In The Know wrote:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/15/brea...ell-convicted-total/

86 more people came forward to report abuse following publicity about the case.

I know some (perhaps most) children say nothing about abuse, but it seems very unlikely that a HUNDRED people were abused and nobody knew anything about it.

Randall wrote:
others find my titbits thought provoking so I keep them coming.

Just got back from night-school ?

If you think you might be interested in law as a future career, but have little (or no) idea what that really means,
The Beginner’s Guide to a Career in Law is for you. www.lawcareers.net/Starting-Out/Beginners-Guide-Career-Law

ITK, just to be clear about Bennell’s trials and pleading, as far as I can tell, he has been tried four times:
1 - USA, arrested 1994, pleaded guilty, sentenced to 4 years
2 - UK, 1998 (on return) pleaded not guilty, found guilty of 23 offences, 22 lie on file, gets 9 years
3 - UK, 2015, pleaded guilty, sentenced to 2 years
4 - UK, current trial, pleaded not guilty to 50-odd offences

It's possible that my use of the burglary analogy either trivialises or misleads to some extent.

If we consider, instead, the case of a murder, for which a man pleads not guilty, but is tried and convicted, serves 15 years and is released on licence. Having got out he begins to rebuild his life, but then forensic evidence comes to light which links him to another murder around the same time as the first. I imagine that, should there be sufficient evidence, bearing in mind the difficulty of witnesses recollections after such a long time, etc, we might well expect him to be tried for the second murder. I say 'expect' because, in truth, I don't know how likely it is that he really would be tried under those circumstances, but it seems to me reasonable. If so, then perhaps ITK is right and Bennell deserves all he gets because he really should have both pleaded guilty and asked for other cases to be taken into account.

But I'm still left with an uneasy feeling about a Bennell's being tried again and again, I think, because of the fact that he was convicted of multiple offences against multiple victims whilst many other charges were left to lie on file, hence my analogy with the (arguably) rather less serious crime of burglary.

If a burglar is convicted on 20 charges, and 20 more are left to lie on file, it seems to me that (though, of course, it is the individual offences that must be proved in court) society is effectively accusing this person of 'being a burglar' - it's no longer simply about the individual offences, but about his 'profession' - and the precise number and details of his crimes are less important than this 'status'. He's then going to spend a number of years in prison, be released with (presumably) a number of conditions, and be able to begin building a life as an ex-burglar.

If such a 'former' burglar were then, ten years after leaving prison, to be confronted with new forensic evidence tying him to a number of further burglaries - beyond the 20+20 from the original case, but still within the same period - would it be reasonable to drag him in an put him on trial again?

Even if we assume he really had committed those crimes, and we assume that the tests Randall mentions can be met, it seems to me highly questionable that we should seek to punish him again.

Misa wrote:
ITK, just to be clear about Bennell’s trials and pleading, as far as I can tell, he has been tried four times:
1 - USA, arrested 1994, pleaded guilty, sentenced to 4 years
2 - UK, 1998 (on return) pleaded not guilty, found guilty of 23 offences, 22 lie on file, gets 9 years
3 - UK, 2015, pleaded guilty, sentenced to 2 years
4 - UK, current trial, pleaded not guilty to 50-odd offences

If we consider, instead, the case of a murder, for which a man pleads not guilty, but is tried and convicted, serves 15 years and is released on licence. Having got out he begins to rebuild his life, but then forensic evidence comes to light which links him to another murder around the same time as the first. I imagine that, should there be sufficient evidence, bearing in mind the difficulty of witnesses recollections after such a long time, etc, we might well expect him to be tried for the second murder. I say 'expect' because, in truth, I don't know how likely it is that he really would be tried under those circumstances, but it seems to me reasonable. If so, then perhaps ITK is right and Bennell deserves all he gets because he really should have both pleaded guilty and asked for other cases to be taken into account.
... as I said, each crime deserves individual consideration ... one crime is not more important than another (identical) crime.


But I'm still left with an uneasy feeling about a Bennell's being tried again and again, I think, because of the fact that he was convicted of multiple offences against multiple victims whilst many other charges were left to lie on file, hence my analogy with the (arguably) rather less serious crime of burglary.

If a burglar is convicted on 20 charges, and 20 more are left to lie on file,these latest charges are not previous ones regurgitated - they are new complainants making new claims - like the 86 who have come forward SINCE the latest trial started, some of which could be even more serious than the original offences it seems to me that (though, of course, it is the individual offences that must be proved in court) society is effectively accusing this person of 'being a burglar' - it's no longer simply about the individual offences, but about his 'profession' - and the precise number and details of his crimes are less important than this 'status'. He's then going to spend a number of years in prison, be released with (presumably) a number of conditions, and be able to begin building a life as an ex-burglar.

