• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The Rapist Unmasked.

Forums Unread posts
Gerry_A_Trick said:
You can though, can't you? If there's a reasonable basis for the accusations, you can suspend or terminate. They would just need to have some level of investigation into if it was and then act accordingly, and given its a pretty big football club, and the charges are pretty serious, they should be doing that. They might be leaving themselves open to being sued, if he was found not guilty, or their own investigation wasn't sound, but imagine in this case, they'd have nothing to worry too much about.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'd have thought there's a way lower bar for companies to act than for a court to convict.

My issue is with people actively wanting them to do so as some kind of summary act of justice. Well no, that doesn't really work - it's only justice if we know he's guilty, and we can't be confident of that until there's a trial.
 
Hansern said:

View: https://x.com/dailyafc/status/1941202786290712821?s=46
Click to expand...


Investigated which allegations? The club and the FA aren't competent to determine his guilt of these crimes. If he'd unquestionably done something related to the allegations which merited suspension, or termination, then yeah that's fine. But I'm not going to cheer on them making some half-arsed verdict on the crimes themselves even if they have the latitude to act out of commercial imperative (or whatever).

Just because employers CAN enact a kind of rough justice doesn't make it a desirable thing. Nobody would be recommending it for a person whose guilt they genuinely doubted.
 
Not investigating his guilt, investigating what the charges are and how likely they will be to happen. Let's assume they knew, like the rest of us, that he was going to be charged. They then need to decide if they want to continue to employ someone in a very public role given that information, knowing how they'd look if they didnt act. I'm sure they must have discussed all this, and decided they either wanted to support him, at least to the degree of not doing anything, or they didn't think he would be charged.
 
peterhague said:
Investigated which allegations? The club and the FA aren't competent to determine his guilt of these crimes. If he'd unquestionably done something related to the allegations which merited suspension, or termination, then yeah that's fine. But I'm not going to cheer on them making some half-arsed verdict on the crimes themselves even if they have the latitude to act out of commercial imperative (or whatever).

Just because employers CAN enact a kind of rough justice doesn't make it a desirable thing. Nobody would be recommending it for a person whose guilt they genuinely doubted.
Click to expand...

Arteta and Arsenal gave the impression that they were in negotiations to extend his contract; they wanted to, at least that is what Arteta was publicly signaling through spring, and early May. Why do that?
 
peekay said:
Arteta and Arsenal gave the impression that they were in negotiations to extend his contract; they wanted to, at least that is what Arteta was publicly signaling through spring, and early May. Why do that?
Click to expand...

The apparent attempts to extend his contract, which I agree seems weird, is actually the best evidence they were acting in good faith. I can't see the logic of it unless they thought he wouldn't be charged. It's baffling.

Perhaps it's just not true and they thought it would make them look like they sincerely believed he was innocent.
 
Could it be that neither the FA or the club wanted another Mendy situation, where they suspend the player then two years later all charges are dropped.
 
No doubt Arsenal and Arteta have handled this extremely poor, even their own fans think so. They knew the severity of this, no doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jan
Gerry_A_Trick said:
You can though, can't you? If there's a reasonable basis for the accusations, you can suspend or terminate. They would just need to have some level of investigation into if it was and then act accordingly, and given its a pretty big football club, and the charges are pretty serious, they should be doing that. They might be leaving themselves open to being sued, if he was found not guilty, or their own investigation wasn't sound, but imagine in this case, they'd have nothing to worry too much about.
Click to expand...
Suspend I am ok with. Sacking before a guilty verdict goes against core principles.
Admittedly, when there are several accusations, like here, it becomes tougher to stick with, but still I don’t think a termination is right. Everyone has the right to a fair trail first.
 
tomasjj said:
Suspend I am ok with. Sacking before a guilty verdict goes against core principles.
Admittedly, when there are several accusations, like here, it becomes tougher to stick with, but still I don’t think a termination is right. Everyone has the right to a fair trail first.
Click to expand...
Some people are guilty without a trial being needed to decide it. It's just a rubber stamping (e.g. video evidence, multiple witnesses etc). in those cases suspension, firing etc. is warranted as there will be no come back. Was this one of those cases though? I doubt the club knew for certain.
 
