| Greenwood 22:48 - Aug 21 with 16430 views | hoops_legend |
Would you take a risk on him given he’s leaving Man Utd. I think hes done a very bad thing and clearly isn’t a nice guy but I don’t think he’s quite as scummy as some people make out. Perhaps deserves a second chance
Should qpr offer him that? |  | | |  |
| Greenwood on 13:42 - Aug 22 with 1902 views | stevec |
| Greenwood on 11:03 - Aug 22 by Rangersw12 |
Christ, reading some of these comments I hope none of you have daughters. |
Some of us not only have daughters, but we have sons as well. |  | | |
| Greenwood on 14:58 - Aug 22 with 1732 views | CLAREMAN1995 |
| Greenwood on 13:42 - Aug 22 by stevec |
Some of us not only have daughters, but we have sons as well. |
Simple yet excellent post there stevec.Its a no win situation for everybody when a charge of sexual assault is brought forward .If the man is guilty then let the hammer on God fall on him and do the time for the crime (Father of daughters typing ).If the girl /woman falsely accuses the male of rape and destroys his reputation and life basically then let the hand of justice deliver on her a similiar punishment ( father of son typing ).
In this case I fear the celebrity and money involved may have clouded the case but if they are comitting to a life together raising a family who is wrong ?.
Greenwood will go abroad I suspect .Look at the outcry for Zuma with the cat cruelty now bring that that up 1000% at any English stadium if MG runs out that tunnel |  | | |
| Greenwood on 15:29 - Aug 22 with 1680 views | ed_83 |
Bit flabbergasted by some of the opinions expressed in this thread, but entirely unsurprised by the people spouting them.
Greenwood wasn't acquitted, his alleged victim withdrew her statement and refused to cooperate with police after Greenwood broke his bail conditions by contacting her while awaiting trial. For a case involving allegations of coercive control, that sequence of events should give people serious pause for thought regardless of the judicial outcome.
It's also important to acknowledge that if this had happened to some unknown reserve team player rather than one of England's most talented young strikers, we would not be having this conversation: he'd have had his contract torn up immediately, regardless of innocence or guilt. The only reason there was ever a discussion about Greenwood going back to United or continuing his career elsewhere is because it serves extremely powerful footballing and financial interests to see him rehabilitated.
It's exactly the same as happened with Derby and Keogh - he was disposable so they disposed of him, the other two players who actually caused the crash were valuable assets, so they got a free pass.
Football's always overlooked appalling behaviour in this way, and the people sticking up for Greenwood in this thread are clearly in substantial company. But I think it says something very sad about our society that we place more value on the right of specific men to continue earning millions kicking a ball around than our collective moral responsibility to take a stand on these kinds of issues. | | | |
| Greenwood on 15:43 - Aug 22 with 1639 views | Superhoops2808 |
| Greenwood on 15:29 - Aug 22 by ed_83 |
Bit flabbergasted by some of the opinions expressed in this thread, but entirely unsurprised by the people spouting them.
Greenwood wasn't acquitted, his alleged victim withdrew her statement and refused to cooperate with police after Greenwood broke his bail conditions by contacting her while awaiting trial. For a case involving allegations of coercive control, that sequence of events should give people serious pause for thought regardless of the judicial outcome.
It's also important to acknowledge that if this had happened to some unknown reserve team player rather than one of England's most talented young strikers, we would not be having this conversation: he'd have had his contract torn up immediately, regardless of innocence or guilt. The only reason there was ever a discussion about Greenwood going back to United or continuing his career elsewhere is because it serves extremely powerful footballing and financial interests to see him rehabilitated.
It's exactly the same as happened with Derby and Keogh - he was disposable so they disposed of him, the other two players who actually caused the crash were valuable assets, so they got a free pass.
Football's always overlooked appalling behaviour in this way, and the people sticking up for Greenwood in this thread are clearly in substantial company. But I think it says something very sad about our society that we place more value on the right of specific men to continue earning millions kicking a ball around than our collective moral responsibility to take a stand on these kinds of issues. |
This.... 100 PERCENT!! |  | | |
| Greenwood on 15:55 - Aug 22 with 1558 views | 100percent |
| Greenwood on 15:29 - Aug 22 by ed_83 |
Bit flabbergasted by some of the opinions expressed in this thread, but entirely unsurprised by the people spouting them.
