I'm not saying this as a defence of Rodwell and Co., purely to try and work out who should have done what, but would it be the Club Secretary's job to have asked more questions when notified or would he be expected to raise it with the likes of Rodwell etc for them to take further?
I fully acknowledge that AT LEAST one person at Charlton has made a complete balls up regarding safeguarding but it's possible that the execs were told (falsely) that the matter was dealt with then it's possible that they genuinely didn't realise what had happened.
Again, not to excuse anyone, at the very least it's bad organisation and extreme complacency but I'm trying to work out how it could have happened.
I'd like to think it was complacency/mess up rather a cover up/conspiracy but we don't know. It may be neither and it was the FA who were at fault.
I do know that both the women's and men's team have a safeguarding officer and the least I would expect is a review of what happened to see what can be learnt and if any further training is needed or procedures need to be tightened up and better followed. It could be more serious breach than that it which case this should be a disciplinary matter.
I'm not saying this as a defence of Rodwell and Co., purely to try and work out who should have done what, but would it be the Club Secretary's job to have asked more questions when notified or would he be expected to raise it with the likes of Rodwell etc for them to take further?
I fully acknowledge that AT LEAST one person at Charlton has made a complete balls up regarding safeguarding but it's possible that the execs were told (falsely) that the matter was dealt with then it's possible that they genuinely didn't realise what had happened.
Again, not to excuse anyone, at the very least it's bad organisation and extreme complacency but I'm trying to work out how it could have happened.
We don't definitively know that though do we?
If nothing was shared and nothing was gleaned from the employee directly why would they know its a safeguarding issue?
I think it says more about the FA process that it isn't shared unless of course our club are being economical with the truth on what was shared - but yesterday it was said by JR in the meeting they only knew when it was made public to all.
Yes. We do. If the FA said that they were opening/holding disciplinary hearings about a club employee (but not the nature of the offences) SOMEONE needed to find what he'd done/been accused of.
That could have been JR, it could have been Dangerfield but somebody needed to check in case further action was needed.
I'm not saying this as a defence of Rodwell and Co., purely to try and work out who should have done what, but would it be the Club Secretary's job to have asked more questions when notified or would he be expected to raise it with the likes of Rodwell etc for them to take further?
I fully acknowledge that AT LEAST one person at Charlton has made a complete balls up regarding safeguarding but it's possible that the execs were told (falsely) that the matter was dealt with then it's possible that they genuinely didn't realise what had happened.
Again, not to excuse anyone, at the very least it's bad organisation and extreme complacency but I'm trying to work out how it could have happened.
We don't definitively know that though do we?
If nothing was shared and nothing was gleaned from the employee directly why would they know its a safeguarding issue?
I think it says more about the FA process that it isn't shared unless of course our club are being economical with the truth on what was shared - but yesterday it was said by JR in the meeting they only knew when it was made public to all.
Yes. We do. If the FA said that they were opening/holding disciplinary hearings about a club employee (but not the nature of the offences) SOMEONE needed to find what he'd done/been accused of.
That could have been JR, it could have been Dangerfield but somebody needed to check in case further action was needed.
So we didn’t know it was a safeguarding issue. That is my point.
If they asked and were told it was something else then no it wasn’t obviously a ‘balls up’.
It struck me a couple of days ago that the timing of this was worth further scrutiny.
Forgive me, I'm in rural Kansas with no internet and ropey cell service but did this occur before or after he was promoted to the first team? I haven't been able to go through everything on here.
Also thank you @LouisMend for tracking this down. This is very important. If the club was notified they should have asked follow up questions. If they knew that a member of staff was a risk to be around 50% of the population, then obviously that person should not have been a member of staff, full stop.
We can say "The FA should have disclosed" and while that's true, there may be things they can and cannot say about an ongoing investigation. Bit given Senda seemingly admitted it right away, even if the GA couldn't disclose, I expect the club to ask to be updated as soon as possible. I find it hard to believe that this wasn't knowable between June when the incident happened, late July when the club were informed something happened, andate August when Senda was sacked.
This is a devil is on the details, who knew what and when situation.
I'm not saying this as a defence of Rodwell and Co., purely to try and work out who should have done what, but would it be the Club Secretary's job to have asked more questions when notified or would he be expected to raise it with the likes of Rodwell etc for them to take further?
I fully acknowledge that AT LEAST one person at Charlton has made a complete balls up regarding safeguarding but it's possible that the execs were told (falsely) that the matter was dealt with then it's possible that they genuinely didn't realise what had happened.
Again, not to excuse anyone, at the very least it's bad organisation and extreme complacency but I'm trying to work out how it could have happened.
We don't definitively know that though do we?
