Jump to content
Smile

Police Scotland confirm received report into historic child abuse within football

Recommended Posts


18 minutes ago, Kaiser Wull said:

The job of a litigation lawyer is to achieve the best result for his client(s) without exposing them to the risks of litigation. And that means using whatever leverage is available in order to push the other side into negotiating an acceptable settlement. That's all he's doing here; he's got the ear of the media in this case so he may as well use that to his clients's advantage. 

 

So scum fc pay up but in doing so ask every victim to sign a non disclosure agreement guarantee that's how this ends more sweep sweep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BoydsFavouriteDonut said:

The cases will be contested initially but ultimately settled. No point in settling now from Celtics perspective  - might as well see what they’ve got in terms of evidence, drag things out and crank up the pressure (some of the pursuers won’t want to appear in open court). However, I just can’t see celtic letting this get to court - it would all come out - Kelly cited as a witness, past managers etc - they’d all have to appear if called. 

Having said that seems to me that the lawyer from Thomsons is openly campaigning for settlements - he doesn’t want this going to court either. Will be NDAs all round in the end.  

 

They'd need a seance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the papers interviewing victims and lawyers yet to see one calling on the sfa to hammer them however

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’ll be telling in January what the scums transfer policy will be. If it’s sell, sell, sell then we know they are fearing the worst and looking at potential payouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BoydsFavouriteDonut said:

The cases will be contested initially but ultimately settled. No point in settling now from Celtics perspective  - might as well see what they’ve got in terms of evidence, drag things out and crank up the pressure (some of the pursuers won’t want to appear in open court). However, I just can’t see celtic letting this get to court - it would all come out - Kelly cited as a witness, past managers etc - they’d all have to appear if called. 

Having said that seems to me that the lawyer from Thomsons is openly campaigning for settlements - he doesn’t want this going to court either. Will be NDAs all round in the end.  

 

If they go to court and win then no damages.

If they settle out of court with one victim then every single victim will want a pay out.

That’s the reason they’ve not said sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, STEPPS BOY said:

If they go to court and win then no damages.

If they settle out of court with one victim then every single victim will want a pay out.

That’s the reason they’ve not said sorry

money before morality 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

money before morality 

No surprise is it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, B1872 said:

GW250-H321.jpg

Brian Wilson former Labour Minister:  "Youngsters like Roy Aitken and Tommy Burns were coming through from celtic Boys Club which had been founded in 1971 to bring youngsters under the celtic Wing."

 

He should be first witness for the victims if the case to to a civil court for damages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, STEPPS BOY said:

No surprise is it.

 

Not really .

Yet they trumpet the same old pish .A club formed as a charity. 

What needs asked is .why celebrate a charity that got bumped off to become a private company to earn money for individuals 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KingKirk said:

So scum fc pay up but in doing so ask every victim to sign a non disclosure agreement guarantee that's how this ends more sweep sweep.

I can't see this being swept under the carpet. Here's a few reasons why:

i. Claimants have to agree to settle on a liability not admitted/non-disclosure basis. We don't know if any or all of them would be willing to do so. It could be that some insist on a public apology as part of a settlement deal. 

ii. This is now a very public matter. People will ask questions if these claims were suddenly dropped. 

iii. There's a case already proceeding in the All Scotland Personal Injury Court. celtic are fighting that one. Might they also want to fight the other cases? They may believe that they have no legal liability to compensate Torbett's victims.

iv. More claims seem likely, particularly if McCafferty is convicted. What starts as a trickle could end up as a flood. 

v. Settling claims can be a very expensive business and has to be accounted for. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kaiser Wull said:

I can't see this being swept under the carpet. Here's a few reasons why:

i. Claimants have to agree to settle on a liability not admitted/non-disclosure basis. We don't know if any or all of them would be willing to do so. It could be that some insist on a public apology as part of a settlement deal. 

ii. This is now a very public matter. People will ask questions if these claims were suddenly dropped. 

iii. There's a case already proceeding in the All Scotland Personal Injury Court. celtic are fighting that one. Might they also want to fight the other cases? They may believe that they have no legal liability to compensate Torbett's victims.

iv. More claims seem likely, particularly if McCafferty is convicted. What starts as a trickle could end up as a flood. 

v. Settling claims can be a very expensive business and has to be accounted for. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you say the one in May is pretty much a test case? I.e. if they’re found guilty to be the same entity as the boys club then it’ll be open season for the victims? However if the judge upholds that celtic fc aren’t liable then that’ll pretty much stop anymore cases against them in the future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ritchieshearercaldow said:

If they try to settle out of court it will show up in their accounts, we are not talking about a few grand here.

