• The Arsenal

  • Issa Partey (Might be 'unavailable' for next season)

jones wrote:
Anzac wrote:

Really?

Yeah really. Why do you ask, are you a pig?

Also if you want to correct him - cooperation isn't wrong in this case either - it's spelt corroboration

Juvenile comment and slang from bad TV shows from the '70s and '80s.

Corroborative evidence is far more important than any cooperation unless the latter is required to establish an offence.
Before I moved to AUS they changed the law in NZL in regards to domestic violence so that the victim did not need to press charges in order for the offending party to be arrested and charged, IF there was sufficient evidence to do so.

flobaba wrote:

For me, it’s clear what the club needs to do. Go into the market and get 2 starting quality midfielders. We know we need to replace Xhaka (one of Tielemans or Maddison?) And eventually Partey’s situation will resolve itself one way or another. If it’s positive, good for us, we have him back and an extra body in there for squad depth and competition. He wasn’t exactly the most durable last season anyway. If it’s a negative outcome, then we are covered as well.

The links to Kante are a bit more plausible if we are taking this approach, as the wait and see path isn’t very sensible in my view.

there doesn't seem to be serious appetite for midfielder recruitment so far this window. hopefully the quiet period of the last 2 weeks represents edu and co pivoting away from wingers and centre halves

Anzac wrote:
jones wrote:

Yeah really. Why do you ask, are you a pig?

Also if you want to correct him - cooperation isn't wrong in this case either - it's spelt corroboration

Juvenile comment and slang from bad TV shows from the '70s and '80s.

Mate, it's a thousand times more juvenile to hate on the Mourinhos and even Kanes of this world than cops. 

Anzac wrote:
jones wrote:

Yeah really. Why do you ask, are you a pig?

Also if you want to correct him - cooperation isn't wrong in this case either - it's spelt corroboration

Juvenile comment and slang from bad TV shows from the '70s and '80s.

I've got this image of Neil from the Young Ones in my mind now. Although that was a good show.

Anzac wrote:
jones wrote:

Yeah really. Why do you ask, are you a pig?

Also if you want to correct him - cooperation isn't wrong in this case either - it's spelt corroboration

Juvenile comment and slang from bad TV shows from the '70s and '80s.

Corroborative evidence is far more important than any cooperation unless the latter is required to establish an offence.
Before I moved to AUS they changed the law in NZL in regards to domestic violence so that the victim did not need to press charges in order for the offending party to be arrested and charged, IF there was sufficient evidence to do so.

"Juvenile" 😆 you've been calling Adebayor and Anelka "Greedy" and "le sulk" for a couple decades mate. Not sure you're in any position to correct people on what's hip slang either way, what do you think they call constables these days?

The last "if" part is obviously the relevant contingency here. The CPS can arrest and charge people for sexual crimes without the victim's say so, but there's usually very little evidence (for arrest or charges) without the victim's statement and cooperation.

Quincy Abeyie wrote:
Anzac wrote:

Juvenile comment and slang from bad TV shows from the '70s and '80s.

Mate, it's a thousand times more juvenile to hate on the Mourinhos and even Kanes of this world than cops. 

Well he's named after a military corps after all, not exactly surprising he'd disapprove of people being critical of police.

Asterix wrote:
Anzac wrote:

Juvenile comment and slang from bad TV shows from the '70s and '80s.

I've got this image of Neil from the Young Ones in my mind now. Although that was a good show.

😆 

So is Jones Rick or Vyvyan?

jones wrote:
Anzac wrote:

Juvenile comment and slang from bad TV shows from the '70s and '80s.

Corroborative evidence is far more important than any cooperation unless the latter is required to establish an offence.
Before I moved to AUS they changed the law in NZL in regards to domestic violence so that the victim did not need to press charges in order for the offending party to be arrested and charged, IF there was sufficient evidence to do so.

"Juvenile" 😆 you've been calling Adebayor and Anelka "Greedy" and "le sulk" for a couple decades mate. Not sure you're in any position to correct people on what's hip slang either way, what do you think they call constables these days?

The last "if" part is obviously the relevant contingency here. The CPS can arrest and charge people for sexual crimes without the victim's say so, but there's usually very little evidence (for arrest or charges) without the victim's statement and cooperation.

Yeah the circumstances in regards to domestic violence are different to this scenario, however the Greenwood situation is very much about corroboration rather than cooperation.
It's always much harder to produce strong corroborative evidence when the alleged offence is not reported until some later, particularly in regards to sexual assaults.

