Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
The main issue with the notion that the club/CPS have seen evidence which clearly exonerates him is the fact that nobody, not the club, not Greenwood, has made any effort to share this additional evidence with the rest of the world. And they’re happy to let his United career go up in flames despite convincing evidence that he’s an innocent man. Which makes no sense at all.

So we can only conclude that there’s a big difference between evidence that might be enough to scupper a court case against him and evidence that would explain away the despicable behaviour recorded and shared when the story first broke.
Anything that exonerates him is simultaneously going to throw the mother of his child under the bus. Maybe neither Greenwood nor the club want that.
 
Almost the sort of interesting theory a lawyer might suggest would be the only vaguely plausible explanation the retrofits the evidence? But I wouldn't be so cynical.

Just to clarify - I'm not saying I believe that's what happened, but the fact that you actually can retrofit it without it falling to pieces at the first hurdle at least makes it a more interesting theory than the photoshop/role play BS some people have presented. Not that it's a high bar though..
 
The question now is what happens with Antony? If he is charged by the Brazilian police with similar offences against a previous girlfriend, have the club set a precedent with their statement? Will his career at United be over?
 
I have to admit the discourse on this topic is actually really painful, so I'm not sure why I waded back in. What I will say as a final point is my initial opinion at the time, was that with evidence that damming, the only reasonable assumption from then onwards was that he would be convicted. To my mind, if you have the "smoke and gun", then that will lead to a conviction. So I was quite happy to leave this in the hands of the police investigation and respect the outcome. I did maintain from the start that this would have been better played out directly in court so that a jury could weigh up a body of evidence, but alas that wasn't the case. However, what we do know is that based on the wide variety of evidence seen by the CPS (including in my opinion what looks to be a "smoke and gun"), they still didn't press charges. To me that makes me think they have seen something that makes him appear less guilty than what we all saw and heard. Utd's recent investigation has only added to my feeling that there's context we are not seeing currently in the public. I think where I take issue is those people coming down so strongly and definitively as if they have all the answers already, and vilifying him as if he was fully convicted of all those crimes. Even if you truly believe he's guilty, surely that slight twinge of doubt exists?


Yes and to be honest, I've changed my mind on this. The club made the right decision getting rid, because the circus alone would have been a massive distraction. However, I still can't shake the feeling that public pressure has played the biggest part in this decision, which I do find hugely frustrating.
Very well said.
 
Then when I read that the complainant wanted to withdraw charges in the April that year, I thought oh okay. Then the charges were dropped in February. Then the girl was expecting his child. That is when I felt that there is more to this incident than what was put out online.

You've missed out a big part of the story there. You know, the part where he is arrested for breaking bail conditions about not seeing the alleged victim of coercion which then ultimately leads to the case being dropped when a witness pulls out and new material comes to light. All after making a statement which leads the police to refer it to the CPS in the first place.

We don't know the full story, and never will, but there are parts we do know and that should not be forgotten about. Nor should it be forgotten the charges he faced and why this case was never going to be anything other than highly emotional for people on the outside.


I think United should have constructed a plan to reintroduce with the objective of rehabilitation and been more open about it during the summer months. It would have been also good to hear from Mason himself.

If he's innocent, no it would not. It would be disastrous to hear from Mason if he wanted to stay with her the child. For very obvious reasons.

If they could have paraded them out as a couple and tried to get the public onside, don't you think they would have? Think about it logically, re-read those statements. Something clearly happened, that is admitted to. They've alluded to there being more to that evidence but won't say. The woman has been granted the right to anonymity.

The picture is there as to why they can't and never will just come out and say what led to the assertion that the club found him innocent of those charges, but guilty of other "mistakes". There's a reason he has himself accepted that and told us all he set this in motion and feels it's best to go.


People can blame the "outrage" and public all they want. But it's funny those who want to see the CPS decision as black and white, but won't do the same with Arnold and Greenwood's statements....well, funny isn't the right word.


Just to clarify - I'm not saying I believe that's what happened, but the fact that you actually can retrofit it without it falling to pieces at the first hurdle at least makes it a more interesting theory than the photoshop/role play BS some people have presented. Not that it's a high bar though..

