Graham Taylor involved in sexual abuse cover-up at Aston Villa.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... ston-villa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do I not like that.

Not sure about judging these historic cases by today's standards. I'm sure more or less everyone over 30 would have a compo case for one reason or another. Obviously it depends on how serious the complaints were at the time there just wasn't the awareness there is now. A lot of what we would of classed as abuse today was just put down as being a "bit dodgy" or weird back then.

Not condoning it, but once again the defendant is dead and unable to defend himself, something I am always uncomfortable with..

elwaclaret wrote:Not sure about judging these historic cases by today's standards. I'm sure more or less everyone over 30 would have a compo case for one reason or another. Obviously it depends on how serious the complaints were at the time there just wasn't the awareness there is now. A lot of what we would of classed as abuse today was just put down as being a "bit dodgy" or weird back then.

Not condoning it, but once again the defendant is dead and unable to defend himself, something I am always uncomfortable with..

Totally agree. Couldn't have put it better myself. particularly your final point.

What a generation. Child molesting Brexit voters.

I know , we'll just ignore it then

elwaclaret wrote:Not sure about judging these historic cases by today's standards. I'm sure more or less everyone over 30 would have a compo case for one reason or another. Obviously it depends on how serious the complaints were at the time there just wasn't the awareness there is now. A lot of what we would of classed as abuse today was just put down as being a "bit dodgy" or weird back then.

Not condoning it, but once again the defendant is dead and unable to defend himself, something I am always uncomfortable with..

I can't believe I just read that.

What on earth do you mean by "today's standards?" Abuse is abuse; the definition hasn't changed. The difference today is that many, many more victims have the confidence to report it (although, has been seen, reports are not always acted upon).

In the historic cases being brought to public attention now, the abusers were often people in authority or who the victims respected. They were often too scared to report them or may not have understood what was happening was wrong.

If someone did something a "bit dodgy" to you as a child, you were probably abused. If it was me, I would certainly do all I could to make sure the abuser was brought to justice.

Although I do agree about being uncomfortable with accusations against the deceased and them being unable to defend themselves.

Ancient history. Move on. (The Nazis were good at this kind of thing.)

TheFamilyCat wrote:I can't believe I just read that.

If someone did something a "bit dodgy" to you as a child, you were probably abused. If it was me, I would certainly do all I could to make sure the abuser was brought to justice.

On the contrary we used to laugh at the American Litigation culture, hard to understand for people who were not around then. And as I say in the original post you quote, if you are over 30 there is a very strong likelihood you encountered things that today would be classed as "abuse".

I presume you have read the linked article? A man was convicted for abusing children. He admitted the charges.

He abused children. It was abuse then, it's abuse now.

Please can you give me an example of something "a bit dodgy" 20 years ago that would be classed as abuse now and explain to me why it was not abuse 20 years ago?

ontario claret wrote:Ancient history. Move on. (The Nazis were good at this kind of thing.)

That's a strange thing to post .

Most of the punishment I received at school was physical abuse but was part of the system.

Sexual abuse is different and never been acceptable in any way, shape or form. People involved should be hunted down and punished with maximum sentences regardless of status.
I doubt we will see many of the Establishment exposed though.

JohnMac wrote:Most of the punishment I received at school was physical abuse but was part of the system.

Sexual abuse is different and never been acceptable in any way, shape or form. People involved should be hunted down and punished with maximum sentences regardless of status.
I doubt we will see many of the Establishment exposed though.

Agree with most of what you say JohnMac, but what is considered sexual abuse now varies wildly to what was considered sexual abuse when we were younger. I can't say first hand what schools are like now but I'm pretty sure the male sports master would no longer be allowed to patrol through the communal showers and belt any students on the arse who he deems to be taking to long, talking etc. it was just considered discipline at the time, it certainly wouldn't be now.

... and that's not the one who did eventually get done as aa peodo many years later.... probably just doing what he'd always done. (STRESS: I'm not condoning it, but times and attitudes change)

...other things that were routine - beiing grabbed by the ear, having the blackboard rubber hurled at you for talking, being grabbed by the scruff of the neck for winding up the teacher - all would be considered abuse now and would lead to Court proceedings I'm sure.

