Not Good

[tom73]

Always struggled with statements and positions such as this below which was part of the article in the link.

"We urge anybody with concerns about non-recent or current abuse to report them either directly to the British Cycling safeguarding team by emailing compliance@britishcycling.org.uk."

Any abuse of a criminal nature should be reported to the Police and we should encourage victims to do it immediately. The Police also know which are the proper support organisations for the victims.

I have no faith in in-house mechanisms with fancy titles.

The Police should not only investigate the reported abuse but also investigate the in-house teams that are supposed to create the environment to reduce such cases. Such as prior formal and informal approaches by potential victims too these in-house teams, the process involved and the outcomes.

In house teams can work and do work equally some have been shown to be Shockley poor yet are still allowed to police it. The church is a classic example. Safeguarding is complex and everyone in an orgainsion needs a contact equally full robust training is needed. Some placers fall on this alone. At which stage the matter get's handed over to the police depends on the organisation , age group ect. Social services need to be involved firstly for many situations and organisations. Always best to work hand inland with the police in these matters.

Re in-house policy and protection.

Perhaps not the police but a Ofsted like body for sports organisations much like CQC Ofsted, charity commission etc.

Sports England ?
Currently a public injury is ongoing into historic abuse in public bodies. Changers are likely to come from that some public bodies have already been found to be falling well short of the basics. The charity commission already has the powers to strip charity of in house safeguarding. A private school not long ago had that happen.

 

[Paulus]

These allegations remember are in the Sunday Hate Mail, so until some more details are produced I think they should not be taken too seriously as yet.
Normally the press will give the source of the allegation, normally a name or good friend, party goer etc. And they don't normally hold back on naming the alleged wrong doer.
I do hope the story turns out to be scurrilous, but bad if true.

 

[Dag Hammar]

I have an opinion, and as with all opinions I am open to be corrected if I hear a valid counter argument and I do not expect everyone to think along the same lines as myself.
Here goes…
I consider that allegations such as the one this thread is about should be dismissed if they are historic. This of course opens up the question ‘ How old is historic ? ‘
Peoples memory function naturally fades with the years and I for one would not wish to be in the dock charged with any offence where the jury had to make a decision based on what a plaintiff or a witness claims to remember from many years ago. Forensic evidence is a different criteria.

 

[Richard Fairhurst]

He works for BC in a senior roll according to the report. That cuts the number of possibles right down and it will be a household name.

I'm not so sure - it says "The ex-rider has held a prominent position in professional cycling after his retirement from racing." Could be a DS for a commercial team, or someone who works in the media.

Big ol' list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Olympic_cyclists_of_Great_Britain

(These reports are usually intentionally vague - if the report provides enough details for someone to be identified, then in a libel case that'd be taken the same as naming them.)

 

[Adam4868]

I consider that allegations such as the one this thread is about should be dismissed if they are historic.

Good job it's not up to you then 🙄

 

[tom73]

I have an opinion, and as with all opinions I am open to be corrected if I hear a valid counter argument and I do not expect everyone to think along the same lines as myself.
Here goes…
I consider that allegations such as the one this thread is about should be dismissed if they are historic. This of course opens up the question ‘ How old is historic ? ‘
Peoples memory function naturally fades with the years and I for one would not wish to be in the dock charged with any offence where the jury had to make a decision based on what a plaintiff or a witness claims to remember from many years ago. Forensic evidence is a different criteria.

Large number of these type of cases are serial offenders and follow a paten of offending. Which is why they take time and are conducted by highly trained social workers and officers. Any visit to a number of VP wings in certain prisons you will find are full of them. You soon understand how these offenders work and think. They are not based solely on what someone may or may not remember.

 

[Profpointy]

I have an opinion, and as with all opinions I am open to be corrected if I hear a valid counter argument and I do not expect everyone to think along the same lines as myself.
Here goes…
I consider that allegations such as the one this thread is about should be dismissed if they are historic. This of course opens up the question ‘ How old is historic ? ‘
Peoples memory function naturally fades with the years and I for one would not wish to be in the dock charged with any offence where the jury had to make a decision based on what a plaintiff or a witness claims to remember from many years ago. Forensic evidence is a different criteria.

What about theft of, say, a valuable item. Should the thief be able to brazenly display or sell it if he keeps schtum long enough ?

Would you feel the same about murder if the crime had happened a long time ago?

I concede it may be harder to convict for an allegation of sexual crimes that are historic, depending on circumstances, but even so, few would think Jimmy Saville should have got off for his historic crimes if the had emerged a year or two before his death.

 

[Arrowfoot]

I have an opinion, and as with all opinions I am open to be corrected if I hear a valid counter argument and I do not expect everyone to think along the same lines as myself.
Here goes…
I consider that allegations such as the one this thread is about should be dismissed if they are historic. This of course opens up the question ‘ How old is historic ? ‘
Peoples memory function naturally fades with the years and I for one would not wish to be in the dock charged with any offence where the jury had to make a decision based on what a plaintiff or a witness claims to remember from many years ago. Forensic evidence is a different criteria.

You do realise that you made a politically incorrect statement and the woke lot will stab themselves in the eye before considering your view.

Your point has merit as contemporaneous account goes a long way to secure a fair trial. Evidence which could be secured if reported earlier might be lost. As it is a jury trial, a more persuasive arguments from whichever party will have material value in the absence of evidence. So early reporting is fair on both parties.

There should be education and awareness to make reports earlier as these scums are allowed to continue preying on others.

There is also the factor that the trauma or fear might be a factor to hold back until years later. This alone has led to countries recognising the issue and removing statutory limitation for prosecution for historical sexual offences.

The bigger issue is colleagues, staff and others who can recognise predatory behaviour and do nothing. The predator see it is as license to continue.

 

[tom73]

You do realise that you made a politically incorrect statement and the woke lot will stab themselves in the eye before considering your view.

Your point has merit as contemporaneous account goes a long way to secure a fair trial. Evidence which could be secured if reported earlier might be lost. As it is a jury trial, a more persuasive arguments from whichever party will have material value in the absence of evidence. So early reporting is fair on both parties.

There should be education and awareness to make reports earlier as these scums are allowed to continue preying on others.

There is also the factor that the trauma or fear might be a factor to hold back until years later. This alone has led to countries recognising the issue and removing statutory limitation for prosecution for historical sexual offences.

The bigger issue is colleagues, staff and others who can recognise predatory behaviour and do nothing. The predator see it is as license to continue.

Not so much none PC but lacking any basic social justice.
Social attitudes also change over time what was seen as fair game years ago is no longer so. Historic victims it's usually fear of not being believed or believing it's normal behaviour. Disclosers take guts equally it's not easy for ones that has to deal with it.
Education should happen at an early age in age appropriate way with our without parental consent.
Even when staff ect report it organisations and institutions have been shown to totally ignore it, cover it up or discredit the victim.
Some have even been happy to do all 3.