- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 216
Just a thought, if Antony,s and Party,s accusers been British would there be a bigger drive from the media for their immediate suspension?
Again, my bias towards what?I also never said that we shouldn't suspend him because Arsenal didn't with their player, so not sure why you started going on about the right thing in the first place.
And Arsenal are not some minnows, they get plenty of attention when it suits them, so it's still very much a big topic they've been let off the hook here.
You know who else was never punished or proven guilty? Lots of people who are actually innocent.It's still innocent until proven guilty, that's why he isn't in jail. It's why Jimmy Savile was never punished: he was never proven guilty, so he's treated as innocent in the eyes of the law. Nothing has changed.
No they didn’t, Greenwood was named in the press, the Arsenal player hasn’t, therefore Arsenal can hide behind that instead of doing the right thing and suspending with pay.Don't be mad at Arsenal or the media, be mad at United for being spineless cnuts/moral flowers. Because they had/have every opportunity to go the Arsenal route.
I'm not talking about guilty in the eye of the law. I'm talking about public perception.It's still innocent until proven guilty, that's why he isn't in jail. It's why Jimmy Savile was never punished: he was never proven guilty, so he's treated as innocent in the eyes of the law. Nothing has changed.
Well it is involving most celebrities. I mean would you consider Mendy innocent even though court didn't find him guilty?What?
Is it so? In most cases?
Best post by a distance regarding this topic !I think all of these things are pendulums that swing one way, then too far in the other, than hopefully come towards a more sensible end point. I think we can all agree it's likely that some of our favourite players in the 80s/90s did worse than what Antony is accused of, and nothing was said, reported or done. And the victims had to suffer because of that silence.
Now we seem to have swung to the point where the twitter mob are the judge, jury and executioner, rather than the legal systems setup with certian processes to protect both sides. I personally find the Antony case so problematic because one party is going to the media and one party is going through the proper channels. This assymetry is a 'clever' tactic to win the battle of public opinion, regardless of the actual judicial process that should follow.
We may never know what happened between Antony and the alleged victim, but by taking this public she has foregone his right to the proper channels of justice, and given today's environment, unilaterally condemned him.
As a society we have to wary of cures that are potentially as damaging as the disease. At a macro level sure, throw a few rich folk under the bus as examples if it means we reduce the staggering number of abuse victims. But doesn't mean that we should feel good about it.
Antony may end up being a creep who deservedly gets justice. But I'd much rather see that come from the courts and police, rather than twitter and the media.
Then that has never been a thing, so once again nothing has changed. People generally believe the things they think are true, for all sorts of different reasons.I'm not talking about guilty in the eye of the law. I'm talking about public perception.
Really?Best post by a distance regarding this topic !
The fact there are camps is insane.You know who else was never punished or proven guilty? Lots of people who are actually innocent.
That Jimmy Saville reference is ridiculous.
On balance, the arguments in this thread that not being found guilty in court means someone is definitely innocent are more damaging than the counter arguments trying to imply that due process is irrelevant and simply being accused should be enough to torpedo someone’s reputation and career (you’re basically Jimmy Saville, right?)
It’s a close run thing though. And both camps need to take a long look at themselves.
Is it so involving most celebrities? That now you are guilty even if proven innocent? We have different opinions then, but i guess it comes from what you read.Well it is involving most celebrities. I mean would you consider Mendy innocent even though court didn't find him guilty?
That’s almost the craziest thing in all of this. It’s supposed to be a criminal case. How on earth do the Brazilian FA suddenly seem to have new evidence now that they didn’t have when the story first broke? How on earth do the Brazilian FA have unique access to any evidence that is relevant to a criminal case at all?!The fact there are camps is insane.
We have an allegation. And have had since June. Correctly no action was taken.
There seems to be damning evidence to the point the Brazilian FA have acted.
There is pressure on United to act due to the scale of the media gaze, the precedent set by the Brazilian FA and our calamitous handling of the Greenwood situation.
Is anyone actually calling for his head? Very few people are actually discussing the data in hand.
It's mostly outrage about Rachel Riley, Arsenal and how hard it is to be a young man with all the false accusations flying about.
I won't be surprised if the club suspends Antony now, it might be unfair on Antony but the club will have to act in a way that shows that they do not condone DV.
Hopefully the authorities (In Brazil or UK) expedite the process so justice can be served.