Anybody who grew up in the '60s, like me, knows that corporal punishment was still allowed in schools back then. To up something that will never be proven in a court of law is ridiculous. The "Nazi" comment refers to how right-wing zealots used to dishonour their political opponents by digging up so-called "facts" of moral turpitude, real or fabricated. Graham Taylor was a great man. Let him rest in peace.

elwaclaret wrote:Agree with most of what you say JohnMac, but what is considered sexual abuse now varies wildly to what was considered sexual abuse when we were younger. I can't say first hand what schools are like now but I'm pretty sure the male sports master would no longer be allowed to patrol through the communal showers and belt any students on the arse who he deems to be taking to long, talking etc. it was just considered discipline at the time, it certainly wouldn't be now.

... and that's not the one who did eventually get done as aa peodo many years later.... probably just doing what he'd always done.

From the linked story:

"Langford, a binman in his ordinary job, continued to work in youth football in the Birmingham area and when he was finally convicted in 2007 the offences related to four boys from 1976 to 1989. Langford admitted three charges of indecent assault and four of gross indecency and was sentenced to three years in prison.

Langford was 66 when he appeared at Birmingham crown court in December 2007 and was described by the judge as someone who “held the keys” to boys’ dreams, molesting youngsters who “would have been in awe of you, unable to quarrel with you or reject your advances”.

All the victims suffered psychological damage, the court was told, including one who had taken an overdose which left him in hospital. Langford’s lawyer said his client regarded the boys as “easy victims” because of their dream to become professional footballers."

I presume you don't see a problem with any of that because it happened 20 years ago?

ontario claret wrote:Anybody who grew up in the '60s, like me, knows that corporal punishment was still allowed in schools back then. To up something that will never be proven in a court of law is ridiculous. The "Nazi" comment refers to how right-wing zealots used to dishonour their political opponents by digging up so-called "facts" of moral turpitude, real or fabricated. Graham Taylor was a great man. Let him rest in peace.

Just like Jimmy Saville was a great DJ eh ?!!

Until this has been investigated I am not sure why or how anyone can choose to defend Taylor just cos you thought he was a good egg

TVC15 wrote:Just like Jimmy Saville was a great DJ eh ?!!

Until this has been investigated I am not sure why or how anyone can choose to defend Taylor just cos you thought he was a good egg

Bit of perspective - Graham Taylor has been accused of discouraging a victim from reporting abuse - his motives for doing so, if true will now always remain unknown.

Comparing him to Jimmy Savile is way wide of the mark.

ontario claret wrote:Anybody who grew up in the '60s, like me, knows that corporal punishment was still allowed in schools back then. To up something that will never be proven in a court of law is ridiculous. The "Nazi" comment refers to how right-wing zealots used to dishonour their political opponents by digging up so-called "facts" of moral turpitude, real or fabricated. Graham Taylor was a great man. Let him rest in peace.

He's not a great man if this is true

TheFamilyCat wrote:Bit of perspective - Graham Taylor has been accused of discouraging a victim from reporting abuse - his motives for doing so, if true will now always remain unknown.

Comparing him to Jimmy Savile is way wide of the mark.

I'm not comparing him to Jimmy Saville - I'm saying that you can't think someone is ok (or innocent) on the basis of their previous life / career. Saville is just the extreme case.

In the case of Taylor whatever you think about him as a football person is totally irrelevant to this accusation. Again look at Saville - most of the country including the Queen and PM thought he was fantastic because of his charity work. And I am sure when the first allegations came to light there were plenty of people saying - "not our Jimmy - look at all the charity work he has done" etc etc

I ain't got a clue whether Taylor is guilty or not and of course he and his family deserve to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. But by the same respect him being dead or a great football chap is completely irrelevant.

I have no idea if Graham Taylor has done anything wrong.
What I do feel uneasy about is trail by social media .
There is a reason why these things are done in courts.
Sadly it has now turned into social media circus where a person's opinion is taken as fact.
These are weird times we are living in.
Think I am just getting old.

