By Tony Attwood
There is an 1100 word tirade against Arsenal in the Guardian today on the issue of Thomas Partey, as it clings to the coat tails of other media that are using the issue as a way of attacking Arsenal. It says in less strident but similar ways to other newspapers, that Arsenal acted wrongly in not suspending or dismissing Partey three years ago when the first allegations of rape were made against him.
As with the Telegraph, it skirts around the issue of the fact that ending Partey’s contract or otherwise treating him differently because of the allegations would have drawn attention to something that it was illegal to write about. Partey had not been charged, and so to make or repeat allegations against him would have drawn attention to the suggestion that it was suggested that he had been gulity of the crime of rape on multiple occasions.
Utterly and totally ignoring the fact that in the UK people are innocent until proven otherwise, the article claims that Arsenal have failed on what they claim is the virtue of “intrinsic goodliness” – presumably on the basis of stopping a person from carrying out his trade because of an unproven allegation is somehow “goodly”.
And from this proposition, they claim that the Partey case shows,”the lengths to which they” (Arsenal) “are willing to go to champion one of their own.” Or as some of us might say, “Arsenal believe in the rule of law and our democratic rights within the UK,” while the Guardina’s view is “innocent until proven guilty, yeah, ok, sometimes, but not when we want to run a story that is not costing us anything to research”.
I am now very much in what we euphemistically call “later life” and so was brought up with the saying that “People died for your right to vote” (and have other freedoms) but now it seems that counts for nothing. We don’t know if the player is guilty or not – he says he is not – but what we can be sure of is the fact that the media are as one in saying that “innocent until proven guilty” counts for nothing.
At the same time, if you are a regular reader of my ramblings on this blog, first I must thank you, and second I must also add that you may have noticed numerous posts about the way in which football clubs have seemingly used every devious method under the sun to avoid any suggestions that they do not treat their young players properly. Some people within clubs indeed have been found guilty of allowing appalling levels of child abuse to continue year after year, although the clubs have been allowed to continue. The fact (it is not an implication it is a fact) that clubs have regularly tunred a blind eye to the abuse of young players by their employees, be it sexual abuse, or playing them when injured, refusing to abide by the terms of a contract and generally treating youing players as commodities that can be used until they are broken, and then thrown out.
I am sitting on lots more information of this sort that I simply can’t publish because it consists of allegations without absolute proof – and I know that if I were to publish most of what I have been given, I would be sued by the clubs involved. And not sued by them because they are right and I am wrong, but because they know they could tie me up in court quuite simply until I ran out of money.
In following through these cases, what has become quite clear is that none of the authorities that run football are willing to take on the issue of the way football clubs treat children. And yet here we see them condemning Arsenal for refusing to break the “innocent until proven guilty” code that is at the heart of our legal system.
The piece in the Guardian today contains the phrase, “You knew. I knew. Rival fans knew, even if their taunting of Partey was always delivered with the sort of gleeful relish that does not exactly scream concern for the alleged victims of sexual violence.”
To which I say, “So what?” “You knew, I knew” is not an answer to the issue of innocent before guilty.
As this case shows, the media is leading us down a pathway at the end of which they and others can make any allegation they like. But the fact is that until Partey was charged with rape they could not and did not – and neither could Arsenal. So Arsenal did the correct and proper thing – they continued to employ the player because he had never been charged. And we should be proud of that. As for the media, they continued not to mention the allegations because they were afraid of being sued.
But now they claim Arsenal were at fault for obeying the law, while utterly failing to consider their own position. The club and the media both obeyed the law, and I am glad of that. So, how come Arsenal are somehow to blame for their conduct during that period before Partey was charged, while the journalists, as ever, are utterly blameless? That question, I notice, is not one that they wish to pose, let alone answer.
You couldn’t be more wrong.
That’s the Guardian with their ‘ faux outrage & virtue signalling “ coming for Arsenal any way they can.Gave up on that paper & their scribblers donkeys years ago.They are a hypocritical embarrassment.
They can barely disguise their Arsenal hate.But no surprise.They are a Man U loving rag.More annoyed that Arsenal haven’t been hauled over the coals than Parteys alleged offences.A disgrace to journalism.
