and they backed robin van persie, so you all should have stopped following the club years ago. oh yeah twitter wasn't around back then.

Good point, perhaps we should have. However, in that case there’s wasn’t a shitload of evidence all over social media.

Gurgen wrote:

I find it incredible that we keep playing him. Quite done with Arsenal to be honest, I can’t see myself cheering for a team with this guy in it. Perhaps I’m overly emotional on this issue as people close to me have been a victim of rape, but this has really cut the cord with this club for me. Rape may not be one of Arteta’s “non-negotiables”, but it’s certainly one of mine.

This as well as Klaus's posts express my sentiments exactly. Playing him is ridiculous. Playing him on what should have been a relaxed preseason day at the Emirates even more so - totally unnecessary and frankly quite baffling.

Coombs wrote:

Gurgen wrote:

I find it incredible that we keep playing him. Quite done with Arsenal to be honest, I can’t see myself cheering for a team with this guy in it. Perhaps I’m overly emotional on this issue as people close to me have been a victim of rape, but this has really cut the cord with this club for me. Rape may not be one of Arteta’s “non-negotiables”, but it’s certainly one of mine.

This as well as Klaus's posts express my sentiments exactly. Playing him is ridiculous. Playing him on what should have been a relaxed preseason day at the Emirates even more so - totally unnecessary and frankly quite baffling.

This is the first 11 we are going to play v Palace so we had to give them a run out today.

You either don’t play him at all or play him every game. No middle ground.

I dont want to see him ever again wearing our beloved shirt. The case it's quite clear, I hope the club does the right thing.

Btw at the moment I think that Arteta may be waiting for the Club decision on this matter. Nonetheless if the club chooses to do nothing he could still refuse to play him. We'll see.

Gurgen wrote:

Why can’t we decide that for ourselves? We make judgments all the time. It’s not like we’re sentencing him to jail by doing that. I read this evidence and I simply find it credible. Apart from the fact that I do this for a living, I think I have a right to form an opinion just as you have a right to form yours. Quite frankly I don’t understand how anyone can read this evidence and have a different opinion though. What has been produced are texts with the perpetrator, emails with lawyers, FA, Arsenal, NDAs, doctor’s reports and much more and this evidence is consistent with the story she tells. It’s not just one screenshot and her story. If I was a prosecutor presented with this I’d do a backflip of happiness. In theory it’s possible that all of this is doctored in some big conspiracy to bring him down, but I find that unlikely, especially in light of the fact that there are other allegations against him and that this behaviour does not really seem out of character based on what I’ve read on him.

What I do wonder is why, if it is indeed true that he got off because the UK authorities at the time did not have the competence to pursue crimes committed outside the UK, the case was not transferred to Spain? I understand why she reported it in the UK but you would think there is a way to get him in front of a court for this somewhere. Perhaps extradition would also have been an issue, who knows.

All this also begs the question whether we actually do any background checks before signing players. From reading about his lifestyle and the way he treats women in general, I gather he is a bit of a sociopath and wouldn’t be out of place in the Netflix documentary on Hunter Moore. Surely we could have known this and thought, maybe it’s not a good idea to spend 50m and pay someone hundreds of thousands of pounds a week when there is a significant chance that person may do something incredibly stupid at any moment?

I accept you're in a better position to make any judgment compared to me but I won't make any judgement until I see both sides of the story. Considering he is under investigation he clearly can't publicly comment or respond to any of this. While it is very sad reading her tweets some of her facts do not stack up. I'm not saying she is lying or I don't believe her, she might be traumatised and finding it hard to convey her thoughts concisely but I'm not gonna conclude he is some kind of serial rapist off someone's Twitter feed. You are welcome to do so but it doesn't mean the club should either.

Arsenal, the FA and PL seem to have all have this evidence according to the woman. I'm sure all have done some kind of investigations. If they thought he would get convicted I think they would have suspended him by now. I could be wrong and overestimating the club but I would be shocked if they didn't have top legal minds look through every bit of evidence before deciding what to do. Putting aside the moral case, this would be a PR disaster if he got convicted. Kroenke's moral compass might be off but their business and PR one won't be.

Gurgen wrote:

I find it incredible that we keep playing him. Quite done with Arsenal to be honest, I can’t see myself cheering for a team with this guy in it. Perhaps I’m overly emotional on this issue as people close to me have been a victim of rape, but this has really cut the cord with this club for me. Rape may not be one of Arteta’s “non-negotiables”, but it’s certainly one of mine.

