I would love to know how many rumours there have been swirling around about abuse in sport for many years, not just football but swimming, tennis, gymnastics etc. I wonder if any journalists have ever had any inkling and decided not to go there, due to the difficult nature of proving wrong doing so many years later.

 

Interestingly Syed interviewed Steve Parrish, Crystal Palace Chairman in 2015. Apparently Bill Wyman is a big Palace fan, and Syed went to great lengths to mention how Wyman couldn't sleep all week if Palace lost.

Syed didn't mention however, that Mandy Smith was just 14 years old when Wyman  started a sexual relationship with her, having groomed her for a good Year beforehand.

This observation has nothing to do with the sex abuse scandal rocking football, more to do with the disingenuous nature of some football "writing", and the hypocrisy of certain journalists.

 

Edited December 6, 20169 yr by SHELLY

@Dorset

thanks for that mate. I saw your previous take on hughes and dickinson before and thought it was very interesting. without putting words in your mouth I took it as a criticism of this need (on the part of those particular journalists) to not appear 'out of the loop' in regard to supposed rumours or whispers whilst at the same time not realising that (if they truly were privy to said rumours) then they would share some culpability or complicity in the wider culture that allows this type of abuse to happen.

I presume you have followed the savile aftermath in more detail than I (I have a copy of in plain sight but truthfully I am reluctant to open it), but it is something I am interested in- where machinery or structures are designed in a way that are open to manipulation. it makes accountability very complex and individual people and institutions can often get very defensive. that definitely includes journalists and journalism as a homogeneous group.

 I have to say I do not like what I have seen from chelsea (i.e. the club) in the last year or so. the carneiro affair removed any good faith I might otherwise reserve for them. these are people I don't trust to act with clarity or propriety, so this payment to johnson concerns me greatly. I think it is reasonable to say that certain journalists may be predisposed against chelsea for whatever reason, or will write about this issue in a manner that is self serving or self protecting, but at the moment those things are less immediately important. this payment was made by the club now, post savile, and by people still in their positions*. I think for that reason, whatever interests or dispositions certain journalists may have, it is right that there is an immediate focus on the club.

 

*it always amazes me that sky were allowed to move on keys and gray and apparently that was that- sexism was rooted out. similarly jose was sacked and we, as chelsea supporters, are meant to accept that the club has taken care of the problem. I get the feeling that for many, appearing to resolve the issue is more important than actually resolving it.

Oh God... please not Dario Gradi

 

17 hours ago, g3.7 said:

 

*it always amazes me that sky were allowed to move on keys and gray and apparently that was that- sexism was rooted out. similarly jose was sacked and we, as chelsea supporters, are meant to accept that the club has taken care of the problem. I get the feeling that for many, appearing to resolve the issue is more important than actually resolving it.

It doesnt surprise me at all, FIFA just lately disbanded their team investigating racism in football as they believe they have eradicated it....

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chelsea-bosses-meet-gary-johnson-9412445

This isn't getting much attention  is it? 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/dec/07/celtic-kitman-jim-mccafferty-confesses-sexual-abuse-football-club-1990s

Well look. I'm trying to contain my shock 

 

What are you getting at?  Hopefully not going down the path of painting  the victim of sexual abuse as some sort of money grabber? 

What are you getting at?  Hopefully not going down the path of painting  the victim of sexual abuse as some sort of money grabber? 

I think he's referring to the revelations from Celtic.

3 hours ago, g3.7 said:

What are you getting at?  Hopefully not going down the path of painting  the victim of sexual abuse as some sort of money grabber? 

Has he not had his compensation though? If he didn't think 50 grand was enough for his pain and suffering take cfc through the courts, between him and his solicitors they agreed on 50k and took the money, what has changed since then? other than it's probably all gone and with the fallout of the other victims he thinks he should of got more?

 

sounds proper c**tish saying it but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. 

Not to mention how it'll ruin it for others who genuinely want justice and not money. If the general public starts suspecting they're motivated by money they'll lose sympathy really quick. 

On 8/12/2016 at 10:41, bluegraham said:

This isn't getting much attention  is it? 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/dec/07/celtic-kitman-jim-mccafferty-confesses-sexual-abuse-football-club-1990s

This doesn't have any relevance to the Johnson case.

Those 3 chumps on the CFC board F'd up. They thought they could bung GJ 50K for his permanent silence never dreaming of the wider abuse that has since come to light.

Would love to have heard their groveling apology.

Personally I think he deserves more compensation and RA has deep pockets. I can't imagine some nonce fiddling with me when I did sports at school , let alone if I had been a young footy prospect chasing down  a dream of becoming a pro.