I'm with tomasjj on this. Until the whole business is fully examined at trial, final decisions shouldn't be taken IMHO. Your own last two sentences encapsulate the reason why.
 
A private business can operate with a far lower burden of proof than a criminal court. We're talking about someone having their contract cancelled compared to a burden that has to stand up to whole a whole life sentence. Most businesses will just have to evidence risk of reputational damage, or something equally vague.

It's apples and oranges, IMHO.
 
Well, the burden of proof for that business in such circs.would be to show that their action was justified "on the balance of probabilities" and yes, they would be entitled to terminate the contract if they were satisfied - and could explain why they were satisfied - that the case against the employee met that standard. The risk they'd take, as others have said, is that the ex-employee could then be cleared at a subsequent trial and might then be able to sue the @rse (pun intended) off them. Suspension until final verdict would avoid that.
 
Once again I'd just point out that the only reason you'd WANT Arsenal to take advantage of that lower burden of proof is that you've already decided he's guilty, isn't it? I can't think why else it'd offend anyone - are you all desperately worried about their reputation or something? Isn't it obvious that ideally all punishment (including loss of employment) should wait until a verdict is reached? And that the usual situation of suspension is actually suboptimal and an unfortunate result of commercial reality - something to be reluctantly accepted rather than actively celebrated?
 
peterhague said:
Once again I'd just point out that the only reason you'd WANT Arsenal to take advantage of that lower burden of proof is that you've already decided he's guilty, isn't it? I can't think why else it'd offend anyone - are you all desperately worried about their reputation or something? Isn't it obvious that ideally all punishment (including loss of employment) should wait until a verdict is reached? And that the usual situation of suspension is actually suboptimal and an unfortunate result of commercial reality - something to be reluctantly accepted rather than actively celebrated?
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, however arsenal dealt with it is poor and ultimately I don't care about that overly. But the information and some evidence regarding the allegations has been in the wild for a long old time.

It's one thing not suspending him and waiting for his contract to run down, but it's entirely another to actively try and extend it. It's just distasteful. Yes he hasn't had his day in court, but rape and sexual assault is one of the lowest possible conviction rates to get. Does that mean every one who is found not guilty is innocent? Of course not, the law has just decided that there's not 100% guarantees they did it.
 
peterhague said:
Once again I'd just point out that the only reason you'd WANT Arsenal to take advantage of that lower burden of proof is that you've already decided he's guilty, isn't it? I can't think why else it'd offend anyone - are you all desperately worried about their reputation or something? Isn't it obvious that ideally all punishment (including loss of employment) should wait until a verdict is reached? And that the usual situation of suspension is actually suboptimal and an unfortunate result of commercial reality - something to be reluctantly accepted rather than actively celebrated?
Click to expand...

No it’s because it’s 5 accounts of rape and 1 account of sexual assault to 3 different women. 3. Not one single case were you could give him the benefit of the doubt until he has either been convicted or cleared.

With 3 different women you should as a club suspend him until it’s settled one way or another. It’s what serious clubs and people would do.
There isn’t any way to defend Arsenal here.
 
I think the extension thing is weird. I don't get it at all. Why would they do that if they thought he was guilty? They actually wanted a player under contract who'd go to trial and maybe go to prison? It's bizarre.

Don't get me wrong, with all the accusations I think he's very likely guilty and should go to prison. I'm just making the tedious do-gooder point that we should wait for a conviction. There really isn't some shortcut to justice, unfortunately.
 
Hansern said:
No it’s because it’s 5 accounts of rape and 1 account of sexual assault to 3 different women. 3. Not one single case were you could give him the benefit of the doubt until he has either been convicted or cleared.

With 3 different women you should as a club suspend him until it’s settled one way or another. It’s what serious clubs and people would do.
There isn’t any way to defend Arsenal here.
Click to expand...

The defence would be that they aren't prejudiced.
 
peterhague said:
I think the extension thing is weird. I don't get it at all. Why would they do that if they thought he was guilty? They actually wanted a player under contract who'd go to trial and maybe go to prison? It's bizarre.

