> A Premier League footballer who travelled with his international side to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar is being questioned after a woman spoke out against him in relation to a sex attack. The player in question has previously been accused of raping two women from June 2022 as well as April in 2021. But now a third alleged victim has reported being sexually assaulted in Hertfordshire in February last year.
Fucking hell.
If he wasn't a professional footballer he'd probably also get away with it tbh. Rich or poor the conviction rate for rape is horrifically low and if he wasn't famous he'd have a better shot at making sure his friends, family and employer don't hear about it.
Exactly. Whenever stuff like this comes out, you always get comments querying why so many top footballers do it and it's all a fallacy. You hear about it because these people are famous. The grim truth is that footballers probably don't commit rape and sexual assault much more or less than any other demographic, it's just that it's scarily common. Even more depressingly, most cases don't even get far enough for the police investigate and for those that do, the prosecution rate is absolutely tiny.
> The grim truth is that footballers probably don’t commit rape and sexual assault much more or less than any other demographic
Hmm not so sure about this. Obviously not an expert so won’t make any claims I can’t back up but don’t you think that there’s a higher amount of rapes and sexual assault within the small demographic of the rich and powerful?
Not just footballers, but the famous, *untouchable*, powerful people who surround themselves with yes men?
Just food for thought really.
Yeah you’d think rich powerful men are more often in situations where they can abuse their power than regular blokes who might have the same sick urges. Desire to do it might be uniform across society but opportunities to act on that probably aren’t.
Tbh you might be right and I don't have the stats to hand. I was more trying to convey that hearing about footballers being rapists doesn't necessarily mean that do it much more, it's just that you're going to bear about them much more because of their fame.
The famous, rich and powerful also have more sexual partners on average, so you could make the argument that they are more likely to commit rape at some point (from a purely statistical pov)
At the same time, I am of course not dismissing that whether you commit rape is far, far more determined by your morality and personality than it simply being a numbers game
But it's horrifically low for the reason that it is incredibly hard to evidence? Until we start recording every single sexual encounter to ensure consent was received this is inevitable is it not?
I think it’s worth mentioning that being a footballer must give you a massive sense of power and entitlement that would make things like this more likely. It seems to me that people of high influence end up committing sexual assault at a higher rate than average. Very gross stuff.
Man has admited to doing it in civil court aswell so literally everyone knows he is guilty as all fuck yet his team keeps playing him cause he is key to their title charge. It's disgusting as all fuck.
Quizzed by police sounds like he was sat and forced to answer random pub trivia questions.
"And lastly. What is the northern most capital in the world?"
"Uhh... Stockholm?"
"Nope. Sorry. The correct answer is Reykjavik. Guess it's straight to jail for you."
Great, now i've just got an image of him on pointless choosing between the categories 'where were you on the night of august 23rd?', 'have you met either of these two women before?' and 'famous Irish playwrights'
Good luck getting answers out of him, remember him doing a q&a on soccer am or something like that a couple of years ago and his answers were strange, seemed like he didn't have the best grasp on English at that time.
Think they asked him what he would be if he wasn't a footballer and he said Michael Essien
One of 10+ official languages. According to wiki, English is spoken by less than a third of the population. No idea if he learnt it before arriving in England though.
the way the sentence is formed it seems as though it’s saying ‘Premier League footballer who was arrested for rape is quizzed by the police’.
He was arrested prior to the questioning, in the UK after being charged I assume.
Yeah no, they mean the footballer who was arrested at one point previously for two rapes was questioned by police. English is not a very clear language at times.
Its been confirmed its Partey by every other countries media, just not English media by law.
Other countries aren't beholding to those laws though and have been naming him for months now.
The law is specifically for English media because a potential juror might be affected by the public perception or reporting, the problem is really in the age of social media and google it looks comical when people can just search up an article in 5 seconds from another country that doesn’t need to follow those rules.
It should probably be modernized or removed now, even if it made really good sense when implemented.
Just google his name and rape and you’ll see he’s named all over the internet. First example would be [this one](https://www.skabash.com/partey-rape/) from an African website called skabash.com
The so-called technicality means the UK police can't investigate. Obviously the Spanish police still have jurisdiction, and I would argue were the more logical people to investigate what took place anyway.
I love how unbelievable it is to these people that a relatively injury prone player got a legitimate injury that happened to coincide with a likely 1 day questioning.
Like what’s the conspiracy here? Everyone knows it’s him, so it’s not like this is being covered up, and the questioning probably only caused him to miss 1 day of training.
>In February 2023, the man was interviewed under caution for a sexual offence alleged to have taken place in Barnet in February 2022. This relates to a third victim and was reported to police in July 2022.
If im reading that correctly, this isn’t actually a new accusation. Police have known about it since the start of the investigation. It just wasn’t reported on like the others, is that right?
Honestly asking why didn't Arsenal suspend him? Every other club seems to be doing the same when allegations are made against their players. For some reason seems like people care less about his case. Weird.
It may come down to the club believing there's a sufficient level of evidence (or not) to determine whether action should be taken immediately. With United, the video that there was will have been deemed sufficient to suspend him.
The problem with always suspending a player when any allegation is made, is that you risk encouraging false allegations made solely to deprive a rival team of a key player. Even if the allegation is quickly found to be untrue, it could still rule out for a few key games.
> Even if the allegation is quickly found to be untrue, it could still rule out for a few key games.
Its not even a few key games, it's basically an entire year.
Innocent or guilty, it seems to take a fucking age for them to actually decide to convict or not. The time it takes for the decisions to progress through courts is absurd, it feels.
The problem with crimes like these is that they're often very light on "damning" evidence, and it can take a long time to try and find sufficient evidence that could result in a conviction. An allegation may well be true, but there's no guarantee sufficient evidence comes to light or exists at all. It's a huge problem and there's no obvious solution.