TVC15 wrote:I'm not comparing him to Jimmy Saville - I'm saying that you can't think someone is ok (or innocent) on the basis of their previous life / career. Saville is just the extreme case.

In the case of Taylor whatever you think about him as a football person is totally irrelevant to this accusation. Again look at Saville - most of the country including the Queen and PM thought he was fantastic because of his charity work. And I am sure when the first allegations came to light there were plenty of people saying - "not our Jimmy - look at all the charity work he has done" etc etc

I ain't got a clue whether Taylor is guilty or not and of course he and his family deserve to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. But by the same respect him being dead or a great football chap is completely irrelevant.

It's not completely irrelevant GTbeing dead...it's very relevant because he cannot be proven guilty or not guilty because obviously he is not in a position to be charged and defend himself. Trials relating to historical child abuse are fine when the alleged perpetrator is still alive and is therefore in a position to defend themselves and possibly be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Fortunately trials by the media are not a legal way of dealing with alleged offences but will undoubtedly be particularly distressing for any relatives of the accused.

joey13 wrote:He's not a great man if this is true

Just a great man who misjudged a situation and made a mistake in culturally different times then, perhaps?

Despite what some people say, things have changed in the last 30 years. The modern day blame and claim culture hardly existed 30 to 40 years ago. The way I remember being punished at school would be deemed totally unacceptable by todays standards - also by todays standards some could interpret it as sexual abuse....... I'll give you 2 examples.

1. Being laid over the lap of a male or female teacher and having my bare aarse spanked.
2. Being caught entering the school using the 'girls' entrance after playtime and being made to wear a gym skirt for the rest of the day.

Can also iterate that I am in no way condoning any sexual abuse and do not think it should be shrugged off as 'everybody did it back then'.

[quote="Sutton-Claret"]

2. Being caught entering the school using the 'girls' entrance after playtime and being made to wear a gym skirt for the rest of the day.

You any idea how wrong this sounds ? It's a Carry On writers dream !!!!

CardyTheClaret wrote:Just a great man who misjudged a situation and made a mistake in culturally different times then, perhaps?

What defines a great man ? He was an average football manager who took England back 20 years , I didn't know him personally so I don't know if he was a great man or not .

TVC15 wrote:

I see your point Matron

TheFamilyCat wrote:From the linked story:

"I presume you don't see a problem with any of that because it happened 20 years ago?

You wouldn't need to pressume if you had been following the discussion and read my previous posts. People leap in without bothering to check background on message boards.... it's why there are so many fall outs.

Post 14 : (STRESS: I'm not condoning it, but times and attitudes change)

elwaclaret wrote:You wouldn't need to pressume if you had been following the discussion and read my previous posts. People leap in without bothering to check background on message boards.... it's why there are so many fall outs.

Post 14 : (STRESS: I'm not condoning it, but times and attitudes change)

I have read and follow your posts, I know exactly what your view is and I disagree with it.

You edited your post after I had quoted it and responded, hence why the last paragraph is not included in the post. You can't really get on your high horse about folk not reading posts properly if they've been changed since they were replied to.

I've not read the article but it's very important to note that dead people cannot be libelled.

Whatever the truth of the matter Graham Taylor is not here to defend himself.

That's why articles like this can be published. Were the man alive it probably wouldn't even make it to the editor's desk.

Please bare that in mind before passing judgement on a man who cannot defend himself.

TheFamilyCat wrote:I have read and follow your posts, I know exactly what your view is and I disagree with it.

You edited your post after I had quoted it and responded, hence why the last paragraph is not included in the post. You can't really get on your high horse about folk not reading posts properly if they've been changed since they were replied to.

No in fact the edit was done about twenty seconds after I'd posted the original, for clarification not in an attempt to answer your ill judged posts. If you think I would re-edit my posts to answer you, you obviously view yourself far more important to me than I do. Sorry I don't really care of your opinion of me, as I don't know you.

I am aware of my position the balanced arguments for and against, but don't agree with witch hunts. I'm happy with the ground I hold.

elwaclaret wrote:No in fact the edit was done about twenty seconds after I'd posted the original, for clarification not in an attempt to answer your ill judged posts. If you think I would re-edit my posts to answer you, you obviously view yourself far more important to me than I do. Sorry I don't really care of your opinion of me, as I don't know you.

