Celtic Boys Club manager 'stuffed banknotes in boy's mouth'

[RANGERRAB 3,772]

3 hours ago, Scott7 said:

An “independent” lawyer “on behalf of” celtic?

Harper MacLeod?

low level paper gatherer? (Stop laughing at the back ?) 

wee fat bespectacled chap who’s as wide as he is tall ?

any more clues needed?

[ian1964 10,761]

 

[ian1964 10,761]

[Uilleam 5,966]

Easier to read:

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/celtic-response-boys-club-child-16238857

 

Celtic response to Boys' Club child sex scandal has been woeful and an insult to abuse survivors

 

Everyone’s heard the old saying about turning a drama into a crisis.
Celtic yesterday took arguably the biggest crisis to have hit the club in its near 130-year history and turned it into an unmitigated catastrophe.
The club, one of the country’s biggest institutions, has lurched from mishap to calamity in its failure to deal with an increasingly bleak emerging picture of a culture of child abuse at the feeder Boys’ Club.
Celtic has the resources, the pull and the power to commission and act on a proper inquiry, conducted in public and led by a respected independent figure.
It is certainly warranted.
That a culture of historic abuse was allowed to pollute Celtic Boys’ Club over a period of decades has been proven beyond any doubt.
Four men connected to either the Boys’ Club or the club have now been convicted of criminal offences.
The fact that it needed a second criminal trial to get to the bottom of the evil perpetrated by one of these four disgraceful individuals, Jim Torbett, is further illustration of the need for the boil to be lanced.
Instead, Celtic’s response has been woeful.
Its expression of “deep regret that the incidents took place” while stressing that the club was “an entirely separate organisation” from the Boys’ Club in a statement following Torbett’s conviction fell badly short.
Following the conviction of former kitman Jim McCafferty last month, the club issued another statement this time expressing “regret and sorrow” to victims but which stopped short of making a full apology. It also made no mention of the three previous cases which resulted in the convictions of Torbett, Frank Cairney and Gerald King.
Neither did it cite the “investigation” which the club says has been running for two years and on which it briefed at least one news organisation on Friday.
This was a development, which regrettably, insults both the intelligence of the Scottish public and, more seriously, abuse survivors themselves.
In a letter sent to SNP MSP James Dornan, chief executive Peter Lawwell said the club was “constrained in what we can discuss owing to legal processes”.
A surprising claim given the number of statements issued on the matter over the last two years.
It is unclear what Lawwell could possibly mean by this – certainly there are no issues around the Contempt of Court Act as all known cases against former employees of the club and Boys’ Club have now been concluded.
Lawwell went on to say: “Some time ago our insurers appointed a wholly independent and experienced lawyer who is investigating and dealing with the matter on behalf of the club.”
That could be described as an “inquiry” by the club as it was in some quarters yesterday. 
It also sounds a lot like the club investigating what its own liabilities might be.
We might never know because Celtic were not elaborating yesterday.
They have not identified the lawyer who was commissioned, said when he or she was hired, provided any clarity on the scope of the investigation nor imparted any of its initial findings. How an organisation of this size can fail to see the problem of an investigation into a crime which relies on secrecy itself being conducted in secret, is almost beyond belief.
Eight years ago, the American Football programme at Pennsylvania State University was hit by a sex abuse scandal following the conviction of a predatory coach Jerry Sandusky.
Penn State, one of the most respected sporting institutions in the US, failed time and again to do the right thing by Sandusky’s survivors.
The ensuing arguments ripped the university and the state apart, causing divisions that never healed.
It might be worth the club’s senior executives examining that case and learning some of the lessons.
The argument that Celtic is a different entity from the Boys’ Club should never be made again.
A drip feed of evidence proving the extreme closeness of the two organisations has left that claim empty and irrelevant.
It is not now too late for Celtic to commission and fund a real probe into why and how the bond of trust between young players, their parents and the club became so broken under previous regimes.
If this was genuinely independently-led and conducted in public, it could provide closure for victims and finally resolve a running sore for an organisation which means so much to so many.
In the meantime, the club should at the very least give an explanation of the exact terms of the current investigation.
Otherwise they risk the appearance of using ham-fisted, retrospective crisis management instead of the access-all-areas inquiry the survivors are due.
`

This is actually quite sinister, perhaps unsurprisingly:

 

"Celtic has the resources, the pull and the power to commission and act on a proper inquiry, conducted in public and led by a respected independent figure."

