JazzG wrote:

Anzac wrote:

If this is the accusation then I'm not sure it meets the criteria for rape, which used to identify with sexual intercourse in the traditional sense i.e. genitals.

In a post on the next day she said he did actually penetrate her while she was unconscious and she bled from her Vagina. But then in another one of her screenshots she says she checked on Google and what he did was rape. I was a bit confused because surely she doesn't need to check Google for that?

She explained in several tweets that she googled the definition to send to him because he disputed what happened was rape. Also really, how are you confused that someone who's went through a clearly traumatic experience might want to have something that happened to them affirmed?

Coombs wrote:

jones wrote:

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.

Footballers aren't really employees, though. They are more like contractors and they have expectations of maintaining a certain profile because they are entertainers who rely on audience support. Partey has become a liability in that regard, and I am sure there are clauses in footballers' contracts addressing that sort of thing. There is no way in which it makes sense to play him, for me.

Most people in this world can be fired on a rumor and a whim. This isn't a house cleaner being falsely accused of stealing or Mads Mikkelsen in that Vinterberg film. It's not such an injustice for this guy, who is getting away with this one on a technicality, to be released from his very lucrative and highly protective contract. Indeed, I would say it's probably the least he deserves.

I'm not suggesting that the club do anything out of the proper order of things, but I do expect them to begin pulling the levers they have available to move things along. That starts with dropping him.

"Not really employees" doesn't fly here, we're talking about the law and by law they are employees. And the law becomes useless when you start applying it selectively, either the same rules are there for everyone or they aren't.

Don't misunderstand me though, I think there was little room for decision at some point in time last year before he was arrested. The situation now after she exposed everything is different - might not be enough to sack him but suspension is definitely possible.

There are a million messages from the lady now, ranging from threatening to kill herself, laughing and joking, to going on a rampage against Twitter. I'm not going to read them all, so instead I'm going to refrain from comment on the specifics moving forward.

I happened upon this tweet scrolling quickly through, and it just confuses things further for me and paints a picture of what seems a very messy and unclear situation. How can you be certain of what has or hasn't happened if you're drunk to that extent? It's not possible.

However, for what it's worth, I will say that if I have misunderstood the accusation and there are in fact messages from Partey that acknowledge he used force or violence and/or continued against her will, then I withdraw the comment Klaus objected to because that would indisputably be despicable.

(That's hypothetically speaking btw, as far as I'm concerned he's innocent until proven guilty whatever he is being accused of, and it would take serious, indisputable evidence for me to think it would ever be acceptable for Arsenal to take action in the absence of a criminal conviction. The Mason Greenwood situation is a good example of the sort of evidence I'm talking about.)

Quincy Abeyie wrote:

Not joining this discussion fully, but even if she hadn't reported it right away you shouldn't really ask "why didn't she report it sooner". There are tons of reasons.

Yep. I'd also add that it's particularly common in sexual assault matters and even more so when assault occurs within an established relationship.

The other factor here is the often unrealistic way people will judge a potential victim from your story isn't perfect to you don't seem to understand the full law etc when ultimately as a human being who may have gone through a very traumatic experience it's quite reasonable that you don't articulate everything in exactly a perfect way or you might not remember everything. Think of people given bad news at a doctor it's why they often recommend you come with another as a human being you can shut down. So these aspects should not be used to say this or that thing didn't happen solely on their own It's why the legal prosecution of these sorts of crimes tends to be poor and why there is plenty of examples of abusive behaviour that falls through the cracks in our society. It's why the legal outcome is not necessarily the end of this from my perspective.

jones wrote:

Anzac wrote:

I'll try to cover the bases.

1 - I dispute that it is completely logical to wait until you return and then report a crime to your local law enforcement.  For example would she have done the same had the hotel room been ransacked and property stolen?  My next question is in regards to the timings - how long was she on holiday, when did this take place in relation to the holiday and how long before she reported it?

2 - I have no place for rapists, but if the accusation is as Ricky posted then it may not not meet the criteria for rape and is more in being a lewd act.  As such IMO it does not warrant some of the reactions posted in this thread.  The difference in our daily decision making is that we are not generally calling out someone in social media and making accusations of criminal behaviour.

