Paedophilia within the game/City launch redress scheme

[Mike Cledford]

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.



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,

 

[Mike Cledford]

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.



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.

Sorry made phone-assisted cock up of replying.

 

[City Raider]

Surely they are looking to settle? As despicable as the whole thing is, I would imagine it will be difficult to rule against us, and why would they want to relive it in such a public arena. I feel sorry they have to go through all of this again.

 

[CC1]

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.



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.

this whole issue was heart wrenching. I don’t know the details of this latest development but is there a 3rd possibility? Are these genuine claimants who might not “qualify” for the help & assistance City have put in place - or is it possible they are evil scroats jumping on a bandwagon? It’s odd that that monster is being called as a witness so it must be a serious situation.
I genuinely don’t know but if they are genuine they should get the assistance the same as everyone else.

are we the only club that are offering decent help?

 

[Fred_Quimby]

I was under the impression that our review scheme was very generous and wholehearted and very widespread. The only reason I can figure this happening is that they want more. I could be wrong but that is the way it looks.

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

The worse part was the **** marrying the abuseds sister!! Fuck me how could anyone do that to a family?

Inch, goodness knows. It’s little solace but a few years back I was doing some work for HM Prisons. I was given a tour of several establishments of different categories, A through C. In the ones with blocks or wings (or in the case of Cardiff Prison I recall) the old cellars of the castle, were the nonces and the pervs. I asked one who was loitering about how much time he could spend outside In the open air. He said that he never ventured outside as he would be seriously assaulted by the other mainstream inmates. Made me feel a lot better. Strangeways and Styal were the most frightening.

 

[petrusha]

this whole issue was heart wrenching. I don’t know the details of this latest development but is there a 3rd possibility? Are these genuine claimants who might not “qualify” for the help & assistance City have put in place - or is it possible they are evil scroats jumping on a bandwagon? It’s odd that that monster is being called as a witness so it must be a serious situation.
I genuinely don’t know but if they are genuine they should get the assistance the same as everyone else.

are we the only club that are offering decent help?

I haven't read of another club implementing a scheme like we have here. I'm abroad, though, and only generally follow football news with respect to City, so there may be something I've missed about someone else doing something similar.

With this type of scheme, there's always a risk that, when it becomes clear that quite large payouts will be in the offing, dishonest claims might follow. The schemes I was involved in overseeing attracted quite large numbers of fraudulent applications.

However, I think the solicitor acting for the eight claimants in this action is this guy: Dino Nocivelli | Partner in the Abuse Team | Bolt Burdon Kemp. He's experienced in the field and, as far as I know, he has a good reputation, so he wouldn't knowingly pursue a false claim and I suspect he's unlikely to have been tricked by a con-artist.

I'll therefore assume that the claimants are acting in good faith until it's proven otherwise. Even if they lost the case, that wouldn't be proof that they were lying.

 

[CC1]

I haven't read of another club implementing a scheme like we have here. I'm abroad, though, and only generally follow football news with respect to City, so there may be something I've missed about someone else doing something similar.

With this type of scheme, there's always a risk that, when it becomes clear that quite large payouts will be in the offing, dishonest claims might follow. The schemes I was involved in overseeing attracted quite large numbers of fraudulent applications.

However, I think the solicitor acting for the eight claimants in this action is this guy: Dino Nocivelli | Partner in the Abuse Team | Bolt Burdon Kemp. He's experienced in the field and, as far as I know, he has a good reputation, so he wouldn't knowingly pursue a false claim and I suspect he's unlikely to have been tricked by a con-artist.

I'll therefore assume that the claimants are acting in good faith until it's proven otherwise. Even if they lost the case, that wouldn't be proof that they were lying.

Let’s hope it works out for them. They deserve all the help available

 

[gingerprince]

High Court Case reported in Daily Mail this evening

 

[cleavers]

High Court Case reported in Daily Mail this evening

On bbc site too.