The Goon Thread

[Yiddo]

But the guy is innocent at this moment in time. It is possible that he's actually innocent. Should anyone accused of *struggle cuddle* be suspended from work? If so, that's a very, very dangerous precedent.

But on the other hand, if he is guilty, how would you feel sharing a dressing room with a rapists? And knowing your employers were trying to brush it under the carpet? He could have been invited to players houses, met their families. Would the players even know at this point? I can’t see the management coming down, getting everyone in a group and telling them Partey is being accused if *struggle cuddle*.

 

[DeanoAustin]

But on the other hand, if he is guilty, how would you feel sharing a dressing room with a rapists? And knowing your employers were trying to brush it under the carpet? He could have been invited to players houses, met their families. Would the players even know at this point? I can’t see the management coming down, getting everyone in a group and telling them Partey is being accused if *struggle cuddle*.

Every football fan knows who it is and knew within days of the allegations coming out. If we all knew, everyone at Arsenal knew. It's up to those players and employees to decide how they want to treat him personally.

However, for a club to suspend him based on an accusation implies guilt. He might not be guilty. Cliff Richard had his house searched for evidence of child porn/abuse with the whole thing televised by the BBC and it turned out there was no evidence against him. Imagine being in the public eye, being accused of the most disgusting of crimes and being innocent. That'd do severe emotional damage to the strongest of characters.

Put aside club rivalries here, it's a serious topic. Is it right for a man to be punished based on what, at this point, are unproven allegations?

 

[Raziel]

But the guy is innocent at this moment in time. It is possible that he's actually innocent. Should anyone accused of *struggle cuddle* be suspended from work? If so, that's a very, very dangerous precedent.

I can't see any world in which having the exact same accusations I'd be allowed to conduct my work.

I'd likely be asked/suspended with pay for as long as it takes, but zero chance I'd be representing my company.

This football is special brick really needs to stop, for clarity I'm not talking about a one random/unverified accusation, but a pattern of accusations with significant police scrutiny

 

[DeanoAustin]

I can't see any world in which having the exact same accusations I'd be allowed to conduct my work.

I'd likely be asked/suspended with pay for as long as it takes, but zero chance I'd be representing my company.

This football is special brick really needs to stop, for clarity I'm not talking about a one random/unverified accusation, but a pattern of accusations with significant police scrutiny

It's not about football being special. It's ensuring footballers are afforded the same treatment as anyone else.

He hasn't even been charged. There are 3 allegations against him. They are just allegations. Is it fair to suspend anyone from work, which is effectively a punishment and implies guilt, on the basis of allegations?

 

[Lilbaz]

Isn't it pretty standard in these sortts of situations for the accused to be suspended with pay until charged/on trial?

If their name is in the papers they probably could justify suspending him. As it's not he could probably sue the club.

 

[Yiddo]

Every football fan knows who it is and knew within days of the allegations coming out. If we all knew, everyone at Arsenal knew. It's up to those players and employees to decide how they want to treat him personally.

However, for a club to suspend him based on an accusation implies guilt. He might not be guilty. Cliff Richard had his house searched for evidence of child porn/abuse with the whole thing televised by the BBC and it turned out there was no evidence against him. Imagine being in the public eye, being accused of the most disgusting of crimes and being innocent. That'd do severe emotional damage to the strongest of characters.

Put aside club rivalries here, it's a serious topic. Is it right for a man to be punished based on what, at this point, are unproven allegations?

Hundreds if men all over the country / world who have been wrongly accused and their names get thrown through the mud and reputation tarnished.

3 girls have come out now? 3! this is not just a one off.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

The messages that the first woman published showing him saying “why do I have to wake you” is enough for me to show what he is. I don’t believe there’s been anything to say they were fabricated.

 

[DeanoAustin]

Hundreds if men all over the country / world who have been wrongly accused and their names get thrown through the mud and reputation tarnished.

3 girls have come out now? 3! this is not just a one off.

Maybe I have the facts wrong but iirc there were 6 in mendys case and he was found not guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[monkeybarry]

I can't see any world in which having the exact same accusations I'd be allowed to conduct my work.

I'd likely be asked/suspended with pay for as long as it takes, but zero chance I'd be representing my company.

This football is special brick really needs to stop, for clarity I'm not talking about a one random/unverified accusation, but a pattern of accusations with significant police scrutiny

So *struggle cuddle* allegations must be a risk factor for your line of work - that's fine, it's a safeguarding issue.
That isn't the case for a footballer.
As a business I'm sure they've changed any marketing involvement he would have been in to cover reputational damage.
That should be the extent of it as things currently stand - which is presumably him denying it.

