Prosecution called it out according to the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ndy-footballer-remanded-in-custody-on-charges
And this was in January...
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/so...g-benjamin-mendy-s-new-year-s-party-1.4449123
Benjamin Mendy charged with eight counts of rape against five women | Released on Bail
- Thread starter TheReligion
- Start date
- Status
Prosecution called it out according to the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ndy-footballer-remanded-in-custody-on-charges
And this was in January...
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/so...g-benjamin-mendy-s-new-year-s-party-1.4449123
There's no clever solution....A man goes home with a woman, a woman goes home with a man, usually only two people will know the full extent of what actually happened afterwards, if consent was given, if consent was withdrawn. If you agree that someone can't be convicted on someones word alone, then you should also easily understand why these cases are difficult. Maybe they already know each other and there's text messages supporting her side, maybe one of them has priors that support her story etc. Still it's fairly fecking difficult to navigate cases like that, but turning it into an "guilty until proven otherwise" scenario is certainly not the solution.
So for the record, his french lawyers said Mendy who legally need to prove his innocence to be cleared. Which means it's very likely there's a rebuttable presumption of guilt in his case, which means it falls under this category of aggravating circumstances :
Which means : it's bad.
Which means : it's bad.
Last edited:
For a one-off you could certainly agree. When it comes to light that there are multiple alleged offences on different dates from different claimants….there’s a moral question for City to answer imho.
Also curious to know how his teammates felt, assuming they knew about this. I can’t imagine a bloke like Kompany (I know he’s not there now, just a character example) would brush this off without seriously questioning the character of his teammate.
He's in big trouble and I think with the number of cases he's gonna do big time. You'd wonder why some people abuse their fame the way they do.. can't wrap my head around it. I should say if guilty of course.
There is no way the club could punish him before he was charged. It would literally be the same as Juve punishing Ronaldo etc.. it just can't be done. Imagine the club takes action and he's never charged, then you have a club who took action on a player presuming him a rapist and he could take them to the cleaners. The club had to wait for the arrest. Saying anything else is nonsensical and unfair. It feels like clutching at straws for a stick to beat City with.
What I will say is there does seem to be a big change towards him in the club, his social media has been leashed etc.. but I'd say while it left players uncomfortable they also took the innocent till guilty approach. Either way he's rightfully fecked and and if he did the crime (which is likely) should get a long sentence, this is beyond football.
@padr81 was he £52m?
What's been said about the club getting rid of him and trying to get some money back
What's been said about the club getting rid of him and trying to get some money back
Nothing to be honest. I think the club no, they couldn't sell him on and even get £20m back before this because of his stupid wages. I think we were just waiting for his contract to run down.
He's physically a crock, has a top speed of about 12 km per hour and has the defensive nous of a toothbrush. Absolutely disaster of a signing. Honestly as a footballer I don't think the injury helped, pretty sure it ruined him, he was one of those players like Kyle Walker who's physical attributes could get him out of trouble his poor brain caused, once he lost that he became a clown and a sideshow. There was a footballer in Mendy but albeit not an intelligent one, he hit the ground running and started off well till he got crocked.
That said he seems like a piece of shit and right now its hard to have any sympathy for him in the way say one had for Luke Shaw or Gundogans injury problems. I think their professionalism saw them do the right things to recover whereas Mendy not so much. More interested in being a footballer than actually playing football for the past 3 years. The fact his has 3 PL's and a World Cup after the fact is a crime in itself.
Mendy was also a notorious hookah smoker in France so it wouldn't surprise me if he kept doing that in England
So for the record, his french lawyers said Mendy who legally need to prove his innocence to be cleared. Which means it's very likely there's a rebuttable presumption of guilt in his case, which means it falls under this category of aggravating circumstances :
Which means : it's bad.
Had never heard of this before. So basically if those aggravating circumstances apply the presumption of innocence is effectively reversed? Presumably they need to to prove those aggravating circumstances in court too?
There's evidential and conclusive presumptions when it comes to consent.
The former switches it back to the defendant to disprove and the latter means it's conclusive and can't be disproved.
Obviously the prosecution have to make their case though a prove that aspect.
Molde did the same with Babacar Sarr while Solskjær was manager, he even made him captain, and his team mates continued to go out drinking with him even though all the allegations were party related. It's just expected behaviour for me at this point.
Yes, TheReligion is right. For those interested here's the previous paragraph. It's the only reason I can think of that would justify his french lawyer saying "in this case Benjamin will have to prove that he isn't guilty, that's the way it works in england". Unless he's confused about proceedings in the UK.
So for the record, his french lawyers said Mendy who legally need to prove his innocence to be cleared. Which means it's very likely there's a rebuttable presumption of guilt in his case, which means it falls under this category of aggravating circumstances :
Which means : it's bad.
