• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Football Child Abuse

Chelsea will face heavy punishment if club paid ‘hush’ money to victim of sexual abuse in the 1970s

The Football Association are expected to hand Chelsea a heavy punishment if they are found to have paid money to a victim to keep his complaint that he was sexually abused by a former club scout quiet.

Chelsea are facing an FA inquiry after claims emerged they paid ‘hush’ money to a former youth player when he approached them two years ago to make allegations about Eddie Heath, who was employed at Stamford Bridge in the Seventies.

FA chairman Greg Clarke has promised to act strongly if a club are seen to have tried to buy a victim’s silence.
He said: “If anyone has behaved improperly they will be held to account and that information will be released. If a club has behaved badly they will be held to account.”
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/foo...im-of-sexual-abuse-in-the-1970s-a3408621.html
 
spitshine said:
What I don't get is what appears to be the erosion of free speech and being shot down when you say something which was generally considered not offensive years ago and now people are up in arms.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's anything to do with erosion of free speech. By posting on social media he is inviting comment from others, and there appears to be a significant number of others who are using their own right to free speech to disagree, or express their views on what he has said.

It makes news because he's a 'personality' who makes a living from his public profile and so has some public interest. I'm sure there are plenty of random people expressing similar or more outrageous views on twitter etc who nobody cares about.
 
T-C said:
As long as it's not illegal, he has every right to express a personal opinion however ignorant it may be.

At the same time, as someone who makes a living as a public personality, he shouldn't be surprised that expressing those opinions on a sensitive subjec tmight result in him losing some work.

He's since made comments suggesting that he was trying to encourage children to report these incidents straight away. In reality he was repeating the same old school thinking that contributed to kids not speaking out.
Click to expand...

Yeh I agree with people taking a swipe at Eric Bristow but is it not typical of the world and media in all this that Eric Bristow is being reeled into the media to get a grilling when it pales in significance to the acts and crimes committed?

In all this from start to finish Eric Bristow is not a criminal, its laughable that a TV show like GMB and a real criminal like Piers Morgan should sit there and report on that rather than the severity of the crimes themselves.

Bristow although badly worded has a HUGE point to some extent, if you don't act at the time the crimes continue, people get away with it and more victims are open to the abuse, in many cases, like Saville the criminals die without having to face their charges.
 
spitshine said:
It's still lost on me why this has all blown up.. the outrage in certain quarters?
I think the word Glenda said he used was a mistype by Bristow which he has admitted.

What I don't get is what appears to be the erosion of free speech and being shot down when you say something which was generally considered not offensive years ago and now people are up in arms.

I sometimes think people want to give the impression they are deeply offended by certain comments and just want to stir things up for a bit of news.
Click to expand...
I don't think "not offensive years ago" is a very strong argument for allowing particular forms of speech.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Chelsea will face heavy punishment if club paid ‘hush’ money to victim of sexual abuse in the 1970s

The Football Association are expected to hand Chelsea a heavy punishment if they are found to have paid money to a victim to keep his complaint that he was sexually abused by a former club scout quiet.

Chelsea are facing an FA inquiry after claims emerged they paid ‘hush’ money to a former youth player when he approached them two years ago to make allegations about Eddie Heath, who was employed at Stamford Bridge in the Seventies.

FA chairman Greg Clarke has promised to act strongly if a club are seen to have tried to buy a victim’s silence.
He said: “If anyone has behaved improperly they will be held to account and that information will be released. If a club has behaved badly they will be held to account.”
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/foo...im-of-sexual-abuse-in-the-1970s-a3408621.html
Click to expand...

I wonder what sort of punishment the FA are able to mete out if offences like this are proven.
What's appropriate?

I see the solicitor quote in the article is talking about a seven figure fine but, somehow, a financial penalty doesn't seem comprehensive enough. Not because it is Chelsea but because of the potential crime.
 
JerusalemMan said:
I wonder what sort of punishment the FA are able to mete out if offences like this are proven.
What's appropriate?

I see the solicitor quote in the article is talking about a seven figure fine but, somehow, a financial penalty doesn't seem comprehensive enough. Not because it is Chelsea but because of the potential crime.
Click to expand...

As far as I can see, at club level you can only issue a fine or somehow penalise them on the pitch. It can't be a points deduction as that would fall within the Premier League's competition. So errr... FA Cup ban?

None of the above feels like an appropriate punishment for Chelsea or any other club who didn't report these situations.

Surely there has to be scope to ban the individuals involved in these cover ups, whoever they are, from future involvement in football administration.
 
I really hope Gradi is not wrongly hounded in this, Dan Roan has already had a go, well i hope he is not involved first and foremost but if he is innocent I hope he is not hounded due to association
 
Although all those who covered it up should all be severely punished if they're still alive, and as much as I hate Chelsea, it would be ridiculous for them to be punished for something that presumably no one at the club currently was aware of.
 
