Crewe Statement

[ClaretTony]

Whenever anything like this is discussed it is always ‘they were different times...etc’. I really don’t buy that

And I don't think anyone with an ounce of decency does

[thatdberight]

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.

[Grumps]

And I don't think anyone with an ounce of decency does

Tony, did you ever get the cane at school, if you did what did your parents do about it

[Bfcboyo]

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 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.

[thatdberight]

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.

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.

[Grumps]

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.

You couldn't be more wrong, iam as far from the left it's possible to be and remain normal

[Bfcboyo]

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.

The punishment should obviously be blinded in both eyes to fit the offence.

[thatdberight]

The punishment should obviously be blinded in both eyes to fit the offence.

Well done. Straight to the top of stupid class.

[Grumps]

Tony, did you ever get the cane at school, if you did what did your parents do about it

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?

[fidelcastro]

I'm confused.

I thought we were talking about sexual abuse.

When was that ever deemed "acceptable"'?

[Bop]

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.

[Grumps]

I'm confused.

I thought we were talking about sexual abuse.

When was that ever deemed "acceptable"'?

At the time in question

[claretonthecoast1882]

Comparing it to being caned at school is dumb.

[Grumps]

Comparing it to being caned at school is dumb.

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.

[claretonthecoast1882]

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.

I have read it, and your defence of this and Gradi is just as weird.

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.

[Bordeauxclaret]

What year was it that sexual abuse of children moved from being acceptable to being unacceptable?

[Rileybobs]

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?

[Grumps]

What year was it that sexual abuse of children moved from being acceptable to being unacceptable?

Youve got to be careful of your wording. Certain sexual abuse has never been accepted,and never will be.
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...

[Bordeauxclaret]

I need to be careful with my words???

I’m not the one claiming sexual abuse of children was acceptable.

[Grumps]

I need to be careful with my words???

I’m not the one claiming sexual abuse of children was acceptable.

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

[Spijed]

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.

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.

[TheFamilyCat]

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

You really need to read up on the Eddie Heath enquiry.

[Grumps]

You really need to read up on the Eddie Heath enquiry.

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

[TheFamilyCat]

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

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.

[Grumps]

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.

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?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

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.

[ClaretTony]

Bennell has pleaded guilty to nine charges of sexual assault this morning.

[bobinho]

Given 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.

What the club have actually said in that paragraph isn’t that he WILL continue to help.
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...

[dibraidio]

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?

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.

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.

[Claret Toni]

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.

[BennyD]

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.

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.

[Rileybobs]

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.

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.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Of all the strange threads on this messageboard this is the most disturbing.

[TheFamilyCat]

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.

If slavery wasn't wrong, why was it abolished?

[ClaretTony]

Of all the strange threads on this messageboard this is the most disturbing.

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.

[superdimitri]

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.

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!

[BennyD]

If slavery wasn't wrong, why was it abolished?

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.