If such a 'former' burglar were then, ten years after leaving prison, to be confronted with new forensic evidence tying him to a number of further burglaries - beyond the 20+20 from the original case, but still within the same period - would it be reasonable to drag him in an put him on trial again?

Even if we assume he really had committed those crimes, and we assume that the tests Randall mentions can be met, it seems to me highly questionable that we should seek to punish him again.
... again, some of the "newer" crimes may be even more serious than the original - should we forget about them?

Does this not also encourage multiple crimes (if an offender feels he will only be charged with one?)

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
In The Know wrote:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/15/brea...ell-convicted-total/

86 more people came forward to report abuse following publicity about the case.

I know some (perhaps most) children say nothing about abuse, but it seems very unlikely that a HUNDRED people were abused and nobody knew anything about it.
I agree, honey, and think it applies to the Savile allegations too. It's just absurd that scores of separate people with different personalities would all behave identically by failing to report crimes against them as adults, failing to tell parents/guardians or having parents/guardians who were told but failed to report crimes against their charges.

ITK,

... as I said, each crime deserves individual consideration ... one crime is not more important than another (identical) crime.

But at his first UK trial not all charges were pursued - about half were left to lie on file, suggesting that prosecuting him for each individual crime was not the aim.

these latest charges are not previous ones regurgitated - they are new complainants making new claims - like the 86 who have come forward SINCE the latest trial started, some of which could be even more serious than the original offences

I'm afraid the volume of complaints does nothing to reassure me – rather the opposite. But ignoring such doubts for now, I think it's still concerning that this wave of complaints arrived after one of the original complainants connected to the 1998 case decided he needed to cry on daytime tv.

again, some of the "newer" crimes may be even more serious than the original - should we forget about them?

Some care required with the word 'newer' - it seems pretty clear that all complaints relate to a preriod preceding the first trial, even though they've only been reported recently, and so are 'newer' only in that sense.

As far as I'm aware, none of the recent claims are significantly different from the original batch.

It looks to me as though a rather pathetic and unpleasant man is being hounded to a premature death, and that is unbecoming of 'the finest justice system in the world', or indeed of any civilised nation.

btw, I see that he did plead guilty to some offences at this trial, so my earlier comment was wrong. I really should check whether he pleaded guilty to any of the charges at his first UK trial as well.

In The Know wrote:
Randall wrote:
others find my titbits thought provoking so I keep them coming.

Just got back from night-school ?

If you think you might be interested in law as a future career, but have little (or no) idea what that really means,
The Beginner’s Guide to a Career in Law is for you. www.lawcareers.net/Starting-Out/Beginners-Guide-Career-Law

Christ, ITK. Your trolling is very tiresome. If you're just going to do that, you're a prize prat. On the other hand, the frequently contrary viewpoints are useful for our discussions here and stimulate the threads. Why not just stick to serious debate?

I've sympathy for Misa's position. Repeatedly revisiting a course of criminal conduct that has already been looked at and prosecuting it anew seems like disturbing a sleeping dog that should be left to lie. This is especially so when the original events were investigated at the time. I agree with Honey that dozens of new complainants simultaneously coming forward 30 years later doesn't smell right. A simple search engine query will give you discussion groups where people discuss and share their stories and there is often some ire expressed to people who aren't genuine alumni of the cohort but seem to fish for details and want to "join in." I also find it extremely odd that the police at the time could have missed SO MANY complainants. It's a simple matter to get lists of all the club members Barry Bennell coached and speak to them, so missing 86 complainants is rather strange. Some caution about how these complaints are treated and how well they can corroborate each other is needed.

On the other hand, I agree with ITK that each complaint should be given its own standing. I dislike the idea that complaints 11-20 are put aside because complaints 1-10 are enough to "get him." This smells like there is a target result and the outcome of the trial is a foregone conclusion. Having a dedicated trial for each complaint quickly becomes unmanageable in practice, and the difference in sentence between 19 convictions and 23 is small, if anything. A more pragmatic approach, as Misa suggested, runs the risk of people being prosecuted for being a peedo/burglar/druggie rather than evidence of specific criminal deeds being examined.

