The guardian articles

[MikeSB]

Here is another one just out...Difficult to say he hasn't got a point though...

https://www.theguardian.com/football...-barry-bennell

[gazan]

but the trouble with this article, like others, is not WHAT is said but HOW it is said and WHAT is NOT said. This article is selective in its reporting of detail and leaves out information that is known, which might cast some light on some situations. We have to ask, WHY do these people continually not provide all the information? In my opinion, it can only be that there is an agenda. In line with the Guardian's 'usual' line on 'balance', I assume that there will be a right of reply. However, I'm not holding my breath!

[gazan]

I also wish to stick my neck out here and say that the SOME of the issues here are not so cut and dried. Not everything is a stark black and white despite the modern social media frenzy for it to be so.

[bigroof]

This was my public reply, via Facebook, to one of the Guardian articles:
" It's indicative of the times, that the police advised an employer to 'move on' a suspected *****phile. 'Move on' to whom? Today, quite a number of years into a 'safeguarding' era, the very least such a suspect would receive is a suspension pending further enquiries; back then, on the basis of hearsay, what to do? It seems to me, there are far too many people, journalists included, making judgements upon a time they don't properly recall. It really would be helpful if the media would examine those times in which the likes of Jimmy Savile, Barry Bennell, Stuart Hall were able to hide their crimes seemingly - in retrospect - 'in plain sight'. "

I take the Guardian, and Daniel Taylor has written some excellent pieces on the sports pages. On this matter he's 'like a dog with a bone', which may well be his journalistic instinct, but I agree with gazan on here, that he is being purposely selective. Victoria Derbyshire is also a fine presenter; as is Adrian Chiles, who I've heard interview Andrew Woodward on the radio. Unfortunately, the common theme within all their work, is this issue of "they must have known" (meaning our board, and Dario of course). Everybody nods their heads, as if in agreement, but that aspect is never further explored. What exactly did people 'know' or 'suspect' or hear about? How was it possible for the likes of Barry Bennell, as well as Jimmy Savile, and Stuart Hall, to commit their crimes undetected/unproven? Maybe because they were constantly covering their tracks, planning ahead, noticing who 'might' suspect them. This is how such people operate. Bennell was even able to 'fool' Woodward's family in that he went on to marry his sister.

I've been a season ticket holder since the early 80's, just prior to Dario's years. As Dario became entrenched, and developed his youth training, I do remember some of the innuendo, stemming presumably from the fact that he was a single man, and dealing with a whole load of young kids. I could never take such stuff seriously, and this type of jibe tended to come from opposition fans, but I've noticed over the years since messageboards developed even some Crewe fans slipping in such trite remarks. I don't remember at all (pre-match / during the week), ever discussing such innuendo, nor do I recall any discussion of Barry Bennell, until he left the club. In the years when I worked in Crewe, football wasn't a hotbed of discussion in my particular places of work, but maybe in places where football, and Crewe Alexandra, was a natural topic of conversation, Bennell might have been a topic? I don't know.
Like gazan says, lots of grey areas here. The press, in the last 15 months, have dug up a few stories of incidents at games at which Bennell was present, some from before he worked for Crewe; but we don't have 'names to quotes'; nobody in those days went to the police, including Hamilton Smith, who - in his interview on the Victoria Derbyshire programme - also suggested to his fellow board members at the time, that they 'move him [Bennell] on'; as indeed Manchester City did, to Crewe.