Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

[Jippy]

Quite frankly, I think he should have been allowed to play for us again regardless of what happened.

Let's take the absolute worst case scenario, that he did indeed say all that stuff, meant it, and did actually beat and sexually assault her. Well it's still (supposedly) in societies best interests to rehabilitate those who commit crimes and get them into employment etc. Places like Norway, Sweden that have low recidivism rates push this aspect, while places that focus more on punishments (US, UK) have much higher ones. This benefits absolutely no one, not the offender, not their future victims.

So regardless of what happened, if indeed anything happened, it's in societies best interests for this guy to get back to work and get his career back on track. If you're never allowed to come back and be a normal functioning member of society, even after the most serious crimes, then all that's going to be left is a criminal underclass that reoffends and reoffends and our prisons will be a revolving door.

This is disingenuous, given you know full well being a footballer is not a normal job. Players are role models, regardless of whether they should be. Sponsors don't want sexual abusers in kits they're paying tens of millions for and many fans won't want to support such a person in the team, all of which is pretty obvious.

So regardless of what happened, if indeed anything happened,

Maybe she made it all up, faked the recording and wore make up for the bust lip.

Someone's going to say 'ah but he hasn't 'paid' for his crimes by way of a sentence so that justifies me continuing to harass him'. I don't think this stands up to scrutiny when you look at other criminal cases involving footballers. A few years ago, a guy called Ched Evans was convicted of rape, did his sentence, and was released. There were still calls to never employ him again, even after he 'served his time', and it eventually took a complete exoneration before he was able to resume his career. That's just completely bang out of order, but it does show these people who don't want him playing will NEVER want him playing, which says a lot about their attitudes to the rehabilitation of offenders.

Ched Evans was a different case altogether.

Mason is getting rehabilitated at Getafe- you saw how few clubs were in for him. Even if Mason wasn't convicted, the audio was appalling and clubs are well within their rights to decide that they don't want such an individual representing them.

If he was a hotshot young accountant at a top four firm in the same predicament, I bet the other big firms wouldn't hire him. He'd end up rebuilding at a smaller regional player, like he is now.

I'm very sad we lost a potentially top, top player too, but let's not hide behind this 'attitudes to rehabilitation' bs.

 

[Biggins]

That is absolutely not what is happening at all. To paint that as some centrist middle ground is insane. There is literal picture/audio proof and the club has said he will never play here again.

He was a massive star and he hasn’t been allowed to play football for 18 months because of his horrendous actions.
So many posters have posted so many words but NONE of them can explain that if this is all a BDSM style relationship or if this is just a small issue why United have not played him for 18 months or why Mason has admitted to mistakes.

Facts:
We have seen and heard the inexcusable.
His partner was that concerned she started a police report that they were taking seriously.
A large majority of domestic abuse/sexual abuse is unpunished.

that’s it. They’re all the facts. No conjecture. No issues. Mason is a bad egg and best not having the honour of playing for United.

From legal perspective, none of the publicly available material does amount to any “facts” or conclusive “evidence”.

What was made available to the public only warranted investigation which was by all accounts conducted.

From legal perspective the audio disclosed does not amount alone to any crime. For example, simply saying “I will punch you” does not amount to a threat or an attempt of assault without further evidence of the alleged offender’s mental state (i.e. whether the said offender really intended to go through with the relevant act). The audio disclosed does not provide any such context and therefore it is incorrect to say (from legal perspective) that MG attempted or threatened rape/assault on the basis of leaked audio alone.

It’s even more difficult with images disclosed to the public. We don’t know anything about the context of these images. When they were taken, where were the relevant parties at the relevant times etc.

Accordingly, we need to place some trust in law enforcement authorities that they actually looked into the circumstances that we are not privy to. Making conclusions on the basis of assumptions or the most likely explanations is not how the law is supposed to work and there is good reason for that. In most cases the most likely explanation will be correct but not always.

Again, anyone in this thread is entitled to their own opinion. However, using the words “facts” or making any conclusions on the basis of what we as a public know is wrong on so many levels.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

The club did find more evidence it wasn't a rape as it was suggested. Full recordings and testimonies we will never know about.

The bizarre thing is they both got married, so based on my understanding and experience on this kind of relationship I really believed they're just two young toxic lovers.

Love to see people still victim blaming in 2023 based on some vague idea of "understanding".

 

[Davie Moyes]

Quite frankly, I think he should have been allowed to play for us again regardless of what happened.

Let's take the absolute worst case scenario, that he did indeed say all that stuff, meant it, and did actually beat and sexually assault her. Well it's still (supposedly) in societies best interests to rehabilitate those who commit crimes and get them into employment etc. Places like Norway, Sweden that have low recidivism rates push this aspect, while places that focus more on punishments (US, UK) have much higher ones. This benefits absolutely no one, not the offender, not their future victims.

