BBC Article

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

15 minutes ago, ScottBF2 said:

I’ve already said what the investigation should hopefully include. 

 

I want our name cleared and the only way we can do that is by being fully transparent. Investigations need to be made into how this cunt did what he did and what we did subsequently. We need to show the world we’re better than the scum out there that cover this shit up.

Once again we had an investigation. 

He was sacked and police informed of his conduct. What more do you want the club to do ffs. 

It’s all public knowledge where he came from what he got up to at those clubs and that those clubs did nothing to try and stop him, you want to investigate why none of those clubs got included in tonight’s hatchet job. 

[Blumhoilann 6,712]

8 hours ago, the goal machine said:

By letting it get to the press. This is a huge own goal for the club. Got no issues at all with how we handled it at the time.

We now may not be legally entitled to pay the guy but as others have mentioned, paying him compensation as a gesture of goodwill would have been a simple solution. We can't keep using the different companies excuse just when it suits us.

Disagree,if we'd paid hush money and this,as it has,came out,the media would slaughter Rangers and totally let the Tim's off the hook.

There is no defending this behaviour,if true but didn't Rangers sack him and inform the police? If so then Rangers too are 'victims' by not being informed of this guys previous behaviour by Hibs.

[TheGovanIniesta 1,000]

https://spidercatweb.blog/2018/05/02/martin-henry-james-rennie-neil-strachan-celtic/

the real story

[BlueKnight87 17,289]

9 hours ago, Blumhoilann said:

Disagree,if we'd paid hush money and this,as it has,came out,the media would slaughter Rangers and totally let the Tim's off the hook.

There is no defending this behaviour,if true but didn't Rangers sack him and inform the police? If so then Rangers too are 'victims' by not being informed of this guys previous behaviour by Hibs.

The club acted as it should. The individual was sacked and the club reported his actions to the police.  The BBC are ignoring this to cherry pick the line about the victim being told he would need to pursue compensation with the oldco. They are trying to paint us as shifting the blame. This isn't the case we advised the victim how he would need to pursue his claim. Could the wording have been better that's up for debate.

Yet we are the ones getting the hatchet job when clubs like Hivs knew of this guy's actions and never warned other clubs about him. They never got mentioned in this.

For me the whole thing is a smokescreen to try and divert attention away from the scum fc monsters going on trial & to give them a yeah but Rangers. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,729]

11 minutes ago, BlueKnight87 said:

The club acted as it should. The individual was sacked and the club reported his actions to the police.  The BBC are ignoring this to cherry pick the line about the victim being told he would need to pursue compensation with the oldco. They are trying to paint us as shifting the blame. This isn't the case we advised the victim how he would need to pursue his claim. Could the wording have been better that's up for debate.

Yet we are the ones getting the hatchet job when clubs like Hivs knew of this guy's actions and never warned other clubs about him. They never got mentioned in this.

For me the whole thing is a smokescreen to try and divert attention away from the scum fc monsters going on trial & to give them a yeah but Rangers. 

It really is as simple and obvious as this. ?

[hawkeye 1,039]

44 minutes ago, BlueKnight87 said:

The club acted as it should. The individual was sacked and the club reported his actions to the police.  The BBC are ignoring this to cherry pick the line about the victim being told he would need to pursue compensation with the oldco. They are trying to paint us as shifting the blame. This isn't the case we advised the victim how he would need to pursue his claim. Could the wording have been better that's up for debate.

Yet we are the ones getting the hatchet job when clubs like Hivs knew of this guy's actions and never warned other clubs about him. They never got mentioned in this.

For me the whole thing is a smokescreen to try and divert attention away from the scum fc monsters going on trial & to give them a yeah but Rangers. 

Well said.

[Blumhoilann 6,712]

Why did Hibs not inform the police about Neely?

[Dickie1963 2,353]

Paedophiles are all over the place. Pals daughter set up a Youtube videoblog TV type programme and within hours there were paedophiles trying to groom her.  She is about 10!!! 

Club behaved in an exemplary manner. 

Hibs should have the book thrown at them for passing a paedophile on without informing us. 

Insurance for anything that happened years ago will be held by Liquidator. Insurances are paid on a Claims Date basis and thats why Architects and other Professionals carry run off insurance. The Insurance in place at the time of the incident will cover it. Not todays Insurance cover. 

The Liquidator may have cancelled all Insurances and any cover for future claims? 

If I knock you over the court case will be Joe Bloggs v Dickie1963 but in effect my Insurance company will indemnify me for claims up to a certain level and thats why he has been passed on to Liquidator. 

 

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

2 hours ago, Blumhoilann said:

Why did Hibs not inform the police about Neely?

And until recently this was part of sfa rules.

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

Section 9 of this now removed link said."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."

