malg
Well-Known Member
Good point. No idea. Especially as a 28 year old footballer probably acts like a 17 year old anyway ....What's that got to do with it?
Good point. No idea. Especially as a 28 year old footballer probably acts like a 17 year old anyway ....What's that got to do with it?
He isn't saying "no action should be taken against (anyone) who makes false allegations", he's saying an acquittal doesn't necessarily mean that an allegation was false, and it certainly doesn't necessarily mean that the allegation was a deliberate, malicious lie. If one or all of these women deliberately made up stories about Mendy in order to hurt him and/or make money out of him, and his lawyers think they can prove that, then I guess they could pursue them through the courts and they probably should.Mendy has been acquitted of all charges. The man's life was immeasurably harmed by false allegations made against him. That is a very bad thing.
Do you think that we should just say, "OK, never mind" about those women? Do you think it's fine for such serious - false - allegations to be made against someone?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that no action should be taken against women who make false allegations.
If you've been raped, you should report it and society should encourage you to report it.
If you have not been raped, you should not say that you have. There's a pretty clear distinction there.
I never used to agree with you but lately that's been happening a lot. What's going on? It feels weird.
Because if it were to go to a civil case the immaturity of the woman/girl may be taken into account in a way that it was not in the criminal prosecution. And although the age of consent is 16, there are other laws to protect people under 18, for example sending them sexually explicit messages if you are over 18 yourself.What's that got to do with it?
They didn’t terminate him so I don’t think it’s that straightforward. We can only guess of courseMendy broke bail conditions meaning that he was then denied bail thus rendering himself unavailable for selection through his own actions. So wouldn't be due compensation from that point onwards.
Sheesh man you can't really be suggesting we should have killed him!They didn’t terminate him so I don’t think it’s that straightforward. We can only guess of course
There are too many to mention, right? ( :( )I’m not a lawyer or anything it’s just one of those really annoying American phrases that have somehow infected our language.
I'm sure it was said in an article last year if he was found NG there he would recoup all of his salary he's had frozen at city
If city win 4 trophies and £500m in prize money expect season tickets to increase by £20Isn't there something akin to insurance, or the alleged victim liable? Don't see how City should pay. Or why. Losses have been had by all. City's reputation could also put a claim in. The best thing is that he speaks to the club, and they factor in bringing the club into disrepute etc. Most employers would put those facing legal action on gardening leave, but those held in prison and custody would be released? Seems a can of worms either way. If City pay, expect the 2024/25 seasoncards to increase...