Don't get me wrong, with all the accusations I think he's very likely guilty and should go to prison. I'm just making the tedious do-gooder point that we should wait for a conviction. There really isn't some shortcut to justice, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
I think with the extension they probably low balled him and also put some stipulations in to make it easier to terminate his contract. All that is still probably cheaper than actually buying a new DM. I think that's why they've gone for the cheap option of norgaard.

I don't think they thought he'd get off, they just chanced their hand.

The timings of it all is what I don't like. This has been ongoing for seemingly 3 years, and NOW they have enough to charge him??

Whether it was the potential threat of him leaving the country I don't know.
 
Fabio said:
I think with the extension they probably low balled him and also put some stipulations in to make it easier to terminate his contract. All that is still probably cheaper than actually buying a new DM. I think that's why they've gone for the cheap option of norgaard.

I don't think they thought he'd get off, they just chanced their hand.

The timings of it all is what I don't like. This has been ongoing for seemingly 3 years, and NOW they have enough to charge him??

Whether it was the potential threat of him leaving the country I don't know.
Click to expand...

Norgaard comes in for Jorginho
 
Fabio said:
I think with the extension they probably low balled him and also put some stipulations in to make it easier to terminate his contract. All that is still probably cheaper than actually buying a new DM. I think that's why they've gone for the cheap option of norgaard.

I don't think they thought he'd get off, they just chanced their hand.

The timings of it all is what I don't like. This has been ongoing for seemingly 3 years, and NOW they have enough to charge him??

Whether it was the potential threat of him leaving the country I don't know.
Click to expand...

Yeah the explanation I've heard for the timing is flight risk, which makes sense I suppose.

The length of the investigation seems totally excessive. Are the cases really that complicated? Even if you wanted him suspended in principle, in practice how could that work? Suspended for 3 years?!
 
peterhague said:
Yeah the explanation I've heard for the timing is flight risk, which makes sense I suppose.

The length of the investigation seems totally excessive. Are the cases really that complicated? Even if you wanted him suspended in principle, in practice how could that work? Suspended for 3 years?!
Click to expand...
The length of the investigation seems very confusing. There will be reasons, but damned if I know them.
 
Dont quote me but I think the investigation was dropped and then reopened when someone else came forward with a similar complaint. Another allegation apparently happened abroad so it was decided it was out of Uk jurisdiction. The main reason is the Uk justice system falling apart. I'm guessing a trial will be months away.
 
Al_Gatto said:
Dont quote me but I think the investigation was dropped and then reopened when someone else came forward with a similar complaint. Another allegation apparently happened abroad so it was decided it was out of Uk jurisdiction. The main reason is the Uk justice system falling apart. I'm guessing a trial will be months away.
Click to expand...

I thought the accusations were from 2021 and 2022? Although I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean the complaints were made then.
 
What the conversations here show is that arsenal were put in an impossible situation here. I mean it's dead easy to say what you should do but there's so much riding on it and so little objective fact. So they did nothing. I don't blame them. I'm a big fan of doing nothing when I don't know what to do.
 
Dunno, its pretty standard to suspend someone on full pay - police, teachers, medics - if they're suspected of doing something not in line with their code of conduct and are being investigated, especially if they might have access to vulnerable people.

Mendy, Siggurdson (whatever happened to him?!), Greenwood were all treated that way and imo it set a precedent in how clubs should react.

The fact that Arsenal didn't is pretty suspect. I reckon their desperation to win over rode any moral arguments. The whole timing and 'contract offer' also stinks.

@peterhague I think the plods have been investigating since 2021 but mightve stopped for a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Nomad
  • Locked
Dani Alves
Replies
4
Views
481
binomial
binomial
the count
  • Locked
Are we the Cunts..........................
Replies
8
Views
760
Whaddapie
Whaddapie
Modo
  • Locked
Mendy is not a rapist?
Replies
22
Views
2K
Woland
Woland
localny
    • Like
  • Locked
Pepe Reina on the verge of Retiring at 41
Replies
15
Views
1K
Judge Jules
Judge Jules
Markeh
  • Locked
He’s ben up to no good
Replies
6
Views
759
Aidan O' Neill
Aidan O' Neill
Back
Top Bottom