 

[monkeybarry]

The messages that the first woman published showing him saying “why do I have to wake you” is enough for me to show what he is. I don’t believe there’s been anything to say they were fabricated.

That sentence on its own is meaningless. Consent is the only relevant factor.
I haven't seen the full message - but that could easily be flirting and kink suggestion. If her response was akin to "because I'm not into that", then it happened, it's *struggle cuddle*. But just asking the question shows absolutely nothing.

 

[billyiddo]

That sentence on its own is meaningless. Consent is the only relevant factor.
I haven't seen the full message - but that could easily be flirting and kink suggestion. If her response was akin to "because I'm not into that", then it happened, it's *struggle cuddle*. But just asking the question shows absolutely nothing.

It was in reference to him raping her/initiating intercourse while she was sleeping.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

That sentence on its own is meaningless. Consent is the only relevant factor.
I haven't seen the full message - but that could easily be flirting and kink suggestion. If her response was akin to "because I'm not into that", then it happened, it's *struggle cuddle*. But just asking the question shows absolutely nothing.

Oh that was just my extract. It was a much longer series of back and forth messages after the event from a clearly very upset woman (the accusation that happened in Spain but got thrown out on a technicality). Basically she woke up with him forcing himself into her mouth. Which constitutes *struggle cuddle* over here but may not have done at the time in Spain (not 100% sure on exactly what the technicality was). The same woman has another accusation pending over here, plus another woman plus the woman recently come forward as per above newspaper article. At least that’s my understanding.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Oh that was just my extract. It was a much longer series of back and forth messages after the event from a clearly very upset woman (the accusation that happened in Spain but got thrown out on a technicality). Basically she woke up with him forcing himself into her mouth. Which constitutes *struggle cuddle* over here but may not have done at the time in Spain (not 100% sure on exactly what the technicality was). The same woman has another accusation pending over here, plus another woman plus the woman recently come forward as per above newspaper article. At least that’s my understanding.

Got to wonder what the fcuk is up with some men. Even as a horny teenager I would not have done brick like that. I wonder if sexual assault has gone up and whether it has anything to do with the culture of music and video games treating women in a very odd behaviour.

 

[Lilbaz]

That sentence on its own is meaningless. Consent is the only relevant factor.
I haven't seen the full message - but that could easily be flirting and kink suggestion. If her response was akin to "because I'm not into that", then it happened, it's *struggle cuddle*. But just asking the question shows absolutely nothing.

By the texts. They got drunk. Had an argument. She fell asleep. He put his dingdong in her mouth. She says you shouldn't have done that. He says what should i have woken you up first?

 

[scaramanga]

But the guy is innocent at this moment in time. It is possible that he's actually innocent. Should anyone accused of *struggle cuddle* be suspended from work? If so, that's a very, very dangerous precedent.

Again, if the police take it seriously enough for an interview under caution, absolutely.

The women around him need protecting far more than his career does.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

Again, if the police take it seriously enough for an interview under caution, absolutely.

The women around him need protecting far more than his career does.

Are you saying anyone questioned under caution by police should be suspended from their job?

 

[scaramanga]

Are you saying anyone questioned under caution by police should be suspended from their job?

For *struggle cuddle*, yes. The employer owes a duty of care to those he may harm whilst there.

It's not as if he isn't getting paid, he's just not allowed to turn up.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

For *struggle cuddle*, yes. The employer owes a duty of care to those he may harm whilst there.

It's not as if he isn't getting paid, he's just not allowed to turn up.

I think it's a very difficult situation, I believe in a person being innocent until the system has found them guilty and as that person has not been charged it seems prejudicial action, but I also feel for someone in the public eye who represent their company it might be the right decision for both parties.

 

[Baleforce]

I think it's a very difficult situation, I believe in a person being innocent until the system has found them guilty and as that person has not been charged it seems prejudicial action, but I also feel for someone in the public eye who represent their company it might be the right decision for both parties.

when I see "suspended by employer", I assume they are actually guilty

if it happened to me, after proving my innocence, I'd sue the hell out of my employer for adding to the false narrative

 

[scaramanga]

when I see "suspended by employer", I assume they are actually guilty

if it happened to me, after proving my innocence, I'd sue the hell out of my employer for adding to the false narrative

What would you have to sue for? There's no actual loss as it would have been suspension with pay. Assuming you didn't miss any promotions during the time then there would be no loss to cover with a suit.