AFL club Western Bulldogs rocked by historical child sexual abuse scandal

[jazzadogs]

Not sure what that last couple of sentences is meant to mean given the context. Chops wasn’t actually Ernie Sigley. Pretty sure he was known as Chops here and ES on Bigfooty, but he definitely wasn’t really Ernie if that’s what you’re saying. And definitely not sure how it ties in to the rest of your post and not sure I want to.

I think a very long bow is being drawn that the accused in this case had a nickname of Chops, and BIDS is speculating about why that name was chosen as a woof username.

[Bornadog]

I read it all because it is right to be aware of what happened at our clubhouse, but I stopped when paedophile ring was stated
Abusers know how to target and become part of a trusted organisation. A psychopath at work, knowing how to cover up and blackmail victims with guilt.
Overwhelming, such evil makes me feel violently angry, not children for gods sake!
Thanks for the heads up, we need to be vigilant.
WOOF had a Chops. supposedly Ernie Sigley I think.
I'm sure the name was innocent.

100% not true BIDS - Chops (previously Ernie) was named after the footballer who played for Williamstown and us.

Chops is a mate of mine and a great bloke.

[The Underdog]

I think a very long bow is being drawn that the accused in this case had a nickname of Chops, and BIDS is speculating about why that name was chosen as a woof username.

99.9% sure it was after 11 game Bulldogs legend (and Williamstown cult hero) Ian “Chops” Rickman.

[Happy Days]

This situation with the courts and payouts makes me genuinely worried about the future of the club. Is that fair?

I would like to think that the billion dollar AFL will support us through this, but history isn't on our side there...

It’s impossible to say for certain because the AFL and footy clubs treat everything as a state secret but I’m virtually certain this will all be insured past excess it’s fine. It might even be insured by the AFL and not the club directly.

[Happy Days]

I'm sure there's nuance that I'm not across, though I don't understand how we can be responsible for a volunteer's actions while the Catholic Church isn't for a volunteer priest's actions.

Vicarious liability is a pretty opaque and unsettled area of law, and they’ve been careful in drafting judgements to make sure they’re difficult to apply as precedents. It broadly requires the organisation to “put the person in the position” to commit the harm. I would guess the court would look unfavourably at using tickets, facilities, etc.

Also have to consider that the church decisions are bullshit maybe.

[hujsh]

It’s impossible to say for certain because the AFL and footy clubs treat everything as a state secret but I’m virtually certain this will all be insured past excess it’s fine. It might even be insured by the AFL and not the club directly.

If that's true then I'm glad the victim gets a good payout.