Graham Taylor

[Dr_Pangloss]

The problem I have is that these are very much allegations which appear to have, as yet, no proof behind them. We do not know the ins and outs of it yet it is being plastered all over the media as if he is guilty. 

[jackbauer24]

4 minutes ago, Dick said:

It doesn't make it right. Ignorance is where most of these issues happen. 

You're 100% right, education hopefully makes all of humanity make everything equal, fair and right. But it takes time. Even now things are just frowned upon that really shouldn't be acceptable. The issue here is judging people from a different time on current standards, it's just not fair. This is different to cases like Saville where he was doing things thatwere abhorrent even then and people covered itup, this isaboutmoral standards changing.

If we start judging everyone in history on the current moral standard, each person would have about a twenty year window before something they'd done in the past would beseen as repugnant and they should be vilified. Simple one for youngsters; I can guarantee things like sexting or d*ck pic sending will be seen as horrific in years to come but currently it's just a little laugh for all those women who get them on dating sites - is it fair to retrospectively demonise people for something that was kind of acceptable at the time?!

[bannedfromHandV]

There's something about all this dragging up of 30 + year old incidents that just doesn't sit right with me.

 

The past is just that, the past, leave it where it belongs.

[Dodgyknees]

9 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

There's something about all this dragging up of 30 + year old incidents that just doesn't sit right with me.

 

The past is just that, the past, leave it where it belongs.

Nope. Doesn't matter how long ago a crime was committed, it should be looked at the same way as if it happened today.

[pacbuddies]

49 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

If we start judging everyone in history on the current moral standard, each person would have about a twenty year window before something they'd done in the past would beseen as repugnant and they should be vilified. Simple one for youngsters; I can guarantee things like sexting or d*ck pic sending will be seen as horrific in years to come but currently it's just a little laugh for all those women who get them on dating sites - is it fair to retrospectively demonise people for something that was kind of acceptable at the time?!

So you reckon I will be ok for another 20 years then?

Edited September 14, 2017 by pacbuddies

[TheStagMan]

49 minutes ago, Dick said:

Nope. Doesn't matter how long ago a crime was committed, it should be looked at the same way as if it happened today.

No, it shouldn't. It should be looked upon in the terms of the law and society as it stood at the time, and punished accordingly.

[TRO]

I think the era of this alleged abuse is very significant here, but no right minded person will accept any kind of Abuse at any time.

We are commenting a bit early and as i said in an earlier post, we have to wait to hear what the inquiry finds.

However, It will not mar my views of Graham Taylor the football manager and Graham Taylor the man.....He like everyone of us is not beyond mistakes.....we are all capable of giving advice (and maybe he didn't know the full facts either) by the sound of it the advice given was with the boy's career in mind.....easy mistake to make IMO.

[terrytini]

In no way condoning anything, I'm glad times have changed, but I could reel off s couple of dozen examples of stuff at least as bad as GT giving that advice.

The bit we've heard is really not a lot different to how a lot of people wouldve - misguidedly handled stuff back then.

Edited September 14, 2017 by terrytini

[Rugeley Villa]

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

There's something about all this dragging up of 30 + year old incidents that just doesn't sit right with me.

 

The past is just that, the past, leave it where it belongs.

So people should not be punished for vile crimes they commited decades ago? And people who were abused, but never had the courage to admit it back then shouldn't admit it years later? 

[terrytini]

2 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Ignorance is the biggest problem the world has on many levels.

I never knew that ..

[TRO]

5 minutes ago, terrytini said:

In no way condoning anything, I'm glad times have changed, but I could reel off s couple of dozen examples of stuff at least as bad as GT giving that advice.

The bit we've heard is really not a lot different to how a lot of people wouldve - misguidedly handled stuff back then.

quite right

Education is a wonderful thing Terry and we are all the wiser for it.....some of the things that happened in yesteryear in all facets would be cringed at today.

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by TRO

[Rugeley Villa]

5 minutes ago, terrytini said:

I never knew that ..

You do now. 

[terrytini]

1 minute ago, Rugeley Villa said:

You do now. 

I feel strangely less blissful 

[bannedfromHandV]

59 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

So people should not be punished for vile crimes they commited decades ago? And people who were abused, but never had the courage to admit it back then shouldn't admit it years later? 

It's a difficult and very sensitive issue, obviously.

I've seen someone else say that no matter how long ago a crime was committed it should be treated as though it happened today, so how far back does this go then? Should we punish the catholic church for the spanish inquisitions, or Christianity as a whole for the Crusades?

Also, other than taking one persons word over another there tends to be very little actual evidence of this stuff having happened which is what I find uncomfortable about it all, because it's a very 'contemporary crime' it's given lots of attention and the assumption, it feels, tends to be that the person is guilty which should never be the case in the UK. 

[Rugeley Villa]

45 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

It's a difficult and very sensitive issue, obviously.

I've seen someone else say that no matter how long ago a crime was committed it should be treated as though it happened today, so how far back does this go then? Should we punish the catholic church for the spanish inquisitions, or Christianity as a whole for the Crusades?

Also, other than taking one persons word over another there tends to be very little actual evidence of this stuff having happened which is what I find uncomfortable about it all, because it's a very 'contemporary crime' it's given lots of attention and the assumption, it feels, tends to be that the person is guilty which should never be the case in the UK. 

