Yeah I know that's what you meant mate, hence my first line. The rest of my post was a general comment about this situation and people's reactions, it wasn't directed at you at all.

Daz wrote:

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.

Exactly this. People think if they hear rape or sexual assault it has to be a drooling monster on a damsel in distress like in the films and anything deviating from that expectation is basically exaggerating a claim.

I'm saying this as someone very opposed to tarring all sexual crimes with the same brush, which happens very often in media - in cases where it's not brushed under the carpet it's sensationalised and people are labelled things they really aren't, even if what they've done is hideous too.

But in this case what she's saying what was done to her and what he's (if it's indeed him) admitted doing to her has to be condemned beyond any doubt for me. Plays zero role what relationship they've had before.

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.

I think the club would be better off suspending him while the case is investigated by the police, but I otherwise agree. I don't want to see him playing for us again

Yep, for context, national data released in Australia this week showed that 37% of reported sexual assaults occurred within relationships.

So the charges dropped relate to June 21, still being investigated for the incidents in April and June this year. Bail extended until October.

Big Willie wrote:

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?

Not all her story doesn't make sense which is probably why the police aren't going to press charges. I've seen nothing in those texts to suggest he is some kind of serial rapist like she alleges. Don't even know if those messages are from him.

Surely her bringing this public will only make it harder for the other girls? Let the Police deal with this, they'll have all facts from both sides.

I know someone who has had their life ruined and smeared by false accusations so I do usually take a step back nowadays. It isn't I don't believe her, if she right then Partey deserves everything he gets but trial by social media is not the way.

goon wrote:

So the charges dropped relate to June 21, still being investigated for the incidents in April and June this year. Bail extended until October.

Right course of action, let the Police fully look at things and come to their conclusions.

Charges dropped because of a technicality though?

Clrnc wrote:

Charges dropped because of a technicality though?

Have the police confirmed that?

jones wrote:

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

I am not even sure how I feel about what she's actually accusing him of doing, as I understnad it. I would have to think quite long and hard to make a judgment.

To add to that, this is a social media post in which anyone can claim anything, that people lie often, especially when emotions are heightened, that the police have dropped the charge, she says on a technciality but again I don't know this to be true, and as mentioned, that she signed an NDA and took a ton of money.

With all of this in mind, I certainly don't feel I have enough facts, not even close, to condemn the man and start making demands that he never play for Arsenal again.

invisibleman18 wrote:

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.

You would have wanted the club to suspend Partey for a year, effectively killing his career, based on the facts they had available to them? I would have been disgusted had that happened. This lady signed an NDA and took £200,000 from Partey - which in my view and ina legal context, has no bearing on his guilt or innocence - and you think the club are duty bound to act?

And to link that to these non-negotiables that Arteta has spoken of... I think that is a million miles wide of the mark. Of course they don't apply to the way in which players behave within the confines of their bedrooms. If they break the law, then the law deals with it, based on evidence.

Agree the club had no grounds to suspend or sack Partey, people might dismiss this as legal implications but imagine a world where employers are allowed to act on the information provided to them by complete strangers, horrible thought. Also while I've no time for Arteta there's really nothing that links this crime to behaviour the manager asks of his players ie employees of the football club that's paying them.

Ricky1985 wrote:

I am not even sure how I feel about what she's actually accusing him of doing, as I understnad it.

I was going to say in another thread that it was good seeing you back Ricky, but comments like this have made me change my mind.

Lets not get personal lads. If you think someone's view is out of line look at it as a chance to educate or just walk away.

He fucked up, no doubt. I have no idea how this works out...but it cannot be good. We cannot count on him this season. I mean, from what I've read this is the case that was dismissed. He still has 2 against him or did I not get this right?. No idea why the club is not acting? I really think he will end up in jail...

Klaus wrote:

Ricky1985 wrote:

I am not even sure how I feel about what she's actually accusing him of doing, as I understnad it.

I was going to say in another thread that it was good seeing you back Ricky, but comments like this have made me change my mind.

Well, that's sad to read, Klaus. I often don't agree with things said on here that are non-trivial to me, but I respect the right of the person to express that opinion and try to engage as genuinely and respectfully as I am able to if I decide to put my point of view across. I would hope you would do the same, but that's your responsibility, not mine.

I'm not going to re-state what I've read from social media, but from what I have seen - and it's possible I've missed something because I didn't fully read the messages in the video - but given that they were both drunk and it seems unclear as to exactly what happened, I'm not comfortable making a definitive judgement based on the information available, even if I proceed on the basis that the posts themselves are genuine and unedited*

*FWIW, I have seen posts on Twitter that suggest the reason for dropping the charge was actually because Partey presented evidence of a consensual act and that the alledged victim had been found to delete messages from the conversation presented. I obviously don't know the truth, but then I don't know the truth of any of it. It's social media - a cesspool of lies, misinformation and nonsense.

HomeSteak wrote:

He fucked up, no doubt. I have no idea how this works out...but it cannot be good. We cannot count on him this season. I mean, from what I've read this is the case that was dismissed. He still has 2 against him or did I not get this right?. No idea why the club is not acting? I really think he will end up in jail...

You'd like to think the club isn't run by idiots, so probably have seen all the evidence and have had it all checked out. If they knew Partey was guilty and would get done I have no doubt he'd be suspended by now. If it comes out he is guilty then obviously you'd hope Partey gets the maximum possible punishment but the club have a lot to answer for as well.

Ricky1985 wrote:

*FWIW, I have seen posts on Twitter that suggest the reason for dropping the charge was actually because Partey presented evidence of a consensual act and that the alledged victim had been found to delete messages from the conversation presented. I obviously don't know the truth, but then I don't know the truth of any of it. It's social media - a cesspool of lies, misinformation and nonsense.

Problem is nowadays Social Media like to think it can be Judge, Jury and Executioner. We don't know all the facts and both sides.

Clubs won't likely have all/any of the evidence though, who exactly would show it to them, Partey? City didn't suspend Mendy until well after his initial arrest, up to the point where he was formally charged and named. We all know how that one turned out.

It sounds like she went to the FA and Arsenal so you'd think they'd have all the evidence that she is providing. Fair point about City.