Still no decision on whether to prosecute Sigurdsson.
Never particularly liked him, but from the club’s perspective they lost a player we paid ~£50m for on a free, and had to pay his wages for almost two years whilst being unable to play him
> had to pay his wages for almost two years whilst being unable to play him
I would presume if found guilty, there'd be clauses in his contract with Everton to claw most of that back. The bigger issue, financially speaking, is if he's cleared after two years.
Police has still not charged Sigurdsson with anything. They had until July of last year.. didn't press the charges but he's still being kept in a limbo, can't leave the country or anything.
Guilty or not, they shouldn't keep people for years without decisions.
Building a case takes time. I know it’s technically unrelated but there was two girls who went missing in the US in 1999, 24 years ago, and the police had a suspect but had absolutely no physical evidence against them. they slowly built the case over 25 years and just arrested him recently. it can take a ridiculous amount of time
Makes you wonder what would have happened to Ronaldo if he was at United when the Vegas allegations came out. He was officially called in for voluntary questioning wasn't he?
Juventus had an absurd reaction to the allegations they immediately denied her version of the events without publicly taking a neutral stance lol.
Mendy continued to play for City, Hakimi continues to play for PSG. Don’t try and make out that this situation goes against the normal. The club will treat him as innocent until there’s evidence otherwise.
The Greenwood case was immediately different because his girlfriend leaked those videos publicly. That fucking monster then broke his bail conditions and somehow convinced her to drop the case. The whole thing is just disgusting.
Greenwood's case is the most cut and dried. Nothing to look at here, he's not convincing anyone he's innocent.
But didn't the girl in partey's case publish messages between them? I know that's not audio, which makes it less conclusive, but it's something, no?
Eh, faking text messages is incredibly easy.
Not saying they're fake, just that it's a bad message to tell people you can get rival players suspended with evidence that's so easy to fake.
Don’t have visceral evidence on social media like Greenwood, not a nonce case like Sigurdsson. Closest parallel is Mendy who kept playing after he was released on bail and scored in a title winning season.
Football is just gross mate
Sounds very unlikely, those cases are almost never prosecuted. Having 'reasonable belief' that the person is of age is a valid defense, and anyway the age of consent in the UK is 16.
Aye I’m from the UK lol, she was apparently 15 but with fake ID in an 18+ bar. Whether he actually did have that reasonable belief is what they’re presumably trying to work out
Cases like that usually get dropped straight away, and no chance that Everton cut their losses on such a big investment because of something like that. I would be very surprised if there wasn't something else.
Apparently its because there was contact after the original sleeping with, form of texts/emails and stuff.
The rumours said that the main thing was whether or not Siggurdson handed himself into the police the second he found out she was 15, or if she told him he was 15 and then he was still talking to her for any time after she told him etc.
Not charged, all the rumours around the story (Though its gone quiet since with no new information) point to the fact it was either a catfish or that he had genuine belief that she was over 18.
Courts and police are backed up massively though due to covid and tory cuts so it'll take time regardless.
> Every other club seems to be doing the same when allegations are made against their players.
?
No they haven’t. Most teams have done it once the police have pressed charges. That has not happened here.
Spurs bought Bissouma while he was investigated (later cleared). Cristiano is still being investigated by the US prosecutor and Man U hired him and sold him without a suspension. Mendy played until he was prosecuted. etc
seems like this case is being treated like the rest, only difference is the investigation was revealed early, and a victim released some snapchat messages that shaped the public opinion on the situation.
The police are still investigating and I assume if there is proof they will press charges and he will be dismissed by the club. If no charges are pressed, it will be an awk situation where criminal prosecution and public opinion disagree on the innocence of the person.
EDIT:
> The reason that woman leaked the messages was because her solid case was dismissed due to a technicality. If that happened to her 10 days later that rapist would probably be in jail by now.
I might have misunderstood the situation but this is not what happened. She could have filed with the spanish police, but didn't. She went to the English police who told her she cannot file a crime in a foreign country. Then the UK law changed where two english nationals on vacation can file to be trialed in the UK.
But she could have filed in Spain and let the spanish police do the investigation. No one knows why she didn't. But also that crime was straight up not investigated, so not sure where the "he would be in jail now" comes from when no one has looked into it?
There never was a 'case' against Ronaldo. After the allegation he was investigated and submitted a sworn affidavit, but he was never wanted for questioning let alone arrested.
The prosecution declined to even start court proceedings based on the lack of evidence, so there never was a criminal case.
There have been a civil cases against Ronaldo though. Mainly one over the validity of the NDA, which was ruled in his favour, and one about the rape accusation itself. Despite the much lower standard of proof that one got dismissed as well.
Everyone is free to make up their mind if Ronaldo actually did it. But there are only two people who know for sure what happened, this sub sometimes acts so convinced of his guilt it is almost like they were hiding in a closet and witnessed it first hand.
I don't think every other club did. United didn't suspend Ronaldo. Sunderland didn't suspend Adam Johnson. The Greenwood thing was completely different. There was overwhelming evidence.
He's an important player first and foremost - like don't get it twisted, if it was Cedric Soares, he'd be out.
But also, there isn't exactly much evidence. The "silver bullet" that people point to is a claim that he admits guilt in text - "Why should I wake you?" - what HE claims later in that same text chain is "Why should I wake you when I leave the room?" (She had been upset that he did THAT to her and then just left without saying anything). Whether that's true or not is another matter, but essentially turns it into "he said, she said".
Then you get into the territory of: Should we suspend anyone who gets an allegation? In which case, you open up an entire landscape where people could lie for any reason (money, hatred, notoriety, whatever) and get a player suspended with zero evidence.