Let me suggest a comparison with an arsonist. In the 80s he sets fire to a squat and a group of people inside perish. The police investigate and collect evidence of who was inside. He's tried and convicted of the deaths and serves his sentence. Decades later, advances in DNA technology (or something) allow a further victim to be identified as missing homeless person X. A new criminal trial for the extra death seems not to serve a purpose because the defendant's criminal culpability has already been established. It's also already been punished: he wouldn't have received a greater penalty for one extra death. What people generally want in such a situation is to establish a version of events for the record. An adversarial criminal trial is not designed for such a purpose, nor suitable for it. A classic example is a 90 year old put on trial for being an Auschwitz guard when he was a teenager. And a somewhat successful approach to such matters can be seen in the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There comes a point where establishing a version of historical events is the goal, rather than assigning criminal liability, punishment and rehabilitation. That's part of the rationale for the statute of limitations in many countries.

Excellent post, comparisons and analogies...

Randall wrote:
Christ, ITK. Your trolling is very tiresome.

MY trolling ?

This is MY post !

Misa wrote:
I see that he did plead guilty to some offences at this trial, so my earlier comment was wrong.

A bit pointless STILL trying to convince anyone - except the apologists on here ! - that he is pure as the driven snow,
now that he is on his FOURTH conviction (by different Juries) on more or less exactly the same charge !

How many convictions would it take to convince you, Misa?

Fourteen?

Forty?

Four Hundred?

Why not make a similar and substantive response then - instead of just blocks¡!?

In The Know wrote:
Misa wrote:
I see that he did plead guilty to some offences at this trial, so my earlier comment was wrong.

A bit pointless STILL trying to convince anyone - except the apologists on here ! - that he is pure as the driven snow,
now that he is on his FOURTH conviction (by different Juries) on more or less exactly the same charge !

How many convictions would it take to convince you, Misa?

Fourteen?

Forty?

Four Hundred?

Apologists? I dont think anybody here is minimising his crimes or is suggesting he is innocent of all of them, but to me, the more accusations there are, the less likely they are to be true.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Apologists? I dont think anybody here is minimising his crimes or is suggesting he is innocent of all of them, but to me, the more accusations there are, the less likely they are to be true.

Not true, honey! ... there are some on here who ALWAYS try to pick holes in any conviction .... of course they say "isn't it shocking IF it actually happened" .... lol !

As if to prove the point ... NOT ONE has commented on the fact that four men have killed themselves - and the only common link is Bennell.
One was the former Wales manager ... do you really think he needed to "make a claim" and grab some compo?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
the more accusations there are, the less likely they are to be true.

Football is riddled with these people, honey!
(best cover ever for getting a boy into the showers !)

Hardly a club anywhere in the UK not subject to investigation -

Chelsea apologised "profusely" to former footballer Gary Johnson over abuse he suffered in the 1970s. A club review reportedly identified 13 more potential victims.

QPR said they were taking allegations made against former employee Chris Gieler "very seriously" and would "co-operate fully" in any investigation.

Ex-Newcastle United player David Eatock reported abuse by a former coach at the club, George Ormond, to police. Last summer, Ormond pleaded not guilty to 35 historical sex offences involving 18 alleged victims and he is expected to stand trial in May.

Former Southampton player Matt le Tissier said he had been given a "naked massage" by Bob Higgins, a former coach at the centre of sex abuse allegations. Higgins denies any wrongdoing, while Southampton say they are "fully supporting" Hampshire Police in its investigations.
Charlton Athletic have also opened investigations into allegations of historical abuse.

The Scottish FA launched its own inquiry in February 2017 - with a report expect in late April or early May - and Police Scotland said last November that it was investigating almost 300 crimes.

A former Celtic youth coach, Jim McCafferty, faces eight charges of intentionally touching a boy under the age of 16. McCafferty also worked for other Scottish clubs, including Falkirk and Hibernian, before moving to Northern Ireland about seven years ago.

Hugh Stevenson, a former youth football coach and top-flight assistant referee, has also been accused of a catalogue of child sex offences in Scotland.

Stevenson, who died in 2004, was accused by Pete Haynes of sexually abusing him over a three- to four-year period from 1979.

Partick Thistle said they have also identified a historical allegation of abuse made in 1992 against a former club physiotherapist, who is now dead.

Three of four police forces in Wales are also investigating allegations of historical child sexual abuse at various football clubs.

all from - www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42993689

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Apologists? I dont think anybody here is minimising his crimes or is suggesting he is innocent of all of them, but to me, the more accusations there are, the less likely they are to be true.

Not true, honey! ... there are some on here who ALWAYS try to pick holes in any conviction .... of course they say "isn't it shocking IF it actually happened" .... lol !

As if to prove the point ... NOT ONE has commented on the fact that four men have killed themselves - and the only common link is Bennell.
One was the former Wales manager ... do you really think he needed to "make a claim" and grab some compo?

