SFA Review ??

[Blueshoff 12,807]

14 hours ago, standup said:

Review means We see our mistakes now and will take steps to improve. Thats the end of the matter, now move on.

What about an actual investigation.

Review means look at again 

Not sure if there is such a word as resweep.......

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/ssfa/scottish_football.cfm?page=3812

 

There review better take into consideration what section 9 says near the bottom of their own policies into protecting children. 

"Section 5 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 creates a statutory duty to report any suspicions of child abuse i.e. a duty to do what is reasonable in all the circumstances to safeguard the child's health, development and welfare. Failure to report concerns, turning a blind eye or failing to protect a child may result in legal action."

[Straight-Edge-Loyal 6,700]

On 14/12/2016 at 8:41 AM, Howsitgoing said:

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/ssfa/scottish_football.cfm?page=3812

 

There review better take into consideration what section 9 says near the bottom of their own policies into protecting children. 

"Section 5 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 creates a statutory duty to report any suspicions of child abuse i.e. a duty to do what is reasonable in all the circumstances to safeguard the child's health, development and welfare. Failure to report concerns, turning a blind eye or failing to protect a child may result in legal action."

5 last word in there is MAY.

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

1 hour ago, Straight-Edge-Loyal said:

5 last word in there is MAY.

"2) in statutes, and sometimes in contracts, the word "may" must be read in context to determine if it means an act is optional or mandatory, for it may be an imperative."

 

I would like to believe it isn't optional to report children getting abused. 

[Straight-Edge-Loyal 6,700]

10 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

"2) in statutes, and sometimes in contracts, the word "may" must be read in context to determine if it means an act is optional or mandatory, for it may be an imperative."

 

I would like to believe it isn't optional to report children getting abused. 

Was talking about the legal action part but certainly the filth took it to mean too report it too unfortunately.

[magic8ball 27,904]

Not a hope in hell that the filth will be held accountable here 

Look back to what happend in the cup final,hivs were 100pc guilty and should have been banned from Europe and this year's Scottish cup at the very very least 

But this strict liability scenario will be wheeled out again to get them off from sanction ,even reading the rules on the child welfare situation it will come down to a coin toss which rule the SFA want to enforce,and because the SFA is tarrier ridden it will fall down on,oh we did wrong but it's no fair to punish us coz the rule book says it's no fair to punish us 

 

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

On 16 December 2016 at 5:25 PM, Straight-Edge-Loyal said:

Was talking about the legal action part but certainly the filth took it to mean too report it too unfortunately.

I'm led to believe that due to it being a "statutory requirement created by an act" the legal action part can only be decided by the statute. Will it not be the police that decides whether it warrants a report to the procurator fiscal which "may result in legal action"? SFA might continue this complicit disgraceful cover up but I would sincerely hope our authorities won't!

"Breach of a duty imposed on some person or body by a statute. The person or body in breach of the statutory duty is liable to any criminal penalty imposed by the statute, but may also be liable to pay damages to the person injured by the breach if he belongs to the class for whose protection the statute was passed."

 

[Straight-Edge-Loyal 6,700]

3 hours ago, Howsitgoing said:

I'm led to believe that due to it being a "statutory requirement created by an act" the legal action part can only be decided by the statute. Will it not be the police that decides whether it warrants a report to the procurator fiscal which "may result in legal action"? SFA might continue this complicit disgraceful cover up but I would sincerely hope our authorities won't!

"Breach of a duty imposed on some person or body by a statute. The person or body in breach of the statutory duty is liable to any criminal penalty imposed by the statute, but may also be liable to pay damages to the person injured by the breach if he belongs to the class for whose protection the statute was passed."

 

Well let's hope any and every paedophile in the game is brought to actual justice and not just swept under the carpet as ruining a child's life is unforgivable.

[donnymac 115]

this - why is it not being front of page ?

