Wrestling #MeToo #SpeakingOut

[BomberPat]

It doesn't surprise me that he worked for a promoter that doesn't use social media - there's a mind-boggling number of promoters and small promotions out there that still advertise purely using phone numbers to buy tickets, and have no online presence whatsoever, or just a very clunky website. Ligero knows exactly what he's doing by getting in with promotions like that, knowing that all of this probably passed them by, and that it's more likely to fly under the radar. But on top of that, you have him (allegedly) working under a Spider-Man gimmick for promotions who know but don't care, and promotions like LDN that do have a social media presence but lock it down at the first sign of criticism.

I understand the argument that locker rooms at these tiny promotions don't have a lot of power, but on the flipside, even if it's a regular booking, it's a promotion with zero reach, and that has only come to people's attention because they booked Ligero. I can't imagine anyone's raking it in from working there, or risking anything in their broader career by speaking up about it. Maybe people did - that's part of the problem, especially with this kind of company; if all of these conversations are happening in private, you don't know if people are speaking out or making a stand or not. And you might say that's no one's business but theirs, but I've seen female wrestlers say that part of the problem here is now they have to be extra-cautious taking bookings, especially if they're not overly familiar with the promotion, because they have to brace themselves for the risk of unexpectedly finding themselves in the locker room with their abuser.

[theringmaster]

22 hours ago, Infinity Land said:

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.

 

This entire defense falls apart when you actually look at Professional Wrestling companies and realize they are not major cooperation's...

 

If you were applying for, say, to become a firefighter then the argument of 'my DBS check came fine so I'm allowed to work' would be justified, if a Promoter who is putting on a show in front of a hundred people on the weekend doesn't care what the DBS check says and doesn't want to employ you, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

It's not a god given right for everyone to be allowed to wrestle, if a promoter doesn't want to book you based on appearance, skill etc they can, if they don't want to book you because several people online have accused you of serious sexual abuse they have the equal right to.

What do we think happened?

"Hey can i wrestle for you?"

"Didn't you get accused of being a sexual pred?"

"I did but me DBS is fine mate"

"Oh that's ok then " *Internal Thoughts* Best say yes in case he gets the union involved.

 

TBH it absolutely amazes me how so many British Wrestlers who were so outraged by Speaking Out are happy to wrestle for progress in 2021 considering how terrible they acted at the start of the year, they pretty much said "As long as DBS checks are fine you can work at our shows". 

[Keith Houchen]

It’s been well over a decade since I got a check done for a job. The way it was then was the results don’t get sent to the potential employer but to yourself, then you show it to the employer. Is it still done this way? Can imagine there are “Promoters” who would just take someone’s word for it that they’re clean. 
 

Mine came back clean but in between getting it back and sending off for it, I was offered a better job so had to turn this one down. Even on the phone telling them this I knew they were thinking “Yeah yeah, you dodgy prick, you’re a wrongun and you’re making excuses”

[DavidB6937]

5 hours ago, theringmaster said:

It's not a god given right for everyone to be allowed to wrestle

This is absolutely correct. All these weird "well do you blame him?" or "what else is he supposed to do?" type defences when one of these arseholes sneaks back onto a card. What do I expect them to do? Fuck off quite frankly. Why should they get to continue their dream job when they've acted in that way. Oh poor Ligero missed wrestling did he? Am I meant to give a fuck? If it's all you know and all you've ever dreamt of your whole life then maybe don't be a cunt.

[Infinity Land]

35 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

It’s been well over a decade since I got a check done for a job. The way it was then was the results don’t get sent to the potential employer but to yourself, then you show it to the employer. Is it still done this way? Can imagine there are “Promoters” who would just take someone’s word for it that they’re clean. 
 

For a Basic it can go to the employer. Usually if they're the ones paying for it, they'll be getting it. I'd imagine for these smaller wrestling promotions they'll just be asking for a copy from the wrestler since they don't want to be on the hook for the cost. So you could very well have a wrestler out there with a disclosure that's old and no longer accurate. When I used to work there it would be quite common for someone that had a pending court case to get a basic when they knew there would be nothing on it.

For more higher level stuff that could involve ongoing monitoring, then what would usually happen is the applicant would get a copy. They then get to see it first to challenge any of the information being disclosed. If they give their blessing, then the employer copy is posted.

