And I don't think anyone with an ounce of decency doesHibsclaret wrote:Whenever anything like this is discussed it is always ‘they were different times...etc’. I really don’t buy that
Crewe Statement
-
- Posts: 67860
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32526 times
- Has Liked: 5276 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Crewe Statement
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Crewe Statement
I do hope nobody on this thread ever finds their father or grandfather smacked the arse of a secretary as she walked through an office or groped an office junior at a Christmas party. I hope they've also taken appropriate steps to ensure that they're beyond reproach when people in a hundred years time look back in horror at how we knew about global warming and the causes but they still drove their cars to something as trivial as a football match.
Still, pitchforks and torches all round! I'd love to have the moral certainty about anything that some people have. Like many of the posters on this topic. Or Torquemada.
Still, pitchforks and torches all round! I'd love to have the moral certainty about anything that some people have. Like many of the posters on this topic. Or Torquemada.
This user liked this post: Grumps
Re: Crewe Statement
Tony, did you ever get the cane at school, if you did what did your parents do about itClaretTony wrote:And I don't think anyone with an ounce of decency does
Re: Crewe Statement
I can understand where you are coming from but it is so typical of left wing righteousness to go on the defence it angers us sane people at times.Grumps wrote:People are normally suspended in the workplace whilst an investigation takes place, have we the result of that investigation?
Until he's found guilty either internally, or criminally he remains innocent however bad you think that might be
I cannot to review this thread
(http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... th+penalty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )about innocent until guilty once the details are revealed.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Crewe Statement
It's typical of a certain mindset to immediately assume anybody who disagrees about anything must be the opposite "wing" to you. I was unaware concepts of natural justice were an exclusively "left wing" domain. If so, I'll have to drop out.Bfcboyo wrote:I can understand where you are coming from but it is so typical of left wing righteousness to go on the defence it angers us sane people at times.
Nobody on here who's more measured has said what they think the punishment should be for this kind of offence. Just whether they think some process should be gone through first.
This user liked this post: Grumps
Re: Crewe Statement
You couldn't be more wrong, iam as far from the left it's possible to be and remain normalBfcboyo wrote:I can understand where you are coming from but it is so typical of left wing righteousness to go on the defence it angers us sane people at times.
I cannot to review this thread
(http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... th+penalty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )about innocent until guilty once the details are revealed.
Re: Crewe Statement
The punishment should obviously be blinded in both eyes to fit the offence.thatdberight wrote:It's typical of a certain mindset to immediately assume anybody who disagrees about anything must be the opposite "wing" to you. I was unaware concepts of natural justice were an exclusively "left wing" domain. If so, I'll have to drop out.
Nobody on here who's more measured has said what they think the punishment should be for this kind of offence. Just whether they think some process should be gone through first.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Crewe Statement
Well done. Straight to the top of stupid class.Bfcboyo wrote:The punishment should obviously be blinded in both eyes to fit the offence.
Re: Crewe Statement
In case you dont want to divulge, I'll tell you my,and many others experience. I was caned, and had wooden board rubbers thrown at me in class, had i told my parents i would have been told off again, why? Because it was acceptable behaviour by teachers,in the 70s in brierfield. Nowadays its not,because times have changed. Is physical assault on a child the same, better,or worse than being slapped on the arse in the shower....both are assault, both are wrong,yet acceptable at the time we are discussing,should all teachers from that time now be prosecuted?Grumps wrote:Tony, did you ever get the cane at school, if you did what did your parents do about it
This user liked this post: tim_noone
-
- Posts: 7353
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2219 times
- Has Liked: 2210 times
Re: Crewe Statement
I'm confused.
I thought we were talking about sexual abuse.
When was that ever deemed "acceptable"'?
I thought we were talking about sexual abuse.
When was that ever deemed "acceptable"'?
-
- Posts: 836
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:48 pm
- Been Liked: 244 times
- Has Liked: 343 times
- Location: Sandbach
Re: Crewe Statement
I live very close to Crewe and both my boys have been at Crewe FC academy / dev. centre at some stage over the last ten years. . Several mates of theirs still there. Whilst never signed, both boys were aware of the Dario parties where the young(ish) lads slept at his following his parties. Posh gaff. Loads of boys toys. Rules: Parents collect in the morning.
He’s not been charged with ought yet.
He’s not been charged with ought yet.