It really isn't. And we've had some absolute whoppers that even the Greenwood IN camp should be going at. Surprisingly, not, they haven't.
 
I don't think this is the socially accepted "standard of action." Most of society is not 100% consequentialist / utilitarian.

I don't think there is a socially accepted "standard of action". And if there was one, it wouldn't be deontologist, because you're left with individuals who feel good in a sub-optimal society.

I agree most of society isn't 100% consequentialist, but I think for a business (which the football club is), in a rational marketplace, you start from that axis and then veer away until you're in an acceptable compromise.

But I think amongst many things we've learned there is that there is little rational driving decision making in the c-suite in Old Trafford.
 
The question now is what happens with Antony? If he is charged by the Brazilian police with similar offences against a previous girlfriend, have the club set a precedent with their statement? Will his career at United be over?
Doesn't seem that similar a scenario to be honest. There's nothing out there online for the masses to see/hear and so if he's not charged the club won't even have to address it in my opinion.
 
Well.. he's exactly right though? After what people have seen in the pictures and heard in the audio, how can you just say "Oh well we know more but we cannot say or show you" and expect everyone to just be on board with that? Especially when there's no impartiality whatsoever in trying to protect their valuable asset.
Yeah lets forget that there are actual people involved who can choose not to show. There is nothing wrong with United statement. Its just that some people wanted him hanged and were disappointed that didn’t happen
 
I miss the halcyon days when threads about Mason were locked as soon as they started. I am not sure anyone, myself included, is coming out of this with any dignity. We all seem to be entrenched in our positions so perhaps it is time to draw a line.
 
Yeah lets forget that there are actual people involved who can choose not to show. There is nothing wrong with United statement. Its just that some people wanted him hanged and were disappointed that didn’t happen

If you look at the people who are enraged in this thread I think you’ll find a majority coming from the group who wanted it brushed under the carpet.
 
Did I miss something here? Did this categorically happen?

He's making shit up. The guy was even charged with threatening to kill the woman but according to the domestic violence apologists nothing happened at all.
 
Anything that exonerates him is simultaneously going to throw the mother of his child under the bus. Maybe neither Greenwood nor the club want that.

As we can see from the hordes of dickheads slagging her off on social media (and on here) the best possible outcome for her would be Greenwood completely exonerated and reintegrated at the club. That’s the only way this whole shit show goes away. I’m sure everyone involved is well aware of that and would have release any evidence that might achieve that goal.
 
Maybe it's my timeline but outside of Redcafe, I have seen more people against the club decision than for it. Which begs the question, which public opinion the club followed?

I think what they did was wait for actually morally sound people to have their say and ignore all the anonymous cretins on Twitter who are the lowest of the low.
 
The main issue with the notion that the club/CPS have seen evidence which clearly exonerates him is the fact that nobody, not the club, not Greenwood, has made any effort to share this additional evidence with the rest of the world. And they’re happy to let his United career go up in flames despite convincing evidence that he’s an innocent man. Which makes no sense at all.

So we can only conclude that there’s a big difference between evidence that might be enough to scupper a court case against him and evidence that would explain away the despicable behaviour recorded and shared when the story first broke.

Why do we expect him to? Why is his private life any of our business? Would you want to share your intimate fantasies with your wife for the world to see? Would you want the world poring over every second of the audio or video or whatever else they have? There's this weird notion that his entire life should be public property and if he wont give us the access he must be guilty.

Don't forget there is at least one other party we are asking to see here, and even though we all know who she is she technically has anonymity.
 
Yeah lets forget that there are actual people involved who can choose not to show. There is nothing wrong with United statement. Its just that some people wanted him hanged and were disappointed that didn’t happen
Nobody wants him hanged, people wanted justifiable consequences for his horrendous actions.

You saw the pictures, you heard the audio, that's what people have to go on. If you cannot contradict that in any way shape or form beyond just empty words then you cannot expect people to change their minds.

There is plenty wrong with not only United's statement but their entire process too. By all reports it seemed like we were ready to bring Greenwood back into the fold under the idea that the club have evidence he did nothing wrong but nobody is willing to show this evidence. So of course people weren't going to accept that. Saying that you have evidence but then still kicking him out makes no sense. If you have hard proof that nothing illegal happened why wouldn't you make sure it was known so that Greenwood isn't painted as an abuser and he can carry on with his life at the club?