So regardless of what happened, if indeed anything happened, it's in societies best interests for this guy to get back to work and get his career back on track. If you're never allowed to come back and be a normal functioning member of society, even after the most serious crimes, then all that's going to be left is a criminal underclass that reoffends and reoffends and our prisons will be a revolving door.

Someone's going to say 'ah but he hasn't 'paid' for his crimes by way of a sentence so that justifies me continuing to harass him'. I don't think this stands up to scrutiny when you look at other criminal cases involving footballers. A few years ago, a guy called Ched Evans was convicted of rape, did his sentence, and was released. There were still calls to never employ him again, even after he 'served his time', and it eventually took a complete exoneration before he was able to resume his career. That's just completely bang out of order, but it does show these people who don't want him playing will NEVER want him playing, which says a lot about their attitudes to the rehabilitation of offenders.

If after you commit a crime it's fine for you to return to work but only bottom-tier work like stacking the shelves at Tesco (i.e. the 'he shouldn't be allowed a footballers life' argument), there's quite frankly no incentive for offenders not to go back to selling drugs or doing whatever they did before getting arrested. Offenders should be allowed all the opportunities of you and me and if they're particularly talented in a field like Greenwood is, yes, even to the point of being multi-millionaires. No one is willingly going to place themselves at the bottom of the economic food chain forever to satisfy the mobs requirement of extrajudicial punishment. I certainly wouldn't.

The only sensible thing at this point is to hope he gets his career back on track, has a good season, both for his own personal life and of course it'd be nice if we were able to get a decent fee for him at the end of it all.

Great post. I'm not sure why rehab etc is not talked about and considered more in the discussions related to MG.

 

[Andersons Dietician]

Love to see people still victim blaming in 2023 based on some vague idea of "understanding".

Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing?

 

[Acquire Me]

Quite frankly, I think he should have been allowed to play for us again regardless of what happened.

Let's take the absolute worst case scenario, that he did indeed say all that stuff, meant it, and did actually beat and sexually assault her. Well it's still (supposedly) in societies best interests to rehabilitate those who commit crimes and get them into employment etc. Places like Norway, Sweden that have low recidivism rates push this aspect, while places that focus more on punishments (US, UK) have much higher ones. This benefits absolutely no one, not the offender, not their future victims.

So regardless of what happened, if indeed anything happened, it's in societies best interests for this guy to get back to work and get his career back on track. If you're never allowed to come back and be a normal functioning member of society, even after the most serious crimes, then all that's going to be left is a criminal underclass that reoffends and reoffends and our prisons will be a revolving door.

Someone's going to say 'ah but he hasn't 'paid' for his crimes by way of a sentence so that justifies me continuing to harass him'. I don't think this stands up to scrutiny when you look at other criminal cases involving footballers. A few years ago, a guy called Ched Evans was convicted of rape, did his sentence, and was released. There were still calls to never employ him again, even after he 'served his time', and it eventually took a complete exoneration before he was able to resume his career. That's just completely bang out of order, but it does show these people who don't want him playing will NEVER want him playing, which says a lot about their attitudes to the rehabilitation of offenders.

If after you commit a crime it's fine for you to return to work but only bottom-tier work like stacking the shelves at Tesco (i.e. the 'he shouldn't be allowed a footballers life' argument), there's quite frankly no incentive for offenders not to go back to selling drugs or doing whatever they did before getting arrested. Offenders should be allowed all the opportunities of you and me and if they're particularly talented in a field like Greenwood is, yes, even to the point of being multi-millionaires. No one is willingly going to place themselves at the bottom of the economic food chain forever to satisfy the mobs requirement of extrajudicial punishment. I certainly wouldn't.

The only sensible thing at this point is to hope he gets his career back on track, has a good season, both for his own personal life and of course it'd be nice if we were able to get a decent fee for him at the end of it all.

Very good post. Some one here should take notice.

 

[NicolaSacco]

From legal perspective, none of the publicly available material does amount to any “facts” or conclusive “evidence”.

What was made available to the public only warranted investigation which was by all accounts conducted.

From legal perspective the audio disclosed does not amount alone to any crime. For example, simply saying “I will punch you” does not amount to a threat or an attempt of assault without further evidence of the alleged offender’s mental state (i.e. whether the said offender really intended to go through with the relevant act). The audio disclosed does not provide any such context and therefore it is incorrect to say (from legal perspective) that MG attempted or threatened rape/assault on the basis of leaked audio alone.

It’s even more difficult with images disclosed to the public. We don’t know anything about the context of these images. When they were taken, where were the relevant parties at the relevant times etc.

