Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
I trust Nick Harris avoided any public comment on our club whilst providing witness evidence against it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Club statement regarding Barry Bennell's conviction
- Thread starter petrusha
- Start date
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Yes.Harris only gave evidence about what a player might have earned but(not) for the abuse. Is that right?
Yes.Aren't decision to defend the accusations made by City's insurance company rather than City themselves?
Nothing to do with the Insurers as it was all run by City including the disgraceful use of Barry Bennell as a witnessYes.
Yes.
Harris s performing chimp, the obsessed Ian Herbert tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth in his twitter account this pm. Facts are a mere irritation to Herbert when it comes to City
Centurions
Well-Known Member
No it wasn't, since they refused the scheme set up by City and continued with their claim independently it had to be handed off to the insurers. The insurers run the show after that and have no say so whatsoever.Nothing to do with the Insurers as it was all run by City including the disgraceful use of Barry Bennell as a witness
Harris s performing chimp, the obsessed Ian Herbert tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth in his twitter account this pm. Facts are a mere irritation to Herbert when it comes to City
Edit: unless I'm misreading your post?
It was sarcasm about the return of Herbert to his favoured lamp post. I suspect as a witness in the trial Harris is debarred from comment so spoke through HerbertNo it wasn't, since they refused the scheme set up by City and continued with their claim independently it had to be handed off to the insurers. The insurers run the show after that and have no say so whatsoever.
Edit: unless I'm misreading your post?
No it wasn't, since they refused the scheme set up by City and continued with their claim independently it had to be handed off to the insurers. The insurers run the show after that and have no say so whatsoever.
Edit: unless I'm misreading your post?
I think the poster you've responded to is reporting what Ian Herbert wrote in his column, but is disagreeing with it. Stefan from the 93:20 pod (@slbsn on Twitter) has responded elegantly to Herbert pointing out that City, in the circumstances, will have been unable to stop Bennell being called if the insurers instructed their (not City's) lawyers that he should be. Needless to say, Herbert has thus far failed to respond. I suppose he still might, but I won't hold my breath.
Incidentally, a Blue who's an experienced employment lawyer and partner at a major law firm inquired of The Athletic's Danny Taylor on Monday if Taylor knew why the claimants had pursued their case rather than having recourse to the scheme given the clear evidential difficulties with establishing vicarious liability. (Remember that vicarious liability is an important issue in certain classes of employment dispute, so we can expect the City fan, as a practitioner in that field, to be something of an authority on the topic). Again, there's been no response from the journalist in question.
Now, Taylor, though I took issue to some degree with his last piece on the Bennell trial in November, has done a great job exposing child sexual abuse in football and is clearly a good-faith actor (in contrast with what I suspect Herbert to be here). I expected, therefore, that I'd see a piece by Taylor in The Athletic summing up the trial once judgment was given. However, he tweeted the outcome just after 10 am UK time on Monday and has made no further comment in the best part of three full working days that have elapsed since then.
It strikes me as a little odd that he's produced nothing throughout a period, albeit short, the judgment has ceased to have prominence in news bulletins. I know he's close to the claimants and they don't seem to have objected to views being put forward on their behalf given that their solicitor was obviously willing to give media interviews on Monday afternoon. I also don't see how a piece stating that the claimants are distraught by the outcome and wish to appeal if they can - no doubt the thrust of what he'd write - could possibly compromise any potential appeal.
It all seems a bit uncharacteristic given Taylor's approach over the last several years to, and admittedly splendid work concerning, the scandals of Bennell's conduct and that of others more widely across football. Maybe there's a reason, but it eludes me. (Now I've written this, he'll probably publish something imminently).