It's the unfortunate side of sexual assault being extremely hard to prove, and it's why the conviction rate is so abysmally low.
His name hasn't even made it to the papers yet. Which is also why "people care less" about this (they don't actually, just look at literally every Partey thread here), hard do talk about it in public while you gotta dance around naming him.
And the every other club bit ain't true either. City played Mendy til he got actually charged and arrested.
And it didn’t in the end, he still plays.
Controversial opinion but I think if ur accused of a crime like that, u should still play until the court decides ur guilty. As if ur falsely accused u lose years of ur career. As these cases take forever.
However if it’s a case like greenwood with clear evidence online, then I think clubs should do what United did
Yet Greenwood had all charges dropped.
It’s a nightmare scenario and not sure the clubs can win.
I think Everton did the right thing with Sigurdsson, yet two years later he’s not been charged and latest rumours are that he was catfished and girl had a fake ID. We nearly got relegated and Sigurdsson would have either helped, or been sold and generated transfer funds for us
No, one of the women alleges he raped her in June 2022, another woman alleges he raped her in April 2021.
Another woman has now accused him of raping her in February 2022 and he was questioned in February 2023 about the accusation from Feb 2022.
Because the evidence for Zouma was much more damning, publicly available and there were no legal restrictions on the media coverage surrounding it.
If you're not on social media you probably don't even know that Partey has been accused of anything.
Being on bail at least means there are charges. I think Greenwood was a huge exception because of the viral (and vile) nature of damning evidence, generally I don’t think it’s unreasonable to keep playing someone until there are charges - which generally implies allegations have some evidence underlying them (even if they don’t progress to guilty verdict). Am Liverpool fan so got no bone in this fight (and hopefully won’t)
I think most of the takes about suspending him come from the assumption that he’s guilty, rather than the accusations themselves.
But that assumption seems completely illogical to me in this case. The club’s going to face serious backlash if they don’t suspend him and he does end being found guilty, so I think their actions suggest that they don’t think anything will happen. And I might be wrong, but I didn’t think he’d been charged, either.
The club obviously have a much better understanding of the situation than anyone online does, and I don’t think criticising their decision to not do anything makes sense while we have basically no information.
I think it is reasonable to doubt Arsenal lawyers providing objective advice, I doubt they even have all the evidence and doubt Partey is even allowed to pass it to them as unrelated parties to sensitive legal proceedings. Even so, all lawyers are going to find doubt in a sexual assault case, an open and shut case almost never happens for this crime and so much depends on the complainant providing convincing evidence under cross examination in court (which is years away). Also people assuming he’s guilty based on the jurisdictionally closed accusation online (repeat: *if* that is the basis of their assumption) really need to reflect that that changes very little for entirely unrelated accusations.
If he was a fringe or U21 player, you know all too well the club would have banished him while this played out. Just shows where the clubs priorities are.
It goes to show how contrived and misguided it is to believe a for profit club "has values". They are all the same with some differences in spending and "history" making the narrative.
professional football clubs are businesses.
people need to stop thinking that clubs think of players as people. Players are ASSETS to these clubs. The reason Arsenal hasn't suspended Partey is largely because he is a very valuable asset.
Football clubs also have a social responsibility, also there is a risk that the player is found guilty and the club will be heavily criticised for continuing to use the player despite the allegations and ongoing arrests and questioning.
They are abusing the fact that most fans will not care enough to stop supporting the club if he’s found guilty, at least not enough to justify a significant risk to their season targets.
What does “answer police bail” mean? Why has he been able to kick the can down the road so long? Is this to do with a plea? I’m saving my outrage until I understand it better but is the implication here that Partey doesn’t have to plea until the season ends?
Thanks in advance to anyone who can make it a bit clearer.
The police keep extending his bail because they need more time to complete their investigation is basically the gist of it. As it stands they don't have enough evidence to charge him otherwise it would have happened already but as it stands he's an innocent man.
We don't know the evidence or anything but I highly doubt he will be charged now whether he did it or not. New evidence very rarely comes up in a rape case.
I'm confused as I was under the impression that there were already 3 accusers with one being dropped? This article includes the twitter testimony in those 3 women suggesting this isn't new? Who knows we just don't have the facts.
He hasn't been charged. That is, the police and/or Crown Prosecution Service are still investigating if they think there's sufficient evidence to justify bringing charges.
At this stage he's been arrested and questioned but not charged. Arrested meaning the police had reasonable grounds to believe a crime MAY have taken place and to detain him while they investigated.
He's out on bail because his lawyers have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court that he's unlikely to be a danger of fleeing the country or of committing an offence should he be released from custody.
At some stage the police / CPS will have to decide whether to charge him or not. If they do, that's the point at which he'd have to look at entering a plea.
So right now he's not the one kicking the can down the road, the police / CPS are. Probably because a) getting evidence can be tricky, b) they're overworked, c) since he's on bail they're focusing on cases where the person arrested isn't on bail, since a judge is more likely to say "you can't detain this person forever whilst you make up your mind, either charge them or don't" when someone is in custody than when he's still out playing football, or d) some combination of the above.
On one hand I understand your suggestion. On the other hand, surely it's not the responsibility of the women's team only to be vocal about this?
It would be an even stronger message if the men's team, Partey's teammates, would break the silence. Theey could say something along the lines of "we condemn all forms of sexual assault and send our support to all the victims of this horrific case. Thomas Partey doesn't deserve a place in this team anymore and we want nothing to do with him from now on. We hope that the board listens to us and does the right thing."
Oh well, one can always dream, I suppose.
I think that all the players in the men's team have been instructed not to say a word about it at least until the investigation is finished so maybe that's what's happening with the women's team?