Greenwood wasn't acquitted, his alleged victim withdrew her statement and refused to cooperate with police after Greenwood broke his bail conditions by contacting her while awaiting trial. For a case involving allegations of coercive control, that sequence of events should give people serious pause for thought regardless of the judicial outcome.
It's also important to acknowledge that if this had happened to some unknown reserve team player rather than one of England's most talented young strikers, we would not be having this conversation: he'd have had his contract torn up immediately, regardless of innocence or guilt. The only reason there was ever a discussion about Greenwood going back to United or continuing his career elsewhere is because it serves extremely powerful footballing and financial interests to see him rehabilitated.
It's exactly the same as happened with Derby and Keogh - he was disposable so they disposed of him, the other two players who actually caused the crash were valuable assets, so they got a free pass.
Football's always overlooked appalling behaviour in this way, and the people sticking up for Greenwood in this thread are clearly in substantial company. But I think it says something very sad about our society that we place more value on the right of specific men to continue earning millions kicking a ball around than our collective moral responsibility to take a stand on these kinds of issues. |
Excellent post. |  | | |
| Greenwood on 16:39 - Aug 22 with 1457 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Greenwood on 06:46 - Aug 22 by vanrrrr |
To be clear he was not found innocent, charges were dropped as the witness decided not to give evidence. |
He wasn't found guilty so he is de facto innocent. The alleged victim asked for the case to be dropped. The CPS ignored her request and ploughed ahead regardless. The case then fell apart so charges were dropped. Those are the facts. Anything else is supposition based on preconceived prejudice. |  | | |
| Greenwood on 16:54 - Aug 22 with 1414 views | E17hoop |
| Greenwood on 15:29 - Aug 22 by ed_83 |
Bit flabbergasted by some of the opinions expressed in this thread, but entirely unsurprised by the people spouting them.
Greenwood wasn't acquitted, his alleged victim withdrew her statement and refused to cooperate with police after Greenwood broke his bail conditions by contacting her while awaiting trial. For a case involving allegations of coercive control, that sequence of events should give people serious pause for thought regardless of the judicial outcome.
It's also important to acknowledge that if this had happened to some unknown reserve team player rather than one of England's most talented young strikers, we would not be having this conversation: he'd have had his contract torn up immediately, regardless of innocence or guilt. The only reason there was ever a discussion about Greenwood going back to United or continuing his career elsewhere is because it serves extremely powerful footballing and financial interests to see him rehabilitated.
It's exactly the same as happened with Derby and Keogh - he was disposable so they disposed of him, the other two players who actually caused the crash were valuable assets, so they got a free pass.
Football's always overlooked appalling behaviour in this way, and the people sticking up for Greenwood in this thread are clearly in substantial company. But I think it says something very sad about our society that we place more value on the right of specific men to continue earning millions kicking a ball around than our collective moral responsibility to take a stand on these kinds of issues. |
ManU deciding to run an investigation internally, rather than engage an outside barrister/ legal representative simply demonstrates this means they have made a decision based on the cost to the club of losing staff, strikes, and celebrity unendorsements, or managing out their "£100m asset" (as he was described this week).
It stinks in every way possible and just hope the shítstorm he's going through might change him a bit more than that other grotesque piece of shít Ched Evans. |  |
| |
| Greenwood on 17:04 - Aug 22 with 1370 views | ed_83 |
| Greenwood on 16:39 - Aug 22 by Benny_the_Ball |
He wasn't found guilty so he is de facto innocent. The alleged victim asked for the case to be dropped. The CPS ignored her request and ploughed ahead regardless. The case then fell apart so charges were dropped. Those are the facts. Anything else is supposition based on preconceived prejudice. |
Given your emphasis on facts rather than supposition, can I clarify the bit about the alleged victim "asking for the case to be dropped"?
The CPS statement on the discontinuation of the case talks about the "withdrawal of key witnesses" but nothing about them requesting for the case to be discontinued. When and where did the CPS make this public? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Greenwood on 17:06 - Aug 22 with 1344 views | stainrods_elbow |
| Greenwood on 15:29 - Aug 22 by ed_83 |
Bit flabbergasted by some of the opinions expressed in this thread, but entirely unsurprised by the people spouting them.
