Tam wrote:Whether you like it or not, you're attitude is part of the problem. We're all culpable of overlooking the issue in that we're not taking the action Klaus did, but it's not black and white, and Partey is not Arsenal. You said it yourself about compartmentalising. There is a difference though between acknowledging, 'accepting' the situation as it, calling it out for being wrong and letting justice run it's course, and consciously overlooking it to praise or discuss the positive points of the footballer. If you're willing to overlook the issue in order to discuss the individual's footballing merits, you are part of the problem.
I'm not overlooking any issue nor am I absolving him what he may of done. All I'm saying is why don't we let the full facts be looked at first?
Tam wrote:Let's put aside the SJW nonsense and focus on the evidence. We'll likely never know the full extent of evidence. As with the vast majority of sexual assault cases this likely won't ever make court because the evidence might not be strong enough to get a conviction. As Burnsy outlined elsewhere this is already one of only a small percentage where the complainant has reported it. In the vast majority of instances where the crime occurs and it can't be proven beyond doubt in court, as is potentially/likely the case with Partey, are you suggesting we should then move on and ignore it despite any evidence we are aware of? The evidence is there for those who wish to see it, you're choosing to ignore it because you had a mate experience an unfortunate situation. It's not wrong to wish to see more evidence, it is wrong to ignore what has already been made public with the excuse that you don't have all the facts.
I'm not ignoring anything that has been made public but I simply refuse to
Tam wrote:What if it goes to court and there is overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing by Partey that would pretty much convince any reasonable member of the public he is guilty, but the defence manages to establish some reasonable doubt with the jury? Or if his defence managed to get him off on a technicality despite it being clearly beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty? In those circumstances a court would declare him not guilty. Where do you stand on that?
If it goes to court and the evidence is published I'll come to my own conclusion then. If there is reasonable doubt that Partey has done this I'd be shocked if Arsenal hadn't suspended him by now.
If he gets off on a technicality or the evidence overwhelming shows he is guilty but manages to wiggle out then he is a rapist as far as I'm concerned.
Tam wrote:I won't go back on my view of Partey. I don't need a jury's view of reasonable doubt to help me in making that decision.
With all due respect that is your choice to come to a decision, I won't base mine just from one girl releas