Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic | Factual updates only

[Chesterlestreet]

There’s a reason BDSM is supposed to stay private and anyone in the BDSM community will tell you its easy to portray abuse if it’s taken out of context.

Do you think the "new material" that came to light more than a year after he was initially arrested was that Greenwood and/or his girlfriend finally admitted that the whole thing was "BDSM role play"?

Does that strike you as plausible? Do you...oh, forget it.

But if you don't mind, I'd like you to transfer your savings to my account: I'll transfer 'em right back, I promise (it's just an experiment - PM me if you're interested).

 

[saivet]

Literally everything I know about him definitely suggest so yes, definitely.



So you think it was BDSM possibly, okay!

1) why did she go to the police then? What was her motive?
2) why wouldn't he/she be okay with saying that if the alternative is everyone thinks you are sexually/physically abusive and you have to leave United?

Does either of those things tally really, even at all for you?

Like MG is more willing in your mind to be known as an abuser, miss 2 years of football, leave United and struggle to play in the PL and possibly even Saudi, than to suffer the embarrassment of telling everyone it was BDSM? He, his partner, his family, all on board with that decision?

Yeah the BDSM angle just doesn't make any logical sense. Sure it's a bit embarrassing for them both but it would have been nipped in the bud the situation and he'd have been back playing again some time ago.

The lack of explanation either points to incriminating her or incriminating himself on something else. The idea that they would let his his name be tarnished because they don't want people to know they are into or experimented with BDSM or role play is far fetched.

 

[Spaghetti]

"I'm not your mate!"

Such a drunken chav in a pub line

As is sarcastically sticking “mate” at the end of a sentence when getting needlessly agitated at a complete stranger’s opinion.

 

[Duafc]

Yeah the BDSM angle just doesn't make any logical sense. Sure it's a bit embarrassing for them both but it would have been nipped in the bud the situation and he'd have been back playing again some time ago.

The lack of explanation either points to incriminating her or incriminating himself on something else. The idea that they would let his his name be tarnished because they don't want people to know they are into or experimented with BDSM or role play is far fetched.

I also think if it incriminated her but he still came out salvageably MG and his family would have chosen that path a lonnnnnnng time ago.

But no point in chatting about it as we have to suspend any critical thinking or personal opinion, just not fair otherwise.

 

[Halftrack]

The clubs official statement revealed Mason didn’t cause the offences.

It revealed that Arnold, representing the club, heard "alternative explanations" and decided to believe them and declare Greenwood innocent. They've given no other reason for why they reached that conclusion, it all hinges on these "alternative explanations".

It did not reveal that Mason didn't do what he was accused of. They literally say they didn't have access to all the evidence, they had limited power of investigation, and had to rely on third party cooperation. Short of having exculpatory evidence, which there is no indication or suggestion that they have, they were in no position to just make a blanket declaration of innocence. The fact that they did was monumentally stupid.

 

[Spaghetti]

You are certainly not my mate, that was sarcastic.

You should realize that making excuses for domestic abusive behaviour/sexual abusive behaviour make you look creepy.

There is no doubt that MG’s behaviour was abusive, although he may not be guilty of a crime. Unless you choose to look the other way and make up implausible excuses for him.

I would have been ok with whatever decision the club came up with, but don’t understand the people criticizing the decision to let him go.

It is the club’s decision and we should all move on. Instead of making shit up and going in circles.

This message is absolutely out of order. Absolutely nobody has justified or made excuses for domestic violence and you know that very well. You are twisted and manipulating messages, which on such a sensitive topic is vile.

If he did commit domestic abuse (which we don’t know), he deserves punishment but he also deserves forgiveness and a second chance, as everyone does. He has already received a lot of punishment. We certainly shouldn’t be vilifying and writing off teenagers who can be helped.

Do you get as agitated when people say anything positive about the likes of George Best, Gazza, Ryan Giggs and Darren Ferguson?

 

[antohan]

Game Announcement

The village wake up to a loud bang. All of them run out to the street. All of them bar Mason, too sleepy to wrap his head around it.

Lying on the ground outside the pub was @Redlambs, his overexerted brain splattered all over the street.

In the distance, some lad in a Chelsea replica J-walked away.

 

[mu4c_20le]

You are certainly not my mate, that was sarcastic.

You should realize that making excuses for domestic abusive behaviour/sexual abusive behaviour make you look creepy.

There is no doubt that MG’s behaviour was abusive, although he may not be guilty of a crime. Unless you choose to look the other way and make up implausible excuses for him.

I would have been ok with whatever decision the club came up with, but don’t understand the people criticizing the decision to let him go.

It is the club’s decision and we should all move on. Instead of making shit up and going in circles.

Bit ironic coming from someone who waded into the discussion. Especially when you don't even understand the context.

 

[Pickle85]

This message is absolutely out of order. Absolutely nobody has justified or made excuses for domestic violence and you know that very well. You are twisted and manipulating messages, which on such a sensitive topic is vile.

If he did commit domestic abuse (which we don’t know), he deserves punishment but he also deserves forgiveness and a second chance, as everyone does. He has already received a lot of punishment. We certainly shouldn’t be vilifying and writing off teenagers who can be helped.

Do you get as agitated when people say anything positive about the likes of George Best, Gazza, Ryan Giggs and Darren Ferguson?

You're very quick to hand out forgiveness and second chances when it's a valuable asset of the club you support but I wonder how willing you'd be if this had happened to a family member. As for the 'lot of punishment' he's received already...what's that?