But he told the police he wasn't abused, and his father says he never stayed at the house and was always picked up. (therefore an accuser is mistaken or lying)

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/919895/gary-sp...r-carol-abuse-claims

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
the more accusations there are, the less likely they are to be true.

Football is riddled with these people, honey!
(best cover ever for getting a boy into the showers !)

Hardly a club anywhere in the UK not subject to investigation -

Chelsea apologised "profusely" to former footballer Gary Johnson over abuse he suffered in the 1970s. A club review reportedly identified 13 more potential victims.

QPR said they were taking allegations made against former employee Chris Gieler "very seriously" and would "co-operate fully" in any investigation.

Ex-Newcastle United player David Eatock reported abuse by a former coach at the club, George Ormond, to police. Last summer, Ormond pleaded not guilty to 35 historical sex offences involving 18 alleged victims and he is expected to stand trial in May.

Former Southampton player Matt le Tissier said he had been given a "naked massage" by Bob Higgins, a former coach at the centre of sex abuse allegations. Higgins denies any wrongdoing, while Southampton say they are "fully supporting" Hampshire Police in its investigations.
Charlton Athletic have also opened investigations into allegations of historical abuse.

The Scottish FA launched its own inquiry in February 2017 - with a report expect in late April or early May - and Police Scotland said last November that it was investigating almost 300 crimes.

A former Celtic youth coach, Jim McCafferty, faces eight charges of intentionally touching a boy under the age of 16. McCafferty also worked for other Scottish clubs, including Falkirk and Hibernian, before moving to Northern Ireland about seven years ago.

Hugh Stevenson, a former youth football coach and top-flight assistant referee, has also been accused of a catalogue of child sex offences in Scotland.

Stevenson, who died in 2004, was accused by Pete Haynes of sexually abusing him over a three- to four-year period from 1979.

Partick Thistle said they have also identified a historical allegation of abuse made in 1992 against a former club physiotherapist, who is now dead.

Three of four police forces in Wales are also investigating allegations of historical child sexual abuse at various football clubs.

all from - www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42993689

Logic, unbiased opinion, facts - ITK not good

Cut @ Paste - Olympic class

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
In The Know wrote:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/15/brea...ell-convicted-total/

86 more people came forward to report abuse following publicity about the case.

I know some (perhaps most) children say nothing about abuse, but it seems very unlikely that a HUNDRED people were abused and nobody knew anything about it.
How do you explain this, ITK? A giant conspiracy of silence with children all too scared to tell, grown into adults too scared to report crimes against them, parents who knew too scared to report crimes against their children, bystanders too scared, etc, etc. until all the adults pop up at once decades later?

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Apologists? I dont think anybody here is minimising his crimes or is suggesting he is innocent of all of them, but to me, the more accusations there are, the less likely they are to be true.

Not true, honey! ... there are some on here who ALWAYS try to pick holes in any conviction .... of course they say "isn't it shocking IF it actually happened" .... lol !

As if to prove the point ... NOT ONE has commented on the fact that four men have killed themselves - and the only common link is Bennell.
One was the former Wales manager ... do you really think he needed to "make a claim" and grab some compo?

Gary Speed's family says he was not a Bennell victim. If Bennell did indeed have hundreds of victims, three of them dying by suicide wouldn't be very statistically unusual. 11.5% of American men who died aged 35-44 died of suicide, 16% of deaths aged 25-24 and 18.8% of deaths aged 20-24. I imagine the figure is similar in the UK and I think those figures are absolutely horrendous. Source: www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lcod/men/2014/all-males/index.htm
I doubt that the only common link was Barry Bennell. Drugs, alcohol, mental health issues and adverse life events all figure strongly in cases of suicide, as do isolation and lack of support. Most Bennell victims, and other people who go through much much worse, have not killed themselves and will not. They go on to have happy and successful lives.

The scepticism about so-called sex crime convictions comes from the epistemological problems in many of them. Cases where there is a quantity of real evidence pose no such problem. Maybe a rapist is shown on CCTV to follow a victim and drag her (or him!) down an alley. The victim has injuries consistent with the attack, documented and photographed by a doctor soon afterwards. There are DNA matches to the perpetrator on and in the victims body, plus his skin under her fingernails. There's a witness who disturbed the attack and saw the rapist running off. In this case our knowledge that the rapist did indeed do the attack is based on the evidence I've described. There doesn't even need to be a statement from the victim.

