There’s no easy answer to this. I do think allegations of rape/sexual assault (“SA”) are in a different category to other crimes. I’m trying to look at this objectively rather than through a female lens, although I likely do have an unconscious bias at best (and probably a conscious bias if I’m being honest).
I totally understand the risk and unfairness in a man being accused of SA and suspended from his job when he has not had a chance to defend himself in court. I can imagine how that would feel if it happened to someone I knew and whom I believed to be innocent and it would be awful. Mud sticks.
But at the same time it is such a serious crime and whilst it is finally being taken more seriously than it has been in the past, there is still such a huge issue in terms of charge and conviction rates that seemingly ignoring the victims’ claims and continuing as if nothing has happened feels plain wrong.
I don’t know what the determining line is:
- Is it the number of complaints? 3 separate accusers in this instance feels a level that deserves some action by the club but is that worse than 1 accusation - surely each one deserves the same level of action?
- Is it the profile of the accused? In the public eye; keeping him visible and pursuing his career could be seen to undermine the seriousness of the accusations compared to Joe Bloggs whom not many people know about and who can continue day-to-day until being charged - but why should that be different?
- Is there a safeguarding issue which means employers should be concerned about their female or younger employees in case the accusations are true?
- Equally, is there a duty of care to the accused who has not yet been charged with a crime, only arrested on suspicion?
- Should the club base their action on whether the accusations reflect on their brand/values and bring the club into disrepute? (Hard to say perhaps if accusations are not proven);
- Is there simply a moral obligation on the club to take a view that the accusations are so disturbing and serious that it is better for the accused to be taken out of the public eye (but can maybe still train)?;
- In SA accusations/investigations specifically, should the club take into account how the accuser/victim might feel if the accused is pursuing their job in the public eye as if nothing was amiss?
- Does the risk of ruining someone’s career taken precedence over the above?
- Should the best interests of the club take precedence until a crime has been proven?
I’m sure there are other considerations.
I really don’t know what the right answer is tbh, just that it feels instinctively wrong to me that a situation where someone is facing so many accusations can be ignored enough to allow the player to continue to play as if nothing had happened.
Of course not everyone will agree with that.
I agree. It’s an incredibly difficult one to address correctly. Like you, I am entirely conscious of my bias which makes objectivity a challenge. That said, a conscious bias at least gives objectivity a fighting chance; with an unconscious bias it’s nigh on impossible.
It’s such a nuanced situation as well, as no doubt many of these cases are. That makes it virtually impossible to compose a ‘check list’ of how to deal with these situations. Should the police or CPS be advising the club on the matter? I highly doubt it as it could prejudice the case being built. Should the ‘tipping point’ for him being withdrawn have been when his name became public knowledge? Maybe. Let’s face it, this whole ‘unnamed premier league footballer’ charade has been a joke for YEARS. Should Woolwich (there you go: there’s some bias) have acted for his own protection at that point, as well as safeguarding all other employees at the club? He has had ‘we know what you are’ sang at him for a long time in many different stadia. This also means that his team mates ‘know what he is’, or what he is alleged to be. Has that affected their performance? Could it have cost them the league? We’ll never know, of course.
To me, the silence of Arsenal FC throughout this ‘incident’ is deafening and unacceptable. It seems to me (an admittedly totally uneducated and poorly informed outsider) that they totally compromised the integrity of the club in order to try to build a title winning midfield. My view of Arteta (more bias, probably) is that he will do absolutely anything required in order to win; it’s clear that the Club agrees with him and has entirely bought into his way of business, which potentially manifested itself here in Partey being allowed to fulfil a key role in the first team.
Although each case is different, it seems that every other time similar accusations have come to light, the club in question has acted quickly and definitively to protect its brand and its employees, even to the detriment of itself. Let’s face it, Greenwood was probably a ‘generational talent’ for United but they discarded him quickly. Siggy was Everton’s biggest purchase. Mendy ended up suing City for millions. Evans got cleared after serving time. I don’t believe that Arsenal has acted in the interests of its employees. That said, Maybe the Mendy and Evans cases suggest that Arsenal was correct to resist the urge to get rid of him. Then again these charges are notoriously difficult to prove and prosecute. Which keads me to believe that the CPS must feel that it has strong evidence against him.
Ultimately. It’s a case in which there are unlikely to be any clear winners and losers. One can only hope that the law is applied evenly and fairly and reaches the correct conclusion.
Rambling over.