As for the other IMO there is a difference in referring to an individual from a specific incident/s, as opposed to a general tarring everyone of a type with the same brush.  As such IMO it's no different in principle to the thought process of racism.

Quincy Abeyie wrote:
Anzac wrote:

Juvenile comment and slang from bad TV shows from the '70s and '80s.

Mate, it's a thousand times more juvenile to hate on the Mourinhos and even Kanes of this world than cops. 

That says more about tribalism & the nature of football supporters as anything and is still specific compared to a generalisation.

Anzac wrote:
Quincy Abeyie wrote:

Mate, it's a thousand times more juvenile to hate on the Mourinhos and even Kanes of this world than cops. 

That is still specific compared to a generalisation.

Anzac wrote:
jones wrote:

"Juvenile" 😆 you've been calling Adebayor and Anelka "Greedy" and "le sulk" for a couple decades mate. Not sure you're in any position to correct people on what's hip slang either way, what do you think they call constables these days?

The last "if" part is obviously the relevant contingency here. The CPS can arrest and charge people for sexual crimes without the victim's say so, but there's usually very little evidence (for arrest or charges) without the victim's statement and cooperation.

Yeah the circumstances in regards to domestic violence are different to this scenario, however the Greenwood situation is very much about corroboration rather than cooperation.
It's always much harder to produce strong corroborative evidence when the alleged offence is not reported until some later, particularly in regards to sexual assaults.

As for the other IMO there is a difference in referring to an individual from a specific incident/s, as opposed to a general tarring everyone of a type with the same brush.  As such IMO it's no different in principle to the thought process of racism.

Cmon mates dont start a fight between yourselves. We arteta haters have to be united

Qwiss! wrote:
Asterix wrote:

I've got this image of Neil from the Young Ones in my mind now. Although that was a good show.

😆 

So is Jones Rick or Vyvyan?

Bit of both  ;D

AAStyle- wrote:

Cmon mates dont start a fight between yourselves. We arteta haters have to be united

I don't 'hate' Arteta, just think he's the wrong man at the wrong time, and a cop out by KSE as a ready made fall guy.  

Anzac wrote:
AAStyle- wrote:

Cmon mates dont start a fight between yourselves. We arteta haters have to be united

I don't 'hate' Arteta, just think he's the wrong man at the wrong time, and a cop out by KSE as a ready made fall guy.  

I was kidding hah. I believe that no one here hates him personally, he is just grossly incompetent to be our coach

he looked pretty unbothered today. guess the club is letting him play through until there's any developments in the situation

11 days later

Don't think the club can suspend him if he isn't convicted.

Also, is there proof that that is actually his phone number?

Can't really comment of what he's guilty of from what I've read, but it doesn't look good I have to say. That whole thread makes for very uncomfortable reading. At the very least the guy is a moron.

I haven't read the conversation the woman posted closely, but from what I can see, she has no business publicly calling Partey a serial rapist without evidence, and the situation she presents is very messy, and to me feels like none of my business.

It's certainly very different to the picture painted when this story first broke of a violent predator preying on multiple women.

I think this should be the end of it, unless new evidence emerges to suggest Partey has raped other women.

Shady wrote:

Don't think the club can suspend him if he isn't convicted.

Don't think they can either, the tweets certainly don't make comfortable viewing but from a quick skim through I see nothing there that proves he's a rapist?

Clearly they were going out which always makes things more complicated. But rape is a serious charge, you can't just convict someone without strong evidence. Sounds like she's put this out knowing charges are about to be dropped, which can be viewed from two different perspectives.

All in all a pretty fucking messed up situation.

Not commenting specifically in this case but as I've said before victims of abuse or crimes of sexual nature have often not got the justice they should be able to because of the way the system works and often thre are power imbalances in the relationships as well.

It's why a prosecution not going forwards is not necessarily everything is fine and we just act like nothing has happened.

[Twitter]
That certainly does not suggest she's credible to me.

She said she got paid for signing the NDA and will have to pay the fine for breaking it, nothing contradictory in there

She took money from a man she says raped her. That she says she believes to be a serial rapist. That's the end of the discussion right there for me. Her credibility was bought, she can't just get it back by making accusations on social media and reneging on her alleged NDA.

Makes for uncomfortable reading if all true but the story does seem to have inconsistencies. The screenshots that are supposed to prove he admitted to something don't seem to include admission or proof of who the conversation is with as it's under a Snapchat username. "Serial rapist" is a big claim based on the evidence she's posted so far.

This doesn't even make sense. She ended things with him weeks earlier but decided to go with him after he convinced her he changed with these messages? She says

“Have fun fucking girls nowhere nearly as good as me”

decides to go with him anyways and then later says rape after accepting money for an NDA, then saying she signed the NDA but rejected the money.