Your second paragraph is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Redlambs]

Game Announcement

The village wake up to a loud bang. All of them run out to the street. All of them bar Mason, too sleepy to wrap his head around it.

Lying on the ground outside the pub was @Redlambs, his overexerted brain splattered all over the street.

In the distance, some lad in a Chelsea replica J-walked away.

As long as it turns out the killer gets away with it because it was actually a BDSM session along, then we are good!

 

[Duafc]

Honestly people are just so desensitized to this transcript now. They've been told he's innocent by the club and are all clamouring to let us know we don't know the full facts and can't possibly make a moral judgement.

Not once have I seen anyone put forward a rational explanation for that transcript that isn't just plain old sexual abuse and threats of physical violence.

Not one, I would be really really keen to hear them, like using your imagination and even getting wild with it, create a fictional scenario where there is context to those words that makes them okay.

And that completely doesn't even engage with the photos. Are they doctored? Did she hit herself? Where they hitting each other, what do you actually think about them?

This request remains open to anyone willing to give it a good old honest try.

Specifically, what are the possible explanations that no one is content to release even if they were true, as seen with the low low bar of BDSM, there are no wrong answers.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Not once have I seen anyone put forward a rational explanation for that transcript that isn't just plain old sexual abuse and threats of physical violence.

This is the issue for me, really.

You can believe Greenwood did something bad (theory 1) or you can believe he didn't (theory 2). Neither theory is entirely good, because there's evidence that seemingly contradicts it. For theory 1, it is the fact that there are no charges, United said he was not guilty, etc. For theory 2, it is the fact of the audios and images.

In my opinion, theory 1 is better, because we can come up with plausible explanations for the contradictory evidence. These explanations can be based on evidence, and we need not make too many leaps. We can propose that a real victim recanted due to the dynamics of abusive relationships (which are well documented), that this is one of the primary reasons why there were no charges (because CPS said so), that United's claims of innocence are both incomplete and hedged (because they admit they did not have access to the full evidence), etc. You won't be able to justify every bit of contradictory evidence, but overall you can paint a realistic picture of guilt.

For theory 2, the explanations are less plausible and require more leaps. No one has denied the veracity of the tape. No one has presented an alternative explanation or even hinted as what this explanation might be. BDSM/sex stuff and other ideas, some are more plausible than others, but you have to make a big leap in imagination for them, because we don't have any solid hint as to what they might look like. Greenwood taking 'his share of the responsibility' for the events that lead to the social media post muddies the waters even more.

I think if you treat the two theories equally, the first one is better. If you instead use "presumption of innocence", which puts a much higher burden of proof on theory 1, then the second is better.

 

[Pickle85]

This request remains open to anyone willing to give it a good old honest try.

Specifically, what are the possible explanations that no one is content to release even if they were true, as seen with the low low bar of BDSM, there are no wrong answers.

He was running a sexual harassment seminar. The tape cut out just before he cleared his throat and said 'ok, enough role play for now, go grab a coffee, stretch your legs and I'll see you in ten. So back at...ten past four.'

 

[JagUTD]

He is not a saint, but the question is: Are you ready to cheer someone whom you heard saying the following?

“I don’t give a feck what you want … I’m going to feck you, you twat … I don’t care if you want to have sex with me … Push me again one more time and watch what happens to you.”

In isolation it's an awful thing to say but then if everyone is honest with themselves, I doubt anyone can say with absolute certainty, they have not said something abhorrent at some time in their lives. I'd even suggest anyone who claims they haven't isn't being honest.

The truth is we all say things in anger, frustrating, disappoint etc. How many have told their parents or siblings they wished they were dead, or got caught up in a fued and threated to do someone harm? Those who have gone through difficult divorses almost certainly did and said things they won't be proud of, they probably received threats and actions equally unpleasant.

It doesn't necessarily mean you are capable of such things let alone that you will even do them. There is a huge leap from make a threat to that threat even being credible, let alone acting on it.

We can safely assume the police and CPS investigated the threat. We can make a reasonable guess that it was deemed not credible as if it had been, it would have been a vital element of their case against him. Tbh I would think it was one of the main reasons they continued their investigation for 10 months after the key witness withdrew. A recent example of just how seriously threats are taken these days can be seen over the pond with our friends, the gun people.

Now please, don't think I am saying we are all monsters going around making violent threats against people or that it's acceptable or that we've all said things equal to what Greenwood said. I am saying we are all human, we try to be rational and level headed but even the calmest, more balanced of us is still capable of an outburst which if the whole world heard it, would make us look like maniacs.

I think the importance of the investigation continuing for a significant period of time, after the key witness not only withdrew but requested it was dropped means every possiblity was explored and had they anything, anything at all then they would have proceeded to court. This is before we even account for the "new material" which clearly is some new evidence none of us are privy to. They did everything within their remit to build their case and in the end had to drop the charges.

If anything we should be asking, do they apply this level of investigation in all cases on this nature. We should even applaud the fact that they continued even after the key witness withdrew and why isn't this standard practice.

Obviously the public interest element played a part of this but that's another issue. We shouldn't have ever known about it. Because in the nicest possible way, as a collective the public are morons. I mean, you can rile Jane and Joe public up to the point they'll cheer a lion ripping you apart, or setting a person on fire because magic. Luckily the alternative to fire was to go for an enforced swim...