Re: Crewe Statement
At the time in questionfidelcastro wrote:I'm confused.
I thought we were talking about sexual abuse.
When was that ever deemed "acceptable"'?
-
- Posts: 10168
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4188 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: Crewe Statement
Comparing it to being caned at school is dumb.
Re: Crewe Statement
I think you should read all the previous posts till you jump to conclusionsclaretonthecoast1882 wrote:Comparing it to being caned at school is dumb.
Nobody is comparing the two,just using examples of what used to be acceptable in society,and isnt anymore....lots of other examples should you care to read.
-
- Posts: 10168
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4188 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: Crewe Statement
I have read it, and your defence of this and Gradi is just as weird.Grumps wrote:I think you should read all the previous posts till you jump to conclusions
Nobody is comparing the two,just using examples of what used to be acceptable in society,and isnt anymore....lots of other examples should you care to read.
When people were being caned in a class it was done as a discipline measure, sexual abuse has never been acceptable just covered up by nonces and organisations.
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
- Been Liked: 3339 times
- Has Liked: 1957 times
Re: Crewe Statement
What year was it that sexual abuse of children moved from being acceptable to being unacceptable?
-
- Posts: 16878
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6955 times
- Has Liked: 1480 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Crewe Statement
Sexual abuse was never acceptable. It was illegal at the time the alleged offences took place so by definition it wasn’t acceptable. Not sure how, or why, anyone can argue differently.
Just because some people turned a blind eye and the crime was prevalent within certain institutions doesn’t make it acceptable. Were the Rochdale/Huddersfield grooming gangs acceptable?
Just because some people turned a blind eye and the crime was prevalent within certain institutions doesn’t make it acceptable. Were the Rochdale/Huddersfield grooming gangs acceptable?
Re: Crewe Statement
Youve got to be careful of your wording. Certain sexual abuse has never been accepted,and never will be.Bordeauxclaret wrote:What year was it that sexual abuse of children moved from being acceptable to being unacceptable?
The kind of sexual abuse involved in the one case being discussed on here was accepted in dressing rooms up and down the country, professional and amateur, at that time.
Nobody is saying it was right, and that behaviour would not be accepted in todays society,what you fail to grasp is that it was accepted then
As for the exact date it changed I havent got a clue...
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
- Been Liked: 3339 times
- Has Liked: 1957 times
Re: Crewe Statement
I need to be careful with my words???
I’m not the one claiming sexual abuse of children was acceptable.
I’m not the one claiming sexual abuse of children was acceptable.
Re: Crewe Statement
Its the whole of society in the 70s claiming it,however we are talking about what went on in dressings rooms, such as a smack on the arse, naked press ups as described in earlier posts, not being bent over and buggered, that has never been seen as acceptable,so yes,chose very carefully what you are referring to,as this discussion is about one specific incident ,detailed very well in earlier postsBordeauxclaret wrote:I need to be careful with my words???
I’m not the one claiming sexual abuse of children was acceptable.
Re: Crewe Statement
Sentences were far, far more lenient though, that's why the likes of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall could only be given prison terms based on when the crimes took place, not on current guidelines.Rileybobs wrote:Sexual abuse was never acceptable. It was illegal at the time the alleged offences took place so by definition it wasn’t acceptable. Not sure how, or why, anyone can argue differently.
-
- Posts: 10903
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
- Been Liked: 5554 times
- Has Liked: 208 times
Re: Crewe Statement
You really need to read up on the Eddie Heath enquiry.Grumps wrote:Its the whole of society in the 70s claiming it,however we are talking about what went on in dressings rooms, such as a smack on the arse, naked press ups as described in earlier posts, not being bent over and buggered, that has never been seen as acceptable,so yes,chose very carefully what you are referring to,as this discussion is about one specific incident ,detailed very well in earlier posts
Re: Crewe Statement
I've read the bit put on here by CT and it only mentions one incident in regards to Gradi, bearing in mind the QC was employed by Chelsea, if there was more evidence against Gradi it would have been mentioned as this thread is about Gradi, nobody elseTheFamilyCat wrote:You really need to read up on the Eddie Heath enquiry.
-
- Posts: 10903
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
- Been Liked: 5554 times
- Has Liked: 208 times
Re: Crewe Statement
Talk about banging one's head against a brick wall.Grumps wrote:I've read the bit put on here by CT and it only mentions one incident in regards to Gradi, bearing in mind the QC was employed by Chelsea, if there was more evidence against Gradi it would have been mentioned as this thread is about Gradi, nobody else
Read the details. Read about what Heath did and tell me it was just "what went on in dressing rooms"
Gradi could have ended his career and prevented him abusing more victims. He chose not to.
