Benjamin Mendy - Not guilty on re-trial | NOT a thread about MG

If you want to use the presumption of innocence like that, then you cannot say that Carolyn Bryant lied about Emmett Till. You also can't say that Roy Bryant and J. W. Milan killed him.

These things are crimes. No charges were brought against Carolyn Bryant, while the other two were found not guilty of both murder and kidnapping. They are therefore presumed innocent, and treated as such, in the eyes of the law.
They all confessed, so I'm not sure what your point is.

What about Emmett Till? Should he have been presumed to be guilty?
 
They all confessed, so I'm not sure what your point is.

What about Emmett Till? Should he have been presumed to be guilty?

Their confessions are completely irrelevant for the presumption of innocence. They have not been convicted, so they are presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.

Should Emmett Till be presumed guilty of what? He was never on trial.
 
Their confessions are completely irrelevant for the presumption of innocence. They have not been convicted, so they are presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.

Should Emmett Till be presumed guilty of what? He was never on trial.
Emmett Till's murderers confessed to committing the crime, and Carolyn Bryant admitted lying about the encounter. That's an admission of guilty regardless if any charges were brought against them. I don't know what to tell you if you don't see the difference between these and accusations against those who deny any wrongdoing. Honestly, I'm not even sure what you are arguing at this point.

Guilty of sexually assaulting Carolyn Bryant in the court of public opinion.
 
Emmett Till's murderers confessed to committing the crime, and Carolyn Bryant admitted lying about the encounter. That's an admission of guilty regardless if any charges were brought against them. I don't know what to tell you if you don't see the difference between these and accusations against those who deny any wrongdoing. Honestly, I'm not even sure what you are arguing at this point.

Guilty of sexually assaulting Carolyn Bryant in the court of public opinion.

And yet they are presumed innocent. That's how the principle works: until found guilty in a court of law, every citizen is presumed and treated as innocent. It doesn't matter that they're guilty, without a verdict they're presumed innocent. Emmett Till was never convicted of sexually assaulting Carolyn Bryant, so he, too, is presumed innocent.

You're the one who asked what happened with the presumption of innocence. Nothing happened. Till's murderers were presumed innocent in 1955, they were presumed innocent after selling their confessions in 1956, they're presumed innocent in 2023, and they'll always be presumed innocent.

The public has known of their guilt since 56, many since 55, because they're able to look at the available evidence and aren't handcuffed by a legal principle that says the state cannot take away people's freedom without a fair trial.
 
And yet they are presumed innocent. That's how the principle works: until found guilty in a court of law, every citizen is presumed and treated as innocent. It doesn't matter that they're guilty, without a verdict they're presumed innocent. Emmett Till was never convicted of sexually assaulting Carolyn Bryant, so he, too, is presumed innocent.

You're the one who asked what happened with the presumption of innocence. Nothing happened. Till's murderers were presumed innocent in 1955, they were presumed innocent after selling their confessions in 1956, they're presumed innocent in 2023, and they'll always be presumed innocent.

The public has known of their guilt since 56, many since 55, because they're able to look at the available evidence and aren't handcuffed by a legal principle that says the state cannot take away people's freedom without a fair trial.
Did you even read what I responded to? We aren't talking about the court of law, we are talking about the court of public opinion. Specifically, the notion that the accusers should still be believed even though they were found not guilty or when evidence points to them as not the culprits.
 
Did you even read what I responded to? We aren't talking about the court of law, we are talking about the court of public opinion. Specifically, the notion that the accusers should still be believed even though they were found not guilty or when evidence points to them as not the culprits.

The presumption of innocence is about the court of law. You are accusing people of very serious crimes, even though they're presumed innocent.

Outside of the court room the presumption of innocence has never been a thing, people believe things based on the available evidence and other factors. OJ Simpson isn't presumed innocent, everyone knows he did it. Al Capone isn't merely presumed to be a tax cheat, he was a gangster. On the other hand, the public can look at the evidence and see that Martin Luther King didn't break any laws when he was found guilty of driving without a license, something which ultimately unjustly landed him in jail.
 
By not agreeing that Mendy must be completely innocent, you are committing thought crime and your brain should be put in jail.
 
