Paedophilia within the game/City launch redress scheme

[Centurions]

Watched the 2nd episode of 'Footballs Darkest Secret' and it doesn't get any easier. I would love to know the thoughts of the two women who were linking arms with Bob Higgins when he came out of court the first time after being found not guilty. They were all happy clappy with him telling everybody that he'll see them all at the next trial. They decided that 6 separate trials were the way to go with the one most likely to succeed first, when that one wasn't a success they scrapped the others and reapplied for prosecution. Successfully this time. (Apologies if that's not exactly right but there's so much to try and wrap your head around).

I've got very little previous knowledge and absolutely no personal experience of sexual abuse so have been reading up more on it, although the wife may make me stop shortly as she thinks it's making me depressed.

For anyone like myself who thinks this is mainly about Crewe & City being involved with the odd other club mentioned there's an article in Wikipedia:-

United Kingdom football sexual abuse scandal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

which has a (very) shortened list of some of the accused in it but towards the bottom it lists the numbers involved and how they grew, up until June 2018 when it was last updated.

In July 2018, police figures were reported to have identified 300 suspects, 849 alleged victims, and 2,807 incidents involving 340 different clubs.[228]

This is in football only don't forget. The world can be a very dark place.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Who's our fucking legal team? Whoever it is, I think the PR team should get onto them pronto.

Barry Bennell: Convicted paedophile could give evidence on behalf of Man City​

Convicted paedophile Barry Bennell could give evidence as a witness in Manchester City's defence against a civil claim brought by eight men sexually abused by the former coach.

Bennell is serving a 34-year jail term for abusing boys between 1979 and 1991 while at Crewe and Manchester City.

The claimants' barrister James Counsell QC said it was an "extraordinary decision" for City's lawyers to call Bennell as a witness.

City have denied being "vicariously liable" for the abuse committed by Bennell, Mr Counsell said.

 

[paulchapo]

Who's our fucking legal team? Whoever it is, I think the PR team should get onto them pronto.

It doesn't look good does it? The thing is from a legal viewpoint this isn't the Manchester City it was back then. Totally new ownership so I don't see how they can be held responsible now?I think we set out a compensation fund for the victims because of this too. It's a very sensitive issue.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

It doesn't look good does it? The thing is from a legal viewpoint this isn't the Manchester City it was back then. Totally new ownership so I don't see how they can be held responsible now?I think we set out a compensation fund for the victims because of this too. It's a very sensitive issue.

When you take over a company you inherit previous litigation liabilities.

Usually you will want the previous owners to declare known litigation risks and indemnify you against an unknowns but it is usually contractually time limited and we can't exactly rely on Thaksin or owners before him to pick up the liability by suing further up the chain.

I've got nothing wrong with the headline used, it's not sympathetic to us, but it is factually true.

 

[paulchapo]

When you take over a company you inherit previous litigation liabilities.

Usually you will want the previous owners to declare known litigation risks and indemnify you against an unknowns but it is usually contractually time limited and we can't exactly rely on Thaksin or owners before him to pick up the liability by suing further up the chain.

I've got nothing wrong with the headline used, it's not sympathetic to us, but it is factually true.

Yes agree.

 

[petrusha]

Stand to be corrected, but I believe that City have put these claims in the hands of the club's insurers. As a result, it's the insurers and their lawyers who have conduct of the legal proceedings even though City are officially the defendant. The same happens if you're in a car accident, the other party sues you, and you're covered by your motor insurance.

It's ultimately the insurance company's lawyers who've decided to call Bennell as a witness. City aren't happy about it, but having handed over conduct of the claims under the insurance contract, they aren't able to stop it.

 

[Millwallawayveteran1988]

Not been the finest week for PR for us!

 

[Newman Noggs]

Stand to be corrected, but I believe that City have put these claims in the hands of the club's insurers. As a result, it's the insurers and their lawyers who have conduct of the legal proceedings even though City are officially the defendant. The same happens if you're in a car accident, the other party sues you, and you're covered by your motor insurance.

It's ultimately the insurance company's lawyers who've decided to call Bennell as a witness. City aren't happy about it, but having handed over conduct of the claims under the insurance contract, they aren't able to stop it.

Whatever the truth, it seems a bizarre decision to me. Can you imagine the Judge's summing up "...and it seems to me that Mr Bennell is a most reliable witness whose evidence under cross-examination was most persuasive" ?

 

[M18CTID]

Obviously it looks bad calling Bennell as a witness, although as @petrusha suggests that probably has nothing to do with City, but am I missing something here? I thought City had set up a redress scheme for all the victims so why the need for anyone to take this to court?

 

[petrusha]

Whatever the truth, it seems a bizarre decision to me. Can you imagine the Judge's summing up "...and it seems to me that Mr Bennell is a most reliable witness whose evidence under cross-examination was most persuasive" ?

Yes, exactly. Then there's a fact that you can never be sure what a proven liar such as Bennell will say when he gets in the witness box anyway. He might have told the lawyers acting for the party calling him that he'll say one thing, but it's not unknown for such people to say something completely different when they actually give evidence. Slightly surprised that the insurers' lawyers are taking the chance, though of course I'm making that assessment with no knowledge of the circumstances that have led them to do so.

Obviously it looks bad calling Bennell as a witness, although as @petrusha suggests that probably has nothing to do with City, but am I missing something here? I thought City had set up a redress scheme for all the victims so why the need for anyone to take this to court?

There are two possibilities here:

firstly, the claimants in this case may fall outside the scope of the scheme that City have set up but they consider that they're still entitled to compensation, and there's a dispute in relation to whether they actually are or to the amount they're claiming; or

secondly, they may have been made an offer under the scheme and decided not to accept it, in which case the scheme can't prevent them from litigating to seek to recover whatever better settlement they think they may be entitled to.

With regard to the latter, in the distant past as a government lawyer, I was responsible for overseeing two very large schemes that operated along similar lines for former employees of a nationalised industry who'd suffered industrial diseases as a result of their work. Rejecting an offer under one of the schemes was invariably an ill-advised course of action, but one that people were perfectly entitled to take if they wished. FWIW, I suspect that the same is true here.