O
Odd Son Edward
Guest
Putting the pain and suffering of Torbett's victims to the side for a moment; the claims of the solicitor representing at least one of the victims states that the Club has a vicarious responsibility to accept blame and as such compensate the victims. And if not, he'll be going to court.
As it will be a civil case, the finding will be based on the balance of probability. So let's look at the arrangements of CFC and CBC.
Two seperate entities. However, the latter was supported by the former to an extent. That is transparent. But is CFC vicariously responsible? No more than the headteacher who supports the local BB group by allowing them free use of the gym hall for Brigade nights and subsequent related functions.
Or the priest who allows the parish hall to be used for the Brownies and encourages the young of the parish to join via weekly announcements.
Neither the school head, Education Authority, parish priest or diocese is responsible for any crimes perpetrated by those in charge.
The support provided was given in the trust and confidence that the individuals concerned were fulfilling their duties honestly and not for a clandestine criminal purpose.
Nowadays, one would expect a supporting organisation to conduct a degree of due diligence, e.g. Disclosure Checks to confirm the trustworthiness of those seeking their support. But vicarious responsibility for their actions - away and bile yer heid. This was in an era where no such checks and balances existed.
Similarly CFC are reputationally victims of Torbett also. By allowing him use of the Celtic name, colours and providing various financial assistance and other supporting mechanisms - the club did so on the trust and understanding that Torbett was an honest and trustworthy individual doing a service for the community. His crimes have also exploded in the face of CFC. But responsible in anyway for his sickening crimes CFC is not.
A McDonalds branch franchise in Glasgow supports a youth football team via sponsorship providing strips and related funds. Is that McDonalds franchise or the McDonalds brand responsible for anything the coaches do?
Unfortunately, we live in a society of ambulance chasers. A Glasgow based solicitors (DB) directors being amongst the highest paid earners in the UK. Don't think for a second these unscrupulous lawyers intentions are victim centred. This is just about making money. The larger the compensation, the larger the fee and commission.
So unfortunately, the focus looks as if it will move from the despicable perpetrator and shift squarely and unfairly onto our beloved CFC.
In the modern blame culture, it is not anticipated that the actual perpetrator has significant finances at his disposal in order to pursue a civil compensation action. But CFC a victim by proxy, does.
Despicable in every sense both for CFC and the unfortunate victims.
That reminds me there are independent Celtic soccer clubs in operation througout the world. CFC allows elements of the brand such as the badge and strip to be used, and assists in other ways by endorsing and sponsoring events and even by providing hospitality. But does that mean CFC is vicariously responsible for any sins which may be committed by those running these organisations. Absolutely not.
As I stated earlier; the club undertakes a degree of due diligence now, much the same way companies do with their supplier chains. If it unwittingly comes to light that for example a supplier is involved in child labour exploitation, yes there will be a degree of blow back on the client company. But if it acted responsibly and took necessary steps to conduct due diligence, acted to bring pressure on the supplier and to disassociate with said supplier then, there is not much else it can do.
Celtic Football Club was duped by this vile individual and no doubt there is regret for the support provided by the club to CBC. But were Torbet's crimes foreseeable? Was CFC complicit? Did CFC create and support the platform for the disgusting purpose it was used? Not in any way.
And who will be the winners at the end? Regardless of any future developments, it won't be the victims or Celtic. What measures can be put in place to prevent this from happening in the future. Very little as there are already competent checks and balances in place and legislation to minimise these risks.
So ultimately, who will the winners be? Yes, the ambulance chasing solicitors. I hope they can sleep well at night. But of course they will. They are soliicitors after all.
As it will be a civil case, the finding will be based on the balance of probability. So let's look at the arrangements of CFC and CBC.
Two seperate entities. However, the latter was supported by the former to an extent. That is transparent. But is CFC vicariously responsible? No more than the headteacher who supports the local BB group by allowing them free use of the gym hall for Brigade nights and subsequent related functions.
Or the priest who allows the parish hall to be used for the Brownies and encourages the young of the parish to join via weekly announcements.
Neither the school head, Education Authority, parish priest or diocese is responsible for any crimes perpetrated by those in charge.
The support provided was given in the trust and confidence that the individuals concerned were fulfilling their duties honestly and not for a clandestine criminal purpose.
Nowadays, one would expect a supporting organisation to conduct a degree of due diligence, e.g. Disclosure Checks to confirm the trustworthiness of those seeking their support. But vicarious responsibility for their actions - away and bile yer heid. This was in an era where no such checks and balances existed.
Similarly CFC are reputationally victims of Torbett also. By allowing him use of the Celtic name, colours and providing various financial assistance and other supporting mechanisms - the club did so on the trust and understanding that Torbett was an honest and trustworthy individual doing a service for the community. His crimes have also exploded in the face of CFC. But responsible in anyway for his sickening crimes CFC is not.
A McDonalds branch franchise in Glasgow supports a youth football team via sponsorship providing strips and related funds. Is that McDonalds franchise or the McDonalds brand responsible for anything the coaches do?
Unfortunately, we live in a society of ambulance chasers. A Glasgow based solicitors (DB) directors being amongst the highest paid earners in the UK. Don't think for a second these unscrupulous lawyers intentions are victim centred. This is just about making money. The larger the compensation, the larger the fee and commission.
So unfortunately, the focus looks as if it will move from the despicable perpetrator and shift squarely and unfairly onto our beloved CFC.
In the modern blame culture, it is not anticipated that the actual perpetrator has significant finances at his disposal in order to pursue a civil compensation action. But CFC a victim by proxy, does.
Despicable in every sense both for CFC and the unfortunate victims.
That reminds me there are independent Celtic soccer clubs in operation througout the world. CFC allows elements of the brand such as the badge and strip to be used, and assists in other ways by endorsing and sponsoring events and even by providing hospitality. But does that mean CFC is vicariously responsible for any sins which may be committed by those running these organisations. Absolutely not.
As I stated earlier; the club undertakes a degree of due diligence now, much the same way companies do with their supplier chains. If it unwittingly comes to light that for example a supplier is involved in child labour exploitation, yes there will be a degree of blow back on the client company. But if it acted responsibly and took necessary steps to conduct due diligence, acted to bring pressure on the supplier and to disassociate with said supplier then, there is not much else it can do.
Celtic Football Club was duped by this vile individual and no doubt there is regret for the support provided by the club to CBC. But were Torbet's crimes foreseeable? Was CFC complicit? Did CFC create and support the platform for the disgusting purpose it was used? Not in any way.
And who will be the winners at the end? Regardless of any future developments, it won't be the victims or Celtic. What measures can be put in place to prevent this from happening in the future. Very little as there are already competent checks and balances in place and legislation to minimise these risks.
So ultimately, who will the winners be? Yes, the ambulance chasing solicitors. I hope they can sleep well at night. But of course they will. They are soliicitors after all.
Last edited by a moderator: