Dutch Volleyball player who raped 12-year-old British girl qualifies for Paris Olympics

[MidnightPatrol]

A beach volleyball player who was jailed for raping a 12-year-old British girl is set to represent the Netherlands at the Paris Olympics.

Steven van de Velde, now 29, was sentenced to four years in prison in 2016 after admitting three counts of rape against a child, which took place in August 2014.

He was allowed to serve his sentence in the Netherlands but was released after just 12 months.

The Dutch Olympic Committee (NOC) told BBC Sport: "After his release, Van de Velde sought and received professional counselling. He demonstrated to those around him - privately and professionally - self-insight and reflection."

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) said the nomination of individual team members is "the sole responsibility of each respective National Olympic Committee".

https://www.bbc.com/sport/articles/c511yz5ze18o

Should this mean be allowed to compete in the Olympics, given his crimes?

Exactly we don’t bloody care if he’s met the “high standards” of the volleyball federation. Absolute clowns 🤡

I can’t get my head round the fact he is married with a child - I think it’s a daughter as well. What kind of a woman marries a man like that? Apparently she studied psychology and is or was a police officer.

This is why sometimes I do think women are partially responsible for the mess they get into with men and ending up work partners who are unsuitable fathers.

Out of all the men this is the best she could find to marry and have a child with - really?! To say there are red flags would be an understatement.

He should be kept away from society

Women that marry child abusers are a problem. statistically it makes them higher risk, it doesn't make the men lower risk. Eg I wouldn't want my child's teacher to be married to a convicted child rapist. It shows at the very least poor judgement.
And their child's a boy but he will still have other children home on playdates/girlfriends as he gets older. It's absolutely not OK that him having a wife and child is being presented as a sign he has changed/is "safe". The message it sends is terrible.

Lots of women marry seemingly nice men who change when they get married/pregnant etc. Learning to spot red flags is a skill not everyone has, and sometimes the signs aren't obvious. But a conviction for raping a child is more than a red flag.

But a conviction for raping a child is more than a red flag.

Exactly this. I do get some men wear a mask and conceal their true nature to an extent, but in some cases the signs are very clear and women selfishly ignore the huge risk in their quest to play happy families.

I ended a friendship with someone partly because her long term partner was on the sex offenders list. She kept changing her story as to what he did and none of it made sense, so I don’t think they were being honest. Whatever it was, it must’ve been bad for him to end up on that list and be given a custodial sentence. He had only just recently been released from jail when she met him.

I made it clear I disapproved strongly of her being with him, and bringing him around her sister, mum and nieces (who weren’t aware of his past) .

Ironically he ended up leaving her shortly before she fell pregnant with someone else (a drug dealer 😕) . I’ve no doubt if he’d stuck around she would’ve ended up pregnant with the sex offender guy, as she was just desperate to be pregnant that year.

ETA: I’m longer in touch with her as I was tired of the constant drama caused by the kind of men she chooses to be with, but I can only hope her daughter is doing well.

It's absolutely not OK that him having a wife and child is being presented as a sign he has changed/is "safe". The message it sends is terrible.

And yes anyone who has watched crime documentaries or read about male serial killers and the most serious sex offenders know that many if not most of them have partners and /or children.

I really hate this tired narrative of marriage /fatherhood being some sort of signifier of not being a predatory or dangerous man and conferring automatic respectability onto someone. It’s why politicians always bang on about “as a father” “as a husband/family man ” etc

I know people whose job involved going to convicted and released offenders houses to check they weren't back to their old ways. The offenders always had the same victim mentality. But they said very often the wives were evenmore dislikeable - e.g "oh she was the one leading him on, she ruined his life etc" about a child - very often their own daughter.
Men are more likely to be sex offenders. When women abuse/groom children they are almost always doing it to supply a man with victims. Some women are that evil.
And unfortunately large numbers of seemingly normal men and women will support and provide cover to sexually abusive men, and take their side over the victims. 😑

Sometimes I feel very bleak about human nature.

He definitely has a victim mentality - to proclaim so boldly that he isn’t the monster he’s been made out to be is so wildly arrogant and insensitive . Any truly reformed character would live out the rest of his life, quietly understanding why people are disgusted by him, instead of loudly defending his image.

