Why I don't feel sorry for Barry Bennell

[experience3]

Note - This post speculates on the guilt or otherwise of football coach Barry Bennell and indeed of his accusers , Chris Unsworth, Steve Walters and Jason Dunford, the former footballers accusing him of abuse. I have no knowledge of the guilt of the various parties except what I have read in the news, and speculation about peoples guilt is just that - speculation. I seek in no way to defend or accuse either party, but to discuss what is an interesting case.

So, as someone who is all too aware of how easy it is to make an allegation of rape and the damaging repercussions to being falsely accused, I am usually most quick to jump to the defence of someone who is named in the media as a suspect. Unusually for me I have not felt the need to jump to Barry Bennell's defence, who was accused by several people (collectively I will call them the "footballers" of abusing them on the Victoria Derbyshire show), but has obviously not been convicted of the accusations (though he is a convicted pedophile already).

I read today that Mr Bennell has been hospitalized and reading between the lines of the report he has self-harmed. It is also reported that he has had to move out of his address - presumably because the media are chasing him. Unusually for me though, despite the fact that Mr Bennell is (pre-charge and pre-conviction after all) not having a good time of things I still do not feel the need to rush to his defence and that set me to thinking about exactly why that is, since for example I am (intellectually at least) happy to defend Saville, despite there apparently a great deal of evidence to suggest he was a wrongdoer.

So the question is - why don't I feel sorry for Barry Bennell?

The answer is very simply - anonymity.

The footballers in the case have chosen to waive their "right to anonymity" (more on this later) in order to accuse Bennell. This has come at a "cost" to the footballers. Firstly nobody really wants to go on national TV and talk about this stuff so there is an emotional cost. Secondly, should it subsequently be proven that Bennell is innocent, then they would be setting themselves up to be vilified in the media (quite rightly). Thirdly there is a potential financial / legal cost in that again should Mr Bennell subsequently be proved innocent then the footballers would be leaving themselves open to charges of CPCJ and/or damages for libel.

Like I say I am not saying that Bennell is innocent or guilty, but what I am saying is that it seems to me that there is something intrinsically "fair" about all this. By going public to accuse Bennell the footballers have left themselves open to negative consequences, should they be found later on to not be telling the truth.

This is a highly unusual case since it is incredibly rare for accusers to go public and so it is worth taking a moment to consider why that is.

Most people incorrectly believe that victims of sexual offences enjoy a statutory right to anonymity, but that is not quite the case. What is the case is that VULNERABLE people have the right to anonymity. "Victims" of sexual offences are AUTOMATICALLY considered vulnerable.

The sense of injustice caused by this for people who have been Falsely Accused (especially in the full glare of the media, think Richard, Gambuccini and Stening ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rush-hour.html )) is quite understandable. Particularly in Stening's case for a 43 Year old female QC to automatically be considered a "vulnerable person" is by any measure a stretch of credulity.

Anyway, I for one feel more comfortable that the Bennell case is acting within the spirit of justice because the footballers have waived their anonymity rights not just because of the personal "costs" to the footballers, but that it sheds light on issue of abuse accusations. In my experience professional sports people are pretty tough cookies and should not in their 40's be automatically considered vulnerable in anyevent.

Perhaps, rather than attacking the idea that "victims" but not accused are granted anonymity, we should be campaigning that the position of "victims" of sexual offences to be automatically classified as vulnerable ends.

I have long argued that - particularly where alleged offences are historical - it cannot reasonably be argued that someone who may well have been vulnerable 30 years ago but has since grown up, had children, got married, bought a house, had a career etc should not by default be counted as vulnerable now.

[Rights Fighter]

One reason for people to lie is for attention.

I've known many sell their stories to newspapers and magazines, often changing their stories while doing it. They have lied to the people paying them for their stories, lied to the police, and lied to the jury.

How do I know this? Because I've worked on dozens and dozens of appeals where, once having read the paperwork and seen what the jury did not see (or took notice of) that those were indeed false allegations.

