How about people stop being hypocrites and be consistent in their acts? Whenever hypocrites are exposed, it's instantly "whataboutism".
Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
- Status
No most people saying what about Ronaldo don't want Greenwood thrown out too.
It's the other side that is being led by media furore in this case and hence when there was no to little furore in Ronaldo case, they couldn't bother to raise one. It's being part of the mob syndrome.
And it's not just Ronaldo can bring up other examples too once we are going into extra judicial media Rachel Riley crafting led punishments.
I do think there is an element of deliberately not wanting to mention the partner or their child as it's easier to make a black and white argument for him to leave for example. It's easier to say "its a privilege for him to play for united or to be a footballer and he should be punished" than to mention the partner and child as any "punishment" of him also in reality is a punishment for the family as a whole. One could make an argument that the best case scenario for the partner and the child (as people fail to point out that they are actually a family) would be for Greenwood to stay at United where he and the family would likely get more support than at any other club, but that doesn't fit the narrative. They would likely be happy or expect Greenwood to move to the Saudi league as it would fit the narrative when in reality it would be far better for the family to remain at united.
The very fact someone like Rachel Riley as well as the media took the stand they took with Greenwood yet didn't do the same when Ronaldo came back to United (despite having just as much damaging evidence in the public as well as him admitting to it) shows you the discrepancy. Whatever you think of Greenwood it was clear from the get go the energy from the media and a lot of the public was for blood (rightly or wrongly), regardless of the findings of a case or investigation. An energy that was missing with Ronaldo. Although a different case the energy from the get go for Mendy was blood and we saw how that ended up.
I've mentioned this in the Burnley friendly thread but now more than ever (or maybe its always been there) there is a noticeable negative spotlight on United from the media, the public and united fans where every bad thing is being blown up (rightly or wrongly). I'm not saying this case shouldn't have gotten the coverage that it did, but when the dust settles it will be clear that the frenzy whipped up for this case was disproportionate when compared to similar ones but maybe that's the United "tax".
Greenwood and the non-sale of the club are the 2 biggest problems.
Once both of those messes are cleaned up I feel the mood will improve around the club.
Once both of those messes are cleaned up I feel the mood will improve around the club.
Blows my mind how many people can't or won't see the unique elements to this case that made it so much more difficult to ever integrate him back into the club. Does anyone seriously think Ronaldo would have been welcomed back at United if it was possible to listen to the audio of him (allegedly) trying to have sex with that girl against her consent?
ah not too much to get sorted, so
I'm not talking about 'shoulds' or 'woulds' here. I'm just saying what happened.
Ronaldo's people handled his case much more forcefully. They denied everything, claimed the leaked documents were faked, and put out their own alternative story: that they paid off a person to avoid public scrutiny. They sued Der Spiegel (over the financial stuff, and lost; not sure if they went ahead with more lawsuits). The civil case against Ronaldo was apparently not handled well by Mayorga's lawyers, it was dismissed with prejudice and he was given a hefty fine (almost as much as the original NDA payoff). I believe there is still ongoing litigation over whether certain things can or can't be released to the media and the public. That's what we know. Ronaldo is also much wealthier than Greenwood and I'm guessing there was more behind-the-scenes work. Probably a lot of paid PR online too, put comments everywhere to sow doubt.
Greenwood's case has been handled very timidly. He barely said anything for a year and a half. The statements released recently are cryptic, have a bunch of caveats, and admit to unspecified "mistakes." Whatever you think of the allegations, this is a very passive way to go about things. The difference is that Greenwood has other priorities (his accuser is his current gf) than Ronaldo (his accuser was a woman he had a one-night stand with almost a decade before the leak) so maybe it affected his handling of the situation.
Why should hearing the audio and reading the transcript change what was allegedly done by both? Why for you specifically (not the public) but you specifically is there a difference? If there was no audio leak but instead just the audio transcript would that have made you more open for Greenwood to return to united?
Of course there's a difference.
No matter what you think about the outcome and your 'side' in this, don't be willfully ignorant to why this is such a big deal and why it's lead to Greenwood accepting that he made mistakes leading to that audio and those pictures being revealed. It just cheapens your argument.