I don't know what's going on there. They either have evidence they think is worth taking heed of or are trying to make some statement, because as I have said previously Brazil is ranked as one of the worst countries for thd protection of women. It's unusual anyway.That’s almost the craziest thing in all of this. It’s supposed to be a criminal case. How on earth do the Brazilian FA suddenly seem to have new evidence now that they didn’t have when the story first broke? How on earth do the Brazilian FA have unique access to any evidence that is relevant to a criminal case at all?!
This just all stems from our weak and cowardly CEO.
When you fail to protect your players, mete out punishment on OUR own terms, and not be dictated by outsiders, this is what happens. It opens the door to media and any dickhead taking a shot at us and influencing our club from the outside.
Never imagined we'd fall so far from the days of SAF.
I don't think they do? They are just covering their asses.That’s almost the craziest thing in all of this. It’s supposed to be a criminal case. How on earth do the Brazilian FA suddenly seem to have new evidence now that they didn’t have when the story first broke? How on earth do the Brazilian FA have unique access to any evidence that is relevant to a criminal case at all?!
Hard not to assume that there’s a slightly hysterical overreaction going on due to the weight of public pressure being brought to bear, because of this happening so soon after the Greenwood saga. With United likely to make a similar decision before our next match.
I was referring to the media.This is a woman who says she was violently assaulted.
To get from that to "any dickhead taking a shot at us" is quite something.
We can agree on that. Like you believe nothing has changed, which is fair enough, that's your belief. But I disagree.Then that has never been a thing, so once again nothing has changed. People generally believe the things they think are true, for all sorts of different reasons.
That seems likely. Which begs the question, why are they covering their asses after this update hit the wires, but didn’t when the story first broke?I don't think they do? They are just covering their asses.
That’s an assumption you’ve made. The far logical assumption is after 3 months the story blew up again with the release of images and WhatsApp messages in the press and Brazil didn’t think it was worth the press attention for a player who doesn’t start for them. The idea the Brazilian FA have suddenly had access to some smoking gun of evidence on the same day the story blew up in the media again seems ridiculous.The fact there are camps is insane.
We have an allegation. And have had since June. Correctly no action was taken.
There seems to be damning evidence to the point the Brazilian FA have acted.
what nonsense are you on aboutThis just all stems from our weak and cowardly CEO.
When you fail to protect your players, mete out punishment on OUR own terms, and not be dictated by outsiders, this is what happens. It opens the door to media and any dickhead taking a shot at us and influencing our club from the outside.
Never imagined we'd fall so far from the days of SAF. Not that the glazers give a toss. They are still happy with a bunch of University of bristol mates continuing to run this club to the ground. Anything but a full change in ownership will see us just continue to spiral into mediocrity and weakness.
Meaningless gestures, yes. In the sense that they don't have any tangible positive impact to the club or football or society. It could feel good. It looks good. But it has no impact the way an actual conviction, or an initiative to educate players/people on sexual assault, or an initiative to support victims does. I don't think Partey continuing to play has done any harm in the tangible world. To the contrary, Arsenal benefit from continuing to play him, and they've suffered no atrophy in stadium revenues.I was talking about Partey.
But anyway so you really feel not playing MG is meaningless gesture or that suspensing Partey while under investigation for rape is a meaningless gesture?
I disagree on it being a football decision up to the verdict. That's not even in keeping with the club's mission statement.
Most companies will suspend people on bail pending a trial.
I disagree with you obviously, and see you as a moral vacuum, but your honesty is refreshing.
You'd think the Brazilian FA/Footballing world would have learnt from the Neymar incident.That’s an assumption you’ve made. The far logical assumption is after 3 months the story blew up again with the release of images and WhatsApp messages in the press and Brazil didn’t think it was worth the press attention for a player who doesn’t start for them. The idea the Brazilian FA have suddenly had access to some smoking gun of evidence on the same day the story blew up in the media again seems ridiculous.
I was referring to the media.
Also, its allegations.
What I find most remarkable is people actually expect football clubs and authorities to be moral or legal barometers now.That’s almost the craziest thing in all of this. It’s supposed to be a criminal case. How on earth do the Brazilian FA suddenly seem to have new evidence now that they didn’t have when the story first broke? How on earth do the Brazilian FA have unique access to any evidence that is relevant to a criminal case at all?!
Hard not to assume that there’s a slightly hysterical overreaction going on due to the weight of public pressure being brought to bear, because of this happening so soon after the Greenwood saga. With United likely to make a similar decision before our next match.
How about not ship out players who have had charges dropped against them?"Woman who says"... Allegations.
Ah the evil media again. So what is the CEO to do? Ban all media outlets unfairly criticising the club? Like who?