Let me also point out that Greenwoods statement was also wrong, he was not "cleared of all charges" at all.

Whilst we're at it, it seems there is plenty of people on this forum that are willing to excuse extreme abusive behaviour towards women so long as the person doing it plays football for the team you support, which is quite frankly sickening to think about
 
Yeah lets forget that there are actual people involved who can choose not to show. There is nothing wrong with United statement. Its just that some people wanted him hanged and were disappointed that didn’t happen

:rolleyes:

Yeah, and you are among the likes who think they are being fair here with your absolutely braindead sentences like this.


If you look at the people who are enraged in this thread I think you’ll find a majority coming from the group who wanted it brushed under the carpet.

Yep, the ones talking about hangings and lynchings for a start.

Disgraceful and should be kicked out of this thread.


I think what they did was wait for actually morally sound people to have their say and ignore all the anonymous cretins on Twitter who are the lowest of the low.

I like how people think the club is magically listening to us now :lol:

I wonder why these angry fans aren't doing their own mob then? If they think we've magically found a way to get the club to actually listen, why aren't they doing it? After all, they are all mouthy in here and all over social media, surely they could manage a U-turn?


Why do we expect him to? Why is his private life any of our business? Would you want to share your intimate fantasies with your wife for the world to see? Would you want the world poring over every second of the audio or video or whatever else they have? There's this weird notion that his entire life should be public property and if he wont give us the access he must be guilty.

Don't forget there is at least one other party involved here, and even though we all know who she is she technically has anonymity.

Still going with the "role play" defence huh?

This has nothing to do with sharing fantasies, even if that was true. You should understand that by now.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's my timeline but outside of Redcafe, I have seen more people against the club decision than for it. Which begs the question, which public opinion the club followed?

I don't think they followed any public opinion per say , it seems they made a decision but lost their nerve at first sign of trouble I don't know what were they expecting they come across as ill prepared and confused as If no thought had gone into the process quite opposite to How Crafton had them portrayed .

As per the bolded part Red Cafe is kind of Echo chamber in itself .
 
Last edited:
You've missed out a big part of the story there. You know, the part where he is arrested for breaking bail conditions about not seeing the alleged victim of coercion which then ultimately leads to the case being dropped when a witness pulls out and new material comes to light. All after making a statement which leads the police to refer it to the CPS in the first place.

We don't know the full story, and never will, but there are parts we do know and that should not be forgotten about. Nor should it be forgotten the charges he faced and why this case was never going to be anything other than highly emotional for people on the outside.




If he's innocent, no it would not. It would be disastrous to hear from Mason if he wanted to stay with her the child. For very obvious reasons.

If they could have paraded them out as a couple and tried to get the public onside, don't you think they would have? Think about it logically, re-read those statements. Something clearly happened, that is admitted to. They've alluded to there being more to that evidence but won't say. The woman has been granted the right to anonymity.

The picture is there as to why they can't and never will just come out and say what led to the assertion that the club found him innocent of those charges, but guilty of other "mistakes". There's a reason he has himself accepted that and told us all he set this in motion and feels it's best to go.


People can blame the "outrage" and public all they want. But it's funny those who want to see the CPS decision as black and white, but won't do the same with Arnold and Greenwood's statements....well, funny isn't the right word.




It really isn't. And we've had some absolute whoppers that even the Greenwood IN camp should be going at. Surprisingly, not, they haven't.

Yes, I recall that. I also remember there being reports that he was purchasing items for her online and having them sent to her. I will read the information again, but I am just disappointed with everything. The effort and time the club has made. The fac the is so young and should be given the opportunity to continue. I felt that if the club could have set the environment for them and Mason to slowly reintroduce him one step at a time.
 
Why do we expect him to? Why is his private life any of our business? Would you want to share your intimate fantasies with your wife for the world to see? Would you want the world poring over every second of the audio or video or whatever else they have? There's this weird notion that his entire life should be public property and if he wont give us the access he must be guilty.