She may feel violated and that she was penetrated, but what Ricky described does not meet any definition I know of rape in traditional terms of a criminal offence, and nor does it make an accused a rapist.  Ricky's description may not be the actual accusation, but it also serves as an indication as to how unreliable things are in social media & the typical Chinese Whispers scenario.

I see you wrote half a novel worth of posts here Anzac without even bothering to read the chats between the two. How arre you covering your bases when your only account of what happened is a post by Ricky who himself in the same breath said he didn't fully read what's happened?

That you then go on to complain about unreliable Chinese whispers in social media while you're doing exactly that would be hilarious if the topic wasn't as grim. I'm not here to read the chats for you but no, she didn't wait but immediately reported what's happened to the UK embassy and Ricky's description is not accurate. One thing to not watch Arsenal matches and post about them here, another to doubt and scrutinise someone in this situation without having read what's going on.

I'm not interested in reading a one sided story from either side and I'm only responding to posts in here and raising questions such as about the 'technicality' that saw the earlier matter dropped.  
I referred to Ricky's post as it has been the only one I've seen to provide a description as to the allegations.

I find it interesting that everyone has jumped on my question re timing as I deliberately left the reference vague, but I had also alluded to the significance earlier. 
The timing is important in regards to the continuity of evidence, and breaks in the continuity timeline can result in evidence not being accepted in Court becaue it cannot be trusted as not having beem tampered with, or the opportunity to have been tampered with.  

Yes I'm aware that much of my posts are in terms of legal process, however I presume that was the point of her making her complaint = to have the matter investigated with a view to a criminal prosecution.  As I also said earlier what she is doing by talking about this on social media is not helping any criminal investigation and may actually be damaging her case so far as any potential charges being laid or evidence being accepted in Court.  

TBH I find it appalling on principle as to how readily most seem to be to accept one person's account as being gospel, and to have already determined the player as being guilty and a vile human, let alone that he plays for our club.  Regardless of how much corroboration she claims to have or to have posted it is still only 1 person's account and a single point of truth.  It is interesting to see the response to an allegation that invokes an emotional response, compared to one when you can look at things with more detachment.  Again I mentioned this earlier in terms of how we criticise transfer rumours but have accepted this seemingly without question.  If this forum is any indication of the general public then I doubt he could get a fair trial.

We're going round in circles on this now so I'll leave this discussion until such time as something significant happens in terms of charges etc.

I think there’s room for debating this issue as far as it relates to the player and the impact on the club, and their actions in relation to it. Debating the actions of Partey and the individual making the allegations is iffy territory, and commenting on the law, legal process and live investigations is very shaky ground. Especially as it’s clear that a few have a far poorer understanding of the law than they believe.

If you want to post in detail you would do well to spend a few minutes googling the basics. At the very least, you should understand what constitutes rape.

Having read through this thread, I tend to agree with posters like Daz and Tam that it's reflected a pretty unfortunate gamut of rape discourse, from questioning the character of the women making the allegations to needlessly downplaying the allegations' credibility against the statistical patterns of these situations.

I'm not a lawyer or a survivor so I'm not gonna comment on what's outside my knowledge, but I do urge people to extend the greatest of imaginative sympathy to survivors of sexual assault.

My own take based on reading what's out there is that Partey very likely committed rape. I also infer Arsenal's advisors have made a bet the allegations made against him won't stick in court, which is why he has not been suspended. It's a deeply uncomfortable situation where I feel Arsenal is supporting a player of bad character for the sake of results and contracts, but I do accept we have incomplete information about Partey, the women making these claims, and Arsenal's legal and contractual position.

Tam wrote:

I think there’s room for debating this issue as far as it relates to the player and the impact on the club, and their actions in relation to it. Debating the actions of Partey and the individual making the allegations is iffy territory, and commenting on the law, legal process and live investigations is very shaky ground. Especially as it’s clear that a few have a far poorer understanding of the law than they believe.

If you want to post in detail you would do well to spend a few minutes googling the basics. At the very least, you should understand what constitutes rape.

