Club is now being criticised because a member of security around Stamford Bridge stopped a live BBC broadcast on the hush money story

19 hours ago, moi said:

I have been pondering this for some time, and even now I hesitate to write.  But...

Has it ever been divulged what specifically here is meant by "sexual abuse"?  That term seems to be used for everything from groping to full on rape. I am not in anyway saying that it is OK for a football coach to grope young boys, but at the same time if that is what happened, and the public is being left thinking that the boy was raped (by a man who is now dead), then we have to ask ourselves questions.

If the parents accepted 50K to keep quiet about a grope, that is perhaps acceptable.  If they accepted 50K to keep quiet about their son being raped, that is totally unacceptable.

Parents? The guy got the 50k a couple of years ago. 

The 50k was compensation to settle the matter outside of court. The confidentiality clause is dodgy but potentially standard in these cases. 

 

Im still wondering why the police and PFA ignoring him is not a bigger deal.

On 03/12/2016 at 09:29, Seven Times said:

I notice a lot of people on social media are screaming out for points deductions.

 

They aren't thinking about the victim, they are thinking about their own clubs I think.

Doesn't surprise me one bit to be honest. A lot of football fans are just f**king idiots really.

well deducting points or punishing the coach, backroom staff, players etc, and the performance side of the club would be extremely harsh. the punishments should be for those directly involved in giving the payments and not reporting the claims. there is talk of bruce buck and marina gravaskoia (i think it's spelt) jobs being under threat. 

Edited December 4, 20169 yr by enigma

4 hours ago, benjsross said:

Parents? The guy got the 50k a couple of years ago. 

The 50k was compensation to settle the matter outside of court. The confidentiality clause is dodgy but potentially standard in these cases. 

 

Im still wondering why the police and PFA ignoring him is not a bigger deal.

Ah, OK, thanks for that information.  Somehow I had got the idea that it was his parents who complained not long after it happened.  Does the fact that he as an adult accepted the 50K in return for his silence makes his subsequent complaint a bit dodgy? And yes, the police ignoring him IS a big deal.

I still find the general term "abuse" very vague, for it covers such a multitude of offences.

This is turning into a real sh*t storm it really is mega sh*t storm someone really made an absolute mess of this few years ago.

52 minutes ago, 1905 said:

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/football-sex-abuse-scandal-player-12274919

 

"He stressed the club had insisted on the “gagging clause”, adding: “I had to sign that before I got any compensation."

If justice rather than compensation was his primary objective then he didn't have to accept the money.

Don't get me wrong the abuse he suffered is tragic but retrospectively attacking the club after receiving payment he sought after is a bit sh*tty on his part. Especially as he knows the current administration wasn't around at the time he suffered abuse.

I'm sure he conducted that interview for free too... *ahem*

As someone else posted earlier, I too am a lawyer and see both sides of it all the time.

If any player or former player, or anyone else for that matter, has suffered abuse, whether it be sexual, physical violence or verbal, then I will back them to the hilt against any wrong doing, however although I am not privy to all the facts of the case and likely never will be, I have a pretty good eye and a nose for this kind of thing, otherwise I wouldn't be doing the job I do, so I have to say, there is something a bit fishy going on here and I see others are not fully convinced of our former player's motives.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/the-game/trying-to-justify-buying-victims-silence-shows-chelseas-priorities-are-warped-xtxqf9ddm

Nice to see him using the child abuse saga to attack the club. This has been confirmed as widespread in football so he's personally picking on one club and using other people's pain to further his agenda.

His obsession with the club is actually pretty hilarious.

Edited December 5, 20169 yr by Ivanov87

12 hours ago, Brutos said:

This is turning into a real sh*t storm it really is mega sh*t storm someone really made an absolute mess of this few years ago.

Not really. The club has apologised, investigation is being conducted and a lot more clubs will be involved in the coming days/weeks. The usual suspects will try use this to attack the club but not worth bothering with. 

If the pay off hadn't happened a few years ago it wouldn't be an issue, but because it's so recent it's inevitable people we will come under more criticism. 

He really needs to get a life. Bloke is a pathetic waste of space. 

On 04/12/2016 at 22:37, benjsross said:

Parents? The guy got the 50k a couple of years ago. 

The 50k was compensation to settle the matter outside of court presumably on the basis that the complainant was threatening to tell his story to the press. The confidentiality clause is dodgy but potentially standard in these cases.

Im still wondering why the police and PFA ignoring him is not a bigger deal.

Fixed it for you.

