He’ been arrested 7 times in the last 3 years. You should think at some point the club would stop doing nothing and take action.
View: https://x.com/vsrsus/status/1942285359389499512?s=46
The Rapist Unmasked.
- Thread starter Squiggles
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
He’ been arrested 7 times in the last 3 years. You should think at some point the club would stop doing nothing and take action.
View: https://x.com/vsrsus/status/1942285359389499512?s=46
Honest question: would you even let him have a trial? I mean, you and these people at Versus have clearly already decided he's guilty, so what's the point, really? How many accusations equate to a guilty verdict? Is it a 3 strikes and you're out kind of deal?
I know you’e being dishonest for the fun of it, but I’m not talking about a trial or guilty verdict. I’m talking about an internal suspension while the investigation is ongoing. I’m a fan of doing nothing as well, but that clearly changes when it’s 3 different women and 7 arrests. Any professional club or business with some decency would suspend that individual until the all clear or charge has been given. Guilty or not its the right thing to do until they know the outcome.
I don’t know if he’s guilty until there is a verdict, but given the severity and amount of cases you’d expect them to act rather than being quiet.
Even City did that with Mendy.
Your Partey defense is quite something. If he gets convicted will you wear a «Partey» t-shirt like we did for Suarez?
Now who's being dishonest? When did I defend the guy? The only comment I've made about him is that I think it's highly probable he's guilty and if he is found to be at trial then he should go to prison.
You think he should have been suspended for THREE years? How is that a good or just thing? Why would anyone want that as a matter of principle? A suspension is still a punishment, especially for a footballer with MAYBE 10 years at the top level. I can see there are circumstances where it might be an unfortunate necessity, but acting like it's a good thing in itself is basically just a refusal to consider he might be innocent.
I haven’t said 3 years. The severity of cases was known at a later date.
Even you, while the t-shirts are printing, must realize that the probability of guilt increases when 3 different victims step forward. It’s from that point the club should have suspended him internally.
Regardless, Arsenal have handled it poorly. I’d be embarrassed if that was my club when you add the kit man, Ozil and Aubameyang.
It is a really difficult one.
Pete is right, suspending someone from their job, particularly when it's a short-term career, is very much a punishment but then the business is often put in an impossible situation where the distraction and reputational damage means there is no other option.
What happened with Mendy? Didn't he get acquitted after multiple accusers and a few years on the side-lines (though his acquittal was a bit dodgy maybe)?
Pete is right, suspending someone from their job, particularly when it's a short-term career, is very much a punishment but then the business is often put in an impossible situation where the distraction and reputational damage means there is no other option.
What happened with Mendy? Didn't he get acquitted after multiple accusers and a few years on the side-lines (though his acquittal was a bit dodgy maybe)?
Greenwood was never found guilty. Fuck having him anywhere near the sport.
This is a reputation business and that’s what players sign up to. One of the reasons they are paid so well. If that daft cunts can’t keep themselves out of trouble even with minders and the likes that’s their own fault. It’s not hard to keep yourself out of potentially damaging situations like this.
This is a reputation business and that’s what players sign up to. One of the reasons they are paid so well. If that daft cunts can’t keep themselves out of trouble even with minders and the likes that’s their own fault. It’s not hard to keep yourself out of potentially damaging situations like this.
You know you're winning an argument when they start lying about you.
The statement from versus says it best; It's a safeguarding issue primarily.
We can argue the merits and pitfalls of suspension and sacking him without trial; but Arsenal were legally obligated to mitigate risks and on the surface it seems they didn't
We can argue the merits and pitfalls of suspension and sacking him without trial; but Arsenal were legally obligated to mitigate risks and on the surface it seems they didn't
It would be if every allegation was treated like a guilty verdict. Blackmailer's paradise.