If it meant the difference between the whole world thinking I’m a violent sex offender or not then yes, obviously. Is that even a serious question? When an audio clip has been widely shared that everyone assumes records me in the act of trying to rape and/or beat my partner, how on earth could it be a worse outcome for people to find that actually I’m just a bit kinky?!

They don’t even need to release whatever evidence they have for everyone to pore over. A simple explanation about why he’s been so badly misunderstood would have done. The absence of which makes it obvious that there is no simple explanation.
 
The question now is what happens with Antony? If he is charged by the Brazilian police with similar offences against a previous girlfriend, have the club set a precedent with their statement? Will his career at United be over?
Depends if there's video of it like with Greenwood
 
As I said in my previous post though, they had "smoke and gun" evidence which is very rarely present in most investigations. If the CPS heard that damning audio and saw what appeared to be damning pictures and yet still dropped the case, there has to be some significant context to those which contradicts what we have seen.

Yes, we know that. Because it happened.

However, what contradicted it, the events surrounding that contradiction (such as Greenwood breaking bail to meet up and impregnate her), and the fact the club/Greenwood refuse to say all paints it's own picture, no? And as such, I don't believe you can expect people to suddenly switch positions and think it's all rosy and he can stay.

Because whatever side people want to be on, we all know this isn't a straightforward guilty/innocent case. Well most of us with functioning brains do anyway.


Yes, I recall that. I also remember there being reports that he was purchasing items for her online and having them sent to her. I will read the information again, but I am just disappointed with everything. The effort and time the club has made. The fac the is so young and should be given the opportunity to continue. I felt that if the club could have set the environment for them and Mason to slowly reintroduce him one step at a time.

He is being given an opportunity to continue though. He is free to continue to play football and build his life.

You should look for my posts over the last couple of pages about why it isn't possible at United though, or even good for him/them. Because regardless of what we all think about this, any reasonable person would want the best outcome to be a happy life for that family and especially the child.


I don't think they followed any public opinion per say , it seems they made a decision but lost their nerve at first sign of trouble I don't know what were they expecting they come across as ill prepared and confused as If no thought had gone into the process quite opposite to How Crafton's had them portrayed .

As per the bolded part Red Cafe is kind of Echo chamber in itself .

This is a very fair post.
 
Anything that exonerates him is simultaneously going to throw the mother of his child under the bus. Maybe neither Greenwood nor the club want that.
In that case, you'd expect she would have been charged with wasting police time, given that they spent nigh on a year investigating it based on material she published and a statement she gave to them.
 
then why was he not convicted and put in jail? why did all investigations come back that he was found not to have done any physical harm?

I'll answer with one of my old posts.

If you witness abuse, never remain silent. After reviewing the pictures with bruises, video of her bleeding, and audio evidence she presented, I am convinced that he is indeed abusive. The extent of the abuse might be unclear, but I wholeheartedly believe her initial account and response. Having grown up in an abusive household characterized by violence and turmoil, I can personally relate to this situation. My mother defended her abuser to both our family and the authorities. She even reported him to the police at one point, only to later recant her statement. You think he was prosecuted when she did that? It's worth noting that my mother continued to have children with him during the abuse, she eventually gathered enough courage to leave but that was years later.

It is more plausible that the girl recanted her story and chose to defend him, a pattern frequently observed among abused women. This seems more probable than the assumption that every single picture, video, and audio has been fabricated and deliberately misrepresented. Because of this the authorities are unable to proceed with prosecution since the sole witness has now recanted, asserting that no wrongdoing took place and the club can confidently assert his innocence based on this development.
 
I didn't ask about your kid, I asked about the babysitter. The babysitter isn't charged with anything criminal, and is innocent in the eyes of the law. Rule of law, second chances, making mistakes as a young adult, what does that mean to you here?
Off course not. I am not being unjust if I don’t hire a babysitter who I witness molesting my child. Now again, what has Greenwood case got to do with this? Are you suggesting Mason committed of all those crimes? Did you read the statement by United? Do you ever ask yourself the question why the case was dropped what such thing happened that they thought lets not even go to court?
 
