Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48
  1. #21
    smileyweb
    Guest

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Certainly these days you would hope less goes on, but you are correct the DBS is effectively worthless and only means they have not been caught yet.....

    I can't and don't take a boy to a game or training now without a text or email from the parent to give me some fall back in case of accusation.. word of mouth means nothing and that's even if my boy is also in the car with me.

    This is what they advise you to do on the Level 1 coaching badge, 1 whole day of the 4 sundays is dedicated to child protection.

    Its a sad world at times.

    That (text / email from parent) still doesn't give you any protection.

    Ideally, you need another adult or child in the car too. Adults should always be in front, kids always in the back.

    I coach for a living, across all youth age groups (boys and girls, able-bodied and disabled) and it's drummed into us to NEVER be in a situation where you are alone with a child.

    I know it's crazy, but you have to be paranoid these days and this protects the coach (from accusations) as well as the kids.

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #22

      0 Not allowed!
      While clearly have huge sympathy for all of these victims am appalled by the fact that the football industry is "surprised" by all of this as new news. Link below to a C4 Dispatches documentary from 1997 - Football's Foul Play - that discusses Bennell and others including the claims regarding Southampton that were reported as new news only this morning - including an interview with the same player .

    • #23
      Members Not Andy Naylor's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2007
      Location
      Seven Dials
      Posts
      5,078


      0 Not allowed!
      I understand that Chelsea's version of Gary Johnson's story on the front of today's Daily Mirror differs slightly from the former player's. Johnson claims he was paid to keep quiet, but I'm led to believe that he approached the club and asked for compensation after getting nowhere with the police and PFA. A confidentiality clause would have been standard legal practice at the time - and I doubt if Chelsea's lawyers or insurers would have allowed them to pay Johnson anything without one - but I'm equally told that Chelsea offered to waive it this week if he wanted to tell his story. Which doesn't quite fit the notion that they tried to gag him.
    • #24
      Members
      Join Date
      Jan 2010
      Posts
      7,339


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Not Andy Naylor View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      I understand that Chelsea's version of Gary Johnson's story on the front of today's Daily Mirror differs slightly from the former player's. Johnson claims he was paid to keep quiet, but I'm led to believe that he approached the club and asked for compensation after getting nowhere with the police and PFA. A confidentiality clause would have been standard legal practice at the time - and I doubt if Chelsea's lawyers or insurers would have allowed them to pay Johnson anything without one - but I'm equally told that Chelsea offered to waive it this week if he wanted to tell his story. Which doesn't quite fit the notion that they tried to gag him.
      Aren't they wriggling out of the fact they gagged him? The 50 grand payment would not look good in a court today and so they have acted on legal advice.
    • #25
      Members Not Andy Naylor's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2007
      Location
      Seven Dials
      Posts
      5,078


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by knocky1 View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Aren't they wriggling out of the fact they gagged him? The 50 grand payment would not look good in a court today and so they have acted on legal advice.
      Another way to look at it is that they offered to ungag him as soon as the stories of the victims at other clubs became known. And until they received his consent to remove the confidentiality agreement, they couldn't admit the accusations made against them in the Torygraph.

      A further consideration - and one which their insurers and lawyers no doubt would have had in mind - is that, once any payment became known, any number of dishonest opportunists might have come forward claiming to have been abused by Chelsea's late ex-coach. And still may, of course - as well as genuine victims.
    • #26
      Drew drew's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2006
      Location
      Burgess Hill
      Posts
      14,291


      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by smileyweb View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      That (text / email from parent) still doesn't give you any protection.

      Ideally, you need another adult or child in the car too. Adults should always be in front, kids always in the back.

      I coach for a living, across all youth age groups (boys and girls, able-bodied and disabled) and it's drummed into us to NEVER be in a situation where you are alone with a child.

      I know it's crazy, but you have to be paranoid these days and this protects the coach (from accusations) as well as the kids.
      I agree with all that. However I disagree with Marshy in that the DBS is not worthless. It cannot, and probably nothing can, provide 100% guarantee but it does act as a filter to prevent those previously convicted from getting positions where they could get access to kids.
    • #27
      Drew drew's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2006
      Location
      Burgess Hill
      Posts
      14,291


      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Not Andy Naylor View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Another way to look at it is that they offered to ungag him as soon as the stories of the victims at other clubs became known. And until they received his consent to remove the confidentiality agreement, they couldn't admit the accusations made against them in the Torygraph.

      A further consideration - and one which their insurers and lawyers no doubt would have had in mind - is that, once any payment became known, any number of dishonest opportunists might have come forward claiming to have been abused by Chelsea's late ex-coach. And still may, of course - as well as genuine victims.

      That's a very rose tinted view of Chelsea's actions.
    • #28
      Members Not Andy Naylor's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2007
      Location
      Seven Dials
      Posts
      5,078


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by drew View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      That's a very rose tinted view of Chelsea's actions.
      It's a different view from the one set out by the Mirror and repeated by the BBC among others, I admit, and I admit it is based on things I've been told by a Chelsea employee. But if Gary Johnson didn't want to be gagged, why did he take Chelsea's money and accept the confidentiality clause (which was binding on both parties)?
    • #29
    • #30
      Stupid IDIOT Ernest's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2003
      Location
      LOONEY BIN
      Posts
      37,141


      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by aolstudios View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      I think a lot more has yet to come out

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •