|
||||||||
Football sex abuse. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#76 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,480
|
Quote:
Not sure of the legal situation, but could the Chairman/CEO /etc be held responsible ?
Corporate Governance or something similar ? Like addicts, pedophiles and those attracted to teenagers get very good at finding opportunities to gratify themselves. We know much more about the psychology of it now than we did a couple of decades ago when society thought of them as dirty old men to be brushed under the carpet or given a talking to. We now know they are manipulative, driven people. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 698
|
Quote:
I guess a you are saying that a fine for a cover up of sexual abuse at manchester united would mean nothing to them (because they can afford to pay)?
I think it would have meaning in a wider sense, rather than financial. Action should be taken because it's despicable behaviour to cover up abuse but I imagine the people involved are long gone or dead. Prosecute the people involved if they're alive. That'd be a start. I'd also have Chelsea pay compensation to Johnson. Batdudes idea of demotion, however, is ludicrous. One thing I find interesting though, is your lack of outrage over the cover up because it involves Chelsea. Had it been any other club you'd have been foaming at the mouth! |
|
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 69,132
|
Quote:
Batdude actually has a point. Given they were happy to pay to cover it up, a fine would be meaningless to Chelsea.
Action should be taken because it's despicable behaviour to cover up abuse but I imagine the people involved are long gone or dead. Prosecute the people involved if they're alive. That'd be a start. I'd also have Chelsea pay compensation to Johnson. Batdudes idea of demotion, however, is ludicrous. One thing I find interesting though, is your lack of outrage over the cover up because it involves Chelsea. Had it been any other club you'd have been foaming at the mouth! A transfer ban of a substantial period (say five years)?? My ideas might not be perfect or anything like that, but I don't know how you go about setting a correct sort of punishment when money or fines mean nothing to the richest of clubs and owners. |
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: In The Shed
Posts: 1,370
|
Chelsea Football Club apologises 'profusely' to Gary Johnson over sex abuse
The football club said Mr Johnson, who was abused while a youth team player at the club, had “suffered unacceptably” and it had “no desire to hide any historic abuse we uncover from view”. Via their insurers, they paid £50,000 to Mr Johnson, 57, and made him sign a confidentiality agreement after he came forward three years ago about the abuse by former chief scout Eddie Heath. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3411691.html The 2 statements in bold don't seem to concur.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 13,881
|
Just to play devils advicate, mr Johnson didn't have to accept the money, or accept the agreement.
This is standard practice in law. But as I say it doesn't sit right with me. |
|
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: In The Shed
Posts: 1,370
|
Quote:
Just to play devils advicate, mr Johnson didn't have to accept the money, or accept the agreement.
This is standard practice in law. But as I say it doesn't sit right with me. Whoever at Chelsea sanctioned the confidentiality agreement has questions to answer |
|
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 13,881
|
Quote:
Although what you say is correct, how would a 'lone-complainee' be able to take on the might of Chelsea and their resources ?
Whoever at Chelsea sanctioned the confidentiality agreement has questions to answer |
|
|
|
|
|
#83 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: In The Shed
Posts: 1,370
|
Quote:
This is standard practice in law.. I also believe Chelsea waived this, thus allowing mr Johnson to speak out.
As I say, whoever signed this off has questions to answer. Hiding behind legal practices doesn't wash |
|
|
|
|
|
#84 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 13,881
|
Quote:
Just because it's standard practice, it doesn't make it right. Someone should have realised the gravitas of the situation and done something there and then and not , as now, where damage limitation has come into effect
As I say, whoever signed this off has questions to answer. Hiding behind legal practices doesn't wash Ever wondered why we haven't heard from dr Eva? Because all parties settled, and included a confidentiality agreement. Same with big Sam and the fa and their 1 million payoff to him. Standard practice. |
|
|
|
|
|
#85 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,480
|
Quote:
This is standard practice in law.. I also believe Chelsea waived this, thus allowing mr Johnson to speak out.
I would imagine that it would be even more serious to bribe the victim to cover it up. |
|
|
|
|
|
#86 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West London
Posts: 5,657
|
Quote:
To fail to report abuse is a criminal offence.
I would imagine that it would be even more serious to bribe the victim to cover it up. I can't imagine Chelsea wouldn't have anything but proper legal advice especially as the Chairman is a senior partner in a big law firm. |
|
|
|
|
|
#87 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,700
|
Quote:
Interesting
Michael Douglas claims that oral sex caused his mouth cancer https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...ral-sex-cancer
|
|
|
|
|
|
#88 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,700
|
Quote:
Really? That number seems ridiculous, have you got a link?