One assumes that the police (on the basis that the complainant brought it to their attention) would have referred the matter to & sought advice from the DPP (or the English equivalent) and one infers that the latter advised that due to the effluxion of time and the salient fact that the accused was dead that the institution of criminal proceedings by the crown would be unwise and a waste of resources.

3 hours ago, Ivanov87 said:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/the-game/trying-to-justify-buying-victims-silence-shows-chelseas-priorities-are-warped-xtxqf9ddm

Nice to see him using the child abuse saga to attack the club. This has been confirmed as widespread in football so he's personally picking on one club and using other people's pain to further his agenda.

His obsession with the club is actually pretty hilarious.

Could you post the whole article?

Thanks in advance.

The guy is retarded but he was a no one before he started attacking us so much so I guess that's what he needs to stick to to get gigs like the Times. 

what is his argument and is anyone saying he's wrong? 

I'd say, especially on a matter so important, we need to judge the writing not the writer. 

I think this is too serious and too sensitive a matter for another thread moaning about perceived unfair treatment by the press. 

First post. Registered the other day. 

We'll obviously need to wait for all the facts to be presented before handing out judgement. But that payment reflects horribly on the club. Still unsure of the circumstances regarding the payment. The press are calling it hush money. If that's what it is, then that something that shouldn't have happened and the club will be rightly vilified for it.

Some journalist on SS (Oliver Holt I think) said that this payment links the past to this current regime. Other clubs can claim it was a bygone era and no-one at the club from those days is still around and then distance themselves from it while the club is still implicated and Chelsea couldn't do this because of the payment, which unfortunately makes a lot of sense.

This thing will get a lot worse and we'll hear many more stories come out. 

As for Syed, I've long since stopped paying attention to him. The fact that he's using other people's pain to once again single Chelsea out is so very Matthew Syed of him. 

Edited December 6, 20169 yr by Graulund

10 hours ago, g3.7 said:

what is his argument and is anyone saying he's wrong? 

I'd say, especially on a matter so important, we need to judge the writing not the writer. 

I think this is too serious and too sensitive a matter for another thread moaning about perceived unfair treatment by the press. 

Thing is though, anyone else and I would pay attention to the article but he has a history of animosity towards the club. 

To put it bluntly, I doubt Syed gives a sh*t about the victims. This is just about spewing hatred and hiding behind this issue as a way to justify what he's written, and frankly I think it's disgraceful that the media pack are gathering like wolves to tear us down over this particular issue.

This isn't a Chelsea issue or even a football issue, it's a societal issue and one that ought to be condemned for those who have engaged in these hideous crimes.

Not saying the club has done the right thing with its actions surrounding this issue, but referring to Chelsea only is a merely a smokescreen to the wider problem that society has faced or is still currently facing.

Crap article!

Edited December 6, 20169 yr by Jezz

This is just the tip of a very murky iceberg, I'm sure there are many other clubs with shameful incidents like this in their past. The club should not have paid him a penny but advised him to seek independent legal advice and offered to pay for that legal advice.

They should also have contacted the FA to ask their advice on how to deal with an allegation of historical sex abuse, where the alleged wrong doer is now dead. The Police should come forward and explain why they did not think this was worth following up.

Frankly the whole thing stinks and our legal team, while firmly stating that this is nothing to do with the current administration, should have stated that they are quite prepared to be open and transparent in any case like this. Trying to cover up something that happened decades ago makes them look bad.

I do have some sympathy for the club as sex abuse is such a horrible subject, and something that no organisation wants to be associated with, but this was always going to come out.

2 hours ago, Ivanov87 said:

Thing is though, anyone else and I would pay attention to the article but he has a history of animosity towards the club. 

with respect, that is irrelevant.

this isn't about whether chelsea play good football or if it is fair that abramovich outspends rivals. this is actually important and if what he has to say has merit then we have to engage with it.

I don't understand this mentality that if you don't like a journalist, or if you doubt their sincerity, that entitles you to ignore what they are actually saying.

syed being biased against chelsea and potentially correct about bad practices employed by the club in this case are NOT mutually exclusive.

I'm quite interested in what he has to say on this so if you could copy and paste it that would be a help.

 

 

12 hours ago, g3.7 said:

I think this is too serious and too sensitive a matter for another thread moaning about perceived unfair treatment by the press. 

Agreed, and merged.

1 hour ago, SHELLY said:

This is just the tip of a very murky iceberg, I'm sure there are many other clubs with shameful incidents like this in their past. The club should not have paid him a penny but advised him to seek independent legal advice and offered to pay for that legal advice.

They should also have contacted the FA to ask their advice on how to deal with an allegation of historical sex abuse, where the alleged wrong doer is now dead. The Police should come forward and explain why they did not think this was worth following up.