[Twitter]

So why would she sign an NDA whilst rejecting the money. What would she have to gain? A lot of stuff doesn't add up for me.

Ricky1985 wrote:

She took money from a man she says raped her. That she says she believes to be a serial rapist. That's the end of the discussion right there for me. Her credibility was bought, she can't just get it back by making accusations on social media and reneging on her alleged NDA.

Why are you focussing just on her reliability? There are plenty of horrific passages in there implicating Partey regardless of how she behaved afterwards, let alone the fact she was asked to sign an NDA in the first place, he got arrested several times etc

There's no need to know exactly what went on, and from the sounds it's more than messy either way, but Partey clearly is no innocent man

The texts are a terrible read. There's no reason to doubt their authenticity since it would be very easy be prove that they're his. Whether she took money or not from him, signed papers or not, kept seeing him afterwards or not, is completely beside the point. Arguing about it is only useful for people who feel they need to justify having to see this embarrassment line up for us when the new season begins.

Arsenal should have taken their responsibility and conducted their own investigation when they were made aware of the allegations last year. If the club had cared at all they would have gotten rid of him as soon as possible afterwards, because it's pretty obvious what he did. I don't want to see this idiot in an Arsenal shirt again. I'm so angry about all of this. We wait around forever for the ideal midfielder and when we finally find him he goes and shames us like this.

Just read through the whole chat. It's abit complicated because they are going out but the girl is definitely credible come on.

Anyway one important point she mentioned is that she is doing all these so the other girl has a chance to get him into jail. So Partey will not be scot free too

Too many people falling for the "perfect victim" fallacy here I fear.

If the club really did know about the allegations and his behaviour a year ago then it certainly raises questions about what kinds of behaviour the "non-negotiables" actually cover, especially given the way the club captain was banished for not fitting in with them.

The non negotiables apply to behaviour at work, not during personal time I believe.

He certainly should not play. This is a football club, whatever the legal aspects may be, he's not someone I can get behind as a fan, and not someone many of his teammates will respect. It'll only get more toxic the more he's in the spotlight, and in the meantime these women are going to get torrents of abuse for what appear to be eminently credible allegations. Again, legal implications are a red herring. He's disgraced the club and should be terminated asap. He can sue the Kroenkes over it if he wants, but either way he should never play for Arsenal again.

Coombs wrote:

He certainly should not play. This is a football club, whatever the legal aspects may be, he's not someone I can get behind as a fan, and not someone many of his teammates will respect. It'll only get more toxic the more he's in the spotlight, and in the meantime these women are going to get torrents of abuse for what appear to be eminently credible allegations. Again, legal implications are a red herring. He's disgraced the club and should be terminated asap. He can sue the Kroenkes over it if he wants, but either way he should never play for Arsenal again.

Agree with this. Was over the moon when we signed him as I've rated him for a long time but there's zero leeway here.

I don't blame the club for not acting on their own to be honest, depending on what they know at least. I'd be horrified at the thought of my employer terminating my contract on the word of any stranger, it's not their place to make investigations either. If the woman produced the NDA and the club still didn't act it'd be a different story but even there legally and even morally it's very much a gray zone, that's normally what the authorities are supposed to be there for.

It's a messed up situation in which she has really helped the club make a decision by coming forward.

Partey is a moron with at the very least serious issues on where the boundaries lie, and I honestly don’t care if he doesn’t play for us again. But ignoring the football side I think we’d do well to reserve judgement on this one, because it sounds complicated as fuck. The fact that she’s going out with him, even after he was accused by her before and the nature of the accusation mean I don’t think we have any real place here to say anything one way or another.

Coombs wrote:

He certainly should not play. This is a football club, whatever the legal aspects may be, he's not someone I can get behind as a fan, and not someone many of his teammates will respect. It'll only get more toxic the more he's in the spotlight, and in the meantime these women are going to get torrents of abuse for what appear to be eminently credible allegations. Again, legal implications are a red herring. He's disgraced the club and should be terminated asap. He can sue the Kroenkes over it if he wants, but either way he should never play for Arsenal again.

you're underrating the aftershocks of sacking a player under those circumstances

I certainly get what you're saying about this being complicated goon. But situations like this also highlight how narrow and unrealistic many people's (and I'm referring more broadly rather than to this forum specifically) understanding of sexual assault is. For example, casting doubt on whether it could have happened because they appear to have been in some form of relationship, or having quite fixed ideas about how a victim ought to behave in order to be considered credible.