I know someone who was accused by a vindictive woman he was seeing and it ruined his life and put the poor guy in a dark dark place. So I'm the opposite of you, I usually take a step back before believing anything. I've also probably become more cynical in my old age!

Gurgen wrote:

Innocent until proven guilty is an instruction to a judge or jury. It has no relevance outside the courtroom. Outside the courtroom every person and organisation is free to decide whether and to what extent they consider someone to be innocent or guilty.

Not having a go at you but just using this to illustrate a point as to why it becomes increasingly difficult to take criminal charges to court = trial by media.  

The problem being, as seen with a number of posts on the thread, is people are very quick to apply one set of legal rules/applications such as calling anything said as 'evidence', and are just as quick to not only accept it as being true, and then failing to recognise that the legal system is based upon innocent until proven guilty.  

Everything being said in media is hearsay and is NOT evidence of anything.  It's also biased and in favour of any agendas by those who post it.  Elsewhere on this site we are more critical in regards to transfer gossip validity than we are of this.

AAStyle- wrote:

I dont want to see him ever again wearing our beloved shirt. The case it's quite clear, I hope the club does the right thing.

I doubt it is as clear cut as you seem to think, particularly in regards to proving criminal charges, and I am always suspicious of the intent when someone starts talking about a criminal allegation on social media.  They may secure the popular vote and public support, but that makes finding an impartial jury panel much more difficult as most will have an opinion one way or the other.  In general terms it also makes it more difficult to have anything said in the media accepted into evidence within any subsequent court trial, and more so if there is no corroboration.

Gurgen wrote:

I find it incredible that we keep playing him. Quite done with Arsenal to be honest, I can’t see myself cheering for a team with this guy in it. Perhaps I’m overly emotional on this issue as people close to me have been a victim of rape, but this has really cut the cord with this club for me. Rape may not be one of Arteta’s “non-negotiables”, but it’s certainly one of mine.

Agree 100%

As I've said before, the club should just stand the player down (no playing or representing the club publicly in any way, but keep paying) while the investigation is active. If they can do that over here in the rugby league (not a code known for being progressive on social issues) then I'm sure it would be possible for Arsenal to do similar. 

Man United did it with Greenwood and Everton did with Sigurdsson both pending police investigation and before any charges (not sure if either have actually been charged yet).

JazzG wrote:

Gurgen wrote:

Why can’t we decide that for ourselves? We make judgments all the time. It’s not like we’re sentencing him to jail by doing that. I read this evidence and I simply find it credible. Apart from the fact that I do this for a living, I think I have a right to form an opinion just as you have a right to form yours. Quite frankly I don’t understand how anyone can read this evidence and have a different opinion though. What has been produced are texts with the perpetrator, emails with lawyers, FA, Arsenal, NDAs, doctor’s reports and much more and this evidence is consistent with the story she tells. It’s not just one screenshot and her story. If I was a prosecutor presented with this I’d do a backflip of happiness. In theory it’s possible that all of this is doctored in some big conspiracy to bring him down, but I find that unlikely, especially in light of the fact that there are other allegations against him and that this behaviour does not really seem out of character based on what I’ve read on him.

What I do wonder is why, if it is indeed true that he got off because the UK authorities at the time did not have the competence to pursue crimes committed outside the UK, the case was not transferred to Spain? I understand why she reported it in the UK but you would think there is a way to get him in front of a court for this somewhere. Perhaps extradition would also have been an issue, who knows.

All this also begs the question whether we actually do any background checks before signing players. From reading about his lifestyle and the way he treats women in general, I gather he is a bit of a sociopath and wouldn’t be out of place in the Netflix documentary on Hunter Moore. Surely we could have known this and thought, maybe it’s not a good idea to spend 50m and pay someone hundreds of thousands of pounds a week when there is a significant chance that person may do something incredibly stupid at any moment?

I accept you're in a better position to make any judgment compared to me but I won't make any judgement until I see both sides of the story. Considering he is under investigation he clearly can't publicly comment or respond to any of this. While it is very sad reading her tweets some of her facts do not stack up. I'm not saying she is lying or I don't believe her, she might be traumatised and finding it hard to convey her thoughts concisely but I'm not gonna conclude he is some kind of serial rapist off someone's Twitter feed. You are welcome to do so but it doesn't mean the club should either.

Arsenal, the FA and PL seem to have all have this evidence according to the woman. I'm sure all have done some kind of investigations. If they thought he would get convicted I think they would have suspended him by now. I could be wrong and overestimating the club but I would be shocked if they didn't have top legal minds look through every bit of evidence before deciding what to do. Putting aside the moral case, this would be a PR disaster if he got convicted. Kroenke's moral compass might be off but their business and PR one won't be.