Accordingly, we need to place some trust in law enforcement authorities that they actually looked into the circumstances that we are not privy to. Making conclusions on the basis of assumptions or the most likely explanations is not how the law is supposed to work and there is good reason for that. In most cases the most likely explanation will be correct but not always.

Again, anyone in this thread is entitled to their own opinion. However, using the words “facts” or making any conclusions on the basis of what we as a public know is wrong on so many levels.

1) Please stop using the term 'from a legal perspective', and then proceeding to show you have no legal understanding. It's embarrassing.

2) 1.4% of reported rapes end up in court (2021 statistics). With this in mind, how do you maintain your 'trust in law enforcement authorities'. Given that around one in every 75 reported rapes even gets to court.

 

[Biggins]

1) Please stop using the term 'from a legal perspective', and then proceeding to show you have no legal understanding. It's embarrassing.

2) 1.4% of reported rapes end up in court (2021 statistics). With this in mind, how do you maintain your 'trust in law enforcement authorities'. Given that around one in every 75 reported rapes even gets to court.

Please explain what is incorrect from “legal perspective” as I’m more than happy to discuss this aspect.

I fully appreciate the shameful statistics. The statistics do not, however, change the point that the public does not have enough information to conclude whether or not any crime was committed in MG’s case. There are plenty of posts here saying that MG attempted / threatened rape. Quite a reckless thing to bash out such labels on the basis of what we know and plainly incorrect (repeating myself!) from legal perspective.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing?

Obviously not, no.

 

[Catalandevil]

Quite frankly, I think he should have been allowed to play for us again regardless of what happened.

Let's take the absolute worst case scenario, that he did indeed say all that stuff, meant it, and did actually beat and sexually assault her. Well it's still (supposedly) in societies best interests to rehabilitate those who commit crimes and get them into employment etc. Places like Norway, Sweden that have low recidivism rates push this aspect, while places that focus more on punishments (US, UK) have much higher ones. This benefits absolutely no one, not the offender, not their future victims.

So regardless of what happened, if indeed anything happened, it's in societies best interests for this guy to get back to work and get his career back on track. If you're never allowed to come back and be a normal functioning member of society, even after the most serious crimes, then all that's going to be left is a criminal underclass that reoffends and reoffends and our prisons will be a revolving door.

Someone's going to say 'ah but he hasn't 'paid' for his crimes by way of a sentence so that justifies me continuing to harass him'. I don't think this stands up to scrutiny when you look at other criminal cases involving footballers. A few years ago, a guy called Ched Evans was convicted of rape, did his sentence, and was released. There were still calls to never employ him again, even after he 'served his time', and it eventually took a complete exoneration before he was able to resume his career. That's just completely bang out of order, but it does show these people who don't want him playing will NEVER want him playing, which says a lot about their attitudes to the rehabilitation of offenders.

If after you commit a crime it's fine for you to return to work but only bottom-tier work like stacking the shelves at Tesco (i.e. the 'he shouldn't be allowed a footballers life' argument), there's quite frankly no incentive for offenders not to go back to selling drugs or doing whatever they did before getting arrested. Offenders should be allowed all the opportunities of you and me and if they're particularly talented in a field like Greenwood is, yes, even to the point of being multi-millionaires. No one is willingly going to place themselves at the bottom of the economic food chain forever to satisfy the mobs requirement of extrajudicial punishment. I certainly wouldn't.

The only sensible thing at this point is to hope he gets his career back on track, has a good season, both for his own personal life and of course it'd be nice if we were able to get a decent fee for him at the end of it all.

I am going to play devil's advocate role here. Being a football player is as much a job as a privilege. No doubt players such as MG spent hours in the training ground, but the importance of natural talent is also extremely important.

Offenders are indeed entitled to a second opportunity, but why should they still enjoy more privileges than most people? Why a rapist should have the tools and opportunities to enjoy a better life than most ordinary people?

The real problem here is that what is right for society is extremely unfair at individual level.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Please explain what is incorrect from “legal perspective” as I’m more than happy to discuss this aspect.

I fully appreciate the shameful statistics. The statistics do not, however, change the point that the public does not have enough information to conclude whether or not any crime was committed in MG’s case. There are plenty of posts here saying that MG attempted / threatened rape. Quite a reckless thing to bash out such labels on the basis of what we know and plainly incorrect (repeating myself!) from legal perspective.

You have said, and I quote directly that we should have 'trust in law enforcement authorities'. Do you still stand by that, given the 1.4% figure? It seems you have tried to move the goalposts by saying all you were doing was pointing out that the public does not have enough information to deem him guilty. But that's not what you said in your original post, you said we should trust law enforcement. This is despite their record of only getting 1 out of every 75 rape allegations into a courtroom.

