The Rapist Unmasked.

[peterhague]

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.

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]

What are they supposed to do though? He hadn't even been charged.

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

 

[peterhague]

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

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.

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

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.

 

[peekay]

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.

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?

 

[peterhague]

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?

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.

 

[Modo]

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.

 

[Hansern]

No doubt Arsenal and Arteta have handled this extremely poor, even their own fans think so. They knew the severity of this, no doubt.

 

[tomasjj]

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.

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.

 

[Frogfish]

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.

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.

 

[Judge Jules]

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.

 

[Squiggles]

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.

 

[Judge Jules]

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.

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

I think Arsenal should have suspended him, they didn't, they actually went the other way, and tried to extend his contract. I don't think Arsenal, or their fans, should be happy with whoever was making those decisions.