Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Diablo on January 30, 2017, 01:39:48 AM
-
Upsetting and disturbing report on the BBC that Aston Villa sacked a scout (in 1988) accused of sexually abusing boys but did not go to the police at the time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38770506
-
This is the post I thought I'd never read
-
Dissapointing news. I do hope that GT was not involved.
I wonder why they chose to release the story in the middle of the night.
-
Sickening reading, it beggars belief that such things could happen like this and not be taken seriously at the time. For a man in the position this guy was in to have had "a different boy in his bed each night" makes for vile reading - it's shocking this sort of thing ever happened but even more shocking is the length of time it's taken for the allegations to come out.
-
Awful feel so sorry for anyone who was exploited by this piece of filth
-
I'm not defending the club, but have only skimmed through the report. Am I right in thinking that the issue was raised by a player not at the club, and that the parents asked not to take the matter further?
It is a sickening issue that we'd all hoped would not have reached the Villa.
-
I'm not defending the club, but have only skimmed through the report. Am I right in thinking that the issue was raised by a player not at the club, and that the parents asked not to take the matter further?
It is a sickening issue that we'd all hoped would not have reached the Villa.
It does seem that Villa are being criticised because they did take action, and probably more action than other clubs would have done at that time. It seems the perpetrator was only employed as a part-time scout. The children involved were not, it seems, part of the Villa youth set up, and none of the parents it seems wanted the matter reported to the place. Villa had there own enquiry, and they sacked him. It seems that Villa had no more of a duty to report it to the Police than the parents did. And indeed Leicester City it seems.
-
I bet we are no different from how other clubs and most institutions behaved in that era. Not good enough I am afraid but let's make sure if that was the case it's never repeated.
-
I went to school with Tony. Sickening story.
-
I'm not defending the club, but have only skimmed through the report. Am I right in thinking that the issue was raised by a player not at the club, and that the parents asked not to take the matter further?
It is a sickening issue that we'd all hoped would not have reached the Villa.
It does seem that Villa are being criticised because they did take action, and probably more action than other clubs would have done at that time. It seems the perpetrator was only employed as a part-time scout. The children involved were not, it seems, part of the Villa youth set up, and none of the parents it seems wanted the matter reported to the place. Villa had there own enquiry, and they sacked him. It seems that Villa had no more of a duty to report it to the Police than the parents did. And indeed Leicester City it seems.
Again i don't know the ins and outs and also have skim read the story so have probably missed the bits that will shoot what i'm saying down - but also, was there anything that had actually happened for Villa to report the scout? Wasn't he previously convicted, or rumours, and as soon as we became aware we sacked him? Are we now not running the risk of judging a club by laws and attitudes of the 1980s? What people actually knew of the law and what to do in those circumstances? Sweeping things under the carpet was not just the preserve of entities like football clubs but also victims and their families as there was a shame involved and a lack of support for those being abused.
-
I think the key thing here is that the club consulted with the parents of the children involved before going to the police, and they did not want it reported to the police. If it turns out the club 'encouraged' them to stay quiet - then that's terrible and someone needs to be held accountable. If it turns out the parents didn't want it going to the police as they feared for their child and hoped they could forget about it, then I'm not sure what else the club could have done, apart from go against the wishes of the parents, which is dodgy ground to say the least...
-
Without wishing to defend the indefensible, I wonder if the timing of this story has anything to do with Sir Graham's death - the dead can't sue, neither can they put their side of the story. I also seee that the solicitors involved are Slater & Gordon, who always strike me as a particularly rapacious bunch of ambulance chasers.
-
These days all the clubs follow strict safeguarding procedures. They wouldn't ask the parents for permission, they are duty bound to report it regardless.
-
Also coaching youngsters these days I am required to do a child protection course (amongst other things). I have to say the FA are taking it seriously.
-
Without wishing to defend the indefensible, I wonder of the timing of this story has anything to do with Sir Graham's death - the dead can't sue, neither can they put their side of the story. I also seee that the solicitors involved are Slater & Gordon, who always strike me as a particularly rapacious bunch of ambulance chasers.
Slater and Gordon are it seems representing Richardson. Not Tony Brien.
-
They are now. I'm not sure such procedures were in place in 1988.
-
'Mr Brien, aged 18 or 19 at the time, claimed he had "two or three" conversations with Mr Richardson and another senior figure at the club, but was put off from going public with the allegations.
Mr Brien said he was asked: "Do you really think you can put up with the obscenities from the terraces?"
He felt he had been effectively told to "sweep the matter under the carpet and keep quiet", he added.'
That's the but that is disturbing and who's to say that attutude may well have influenced the parents decision.
-
Collected bins at schools...reading that made me shudder.
-
How come Richardson is named but the "other senior figure" isn't?
-
It's not something I've desperately wanted to be involved with, but I've had quite a lot of professional involvement in relation to child sexual abuse cases over the last few years (I basically work as General Counsel to an organisation that's had a number of claims against it, and much publicity surrounding it).
Yes, this was not uncommon in the late 1980s, whether in football, or the church, or the BBC, or schools. That doesn't make it right either by today's standards or what should have been the standards in those days.
It will be really difficult to get a clear picture of what happened here. The paper trail will be thin if there's anything at all written down. SGT can't speak for himself of course and Doug's recollection may be patchy due to age and lapse of time. I doubt there will be clear policies about where the buck stops with this matter (nowadays policy will be to report the matter to a designated safeguarding officer, who will have relationships with the Local Authority Designated Officer and the police. That person would then report the matter and liaise with the external agencies).
The key point, which needs drumming home at every possible opportunity, is that you don't just report things to the police to get people arrested and convicted. It can help stop there being a *next* victim, not just provide justice for the last victim.
-
I think it's important not to be too defensive on this because it's our club. If it can be demonstrated clearly that people at the club contributed to hushing this up or put pressure on the victims not to report it to the police then that's a disgrace and those involved should be held to account, where possible.
-
Absolutely, Meanwood.
-
I think it's important not to be too defensive on this because it's our club. If it can be demonstrated clearly that people at the club contributed to hushing this up or put pressure on the victims not to report it to the police then that's a disgrace and those involved should be held to account, where possible.
Absolutely.
-
What has happened, happened no doubt there will be a class civil action and the insurers will pay out. It's important that this then is the end of the matter in so far that the measures in place now are watertight.
I presume we are no different to several other sports clubs. Btw I am ashamed of the villa but nothing surprises me in football
-
I don't think the timing has anything to do with Taylor. It came out when it came out because Tony Brien was due on the Derbyshire show today. Not massively happy with the headline of this piece, but if you follow the claims and facts you find the thing Villa did wrong was not go to the police themselves. Whether they could or should have done that is up for some debate.
Tony Brien was abused by Langford at Dunlop Terriers. It seems he plucked up the courage to report it to Dave Richardson after Richardson had joined us and Langford was a scout for us. Probably worth remembering how scouts were employed back then when youth set ups were more disparate. Richardson, it seems, did absolutely the right thing and informed Graham Taylor and Doug Ellis. It also looks like they took it seriously enough to speak to other victims and their parents. The families decided they didn't want to involve the cops. At this point, should the club have gone to the police anyway and hope others come forward? Probably, and I believe the guidance now is that you report it. But the club did then sack Langford, or perhaps more precisely stopped using him as a scout.
This bit could be disturbing depending on context:
Mr Brien said he was asked: "Do you really think you can put up with the obscenities from the terraces?"
He felt he had been effectively told to "sweep the matter under the carpet and keep quiet", he added.
If he was asked that with an undercurrent of "shut up son or the fans will crucify you" it is diabolical. If he was told what would likely happen and that he needs to have his eyes open and be prepared for a tough time, it's probably good advice.
-
Also without wishing to defend the indefensible but it seems the article seems keen to rightly hammer the football clubs, however, seemingly absolves the parents of the responsibility they surely had to go directly to the police.
It is to be hoped that safeguards are in place nowadays to protect the young boys and girls as well as the thousands of coaches / scouts who do a wonderful job and at the same time weeding out the scum who use the game as their vehicle to abuse.