Why has the sfa felt the need to remove the reference to all clubs statutory duty confirming that they might take legal action against clubs not adhering to it?

[Blumhoilann 6,712]

20 hours ago, TheGovanIniesta said:

https://spidercatweb.blog/2018/05/02/martin-henry-james-rennie-neil-strachan-celtic/

the real story

Jez that's scary.How could/can these b'tards get away wi the abuse for so long unless there are friends in high places,who may also be involved.

[Bad Robot 21,152]

57 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

And until recently this was part of sfa rules.

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

Section 9 of this now removed link said."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."

Why has the sfa felt the need to remove the reference to all clubs statutory duty confirming that they might take legal action against clubs not adhering to it?

I dont know why your keep on labouring the point of this removal as it’s irrelevant and the law still stands whether sections are cited or not.

[ItsRangersForMe 13]

1 hour ago, Bad Robot said:

I dont know why your keep on labouring the point of this removal as it’s irrelevant and the law still stands whether sections are cited or not.

Fair point Bad Robot but I would be interested to know when the SFA changed this and what reasons they have given. 

The obvious conclusion is that they can see possible cases arising in the near future and don't want to be forced into having to take legal action. 

Maybe they have decided that issues such as this should be taken up by the police and not by the football authorities, but would still be interesting to see who was involved in the decision to make the change at a time when Ceptic and Hibs could potentially fall foul of the rule. 

[Bad Robot 21,152]

1 hour ago, ItsRangersForMe said:

Fair point Bad Robot but I would be interested to know when the SFA changed this and what reasons they have given. 

The obvious conclusion is that they can see possible cases arising in the near future and don't want to be forced into having to take legal action. 

Maybe they have decided that issues such as this should be taken up by the police and not by the football authorities, but would still be interesting to see who was involved in the decision to make the change at a time when Ceptic and Hibs could potentially fall foul of the rule. 

They don’t have a choice when it’s the law and there is no smoking gun here with the text deletion.

[TheGovanIniesta 1,000]

3 hours ago, Howsitgoing said:

And until recently this was part of sfa rules.

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

Section 9 of this now removed link said."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."

Why has the sfa felt the need to remove the reference to all clubs statutory duty confirming that they might take legal action against clubs not adhering to it?

No doubt that's another ''conspiracy theory''

just another convenient coincidence  nothing to see here

[ScottBF2 3,540]

On 16/05/2018 at 23:29, Courtyard Bear said:

Once again we had an investigation. 

He was sacked and police informed of his conduct. What more do you want the club to do ffs. 

It’s all public knowledge where he came from what he got up to at those clubs and that those clubs did nothing to try and stop him, you want to investigate why none of those clubs got included in tonight’s hatchet job. 

No I don’t. Passing the buck with comments like that mate. 

 

I’ve no doubt these reports have come out with malice intended, but regardless we now have an accusation of wrongdoing on our doorstep and the correct actions need to be taken. I’ve seen nothing to say we investigated anything, only that we sacked the guy and reported it. Did we check that this was the only incident? Was anyone else affected? 

 

Those are are the things we need to know. Having these vile, disgusting people associated with our club is not acceptable and we need to be spotless with how we handle it or we’ll be open to these sorts of articles going forward.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

33 minutes ago, ScottBF2 said:

No I don’t. Passing the buck with comments like that mate. 

 

I’ve no doubt these reports have come out with malice intended, but regardless we now have an accusation of wrongdoing on our doorstep and the correct actions need to be taken. I’ve seen nothing to say we investigated anything, only that we sacked the guy and reported it. Did we check that this was the only incident? Was anyone else affected? 

 

Those are are the things we need to know. Having these vile, disgusting people associated with our club is not acceptable and we need to be spotless with how we handle it or we’ll be open to these sorts of articles going forward.

Passing the buck ffs. 

No wonder we get shat on. 

I really wonder at times if some of our support actually do want to be them. 

[soulboy 2,518]

14 hours ago, Blumhoilann said:

Why did Hibs not inform the police about Neely?

There was an article in the Sunday post a while back done by a reporter who was very good friends with the then hivs chairman.  The chairman told the reporter in confidence what was going on and said he didn't want the clubs name dragged through the mud and that no parent would allow their kids to go there if they knew what was going on and so didn't report it to the police allowing Neely to come to our club without us knowing about what happened at hivs

[Bad Robot 21,152]

Just now, soulboy said:

There was an article in the Sunday post a while back done by a reporter who was very good friends with the then hivs chairman.  The chairman told the reporter in confidence what was going on and said he didn't want the clubs name dragged through the mud and that no parent would allow their kids to go there if they knew what was going on and so didn't report it to the police allowing Neely to come to our club without us knowing about what happened at hivs

It was said live on video also.

