Paedophilia within the game/City launch redress scheme

[deano ou812]

Awful what has happened to those abused,rightly so they should also be compensated but it stinks in a way that lawyers can see what it really is all about not redress or closure or renumeration for the years of trauma for the abused in this ,but what these greedy cnuts can get out of it for themselves ..

 

[Bozzie]

It's an incredibly emotive subject and it's even difficult to find the right words to correctly convey your thoughts when posting on this thread. Even allowing for some bias I believe the club have attempted to deal with a very difficult situation with as much transparency and compassion as possible. Against that, it's impossible to know whether you would think the same if you were unfortunate enough to have been personally involved at the time.
The current case is so complicated because so much of it is unknown. Would any of those eight lads have gone on to reach the elite level? Who can possibly say and, logically, they wouldn't have all achieved the same level of success in the game so does the court have to assess the potential losses on an individual basis? Having played in the mid 70's with, and against, lads who were expected to make it and didn't and those who weren't expected to make it and did I wouldn't know where you begin to start with that assessment.
Whatever the reality at the time, City are 'linked' with Bennell but, as distressing as it must be for the victims to hear him in court, before they refused to be part of the redress scheme they must have been advised of the direction that would lead them. Once they stepped outside the boundaries of City's offer and into the unquantifiable then the only way there could ever be resolution was through the courts and all the distress that would inevitably bring.

 

[petrusha]

It's an incredibly emotive subject and it's even difficult to find the right words to correctly convey your thoughts when posting on this thread. Even allowing for some bias I believe the club have attempted to deal with a very difficult situation with as much transparency and compassion as possible. Against that, it's impossible to know whether you would think the same if you were unfortunate enough to have been personally involved at the time.
The current case is so complicated because so much of it is unknown. Would any of those eight lads have gone on to reach the elite level? Who can possibly say and, logically, they wouldn't have all achieved the same level of success in the game so does the court have to assess the potential losses on an individual basis? Having played in the mid 70's with, and against, lads who were expected to make it and didn't and those who weren't expected to make it and did I wouldn't know where you begin to start with that assessment.
Whatever the reality at the time, City are 'linked' with Bennell but, as distressing as it must be for the victims to hear him in court, before they refused to be part of the redress scheme they must have been advised of the direction that would lead them. Once they stepped outside the boundaries of City's offer and into the unquantifiable then the only way there could ever be resolution was through the courts and all the distress that would inevitably bring.

I agree with everything you've said there.

 

[warpig]

I think it’s a disgusting, misleading article in the Athletic. I’ve been meaning to cancel my subscription for a while but that article has inspired me to do it today.

If it’s any consolation, I don’t think many people will be reading it.

 

[Centurions]

Awful what has happened to those abused,rightly so they should also be compensated but it stinks in a way that lawyers can see what it really is all about not redress or closure or renumeration for the years of trauma for the abused in this ,but what these greedy cnuts can get out of it for themselves ..

To be fair, no one on here knows (or is saying) who's decision it was to refuse City's offer or even what it was. Bennell actually claims that he didn't abuse 4 out of the 8 guys involved here which further muddies the water, best to let the courts get on with it rather than throwing blame about.

 

[paulchapo]

To be fair, no one on here knows (or is saying) who's decision it was to refuse City's offer or even what it was. Bennell actually claims that he didn't abuse 4 out of the 8 guys involved here which further muddies the water, best to let the courts get on with it rather than throwing blame about.

I wouldn't believe a word Bennell says. He's an abuser who gets off on the power and thrill that brings such people. He's stuck in prison and hopefully dies there, refuting their claims will give him joy, he's abusing them all over again.

 

[asahartford1]

To be fair, no one on here knows (or is saying) who's decision it was to refuse City's offer or even what it was. Bennell actually claims that he didn't abuse 4 out of the 8 guys involved here which further muddies the water, best to let the courts get on with it rather than throwing blame about.

The financial compensation for the abuse they are claiming was substantial.
It is the individual survivor who has decided to go down a different road.
The solicitors City employed were incredibly experienced and were completely independent.
Closure is the important outcome not cash , the club have been brilliant.
Only those survivors know their true experience .

