UK High Court ruled today that the Catholic Church 'liable' over priests' actions

the culture of deference

Great news, this will rock the church.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1108/breaking31.html





The High Court ruled today that the Catholic Church can be held liable for the wrongdoings of its priests.


A judge in London announced his decision in a case which has been described as being “an issue of wide general importance in respect of claims against the Catholic Church”.


Although the point to be decided arose in a damages action over alleged sex abuse by a priest, it is understood that the decision will affect other types of claims made against the Church.


a 47-year-old woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, who claims she was sexually assaulted as a child by the late Fr Wilfred Baldwin, a priest of the Portsmouth Diocese, at a children’s home in Hampshire run by an order of nuns.


Giving his decision on a preliminary issue in her damages action the judge held that, in law, the Church “may be vicariously liable” for Father Baldwin’s alleged wrongdoings.

the culture of deference

Will anyone take a test case here now, with precedence set in an EEC European country.

mcmoustache

Paging The Quadratic Equasion, yutta, ISAW, gimmebroadband, Keaton etc to AH.

The One True Church(TM) is being bashed for abusing kids again and it needs The Defenders of the Indefensible.

Go Defenders!

the culture of deference

mcmoustache wrote: »

Paging The Quadratic Equasion, yutta, ISAW, gimmebroadband, Keaton etc to AH.

The One True Church(TM) is being bashed for abusing kids again and it needs The Defenders of the Indefensible.

Go Defenders!

The legal profession in the UK must be wetting themselves with excitement. The assets owned by the church are off any scale. They are the wealthiest organisation on the planet.

Can just see the ads on ITV now.

Have you been molested by a priest, or touched inappropriately.

Basically if everyone abused in this country took individual claims against the church now in the UK, the legal and financial ramifications to the church are disastrous.


The blurb below is from http://www.claims4free.co.uk/.

No Win No Fee compensation claims

"Making a personal injury claim in the UK should always involve no fees to the person who has received the accident injury as all legal costs should be paid by the third party should the compensation claim be successful. In the event that your accident injury claim is un-successful most injury solicitors will have already agreed to a no win no fee arrangement with the personal accident victim they are representing"




Bring it on

MetalDog

Another Nail in the church's coffin is always a good thing. Although the slimy bastards will probably try to worm out of this with "canon law" or some other schtick.

yutta

MetalDog wrote: »

Another Nail in the church's coffin is always a good thing. Although the slimy bastards will probably try to worm out of this with "canon law" or some other schtick.

Ooh look. An anti-Catholic bigot in After Hours. Whatever next...

To address the OP: the payouts have already been made. You can't go back for second helpings if you've already accepted a compensation pay-out.

MetalDog

yutta wrote: »

Ooh look. An anti-Catholic bigot in After Hours. Whatever next...

To address the OP: the payouts have already been made. You can't go back for second helpings if you've already accepted a compensation pay-out.

Maybe if you pray hard enough your imaginary god will smite me

Ghost Buster

yutta wrote: »

Ooh look. An anti-Catholic bigot in After Hours. Whatever next...

To address the OP: the payouts have already been made. You can't go back for second helpings if you've already accepted a compensation pay-out.

Whats not to be anti about?
Corrupt organisation with corruption at the top being brought down a peg or two and hit where it hurts. The pocket. Whats not to like?

And in answer to you question "Whatever next"?
Possibly anti other bad stuff?
KKK
Racism
Sexism
Terrorism
Violence
etc etc
You know. bad stuff.......

Wattle

yutta wrote: »

Ooh look. An anti-Catholic bigot in After Hours. Whatever next...

To address the OP: the payouts have already been made. You can't go back for second helpings if you've already accepted a compensation pay-out.

I won't be shedding any tears for them. They completely brought it on themselves.

Ellis Dee

Serves that ghastly organisation right. It's a bit or an irony, though, that the church in England has tackled its kiddy-fiddling problem a lot more determinedly and honestly and with far greater success than its counterpart here on the Island of Saints and Scholars.:)

KeithAFC

Great news. They should be held accountable IMO.