As for the 'legal perspective' , can you just confirm whether or not you are trained in UK law. I'm happy to admit I'm not, and so wouldn't dream of repeatedly prefacing my opinions with 'from a legal perspective', as you have.

 

[Trequarista10]

What would be the legal ramifications?

An accidental confession of something.

 

[Redivy]

Where's all this hounding? What has anyone actually done on here to affect this situation?

It's still blame shifting to people not even involved. "mob thirsty for blood, lynching, cancel culture" get a fecking grip. Both United and Greenwood themselves have told you who started this and they told you who made the decision.

Blaming everyone else is pathetic.

As soon as the athletic made those posts, the abuse sent the way of Harriet was insane on all platforms, she was getting stick with him, others giving her stick for “ruining” his career. From both sides she was coping abuse. And then you need to consider the baby.

Whilst some might say Greenwood signed up for this by pursing a career in football and accepting everything that comes with it, his baby did not, and you’ve suddenly now got two 21 year olds and their baby in an isolated environment probably without their support network and trying to navigate this media frenzy about their personal life.

You don’t need to excuse the actions of MG to also consider the consequences on his family. The likes of Crafton didn’t think twice about throwing the alleged victim and baby in the line of fire, all just for a few extra clicks.

 

[Biggins]

You have said, and I quote directly that we should have 'trust in law enforcement authorities'. Do you still stand by that, given the 1.4% figure? It seems you have tried to move the goalposts by saying all you were doing was pointing out that the public does not have enough information to deem him guilty. But that's not what you said in your original post, you said we should trust law enforcement. This is despite their record of only getting 1 out of every 75 rape allegations into a courtroom.

As for the 'legal perspective' , can you just confirm whether or not you are trained in UK law. I'm happy to admit I'm not, and so wouldn't dream of repeatedly prefacing my opinions with 'from a legal perspective', as you have.

Incidentally, I’m trained in two jurisdictions and qualified in UK. For full transparency, I’m not criminal lawyer and specialise in different field of law. However, have sufficient knowledge of the basics of criminal law and comfortable to provide an opinion that the material disclosed is simply not sufficient to conclude that MG threatened or attempted rape or assault. At the same time, we are also not able to conclude that he is innocent.

Please read the original post where I say that we should trust law enforcement authorities in terms that they looked into circumstances of the alleged acts to which we are not privy to. In no way, I’m saying that law enforcement authorities are correct at all times. Such statement would be patently incorrect.

My point remains that based on the material available it is wrong to conclude that MG attempted or threatened rape or assault and it is reckless and incorrect from legal perspective to make such statements.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

Incidentally, I’m trained in two jurisdictions and qualified in UK. For full transparency, I’m not criminal lawyer and specialise in different field of law. However, have sufficient knowledge of the basics of criminal law and comfortable to provide an opinion that the material disclosed is simply not sufficient to conclude that MG threatened or attempted rape or assault. At the same time, we are also not able to conclude that he is innocent.

Did you do the LPC or choose to go the SQE route?

England & Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland?

 

[Eric_the_Red99]

Incidentally, I’m trained in two jurisdictions and qualified in UK. For full transparency, I’m not criminal lawyer and specialise in different field of law. However, have sufficient knowledge of the basics of criminal law and comfortable to provide an opinion that the material disclosed is simply not sufficient to conclude that MG threatened or attempted rape or assault. At the same time, we are also not able to conclude that he is innocent.

Please read the original post where I say that we should trust law enforcement authorities in terms that they looked into circumstances of the alleged acts to which we are not privy to. In no way, I’m saying that law enforcement authorities are correct at all times. Such statement would be patently incorrect.

My point remains that based on the material available it is wrong to conclude that MG attempted or threatened rape or assault and it is reckless and incorrect from legal perspective to make such statements.

This is disingenuous. The issue isn’t whether there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that MG is guilty, in the eyes of the law, of the crimes he was charged with. In the eyes of the law he is innocent. You don’t need to be a lawyer to know that. The CPS dropped the case because there was little to no chance of getting a conviction without the cooperation of the complainant.

But just because he has not been convicted of a crime, doesn’t mean there can’t or shouldn’t be consequences for his actions. The vast majority of employers in the UK would have sacked MG on the spot in similar circumstances.

Your mistake is thinking that the criminal standard of proof applies to wider society, outside of a court. It doesn’t, and it shouldn’t.

 

[Garnacho's Shoelaces]

This is disingenuous. The issue isn’t whether there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that MG is guilty, in the eyes of the law, of the crimes he was charged with. In the eyes of the law he is innocent. You don’t need to be a lawyer to know that. The CPS dropped the case because there was little to no chance of getting a conviction without the cooperation of the complainant.

