Well once the Scottish newspaper published the story the English press could factually cover the publication, and then a Lib Dem MP named Giggs in Parliament. So it was a legal loophole.
Antony under investigation by Brazilian authorities for domestic abuse | Inquiries ended | Back in the squad
- Thread starter laughtersassassin
- Start date
Well once the Scottish newspaper published the story the English press could factually cover the publication, and then a Lib Dem MP named Giggs in Parliament. So it was a legal loophole.
Technically the North London player hasn't been identified. Revealing his identity to the public would be breaking the law - at least that's how it was explained to me at one point.
Well that's kind of the root of my question, what legally precludes the media from naming someone who's been arrested but not charged?
@TheReligion can you help me out here?
Yes trying to figure that out. Arsenal would probably argue that suspending him would be defacto naming him but the cnuts could just say he's injured.
I don't know what Antony's exact status is with regard to UK authorities/the GMP. *
But he's under investigation in another country too.
I don't think UK media outlets are prohibited from reporting that a named individual is facing accusations and investigations by both police in the UK and elsewhere after this has already been reported by non-UK outlets.
(Or rather - they clearly aren't. If they were, they wouldn't be doing it.)
* If they haven't opened an official investigation against him, there's one clear difference right there.
Good decision by the club and Antony. This was always going to be a massive distraction, and he was never going to be able to play properly with this hanging over his shoulders. And while he wasn't suspended, the club has every right to suspend any employee under criminal investigation.
Unlike the Greenwood case, I believe if he isn't charged he'll return to the club normally. So if he is innocent he'll be able to resume his playing career normally.
Unlike the Greenwood case, I believe if he isn't charged he'll return to the club normally. So if he is innocent he'll be able to resume his playing career normally.
Did the media ever name greenwood or did we only know because *someone* went public with the images and video? Ie if she didn't do that would greenwood have been arrested bailed and still playing like partey without the media ever being able to reveal his name, but everyone "knowing" who it was?
Yeh well said. It's blowing my mind that people want him sacked, tarred and feathered, shot into space etc at this extremely early juncture of the process. A lot of people wetting their pants when it's really not necessary.
UK media drives all media on UK football, it's not like foreign journalists are doing original research. They write about what the British papers write about, often just by translating, so when Partey isn't a story in the UK he's not going to be a story in Poland, either. Also, at least in Norway, there really hasn't been that much writing about United and this, either. I'm checking the biggest tabloid on Antony, and they had one article when the allegations first surfaced, one when Brazil dropped him, one when United released their statement, and one when the training break was announced.
I mean the Giggs thing was precisely because of who he was and who he played for. Why is it in the public interest who a footballer is shagging? So much so that it gets named in parliament? It was ridiculous.
I know you’re not allowed to name anyone until they are actually charged as the same applies to the police. I’m not sure what legislation exactly but I imagine it’s a breach of the human rights act and the right to a private life etc.
I’m curious so I’ll have a look.
Yeah pretty much.
Greenwood was charged at some point though so he could have been named at that point but not before.
Thanks, brother.
Everton were able to suspend Sigurdsson without him ever officially being named. Arsenal have made a conscious choice not to do the same.
If there's anything the #metoo campaign taught me, it's that women will lie and exaggerate for the attention and power that comes with the coveted "victimhood status".
We live in a time where anytime a man sticks his head out, and does something spectacular with his life, there's always some toxic ex (or current) girlfriend/encounter ready to take him down under the banner of #BelieveAllWomen.
I'm not buying it, and I'm not buying the Greenwood ordeal either. And as for the Giggs case, that's entirely between him, his wife, and his brother. For all we know, his wife didn't feck him, and his brother didn't feck his wife.
Go ahead and ban me. Had it with this emasculated, woke shit show of a football forum anyways.
We live in a time where anytime a man sticks his head out, and does something spectacular with his life, there's always some toxic ex (or current) girlfriend/encounter ready to take him down under the banner of #BelieveAllWomen.
I'm not buying it, and I'm not buying the Greenwood ordeal either. And as for the Giggs case, that's entirely between him, his wife, and his brother. For all we know, his wife didn't feck him, and his brother didn't feck his wife.
Go ahead and ban me. Had it with this emasculated, woke shit show of a football forum anyways.
Last edited:
Yeah it’s along the lines of a breach of human rights (right to private life/privacy).
The shift when charged is that it’s believed at this point there’s a reasonable expectation you relinquish that right.
Oh Matty. Where did it all go so wrong?
True, fair point.
That's your main takeaway from the MeToo movement? Jesus wept
Nothing wrong with me or my life. And one of the main reasons for that, is that I'm not some mentally castrated **** who thinks women are sugar and spice, and all things nice.
Yes, that is my main takeaway.
Last edited:
He wasn't technically named by the major outlets when the story first broke, to the point of it being comical: they reported that United had suspended Mason Greenwood and that "a man in his 20s" had been arrested following the suspension.
I can’t help feeling that if this was another club, say Liverpool, they’d be adopting a siege mentality - us against the World (see Suarez racism incident) rather than caving into social media pressure yet again, regardless of the supposed presumption of innocence.
Amen brother. Not so much with the criticism of this forum cause I think its better than some other places but yea the woke outcry and cancell culture crap is getting very tiresome
I suspect everything you were "tought" from the #metoo campaign came via an Andrew Tate fanboy chatroom. Grim.
United's obsession with public opinion is over the top. That is not the way how business should be run.
Sorry if I am misunderstanding you, but I can't help feeling that it's super weird how, when any of our managers dare to hint that we should aspire to be like City, Liverpool or Arsenal ON the pitch, they get yelled abuse at. Then, suddenly, when it comes to handling our problematic players OFF the pitch, they are somehow prime examples that we should follow.
I don’t think this at all but if you do then suspending players because we are higher profile is an idiotic thing to do.
The example is right there when fans tells us we will lose support of female players. Hasn’t stopped them hoovering up our best talent. Lose female support? Where has that happened? Sky even mutes the boos he gets. They aren’t tainted, they’re not viewed as morally bankrupt.
Doomsday scenarios of not suspending players etc just aren’t set in reality.
True!
Should we do a poll on who's next?
Either way, good decision by the club.
Either way, good decision by the club.
Do you think "adopting a siege mentality - us against the world" over a player accused of domestic violence against multiple women would be a good idea?
What a shame. A somewhat promising 2nd season for 10 Hag is going down the drain 4 games in. Sad to see it
I remember when Liverpool's handling of the Suarez-Evra racism conflict was a point of ridicule, now it's an inspiration.
This! I still don't look at Liverpool the same after that, and good Liverpool fans were deeply uncomfortable about the whole situation.
Again, the presumption of innocence is an important concept of law in the UK and should be preserved rather than eroded.
Did R Kelly ask you to type that or is it your own thoughts?
Never go in extremes. Liverpool sticked with Suarez even after that shitshow ended. Which was awful move by them.
On the other hand, we are dropping players as soon as they are charged for something. Imo, both ways are wrong.
The club aren't assuming he's guilty though?
He's not suspended.
But - no, I don't agree that it's idiotic to take the club's profile into consideration. To keep on keeping on in this particular case would have been idiotic. The club would have attracted even more negative attention and the player would have been under immense pressure and scrutiny. If he had played for Oldham, the attention, pressure and scrutiny would've been negligible by comparison - but he isn't: of course United's high profile must be part of the consideration for all involved (from sponsors to the player himself, this is just the nature of the beast regardless of how one feels about other aspects of the case).