FetchTheGin

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Serves that ghastly organisation right. It's a bit or an irony, though, that the church in England has tackled its kiddy-fiddling problem a lot more determinedly and honestly and with far greater success than its counterpart here on the Island of Saints and Scholars.:)

The catholic church doesn't just exist in Ireland. :rolleyes:

reprazant

While not really a fan of the CC, I find this a strange ruling.

Does this mean that every organisation is liable if someone working for them does something wrong?

If an employee of Eircom runs somebody over, is Eircom liable? Is a SVPD volunteer abusing somebody while on a soup run, is the SVPD liable for the actions of that volunteer?

Pherekydes

If the church is responsible why don't all their priests become abusers?

And where does personal responsibility begin or end?

And will other organisations become liable for the crimes of their employees?

krudler

reprazant wrote: »

While not really a fan of the CC, I find this a strange ruling.

Does this mean that every organisation is liable if someone working for them does something wrong?

If an employee of Eircom runs somebody over, is Eircom liable? Is a SVPD volunteer abusing somebody while on a soup run, is the SVPD liable for the actions of that volunteer?

last I heard eircom didnt hold victims accountable for being abused and use their influence in the community to keep it quiet for decades. if a company has partaken in covering up the illegal doings of a member then yes, they should be accountable. the church has been doing this for years, so fcuk em. vile organisation that deserves everything they get.

FetchTheGin

reprazant wrote: »

Does this mean that every organisation is liable if someone working for them does something wrong?

Yes they are, if they conceal or hide the fact that their employees are abusers and move them to a different area under a different name.

Robbo

reprazant wrote: »

While not really a fan of the CC, I find this a strange ruling.

Does this mean that every organisation is liable if someone working for them does something wrong?

If an employee of Eircom runs somebody over, is Eircom liable? Is a SVPD volunteer abusing somebody while on a soup run, is the SVPD liable for the actions of that volunteer?

Yes and no, the principle of vicarious liability has been around for ages. It usually arises in employer/employee relationships where the employee has done some wrong.

The issue is whether the employee was acting within the scope of their employment in performing the wrong, or with the approval of their employer.

The classic example would be a bouncer assaulting a punter, if the pub owner expected or encouraged the bouncer to use this kind of force, he is liable for the actions of the bouncer. Of course there are limits to this, say if the bouncer chases the punter down the road for the purposes of giving him a hiding.

Wattle

Pherekydes wrote: »

If the church is responsible why don't all their priests become abusers?

And where does personal responsibility begin or end?

And will other organisations become liable for the crimes of their employees?

You don't just decide to be an abuser because the organisation you work for covers it up. You either are an abuser or your not.

reprazant

Robbo wrote: »

Yes and no, the principle of vicarious liability has been around for ages. It usually arises in employer/employee relationships where the employee has done some wrong.

The issue is whether the employee was acting within the scope of their employment in performing the wrong, or with the approval of their employer.

The classic example would be a bouncer assaulting a punter, if the pub owner expected or encouraged the bouncer to use this kind of force, he is liable for the actions of the bouncer. Of course there are limits to this, say if the bouncer chases the punter down the road for the purposes of giving him a hiding.

I don't think what the priests were doing was with in the scope of their employment though nor was it with the approval of their employer, even though they did cover things up to protect itself.

A few years ago, on a work night out, two work colleagues got in a fight with another person due to that person hitting a female work colleague. This was done in front of the boss and the boss did nothing to stop it. He, in fact, nearly encouraged it.

By rational of this ruling, that company was therefore liable for damages from that person that got beaten up.

I can't see how this will stand up on appeal.

Fratton Fred

reprazant wrote: »

While not really a fan of the CC, I find this a strange ruling.

Does this mean that every organisation is liable if someone working for them does something wrong?

If an employee of Eircom runs somebody over, is Eircom liable? Is a SVPD volunteer abusing somebody while on a soup run, is the SVPD liable for the actions of that volunteer?

If eircom give someone a van, knowing that person can't drive then they are liable.

Just as if an organisation is aware of a peado and they cover it up, or move them, they are liable if that peado offends again.

If an organisation is negligent, or does nothing as soon as it is aware of a problem, they become corporately liable.

mcmoustache

yutta wrote: »

Ooh look. An anti-Catholic bigot in After Hours. Whatever next...