-
The Daily Heil have piled in with an article with the headline Tony Brien recalls his horror as Aston Villa swept his sexual abuse by club scout Ted Langford 'under the carpet'.
-
Simon Page is right that there are 2 interpretations of the comments made to Tony Brien. If it was an attempt to silence him then it was totally wrong. Remembering those days and the vile abuse thrown at players, if it was to warn him of the consequences then it had to be said. Going back to then, attitudes were very different and public perception had an element of ‘they must have done something to look as though they were asking for it’ –although used more against females than males. Going to the police against the wishes of the parents would also be questionable.
Thankfully times have changed.
Anyone watching BBC Midland News last night would have got the impression that the abuse happened while he was with Villa.
-
Guardian reporting...
"The independent inquiry into football’s sexual-abuse scandal has heard claims that Graham Taylor, the former England manager, was involved in a cover-up at Aston Villa which led to other boys being exposed to a paedophile who was working for the club as a scout and later convicted of a string of offences over a 13-year period.
Taylor is alleged to have discouraged Tony Brien, one of Ted Langford’s victims, from reporting what had happened and told him, according to evidence presented to the inquiry, that he should “move on” after the teenager informed Villa in the 1987-88 season that he knew from personal experience, aged 12 to 14, that boys were at risk, having been abused at a feeder club for Leicester City.
Taylor died in January this year, revered as a hugely popular figure after his long managerial career, but the inquiry is also looking at a separate allegation relating to his first spell at Villa, from 1987 to 1990, that another of Langford’s victims came forward with information that could have saved other boys from similar ordeals.
As well as evidence from Brien, the barrister in charge of the inquiry, Clive Sheldon QC, has heard a claim that one boy told Villa what had happened and Taylor subsequently visited him at home with another member of staff. The allegation, again, is that Taylor discouraged the boy from taking it further.
In Brien’s case, he alleges that Taylor spoke to him on the telephone and told him that if the story reached the newspapers it would make the player, then at the start of his professional career, a target for terrace taunts. Taylor, Brien says, asked him to imagine what it would be like hearing the crowd’s obscenities every week. Brien, who was 18 and had just broken into Leicester’s first team, claims the message was: “Can you really be doing with the abuse from the terraces?”
The police were never informed and new evidence shows Langford, previously a scout for Leicester, continued working for Villa until the summer of 1989, raising questions for one of England’s biggest clubs about what they knew, what they did about it and how many boys potentially suffered as a result.
The Guardian has seen one letter on Villa-headed notepaper that has Dave Richardson, then the club’s assistant manager, inviting one boy to a four-day training course in March 1989 and explaining that “exact arrangements will be given by our representative Mr T Langford”. The boy in question has reported he was abused by Langford from 1987 to 1989, including at Villa’s training ground.
Richardson, who went on to have key roles in youth development for the Football Association and the Premier League, has chosen not to comment while the inquiry is ongoing but has clearly stated on previous occasions, including a statement issued by his lawyers, that the club were first warned in 1987, leading to an internal investigation and Langford’s sacking.
Yet other official papers, also seen by this newspaper, show that Langford continued to be paid for up to two years after that point. Langford, a part-time scout in the club’s youth set-up, was paid throughout the entire 1987-88 and 1988-89 seasons. His final payment came in June 1989 when Langford was sacked in the wake of other allegations that Villa did not report to either the police or the FA."
-
Doesn't sound good. Please let's not have comments about the culture of the time and so on. If as an institution Villa had information that could have possibly stopped other boys being abused, withholding it is shameful whichever way you look at it.
-
Sad to read and of course it should never have happened, but you know, different times back then and all that.
-
Horrible. Just, horrible.
-
It doesn't matter about 'different times' etc, if there was a cover up at the club then it's completely unacceptable.
-
It doesn't matter about 'different times' etc, if there was a cover up at the club then it's completely unacceptable.
That's why I said it should never have happened. I just hope Taylor's name isn't dragged through the mud.
-
It already has been. Deservedly so, if he has been involved in a cover up that allowed a known child molester to carry on working around children.
-
The cover up is bad enough, but continuing to employ him on any level is disgraceful.
-
The cover up is bad enough, but continuing to employ him on any level is disgraceful.
Yes, it doesn't look good at all. Dreadful stuff.
-
Sorry, I just cannot believe this. Graham Taylor was a fine man, a man of standards.
While they use the word "alleged", I won't accept that he would knowingly cover up something like this going on at Aston Villa.
-
This is absolutely shameful.
-
However desperate things are on the pitch, i think that most of us take some pride in the fact that our club can be relied upon to do the correct thing off it. If it transpires that people in the employ of the club did unquestionably the wrong thing, regardless of the "defence" of it being a different time and prevailing culture, then for me that pride will be forever tarnished.
-
However desperate things are on the pitch, i think that most of us take some pride in the fact that our club can be relied upon to do the correct thing off it. If it transpires that people in the employ of the club did unquestionably the wrong thing, regardless of the "defence" of it being a different time and prevailing culture, then for me that pride will be forever tarnished.
I was about to post something similar. It's very difficult to be proud of our football club these days.
-
We'll have to see how it pans out - we don't know the truth yet
If it is true it's absolutely unforgivable. I don't care about different times
-
BBC news (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41252273)
-
As if this week could get any worse. Really hope SGT was not involved in a cover up, as with the Catholic church, anyone involved in a cover up are as guilty as those who committed the crimes.
-
Sorry, I just cannot believe this. Graham Taylor was a fine man, a man of standards.
While they use the word "alleged", I won't accept that he would knowingly cover up something like this going on at Aston Villa.
At best naive maybe..?
-
Without wishing to defend the indefensible, I wonder if the timing of this story has anything to do with Sir Graham's death - the dead can't sue, neither can they put their side of the story. I also seee that the solicitors involved are Slater & Gordon, who always strike me as a particularly rapacious bunch of ambulance chasers.
Casting doubts on the veracity of the guys claims from the get go?
It's a vile but unfortunately all too common story. Paedos infiltrating organisations with kids, instead of protecting the kids the organisation protects itself. I still can't fathom the reluctance of parents in the 80s ,or earlier, to engage the police right from the start. Why attempt to engage with the organisation that failed to protect their child? Were the police seen as complicit and/or biased towards institutions?
-
I am surprised that very little came out when he was convicted in 2007. Although times were different in the 70s/80s, they certainly were not in 2007.
I cannot remember hearing about the case in 2007 but I would imagine those that new him or of him, would have known about it. How thorough was the police investigation around 2007 and why is information now coming to light that would have been key evidence if used in 2007 (assuming it wasn't heard).
-
I'm really disappointed in certain fan's reactions to this story. Not on here, but I've seen some absolutely shameful things on Facebook about this. Club / manager loyalty should only go so far, this is too serious to dismiss it out of hand.
-
Without wishing to defend the indefensible, I wonder if the timing of this story has anything to do with Sir Graham's death - the dead can't sue, neither can they put their side of the story. I also seee that the solicitors involved are Slater & Gordon, who always strike me as a particularly rapacious bunch of ambulance chasers.
Casting doubts on the veracity of the guys claims from the get go?
It's a vile but unfortunately all too common story. Paedos infiltrating organisations with kids, instead of protecting the kids the organisation protects itself. I still can't fathom the reluctance of parents in the 80s ,or earlier, to engage the police right from the start. Why attempt to engage with the organisation that failed to protect their child? Were the police seen as complicit and/or biased towards institutions?
Times and culture have changed dramatically.
RE: the point Dave made in January about timing, it's also easier to say difficult but true things about people that are popular, after they are gone.
Whilst of course anything is possible, sadly, I'd be slow to question the truth of someone on that timing alone.
As for GT, sadly guidance and culture around reporting were different, and wrong.
I can conceive someone with an amount of good intention leading a family toward not 'making a fuss' as it would create difficulty for a young career *and* the club, so encouraging non-action.
It doesn't need saying, but just to save someone pointing it out, that would not be good enough intention.
As was also pointed out prior, the seriousness of reporting is exponentially multiplied due to the non/protecting of future victims, not just bringing justice to the child in question.
At least things have shifted here in some ways.