If nothing was shared and nothing was gleaned from the employee directly why would they know its a safeguarding issue?
I think it says more about the FA process that it isn't shared unless of course our club are being economical with the truth on what was shared - but yesterday it was said by JR in the meeting they only knew when it was made public to all.
Yes. We do. If the FA said that they were opening/holding disciplinary hearings about a club employee (but not the nature of the offences) SOMEONE needed to find what he'd done/been accused of.
That could have been JR, it could have been Dangerfield but somebody needed to check in case further action was needed.
So we didn’t know it was a safeguarding issue. That is my point.
If they asked and were told it was something else then no it wasn’t obviously a ‘balls up’.
It WAS a safeguarding issue. They didn't know that, BECAUSE they didn't ask. That's the whole point.
I'm not saying this as a defence of Rodwell and Co., purely to try and work out who should have done what, but would it be the Club Secretary's job to have asked more questions when notified or would he be expected to raise it with the likes of Rodwell etc for them to take further?
I fully acknowledge that AT LEAST one person at Charlton has made a complete balls up regarding safeguarding but it's possible that the execs were told (falsely) that the matter was dealt with then it's possible that they genuinely didn't realise what had happened.
Again, not to excuse anyone, at the very least it's bad organisation and extreme complacency but I'm trying to work out how it could have happened.
We don't definitively know that though do we?
If nothing was shared and nothing was gleaned from the employee directly why would they know its a safeguarding issue?
I think it says more about the FA process that it isn't shared unless of course our club are being economical with the truth on what was shared - but yesterday it was said by JR in the meeting they only knew when it was made public to all.
Yes. We do. If the FA said that they were opening/holding disciplinary hearings about a club employee (but not the nature of the offences) SOMEONE needed to find what he'd done/been accused of.
That could have been JR, it could have been Dangerfield but somebody needed to check in case further action was needed.
So we didn’t know it was a safeguarding issue. That is my point.
If they asked and were told it was something else then no it wasn’t obviously a ‘balls up’.
It WAS a safeguarding issue. They didn't know that, BECAUSE they didn't ask. That's the whole point.
We don’t know they didn’t ask. They may not but we do not definitively know. They may have been lied too.
I don’t think any disciplinary should be assumed as safe guarding territory as otherwise any such matter would always see some form of suspension / restricted duties.
As I have said based on what was said it as much pints to a problem with FA procedure.
I simply can’t believe that someone at Charlton receives something from the FA saying a member of staff is now under investigation and nobody speaks to that staff member.
I simply can’t believe that someone at Charlton receives something from the FA saying a member of staff is now under investigation and nobody speaks to that staff member.
I simply can’t believe that someone at Charlton receives something from the FA saying a member of staff is now under investigation and nobody speaks to that staff member.
We don’t know they didn’t.
I’m not sure what’s worse, no one talking to him or someone speaking to him and thinking it was ok to do nothing.
I simply can’t believe that someone at Charlton receives something from the FA saying a member of staff is now under investigation and nobody speaks to that staff member.
We don’t know they didn’t.
I’m not sure what’s worse, no one talking to him or someone speaking to him and thinking it was ok to do nothing.
That assumes they learned the whole story when they asked. What was said last night says they did not.
I simply can’t believe that someone at Charlton receives something from the FA saying a member of staff is now under investigation and nobody speaks to that staff member.
We don’t know they didn’t.
I’m not sure what’s worse, no one talking to him or someone speaking to him and thinking it was ok to do nothing.
That assumes they learned the whole story when they asked. What was said last night says they did not.
Well we're reading that very differently because as far as I can see we didn't ask anything because the question was never asked. We were told that there was a disciplinary hearing. Just that. (Which is why the FA are to blame, because something like this shouldn't be concealed.)
Someone at the club then got this message... and decided it was all sorted and never bothered to ask what the offence was. (Which is the club's portion of blame.)
I simply can’t believe that someone at Charlton receives something from the FA saying a member of staff is now under investigation and nobody speaks to that staff member.
We don’t know they didn’t.
I’m not sure what’s worse, no one talking to him or someone speaking to him and thinking it was ok to do nothing.
That assumes they learned the whole story when they asked. What was said last night says they did not.
Well we're reading that very differently because as far as I can see we didn't ask anything because the question was never asked. We were told that there was a disciplinary hearing. Just that. (Which is why the FA are to blame, because something like this shouldn't be concealed.)
Someone at the club then got this message... and decided it was all sorted and never bothered to ask what the offence was. (Which is the club's portion of blame.)
We did not learn last night if they asked the question of him. They were silent on that / they were not pressed on it.
We don’t know the club said / thought it was sorted.
I suggest people need to be very cautious with their comments.