To address the OP: the payouts have already been made. You can't go back for second helpings if you've already accepted a compensation pay-out.

Glad you could make it.

Where are the rest of The Defenders of The Indefensible?

Still working out what kind of spin to put on this to make disgust at abuse by priests and the One True Church who covered for them look like anti-Catholic bigotry?

Maybe working out a way to blacken the name of the victim?

It'll be interesting to read what they have to say when they get here.

Go Defenders!

humanji

reprazant wrote: »

I don't think what the priests were doing was with in the scope of their employment though nor was it with the approval of their employer, even though they did cover things up to protect itself.

A few years ago, on a work night out, two work colleagues got in a fight with another person due to that person hitting a female work colleague. This was done in front of the boss and the boss did nothing to stop it. He, in fact, nearly encouraged it.

By rational of this ruling, that company was therefore liable for damages from that person that got beaten up.

I can't see how this will stand up on appeal.

The Catholic Church isn't a company, though. I think that's what the difference is (although it's just a guess). The priests aren't employees, they are part of an organisation and everything they have belongs to that organisation. So you can't claim compensation from the priest without it coming from the organisation. That's the way I see it.

UglyBolloxFace

This may or may not be relevant but I just want to say this:

I despise and am disgusted by religion and deluded people who fall for it.

That is all.

reprazant

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If eircom give someone a van, knowing that person can't drive then they are liable.

Just as if an organisation is aware of a peado and they cover it up, or move them, they are liable if that peado offends again.

If an organisation is negligent, or does nothing as soon as it is aware of a problem, they become corporately liable.

Fair enough, I didn't know that this was already the case.

prinz

humanji wrote: »

The Catholic Church isn't a company, though. I think that's what the difference is (although it's just a guess). The priests aren't employees, they are part of an organisation and everything they have belongs to that organisation. So you can't claim compensation from the priest without it coming from the organisation. That's the way I see it.

Yes and no, the judge in the judgement today decided that the relationship between priest and bishop was enough for him to decide it effectively constituted an employer/employee relationship which reinforces the way compensation for victims have been dealt with up till now. It's classic tort theory the 'deep pocket' theory, i.e. that the employer/company will have a bigger pile of cash to pay compensation out of than an employee.

It's all academic though since the RCC as an organisation has already been paying out compensation to victims of specific individual priests. People are reacting as if this decision is some major breakthrough, all it does is establish in precedent case law what as already been happening for years, i.e. that compensation for victims came from a RCC fund, rather than compensation being sought for and coming from the individual abuser priests. It's easy to whip up a bandwagon it seems. Even when half of them don't seem to have a clue what they are celebrating.

padd b1975

FetchTheGin wrote: »

Yes they are, if they conceal or hide the fact that their employees are abusers and move them to a different area under a different name.

Different names??
Never heard of that happening before.

Robbo

reprazant wrote: »

I don't think what the priests were doing was with in the scope of their employment though nor was it with the approval of their employer, even though they did cover things up to protect itself.

A few years ago, on a work night out, two work colleagues got in a fight with another person due to that person hitting a female work colleague. This was done in front of the boss and the boss did nothing to stop it. He, in fact, nearly encouraged it.

By rational of this ruling, that company was therefore liable for damages from that person that got beaten up.

I can't see how this will stand up on appeal.

I'm perhaps not summing the position up in the most succinct manner, but there are countless examples of employers being found vicariously liable for the acts of their employees. For an overview, here's the Wikipedia entry on the UK situation which is similar enough to ours. In Ireland, we tend to follow a more holistic test than the say the Salmond test.

We have plenty of sexual abuse cases here where the institutions were found vicariously liable, such as Martin Delahunty v The South Eastern Health Board, St Joseph's Industrial School Kilkenny, The Minister for Education and Science for example.

Does your workplace have a policy of ye beating the lard out of each other or expect a certain degree of force to be used in the workplace? If not, your example doesn't really hold.

padd b1975

FetchTheGin wrote: »

Yes they are, if they conceal or hide the fact that their employees are abusers and move them to a different area under a different name.

Different names??
Never heard of that happening before.

the culture of deference

yutta wrote: »

Ooh look. An anti-Catholic bigot in After Hours. Whatever next...