Horrible stories in the news at the moment re: levels of abuse in India, there was a survey a 10 years ago in which 53% of children reported some sort of sexual abuse.
Working in mental health and so often with adults whose psyche's/personalities/health are damaged in this way as kids, it's chilling how much suffering was/is caused.
-
Doesn't sound good. Please let's not have comments about the culture of the time and so on. If as an institution Villa had information that could have possibly stopped other boys being abused, withholding it is shameful whichever way you look at it.
Fully agree with all of Meanwood Villa's comments on this.
There is a repeated pattern of institutions (the church, schools and - yes - football clubs) prioritising the institution over the victims. This directly led to other people being abused. If Villa and specific individuals in charge at the club were guilty of this attitude and behaviour, then both should be held to account in the inquiry.
-
No, I'm not naive, but thanks anyway.
I just think a man with such integrity as he had wouldn't have been involved in a cover up.
It's got fuck all to do with club loyalty, but if it turns out he was guilty of this, then I'm wrong and I'll hold my hands up.
-
I'm with Ger Regan on this. When I heard the report last night and saw the headline on here I feared that reactions would be instinctively to defend the club.
Nothing is worse than child abuse. We haven't advanced much from the Catholic Church, BBC child abuse scandals have we?
Shocking and shameful.
-
I read the post as SGT was naive at best rather than you CT.
-
I read the post as SGT was naive at best rather than you CT.
Confirmed
-
It's on BBC2 right now
-
As a point of reference, BBC's Childline was created in 1986 and the associated publicity that surrounded it at the time.
You could argue that abuse of Children would have been fairly prominent in the media around the time of these allegations and that if Taylor and more specifically AVFC were aware of the allegations then they should have reported the allegations to the Police and Child welfare authorities.
That is my view in hindsight, which is always a great thing.
Equally the argument could be made that this emerging awareness was only really in its infancy then and the old ways of sweeping things under the carpet would have still been the predominant response to these vile acts.
As I see it, the club, or Taaylor don't come out of this with much credit. The only positive appears to be that they sacked the scout. Personally, I don't subscribe to the line that it 'was the culture of the times' line. We're Aston Villa and we appear to have largely failed the kids and families involved in this sorry affair.
As to Taylor's counselling of those affected, only him Stride and Ellis will really know their motives for pointing out the supposed terrace reaction. Taylor can't defend himself, Ellis will no doubt not remember. Only really Steve Stride could really be relied on to tell the truth and I think he should.
-
As a point of reference, BBC's Childline was created in 1986 and the associated publicity that surrounded it at the time.
You could argue that abuse of Children would have been fairly prominent in the media around the time of these allegations and that if Taylor and more specifically AVFC were aware of the allegations then they should have reported the allegations to the Police and Child welfare authorities.
That is my view in hindsight, which is always a great thing.
Equally the argument could be made that this emerging awareness was only really in its infancy then and the old ways of sweeping things under the carpet would have still been the predominant response to these vile acts.
As I see it, the club, or Taaylor don't come out of this with much credit. The only positive appears to be that they sacked the scout. Personally, I don't subscribe to the line that it 'was the culture of the times' line. We're Aston Villa and we appear to have largely failed the kids and families involved in this sorry affair.
As to Taylor's counselling of those affected, only him Stride and Ellis will really know their motives for pointing out the supposed terrace reaction. Taylor can't defend himself, Ellis will no doubt not remember. Only really Steve Stride could really be relied on to tell the truth and I think he should.
Would you have given different advice to the young players than Graham did?
-
It's interesting that Taylor should go and speak to the player and his family when he wasn't or had been a Villa player.
-
I'd like to think I would yes, certainly. The thing is though, we don't know whether he genuinely had concerns about the outcome of terrace chanting on the kids, or whether it was scare tactics to make it go away. How close were any of the kids involved to making it at the highest level anyway? We don't really know any of the background detail.
What would you have done?
-
For what it is worth I took several boys from the East Anglian region for Villa trials during the period in question. I mixed with and talked at length to the parents of trialists and the scouts of other clubs including those of Leicester City but I never heard a word about impropriety of any kind. I am not an under carpet sweeper and my wife was a magistrate on our local juvenile bench. I would have blown the whistle in an instant.
-
I am not an under carpet sweeper and my wife was a magistrate on our local juvenile bench. I would have blown the whistle in an instant.
exactly - to ignore is to condone
-
One thing I can say is that in 1987 I would've been around 14 years old and was very aware about child abuse and Esther Rantzen and the media highlighting of child abuse at the time. So from that perspective then certainly I would have encouraged reporting the offences and also in the context that if you report something to the authorities you assume they will take action.
I wasn't a 40/50 yo manager of a club the size of Villa, so who knows what his thought processes would be and the influence on his natural reactions by the club at the time.
-
As I said before, from the documentation provided by the Guardian, Stride was aware he's not dead or senile, so he should come clean about what happened.
-
I'd like to think I would yes, certainly. The thing is though, we don't know whether he genuinely had concerns about the outcome of terrace chanting on the kids, or whether it was scare tactics to make it go away. How close were any of the kids involved to making it at the highest level anyway? We don't really know any of the background detail.
What would you have done?
I'd like to think I'd have put the best interests of the players first.
Graham wouldn't have been wrong about them suffering years of further abuse from the terraces would he?
I'm as confident as I can be that he'd have done the right thing at the time.
-
I'd like to think I would yes, certainly. The thing is though, we don't know whether he genuinely had concerns about the outcome of terrace chanting on the kids, or whether it was scare tactics to make it go away. How close were any of the kids involved to making it at the highest level anyway? We don't really know any of the background detail.
What would you have done?
I'd like to think I'd have put the best interests of the players first.
Graham wouldn't have been wrong about them suffering years of further abuse from the terraces would he?
I'm as confident as I can be that he'd have done the right thing at the time.
we're talking about young teenage boys at Dunlop fc. What are the chances they'd be running out for Villa at the Sty one day 5 years later?
-
I'd like to think I would yes, certainly. The thing is though, we don't know whether he genuinely had concerns about the outcome of terrace chanting on the kids, or whether it was scare tactics to make it go away. How close were any of the kids involved to making it at the highest level anyway? We don't really know any of the background detail.
What would you have done?
I'd like to think I'd have put the best interests of the players first.
Graham wouldn't have been wrong about them suffering years of further abuse from the terraces would he?
I'm as confident as I can be that he'd have done the right thing at the time.
we're talking about young teenage boys at Dunlop fc. What are the chances they'd be running out for Villa at the Sty one day 5 years later?
Try telling that to them or their parents, they're all hanging on to a dream of making it big.
-
I'd like to think I would yes, certainly. The thing is though, we don't know whether he genuinely had concerns about the outcome of terrace chanting on the kids, or whether it was scare tactics to make it go away. How close were any of the kids involved to making it at the highest level anyway? We don't really know any of the background detail.
What would you have done?
I'd like to think I'd have put the best interests of the players first.
Graham wouldn't have been wrong about them suffering years of further abuse from the terraces would he?
I'm as confident as I can be that he'd have done the right thing at the time.
we're talking about young teenage boys at Dunlop fc. What are the chances they'd be running out for Villa at the Sty one day 5 years later?
Try telling that to them or their parents, they're all hanging on to a dream of making it big.
I'd imagine that the parents would have been more concerned about their sons being raped than them playing football?
-
I'd like to think I would yes, certainly. The thing is though, we don't know whether he genuinely had concerns about the outcome of terrace chanting on the kids, or whether it was scare tactics to make it go away. How close were any of the kids involved to making it at the highest level anyway? We don't really know any of the background detail.
What would you have done?
I'd like to think I'd have put the best interests of the players first.
Graham wouldn't have been wrong about them suffering years of further abuse from the terraces would he?
I'm as confident as I can be that he'd have done the right thing at the time.
we're talking about young teenage boys at Dunlop fc. What are the chances they'd be running out for Villa at the Sty one day 5 years later?
Try telling that to them or their parents, they're all hanging on to a dream of making it big.
it appears that is what happened Eddie. Only a few people could confirm or deny though, if they choose to.