None of us can know whether the accused in the case you have mentioned is guilty at this point. Just because the men have gone public doesn't mean the allegations are true, or false.

There are dozens of other people (usually men in carehome cases) who have made their allegations public long before even going to the police and on to trial. Many of them were liars too.

Just because they are famous footballers doesn't mean they cannot lie for whatever reason.

[sqounk]

For this post, I have put aside sympathies for the footballers and tried to think about this objectively. And I conclude with the following thoughts.....How is it possible in a 'civilised' (I think the term is relative) country to have several people accuse someone else of heinous crimes via a TV interview?! Clearly trial by media, regardless of if he's guilty or not. For better or worse, it is surely the right thing for them to go to the police and let them investigate - surely a TV interview interferes with that process as it creates a climate of assumption. This cannot be legal, can it?! Not if they want to bring charges - and surely they have a responsibility to do that; you can't just wantonly accuse someone of something so terrible and then not pursue it - to not, is to be irresponsible surely? I know he has been convicted twice before, but to assume every other accusation must be true is so anti-'innocent until you are guilty' as to be laughable. The man, regardless of his guilt or innocence, deserves and is entitled to a fair trial and not to have a jury influenced by the media. There should be a clause in the law that says claimants cannot entertain the media prior to trial or during.
That being said, the sadness I feel for those footballers is huge - but we cannot let emotions run roughshod over everybody's entitlement to a fair trial.
Hear that sound? That's me coming off my high horse...

[Rights Fighter]

it must be legal sqounk as it happens all the time.

Middle aged men who made allegations in the North Wales care homes cases (Operation Pallial for one) were speaking freely with the media as were those involved in Operation Midland etc: remember "Nick" aka "Carl" who made all sorts of bizarre claims about Ted Heath and others who were not in a position to defend themselves......

Then there's that odd Esther Baker who claimed she was taken off into the woods to be abused by all sorts of famous people including MPs etc.

None got to trial as (I believe) they were seen for what they are. However other people making allegations publicly have then gone on to make the allegations in front of a jury - trial by media.

Many of us had really bad childhoods but we don't go to the media about it. I find it strange that anybody would, to be perfectly honest, especially before any trial.

[sqounk]

Blimey RF. I'm surprised and saddened by this - it just shows you how mercenary some people are in order to get fame, attention, cash or whatever. People like that must make it more difficult to investigate real cases. I feel this country is drowning in an epidemic of false allegations at the moment. It does us no good as a country - what must we look like to the outside world. The judge who wrote the report into the failure of Operation Midland knows the stated figure for FA is false and he wrote that he would do separate work to try to expose this and the House of Lords had a debate in which this issue was raised too in March. I wonder if we are heading into a state of national mindset where victimhood is revered and aspired to. That's a worrying thought.

[Rights Fighter]

Back in the late 1990's or 2000 a certain person who I was terrified of as a child had left money to various family members. I had been promised something which I didn't get.

I went to see a solicitor about it,and in the conversation I mentioned "family life". He said that the best thing I could do would be to go to the police and that I would be "compensated" that way. I thought about it for all of two seconds and decided against it. Too much hassle for me and also I didn't want the good and decent family members drawn into it, which is what would have happened.

Most of us live with stuff and carry on with our lives as best we can. The very idea of publicly going to the media, posing for photos as so many of them do, and discussing things is abominable to me.

I've met many others in the same sort of situation and I have yet to meet a real victim who is prepared to "bravely waive anonymity".

[sqounk]

It does occur to me often when I hear the words 'bravely coming forward' that really, you should be 'quietly reporting' so the police can do their job - perhaps that trainer would still be conscious so the police could question him. I think some of these people are going to do and have done some irrevocable damage, not least to sport - can't say I approve of the tv interview the footballers did, overall. When it is proven in court, then that is the time to publicise it. If there was an immediate danger to life or safety then I could I understand it. As unpopular as it might be to ponder this, I do wonder if there is self-gain involved here. Books, celebrity, advisory jobs - just a thought. It could be a motivation.