Barry Bennell does indeed seem to have been a serial groper/molester. But I asked myself, on what can I base that knowledge? Unlike the fictional trial above, Bennell's crimes were merely said to have occurred by victims. Anyone can say something occurred years ago when there's no evidence one way or the other. Jesus turning water into wine is an example. I've no idea if these people are telling the truth, lying, or mistaken. Perhaps they are very compelling in their account, but it's always possible that they are putting on a performance or that they truly believe what they are saying but mistakenly believe it. For this reason, I demand a higher standard for taking away someone's freedom. Against this, we have Bennell's various guilty pleas. Of course, the pleas might be false. Perhaps some accusations are untrue but nevertheless appear completely indefensible, but I think it's unlikely: I'm just covering all angles. In addition, my understanding is that in American trials, there must be corroborating evidence. I've read accounts from men who, as youth footballers, caught Bennell in flagrante. If these men, who are unlikely to have a financial/compensation motive and have no apparent axe to grind, are presented in support of other direct accusers, I can have a little more faith in the result of the American trial. The problem remains with the British trials that, among the charges Bennell denied, there's little indication of who was telling the truth and who was a bandwagoner.

ITK is right that youth football is a dream career for someone who wants to molest young boys. Obviously there's the physical aspect, massages, showers etc that were not subject to any safeguarding measures until quite recently. There has long been, and seemingly also STILL is, a lack of acceptance for male homosexual footballers, which I assume has inhibited reporting or expressions of concern, or action being taken. Lastly, I think the proprietary attitude of the clubs towards the youth players was clearly a problem in the past and probably is even worse now because of the greater money involved. Clubs see players as an asset that represents a value. It seems that some of the complaints that were addressed at the time were seen through this financial lens, rather than in human terms.

As I've posted above, I don't think the solution to this is to round up football coaches and prosecute them for stuff from decades ago on the strength of a few men's say so. With the offer of thousands in compensation on one side and the threat of years in prison on the other, such an adversarial approach is unlikely to yield an untainted determination of the truth. I think it's the truth we should be aiming for as a starting point, if we actually want to help real victims, stop scumbag bandwagoners, rehabilitate people whose sexual habits cause anguish to others and find ways to ensure that our children enjoy themselves at football practice. "If" is the important word in that sentence.

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
the more accusations there are, the less likely they are to be true.

Football is riddled with these people, honey!
(best cover ever for getting a boy into the showers !)

Hardly a club anywhere in the UK not subject to investigation -

Chelsea apologised "profusely" to former footballer Gary Johnson over abuse he suffered in the 1970s. A club review reportedly identified 13 more potential victims.

QPR said they were taking allegations made against former employee Chris Gieler "very seriously" and would "co-operate fully" in any investigation.

Ex-Newcastle United player David Eatock reported abuse by a former coach at the club, George Ormond, to police. Last summer, Ormond pleaded not guilty to 35 historical sex offences involving 18 alleged victims and he is expected to stand trial in May.

Former Southampton player Matt le Tissier said he had been given a "naked massage" by Bob Higgins, a former coach at the centre of sex abuse allegations. Higgins denies any wrongdoing, while Southampton say they are "fully supporting" Hampshire Police in its investigations.
Charlton Athletic have also opened investigations into allegations of historical abuse.

The Scottish FA launched its own inquiry in February 2017 - with a report expect in late April or early May - and Police Scotland said last November that it was investigating almost 300 crimes.

A former Celtic youth coach, Jim McCafferty, faces eight charges of intentionally touching a boy under the age of 16. McCafferty also worked for other Scottish clubs, including Falkirk and Hibernian, before moving to Northern Ireland about seven years ago.

Hugh Stevenson, a former youth football coach and top-flight assistant referee, has also been accused of a catalogue of child sex offences in Scotland.

Stevenson, who died in 2004, was accused by Pete Haynes of sexually abusing him over a three- to four-year period from 1979.

Partick Thistle said they have also identified a historical allegation of abuse made in 1992 against a former club physiotherapist, who is now dead.

Three of four police forces in Wales are also investigating allegations of historical child sexual abuse at various football clubs.

all from - www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42993689

If a football club say they are taking allegations seriously and will co-operate fully, its not because of any opinion they might have about the claim, but because they are actually forced to take that position by the safeguarding procedures.

It is ridiculous that an action which is required for safeguarding purposes is seen as a reason to believe (so far) unsubstantiated allegations.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
But he told the police he wasn't abused, and his father says he never stayed at the house and was always picked up. (therefore an accuser is mistaken or lying)

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/919895/gary-sp...r-carol-abuse-claims

To save his embarrassment, maybe?
Would you want to admit (to the world) that you were raped?

Some may say that he had mental illness (the deniers are always looking for a scapegoat - something else to blame) .... but it seems to me highly unlikely that someone could function normally (and very well) in one sphere (he was the manager of Wales !) and have enough problems in other area to kill himself?