Hey I stand corrected in that the definition has changed to include penetration of the mouth.

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rsa/rape-and-sexual-assault/what-is-rape-and-sexual-assault/

Anzac wrote:

jones wrote:

I see you wrote half a novel worth of posts here Anzac without even bothering to read the chats between the two. How arre you covering your bases when your only account of what happened is a post by Ricky who himself in the same breath said he didn't fully read what's happened?

That you then go on to complain about unreliable Chinese whispers in social media while you're doing exactly that would be hilarious if the topic wasn't as grim. I'm not here to read the chats for you but no, she didn't wait but immediately reported what's happened to the UK embassy and Ricky's description is not accurate. One thing to not watch Arsenal matches and post about them here, another to doubt and scrutinise someone in this situation without having read what's going on.

I'm not interested in reading a one sided story from either side and I'm only responding to posts in here and raising questions such as about the 'technicality' that saw the earlier matter dropped.  
I referred to Ricky's post as it has been the only one I've seen to provide a description as to the allegations.

I find it interesting that everyone has jumped on my question re timing as I deliberately left the reference vague, but I had also alluded to the significance earlier. 
The timing is important in regards to the continuity of evidence, and breaks in the continuity timeline can result in evidence not being accepted in Court becaue it cannot be trusted as not having beem tampered with, or the opportunity to have been tampered with.  

Yes I'm aware that much of my posts are in terms of legal process, however I presume that was the point of her making her complaint = to have the matter investigated with a view to a criminal prosecution.  As I also said earlier what she is doing by talking about this on social media is not helping any criminal investigation and may actually be damaging her case so far as any potential charges being laid or evidence being accepted in Court.  

TBH I find it appalling on principle as to how readily most seem to be to accept one person's account as being gospel, and to have already determined the player as being guilty and a vile human, let alone that he plays for our club.  Regardless of how much corroboration she claims to have or to have posted it is still only 1 person's account and a single point of truth.  It is interesting to see the response to an allegation that invokes an emotional response, compared to one when you can look at things with more detachment.  Again I mentioned this earlier in terms of how we criticise transfer rumours but have accepted this seemingly without question.  If this forum is any indication of the general public then I doubt he could get a fair trial.

We're going round in circles on this now so I'll leave this discussion until such time as something significant happens in terms of charges etc.

No one here is involved in the case, so you can leave your snide remarks of "fair trial" where they belong ie the courts. You don't seem to have any legal background either so there are several posters in here with more expertise in the topic and they both disagree with your diatribe of in dubio pro reo and lynching mob rule.

You're complaining about taking "one person's account as being gospel" ie the victim in this situation, a woman who's produced chats, an NDA handed to her by Partey's lawyer, the evidence handed to the police, the fact he's been arrested already on the accounts of several parties. You dismiss all of this because unlike the rabid rabble you're fair and balanced, and then go ahead to write pages worth of unrelated generalisms based on nothing but Ricky's account who himself started his post with "I didn't read all of her tweets and chats".

Yes I'm aware that much of my posts are in terms of legal process, however I presume that was the point of her making her complaint = to have the matter investigated with a view to a criminal prosecution.  As I also said earlier what she is doing by talking about this on social media is not helping any criminal investigation and may actually be damaging her case so far as any potential charges being laid or evidence being accepted in Court.  

If you had bothered to read at least her first tweets explaining why she goes public with all this now you'd understand she knows that a lot better than you do. But then again you explicitly said you're not interested in her account. What I don't get is why anyone would be interested in doubting a victim's claims of rape (instead calling them a "lewd act") then?

Twitter has now banned this girl

Yeah noticed the account was gone. Most of the posting was over the weekend so lawyers probably got involved on Monday.

jones wrote:

No one here is involved in the case, so you can leave your snide remarks of "fair trial" where they belong ie the courts. You don't seem to have any legal background either so there are several posters in here with more expertise in the topic and they both disagree with your diatribe of in dubio pro reo and lynching mob rule.

