Benjamin Mendy charged with eight counts of rape against five women | Released on Bail

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
53,326
Location
Manchester
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-58353366.amp

Manchester City footballer Benjamin Mendy has been remanded in custody after appearing in court charged with rape and sexual assault.

The 27-year-old defender is accused of four counts of rape and one count of sexual assault at his home in Cheshire.

They relate to alleged attacks on three women, including one aged under 18, between October 2020 and August 2021.

Mr Mendy spoke only to confirm his name, address and date of birth at Chester Magistrates' Court.

No pleas were entered as the charges were put to the Premier League footballer, who had also been facing one count of breaking his bail conditions in August.

That charge was withdrawn in court.

Proceedings were relayed back to the French international via an interpreter.

He showed no emotion as he was taken from the court accompanied by two dock officers at the end of the hearing, which lasted about an hour.

District Judge Jack McGarva sent the case to Chester Crown Court where Mr Mendy is due to appear on 10 September.

So he's in prison now until his appearance. Can't remember when this happened at such a high profile club?

City have suspended him but what will be the implications in his contract?
 
It's pretty staggering that given the nature of the crimes, City must have known he was on bail for serious offences yet continued to play him - he was in their squad at the weekend and then has gone off and committed another horrific act this week.

Absolutely shameful.
 
Last edited:
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Most damning aspect in all of this is that City must have known he was on bail for serious offences yet continued to play him - he was in their squad at the weekend and then has gone off and committed another horrific act this week.

Absolutely shameful.
Click to expand...

Yeah that stands out. This offence/s were committed some time ago as he was on bail (which he even breached). He was likely on bail pending forensic results.

City look really poor in this.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Most damning aspect in all of this is that City must have known he was on bail for serious offences yet continued to play him - he was in their squad at the weekend and then has gone off and committed another horrific act this week.

Absolutely shameful.
Click to expand...
Wait what? There was a new incident in last week as well? I thought they were charges from the past
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Most damning aspect in all of this is that City must have known he was on bail for serious offences yet continued to play him - he was in their squad at the weekend and then has gone off and committed another horrific act this week.

Absolutely shameful.
Click to expand...
Call me old fashioned but I think the most damming aspect in all this is still the allegations of rape, rather than an employer giving an employee the benefit of innocent until proven guilty?
 
Pexbo said:
Call me old fashioned but I think the most damming aspect in all this is still the allegations of rape, rather than an employer giving an employee the benefit of innocent until proven guilty?
Click to expand...

I think he just worded it wrong.

It's very strange that city have not suspended him much earlier though when you consider the age of the offences and the fact he'd even breached his bail.
 
What a utter disaster he’s turned out to be.
 
I obviously don’t know the circumstances involved but if found guilty he could easily be looking at 30+ years for this.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
Wait what? There was a new incident in last week as well? I thought they were charges from the past
Click to expand...

Believe the latest incident was from this past Monday.

Pexbo said:
Call me old fashioned but I think the most damming aspect in all this is still the allegations of rape, rather than an employer giving an employee the benefit of innocent until proven guilty?
Click to expand...

Yes you're correct - I did word it poorly and I do think you're right to call me out on that. I meant from a footballing perspective, which is probably callous given the heinous nature of the crimes and if I've caused offence I can only apologise.

I suppose I would find the presumption of innocence to be a poor excuse though considering he was out on bail? I guess I just find it shameful that the club didn't do an internal investigation and was complicit in covering it up to an extent. They made no public statement about the original incident - very shady if you ask me.
 
Pexbo said:
Call me old fashioned but I think the most damming aspect in all this is still the allegations of rape, rather than an employer giving an employee the benefit of innocent until proven guilty?
Click to expand...
Doesn't work like that.

I had a family member who was suspended from their job pending investigation into a rape allegation. His estranged wife basically decided to try to ruin his life, when he told his employer what had happened he got told it was company policy to suspend him until the outcome.

Needless to say the case was dropped due to no evidence found of any wrongdoing (after 6 months) and he got his job back.

But each company will be different, but generally it seems to be common practice.
 
Withnail said:
Yeah it's messed up. One of the alleged offences occured in the past week. It beggars belief.
Click to expand...
Guy on bail for rape can’t resist going out and doing it again. I wonder how many more will come out. Innocent until proven guilty of course but on the evidence so far it looks pretty grim
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Believe the latest incident was from this past Monday.