Narrowing this conversation to football clubs, your reasons are reasons that Juventus, Arsenal, West Ham, PSG, Lorient, Manchester City, Getafe are somehow yet to grasp as well. I expect some mes un que club reply on the lines of how United are simply bigger.Suspension is a protective measure whether that's to protect other employees, the employees mental health or the reputation/operations of the club.
Allegations of violence or sexual assault usually fall into the first category. Given the club is a global brand with global sponsors it's not hard to understand why it could fit into the third and we simply don't know on the mental health protection
It's also a costly and risky process so you might ponder why 99% of corporations follow these steps. It's okay for you to self assess and realise you don't understand the value but there's obviously valid reasons you've yet to grasp. Move beyond 'footballer good, football play'
You're oddly insistent that taking a stand is meaningless.Meaningless gestures, yes. In the sense that they don't have any tangible positive impact to the club or football or society. It could feel good. It looks good. But it has no impact the way an actual conviction, or an initiative to educate players/people on sexual assault, or an initiative to support victims does. I don't think Partey continuing to play has done any harm in the tangible world. To the contrary, Arsenal benefit from continuing to play him, and they've suffered no atrophy in stadium revenues.
I just looked at Arsenal and United's mission statements and they couldn't be more vacuous.
Most companies will suspend people who have been charged, yes, because the impact on their bottom lines are insignificant. Football players are incredibly more valuable.
My olive branch on this issue is that I would not mind the FA and PL clubs creating a uniform standard by which players accused, indicted and/or convicted of physical/domestic/sexual assault should be charged. Then even if they were just meaningless gestures, there are no arbitrage opportunities for a club without morals to benefit.
As soon as it started getting traction in the UK media they bailed on him. National teams have such a luxury in this kind of instance because regardless of how mad a player might be at them (and if it turns out Antony is innocent I'm sure he will be pissed at the Brasilian FA) he can't exactly move teams.That seems likely. Which begs the question, why are they covering their asses after this update hit the wires, but didn’t when the story first broke?
There is no right thing here.No they didn’t, Greenwood was named in the press, the Arsenal player hasn’t, therefore Arsenal can hide behind that instead of doing the right thing and suspending with pay.
United have completely bungled their handling of it, but at least they didn’t play someone while they were on bail for rape.
Is it possible that they spoke to him and they've decided he couldn't/shouldn't go because there's a possibility he may be arrested and detained in Brazil? Or maybe Antony didn't want to go, just in case that did happen.That’s almost the craziest thing in all of this. It’s supposed to be a criminal case. How on earth do the Brazilian FA suddenly seem to have new evidence now that they didn’t have when the story first broke? How on earth do the Brazilian FA have unique access to any evidence that is relevant to a criminal case at all?!
Hard not to assume that there’s a slightly hysterical overreaction going on due to the weight of public pressure being brought to bear, because of this happening so soon after the Greenwood saga. With United likely to make a similar decision before our next match.
How about not ship out players who have had charges dropped against them?
How about continuing to protect and play players who haven't been found guilty?!
Or does that only apply to other clubs and we have to bend to media/outside pressure!?
Pathetic.
You'd also think the brazilian FA would have learnt from the Neymar incident. But you probably haven't a clue about it. Continue your white knight crusading
Ah the aul refuge in selective nihilism. It's becoming quite common.There is no right thing here.
He was already in Brazil.Is it possible that they spoke to him and they've decided he couldn't/shouldn't go because there's a possibility he may be arrested and detained in Brazil? Or maybe Antony didn't want to go, just in case that did happen.
Take, for example, this comment of yours:We can agree on that. Like you believe nothing has changed, which is fair enough, that's your belief. But I disagree.
The lunatic you're talking about here is Leon McCaskre. What you're claiming is that he was trying to kill his ex, Yasmin Chkaifi. This is, in my opinion, an extremely reasonable thing to believe. There were tons of witnesses, after all, and Chkaifi unfortunately ended up dying. Attempting to kill someone is a very serious crime, though, and if you want to consistently apply "innocent until proven guilty" outside of the courtroom then you cannot say that he was trying to kill anyone, or that he stabbed anyone, even though he clearly did. McCaskre was never convicted of anything, and because he is dead he never will be. He is, in the eyes of the law, an innocent man. He is also a murderer.The guy tried to stop a lunatic from killing a woman in front of him. He tried to do something rather than just slink off or record it on his phone like most idiots do these days. If we are going to punish people for trying to stop murder in front of their eyes then, then we as a society need to reconsider our stance on justice.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date