Frankly the whole thing stinks and our legal team, while firmly stating that this is nothing to do with the current administration, should have stated that they are quite prepared to be open and transparent in any case like this. Trying to cover up something that happened decades ago makes them look bad.

I do have some sympathy for the club as sex abuse is such a horrible subject, and something that no organisation wants to be associated with, but this was always going to come out.

You are right in many ways. But did the victim want £50,000 or did he want...well what did he want? "Justice" - against who? Money - he got that? What else?

2 hours ago, g3.7 said:

with respect, that is irrelevant.

this isn't about whether chelsea play good football or if it is fair that abramovich outspends rivals. this is actually important and if what he has to say has merit then we have to engage with it.

I don't understand this mentality that if you don't like a journalist, or if you doubt their sincerity, that entitles you to ignore what they are actually saying.

syed being biased against chelsea and potentially correct about bad practices employed by the club in this case are NOT mutually exclusive.

I'm quite interested in what he has to say on this so if you could copy and paste it that would be a help.

 

“It was, according to an official Chelsea statement, “understandable” that the club inserted a confidentiality clause into an agreement with Gary Johnson after he told the club that he had been abused over a period of five years by Eddie Heath, a chief scout in the 1970s. It was “understandable” that instead of investigating thoroughly, finding out whether other young people had been harmed under their care, they hushed it up. It was “understandable” that Johnson - who was first assaulted at the age of 13 and was a victim on hundreds of occasions - was paid £50,000 not to talk about it by the club.

The scandal of the child-abuse allegations in football is that it is increasingly clear that clubs, the authorities and, yes, even the media turned a blind eye to the allegations circling all those years ago. The crucial difference with this story, however, is that while the alleged abuse is historical, the decision to cover it up is not. The payment was made last year. The present directors of one of the world’s biggest clubs seem to have been trying to airbrush serious crimes out of existence.

Indeed, when you take a step back and examine their carefully drafted evasions, the Chelsea statement, released on Saturday, is staggering in its duplicity. They went as far as possible to justify the decision not merely to gag Johnson, but to sit on their hands when they came to investigating his claims that he was not the only young Chelsea player whose life was ruined by Heath. Did Chelsea investigate these allegations with the diligence that you would expect from a club who, according to the same statement, are “fully committed to ensuring the safety and well-being of all children and young people who are in our care or attending our premises”? Did they put a fraction of their vast wealth into a proper review given that the welfare of children is “of paramount importance”?

Not a bit of it. With startling abruptness, the club offer the following explanation for why they did so little: “With the limited information the club received, we were unable to identify any further individuals who may have been subject to abuse.” And this is where the issue becomes serious indeed. For Johnson came forward for a simple reason: he had been emboldened to do so, after suffering regular bouts of depression, by victims who spoke publicly during the Savile affair. In much the same way, the crisis in football came to light after an interview by Andy Woodward, who waived his right to anonymity to speak bravely (and heart-breakingly) about his abuse at the hands of a youth-team coach. The directors of Chelsea must have known that by offering hush money to Johnson, they were effectively thwarting the very process that could have led others to brave the spotlight, particularly those who may have been at Chelsea, thus shining a light on the problem, bringing belated relief to the victims and, who knows, bringing other paedophiles to justice, some of whom (unlike Heath, who died in the 1980s) may still be acting in a criminal way.

And this is what makes this scandal so astonishing: the pristine image of the club seems to have taken precedence over the interests of victims. That the decision was made in the aftermath of Savile, of the scandal that has rocked the Catholic church, of the terrible tales still emerging from care homes and the Boy Scouts, makes it even more egregious. After all, nobody in a position of authority, particularly at an institution involved with children, can have been oblivious to the fact that the paying of hush money would directly hinder the operation of justice. One should be clear, of course, that the true criminal in this terrible story is Heath. He is the one who conspired to ruin the life of Johnson and perhaps other victims too. He is the one who robbed a young man of his innocence, who forced him to take part in threesomes with other boys, who put his own gratification above those over whom he had a duty of care. 

But it is surely also true that Chelsea had an overriding responsibility to act with urgency when Johnson came forward. Greg Clarke, the chairman of the FA, said last week that if it could be shown that payments had been made to silence victims, it would be “morally repugnant”. Well, now it has. In an interview with the Daily Mirror, Maryce, Johnson’s wife, said: “It has been there almost 30 years and occasions when it has come up so many times . . . I have learnt to just leave Gary when the depression hits him, to let him get over it. But at times it has taken weeks.” Johnson, whose courage in speaking out should be saluted, said: “I felt shame, I felt my childhood had been taken away. I spent my late teens in turmoil, absolute turmoil.”

