The Official Arsenal Thread - Part 2

[Handy Run]

100%.

Arteta is probably not a bad guy at all. But he made some terrible calls here. The comment he made about all he's been through is going to come back to haunt him terribly imho..

I'm still flabbergasted the whole club didn't suspend Partey when the second and third allegations were made. Because the more women that came forward the less and less likely these allegations were untrue.

Maybe he is innocent. But I'd fucking doubt it.

Hard to argue with that.

I'm sruggling to be objective tbh. Hopefully the trial will come sooner rather than later so everything gets out in the open but more importantly, if he's guilty, his victims get to see justice done.

 

[The truth seeker]

You don't need a trial to be able to say the club should have suspended him.

One of his victims has said she wouldn't have been attacked by Partey if he'd been suspended after the first complaint.

Thats appalling.

 

[The truth seeker]

If they ran a shadow investigation and determined, on the balance of probabilities, that he wasn't likely to be guilty-> they'll live or die by how accurate that process was (as judged by the evidence which comes out during the trial)

If they didn't do much due diligence and just let it ride-> that's truly awful carry-on

What does that even mean?

'Are you a multiple rapist m8'?

'No'.

'OK so'.

 

[Philby]

What does that even mean?

'Are you a multiple rapist m8'?

'No'.

'OK so'.

Let's not be silly buddy. This is a serious matter.

The club have legal counsel. If they chose to they could have spoken with Partey (and others who could shed some light on the allegations) and asked him for specific details of his recollection of each situation.

At the very least they should've asked for his views/explanation for the texts which went public where he (on the face of it) seemed to implicate himself.

On the basis if what they gathered they could've made a judgement call. In situations where the player hasn't been charged (...which was the case here for YEARS!) the club has a duty to all involved to gain a certain level of insight on the case and not stick their heads in the sand.

 

[Handy Run]

If they ran a shadow investigation and determined, on the balance of probabilities, that he wasn't likely to be guilty-> they'll live or die by how accurate that process was (as judged by the evidence which comes out during the trial)

If they didn't do much due diligence and just let it ride-> that's truly awful carry-on

Good summary. What comes out in the trial will validate or crucify the club.

 

[The truth seeker]

Let's not be silly buddy. This is a serious matter.

The club have legal counsel. If they chose to they could have spoken with Partey (and others who could shed some light on the allegations) and asked him for specific details of his recollection of each situation.

At the very least they should've asked for his views/explanation for the texts which went public where he (on the face of it) seemed to implicate himself.

On the basis if what they gathered they could've made a judgement call. In situations where the player hasn't been charged (...which was the case here for YEARS!) the club has a duty to all involved to gain a certain level of insight on the case and not stick their heads in the sand.

A load of hypothetical nonsense.


Heres the facts.


He was interviewed under caution 7 times and bailed during his time at the club.

For three seperate incidents.

The world and their mother knew this was going on.
Incredibly the club didn't see fit to suspend him.


They fully deserve to be hammered on this.

 

[Philby]

A load of hypothetical nonsense.


Heres the facts.


He was interviewed under caution 7 times and bailed during his time at the club.

For three seperate incidents.

The world and their mother knew this was going on.
Incredibly the club didn't see fit to suspend him.


They fully deserve to be hammered on this.

Hypothetical nonsense?

I'd describe it as something resembling due process from an employer/employee perspective.

Simply being interviewed under caution, however many times, shouldn't (alone) be sufficient grounds to suspend a player for...as it turns out...years.

It's quite likely that the club did some due diligence before coming to a decision to not suspend him.

If you think that's such an outlandish concept then fine, we'll agree to disagree.

As I said earlier, the club will ultimately judged on just how diligent that due diligence was.

And, given the DPS have taken a decision to charge him, it doesn't look good on that front.

 

[The truth seeker]

Hypothetical nonsense?

I'd describe it as something resembling due process from an employer/employee perspective.

Simply being interviewed under caution, however many times, shouldn't (alone) be sufficient grounds to suspend a player for...as it turns out...years.

It's quite likely that the club did some due diligence before coming to a decision to not suspend him.

If you think that's such an outlandish concept then fine, we'll agree to disagree.

As I said earlier, the club will ultimately judged on just how diligent that due diligence was.

And, given the DPS have taken a decision to charge him, it doesn't look good on that front.

'Quite likely'...pure speculation.

What is abundantly clear is they put the prospect of silverware ahead of safeguarding womens safety.

The women players and staff employed at the club must be disgusted with how the club hierarchy and management dealt with this.

Their statement in response to him being charged was pathetic but keeping in step with their handling of this from day one.

 

[Philby]

'Quite likely'...pure speculation.

As opposed to your assertion that they did zero due diligence?

I know where my money is.

What is abundantly clear is they put the prospect of silverware ahead of safeguarding womens safety.

The women players and staff employed at the club must be disgusted with how the club hierarchy and management dealt with this.

It does sound like this may have been the case and, if so, the club should feel very shameful.

Their statement in response to him being charged was pathetic but keeping in step with their handling of this from day one.

There is a limit to what they can say at this point without getting into legal hot water, no?

 

[The truth seeker]

As opposed to your assertion that they did zero due diligence?

I know where my money is.



It does sound like this may have been the case and, if so, the club should feel very shameful.



There is a limit to what they can say at this point without getting into legal hot water, no?

Again.


Ive very little interest in your 'best guess' or 'shadow investigation' lol.

Pure bluff.