Was it to prevent him for going to the press?
Sexual abuse of young players | Bennell gets 31 years (expected to serve 15) | Dead
- Thread starter jojojo
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Why do you think he approached the club in the first place if not to sell his silence? He had already been to the police.
I can't believe none of this trio tried to help the guy. Not sure of the Chelsea situation, but the FA and co just ignoring the situation makes my blood boil. I suppose the FA can't make any money from something like this so it was probably not worth their while to investigate
Maybe Chelsea should have refused to pay, but backed him in going to the police again and said they had no problem with any investigation they made. As said above the F.A and P.FA. should hang their heads in shame.
There will be other clubs who paid for press silence. In the Chelsea case, it was a complaint against a dead employee and it's unlikely that they could do more than the police, other than pay some compensation. Businesses pay compensation, even when they don't accept any legal responsibility, they sometimes pay to avoid the PR hit. If they did more than that, and turned a blind eye to other guilty parties who they could have exposed then it's shameful, but lets not assume the worst. Especially as there are serious investigations underway with both the police and the FA.
What we're seeing is a culture of silence being exposed. The abused kids remained silent, and even when some of them started to complain, the clubs remained silent and so did the FA. Channel 4 did a documentary on the topic nearly 20 years ago and nothing more came of it. It took nearly 20 years, and some very brave words by Andy Woodward, to take the lid off this. If that's allowed more kids to be abused, and more abusers being allowed to get away with it then that's the disgrace. But this isn't about a particular club.
What we're seeing is a culture of silence being exposed. The abused kids remained silent, and even when some of them started to complain, the clubs remained silent and so did the FA. Channel 4 did a documentary on the topic nearly 20 years ago and nothing more came of it. It took nearly 20 years, and some very brave words by Andy Woodward, to take the lid off this. If that's allowed more kids to be abused, and more abusers being allowed to get away with it then that's the disgrace. But this isn't about a particular club.
That would have been the right ethically right thing to do. It's what I would have done.
The cynic in me says if Chelsea had refused to pay him, the first 10 pages in The Sun the following sunday would have been the full story and he would be waiting on a huge cheque from News International to clear.
Yes the guy is dead, but like Saville this guy would not have been the only victim. If he made himself heard like Andy Woodward it would have encouraged others to come forward.
Maybe, but this is before the Andy Woodward words were printed, so it would at least have blown the lid off things earlier. By paying him Chelsea have made themselves look guilty unnecessarily.
I didn't know he had been to the police, thought he wanted to blackmail the club by threatening to go to the police. Trying to pay someone to not tell the truth that would hurt you doesn't sound classy.
Well now they payed and the news will still cover a lot of pages.
Southampton have got in touch with Hampshire Police about historical child abuse and are
co-operating fully. That is the correct way of dealing with this.
He was blackmailing by threatening to go to the press, not the police.
Headlines about Child abuse at the club most certainly hurt the club. That it happened more than 40 years ago, the perpetrator being long dead and the club having changed ownership more than once since then would be details on page 7 in small print.
PR is rarely classy.
They were made aware of a serious crime. They should have reported it immediately. No ifs or buts.
I'd imagine there's been other victims at Chelsea. What about them?
The police were already aware who (according to the victim) advised him to take it up with Chelsea.
As for any other victims, they should go to the police where hopefully they don't get the brush off like this bloke did.
Absolutely.
Mate, I think the "not mentioning BB" ship has sailed - his name is all over the news.
That doesn't mean Southampton have done the right thing previously regarding this. I'm guessing that it's a fair bit easier to "co-operate fully" now that the lid is well and truly off and I doubt that any club will be refusing to co-operate at this present time. Rumours are that an ex-Saints legend was involved in a cover-up and he lost his job at the club over it.
As someone else said, this is far from being about one specific club. This is nationwide at the very least, and probably worldwide. It's becoming apparent that a lot of blind eyes have been turned, be it managers, directors, owners, players, staff, the FA, and the PFA.
Doubt it is just football either, any sport, or activity involving children is a lure for these people.
And you'll also note that the new interviews, press reports and discussions in the media are concentrating on other clubs, and the role of the FA etc. The BB case is back in the hands of the courts and we need to steer clear of it.
Otherwise we'll have to close the thread and that's not really what we want to do.
Absolutely mate. Any profession that paedophiles can work themselves into a position of trust and have access to children really.
I think what we're hearing now is so reminiscent of the scandal surrounding the Catholic Church and the way they moved paedophile priests to other parishes but that doesn't solve the problem - it just moves it elsewhere.
It's not just the police the club should speak to. They should have conducted a full investigation of their own and contacted the FA.
Seems like nothing was done other than pay him off.
You can see why it looks so bad surely?
Exactly.
The PFA and Police were all aware and decided it was not worth investigating before Chelsea got a letter from Slater and Gordon asking for money. Neither of us knows what was or was not done, other than the guy got the £50K he wanted from Chelsea.
I'm not sure what an internal Chelsea investigation will achieve. The bloke died 30 years ago and we've had a couple of ownership changes since then. I bet there's not a single member of staff at the club who ever even met the guy.
