Graham Taylor

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:33 am

AlargeClaret wrote:Didn't realise Clifford was a nonce ?thought was more a casting couch thing? Though they tend to throw an underage element into these cases (even if not a noncing case" )simply to enrich the case . He wAs an odious turd though .

Max Clifford is in jail after being found guilty of 8 indecent assaults on girls as young as 14. He got an 8 year sentence.

Chobulous · Post by **Chobulous** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:35 am

"Funny how it's always the right wingers who defend dead nonces.

Why do they get so defensive?"

Where do you get this idea that it is the "right" that exclusively hold this view? I am no way a right winger, I have been a trades unionist all my life, was works convenor and shop steward for 20 odd years but I lived in those times and I can grasp what is being said. I'll spell it out for you shall I. Saville and his ilk were able to get away with their crimes for so long because of the times they were living in. That isn't defending him in any way, it's just recognising the prevailing attitudes. His crimes were as bad then as they are now, but would any accusers have been taken seriously then, some would, most wouldn't.
I suggest you try to put aside your prejudices and react to what is actually being said rather than who is saying it.

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:36 am

I actually thought post 3 was quite reasonable?it was t defending nonces,simply stating that 1960's/70's bum squeezer perv types were generally just thought" a bit odd" as opposed to actual abusers/pedoes etc.

It didn't mean they sometimes weren't (far far from it) but we act and pass judgment in the age we live in at any given time .

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:37 am

UpTheBeehole wrote:Read my last post. Graham Taylor has never been accused of being a paedophile.

My reply was typed before you had time to clarify your post, though it was made I suspect more due to hindsight that your earlier post was untenable than to explain your initial intention.

I notice Rowls talks about reading the Guardian, which leads me to believe that he is not particularly right wing either - though as I say I don't recall a wide sweep of his/her posts on issues to be certain on other issues, I can find no fault in the views Rowls expresses on this thread.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:39 am

Genuine lol at you not considering Rowls right wing.

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:40 am

Re:Clifford

You're indeed correct I see (after googling ) that one of his victims was 15 at the time on some holiday and MC took advantage .

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:42 am

UpTheBeehole wrote:Literally the third post on this thread was along those lines, and it was liked by numerous posters.
There was an ensuing conversation about it.
Can you not read? Or are you really that selective with what you take in?

Rowls wrote:Good day.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:43 am

Have you got a lot to do again, like the other day when you then spent hours and hours arguing with Lancaster, when again, you were completely wrong?

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:45 am

Just want to confirm for the jury that earlier on, in post #34, that Rowls 'reserves judgment' on Jimmy Savile being a paedophile, with the inference because he is dead and cannot defend himself.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:51 am

UpTheBeehole wrote:Genuine lol at you not considering Rowls right wing.

Again as I say I don't follow any poster closer enough to judge their political views... nor do I particularly care overly. I'm not going to change anyone's views on here, or my own by insulting people for the sake of point scoring. I read the different views, my opinion on matters can be swayed by good arguments or through information being brought to my attention, not because someone decides to label me Right Wing.

If you present a smoking gun on Taylor I'm quite happy to scream and shout about it as much as the next man. What I am not open to is blackening the name of someone I believe was very well liked and respected on the back of some hack filling his/her rag to get readers; especially when the target is no longer alive to defend themselves.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:00 am

UpTheBeehole wrote:Just want to confirm for the jury that earlier on, in post #34, that Rowls 'reserves judgment' on Jimmy Savile being a paedophile, with the inference because he is dead and cannot defend himself.

I can see the validity of your reaction to that... though I read it as meaning at the time Saville was first accused... but I may be the one who wrongly gave the benefit of the doubt to that.