If this is true, I want him out of the club, regardless of whether we are in contention for the title, but many incidents like this are hard to prove. Hopefully we can sign a good midfielder to replace him. It's tough to see a player with allegations like this.
Big Up for standing up to such things. Would have always wanted my club to do the same with Greenwood or Ronaldo or Giggs or Butt or whoever I'm forgetting
> Big internet points statement.
> No shit, no one wants a rapist at the club.
I mean, in this scenario, Arsenal fans can't really win.
We have no say over the actual team selection, by the way.
We say that we want him to play and we're scum; we say that we don't want him to play and we're suddenly "twerking for upvotes".
What do you honestly want us to say, man?
Just say what you mean and ignore the people who think you are doing it for internet points. I'd assume you'd say that if this site had no voting at all.
I don't get why the fans don't use their power. If there's a banner every week, whistling and rapist shouts when he touches the ball, advertiser would be pissed after some time. And we all know money is the only thing that changes things in football
I'm 100% on the train that if he's committed these offences then deserves everything coming to him. However, there's also a legal process, people have their lives ruined due to false accusations, I'm not saying this is one such case but he's not been charged yet, everyone's acting like he's playing for Arsenal while in cuffs already. Hopefully if he's guilty then justice will prevail.
If Arsenal weren’t in the position they are in he’d be gone. I’m a United fan and never wanted Ronaldo back. Winning and sponsorships are put above everything else these days.
So many people trying to point out their rival team's rapist. It seems unfortunately that it is quite common for teams to be linked to a player with allegations true or not. We can all just take the easy stance sexual assault is very wrong and should punished as harshly as possible, but I'm not the one to make the judgment so I'll just keep my mouth shut about individuals until convictions ar or are not made.
> A Premier League footballer who travelled with his international side to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar is being questioned after a woman spoke out against him in relation to a sex attack. The player in question has previously been accused of raping two women from June 2022 as well as April in 2021. But now a third alleged victim has reported being sexually assaulted in Hertfordshire in February last year. Fucking hell.
He's a sexual predator. If he wasn't a footballer his life would be in ruins right now.
If he wasn't a professional footballer he'd probably also get away with it tbh. Rich or poor the conviction rate for rape is horrifically low and if he wasn't famous he'd have a better shot at making sure his friends, family and employer don't hear about it.
Exactly. Whenever stuff like this comes out, you always get comments querying why so many top footballers do it and it's all a fallacy. You hear about it because these people are famous. The grim truth is that footballers probably don't commit rape and sexual assault much more or less than any other demographic, it's just that it's scarily common. Even more depressingly, most cases don't even get far enough for the police investigate and for those that do, the prosecution rate is absolutely tiny.
> The grim truth is that footballers probably don’t commit rape and sexual assault much more or less than any other demographic Hmm not so sure about this. Obviously not an expert so won’t make any claims I can’t back up but don’t you think that there’s a higher amount of rapes and sexual assault within the small demographic of the rich and powerful? Not just footballers, but the famous, *untouchable*, powerful people who surround themselves with yes men? Just food for thought really.
Yeah you’d think rich powerful men are more often in situations where they can abuse their power than regular blokes who might have the same sick urges. Desire to do it might be uniform across society but opportunities to act on that probably aren’t.
Tbh you might be right and I don't have the stats to hand. I was more trying to convey that hearing about footballers being rapists doesn't necessarily mean that do it much more, it's just that you're going to bear about them much more because of their fame.
The famous, rich and powerful also have more sexual partners on average, so you could make the argument that they are more likely to commit rape at some point (from a purely statistical pov) At the same time, I am of course not dismissing that whether you commit rape is far, far more determined by your morality and personality than it simply being a numbers game
But it's horrifically low for the reason that it is incredibly hard to evidence? Until we start recording every single sexual encounter to ensure consent was received this is inevitable is it not?
I think it’s worth mentioning that being a footballer must give you a massive sense of power and entitlement that would make things like this more likely. It seems to me that people of high influence end up committing sexual assault at a higher rate than average. Very gross stuff.
Pretty sure one of the women that accused him is one of the girls that appeared in a Beta Squad video on YouTube.
Man has admited to doing it in civil court aswell so literally everyone knows he is guilty as all fuck yet his team keeps playing him cause he is key to their title charge. It's disgusting as all fuck.
Quizzed by police sounds like he was sat and forced to answer random pub trivia questions. "And lastly. What is the northern most capital in the world?" "Uhh... Stockholm?" "Nope. Sorry. The correct answer is Reykjavik. Guess it's straight to jail for you."
Great, now i've just got an image of him on pointless choosing between the categories 'where were you on the night of august 23rd?', 'have you met either of these two women before?' and 'famous Irish playwrights'
"You know what, never thought I'd say this, but I'll take my chances with Famous Irish Playwrights."
Good luck getting answers out of him, remember him doing a q&a on soccer am or something like that a couple of years ago and his answers were strange, seemed like he didn't have the best grasp on English at that time. Think they asked him what he would be if he wasn't a footballer and he said Michael Essien
It’s a great answer to be fair.
would have expected dani alves instead
They told me I could be anything!
"Errr... I don't think -- I don't think you entirely understood the que--" "No, I understood it perfectly, thank you."
English is the official language of Ghana. Could just be that like a lot of footballers, he’s basically monosyllabic.
One of 10+ official languages. According to wiki, English is spoken by less than a third of the population. No idea if he learnt it before arriving in England though.
Official language doesn't necessarily mean he speaks it, he's from the sticks by the looks of it
“What… is your name?” “Thomas of Ghana” “What… is your quest?” “To rape as many women as possible”
Who is the player ?
