Club statement regarding Barry Bennell's conviction

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I don't know what the sentencing guidelines are but I sincerely hope that the judge is allowed to give a life sentence and does just that. Life without parole is the only suitable sentence.

The maximum sentence for rape is life, but I don’t think the Judge has the power to impose life without the possibility of parole for anything other than a limited number of types of murder. It’s a moot point, as it's doubtful he will ever be released. By all accounts he’s not at all well. It’s extremely unusual for a defendant to be allowed to ‘attend’ their trial via videolink. Given the profile of the case, it’s doubtful this would have happened without some fairly forceful explanatory medical evidence.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

West raped, tortured and murdered his own daughter, before burying her under the patio. A patio which was situated under the dungeon where he"d allowed his wife to watch the rape and torture of her own daughter. Shipman murdered people on what the police called, "an industrial scale". Both are light years ahead of Bennell in terms of sociopathic tendencies. Light years.

Bennell arguably displayed more of the classic signs of being a sociopath than West, in particular, who was of below average intelligence (by all accounts Bennell was very bright) and (to many) somewhat charmless (unlike Bennell). West’s blunt MO mainly centred around ensnaring people, raping and torturing them, then killing them and burying their remains within his property. Bennell’s repertoire required a great deal more craft and charm, including towards the parents of his victims, something he clearly excelled at. He was much more manipulative than West, which enabled him to carry out his crimes in the manner he did and (crucially) retain such an enduring degree of control over his victims and his enablers. Just because someone doesn’t have muderous tendencies (or manages to suppress them for reasons of expediency) it doesn’t necessarily make them less of a sociopath. Bennell has displayed (and seemingly continues to display) an acute and pathological lack of empathy towards his victims, so I stand by my original assertion and would say that you somewhat misapprehend what constitutes (or can constitute) a sociopath.

 

[caseball]

The one thing that nobody dares to say (Steve Fleet touched on it I think) is that a child's safety is also the responsibility of the parents. But that wouldn't sell papers. You pretty much have to send your kids to some school or other but sending a kid off to learn football with a stranger who says he's got contacts at City or wherever isn't compulsory. Callous to say it, I know, but it's still the truth.

 

[M18CTID]

I watched the Dispatches documentary yesterday. I had no issue with the way they referenced City throughout (and the woman who made it and the earlier one 20 years ago should be applauded for her efforts) apart from that bloke - I think he was a lawyer - who said “City still don’t get it” in respect of the club saying they can’t comment fully until a later date, implying that we might be shying away from our responsibilities. That annoyed me because I thought the club statement released last week was bang on the money and showed complete empathy for all the victims, encouraged anyone else who might’ve been abused to come forward, and - through the club’s ongoing investigation - identified another possible paedophile who had links to the club. It’s only for legal reasons that the club can’t say any more than that at this time but what they did say was akin to a warts-and-all update on their own investigation, and as far removed from a cover-up as you can get.

In contrast, the impression I got was that Crewe aren’t currently handling this very well at all and seem reluctant to fully investigate what’s gone on at their own club, although I could be wrong on that and the documentary might’ve misrepresented their position somewhat.

Anyway, as others have said this goes way beyond City and Crewe and will stretch to many other clubs. The FA have a lot to answer for as well.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

I watched the Dispatches documentary yesterday. I had no issue with the way they referenced City throughout (and the woman who made it and the earlier one 20 years ago should be applauded for her efforts) apart from that bloke - I think he was a lawyer - who said “City still don’t get it” in respect of the club saying they can’t comment fully until a later date, implying that we might be shying away from our responsibilities. That annoyed me because I thought the club statement released last week was bang on the money and showed complete empathy for all the victims, encouraged anyone else who might’ve been abused to come forward, and - through the club’s ongoing investigation - identified another possible paedophile who had links to the club. It’s only for legal reasons that the club can’t say any more than that at this time but what they did say was akin to a warts-and-all update on their own investigation, and as far removed from a cover-up as you can get.

In contrast, the impression I got was that Crewe aren’t currently handling this very well at all and seem reluctant to fully investigate what’s gone on at their own club, although I could be wrong on that and the documentary might’ve misrepresented their position somewhat.

Anyway, as others have said this goes way beyond City and Crewe and will stretch to many other clubs. The FA have a lot to answer for as well.

Ollie Holt agrees with you about Crewe:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5404321/How-regime-charge-Crewe.html

 

[The blue phantom]

I think it's nailed on, starting Monday night, we'll just have to soak it up like Boro fans have had to do for years now.

Yep. Its near certain it will be sang at every game against us. Sky/Bt won't want their listeners hearing it.

 

[Hart of the Matter]

City knew about his conviction in the 90s. Why did they not investigate his connections to the club at that point rather than leave it another 20 years? This for me is a key question and brings accountability much closer to home with people who may still be at the club. Was it even discussed?

 

[geoff clipp]

The one thing that nobody dares to say (Steve Fleet touched on it I think) is that a child's safety is also the responsibility of the parents. But that wouldn't sell papers. You pretty much have to send your kids to some school or other but sending a kid off to learn football with a stranger who says he's got contacts at City or wherever isn't compulsory. Callous to say it, I know, but it's still the truth.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

 

[squirtyflower]

City knew about his conviction in the 90s. Why did they not investigate his connections to the club at that point rather than leave it another 20 years? This for me is a key question and brings accountability much closer to home with people who may still be at the club. Was it even discussed?

Errr, maybe because he'd been convicted in the States and there were no complaints at that time to research in the UK, but don't let facts get in the way.

 

[west didsblue]

I watched the Dispatches documentary yesterday. I had no issue with the way they referenced City throughout (and the woman who made it and the earlier one 20 years ago should be applauded for her efforts) apart from that bloke - I think he was a lawyer - who said “City still don’t get it” in respect of the club saying they can’t comment fully until a later date, implying that we might be shying away from our responsibilities. That annoyed me because I thought the club statement released last week was bang on the money and showed complete empathy for all the victims, encouraged anyone else who might’ve been abused to come forward, and - through the club’s ongoing investigation - identified another possible paedophile who had links to the club. It’s only for legal reasons that the club can’t say any more than that at this time but what they did say was akin to a warts-and-all update on their own investigation, and as far removed from a cover-up as you can get.

In contrast, the impression I got was that Crewe aren’t currently handling this very well at all and seem reluctant to fully investigate what’s gone on at their own club, although I could be wrong on that and the documentary might’ve misrepresented their position somewhat.

Anyway, as others have said this goes way beyond City and Crewe and will stretch to many other clubs. The FA have a lot to answer for as well.

That solicitor is representing some of the abused players and he’s trying to maximise any potential payout by casting aspersions on City’s investigation and current motives. It seems clear from outside that the club is doing everything it can to get to the bottom of what went on but it’s not in that solicitor’s interest to admit that.