Some are coming very close to defamation. Your comments are based on pure supposition and speculation.
Indeed the very assumptions being made define why information surrounding these issues are handled with utmost sensitivity. What’s the line « the football grapevine will have meant everyone knew about it anyway ». Did you?
The FA judgement didn’t even reference the specific date of or country of the course for a reason
You are entitled to your self indulgence others have a greater responsibility.
You are not the victims here.
How many of you have had to manage the aftermath of alleged sexual misconduct in the workplace? As a trade union representative for a decade I handled incidents on both sides of any allegations.
I can speak to the handling of sexual misconduct cases (where no police involvement occurred ) involving dismissal, demotions, staff relocations, where the nature of offences remained entirely confidential to the parties directly involved. The decisions remain, with the full agreement of the victim, within the remit of the employer.
There are no easy solutions and victims deserve their anonymity and their space.
I fully understand the sensitivity and distressing nature of the incidents. No one should be subject to the assaults perpetrated. They are of a serious criminal nature.
I do not use Twitter so have no idea of Mr Mendez’s contribution.
Do you know the club received specific notification of the alleged offences which brought Senda to be charged with code of conduct breeches?
I stress this point as under the FA’s stated safeguarding rules & regulations it positions a formal responsibility to notify relevant parties within 1 day of allegations of misconduct.
In which case under safeguarding rules the club executive had every right to expect to be formally notified of any incident.
So rather than rush around waving your arms demanding why didn’t they ask about the issue the club had a more than reasonable expectation than in the event of any safeguarding breach they would be notified.
I am happy to be corrected but as positioned the club not only did not receive such formal notification of safeguarding breach it did not even receive any formal notification of anything at all.
A copy of an email to the individual indicating a need to attend a hearing in respect of breeches of code of conduct does not constitute a formal notification.
Why would you communicate a matter of such serious breach by copy of an email?
How on earth is that appropriate?
It suggest somebody may have made the assumption the FA had either a) provided earlier formal notification b) made the assumption Senda would have notified the club. c) been cautioned by their legal people regarding confidentiality prior to adjudication.
I would expect Mr Senda (it would be mandatory) under the terms of his employment contract to formally notify the club of the nature of the challenges to his conduct. The nature of any such dialogue was and must remain a matter of internal confidentiality.
Unless you know better I am troubled by the incomplete nature of reporting. I refer specifically to reports where it appears the offender states he had no recollection of committing the offences to the point he could not deny they took place. Is that the confession or did he subsequently change this position and confess to the assaults?
None of it diminishes the disgusting behaviour but it may speak to the nature of any/ his dialogue with the club.
No matter the positioned admissions there is still a matter of due legal process. Get it wrong and you risk pursuing justice for the victims.
There are a range of peculiarities.
The very first issue is to define the legal FA status in this matter.
As per every other « employer » , it has no authority to pursue criminal investigations.
Within the UK it has the comfort, if that is the right word, via its safeguarding disciplines of an automatic process to refer incidents to the Police who may/ may not pursue legal enquiries. This offence occurred overseas where the UK police had no jurisdiction.
The victims elected (perfectly reasonably) not to pursue legal redress in the country the offences occurred.
Neither the victims nor the offender were FA employees. I am unsure of the legal status of course attendees though they certainly have the right to expect a duty of care.
The offences did not occur in any FA workplace. The offences did not occur within FA arranged event. They occurred in a public social environment.
Ultimately the only course open to the FA was to pursue action under a code of conduct enquiry on safeguarding professional standards.
Unlike any normal employer the FA does not position itself as empowered to pass judgement on issues of code of conduct. It defers such decisions to an independent panel.
I can understand the FAs caution as until such matters have been adjudicated they have a duty of care of confidentiality of all parties. I think they got it wrong.
i am perplexed a) why in what appears to be a clear case of misconduct in June it took 6 months to reach adjudication b) why in that adjudication there is zero reference to the club
Now Mr Rodwell may well be being economical with the truth. He would not be the first in such matters to do so but there appears any number of extenuating circumstances.
@Grapevine49 the full details from the FA’s investigation (which can be viewed publicly say he agreed he committed the assaults. If you read through their full account you can get a better idea.
And yet, for all the waffle, the Club have still chosen to say nothing about this publicly. This says more to me than anything else about the club right now. Especially from a women’s point of view.
Comments
I do know that both the women's and men's team have a safeguarding officer and the least I would expect is a review of what happened to see what can be learnt and if any further training is needed or procedures need to be tightened up and better followed. It could be more serious breach than that it which case this should be a disciplinary matter.
That could have been JR, it could have been Dangerfield but somebody needed to check in case further action was needed.