But just because he has not been convicted of a crime, doesn’t mean there can’t or shouldn’t be consequences for his actions. The vast majority of employers in the UK would have sacked MG on the spot in similar circumstances.

Your mistake is thinking that the criminal standard of proof applies to wider society, outside of a court. It doesn’t, and it shouldn’t.

Very well put. The binary and technical states of 'Innocent' and 'Guilty' are only relevant to a criminal court. There's a reason almost all other legal arenas adopt a balance of probabilities.

Unfortunately, people come into the MG situation with bias. Those who want to justify his return will point to the narrow, technical and irrelevant status of his 'innocent' position in the criminal proceedings. Those who want him disassociated from the club, will apply a more reasonable approach.

OJ Simpson is "innocent". Jimmy Saville was " innocent".

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

Quite frankly, I think he should have been allowed to play for us again regardless of what happened.

Let's take the absolute worst case scenario, that he did indeed say all that stuff, meant it, and did actually beat and sexually assault her. Well it's still (supposedly) in societies best interests to rehabilitate those who commit crimes and get them into employment etc. Places like Norway, Sweden that have low recidivism rates push this aspect, while places that focus more on punishments (US, UK) have much higher ones. This benefits absolutely no one, not the offender, not their future victims.

So regardless of what happened, if indeed anything happened, it's in societies best interests for this guy to get back to work and get his career back on track. If you're never allowed to come back and be a normal functioning member of society, even after the most serious crimes, then all that's going to be left is a criminal underclass that reoffends and reoffends and our prisons will be a revolving door.

Someone's going to say 'ah but he hasn't 'paid' for his crimes by way of a sentence so that justifies me continuing to harass him'. I don't think this stands up to scrutiny when you look at other criminal cases involving footballers. A few years ago, a guy called Ched Evans was convicted of rape, did his sentence, and was released. There were still calls to never employ him again, even after he 'served his time', and it eventually took a complete exoneration before he was able to resume his career. That's just completely bang out of order, but it does show these people who don't want him playing will NEVER want him playing, which says a lot about their attitudes to the rehabilitation of offenders.

If after you commit a crime it's fine for you to return to work but only bottom-tier work like stacking the shelves at Tesco (i.e. the 'he shouldn't be allowed a footballers life' argument), there's quite frankly no incentive for offenders not to go back to selling drugs or doing whatever they did before getting arrested. Offenders should be allowed all the opportunities of you and me and if they're particularly talented in a field like Greenwood is, yes, even to the point of being multi-millionaires. No one is willingly going to place themselves at the bottom of the economic food chain forever to satisfy the mobs requirement of extrajudicial punishment. I certainly wouldn't.

The only sensible thing at this point is to hope he gets his career back on track, has a good season, both for his own personal life and of course it'd be nice if we were able to get a decent fee for him at the end of it all.

I think a lot of people would disagree with this viewpoint on specific crimes being committed.

Also, he can function in society without being a footballer for Manchester United.

 

[JPRouve]

Why do people want to excuse his behaviour with explanations/excuses that have never been suggested by Greenwood or anyone connected to the case?

Good question. It's absolutely suspect.

 

[DRJosh]

For those who think Greenwood should have stayed and played for us, why don’t you spare a thought for him and his young family and what the public scrutiny would do to them. That child is innocent.

 

[IncyWincySpider]

He'll do it again, that's the reality. People who do that kind of thing are always repeat offenders.

The fact she was recording him suggests he had already done similar things before.

From an ethical point of view I don't want him wearing the shirt again, but even from a business point of view, he's a huge liability because he will almost certainly do the same thing at some point in the future.

 

[Widow]

He'll do it again, that's the reality. People who do that kind of thing are always repeat offenders.

Carful now

 

[Berbaclass]

The club are looking after him pretty well in Spain. That will go down well.

 

[saivet]

He'll do it again, that's the reality. People who do that kind of thing are always repeat offenders.

The fact she was recording him suggests he had already done similar things before.

From an ethical point of view I don't want him wearing the shirt again, but even from a business point of view, he's a huge liability because he will almost certainly do the same thing at some point in the future.

Whether he did those things or not, my hope, and perhaps it's naive, is that the past 18 months should be a huge wake up call to him.

 

[Red00012]

He'll do it again, that's the reality. People who do that kind of thing are always repeat offenders.

The fact she was recording him suggests he had already done similar things before.

From an ethical point of view I don't want him wearing the shirt again, but even from a business point of view, he's a huge liability because he will almost certainly do the same thing at some point in the future.