Imagine living with that hurt for 30+ years and imagine CFC thinking 50K would make it all better, a lot more empathy would go along way now from Buck Tenanbaum & Maria the Russian bird and a lot more dosh to GJ for a lifetime of suffering.

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, General said:

Those 3 chumps on the CFC board F'd up. They thought they could bung GJ 50K for his permanent silence never dreaming of the wider abuse that has since come to light.

Would love to have heard their groveling apology.

Personally I think he deserves more compensation and RA has deep pockets. I can't imagine some nonce fiddling with me when I did sports at school , let alone if I had been a young footy prospect chasing down  a dream of becoming a pro.

Imagine living with that hurt for 30+ years and imagine CFC thinking 50K would make it all better, a lot more empathy would go along way now from Buck Tenanbaum & Maria the Russian bird and a lot more dosh to GJ for a lifetime of suffering.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those 3 chumps were instructed by the insurance company to pay out apparently, plus why should our current owner pay out of his own pocket for things that happened possibly before he was even born?

If he wasn't happy with the payout, why did he accept it?

Why didn't he kick up more of a fuss if this was all about the principle?

He seems happy to have his mug all over tv and the papers now, just comes off as a money grabber to me. 

 

11 minutes ago, Zola said:

If he wasn't happy with the payout, why did he accept it?

Why didn't he kick up more of a fuss if this was all about the principle?

He seems happy to have his mug all over tv and the papers now, just comes off as a money grabber to me. 

 

Please stop posting items saying Gary Johnson is a money grabber. The bloke has been sexually abused. Your comments are awful PR for the club.

My questions still stand to reason though..

7 minutes ago, Andy North said:

Please stop posting items saying Gary Johnson is a money grabber. The bloke has been sexually abused. Your comments are awful PR for the club.

Allegedly abused isn't it? 

The Metropolitan Police deemed there to be no case to answer for.

Eddie Heath had already died by the time Johnson instructed his lawyers to approach Chelsea for compensation regarding the alleged abuse. Seeing as the accused was deceased and the severity of the accusations Chelsea took Johnson at his word as there is no way to prove/disprove his allegations.

12 minutes ago, Andy North said:

Please stop posting items saying Gary Johnson is a money grabber. The bloke has been sexually abused. Your comments are awful PR for the club.

He agreed a compensation amount which had a confidentiality clause in it. 

A few years later he has pushed for the confidentiality clause to be lifted by leaking the details to the press

Now he wants more money....people are right to question what is happening here. 

6 minutes ago, benjsross said:

He agreed a compensation amount which had a confidentiality clause in it. 

A few years later he has pushed for the confidentiality clause to be lifted by leaking the details to the press

Now he wants more money....people are right to question what is happening here. 

He's been sexually abused. And you lot are making him out to be money grabber. £50k for a lifetime of misery is nowhere near enough. He deserves all he can get.

Did I say it was? I posted asking the question has this got much attention but apparently it has been on the news.  Am I not aloud ask a question on it? for me it's all related it's sexual abuse in football no matter who the club.

Just now, Andy North said:

He's been sexually abused. And you lot are making him out to be money grabber. £50k for a lifetime of misery is nowhere near enough. He deserves all he can get.

I would agree he deserves more, a lot more. 

Trouble is it's an historical crime with no living offender.

Hundreds of people are having to live with the affects of being abused in childhood, with no chance of any payouts.

It's a sad story, but the media should concentrate on exposing offenders who are abusing children at present. Go after living offenders, compensate proven atrocities. 

I don't pretend to know either way what happened, but there is no actual evidence and the police turned him away, so is it really the right thing to do to automatically assume that the allegations are true and tarnish the name of the former scout, with no evidence? If he was alive it would be much easier, but he can't defend himself..

I'm not trying to question the victim in this case or downplay his accusations, but we are supposed to live in an "innocent until proven guilty" society, but when it comes to any kind of allegation like this, society tends to change to "guilty even if proven innocent".

Well said Zeta, every allegation must be properly investigated, and no one should just be presumed guilty on a apparent victims say so.

Just seen a report that says There are now 83 potential suspects and 98 clubs involved according to BBC news. Jesus that's grim and horrifying, and shows many organisations gave obviously turned a blind eye to what was going on. Absolutely sickening.

4 minutes ago, dkw said:

Well said Zeta, every allegation must be properly investigated, and no one should just be presumed guilty on a apparent victims say so.

Just seen a report that says There are now 83 potential suspects and 98 clubs involved according to BBC news. Jesus that's grim and horrifying, and shows many organisations gave obviously turned a blind eye to what was going on. Absolutely sickening.

Using your logic Jimmy Saville is innocent.