I asked yesterday without reply from the poster whether or not they would have changed their view of he had gone to court and been found not guilty. I can see today that the answer would probably have been no so I have to wonder what would make people view Greenwood as anything other than a horrible person who is guilty of what he was accused of? People are rightly calling out all the theories but are basing their own opinions on a theory. Oh, you saw a video, you heard some audio? So did the people who spent 13 months investigating. If they were as indefensible as claimed it would have gone to court. There is no denying that if the video and audio were as they appeared, that's damning. That gets to court and you're going to have a hard time as the defendant.

A reminder. The case was not dropped because the witness withdrew. This is incorrect. It continued for 10 months.

Also, I started replying to you and them kind of went off on a different path so apologies. I'm referring to a collective rather than you in this and I include myself in the collective. I'm just trying to be open-minded and fair and to some extent embrace the fact I am largely ignorant of the facts on this case, which I personally think is the best way to go.

 

[Wumminator]

In isolation it's an awful thing to say but then if everyone is honest with themselves, I doubt anyone can say with absolute certainty, they have not said something abhorrent at some time in their lives. I'd even suggest anyone who claims they haven't isn't being honest..

I am genuinely worried this is why some people are supporting him. Because they think this is a common type of thing to say.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Yeah the BDSM angle just doesn't make any logical sense. Sure it's a bit embarrassing for them both but it would have been nipped in the bud the situation and he'd have been back playing again some time ago.

The BDSM / 'sex stuff' angle isn't really consistent with everyone's statements, either.

Richard Arnold's letter says: "Mason's accepted that he has made mistakes which he takes responsibility for."
Mason Greenwood's statement says: "I fully accept I made mistakes... and I take my share of responsibility for the situations which led to the social media post."

What is the mistake? Surely it is not 'enjoying BDSM.' What 'responsibility' does Greenwood have in 'the situations that led to the social media post' Wasn't it alleged to be a hack? Why would you need to 'take responsibility' for things being stolen from your girlfriend? If it wasn't a hack, but was actually leaked by his girlfriend, then why on earth would he need to 'take responsibility' for being recorded during a sex game and having it leaked without his consent?

 

[Laurencio]

In isolation it's an awful thing to say but then if everyone is honest with themselves, I doubt anyone can say with absolute certainty, they have not said something abhorrent at some time in their lives. I'd even suggest anyone who claims they haven't isn't being honest

No I can honestly say I have not said anything of the sort to any woman through my many years on this planet.

A reminder. The case was not dropped because the witness withdrew. This is incorrect. It continued for 10 months

Incorrect.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/mason-greenwood-cps-discontinuance-charges

 

[Redlambs]

In isolation it's an awful thing to say but then if everyone is honest with themselves, I doubt anyone can say with absolute certainty, they have not said something abhorrent at some time in their lives. I'd even suggest anyone who claims they haven't isn't being honest.

The truth is we all say things in anger, frustrating, disappoint etc. How many have told their parents or siblings they wished they were dead, or got caught up in a fued and threated to do someone harm? Those who have gone through difficult divorses almost certainly did and said things they won't be proud of, they probably received threats and actions equally unpleasant.

It doesn't necessarily mean you are capable of such things let alone that you will even do them. There is a huge leap from make a threat to that threat even being credible, let alone acting on it.

We can safely assume the police and CPS investigated the threat. We can make a reasonable guess that it was deemed not credible as if it had been, it would have been a vital element of their case against him. Tbh I would think it was one of the main reasons they continued their investigation for 10 months after the key witness withdrew. A recent example of just how seriously threats are taken these days can be seen over the pond with our friends, the gun people.

Now please, don't think I am saying we are all monsters going around making violent threats against people or that it's acceptable or that we've all said things equal to what Greenwood said. I am saying we are all human, we try to be rational and level headed but even the calmest, more balanced of us is still capable of an outburst which if the whole world heard it, would make us look like maniacs.

I think the importance of the investigation continuing for a significant period of time, after the key witness not only withdrew but requested it was dropped means every possiblity was explored and had they anything, anything at all then they would have proceeded to court. This is before we even account for the "new material" which clearly is some new evidence none of us are privy to. They did everything within their remit to build their case and in the end had to drop the charges.

If anything we should be asking, do they apply this level of investigation in all cases on this nature. We should even applaud the fact that they continued even after the key witness withdrew and why isn't this standard practice.

Obviously the public interest element played a part of this but that's another issue. We shouldn't have ever known about it. Because in the nicest possible way, as a collective the public are morons. I mean, you can rile Jane and Joe public up to the point they'll cheer a lion ripping you apart, or setting a person on fire because magic. Luckily the alternative to fire was to go for an enforced swim...

I asked yesterday without reply from the poster whether or not they would have changed their view of he had gone to court and been found not guilty. I can see today that the answer would probably have been no so I have to wonder what would make people view Greenwood as anything other than a horrible person who is guilty of what he was accused of? People are rightly calling out all the theories but are basing their own opinions on a theory. Oh, you saw a video, you heard some audio? So did the people who spent 13 months investigating. If they were as indefensible as claimed it would have gone to court. There is no denying that if the video and audio were as they appeared, that's damning. That gets to court and you're going to have a hard time as the defendant.

A reminder. The case was not dropped because the witness withdrew. This is incorrect. It continued for 10 months.

Also, I started replying to you and them kind of went off on a different path so apologies. I'm referring to a collective rather than you in this and I include myself in the collective. I'm just trying to be open-minded and fair and to some extent embrace the fact I am largely ignorant of the facts on this case, which I personally think is the best way to go.

I can safely say I've never spoken to anyone like that and threatened to rape them at any point in my life.

It's such a ridiculous notion that we all have done anything remotely similar that I just can't be bothered with the rest.