Im Pretty sure he’s learned his lesson

 

[Member 109952]

Need to find me a getafe shirt from somewhere

 

[Slops]

I think this is just 2 hot couple with weird fetish having a really toxic relationship because they're young and successful.

Mason with lots of money and reputation will always have trust issues with his partner. Mind you Mason was caught red-handed ordering call girls with Foden.

These kind of relationships do exist, and I think this is one of the case.

I'm going to criticize the poster and not the post, sorry:

You are terrible.

 

[Jam]

Need to find me a getafe shirt from somewhere

Why?

I mean it’s pretty obvious why, I just want these types to posters to be open and not hide behind vague statements.

 

[Redlambs]

Why do people want to excuse his behaviour with explanations/excuses that have never been suggested by Greenwood or anyone connected to the case?

Ultimately, we know why.

 

[ZupZup]

The more I have read… I have come down on the side that we should have stuck to our guns, kept Greenwood and taken the cue to make positive steps to help prevent things like this happening again. We should have made it clear that we were doing so to ensure that Greenwood was taking part in therapy, counselling and education on issues of domestic abuse. Also that the club were providing the victim and their family with all available support. I don’t say that as an excuse to keep him, I say it because it would have been the right thing to do following this whole saga, whether he were to stay or not.

They should push the Premier League and the PFA to provide clear guidance to clubs on what action they should take when players are accused, or charged with crimes such as domestic abuse, sexual violence, rape etc. This should be done with in collaboration with experts. Greenwood wasn’t the first, and won’t be the last. Different clubs don’t all seem to be following the same protocols when in reality, they should be. We can all say that Man Utd have handled this badly, but would anyone have faith in other clubs to handle the same situation well? I certainly wouldn’t.

As a civil society we should believe rehabilitation is possible. I think whilst pushing for the harshest punishments on Greenwood may seem like the more virtuous thing to do under the circumstances, it very likely is ignoring the wishes of the actual victim and has inevitably led to a situation where they are forced to move abroad with their baby, away from families and familiar support networks. This was the obvious outcome given the backlash, but I can’t agree that it is the best one. We can only hope that it does work out well for them and I wish the best for the victim and their child.

Just to clarify I came to this view after reading a thoughtful blog post on the matter written by a female survivor of domestic abuse. Oddly, it’s a blog post that was also read by Crafton and his following comment was “hard to disagree with anyone of that”.

 

[SirScholes]

Great post. I'm not sure why rehab etc is not talked about and considered more in the discussions related to MG.

awful post, smack your lass about and still have the privilege to play for one of the biggest sporting franchises in the world, no thank you

 

[Redlambs]

The more I have read… I have come down on the side that we should have stuck to our guns, kept Greenwood and taken the cue to make positive steps to help prevent things like this happening again. We should have made it clear that we were doing so to ensure that Greenwood was taking part in therapy, counselling and education on issues of domestic abuse. Also that the club were providing the victim and their family with all available support. I don’t say that as an excuse to keep him, I say it because it would have been the right thing to do following this whole saga, whether he were to stay or not.

They should push the Premier League and the PFA to provide clear guidance to clubs on what action they should take when players are accused, or charged with crimes such as domestic abuse, sexual violence, rape etc. This should be done with in collaboration with experts. Greenwood wasn’t the first, and won’t be the last. Different clubs don’t all seem to be following the same protocols when in reality, they should be. We can all say that Man Utd have handled this badly, but would anyone have faith in other clubs to handle the same situation well? I certainly wouldn’t.

As a civil society we should believe rehabilitation is possible. I think whilst pushing for the harshest punishments on Greenwood may seem like the more virtuous thing to do under the circumstances, it very likely is ignoring the wishes of the actual victim and has inevitably led to a situation where they are forced to move abroad with their baby, away from families and familiar support networks. This was the obvious outcome given the backlash, but I can’t agree that it is the best one. We can only hope that it does work out well for them and I wish the best for the victim and their child.

Just to clarify I came to this view after reading a thoughtful blog post on the matter written by a female survivor of domestic abuse. Oddly, it’s a blog post that was also read by Crafton and his following comment was “hard to disagree with anyone of that”.

This post suggests Greenwood is guilty of DV, attempted rape and coercion.

Both he and the club have been very careful to say he's not guilty of "the charges".

So it was never going to happen how you want it to. And to clarify I'm not suggesting an opinion on what you wrote about that part, I'm simply saying it could never have happened that way.

Also, if he is guilty, that destroys the notion of a support network that includes family, no? Considering the things her dad was saying and the mother speaking on her behalf pretty much said "no comment" to United on it. I guess I'm not convinced that an environment he has been in all his life that lead to this point, lead to him getting away with it and now to give up his career at United to hide the truth is an ideal one.