Conviction rate of sexual assault cases that goes to court are much higher than any other cases. The problem is that so few goes to court.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/feb/juries-convict-defendants-rape-more-often-acquit

So what you're saying is factually incorrect
In respect of Mendy’s case, it made it to the court. Once it makes to the court then it comes out of the set of all rape cases and goes into the subset of rape cases going to trial. Once this has happened then there is no point in saying so few cases go to trial. His case has gone to trial and he has been found not guilty. The stats for cases that go trial are heavily stacked against the defendant. If he has been acquitted of all charges then there is nothing wrong in assuming he is innocent as he has won despite the odds being stacked against him.
Moreover he hasn’t won on a technicality but actually provided evidence to contradict the claims made by the supposed victims. Also he has been able to prove collusion between the supposed victims. Now in the face of this throwing the technicality of not guilty verdict not being the same as found innocent is at him is facetious.
 
There is so much visceral bias wrapped up in this case, that I have to admit that I wanted him to be found guilty. He wasn't though, and you either trust the justice system or you don't. An extensive criminal case assessed by a jury has acquitted him of rape and sexual assault.

Is he a repulsive individual? Undoubtedly.
Did he use women to satisfy his sexual needs without any care for what they want/need? Almost certainly.
Is he a sexual predator that used his status and fame to convince young, impressionable women to have sex with him? It seems very likely.

None of those things, alone, make him a criminal, though. They don't change the fact that he's been found not guilty in the eyes of the law, based on a criminal case that examined ALL the evidence. I can't believe there are people in this thread still peddling the line that he must be guilty.
 
There is so much visceral bias wrapped up in this case, that I have to admit that I wanted him to be found guilty. He wasn't though, and you either trust the justice system or you don't. An extensive criminal case assessed by a jury has acquitted him of rape and sexual assault.

Is he a repulsive individual? Undoubtedly.
Did he use women to satisfy his sexual needs without any care for what they want/need? Almost certainly.
Is he a sexual predator that used his status and fame to convince young, impressionable women to have sex with him? It seems very likely.

None of those things, alone, make him a criminal, though. They don't change the fact that he's been found not guilty in the eyes of the law, based on a criminal case that examined ALL the evidence. I can't believe there are people in this thread still peddling the line that he must be guilty.

Good post.

Stuff like this seems to always split along ideological on the caf these days. People going all in to one predictable opinion or another, depending on their politics. Completely black and white. It’s tiresomely predictable. Including the identity of the posters who will get most invested in the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Is he a repulsive individual? Undoubtedly.
Did he use women to satisfy his sexual needs without any care for what they want/need? Almost certainly.
Is he a sexual predator that used his status and fame to convince young, impressionable women to have sex with him? It seems very likely.
I think his behavior was extremely degenerate, but if, as the new evidence suggests, the sex was consensual, then it takes two to tango, no? This line of thought in your post completely strips the women of any agency in the matter.
 
There is so much visceral bias wrapped up in this case, that I have to admit that I wanted him to be found guilty. He wasn't though, and you either trust the justice system or you don't. An extensive criminal case assessed by a jury has acquitted him of rape and sexual assault.

Is he a repulsive individual? Undoubtedly.
Did he use women to satisfy his sexual needs without any care for what they want/need? Almost certainly.
Is he a sexual predator that used his status and fame to convince young, impressionable women to have sex with him? It seems very likely.

None of those things, alone, make him a criminal, though. They don't change the fact that he's been found not guilty in the eyes of the law, based on a criminal case that examined ALL the evidence. I can't believe there are people in this thread still peddling the line that he must be guilty.
Don't agree with everything you wrote but the bolded is 100% true.
 
I think his behavior was extremely degenerate, but if, as the new evidence suggests, the sex was consensual, then it takes two to tango, no? This line of thought in your post completely strips the women of any agency in the matter.
Not at all. But there is clearly a power imbalance, as there always is when young rich powerful celebrities have relations with fans. It's naive to suggest otherwise.
 
The presumption of innocence is about the court of law. You are accusing people of very serious crimes, even though they're presumed innocent.

Outside of the court room the presumption of innocence has never been a thing, people believe things based on the available evidence and other factors. OJ Simpson isn't presumed innocent, everyone knows he did it. Al Capone isn't merely presumed to be a tax cheat, he was a gangster. On the other hand, the public can look at the evidence and see that Martin Luther King didn't break any laws when he was found guilty of driving without a license, something which ultimately unjustly landed him in jail.
I'm not arguing against any of this. There are two points I was trying to make in my response to the original point
1. Given the presumtion of innocence, if Mendy is found not guilty he is still presumed innocent
2. If we are holding to notion to believe all accusers in the court of public opinion, does that still apply to cases such as Emmett Till. Was his accuser supposed to believed up until her confession?
 
