• 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

Glenda's Legs said:
Top football clubs made secret payments to buy the silence of young players sexually abused by coaches, The Telegraph can disclose, as the growing scandal threatened to engulf the sport.

A well-placed source said a number of clubs, including at least one Premier League team, had paid compensation to footballers but only after victims had signed confidentiality agreements so strict that along with their families and lawyers they are banned from saying publicly if the cases even existed.

The revelation will fuel concern that the national game has covered up historic sexual abuse for years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-scandal-top-clubs-made-secret-payments-keep/
Click to expand...
Well that puts it all in perspective really. fudgen sickening
 
Last edited:
glasgowspur said:
These measures aren't just about false accusations, if some one is breaking the guidelines it should become very easy to spot it and step in. Some of it is about removing the predators opportunity.
Click to expand...

I agree that a key part of the duty of care is removing the opportunity for something to happen, but that's really a minimum requirement. Another mentioned a few times this week is the annual CRB/DBS checks that coaches have to undertake, but those only highlight previous offences.

My question is whether the issue has been given enough profile by the FA and the County FA structure. I personally don't think it has.

The nature of grassroots and development sport means that activities are often under resourced, and heavily reliant on volunteers. Given the choice of either running an activity without following every procedure, or depriving kids of the activity completely, then rules will be stretched and opportunities will be presented to these predators.
 
T-C said:
I agree that a key part of the duty of care is removing the opportunity for something to happen, but that's really a minimum requirement. Another mentioned a few times this week is the annual CRB/DBS checks that coaches have to undertake, but those only highlight previous offences.

My question is whether the issue has been given enough profile by the FA and the County FA structure. I personally don't think it has.

The nature of grassroots and development sport means that activities are often under resourced, and heavily reliant on volunteers. Given the choice of either running an activity without following every procedure, or depriving kids of the activity completely, then rules will be stretched and opportunities will be presented to these predators.
Click to expand...
The F A have not given it enough exposure, no question.
Your last point is unfortunately the truth of the matter, it's a fine line to walk between encouraging volunteers and policing them without discouraging them.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Top football clubs made secret payments to buy the silence of young players sexually abused by coaches, The Telegraph can disclose, as the growing scandal threatened to engulf the sport.

A well-placed source said a number of clubs, including at least one Premier League team, had paid compensation to footballers but only after victims had signed confidentiality agreements so strict that along with their families and lawyers they are banned from saying publicly if the cases even existed.

The revelation will fuel concern that the national game has covered up historic sexual abuse for years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-scandal-top-clubs-made-secret-payments-keep/
Click to expand...

Wow, that's....fudge, that's just indescribably sickening, if true.

The f*ck is happening to this f*cking game?
 
What strikes me about all this is that although all child sex abuse stories are obviously horrific you can't help but emphasis further when you've been a boy who's just wanted to make it as a pro and play for his team.

To exploit a child's dream like that for their own perversions is one of the most barbaric crimes against humanity I can think off.
 
Craig_J said:
What strikes me about all this is that although all child sex abuse stories are obviously horrific you can't help but emphasis further when you've been a boy who's just wanted to make it as a pro and play for his team.

To exploit a child's dream like that for their own perversions is one of the most barbaric crimes against humanity I can think off.
Click to expand...

And what shakes me to the core......is this c.ould of been me, seriously, just 'luck' that i wasn't in the path of one of these monsters.
 
Eric Bristow loses Sky Sports role after Twitter sex abuse story comments

The former darts world champion Eric Bristow has been sacked by Sky Sports after he tweeted comments about the football sexual abuse story on Monday.

Bristow had caused outrage overnight following a number of tweets, starting with one which stated: “Might be a looney but if some football coach was touching me when i was a kid as i got older i would have went back and sorted that poof out.”

Another of Bristow’s tweets stated “bet the rugby boys are ok” – prompting a reply from Brian Moore, the former England hooker who himself was abused as a child. “I’m not even going to address the many reasons these tweets are wrong. I’ll just say ignorance is no excuse for this idiocy,” he wrote.
Click to expand...

Idiocy is rather a mild way of putting it.
 
Forgive my ignorance but isn't Bristow just expressing his own opinion what he personally would do if he suffered the way these guys have.

Isn't that old school - an eye for an eye etc... and as he was probably brought up that way, that's possibly all he knows how to deal with such a situation

To be honest I haven't read all the tweets but I get the gist...
 
spitshine said:
Forgive my ignorance but isn't Bristow just expressing his own opinion what he personally would do if he suffered the way these guys have.

Isn't that old school - an eye for an eye etc... and as he was probably brought up that way, that's possibly all he knows how to deal with such a situation

To be honest I haven't read all the tweets but I get the gist...
Click to expand...

I think the issue is with the use of the word "poof". Derogatory anyway in its usual reference to gay men and then worse by the implication that paedophiles are gay men.

And the further innuendo that if you played rugby you wouldn't be so bothered by being abused.
 
spitshine said:
Forgive my ignorance but isn't Bristow just expressing his own opinion what he personally would do if he suffered the way these guys have.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
Robbo said:
Exclusive: Chelsea made secret payment to player in child sex abuse claim

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...-secret-payment-player-child-sex-abuse-claim/
Click to expand...


This is the most shocking thing so far.

"Chelsea sanctioned a secret payment to a former youth team footballer who accused the club’s ex-chief scout of child sexual abuse, The Telegraph can disclose.

The alleged victim was paid off after threatening to go public with claims he was sexually assaulted in the 1970s by Eddie Heath, Chelsea’s influential chief scout for more than a decade.

The payment, made in the past three years, was agreed on condition that the victim, his family and lawyers were banned from talking about the alleged abuse."


Chelsea paid someone off in 2014 so he wouldnt damage the image of the club. In 2014!!!


Why isn't this front page news right now?
 
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...

It seems the word he has apologised for using is "wimps" (in the context of saying footballers were wimps).
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...gises-for-twitter-football-sex-abuse-comments
At best the whole think was crass insensitivity on his part. Quite how it helps to say that these abused footballers are wimps for not confronting their abusers is beyond me. I am sure he did not intend any harm by it, and it was tongue-in-cheek, but it was bad judgement. If you put something out on twitter or other social media, then you are holding yourself and/or your opinions up to comment and scrutiny. Which is what he got.

Modric THFC said:
This is the most shocking thing so far.

"Chelsea sanctioned a secret payment to a former youth team footballer who accused the club’s ex-chief scout of child sexual abuse, The Telegraph can disclose.

The alleged victim was paid off after threatening to go public with claims he was sexually assaulted in the 1970s by Eddie Heath, Chelsea’s influential chief scout for more than a decade.

The payment, made in the past three years, was agreed on condition that the victim, his family and lawyers were banned from talking about the alleged abuse."


Chelsea paid someone off in 2014 so he wouldnt damage the image of the club. In 2014!!!


Why isn't this front page news right now?
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. There can be no excuse in the climate since the revelations about Saville for putting the protection of the club/brand above everything else. (I suppose there may have been an intention to protect the name of the alleged (and deceased) abuser or his family but I would guess that was secondary).
It has been shown over and over in recent years - including of course in the past weeks with abused footballers - that one person going public with what happened to them can help others find the courage to come forward.
The footballer in this may not have wanted to go public (although it seems he did threaten the club with this) but that should always have remained his choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back