-
I'd like to think I would yes, certainly. The thing is though, we don't know whether he genuinely had concerns about the outcome of terrace chanting on the kids, or whether it was scare tactics to make it go away. How close were any of the kids involved to making it at the highest level anyway? We don't really know any of the background detail.
What would you have done?
I'd like to think I'd have put the best interests of the players first.
Graham wouldn't have been wrong about them suffering years of further abuse from the terraces would he?
I'm as confident as I can be that he'd have done the right thing at the time.
we're talking about young teenage boys at Dunlop fc. What are the chances they'd be running out for Villa at the Sty one day 5 years later?
Try telling that to them or their parents, they're all hanging on to a dream of making it big.
it appears that is what happened Eddie. Only a few people could confirm or deny though, if they choose to.
It's difficult to imagine what those poor lads have been through, I only hope that the club genuinely put them first, then and now.
-
I don't want to detract from the seriousness of the issue, but Tony Brien bears a striking resemblance to a certain someone.
(http://thumb.ibb.co/j1b4m5/Tony_Brien.jpg) (http://ibb.co/j1b4m5)
(http://thumb.ibb.co/nA7MYk/TBimages.jpg) (http://ibb.co/nA7MYk)
(http://thumb.ibb.co/iqnzKQ/TB1_93840571_img_6369d.jpg) (http://ibb.co/iqnzKQ)
-
Eddie- me too mate.
TomD- not the place or the time fella.
-
I would like to think on the part of the club's representatives that it was more a grave error of judgement than a concerted cover-up. This is not to denigrate the claims or absolve the club of a very shaming pattern of events, just to point out that what one would have done outside of the circumstances doesn't always match what was actually done.
-
Birmingham Mail predictably jumping straight in and practically accusing Graham Taylor or a cover up on the back of the 'move on' and crowd comments. As others have said, those comments were allegedly made 30 years ago and could be taken in a number of ways.
Speaks volumes that on the day after it became apparent that Birmingham would be holding the Commonwealth Games, they use the front page to try and portray Aston Villa and one of it's most popular figures in a negative light.
-
I read the post as SGT was naive at best rather than you CT.
Confirmed
Apologies chaps.
-
Nasty headline in the Mail today demeaning a man not here to defend himself. I look forward to that rag's demise.
-
It's a horrible thing to have happened, but where I am mystified is why Brien and/or his parents didn't go to the police themselves ?
-
It's a horrible thing to have happened, but where I am mystified is why Brien and/or his parents didn't go to the police themselves ?
[/quoteIt's a horrible thing to have happened, but where I am mystified is why Brien and/or his parents didn't go to the police themselves ?
They trusted the club?
i don't like being a villa fan right now. This sort thing isn't what b6 is about
-
It's a horrible thing to have happened, but where I am mystified is why Brien and/or his parents didn't go to the police themselves ?
Presumably the same reason(s) the Saville victims didn't. Or the Rolf Harris victims, or the Chris Denning, Max Clifford, Stuart Hall victims, or seemingly the majority of victims in cases like this didn't.
-
1988 may well be 1888 when it comes to how the society has changed for the better in the last 30 years on issues like this. There is no point in berating the club or Graham Taylor now; just make sure lessons are learnt.
-
I'd say there's plenty of reason to criticise those involved in any kind of cover up. Whether it was last year, 30 years ago or 100 years ago.
-
I'm afraid I can't agree. The man was sacked in 1987 for crimes against kids. We still employed him in a position where he would have access to children afterwards. Unforgivable.
Edit: response to Aftab.
-
What I read was that, it was reported and that Richardson took it to Taylor and Doug.
My first nasty thought (please forgive me) that Doug could be implicated in a cover up.
However after an internal inquiry we did the semi right thing and fired him.
Times have changed, and yes we should have called the police.
Times/attitudes have changed and although I have huge sympathy for the victims.
The perpetrator is dead, Do you really want to drag GT family into this where it is all hearsay and he is not around to defend himself.
Why were the allegations, which are tenuous not leveled when he was alive .
-
I'm afraid I can't agree. The man was sacked in 1987 for crimes against kids. We still employed him in a position where he would have access to children afterwards. Unforgivable.
Edit: response to Aftab.
OK I didn't realise that when I posted. Yes that is bad.
-
I don't get why we should have called the police, against the apparent wishes of the victim?
Surely we should, and it looks like we did, respect his decision?
-
I don't get why we should have called the police, against the apparent wishes of the victim?
Surely we should, and it looks like we did, respect his decision?
You don't think a crime like this should get reported regardless? And what about the implication for the club in terms of accusations cover up, coercion etc etc?
-
I don't get why we should have called the police, against the apparent wishes of the victim?
Surely we should, and it looks like we did, respect his decision?
You don't think a crime like this should get reported regardless? And what about the implication for the club in terms of accusations cover up, coercion etc etc?
BBC report;
"Mr Richardson said the parents involved did not want the matter reported to the police but, after consulting with Mr Taylor and Mr Ellis, Langford was sacked by the club."
The parents didn't want it reported to the police. In the 1980's the stigma and attitude were different to what we have now, and the support for victims was not as it should be, and miles away from what we have now. The parent's wishes would definitely be respected differently than they are now.
Today everything will be, and should be, reported without question. Thankfully we live in different times. But let's stop pretending what we have now existed 30 years ago.
-
I don't get why we should have called the police, against the apparent wishes of the victim?
Surely we should, and it looks like we did, respect his decision?
You don't think a crime like this should get reported regardless? And what about the implication for the club in terms of accusations cover up, coercion etc etc?
BBC report;
"Mr Richardson said the parents involved did not want the matter reported to the police but, after consulting with Mr Taylor and Mr Ellis, Langford was sacked by the club."
The parents didn't want it reported to the police. In the 1980's the stigma and attitude were different to what we have now, and the support for victims was not as it should be, and miles away from what we have now. The parent's wishes would definitely be respected differently than they are now.
Today everything will be, and should be, reported without question. Thankfully we live in different times. But let's stop pretending what we have now existed 30 years ago.
But it shouldn't have been up to the parents should it? A sexual crime was committed against a child. The parents wishes shouldn't really come into it. What if the parents were complicit? I know they weren't in this case, but it happens.
-
Again, today absolutely.
But Parent's wishes would have been held in different regard with these matters 30-40 years ago.
-
Even if you accept that, the actions of certain people at the club AFTER he was sacked were undoubtedly disgraceful.
-
Even if you accept that, the actions of certain people at the club AFTER he was sacked were undoubtedly disgraceful.
Agreed. Let's see what the detailed inquiry brings out.
-
I don't get why we should have called the police, against the apparent wishes of the victim?
Surely we should, and it looks like we did, respect his decision?
It's already been said multiple times on this thread:
(Apart from the issues of how disempowered victims often are by the nature of being abused)
Because of the next victims.
If our club didn't report a perpetrator to the Police and get him convicted/on the right lists, it has consequences.
Depending on our ages, you, me or our family members might have been the next victims. Hope that's clear.
-
Am I getting this right as it's not completely clear from the reports. The victim contacted Richardson after he came to Villa from Leicester (I assume the victim was at Leicester by this time and this was why he knew Richardson). Richardson reported the conversation to Ellis and Taylor and Taylor went to see the player and his family. Presumably to find out more information about the allegation. Taylor asked if they wanted to get the police involved.
Having being told that they did not want to get the police involved, Taylor reports back to the Club and they later sack the scout.
The question is whether the Club should have reported it to the police against the wishes of the player and family based on heresay evidence.
Going back to what I said earlier, how thorough were the police in getting evidence to convict in 2007.
-
We don't know the victim or his reasons in speaking out now and neither do we know the reliability of Dave Richardsons version. Sadly, Graham Taylor cannot share his version any longer.
We do however know Graham Taylor and the type of man he was, a genuinely honest and kind hearted man who saw the good in people. That's an almost universal view.
On that basis I'm prepared to give SGT the benefit of the doubt that he thought he was doing the right thing in accordance with the victims wishes and the club.
Its always imo a mistake to simply backdate the standars of today of how things are handled - in this instance by 30 years.