[BlueKnight87 17,289]

23 minutes ago, soulboy said:

There was an article in the Sunday post a while back done by a reporter who was very good friends with the then hivs chairman.  The chairman told the reporter in confidence what was going on and said he didn't want the clubs name dragged through the mud and that no parent would allow their kids to go there if they knew what was going on and so didn't report it to the police allowing Neely to come to our club without us knowing about what happened at hivs

In other words try to cover it up. Yet it's us getting our club name dragged through the mud now.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

28 minutes ago, soulboy said:

There was an article in the Sunday post a while back done by a reporter who was very good friends with the then hivs chairman.  The chairman told the reporter in confidence what was going on and said he didn't want the clubs name dragged through the mud and that no parent would allow their kids to go there if they knew what was going on and so didn't report it to the police allowing Neely to come to our club without us knowing about what happened at hivs

Aye but you can’t mention this mate, apparently it’s passing the buck. 

[Bobby Hume 13,096]

On 17/05/2018 at 18:04, Blumhoilann said:

Why did Hibs not inform the police about Neely?

Exactly.

The answer is found in the name of the club mate ...... even the administrators  of a certain faith do not see it as being wrong to force themselves on vulnerable children .... it is endemic of the cult they prescribe to that starts and ends at the Vatican.

Big Jock Knew this but wilfully covered up the rampant abuse at the club he managed, to save theIr "good" reputation  ..... and we all know where their owners religious affiliations lie.

They all knew it was going on .... they all knew it was wrong ... they all knew it was illegal and morally disgusting .... they chose to ignore the crimes being committed at their clubs in the hope it would all just go away ... to inform the police would be, to any normal person, the right thing to do .... unfortunately too late for the victims of other clubs .... this policy only occurred and the appropriate actions taken (his sacking and police notification), when it came to light that Neely was at it yet again at our Club .... this crime and possibly others could have been avoided had Hibs taken the right actions initially ..... they didn't .... that is criminal in itself.

This perverted report from a so called "neutral" broadcaster .... implying that we are no better than than the clubs' who actively tried to hide the facts of the molesters they employed .... and in the scum's case with Torbett re-employed ... would be laughable were it not so serious.

 

[Copland bear 7,966]

20 hours ago, Blumhoilann said:

Why did Hibs not inform the police about Neely?

Because like big Jock and the celtic board , their no grasses 

[ZZed 4,510]

What a shock, the BBC knew they had a pedophile with J Savile and that they may have had a Peadophile ring running in their organisation. The BBC are now trying to deflect from another organisation that had a pedophile ring running from it at the same time in CFC boys club.  The BBC are now tiring to take the spot light off of the perpetrators who are being brought to court.

You have to ask some questions.

Where they linked?

Have they managed to hide some thing that they are now not wanting exposed?

Are our politicians involved in some way ether as perpetrators or enablers or as aiding a cover up?

Is it still happening?

[Moody Blue 9,358]

On 17/05/2018 at 09:33, BlueKnight87 said:

The club acted as it should. The individual was sacked and the club reported his actions to the police.  The BBC are ignoring this to cherry pick the line about the victim being told he would need to pursue compensation with the oldco. They are trying to paint us as shifting the blame. This isn't the case we advised the victim how he would need to pursue his claim. Could the wording have been better that's up for debate.

Yet we are the ones getting the hatchet job when clubs like Hivs knew of this guy's actions and never warned other clubs about him. They never got mentioned in this.

For me the whole thing is a smokescreen to try and divert attention away from the scum fc monsters going on trial & to give them a yeah but Rangers. 

Nail on the fucking head. With something as serious as this, someone needs to reiterate this point to the BBC given it was on their own programme about it last year. Yet again it was a Catholic club sweeping something underneath a carpet to let a known paedophile join someone else, who happened to be us this time. Utterly utterly disgusting. 

[goaaaal 946]

5 minutes ago, Moody Blue said:

Nail on the fucking head. With something as serious as this, someone needs to reiterate this point to the BBC given it was on their own programme about it last year. Yet again it was a Catholic club sweeping something underneath a carpet to let a known paedophile join someone else, who happened to be us this time. Utterly utterly disgusting. 

Bang on ,Rangers statement whilst advisory  in its publication is also unequivocal in its condemnation of the twisting of the situation  by that little prick masking as a journalist.

 

The statement is reasonable enough given what we already know in a factual sense regarding what should have been done before this cunt arrived at Rangers The Embra Mankies failed to notify anyone therefore the Implication techniques of that rancid prick Daly typify the gutter mindset of cunts like him in so far as how low he'll go to Implicate others & exactly who he's doing it for .

 

Therfor I reckon the statement is reasonable to the extent of the current position of RFC showing understanding of the person's situation but also nailing the malicious little scumbag kiddie on Journo at the same time.