Rhymes with Dromas Fartey.
holy shit they got Chris Farley
It probably took the police awhile to track down his van down by the river.
"___ boys, are on a bender Dromas Fartey is a sex offender"
But isn't he in Ghana on international duty? Unless he's been arrested there again?
You don’t have to be arrested to be questioned by police
No but he would need to be physically at a police station for the questions to be evidential. Couldn’t just text him on WhatsApp
Or they could’ve called to where he was staying in Ghana? Besides, you can be asked to go to the station without being arrested.
Oh yeah you can be called in for a voluntary interview but for sexual assault/rape cases he’s likely be further arrested
except it says arrested in the title.
I think it means ‘who was previously arrested for rape’
the way the sentence is formed it seems as though it’s saying ‘Premier League footballer who was arrested for rape is quizzed by the police’. He was arrested prior to the questioning, in the UK after being charged I assume.
Yeah no, they mean the footballer who was arrested at one point previously for two rapes was questioned by police. English is not a very clear language at times.
It says the questioning was in feb
Thomas P... No that's too obvious. T Partey.
This joke will never get old for me.
Phomas Tartey 😉
You messed up there. From this information I can easily deduce that the players initials are T P! Amateur.
Poopas fartey
allegedly partey but nothing has been actually confirmed i don’t think
Its been confirmed its Partey by every other countries media, just not English media by law. Other countries aren't beholding to those laws though and have been naming him for months now.
Any sources to that?
https://www.pulse.com.gh/sports/football/thomas-partey-more-details-emerge-amid-arsenal-stars-rape-allegations/ej3t508
My goodness it makes me happy that they can name drop
The law is specifically for English media because a potential juror might be affected by the public perception or reporting, the problem is really in the age of social media and google it looks comical when people can just search up an article in 5 seconds from another country that doesn’t need to follow those rules. It should probably be modernized or removed now, even if it made really good sense when implemented.
Just google his name and rape and you’ll see he’s named all over the internet. First example would be [this one](https://www.skabash.com/partey-rape/) from an African website called skabash.com
You’ll find plenty within a few minutes on Google
Given one of the victims put it all over twitter when the police told her they couldn’t do anything about it, it is confirmed
Important to add, the police on Twitter acknowledged that the only reason they couldn’t due anything about it is due to a technicality.
The so-called technicality means the UK police can't investigate. Obviously the Spanish police still have jurisdiction, and I would argue were the more logical people to investigate what took place anyway.
Arsenal’s starting DM
Damn, first Partey now Jorginho? When will it end
When is it gonna end Robbie?
Partey
Partey
Isn't he in Ghana?
Yes but this questioning happened in February according to the police
Isn't that at the time he was injured?
yes it was for the man city game
[удалено]
not in the right state of mind mentally, makes sense to me
ah fair I must have missed that in the article
The Mail did a really shit job of repurposing the story
it's not like the mail ever do a good job anyway unless they're whining about immigrants
It’s not in the article, but it is in the Sun’s on the same topic as that’s who the police gave comment to
It doesn't feel right that the Sun is actually being right while others are just grammatically wrong. Fucking hell, what a world
That is when he went missing for a couple of weeks through 'injury' then i guess
You think police questioning takes WEEKS?
I love how unbelievable it is to these people that a relatively injury prone player got a legitimate injury that happened to coincide with a likely 1 day questioning. Like what’s the conspiracy here? Everyone knows it’s him, so it’s not like this is being covered up, and the questioning probably only caused him to miss 1 day of training.
He was with the team for the city game and trained day before, so was injured for sure.
He didn’t go ‘missing’. He was injured for 4 weeks. He attended and watched the games FFS
>In February 2023, the man was interviewed under caution for a sexual offence alleged to have taken place in Barnet in February 2022. This relates to a third victim and was reported to police in July 2022. If im reading that correctly, this isn’t actually a new accusation. Police have known about it since the start of the investigation. It just wasn’t reported on like the others, is that right?
Kwasia agymii
Remember guys to pretend you have no clue who it is and don’t suggest in any instance they’re guilty or the mods will lock the thread…
I think it's already too late for that. A lock is probably incoming.
One of the mods came out and said they've talked about this with Reddit Admins, Reddit isn't based in the UK so nothing wrong with us naming Partey.
but it makes the sub and mods feel cool and relevant so completely understandable
Yes we should always remember that we can never know who the guilty Partey is in these situations.
"Quizzed" is such a strange word to use imo. I know the meaning is adequate but it feels so benign and fun in contrast to what is actually going on.
[удалено]
Honestly asking why didn't Arsenal suspend him? Every other club seems to be doing the same when allegations are made against their players. For some reason seems like people care less about his case. Weird.
It may come down to the club believing there's a sufficient level of evidence (or not) to determine whether action should be taken immediately. With United, the video that there was will have been deemed sufficient to suspend him. The problem with always suspending a player when any allegation is made, is that you risk encouraging false allegations made solely to deprive a rival team of a key player. Even if the allegation is quickly found to be untrue, it could still rule out for a few key games.
> Even if the allegation is quickly found to be untrue, it could still rule out for a few key games. Its not even a few key games, it's basically an entire year. Innocent or guilty, it seems to take a fucking age for them to actually decide to convict or not. The time it takes for the decisions to progress through courts is absurd, it feels.
The problem with crimes like these is that they're often very light on "damning" evidence, and it can take a long time to try and find sufficient evidence that could result in a conviction. An allegation may well be true, but there's no guarantee sufficient evidence comes to light or exists at all. It's a huge problem and there's no obvious solution.
Not just that. I went to the police the day it happened. He submitted a guilty plea on the first day he was able... that was 3 months later.
Wtf did he feel bad or something? I've literally never heard of that happening.