You're complaining about taking "one person's account as being gospel" ie the victim in this situation, a woman who's produced chats, an NDA handed to her by Partey's lawyer, the evidence handed to the police, the fact he's been arrested already on the accounts of several parties. You dismiss all of this because unlike the rabid rabble you're fair and balanced, and then go ahead to write pages worth of unrelated generalisms based on nothing but Ricky's account who himself started his post with "I didn't read all of her tweets and chats".

If you had bothered to read at least her first tweets explaining why she goes public with all this now you'd understand she knows that a lot better than you do. But then again you explicitly said you're not interested in her account. What I don't get is why anyone would be interested in doubting a victim's claims of rape (instead calling them a "lewd act") then?

You have no idea what my background may or may not have been.

When did I ever actually say that I doubted her claim?  All I have done is raised questions for context and expressed my concern that what she is doing may be damaging to her case in regards to a successful prosecution.  I could better understand her actions if a criminal charge was unsuccessful in Court or dismissed without going to court.  All of my comments are based on the premise that the aim of any allegation/complaint is to have a successfull criminal prosecution of the suspect/defendant.

That said I still disagree with comments about getting off on a technicality regarding the earlier incident, as it implies something that was never the actual reality.  Likewise I have an issue when people assign a certain weight or validity to any claim that has not as yet been challenged or validated.  I still maintain it is a dangerous practice to take the word of someone you don't know at face value who is under the influence, regardless of how compelling it may seem. 
General rule of thumb being nothing is as it seems until it is proven.

In regards to the term 'lewd act' I think I had said that to my knowledge the definition of rape did not include penetration of the mouth or had not when I was more familiar with it, and that previously that had been a different type of sexual offence as a lewd act.  Primarily it was used for offences such as oral sex between males in a public toilet.  No one was posting anything other than their reaction/opinion to what she had said, so I raised the questions for clarification.  Had someone responded to my initial questions then much of this could have been avoided. It's taken the reaction to my posts to get some clarification & context which I had been asking for. 

On a final note no one has bothered to ask what I actually think of the situation, so in that regards it is pot calling kettle or throwing stones in glass houses in regards to assumptions and generalisations.  

Anzac wrote:

No one was posting anything other than their reaction/opinion to what she had said, so I raised the questions for clarification.  Had someone responded to my initial questions then much of this could have been avoided. It's taken the reaction to my posts to get some clarification & context which I had been asking for. 

You keep reading websites like caughtoffside F365 etc but a case like this where a very serious accusation is heaped on an Arsenal player with loads of evidence you can't be bothered to click a fucking link. You read someone talking about it and you can't be bothered to do a simple google search before you make a claim that might have been true around the time of WWII.

As for the rest of your post I'm not going to read it but I will respond to it when someone else gives me a summary.

This does seem like confirmation of what the victim was saying, doesn't it?

Get this piece of shit out of the team. The fucking nerve of this club.

Ffs can't defend him anymore.

Great for the police to speak up by the way

Klaus wrote:

Get this piece of shit out of the team. The fucking nerve of this club.

Wenger told us to take care of the values of the club. Didn't even take 5 years for the pricks in charge to piss all over them instead.

The club probably think Partey won't be convicted and that'll be that, they don't give a shit if he actually did it, they just care about their investment. It makes me physically sick. It'd be the easiest thing in the world to just not play him while investigations are ongoing, to not take the risk of having an actual rapist representing the club every week, it's the least they could do, but it seems that's not a priority.

I've read the messages she posted in that video, there may not be enough evidence in there to convict him of rape, but there definitely is enough evidence to tell he's a fucking twat with an appalling attitude towards women and consent at the very least. There's too much smoke here for there to be no fire. Let's not forget there's another woman who has apparently come forward as well. Considering the history of rape cases all over the world, what the girl posted on her twitter and now that statement by the police, I personally believe she's telling the truth and that Thomas Partey is a rapist. I may be wrong. But at this point, I seriously doubt it. And he'll be wearing the shirt on Friday. I can't believe the club actually managed to ruin seeing Saka, Odegaard and the other lads play for me, but here we are. I'd take 10 more years of finishing 8th over this.

We're in the middle of a transfer window too. There's really no reason to keep this bloke around other than us wanting him, in spite of everything.