 

"It is not now too late for Celtic to commission and fund a real probe into why and how the bond of trust between young players, their parents and the club became so broken under previous regimes.
If this was genuinely independently-led and conducted in public, it could provide closure for victims and finally resolve a running sore for an organisation which means so much to so many."

 

So, rasellik should commission and fund an inquiry -into itself- one that is "proper" and "real", but one whose direction, extent (historic and otherwise),  and  terms of reference surely would have to be determined by itself, as it would be unwilling, or even unable, to offer a blank cheque for such an enterprise; and, of course, he who pays the piper, etc.

 

The newspaper seems to suggest the following as the basis for a commissioning brief:

"...why and how the bond of trust between young players, their parents and the club became so broken under previous regimes."

i think we can all see the limitations of this proposal. Decades of pederasty, with the possibility of a paedophile ring operating via the Boys' Club and the parent organisation, and clear implication of these crimes being either wilfully ignored or wilfully concealed, reduced to establishing how a "bond of trust" came to be broken. 

Really? 

 

The inquiry would be a private investigation, albeit somehow "conducted in public", but which would have no statutory basis, indeed no basis in law, whatsoever, and thus would be incapable of compelling evidence. 

 

A full public enquiry is needed, with full statutory powers, and full exposure. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2019 by Uilleam

[Bill 13,717]

And still, not a peep from the SNP government. Normally you can’t keep these nationalist blowhards off the airwaves but things are obviously different when it comes to their football club. 

[gisabeer 409]

Why are they holding an investigation into Celtic boys club if the organisation has nothing to do with them?

[ian1964 10,761]

 

[ian1964 10,761]

 

[Uilleam 5,966]

From today's Dhaily Rhabble: 

 

More Soft Soap for the Soapdodgers

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ghost-haunts-celtics-quest-ten-16243822#ICID=ios_DailyRecordNewsApp_AppShare_Click_Other

 

The ghost that haunts Celtic's quest for ten in a row - Keith Jackson

Keith Jackson believes Celtic must confront the past before they can contemplate the future.

 

Keith Jackson

06:30, 3 JUN 2019

 

Eight successive league titles down. Two more to go, Three back-to-back domestic clean sweeps rammed into the trophy cabinet and a bank balance which is equally fit to burst.

For Celtic, these really are the best of times.

That they are also threatening to become the worst of times is a cruel and rancid legacy of a time gone by. Right now, a club at the very peak of its powers and the top of its game, is being haunted mercilessly by monsters from its past.

At a moment in time when Celtic should be celebrating this period of unsurpassed superiority, an entire clubs finds itself dragged to a crossroads in history. The direction they take at this point is likely to be a defining one.

 

A couple of years ago, when chief executive Peter Lawwell first uttered the words ‘separate entity’ in relation to the scandalised Celtic Boys’ Club it did seem at the time like a cleverly thought out and strategic piece of legal positioning. A very clear attempt to place as much distance as possible between Celtic’s powerhouse present and its dubious past.

But there comes a point when sound legal advice and solid business practise must give way to a sense of duty and moral obligation. And that moment has surely now arrived.

It has been here for some time now, ever since the recent spate of criminal convictions began totting up - a list of predators with links either to Celtic FC or to the Boys’ Club which, on the surface at least, points to something a great deal more sinister than just one rotten apple getting in through the door.

With each court case and jail sentence, a grotesque picture began to unfold of the full horror and tragedy unleashed upon young boys by a group of habitual child molesters which took place over decades and under Celtic’s name.

As painful as this truth is for today’s Celtic to stomach, the club has an onus now to act in the very best interests of all those who survived.

 

And that can only be done be confronting it in full. By apologising to the victims and their families and accepting retrospective responsibility for their collective pain.

Anything less - any attempt to legally dance around the issue - would be a scandal in itself and completely unbecoming of an institution of such pride and national importance.

Yes, that may well include the setting aside of a significant sum of money for compensation but even if the final bill should run into millions of pounds, it will still be a price the club can’t afford not to pay. This is about Celtic’s soul and its sense of integrity. No price can be put on that.

Deep down Lawwell will know all of this too but it’s easy to feel some sympathy for Celtic’s chief executive who has been placed in an almost impossible position by the abhorrent, vile and historic acts of others from decades ago.

On a purely human level he too will have been sickened to his stomach by the evidence and revelations which have been presented in a number of courtrooms and yet it’s his job to look after Celtic’s best interests.