Gurgen wrote:

I find it incredible that we keep playing him. Quite done with Arsenal to be honest, I can’t see myself cheering for a team with this guy in it. Perhaps I’m overly emotional on this issue as people close to me have been a victim of rape, but this has really cut the cord with this club for me. Rape may not be one of Arteta’s “non-negotiables”, but it’s certainly one of mine.

I know someone who was accused by a vindictive woman he was seeing and it ruined his life and put the poor guy in a dark dark place. So I'm the opposite of you, I usually take a step back before believing anything. I've also probably become more cynical in my old age!

Alternatively she may be emotionally/mentally unstable and genuinely beieves what she says is true, which may or may not come out until such time as there is a court case.  Another point to consider is just as the accused cannot talk about any investigation that is ongoing, that also applies to the alleged victim.

invisibleman18 wrote:

Man United did it with Greenwood and Everton did with Sigurdsson both pending police investigation and before any charges (not sure if either have actually been charged yet).

Different circumstances in regards to corroboration?

I think it’s premature to make any conclusive decisions or judgements on this without hearing both sides of the story.

Anzac wrote:

JazzG wrote:

I accept you're in a better position to make any judgment compared to me but I won't make any judgement until I see both sides of the story. Considering he is under investigation he clearly can't publicly comment or respond to any of this. While it is very sad reading her tweets some of her facts do not stack up. I'm not saying she is lying or I don't believe her, she might be traumatised and finding it hard to convey her thoughts concisely but I'm not gonna conclude he is some kind of serial rapist off someone's Twitter feed. You are welcome to do so but it doesn't mean the club should either.

Arsenal, the FA and PL seem to have all have this evidence according to the woman. I'm sure all have done some kind of investigations. If they thought he would get convicted I think they would have suspended him by now. I could be wrong and overestimating the club but I would be shocked if they didn't have top legal minds look through every bit of evidence before deciding what to do. Putting aside the moral case, this would be a PR disaster if he got convicted. Kroenke's moral compass might be off but their business and PR one won't be.

I know someone who was accused by a vindictive woman he was seeing and it ruined his life and put the poor guy in a dark dark place. So I'm the opposite of you, I usually take a step back before believing anything. I've also probably become more cynical in my old age!

Alternatively she may be emotionally/mentally unstable and genuinely beieves what she says is true, which may or may not come out until such time as there is a court case.  Another point to consider is just as the accused cannot talk about any investigation that is ongoing, that also applies to the alleged victim.

For me I was unsure from the posts on day 1 but her follow up posts on day 2 once she sobered up paints a very grim picture leading me to believe what she's saying. I can't say for certain he raped her but I believe the voracity with which she's making her claims and fully believe she believes what she's saying and that it's not just making something up.

I don't feel like he should play for us again tbh, even if he isn't convicted, which I doubt he'll be. It'll just be too hard to convict him I reckon but the amount of smoke out there makes me have no doubt there is a fire burning somewhere.

Fucking Partey, we finally have a midfielder who can do what we need him and he soends half his time innured before embarrassing us like this. Knew there was dodginess about him when he was talking about side chicks during his announcement about getting married and becoming muslim, like who thinks like that?

Gurgen wrote:

Why can’t we decide that for ourselves? We make judgments all the time. It’s not like we’re sentencing him to jail by doing that. I read this evidence and I simply find it credible. Apart from the fact that I do this for a living, I think I have a right to form an opinion just as you have a right to form yours. Quite frankly I don’t understand how anyone can read this evidence and have a different opinion though. What has been produced are texts with the perpetrator, emails with lawyers, FA, Arsenal, NDAs, doctor’s reports and much more and this evidence is consistent with the story she tells. It’s not just one screenshot and her story. If I was a prosecutor presented with this I’d do a backflip of happiness. In theory it’s possible that all of this is doctored in some big conspiracy to bring him down, but I find that unlikely, especially in light of the fact that there are other allegations against him and that this behaviour does not really seem out of character based on what I’ve read on him.

What I do wonder is why, if it is indeed true that he got off because the UK authorities at the time did not have the competence to pursue crimes committed outside the UK, the case was not transferred to Spain? I understand why she reported it in the UK but you would think there is a way to get him in front of a court for this somewhere. Perhaps extradition would also have been an issue, who knows.

