Fine here's a better way of dealing things - actual evidence and what's reported, not a black and white guilty or innocent. Sigurdsson had been sending extreme sexual messages to his 15 year old babysitter while his wife was pregnant, and he got arrested when these messages intensified and the babysitters dad found them: https://www.google.com/amp/s/global...ng-the-15-year-old-babysitter-explicit-texts/ The case for sexual offences collapsed, when, after 2 years of the case being fought there was not enough evidence to continue....see my stat of 1 in 100 reported rapes getting a conviction. Still think he should be allowed his career back?
Ok 1) Fair enough, I forgot about the text messages, and if that was a factor in their decision to suspend him then ok. So I apologise for that. Although I haven't seen the texts so I don't know what was said, these are still just claims. 2) I never said anything about a black or white guilty or innocent verdict, I said proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, implying there'll be sufficient enough evidence to be certain enough of guilt. 2b) I suppose my main concern is how often people can face consequences WITHOUT strong evidence. I agree evidence matters, I'm not saying dismiss evidence because it's not enough to prove them guilty at a trial, but as long as we're not treating accusations as if it's enough to treat them as guilty. 3) And also, I still stand by what I mean by innocent until proven guilty, because like in the Mason Greenwood case, the "evidence" doesn't prove what the person was accusing him of - Attempted rape. I suppose it depends what level of abuse you think is beyond a forgivable level or not.. So even though I respect I may have jumped the gun a bit in this case, my points largely still stand because I have seen cases where influencers are accused and their career suffers only for them to be found to be innocent later on, and I'm not just talking about cases where there's not been enough evidence to convict, I mean the accuser was proven a liar through admission or because of tampered/manipulation of evidence (e.g. screenshots of DM's taken out of context). 4) Also when you say 1 in 100 reported rapes get a conviction, you mean 1 in 100 rape accusations lead to a conviction right? because I fail to see how anyone could be so sure how many actual rapes happen until it's proven.
We've debated the rest, so I'll just respond to this. Semantics, but anyway yes 1 in a 100 rape accusations get a conviction. And the VAST majority do not even get reported as women are too traumatised to go to the police. Which then leads to another point, in sexual offense cases the conviction rates are notoriously low due to lack of hard evidence for sexual assault....hence here this one has collapsed on these grounds. It easy to convict a nonce who has downloaded loads of indecent images, because the search history and hard drive contents are hard evidence, whereas this hard evidence doesn't exist for actual sexual assaults, and so "innocent until proven guilty" is a dangerous precedence to apply....and guilty until proven innocent is just as dangerous a position to adopt.
I don't mean that it's an objective fact that you're innocent because we cannot prove your guilt, but that's how the law should see it, and it's important that we realise that until it's proven through the proper channels, we cannot be certain of guilt, and then it's just about our own personal belief. I'm not saying people cannot look at the accusations and leaked evidence and decide for themselves, what I'm saying is we should be mindful of what we do once we personally believe they are guilty, and that we don't have the right to inflict severe consequences on others simply because we believe they are guilty, even if there's evidence, because we have to respect that we are not professionals and the average person doesn't have the resources to conduct a proper investigation, so the average persons opinion on this subject should be held in check as they are limited in the resources available to them to prove someone's guilt in many situations. It is possible that the evidence could suggest guilt but the person is not guilty, so we can have our opinions, but we have to decide who actually gets to decide if someone is guilty or not to the degree that it warrants severe social consequences, and I don't think that should be members of the general public or anyone who doesn't have the training to conduct a proper investigation. But I respect your position though. I appreciate your challenging me because perhaps I was a bit too black and white on the subject, if only in the way I worded it. Innocent until proven guilty should definitely still apply to the legal system though.
Except in any job, where the offence is serious enough, you are suspended while an investigation is carried out. This is the right approach. When its you and me making lewd comments to a secretary no one outside the company gives a toss. When its a footballer or other high profile person everyone wants to know why. They get all the trappings of their fame (money, celebrity status etc). They have to deal with the downsides.
Tbh, if he was messaging an underage girl that should be enough to be sentenced in my eyes - "yeah your honor I only said I wanted to do the dirty with that 15 year old, never actually did it though"... straight to jail mate! I did also hear another rumor he was being blackmailed though? I heard something along the lines of he slept with a prostitute who ended up being underage and her "associates" were trying to blackmail him? Problem is nothing is reported so you have no idea what you are trying to judge a response on. If its the first scenario - nonce, jail, shiv - in that order for you, you monster. If its second scenario that's an entirely different ball game (no pun intended).
If as a manager I had a member of staff who was arrested and charged with a serious criminal offense I would have to suspend them from their job until such time as they were cleared of any charges or found guilty, you can't go on as if nothing has happened.