To address the OP: the payouts have already been made. You can't go back for second helpings if you've already accepted a compensation pay-out.

LOL

Some 1.38 billion has been paid out by the State so far and the Government are still awaiting the agreed contribution from the orders..

reprazant wrote: »

While not really a fan of the CC, I find this a strange ruling.

Does this mean that every organisation is liable if someone working for them does something wrong?

If the organisation requires you to hear voices in your head, telling you to join them, and spread the imaginary word, then yes.

prinz wrote: »

It's all academic though since the RCC as an organisation has already been paying out compensation to victims of specific individual priests..

What this means is that the assets of the RCC will not be protected, as it is they hide behing statehood, private unlisted assets, and they control what happens. This is a big deal.

yutta

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

I despise and am disgusted by religion and deluded people who fall for it.

It would be interesting to hear how you address the meaning of life questions.

I'd say it's very shallow and il-thought-out. Now what is it they say about empty vessels?

Let me guess: A bit of debonair nihilism and whatever you're having yourself is it?

prinz

the culture of deference wrote: »

What this means is that the assets of the RCC will not be protected, as it is they hide behing statehood, private unlisted assets, and they control what happens. This is a big deal.

No. It means none of those things.

What it does mean is that one woman who took a test case may be entitled to compensation from the diocese and diocesan authorities where her alleged abuse took place, as opposed from the alleged abuser himself. Basically it states in a legal decision what has been the normal practice for years. The only assets it opens up are those of the individual diocese itself. The judgement says nothing about the relationship between the Vatican and the priest, only between the priest and the diocesan authorities starting with the bishop.

It does not mean victims are suddenly going to be entitled to €100 million direct from the Vatican.

yutta

the culture of deference wrote: »

Some 1.38 billion has been paid out by the State so far and the Government are still awaiting the agreed contribution from the orders..

It's not as if the money isn't going straight back into the economy - house purchases, new cars, weekends away, new tellies, etc. The State can tax. The Church can't. So the effective cost to the State is far less than 1.38 billion.

Biggins

the culture of deference wrote: »

Great news, this will rock the church.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1108/breaking31.html

The High Court ruled today that the Catholic Church can be held liable for the wrongdoings of its priests.
A judge in London announced his decision in a case which has been described as being “an issue of wide general importance in respect of claims against the Catholic Church”.

Although the point to be decided arose in a damages action over alleged sex abuse by a priest, it is understood that the decision will affect other types of claims made against the Church.
a 47-year-old woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, who claims she was sexually assaulted as a child by the late Fr Wilfred Baldwin, a priest of the Portsmouth Diocese, at a children’s home in Hampshire run by an order of nuns.

Giving his decision on a preliminary issue in her damages action the judge held that, in law, the Church “may be vicariously liable” for Father Baldwin’s alleged wrongdoings.

A number of cases was/are being tried in the USA at the moment.

The new next trick from Rome that they are trying to get around such a ruling is (a) say that each individual church is a separate entity from Rome - and as such the whole org cannot be sued (b) that the priests are not officially 'employed' by Rome (BUT they can be recognised as a legal 'agent' so their argument on that falls down there alone) and (c) depending on the successfulness/failure of (a) - they are declaring some churches as officially bankrupt so to stop further claims being sent down the line/chain of command to Rome.

Expect the same tactics here if such a case is tried.

Ellis Dee

FetchTheGin wrote: »

The catholic church doesn't just exist in Ireland. :rolleyes:

Who said otherwise?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

yutta

prinz wrote: »

It does not mean victims are suddenly going to be entitled to €100 million direct from the Vatican.

Especially since 99% of victims have already got their compo cheque. They can't go back for seconds once they've agreed to a settlement.

LenaClaire

yutta wrote: »

It's not as if the money isn't going straight back into the economy - house purchases, new cars, weekends away, new tellies, etc. The State can tax. The Church can't. So the effective cost to the State is far less than 1.38 billion.

Are you seriously defending that the church has not paid up for any of the money they promised to the state to benefit victims of the church's actions?

Do you honestly think that is acceptable??

Pherekydes

yutta wrote: »

It would be interesting to hear how you address the meaning of life questions.