But it's a real eye opener the amount of people who have suggested the similar things on here, it's absolutely grim if I'm honest and no wonder scum like Tate are on the rise convincing young men it's okay to treat women as objects who should serve them. But hey, boys will be boys!

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

So it's better to do these things in private where the super rich and powerful potential abuser can use his/her wealth and influence to bury any allegations?

Listen I could rant all day about the rich and powerful and the massive wealth inequalities in the world. It’s something I’m passionately against, but it’s the result of the system we live in. However in this case, (and in a legal setting) no I don’t think having the public wading in is very helpful. Firstly, we don’t have all the facts and secondly, the vast majority of people are not able to think critically (not saying you can’t, just generally). Will some rich people play the system? Of course, because they play every system, but this whole trial by media has proven time and time again to result in miscarries of justice. Anyway the longer I stay in this thread the more off topic I’m going!

 

[Rhyme Animal]

I am genuinely worried this is why some people are supporting him. Because they think this is a common type of thing to say.

I don’t think think they do. And I also don’t think that you’re ‘genuinely worried’ about that.

Greenwood is, or to be more accurate, certainly was, a very petulant, spoilt teenage superstar wanker.

What do normal teenagers say / scream at their parents / Loved ones in arguments? The answer, famously, is ‘I hate you! I wish you were dead!’.

Older siblings say to younger siblings, ‘Do this / that again and I’ll fecking kill you’ all the time.

People say things all the time that are essentially serious threats but when heard in full context they’re just nothing.

What Greenwood was saying CAN’T JUST BE EXPLAINED AWAY because it ISN’T NORMAL, but knowing that it’s a small snippet of a much longer clip coupled with knowing that those who’ve heard the longer clip have then dropped charges (CPS) or declared him innocent (Utd) does mean that the context is very likely quite different to what it appears from the snippet.

Another poster stated that maybe as it plays on, she tells him to feck off and he maybe continues talking like a twat but announces ‘fine suit yourself’ or whatever - which would still be highly unpleasant and embarrassing for him but would equally show that nothing criminal occurred.

It’s possible that the ‘see what I do’ is something daft and annoying like to start flicking water at her or ‘texting another girl’ or something mean like ripping up a card or something - stupid and nasty but not criminal.

It’s impossible to know, but there are many ways that the context changes quite drastically.

 

[Laurencio]

I don’t think think they do. And I also don’t think that you’re ‘genuinely worried’ about that.

Greenwood is, or to be more accurate, certainly was, a very petulant, spoilt teenage superstar wanker.

What do normal teenagers say / scream at their parents / Loved ones in arguments? The answer, famously, is ‘I hate you! I wish you were dead!’.

Older siblings say to younger siblings, ‘Do this / that again and I’ll fecking kill you’ all the time.

People say things all the time that are essentially serious threats but when heard in full context they’re just nothing.

What Greenwood was saying CAN’T JUST BE EXPLAINED AWAY because it ISN’T NORMAL, but knowing that it’s a small snippet of a much longer clip coupled with knowing that those who’ve heard the longer clip have then dropped charges (CPS) or declared him innocent (Utd) does mean that the context is very likely quite different to what it appears from the snippet.

Another poster stated that maybe as it plays on, she tells him to feck off and he maybe continues talking like a twat but announces ‘fine suit yourself’ or whatever - which would still be highly unpleasant and embarrassing for him but would equally show that nothing criminal occurred.

It’s possible that the ‘see what I do’ is something daft and annoying like to start flicking water at her or ‘texting another girl’ or anything stupid but not criminal.

It’s impossible to know, but there are many ways that the context changes quite drastically.

You might want to listen to the recording. His tone leaves very little doubt. He's not being whiny, he's being threatening.

 

[Redlambs]

Listen I could rant all day about the rich and powerful and the massive wealth inequalities in the world. It’s something I’m passionately against, but it’s the result of the system we live in. However in this case, (and in a legal setting) no I don’t think having the public wading in is very helpful. Firstly, we don’t have all the facts and secondly, the vast majority of people are not able to think critically (not saying you can’t, just generally). Will some rich people play the system? Of course, because they play every system, but this whole trial by media has proven time and time again to result in miscarries of justice. Anyway the longer I stay in this thread the more off topic I’m going!

Again though, this is completely ignoring the noise on the other side. Go back and read the first few pages of this thread alone and see just how many people are raging about "mob rule" and "cancel culture". It heavily outweighs anyone else, I can tell you.

So at what point do you decide who should be quiet and who not?

Again, it's just a smokescreen to take attention away for who really is to blame. Those people have told us who caused this and who made the decision. But yet again they are ignored for the narrative that it's the people you are wrong.

You say you are passionate about the inequalities of the world, well I say those inequalities largely come about because the rest of us are too busy arguing and blaming each other whilst the elite stir the pot. And that's exactly what we are doing here. But I guess this is different eh? Even though the Glazers are silent, their man in charge has accepted full responsibility for the decision and Greenwood who accepts he caused this in the first place is being "punished" by sitting on 70k a week and being allowed to continue his career and rebuild his life.

But yeah, dave2917177838 on twitter and his 4 likes is the real bad guy!

 

[kaku06]

A week later, they could have released somewhat similar statements they did now - that they couldn't find any evidence to hold him guilty. He should have been on the tour, with the team. Training separately. Coming on for 5 minutes, repeat. After every game he should have stayed with the fans, taking the abuse, but apologizing. A shirt that says sorry. Hands put together in repentance. Just persist, show us how much you wish you hadn't hurt your family and everyone else. Put in the minutes, the grunt work to earn your spot back. Once the season began, he should do the rounds every game, take the abuse. And stay back again after every game to apologize. If he can win his wife over, make a public appearance with her - let people know she has chosen to forgive him, that the most important person in this situation truly thinks he deserves a second chance. Continue donating your wages, continue putting in the social work, continue trying to be sincere in your apology.

