Club statement regarding Barry Bennell's conviction

Roachy said:
Come on mate, think about what you're saying.
Click to expand...

You can't just quote me insolation to the point i was responding to. I agree that the current regime at the club hold no personal responsibility as to what happened but my point was that it's not really good enough to say the club at the time did nothing wrong because he wasn't officially an employee. There were clearly enough red flags at the time that something was off about this guy and we gave him full access to our facilities to bring kids in unsupervised which culminated in boys being molested on our pitch. Daniel Taylor, who has always been pretty good in his reporting of City and has a good relationship with the club has said there'll be more in coming days that shows the club's response, at the time, was "abysmal". I'm sure he'll back that claim up.

All in all, I think it's clear the club allowed something to happen on their premises on their watch that they could've prevented. Should this be a slight on who we are now? No, but we have to accept that. I'm just grateful that the club clearly took this seriously when it first emerged, investigated thoroughly of their own volition and also identifed another offender because at least his victims might also get the help they need. The club failed in the past but the new regime is at least dealing with it in the best way they can now (from what I can see). That is at least of some comfort I hope to those affected.
 
geoff clipp said:
You can't just quote me insolation to the point i was responding to. I agree that the current regime at the club hold no personal responsibility as to what happened but my point was that it's not really good enough to say the club at the time did nothing wrong because he wasn't officially an employee. There were clearly enough red flags at the time that something was off about this guy and we gave him full access to our facilities to bring kids in unsupervised which culminated in boys being molested on our pitch. Daniel Taylor, who has always been pretty good in his reporting of City and has a good relationship with the club has said there'll be more in coming days that shows the club's response, at the time, was "abysmal". I'm sure he'll back that claim up.

All in all, I think it's clear the club allowed something to happen on their premises on their watch that they could've prevented. Should this be a slight on who we are now? No, but we have to accept that. I'm just grateful that the club clearly took this seriously when it first emerged, investigated thoroughly of their own volition and also identifed another offender because at least his victims might also get the help they need. The club failed in the past but the new regime is at least dealing with it in the best way they can now (from what I can see). That is at least of some comfort I hope to those affected.
Click to expand...
To make it clear I'm not saying they did nothing wrong or had no responsibility. It seems to be clear that there were whispers about Bennell and these may well have been ignored by people at City up to and including the board. If so then that needs to come out into the open, despite the fact that the current ownership clearly have no direct responsibility for the situation. We also have to remember that times were different then.

There was no Childrens Act in those days and people were, to some extent, more inclined to brush stuff like this under the carpet. If City had been determined to act, the likelihood is that they would have quietly moved him on rather than shop him to the police. The word may have been put out quietly that he wasn't to be trusted (as seems to have been the case around the local football world with Bennell) but he'd probably have found another way of getting what he wanted. There wasn't a culture of going to the authorities in those days and, as the Rochdale case showed, even in more recent times the authorities were only too ready to turn a blind eye.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
All here:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/feb/15/manchester-city-barry-bennell-warning

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/feb/15/barry-bennell-gary-cliffe-manchester-city
Click to expand...

I saw that, but Daniel Taylor is stating it without actual evidence, based on one of the victims stories. The boy in question says that Bennell took some lads sunbathing on the pitch; he never inferred they were abused on the pitch.

I also read a report stating although he had links to City via Whitehill, there is ‘no evidence’ any of the abuse took place on City property.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
To make it clear I'm not saying they did nothing wrong or had no responsibility. It seems to be clear that there were whispers about Bennell and these may well have been ignored by people at City up to and including the board. If so then that needs to come out into the open, despite the fact that the current ownership clearly have no direct responsibility for the situation. We also have to remember that times were different then.

There was no Childrens Act in those days and people were, to some extent, more inclined to brush stuff like this under the carpet. If City had been determined to act, the likelihood is that they would have quietly moved him on rather than shop him to the police. The word may have been put out quietly that he wasn't to be trusted (as seems to have been the case around the local football world with Bennell) but he'd probably have found another way of getting what he wanted. There wasn't a culture of going to the authorities in those days and, as the Rochdale case showed, even in more recent times the authorities were only too ready to turn a blind eye.
Click to expand...
Good post on the whole story that.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
To make it clear I'm not saying they did nothing wrong or had no responsibility. It seems to be clear that there were whispers about Bennell and these may well have been ignored by people at City up to and including the board. If so then that needs to come out into the open, despite the fact that the current ownership clearly have no direct responsibility for the situation. We also have to remember that times were different then.

There was no Childrens Act in those days and people were, to some extent, more inclined to brush stuff like this under the carpet. If City had been determined to act, the likelihood is that they would have quietly moved him on rather than shop him to the police. The word may have been put out quietly that he wasn't to be trusted (as seems to have been the case around the local football world with Bennell) but he'd probably have found another way of getting what he wanted. There wasn't a culture of going to the authorities in those days and, as the Rochdale case showed, even in more recent times the authorities were only too ready to turn a blind eye.
Click to expand...

I think we agree on more things than we disagree on in respect to this. It's a pretty highly charged subject and people will have strong thoughts relative to their own views and experience. All in all, yes, times were different then, things were swept under the carpet, but should anything come to light now in any organisation then I think think it's ok to admit there was a major fuck up and acknowledge their part in any failings.

Of course he'd have gone and found another way of getting what he wanted. That wasnt under our control. What he did on our premises, the access we helped him obtain to his victims and the prestige we offered him via association with City WAS under the club's control though, so City do shoulder some, not all, but some responsibility. I'll also repeat here, i doubt there's a single high profile football club that wouldn't find similar failings on their own part. City's investigation seems to have unearthed this completely unrelated John Broome guy whose actions may not have been otherwise uncovered. I hope other clubs launch similar investigations, because I'm sure there are people they've all worked with in the past that got have gotten away with all sorts and there are survivors who might benefit from any help that can be offered now.

Now is not the time for distancing the club from the allegations and nor should it be seen as an opportunity for other clubs to take the moral high ground. I'm sure they're all in it up to their necks and it's time they all investigate fully.
 
Nowt to do with current owners, staff or management of the club. I would just love to ask one of these so called reporters just what they are attempting to achieve.
Those responsible at the time are the ones who need questioning - not the current ownership or management team. (This guy deserves to go in general population of a prison and suffer the consequences if all allegations are true - or even one.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.