 

[ChicagoBlue]

City commissioned a review conducted under the leadership of barrister Jane Mulcahy QC to "understand whether, and if so how, the Club was used by Barry Bennell or any other individual to facilitate alleged sexual abuse of children from the early 1960s to the present day". Mulcahy's report was placed on the official club website in March of this year, but currently seems to be unavailable, no doubt because its availability could potentially prejudice the current proceedings.

My recollection is that the report found no grounds to suspect any relationship or connection between Broome and Bennell. The former was involved at City between the late sixties until 1971 or 1972. As I remember, after receiving complaints about him, City bombed him out of the club - but didn't report him to the authorities, which left him free to use other routes to inveigle himself into youth football in the Manchester area and commit abuse there, too.

There was also a third abuser identified, in the early 1990s, called Bill Toner. He claimed to be a City scout, but the club could find no evidence of him having had any formal or semi-formal role at the club, only that he once tried to get us to take on a youth prospect he'd identified. Toner was jailed in 2018 but his prison term, even if he served it in full, will have ended now: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-44902753. Again, there was no reason to suspect any links with Broome or Bennell.

Incidentally, as far as the timing is concerned in the current Bennell civil proceedings, Daniel Taylor wrote this on 22 October:



That means it's currently in its sixth week. "Considerably longer" is a rather vague phrase, but I'd suspect another couple of weeks at a minimum.

EDIT:

Daniel Taylor has another report in The Athletic today, this time about Bennell giving evidence yesterday. I won't produce the whole piece on here, as the forum's Code of Conduct prohibits this for copyright reasons. However, the link is here for anyone with a subscription:

Meanwhile, here's an extract for those who may be interested:

Thank you for the excellent reply!

 

[PinkFinal]

Eight men who sued Manchester City after saying they were abused by paedophile Barry Bennell more than 30 years ago have lost a High Court fight.
The men said he abused them when they played for teams he coached in north-west England between 1979 and 1985.
Mr Justice Johnson ruled that it had not been shown that City was "legally responsible for Bennell's acts of abuse".
The lawyer who represented the men said they were "shocked and dismayed".
The men, now in their 40s and 50s, claimed Bennell was a scout for City when they were abused and argued the relationship between the paedophile and the club was "one of employment or one akin to employment".
City told the court Bennell, 68, was a local scout in the mid-1970s but not when the men were abused.
Bennell, who is in prison after being convicted of numerous sexual offences against children in recent years, denied being linked to City during the 1980s when he gave evidence during the High Court trial.
Mr Justice Johnson said: "The connection between the abuse and Bennell's relationship with MCFC is insufficient to give rise to vicarious liability.
"The relationship gave Bennell the opportunity to commit the abuse, but MCFC had not entrusted the welfare of the claimants to Bennell.
"It follows that it has not been shown that MCFC is legally responsible for Bennell's acts of abuse."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-59934051

 

[HelloCity]

Eight men who sued Manchester City after saying they were abused by paedophile Barry Bennell more than 30 years ago have lost a High Court fight.
The men said he abused them when they played for teams he coached in north-west England between 1979 and 1985.
Mr Justice Johnson ruled that it had not been shown that City was "legally responsible for Bennell's acts of abuse".
The lawyer who represented the men said they were "shocked and dismayed".
The men, now in their 40s and 50s, claimed Bennell was a scout for City when they were abused and argued the relationship between the paedophile and the club was "one of employment or one akin to employment".
City told the court Bennell, 68, was a local scout in the mid-1970s but not when the men were abused.
Bennell, who is in prison after being convicted of numerous sexual offences against children in recent years, denied being linked to City during the 1980s when he gave evidence during the High Court trial.
Mr Justice Johnson said: "The connection between the abuse and Bennell's relationship with MCFC is insufficient to give rise to vicarious liability.
"The relationship gave Bennell the opportunity to commit the abuse, but MCFC had not entrusted the welfare of the claimants to Bennell.
"It follows that it has not been shown that MCFC is legally responsible for Bennell's acts of abuse."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-59934051