People's lives have been destroyed by newspapers in the past, the best example being the bloke who played Len Fairclough in Corrie.... back in the days when we didn't really hear much of child abuse (it was just starting to outed) he was accused of abusing a girl in Haslingden baths. He was sacked from Corrie and died a broken man on the dole..... even though he had been found not guilty, no one would touch him

That is why things like this are dangerous to let yourself jump to conclusions on. Just think what Graham Taylor's family are being put througth, yet as of this moment he has not been found to have done anything wrong. Let alone tried to cover anything up.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:08 am

elwaclaret wrote:I can see the validity of your reaction to that... though I read it as meaning at the time Saville was first accused... but I may be the one who wrongly gave the benefit of the doubt to that.

It doesn't mean that.

In thinking that it does or might mean that UpTheBeehole is either being selective in what he thinks or believes, or just being thick.

My post specifically talks about reserving judgement and more importantly not withholding judgement. UpTheBeehole must be very obtuse to take that as "defending" somebody.

However, we're talking about a poster who thinks nothing about typing out the sentence "Can you not read?" and thinks that the fact that Jimmy Savile is long dead is an "inference".

Speaking as somebody who wastes a lot of time on here you might want to ponder these observations before responding to him again.

Chobulous · Post by **Chobulous** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:10 am

UpTheBeehole wrote:Just want to confirm for the jury that earlier on, in post #34, that Rowls 'reserves judgment' on Jimmy Savile being a paedophile, with the inference because he is dead and cannot defend himself.

It's pretty clear to me what was being said i.e. Rowls would reserve, rather than rush to judgement, when this sort of story appears in the press. I can't see anywhere where he has defended Saville as you seem to be inferring. As I posted it's probably who said it not what was being said.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:11 am

Oh, you're still here Rowls

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:14 am

Chobulous wrote:It's pretty clear to me what was being said i.e. Rowls would reserve, rather than rush to judgement, when this sort of story appears in the press. I can't see anywhere where he has defended Saville as you seem to be inferring. As I posted it's probably who said it not what was being said.

Cheers Chobulous.

There's always that fear in the back of your mind when posting on the internet that thick people out there will believe a misinterpretation as readily as a truth so it's always nice to know that there are intelligent people out who understand what has been said.

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:16 am

Was Graham Taylor genuinely covering something of this nature up or was he offering advice to a young player of the consequences of coming forward with such an allegation in that era.

Graham Taylor in the 1980s might have been giving that young man very sound advice, In the 21st century Graham Taylors approach is clearly wrong to cover such an incident up, but I reckon he would have dealt with it completely differently had he been the players manager today.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:18 am

Rowls wrote:Cheers Chobulous.

There's always that fear in the back of your mind when posting on the internet that thick people out there will believe a misinterpretation as readily as a truth so it's always nice to know that there are intelligent people out who understand what has been said.

But, despite the overwhelming number of accusers and apparent catalogue of sexual abuse Jimmy Savile meted out, you still 'reserve judgment' on him, because he's dead?

Chobulous · Post by **Chobulous** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:19 am

UpTheBeehole wrote:Oh, you're still here Rowls

Now isn't that just typical. You express a view in support of one of the message board's betes noire and suddenly you are that person posting under another username. I think you need to try a bit harder, or maybe think a little bit before using the board's fund of stock responses.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:22 am

UpTheBeehole wrote:But, despite the overwhelming number of accusers and apparent catalogue of sexual abuse Jimmy Savile meted out, you still 'reserve judgment' on him, because he's dead?

Look pal, I'm replying here out of courtesy but you're one of the thickest of the thick if you think that. And there's stiff competition in that field.

I'm not going to bother answeringing because the people out there with more than handful of brain cells will already know the answer to your question. If you can't find the answer in what I've posted then Heaven help you. I hope for your sake someone can help you dress in the mornings and fill out forms for you.

I shan't be responding to you again, or ever.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:23 am

Chobulous wrote:Now isn't that just typical. You express a view in support of one of the message board's betes noire and suddenly you are that person posting under another username. I think you need to try a bit harder, or maybe think a little bit before using the board's fund of stock responses.

Pardon?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:23 am

Chobulous wrote:Now isn't that just typical. You express a view in support of one of the message board's betes noire and suddenly you are that person posting under another username. I think you need to try a bit harder, or maybe think a little bit before using the board's fund of stock responses.