Relating to (c)? At the time of the first arrest it was stated in the press that the perp was accused of false imprisonment. That the complainant was allegedly raped 3 times on the same day suggests something like that.
I'd say more likely (d) or (f). If someone was passed out or given something to cause intoxication to the point they can't consent.
Possibilities if it's been some kind of house party.
I wouldn't speculate at this point but the sure thing is, Mendy is in deep, deep water. Also, i'm not a specilist in pre-trial hearings in the UK but in France, the fact that he was denied a bail release would also be a pretty bad indicator even if it's not that uncommon in rape cases since judges are often afraid the alleged perpetrator would put pressure on the alleged victim.
He was denied bail because he allegedly offended twice more in similar circumstances whilst on bail for the first offence. He was judged to be at danger of potentially offending again.
Yeah but still, you need some real substance in the file.
When someone is incarcerated, the prosecution has proved within given parameters that it's either in the publics interest, or in the interest of the victims that the alleged perpetrator remain in custody. There is also the element pertaining to potential tampering with evidence. At least in Norway we have strict rules regarding everything from indictments to incarceration. I don't know enough about UK law to confidently claim, but it stands to reason that the prosecution have a little more than hearsay and "he said she said" to be granted custody.
Same thing in France yeah, and i'd guest in most judicial systems.
Benjamin Mendy: Manchester City player to remain in custody on rape charges https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-58408990
Of course there are false rape accusations.
i laughed
so we all agreed then
Presumed Guilty until proven innocent?
Presumed Guilty until proven innocent?
4 counts of rape, 1 of sexual assault from 3 different women (one of whom was under 18)? And refused bail?
Yeah, presumed guilty in my eyes.
Something is fecking fishy, if he was charged in October 2020 for fecking rape(on different people), why was he let loose to then attack 2 more girls in January and July? What the feck is that?
Also, the club knew in October 2020 about this, why did they continue playing him? Were they thinking he's innocent?
I'm not trying to side with the guy, being accused by 3-4-5 different people is no coincidence, but I just have a nasty feeling there's more to the story.
Also, the club knew in October 2020 about this, why did they continue playing him? Were they thinking he's innocent?
I'm not trying to side with the guy, being accused by 3-4-5 different people is no coincidence, but I just have a nasty feeling there's more to the story.
Senseless standpoint but I at least respect you admitting it out loud.
I think the risk that somebody posts something on the board which is defamatory (innocent till proven otherwise etc) technically its publishing once its on here which potentially leaves the owners of the board open to libel charges.
So City knew he'd been arrested for rape and continued to play him?
Dock them a point for each appearance he made in the League last season. Coincidently, that's 13 points.
Dock them a point for each appearance he made in the League last season. Coincidently, that's 13 points.
You seem to think that makes Mandy look more innocent. I think it makes City look more guilty. Compare their actions to the actions taken by Everton when one of their players recently got into a spot of legal bother (not sure how much I am allowed to say…).
I'm not a City fan but people need to realise the process here, they should have put him on leave for sure, but its innocent until proven guilty for me. If he is proven guilty he clearly has a screw loose but you cant start terminating contracts simply on an arrest.
Spot on he was excluded from the squad, that's what City should have done.
Once he'd been charged and bailed it's bad that City still played him.
Not sure if there's any breach of FA rules.
How does this even remotely look anything on City... what are they supposed to do? Suspend a player and presume guilt before the law does? Can you imagine the case he'd have vs City in that instance? He's likely to still have a case now if he's found not guilty but the club can probably use the fact he was locked up. I swear people here are so caught up in football rivalry they fail to engage even the simplest part of their brain sometimes.
Should Juve have suspended Ronaldo? United too? He's been accused multiple times once while at United?
If there was a breach of rules case then City wouldn’t have breached it.
Morally? Maybe there is a case to answer
PS: he’s been accused twice. Once when at Utd and it was withdrawn after a couple of days and more recently in The US when it was decided that there wasn’t enough evidence to proceed but his accuser is demanding 56million on damages
If not suspension then you could have sidelined him, for instance (I don't know how much he did play, he's always injured anyway).
If Ronaldo was under police investigation then I wouldn't mind him being suspended or left out of the squad meanwhile. Suspension if that's legally feasible, sidelined if not. I've been extremely critical of how Solskjær handled a similar case at Molde, and even more so the club who acted abhorrent (not at all comparable to City, they helped him flee the country to avoid trial), so I don't think it's a case of blind rivalry. Solskjær was one of my childhood heroes.
I don't think this reflects particularly badly at City, because it's pretty much the expected way to handle rape. I wish it was different, though.
Tbh the guidelines vary from industry to industry. In a profession like teaching you are suspended while allegations are investigated but that’s only for an internal issue. External issues will probably be dealt with in the same way football clubs deal with it unless it involved a child
To remain in custody till his trial date on the 24th of January
- Status