You cannot/should not decide for yourself as you are not reading evidence of anything, you are reading a one sided account of an allegation that may or may not lead to criminal charges.
The alleged offender cannot challenge any of this until such time as it is presented in Court as evidence, at which point any of this could be thrown out for any number of reasons regarding lack of corroboration and/or that it was/is prejudicial to the case as it was presented on social media.  

If I was a prosecutor I'd make damn sure to keep any of this out of the public eye, and I'd work damn hard to establish the chain of evidence was iron clad, as any weakness or break in that chain will likely see the 'evidence' disqualified from being presented and accepted in Court.  Often what looks to be a compelling arguement is actually very flimsy and generally hearsay when it commes to criminal matters.

It's not about competence as it is about jurisdiction.  If an offence takes place in a foreign country then the matter needs to be reported to that country's law enforcement for them to be able to investigate and lay charges etc, and any subsequent criminal court hearing would also need to take place in that same country.  
And yes, for the matter to proceed it would be likely that an extradition process would need to be made.  It should also be noted that any extradition is not an automatic action and there is no guarantee it will succeed as there are a number of factors involved.

EDIT - Is this talk of something happening in another Country the 'technicality' that has been referred to in a number of posts in this thread? If so then it's not technicality at all. A technicality would be when critical evidence would be unable to be accepted in Court as the chain of evidence is broken in regard to it's security and validity. You cannot be freed on a technicality if no charges have been laid and the matter has not gone to Court.

Isn't it the situation that her case was dropped because of where the incident occurred and the nature of UK law at that time? So she is coming out and risking pretty much everything at this point because she has no chance at justice, while the other case still might have legs? Seems less like someone who is potentially unstable (issues with that being thrown around, honestly) and more someone who is quite brave and clear-headed about the whole affair if you ask me.

Open to being corrected if I've gotten it wrong.

Big Willie wrote:

Anzac wrote:

Alternatively she may be emotionally/mentally unstable and genuinely beieves what she says is true, which may or may not come out until such time as there is a court case.  Another point to consider is just as the accused cannot talk about any investigation that is ongoing, that also applies to the alleged victim.

For me I was unsure from the posts on day 1 but her follow up posts on day 2 once she sobered up paints a very grim picture leading me to believe what she's saying. I can't say for certain he raped her but I believe the voracity with which she's making her claims and fully believe she believes what she's saying and that it's not just making something up.

Believing something to be true and correct is not the same as it being fact and/or being able to be proven in regards to criminal matters.  

However in other types of civil court proceedings the rules regarding the burdon of proof and hearsay evidence are such that what the complainant feels is sometimes more important that what actually did or didn't happen to make them feel that way.  Similarly there are instances where the other party has no say or bearing on the matter and the outcome is entirely about how the other person feels about the matter or believes to be true.

The first issue with these posts is we may not see her making/posting them, so as such there is no corroboration it is her, or that she may have been 'schooled' by a thrid party as to what to say.
Secondly these are not being made under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
And lastly they are not subject to any cross examination to be able to determine if there is any hidden agenda etc.
I'd also add that time is not any alleged victim's friend when it comes to being able to prove any criminal offence, particularly when it comes to corroboration. 

Coombs wrote:

Isn't it the situation that her case was dropped because of where the incident occurred and the nature of UK law at that time? So she is coming out and risking pretty much everything at this point because she has no chance at justice, while the other case still might have legs? Seems less like someone who is potentially unstable (issues with that being thrown around, honestly) and more someone who is quite brave and clear-headed about the whole affair if you ask me.

Open to being corrected if I've gotten it wrong.

UK law would have no jurisdiction outside the UK - that is the same for most countries and is not just applicable to the UK.  As such they are not the relevant jurisdiction to pursue and investigation and cannot do so regardless of anything.  However this does not mean there is no case to answer in regards to the alleged incident, but it does mean there will be no case to answer if she does not make a complaint to the relevant authorities.  

If she wishes to pursue that matter and wants justice she needs to make a complaint to the authorities of the country where the incident took place for them to investigate it, not to take to social media becasue of some erroneous perception she cannot get justice.  If she hasn't done so it then raises the question as to why hasn't she, which then raises the question regarding the strength of both her allegations. 

I'd be very careful about anything anyone has initially said when they also admit to being under the influence of anything, and regardless of how lucid they are subsequently able to elaborate.  They can claim to have all the corroboration in the world but it means nothing until it is physically presented and able to be challenged.  Same as they can say/claim anything but it holds no weight in terms of criminal matters unless it is given under oath and able to be cross examined.