I am aware of my position the balanced arguments for and against, but don't agree with witch hunts. I'm happy with the ground I hold.

Well said, Rowls.

Quicknick wrote:Well said, Rowls.

Hi Quicknick - I know Rowls posts on the board but don't follow his posts close enough to know if this is an error or an attempt at being insulting. Sorry

Rowls wrote:I've not read the article but it's very important to note that dead people cannot be libelled.

Whatever the truth of the matter Graham Taylor is not here to defend himself.

That's why articles like this can be published. Were the man alive it probably wouldn't even make it to the editor's desk.

Please bare that in mind before passing judgement on a man who cannot defend himself.

Would you use the same argument for Jimmy Savile?

Spijed wrote:Would you use the same argument for Jimmy Savile?

I did.

And still do.

I say you should reserve judgement, not withhold it.

And whatever the possible merits of the allegations - they are NOT comparable.

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

Why do they get so defensive?

UpTheBeehole wrote:Funny how it's always the right wingers who defend dead nonces.

Why do they get so defensive?

"dead nonces"

Nice way to talk about Graham Taylor. And shows what a liberal kinda chap you are too.

Stay classy.

I was talking more about Savile, not Graham Taylor, who isn't accused of being a paedophile in any way, shape or form.

UpTheBeehole wrote:Funny how it's always the right wingers who defend dead nonces.

Why do they get so defensive?

So your expanding the accusations to suggest Graham Taylor is a nonce? Interesting turn of events... I think you should contact the Crown Prosecution Service with your inside information.

.... and I am not right wing. I believe in the rule of Law. Graham Taylor has not been found guilty of anything and as Rowls points out they would not have dared publish.

I'll admit I was uncomfortable when the stories broke about Savelle - subsequently it has been proved beyond doubt his guilt. The difference may be a little subtle for you but surely you can grasp it if you really try.

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

UpTheBeehole wrote:I was talking more about Savile, not Graham Taylor, who isn't accused of being a paedophile in any way, shape or form.

"dead nonces"

Yeah.

Because Jimmy Savile is plural.

I've just seen the Guardian's front page and I'm shocked by it.

It's worthy of a low end tabloid. Much as I loath to say it, it wouldn't look out of place on the front of the Mail on Sunday.

I hope to god Taylor doesn't have a widow. It's simply not on.

Here's the jury arriving now....

Jimmy Savile
Cyril Smith
Peter Hayman

And two still alive: Max Clifford and Rolf Harris.

The right get themselves in a tizzy trying to defend what they did, saying 'they were different times' etc.

Here's the comprehensive list of all the posts defending those men.

To help you UpTheBeehole, I've put the list into alphabetical order:

.

elwaclaret wrote:No in fact the edit was done about twenty seconds after I'd posted the original, for clarification not in an attempt to answer your ill judged posts. If you think I would re-edit my posts to answer you, you obviously view yourself far more important to me than I do. Sorry I don't really care of your opinion of me, as I don't know you.

I am aware of my position the balanced arguments for and against, but don't agree with witch hunts. I'm happy with the ground I hold.

I didn't say you had edited your post in response to mine, but simply that I replied before I had seen your edit and addition. I could make a patronising remark about reading things properly but I don't think that will achieve anything.

Rowls wrote:Here's the comprehensive list of all the posts defending those men.

To help you UpTheBeehole, I've put the list into alphabetical order:

.

You literally just did with Savile, just a few posts up.

UpTheBeehole wrote:Jimmy Savile
Cyril Smith
Peter Hayman

And two still alive: Max Clifford and Rolf Harris.

The right get themselves in a tizzy trying to defend what they did, saying 'they were different times' etc.

And here's another list of all the "they were different times" [sic] posts:

.

UpTheBeehole wrote:You literally just did with Savile, just a few posts up.

I'm sorry.

I didn't realise you were THAT thick.

Good day.

Rowls wrote:And here's another list of all the "they were different times" [sic] posts:

.

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?

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 .