I think we are all very mixed up in what to think for the best, but people aren't thinking logically and what they want with this situation.

Just saying "I want what's best for them", and this isn't specifically aimed at you here a number of people have said the same, then suggesting they go about their business in the same environment around the same people isn't always the right thing. Fact is, it's a huge ongoing problem knowing what to do in these situations, any support group would tell you that, but I'm personally very wary of how the club have handled this and how her own father and especially the GMP have behaved too.

 

[Hernandez - BFA]

People are entitled to be of the opinion that he should have stayed. It’s an opinion that I struggle to fully wrap my head around, but if people want to use the rationale of “being part of his rehabilitation” then so be it.

I struggle to see how he can do what he did, for the whole world to see/hear, and then be expected to carry on in a job millions of people dream of being and act as if it never happened. Cheering him for scoring goals as if should be a hero/role model to youngsters watching the game.

He managed to escape this whole thing going to court. It doesn’t mean he should escape the public viewpoint/opinions of it all. Bringing him back to the fold would have been business-suicide from a club’s standpoint - hence why the club clearly made an eleventh hour u-turn after realising the hostility it would bring to the club.

I really do worry that he starts banging then in at Getafe, which will bring the weekly bump of this thread with more and more people starting to turn a blind eye to his past and be open to seeing him in our shirt again.

For a lot of people, football is a huge part of our lives. It certainly is for me as it’s a source of joy and passion. But we can’t forget the ethics of this. If he was a player with half the talent, I bet the whole forum would have told him to do one the second all this unfolded. It’s atrocious how people feel he should have stayed simply because before all this, he had world class ability. It shows that people are putting their love of watching United ahead of morals.

 

[ZupZup]

This post suggests Greenwood is guilty of DV, attempted rape and coercion.

I don’t say he is guilty in my post at all. Whatever assumptions you want to make are your own.

I believe there is a very good argument that in a situation such as this, counselling and support would be very beneficial whether guilt has been established or not. There are initiatives and schemes for early intervention on domestic abuse that are used by various police forces in this country already that have had excellent results.

My opinion would be that it’s better to err on the side of caution. Regardless, education and counselling is likely to be beneficial.

 

[Baxquux]

Despite all the protestations, no-one here has evidenced why judging him to be guilty of the charges is 'reasonable'. Rape is a serious crime, he's been accused of rape, hence we must treat him as if he was guilty in order to demonstrate that we treat rape seriously, even if two investigations have indicated that the evidence as a whole points in his favour? Because behind the rhetoric flourishes or protestations, this is essentially the 'logic' being laid out. The fact is, none of us know, and to claim that we do - and to make claims for what the club or sport ought to do on the back of an dismissed allegation being taken as fact - is incredibly deceptive. Again, not a great basis for making claims about your right to pass judgement.

People state that his partner returning to him is inconclusive - indeed it it is. But so is the evidence pointing towards his guilt. Do you think the CPS frivolously dismissed this case, in the present climate and given the initially available audio-visual evidence, without legitimate grounds, even if this withdrawal can never meet some external standard for proving unequivocal innocence. If people are going to argue about this dismissal, then they at least need to acknowledge this was down to new evidence rather than simply a witness withdrawing.

Witnesses can be compelled to testify, at risk of being deemed in contempt of court, even if they don't want to. If it's in the 'public interest' then the PS will go ahead with a case even with a hostile or uncooperative witness: sure actual trained lawyers can confirm this . Omission of facts really doesn't testify to a commitment to scrupulousness or virtuousness. And if the absence of proof for his guilt 'exists', then he can only be judged according to established facts, in which case you're looking at training ground behaviour and personal ethics in his relationship.

The latter are things he's apologized for: if we are still to take those corroborated incidents as reasons for de facto exclusion from the sport then it becomes a conversation about thresholds of guilt as well as contrition, one which becomes less clear-cut, particularly given precedent. The sport has in very recent history brought back in people actually convicted of bodily assault or causing death by dangerous driving or a whole variety of offences (blackmail etc), and playing. A person's career can't be randomly made subject to social media's distortion of the ability to re-evaluate your perspective on facts or pre-rational instinctive responses to decontextualised audio. How those have been decontextualised, we can't be certain, although the former claimant has made informal statements about the images. For all of us, the rest is speculation. Outrage has its place as a motivating factor towards action but it can't be the guiding principle of society without seeing the latter descend into complete anarchy.

