Thomas Partey charged

I think the more likely explanation is that Arsenal knew what was coming and never offered him an extension.
 
Sounds like there are a couple of options here (maybe more).
Coincidence or the charges were deliberately held back

The problem is - the society we live in allows thoughts to meander quite easily.
So you think Arsenal have influence over the CPS?
And that’s not conspiratorial thinking?
 
So you think Arsenal have influence over the CPS?
And that’s not conspiratorial thinking?
I don’t ‘think’ they have

I think it is possible they have

I’m not sure, and don’t really care, if that is conspiratorial thinking or not.
 
The huge missing piece is the detail of the charges. The other missing piece/dynamic is the context of sexual assault. The context is in many cases if there is an existing relationship between perpetrator and victim is a power imbalance - it is possible he misused his status and power in his alleged actions. The question for prosecutors is - would he have been in those positions, with those victims - if he was not a millionaire footballer. People may not like that, but I would think that will be an underlying question and part of a prosecution case.

It is very likely Arsenal will be aware of that detail as the alleged perpetrator and his representatives will obviously be aware. While the legal system is - innocent to proven guilty, there is a moral question of what is right for a community based organisation to act. I suppose one dilemma is - if he was sidelined then his anonymity would have been exposed. Is that minor in contrast to the message this sends to the women’s teams and associated community organisations Arsenal work alongside. As someone who has worked in a setting protecting people from perpetrators - he should have been sidelined. For charges to be made it is likely the detail of alleged offences is possibly damming and given there is more than one victim - it is possibly the victims are not connected but share a similar narrative relating to the alleged offences. For Arsenal to pursue contract talks with him while this has been ongoing, is poor IMO
 
Last edited:
Has he only been charged? Some comments here suggest he’s guilty. Sorry - not up to speed on this
Yeah, interesting the outrage over Andrew Malkinson being wrongly convicted spending 18 years in prison.. and now Thomas Partey has been charged he is seen as being guilty without a blink or a flinch!

I hope that justice is served and those that are guilty of a crime are punished accordingly.. and somehow that continues to be a controversial stance.
 
It's been disclosed there's been an investigation for 3 years.
Yes.. there has been an investigation and he has been charged. Being charged does not mean guilt. It just means a formal accusation has been made of someone commiting a specific offence. The legal process is underway and the authorities believe there is enough evidence to pursue a case and it is in the public interest to take it to trail.

This evidence may not stand up in court.. being charged is not the same as being convicted.
 
Yes.. there has been an investigation and he has been charged. Being charged does not mean guilt. It just means a formal accusation has been made of someone commiting a specific offence. The legal process is underway and the authorities believe there is enough evidence to pursue a case and it is in the public interest to take it to trail.

This evidence may not stand up in court.. being charged is not the same as being convicted.
Have I stated he was guilty at all in this entire thread? I said he's been investigated for the last 3 years and been charged, is that untrue?
 
The huge missing piece is the detail of the charges. The other missing piece/dynamic is the context of sexual assault. The context is in many cases if there is an existing relationship between perpetrator and victim is a power imbalance - it is possible he misused his status and power in his alleged actions. The question for prosecutors is - would he have been in those positions, with those victims - if he was not a millionaire footballer. People may not like that, but I would think that will be an underlying question and part of a prosecution case.

It is very likely Arsenal will be aware of that detail as the alleged perpetrator and his representatives will obviously be aware. While the legal system is - innocent to proven guilty, there is a moral question of what is right for a community based organisation to act. I suppose one dilemma is - if he was sidelined then his anonymity would have been exposed. Is that minor in contrast to the message this sends to the women’s teams and associated community organisations Arsenal work alongside. As someone who has worked in a setting protecting people from perpetrators - he should have been sidelined. For charges to be made it is likely the detail of alleged offences is possibly damming and given there is more than one victim - it is possibly the victims are not connected but share a similar narrative relating to the alleged offences. For Arsenal to pursue contract talks with him while this has been ongoing, is poor IMO

Assuming Party has accepted having sex with the females. And accepted whatever the act is in relation to the sexual assault,

Surely the question for the court is simply: did the women consent? Or did Partey reasonably believe they consented?

Also, out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?
 
Back
Top