I've given this post a like for the plural alone.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:24 am

Rowls wrote:Look pal, I'm replying here out of courtesy but you're one of the thickest of the thick if you think that. And there's stiff competition in that field.

I'm not going to bother answeringing because the people out there with more than handful of brain cells will already know the answer to your question. If you can't find the answer in what I've posted then Heaven help you. I hope for your sake someone can help you dress in the mornings and fill out forms for you.

I shan't be responding to you again, or ever.

Why won't you say it?

Why won't you say that Jimmy Savile was a prolific paedophile? Why won't you say he was a monster of a sexual predator?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:27 am

UpTheBeehole wrote:Why won't you say it?
Why won't you say that Jimmy Savile was a prolific paedophile? Why won't you say he was a monster of a sexual predator?

Rowls wrote:I shan't be responding to you again, or ever.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:27 am

You just did

WadingInDeeper · Post by **WadingInDeeper** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:31 am

I don't think it's a case of actions seen as acceptable in the 69/70s now being unacceptablen the abusers knew it was wrong. I think it's a case of those who were abused now knowing it was abuse and that there should have been a system where they could report the abuse and for those accusations to be taken and investigated seriously.

Just because an abuser may be dead doesn't mean their victims are no longer suffering, if they now feel able themselves, or feel they now have the required support to report what happened, good. What appears to have happened is that society now takes reported abuse seriously. If this allows them some form of closure, and to move on, they should be allowed to report irrespective of a perpetrator being alive or dead.

The only thing Graham Taylor seems to be implicated in is how the reported abused was handled or investigated. In his case it sounds like he acted in a way you would expect many, if not all, organisations would in that day, maybe even out of his depth and without the training to deal with a situation like that.

If this case, and it reads like it is only one of many, forces clubs and other groups to ensure they have the correct structure, personnel and training to handle a situation in the future then that is another positive outcome.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:34 am

WadingInDeeper wrote:The only thing Graham Taylor seems to be implicated in is how the reported abused was handled or investigated. In his case it sounds like he acted in a way you would expect many, if not all, organisations would in that day, maybe even out of his depth and without the training to deal with a situation like that.

A very sensible statement in a sea of stupidity (on here, that is).

I'm genuinely shocked that a paper as respectable as the Guardian has sensationalised the story as you would expect a tabloid to do.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:42 am

UpTheBeehole wrote:You just did

I am starting to see what Rowls meant. You are clearly not the kind of poster given to sensible discussion, whether through intent or intellect I cannot judge but you'd rather try to score cheap points. Whatever rocks your boat but its not really what I look for in discussions... baiting kills the chance of true debate and quite often results in pettiness like this.... I find baiting incredibly tedious. .

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:45 am

You could argue pretty much anyone growing up in any era prior to maybe the 90s was implicit in a cover up.

Nearly everyone in Yorkshire knew about Saville. There was a weird teacher at my school, everyone knew what he said to the girls in class, nobody ever said anything - we just made up comedy names for him and accepted he was a creep. I'm all for going after historic abusers but trying to taint just about everyone in society for holding almost universal attitudes to stuff like that seems pointless. You may as well prosecute everyone's nan for being a bit racist in the 70s.

One thing I am glad about, the 'good old days' are over and being a grown man with just a hint of authority doesn't allow you to use unearned 'respect' as a way of being allowed to abuse kids.

WadingInDeeper · Post by **WadingInDeeper** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:46 am

Rowls wrote: I'm genuinely shocked that a paper as respectable as the Guardian has sensationalised the story as you would expect a tabloid to do.

I can't imagine many people outside the club's involved would have head of the abuser.

Very poor sales tactic to implicate someone in such a way they sound like they may have played a more significant role before you read the artical.

Chobulous · Post by **Chobulous** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:54 am

Rowls wrote:I've given this post a like for the plural alone.

I can't help it, it's my grammar school education.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:55 am

WadingInDeeper wrote:I can't imagine many people outside the club's involved would have head of the abuser.

