Jump to content

Police Investigations into historical interference with young players

spyinthesky

By spyinthesky
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

suewhistle

suewhistle

Posted
Posted

To be fair to Chelsea I've read that the non-disclosure agreement at the time was also intended to protect the player and that they have waived any requirement on their part for such agreement to be enforced, depending on the wishes of the player.

The Kraken

The Kraken

Posted
Posted

Lots of comments being made on how terrible this will make the club look.

 

Personally I couldn't give a f*ck how it makes the club look. The most important thing is that any and all people who suffered because of this are given the opportunity to come forward (anonymously if they choose) and ensure that justice is served. Compared to that, talk of how bad the club looks is just meaningless drivel and so far away from being the main issue it's not even worth considering.

a1ex2001

a1ex2001

Posted
Posted

It doesn't make he club look terrible it makes the 70/80's look terrible which from a child protection point of view they were, I hope all those who come forward get the justice and help they deserve and all those who abused the position of trust which they held get the punishment they deserve. From the looks of it this is going to touch pretty much every club in the game and will almost certainly branch out into other sports. The club should do everything they can to enable the full investigation of the allegations and offer support to those who were abused while in the care of the club. What will stain the club is if we put the barriers up and don't acknowledge the historical problem, publicise what we currently do to prevent it happening again and offer what ever is needed by those that suffered assuming they are willing to accept anything from the club.

Guided Missile

Guided Missile

Posted
Posted

[h=1]Football sex abuse: Southampton contact police inquiry[/h]Southampton Football Club say they have contacted Hampshire Police after receiving information about allegations of historical abuse.

The club say they are offering "full support" to the force in its probe into allegations in the Hampshire area.

On Thursday, several former Southampton players alleged they had suffered years of sexual abuse by a former employee.

derry

derry

Posted
Posted
Something similar happened in hockey circles here in Canada featuring a convicted sex offender named Graham James, who was the coach of a junior team called the Swift Current Broncos. At least two of his young victims ended up in the NHL.

 

This kind of criminality has a severe impact on the victims. For some, it pushes their life completely off the rails. Anyone who comes forward should be applauded, and the offender/s will hopefully end up facing criminal prosecutions and lengthy incarceration.

 

You should drop Canada Saint a line he has lived in Edmonton for years. Played in same youth team as MIck Channon.

doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted

18 police forces now investigating historic abuse in football I doubt there are going to be to many clubs that aren't going to be caught up in this. I also see the first cases in kids athletics are being reported to.

Secret Site Agent

Secret Site Agent

Posted
Posted
Just a reminder. Any acts of libel or potential libel are auto bans.

 

What's 'potential libel' then? I don't normally do this and I agree with a libellous statement being a ban but what is 'potential libel'? Any statement can have the potential but how can you ban someone for it as it doesn't exist. It's like potential winning of the lottery or potential dangerous driving.

Sorry I'm quite a stickler for these things.

CB Saint

CB Saint

Posted
Posted
What's 'potential libel' then? I don't normally do this and I agree with a libellous statement being a ban but what is 'potential libel'? Any statement can have the potential but how can you ban someone for it as it doesn't exist. It's like potential winning of the lottery or potential dangerous driving.

Sorry I'm quite a stickler for these things.

 

I would say that potential libel is something that maybe not prove to be libellous however is sailing close enough to the wind that the site owners become uncomfortable with the risk. It is completely subjective therefore you probably won't get a clearer answer than i have just given.

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
What's 'potential libel' then? I don't normally do this and I agree with a libellous statement being a ban but what is 'potential libel'? Any statement can have the potential but how can you ban someone for it as it doesn't exist. It's like potential winning of the lottery or potential dangerous driving.

Sorry I'm quite a stickler for these things.

Just don't be an idiot and speculate about names that haven't been released in the media in relation to these claims. It's common sense really.

St Chalet

St Chalet

Posted
Posted (edited)
What's 'potential libel' then? I don't normally do this and I agree with a libellous statement being a ban but what is 'potential libel'? Any statement can have the potential but how can you ban someone for it as it doesn't exist. It's like potential winning of the lottery or potential dangerous driving.

Sorry I'm quite a stickler for these things.

 

I am not legally trained, but my limited understanding is that libel is tested in a court of law . My view therefore is that something that may reasonably be referred to the courts for such a decision has the potential to be libellous.