The meaning of life to whom? Infants who die before they know they exist?

There is only one "meaning" to life: reproduce!

yutta

jujibee wrote: »

Are you seriously defending that the church has not paid up for any of the money they promised to the state to benefit victims of the church's actions?

Do you honestly think that is acceptable??

Acceptable to who?

The Church are meeting and have met all their legal obligations. I wonder could prove otherwise? Surely you can find some newspaper article (not based in hysteria) that spells out the figures involved?

Thank God most judges are of religious inclination and of fair mind.

yutta

Pherekydes wrote: »

There is only one "meaning" to life: reproduce!

Cool story bro!

the culture of deference

Biggins wrote: »

A number of cases was/are being tried in the USA at the moment.

The new next trick from Rome that they are trying to get around such a ruling is (a) say that each individual church is a separate entity from Rome - and as such the whole org cannot be sued (b) that the priests are not officially 'employed' by Rome (BUT they can be recognised as a legal 'agent' so their argument on that falls down there alone) and (c) depending on the successfulness/failure of (a) - they are declaring some churches as officially bankrupt so to stop further claims being sent down the line/chain of command to Rome.

Expect the same tactics here if such a case is tried.

Yea there is a good thread on politics,ie

Catholic Churches in the US began declaring bankruptcy in 2004 - On July 6, 2004, the Archdiocese of Portland, Ore., became the first Catholic diocese in the history of the United States to seek the protection of the bankruptcy court. On Sept. 20, 2004, the Diocese of Tucson became the second. Both of these filings resulted from the wave of lawsuits brought against the church because of the sexual abuse of minors by members of the Catholic clergy.

AIB loaned them $400 million to pay compensation!

In 2007, just before several abuse cases were scheduled to begin, the Diocese of San Diego filed for bankruptcy. It sought this protection despite owning hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property - everything from commercial buildings, to open land, to parking lots. Only after it became clear that the bankruptcy judge was ready to dismiss the diocese's bankruptcy filing did the church seek to settle with victims. At the end of the bankruptcy proceedings, the judge, a Catholic, scolded the church for being "disingenuous." Dan Rather video report

Penn

yutta wrote: »

Especially since 99% of victims have already got their compo cheque. They can't go back for seconds once they've agreed to a settlement.

99% of victims?

What about some who may not have come forward yet? Or some who were abused recently? Or those abused in the future?

I'm not saying these people do or will ever exist, but there is a chance, and this ruling has a great affect for any possible future cases

yutta

the culture of deference wrote: »

Yea there is a good thread in politics

Catholic Churches in the US began declaring bankruptcy in 2004 - On July 6, 2004, the Archdiocese of Portland, Ore., became the first Catholic diocese in the history of the United States to seek the protection of the bankruptcy court. On Sept. 20, 2004, the Diocese of Tucson became the second. Both of these filings resulted from the wave of lawsuits brought against the church because of the sexual abuse of minors by members of the Catholic clergy.

AIB loaned them $400 million to pay compensation!

In 2007, just before several abuse cases were scheduled to begin, the Diocese of San Diego filed for bankruptcy. It sought this protection despite owning hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property - everything from commercial buildings, to open land, to parking lots. Only after it became clear that the bankruptcy judge was ready to dismiss the diocese's bankruptcy filing did the church seek to settle with victims. At the end of the bankruptcy proceedings, the judge, a Catholic, scolded the church for being "disingenuous." Dan Rather video report

Mmm. Is your motivation to compensate victims or see the Church bankrupt? I've a funny feeling it's the latter. (like most anti-Catholic bigots masquerading as champions for abuse victims - a most sickening phenomenon).

the culture of deference

yutta wrote: »

Acceptable to who?

The Church are meeting and have met all their legal obligations. I wonder could prove otherwise? Surely you can find some newspaper article (not based in hysteria) that spells out the figures involved?

Thank God most judges are of religious inclination and of fair mind.

TROLL

the culture of deference

yutta wrote: »

Mmm. Is your motivation to compensate victims or see the Church bankrupt? I've a funny feeling it's the latter. (like most anti-Catholic bigots masquerading as champions for abuse victims - a most sickening phenomenon).