I think the Greenwood thing is a bit different because there was basically overwhelming evidence of abusive behaviour. Not proof of a crime per se, but definitely of mistreatment. I'd have thought that would be grounds for sacking based on bringing the employer into disrepute.
it's not video/audio like greenwood, but there are messages apparently, basically of partey admitting it
Obviously grain of salt and all that
The safeguarding thing is a reasonable point, although even there you can have a sense of proportion. What are the nature of the accusations and are they relevant to normal workplace situations etc. I don't know, maybe ANY risk is too much, I wouldn't want to say for sure either way, but I'd be uneasy if the harms were just an aversion to being around an accused person. It would have to be some plausible risk of offending.
Yeah I've seen those. It looks terrible but a rapist is surely just going to lie and say he was joking or being harassed/provoked or whatever he thinks an excuse is. Like you imply it's way more deniable than the Greenwood stuff.
I should stay out of this, but why are we pretending that women can't be vindictive?
Why are we pretending that men can't be falsely accused?
We on the outside don't really have an idea of what kind of world these celebrities live in. Women throw themselves at them daily.
I know a few former pro-footballers, it's bordering on obscene what they used to do.
I'm sorry, but "loose" women do exist and some of these guys can't really handle it.
Look at Quansah who also is a freak apparently.
So obviously someone here is going to reply, "so that makes it OK for him to rape them".
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, let the courts decide.
Prior to this a woman Partey actually was dating and had all kinds of sex with (revealed by her public messages) accused him of rape because he tried to stick his dick in her mouth one night when he was drunk. Apparently this wasn't really an issue until she found out that he was marrying another woman.
What happened with the Neymar rape case?
What happened with the Mbappe rape case in Sweden? ( I know what happened, I even know who it was but I'm keeping it to myself)
In the Mendy trial it was proven that the women who accused him of rape were lying and it cost him two years of his career.
I don't really care about Partey and Mendy. I have no skin in the game. I honestly think both of them are disgusting.
Still, I'm interested in the truth, not all this mob justice stuff based on accusations.
Why are we pretending that men can't be falsely accused?
We on the outside don't really have an idea of what kind of world these celebrities live in. Women throw themselves at them daily.
I know a few former pro-footballers, it's bordering on obscene what they used to do.
I'm sorry, but "loose" women do exist and some of these guys can't really handle it.
Look at Quansah who also is a freak apparently.
So obviously someone here is going to reply, "so that makes it OK for him to rape them".
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, let the courts decide.
Prior to this a woman Partey actually was dating and had all kinds of sex with (revealed by her public messages) accused him of rape because he tried to stick his dick in her mouth one night when he was drunk. Apparently this wasn't really an issue until she found out that he was marrying another woman.
What happened with the Neymar rape case?
What happened with the Mbappe rape case in Sweden? ( I know what happened, I even know who it was but I'm keeping it to myself)
In the Mendy trial it was proven that the women who accused him of rape were lying and it cost him two years of his career.
I don't really care about Partey and Mendy. I have no skin in the game. I honestly think both of them are disgusting.
Still, I'm interested in the truth, not all this mob justice stuff based on accusations.
For me it’s the amount of cases and victims that is the biggest difference between Partey and the others you list as examples.
The courts will decide but at some point you expect a professional run club with multiple female players and staff to make a statement.
Quansah being a freak isn’t a felony.
Regarding the Mendy trial it’s nigh on impossible for the women to prove what happened. No doubt it’s a blurred line between what’s okay and when someone says no at those parties. That’s an issue in all of society not just for footballers.
That’s why these cases are so difficult to handle without 100% evidence of any sort.
For me, I just feel 3 victims and 7 arrests warrant some sort of response. Others feel different. Fair enough.
That’s why these cases are so difficult to handle without 100% evidence of any sort.
For me, I just feel 3 victims and 7 arrests warrant some sort of response. Others feel different. Fair enough.
Nah, it's not a felony, but that's how it starts.
