Dianna’s article -
https://www.theplaidhorse.com/2018/07/19/the-ethics-of-employment-in-the-horse-industry/
Donate to Kevin, or don’t donate to Kevin. But don’t pretend that the reason you’re not donating is this article or Dianna’s support of George.
I don’t want to link to a competitor publication. Her article was almost universally pushed back against on Facebook where the article and comments are still extant. The publication is Plaid Horse.
She does come off pretty damned poorly there–and in her own words.
Speaking as someone who was a groom in a former lifetime, she couldn’t pay me enough to work for her.
Wow. All the grooms fault eh lol
When you are done puking, just assemble the list of folks whose values you don’t share… and never, ever send any money their way. I don’t pay for things that I consider immoral.
That is right. In this microcosm, as in the US, the world will just become more divided and insular. Folks on either side will hang out in their own echo chambers and not bother with the other side.
Will be very interesting to see if all that swore in protest on GM’s provisional suspension, that they would not renew their USEF Memberships for 2020, actually don’t renew.
Yanno, I can’t think of anyone who has done this and had it “work” in the sense that they gradually earned their way back into the good graces. Of all the people who have been decisively found to have been guilty of a sex crime recently (I don’t mean in court, necessarily. but rather I mean “convicted” in the sense of that being decisive or as a result of overwhelming evidence), can you think of anyone whose PR team has even tried the “mea culpa strategy”? IIRC, they just quietly disappear.
Well… to benefit so much from the help of others and to withhold that same form of empathy and generosity from victims of sexual abuse is something I find that morally repugnant. And I don’t think it takes any particular genius to avoid that kind of hypocrisy.
I have compassion for Kevin Babington regardless of Diana’s support for George and regardless of the tone-deaf and clueless Plaid Horse article (Hint:Try paying them more <<< there’s a solution!)
If you only have compassion for people whose families meet your specific moral standards, well, that’s not exactly compassion.
Donating money to Kevin, if you chose to, (I haven’t, not from moral compunction, but from an absence of $$$) doesn’t diminish the children George abused or minimize their suffering.
I always thought Nancy Jaffer was impartial but this is a disappointing article from her. No mention of the victims, and again attacking the system rather than conceding that, despite its flaws, Safe Sport actually got it right. https://horsesport.com/due-south/george-morris-ruled-permanently-ineligible/
As for those who are still blaming everyone but GM, I wonder how many of them have posted throw-away lines on FB such as “of course he knew” following that car-wreck of an interview by Prince Andrew on BBC TV about his friendship with Epstein? I guess it doesn’t count if it is someone you know.
I respectfully disagree. An example… I do not patronize a certain fast food franchise because I abhor their choices in their support of charities which are antithetical to my values. I don’t donate to PETA because of their policies.
Back to banning USEF members from doing business with banned individuals for a moment, please. Black-balling is illegal. How is this different from black-balling? Serious question.
Nancy Jaffer has never been impartial. She has always supported the big names in NJ. This article, as well as the comments on FB just show how so many still want to put their head in the sand. Susie S said she “never saw anything inappropriate” … Was she in his bedroom or just around him at the horseshows or when he gave a clinic? The denial is astounding. George admits and joked that he liked them young. What do thy think that means?
What has the accuser given back to the sport? What difference does that make? It is okay to have sex with minors as long as you do good things for a group of elite people?
“the person accused by SafeSport ‘has their livelihood and sole means of financial support taken from them without recourse or due process, all based on hearsay.’” - I don’t even know how to respond to this. Investigation, arbitration, interviews and we are still saying it is just hearsay?
Oh my goodness… this line takes the cake in the above posted article… I almost just spat out my lunch:
[I]Susie Schoellkopf, a board member of the equity group, has sponsored clinics with George at her Buffalo, N.Y., stable for 30 years.
“In 30 years, I’ve never, ever seen anything inappropriate,” she said, wondering why “if these people were so traumatized” they didn’t go to their parents or the police at the time of the alleged incidents.
George, she observed, “has given back so much to our industry and our horse world. What have these accusers given?”[/I]
What have they given?!?!?! Their innocence to an abuser, for one? Maybe start by asking what they COULD have given if they hadn’t endured what they had.
Look at it this way, if your stockbroker, doctor or lawyer is banned from their respective profession, you cannot use their professional services.
Not to mention he was GM’s assistant trainer for several years.
But this idea that we believe and protect the person who has more Olympic medals is exactly what SafeSport is here to change.
GM has zero need to continue conducting clinics as a livelihood. This is ridiculous to even posit😂. He does NEED to be important. This goes all the way back to his childhood.
Not the same at all. Those professions require licensure of some sort by law. Riding instructor, coach, horse trainer do not. There is no license to take away.
Ponder this…
"If one more post talks about the “statute of limitations” being unnecessary I will scream. Folks, I challenge you right now to add to my post below where you were on July 13, 1985 and how do you remember where you were and with whom. Give that a shot. The reason there is a statute of limitations is to allow for proper evidence gathering for BOTH sides of an issue. If time has passed; memories have faded or become uncertain; if documents have been destroyed, then how can anyone defend themselves against allegations.
So right now, everyone on my page has been accused of being at a party July 13, 1985 and you have been banned from sport. Document below where you were on that night and what proof do you have where you were and with whom." (source FB)
If I were to respond, I would say I don’t remember. However asked if I was having sexual relations with a minor and you tell me the name of the minor I could say yes or no. I don’t think the specific date is relevant. In a court of law, maybe you could push this to create reasonable doubt, but if the accused was their trainer and admits to sexual relations, what difference does it make if the date is wrong?
And NJ has NO stature of limitations. N.J. Stat. Ann. 2C:1-6
Criminal Statute of Limitations for Specific Crimes
No statute of limitations: murder, manslaughter, sexual assault, terrorism, widespread injury or damage [h=2][/h]
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