 

[JagUTD]

To be clear, I did nor say we have all threatened to rape someone not have I implied this. I even give examples of what I meant so that people wouldn't jump straight to "I've never said I'll rape someone"

Nor do I think it's acceptable. Literally the first thing I said is that it was awful.

I will apologise for any misunderstanding though.

@Laurencio April 2022 to February 2023 is 10 months. They didn't take some time off between April and October 22. The investigation was conducted by the Police and CPS. So how is it incorrect?

 

[Garethw]

Where was all of the similar outrage when we re-signed Ronaldo?

 

[Redlambs]

To be clear, I did not say we have all threatened to rape someone not have I implied this. I even give examples of what I mean so that people wouldn't jump straight to "I've never said I'll rape someone"

Nor do I think it's acceptable. Literally the first thing I said is that it was awful.

I will apologise for any misunderstanding though.

@Laurencio April 2022 to February 2023 is 10 months. They didn't take some time off between April and October 22. The investigation was conducted by the Police and CPS. So how is it incorrect?

I don't think you meant to imply it at all, but it is still not good. Just like the "we all make mistakes!" Crowd.

We do all say things and we do all make mistakes. But the fact is we don't all get charged for 3 major crimes, we don't all break bail and see the woman who has accused us, and we don't all have audio of us threatening to rape someone which ultimately costs us our place at one of the biggest clubs in the world. And if we were accused of any of those things, we all definitely wouldn't hide the truth and allow ourselves to be forever suspected as violent abusive scum if we were entirely innocent.

It's simply not comparable and no amount of mental gymnastics will make it so.

Where was all of the similar outrage when we re-signed Ronaldo?

About 70 pages ago when the last guy played whataboutisms without thinking it through...

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

Again though, this is completely ignoring the noise on the other side. Go back and read the first few pages of this thread alone and see just how many people are raging about "mob rule" and "cancel culture". It heavily outweighs anyone else, I can tell you.

So at what point do you decide who should be quiet and who not?

Again, it's just a smokescreen to take attention away for who really is to blame. Those people have told us who caused this and who made the decision. But yet again they are ignored for the narrative that it's the people you are wrong.

You say you are passionate about the inequalities of the world, well I say those inequalities largely come about because the rest of us are too busy arguing and blaming each other whilst the elite stir the pot. And that's exactly what we are doing here. But I guess this is different eh? Even though the Glazers are silent, their man in charge has accepted full responsibility for the decision and Greenwood who accepts he caused this in the first place is being "punished" by sitting on 70k a week and being allowed to continue his career and rebuild his life.

But yeah, dave2917177838 on twitter and his 4 likes is the real bad guy!

I have to say I think a large part of that is the nature of the Utd statement. I read it a couple of times and it just immediately sounded contradictory. They didn’t have to say he was innocent and so that then opens up a whole can of worms about why they would do that and still choose to let him go. There’s only really two options why they would do this. One the pressure from sponsors, politicians and members of the public was too loud to ignore (thus the cries of “cancel culture”). Or two, the mistakes mentioned in the statement were not criminal, but significant enough to warrant him leaving, but not too significant to be a breach of contract (or surely he’d already be gone?). Of those options, the Utd statement in isolation strongly feels like they have bowed to external pressures, rather than stick by their own convictions.

On your second point, somewhat true. Perhaps the system needs a few people pulling out of line to drive change. There are certainly examples of where public cases have led to greater speed of investigation, more key witnesses and evidence turning up etc. However I’d still argue that the opposite is truer more of the time. The problem is, I’ve seen enough evidence in my life to not trust herd mentality. I remember watching a show awhile back called “Trial by media” on Netflix and the main takeaway was that while in some cases the public knowledge helped, in the vast majority, it ended up hindering police investigations and prejudiced juries from making independent decisions.

On your final point, yes I couldn’t agree more. If it was up to me we’d all be marching to number 10 tomorrow to burn the place to ashes and put the current cabinet’s head on pikes. I also agree with your assessment, Greenwood isn’t in the real world and for most ‘normal’ people that isn’t a punishment at all. However we can’t ignore the context that all footballers don’t really live in the real world, they all earn obscene money and most are privileged beyond belief. In that world, Greenwood has been punished, because he had the potential to go all the way to the top. That’s why this is such an emotive story and such a divisive one.

 

[Yorke to Cole]

In isolation it's an awful thing to say but then if everyone is honest with themselves, I doubt anyone can say with absolute certainty, they have not said something abhorrent at some time in their lives. I'd even suggest anyone who claims they haven't isn't being honest.

The truth is we all say things in anger, frustrating, disappoint etc. How many have told their parents or siblings they wished they were dead, or got caught up in a fued and threated to do someone harm? Those who have gone through difficult divorses almost certainly did and said things they won't be proud of, they probably received threats and actions equally unpleasant.

It doesn't necessarily mean you are capable of such things let alone that you will even do them. There is a huge leap from make a threat to that threat even being credible, let alone acting on it.

We can safely assume the police and CPS investigated the threat. We can make a reasonable guess that it was deemed not credible as if it had been, it would have been a vital element of their case against him. Tbh I would think it was one of the main reasons they continued their investigation for 10 months after the key witness withdrew. A recent example of just how seriously threats are taken these days can be seen over the pond with our friends, the gun people.

