69MeDon Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 I'm confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Gordon_The_Gopher Posted October 18, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted October 18, 2021 15 minutes ago, Chris B said: You realise I'm referring to this, right? Rather than leaving it be, this whole conversation (from what I saw online) kicked off again because the first woman who accused Ligero posted about it. So they're not leaving it be. I was referring to this series of events and a) had no idea Natalie Sykes made any allegations or b) posted on here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted October 18, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted October 18, 2021 Christ, I'm one step away from using flashcards and puppets. You said that the people involved had left it be. The Instagram quoted above is Jesska Hyde, who refers to herself as a victim of Ligero's. Natalie Sykes' allegation was the main one at the time, and she brought people's attention to Ligero being booked again. I pointed out that they have clearly not left it alone, and are actively pointing people to the story. So what series of events are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Gordon_The_Gopher Posted October 18, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted October 18, 2021 5 minutes ago, Chris B said: Christ, I'm one step away from using flashcards and puppets. You said that the people involved had left it be. The Instagram quoted above is Jesska Hyde, who refers to herself as a victim of Ligero's. Natalie Sykes' allegation was the main one at the time, and she brought people's attention to Ligero being booked again. I pointed out that they have clearly not left it alone, and are actively pointing people to the story. So what series of events are you talking about? It must be really very frustrating when you ask a question and completely ignores it then goes one step further and turns it into something completely different, rather than answering.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WyattSheepMask Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 1 hour ago, Gordon_The_Gopher said: It's a fair question - I have been told Progress and RevPro have thorough checks in place now. Was that before or after they had Paul Robinson agent their first shows back, completely aware of the allegations made against him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted October 18, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted October 18, 2021 1 hour ago, Gordon_The_Gopher said: It's a fair question - I have been told Progress and RevPro have thorough checks in place now. They are not trustworthy companies and no one should believe anything they say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 Sadly it must be time for those involved in this to resurface. Reported another to a safeguarding team regarding something they really shouldn't be doing given the accusations involved. ffs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_3165 Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 35 minutes ago, patiirc said: Sadly it must be time for those involved in this to resurface. Reported another to a safeguarding team regarding something they really shouldn't be doing given the accusations involved. ffs The key here is accusations. Any safeguarding team is going to find proving anything tricky unless there is physical evidence. If someone was got rid of for an accusation I suspect there is a legal precedence for claiming unfair dismissal. This is why so many companies will be reluctant to bin off the accused if they are contracted which I'm unsure if most UK guys are? Plus safeguarding only applies to people who are technically vulnerable due to age, illness or incapacity. That said, its a shit situation for these poor women who don't get the justice they deserve. What do other people think would be workable so that victims get justice and accused get a fair hearing? I'm not talking legalities (that's passed in this thread) but the practicalities. I personally feel stumped w this. I have this horrible tension between believing victims (they have been treated badly enough by police etc without me adding to it!) and sticking w my ethical position of innocent till proven guilty. How do we wrestle w this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69MeDon Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 Innocent until proven guilty is only relevant in the case that something goes to court. My bar for innocence vs guilt is a lot lower than a court's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 37 minutes ago, Michael_3165 said: The key here is accusations. Any safeguarding team is going to find proving anything tricky unless there is physical evidence. If someone was got rid of for an accusation I suspect there is a legal precedence for claiming unfair dismissal. This is why so many companies will be reluctant to bin off the accused if they are contracted which I'm unsure if most UK guys are? Plus safeguarding only applies to people who are technically vulnerable due to age, illness or incapacity. That said, its a shit situation for these poor women who don't get the justice they deserve. What do other people think would be workable so that victims get justice and accused get a fair hearing? I'm not talking legalities (that's passed in this thread) but the practicalities. I personally feel stumped w this. I have this horrible tension between believing victims (they have been treated badly enough by police etc without me adding to it!) and sticking w my ethical position of innocent till proven guilty. How do we wrestle w this? Simply, they need to be aware to investigate. Up here it is a hot topic, recently there was someone running a men's charity /help thing and got sent down for ages. He was trusted because of his past and fell past a load of safeguards because of that. Actually knowing some of the people affected by what's happened in this I had to report it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WyattSheepMask Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 49 minutes ago, Michael_3165 said: The key here is accusations. Any safeguarding team is going to find proving anything tricky unless there is physical evidence. If someone was got rid of for an accusation I suspect there is a legal precedence for claiming unfair dismissal. This is why so many companies will be reluctant to bin off the accused if they are contracted which I'm unsure if most UK guys are? Plus safeguarding only applies to people who are technically vulnerable due to age, illness or incapacity. That said, its a shit situation for these poor women who don't get the justice they deserve. What do other people think would be workable so that victims get justice and accused get a fair hearing? I'm not talking legalities (that's passed in this thread) but the practicalities. I personally feel stumped w this. I have this horrible tension between believing victims (they have been treated badly enough by police etc without me adding to it!) and sticking w my ethical position of innocent till proven guilty. How do we wrestle w this? From where? They’re not employees, that’s a big part of the problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted October 18, 2021 Author Share Posted October 18, 2021 Alex Shane needs to bring in the “Not A Nonce” armbands for a fair price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theringmaster Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 15 hours ago, 4FWREF said: Ligero has gone back to work, doing a job he did previously, for a company he worked for before. The liability is on his employer to confirm that he is safe to take part in that job and that no one is at risk around him. I'd assume those checks, such as DBS, have been carried out, if he is working on the shows. I'd imagine they will have made some form of safeguarding/risk assessment too. So here is a question - assuming the checks were carried out, there seems to be a measure of indignation that he would dare go back to work - what do people want to happen and why? Now I'd imagine there is probably going to be some flippancy, or comments about me not caring about the victims, or sarcasm about shoulda, woulda, coulda. But seriously. Genuinely. What do people want? This is hilariously the same stance Progress took earlier this year with paul robinson. "DBS Checks came back fine so he is definitely 100% safe to work" 99 % of people named in Speaking Out DBS checks would come back fine, if that's the benchmark then nobody would be blacklisted. I agree that it's unreasonable to expect those accused to disappear into a cave and never be seen again but at the same time find something new, the wrestling business doesn't want you and even if you manage to sneak back in you're just embarrassing yourself by working for promotions nobody has ever heard of or empty school gyms in Mexico. The BIG issue for me is how the locker room(s) stayed quiet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westlondonmist Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 19 minutes ago, theringmaster said: The BIG issue for me is how the locker room(s) stayed quiet. With these small promotions what power does the locker room have? They're generally filled with easily replaceable no name wrestlers and they won't want to rock the boat if they see that as their first and only chance at wrestling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinity Land Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 1 hour ago, theringmaster said: This is hilariously the same stance Progress took earlier this year with paul robinson. "DBS Checks came back fine so he is definitely 100% safe to work" 99 % of people named in Speaking Out DBS checks would come back fine, if that's the benchmark then nobody would be blacklisted. Unless possibly for those doing training, simply wrestling wouldn't cover anything more than a basic disclosure. So without any convictions they'll come back clear. I'm not sure people understand that basic disclosures are largely a money making exercise for DBS/Disclosure Scotland. So someone that's a repeat sex offender that's never been convicted of anything will be fine. Whereas someone with points on their driving licence would get disclosed if its within the last few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.