So no statistics, no links, just conjecture. A weekly basis? Worldwide or in a particular country? A staggering amount of sexual assaults are happening globally on a daily basis so that really means nothing at all without numbers.
Benjamin Mendy - Not guilty on re-trial | NOT a thread about MG
- Thread starter Chief123
- Start date
So no statistics, no links, just conjecture. A weekly basis? Worldwide or in a particular country? A staggering amount of sexual assaults are happening globally on a daily basis so that really means nothing at all without numbers.
What's happening with Partey? Has his bail been extended for the twentieth time? Heard Arteta in the press conference talk about how important he is and how he wants to keep him.
Huge difference between how City handled the Mendy issue and how Arteta is quite content letting him play until the day he's found guilty or innocent.
Huge difference between how City handled the Mendy issue and how Arteta is quite content letting him play until the day he's found guilty or innocent.
Guilty or not guilty.
Mendy's quality for City aside (he was shit/injured), City would not have been worse off with Mendy in their side. Arsenal have suffered nothing from having Partey in their side either.
Court of public opinion? Fickle and memory deficient as feck.
The cynic in me says the reason for the different treatment is how relatively important the player was to the team.
My understanding (I'm an American lawyer, not an English one) is that the difference is that Partey has not been charged, only investigated, albeit with an arrest and bail. And "arrest" has a slightly different meaning there, at least in certain circumstances, closer to to what Americans would recognize as a Miranda warning--"you have the right to remain silent . . .". Nicola Sturgeon, Scottish Nationals leader was "arrested" a month or two back during an investigation into party finances: arrest didn't mean she was going to be held in jail, it was the formal words before an 8-hour interview with law enforcement.
And under English law, before charges are made, the subject of the investigation has rights of privacy, too. The Daily Mail, even if they want to, can't report that it was Thomas Partey; that's why it's always reported as "an unnamed London footballer . . ." While everyone is pretty sure it's Partey, he cannot be named in the papers until charges are filed. Were Arsenal to suspend him, it would confirm the rumor, effectively negating Partey's privacy rights. If he's ever charged, I expect him to be suspended immediately
Finally, Partey is rich beyond what most of us can ever imagine, and has a foreign nationality/passport. He's the very definition of a flight risk. The sort you'd expect to be required to surrender his passport as a condition of bail. Yet he's been allowed to travel to the World Cup and multiple Arsenal overseas fixtures. Suggests the authorities aren't quite convinced on this one.
If I've messed up my understanding of English law, I hope someone with more expertise will explain it to me. I hope if Partey is charged, Arsenal will cut ties to the limit of their contractual ability. But I think right now, based on the distinction between charged/not charged explains the difference between Partey and Mendy.
Honestly, if you know where you can even get those stats, let me know yeah?
Have you ever been on social media for a somewhat long time? You come across posts, twitlongers, youtube video allegations all the time.
Unfortunately they don't get logged like you'd see from a court so I'm not sure what argument you're making as you 100% know that it's impossible to give an official statistic
Well the point is the amount of rapes that don't get report far exceeds the number of false allegations.
Yes, not what I've been commenting about though.
I'm merely talking about the increase in false allegations, not unreported rapes/SA's.
I'm sure that unreports are more widespread than false allegations, really don't understand why you're replying to me with this information.
It's not something I've even spoken about nor gave an opinion on.
I was replying to this by you which is nonsense and without any context. You've since failed to provide anything other than conjecture.
So your reply was completely irrelevant to what I was saying then?
I've not once talked about non-reports yet you for some reason bring it up, also without any stats or sources. You're in the same situation as me - these stats aren't available, so don't ask for them.
Anyway, thanks for clearing that up, I figured that was what was going on.
It was relevant in the context of your hysterical claim which you couldn't back up.
Doubt City fight it.
What basis would they have, surprised they didn't just settle with him already.
Being morally repugnant in your personal life shouldn't void his employment contract.
Bringing the club into disrepute?
Well if that as the case how come Kyle Walker is still there?
Not a straightforward claim, especially when he wasn’t found guilty in a case where the prosecutors looked like utter amateurs.
he's allowed to have a personal life.
Dont pile on, I was just offering a guess guys, hence the question mark.
IDK. I don’t follow the guy. Was he subject to a criminal investigation? There’s levels to this stuff. And let’s face it, football is hardly a paragon of virtue.
Agreed, but the reputation of the club/business is not dependant on guilt. The mere allegation is enough to tarnish the club if serious enough.
This is a silly statement. Of course he is, but he’s not allowed to rape multiple women, and whether guilty or not he is still a high profile employee of the club and has to behave in a way that doesn’t bring the club into disrepute. There’s a whole world of difference between being a bit of a bellend and committing criminal acts.
It depends heavily on his contract. They didn't even terminate his contract when they decided to go to trial with the charges, which would indicate they were concerned over a potential blowback where he'd be a PR nightmare and Manchester City would have to pay him a compensation.
But he didn't rape multiple women.
No. He was just found not guilty of the charges.
Considering what was revealed during the trial, the charge that was dropped, it's somewhat fair to use a different term than not guilty. The CPS had feck all and all the accusations completely unraveled to the point it's actually bizarre they took this to trial.
I didn’t say he did, I said he’s not allowed to do that even if he’s ’allowed to have a private life’. I’m well aware he was found not guilty. But the allegations and the high profile trial was enough to reflect poorly on City. I’d assume they have taken legal advice and their decision to release him is water tight from a legal standpoint.
They released him at the end of his contract.
In the eyes of the law, there is not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he raped multiple women, or even 1 woman.
Hence, in the eyes of the law, Manchester City have their work cut out for them proving that Mendy should not be paid out the rest of his salary.
Cliches like "no smoke without fire", or misused statistics about sexual assault, will not cut it, in that forum of law. Allegations were brought by the state, not by Benjamin Mendy, so it's hard to turn around and blame him for that.
The court of public opinion has different "procedures", certainly.
He was found not guilty so I'm trying to find out how he has brought the club into disrepute? What if he did not do it, which some of the evidence points to?
Some will say "just cause he was found not guilty doesn't mean he's not a rapist".
Which is true.
And also has no relevance outside of the wise court of public opinion.
In a court of law, an acquittal weighs more heavy than conjecture about his behavior.
They're likely just haggling over what the amount of the eventual payout will be. Mendy had some bail conditions that rendered him unavailable to even train with City and also broke bail a few times to engage in more of his....ermmm, extracurricular activities, which probably exacerbated the extent of his unavailability. They probably wouldn't have wanted him around anyway, but may be using that as a pretext to reduce the extent of their liability for his unpaid wages.