Off course not. I am not being unjust if I don’t hire a babysitter who I witness molesting my child. Now again, what has Greenwood case got to do with this? Are you suggesting Mason committed of all those crimes? Did you read the statement by United? Do you ever ask yourself the question why the case was dropped what such thing happened that they thought lets not even go to court?

Alright, so when you were talking about lofty words like rule of law, second chances, the absence of a criminal conviction, you only meant that to apply to innocent people?

Rule of law seems irrelevant, no one is proposing jail. A second chance isn't needed, because you don't think he did it so he should still be on his first chance. The absence of a criminal conviction isn't important, because that seemingly wouldn't carry any weight with you if he actually did it. What you actually meant to say, by " There is “rule of law”. To penalise him after he has not been charged with criminality is unjust. He was just 20 we all commit mistake. I'm sure he has learned the lesson by being 1.5 yrs on the side. And as human being, I believe he deserves a second chance.", seems to boil down to the fact that you don't think he did it. That's fine, but just say that.
 
In that case, you'd expect she would have been charged with wasting police time, given that they spent nigh on a year investigating it based on material she published and a statement she gave to them.

You'd have to ask any legal experts on here, but maybe they've cut a deal or decided to let it go for the sake of the family...if that's the case of course.

But also, remember the seemingly inept way they handled Greenwood breaking bail on multiple occasions in such a highly sensitive case. So who knows what they'd bother to do.
 
No, that would be a horrible analogy.

We're talking about the rule of law, people not convicted of crimes, second chances. That goes for people you know are guilty as well. If the babysitter's name is cleared, what would they need a second chance for? They didn't squander their first one.
But that's ridiculous, isn't it? Because if we all knew he was guilty, all the talk of him coming back would be non-existent. The reason some were willing to accept him back is because they thought either he was innocent or couldn't conclude from the public evidence that he was guilty. Anyone that wanted him back, knowing he was a violent, abusive rapist would be deranged.
This. You have loads of people going "how can you hear the audio recording and not be xxxxx, where's our morals xxxx, what other possible scenarios could there be xxxx". Court of public opinion wins, they know better than investigators.
Hard to argue too much with this. The problem is we live in an era of experts and where real expert voices are cast aside in favour of the lowdest voice.
I still feel as though cutting ties with Greenwood was the right move for all involved. But I'm less certain about his guilt as further leaks have come out. I also feel as though I've been dragged along with the general consensus, and the broader British cultural values around "believe women" and "abusers are evil people who never change". In quieter moments, those sentiments sit uneasily with me.
Yes, this part in particular I still find challenging. I completely understand the low conviction rates which means a lot of scummy people slip through the net, but even then I think assuming that every other case to the contrary is true, is not the way to go.
 
Maybe it's my timeline but outside of Redcafe, I have seen more people against the club decision than for it. Which begs the question, which public opinion the club followed?

No one's. It's silly to suggest that they reached their final conclusion by listening to the fans. The current ownership has never listened to the fans and probably never will. If there was a way to reintegrate him into the first team without damaging the "United brand", they would have done it. I also think the thing that concerned them more than anything else was the possibility that some other club might be able to do just that. Arnold's statement reads like an admission of defeat, the only thing it lacked was a "O tempora, o mores" somewhere in the middle. Which is probably why Croft and Riley had a go at him. I'll be the last person who'll say that PC culture hasn't gone far on several instances. But i consider the awareness that has been raised on many social issues a good thing and a step forward. If some don't understand why his potential return wouldn't sit well with a good number of fans (in 2023), despite the dropped charges, it's on them.
 
But that's ridiculous, isn't it? Because if we all knew he was guilty, all the talk of him coming back would be non-existent. The reason some were willing to accept him back is because they thought either he was innocent or couldn't conclude from the public evidence that he was guilty. Anyone that wanted him back, knowing he was a violent, abusive rapist would be deranged.

All the talk about rehabilitation, redemption, second chances, duty of care, etc., would be completely irrelevant with no guilt. If he's innocent, what would he need rehabilitation for? Why would he need a second chance? A lot of people want him back even if he is guilty.