Greenwood wasn't acquitted, his alleged victim withdrew her statement and refused to cooperate with police after Greenwood broke his bail conditions by contacting her while awaiting trial. For a case involving allegations of coercive control, that sequence of events should give people serious pause for thought regardless of the judicial outcome.
It's also important to acknowledge that if this had happened to some unknown reserve team player rather than one of England's most talented young strikers, we would not be having this conversation: he'd have had his contract torn up immediately, regardless of innocence or guilt. The only reason there was ever a discussion about Greenwood going back to United or continuing his career elsewhere is because it serves extremely powerful footballing and financial interests to see him rehabilitated.
It's exactly the same as happened with Derby and Keogh - he was disposable so they disposed of him, the other two players who actually caused the crash were valuable assets, so they got a free pass.
Football's always overlooked appalling behaviour in this way, and the people sticking up for Greenwood in this thread are clearly in substantial company. But I think it says something very sad about our society that we place more value on the right of specific men to continue earning millions kicking a ball around than our collective moral responsibility to take a stand on these kinds of issues. |
Take a stand on what kind of issues exactly? An ignorant, boorish, entitled, over-paid footballer says some apparently ugly things to his Tik-Tok g/f during a decontextualised and apparently less than loving portion of how's your father. She drops the charges, has his baby, and they plan a life together. It's all a bit mystifying, and certainly sordid, but people are strange. Maybe they both got off on the publicity and shots of bruising.
Personally, in the scheme of things, I'm far more disquieted by the UK's criminal, thuggish lowlife of an ex-prime minister, how a psychotic nurse is enabled to murder multiple babies by he NHS's enabling managerial culture, and asylum seekers dying in the Channel, but I guess that's just me. [Post edited 22 Aug 2023 17:10]
|  |
| |
| Greenwood on 17:08 - Aug 22 with 1341 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Greenwood on 06:50 - Aug 22 by Hunterhoop |
Have you heard the recording?
The case was dropped because witnesses decided they would no longer come forward including, I think, the victim, who now doesn’t want to press charges I read somewhere.
Could be because nothing happened and it was all a witch hunt.
Could be because of other reasons. How do we know this wasn’t an official out of court settlement?
But he’s not been found “innocent” in a court of law here. Let’s be clear. There is a big difference. The case has been dropped because they don’t have enough witnesses and therefore evidence to get the CPS to proceed. It doesn’t mean he didn’t do these things…just that they can’t prove it. That happens with a lot of domestic abuse and rape cases because of the nature of them (crimes happening in private with just the victim present). To assume every accused is indeed innocent because charges were pressed and they weren’t found guilty is folly.
Regardless of all this, you only have to listen to the original recording to think this guy is wrong ‘un, even if he didn’t do what he was originally charged with. |
The recording is pretty inconclusive. It can't be solely relied upon because recordings by their very nature can be engineered, clipped and edited. The Police and CPS ran lengthy investigations which came to nothing. Man United ran a 6-month investigation that concluded that the recording doesn't provide context and Mason is innocent of the charges originally levied against him. This investigation involved the family of the alleged victim so both sides were heard. Having never conducted an investigation yourself, you appear to think you know better.
You and several others are also conveniently ignoring the fact that the alleged victim asked for the charges to be dropped back in April 2022, only 2 months after the recording was released. The CPS refused and pressed ahead regardless. Down the line the case fell apart. Could it be that these "witnesses" who pulled out witnessed nothing?
I guess we'll never know but what we do know is this. Everyone is born innocent until proven guilty. Mason's not been found guilty in a court of law so he remains innocent. For unqualified folk like yourself to decide otherwise just because you think "he's a wrong 'un" is disingenuous and, smacks of prejudice. | | | |
| Greenwood on 17:09 - Aug 22 with 1337 views | stainrods_elbow |
| Greenwood on 16:54 - Aug 22 by E17hoop |
ManU deciding to run an investigation internally, rather than engage an outside barrister/ legal representative simply demonstrates this means they have made a decision based on the cost to the club of losing staff, strikes, and celebrity unendorsements, or managing out their "£100m asset" (as he was described this week).