It was announced here: http://www.itv.com/loosewomen Should now be on the ITV Hub if you want to watch it
|
|
|
|
|
|
#89 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: In The Shed
Posts: 1,370
|
Quote:
It's not hiding behind legal practices, thats just how it was done then and how it is still done today in 2016.
Ever wondered why we haven't heard from dr Eva? Because all parties settled, and included a confidentiality agreement. Same with big Sam and the fa and their 1 million payoff to him. Standard practice. Signing confidentiality agreements to avoid poor decision making/performances being made public is one thing , but to try and hide criminal offences - really ? (I realise that this is your club and you don't want to criticise them, but this would be the same with whichever club had done this and no doubt more and more of the 'big' teams are likely to be brought into this enquiry with the number of reports growing daily) I still stand by my point that whoever it was at Chelsea that signed off on this has serious questions to answer I also think that thje FA have huge questions to answer From today's Mirror : A former youth footballer tells today how he warned the sport’s ruling body 30 years ago that talent scout Eddie Heath was a paedophile . Ex-Charlton Athletic player Russell Davy, now 50, says he wrote to the FA back in 1986 to reveal the pervert had preyed on him – ruining not only his career but sending his life into a spiral of drink, crime and drugs. Russell claims he detailed the abuse he had suffered at the hands of Heath – whose name is now at the centre of the “hush money” scandal rocking Chelsea – including attacks on a team bus and in the showers. But he never received a reply to his two-page letter and spent the next three decades battling his demons in desperation, at one point fighting a £600-a-week cocaine addiction. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...ile-30-9388930 |
|
|
|
|
|
#90 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 13,881
|
Quote:
It's shockingly high isn't it.
It was announced here: http://www.itv.com/loosewomen Should now be on the ITV Hub if you want to watch it ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#91 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 13,881
|
Quote:
It was signed less than 3 years ago so , as I'm sure you already know, that has no relevance
Signing confidentiality agreements to avoid poor decision making/performances being made public is one thing , but to try and hide criminal offences - really ? (I realise that this is your club and you don't want to criticise them, but this would be the same with whichever club had done this and no doubt more and more of the 'big' teams are likely to be brought into this enquiry with the number of reports growing daily) I still stand by my point that whoever it was at Chelsea that signed off on this has serious questions to answer I also think that thje FA have huge questions to answer From today's Mirror : A former youth footballer tells today how he warned the sport’s ruling body 30 years ago that talent scout Eddie Heath was a paedophile . Ex-Charlton Athletic player Russell Davy, now 50, says he wrote to the FA back in 1986 to reveal the pervert had preyed on him – ruining not only his career but sending his life into a spiral of drink, crime and drugs. Russell claims he detailed the abuse he had suffered at the hands of Heath – whose name is now at the centre of the “hush money” scandal rocking Chelsea – including attacks on a team bus and in the showers. But he never received a reply to his two-page letter and spent the next three decades battling his demons in desperation, at one point fighting a £600-a-week cocaine addiction. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...ile-30-9388930 |
|
|
|
|
|
#92 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,429
|
Quote:
The fa are up to their neck in this horrible scandal.
It's going to be a issue for the whole of football not just The FA but while they will be of course responsible for their part, It's going to be a bigger issue at club level. Clubs are going have to look at their behaviour first |
|
|
|
|
|
#93 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,480
|
Quote:
The fa are up to their neck in this horrible scandal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#94 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 13,881
|
Quote:
No more or less then Chelsea.
It's going to be a issue for the whole of football not just The FA but while they will be of course responsible for their part, It's going to be a bigger issue at club level. Clubs are going have to look at their behaviour first The fa must know it's not an isolated problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
#95 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,700
|
Quote:
If you get your facts from "loose women" then it kinds of devalues the argument.
Does seem pretty high though, hopefully it's not a true representation of the problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
#96 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 13,881
|
Quote:
Well it is factual in the sense that ITV did a poll and this was the result.
Does seem pretty high though, hopefully it's not a true representation of the problem. How many did they poll? What was the question they asked? |
|
|
|
|
|
#97 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,429
|
Quote:
At the moment it's Chelsea in the news,, but there are hundreds of cases being investigated.
The fa must know it's not an isolated problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
#98 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,975
|
Quote:
Well it is factual in the sense that ITV did a poll and this was the result.
Does seem pretty high though, hopefully it's not a true representation of the problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
#99 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,700
|
Quote:
Who did they poll?
How many did they poll? What was the question they asked? Quote:
I wouldn't imagine it's the knowing someone who has suffered abuse which pushes the figures up.
There again, it's a very private & personal subject and many abused people say that they put it to the back of their minds and only spoke out about it many years later, so I don't really know. |
|
|
|
|
|
#100 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,403
|
Being so widespread, is this a chicken or egg situation?
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:09.