 

But in this instance, a recalculation is required because it is absolutely incumbent upon him now to do the right thing where the victims of abuse are concerned.

If that means throwing open the front doors and inviting the authorities inside to conduct a full, public inquiry into then he should have no qualms in doing so. In fact, he should positively welcome it as, in order to bring closure to this whole nightmarish story, Celtic are in need of answers too.

They may provide the only way for the club to truly move on.

Lawwell cannot and must not be blamed for what once went on in Celtic’s name but he can help to repair much of the damage these crimes have caused and by doing so, he can slam the door shut on all the horrors of the past.

By acting pro-actively now and bringing the matter to some sort of closure, Lawwell will also clear the air around Celtic Park in time for Neil Lennon’s first full season back in the manager’s office.

The evils of child abuse will not be lost on Lennon, who joined Crewe Alexandra in 1990 when the now convicted paedophile Barry Bennell was operating at the club. Two of his friends and team mates were preyed upon by that particular beast so Lennon has seen for himself the devastation that was caused.

 

Having personally witnessed this level of distress, Lennon will be keen for Celtic to act swiftly and correctly where their own victims are concerned.

Against this wholly unedifying backdrop, it is Lennon’s job to refocus Celtic in time for the onset of the new campaign when it will be his responsibility to guide the club one further step towards a far more glorious history.

If his spending power or wage budget is to be affected by the cost of cleaning up Celtic’s historic mess, then so-be-it. But he needs to be given a clear view of it in advance in order to put his own plans in place.

The truth of the matter here is that Lennon stands on the cusp of achieving something spectacular in sporting terms. If he can become the man who started and finished the incredible quest for ten in a row, then he and the team he is about to build will go down in Celtic’s history for all the right reasons.

This then, is Celtic’s moment in time. A chance to acknowledge and say sorry for all that was wrong about the club’s past and to emerge from it again, unburdened, back into the here and now.

In other words, the club must take this opportunity to revisit the worst of times and to put things right, in order to get on with enjoying the best of them.

 

 

Firstly, we have to say that rasellik's "rancid legacy" as jackson describes it, is not something which has only lately come to light; it is, one might say, a part of the Club's heritage, and one known widely, even from the earliest days of the Boys' Club, if not one highly regarded.

We must add that this vile endowment embraces not only the sexual abuse of children, but its concealment, either wilfully or through ignorance, possibly itself wilful, at best negligent.

Neither Lawwell or Lennon are victims of circumstance. Lawwell worked at Parkhead in the 90s, and Lennon has been in and around the place, on and off, for -what?- 15 years. They knew, but chose to say nothing and do nothing, other than, of course to maintain the omerta surrounding the criminality, and the cover ups. 

 

The 'separate entity' defence, was, I fear, not a clever piece of strategy. Elevating the legalistic above the moral gave the clear impression that the Club wished to dodge its responsibilities. It was largely a specious pose, because there was already, in the public domain, plenty of evidence to prove a de facto, practical, connection betwen Club and Boys' Club.  This is not merely an abuseof rasellik's name. 

There is one aspect of this on which we might speculate: the burden of proof in a criminal case is higher than that in civil matters. Did the Club pursue the different entity line, because it feared (fears) criminal prosecution(s) more than damages claims? 

 

"Throwing open the front doors and inviting the authorities inside to conduct a full, public inquiry" is nonsense. A statutory inquiry is necessary, but this is not in the gift of rasellik,  much as its apologists may long for that. The terms, scope, direction, etc. can only be in the hands of the government. 

A public inquiry will not bring 'closure' and 'clear the air', particularly before the new season. Any such statutory investigation will be lengthy, and, as is necessary, public (with some evidence heard in camera, of course); therefore each day, and each week, the sins of the Club will be made plain. We may only guess at the impact of a large scale open investigation on players, staff, sponsors, advertisers, and even supporters: it is unlikely to be be positive. 

Such a public investigation is necessary; that goes without saying. it will clear the air, certainly, but of the stench of concealment and corruption.

The Club will not emerge from such an inquiry well. It is wishful thinking to suggest that somehow it will materialise in pristine white vestments, and  "unburdened" of its past. This is impossible. 

It must, of course, acknowledge its sins, apologise to its victims and  their families; it must also apologise to society at large, for its heinous concealment of heinous crimes. It must make appropriate restitution to its victims, whether by court decree or otherwise. 

 

The Club must also be punished. Exile to the Lowland Leagues might help it expunge a proportion of its its guilt.

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by Uilleam

[ian1964 10,761]