-
For me the big issue and that focussed on by the media is whether Graham Taylor told the victim to sweep the incident under the carpet. We shall never know Graham Taylor's version of the story but my instinctive reaction is that the use of the words claimed would be entirely out of character of the man we knew well.
The incident also has to be set in its historic context. At that time thousands of football fans, including our own, would sing crudely homophobic songs and believe them to be funny.
I do not believe that Sir Robert Holte's cook deserved to have his head cut off for dinner being late but however much fairer and civilized we have become, history cannot be re written.
-
I don't know if SGT did ask them to sweep this under the carpet
But I'm pretty disgusted by people suggesting it was somehow more acceptable back then. It's blindingly obvious that if this goes unreported you are putting innocent young children in danger of the most horrific things
As a new Dad, if someone put my son in danger like that by sweeping things under the carpet I would want them punished in the strongest possible way. It's unacceptable
-
For me the big issue and that focussed on by the media is whether Graham Taylor told the victim to sweep the incident under the carpet. We shall never know Graham Taylor's version of the story but my instinctive reaction is that the use of the words claimed would be entirely out of character of the man we knew well.
The incident also has to be set in its historic context. At that time thousands of football fans, including our own, would sing crudely homophobic songs and believe them to be funny.
I do not believe that Sir Robert Holte's cook deserved to have his head cut off for dinner being late but however much fairer and civilized we have become, history cannot be re written.
The problem is that there has been no context provided for the use of those words and also it is the recollection of a conversation that took place 30 years ago. On the face of it, "move on" could be construed to be quite cold, but in another context it have been some advice aimed to try and get a young lad to try and not let it ruin his career.
-
But I'm pretty disgusted by people suggesting it was somehow more acceptable back then.
I don't think anyone is suggesting it was more acceptable just that at that time the trust and care afforded to victims just wasn't there. Back then the thought the the BBC, Catholic Church, Scout movement and high level Government figures were involved in pedophilia rings would have been totally dismissed by many. We now know different.
Im not at all confident such an accusation would have been treated by the Police the same as it is today. That doesn't make it right but that's how times were different then IMO.
-
Nobody is suggesting that it was more "acceptable" in the past, it was, to my absolute and certain recollection infinitely harder to have anything done about it. My cousin, my age, got such a kicking by the police in Steelhouse Lane that he was left permanently deaf in one ear. Despite lengthy complaints, nothing was done. In the period in question Magnus Magnusson addressed a contestant, later a convicted paedophile as "sir" because he was a senior diplomat. That is a measure of the opposition people like me and many others faced when trying to drag Britain out of the dark ages into these less dark times.
-
There's a big difference between suggesting it was acceptable back then (which nobody is) and saying that ways of dealing with it were different, which they clearly were. The fact that Sir Graham is involved makes it difficult to look at objectively. None of us know what he did and why he did it, we'll sadly never have the chance to find out, but I can't believe that the man who was at the centre of so many of those wonderful stories that came out after his death would have done anything for any other than what he considered the best of reasons. And again, that phrase "what he considered" might be bridging a very large gap.
-
The root problem in the early and mid to late 20th century was that Gayness (as we now call it) and paedophilia were almost universally regarded as one in the same thing. Only now, very slowly are the concepts of a man loving a man or a woman loving a woman being accepted as totally normal.
-
I agree it was more difficult to deal with back then
The reason was that people in authority didn't consistently respond properly, as you say. That was wrong, whether the norm or not
The accusation here seems to be that a man in a position of authority didn't respond properly. I don't know if that's true. But if it is, surely he was part of the problem not excused by the culture of the day?
-
I am going to be totally honest here, which might be a first, and say that, growing up in the70's and being a teenager in the 80's I have;
Told jokes poking fun at other nationalities and races, and laughed at others doing it.
Used the words; nonce, poofter, queer, etc hundreds of times, and laughed at others doing it.
Pinched girls bums, and laughed at others doing it.
Called people spastics, mental, retarded, etc., and laughed at others doing it.
Used the words; darkey, n*****, Paki, Chinky, Spic, etc., and laughed at others doing it.
By 2017 sensibilities, morals, and laws, I would have multiple prosecutions and be locked up - quite rightly I might add.
Despite this I am a well respected (mostly), law a biding (mostly), member of my community. I've changed with the times, as most sensible people have, and realise what we were brought up believing and thinking was wrong. I, and millions of others, have been allowed to realise the mistakes of my past, grow intellectually, and have the chance of a different, more enlightened life.
I also have a very close friend who was 'touched up' (2017 child rape), by a 'dirty old man'. He did not want it known outside two of his two best friends and his parents. He did not want it broadcast, discussed, dissected, and he most certainly did not want it reported to the police. He told me he would rather commit suicide than have everyone know. Was that the best thing for society as a whole? No. Was it the 'right thing to do'? No. But it was what he wanted. He'd been violated once and, as he saw it, he didn't want it all happening again. I respected that then and, even with 2017 sensibilities, even now.
Graham Taylor is not here to speak for himself but, from what I know of the man, he would have tried to do what, at the time, he thought best for the boy. Graham Taylor hadn't assaulted anyone, so had no other reason not to report it than what the family wanted. It's laughable to suggest he condoned what went on, or that people are condoning it by trying to point out the changes over 30-40 years.
I'm going to leave this discussion here. There are too many people moralising with hindsight and 2017 sensibilities and don't have the level of understanding that nearly 50 years brings. These people are either, very young, very naive, or just being dishonest.
-
The root problem in the early and mid to late 20th century was that Gayness (as we now call it) and paedophilia were almost universally regarded as one in the same thing. Only now, very slowly are the concepts of a man loving a man or a woman loving a woman being accepted as totally normal.
I remember that era and how bizarre that logic seemed, even in my mid teens.
In the late 70s I recall a case on national TV of a young girl disappearing in or near Brighton and the police saying they were pursuing leads in the local gay community. The approach just seemed plain wrong.
-
I have been reluctant to follow my comment of 31 January as any view can be open to misinterpretation and in no way do I condone not punishing the perpetrators.
It does seem though that there is a divergence of opinion between those of us who were adults then and those who cannot remember those times.
Victims of rape/abuse were criticized in court for inappropriate dress/demeanour and there was a widespread view that many victims must have indicated that they were willing and therefore culpable.
Terrace chants reflected this and also a total misunderstanding of homosexuality; I would not repeat some of the disgusting verses belted out by packed stands. As recently as Matthew Upson this was being tolerated.
Into this you have young footballers and it would have been remiss not to warn them of the consequences of any public exposure.
Whether or not Villa knowingly employed someone guilty of abuse is a different matter and must be scrutinised fully.
Finally, I would be amazed if Graham did anything other than show concern for a young man and this must be distressing for Rita and his family.
-
There are too many people moralising with hindsight and 2017 sensibilities and don't have the level of understanding that nearly 50 years brings. These people are either, very young, very naive, or just being dishonest.
55, not naïve, have used the words nonce and mental though.
-
There are too many people moralising with hindsight and 2017 sensibilities and don't have the level of understanding that nearly 50 years brings. These people are either, very young, very naive, or just being dishonest.
55, not naïve, have used the words nonce and mental though.
55 and never said;
Paki shop?
Chinky?
Spastic?
Retarded?
Queer?
Never told or laughed at a racist joke?
Never joined in with a racist/homophobic song at Villa Park?
Never patted/pinched a girls bum?
Where did you grow up?
-
There are too many people moralising with hindsight and 2017 sensibilities and don't have the level of understanding that nearly 50 years brings. These people are either, very young, very naive, or just being dishonest.
55, not naïve, have used the words nonce and mental though.
55 and never said;
Paki shop?
Chinky?
Spastic?
Retarded?
Queer?
Never told or laughed at a racist joke?
Never joined in with a racist/homophobic song at Villa Park?
Never patted/pinched a girls bum?
Where did you grow up?
Was it you who started this exact discussion and repeatedly peddled the "come on, admit it, we're all a bit racist aren't we?" line a couple of months ago on the John Terry thread? Let's not go through it all again.
-
Hmmmm.... date registered is the same date that AV Nob got banned...
-
Hmmmm.... date registered is the same date that AV Nob got banned...
