Football abuse

[dandydunn]

Very disturbing programme. 

Guys involved deserve to be strung up and left to die. 

[thewolf_1980]

Particularly sad that the filthy individuals were sacked but allowed back into similar roles to reoffend elsewhere. Disgraceful.

[dandydunn]

Seems like a Britain wide problem that they simply weren't interested in stopping. 

Pity they're probably mostly dead now,hopefully the ones that aren't face justice. 

[EddardStark]

The problem in some cases was the reasons for the sackings at previous clubs were not passed on to new employers.

[dandydunn]

7 hours ago, EddardStark said:

The problem in some cases was the reasons for the sackings at previous clubs were not passed on to new employers.

Agreed,if what was said is true,it seems that Chelsea just had a shrug of the shoulders and said "it hasn't happened here". 

[Huddersfield]

I think to a degree, pre-CRB that was ubiquitous. Wherever youngsters/vulnerable people congregated, abusers would follow. The Ian Huntley case, which ushered in a national safeguarding authority (at least in England/Wales; I'm not sure about the history of the Scottish equivalent), wasn't until 2002. Huntley was, of course, a school caretaker who had left several jobs where he had been seen as 'a bit dodgy'. Maxine Carr was a Teaching Assistant at the same school. Pro-active reporting & recording of suspicious behaviour, concerns, or Police cautions came even later. Hence we've had scandals with priests, in the Boy Scouts, in schools, children's homes, in football & so on. All generally followed a similar pattern, that the abuser would move along once suspicions grew, & the previous employer would tend to breathe a sigh of relief that they had gone & (as we now know) because victims were keeping quiet, could convince themselves their problem had gone away.

 

[iainmac1]

5 minutes ago, Huddersfield said:

I think to a degree, pre-CRB that was ubiquitous. Wherever youngsters/vulnerable people congregated, abusers would follow. The Ian Huntley case, which ushered in a national safeguarding authority (at least in England/Wales; I'm not sure about the history of the Scottish equivalent), wasn't until 2002. Huntley was, of course, a school caretaker who had left several jobs where he had been seen as 'a bit dodgy'. Maxine Carr was a Teaching Assistant at the same school. Pro-active reporting & recording of suspicious behaviour, concerns, or Police cautions came even later. Hence we've had scandals with priests, in the Boy Scouts, in schools, children's homes, in football & so on. All generally followed a similar pattern, that the abuser would move along once suspicions grew, & the previous employer would tend to breathe a sigh of relief that they had gone & (as we now know) because victims were keeping quiet, could convince themselves their problem had gone away.

 

I have an enhanced disclosure for teaching here but if you don't have a history of any charges or offences or have never been caught then your disclosure will be clean. Any child abuser will have a clear disclosure at some point.

In the Ian Huntly case I think he would have had a clean record too since he was able to work in a school, I'm just presuming, not actually sure. Leaving past jobs for being viewed as dodgy is a bit ambiguous and if there was no disciplinary action taken by his work or any police convictions then his record or disclosure would have been clean.

[Huddersfield]

3 minutes ago, iainmac1 said:

I have an enhanced disclosure for teaching here but if you don't have a history of any charges or offences or have never been caught then your disclosure will be clean. Any child abuser will have a clear disclosure at some point.

In the Ian Huntly case I think he would have had a clean record too since he was able to work in a school, I'm just presuming, not actually sure. Leaving past jobs for being viewed as dodgy is a bit ambiguous and if there was no disciplinary action taken by his work or any police convictions then his record or disclosure would have been clean.

 

When I worked with vulnerable adults, if we had a suspicion about anyone's behaviour, we were expected to report it to the relevant safeguarding authority regardless of if the person was still in employment (& we had an option to refuse to accept their notice & sack them instead, or notify the Safeguarding people that we would have done had they not left). Local boards can then place them on various lists, or report them to the Police, both of which would show up on an enhanced DBS. Again I don't know the Scottish system so it may have differences, but the English one will show up causes for concern, e.g. Police cautions or referrals to List 99.

 

Undoubtedly it's still possible to slip through the net, but I think the modern safeguarding system is pretty good at spotting & removing people of concern. Where Huntley is concerned, I think you're right that he had no convictions, but he had been subject to several previous investigations & that would have shown up.

[RenfrewBlue]

3 hours ago, iainmac1 said:

I have an enhanced disclosure for teaching here but if you don't have a history of any charges or offences or have never been caught then your disclosure will be clean. Any child abuser will have a clear disclosure at some point.

In the Ian Huntly case I think he would have had a clean record too since he was able to work in a school, I'm just presuming, not actually sure. Leaving past jobs for being viewed as dodgy is a bit ambiguous and if there was no disciplinary action taken by his work or any police convictions then his record or disclosure would have been clean.

This is supposed to have been addressed, at least partially, by the addition of "soft" information being added to that assessed. 

This allows suspicions to be passed on and included in the police assessment. 

Ive got umpteen different levels of assessment from helping with Scouts to the max level for the Fostering. Ive also seen loads from other folk from when I ran my sons football team. Even a clean form didn't mean I trusted someone until they'd proved themselves trustworthy. After all, if you're in charge its your head that's on the block if they do anything wrong. 

[giblet]

Found it really disturbing, especially when I seen my brothers picture in about 6 or 7 of the pictures shown in the Hutchie club room!

The Gordon Neely one is disturbing as its looking more and more likely that HIbs new about it and rather than taking action via the Police, they sacked him.  I coached at Hutchie in the 90's and can remember the Dalguise trip was one most of the teams went to at some point during the season.  Good to see Tam Smith still there, a great Edinburgh football institution. 

[Squirrelhumper]

Was pretty disturbing viewing and made you think out your own time playing boys club/Schools football. Scum of the earth.

[they've_been_suckered]

I can't comprehend the mindset someone must have to do these things. Messed up people.