It stinks in every way possible and just hope the shítstorm he's going through might change him a bit more than that other grotesque piece of shít Ched Evans. |
You know Evans personally then, do you? Had his rape charge quashed, was found not guilty, and was then expected by a lot of vindictive people like yourself to give up his profession too after coming out of jail. Try analysing your suspect virtue-signalling need to purify yourself of the taint of male violence by condemning a man found innocent. In short, have a word with yourself, eh? [Post edited 22 Aug 2023 17:13]
| |
| |
| Greenwood on 17:10 - Aug 22 with 1336 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Greenwood on 07:50 - Aug 22 by Landshark |
Are you kidding me??? Did you not hear the audio recordings? Did you not see the pictures of the woman bruised and bleeding?
Get the f out of here with your innocent until proven guilty. |
No you get f out of here with your guilty regardless despite the charges being dropped after a year of investigations by the Police, CPS and Man United. | | | |
| Greenwood on 17:14 - Aug 22 with 1344 views | ed_83 |
| Greenwood on 16:54 - Aug 22 by E17hoop |
ManU deciding to run an investigation internally, rather than engage an outside barrister/ legal representative simply demonstrates this means they have made a decision based on the cost to the club of losing staff, strikes, and celebrity unendorsements, or managing out their "£100m asset" (as he was described this week).
It stinks in every way possible and just hope the shítstorm he's going through might change him a bit more than that other grotesque piece of shít Ched Evans. |
Exactly. Ran the whole thing through someone with no legal qualifications or experience managing investigations of this kind, didn't even speak to the alleged victim, allowed Greenwood's statement to go out with glaring factual inaccuracies, and still felt confident enough to form a conclusion on what really happened. Extraordinarily telling as to their priorities and aims. | | | |
| Greenwood on 17:14 - Aug 22 with 1321 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Greenwood on 09:02 - Aug 22 by traininvain |
I’m embarrassed that we have supporters who think this acceptable. And that’s me done with this thread. |
I'm embarrassed that you would peddle the original article from February 2022 as the latest news when much water has passed under the bridge since then. It's selective, divisive, and disingenuous. | | | |
| Greenwood on 17:20 - Aug 22 with 1308 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Greenwood on 08:53 - Aug 22 by Hunterhoop |
Again, not pressing charges/dropping a case are not solely (and quite rarely) down to “sound evidence of innocence”. It is simply to do with whether they have enough evidence for the CPS to believe a prosecution is likely. If it’s not they don’t proceed.
In this instance the victim decided to not come forward anymore. Without a victim pressing charges and any witnesses, proving guilt would be hard. Doesn’t mean there is any evidence of innocence.
But not being able to prove guilt does not mean he is innocent of the accusation. Technically we are all legally innocent until proven guilty of something. But that also doesn’t mean we didn’t do whatever we were accused of.
In this instance, with the recording in the public domain, this seems a very likely case of the people/CPS not feeling confident enough in pressing ahead when the alleged victim won’t press charges or take the stand, not enough other witnesses, and not wanting to put limited resources into a case with those challenges.
It is highly unlikely they decided to drop the case was because of “sound evidence of his innocence”. If you’ve not listened to the recording, do so. The bloke is an entitled wrong ‘un. |
Not being able to prove guilt doesn't mean that he's guilty either.
As you said, "we are all legally innocent until proven guilty of something". That's the bottom line, everything else is conjecture and prejudice. | | | |
| Greenwood on 17:20 - Aug 22 with 1321 views | W12Mikey |
| Greenwood on 16:39 - Aug 22 by Benny_the_Ball |
He wasn't found guilty so he is de facto innocent. The alleged victim asked for the case to be dropped. The CPS ignored her request and ploughed ahead regardless. The case then fell apart so charges were dropped. Those are the facts. Anything else is supposition based on preconceived prejudice. |
He has not been convicted of any crime so cannot receive any criminal punishment. However, we are all entitled to form a view on his character and conduct based on evidence that is in the public domain. My view is we shouldn’t touch him with a barge pole. Others may have a different view, but it is worth bearing in mind that Man Utd, who know him best and supposedly have access to evidence we have not seen, despite saying he is innocent of the original charges, don’t want him to play for them - so why on earth would we? | | | |
| Greenwood on 17:21 - Aug 22 with 1316 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| Greenwood on 15:29 - Aug 22 by ed_83 |
Bit flabbergasted by some of the opinions expressed in this thread, but entirely unsurprised by the people spouting them.