Thanks, couldn't remember his name and had no desire to look it up again. Hmmmm indeed...
-
No, it wasn't me.
It is laughable though, that people of a similar age, living in the same society as me,growing up supporting the same team, but experiencing a completely different world, a future world similar to 2017 perhaps? I certainly don't recognise the 70's or 80's that some on here would have us believe existed.
I don't know why people can't just be honest, rather than trying to pretend they had the foresight - of 30 or 40 years - whereby they frowned (at the very least) when anyone said "come on you retarded Irish poofter, we're going to the Paki shop to get some beers from that black tart with the big tits, and then off the chinky".
It comes across as a bit pathetic, to be honest.
Back to the matter directly at hand.
Graham Taylor had nothing to lose by going to the police - if things were that black and white - as he had done nothing wrong with the young boys involved. The only logical reason he did not was that he thought it was best for the lad and his parents - possibly respecting their wishes at the time. To suggest anything else, when the man is not here to defend himself (a man who was well regarded by all), is a disgrace.
-
Hmmmm.... date registered is the same date that AV Nob got banned...
Thanks, couldn't remember his name and had no desire to look it up again. Hmmmm indeed...
Could admin put a stop too this nonsense, please, by confirming we are not one and the same. It should be easy to do.
Thanks.
-
Hmmmm.... date registered is the same date that AV Nob got banned...
Thanks, couldn't remember his name and had no desire to look it up again. Hmmmm indeed...
Could admin put a stop too this nonsense, please, by confirming we are not one and the same. It should be easy to do.
Thanks.
I am sure they could. I wish they would put a stop to your posts entirely though.
-
Hmmmm.... date registered is the same date that AV Nob got banned...
Thanks, couldn't remember his name and had no desire to look it up again. Hmmmm indeed...
Could admin put a stop too this nonsense, please, by confirming we are not one and the same. It should be easy to do.
Thanks.
Fair enough, I'm glad to hear it. I was just pointing out the remarkable similarities between your post and one I remember from another thread. Have a look for yourself, I think you'll find it's uncanny. And just as unpleasant now as it was then.
-
Hmmmm.... date registered is the same date that AV Nob got banned...
Thanks, couldn't remember his name and had no desire to look it up again. Hmmmm indeed...
Could admin put a stop too this nonsense, please, by confirming we are not one and the same. It should be easy to do.
Thanks.
I think it's pretty clear from the style of post that you are definitely not the same person.
-
Struggling to grasp how a person can be the same person. All gone a bit metaphysical. Hello dementia.
-
Hmmmm.... date registered is the same date that AV Nob got banned...
Thanks, couldn't remember his name and had no desire to look it up again. Hmmmm indeed...
Could admin put a stop too this nonsense, please, by confirming we are not one and the same. It should be easy to do.
Thanks.
Fair enough, I'm glad to hear it. I was just pointing out the remarkable similarities between your post and one I remember from another thread. Have a look for yourself, I think you'll find it's uncanny. And just as unpleasant now as it was then.
Honesty can be unpleasant, for those that don't like it.
It's actually liberating to recognise the mistakes of your own past, rather than pretending the mistakes only applied to others.
I'm, thankfully, not the same person I was 30-40 years ago. I'm not joining in the pretence that I was, somehow, morally on a way higher plane than my peers.
-
I'm not joining in the pretence that I was, somehow, morally on a way higher plane than my peers.
I should hope not. It must be exhausting enough being so superior to us all now.
-
I'm not joining in the pretence that I was, somehow, morally on a way higher plane than my peers.
I should hope not. It must be exhausting enough being so superior to us all now.
If just being honest is superior, then it seems easy rather than exhausting.
-
It's all very well saying you wouldn't murder a gypsy nowadays, but in the forties, every one was doing it. People need to lighten up.
-
I might be a bit thick here but Who murdered a Gypsey ?
Are you saying Villa 75 did ? Are you saying He is a Hitler sympathiser ?
Was the population of Birmingham in the 40s all murdering Gypseys ? First I have heard of it.
-
I am going to be totally honest here, which might be a first, and say that, growing up in the70's and being a teenager in the 80's I have;
Told jokes poking fun at other nationalities and races, and laughed at others doing it.
Used the words; nonce, poofter, queer, etc hundreds of times, and laughed at others doing it.
Pinched girls bums, and laughed at others doing it.
Called people spastics, mental, retarded, etc., and laughed at others doing it.
Used the words; darkey, n*****, Paki, Chinky, Spic, etc., and laughed at others doing it.
By 2017 sensibilities, morals, and laws, I would have multiple prosecutions and be locked up - quite rightly I might add.
Despite this I am a well respected (mostly), law a biding (mostly), member of my community. I've changed with the times, as most sensible people have, and realise what we were brought up believing and thinking was wrong. I, and millions of others, have been allowed to realise the mistakes of my past, grow intellectually, and have the chance of a different, more enlightened life.
I also have a very close friend who was 'touched up' (2017 child rape), by a 'dirty old man'. He did not want it known outside two of his two best friends and his parents. He did not want it broadcast, discussed, dissected, and he most certainly did not want it reported to the police. He told me he would rather commit suicide than have everyone know. Was that the best thing for society as a whole? No. Was it the 'right thing to do'? No. But it was what he wanted. He'd been violated once and, as he saw it, he didn't want it all happening again. I respected that then and, even with 2017 sensibilities, even now.
Graham Taylor is not here to speak for himself but, from what I know of the man, he would have tried to do what, at the time, he thought best for the boy. Graham Taylor hadn't assaulted anyone, so had no other reason not to report it than what the family wanted. It's laughable to suggest he condoned what went on, or that people are condoning it by trying to point out the changes over 30-40 years.
I'm going to leave this discussion here. There are too many people moralising with hindsight and 2017 sensibilities and don't have the level of understanding that nearly 50 years brings. These people are either, very young, very naive, or just being dishonest.
I'm the Brigadier of my local PC Brigade (Territorial), but I'm really glad you posted this, Villa75 - although I'm less fond of the subsequent posts (that's right, it only matters what I think).
Whether or not other people of a similar vintage have used the same words or acted in the same way as you mentioned, I think it's really important, and indeed good, that people can admit that they've been an idiot in the past and can hold their hands up and say 'yes, I said some terrible things because I knew no better. I was open to learning that I may have been wrong, and I did learn.'
Ultimately, what's the alternative? Should people be condemned forever for being products of their time?
There's no shame in being wrong if you can accept at some point that you may have been wrong (as I understand it, I'm yet to have erred).
-
This is a puzzler because it raises the question of redemption. Can a person be redeemed? Religion has us believe that he/she can be. Why does religion do that? In practice to build and secure a support base. I do not believe in redemption but I believe in change.
Say you have an adult life of 60 years and in that life for 20 years you were a drunk another 20 years a wife beater then 20 years neither getting drunk nor hitting your wife and regretting that you ever did either. Does that wipe the slate clean? I don't think it does.
In a silly way I raised the consideration of the definition of the person. It is a serious point. Suppose the person I describe is me or you. While I am alive I can prove that I might be regarded as a better "person" (he used to get drunk and knock his wife about) but when I am dead, all of my life and everything I did during it, is what must, and should be my epitaph.
Guilt is important.
-
This is a puzzler because it raises the question of redemption. Can a person be redeemed? Religion has us believe that he/she can be. Why does religion do that? In practice to build and secure a support base. I do not believe in redemption but I believe in change.
Say you have an adult life of 60 years and in that life for 20 years you were a drunk another 20 years a wife beater then 20 years neither getting drunk nor hitting your wife and regretting that you ever did either. Does that wipe the slate clean? I don't think it does.
In a silly way I raised the consideration of the definition of the person. It is a serious point. Suppose the person I describe is me or you. While I am alive I can prove that I might be regarded as a better "person" (he used to get drunk and knock his wife about) but when I am dead, all of my life and everything I did during it, is what must, and should be my epitaph.
Guilt is
A rather catholic view if you don't mind me saying, Brian (tongue in cheek).
You're right: guilt is useful because it implies an acceptance of wrongdoing.
I can relate to Villa75's sentiments - anyone who followed football through the seventies would, I think.
