BBC report club sacked a scout accused of sexual abuse 1988 but didn't report it

[purpletrousers]

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.

[old man villa fan]

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.

[OzVilla]

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.

[brian green]

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.

[Matt Collins]

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

[tomd2103]

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.     

[OzVilla]

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.

[brian green]

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.

[dave.woodhall]

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.   

[brian green]

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. 

[Matt Collins]

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?

[Villa75]

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.

[Pat McMahon]

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.

[Scratchins]

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.

[Chris Jameson]

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.