[AnotherCrapUsername]

With regards to a DBS check. What sort of offences appear on both a basic and an enhanced check?

For instance would something that potentially could be serious depending on the line of work, like a caution for fraud in a position of trust appear on a basic for someone who worked in a regulated industry or would that only appear on an enhanced check? 

[Tommy!]

26 minutes ago, ThommoLincs said:

For instance would something that potentially could be serious depending on the line of work, like a caution for fraud in a position of trust appear on a basic for someone who worked in a regulated industry or would that only appear on an enhanced check? 

Asking for a mate are we, *nudge, nudge*

[Infinity Land]

43 minutes ago, ThommoLincs said:

With regards to a DBS check. What sort of offences appear on both a basic and an enhanced check?

For instance would something that potentially could be serious depending on the line of work, like a caution for fraud in a position of trust appear on a basic for someone who worked in a regulated industry or would that only appear on an enhanced check? 

Cautions don't get disclosed on basics, they're not a conviction.

Even for a higher level check the concern there is more about what workforce you would be working in and whether the type of offence would apply.

As for what offence can appear on a basic check? It's more about the sentencing. You could be fined for assault or littering, and they'd both be regarded the same. And nowadays a fine is only disclosed for one year after the date of conviction on a basic check. Basics are really only good for custodial sentences these days or lifetime disqualifications in certain areas.

[theringmaster]

It's also worth noting there has yet to be a single conviction from Speaking Out (to my knowledge) so every promoter doing the "DBS check came back fine" Knows exactly what they are doing.

[Infinity Land]

Simply being a wrestler isn't going to qualify for the higher level checks due to the workforce issue. As there's no real interaction with kids or vulnerable groups as part of the role. Its only on a higher level check some of the SpeakingOut stuff might be disclosed if the police were ever contacted.

So anyone using DBS checks to justify booking someone is either ignorant of what DBS actually does, or complicit.

[Guest]

I always say this on this topic as it’s sadly true, but why no governing body, and that the majority of people at most shows are going to be none the wiser, it’s going to happen. And with no governance, there’s no scale of punishment and there’s people who will have changed, people who won’t, and people who will pretend they have and there is no fair level of all 3 to be bedded back in or excluded completely. It’s on fans to pick and choose where money goes 

[BomberPat]

1 minute ago, Louch said:

 It’s on fans to pick and choose where money goes 

It's on fans, and it's on other wrestlers. I'd love to know who else worked the show with Ligero, for example, because it's on them to speak up about it. The biggest question for me, as I've said many times in this thread, wasn't "why did no one speak out before?", but "who were they supposed to speak out to?". That, again, came down to lack of governance, but now that Speaking Out has happened, there's a recognition of these problems existing, and of them being dealt with - as much as it doesn't always feel like anything has been done, the fact that El Ligero, who once worked everywhere and can now stick "ex-WWE" on the poster, has been reduced to working in the world's smallest ring for a promotion you've never heard of, that Travis Banks is resorting to working Mexican indies, and Jimmy Havoc's packed it in altogether, shows that progress has been made.

These people aren't welcome in the majority of promotions - some of that will be purely because promoters are covering their own backs and don't want the hassle that will come from booking them, some of it comes from genuine desire for change. There are promoters I personally dislike, who I wouldn't trust to pay me back if I lent them a fiver, who I trust more than most to not fuck this up, because it's their livelihood and they're not going to risk that. 

When it comes to the smaller promotions, that's where it comes back to it being on the wrestlers. I'm not of the belief that anyone working a show with anyone remotely implicated in Speaking Out is complicit like some, but I do think that there are questions to be asked. Who was Ligero's opponent? Who else was on the card? Someone leaked the photo of him working and put it out there, but a lot of people said nothing. Some of them might have genuinely not known - there's an assumption from a lot of wrestling fans that everyone in wrestling is as terminally online as they are, and know of every conversation taking place on Twitter, whereas most wrestlers I've spoken to have said that their biggest worry around all of this at the moment is that they inadvertently end up working with someone or booking someone because they missed the allegations against them, or the allegations didn't specifically name them, but "everyone knew" that's who they were talking about. It's a bit of a minefield.

