Quite unfair to the poster, considering how many dittos and 'seconds' the most aggressive posts about MG get here , the ones which call everyone who says that we need to understand what this further evidence is' before we even think of coming to some sort of judgement, as being 'morons' and 'evil', saying that MG is the worst thing to happen to football and bordering upon saying he should die.
People have also been shouted down, figuratively, for pointing out that players actually convicted for violent crimes, causing death through negligence (drink-driving and speeding) or being involved in blackmail around underaged prostitution rings have been reintegrated into top football clubs in recent memory with little to no fuss. That doesn't mean that it's right that there was so little discussion then, just that it's proper to ask why someone with no criminal conviction, cleared in different ways by two investigations (the CPS had every incentive to take a profile case like this to trial if they felt the evidence finally stood up, particularly given public awareness around issues of sexual harassment and sexual assault, the aftermath of Me Too etc), and who is supported by his erstwhile accuser should be singled out. What are the factors, what are the ethical differences, are we tilting too far into allowing trial by social media etc? That doesn't mean people posing those questions have any kinds of full answers either, but its important to recognize our collective gaps in understanding or unexamined premises if we're going to be fair.
At least the poster started with the correct premise that none of us can know whether MG is innocent or guilty based upon the current public evidence. Just because it wasn't a forensic breakdown of the facts of the case as we understand them or anything like that, doesn't mean their comment should be 'cancelled' or subject to significantly different levels of judgement compared to posts that fly by here consistently. There's a lot of motivated reasoning flying about.