Tony,
I read the Grauniad article by welL .
I saw it as no more than an excuse to batter our club . This individual and others in the same line of employment clearly ignore things that they find unpalateable in their feverish rush to be indignant and express their ire in the direction of all things Arsenal.
Anyway thanks for putting things back into perspective.
There is also the small matter of ‘The Rules of Evidence’ which the press singularly fails to consider with these ‘hatchet jobs’.
What were Arsenal supposed to do . . . suspend a player for three years on the basis that there might be a prosecution one day?
Trial by Media is always disgraceful, but we, sadly, live in a world where those who shout the loudest tend to make the rules.
What else to expect from the Manchester Guardian?
I am reminded of the case of Benjamin Mendy .. sacked by his club, pilloried in the press and eventually found not guilty on all charges. The Guardian might want to consider the length of time elapsed between the initial allegations and the eventual charge, three years is far too long, and by the time it makes it before a judge and jury it may be five years. Above all the presumption of innocence is a key and fundamental principal of our justce system and one we should guard it with much reverence. The Guardian is a left wing rag with so few readers that it has to beg its occosional visitors for funding the best thing is to ignore it and its insignificant ramblings.
Graham, hardly left-wing? Just a bit less right-wing than the rest?
John, I guess it depends on your view!
John L. No it’s definitely left wing, but this was a non political issue wth the Guardian jumping on the same band waggon along with The Mail & many Arsenal blogs out there.
It is interesting to get cooments such as yours Simon, as they make a statement of right and wrong, but with no evidence. I often ponder what the point is of that, but never really get to understand. Do you think perhaps that I am unaware that others disagree with me? That surely would be unlikely since in this issue I am taking on about 95% of the media. Clearly the media I criticse have writers and editors who hold an utterly different point of view from mine – that’s why I write these pieces, just so that somewhere there is an alternative voice heard.
So what is the point or the benefit of saying “You couldn’t be more wrong”? I don’t know. But of course if you would like to write in and explain why that five word comment was worth sending, please do.
When someone tells me ‘ I couldn’t be more wrong’ or the same point worded differently.
I always reply ‘Please tell me what I don’t know.
It is very rare that I am told something I didn’t know.
Such is life!
Double edged sword , damned if we did and damned if we didn’t .
I agree Tony and believe that Arsenal have acted in a very professional manner. Arsenal will have always known about this and will have acted on legal advice. To suggest they have turned a blind eye to try and win a trophy or pretend they didn’t know is utter nonsense. To have suspended Partey or somehow made him disappear for the 3 years it has taken to investigate and charge him would have certainly reinforced the rumours that were circulating. The idea of anonymity to is to protect the individual’s right to a fair trial, prevent pre-trial vilification, and avoid jeopardizing the investigation. Well it didn’t prevent the vilification did it! There are many other employer/employee considerations that their legal advisers will have guided them on. Suspension on moral grounds or for the investigation of a crime not connected with the workplace or contract of employment is not generally to be recommended. It is very easy for those who will suffer little damage or comeback to whip up what essentially will become trial by social media or social justice, which, funnily enough, is not actually how our legal system works. This has now become a moral issue when actually it is a criminal case in which Arsenal have no other responsibility than to treat thier employees at the time in accordance with good employment practice and legislation. They have a duty of care to their employees and inadvertently prejudicing their right to a fair trial would be frowned upon by the justice system. I think the press must be very cheesed off that this is now solely a matter between an ex employee of Arsenal, for whom Arsenal no longer have any responsibility or involvement, and the judiciary. If he is found guilty they will punish him as is right and proper. It has never been Arsenal’s right of responsibility to inflict on him something that could be construed as a punishment. If he is innocent I wonder if those who have vilified him, the club and the manager will offer them an apology?
He wasn’t even charged with any offence until after he left the club. It’s patently absurd to suggest he should have been suspended based on an allegation when clearly the the police and the CPS didn’t even have the evidence to bring charges against him.
As has been said, just another excuse for the media to slag off Arsenal…..as they would have also done if we’d suspended him.
I gave up buying & reading legacy print & electronic media in the last century & take pleasure in their slow & tortuou decline.