Now please, don't think I am saying we are all monsters going around making violent threats against people or that it's acceptable or that we've all said things equal to what Greenwood said. I am saying we are all human, we try to be rational and level headed but even the calmest, more balanced of us is still capable of an outburst which if the whole world heard it, would make us look like maniacs.

I think the importance of the investigation continuing for a significant period of time, after the key witness not only withdrew but requested it was dropped means every possiblity was explored and had they anything, anything at all then they would have proceeded to court. This is before we even account for the "new material" which clearly is some new evidence none of us are privy to. They did everything within their remit to build their case and in the end had to drop the charges.

If anything we should be asking, do they apply this level of investigation in all cases on this nature. We should even applaud the fact that they continued even after the key witness withdrew and why isn't this standard practice.

Obviously the public interest element played a part of this but that's another issue. We shouldn't have ever known about it. Because in the nicest possible way, as a collective the public are morons. I mean, you can rile Jane and Joe public up to the point they'll cheer a lion ripping you apart, or setting a person on fire because magic. Luckily the alternative to fire was to go for an enforced swim...

I asked yesterday without reply from the poster whether or not they would have changed their view of he had gone to court and been found not guilty. I can see today that the answer would probably have been no so I have to wonder what would make people view Greenwood as anything other than a horrible person who is guilty of what he was accused of? People are rightly calling out all the theories but are basing their own opinions on a theory. Oh, you saw a video, you heard some audio? So did the people who spent 13 months investigating. If they were as indefensible as claimed it would have gone to court. There is no denying that if the video and audio were as they appeared, that's damning. That gets to court and you're going to have a hard time as the defendant.

A reminder. The case was not dropped because the witness withdrew. This is incorrect. It continued for 10 months.

Also, I started replying to you and them kind of went off on a different path so apologies. I'm referring to a collective rather than you in this and I include myself in the collective. I'm just trying to be open-minded and fair and to some extent embrace the fact I am largely ignorant of the facts on this case, which I personally think is the best way to go.

It is posts like these, i enjoy reading because it offers an insight with a measured and clear mind. That also goes for the posts that offer a differenf opinion to mine like from Redlamb ( I wish United had tried to reintegrate him rather than go back on themselves) that write and give their opinion without any vitriol. I feel that I can read them and learn and consider all the viewpoints.

 

[Laurencio]

To be clear, I did nor say we have all threatened to rape someone not have I implied this. I even give examples of what I meant so that people wouldn't jump straight to "I've never said I'll rape someone"

Nor do I think it's acceptable. Literally the first thing I said is that it was awful.

I will apologise for any misunderstanding though.

@Laurencio April 2022 to February 2023 is 10 months. They didn't take some time off between April and October 22. The investigation was conducted by the Police and CPS. So how is it incorrect?

The claim that the case wasn't dropped due to the withdrawal of witness cooperation. The CPS specified that as the reason for the case falling a part and the prospect of conviction being unrealistic because of it.

 

[Garethw]

I don't think you meant to imply it at all, but it is still not good. Just like the "we all make mistakes!" Crowd.

We do all say things and we do all make mistakes. But the fact is we don't all get charged for 3 major crimes, we don't all break bail and see the woman who has accused us, and we don't all have audio of us threatening to rape someone which ultimately costs us our place at one of the biggest clubs in the world. And if we were accused of any of those things, we all definitely wouldn't hide the truth and allow ourselves to be forever suspected as violent abusive scum if we were entirely innocent.

It's simply not comparable and no amount of mental gymnastics will make it so.




About 70 pages ago when the last guy played whataboutisms without thinking it through...

What am I not thinking through exactly? Good riddance to Greenwood. The guy was trouble and a scumbag. But I’ll ask the question again, where was the similar outrage two summers back when we re-signed Ronaldo?

The allegations against him (which he pretty much admitted to) were just as bad if not worse, but I don’t remember any strong opposition to him returning.

 

[Redlambs]

I have to say I think a large part of that is the nature of the Utd statement. I read it a couple of times and it just immediately sounded contradictory. They didn’t have to say he was innocent and so that then opens up a whole can of worms about why they would do that and still choose to let him go. There’s only really two options why they would do this. One the pressure from sponsors, politicians and members of the public was too loud to ignore (thus the cries of “cancel culture”). Or two, the mistakes mentioned in the statement were not criminal, but significant enough to warrant him leaving, but not too significant to be a breach of contract (or surely he’d already be gone?). Of those options, the Utd statement in isolation strongly feels like they have bowed to external pressures, rather than stick by their own convictions.

On your second point, somewhat true. Perhaps the system needs a few people pulling out of line to drive change. There are certainly examples of where public cases have led to greater speed of investigation, more key witnesses and evidence turning up etc. However I’d still argue that the opposite is truer more of the time. The problem is, I’ve seen enough evidence in my life to not trust herd mentality. I remember watching a show awhile back called “Trial by media” on Netflix and the main takeaway was that while in some cases the public knowledge helped, in the vast majority, it ended up hindering police investigations and prejudiced juries from making independent decisions.

On your final point, yes I couldn’t agree more. If it was up to me we’d all be marching to number 10 tomorrow to burn the place to ashes and put the current cabinet’s head on pikes. I also agree with your assessment, Greenwood isn’t in the real world and for most ‘normal’ people that isn’t a punishment at all. However we can’t ignore the context that all footballers don’t really live in the real world, they all earn obscene money and most are privileged beyond belief. In that world, Greenwood has been punished, because he had the potential to go all the way to the top. That’s why this is such an emotive story and such a divisive one.

