year and still make a pretax profit of £4.8m.

In reality, of course, not all the victims of the CBC paedophiles will have been as horrifically abused as Mr Samson's victims were, and Celtic may well win if this is taken to court. So the actual financial effect on Celtic will be much lower and may be as little as the cost of fighting the court cases, which I would imagine would come to around £1.5m at most.

All of this, of course, assumes that Celtic aren't insured for these claims - I suspect that they are, and that their insurers are the ones who have decided not to accept liability If Celtic are insured, then the only direct cost to them will be higher premiums going forward.

What happens next?

The criminal cases against ex-CBC staff will end. Then Thompsons will raise their claims.

I predict one of two things happens then:

• Celtic admit liability and enter negotiations to compensate the survivors.

• Celtic deny liability and force Thompsons to take it to court.


Once this goes to court, Celtic will say that Thompsons' pleadings are irrelevant because Celtic was not Celtic Boys Club. Thompsons will ask for a debate on that point. Thompsons will get their debate. At the debate, Celtic will argue that the case should be tossed. Thompsons will argue that the court should fix a proof (i.e, a hearing with evidence) on the issue of Celtic's connection with CBC only. At the proof, Thompsons will present evidence that Celtic controlled Celtic Boys Club. Celtic will present evidence it did not. The court will decide one way or another. If Thompsons wins, Celtic will negotiate with them to settle the cases. If Celtic wins, the action will be dismissed.

Either way, a giant humiliating trial is the last thing either Thompsons or Celtic want.
Celtic would be looking at a payout in the £12.5m figure. Which would hurt, but not sink it - Celtic could have paid that entire sum last year and still make a pretax profit of £4.8m.

Once they pay out to settle a claim the real damage will be in the ongoing association with the abuse. It will have been confirmed and that should impact upon their ability to deal with sponsors and sign certain players.

Insurance ? I doubt public liability covers child abuse....especially if confidentiality agreements are exposed.
 
Prediction on events taken from reddit:

I actually do work in the law and you seem to be asking in good faith, so I'll have a bash:

Intro

Might have more success here , would anybody with knowledge on the subject be able to fill me in on the validity of all this ‘tick tock court case is coming’ talk , what’s true and what’s bullshit and how this could affect the club ?

I'll assume you know the outlines of the Celtic Boys Club child abuse scandal: In short, a paedophile ring at a Celtic-affiliated youth club abused children for decades. Some Celtic FC staff probably knew or ought to have known that this was happening.

Personal Injuries Claims

tick tock court case is coming’ talk

Patrick McGuire, a solicitor with Thompsons, is acting for at least 20 men who allege that they were abused by staff at Celtic Boys Club.

The Scottish Parliament recently passed the Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017, which abolished the Scottish law of limitation for childhood abuse cases. Previously, survivors of childhood abuse had to launch their cases within 3 years of turning 18. Now, however, anybody abused after 26 September 1964 may sue for personal injury. This is important, because the "current" Celtic Boys Club scandal is essentially the same scandal as was revealed in the 1990s when Torbett was prosecuted for the first time - but this time, as attitudes towards male survivors of sexual abuse change, more survivors have had the courage to come forward. Parliament's move has also opened up - for the first time - the prospect of these men receiving just compensation for what they were subjected to.

So far as I know, legal proceedings haven't actually begun yet - even if they do, cases of childhood abuse are generally heard confidentially. Thompsons are most likely waiting until the police investigation is over. There may be other PI firms involved, like Digby Brown or Slater Gordon, but Thompsons have been the most visible.

Celtic and Survivors' Positions

Celtic's position is outlined in their infamous statement of 7th November last year:

Although Celtic Football Club is an entirely separate organisation, we have always taken these allegations extremely seriously because of our historic contacts with Celtic Boys’ Club. All investigations by the police and other inquiries were given our full support. (emphasis mine)

Generally speaking, organisations cannot be sued for the actions of other organisations. Celtic FC is - legally - correct to say that Celtic Boys Club was never part of Celtic FC. It was a private youth football club given permission to use the Celtic name and crest by Kevin Kelly.

However, Celtic Boys Club had close links with Celtic FC - they shared the Barrowfield training ground, Celtic highheidyins attended CBC functions, Celtic directors gave money to CBC directors, it was a funnel club for the Celtic first team, and - allegedly - Celtic lawyers became involved when the abuse allegations first came to light and Jock Stein removed Torbett from CBC upon hearing rumours of his crimes (although the Kellys let him back in after Stein's death). The survivors state that Celtic FC effectively controlled the Boys Club and that Celtic FC staff a) knew (or ought to have known) what was happening b) could have done something to stop it, and c) didn't do so.