All the "innocent until proven guilty" talk also apply to guilty people. Jimmy Saville was a child molester, there is no doubt, but according to the legal principle he is treated as innocent just as anyone else (of course he's dead, but you know). Al Capone, in the eyes of the law, was mostly a law-abiding citizen with some tax issues. O.J. Simpson was a casino robber and a kidnapper, but not a murderer. If we want innocent until proven guilty to be a leading principle to follow even outside of the justice system, as many of people keep saying we should, then that holds even if we all knew that Greenwood was guilty. Knowing is irrelevant, the only variable that matters is being convicted in a criminal court.
 
But also, remember the seemingly inept way they handled Greenwood breaking bail on multiple occasions in such a highly sensitive case.

Everything else notwithstanding, that part strikes me as very odd.

The judge apparently pretty much asked, at one point: "What the hell is the point of him being on bail and/or what the hell are the GMP playing at here?"
 
Why are none of the women at the club or high profile fans speaking up against the Qatari bid?
I find this astonishing!
 
Everything else notwithstanding, that part strikes me as very odd.

The judge apparently pretty much asked, at one point: "What the hell is the point of him being on bail and/or what the hell are the GMP playing at here?"
It reeks of the police not taking it seriously, that only the prosecution did out of public interest.
 
Everything else notwithstanding, that part strikes me as very odd.

The judge apparently pretty much asked, at one point: "What the hell is the point of him being on bail and/or what the hell are the GMP playing at here?"

Nothing odd about it. GMP is one of the worst police forces in the country and has been for decades.
 
Alright, so when you were talking about lofty words like rule of law, second chances, the absence of a criminal conviction, you only meant that to apply to innocent people?

Rule of law seems irrelevant, no one is proposing jail. A second chance isn't needed, because you don't think he did it so he should still be on his first chance. The absence of a criminal conviction isn't important, because that seemingly wouldn't carry any weight with you if he actually did it. What you actually meant to say, by " There is “rule of law”. To penalise him after he has not been charged with criminality is unjust. He was just 20 we all commit mistake. I'm sure he has learned the lesson by being 1.5 yrs on the side. And as human being, I believe he deserves a second chance.", seems to boil down to the fact that you don't think he did it. That's fine, but just say that.
None of us know what actually happened but, hes still innocent until proven guilty. Vilifying him as if he was a criminal is grossly unjust. In today's society and Utd being such a huge commercial club there was no chance for him. But the fact they did this BS 'internal investigation' which took so long and in the end decided to release Greenwood anyways means two thing for Mason: 1. He lost valuable time of his life and career in which he could've been playing for another club now and could've got his life back on track. 2. Because its been going on for so long it became such a big deal that the poor boy has no chance of ever playing for a PL team or another top European club. No team will take the risk now the matter has become too big. And this is all while he was never found guilty its just a matter of people making up their own stories... United should be consistent and release him for free ASAP. Surely we have to know profiting from sinners is immoral if we are in this sainthood business.
 
That would imply the rule of law and second chances don't apply to guilty people. Is that what people are saying in this thread? It would make second chances a pretty incoherent concept, because usually you only need a second chance when you've messed up your first.
I feel like you're jumping ahead a bit - we're discussing how one reaches their own personal conclusion as to a perpetrator's initial guilt? I accept that within your analogy, if you are a direct witness to a crime then you hold first hand evidence within your own mind that the justice system can never directly access, thus you can likely make a more informed judgement than the system itself. This is obviously an exception that proves the rule and isn't applicable to our own perspectives on Greenwood's case.
 
Hard to argue too much with this. The problem is we live in an era of experts and where real expert voices are cast aside in favour of the lowdest voice.

Oh come on now. You are dead set that this is all down to the public that much? Because there's huge backlash against this decision too, and yet where's the U-turn again?


Yes, this part in particular I still find challenging. I completely understand the low conviction rates which means a lot of scummy people slip through the net, but even then I think assuming that every other case to the contrary is true, is not the way to go.

Isn't it the same the other way though? The other side are dragging just the same. This isn't the time for woe ist me thoughts. You and others are putting way too much blame on people who have voiced their opinion, as I've directly said to you in posts. I'm just as worried about this pass the buck culture we are in as I am this perceived "cancel culture" one.

Let's keep in mind who started this all and who made the decision. They've told us in their own words that.