Yes you're correct - I did word it poorly and I do think you're right to call me out on that. I meant from a footballing perspective, which is probably callous given the heinous nature of the crimes and if I've caused offence I can only apologise.

I suppose I would find the presumption of innocence to be a poor excuse though considering he was out on bail? I guess I just find it shameful that the club didn't do an internal investigation and was complicit in covering it up to an extent. They made no public statement about the original incident - very shady if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Sorry I didn’t mean to be confrontational about it, just thought that when you’ve got a guy accused of multiple rapes it seems daft to highlight his employers conduct as the worst thing about it.
 
City have some pretty bad luck in this department.
 
Pexbo said:
Sorry I didn’t mean to be confrontational about it, just thought that when you’ve got a guy accused of multiple rapes it seems daft to highlight his employers conduct as the worst thing about it.
Click to expand...

No no please don't apologise - didn't think you were being needlessly confrontational and I do feel you're right to call out my initial post as being insensitive. I genuinely appreciate your post and think what you've said is 100% valid and correct.
 
Oranges038 said:
Being named is unusual.

Being locked up as well.

They must have a fairly strong case.
Click to expand...

You can be named in the UK when charged.

Not unusual to be refused bail either especially if he's breached it previously and committed other offences.
 
Last edited:
Oranges038 said:
Being named is unusual.

Being locked up as well.

They must have a fairly strong case.
Click to expand...
This is what I think the case against him must be overwhelming. He is in serious trouble and if it’s true then he is a scumbag and deserves everything coming to him.
 
Sunderland continued to play Adam Johnson even after he admitted to the staff what he had done.
 
I told everyone here it was a City player back when all the rumours came out it was Greenwood and was criticised heavily for it.

Didn’t want to reveal his name for obvious reasons but anyway was just trying to put peoples minds at ease it wasn’t Mason. Thought I was doing the right thing.

Anyway the press 100% knew who it was back then like they always do during these court injunctions. Now he’s locked up so obviously they can’t keep it quiet anymore.
 
Tarrou said:
I told everyone here it was a City player back when all the rumours came out it was Greenwood and was criticised heavily for it.

Didn’t want to reveal his name for obvious reasons but anyway was just trying to put peoples minds at ease it wasn’t Mason. Thought I was doing the right thing.

Anyway the press 100% knew who it was back then like they always do during these court injunctions. Now he’s locked up so obviously they can’t keep it quiet anymore.
Click to expand...

How did you know?
 
Tarrou said:
I told everyone here it was a City player back when all the rumours came out it was Greenwood and was criticised heavily for it.

Didn’t want to reveal his name for obvious reasons but anyway was just trying to put peoples minds at ease it wasn’t Mason. Thought I was doing the right thing.

Anyway the press 100% knew who it was back then like they always do during these court injunctions. Now he’s locked up so obviously they can’t keep it quiet anymore.
Click to expand...
Some time ago, I tweeted something about Mason (as some knob was going “it’s him, he’s guilty”) and that he could/should sue people for libel. Yesterday, out of the blue, a few people liked/retweeted it and I thought it was odd... makes sense now.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Believe the latest incident was from this past Monday.



Yes you're correct - I did word it poorly and I do think you're right to call me out on that. I meant from a footballing perspective, which is probably callous given the heinous nature of the crimes and if I've caused offence I can only apologise.

I suppose I would find the presumption of innocence to be a poor excuse though considering he was out on bail? I guess I just find it shameful that the club didn't do an internal investigation and was complicit in covering it up to an extent. They made no public statement about the original incident - very shady if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Hope this doesn't sound patronising but really good to see someone online responding reasonably and accepting they might be in the wrong, instead of booting off and doubling down like most do.

I think you're right on the second point though. You would expect that he would be suspended pending the outcome of something like this.
 
Bobade said:
Hope this doesn't sound patronising but really good to see someone online responding reasonably and accepting they might be in the wrong, instead of booting off and doubling down like most do.

I think you're right on the second point though. You would expect that he would be suspended pending the outcome of something like this.
Click to expand...

Appreciate the kind words mate and you've not come across as patronising in the slightest - I'm generally of the opinion that a bit of self-reflection goes a long way. Full credit to @Pexbo for rightly pointing out how short-sighted my post was initially.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.