Not at all. But there is clearly a power imbalance, as there always is when young rich powerful celebrities have relations with fans. It's naive to suggest otherwise.
This power imbalance is completely overstated. Fans regularly attempt to goad celebrities into physical altercations knowing they can sue. Male celebrities are targeted by women who see them as nothing but dollar signs. This is much different than a person like Harvey Weinstein, who had the power to make or break the women he assaulted.
 
I'm not arguing against any of this. There are two points I was trying to make in my response to the original point
1. Given the presumtion of innocence, if Mendy is found not guilty he is still presumed innocent
2. If we are holding to notion to believe all accusers in the court of public opinion, does that still apply to cases such as Emmett Till. Was his accuser supposed to believed up until her confession?

We aren't holding to that notion, that has also never been a thing.
 
Is he a repulsive individual? Undoubtedly.
Did he use women to satisfy his sexual needs without any care for what they want/need? Almost certainly.

The rest of your post has some sensible points, but on the above bit:

Can someone who showed a woman the "best night of my life" be undoubtedly/almost certainly repulsive and uncaring? If what she'd wanted was to have the best night of her life, then actually he did not ignore what she wanted. And clearly plenty of women found him far from repulsive.
 
Not at all. But there is clearly a power imbalance, as there always is when young rich powerful celebrities have relations with fans. It's naive to suggest otherwise.
I'm not saying this was necessarily the case here, but there are fans who specifically seek out sexual relations with professional athletes and other famous people of perceived high status. If both sides are getting what they want, I don't think it's right to place blame on the athlete or celebrity for it.
 
I'm not saying this was necessarily the case here, but there are fans who specifically seek out sexual relations with professional athletes and other famous people of perceived high status. If both sides are getting what they want, I don't think it's right to place blame on the athlete or celebrity for it.
I was speaking more generally. If he really has slept with 10,000 women then he has made a lifetime mission to bed women indiscriminately.

As I said, lots of visceral bias, and I'm as guilty of that as any, but I can't see him as anything other than a repugnant predatory individual collecting trophies he has no respect for.

I'm happy to trust the justice system in terms of the rape verdict though.
 
The rest of your post has some sensible points, but on the above bit:

Can someone who showed a woman the "best night of my life" be undoubtedly/almost certainly repulsive and uncaring? If what she'd wanted was to have the best night of her life, then actually he did not ignore what she wanted. And clearly plenty of women found him far from repulsive.
Again, I was speaking more generally. Did he give the best night of their lives to all 10,000? I suspect not.
 
The rest of your post has some sensible points, but on the above bit:

Can someone who showed a woman the "best night of my life" be undoubtedly/almost certainly repulsive and uncaring? If what she'd wanted was to have the best night of her life, then actually he did not ignore what she wanted. And clearly plenty of women found him far from repulsive.
Yes?
 
In respect of Mendy’s case, it made it to the court. Once it makes to the court then it comes out of the set of all rape cases and goes into the subset of rape cases going to trial. Once this has happened then there is no point in saying so few cases go to trial. His case has gone to trial and he has been found not guilty. The stats for cases that go trial are heavily stacked against the defendant. If he has been acquitted of all charges then there is nothing wrong in assuming he is innocent as he has won despite the odds being stacked against him.
Moreover he hasn’t won on a technicality but actually provided evidence to contradict the claims made by the supposed victims. Also he has been able to prove collusion between the supposed victims. Now in the face of this throwing the technicality of not guilty verdict not being the same as found innocent is at him is facetious.
This isn't how sets work. Elements in a set do not "come out of a set" just because they are part of a subset. Being within more than one set is the very definition of being in a subset. If you're going to conduct an impromptu GCSE Maths lesson, at least make it an accurate one.

@Andersonson was making the point that crime rape has a low conviction rate. You then reference the subset of rape cases that go to trial. Seeing as we seem to be so interested in subsets, when we consider the ones we could create from the CPS process:
  1. Incidents
  2. Reported incidents
  3. Reported incidents leading to arrest(s)
  4. Reported incidents leading to arrest(s) and charge(s)
  5. Reported incidents leading to arrest(s) and charge(s) and prosecution
  6. Reported incidents leading to arrest(s) and charge(s) and prosecution and conviction
If the figures in sets 1-4 are high (which they are) it becomes obvious that the relatively high (though still lower than other crimes) prosecution rate for cases that go to trial isn't particularly relevant to the point that the conviction rate for rape is low.