Not sure if you read my post before that but how does that weaken my argument? If anything it does the opposite. Your view on how bad something is should not change just because you hear the audio of this incident vs reading the transcript of the audio of this incident. Now of course the public will respond differently to audio vs transcripts but the point is you shouldn't. If you are saying that you responded differently or less vehemently in the Ronaldo case because you only read the transcripts of that incident then I personally think that's wrong.
Pretty hard to dismiss actually hearing the audio and seeing the video like
The evidence is harder
You know as well as I do that the transcript (Ronaldo) was obtained illegally and its authenticity cannot be 100% verified.
If you set aside the 'visceral' element,
With Greenwood, we have an audio tape of him doing the bad thing. It is extremely direct evidence.
We don't have that with Ronaldo. We don't have a transcript of the incident. It is a transcript of the answers he gave to a questionnaire given to him by his law firm, 1.5-2 months after the fact, in which he describes the incident.
I agree with what's been said. about Ronaldo, but I think its becoming increasingly difficult for any. player with such accusations against them to. be accepted
id like to think its. a question of. morals but I suspect its to. do with money....theyre trying to build up the. women game
id like to think its. a question of. morals but I suspect its to. do with money....theyre trying to build up the. women game
I said cheapen. And it does.
And I'm right and you are wrong on that. Because if you can't tell the difference in understanding between hearing words said in their actual voices and reading a transcript then you have a problem.
Your assumption about how I feel about the Ronaldo case I'll overlook for now. Because this is a discussion, it doesn't have to be an argument.
Really hope he bangs in 30 goals in Italy and then lets see if Man Utds stance changes. I Still think the club have really handled the whole situ badly.
I've have yet to see anyone give a good argument why Greenwood staying at United would be best for both himself, his partner and their child. It's been said many times before in this thread but it bears repeating: it is in this exact environment that Greenwood developed into the young man that caused this whole situation. We don't know if it's a good environment for him, or for her. We don't know what her support network looks like. We know absolutely nothing about all that, beyond the fact that this is where it all happened.
Saudi Arabia is obviously not a good place for their family and sincerely hope that's not where they end up.
How will it change exactly? And why can't he move to city and bang in 30 goals if that's what you want him to do to prove something?
It has been said many times.
And yet, I've personally not had a single response from those so determined for him to stay. Funny that.
I agree with your post above, just not with the roleplaying bit you trotted out earlier. That was creepy.
Others are doing the same thing and it is disgusting. How you do not see it makes you look like a creep, I don’t understand.
There is a trend going on where people try to normalize weird misogynistic takes.
Been reading the Athletic article that came out today. Makes it clear that the new evidence won’t be released due to the rights of the victim in terms of her anonymity.
Why on earth would you hope that? Now that he's leaving United I intend to give him very little thought aside from hoping that he's not violent or sexually abusive going forward (not saying he definitively was to this point etc).
Do you have a particular fetish for the word “creep” and it’s derivatives?
No, it just fits perfectly in this instance.
The Athletic just put up another piece. fecking hell.
I really appreciate their coverage of the player at arsenal, shows they haven’t got an agenda….oh wait.
It's often disguised under the push back of "cancel culture" but it's always been there. And certain people who are now famous for no reason other than pretending to care about young men have latched on to that to grift and made it ok for young minds to start thinking like the older generations that hid this kind of thing behind pulled curtains. Of course, this isn't helped by the extreme opposite who want to weaponise everything.
The world is in a shit state, but that's nothing new. But as I've relentlessly said on here, and all those opposed to my view continue to ignore, it's not about blaming each other and the people for speaking out. These decisions are made by people well above all of us, and the more we ignore that and fight among ourselves, the more these grifting scumbags who are convincing young kids that women are nothing but our property will win out and even worse, the people with the real power will be able to sit there without the slightest bit of blame.
"cancel culture" indeed. Funny how those making the decisions on these matters still decide. Whilst we bicker among ourselves as to which "mob" should be heard loudest.
Which is the least surprising thing about this case.
I simply don't understand why some people struggle to understand this.
Do you have an opinion, or is your 6th post in here after signing up 2 days ago merely to pick an irrelevant fight?
I don't subscribe. What does it say? (a gist as least biased as possible would be grand!)
I feel like this has been explained multiple times. But I can't be sure myself, so I won't make a deal of it.
In any case, they've been right so far. I thought us fans wanted more information about the inner workings?