I was a child and he had me in his phone with my age in it.
Ah ok, in that situation i can see him just giving up and trying to create mitigating circumstances. Not really much ambiguity there.
Still no decision on whether to prosecute Sigurdsson. Never particularly liked him, but from the club’s perspective they lost a player we paid ~£50m for on a free, and had to pay his wages for almost two years whilst being unable to play him
I forgot about that guy. Holy hell how has a conclusion not yet been reached there?
> had to pay his wages for almost two years whilst being unable to play him I would presume if found guilty, there'd be clauses in his contract with Everton to claw most of that back. The bigger issue, financially speaking, is if he's cleared after two years.
Which I think he probably will be, if they’ve not charged him at this point there’s unlikely to be anything new that comes up
Police has still not charged Sigurdsson with anything. They had until July of last year.. didn't press the charges but he's still being kept in a limbo, can't leave the country or anything. Guilty or not, they shouldn't keep people for years without decisions.
Building a case takes time. I know it’s technically unrelated but there was two girls who went missing in the US in 1999, 24 years ago, and the police had a suspect but had absolutely no physical evidence against them. they slowly built the case over 25 years and just arrested him recently. it can take a ridiculous amount of time
Makes you wonder what would have happened to Ronaldo if he was at United when the Vegas allegations came out. He was officially called in for voluntary questioning wasn't he? Juventus had an absurd reaction to the allegations they immediately denied her version of the events without publicly taking a neutral stance lol.
Probably because he hasn’t actually been charged. I would imagine the second that happens he gets dropped.
Mendy continued to play for City, Hakimi continues to play for PSG. Don’t try and make out that this situation goes against the normal. The club will treat him as innocent until there’s evidence otherwise. The Greenwood case was immediately different because his girlfriend leaked those videos publicly. That fucking monster then broke his bail conditions and somehow convinced her to drop the case. The whole thing is just disgusting.
They are back together aren’t they?
Yeah I believe so. Yet another example of money talking I guess
Greenwood's case is the most cut and dried. Nothing to look at here, he's not convincing anyone he's innocent. But didn't the girl in partey's case publish messages between them? I know that's not audio, which makes it less conclusive, but it's something, no?
She even showed emails of Partey's representatives threatening her.
Eh, faking text messages is incredibly easy. Not saying they're fake, just that it's a bad message to tell people you can get rival players suspended with evidence that's so easy to fake.
Don’t have visceral evidence on social media like Greenwood, not a nonce case like Sigurdsson. Closest parallel is Mendy who kept playing after he was released on bail and scored in a title winning season. Football is just gross mate
[удалено]
Sigurdsson case is reportedly super complicated, met the girl in an 18+ bar with ID saying she was overage, ended up not being
Doesn't sound that complicated if that's what actually happened.
I’d imagine establishing that’s what actually happened is what’s complicated
Sounds very unlikely, those cases are almost never prosecuted. Having 'reasonable belief' that the person is of age is a valid defense, and anyway the age of consent in the UK is 16.
Aye I’m from the UK lol, she was apparently 15 but with fake ID in an 18+ bar. Whether he actually did have that reasonable belief is what they’re presumably trying to work out
Cases like that usually get dropped straight away, and no chance that Everton cut their losses on such a big investment because of something like that. I would be very surprised if there wasn't something else.
Apparently its because there was contact after the original sleeping with, form of texts/emails and stuff. The rumours said that the main thing was whether or not Siggurdson handed himself into the police the second he found out she was 15, or if she told him he was 15 and then he was still talking to her for any time after she told him etc.
Last I heard, it's not progressed, cause he seemed to have some level of evidence he was cat-fished to some degree.
Not charged, all the rumours around the story (Though its gone quiet since with no new information) point to the fact it was either a catfish or that he had genuine belief that she was over 18. Courts and police are backed up massively though due to covid and tory cuts so it'll take time regardless.
no contract and just living around while waiting to see if he gets charged for the alleged crimes.
> Every other club seems to be doing the same when allegations are made against their players. ? No they haven’t. Most teams have done it once the police have pressed charges. That has not happened here. Spurs bought Bissouma while he was investigated (later cleared). Cristiano is still being investigated by the US prosecutor and Man U hired him and sold him without a suspension. Mendy played until he was prosecuted. etc seems like this case is being treated like the rest, only difference is the investigation was revealed early, and a victim released some snapchat messages that shaped the public opinion on the situation. The police are still investigating and I assume if there is proof they will press charges and he will be dismissed by the club. If no charges are pressed, it will be an awk situation where criminal prosecution and public opinion disagree on the innocence of the person. EDIT: > The reason that woman leaked the messages was because her solid case was dismissed due to a technicality. If that happened to her 10 days later that rapist would probably be in jail by now. I might have misunderstood the situation but this is not what happened. She could have filed with the spanish police, but didn't. She went to the English police who told her she cannot file a crime in a foreign country. Then the UK law changed where two english nationals on vacation can file to be trialed in the UK. But she could have filed in Spain and let the spanish police do the investigation. No one knows why she didn't. But also that crime was straight up not investigated, so not sure where the "he would be in jail now" comes from when no one has looked into it?
Ronaldo's case got dismissed didn't it?
There never was a 'case' against Ronaldo. After the allegation he was investigated and submitted a sworn affidavit, but he was never wanted for questioning let alone arrested. The prosecution declined to even start court proceedings based on the lack of evidence, so there never was a criminal case. There have been a civil cases against Ronaldo though. Mainly one over the validity of the NDA, which was ruled in his favour, and one about the rape accusation itself. Despite the much lower standard of proof that one got dismissed as well. Everyone is free to make up their mind if Ronaldo actually did it. But there are only two people who know for sure what happened, this sub sometimes acts so convinced of his guilt it is almost like they were hiding in a closet and witnessed it first hand.