I don't think anyone has said that the courts shouldn't decide. But they just decide on if he is guilty or not, not whether he's innocent. How a company decides on what to do with a high profile employee doesn't need to be decided by the guilt or not within a court. If he's done things that would put Arsenal in a bad light, that's enough, and that is not what the court will be trying to decide.
Do I believe that women can be vindictive, yes. Do I think footballers can avoid them, absolutely, the vast majority don't end up in his situation.
Most of that is fair, but where our opinions differ is the part where accusations should be enough to make the club act.
Maybe not the best example and he's not a role model at all, but Disney fired Depp from the shite Pirate franchise based on Amber Heard's accusation. Come to find out she's mental bed shitter and lied about it all.
Yeah, Depp didn't really need the gig and he's already got piles of cash, but it still wasn't right.
I think Johnny Depp will be OK, I don't think you need to worry about him.
Some women are liars, some men are rapists.
Did I miss the part where mbappe, Neymar, etc. had their lives ruined by mob justice?
Did I miss the part where mbappe, Neymar, etc. had their lives ruined by mob justice?
It's a really difficult one for me. @peterhague mentioned some while ago that a big issue here is how long it's taken to bring charges (and there is a wider issue about how many cases are prosecuted and then how many result in convictions). It's an area where the British justice system is really letting down women. Most women we know will at some point have been the victims of some level of sexual harassment or assault, very few of those incidents, which will invariably be distressing for the victims, result in any form of criminal sanction. And in a lot of cases those women are made to think they were "asking for it" so they never make any form of complaint in the first place.
I knew a bloke who had assaulted at least two women I know (and I suspect a third as well) and one of them told me "If I hadn't been strong enough to fight him off I'm sure he would have raped me". I trust her honesty 100%. Neither of the two I know for sure about did anything about it (not even speaking to members of the bloke's family) and the third had a nervous breakdown and never spoke a word of what I'm pretty sure had happened to her too. This bloke moved from one woman to the next, and kept getting away with it. He totally ruined one life and had a massive, negative impact on at least two others.
So the system needs to sort its shit out first and foremost, especially around the most serious / violent offences.
If Arsenal had known from the point they became aware of the accusations that there would be a charging decision (either way) within a couple of months then I'm sure Partey would have "picked up an injury" until it was resolved one way or another. If the accusations had been made by a member of staff then I expect he'd have been immediately suspended / similarly injured pending an internal investigation (not to criminal standard, but enough to determine if there was gross misconduct - although that requires a stretch of the strict employment terms).
The standard player contract doesn't specifically include instances of assault (sexual or otherwise) or behaviour bringing the club's reputation into disrepute as gross misconduct (although it does allow that the FA / PL could rule on whether those offences are gross misconduct), and where there is a criminal conviction, it has to result in 3 months or more in jail (unsuspended) before the club can terminate the contract. Even in Mendy's case, where he was in prison pending trial, the employment tribunal eventually found he was entitled to his wages (City had stopped paying him).
But, all that said, I think it's pushing it to expect a club to suspend a guy for a couple of years on the basis of allegations on which the CPS wasn't able to make a charging decision during that time. From their perspective, that delay implies some uncertainty from the CPS as to criminality (or more likely the prospect of a conviction, which is a different can of worms). And again, if the CPS had decided in short order that there would be no charges, Arsenal should then have conducted a gross misconduct process. I don't think they should have investigated it themselves while a police / CPS procedure was underway as the outcome of their investigation (and the public fallout from that) could have prejudiced the police investigation.
However, where Arsenal let themselves down is that their club creed says "We do the right thing (even when no one is looking).” That's a higher standard and I don't think they met it this time. If you want to put yourselves on a pedestal then you need to be prepared to be shot at.