I see where you're coming from, and I do believe that some crimes are near on impossible to judge. I just thought you meant whatever was done decades ago shouldn't be punished. 

[jackbauer24]

If it was a crime when it happened then it doesn't matter how many years later it is, victims should get justice. If there was a procedure for things that wasn't followed and caused pain (Hillsborough for example) then again time is no excuse not to pursue justice for those impacted.

But what I don't agree with is punishing people for not following laws or procedures that didn't exist at the time. It's ridiculous.

This may not be the issue in this case, but I just mean in general.

[briny_ear]

7 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

The problem I have is that these are very much allegations which appear to have, as yet, no proof behind them. We do not know the ins and outs of it yet it is being plastered all over the media as if he is guilty. 

There is nothing really new in these allegations - they have been hinted at in earlier news stories and this is just elaborating the details.

I think the Guardian is taking advantage of Graham Taylor's death to publish allegations it would never dare print while he was alive because he would sue the arse off them. 

Even if everything alleged about Taylor is true  - and sadly for him there is no longer anyone to defend his position - he is hardly the main villain in these stories and there seems to be a risk he will be made a scapegoat while others more culpable get off.

[HanoiVillan]

What he's accused of here is advising a young player not to go to the police with the story of abuse he suffered, as to do so would lead to terrace taunts and would damage his career. 

The initial caveat is that these are 'just' allegations, but to be fair the circumstantial evidence seems pretty clear (the content of the phonecall under question can never be 'proven' beyond doubt, but the statements made by Richardson lend credibility to the player's testimony). 

If Taylor did indeed say what he is accused of saying, it's exceedingly hard to deny that it was a grave misjudgement. The scout/coach went on to abuse an unspecified number of other boys in his care. That's a lot of damage from this decision. There are a number of reasons why Richardson and Taylor may have said what is accused. They might have had a sincere concern that the player was placing himself at risk of abuse from fans and others within the game. They might have not believed the players allegations of abuse, or not taken them sufficiently seriously. They might have been protecting an acquaintance. They might have been more concerned with keeping this scout employed to maintain a 'pipeline' of young players. These reasons vary between horribly mistaken and naive on the one hand, and callous and negligent on the other, but we won't ever know which. The one thing we can say is that, providing the allegation is true, the decision was a terrible one. 

What this doesn't do is mean that all the other stuff we know to be true about Taylor is somehow not true any more. All of the positive stories we have learned about the man haven't just disappeared, even if he did the wrong thing on this occasion. The same people can be capable of kindness and cruelty, of good judgement and stupidity. We are human; we contain multitudes. 

But God this story has made me miserable over the last 24 hours. I can't stop thinking about it. 

[briny_ear]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

What he's accused of here is advising a young player not to go to the police with the story of abuse he suffered, as to do so would lead to terrace taunts and would damage his career. 

The initial caveat is that these are 'just' allegations, but to be fair the circumstantial evidence seems pretty clear (the content of the phonecall under question can never be 'proven' beyond doubt, but the statements made by Richardson lend credibility to the player's testimony). 

If Taylor did indeed say what he is accused of saying, it's exceedingly hard to deny that it was a grave misjudgement. The scout/coach went on to abuse an unspecified number of other boys in his care. That's a lot of damage from this decision. There are a number of reasons why Richardson and Taylor may have said what is accused. They might have had a sincere concern that the player was placing himself at risk of abuse from fans and others within the game. They might have not believed the players allegations of abuse, or not taken them sufficiently seriously. They might have been protecting an acquaintance. They might have been more concerned with keeping this scout employed to maintain a 'pipeline' of young players. These reasons vary between horribly mistaken and naive on the one hand, and callous and negligent on the other, but we won't ever know which. The one thing we can say is that, providing the allegation is true, the decision was a terrible one. 

What this doesn't do is mean that all the other stuff we know to be true about Taylor is somehow not true any more. All of the positive stories we have learned about the man haven't just disappeared, even if he did the wrong thing on this occasion. The same people can be capable of kindness and cruelty, of good judgement and stupidity. We are human; we contain multitudes. 

But God this story has made me miserable over the last 24 hours. I can't stop thinking about it. 

I think my point is that Taylor's role in this appears to be peripheral compared with another person at the club who appears to have been the one responsible for recruiting and overseeing the young players programme and liaising with Langford. This man also appears to have misled in the past about the stage at which Langford was sacked. 

His name is mentioned 18 times in the article and  yet he doesn't appear in the headline. Why? Only the Guardian could tell us but it is worth noting that Taylor is dead so can't defend himself and he is by far the better known public figure therefore it makes the story more sensational to play up his role.

That is why I worry that Taylor could be made the scapegoat. He can't ever give an account of his understanding of the situation in the couple of phonecalls/meetings in which he is mentioned so misconstruing his role is a very real danger. I think the Guardian is either being dishonest or has itself been duped in presenting Taylor as the main character in this  sordid story.

Edited September 14, 2017 by briny_ear

[1974Centenary]

10 hours ago, TheStagMan said:

No, it shouldn't. It should be looked upon in the terms of the law and society as it stood at the time, and punished accordingly.

The law and Society didnt have DNA to rely upon in the past,should criminals get a free pass today because they committed their crimes pre scientific advancement?