Dev - I really refuse to get drawn into the semantics of it all. But you're correct in that there seem to be an inordinate amount of Rangers fans with an almost enclyopedic knowledge of the child abuse scandal at Celtic. Frankly I find it almost incomprehensible that anyone cares that much about their rivals in football that they'd use this sort of thing as point scoring. I have no problem with any Bears who make jokes about it as humour a a totally different animal to reasoned debate. The point in humour is generally to amuse, but some of the sad, bigoted ****s on here are so ill-informed but angry at the same time they'll use any old stick to win their argument with. I put it down to an inability to fully express their feelings with any kind of honesty so trot out ****e like BJK and The Famine Song. Celtic fans are just as guilty of this. Using a painful past memory is the first resort of the idiotic to win a debate and the Old Firm have more idiotic fans than anyone else..
Yes, call me sad, water aff a ducks to be honest, but I know one thing and you all know it as well but can't face the truth.......... " Big Jock Knew " please log in to view this image
Rocket - I don't think you actually care about it though. You just use it as a way of getting a reaction. If I thought you were actually hateful rather than just a ****-wit then you'd annoy me, as it stands I find you to be a harmless but quite annoying ****. You're more of a mosquito bite than an aggressive cancer. A wee bit of Savlon sorts out minor irritations
Rocket and the truth are about as close to each other as the KKK and the Black Panthers. He's just a daft, docile old Hun.
Big Jock " SUSPECTED " I swear I was ****in horizontal when I read that one!!!! Give it up bhoys - you know he knew.
Here's the damning statement from Mr Birt: Mr Birt said when he became president of the Celtic Boys' Club in 1974 the first thing Mr Stein said to him was to ''keep the image of Celtic clean''. That proves he knew.
Seeing as how we have reached the point where it is glaringly obvious that there is NO EVIDENCE I thought it only right and proper to cock a snook and remind them just whose name they mock. The reason that his name was used is that Jock symbolising all that is great about Celtic, that's why he was picked as their target, insult him and you insult Celtic and all right minded people. That was the plan all along, by abusing his memory they hope to gain maximum outrage, the worst of them get their kicks by laughing at the anger exhibited towards it. As I said it's very sad and the logo is merely reminding us of the truth, they will always be in his shadow and it grates so much that they had to do something to try and bring him down. Anything.
Hmmm - let's be generous and say that you are being a tad economical with the truth here. That one man - Hugh Birt - gave evidence in Court that: " after he became president in 1974, Celtic legend Jock Stein told him he had kicked Torbett out the door. He said the matter was all ''covered up'' by Celtic as to why Torbett was put out. Mr Birt said that when Torbett returned to the boys club a few years later as a fund raiser the allegations about him started up again. He claimed he took them to Mr Stein, and told Celtic vice chairman Kevin Kelly about them but nothing was ever done. Mr Birt said when he became president of the Celtic Boys' Club in 1974 the first thing Mr Stein said to him was to ''keep the image of Celtic clean''. You then go on to quote the denials of Celtic directors - do I need to point out that they would be bound to deny these allegations, firstly because they damage the reputation of the Club they are Directors of and secondly that to endorse these allegations would draw attention to their own culpability in the cover-up..? Oh, and not to mention the fact that one of the Directors issuing these denials was also a Director of the accused's Trophy Centre business. Definitely no conflict of interest there eh..? Oh, and of course let's not forget the denials of the accused himself. Should we also mention the fact that he denied the sexual abuse allegations he faced and was found guilty of..? A very credible witness I'm sure. How strange that you didn't manage to find reports on the evidence given by Billy McNeill, who described the child Abuse at Celtic Park as an "open secret". http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport...ein-was-involved-in-20-year-cover-up-1.319116 Which only goes to highlight the depravity and bitterness of your average yahoo.. Denied by others with a vested interest in denying it - one of whom was subsequently found guilty of other allegations which he also denied.. People get convicted without 'concrete' evidence every day. The balance of probability says that he knew. Balance of probability can gain a conviction, that's a fact.
Gotta love the logic that if the only proof is one person's word against another's then there is no proof.. Stating the bleedin' obvious here, Torbett was convicted of *****philia without 'physical' (no pun intended) evidence. No one seems to doubt the veracity of the victims evidence so why the doubt about Hugh Birt's - the only man in that Court who didn't have a vested interest in protecting the reputation of Celtic Football Club..? Oh, look at that, a question asked and answered in the same sentence..
All I see is opinion, your opinion. Like arseholes, everyone has one. It doesn't prove anything. One man's word, one man who in all probability had a grudge against a team who sacked him. Like Dev said, the only people who knew for sure were the ones who were there. Jock Stein wasn't there. One of the victims said Jock Stein wasn't involved - was he lying? Did he have an agenda? You also said the ones who denied it were bound to - or it could possibly be the truth? Did that ever cross your mind? If you've any hard facts to prove to the contrary, I'll happily read over them with an open mind.
Obfuscate, Deflect and Deny - it's the Celtic way. But you're right about one thing, the shadow of a man who protected a *****phile to protect the organisation he himself worked for is a long - and dark - shadow indeed..
Where's your proof? As far as I know, to be found guilty of something, there has to be some sort of proof. Where is it? All I see is one man's statement, which is refuted by others.
