Recidivist3
Well-known member
Blackpool FC fights £19k damages order over sex abuse of boy
The club says a coach who abused a boy in 1987 was a "free agent" rather than a regular employee.
www.bbc.co.uk
Oyston took over in 87.I would have thought it was the previous owners at that time who were liable.
No - the company is liable irrespective of who the shareholders are.I would have thought it was the previous owners at that time who were liable.
It’s 20k for a victim of child abuse.Where is this bottomless moneypit you can see?
Great spending other people’s money isn’t it. Why don’t you pay it?Just pay it.
I know, but why should the club pay.
There will be no one at the club now who was around when it happened.
by "just paying it" the club would be admitting it's guilt. I think the situation is a bit more complex than "just paying it".
He was a independent contractor who the club had no control over. And as 20’s said, by “just paying it” is an admission of guilt or at least admitting some culpability.Because that’s how the law works. I suppose the Canadian government, in response to the discovery of mass graves from the genocide of indigenous people, should just say ‘well it wasn’t us’?
what? I think my point is perfectly valid.Are you related to “Dr Evil”
It's got fuck all to do with the current regime.Not what we need
He was a independent contractor who the club had no control over. And as 20’s said, by “just paying it” is an admission of guilt or at least admitting some culpability.
You didn't answer my previous question regarding your comment. And why would the club fight the order if it was only interested in doing the right thing? Like I said it's perhaps a bit more complex than just paying it. You seem to struggle with that.It’s an admission of guilt from the club regarding its previous ownership and a clear sign that the current ownership is only interested in doing the right thing.
So do I.what? I think my point is perfectly valid.
Alf, why don't you pay it?
You didn't answer my previous question regarding your comment. And why would the club fight the order if it was only interested in doing the right thing? Like I said it's perhaps a bit more complex than just paying it. You seem to struggle with that.
no claws out at all. I made a perfectly valid comment to which you replied with an abusive one. And it seems the majority share my pov too.Just have no interest discussing things with you when you’ve got your claws out mate
no claws out at all. I made a perfectly valid comment to which you replied with an abusive one. And it seems the majority share my pov too.
Until the next one sues and the next one.Guys, a young lad was abused and the club as the legal entity is liable. It’s a civil matter and the club can settle without any admission of guilt. In the circumstances and the relatively small amount, I feel the appeal is not the way to go, and it’s likely to attract more attention.