Usually high profile cases are not in areas where crimes were committed to prevent disorderApologies if this is a dumb or already answered question (I don't enjoy reading these threads sadly) but why is the trial in Liverpool and not Manchester?
And this is one of the points I’m trying to make. People at that level clearly knew something was amiss. Do they not share some responsibility? Did teachers know or have suspicions? Other coaches or parents? Why is it only City, where he was never a full-time employee (although he clearly had some sort of relationship with the club or people in it)?My Sunday league team played his team in 87/88 and I heard parents from our team saying he was a nonce and a pervert. I wonder if said parents regret not coming forward back and reporting it.
Didn't know that. CheersUsually high profile cases are not in areas where crimes were committed to prevent disorder
Gang stuff the same
And this is one of the points I’m trying to make. People at that level clearly knew something was amiss. Do they not share some responsibility? Did teachers know or have suspicions? Other coaches or parents? Why is it only City, where he was never a full-time employee (although he clearly had some sort of relationship with the club or people in it)?
And the other point, which has also been made, is that times were different back then and attitudes towards this sort of behaviour seem to have drawn a line between ‘strangers’ and people who were trusted. It was like it was almost an occupational hazard of being a kid.
As far as I remember the judge, Clement Goldstone, is a season ticket holder at The Etihad by the way.The judge has guidelines to follow and for this crime, he gave the maximum sentence. Bennell will die in prison. Good.
Well I hope those who sit round him buy him a pint or two for sending the vile c**t down.As far as I remember the judge, Clement Goldstone, is a season ticket holder at The Etihad by the way.
And this is one of the points I’m trying to make. People at that level clearly knew something was amiss. Do they not share some responsibility? Did teachers know or have suspicions? Other coaches or parents? Why is it only City, where he was never a full-time employee (although he clearly had some sort of relationship with the club or people in it)?
And the other point, which has also been made, is that times were different back then and attitudes towards this sort of behaviour seem to have drawn a line between ‘strangers’ and people who were trusted. It was like it was almost an occupational hazard of being a kid.
Its been said numerous times already but in those days, the dirty old man and perv was well known to all but it never went further than that.
Times have changed and whilst im pleased the club is investigating and taking it seriously i will be pissed off if we cop for any serious flak over a man everyone seemingly knew was a wrong one, especially when he wasnt even on our payroll.
Did everyone know about him though? If so, surely the parents would hear whispers about him, if so why would they allow their son's to stay at his home? Or go on trips away with him? Either the parents were incredibly reckless, or the rumours about him at the time weren't that strong around the teams he was involved with.
If media reports are to be believed most are now claiming it was well known what he was doing and that clubs knew all about him.
That's fine but along with the clubs, every other person who knew or had heard also have to take responsibility and if that includes families who still allowed their lads to go then im afraid it applies to them also.
I have 3 boys and a girl and i wouldn't be letting them go anywhere with any rumours of a wrong un being present i can tell you that and most wouldn't.
If City are at fault then fine, we take it on the chin and anyone responsible should be dealt with but im getting the feeling now its going to be a City focused witch hunt with lots of people coming out of the woodwork claiming they knew that we knew about him but that works both ways and the question has to be asked of them, why didn't you say anything?
Did everyone know about him though? If so, surely the parents would hear whispers about him, if so why would they allow their son's to stay at his home? Or go on trips away with him? Either the parents were incredibly reckless, or the rumours about him at the time weren't that strong around the teams he was involved with.
Along with revulsion towards Bennell, and disgust over Crewe’s silence that to some ears borders on the sinister, the overwhelming immediate emotion after the law took its due course in Liverpool yesterday was continued, intense admiration for the survivors.
Crewe are hiding a lot of relevant information, there were many rumours about that Club and the people that ran it, hopefully the full truth comes out, there will be plenty of people previously employed at Crewe who will be absolutely bricking it.I think it's now possible to see what potential legal claims against MCFC will be based on and what other questions we may be expected to answer in due course, at least with regard to Bennell. I might try to sketch that out at some point, but it will take a while because it'll be a fairly long post. I disagree with some of the more bullish analyses in this thread, I'm afraid.
Meanwhile, I saw a piece by Henry Winter on The Times site today. He's talking about paedophiles shifting online with their grooming tactics, but there were a couple of references I found interesting: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fa-must-do-more-to-stop-a-bennell-for-the-digital-age-x6h55jc5w
(The article is behind a paywall but you can register to view two articles for free each week.)
The first was that he referred to Bennell as the "former Crewe Alexandra youth coach and Manchester City scout", which sounds to me as though he's trying to differentiate between employment at Crewe and a looser arrangement with City, scouts (especially in those days) tending not to be employees. I noticed the same formulation in one or two other places as well.
Secondly, City's only mention in addition to the above is an approving short paragraph detailing how Pep spoke "spoke well and movingly about the subject". Crewe, on the other hand, attract the comment below (I've chosen to set it in context rather than just quote the part pertaining to the Cheshire club):
This bears out what some of us have said about Crewe's approach being the very antithesis of ours. So far at least, it seems a reasonable assumption that we wouldn't have appointed experienced and eminent people to run an independent inquiry and spent a million in the process if we weren't taking matters very seriously.
Crewe, on the other hand, say they're going to hold an inquiry but haven't started yet because the police told them to wait for the end of the criminal proceedings (when City were told no such thing). Yet Crewe at the same time implacably deny that anyone at their club had knowledge of Bennell's activities when that's surely one of the core questions that an inquiry would be seeking to establish. Such a response is an absolute joke.
I was just pleased to note that one of the leading opinion formers among today's football journalists obviously sees this difference.
I think it's now possible to see what potential legal claims against MCFC will be based on and what other questions we may be expected to answer in due course, at least with regard to Bennell. I might try to sketch that out at some point, but it will take a while because it'll be a fairly long post. I disagree with some of the more bullish analyses in this thread, I'm afraid.
Meanwhile, I saw a piece by Henry Winter on The Times site today. He's talking about paedophiles shifting online with their grooming tactics, but there were a couple of references I found interesting: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fa-must-do-more-to-stop-a-bennell-for-the-digital-age-x6h55jc5w
(The article is behind a paywall but you can register to view two articles for free each week.)
The first was that he referred to Bennell as the "former Crewe Alexandra youth coach and Manchester City scout", which sounds to me as though he's trying to differentiate between employment at Crewe and a looser arrangement with City, scouts (especially in those days) tending not to be employees. I noticed the same formulation in one or two other places as well.
Secondly, City's only mention in addition to the above is an approving short paragraph detailing how Pep spoke "spoke well and movingly about the subject". Crewe, on the other hand, attract the comment below (I've chosen to set it in context rather than just quote the part pertaining to the Cheshire club):
This bears out what some of us have said about Crewe's approach being the very antithesis of ours. So far at least, it seems a reasonable assumption that we wouldn't have appointed experienced and eminent people to run an independent inquiry and spent a million in the process if we weren't taking matters very seriously.
Crewe, on the other hand, say they're going to hold an inquiry but haven't started yet because the police told them to wait for the end of the criminal proceedings (when City were told no such thing). Yet Crewe at the same time implacably deny that anyone at their club had knowledge of Bennell's activities when that's surely one of the core questions that an inquiry would be seeking to establish. Such a response is an absolute joke.
I was just pleased to note that one of the leading opinion formers among today's football journalists obviously sees this difference.
Crewe are hiding a lot of relevant information, there were many rumours about that Club and the people that ran it, hopefully the full truth comes out, there will be plenty of people previously employed at Crewe who will be absolutely bricking it.