Does it piss anyone else off how sometimes footballers/sports people and other professionals are banned/suspended because of what they've been accused of despite the fact that they've not been proven guilty of anything? If he was working around children I understand, but he's a footballer. It's innocent until PROVEN guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
Should the police be allowed to reveal the names of suspects? In this kind of case unless they arrest and detain him I don't think it should be allowed. Too many lives are getting ruined through false aquisations.
Same thing happened with Ched Evans. Even that daft bint Jessica Ennis Hill got involved and was the main driver for killing his career. He should have sued the tits off her
T For me all parties involved in this type of case should retain annonynimity until a conviction or verdict of not guilty and then the 'guilty' parties should be named.
anonymity and being suspended are different things. Yes he should have been anonymous but he should have been suspended
He shouldn't have been suspended, because he wasn't proven guilty, and until you're proven guilty, you shouldn't face severe social consequences. The only alternative is to give people the life changing consequences until they're proven innocent, which is not fair.
"there was not enough information to continue with the charges" So basically something clearly happened but couldn't be proven sufficiently, ie the same with Mason Greenwood. He's already easily a multi millionaire from his career, so I don't really have sympathy tbh.
What if he wanted to continue to play football and not be branded a child molester? His name should have been kept away from the public and he should have been able to continue playing because you cannot punish someone for something they MIGHT have done.
Then he should present clear and irrefutable evidence of why he isn't one. Because something has clearly happened here, and the case has only collapsed because of lack of evidence. Countless cases collapse when someone has done something but there isn't sufficient evidence to prove it. Just because the case has collapsed doesn't mean he's 100% innocent.
He shouldn't have to prove that he's no a child molester. No one should have to prove their innocence, it's up to the prosecution to prove guilt. You shouldn't have to refute your accusers claims, although I respect the fact that it definitely helps you if you can do that. Yes, he may be guilty, but again he shouldn't have to face consequences because we believe he might be guilty, only if he is proven to be guilty. If a case collapses on a lack of evidence then that about says it all. There's no evidence, there's just suspicion and accusation, and those things matter, but they shouldn't lead to action taken against someone. It's especially frustrating because he was originally accused back in 2021 and it's taken until ****ing 2023 to get this resolved.... He could be guilty, but his career may have been ruined due to a false accusation also. He shouldn't have been suspended for this long if we're not sure he's guilty. He's a football player he'd not have private access to vulnerable people through his job.
The vast majority of rapes that happen don't get reported. Of the ones that are reported, only 1 in 100 results in a conviction, the rest get thrown out due to lack of evidence. Most of Benjamin Mendy's rape allegations have been thrown out due to lack of evidence, should Man City now welcome him back into their team with open arms just because it's not proven that he's guilty?
That depends, has he been convicted of other rapes? If he hasn't been convicted of any rapes, he should be treat as innocent. If he's had most of his rape accusations thrown out but some of them have lead to a conviction, then he should be suspended. But until he's actually PROVEN guilty, he's treat as innocent, as he should be. We cannot punish people because we believe they might be a rapist, we can only, should only be punishing people because they are PROVEN a rapist.
Your stance of "innocent until proven guilty" is archaic and outdated. The simple fact is that if Sigurdsson and Mendy were totally innocent they'd have been found so straight away and the cases would have immediately been thrown out. From the article you can tell something clearly happened, and there's been enough evidence to have a 2 year trial, all that's happened is there's not enough evidence to get the final conviction. Sigurdsson had a career people can only dream of, and full well new anything he did would be in the public eye. We should only punish people if they're proven guilty? Would you apply this logic to Jimmy Saville then, and should we all regard him as the loveable charity raiser, because he was never proven guilty?
Suspension for me depends upon what the individual has said in relation to the offence. If he has admitted the offence in interview, for example, then yes it would be correct to suspend him. An example is Johnson of Sunderland where he in discussions with their CEO essentially admitted committing offences. Not outright as such but in his narrative of what had occurred he had committed an offence. Not IIRC the one he was being investigated for but nonetheless an offence. That should have been picked up by the CEO as she was a lawyer and that would have merited suspension. Sunderland didn't and the CEO subsequently resigned. If conversely any and all offences are denied by the suspect then I don't agree with suspension as that is essentially pre judging the issue. In certain circumstances I would say that position woiuld be different, for example, if children are involved at the place of work.
Innocent until proven guilty is not outdated, as no one has provided a better alternative. Which is why you are not convicted until you are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Which is the way it should be. If you think you have a better alternative, please show a better way of doing things. Just because I'm saying Innocent until proven guilty, doesn't mean I'm saying it's an objective fact that those not proven guilty are innocent, I'm simply saying we shouldn't be able to inflict consequences on someone of a certain nature until they are proven so through the proper channels. I know the system doesn't always work, but any alternative is just vigilantism and mob justice where the average pleb human decides who is telling the truth and this leads to awful things being done to innocent people often. Either that or we just lower the standard of evidence and treat accusations as proof in itself, which gives ammunition to those who seek to use accusations to ruin someones life, and those people exist. The system is not perfect, but no better alternative exists, we simply need to get better at proving people's guilt, which is the way forward. Evidence is what matters, but I suppose it depends what standard of evidence you personally need to be convinced of someones guilt.