I’ll never understand women like that but as someone who used to spark in social services I’ve encountered quite a few. They’d happily choose their partner over a kid, even if that kid was their own child and it led to them being put in care.

A friend of a friend recently took their dad to court over historical abuse along with her sister who was also a victim . He was jailed and their mum has disowned both kids.

It is very depressing.

Not sure if this is allowed, if not please remove.
https://www.change.org/p/disqualify-convicted-child-rapist-steven-van-de-velde-from-the-olympics

if you feel inclined to email them:
[email protected]
[email protected]

This was there response to my initial email:

"Dear writer,

We sincerely thank you for your response. We are deeply aware that the renewed publicity about Steven van de Velde is causing a lot of emotion, which we fully understand, as the events at that time were very serious.
A lot has happened since then. Steven van de Velde served his sentence and has completed an extensive rehabilitation program with specialized professionals, including the probation service. During this process, Van de Velde has shown that he has grown and that he has positively changed his live. Experts have concluded that there is no risk of recidivism. In 2018, he gave a some interviews about his offence and its consequences. (Please take a moment to watch the that Steven gave to Dutch national television).
The Dutch national volleyball federation (Nevobo) as well as the Dutch National Olympic Committee (NOCNSF) have closely monitored Steven’s progress and explicitly followed the advice of experts. This process has been fully in line with the Dutch Guidelines Integrity Records, which set out the conditions that must be met by athletes to be given a second chance after a conviction.
Steven has been given this second chance and has been participating (since 2017) on international elite sport level. Throughout this time, he has consistently met the high standards set by the volleyball federation and NOCNSF.
Based on all of the above and after careful consideration, NOC*NSF has decided to select Steven van de Velde for the Olympic Games in Paris.

Yours sincerely,
Lieselot Meelker
Corporate communications NOC*NSF"

I responded to the response above as follows:

"Dear sender,

This issue may or may not be the cause of a lot of emotion. I hope you’re not insinuating I’m being emotional, thus irrational? Nothing could be further from the truth. There are several issues at play here.

Firstly, the consensus is his four year sentence was entirely inadequate. Notwithstanding he only served a year for repeatedly raping an underage girl.

Secondly, having experts concluding that there is no risk of recidivism simply says to me that those experts don’t understand the concept of risk. "No" Is an absolute. "Little", "minimal", "small" or "unlikely" may be more appropriate. It simply and entirely undermines the assessment of those "experts".

Thirdly, I don’t actually care what the offender/perpetrator has to say. I’d much prefer to listen to the victim. Do you have an interview with her? He may have changed his life, has she? I wonder how she feels about your decision.

Fourthly, the fact that this issue fits inside your integrity guidelines highlights the inadequacy of your guidelines.

Fifthly, second chances are a funny thing. I wonder if the little girl who was raped (several times) will get a second chance?

Look, you guys probably need every decent player you can scrape up. I understand. This is business. This isn’t a redemption story. Hey, I hope you win a medal. That may generate more publicity regarding the paedophile on your team and the choices your committee made to choose him."

Haha, lieselot liesalot.
Sorry that's childish.

Good response @Abi86 all your points are well-made.

I just read about this. How can someone who has done this be allowed to compete? I'm not saying that Charlotte Dujardin was right to treat a horse the way she did, but how can she be banned and he isn't?

From what I understand it basically depends on each country’s National Olympic committee. That’s how the US banned a runner from competing for smoking weed, and more recently a top Japanese gymnast withdrew from this years Olympics due to violating the code of conduct by smoking and drinking!

It’s absolutely shameful that the Dutch committee have signed this convicted rapist off.

Maybe it’s time for the Olympics to impose some rules which apply to all the national committees decision.

how do the Olympics committee define a set of rules that apply to every country when what countries find appropriate differs so much.
for example a person could have a conviction abroad for something like being gay. Some countries would find this conviction appropriate whilst we would be appalled by it. A blanket rule by the Olympics committee would probably mean they couldn’t compete. Which is definitely not a decision we would support.

I don’t know what to think about it really.

