Football Abuse....

[10ClarionSt]

There's a few things about this that maybe you guys can help me with.

1. Why did Paul Stewart go to the papers before going to the police? Looks like he put money before justice.

2. Why is it that these abuse cases seem to assume guilt and that everything the accuser is saying is true? What happened to the police basic training mantra of ABC - Assume nothing. Believe no-one. Check everything. It appears that now that it's; Assume everything. Believe everyone. Check some time later.

3. On the radio on Wednesday, it was reported that as result of the newspaper articles, police would be contacting people. Really? I didn't know the police acted on newspaper articles. I always thought that people had to report a crime to THEM, not the other way round.

4. The NSPCC are a complete and utter waste of space. I would say they are irreplaceable in a way cos no-one knows what they do. Set up a help line? Anyone can do that can't they? Set up a web site? Advertise in the media? They only exist so they can advertise for money on the pretext of protecting children in some way. My wife has twice reported abuse of children to them, and they said it was nothing to do with them. She should contact the police or go to social services. Their help line will tell people to go to the police or social services.

Apart from that, everything's ok.

[mikey4444]

Clarion....

As Ummmm said early today, its no wonder that this sort of serious abuse goes on, with people like you making such ignorant remarks.

I have nothing further to say to you on this subject.

[ummmm]

Clarion...people don't put themselves out there. They don't happily admit their abuse. Sexual abuse tends to take a long time to come out. Victims don't always see themselves as victims, they feel shame and guilt. They often suffer an on going battle for years.

[RandyMarsh]

How much money has Paul Stewart asked for?

[jno]

no problems, Clarion.

[Peter Pedant]

// And it's attitudes like yours that put people off from coming forward.//

umm well no - because someone came forward ( three times: three people ) and Bennell was convicted - first time twenty five years ago - 1994
and then no one else came forward for 25 y

I do think that requires explanation - that is Clarion has a point

Crewe now admits that these issues WERE raised so they are now facing a huge bill in the civil courts


2, The allegations are given much more credence
rather than the Police just saying 'sez you ' turfing the complainant out and returning to their tea

And yes I have been on the wrong end of this and didnt enjoy much refuting allegations. which I did because it was so straightforward and all the while thinking - "thank god her allegations were so crazy: with a bit of thought she could have made them credible" - [ you know like checking I was in the house when she said I was instead of being in London ]

and yes the experience DOES colour my view of allegations that just appear in the press or wherever

3. Yes my regulator acts on newspaper articles so I wouldnt be surprised if the Police do - no they did so on Female genital mutilation ( article in the news of the screws )

4. and yes the authorities ( Manch again ) are pretty useless in this.
a nieghbour snatched a baby from another - this is Newton Heath Clarion just up the road from you - and demanded the police be called as she alleged the child was not being fed....Apparently the police can search a house to make sure there is enough food etc for a child - and this was done....

and a propos of nothing
about half the allegations about the dead Savile creature have turned out to be obviously untrue so half may be true which is..... far too many

[Peter Pedant]

// One other thing to ask is, would all this publicity not prejudice any future trial?//

no

publicity is erm welcomed or else no one would come forward

reporting restrictions come in only when someone is charged and so the press can have a free rein until then

If someone has already been convicted of X, then someone coming forward and saying 'me too 25 y ago' is not really prejudicial

[Peter Pedant]

// No-one has answered points 2 & 3.//

No I think I have addressed points 2 and 3 just in case people were wondering what my post was about ( again )