 

potential

pə(ʊ)ˈtɛnʃ(ə)l/

adjective

 

  • 1.
    having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.
     
    [TABLE=class: vk_tbl vk_gy]
    [TR]
    [TD=class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl]synonyms:[/TD]
    [TD]possible, likely, prospective, future, probable, budding
     
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
     
     
     

 

Edited by St Chalet
St Chalet

St Chalet

Posted
Posted
I would say that potential libel is something that maybe not prove to be libellous however is sailing close enough to the wind that the site owners become uncomfortable with the risk. It is completely subjective therefore you probably won't get a clearer answer than i have just given.

 

sensible post CB. Ultimately it is the publisher that carries the risk for libel. My understanding is that in the case of Internet forums that liability can be site owners, isp, moderators and the poster.

Horley CTFC Saint

Horley CTFC Saint

Posted
Posted
sensible post CB. Ultimately it is the publisher that carries the risk for libel. My understanding is that in the case of Internet forums that liability can be site owners, isp, moderators and the poster.

And of course the costs of defending an alleged libel may actually be higher than the award itself - hope you're insured

so22saint

so22saint

Posted
Posted

My mate was a Saints youth and mentioned the name of the guy who he is certain is the chap involved. Luckily for libel reasons I got so ****faced I can't remember it :)

suewhistle

suewhistle

Posted
Posted

Does double jeopardy exist in these cases if new information comes to light? If there were a retrial or new trial based on new evidence it would be best if the names weren't bandied about as the defence could possibly claim press coverage was prejudicial.

Wade Garrett

Wade Garrett

Posted
Posted
Some interesting comments about Shearer on a Facebook account of one of Shearer's fellow youth team colleagues at the Dell.

 

Right as well, in my opinion. The bloke is a jellyfish.

eesti matty

eesti matty

Posted
Posted

Will have to try and find who it is if you are unable to mention it on here. A number of players from that era (Jamie Webb, Jason Walkington and Keith Granger) played under my dad when he managed Basingstoke. Will talk to him and see if heard any rumours.

 

Sent from my SM-G357FZ using Tapatalk

Fitzhugh Fella

Fitzhugh Fella

Posted
Posted

Well I have shared it on my timeline and I see Dennis Bundy has also commented on it. There is nothing libellous on it just a bunch of his ex-playing colleagues saying Shearer knew all about it and for him to say he didn't now to be hypercritical

Gunnery

Gunnery

Posted
Posted

So was this fella who the Sun are naming employed by SFC in 1997 when warnings were issued? Or was he just working independently in the Hants football community?

ART

ART

Posted
Posted

Rupert Löwen was quick to suspend our manager at the time when he was accused of alleged abuse accusations. I'm wondering whether Lowe's decision to so was influenced by rumors elsewhere within the club.

Surprised Lowe hasn't made any comment seeing the abuse of players happened on his watch.

Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
Rupert Löwen was quick to suspend our manager at the time when he was accused of alleged abuse accusations. I'm wondering whether Lowe's decision to so was influenced by rumors elsewhere within the club.

Surprised Lowe hasn't made any comment seeing the abuse of players happened on his watch.

 

The article linked would suggest it pre-dates Lowe.

Kingsland Red

Kingsland Red

Posted
Posted

What I never understood was the front of the man. After leaving Saints, over many years he would turn up at various local clubs including Tyro clubs, offering coaching, despite the local football fraternity being aware of his alleged reputation. Not one for keeping a low profile.

Gunnery

Gunnery

Posted
Posted
Dan Roan has tweeted that there will be a "major development" in the child abuse scandal this evening.

 

Is this major development that Higgins is still working in football?

Gunnery

Gunnery

Posted
Posted
Yep Dan Roan let me down there:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38200993

 

The coach was at Fleet, but is not employed anymore. There was concern around the lack of screening. I'm not sure how much screening can be done if someone has not been convicted of a criminal offence.

Exactly, unless he's been found guilty, what can you do? He's free to take work wherever he can obtain it. The real issue regarding Saints will be how much was known about his alleged misdemeanours and what did we (the club) do about it.... surely the whistle should have been blown if accusations were made?
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted (edited)
The real issue regarding Saints will be how much was known about his alleged misdemeanours and what did we (the club) do about it.... surely the whistle should have been blown if accusations were made?

Whether anyone at the club knew of anything untoward prior to Radford bringing it to light is open to question.

Edited by Chez
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...