It does have relevance to the analysis of Mendy's case, as he is within that subset. Also relevant are the points you bring up about the evidence his defense provided of contradictions and collusion within the prosecution's case. Judging from the information that has been made publicly available, I think I likely would have voted 'not guilty' had I been one of the jurors. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, so I would have to vote to acquit - even if I had doubts about his "innocence".

The presumption of innocence is about giving people in Mendy's position the benefit of the doubt. It's not about empowering thought police to shout down the opinions of those that have may still harbour those doubts.
 
Last edited:
This isn't how sets work. Elements in a set do not "come out of a set" just because they are part of a subset. Being within more than one set is the very definition of being in a subset. If you're going to conduct an impromptu GCSE Maths lesson, at least make it an accurate one.

@Andersonson was making the point that crime rape has a low conviction rate. You then reference the subset of rape cases that go to trial. Seeing as we seem to be so interested in subsets, when we consider the ones we could create from CPS process:
  1. Incidents
  2. Reported incidents
  3. Reported incidents leading to arrest(s)
  4. Reported incidents leading to arrest(s) and charge(s)
  5. Reported incidents leading to arrest(s) and charge(s) and prosecution
  6. Reported incidents leading to arrest(s) and charge(s) and prosecution and conviction
If the figures in sets 1-4 are high (which they are) it becomes obvious that the relatively high (though still lower than other crimes) prosecution rate for cases that go to trial isn't particularly relevant to the point that the conviction rate for rape is low.

It does have relevance to the analysis of Mendy's case, as he is within that subset. Also relevant are the points you bring up about the evidnce his defense provided of contradictions and collusion within the prosecutions case. Judging from the information that hs been made publically avaialble, I think I likely would have voted 'not guilty' had I been one of the jurors. The burdern of proof lies with the prosecution, so I would have to vote to acquit - even if I had doubts about his "innocence".

The presumption of innocence is about giving people in Mendy's position the benefit of the doubt. It's not about empowering thought police to shout down the opinions of those that have may still harbour those doubts.

It also validates Sir Mark Rowley's comments earlier this year that the CPS cherry pick strong cases to keep the narrow KPI of "conviction rates" high.
 
I was speaking more generally. If he really has slept with 10,000 women then he has made a lifetime mission to bed women indiscriminately.

As I said, lots of visceral bias, and I'm as guilty of that as any, but I can't see him as anything other than a repugnant predatory individual collecting trophies he has no respect for.

I'm happy to trust the justice system in terms of the rape verdict though.
Fair enough. I think we're on the same page that his lifestyle is quite degenerate and disgusting, and that the legal verdict appears to be the correct one based on the evidence that was presented.
 
I was speaking more generally. If he really has slept with 10,000 women then he has made a lifetime mission to bed women indiscriminately.

As I said, lots of visceral bias, and I'm as guilty of that as any, but I can't see him as anything other than a repugnant predatory individual collecting trophies he has no respect for.

I'm happy to trust the justice system in terms of the rape verdict though.

I really, genuinely respect a lot of what you’ve posted on this. I think you’ve shown honesty and humility where many haven’t.

I wanted to ask though, why do you think you feel so visceral toward Mendy at this point? And why do you think you feel that he’s disgusting?

Is it possibly a prudish angle or a jealousy thing, or possibly both, subtly?

To the many women he’s supposedly bedded, he’s obviously highly desirable and physically attractive.

I don’t really see what’s different to a Mick Jagger or a Robert Plant etc, yet you don’t really ever hear them called things like ‘disgusting’, so it seems a bit unfair.
 
Last edited:
This isn't how sets work. Elements in a set do not "come out of a set" just because they are part of a subset. Being within more than one set is the very definition of being in a subset. If you're going to conduct an impromptu GCSE Maths lesson, at least make it an accurate one.

@Andersonson was making the point that crime rape has a low conviction rate. You then reference the subset of rape cases that go to trial. Seeing as we seem to be so interested in subsets, when we consider the ones we could create from the CPS process:
  1. Incidents
  2. Reported incidents
  3. Reported incidents leading to arrest(s)
  4. Reported incidents leading to arrest(s) and charge(s)
  5. Reported incidents leading to arrest(s) and charge(s) and prosecution
  6. Reported incidents leading to arrest(s) and charge(s) and prosecution and conviction
If the figures in sets 1-4 are high (which they are) it becomes obvious that the relatively high (though still lower than other crimes) prosecution rate for cases that go to trial isn't particularly relevant to the point that the conviction rate for rape is low.

