SonOfLuther
-
Posts
1,738 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by SonOfLuther
-
-
2 minutes ago, The Dude said:
Im not a senior record employee (im not even a record employee)
Masonic differences?
-
Just now, The Dude said:
So Stein is both part of the cover-up AND whistleblower on the whole thing?
We are lead to believe BJK 'kicked his arse out the door" of separate entity.
He knew, didn't phone the police. Part of the silence/cover up.
There was others operating at the same time there, they remained.
Torbett was the ring leader.
The board fixed it for Jim to come back.
- Bad Robot and LiverpoolBlue
-
2
-
Just now, The Dude said:
That doesn't answer how someone who was 'untouchable' managed to get the sack. He couldn't have been THAT 'untouchable' if he got binned.
He was made an example of, simple as.
Look who wasn't removed at the same time...
BJK leaves, the glitter gang reunite within a couple years after it.
-
5 minutes ago, The Dude said:
Were he 'untouchable' he'd never have been sacked to be brought back again.
The fact that he was allowed back tells all.
He was very much needed for what was going on there.
He was back within 2 years of BJK leaving.
-
4 minutes ago, The Dude said:
Yes. It's exactly what child sex offenders do. It's a well-established behavioural trait in CSOs.
I believe from the moment Torbett set foot in the door, he and those that were brought in after him, all had protection from the top.
Kelly & Coy were protecting them, that's why he swanned about Parkheid, he knew they were all untouchable back then.
-
1 minute ago, The Dude said:
You've missed an important part out, unsurprisingly.
I've said that I don't believe there was an operational decision taken on behalf of celtic FC to cover it up but rather certain individuals done that off their own back to protect themselves long before it came to protecting celtic.
You think all those guilty individuals thought about self preservation?
They gave a shit for nobody. The club protecting it's 'good name ' enabled them to continue and continue..
I believe the club protected them from the late 60's, to protect the cellic brand, a conscious decision from their hierarchy then.
-
42 minutes ago, The Dude said:
From top to bottom? No. I do think senior employees at celtic done what they could to make the allegations go away (as - incredibly - it seems to have been the common way these were dealt with) however I don't think there was an operational decision taken that by hook or by crook it would be covered up at the risk of harming celtic's name.
They are still active in protecting/peddling the myth of cellic's good name.
To think this wasn't the case back then is naive in the extreme.
It was all about protecting cellic, otherwise hang the individuals out to dry. When their director/chairman are highly likely to be involved, that's not happening.
They made a criminal decision and are still sticking with it 50 plus years later.
-
I would like to see him sign elsewhere and say, "I've accepted an offer lesser than cellic's, no way could I sign for those paedo bastards"
-
Anyone hear on stv sports there how they introduced John Barnes prior to him talking about racism and speaking out?
-
On the 31 st May 2019, James Dornan spoke out against cellic.
They ran the story early in the day and dropped it soon after. Didn't quite get it right earlier, still sinister the omission and what they then deflected with...
BBC Reporting Scotland had this story in their main daily news bulletin, then ignore the biggest story in Scotland at 6:30 pm..
Instead they choose to run an article critical of Orange Parades, then interview Janette Findlay and later interview Neil Lennon.In reply to my earlier post.
-
Just now, The Dude said:
So it cant have been anything major then. Not to mention that, despite suggesting otherwise, the BBC have indeed reported on it and not just pretended nothing has happened.
Was significant at the time.
At the moment, I'm making dinner for my lad and sorting his training kit.
If I get time, I will go back and prove this.
Only within the last week or so.
-
Just now, The Dude said:
Which events in particular? Theyve reported on all trials and convictions.
An assistant editor at sportsound? Hardly someone with much clout tbh.
Off the top of my head, I can't remember which incident they failed to report recently.
Was in papers and posted on here, not a mention on the BBC, anywhere.
Omitted entirely there.
-
Just now, The Dude said:
Which outlets have said nothing?
BBC have failed recently to report events at cellic.
Kelly tentacles reach far, see a few pages back.
-
1 minute ago, The Dude said:
Do you honestly think the media would cover it up if there active peadophiles at any club?
Some outlets currently say nothing, nothing happened anywhere.
I've lost trust with some entirely.
-
Just now, The Dude said:
The same way we know it isnt going on at any other club (including our own)
The mhedia would've told us, trust me.
-
Just now, The Dude said:
Rangers' action has been central to the whole discussion after it was suggested we should walk off the pitch in protest in a similar vein to players who have suffered riacial abuse.
How do we know paedophilia doesn't still exist there? We don't.
This abuse may well still be going on (takes various forms), Peter is still overseeing things so the link from past to present re. cover ups is still there.
Could be as current as the racism mentioned, we do not know.
While taking our players off the pitch is not the answer, other stances can be taken.
-
2 minutes ago, The Dude said:
I think we can pretty safely say that none of the Rangers players are currently victims of child sexual abuse at celtic football club so to compare them walking off to black players walking off after suffering racial abuse doesn't really fly.
I presume the same folk that can honestly say it isn't going on in any other organisation that has lots of children involved.
I have at no point mentioned Rangers action or inaction here, not what I've posted.
I've asked about cellic and when if ever they have become safe for children?
-
2 minutes ago, The Dude said:
True, although the point remains. Black players walking off after racial abuse arw doing so because the abuse is active rather than historic.
We can't prove the point yet, full independent enquiry needed, when cellic were 'deemed safe for children'.
There is no closure on when their paedo activity ceased, just cellic's word. Who believes them?
Who can honestly say it has, as of 2019?
-
25 minutes ago, The Dude said:
You're comparing apples and oranges here.
Players walking off because they are being racially abused are doing so because they are the victim of active abuse. You're suggesting our players walk off because children were abused at a different club 30+ years ago.
Why are the football authorities the ones who "really should be taking action" over a criminal offence? Shouldn't that be up to the justice system?
That would be 1989 and before.
Cellic's paedos were active beyond then.
We also don't know and certainly can't say for sure when they eradicated this, if ever.
-
5 hours ago, fanaticCR said:
I like this thread title.
It's honest and to the point. 👍
Kitman, fenian, cunt.
He's now another unemployed fenian cunt going by the post above this. 😉
-
-
-
19 minutes ago, Dickie said:
Is that a typo,did you mean imposter? Too active to be an auld cunt.
Too active to be a young cunt you mean? 😉
-
2 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:
2 cheeks, same arse.
That's one ugly arse.
Even a priest wouldn't.
Our Best Underwhelming Signing Success?
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom
Posted
James Tavernier didn't cost much and not many would've thought future captain either.