Whether he's innocent or guilty, it's irrelevant because none of us can know that. But lots of people, in lots of different ways, are essentially inverting the principle by which society generally operates when it functions properly (as well as by which the law formally operates ) which is assumption of innocence until conclusively proven guilty. Why? I'm sure there are many reasons - genuine personal experience; concern about ongoing misogyny; wanting a cause; some reasons are better intentioned, others more cynical. But at their worst these condemnations are horribly bad faith arguments which are actively defamatory, although obviously MG couldn't bring a case against tens of thousands of social media posters. I don't care about him returning to play for us; it's having to sign up to this caricature of justice and signing up to a falsehood about standards of proof and the putative ethical response of the basis of facts that haven't been proven etc.

I absolutely agree that football, despite all its cynicism and money -driveness, does have certain societal responsibilities, with clubs as representatives of communities. Lots of things have perverted that (having parasites like the Glazers be allowed to run things is one) and we deserve different ownership models across the sport,... but we can't just take or sublimate that frustration and create scapegoats out of players and attempt to wreck people's lives on the basis of that and call it 'doing what's right'...

 

[Woodenlung]

A lot of posters don't actually care about the fact he beat up his girlfriend and threatened to rape her. They don't care about his child either. What they care about is he could kick a ball around the pitch to a decent level.

It's perverted in the extreme.

 

[Redlambs]

I don’t say he is guilty in my post at all. Whatever assumptions you want to make are your own.

I believe there is a very good argument that in a situation such as this, counselling and support would be very beneficial whether guilt has been established or not. There are initiatives and schemes for early intervention on domestic abuse that are used by various police forces in this country already that have had excellent results.

My opinion would be that it’s better to err on the side of caution. Regardless, education and counselling is likely to be beneficial.

So he's not guilty, but you still think the club should have him "taking part in therapy, counselling and education on issues of domestic abuse". Now don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you say, but you surely see the fallacy there right?

As I said, absolutely no way could that ever have happened. This is exactly why the club and Greenwood have said he's not guilty of those charges and yet are risking a career and all that money rather than simply say why. People seem to be forgetting that whilst blaming "the mob" or Riley or journalists or odious mps...this could all be stopped, and yet very few seem to be understanding why it's likely not been.


Finally, I'm not sure "erring on the side of caution" when someone is charged with such serious charges after very public evidence was released, broke bail twice to potentially witness tamper and coerce more, and then admitted to "mistakes" that lead to all this is the right way to go about it. Assuming guilt or innocence are things we should really do, but we can look at the circumstances we do know. And what we do know boils down to either he is lying and guilty, or she lied about it all.

So I still fail to see how, despite correctly suggesting they need help and guidance to learn, grow and hopefully have a long happy life together with that child, there was ever a situation where staying at our club, perhaps the most looked upon club in the world, would have worked. Regardless of what you, I or anyone else think about it, one or both would have this over their heads for life and the fans and especially media would never let it lie. To me, that and staying in the same environment where this occurred seems incredibly counter-intuitive. Just because he can kick a ball better than others can, doesn't mean that comes above the humans involved. For me anyway.

 

[Drifter]

A lot of posters don't actually care about the fact he beat up his girlfriend and threatened to rape her. They don't care about his child either. What they care about is he could kick a ball around the pitch to a decent level.

It's perverted in the extreme.

That is wrong; nobody is okay with that, but it seems that his girlfriend is willing to forgive him, even having his child, which is a massive commitment.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

A lot of posters don't actually care about the fact he beat up his girlfriend and threatened to rape her. They don't care about his child either. What they care about is he could kick a ball around the pitch to a decent level.

It's perverted in the extreme.

It’s perverted to think people would care more about football than a child.

It’s also beyond odd to think you know how tonnes of people think.

 

[pratyush_utd]

For those who think Greenwood should have stayed and played for us, why don’t you spare a thought for him and his young family and what the public scrutiny would do to them. That child is innocent.

But its okay to hound them out of the country?

A lot of posters don't actually care about the fact he beat up his girlfriend and threatened to rape her. They don't care about his child either. What they care about is he could kick a ball around the pitch to a decent level.

It's perverted in the extreme.

Its not a “fact” is it? This is what people have been saying , evidence against him is circumstantial without any context. To say that audio proves he has committed the crimes that you are so boldly claiming he did, is just wrong. Not sure how difficult it is to see that. Just because you claim moral superiority over other posters, it doesn’t change the fact that at this moment everyone is judging Greenwood over 10 seconds of outburst ( extremely violent though). He could be suffering from severe mental issue for all we know. Right now only fact is that most of us are clueless about the situation and some poster would actually prefer not to label him.

He has gone back with his partner and have a kid. Obviously for PR reason he cant make it here but its wrong to wish he just disappear and not allowed another chance to build his career.

Also a lot of people have pointed out that this campaign against him is also hurting his partner and the kid. So yeah its not as black and white that you claim it is.