Re: Crewe Statement
This thread isn't about heath, other than one incident, which was dealt with, as I stated earlier wrongly, nobody has stated what the boys parents thought about it, perhaps they accepted it eh?TheFamilyCat wrote:Talk about banging one's head against a brick wall.
Read the details. Read about what Heath did and tell me it was just "what went on in dressing rooms"
Gradi could have ended his career and prevented him abusing more victims. He chose not to.
-
- Posts: 14569
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3436 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Crewe Statement
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 20086.html
Bennell has been charged with more offences.
Still Gradi gets away with facing a court and Crewe keep quiet.
Bennell has been charged with more offences.
Still Gradi gets away with facing a court and Crewe keep quiet.
-
- Posts: 67860
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32526 times
- Has Liked: 5276 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Crewe Statement
Bennell has pleaded guilty to nine charges of sexual assault this morning.
-
- Posts: 9325
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4105 times
- Has Liked: 6586 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Crewe Statement
What the club have actually said in that paragraph isn’t that he WILL continue to help.Suratclaret wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 4:21 pmGiven what the club have said ( last paragraph) surely the FA has to do something as they banned him years ago. It's absolutely ridiculous that the club can make that statement in the knowledge that he is banned.
It says that they are happy that he would, not that he is doing or will do in the future. It’s quite a clever choice of words.
Seems straightforward to me...
Edit. They used the word “continue”.... I missed that and that changes everything. Sounds to me now having read it thru again that he’s just been carrying on there coaching as normal.
Fair enough CAFC, continue to thank him until a conviction, but there’s a hell of a lot of smoke around here...
Re: Crewe Statement
Gradi was asked to clarify what the complaint was. “I don’t remember the detail but … he [Heath] didn’t rape him or anything. He was sexually, I don’t know, touching him, I suppose. I don’t remember.Grumps wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:36 pmIn case you dont want to divulge, I'll tell you my,and many others experience. I was caned, and had wooden board rubbers thrown at me in class, had i told my parents i would have been told off again, why? Because it was acceptable behaviour by teachers,in the 70s in brierfield. Nowadays its not,because times have changed. Is physical assault on a child the same, better,or worse than being slapped on the arse in the shower....both are assault, both are wrong,yet acceptable at the time we are discussing,should all teachers from that time now be prosecuted?
Do you really think that he's talking about a slap on the backside in the shower?
He's demonstrating one of two things in his statement. Either he's lying about not remembering or he didn't see an adult "sexually touching" a young boy as an issue. Either way I would want him removed from any role that puts him in contact with children.
-
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:44 pm
- Been Liked: 156 times
- Has Liked: 107 times
Re: Crewe Statement
Interesting thoughts, about attitudes in the past. Think early 19th Century and slavery was legal. Abhorrent today, not so then. Be clear I'm using this as an (extreme) example of how attitudes change. It was wrong then, it is wrong now; but there was a willingness to sweep it under the carpet and move on. Quite wrong, of course.
Moving it forward to inappropriate behaviour in dressing rooms in the 70s. Society's view, in general and in football in particular, was much less tolerant of homosexual behaviour and I'm astonished that any sort of touching wasn't met with the usual tirade of verbal abuse typical of the time for such behaviour. That it wasn't speaks volumes about the perceived power football coaches had; perhaps there's a willingness to sweep it under the carpet and move on. Quite wrong, of course.
Moving it forward to inappropriate behaviour in dressing rooms in the 70s. Society's view, in general and in football in particular, was much less tolerant of homosexual behaviour and I'm astonished that any sort of touching wasn't met with the usual tirade of verbal abuse typical of the time for such behaviour. That it wasn't speaks volumes about the perceived power football coaches had; perhaps there's a willingness to sweep it under the carpet and move on. Quite wrong, of course.