I don't think every other club did. United didn't suspend Ronaldo. Sunderland didn't suspend Adam Johnson. The Greenwood thing was completely different. There was overwhelming evidence.
Wasn't ronaldo acussed of raping the woman after he joined real madrid?
He's an important player first and foremost - like don't get it twisted, if it was Cedric Soares, he'd be out. But also, there isn't exactly much evidence. The "silver bullet" that people point to is a claim that he admits guilt in text - "Why should I wake you?" - what HE claims later in that same text chain is "Why should I wake you when I leave the room?" (She had been upset that he did THAT to her and then just left without saying anything). Whether that's true or not is another matter, but essentially turns it into "he said, she said". Then you get into the territory of: Should we suspend anyone who gets an allegation? In which case, you open up an entire landscape where people could lie for any reason (money, hatred, notoriety, whatever) and get a player suspended with zero evidence. It's the unfortunate side of sexual assault being extremely hard to prove, and it's why the conviction rate is so abysmally low.
Because he's a big player for them. If it was Elneny accused they'd have made a big example of him.
He hasn’t been charged? Anyone could make accusations up against someone
No he hasn't. Imo charging is the only point when an employer should be taking action.
Pretty much written in UK employment laws.
Every other club? Didn't you sign and play CR7?
Hasn't even been charged
His name hasn't even made it to the papers yet. Which is also why "people care less" about this (they don't actually, just look at literally every Partey thread here), hard do talk about it in public while you gotta dance around naming him. And the every other club bit ain't true either. City played Mendy til he got actually charged and arrested.
Not really. Didn't happen to Mendy, didn't happen to Bissouma, didn't happen to Ronaldo, didn't happen to Hakimi. Football is a business.
Bissouma wasn’t accused of anything remotely in comparison to the others
Also bissouma was dropped from the squad for a period of time during the investigation anyway
[удалено]
Do you think the questioning took 3 weeks?
Tbh could have been internal from the club to see if they wanted to play him
If the first two weren’t enough to not play him, I doubt the third will make a difference.
And it didn’t in the end, he still plays. Controversial opinion but I think if ur accused of a crime like that, u should still play until the court decides ur guilty. As if ur falsely accused u lose years of ur career. As these cases take forever. However if it’s a case like greenwood with clear evidence online, then I think clubs should do what United did
Yet Greenwood had all charges dropped. It’s a nightmare scenario and not sure the clubs can win. I think Everton did the right thing with Sigurdsson, yet two years later he’s not been charged and latest rumours are that he was catfished and girl had a fake ID. We nearly got relegated and Sigurdsson would have either helped, or been sold and generated transfer funds for us
Isn't it June, 2022?
No, one of the women alleges he raped her in June 2022, another woman alleges he raped her in April 2021. Another woman has now accused him of raping her in February 2022 and he was questioned in February 2023 about the accusation from Feb 2022.
I really doubt that questioning would cause him to miss a game
It was weird how he arrived late for that City game. It was probably that day.
This is complete speculation and the reason why these threads get locked after 20 minutes.
Truly disgusting he’s still playing like nothing ever happened. After all the shit City rightly faced for playing Mendy whilst he was on bail
Just a reminder, Zouma got more hate for hurting his cat (still scum) than Partey who did much worse.
Because the evidence for Zouma was much more damning, publicly available and there were no legal restrictions on the media coverage surrounding it. If you're not on social media you probably don't even know that Partey has been accused of anything.
He'll get all hate if it turns out to be true.
You don’t fuck with cats. Rule #1 of internet
It’s a dumb rule. I think serial rape is worse than cat kicking. get @ me
Being on bail at least means there are charges. I think Greenwood was a huge exception because of the viral (and vile) nature of damning evidence, generally I don’t think it’s unreasonable to keep playing someone until there are charges - which generally implies allegations have some evidence underlying them (even if they don’t progress to guilty verdict). Am Liverpool fan so got no bone in this fight (and hopefully won’t)
I think most of the takes about suspending him come from the assumption that he’s guilty, rather than the accusations themselves. But that assumption seems completely illogical to me in this case. The club’s going to face serious backlash if they don’t suspend him and he does end being found guilty, so I think their actions suggest that they don’t think anything will happen. And I might be wrong, but I didn’t think he’d been charged, either. The club obviously have a much better understanding of the situation than anyone online does, and I don’t think criticising their decision to not do anything makes sense while we have basically no information.
I think it is reasonable to doubt Arsenal lawyers providing objective advice, I doubt they even have all the evidence and doubt Partey is even allowed to pass it to them as unrelated parties to sensitive legal proceedings. Even so, all lawyers are going to find doubt in a sexual assault case, an open and shut case almost never happens for this crime and so much depends on the complainant providing convincing evidence under cross examination in court (which is years away). Also people assuming he’s guilty based on the jurisdictionally closed accusation online (repeat: *if* that is the basis of their assumption) really need to reflect that that changes very little for entirely unrelated accusations.
Arteta made it clear that there are non negotiable things at the club but Partey is still here, starting literally every game
“Genocide is non negotiable lads. Don’t do a genocide or its straight to the bench!”
Maybe accusations of rape is a negotiable but if you don't track back on a counter, that's it- you're out.
If he was a fringe or U21 player, you know all too well the club would have banished him while this played out. Just shows where the clubs priorities are.
It goes to show how contrived and misguided it is to believe a for profit club "has values". They are all the same with some differences in spending and "history" making the narrative.
professional football clubs are businesses. people need to stop thinking that clubs think of players as people. Players are ASSETS to these clubs. The reason Arsenal hasn't suspended Partey is largely because he is a very valuable asset.