 

The DBS check thing, I think that's just got away from people who have any understanding of what's happening and what needs to be done. Wrestlers having DBS checks doesn't really solve anything. I think wrestlers who are training people should absolutely have DBS checks, but again, that comes down to a lack of regulation and understanding as to what wrestling is. Anyone who's ever tried to get insurance for a wrestling show will know what a confusing grey area it is. One of the recommendations of the APPG report was that while wrestling shows should be recognised as entertainment, wrestling training should be treated as a sport, and be regulated on that basis. I think that's the right step, but that's not happening any time soon.

[theringmaster]

8 minutes ago, Louch said:

I always say this on this topic as it’s sadly true, but why no governing body, and that the majority of people at most shows are going to be none the wiser, it’s going to happen. And with no governance, there’s no scale of punishment and there’s people who will have changed, people who won’t, and people who will pretend they have and there is no fair level of all 3 to be bedded back in or excluded completely. It’s on fans to pick and choose where money goes 

I know this is an old argument but the problem with a Governing body is the business is to far along to establish one. One could argue Progress are/were the biggest Promotion in UK, already since Speaking Out they have shown they are prepared to turn a blind eye to their mates, so they can't be trusted to sit on the board, so they are not on the board, so then they obviously not going to be interested in following any rules , you can swap that Promotion with any number of the larger promotions in the UK.

Then there's the alternative scenario, all the 'big names' manage to break bread at the table and if they do they will simply monopolize it (from my understanding what happened with Joint Promotions), so if a new promotion comes along they will simply gatekeep and squash it out of town. Then it would probably become more lawless, 'Who watches the Watchmen' type scenario.

There is just no way a Governing body can exist that will both a) Have all promotions agree and b) be fair.

[David]

On 10/20/2021 at 12:15 PM, DavidB6937 said:

This is absolutely correct. All these weird "well do you blame him?" or "what else is he supposed to do?" type defences when one of these arseholes sneaks back onto a card. What do I expect them to do? Fuck off quite frankly. Why should they get to continue their dream job when they've acted in that way. Oh poor Ligero missed wrestling did he? Am I meant to give a fuck? If it's all you know and all you've ever dreamt of your whole life then maybe don't be a cunt.

While the "what else is he supposed to do?" argument holds no water, as anyone in that position can obviously work elsewhere (there's other jobs they can do, surely?) the "well, do you blame him?" comment doesn't.

Do you actually blame him? If a promoter is either naive or shady enough to offer him money to appear on a show, why wouldn't one of these guys take it? Many of these types don't think they did anything wrong, and that their victims led them on, were asking for it etc, all the usual shite we hear such individuals come away with.

As has been mentioned, it's on the promoters, talent and fans to keep them out of the industry. We can't expect the individuals themselves to be so overcome with guilt that they actively turn down paydays when offered. Some may shy away from the industry, but most probably won't.

There's a definite line between someone making a mistake and being allowed to earn a living, get on with their lives and hopefully do better, and someone making a mistake and being allowed back into the industry that provided them the platform to be a star of sorts.

Send Ligero down to Manchester. There's a gym there that hires former wrestlers with dodgy pasts.

[DavidB6937]

9 minutes ago, David said:

While the "what else is he supposed to do?" argument holds no water, as anyone in that position can obviously work elsewhere (there's other jobs they can do, surely?) the "well, do you blame him?" comment doesn't.

Do you actually blame him? If a promoter is either naive or shady enough to offer him money to appear on a show, why wouldn't one of these guys take it? Many of these types don't think they did anything wrong, and that their victims led them on, were asking for it etc, all the usual shite we hear such individuals come away with.

As has been mentioned, it's on the promoters, talent and fans to keep them out of the industry. We can't expect the individuals themselves to be so overcome with guilt that they actively turn down paydays when offered. Some may shy away from the industry, but most probably won't.

There's a definite line between someone making a mistake and being allowed to earn a living, get on with their lives and hopefully do better, and someone making a mistake and being allowed back into the industry that provided them the platform to be a star of sorts.

Send Ligero down to Manchester. There's a gym there that hires former wrestlers with dodgy pasts.

So it's not reasonable to expect these people to feel guilt and actually deal with the consequences of their actions?

Yes, I absolutely blame him. It shows there's no remorse if he's happy to go out there and get back into it like nothing's happened. Am I meant to sympathise with someone who's snuck their way back in because they're dealing with (a) someone who's naïve or (b) someone who's dodgy? 

It's on the promoters, talent and fans as well but the blame and behaviour heavily falls back on guys like Ligero etc too.