Craig_J said:
Although all those who covered it up should all be severely punished if they're still alive, and as much as I hate Chelsea, it would be ridiculous for them to be punished for something that presumably no one at the club currently was aware of.
Click to expand...

They covered it up in 2014 mate!
 
Couldn't make it up....

A massive conflict of interest that would have caused huge embarrassment was the real reason the FA suddenly changed the QC leading their investigation into football's historical child sex abuse scandal.

Kate Gallafent, who has wide experience of sports issues, was originally named to head the inquiry before being replaced by another leading counsel, Clive Sheldon, a few days later.

The reason given was the growing scale of the probe and 'other professional commitments'.

Chief among them is Gallafent's lead role defending the Catholic Church over widespread child sex abuse allegations as part of a major independent inquiry that started last July.

The first case study concerns the numerous allegations of abuse in Catholic schools run by the English Benedictine Congregation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ic-conflict-FA-s-sex-abuse-QC-led-switch.html
 
I think it's interesting that there's all this smoke coming out of the football laundry basket (mostly, it seems, to do with individuals that are already known about, and in many cases are already inside) at a time when important victims' groups are withdrawing support from the broader national inquiry. As far as I can work out, that support is being withdrawn on the basis that the inquiry has been designed to fail. Are we witnessing a diversionary tactic here? Just a thought.
 
mudshark said:
I think it's interesting that there's all this smoke coming out of the football laundry basket (mostly, it seems, to do with individuals that are already known about, and in many cases are already inside) at a time when important victims' groups are withdrawing support from the broader national inquiry. As far as I can work out, that support is being withdrawn on the basis that the inquiry has been designed to fail. Are we witnessing a diversionary tactic here? Just a thought.
Click to expand...

100% agreed; it's good for abuse in football to be exposed, but also galling for the likes of MPs to get involved and telling the FA to "sort things out"....as though their sh!t don't stink..
 
mudshark said:
I think it's interesting that there's all this smoke coming out of the football laundry basket (mostly, it seems, to do with individuals that are already known about, and in many cases are already inside) at a time when important victims' groups are withdrawing support from the broader national inquiry. As far as I can work out, that support is being withdrawn on the basis that the inquiry has been designed to fail. Are we witnessing a diversionary tactic here? Just a thought.
Click to expand...
No, it's because jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
 
mudshark said:
I think it's interesting that there's all this smoke coming out of the football laundry basket (mostly, it seems, to do with individuals that are already known about, and in many cases are already inside) at a time when important victims' groups are withdrawing support from the broader national inquiry. As far as I can work out, that support is being withdrawn on the basis that the inquiry has been designed to fail. Are we witnessing a diversionary tactic here? Just a thought.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is more likely due to it being a police investigation, meaning that the likes of the FA and affected clubs can't interview the victims. It also means that there won't be an ongoing public commentary on the findings.

When you have Andy Woodward saying that he's been waiting 5 weeks to be interviewed by the police, then it's fair to assume that he's not the only one.

I can't imagine what it must be like to be a victim who has kept it quiet, to work up the courage to report it years later, and then to feel like it's being ignored. In that context I'm not surprised that victims groups are going it alone.
 
what a travesty, all I can say is I'm relieved I was a teenager in the late 80's/early 90's and not the 70's
 
How could this happen?

Crewe were called ‘the paedophile club’

Fresh evidence has emerged that there were open suspicions about Barry Bennell’s abuse of youngsters after victims revealed they were subjected to cruel jokes about their connection to him.

Two of his victims, including one who played for Emirates Marketing Project’s junior sides, told The Times that other coaches used the phrase “Bennell’s bum boys” to ridicule those who were coached by Bennell, 64, who has been found guilty of 50 abuse offences towards 12 boys between 1979 and 1991.

Another victim has said that knowledge of his activities was so widespread that when he was playing for Crewe Alexandra juniors they were taunted by rivals as being from “the paedophile club”.

Crewe have denied that anyone at the club had any knowledge about Bennell’s abuse. Emirates Marketing Project have a QC leading an investigation into what was known about Bennell’s crimes at the time and how it was handled.

David Lean, one of Bennell’s first victims, told The Times: “Young players who were at those clubs were being taken the mickey out of by other coaches for being connected with Bennell. Those coaches were ridiculing lads who were coached by him. There were whispers and rumours going around the clubs.”

That was confirmed by another victim spoken to by The Times, while a third victim, Micky Fallon, who played for Crewe’s youth teams, told The Guardian: “I struggle to see how the people at Crewe didn’t realise Barry Bennell was potentially a risk when he had all those children staying overnight and there was so much rumour and innuendo about him.

“Because everybody else seemed to know. Playing for Crewe, we’d get it all the time. ‘The paedophile lads,’ opponents called us. We played Manchester United, Emirates Marketing Project, Everton, Liverpool, all of them, and it was a common theme.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back