Chelsea have commissioned an “independent review” into what happened and I, for one, look forward to scrutinising the lawyers who have been hired to conduct it. But whatever they come up with, there can be no doubt of serious culpability. This isn’t an oversight, or a slip; it seems to have been a conscious decision to make it financially disadvantageous for a victim of sexual abuse to speak out. One can only hope that it is not symptomatic of the attitude of other clubs when it comes to child protection.

“All [Chelsea] fans deserve to know the truth about what went on. I know they asked me to sign a gagging order. How many others are there out there?” Johnson said last week, surely echoing the thoughts of every right-minded person in the game. “They may have paid others for their silence. I hope and pray no clubs are allowed to cover this up - no one should escape justice. We need total transparency now for the good of the game.”

Matthew Syed is third in line, behind Matt Hughes and Matt Dickinson, to write forThe Times on this matter, restricting ever-widening club involvement solely to CFC in the process. Earlier Hughes chose the simplistic self-praise route of ‘uncovering’ the concerns that were raised over Eddie Heath, a method that took the form of a trawl through previous fragmented coverage, followed by false presentation of it as fresh investigative journalism. The Times needed this platform from which to pontificate because it was way adrift of both The Telegraph and The Guardian in terms of being seen as a newspaper at the forefront of events. Dickinson continued the theme in the very same edition and these quotes from his article are enough to show the accusative angle taken:-

“Troubling questions are stacking up for Chelsea, which are very unlikely to be satisfactorily answered by the club’s own inquiry into their having paid off a victim of child abuse two years ago. Did they investigate properly or was it more important to maintain the glitzy façade? Did they report it to the relevant authorities or did they hope it would go away? Did they think of the welfare of other potential victims or were they happy to prolong the agonised silence?

A club might be more preoccupied with upsetting the sponsors. They might not want to delve back into the grubby Seventies and Eighties when they have a gleaming corporate box to sell. There are good reasons why a club would be expected to report something of this magnitude. But who wants to risk having to pay multiple victims if you can make one quickly disappear?

We should note that it is too easy to say that throwing money around is typical of football’s - and Chelsea’s - way of dealing with a problem. Chelsea are facing tough questions about how they dealt with this issue as football tries to come to terms with the scale of this abuse and all those victims who never felt able to speak up in public.”

This latest tilt at the club comes several days later and, as it appears to bring nothing new to a Times table already groaning under platefuls of emotive verbiage and unanswered questions that require little or no substantiation, you can’t help but think it is all designed to keep the parochial Chels pot boiling away merrily, or whatever the sombre, strident-stirring equivalent of that metaphorically might be. Nevertheless, whilst we all know Matthew Syed needs no second bidding to deride all things SW6, we must not deny him the opportunity to have his say, by painstakingly trampling over old ground in the puffed up statesmanlike manner we have all grown accustomed to reading and ultimately laughing at.  No exception here, then, although trying hard to give him the benefit of any doubt that might be going (and desperate to be as fair-minded as you always strive to be, g3) I did give his article a thorough scan in the hope of unearthing at least a modicum of originality. And, lo and behold, here it is…

“The scandal of the child-abuse allegations in football is that it is increasingly clear that clubs, the authorities and, yes, even the media turned a blind eye to the allegations circling all those years ago.”

Such a pity that, having got to the nub of the matter as early as his second paragraph, Syed reverts to his predictable default position, namely overkill on criticism of one club. Even the media? EVEN the media??? And there I was naively believing that ’allegations circling’ was the acknowledged domain, the everyday working environment of the investigative journalist. In such circumstances, media turning of a blind eye is arguably the most reprehensible of the lot! Still, I note with interest and gratefulness that, when it comes to the ‘independent review’ Chelsea have commissioned, dear old Matthew, for one, will ‘look forward to scrutinising the lawyers who have been hired to conduct it'. Better late than never, some true due diligence from a journalist at last... even though it has only come about with malice aforethought.   
 

I think in general, it's a good thing that these stories are being brought to light. I hope the victim can get some closure in this whole story. However, one thing that I don't understand, if Johnson went to the club and wanted an investigation or a recognition of the issue, shouldn't he have had a legal representative as recommended to him by the PFA? Also, why didn't the police or the PFA alert the FA themselves before Johnson went to Chelsea?

I hope our legal team gets investigated over this whole procedure, because the club would not have an issue right now if they would have not made any payments. Also, I hope the FA defines a clear legal process for both the victim and the club for this type of issue.