-
- Posts: 3603
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 am
- Been Liked: 1338 times
- Has Liked: 757 times
- Location: Nantwich
Re: Crewe Statement
Unfortunately, slavery wasn’t wrong then, it has become wrong since subjected to the scrutiny of today. Shooting deserters in WW1 wasn’t wrong then but it is now deemed to have been. At the time, it was used to keep soldiers in the trenches otherwise many more would have ‘done one’. It’s irrelevant what your personal opinion of it is, it’s what was accepted at the time. Patting a girls backside or ‘copping a feel’ was what lots of young males did back in the 60s, 70s and 80s but now those middle aged males are fare game for retrospective punishment. As has been mentioned, same-sex relationships were both illegal and banned by the church but, thanks to the standards of today, are now, almost, universally accepted. Society changes, but retrospectively applying the standards of today to those of 40, 50, 60 years ago just doesn’t work.Claret Toni wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:18 pmInteresting thoughts, about attitudes in the past. Think early 19th Century and slavery was legal. Abhorrent today, not so then. Be clear I'm using this as an (extreme) example of how attitudes change. It was wrong then, it is wrong now; but there was a willingness to sweep it under the carpet and move on. Quite wrong, of course.
Moving it forward to inappropriate behaviour in dressing rooms in the 70s. Society's view, in general and in football in particular, was much less tolerant of homosexual behaviour and I'm astonished that any sort of touching wasn't met with the usual tirade of verbal abuse typical of the time for such behaviour. That it wasn't speaks volumes about the perceived power football coaches had; perhaps there's a willingness to sweep it under the carpet and move on. Quite wrong, of course.
-
- Posts: 16878
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6955 times
- Has Liked: 1480 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Crewe Statement
We’re not retrospectively applying the standards of today to those 40 years ago. As far as I’m aware sexual assault was illegal 40 years ago, despite some blokes thinking that it was acceptable.BennyD wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:50 pmUnfortunately, slavery wasn’t wrong then, it has become wrong since subjected to the scrutiny of today. Shooting deserters in WW1 wasn’t wrong then but it is now deemed to have been. At the time, it was used to keep soldiers in the trenches otherwise many more would have ‘done one’. It’s irrelevant what your personal opinion of it is, it’s what was accepted at the time. Patting a girls backside or ‘copping a feel’ was what lots of young males did back in the 60s, 70s and 80s but now those middle aged males are fare game for retrospective punishment. As has been mentioned, same-sex relationships were both illegal and banned by the church but, thanks to the standards of today, are now, almost, universally accepted. Society changes, but retrospectively applying the standards of today to those of 40, 50, 60 years ago just doesn’t work.
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
- Been Liked: 3339 times
- Has Liked: 1957 times
Re: Crewe Statement
Of all the strange threads on this messageboard this is the most disturbing.
-
- Posts: 10903
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
- Been Liked: 5554 times
- Has Liked: 208 times
Re: Crewe Statement
If slavery wasn't wrong, why was it abolished?BennyD wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:50 pmUnfortunately, slavery wasn’t wrong then, it has become wrong since subjected to the scrutiny of today. Shooting deserters in WW1 wasn’t wrong then but it is now deemed to have been. At the time, it was used to keep soldiers in the trenches otherwise many more would have ‘done one’. It’s irrelevant what your personal opinion of it is, it’s what was accepted at the time. Patting a girls backside or ‘copping a feel’ was what lots of young males did back in the 60s, 70s and 80s but now those middle aged males are fare game for retrospective punishment. As has been mentioned, same-sex relationships were both illegal and banned by the church but, thanks to the standards of today, are now, almost, universally accepted. Society changes, but retrospectively applying the standards of today to those of 40, 50, 60 years ago just doesn’t work.
-
- Posts: 67860
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32526 times
- Has Liked: 5276 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Crewe Statement
I only bumped it the other day because Bennell had pleaded guilty. I just searched his name and this thread came up. I might have been better off starting a new thread.Bordeauxclaret wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:56 pmOf all the strange threads on this messageboard this is the most disturbing.
-
- Posts: 4968
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:04 pm
- Been Liked: 1007 times
- Has Liked: 725 times
Re: Crewe Statement
Don't say that Tony! We will end up with about 50 more threads of Chris Wood and about a 1000 more on the virus!ClaretTony wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:51 pmI only bumped it the other day because Bennell had pleaded guilty. I just searched his name and this thread came up. I might have been better off starting a new thread.
-
- Posts: 3603
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 am
- Been Liked: 1338 times
- Has Liked: 757 times
- Location: Nantwich
Re: Crewe Statement
Because it became unacceptable to society at that point in history. Other societies kept it going after us until it became socially unacceptable for them too.