It does have relevance to the analysis of Mendy's case, as he is within that subset. Also relevant are the points you bring up about the evidence his defense provided of contradictions and collusion within the prosecution's case. Judging from the information that has been made publicly available, I think I likely would have voted 'not guilty' had I been one of the jurors. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, so I would have to vote to acquit - even if I had doubts about his "innocence".

The presumption of innocence is about giving people in Mendy's position the benefit of the doubt. It's not about empowering thought police to shout down the opinions of those that have may still harbour those doubts.
The point you make is that we can compare mendy’s case to those which don’t go to trial since it comes under the broad category of alleged rape. Which in my opinion is a wrong way to compare stats. It’s the same as comparing the goalscoring stats of a goalkeeper to that of a striker just because they both come under the broad set of footballers. It won’t be a fair comparison. Mendy’s case went to trial not once but twice and he was found not guilty both times. So yeah i am not talking about other cases or the implications of this judgement on other cases. I am making a point about this case in particular. He went to trail and was found not guilty. Now to throw stats of low conviction rates in rape cases and using that as a stick to beat him with is facetious. Why shouldn’t we compare his case to others which went to trial and resulted in convictions in 75% in one of the previous years and has been more that 50% consistently.
 
It also validates Sir Mark Rowley's comments earlier this year that the CPS cherry pick strong cases to keep the narrow KPI of "conviction rates" high.
So if the CPS has cherry picked this case due to a strong chance of conviction and then he was found not guilty then it only bolsters my argument that he beat the odds and that too not on a technicality but by providing evidence to the contrary.
 
So if the CPS has cherry picked this case due to a strong chance of conviction and then he was found not guilty then it only bolsters my argument that he beat the odds and that too not on a technicality but by providing evidence to the contrary.
It simply means that on the balance of probabilities a jury of 12 people from diverse backgrounds, not based on qualifications or class felt that there was not enough, or indeed any evidence that meant they could safely convict. It doesn't mean anything else. Anything else is just in your mind because the deliberations of the jury are private, no jury member can discuss anything said in the deliberations room before, during or after except with other jury members for the duration of the trial.

People make a lot of this Presumed Innocence. It is only for the duration of the trial. It means that the Prosecution must make their case, the defendant could say or do nothing to incriminate themselves. The CPS must make their case whether their witnesses are faulty or technicalities were considered. It means nothing after the case except one thing and that is that they have been found not guilty and the prosecution failed. What you make afterwards are your own ideas but remember the defendant has been found Not Guilty, if you accused them of being guilty or 'Not Innocent' and libelled or slandered them you could be sued, the only advantage to that is that the person accused must prove their innocence and the level of proof much easier to reach. Civil cases, in particular libel or slander cases will be expensive and even if you won, the costs may not be awarded to you.
 
Last edited:
There is every chance Mendy was completely innocent.

There's also every chance at least one victim has gone through hell only to see her abuser leave an innocent men.

Ultimately, very few people in the people world will actually know what happened. I'm happy to be corrected but I don't believe any evidence has been revealed that show the victims lied?

On a wider point, I'd also say football has a massive problem with some attitudes from players towards women.

From a more extreme perspective, In 10 years time, I reckon there will be another Yewtree/Saville type scandal in football where mass coverups of certain crimes will be revealed.
 
Well done first thing that you seem to understand in this discussion. I’m certain then you’re also aware that coming to sweeping conclusions on criminal charges and a person’s guilt when they’ve been acquitted are not absolutely protected, as claims for defamation inform us.
By the way, where are your posts warning posters calling the women liars about defamation law? Last I checked, there are more posters doing that than there are posters saying they think Mendy is guilty.

Surely if the presumption of innocence and all that is what you care about, you ought to be going after them with the same vigour, no?
 
I was speaking more generally. If he really has slept with 10,000 women then he has made a lifetime mission to bed women indiscriminately.

As I said, lots of visceral bias, and I'm as guilty of that as any, but I can't see him as anything other than a repugnant predatory individual collecting trophies he has no respect for.

I'm happy to trust the justice system in terms of the rape verdict though.

As another poster highlighted, this labelling of his lifestyle as degenerate and repugnant is a weird one. Maybe its disgusting to you personally or somebody whose religious or believes in the sanctity of sex but if he has had sex with 10,000 women and of all those women a handful of them made accusations against him for which he was found not guilty then the odds would be in his favour that with such a large amount of women something would have stuck.

