You're showing your bias here. Doing the right thing is not suspending someone because there's been an accusation that's less than clear-cut.Doing the right thing shouldn't be relative to what Arsenal do. It's ridiculous that Party is out on bail playing football.
Regarding the media, United are always a bigger story, that's part of the club.
Because no sane club suspends players without them being charged, or get rid of them when the case is dropped.Again it's amazing how Arsenal got away with it.
Fecking 3 alleged victims and out on bail.
Strictly from a footballing perspective, I think it would be a much easier decision to bench Antony, compared to MG. While not our worst player, he’s hardly impressed and there are other options. And like you suggest, he’s a bit of a liability at the best of times.He’s such a hot tempered player that I can see him getting red carded from the added abuse and jeering he’d get from rival fans. Him getting clattered to a round of applause and then him kicking out.
I’m not sure where I am in regard to suspending him. I think the allegations are vile and if there’s a sprinkle of truth, then he needs to go. But I appreciate there’s a difference between this and the Greenwood case and so it needs to be treated differently - as I was a staunch Greenwood out advocate.
Whether we suspend him or not based on what’s known, he just seems like the type of player who’d get affected by it.
It does piss me off what Arsenal have been able to get away with, will there ever be consequences for how they've just carried on? I know its a bit what about them etc. but whatever.
Insufficient evidence wasn’t it? Absence of evidence isn’t evidence in itself. Hard to say he hasn’t been proven innocent when there isn’t enough to charge him in. That’s a wildly slippery slopeWere they?
You're showing your bias here. Doing the right thing is not suspending someone because there's been an accusation that's less than clear-cut.
Greenwood case was different but come on, let's at least pretend there's some sanity left in how decisions are made.
Don't be mad at Arsenal or the media, be mad at United for being spineless cnuts/moral flowers. Because they had/have every opportunity to go the Arsenal route.
Don't be mad at Arsenal or the media, be mad at United for being spineless cnuts/moral flowers. Because they had/have every opportunity to go the Arsenal route.
Insufficient evidence wasn’t it? Absence of evidence isn’t evidence in itself. Hard to say he hasn’t been proven innocent when there isn’t enough to charge him in. That’s a wildly slippery slope
So Arsenal are brave and moral pillars?
Interesting take.
You think Partey's case has had the same focus from the media as Greenwood and Antony?
How can anyone be aware of those stats and come up with the l "it's such a dangerous time to be a man" nonsense. Parents apparently scared for their poor sons. Lunatics.
Well part of it is that United fans have more of a protest culture than Arsenal fans, due to the Glazer protests. So there is more pressure on social media and on the ground.They aren't. They are a football club that made a football decision uninfluenced by outsiders. Not every club can afford to be moral pillars.
I don't think it has, but it was significant for a while. But Arsenal dug in, and the media lost interest.
West Ham were under pressure to can Zouma for a bit, but they made a decision and stuck by it through the flack.
They aren't. They are a football club that made a football decision uninfluenced by outsiders. Not every club can afford to be moral pillars.
Well, one obvious reason is that some of them are themselves people who have/will at some point in their lives commit some form of violence/harassment against women. Not everyone is a disinterested commentator on these topics.
And due to the demographics of this forum, they will be overrepresented here relative to the rest of the population. If we conservatively say even 5% of the posters here are in that position, that would be approx. 20 of the posters so far in this thread. Which can be enough to create a certain tone, even before you get to the people who are just ignorant in a more honest way.
There were complexities with that case, specifically regarding the NDA which was broken by the victim. Legally the media simply couldn't focus on his case unlike the Greenwood and Antony one. His case was big on twitter, and while everyone was aware, established outlets were unable to report on it otherwise they'd be subject to legal challenge. The police also issued a statement indicating that there was no case to proceed with due to a legal technicality.You think Partey's case has had the same focus from the media as Greenwood and Antony?
Can you explain your reasoning? The logic of there not being enough damning evidence to prove your innocence doesn’t sit right nor make sense to meIt isn't hard at all and nor is it a wildly slippery slope.
This forum if anything should tell you that numbers do not tell the whole picture. Most often men do not even report abuse, and then you have the Amber Heards of this world, so not sure sarcasm proves any relevant fact here.How can anyone be aware of those stats and come up with the l "it's such a dangerous time to be a man" nonsense. Parents apparently scared for their poor sons. Lunatics.
Isn't it the other way around?"The 33-year-old man who was arrested in connection with an investigation opened in June 2021 will face no further action. The investigation team and Crown Prosecution Service have been working together and reached the decision that the evidence available at this time does not reach the threshold set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Greater Manchester Police is committed to investigating allegations to secure the best possible outcomes for all involved and will continue to work with partner agencies to ensure individuals are supported throughout investigations and beyond.”
That's not being proven innocent.
There were complexities with that case, specifically regarding the NDA which was broken by the victim. Legally the media simply couldn't focus on his case unlike the Greenwood and Antony one. His case was big on twitter, and while everyone was aware, established outlets were unable to report on it otherwise they'd be subject to legal challenge. The police also issued a statement indicating that there was no case to proceed with due to a legal technicality.
I think Arsenal were just a bit fortunate that they were able to sweep this one away under legal technicalities.
Can you explain your reasoning? The logic of there not being enough damning evidence to prove your innocence doesn’t sit right nor make sense to me
We live in ridiculous times.
It used to be innocent until proven guilty , now its guilty until proven innocent.
These type of things should not be made public until a verdict has been reached in court.
The social media witch hunt on these things is out of control.
Actually in most cases now it's guilty even if proven innocent in public eye.
Issue is most countries/people, rightly or wrongly, have the attitude now that if you are rich you will get away with it. So whenever someone who is considered privileged is accused by someone less privileged, in eyes of most people they are pronounced guilty and it's very hard for them to change their outlook.