I do think rehabilitation is important, I do believe it’s possible for people to change their behaviour & I do acknowledge people are less likely to reoffend if they aren’t entirely ostracised from society forever.

I do think sentencing for violent crimes, particularly rape, is often resulting in shockingly short prison terms vs other crimes and that victims of crime are regularly left totally unsupported.

If he grew up super focused on elite sport he likely was pretty immature at 19 so it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that he’s done something incredibly stupid and damaging impulsively without being a wholly wicked and irredeemable person. It’s also entirely within the realms of possibility he’s an abusive and dangerous man that has done the same again and just not been caught.

I dislike that it’s all about him. As others have said how is his victim doing now? What can be done to support her? Is campaigning against him/having lots of publicity actually a help to her or does it make things worse? Can whatever campaigning is being done be framed around victims and helping them recover and live happier lives more?

They should have some rules which apply to all countries. Example anyone with a murder or rape conviction can’t compete.

He was a 19 year old man who successfully executed a carefully planned rape in a foreign country on a pre-teen, hardly served any time (one year!!) then had the nerve to express indignance about people thinking of him as a “monster”.

His behaviour leading up to, during and after this crime was extremely disturbing, arrogant evil to the core and inexcusable.

It doesn’t strike me as childlike or immature with all the planning that went on behind this disgusting grooming and subsequent rape, but even if he was “immature” for his age that is zero excuse.

If he had a grain of decency or humility he would lie low and realise it was inappropriate for him to represent his country.

It’s shameful and sends out the wrong message to rape victims and rapists.

Joanna Maranhao, network co-ordinator of the Athletes Network for Safer Sports, said Van de Velde's "participation is already causing further harm to people with lived experience".
She added: “Athletes who compete at the prestigious level of the Olympic Games are often perceived as heroes and role models – Van de Velde should not receive this honour."

https://www.bbc.com/sport/articles/cx721j6n6w3o.amp

What the actual FUCK??

This exactly.

I find his inclusion absolutely outrageous. It's a fucking disgrace.

Indeed @VickyEadieofThigh it’s awful that the Dutch committee and anyone else, including him is even trying to justify it. The fact he isn’t offering himself to stand down shows the extent of his “remorse”
and how he still has the entitled mindset of a rapist.

I do acknowledge people are less likely to reoffend if they aren’t entirely ostracised from society forever.

Not being allowed to compete in the Olympics isn’t being ostracised forever from society. Most of us will not compete in the Olympics. It’s hardly a rite of passage. There was a young woman who can no longer compete with Japan anymore because she smoked. I’m sure she’s gutted, but life goes on.

If she can cope with not being able to compete despite the fact she didn’t harm anyone other than herself, I think the convicted paedophile could cope with not being allowed to compete on the basis that he has ruined or at least severely damaged someone’s childhood and entire life.

He is married with a kid, which is sickening, but the point is he now seems to have a normal family life and is thriving in his professional/personal pursuits which is more than can be said for a lot of rape survivors. He is hardly ostracised!

I think we need to get away from this idea there must be little to no lasting consequences for rapists and murderers and paedophile etc. While I’m not advocating the death penalty, I don’t think they should be able to do whatever they want because “it’s in the past” , when the crimes they committed have lifelong consequences for the victims and their family.

There has to be limits. It’s bad enough he was free after one year but being allowed to compete in the Olympics is just a step too far.

And what if that murder charge was the result of having an abortion after being raped or having a miscarriage?
its very difficult when rules/ what is acceptable varies so much throughout the world

His competing in the Olympics is disgusting. The Netherlands should be ashamed of putting him on the team.

I hope all his matches are met with protests. I hope he is booed every time he touches the ball. i hope the Netherlands lose because of him.🙏

Those specific cases should then go to the committee to discuss, the situations you allude to are going to be very rare no doubt. I’m not sure if a country which did that kind of thing would be putting forward such a person for their Olympics even now tbh sadly.

But no, I don’t think we shouldn’t have sensible rules about banning actual murderers and rapists because of the tiny chance of someone innocent getting affected by those rules.

Banning murderers and rapists from Olympics really shouldn’t be controversial.