Greenwood wasn't acquitted, his alleged victim withdrew her statement and refused to cooperate with police after Greenwood broke his bail conditions by contacting her while awaiting trial. For a case involving allegations of coercive control, that sequence of events should give people serious pause for thought regardless of the judicial outcome.
It's also important to acknowledge that if this had happened to some unknown reserve team player rather than one of England's most talented young strikers, we would not be having this conversation: he'd have had his contract torn up immediately, regardless of innocence or guilt. The only reason there was ever a discussion about Greenwood going back to United or continuing his career elsewhere is because it serves extremely powerful footballing and financial interests to see him rehabilitated.
It's exactly the same as happened with Derby and Keogh - he was disposable so they disposed of him, the other two players who actually caused the crash were valuable assets, so they got a free pass.
Football's always overlooked appalling behaviour in this way, and the people sticking up for Greenwood in this thread are clearly in substantial company. But I think it says something very sad about our society that we place more value on the right of specific men to continue earning millions kicking a ball around than our collective moral responsibility to take a stand on these kinds of issues. |
I can't speak for others you have in mind, but I certainly can for me if I am in your sight screens.
I suspect unlike most, if not all 'spouting' opinions on here, I have had experience of representing both victims of rape and those falsely accused, for whom the consequences would have seen custodial sentences and resulting stigma for life. As well as having to sit there in the presence of those found guilty of quite frankly, awful stuff.
Accordingly, my inputs - and I think I was clear that I am not privy to the full ins and outs of this case - center on the two key elements of the system, which must prevail and be protected if you will (the ability of women (and men c.f. the Spacey case) to come forward and be dealt with properly and the presumption of innocence if someone is not charged/acquitted). I do not recoil from that position.
There are two pieces of info that have come into the discussion as the thread has developed: firstly, that the complainant has had a child and is planning to marry Greenwood. There is much study on this, about women in particular being born victims, time will tell in that regard. However, from what experience I have on the matter, I do find such 'reconciliation', staggering.
The other item of information I find intriguing, is your piece about what on the face of it, could amount to an allegation of potential witness tampering. Which again, on the face of it, the CPS appear not to have pursued for what ever reason(s).
Fact is, the whole business from the creation of these over-paid and under-controlled individuals, and the fact that on many occasions, there is a problem in the eyes of many when many high-profile celebs are not pursued by the authorities or found not guilty; in that the public finds it difficult to accept, and the whiff of guilt remains.
However, while you, me, and the man on the Clapham omnibus might not like it, disagree or even feel the likes of Mendy, Greenwood, Evans, Spacey, Jacko et al are getting away with it because they are celebs and footballers, there has to remain in such circumstances, a presumption of innocence, not necessarily for these particular individuals, but for the accused plumber, builder, bus driver should it be their turn to have a case properly dropped or rightly found not guilty.
As I say, it's also important that the Greenwood matter does not weaken an already difficult system and act as a deterrent preventing complainants from coming forward and being dealt with appropriately by the law. Maybe, after all, this matter might be one that requires the relevant authorities to look at how such cases are better handled going forward. |  |
| |
| Greenwood on 17:21 - Aug 22 with 1312 views | E17hoop |
| Greenwood on 17:09 - Aug 22 by stainrods_elbow |
You know Evans personally then, do you? Had his rape charge quashed, was found not guilty, and was then expected by a lot of vindictive people like yourself to give up his profession too after coming out of jail. Try analysing your suspect virtue-signalling need to purify yourself of the taint of male violence by condemning a man found innocent. In short, have a word with yourself, eh? [Post edited 22 Aug 2023 17:13]
|
I made no comment on Evans' innocence. The thought of a bloke waiting to 'have a go' on a girl his mate had pulled earlier just doesn't make me think very well of him, especially since he has a girlfriend who he has said he was 'devoted' to. Irrespective as to the legality of his actions that night, morally they're shít. | |
| |
| Greenwood on 17:30 - Aug 22 with 1269 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Greenwood on 15:29 - Aug 22 by ed_83 |
Bit flabbergasted by some of the opinions expressed in this thread, but entirely unsurprised by the people spouting them.