Isn't it the other way around?
Do you have some additional links and details about the Partey case?There were complexities with that case, specifically regarding the NDA which was broken by the victim. Legally the media simply couldn't focus on his case unlike the Greenwood and Antony one. His case was big on twitter, and while everyone was aware, established outlets were unable to report on it otherwise they'd be subject to legal challenge. The police also issued a statement indicating that there was no case to proceed with due to a legal technicality.
I think Arsenal were just a bit fortunate that they were able to sweep this one away under legal technicalities.
This forum if anything should tell you that numbers do not tell the whole picture. Most often men do not even report abuse, and then you have the Amber Heards of this world, so not sure sarcasm proves any relevant fact here.
Well part of it is that United fans have more of a protest culture than Arsenal fans, due to the Glazer protests. So there is more pressure on social media and on the ground.
Is it a decision you agree with?
You think up to a guilty verdict it's just a football decision?
Afford? What do you mean afford? Are morals left left to accountants in your world view?
That is plausible, but it's not pressure that is insurmountable. Case in point: the Glazers are still owners of the club.
I don't have any strong opinion on the decision given that his suspension (in the absence of a criminal indictment) serves no practical purpose. I think that is my issue with all of this. He left Manchester United. He's at Getafe now. Antony may be suspended. Who or what positively benefits from this? No one. So what's the fecking point?
I think that up to a guilty verdict (where someone loses their liberty/funds in a civil case), it is a football decision. A club has a financial asset in the case of a player, and utilizing that asset brings rewards (money, trophies). There should be a tangible reason or benefit (to the club or society) for not using that asset or otherwise tanking the value of the asset. And if it is so important to society that footballers be held to a higher standard then enact uniform standards so that less "moral" clubs don't benefit.
I don't think clubs are completely soulless entities, but I don't think they should be successfully pressured into meaningless gestures that have no positive impact at the end of the day.
If someone (an example) was to do an analysis that showed that suspensions and dismissals in these situations would certainly lead to a measurable drop in domestic assault over the next 5 years it would be worth it and I'd be all for it.
That is plausible, but it's not pressure that is insurmountable. Case in point: the Glazers are still owners of the club.
I don't have any strong opinion on the decision given that his suspension (in the absence of a criminal indictment) serves no practical purpose. I think that is my issue with all of this. He left Manchester United. He's at Getafe now. Antony may be suspended. Who or what positively benefits from this? No one. So what's the fecking point?
I think that up to a guilty verdict (where someone loses their liberty/funds in a civil case), it is a football decision. A club has a financial asset in the case of a player, and utilizing that asset brings rewards (money, trophies). There should be a tangible reason or benefit (to the club or society) for not using that asset or otherwise tanking the value of the asset. And if it is so important to society that footballers be held to a higher standard then enact uniform standards so that less "moral" clubs don't benefit.
I don't think clubs are completely soulless entities, but I don't think they should be successfully pressured into meaningless gestures that have no positive impact at the end of the day.
If someone (an example) was to do an analysis that showed that suspensions and dismissals in these situations would certainly lead to a measurable drop in domestic assault over the next 5 years it would be worth it and I'd be all for it.
I also never said that we shouldn't suspend him because Arsenal didn't with their player, so not sure why you started going on about the right thing in the first place.Bias towards what exactly?
You're showing your inability to read. I have said numerous times he shouldnt be suspended on an accusation. These accusations came out on June 6th and literally nobody called for suspension.
I also never said that we shouldn't suspend him because Arsenal didn't with their player, so not sure why you started going on about the right thing in the first place.
And Arsenal are not some minnows, they get plenty of attention when it suits them, so it's still very much a big topic they've been let off the hook here.
It's still innocent until proven guilty, that's why he isn't in jail. It's why Jimmy Savile was never punished: he was never proven guilty, so he's treated as innocent in the eyes of the law. Nothing has changed.
No they didn’t, Greenwood was named in the press, the Arsenal player hasn’t, therefore Arsenal can hide behind that instead of doing the right thing and suspending with pay.Don't be mad at Arsenal or the media, be mad at United for being spineless cnuts/moral flowers. Because they had/have every opportunity to go the Arsenal route.
I'm not talking about guilty in the eye of the law. I'm talking about public perception.It's still innocent until proven guilty, that's why he isn't in jail. It's why Jimmy Savile was never punished: he was never proven guilty, so he's treated as innocent in the eyes of the law. Nothing has changed.
Well it is involving most celebrities. I mean would you consider Mendy innocent even though court didn't find him guilty?What?
Is it so? In most cases?
Best post by a distance regarding this topic !I think all of these things are pendulums that swing one way, then too far in the other, than hopefully come towards a more sensible end point. I think we can all agree it's likely that some of our favourite players in the 80s/90s did worse than what Antony is accused of, and nothing was said, reported or done. And the victims had to suffer because of that silence.
Now we seem to have swung to the point where the twitter mob are the judge, jury and executioner, rather than the legal systems setup with certian processes to protect both sides. I personally find the Antony case so problematic because one party is going to the media and one party is going through the proper channels. This assymetry is a 'clever' tactic to win the battle of public opinion, regardless of the actual judicial process that should follow.
We may never know what happened between Antony and the alleged victim, but by taking this public she has foregone his right to the proper channels of justice, and given today's environment, unilaterally condemned him.
As a society we have to wary of cures that are potentially as damaging as the disease. At a macro level sure, throw a few rich folk under the bus as examples if it means we reduce the staggering number of abuse victims. But doesn't mean that we should feel good about it.
Antony may end up being a creep who deservedly gets justice. But I'd much rather see that come from the courts and police, rather than twitter and the media.
I'm not talking about guilty in the eye of the law. I'm talking about public perception.
