Scottish football clubs urged to apologise for historical child sex abuse

[the cry was no 3,027]

33 minutes ago, The Dude said:

You seem to have completely missed the point.

Neely not working again in football is being used as some sort of poof that we made sure he wasn't employable. While that MAY be the case, there's nothing which back it up. Neely may well have found other, more profitable, "business interests" which provided more for him than a youth coaching role in football - like McCoist has since returning to broadcasting.

Neely's lack of employment within the game (at a professional level at least) doesn't back up anything.

No aversion to getting involved in discussions on CSA. I do have an aversion to writing articles on it professionally as there are far more legal implications.

With respect, you're missing my point.....

There is absolutely no correlation between Ally and Neely that would justify you bringing Ally into the equation.

Not being a stupid man I'd guess you'd know that to be the case, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a retraction or an admission of poor judgement

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Bad Robot said:

The police could follow that up.

Why would they though? Neely is dead and there are afaik no active investigations into him as a result.

[tannerall 25,935]

3 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

The lack of investigation in this inquiry is also abhorrent. I don’t know the legal power they have but surely they could of went to HMRC to find out what N.I contributions was paid in to see if other clubs employed him or what he did after Rangers dismissed him. 

 

They could, or they could even ask arround I guess, quite easy. 

The question you are asking I think, is could, or would  they print and broadcast that information.

Would suspect  lot of moral and legal issues would come in to consideration. And I suspect the answer would be no. 

 

 

 

 

[Junior Soprano 22,428]

18 minutes ago, tannerall said:

Moral standards are very impoortant. 

They give you respect and credibility.

Words like "spazzy" and "paedo" should not be used with intent to degrade others. Unlike morals, just the simple use of words in a context, can cause a lot of problems, even legal.

Especially on a thread about child abuse.

I think it’s ironic that you’re right in about a this thread

[graeme_4 34,354]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Inform other clubs, inform the relvant governing bodies within the sport, provide somesort of support and after care for alleged victims, not wish him well in an official club publication

Serious questions, at the time do you think those at board level had much to do with the RangersNews? Do you think they reviewed every page in detail? And from an HR point of view would the person who wrote the RangersNews be informed of why any individual was sacked? You’re really hanging your hat on this for some reason.

Rangers sacked him immediately and informed the police, and they boys Dad was a policeman. 

They should offer the people involved support now however. 

[Colin Traive 22,709]

Just now, The Dude said:

His approach was that every club should face up to the allegations in their past and do what is right by the victims? Not sure what there is to disagree in that approach tbh.

No decent person could disagree with that.

My point (as you well know) was the twisted logic that, if you can’t produce a report from Rangers about Neely to the police then it must never have happened.

You and that sad fenian bastard are wired to the same moon.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, the cry was no said:

With respect, you're missing my point.....

There is absolutely no correlation between Ally and Neely that would justify you bringing Ally into the equation.

Not being a stupid man I'd guess you'd know that to be the case, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a retraction or an admission of poor judgement

Yeah you wont be getting a retraction or admission of poor judgement.

Simply leaving coaching to pursue other employment (or 'business interests') could just as easily explain why he never worked in football again. That's the simple point regarding McCoist. Neely not coaching at a professional club in scotland after leaving isn't proof of anything one way or the other.

[tannerall 25,935]

1 minute ago, Junior Soprano said:

I think it’s ironic that you’re right in about a this thread

Please act like an adult, and be careful what you post in these kind of threads, especially derogatory or even personal claims, they are in the public domain with all that ensues.

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Colin Traive said:

No decent person could disagree with that.

My point (as you well know) was the twisted logic that, if you can’t produce a report from Rangers about Neely to the police then it must never have happened.

You and that sad fenian bastard are wired to the same moon.

So you were making a point that has absolutely no correlation to anything I've said? Well done.

[Bad Robot 21,139]

1 minute ago, Colin Traive said:

I got into a long, drawn out thread years ago with a scum supporter on another forum in a galaxy far, far away whose approach was the same as yours.

