DS Forums

 
 

Football sex abuse.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-12-2016, 11:30
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,480
Not sure of the legal situation, but could the Chairman/CEO /etc be held responsible ?

Corporate Governance or something similar ?
Nowadays it's an offence not to report abuse to the authorities. Back then it wasn't.
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.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-12-2016, 11:44
Sebastian1992
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 698
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.
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!
Sebastian1992 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2016, 12:52
batdude_uk1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 69,132
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!
My idea of demotion was only myself kind of thinking of things that would really hurt a big club, if fines say in the region of a weekly salary to one of their current top players (say circa £200,000), mean nothing or not very much, what other action can be taken that big clubs (not just Chelsea, but any big club that happens to get caught up in this tragic and sordid situation) would find a true punishment for something so horrific for the individuals concerned?

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.
batdude_uk1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2016, 17:59
bradybrady
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.......
bradybrady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2016, 18:06
codeblue
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.
codeblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2016, 18:13
bradybrady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: In The Shed
Posts: 1,370
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.
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
bradybrady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2016, 18:38
codeblue
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 13,881
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
This is standard practice in law.. I also believe Chelsea waived this, thus allowing mr Johnson to speak out.
codeblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2016, 18:42
bradybrady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: In The Shed
Posts: 1,370
This is standard practice in law.. I also believe Chelsea waived this, thus allowing mr Johnson to speak out.
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
bradybrady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2016, 19:38
codeblue
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 13,881
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
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.
codeblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2016, 23:45
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,480
This is standard practice in law.. I also believe Chelsea waived this, thus allowing mr Johnson to speak out.
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.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 00:03
Jokanovic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West London
Posts: 5,657
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.
According to the news tonight, the player went to the police. They referred him to Chelsea.
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.
Jokanovic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 09:40
Richardcoulter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,700
Interesting
Michael Douglas claims that oral sex caused his mouth cancer

https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...ral-sex-cancer
It would be ironic if the oral sex carried out on the young footballers led them to unknowingly give him mouth cancer
Richardcoulter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 09:43
Richardcoulter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,700
Really? That number seems ridiculous, have you got a link?
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
Richardcoulter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 10:02
bradybrady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: In The Shed
Posts: 1,370
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.
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
bradybrady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 12:04
codeblue
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 13,881
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
If you get your facts from "loose women" then it kinds of devalues the argument.
codeblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 12:06
codeblue
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 13,881
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
The fa are up to their neck in this horrible scandal.
codeblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 13:42
The_don1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,429
The fa are up to their neck in this horrible scandal.
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_don1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 13:55
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,480
The fa are up to their neck in this horrible scandal.
Are you saying they instructed Chelsea to act the way they did, or just trying to divert attention?
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 13:57
codeblue
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 13,881
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
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.
codeblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 14:03
Richardcoulter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,700
If you get your facts from "loose women" then it kinds of devalues the argument.
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.
Richardcoulter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 14:12
codeblue
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 13,881
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.
Who did they poll?

How many did they poll?

What was the question they asked?
codeblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 14:30
The_don1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,429
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.
As should have Chelsea when this player came forward.
The_don1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 18:25
mikeyddd
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,975
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.
I wouldn't imagine it's the knowing someone who has suffered abuse which pushes the figures up.
mikeyddd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 21:21
Richardcoulter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,700
Who did they poll?

How many did they poll?

What was the question they asked?
Can't remember, it should be on the ITV Hub now if you want to know though.

I wouldn't imagine it's the knowing someone who has suffered abuse which pushes the figures up.
I was thinking the opposite, surely the problem isn't so rife that most were actually abused themselves?? I was surmising that the figure was so high because one abused person might tell a number of people.

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.
Richardcoulter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 21:32
Paul1511
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,403
Being so widespread, is this a chicken or egg situation?
Paul1511 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:24.