 

Exactly. It wouldn't come under the label of 'compensation' but I expect it would be identifiable nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ritchieshearercaldow said:

If they try to settle out of court it will show up in their accounts, we are not talking about a few grand here.

 

They’d have to have a provision in the accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, B1872 said:

Would you say the one in May is pretty much a test case? I.e. if they’re found guilty to be the same entity as the boys club then it’ll be open season for the victims? However if the judge upholds that celtic fc aren’t liable then that’ll pretty much stop anymore cases against them in the future?

Civil cases of this type are about liability rather than guilt. 

There are a number of reasons why a judge or jury could refuse to find that a defender is liable, not all of which have relevance outside of that particular case. For example, a judge or jury may not believe the evidence of a claimant that he or she was abused. If so, that doesn't mean that the court would not believe someone else who brought a case against the same defender on the same grounds. Each case would turn on its own facts.

Then again, the court may rule against a claimant because he or she doesn't have a case in law. That would be relevant to other, similar cases if they were being argued on exactly the same evidence and legal basis.

So the short answer is that the outcome of the case scheduled to go ahead in May (assuming it goes the distance) may or may not be relevant to other cases brought by victims of Torbett.  It's not likely to affect claims brought by people alleging that they were abused by McCafferty, who was a celtic employee. 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, how do you put a price on child rape or “merely” molesting? Ten grand each? Fifty?

If there are as many victims out there as the lawyer McGuire suggests, it could easily run into seven figures. No way that could be written off as “Sundry Expenses”

And how would sponsors feel about funding an organisation that would settling cases like this out of court, even on a NDA basis?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Kaiser Wull said:

Civil cases of this type are about liability rather than guilt. 

There are a number of reasons why a judge or jury could refuse to find that a defender is liable, not all of which have relevance outside of that particular case. For example, a judge or jury may not believe the evidence of a claimant that he or she was abused. If so, that doesn't mean that the court would not believe someone else who brought a case against the same defender on the same grounds. Each case would turn on its own facts.

Then again, the court may rule against a claimant because he or she doesn't have a case in law. That would be relevant to other, similar cases if they were being argued on exactly the same evidence and legal basis.

So the short answer is that the outcome of the case scheduled to go ahead in May (assuming it goes the distance) may or may not be relevant to other cases brought by victims of Torbett.  It's not likely to affect claims brought by people alleging that they were abused by McCafferty, who was a celtic employee. 

There is a difference in this case in that there are so many coming forward. A single complainant might not be believed but when the number of alleged victims runs well into double figures then, the probability that their stories are true rises.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Colin Traive said:

There is a difference in this case in that there are so many coming forward. A single complainant might not be believed but when the number of alleged victims runs well into double figures then, the probability that their stories are true rises.

It’s referred to in law as the ‘Moorov Doctrine’...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Robmc1 said:

It’s referred to in law as the ‘Moorov Doctrine’...

That's not quite how it works.

In a criminal case, every material fact must be corroborated. However, sexual abuse/sexual assault cases often come down to the word of the alleged victim against that of the alleged perpetrator. Ergo no corroboration. 

The Moorov case introduced the concept that separate crimes in which there is only witness and no other form of corroboration but which are similar in time, fact and character can corroborate one another. It was used in the recent Torbett case. 

The need for corroboration in civil cases, such as an action in which damages are sought, was abolished by the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988. It is, of course, always better to have corroboration in civil cases but it's not essential.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Jim Torbett in a relationship with William Gilbert?

I wonder if William would make a deal with the police and give information about celtic fc in order to get a lesser sentence for his boyfriend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Colin Traive said:

There is a difference in this case in that there are so many coming forward. A single complainant might not be believed but when the number of alleged victims runs well into double figures then, the probability that their stories are true rises.

The discussion was about the case currently proceeding at the All Scotland Personal Injury Court, in which there is only one complainer. As I explained, what happens in that case may or may not have an impact on other cases. 

Every claim is considered on its own merits. So whilst it's helpful to have several claimants all saying similar things, that doesn't mean that the court is bound to - or will - accept the evidence of each individual claimant. 

The other thing to add is that Torbett's convictions are admissible as evidence in civil court cases. That means that if he was convicted of abusing X in a a certain way on a certain date and at a certain place, X need not prove those particular facts before the civil court. 

ETA: As I see it, the main issue in any civil cases brought by Torbett''s victims against celtic would probably be a legal one revolving around the relationships between celtic and the Boys Club and celtic and Jim Torbett, so I would expect that much of the evidence heard by the court would focus on the nature of those relationships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Laudrup1984 said:

Ooft.

 

Wow 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×