His point was that, as there is no electronic or physical copy of a police report from Rangers about Neely, then we must never have reported it. No amount of explaining that times were very different then, nor the fact that the boy’s dad was a copper (therefore the police did know) would break through his hatred.

You sound more and more like him with every post.

The fact the kids Dad was a copper leads me to think the club done everything by the book which would be reporting Neely to the father and also to another police officer whether that was over the phone or in person at a police station. I’m not saying the Police done anything to Neely off the books but we’ve got to remember that some Police back them weren’t exactly squeaky clean with the fit ups and beatings they gave people.

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

2 minutes ago, tannerall said:

They could, or they could even ask arround I guess, quite easy. 

The question you are asking I think, is could, or would  they print and broadcast that information.

Would suspect  lot of moral and legal issues would come in to consideration. And I suspect the answer would be no. 

 

 

 

 

They could conclude that the individual didn’t get employed by another football team on its basis instead of leaving a statement saying they received some unconfirmed reports that he was able to act as a ‘freelance’ football coach thereafter. Why didn’t they look into this further to confirm or not confirm it?
 

[The Dude 20,026]

3 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

Serious questions, at the time do you think those at board level had much to do with the RangersNews? Do you think they reviewed every page in detail? And from an HR point of view would the person who wrote the RangersNews be informed of why any individual was sacked? You’re really hanging your hat on this for some reason.

Rangers sacked him immediately and informed the police, and they boys Dad was a policeman. 

They should offer the people involved support now however. 

They won't have looked at every page in fine detail but the club will have had overall say in what content goes in and what doesn't. If someone was sacked for allegedly abusing kids, it's really not a big leap that it would come down from on high not to acknowledge it.

Really not hanging my hat on it. I'm more concerned about the lack of overall support given to victims and the lack of follow-up with NGBs etc.

[Bad Robot 21,139]

6 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Why would they though? Neely is dead and there are afaik no active investigations into him as a result.

because it would be the right thing to do

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

They could conclude that the individual didn’t get employed by another football team on its basis instead of leaving a statement saying they received some unconfirmed reports that he was able to act as a ‘freelance’ football coach thereafter. Why didn’t they look into this further to confirm or not confirm it?
 

It's better to acknowlege unconfirmed reports than being unable to confirm them so assuming they are false (if that makes sense).

If people have said hes run football camps on his own, for example, but the review couldn;t confirm or deny their existence one way or the other, it makes more sense to have that line in.

[tannerall 25,935]

Just now, Howsitgoing said:

They could conclude that the individual didn’t get employed by another football team on its basis instead of leaving a statement saying they received some unconfirmed reports that he was able to act as a ‘freelance’ football coach thereafter. Why didn’t they look into this further to confirm or not confirm it?
 

Because they are journalists, and have no obligation too, even if they did, there would still be legal considerations too. 

[the cry was no 3,027]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Yeah you wont be getting a retraction or admission of poor judgement.

Simply leaving coaching to pursue other employment (or 'business interests') could just as easily explain why he never worked in football again. That's the simple point regarding McCoist. Neely not coaching at a professional club in scotland after leaving isn't proof of anything one way or the other.

There is NO RELEVANCE nor relationship between Ally's career since leaving Rangers and Neely's

You know that, I know that and everyone else knows that

NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER and no amount of condescending waffle will ever change that

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Bad Robot said:

because it would be the right thing to do

Right but they also need a legal basis on which to check it afaik, not sure the polis can just go to HMRC and ask for people's tax records on a whim.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, the cry was no said:

There is NO RELEVANCE nor relationship between Ally's career since leaving Rangers and Neely's

You know that, I know that and everyone else knows that

NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER and no amount of condescending waffle will ever change that

I haven't suggested there is any relationship between their career.

[graeme_4 34,354]

7 minutes ago, The Dude said:

They won't have looked at every page in fine detail but the club will have had overall say in what content goes in and what doesn't. If someone was sacked for allegedly abusing kids, it's really not a big leap that it would come down from on high not to acknowledge it.