There does seem to have been a difference. Is that the standard we want though?? How we judge a person and what should happen to them if there's a suggestion they've committed a crime should depend on whether we've personally seen some evidence? That might be the natural human reaction but that's one of the exact reasons we have the criminal justice system! To take away any element of mob rule and look at complex cases with dispassionate judgement. Too many people seem to have forgotten that in the Greenwood case. It's why there's a real whiff of trial by social media and that's never good no matter what 'side' you're on.
The player at Arsenal has never been officially named and can’t be legally.
People thinking this is an agenda are muppets. It’s journalists writing articles about one of the biggest news stories at one of the biggest clubs in the world. A story that transcended football.
Isn’t it bizarre someone who everyone knows who they are needs anonymity?
She might be known, but that is still different to having your name and potentially picture appear in every article on the subject. There's nothing bizarre about not wanting that.
You know as well as I do that the burden of proof means people escape "justice", and it's heavily weighted to more often than not in these cases.
But no, I'm not suggesting the legal system listens to individual views by the public. However there is such a thing as "in the public interest" which is different.
In any case, regardless of what you and I think, that audio and those pictures are unexplained. They aren't some contested leak, they are out there, no one has contested their contents and Greenwood admits himself fault for them coming out. If you stick to those facts, whilst not being a conclusive verdict, it certainly paints a picture you can't expect everyone to just accept right?
And that's the crux, if people think United and Greenwood made this decision based purely on the public reaction then they could both easily clear that up. Once again, why aren't they? That's because there is no fairytale ending here. Someone did something wrong and it has got to this point. And none of those people were tony2299897878347 on twitter.
Only if you don't understand the legal system and why that might be necessary.
One of the most surprising sentences in Manchester United’s statement on Monday regarding Mason Greenwood’s future was the club’s assertion that their young forward did not carry out the crimes he was charged with. This is a big commitment for the club to make, especially considering their investigation was conducted by internal staff rather than independently. This article is not designed to suggest Greenwood — who has always denied the charges — is guilty. Or that he is innocent. It instead outlines some of the more complex parts of the case, which perhaps explain why United saying he “did not commit the offences” has drawn criticism from supporters and public figures.
United say the social media posts were made in the early hours of January 30 last year, after Greenwood had fallen out with the complainant. The picture this paints is that the complainant sought revenge on him. While nobody other than the complainant can truly know why a decision was made to post the material on social media, the fact it was accompanied by a caption making clear she wanted everyone to know what Greenwood had done raises questions.
During their investigation, United concluded there were explanations for the materials posted online and that they were content that Greenwood did not physically abuse the complainant. When these findings were presented to the complainant’s family, United claim they were not contested.
Although United say the complainant was approached by the police rather than initiating contact herself, she gave them an “achieving best evidence” interview in January last year. Three months later, she then provided a retraction statement. This, however, does not detract from the fact that there was, at least to begin with, a willingness to participate and give her account.
The complainant did not engage with the club directly. However, her mother did so, with her knowledge. The club say they gave both the complainant and her mother the opportunity to comment on or to correct their investigation’s findings and they did not do so. Based on their engagement with the mother, United say they are satisfied the complainant was not subject to coercive control by Greenwood. United also concluded that Greenwood did not physically abuse the complainant after being provided with explanations for the materials posted online.
Arnold felt that Greenwood was not guilty of the charges he initially faced. However, Arnold is not a lawyer, nor is he a judge, so his legal judgement may raise questions and has been criticised.
There is an acceptance in the statement that Greenwood made “mistakes” — but what does that mean? No further explanation was given. Patrick Stewart, United’s chief legal officer and general counsel, was part of the executive panel that led their Greenwood investigation. Although Arnold harboured a certain view, Greater Manchester Police and the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) don’t appear to have agreed with him.
He was arrested on January 31 last year on suspicion of rape and assault, and further arrested the next day on suspicion of sexual assault and making threats to kill. The CPS reviewed that evidence and, in October, after deciding there was enough of a case to proceed to trial, decided to charge Greenwood with one count of attempted rape, one count of controlling and coercive behaviour, and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
In February this year, those charges were dropped following the withdrawal of key witnesses and new evidence coming to light.
United say the social media posts represent only a small fraction of the evidence considered by the CPS and that, due to the complainant’s right to lifelong anonymity, the new evidence that came to light will not be made public.