Forgive me, I'm in rural Kansas with no internet and ropey cell service but did this occur before or after he was promoted to the first team? I haven't been able to go through everything on here.
Also thank you @LouisMend for tracking this down. This is very important. If the club was notified they should have asked follow up questions. If they knew that a member of staff was a risk to be around 50% of the population, then obviously that person should not have been a member of staff, full stop.
We can say "The FA should have disclosed" and while that's true, there may be things they can and cannot say about an ongoing investigation. Bit given Senda seemingly admitted it right away, even if the GA couldn't disclose, I expect the club to ask to be updated as soon as possible. I find it hard to believe that this wasn't knowable between June when the incident happened, late July when the club were informed something happened, andate August when Senda was sacked.
This is a devil is on the details, who knew what and when situation.
Someone at the club then got this message... and decided it was all sorted and never bothered to ask what the offence was. (Which is the club's portion of blame.)
Some are coming very close to defamation. Your comments are based on pure supposition and speculation.
Indeed the very assumptions being made define why information surrounding these issues are handled with utmost sensitivity. What’s the line « the football grapevine will have meant everyone knew about it anyway ». Did you?
The FA judgement didn’t even reference the specific date of or country of the course for a reason
You are not the victims here.
How many of you have had to manage the aftermath of alleged sexual misconduct in the workplace? As a trade union representative for a decade I handled incidents on both sides of any allegations.
I can speak to the handling of sexual misconduct cases (where no police involvement occurred ) involving dismissal, demotions, staff relocations, where the nature of offences remained entirely confidential to the parties directly involved. The decisions remain, with the full agreement of the victim, within the remit of the employer.
There are no easy solutions and victims deserve their anonymity and their space.
I do not use Twitter so have no idea of Mr Mendez’s contribution.
I stress this point as under the FA’s stated safeguarding rules & regulations it positions a formal responsibility to notify relevant parties within 1 day of allegations of misconduct.
In which case under safeguarding rules the club executive had every right to expect to be formally notified of any incident.
https://www.thefa.com/-/media/thefacom-new/files/rules-and-regulations/safeguarding/section-1/1-5-safeguarding-adults-in-affiliated-football-policy-and-procedures-colour-version.ashx
So rather than rush around waving your arms demanding why didn’t they ask about the issue the club had a more than reasonable expectation than in the event of any safeguarding breach they would be notified.
I am happy to be corrected but as positioned the club not only did not receive such formal notification of safeguarding breach it did not even receive any formal notification of anything at all.
A copy of an email to the individual indicating a need to attend a hearing in respect of breeches of code of conduct does not constitute a formal notification.
Why would you communicate a matter of such serious breach by copy of an email?
How on earth is that appropriate?
It suggest somebody may have made the assumption the FA had either
a) provided earlier formal notification
b) made the assumption Senda would have notified the club.
c) been cautioned by their legal people regarding confidentiality prior to adjudication.
I would expect Mr Senda (it would be mandatory) under the terms of his employment contract to formally notify the club of the nature of the challenges to his conduct. The nature of any such dialogue was and must remain a matter of internal confidentiality.
None of it diminishes the disgusting behaviour but it may speak to the nature of any/ his dialogue with the club.
No matter the positioned admissions there is still a matter of due legal process. Get it wrong and you risk pursuing justice for the victims.
There are a range of peculiarities.
The very first issue is to define the legal FA status in this matter.
As per every other « employer » , it has no authority to pursue criminal investigations.
Within the UK it has the comfort, if that is the right word, via its safeguarding disciplines of an automatic process to refer incidents to the Police who may/ may not pursue legal enquiries. This offence occurred overseas where the UK police had no jurisdiction.
The victims elected (perfectly reasonably) not to pursue legal redress in the country the offences occurred.
Neither the victims nor the offender were FA employees. I am unsure of the legal status of course attendees though they certainly have the right to expect a duty of care.
The offences did not occur in any FA workplace. The offences did not occur within FA arranged event. They occurred in a public social environment.
Ultimately the only course open to the FA was to pursue action under a code of conduct enquiry on safeguarding professional standards.
Unlike any normal employer the FA does not position itself as empowered to pass judgement on issues of code of conduct. It defers such decisions to an independent panel.
I can understand the FAs caution as until such matters have been adjudicated they have a duty of care of confidentiality of all parties. I think they got it wrong.
i am perplexed
a) why in what appears to be a clear case of misconduct in June it took 6 months to reach adjudication
b) why in that adjudication there is zero reference to the club
Now Mr Rodwell may well be being economical with the truth. He would not be the first in such matters to do so but there appears any number of extenuating circumstances.
This says more to me than anything else about the club right now.
Especially from a women’s point of view.