I knew a bloke who had assaulted at least two women I know (and I suspect a third as well) and one of them told me "If I hadn't been strong enough to fight him off I'm sure he would have raped me". I trust her honesty 100%. Neither of the two I know for sure about did anything about it (not even speaking to members of the bloke's family) and the third had a nervous breakdown and never spoke a word of what I'm pretty sure had happened to her too. This bloke moved from one woman to the next, and kept getting away with it. He totally ruined one life and had a massive, negative impact on at least two others.
So the system needs to sort its shit out first and foremost, especially around the most serious / violent offences.
If Arsenal had known from the point they became aware of the accusations that there would be a charging decision (either way) within a couple of months then I'm sure Partey would have "picked up an injury" until it was resolved one way or another. If the accusations had been made by a member of staff then I expect he'd have been immediately suspended / similarly injured pending an internal investigation (not to criminal standard, but enough to determine if there was gross misconduct - although that requires a stretch of the strict employment terms).
The standard player contract doesn't specifically include instances of assault (sexual or otherwise) or behaviour bringing the club's reputation into disrepute as gross misconduct (although it does allow that the FA / PL could rule on whether those offences are gross misconduct), and where there is a criminal conviction, it has to result in 3 months or more in jail (unsuspended) before the club can terminate the contract. Even in Mendy's case, where he was in prison pending trial, the employment tribunal eventually found he was entitled to his wages (City had stopped paying him).
But, all that said, I think it's pushing it to expect a club to suspend a guy for a couple of years on the basis of allegations on which the CPS wasn't able to make a charging decision during that time. From their perspective, that delay implies some uncertainty from the CPS as to criminality (or more likely the prospect of a conviction, which is a different can of worms). And again, if the CPS had decided in short order that there would be no charges, Arsenal should then have conducted a gross misconduct process. I don't think they should have investigated it themselves while a police / CPS procedure was underway as the outcome of their investigation (and the public fallout from that) could have prejudiced the police investigation.
However, where Arsenal let themselves down is that their club creed says "We do the right thing (even when no one is looking).” That's a higher standard and I don't think they met it this time. If you want to put yourselves on a pedestal then you need to be prepared to be shot at.
The FA/PL should rule that be inserted (and worded as per their advice) and then agents would not be able to void/delete it.
Ridiculous. If found guilty that should be enough - length of jail time irrelevant.
Because the case floundered? If he had been found guilty that would have been an interesting test case. At what point does suspension result in 'without pay' as opposed to just 'on leave'.
The CPS are notorious for not prosecuting unless there is a very high probability of getting a conviction. An issue in and of itself. However that doesn't imply uncertainty as to whether the act was perpetrated - just whether they can successfully prosecute. How that could be conveyed to the club - and if it were legal to do so - is another matter.
In many other professions suspension is a matter of practice regardless of police action. There has to be some reasonable middle ground here. Though there are spurious claims too, so any legislation would have to be mindful of these, which could hugely damage an innocent person's career / reputation.
Football is a money business. Protect the money and shareholders at all costs.
Just to circle on the Mendy thing, they basically suspended his pay from the point he was remanded into custody until the end of his contract. The case turns on whether they were entitled to do this - they'd either need his consent, or be entitled to withhold under his contract terms or general law.
There were some periods (I think when he was in custody) when they held that City were within their rights, but when he was out on bail, but suspended by the FA, they held he was entitled to payment.
Surely it should be based on availability? If you're out on bail you could play, in jail then obviously not.
Which it kind of was.
They ruled that when he was unavailable due to jail - OK for City to withhold payment.
When he was unavailable because, even though he was on bail, he was suspended by the FA because of suspicion / presumption of guilt then it wasn't fair to withhold payment - he was available to train / play but prevented from doing so by the FA. Effectively prison trumped FA suspension. And in context, if he'd been serving a long ban for something that had happened on the field, his contract would only allow them to deduct 2 weeks' wages. Anything more could only be done by consent (so when we suspended Suarez's pay for the bite on Ivanovic, we were only able to deduct more than 2 weeks' wages because he accepted he was in the wrong and agreed to it).
