"urchaidh" wrote in message
oups.com...
The fact that I was expelled for (allegedly) reporting a Child Abuse
incident
is unforgivable.

Allegedly - did you report the case or not, you should know.

Allan did not report the incident to the police. I did. Police said to me
they felt there was grounds for concern but as the victim declined to make a
complaint and give a statement, they could not take action. They also stated
that they were sure further incidents would occur and they would hope to be
able to use the information I had given to them in a future prosecution. At
no point did the police say I had wasted their time or that the accused was
innocent. The BCU whitewashed the affair citing the lack of police action as
the reason for not taking action themselves. So young people continue to be
at risk because the BCU cover up for their employees..
Allan was falsely accused of "maliciously" reporting the matter to the
police by another BCU employee, one whose job should be to investigate child
abuse issues. That BCU employee knew it was I that reported the matter to
the police because I reported it to him first. He tried to cover up his
failure to take preventive action by saying Allan Bennett had reported the
matter, knowing that Allan was already in the BCU's bad books, and less
likely to be believed than myself. He also damaged the police investigation
by warning potential witnesses that the police would be asking questions.

David
Not a fan of cover ups

In article , David Kemper
wrote:


[snip]
He [MIKE DEVLIN] also damaged the police investigation by warning
potential witnesses that the police would be asking questions.


.... and did the police accuse /him/ of 'Wasting Police Time'? - the
accusation that was falsely laid against me by Alan Laws (erstwhile BCU
Chairman and proven liar) at a BCU AGM.



Allan Bennett
Not a fan of liars
--

An open letter to Brian Chapman (Chairman of the BCU) and Paul Owen (Chief
Executive of the BCU):

"The board's decision not to renew your membership was not taken in response
to the fact that you raised an issue of potential child abuse. It was taken
in response to the manner in which you chose to raise it, particularly in
relation to the wide circulation and frequent repetition of the accusations
which caused stress and concern amongst members of the BCU staff to whom the
BCU has an employer's duty to protect them from such actions."

(Letter from Chapman to David Train)

OK Mr Chapman - how should such an issue be raised, then?

? The BCU refused to communicate with David Train until he raised it with
other organisations and pressure was put upon the BCU to formulate a policy.

What you want (obviously!) is for everyone to keep quiet, isn't it?

? Regarding the 'wide circulation':

Please tell us to whom we are NOT allowed to write if we want to be BCU
members.

And to how many should we limit our circulation list?

? To what accusations are you referring which caused so much stress to your
weak and feeble staff?

Why is it that you are so concerned that your staff are reminded that they
aren't doing such a good job as they like us to believe and yet show such
scant regard for the welfare of our young paddlers or the membership as a
whole? Seems like someone has their priorities in a twist.

? You've tried the legal route and failed. There is nothing illegal in the
posts: no harassment; no libel; no defamation. There is nothing inaccurate in
his posts, nothing immoral, insulting or abusive. So, what has David Train
done that is /wrong/?

? Where is your evidence and where are the BCU rules that will curtail our
rights and liberties in this way?


** we now hear that it is the /tone/ of David Train's letters that has got
him banned! It gets even better!

Why is it that you can ban someone for expressing their views in the only way
they know how? Would you, in turn, ban someone who has a stutter and cannot
express themselves? Would you ban someone who is unintelligent and unable to
express themselves?

Or is it that you prefer to label David Train as 'mentally sick' (which you
have done and not repealed the statements publicly). Mentally sick people
are denied an opinion and freedom of expression within our sport, are they?



Following is a recent letter to the Princess Royal - going to ban her from
reading it, are you?

Capt Nick Wright, LVO, Royal Navy,
Private Secretary to HRH The Princess Royal,
Buckingham Palace,
London SW1A 1AA
7th August 2005
Dear Nick,

Institutionalised Emotional, Mental and Spiritual Abuse of Young People in
British Olympic Sport

"If you have any concerns that a child may be experiencing any form of abuse,
it must be reported either to your appointed club officer or to the BCU Child
Protection and Harassment Officer. Alternatively, any concerns can be
reported to Social Services, the Police or NSPCC Childline on 0800 800 500."

British Canoe Union Poster

In May this year I became aware of what I believed to be the abuse of young
people within the British Canoe Union, which I duly reported. Because I was
aware of the wider implications I wrote to a number of people, including you.
You rightly informed HRH the Princess Royal and said that you would speak to
Simon Clegg.

On 16th July I replied to your letter, saying that I believed that The
Princess would be astonished by the turn of events. Those events took an
even more astonishing turn last week when the Board of the British Canoe
Union, with Albert Woods -its President - taking part, banned me from
membership of the British Canoe Union, without any hearing, for four years,
for ‘daring’ to write to people to express my concerns, despite
admitting having no procedures in place to examine the issue.

Albert is also the Vice Chair of the British Olympic Association and, in my
opinion, he has brought both the name of the British Canoe Union and the
British Olympic Association into disrepute, and I wish to bring a case
against Albert Woods with the British Olympic Association, to bring some
sense into the situation. I cannot go to Craig Reedie or Simon Clegg
because, as you are aware, they are involved. I would therefore ask you to
take the matter, with some urgency, to The Princess.

There may be an easier way. The Princess is, like her father, well known for
not suffering fools gladly, and for being somewhat outspoken. At the time of
an earlier Olympic bid, often quoted by Alan Hubbard of the 'Independent on
Sunday', The Princess was heard to call Seb Coe a 'prattling'. Her
sharp 'coaching' words seems to have helped to change Seb and, today,
he is a hero, after winning for London. I am sure that The Princess will
see that for Albert Woods to be involved in banning anyone for reporting
what they believe to be a case of child abuse, whatever methods they use,
deserves the award of the 'prize prattling' of the Olympic movement.
Perhaps, to save wasting more time, you could inspire The Princess to fire a
shot across Albert's bow, to prevent him facing a broadside from a
disciplinary hearing of the British Olympic Association. Who knows, The
Princess's sharp 'coaching' words might yet transform Albert into a
hero!! We will all be winners.

Yours sincerely,


David W. Train.

cc. Peter Luff MP., Lord Coe, Albert Woods, Paul Owen. Alan Hubbard. Craig
Reedie, Simon Clegg. BCU Board.




--