-
It's nothing to do with religion.
I grew up in a working class city in the 1970's and 1980's. The words I listed were prevalent and used daily, in the streets, in the park, in schools, and especially on The Holte End. They were mostly used as everyday vernaculars and attempts at humour.
Anybody who grew up in similar times, in similar circumstances, supporting the Villa and says they didn't use and laugh at them is probably a liar.
You grow up. Times change. Sensible people realise their mistakes and move with the times.
In my experience, some of the people pretending they did nothing wrong are more likely to be carrying their ignorance and prejudices with them to this day.
-
People that said they didn't use them are "liars", we are just not bellends. I was brought up to understand that certain words were hurtful and mean and shouldn't be used if you didn't want to upset someone. As a decent person, I took that advice.
Anyway, none of that has any relevance to this thread. Molestation of children wasn't accepted and tolerated in the eighties. My parents never advised me to talk to as many strangers as I could and go off with them if they offered me sweets.
Villa were well aware that the scout had acted in a disgusting way, so they sacked him. There is a debate to be had about whether they should have respected the player's family's wishes or gone to the police to protect other boys.
One thing that is without doubt, is that the club should not have continued to employ the beast having been made aware of what he was. That is completely inexcusable in 2017, 1988 or any other time.
-
People that said they didn't use them are "liars", we are just not bellends. I was brought up to understand that certain words were hurtful and mean and shouldn't be used if you didn't want to upset someone. As a decent person, I took that advice.
Anyway, none of that has any relevance to this thread. Molestation of children wasn't accepted and tolerated in the eighties. My parents never advised me to talk to as many strangers as I could and go off with them if they offered me sweets.
Villa were well aware that the scout had acted in a disgusting way, so they sacked him. There is a debate to be had about whether they should have respected the player's family's wishes or gone to the police to protect other boys.
One thing that is without doubt, is that the club should not have continued to employ the beast having been made aware of what he was. That is completely inexcusable in 2017, 1988 or any other time.
Did you grow up in the 1970's and 1980's in a working class environment going to Villa Park on a regular basis?
Anyone who answers yes to the above and claims they used none of these words, in any context, is a liar.
-
I grew up in the eighties and started going to Villa in 1988. I probably did use some offensive words, not knowing any better. Having decent, non-racist, parents I was quickly corrected and wouldn't have used them since.
Not that any of that is even vaguely relevant to this thread, AV5nobs.
-
I grew up in the eighties and started going to Villa in 1988. I probably did use some offensive words, not knowing any better. Having decent, non-racist, parents I was quickly corrected and wouldn't have used them since.
Not that any of that is even vaguely relevant to this thread, AV5nobs.
Banned posters aren't relevant to it either.
-
I grew up in the eighties and started going to Villa in 1988. I probably did use some offensive words, not knowing any better. Having decent, non-racist, parents I was quickly corrected and wouldn't have used them since.
Not that any of that is even vaguely relevant to this thread, AV5nobs.
Good. So you did use them.
Going by your tone on here and your username, were you a bit of a bully then as well?
You've been told I'm not AV5 nobs. So you can pack that in. If you're struggling for an argument, and that's the best you can come up with, you may as well leave the topic disgracefully.
-
He used to come out with that "bully" nonsense, too. If you're too thick to Google "Bully Wee", maybe the internet isn't for you?
If you're not him, you're still using the same arguments as someone who was banned for being an arse. That doesn't put you in good company.
-
He used to come out with that "bully" nonsense, too. If you're too thick to Google "Bully Wee", maybe the internet isn't for you?
If you're not him, you're still using the same arguments as someone who was banned for being an arse. That doesn't put you in good company.
Perhaps, if unconnected people people quickly decide you are a bully, the problem is with you?
-
Anyway, this has all been a bit unseemly. Apologies to other posters for getting drawn into this nonsense. Will look again at the thread when somebody wants to debate the matter at hand. Rather than "we said Paki in the eighties" whataboutery.
-
My last word on a very interesting subject.
I see guilt and the acknowledgement of it as the handbrake that prevents us rolling backwards.
-
My last word on a very interesting subject.
I see guilt and the acknowledgement of it as the handbrake that prevents us rolling backwards.
Very well put, Brian.
My intention was not to criticise and goad fellow posters, but to get some perspective on the times that Graham Taylor was operating in. People did respect parent's wishes 30-40 years ago. To think his actions were selfish or malicious is ludicrous.
Some people are ready to throw a great man in the trash, a man no longer here to defend himself, by comparing his actions to what people would do in 2017. Not me.
Do they not think GT would act differently if it happened today? Of course he would.
-
My last word on a very interesting subject.
I see guilt and the acknowledgement of it as the handbrake that prevents us rolling backwards.
Very well put, Brian.
My intention was not to criticise and goad fellow posters, but to get some perspective on the times that Graham Taylor was operating in. People did respect parent's wishes 30-40 years ago. To think his actions were selfish or malicious is ludicrous.
Some people are ready to throw a great man in the trash, a man no longer here to defend himself, by comparing his actions to what people would do in 2017. Not me.
Do they not think GT would act differently if it happened today? Of course he would.
Fair enough
-
There are too many people moralising with hindsight and 2017 sensibilities and don't have the level of understanding that nearly 50 years brings. These people are either, very young, very naive, or just being dishonest.
55, not naïve, have used the words nonce and mental though.
55 and never said;
Paki shop?
Chinky?
Spastic?
Retarded?
Queer?
Never told or laughed at a racist joke?
Never joined in with a racist/homophobic song at Villa Park?
Never patted/pinched a girls bum?
Where did you grow up?
The north. We're not all sexist, racist dickheads.
-
I think I've lost track of the debate. Are we conflating a teenager using the word spastic with people in authority covering up sexual abuse of children?
-
There are too many people moralising with hindsight and 2017 sensibilities and don't have the level of understanding that nearly 50 years brings. These people are either, very young, very naive, or just being dishonest.
55, not naïve, have used the words nonce and mental though.
55 and never said;
Paki shop?
Chinky?
Spastic?
Retarded?
Queer?
Never told or laughed at a racist joke?
Never joined in with a racist/homophobic song at Villa Park?
Never patted/pinched a girls bum?
Where did you grow up?
The north. We're not all sexist, racist dickheads.
You're from the North. 55 years old. Yet never ever said or done any of the things I listed?
When you say "North", was it an island off Scotland with just you and your parents living on it?
-
I think I've lost track of the debate. Are we conflating a teenager using the word spastic with people in authority covering up sexual abuse of children?
No. Is the short answer, as you obviously don't have the time to read the last few pages.
-
Good, thanks!
-
If you're not him, you're still using the same arguments as someone who was banned for being an arse. That doesn't put you in good company.
He's not quite. A previous poster said that John Terry saying something racist isn't a problem because everyone says racist things now and again.
That's not the same argument as saying "thirty years ago (some*) people held different standards to ones that are held today"
And that in turn isn't the same as saying "different standards in the past means turning a blind eye to child abuse back then was an okay thing to do".
* however assuming that everyone else automatically held those same standards is where I feel he has overstepped things.
-
Not everybody Dave. I mean, of all the people that frequent here, I seem to be the only one that used language I described earlier, even in 'a jokey way', or patted a girls bum during the whole of the 70's and 80's*.
(*I would a!so add that I have had my bum squeezed on numerous occasions during my younger years, by women known and unknown to me.)
-
There are too many people moralising with hindsight and 2017 sensibilities and don't have the level of understanding that nearly 50 years brings. These people are either, very young, very naive, or just being dishonest.
55, not naïve, have used the words nonce and mental though.
55 and never said;
Paki shop?
Chinky?
Spastic?
Retarded?
Queer?
Never told or laughed at a racist joke?
Never joined in with a racist/homophobic song at Villa Park?
Never patted/pinched a girls bum?
Where did you grow up?
The north. We're not all sexist, racist dickheads.
You're from the North. 55 years old. Yet never ever said or done any of the things I listed?
When you say "North", was it an island off Scotland with just you and your parents living on it?
If you're going to continue to insult posters could you please do it somewhere else? Thank you.