Very poor sales tactic to implicate someone in such a way they sound like they may have played a more significant role before you read the artical.

On the contrary... I suspect the article would have been tucked away on an inside column if it was not for the headline.
"Graham Taylor Tries to Save kids future by Telling him not to open a powder keg of Abuse that no one was Ready to Deal with Thirty Years Ago" would not of made the front page.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:01 pm

RocketLawnChair wrote:Was Graham Taylor genuinely covering something of this nature up or was he offering advice to a young player of the consequences of coming forward with such an allegation in that era.

Were people just as horrified of child abuse in decades gone by?

Prison sentences at the time don't seem to reflect that. That's why those handed out to the likes of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall* were very lenient in comparison to what we see today where some people are getting life imprisonment.

*They could only be sentenced based on when the crimes were committed.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:29 pm

From the looks of it Taylor gave advice that was probably handed out by numerous people in numerous similar circumstances in that era.
Look at what allegedly went on at Crewe etc.

It's not to say he was right in doing so, because he wasn't, but at that time this sort of thing was brushed under the carpet as proven by Saville and numerous other child abusers never facing justice because people at the time were not that interested in kicking up a fuss.

It's come to light now because Taylor is dead and as Rowls rightly suggested, if he was alive now it wouldn't be in the news.
Same with Savile, once he died all the allegations that had apparently been floating about for years were finally investigated and it was all exposed.

No one was seemingly interested in doing so when Savile was alive for what ever reason.

This Taylor story should've been released when he was alive, same with Savile, Cyril Smith etc, but it's seemingly easier to do it when they're dead....

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:33 pm

This story hasn't just come out of the blue.

There's an inquiry into sexual abuse within football, and one of the abused players giving evidence stated that he'd reported his concerns to Graham Taylor. This isn't someone selling a story to a paper, trying to sully the name of a respected figure.

It would be in the news, because there's a relatively high profile inquiry taking place.

If Graham Taylor were still alive, it might be that the inquiry called him as a witness also.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:55 pm

Spijed wrote:Were people just as horrified of child abuse in decades gone by?

Prison sentences at the time don't seem to reflect that. That's why those handed out to the likes of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall* were very lenient in comparison to what we see today where some people are getting life imprisonment.

*They could only be sentenced based on when the crimes were committed.

Nail on the head - you just need to look at the comedies made at the time, many of which would get short shrift from the censors today to see that attitudes were very very different in the 70's and even well into the 80's. Hindsight and indignation do not allow for the reality of the time.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:56 pm

Allegation is it happened in the 80's.

Inquiry into abuse in football has started up recently after other allegations came to light from former players like Paul Stewart.

How many of us knew about that forme youth coach who was convicted in the 90's?
Not many because it wasn't deemed to be big news.

When Savile was abusing all those people any allegations were ignored or hushed up because people in charge didn't want it to be news whilst he was alive because it cast them in a bad light.

Same with the footballing allegations.
Its all been hidden away when it should've been news years ago and now a former England manager is being accused of trying to discourage someone from speaking out but nothing was said when he was alive....
That's the issue with it, why wait until he's dead?

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:57 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Allegation is it happened in the 80's.

Inquiry into abuse in football has started up recently after other allegations came to light from former players like Paul Stewart.

How many of us knew about that forme youth coach who was convicted in the 90's?
Not many because it wasn't deemed to be big news.

When Savile was abusing all those people any allegations were ignored or hushed up because people in charge didn't want it to be news whilst he was alive because it cast them in a bad light.

Same with the footballing allegations.
Its all been hidden away when it should've been news years ago and now a former England manager is being accused of trying to discourage someone from speaking out but nothing was said when he was alive....
That's the issue with it, why wait until he's dead?

Because there wasn't a huge inquiry going on when he was alive

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:59 pm

That's my whole point, WHY WASN'T THERE?

Why has it taken so long for anyone to care enough to investigate it all?

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:03 pm

Because it takes a huge amount of courage to break a silence on something as significant as child abuse.

It was only once one player (Andy Woodward) stuck his head above the parapet that others gained the courage to start telling their stories.

