Taking action against individuals on the basis of allegations is a dubious course

 

 

 

• Unprescedented second club banned from transfer deals
• Arsenal face a psychological battle at the start of the season

By Tony Attwood

I’m often critical of the way newspapers and the media in general report Arsenal, so the fact that I take exception to what the Telegraph has published over the rape allegation case is not by itself unusual, but I think it is worth mentioning – not least because of a very, very minor issue that happened to me.

The Telegraph headline reads “Arsenal covered their ears on Partey and lost their moral compass.”

The article continues, “In seeking to tie midfielder down to new deal while case was ongoing, Arsenal have played bleak game for which they deserve harsh scrutiny.”

I truly am utterly appalled by the crime of rape, as I am with all crimes of brutality, but I am also rather proud of my country’s dedication to the notion of being innocent until one is proven guilty.

I have no idea why the state has taken as long as it has to charge the player in the current case, but I retain faith in the notion that anyone who has not been found guilty or who has not yet been found guilty under UK law of a crime, is indeed innocent.   Now of course on occasion, because there is a view that the individual might abscond or commit further crimes there can be reason to lock up a person up pending trial, but even then, the individual under UK law is innocent. Being innocent until proven otherwise is part of our democracy.  And that lock up before the trial, quite rightly, is used only as a last resort, when there is a serious concern that the individual will abscond.

Of course, I know the media would love to remove many of our historic freedoms including this one, (in fact the only one they seem interested in keeping is freedom of the press) but until someone is charged with an offence the person is innocent, and is only locked up where it is feared the person will otherwise abscond or be a danger to the public..  

Why in this case the player has not been charged for such a long time, I don’t know.  And maybe the Telegraph were sitting on a load of evidence that suggests that the player is guilty – in which case they should have sent it to the prosecutors.   But unless the courts are suffering from a vast overload of work that means it takes three years for them even to get together to and consider if there is a csae to prosecute, there is no way that Arsenal could legitimately and legally have treated the player in a different way from the way he was treated.  He was and remains until the court proves otherwise, innocent.

Now as it happens I have been on the receiving end of Arsenal acting in a totally different way – thinking a person is guilty without actually bothering with the details of evidence.  I’ve not written about it before, but the Partey case does bring my own situation (a far, far, far less serious matter I hasten to add, and one of utter insignificance compared to what is now being discussed), to mind.

Clearly we can’t discuss the current issue because it is now before the courts, but my experience with Arsenal perhaps is now of a little interest in comparison. .

I was accused by Arsenal of being a ticket tout.  Without being presented with any evidence, without warning, and without any chance to put in a defence, I was written to by the club, telling me that my season ticket had been cancelled and I would not be allowed into the ground again.

I wrote back at once asking for the details of the case against me, to help me unravel it, and establish my innocence.  There was no reply.  So I wrote again and again.   There was no reply.   Eventually, through the help and support of the supporters club of which I am a member, Arsenal did reply but would not provide any detail of the evidence against me.  Then after six months they said I could write an appeal.  There was no appeals form, and still no indication of what evidence they had against me.  All I was told was the charge: I was a tout.  Which raises the question: how do you appeal when you are not even told what the evidence is? 

A month or so after I put my appeal in, I received a note saying the appeal had been accepted.  Unfortunately, they added, they had already sold my seat for the next two months, so I wouldn’t be allowed back to my seat until the last three games of the season.

No explanation was given as to what evidence they had against me and why they thought that after a lifetime season ticket holder who had worked with the club on a number of projects (the statues around the ground being the most obvious), should also be ticket touting, was never explained.  What “evidence” they had against me, I never knew.

Now of course removing my season ticket is utterly trivial compared with an accusation of repeated rape, but at least with the rape allegation, Arsenal have kept quiet until the state decided to prosucute.  Which is what “innocent until proven guilty” actually means.

The Telegraph clearly feels that an allegation of rape should be enough for a player to be suspended and presumably locked up.  Fortunately we do have some elements of democracy and the written rule of law, in this country.

And so for me there is an utter irony here.   I had my season ticket removed without any attempt to go through any sort of process with me to establish proof that I was guilty of any breach of Arsenal’s rules.  With Partey the Telegraph has gone through the process and waited for him to be charged.    Except they think the player should have been banned when the first rumour started.

The Telegraph’s world is one in which a person should lose his job on the basis of allegations where there is no police action.  That is something we need to be wary of.   In a trivial matter it is possible that someone who doesn’t like you, could accuse you of being a tout and you lose your season ticket.  Maybe that is what happened in my case.  At the other end of the line, the Telegraph wants Arsenal to have acted a long time ago, on a case that the police themselves have felt they haven’t had enough evidence to act upon.

 Arsenal accused me of being a tout, but refused ever to show me any evidence.  The Telegraph argue that Arsenal should have acted against Partey, even though no evidence has been put forward.    That is the heart of the problem.