On his lifestyle, men are not the only ones that sleep around. Personally I know loads of women who have hedonistic lifestyles, in any major city there are active hedonistic communities, even outside of that if you are single in a city a large amount of people are going out, sleeping around having fun. It's nothing weird and if you are a footballer, famous, have money then those numbers are going to be greater. So just because you don't agree with his lifestyle it doesn't mean he should be viewed negatively.
 
I really, genuinely respect a lot of what you’ve posted on this. I think you’ve shown honesty and humility where many haven’t.

I wanted to ask though, why do you think you feel so visceral toward Mendy at this point? And why do you think you feel that he’s disgusting?

Is it possibly a prudish angle or a jealousy thing, or possibly both, subtly?

To the many women he’s supposedly bedded, he’s obviously highly desirable and physically attractive.

I don’t really see what’s different to a Mick Jagger or a Robert Plant etc, yet you don’t really ever hear them called things like ‘disgusting’, so it seems a bit unfair.
Hmmm, interesting question. The issue with visceral bias is that it can be very hard to identify the root cause of it, and I haven't spent a great deal of time considering my feelings on the subject, but I'm comfortable enough to try and do so. It's clearly multifactorial, some of this will be misremembered, or even based on my memory of biased reporting. These are some of the things that play through my mind when I think of BM, though:
  • I see him as morally bankrupt, and his attitude to women is misogynistic. He's made statements, and confirmed activities and behaviours that indicate he doesn't respect women and lacks moral fibre. He confirmed refusing to use condoms and urging the women to take the morning-after pill as if pregnancy was the only, or even the greatest, risk.
  • There were accusations that the women were locked in rooms for sex, though I'm pretty sure that has been dismissed now. I do recall, though, at the first trial, his lawyer commenting that the women weren't locked in 'even if they might have thought they were' which, rightly or wrongly, I interpreted as evidence of coercion.
  • Through the pandemic, he hosted 'sex parties', despite his father dying of coronavirus, and he continued to host them after his initial arrest despite being instructed not to as part of his bail conditions. That and how he chose to present himself at his first trial (joggers and a hoody) implied he didn't really take the whole thing very seriously.
  • There's the obvious tribal bias towards City players, which is probably there bubbling away in the background.
  • Then there is disbelief - I simply find it hard to believe that having 'used' (his own word) 10,000 women for sex, there weren't any that just weren't quite as into it as he believes and didn't fully consent to everything he wanted them to do. Do I have any evidence for that? Nope, just credibility and the balance of probabilities. Consent isn't binary.
  • And then, if I'm honest, there is undoubtedly a smattering of envy of his wealth, power, celebrity, and sex life.
There will be other stuff, no doubt.
 
As another poster highlighted, this labelling of his lifestyle as degenerate and repugnant is a weird one. Maybe its disgusting to you personally or somebody whose religious or believes in the sanctity of sex but if he has had sex with 10,000 women and of all those women a handful of them made accusations against him for which he was found not guilty then the odds would be in his favour that with such a large amount of women something would have stuck.

On his lifestyle, men are not the only ones that sleep around. Personally I know loads of women who have hedonistic lifestyles, in any major city there are active hedonistic communities, even outside of that if you are single in a city a large amount of people are going out, sleeping around having fun. It's nothing weird and if you are a footballer, famous, have money then those numbers are going to be greater. So just because you don't agree with his lifestyle it doesn't mean he should be viewed negatively.
You are just as guilty of visceral bias as I am, it just affects your opinion of him differently. I've explained more above.
 
You are just as guilty of visceral bias as I am, it just affects your opinion of him differently. I've explained more above.

Maybe or maybe not, I personally don't have a positive or negative view of Mendy. I don't think you'd find any post of mine endorsing or praising him for what he did. What I think you are mistaking for visceral bias is me taking a more neutral stance.

The posters I've generally replied to are clearly (whether via "visceral bias") judging him through a pre-determined negative or he's guilty/not innocent lense. Even your post is judging him through his lifestyle that you don't agree with. If I was going to the opposite end of the spectrum (whether via "visceral bias") I would endorse his lifestyle and praise it, which I'm not doing. I just understand that there are all sorts of lifestyles that all genders enjoy and as long as there is consent then all those lifestyles are fine with me.

The issue ive seen in this thread is that there are a set of posters that are so emotionally invested in this case and the thought that Mendy is still guilty or "not innocent" that a fairly neutral stance like mine (which is that the court found him not guilty amd the evidence released supported that) to them seems to be an endorsement. Which is not the case. I just don't believe someone should be judged for their lifestyle if it isn't harming others, which based on the findings of the court, his lifestyle (so far) hasn't been proven to.