None of us know what actually happened but, hes still innocent until proven guilty. Vilifying him as if he was a criminal is grossly unjust. In today's society and Utd being such a huge commercial club there was no chance for him. But the fact they did this BS 'internal investigation' which took so long and in the end decided to release Greenwood anyways means two thing for Mason: 1. He lost valuable time of his life and career in which he could've been playing for another club now and could've got his life back on track. 2. Because its been going on for so long it became such a big deal that the poor boy has no chance of ever playing for a PL team or another top European club. No team will take the risk now the matter has become too big. And this is all while he was never found guilty its just a matter of people making up their own stories... United should be consistent and release him for free ASAP. Surely we have to know profiting from sinners is immoral if we are in this sainthood business.

This is such a simplistic view, and part of the reason it's so hard for people to come forward in the first place. Because people don't want to believe them and how hard it is for these cases to proceed.

I bet you don't have such a cast iron view of the criminal system in all cases. It's also interesting at how you take that as black and white, but the statements from the "poor boy" telling you he made mistakes leading to this situation and Arnold telling you HE made the decision suddenly aren't.

But hey, you don't even seem to think he should have been suspended in the first place. So it's probably best to ignore your thoughts from here on out.


I feel like you're jumping ahead a bit - we're discussing how one reaches their own personal conclusion as to a perpetrator's initial guilt? I accept that within your analogy, if you are a direct witness to a crime then you hold first hand evidence within your own mind that the justice system can never directly access, thus you can likely make a more informed judgement than the system itself. This is obviously an exception that proves the rule and isn't applicable to our own perspectives on Greenwood's case.

The "justice system" also wasn't in that room, nor the ones when he broke bail to go see her.

And since we are talking about "personal conclusion as to a perpetrator's innocence" we are also talking about the opposite. And as such I'm still waiting for you to point out who in here said your "he was angry because he was sleepy" excuse. You never did quote anyone...


Everything else notwithstanding, that part strikes me as very odd.

The judge apparently pretty much asked, at one point: "What the hell is the point of him being on bail and/or what the hell are the GMP playing at here?"

And yet we have people in here suddenly believing the police are infallible. Especially the much maligned GMP.
 
None of us know what actually happened but, hes still innocent until proven guilty. Vilifying him as if he was a criminal is grossly unjust. In today's society and Utd being such a huge commercial club there was no chance for him. But the fact they did this BS 'internal investigation' which took so long and in the end decided to release Greenwood anyways means two thing for Mason: 1. He lost valuable time of his life and career in which he could've been playing for another club now and could've got his life back on track. 2. Because its been going on for so long it became such a big deal that the poor boy has no chance of ever playing for a PL team or another top European club. No team will take the risk now the matter has become too big. And this is all while he was never found guilty its just a matter of people making up their own stories... United should be consistent and release him for free ASAP. Surely we have to know profiting from sinners is immoral if we are in this sainthood business.

Fine by me
 
None of us know what actually happened but, hes still innocent until proven guilty. Vilifying him as if he was a criminal is grossly unjust. In today's society and Utd being such a huge commercial club there was no chance for him. But the fact they did this BS 'internal investigation' which took so long and in the end decided to release Greenwood anyways means two thing for Mason: 1. He lost valuable time of his life and career in which he could've been playing for another club now and could've got his life back on track. 2. Because its been going on for so long it became such a big deal that the poor boy has no chance of ever playing for a PL team or another top European club. No team will take the risk now the matter has become too big. And this is all while he was never found guilty its just a matter of people making up their own stories... United should be consistent and release him for free ASAP. Surely we have to know profiting from sinners is immoral if we are in this sainthood business.

Yes, he's innocent until proven guilty, just as everyone else not convicted of a crime. That's why I asked you about the babysitter: you know they did it, but they're still treated as innocent because they've not been proven guilty. You were very clear there that innocent until proven guilty isn't something you value, the fact that the babysitter is guilty in reality overrides the fact that they haven't been proven guilty by the justice system. Everything you so idealistically say about Greenwood also applies to the babysitter, but you don't mean it. You defend Greenwood because you don't think he did what he has been accused of, or at least because you have very serious doubts, not for any other reasons. It's not about innocent until proven guilty, it's not about second chances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.