Suing Celtic

The law says that companies are "jointly and severally liable" for the actions of their employees in the course of their employment. What that means is that, where an employee of a company causes injury, the injured person can sue the company, the employee, or both. So, if you get run down by a DHL van, rather than being limited to suing the driver (who won't have enough assets to cover the cost of your injuries) you can instead sue DHL (who will).

what’s true and what’s bullshit

Personally, I don't want to make sweeping proclamations before everything is tested in a court case, and most of the websites talking about this are pretty dubious-looking Rangers fansites (whose motives I don't trust). I also just don't like reading about child abuse. We know, of course, that ex-CBC staff have been convicted of various offences (if not the gory details, which are rightly kept private). We know as well that Hugh Birt testified Jock Stein removed Torbett from CBC but didn't inform the police. We also know that Kevin Kelly was in business with Torbett during the period he was abusing, but Kelly maintains he didn't know.

What the survivors need to prove, essentially, is this:-

A) They were abused at Celtic Boys Club.

B) Staff working for Celtic FC either abused them or knew it was taking place.

C) Those Celtic staff did not tell anyone -or-

D) Those Celtic staff did tell someone higher up at Celtic.

E) Having become aware that children were being abused at CBC, Celtic -or- their staff took no action (or at least took no action that was effective.)

F) If Celtic had taken action, their abuse could have been stopped.

G) Their abuse continued after Celtic staff knew it was occurring and should have taken action to stop it.

The civil standard of proof is "more likely than not".

Financial Consequences for Celtic

how this could affect the club ?

It depends, but Celtic aren't about to get liquidated over this. There is no "tick-tock".

Unlike in the United States, Scots law does not have punitive damages. In other words, damages in Scotland are designed to compensate the victim, not to punish the wrongdoer. So the big seven/eight figure damages awards you read about in American cases like this one (Sandusky's victims received over $100m) aren't going to happen. One benchmark would be the recent case of Ian Samson, a beast who abused children at a Kirk home in Edinburgh. The Kirk agreed to pay £500,000 to one girl who was made pregnant by him and £250,000 each to her siblings. However, that was a private settlement between the Kirk and the victims - courts would likely have been less generous. The family of a man who died of mesothelioma recently received £340,000. Assuming all 20 of Thompsons' clients were to be awarded £500,000 (which they won't be) and their legal fees, Celtic would be looking at a payout in the £12.5m figure. Which would hurt, but not sink it - Celtic could have paid that entire sum last year and still make a pretax profit of £4.8m.

In reality, of course, not all the victims of the CBC paedophiles will have been as horrifically abused as Mr Samson's victims were, and Celtic may well win if this is taken to court. So the actual financial effect on Celtic will be much lower and may be as little as the cost of fighting the court cases, which I would imagine would come to around £1.5m at most.

All of this, of course, assumes that Celtic aren't insured for these claims - I suspect that they are, and that their insurers are the ones who have decided not to accept liability If Celtic are insured, then the only direct cost to them will be higher premiums going forward.

What happens next?

The criminal cases against ex-CBC staff will end. Then Thompsons will raise their claims.

I predict one of two things happens then:

• Celtic admit liability and enter negotiations to compensate the survivors.

• Celtic deny liability and force Thompsons to take it to court.


Once this goes to court, Celtic will say that Thompsons' pleadings are irrelevant because Celtic was not Celtic Boys Club. Thompsons will ask for a debate on that point. Thompsons will get their debate. At the debate, Celtic will argue that the case should be tossed. Thompsons will argue that the court should fix a proof (i.e, a hearing with evidence) on the issue of Celtic's connection with CBC only. At the proof, Thompsons will present evidence that Celtic controlled Celtic Boys Club. Celtic will present evidence it did not. The court will decide one way or another. If Thompsons wins, Celtic will negotiate with them to settle the cases. If Celtic wins, the action will be dismissed.

Either way, a giant humiliating trial is the last thing either Thompsons or Celtic want.
It looks like the author is misinformed about some of the information he has.

Torbett was not brought back to the club after the death of BJK.

BJK was pictures giving Torbett an award after he returned.
 
Top