Greenwood wasn't acquitted, his alleged victim withdrew her statement and refused to cooperate with police after Greenwood broke his bail conditions by contacting her while awaiting trial. For a case involving allegations of coercive control, that sequence of events should give people serious pause for thought regardless of the judicial outcome.
It's also important to acknowledge that if this had happened to some unknown reserve team player rather than one of England's most talented young strikers, we would not be having this conversation: he'd have had his contract torn up immediately, regardless of innocence or guilt. The only reason there was ever a discussion about Greenwood going back to United or continuing his career elsewhere is because it serves extremely powerful footballing and financial interests to see him rehabilitated.
It's exactly the same as happened with Derby and Keogh - he was disposable so they disposed of him, the other two players who actually caused the crash were valuable assets, so they got a free pass.
Football's always overlooked appalling behaviour in this way, and the people sticking up for Greenwood in this thread are clearly in substantial company. But I think it says something very sad about our society that we place more value on the right of specific men to continue earning millions kicking a ball around than our collective moral responsibility to take a stand on these kinds of issues. |
Of course, he wasn't acquitted. The case didn't even make trial. | | | |
| Greenwood on 17:35 - Aug 22 with 1265 views | ed_83 |
| Greenwood on 17:06 - Aug 22 by stainrods_elbow |
Take a stand on what kind of issues exactly? An ignorant, boorish, entitled, over-paid footballer says some apparently ugly things to his Tik-Tok g/f during a decontextualised and apparently less than loving portion of how's your father. She drops the charges, has his baby, and they plan a life together. It's all a bit mystifying, and certainly sordid, but people are strange. Maybe they both got off on the publicity and shots of bruising.
Personally, in the scheme of things, I'm far more disquieted by the UK's criminal, thuggish lowlife of an ex-prime minister, how a psychotic nurse is enabled to murder multiple babies by he NHS's enabling managerial culture, and asylum seekers dying in the Channel, but I guess that's just me. [Post edited 22 Aug 2023 17:10]
|
Drunk driving for starters. I reckon that driving drunk, crashing into a lamp-post, and fleeing the scene while your team-mate lies injured in the back of your car should be a sackable offence. Derby's position was that it was ultimately acceptable, but only if you were worth a certain amount to the club financially.
Same principle applies with Greenwood - whatever the truth of the situation, it is inconceivable that he would have been treated in the same way had he not been quite so valuable an asset. Either you have principles, in which case you uphold them even when doing so is financially inconvenient, or you don't.
I think treating people's behaviour differently based on their power, wealth, value or status - whether that applies to a Premier League footballer or the Prime Minister - is fundamentally an act of moral cowardice, sorry. | | | |
| Greenwood on 17:42 - Aug 22 with 1229 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Greenwood on 17:04 - Aug 22 by ed_83 |
Given your emphasis on facts rather than supposition, can I clarify the bit about the alleged victim "asking for the case to be dropped"?
The CPS statement on the discontinuation of the case talks about the "withdrawal of key witnesses" but nothing about them requesting for the case to be discontinued. When and where did the CPS make this public? |
It was revealed in Man United's open letter. The alleged victim asked for the charges to be dropped back in April 2022. The CPS rejected her request and decided to press ahead with prosecution. The charges were eventually dropped a year later in February 2023, after key witnesses withdrew their involvement and "new material came to light". I wonder what this new material was?
Reference - the BBC article I posted earlier:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66554874 [Post edited 22 Aug 2023 17:46]
| | | |
| Greenwood on 17:48 - Aug 22 with 1221 views | Hunterhoop |
| Greenwood on 17:08 - Aug 22 by Benny_the_Ball |
The recording is pretty inconclusive. It can't be solely relied upon because recordings by their very nature can be engineered, clipped and edited. The Police and CPS ran lengthy investigations which came to nothing. Man United ran a 6-month investigation that concluded that the recording doesn't provide context and Mason is innocent of the charges originally levied against him. This investigation involved the family of the alleged victim so both sides were heard. Having never conducted an investigation yourself, you appear to think you know better.