Really not hanging my hat on it. I'm more concerned about the lack of overall support given to victims and the lack of follow-up with NGBs etc.

‘The Club’ is a broad term. We / you don’t know who knew what and who was involved in the sacking process. It’s not a stretch to say whoever wrote for the club newsletter wouldn’t know anything other than a youth coach has left.

I don’t think this is the big deal you think it is. There’s plenty of PR that slips through the net now, and that’s in a much more sophisticated and scrutinised media world than it was then. Look at celtic’s Twitter or the match programme with our captain last season. 

Absolutely the club should do more now in terms of support for victims. That doesn’t mean they did anything wrong at the time. The sad reality is that there just wasn’t the same level of safeguarding or reporting back then. The club told the police - that’s the key point here. 

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

6 minutes ago, tannerall said:

Because they are journalists, and have no obligation too, even if they did, there would still be legal considerations too. 

Was thinking more of the inquiry, they left it as just speculation. This inquiry is nothing but speculation and accusations, the only concluded part is that apparently all clubs didn’t know at the time of the abuse which probably tells us the real objective of this inquiry. 

[Colin Traive 22,709]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

So you were making a point that has absolutely no correlation to anything I've said? Well done.

You’re making huge assumptions about what happened to Neely after he left us and you’re using the absence of facts or detail as some kind of twisted endorsement for your theory.

Fact is that we’ll never know if Rangers lodged a formal report (over and above the family police connection) or what path he took after leaving or who placed “best wishes” in the publication after he’d left or how much that person knew or indeed whether anyone higher up read it and approved it before publication.

Your default position is like that of the taig. If Rangers can’t prove it, then it didn’t happen.

Very strange for an alleged Rangers supporter.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, graeme_4 said:

‘The Club’ is a broad term. We / you don’t know who knew what and who was involved in the sacking process. It’s not a stretch to say whoever wrote for the club newsletter wouldn’t know anything other than a youth coach has left.

I don’t think this is the big deal you think it is. There’s plenty of PR that slips through the net now, and that’s in a much more sophisticated and scrutinised media world were in now. Look at celtic’s Twitter or the match programme with our captain last season. 

Absolutely the club should do more now in terms of support for victims. That doesn’t mean they did anything wrong at the time. The sad reality is that there just wasn’t the same level of safeguarding or reporting back then. The club told the police - that’s the key point here. 

And this is the problem for me. In this thread alone, I've now been told that the editor of the RN was a friend of Neely's and was protecting him while others insists they knew nothing.

Given he was sacked - which was apparently know by other coaches - and never left 'amicably', the fact his exit was acknowledged doesn't sit right. PR slip or not.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Colin Traive said:

You’re making huge assumptions about what happened to Neely after he left us and you’re using the absence of facts or detail as some kind of twisted endorsement for your theory.

Fact is that we’ll never know if Rangers lodged a formal report (over and above the family police connection) or what path he took after leaving or who placed “best wishes” in the publication after he’d left or how much that person knew or indeed whether anyone higher up read it and approved it before publication.

Your default position is like that of the taig. If Rangers can’t prove it, then it didn’t happen.

Very strange for an alleged Rangers supporter.

Again, not my position. That's two posts in a row now.

[tannerall 25,935]

6 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

Was thinking more of the inquiry, they left it as just speculation. This inquiry is nothing but speculation and accusations, the only concluded part is that apparently all clubs didn’t know at the time of the abuse which probably tells us the real objective of this inquiry. 

This inquiry was basically a damage limitation exercise in my opinion. 

For me it's all about the truth, regardless which clubs or individuals were involved.

The sooner the big lawsuits start the better, then there will be more interest in the truth coming out.

[Colin Traive 22,709]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Again, not my position. That's two posts in a row now.

That is EXACTLY your position re Neely.

You’ve obviously got fuck all else to do today so I’ll leave you to it. If they put up a statue of Liewell besides Brother Walmart, they best leave space for yours too. Hail, hail - that’s what you lot sign off with isn’t it?