Like I said before, down the pub more of us would be at least in the same book if not on the same page.

It's all too easy to take walls of text wrong or be dismissive. But it's nice to actually have reasoned debate on here, happens so little and that's sad.

What am I not thinking through exactly? Good riddance to Greenwood. The guy was trouble and a scumbag. But I’ll ask the question again, where was the similar outrage two summers back when we re-signed Ronaldo?

The allegations against him (which he pretty much admitted to) were just as bad if not worse, but I don’t remember any strong opposition to him returning.

Sorry mate, it's late and I didn't mean to be so dismissive. It's just this has been dealt with by people far more familiar with it than I.

But that is one of the points raised, most of us weren't as familiar since it happened away from the club and in another country so we all weren't as privy to the information. It also wasn't made anywhere near as public as what Greenwood's accuser did.

But like I say, that has been answered numerous times with more knowledge than I have.

 

[frostbite]

In isolation it's an awful thing to say but then if everyone is honest with themselves, I doubt anyone can say with absolute certainty, they have not said something abhorrent at some time in their lives. I'd even suggest anyone who claims they haven't isn't being honest.

The truth is we all say things in anger, frustrating, disappoint etc. How many have told their parents or siblings they wished they were dead, or got caught up in a fued and threated to do someone harm? Those who have gone through difficult divorses almost certainly did and said things they won't be proud of, they probably received threats and actions equally unpleasant.

It doesn't necessarily mean you are capable of such things let alone that you will even do them. There is a huge leap from make a threat to that threat even being credible, let alone acting on it.

We can safely assume the police and CPS investigated the threat. We can make a reasonable guess that it was deemed not credible as if it had been, it would have been a vital element of their case against him. Tbh I would think it was one of the main reasons they continued their investigation for 10 months after the key witness withdrew. A recent example of just how seriously threats are taken these days can be seen over the pond with our friends, the gun people.

Now please, don't think I am saying we are all monsters going around making violent threats against people or that it's acceptable or that we've all said things equal to what Greenwood said. I am saying we are all human, we try to be rational and level headed but even the calmest, more balanced of us is still capable of an outburst which if the whole world heard it, would make us look like maniacs.

I think the importance of the investigation continuing for a significant period of time, after the key witness not only withdrew but requested it was dropped means every possiblity was explored and had they anything, anything at all then they would have proceeded to court. This is before we even account for the "new material" which clearly is some new evidence none of us are privy to. They did everything within their remit to build their case and in the end had to drop the charges.

If anything we should be asking, do they apply this level of investigation in all cases on this nature. We should even applaud the fact that they continued even after the key witness withdrew and why isn't this standard practice.

Obviously the public interest element played a part of this but that's another issue. We shouldn't have ever known about it. Because in the nicest possible way, as a collective the public are morons. I mean, you can rile Jane and Joe public up to the point they'll cheer a lion ripping you apart, or setting a person on fire because magic. Luckily the alternative to fire was to go for an enforced swim...

I asked yesterday without reply from the poster whether or not they would have changed their view of he had gone to court and been found not guilty. I can see today that the answer would probably have been no so I have to wonder what would make people view Greenwood as anything other than a horrible person who is guilty of what he was accused of? People are rightly calling out all the theories but are basing their own opinions on a theory. Oh, you saw a video, you heard some audio? So did the people who spent 13 months investigating. If they were as indefensible as claimed it would have gone to court. There is no denying that if the video and audio were as they appeared, that's damning. That gets to court and you're going to have a hard time as the defendant.

A reminder. The case was not dropped because the witness withdrew. This is incorrect. It continued for 10 months.

Also, I started replying to you and them kind of went off on a different path so apologies. I'm referring to a collective rather than you in this and I include myself in the collective. I'm just trying to be open-minded and fair and to some extent embrace the fact I am largely ignorant of the facts on this case, which I personally think is the best way to go.

You replied to my post, but you also did not answer the question: Are you ready to cheer for Mason Greenwood? You, not someone else! Are you ready to cheer for him?


You did not ask me this, but let me answer your question about "what would happen if it went to trial and found not guilty". If (theoretically) OJ Simpson became a manager of an (American) football team, I would not support this team anymore, and I would definitely not cheer for him. And yes, OJ Simpson was found not guilty in court, after a very public trial that lasted 11 months.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_trial_of_O._J._Simpson

 

[JagUTD]

I don't think you meant to imply it at all, but it is still not good. Just like the "we all make mistakes!" Crowd.

We do all say things and we do all make mistakes. But the fact is we don't all get charged for 3 major crimes, we don't all break bail and see the woman who has accused us, and we don't all have audio of us threatening to rape someone which ultimately costs us our place at one of the biggest clubs in the world. And if we were accused of any of those things, we all definitely wouldn't hide the truth and allow ourselves to be forever suspected as violent abusive scum if we were entirely innocent.

It's simply not comparable and no amount of mental gymnastics will make it so.

There's no mental gymnastics involved. My point wasn't even that we all say or do stupid things. It was that we shouldn't necessarily be judged because of them.

I'm not justifying Greenwoods words or actions. I don't need to. I don't have some increasingly crazy conspiracy theory. I've left it to the experts. They know more than me. If something something that appears to be a slam dunk case doesn't even make it to court, even though there was a determination not always present in these types of cases, then maybe it wasn't the slam dunk it appeared to be. Whatever the new evidence was, must have been significant enough that they didn't take him to court based on the video and audio.