You and several others are also conveniently ignoring the fact that the alleged victim asked for the charges to be dropped back in April 2022, only 2 months after the recording was released. The CPS refused and pressed ahead regardless. Down the line the case fell apart. Could it be that these "witnesses" who pulled out witnessed nothing?
I guess we'll never know but what we do know is this. Everyone is born innocent until proven guilty. Mason's not been found guilty in a court of law so he remains innocent. For unqualified folk like yourself to decide otherwise just because you think "he's a wrong 'un" is disingenuous and, smacks of prejudice. |
I disagree that the recording is inconclusive. It is enough for me to form a judgement on him. As it will be for most.
The fact the case was dropped due to the victim deciding to no longer give evidence doesn’t mean he didn’t do anything. It doesn’t mean much given one of the charges was coercive control and she is his partner.
Whether she’s happy to forget about it is one thing. But it in no way proves his innocence.
Legally he’s not been convicted. Morally, the evidence in the public eye (of which there is more than the recording) is enough for me to form a judgement that he’s a wrong un. There’s no prejudice in there and it’s offensive to suggest there is. |  | | |
| Greenwood on 17:51 - Aug 22 with 1200 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Greenwood on 17:20 - Aug 22 by W12Mikey |
He has not been convicted of any crime so cannot receive any criminal punishment. However, we are all entitled to form a view on his character and conduct based on evidence that is in the public domain. My view is we shouldn’t touch him with a barge pole. Others may have a different view, but it is worth bearing in mind that Man Utd, who know him best and supposedly have access to evidence we have not seen, despite saying he is innocent of the original charges, don’t want him to play for them - so why on earth would we? |
I agree that QPR shouldn't touch him with a barge pole (as if we could afford him) but that doesn't make him guilty of the charges that were levied against him. I suspect that secretly Man United would like to keep him but, with female supporters canvassing the club and the prominence of campaigns such as the #MeToo movement, it's too much of a PR headache. | | | |
| Greenwood on 17:54 - Aug 22 with 1193 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Greenwood on 17:48 - Aug 22 by Hunterhoop |
I disagree that the recording is inconclusive. It is enough for me to form a judgement on him. As it will be for most.
The fact the case was dropped due to the victim deciding to no longer give evidence doesn’t mean he didn’t do anything. It doesn’t mean much given one of the charges was coercive control and she is his partner.
Whether she’s happy to forget about it is one thing. But it in no way proves his innocence.
Legally he’s not been convicted. Morally, the evidence in the public eye (of which there is more than the recording) is enough for me to form a judgement that he’s a wrong un. There’s no prejudice in there and it’s offensive to suggest there is. |
In no way does it prove him guilty either. The alleged victim is a social media influencer and content creator. She has the skills to create a compelling recording. It's not enough for you to form a judgement (which BTW you're not qualified to make), and ignoring everything else that transpired since demonstrates clear bias and prejudice. | | | |
| Greenwood on 17:57 - Aug 22 with 1194 views | ed_83 |
| Greenwood on 17:42 - Aug 22 by Benny_the_Ball |
It was revealed in Man United's open letter. The alleged victim asked for the charges to be dropped back in April 2022. The CPS rejected her request and decided to press ahead with prosecution. The charges were eventually dropped a year later in February 2023, after key witnesses withdrew their involvement and "new material came to light". I wonder what this new material was?
Reference - the BBC article I posted earlier:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66554874 [Post edited 22 Aug 2023 17:46]
|
Okay, and was that request made before or after Greenwood first contacted the alleged victim in breach of his bail conditions? He was arrested for that in October, but court reports suggest he’d been in contact for months beforehand. What were the circumstances in which the request to drop the case was made, particularly given that the charges included coercive control? How confident should we be in United’s ability to speak on behalf of the alleged victim, given that they didn’t actually talk to her as part of their investigation?
These are rhetorical questions, really. I’m very aware that we’re never going to convince each other of anything. Hopefully the point I’m making about the lack of concrete facts available from the information which has been made public is relatively clear, though. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
