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

[Sexual Ealing]

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).

[brian green]

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.

[Mister E]

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.

[Villa75]

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.

[cdbearsfan]

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.

[Villa75]

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.

[cdbearsfan]

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.

[dave.woodhall]

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. 

[Villa75]

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.

[cdbearsfan]

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.

[Villa75]

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?

[cdbearsfan]

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.

[brian green]

My last word on a very interesting subject.

I see guilt and the acknowledgement of it as the handbrake that prevents us rolling backwards.

[Villa75]

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.

[West Derby Villan]

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