I also don't know what anyone expects him to say now or what good it will do. Release all the details, have his partner explain things or whatever else. Sure, like anyone I would like to have all the answers but they'd only matter of people were willing to accept it... A lot of people are not willing, that's very clear.

 

[Redlambs]

There's no mental gymnastics involved. My point wasn't even that we all say or do stupid things. It was that we shouldn't necessarily be judged because of them.

I'm not justifying Greenwoods words or actions. I don't need to. I don't have some increasingly crazy conspiracy theory. I've left it to the experts. They know more than me. If something something that appears to be a slam dunk case doesn't even make it to court, even though there was a determination not always present in these types of cases, then maybe it wasn't the slam dunk it appeared to be. Whatever the new evidence was, must have been significant enough that they didn't take him to court based on the video and audio.

I also don't know what anyone expects him to say now or what good it will do. Release all the details, have his partner explain things or whatever else. Sure, like anyone I would like to have all the answers but they'd only matter of people were willing to accept it... A lot of people are not willing, that's very clear.

He won't and shouldn't say anything now as it's very likely to incriminate someone.

But that's the point isn't it? If he could clear his name then he would, but for some reason he can't.

And whilst not making him guilty, it certainly drives this decision that both he and United made.

Oh and btw the "experts" didn't clear him and it was never a slam dunk case, there is very rarely such a thing. Clear mistakes were also made during the legal process. It all adds up to the correct decision made. And it's one both Greenwood and Arnold have taken full responsibility for, so since people want to accept the CPS decision then they should also accept that and stop blaming everyone else.

 

[Sky1981]

The audio alone might be ambiguous at best.

But coupled with the picture of the girl bruised and bloody, formal charges made to the authority even if it later recanted, the silences of Greenwood himself would make it 99% true in my eyes.

Considering any other weird possibilities such as BDSM or some fake therapy session is just blatantly trying to excuse MG for what he did because he's good at football.

But... Arnold says he's ok.

And the cylce continues...

 

[frostbite]

About "second chances":

I am all for giving second chances. And I mean giving a second chance to someone who committed a crime, admitted it, went to prison, repented for his crime, asked for forgiveness, and now he is trying to rebuild his life.

But not for someone who says "mistakes were made". Not for someone who never accepts any real responsibility, even when the problem is obvious. Giving a second chance to that person just means giving him another chance to do more damage.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

But I’ll ask the question again, where was the similar outrage two summers back when we re-signed Ronaldo? The allegations against him (which he pretty much admitted to) were just as bad if not worse, but I don’t remember any strong opposition to him returning.

Couple of reasons:

1. Broadly speaking: Ronaldo paid to make that accusation go away (all the way back in 2009) and he largely succeeded. I am guessing that after the leak, he invested additional money in PR to bury the story as much as possible. I think lots of people genuinely don't know much about it.

2. Ronaldo hasn't admitted the allegations. There is a leaked document with some comments allegedly made by Ronaldo (and transcribed by someone else). His camp have forcefully denied that he wrote that and said the documents are faked. I don't think that's very believable, but it's what they've said.

3. I think the Ronaldo case falls a bit more into negative stereotypes that people have. The alleged victim accepted a payoff of 300k or so, and signed an NDA. Nine years later, she got different legal representation and attempted to sue Ronaldo for over 50 million pounds. The case was dismissed with prejudice, her lawyer got an earful and was fined. I'm guessing the NDA was re-enforced too. A cynical person might think it was a case of trying to get money out of a footballer.

 

[JagUTD]

The claim that the case wasn't dropped due to the withdrawal of witness cooperation. The CPS specified that as the reason for the case falling a part and the prospect of conviction being unrealistic because of it.

And "new material" which again is being ignored, to the extent I'm starting bto wonder if it's intentional. I'll give the benefit of doubt though and put it down to the shoddy reporting around this case.

There were 10 months between the withdrawal and the charges being dropped. At that stage the police and later CPS still believed there was enough for them to continue their investigation and they even found fit to charge him. Another 4 months passed during which time their investigation will have ramped up a notch before they ceased.

The witness withdrawing by itself was not enough. I've already said I approve of this and would like to see it employed more often in such cases. Many have made a point that abuse victims often drop their allegations which is why so many cases fall through.

The CPS themselves state a combination of key witness withdrawing and new material were the reasons they decided not to proceed which is factually correct. However we now know the not insignificant detail that is the 10 months between the former and latter.

 

[Artorias]

So he's been sold, released o loaned?

 

[frostbite]

Couple of reasons:

1. Broadly speaking: Ronaldo paid to make that accusation go away (all the way back in 2009) and he largely succeeded. I am guessing that after the leak, he invested additional money in PR to bury the story as much as possible. I think lots of people genuinely don't know much about it.

2. Ronaldo hasn't admitted the allegations. There is a leaked document with some comments allegedly made by Ronaldo (and transcribed by someone else). His camp have forcefully denied that he wrote that and said the documents are faked. I don't think that's very believable, but it's what they've said.

3. I think the Ronaldo case falls a bit more into negative stereotypes that people have. The alleged victim accepted a payoff of 300k or so, and signed an NDA. Nine years later, she got different legal representation and attempted to sue Ronaldo for over 50 million pounds. The case was dismissed with prejudice, her lawyer got an earful and was fined. I'm guessing the NDA was re-enforced too. A cynical person might think it was a case of trying to get money out of a footballer.

4. We did not hear recordings of Ronaldo threatening to rape.

5. We did not see pictures with blood.