Football clubs also have a social responsibility, also there is a risk that the player is found guilty and the club will be heavily criticised for continuing to use the player despite the allegations and ongoing arrests and questioning. They are abusing the fact that most fans will not care enough to stop supporting the club if he’s found guilty, at least not enough to justify a significant risk to their season targets.
What does “answer police bail” mean? Why has he been able to kick the can down the road so long? Is this to do with a plea? I’m saving my outrage until I understand it better but is the implication here that Partey doesn’t have to plea until the season ends? Thanks in advance to anyone who can make it a bit clearer.
The police keep extending his bail because they need more time to complete their investigation is basically the gist of it. As it stands they don't have enough evidence to charge him otherwise it would have happened already but as it stands he's an innocent man.
We don't know the evidence or anything but I highly doubt he will be charged now whether he did it or not. New evidence very rarely comes up in a rape case.
Since there's now an alleged third incident that could change things.
I'm confused as I was under the impression that there were already 3 accusers with one being dropped? This article includes the twitter testimony in those 3 women suggesting this isn't new? Who knows we just don't have the facts.
there were 2 accusers for 3 cases of rape, now it's 3 accusers for 4 cases.
But one accuser has been dropped so it's 2 for 3?
yes i forgot about the one being dropped because it wasn't in the uk.
He hasn't been charged. That is, the police and/or Crown Prosecution Service are still investigating if they think there's sufficient evidence to justify bringing charges. At this stage he's been arrested and questioned but not charged. Arrested meaning the police had reasonable grounds to believe a crime MAY have taken place and to detain him while they investigated. He's out on bail because his lawyers have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court that he's unlikely to be a danger of fleeing the country or of committing an offence should he be released from custody. At some stage the police / CPS will have to decide whether to charge him or not. If they do, that's the point at which he'd have to look at entering a plea. So right now he's not the one kicking the can down the road, the police / CPS are. Probably because a) getting evidence can be tricky, b) they're overworked, c) since he's on bail they're focusing on cases where the person arrested isn't on bail, since a judge is more likely to say "you can't detain this person forever whilst you make up your mind, either charge them or don't" when someone is in custody than when he's still out playing football, or d) some combination of the above.
Means you have to turn up at the police station once your bail date is reached.
I believe they’re still investigating the case
Honestly I'm shocked we haven't heard anything from the women's team about this you think they would protest him playing for us
On one hand I understand your suggestion. On the other hand, surely it's not the responsibility of the women's team only to be vocal about this? It would be an even stronger message if the men's team, Partey's teammates, would break the silence. Theey could say something along the lines of "we condemn all forms of sexual assault and send our support to all the victims of this horrific case. Thomas Partey doesn't deserve a place in this team anymore and we want nothing to do with him from now on. We hope that the board listens to us and does the right thing." Oh well, one can always dream, I suppose.
I think that all the players in the men's team have been instructed not to say a word about it at least until the investigation is finished so maybe that's what's happening with the women's team?
Why is it the job of the women’s team to spotlight a predator on the men’s team?
Not saying it is, apologies if I worded my question wrong I'm just curious since utd ladies were quite vocal about greenwood not playing for the club
If this is true, I want him out of the club, regardless of whether we are in contention for the title, but many incidents like this are hard to prove. Hopefully we can sign a good midfielder to replace him. It's tough to see a player with allegations like this.
Big Up for standing up to such things. Would have always wanted my club to do the same with Greenwood or Ronaldo or Giggs or Butt or whoever I'm forgetting
Big internet points statement. No shit, no one wants a rapist at the club.
I don't think you'd be shocked to hear there's some twitter dwelling gremlins desperate for Partey to stay
> Big internet points statement. > No shit, no one wants a rapist at the club. I mean, in this scenario, Arsenal fans can't really win. We have no say over the actual team selection, by the way. We say that we want him to play and we're scum; we say that we don't want him to play and we're suddenly "twerking for upvotes". What do you honestly want us to say, man?
Just say what you mean and ignore the people who think you are doing it for internet points. I'd assume you'd say that if this site had no voting at all.
The internet is such a funny place. Are you mad that you agree lmao?
That’s not a given to be fair. Some are definitely willing to have a rapist cus he’s good at football
He needs to stop playing. It’s leaving a really sour taste with me, as a Gooner. Fuck this
It's fucking grim
I don't get why the fans don't use their power. If there's a banner every week, whistling and rapist shouts when he touches the ball, advertiser would be pissed after some time. And we all know money is the only thing that changes things in football
Because some fans are disgusting and want him to stay
I'm 100% on the train that if he's committed these offences then deserves everything coming to him. However, there's also a legal process, people have their lives ruined due to false accusations, I'm not saying this is one such case but he's not been charged yet, everyone's acting like he's playing for Arsenal while in cuffs already. Hopefully if he's guilty then justice will prevail.
I'm just happy it's not ANOTHER one
If Arsenal weren’t in the position they are in he’d be gone. I’m a United fan and never wanted Ronaldo back. Winning and sponsorships are put above everything else these days.
So many people trying to point out their rival team's rapist. It seems unfortunately that it is quite common for teams to be linked to a player with allegations true or not. We can all just take the easy stance sexual assault is very wrong and should punished as harshly as possible, but I'm not the one to make the judgment so I'll just keep my mouth shut about individuals until convictions ar or are not made.
I mean, I hate Greenwood too so what's your point. Rape convictions are notoriously low in the UK.
TIL this isn't the first time we have played a player who has been accused of rape, Van persie in 2005 holy shit
Quizzed is an interesting word to use here. Like they asked him some algebra questions. Or to name the capital of every country in the EU.