[the brown brogue 1,961]

On 12/17/2016 at 3:31 PM, magic8ball said:

Not a hope in hell that the filth will be held accountable here 

Look back to what happend in the cup final,hivs were 100pc guilty and should have been banned from Europe and this year's Scottish cup at the very very least 

But this strict liability scenario will be wheeled out again to get them off from sanction ,even reading the rules on the child welfare situation it will come down to a coin toss which rule the SFA want to enforce,and because the SFA is tarrier ridden it will fall down on,oh we did wrong but it's no fair to punish us coz the rule book says it's no fair to punish us 

 

They'll have had insider knowledge of the SFAs planned stance, so will quickly cobble together some kind of child protection in the community scheme (with some anti-poverty sentiment thrown in) which will be hailed as groundbreaking by a complicit media, they'll be hailed as social crusaders and given some kind of award by a previously unknown child protection agency whilst their disgusting history and legacy is quietly swept away and every journalist in Scotland digs for any tenuous link between us and the perpetrators.

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=16757&newsCategoryID=1

 

Will this Mike Hendry be brave enough to correctly answer the questions!

"- To consider what steps were taken by its members and/or affiliated and/or associated organisations, either at the time of them being made aware or subsequently, and identified as relevant to the alleged incident(s) and to those concerned.  This will include responses, decisions and actions either taken or omitted; and,"

 

This is part is concerning

"Not determine the nature of any liability on the part of any individual or organisation whether that be criminal, civil or regulatory;"

This is fundamental, no organisation should be above the law and if our own football association isn't responsible for ensuring liability at least regulatory then why have policies. This is child abuse that they're shying away from. 

This regulation is in they're policies

Section 5 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 creates a statutory duty to report any suspicions of child abuse i.e. a duty to do what is reasonable in all the circumstances to safeguard the child's health, development and welfare. Failure to report concerns, turning a blind eye or failing to protect a child may result in legal action.
 

[eejay the dj 31,964]

The beggars will be excluded and they will somehow manage to find a way to bring us into it .

Mentioning it was rife in Scotland or something like that .Diluting the whole affair

No way will these rancid corrupt bastards focus anything on the real instigators or real culprits of child sex abuse in the 60s.

That would open a big can of worms for their favourites . Involving the Corrupt gestapo I'm certain and the now shamed BBC who in my opinion are all in on the cover up at high levels .

BBC covered up for decades . Not a peep on Saville .Yes he is one of your own you manky puedo bastards .

 

[cushynumber 25,178]

38 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=16757&newsCategoryID=1

 

Will this Mike Hendry be brave enough to correctly answer the questions!

"- To consider what steps were taken by its members and/or affiliated and/or associated organisations, either at the time of them being made aware or subsequently, and identified as relevant to the alleged incident(s) and to those concerned.  This will include responses, decisions and actions either taken or omitted; and,"

 

This is part is concerning

"Not determine the nature of any liability on the part of any individual or organisation whether that be criminal, civil or regulatory;"

This is fundamental, no organisation should be above the law and if our own football association isn't responsible for ensuring liability at least regulatory then why have policies. This is child abuse that they're shying away from. 

This regulation is in they're policies

Section 5 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 creates a statutory duty to report any suspicions of child abuse i.e. a duty to do what is reasonable in all the circumstances to safeguard the child's health, development and welfare. Failure to report concerns, turning a blind eye or failing to protect a child may result in legal action.
 

wwhat thats saying is they recognise a need to report abuse - what the review is NOT their to do is determine the  nature of the recourse. I Think that is ok for a independent review - as its not criminal or civil proceedings they are undertaking.

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

Just now, cushynumber said:

wwhat thats saying is they recognise a need to report abuse - what the review is NOT their to do is determine the  nature of the recourse. I Think that is ok for a independent review - as its not criminal or civil proceedings they are undertaking.

Yes I understand that, the criminal part is for the prosecutor fiscal. The part I find disturbing is the regulatory part, surely the review can determine if a football club broke regulations according to the current policies.

[cushynumber 25,178]

2 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

Yes I understand that, the criminal part is for the prosecutor fiscal. The part I find disturbing is the regulatory part, surely the review can determine if a football club broke regulations according to the current policies.

I dont think the statement is saying it wont do that. Its saying it wont determine the liability - not if they have broken the regulation or not..

I.e the SFA can determine if a club has broken rules - but if someone wanted then to sue said club because they had broken the rules, the SFA wants nothing to do with it.

 

I think thats right.

[Bears r us 31,334]

What school did he go to ?? 

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

Yes maybe your right, thanks never did see it like that.

That will off course mean that if the rules are broken then the SFA will still then have to invoke they're authority  regarding policy misdemeanours and give penn state fines.