-
There are too many people moralising with hindsight and 2017 sensibilities and don't have the level of understanding that nearly 50 years brings. These people are either, very young, very naive, or just being dishonest.
55, not naïve, have used the words nonce and mental though.
55 and never said;
Paki shop?
Chinky?
Spastic?
Retarded?
Queer?
Never told or laughed at a racist joke?
Never joined in with a racist/homophobic song at Villa Park?
Never patted/pinched a girls bum?
Where did you grow up?
The north. We're not all sexist, racist dickheads.
You're from the North. 55 years old. Yet never ever said or done any of the things I listed?
When you say "North", was it an island off Scotland with just you and your parents living on it?
If you're going to continue to insult posters could you please do it somewhere else? Thank you.
I don't think that's, by a long chalk, the most insulting thing on this thread but, as you're the boss, I am suitably admonished and apologise.
I am new here so it takes a while for me to work out exactly who is allowed to say what to whom. I hope you will give me further time to work that one out. Thanks.
-
*slaps arse and says cheer up darling might never happen*
Why is it so hard to believe that somebody has never pinched anybody's bum or called somebody a 'paki'? I blame my parents for such an upbringing.
-
*slaps arse and says cheer up darling might never happen*
Why is it so hard to believe that somebody has never pinched anybody's bum or called somebody a 'paki'? I blame my parents for such an upbringing.
I didn't say "called anyone a paki". I said used the term, as in "let's go to the paki shop...".
Are those the only two on the long list you haven't done?
Also, I can believe 'somebody' may not of done any of the long list. What I can not believe is that, according to this thread, I'm the only person to have done any of them. Having stood on The Holte for over 30 years, and listened to the songs, that's laughable.
-
To be honest I don't give a flying fuck what you think but I hope you've found it all very cathartic, I heard the songs and the words and even saw girls getting hassled but it never occurred to me to follow.
I did buy an Osmonds and Bay City Rollers record and steal sweets from Woolworths whilst we are confessing to past misdemeanors
-
To be honest I don't give a flying fuck what you think but I hope you've found it all very cathartic, I heard the songs and the words and even saw girls getting hassled but it never occurred to me to follow.
I did buy an Osmonds and Bay City Rollers record and steal sweets from Woolworths whilst we are confessing to past misdemeanors
Really?
Never told an Irish, Welsh, Scottish joke, or similar?
Never joined in with "We can see you holding hands" or "Does your boyfriend know you're here?" or similar at Villa Park?
Never said "shall we get a chinky?" or "shall we go to the Paki shop?" or similar?
etc., etc?
I'm not talking about recently, you understand. Never in your whole life?
If so, where have you people been? Do you all have vicars as fathers?
-
I did once call a girl a stupid fat cow if that makes you feel better and I may well have laughed at an joke involving a Scots man or Irish man but I've never been much good with 'jokes' but you do seem to keep moving the goalposts.
Think I was about 12 at the time. I'm obviously thoroughly ashamed of my actions.
-
I did once call a girl a stupid fat cow if that makes you feel better and I may well have laughed at an joke involving a Scots man or Irish man but I've never been much good with 'jokes' but you do seem to keep moving the goalposts.
Think I was about 12 at the time. I'm obviously thoroughly ashamed of my actions.
I'm not moving the goalposts.
My original point was words and actions we thought were 'harmless' in the 70's and 80's are now considered 'racist', 'homophobic', etc. They were then, we just didn't think they were or purposely use them in that way. We were young and naive, often copying our elders.
Perhaps that's what's going on here. People are horrified at the thought they could ever be considered 'racist, etc. forgetting the jokes they told and the songs they sung, consciously or subconsciously.
I never called anyone a paki, chinky, etc. But I used the words in a different context.
I never insulted anyone directly due to their race, but I told and laughed at jokes that are now considered 'racist'.
I never harassed anyone due to their sexual orientation, but I called my mates 'poofs', 'queers', etc.
I'm amazed so many of you of a similar age and class experienced such a completely different way of life.
-
Someone give me a shout when this gets back on topic.
-
I'll leave it, whilst you all pretend you lived in a parallel universe to me in the 70's and 80's, if it makes you all feel better about yourselves.
Just try and give a thought to the real world Graham Taylor and I lived in, whilst you're erecting the scaffolds to hang his effigy and reputation on for not doing the 2017 thing in 1987.
-
Are you leaving just this thread or the whole forum? (Asking for a friend).
-
Are you leaving just this thread or the whole forum? (Asking for a friend).
Just this thread. Don't get too comfy. ;)
-
I also have a very close friend who was 'touched up' (2017 child rape), by a 'dirty old man'. He did not want it known outside two of his two best friends and his parents. He did not want it broadcast, discussed, dissected, and he most certainly did not want it reported to the police. He told me he would rather commit suicide than have everyone know. Was that the best thing for society as a whole? No. Was it the 'right thing to do'? No. But it was what he wanted. He'd been violated once and, as he saw it, he didn't want it all happening again. I respected that then and, even with 2017 sensibilities, even now.
///
I'm going to leave this discussion here. There are too many people moralising with hindsight and 2017 sensibilities and don't have the level of understanding that nearly 50 years brings. These people are either, very young, very naive, or just being dishonest.
Because you were saying you were leaving it I didn't respond.
Your reasoning about your friend - who I'm sorry went through abuse - lacks some subtlety. I've had to report allegations of abuse against an alleged victims wishes, whilst I appreciate your stance, there is a difference between reporting and the world knowing, though I totally appreciate the mindset of your friend. We still report very old cases of abuse, for good reasons.
My original point was words and actions we thought were 'harmless' in the 70's and 80's are now considered 'racist', 'homophobic', etc. They were then, we just didn't think they were or purposely use them in that way. We were young and naive, often copying our elders.
Perhaps that's what's going on here. People are horrified at the thought they could ever be considered 'racist, etc. forgetting the jokes they told and the songs they sung, consciously or subconsciously.
I never called anyone a paki, chinky, etc. But I used the words in a different context.
I never insulted anyone directly due to their race, but I told and laughed at jokes that are now considered 'racist'.
I never harassed anyone due to their sexual orientation, but I called my mates 'poofs', 'queers', etc.
I'm amazed so many of you of a similar age and class experienced such a completely different way of life.
I think you've made fair points about different times and norms.
I'm getting quite tired of reading assumptions that everyone fitted the norms you perceive/d. If I was to say I didn't doesn't make me a liar. Some of us may not have been typical, or taken exception to norms back then. I challenged indirect conscious and unconscious racist terms in my parents and grandparents, etc etc. Had perhaps quite unusually developed senses of right and wrong.
It'd also be appreciated just to be a bit more respectful to folk. But I'm not a moderator and I think that about a lot of the discussions on here!
-
I don't know how it got to here, but here goes:
I've definitely used derogatory terms in the past and learned quickly not to. The one that gets to the heart of it for me is the grabbing a woman's arse. I never have, and it would never have occurred to me to. The reason is I grew up in a household - in the 70s - where my sister and mum had my utmost respect. It took nothing to extrapolate that to all women. Oddly, all the girls I got on with at primary and secondary school were strong individuals who I respected as such, so again it wouldn't have occurred to me. I used to get a right arse on when I came across misogyny even as a kid in the 70s and 80s. So it'd seem socialisation was the key and - especially where women are concerned - I was lucky enough to have a decent environment to learn from.
I'm not sure how this links to abuse. Rape, including child rape, was not something more acceptable in the way derogatory language was. It was less newsworthy and open to more shitty interpretation 30-40 years ago, but even in those times the dirty old man diddling boys was a no-no everywhere. The only contention in this, as far as I can see, was did GT and the Villa act according to the family wishes or did they push the family to have those wishes. I don't know either way as yet so I won't judge them for it.
What you called the local takeaway pales into insignificance in comparison.
-
Well I grew (and still live in) a very working class area, and I did say many of those things, but that was when I was a kid, i grew up, I learned that those were not particularly nice things to say (a couple of times I learned the hard way), and I stopped saying them. Of course I then learned the hard way that it was also not the done thing to tell other people not to say them! Life is a bastard on the tough streets of West Brom sometimes!