I suggest you read up about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ki ... se_scandal

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:10 pm

Sidney1st wrote:From the looks of it Taylor gave advice that was probably handed out by numerous people in numerous similar circumstances in that era.
Look at what allegedly went on at Crewe etc.

It's not to say he was right in doing so, because he wasn't, but at that time this sort of thing was brushed under the carpet as proven by Saville and numerous other child abusers never facing justice because people at the time were not that interested in kicking up a fuss.

It's come to light now because Taylor is dead and as Rowls rightly suggested, if he was alive now it wouldn't be in the news.
Same with Savile, once he died all the allegations that had apparently been floating about for years were finally investigated and it was all exposed.

No one was seemingly interested in doing so when Savile was alive for what ever reason.

This Taylor story should've been released when he was alive, same with Savile, Cyril Smith etc, but it's seemingly easier to do it when they're dead....

I personally think it is wrong to align Taylor with the **** that are Savile and Cyril Smith.

Taylor was a football manager and who was presented with a situation in the 1980s. He wasn't a welfare officer or a support worker or whatever names this valuable profession offers victims as support these days. Taylor was a football man and judging from his CV it was all he'd known all his life. Clubs and reasonable sized companies for that matter now go to great lengths to make sure they have these support workers on there staff.

If I went to my manager as an engineering apprentice in 1988 about an allegation of abuse be it verbal or physical it would have been treated far differently if an apprentice approaches a manager with a similar complaint in 2017. But would my manager have been involved in a cover up at the time or was he just of the time?. It doesn't make it right its just how I see things.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:18 pm

I think we are reading from a similar sheet Rocket.

As for Upthebeehole, people were coming forward but no one was interested in helping them.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:24 pm

Who was coming forward prior to Andy Woodward Sidney?

Now, people ARE coming forward, and people are helping them. There's an inquiry to establish who was involved and what happened.

Unfortunately a golden boy of English football has been named as someone who could possibly have helped a little bit had he treated someone's concern seriously in today's terms. It's unfortunate, and I believe that Graham Taylor gave that advice in the player's best interests for his stated reasons, and not to cover abuse by a child abuser.

But, there was a huge missed opportunity there to catch a criminal, and it is right that it is included within evidence in an inquiry into sexual abuse of young footballers.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:47 pm

People came forward when that coach was charged in the late 90's but there was no other inquiry afterwards to ensure it wasn't happening elsewhere.
You seem to be ignoring that...

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:50 pm

I honestly don't know where you're going with this.

There is an inquiry, and evidence has been given.

Some people don't like this evidence.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:53 pm

Its simple but clearly I need to explain it to you...

Child abuse in football has been rife and known about by coaches, managers and possibly the FA.

People have been charged with sexual assault of children but it was swept under the carpet where possible when what was actually needed was a full blown inquiry there and then.

Graham Taylor was a man of his times and there needs to be an understanding of why people back then didn't feel the need to act on allegations.
No good waiting until he's bloody dead because it doesn't help deal with this issue.

Was that clear enough for you or do I need to be more patronising?

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:55 pm

Graham Taylor is not a big part in this. His name came out in some evidence. He isn't accused of anything serious, and committed no crimes. It doesn't really matter whether he is dead or alive.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:03 pm

It would help understand why he gave that advice though...

You're really struggling with this bit.

WadingInDeeper · Post by **WadingInDeeper** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:08 pm

Sidney1st wrote: Graham Taylor was a man of his times and there needs to be an understanding of why people back then didn't feel the need to act on allegations.
No good waiting until he's bloody dead because it doesn't help deal with this issue.

He was alive when it was reported first time round, he was still alive when it was reported second time round, but has subsequently died.

Dave Richardson is still alive and the victims are still alive.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:24 pm

Yes he was alive but NO ONE investigated it or had a public enquiry

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:26 pm

Why didn't you?

A lot of these offences took place in North Wales, where I believe you're from. Was there nothing reported in the area?

No local newspaper crime reports you could have read and acted upon?