United say the social media posts were made in the early hours of January 30 last year, after Greenwood had fallen out with the complainant. The picture this paints is that the complainant sought revenge on him. While nobody other than the complainant can truly know why a decision was made to post the material on social media, the fact it was accompanied by a caption making clear she wanted everyone to know what Greenwood had done raises questions.
During their investigation, United concluded there were explanations for the materials posted online and that they were content that Greenwood did not physically abuse the complainant. When these findings were presented to the complainant’s family, United claim they were not contested.
Although United say the complainant was approached by the police rather than initiating contact herself, she gave them an “achieving best evidence” interview in January last year. Three months later, she then provided a retraction statement. This, however, does not detract from the fact that there was, at least to begin with, a willingness to participate and give her account.
The complainant did not engage with the club directly. However, her mother did so, with her knowledge. The club say they gave both the complainant and her mother the opportunity to comment on or to correct their investigation’s findings and they did not do so. Based on their engagement with the mother, United say they are satisfied the complainant was not subject to coercive control by Greenwood. United also concluded that Greenwood did not physically abuse the complainant after being provided with explanations for the materials posted online.
Arnold felt that Greenwood was not guilty of the charges he initially faced. However, Arnold is not a lawyer, nor is he a judge, so his legal judgement may raise questions and has been criticised.
There is an acceptance in the statement that Greenwood made “mistakes” — but what does that mean? No further explanation was given. Patrick Stewart, United’s chief legal officer and general counsel, was part of the executive panel that led their Greenwood investigation. Although Arnold harboured a certain view, Greater Manchester Police and the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) don’t appear to have agreed with him.
He was arrested on January 31 last year on suspicion of rape and assault, and further arrested the next day on suspicion of sexual assault and making threats to kill. The CPS reviewed that evidence and, in October, after deciding there was enough of a case to proceed to trial, decided to charge Greenwood with one count of attempted rape, one count of controlling and coercive behaviour, and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
In February this year, those charges were dropped following the withdrawal of key witnesses and new evidence coming to light.
United say the social media posts represent only a small fraction of the evidence considered by the CPS and that, due to the complainant’s right to lifelong anonymity, the new evidence that came to light will not be made public.
More in the article - and I'm not an editor so it's hard to post excerpts without butchering it.
It obviously is not a difference on how bad the act in itself are if you read about it or hear about it, but it also obviously is a big difference on hearing something someone has said and reading something someone has said. One is much more conclusive, dont you agree?
So i would say its much easier to be convinced that the one you heard actually did it. As you have heard him do it.
I dont think people who are convinced Ronaldo did what he was accused of react any different to this case. Its just that its easier to be convinced by this case, as you have actually heard what went down.
Knowing how the club is run now I wouldn't be surprised if we spend 100mil to buy Greenwood in a couple of years if he bangs in 30 goals. Never underestimate our ability to waste money with poor decisions.
The ABU/agenda people need fecking help.
I truly appreciate it mate.
But I do have to ask, what is wrong with that? Surely it actually helps people understand the timeline and why this is so complicated?
Same with the ABG ones.
What’s with all the random dots/full stops? Thought I was losing it or my phone was broken.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it? I posted what I thought were the relevant parts - with an admission that I'm not an editor
If you're referring to my "fecking hell" exclamation - that was due to being surprised at another article so quick, and partially because I just want to feel good about the team again (which I guess is selfish, potentially insensitive of me, but not malicious) - hence why I'm so looking forward to the next game. But again, I didn't say there was anything wrong
I think I just had a fit. trying. to. understand.. it. and the point
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it? I posted what I thought were the relevant parts - with an admission that I'm not an editor
If you're referring to my "fecking hell" exclamation - that was due to being surprised at another article so quick, and partially because I just want to feel good about the team again (which I guess is selfish, potentially insensitive of me, but not malicious) - hence why I'm so looking forward to the next game. But again, I didn't say there was anything wrong
Yeah it was purely the "fecking hell" mate, you answered your own question there
But I do get it, absolutely. As much as we all argue about all sorts in here, we mostly still support the same club and just want the football to come back and give us something to enjoy.
Thanks for sharing. I wonder why they didn’t use an independent party to investigate? Surely United are too close to Greenwood, his supposed value etc to make decisions
- Status