On another forum I visited they used to 'play' at 'pedo baiting'. They'd play a role as a child in a chatroom, talk to the pedo and then after a while reveal they were from the FBI and had logged the pedos IP Address.
This is taking this to the Nth degree
You are right in that, that's the honest thing to do. But virtually every organization in the world, would have done the same thing Chelsea did.
An internal investigation achieves some transparency and can't just be ignored due to the fact the offender is deceased. There may be other people who need to account for what they did/didn't do and it's the clubs responsibility to establish its failings to ensure lessons are learnt.
It appears the money was paid and nothing more which as I said initially just looks extremely poor.
There is no issue discussing the case if done so as not to influence/prejudice.
Bennell has been charged so can be named openly.
Of course. We haven't deleted the earlier posts about him. The issue is that it's easy for people to slip into anger and add rumours and assumptions to it. Which is why we ask people to steer clear of discussing him.
So do an investigation into historical alleged activity....where the police and PFA had already indicated there was no evidence.
Does anyone actually know what the payment was for?
Was it an acceptance of guilt, or not to go to the media, or perhaps just a goodwill gesture?
Remember, it was Chelsea that dropped the waiver of confidentiality and informed the media which allowed the player to speak out once the FA and police opened investigations which they didnt bother doing all those years ago
Shouldnt it be the same for clubs who are also having slander thrown at them without posters actually having knowledge of facts and basing it on newspaper speculation
Yeah they should have.
Chelsea apologises 'profusely' to former player over alleged abuse
London club extends apology to Gary Johnson, admitting that he ‘suffered unacceptably’ while a team player in the 1970s
Chelsea Football Club has “apologised profusely” to Gary Johnson, who the club says “suffered unacceptably” while a youth team player in the 1970s.
The London club said it had “no desire to hide any historic abuse we uncover from view”.
Chelsea said an external review would examine whether it carried out a proper investigation when the allegations of sexual abuse first came to light, and why it did not report them to the Football Association.
“We are fully committed to ensuring the safety and well-being of all children and young people who are in our care or attending our premises,” Chelsea said in a statement. “Their welfare is of paramount importance.”
It was previously claimed that Chelsea paid off Johnson, who alleged he was abused by former employee Eddie Heath.
Johnson, 57, said he was paid £50,000 not to go public with allegations that he was sexually abused by its former chief scout. Chelsea said on Tuesday that it had appointed an external law firm to carry out a formal investigation into a former employee.
Heath, who was the club’s chief scout from 1968 to 1979, died before the allegations were made.
London club extends apology to Gary Johnson, admitting that he ‘suffered unacceptably’ while a team player in the 1970s
Chelsea Football Club has “apologised profusely” to Gary Johnson, who the club says “suffered unacceptably” while a youth team player in the 1970s.
The London club said it had “no desire to hide any historic abuse we uncover from view”.
Chelsea said an external review would examine whether it carried out a proper investigation when the allegations of sexual abuse first came to light, and why it did not report them to the Football Association.
“We are fully committed to ensuring the safety and well-being of all children and young people who are in our care or attending our premises,” Chelsea said in a statement. “Their welfare is of paramount importance.”
It was previously claimed that Chelsea paid off Johnson, who alleged he was abused by former employee Eddie Heath.
Johnson, 57, said he was paid £50,000 not to go public with allegations that he was sexually abused by its former chief scout. Chelsea said on Tuesday that it had appointed an external law firm to carry out a formal investigation into a former employee.
Heath, who was the club’s chief scout from 1968 to 1979, died before the allegations were made.
well at least the latest statement by Chelsea clears up a lot of things....including that it was not 'hush' money at all as widely reported.
PLUS THIS
It was stated by Mr Johnson's solicitors that Heath had inappropriate relationships with other young boys/men from the club although no names were given to us. With the limited information the club received, we were unable to identify any further individuals who may have been subject to abuse. When dealing with this matter, the club operated on the basis that the incidents occurred in the 1970s and Heath had died in the early 1980s. Accordingly, Heath was no longer a risk to children. The extent to which the club should, notwithstanding this, have commenced a more detailed investigation and reported it to the Premier League and FA is an issue that will be addressed in detail in the club’s external law firm review.
Just covering their backs IMO.
They knew what had been going on and now it's come to light they think that apology is acceptable
Bastards!
cheap shot
How do the current regime know what happened in the 70's based limited information
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-alexandra-smoothed-over-claims-a7453151.html
It looks like back in the 70s it was Dario Gradi (now of Crewe) who may have followed up a complaint about Eddie Heath. Gradi was working for Chelsea at the time.
It looks like back in the 70s it was Dario Gradi (now of Crewe) who may have followed up a complaint about Eddie Heath. Gradi was working for Chelsea at the time.
Isn't that slightly worrying.
Hardly cheap.
Historical sexual abuse at institutions does not go without the hierarchy knowing or at least hearing about it
There are always rumours, just that it is easier to ignore them.
The hierarchy in the 1970's is completely different to the one in the 2010's.
Not much was known at all hence some stuff coming out now by those brave enough to talk about it