Rangers v Celtic

After a triple post meltdown, Mindy now wants us to believe he’s not employed as a toilet clerk in Greenock McDonald scraping junkie **** off of the karzis, but is in fact, PM a for a multi million pound outfit

Never change, Mindy. Never change.

 

You've been so engrossed by this conversation you forgot to log in as yermaw.

Say this multi million pound outfit I work for is **** Cleaners R Us and we are contracted by McDonald's.

I'm not employed by McDonald's even though I've their mop and funny hat.

 

Talking about McDonald's...

 

Yes it is telling.

Thomson solicitors didn't need Torbett's tax records because they already had a mountain of evidence proving Celtic, Torbett, Cairney etc etc etc and Celtic boys club are intrinsically linked.

Where as Celtic’s lawyers tried to get the class action case halted because the papers showing they weren't were "lost". So they have hail Mary'd on his tax records hoping to find a smoking gun but it's more likely that Thomson solicitors will be furnished with even more evidence that supports their case.

 

So instead of going for irrefutable proof that Celtic EMPLOYED Torbett Thompsons are going all in on what? Charity functions?

Torbett being employed by Celtic would be the smoking gun for Thompsons.

Celtic promoting a charity they help in their fanzine isn't.

Judge: "Why do Celtic have such close links to CBC ?"

Roddy Doyle: "It's a charity Celtic were proud to help"

Judge "oh aye that's completely reasonable"

 

What do you mean instead of going for irrefutable proof? They obviously thought they already have irrefutable proof or they wouldn't have brought the case.

They seem quite confident tbf.

It's Celtic’s lawyers who tried to get it shut down because of lost evidence and no chance of a fair trial.

That doesn't smack of a confident defence does it?

So Thomson's obviously didn't need the extra expense of seeking an injunction to have his tax records released or the hundreds of man hours needed to sift through them. Celtic lawyers felt the need but now have disclosure issues where Thomsons will see all those records and it didn't cost them a penny.

Why do you think it took Celtic’s lawyers so long into the proceedings to request those records if they knew there would be irrefutable proof in there that Torbett wasn't intrinsically linked to Celtic. Why didn't they get them straight away and have the case stopped before it began instead of claiming to have lost evidence and they wouldn't get a fair trial?

I think you're clutching here mate.

 

Thompsons are the ones constantly asking Celtic to drop their defense so I'm not sure they sound confident at all.

These are early steps for Celtic, first try and stop the case before proceeding for approval to search tax records.

I believe you are clutching at straws if you think a case hinging on responsibility doesn't require something that shows irrefutable proof Celtic were responsible.

Wouldn't costs be covered after such a "confident" win anyway?

 

Thank god Thompsons are no win no fee because if I was paying them I'd be demanding they get the tax records

 

The case isn't about Celtic employing Torbett. The case is about Celtic being intrinsically linked to Celtic boys club and therefore liable for what Torbett and others did there. Torbett wasn't even at Celtic boys club for a number of year after Big Jock booted him out. Thomsons don't need to prove that any of them were directly employed by Celtic.

The proof of that link was and is, overwhelming.

 

No mate it's not about links. It's about legal responsibility.

Everybody can be linked ffs

 

It's absolutely about links. Celtic’s whole defence is that they were an entirely separate entity with no say in what happened at CBC.

The pursuers say that CFC and CBC were intrinsically linked. CFC benefited from those links, had a controlling hand in it and as such are vicariously liable for what happened there.

 

"Vicarious Liability is a rule of law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees"

I refer back to the tax records.

 

It’ll all come out in the wash as they say

they also say worse things happen at sea

 

No it's not. That's just the basic legal expression you've posted there. It goes much further than that very narrow meaning.

An example.

https://www.moores.com.au/news/hist...lity-extends-beyond-employment-relationships/

 

That's a stretch

A Parish tried to pass off one of its priests as not an employee

Yeah the Bishop was his boss, the church were at it.

 

You’ve only gone and forgot to log out and log in using the @Drew log in

@mindy

 

'Mon the Wee Toon

 

Hope those fields are soft

 

.