<report instead of this carry on, mod>

Biggins

the culture of deference wrote: »

Yea there is a good thread on politics,ie

Catholic Churches in the US began declaring bankruptcy in 2004 - On July 6, 2004, the Archdiocese of Portland, Ore., became the first Catholic diocese in the history of the United States to seek the protection of the bankruptcy court. On Sept. 20, 2004, the Diocese of Tucson became the second. Both of these filings resulted from the wave of lawsuits brought against the church because of the sexual abuse of minors by members of the Catholic clergy.

AIB loaned them $400 million to pay compensation!

In 2007, just before several abuse cases were scheduled to begin, the Diocese of San Diego filed for bankruptcy. It sought this protection despite owning hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property - everything from commercial buildings, to open land, to parking lots. Only after it became clear that the bankruptcy judge was ready to dismiss the diocese's bankruptcy filing did the church seek to settle with victims. At the end of the bankruptcy proceedings, the judge, a Catholic, scolded the church for being "disingenuous." Dan Rather video report

Yep, thats what your up against.
An organisation that will use every trick in the book not to live up to its moral and legal responsibilities
...And they lecture the public on morals and doing the right thing?

I think what they are doing instead, is called "Taking the piss!"

Ghost Buster

yutta wrote: »

It would be interesting to hear how you address the meaning of life questions.

I'd say it's very shallow and il-thought-out. Now what is it they say about empty vessels?

Let me guess: A bit of debonair nihilism and whatever you're having yourself is it?

Not everybody needs to.What does the question even mean in the first place?
Ps. The answer is 42. !:p

UglyBolloxFace

yutta wrote: »

It would be interesting to hear how you address the meaning of life questions.

I'd say it's very shallow and il-thought-out. Now what is it they say about empty vessels?

Let me guess: A bit of debonair nihilism and whatever you're having yourself is it?

There is no meaning of life. We are a species who has adapted to our environments and created new technologies etc in order to advance our time on this rock floating through space.

That's all there is to it. Anyone who says an imaginary bearded lad in the sky has anything to do with us being here...well frankly they are deluded.

I find it amazing that if a person was rambling down the street spouting crap about aliens or some other being following them and whom has conversed with them, they would be sectioned and placed in a mental instituation, whereas those who talk of this soi-disant 'god' get away with it all.

Deluded sheep.

DEFTLEFTHAND

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

This may or may not be relevant but I just want to say this:

I despise and am disgusted by religion and deluded people who fall for it.

That is all.

The fact is Religion still provides hope and comfort to people the world over. While I'm not religious myself I would never despise or look down my nose at any individual who continues to follow their chosen faith.

In regard to the UK H.C decision I welcome that such a precedent has been set. It will force the Vatican to confront these issues head on instead of waiving their culpability.

Penn

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

I find it amazing that if a person was rambling down the street spouting crap about aliens or some other being following them and whom has conversed with them, they would be sectioned and placed in a mental instituation, whereas those who talk of this soi-disant 'god' get away with it all.

Deluded sheep.

Same with Christmas. People making jokes about Santa Claus "Santa must have bought you that tie", the little nods and smiles to each other when a child talks about Santa etc. This of course all happening when they've returned from Mass where they listened to a story about a virgin giving birth to the Son of God, three men following a star and finding them and just giving the child gold (whatever about the frankenscense and myhrr, f*cking gold!), and having to stay in a stable because all the inns were full, probably due to some music festival being on in Bethlehem or something. This child who would grow up, cure people of any illness, magically produce food out of nowhere, bring people back from the dead, come back from the dead himself, walk on water, turn water into wine, presumably walk on wine because why the f*ck not, die for our sins even though we still have sins so he died for people sins who were alive then so what the f*ck did he ever do for us....etc etc

And they laugh at the notion of Santa?

Same. F*cking. Thing.

drdeadlift

MetalDog wrote: »

Maybe if you pray hard enough your imaginary god will smite me

Its seems to be cool to be an atheist around here.


Im surprised this hasn't happened earlier,the coppers get thrown out of the force before being done why cant these do the same

yutta

drdeadlift wrote: »

Its seems to be cool to be an atheist around here.