Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

At 19, you should know what a court order means, and if you break that order, you should be punished, whether you're 19 or 90, a pauper or a prince, a John Doe or a Donald Trump.

Absolutely, I wouldn’t for a second disagree. I’m just arguing that I don’t think the majority of 19 yr olds are remotely “adult/grown up”.

Of everything, I think the bolded above is probably true, but more that she relented, so the sex itself wasn't non-consensual, but the but the *ahem* 'foreplay' was emotionally abusive.

That's the only thing I could imagine would fit with the United statement. Then her complaint of actual rape or sexual assault would have been for a different incedent, with the audio as evidence only of behavior, not the alleged crime, which would also fit to explain why she rexorded it in the first place. That would also mean that, on its own, the tape could not be evidence of the crime on its own.

I think it’s absolutely fine to say we don’t and likely never will know the darkness of it unless he’s 100% guilty and repeats the offensives leading her to eventually speak out again.

I think it’s extremely likely they had sex after the audio as it’s the only logical explanation as to why they aren’t releasing it to the public domain, and that Arnold/United’s investigation heard enough to believe the sex part was consensual.

But if we’re all honest, whether it was her relenting, something darker, or something lighter… we simply don’t have enough information.

 

[sepulturite]

Because it sounds incredibly childish.

It really doesn't.

 

[Judas]

Me either. I stopped listening to Michael Jackson and R. Kelly, despite them writing and recording two of my favourite ever songs. I don't eat at Gregg's anymore, even though I used to love a Gregg's sausage roll, and I will not support a team that plays Greenwood.

What’s Greggs done?

 

[Ole's screen]

The best way to handle it would've been him going to prison after the first time he did it, regardless of my mums feelings. That way he wouldn't have been able to do it again, and again, and again.

Nobody is saying that the victims of crimes can't forgive but that shouldn't really be relevant when it comes to punishment, prosecution or even public opinion, especially when it comes to domestic violence.

You either did the crime or you didn't. What the victim thinks after the event doesn't change that. If someone rapes or abuses a very forgiving person, it doesn't make their crime any less awful, not one iota.

I agree with you. But what happens in the scenario like MG? Where the evidence isn’t enough to charge and then imprison. That’s the question here isn’t it? I doubt had MG been imprisoned anyone here would be saying anything other thburn him from all books and never speak his name again.

The bar for legally proving something happened is different, eg OJ, Michael Jackson etc...People might not be convicted or something but their apparent guilt (rightly or wrongly) will be held against them. It's always been thus, it's just probably just a bit more shouty in the age of social media.

It’s not just a bit more shouty though and that’s the whole problem. It’s a lot more shouty. And more permanent. Social has exponentially amplified the dangers of mob justice. While I have no problem with people calling him a POS I think that if he is being allowed to play football it’s a bit unfair to kick him, his partner and their new born baby out of their hometown into a different country when the charges have been dropped.

Dude, I'm a child sex abuse survivor and have spoken a lot about my perspective on this matter, so kindly, go feck your post


And for people talking about it being strange a DV survivor going back to their abuser, look up Stockholm Syndrome

I agree SS is a real thing. That’s why I think you have to deal with that factor legally and not just in public opinion. That’s why I brought up the possibility that maybe we shouldn’t allow DV reporters to get back with their partners legally without some psychological intervention to ensure SS is not at play here or else you’re setting up a scenario where if DV is reported and not charged - the only available recourse is mob justice where any accusation is basically a guilty verdict in public’s eye.

 

[duffer]

I agree with you. But what happens in the scenario like MG? Where the evidence isn’t enough to charge and then imprison. That’s the question here isn’t it? I doubt had MG been imprisoned anyone here would be saying anything other thburn him from all books and never speak his name again.

What happens? He gets to play football, earn millions of £s, live with his partner & kid and hopefully they all lead a long and happy life.

Everyone else gets to think what they want based on what they have seen and heard.

 

[fergies coat]

Me either. I stopped listening to Michael Jackson and R. Kelly, despite them writing and recording two of my favourite ever songs. I don't eat at Gregg's anymore, even though I used to love a Gregg's sausage roll, and I will not support a team that plays Greenwood.

I never watch the BBC anymore, and Will Smith and Kevin Spacey movies, and I'm going to stop using my apple phone. I'll start posting on redcafe by pigeon.

 

[Globule]

I agree with you. But what happens in the scenario like MG? Where the evidence isn’t enough to charge and then imprison. That’s the question here isn’t it? I doubt had MG been imprisoned anyone here would be saying anything other thburn him from all books and never speak his name again.




It’s not just a bit more shouty though and that’s the whole problem. It’s a lot more shouty. And more permanent. Social has exponentially amplified the dangers of mob justice. While I have no problem with people calling him a POS I think that if he is being allowed to play football it’s a bit unfair to kick him, his partner and their new born baby out of their hometown into a different country when the charges have been dropped.




I agree SS is a real thing. That’s why I think you have to deal with that factor legally and not just in public opinion. That’s why I brought up the possibility that maybe we shouldn’t allow DV reporters to get back with their partners legally without some psychological intervention to ensure SS is not at play here or else you’re setting up a scenario where if DV is reported and not charged - the only available recourse is mob justice where any accusation is basically a guilty verdict in public’s eye.

Preventing domestic abuse reporters from getting back with their partners sound good in theory, but it would likely lead to more people second guessing whether to report in the first place.

 

[flameinthesun]

Whilst you have to take into account wider statistics, conviction rates, etc, as well as understandably personal anecdotes in relation to DV, there comes a point where you also have to focus on the case itself. In this case specifically everybody seems to be aligned in terms of the club, the 2 families and the alleged victim. Definitely from a statistics perspective a lot of vicitims go back to their abusers. At the same time how many of those cases involve both sides of the familes seemingly approving as well as the alleged abuser's workplace investigating and feeling comfortable in saying he didnt do what he was accused of (of course there will be outliers).

Does that provide an explanation for the images, recordings etc, no, does it mean he's innocent or guilty, no. However, if all parties involved in this feel comfortable with the outcome as outlined in United's response, and that comfortableness clearly comes from a more informed place, then people should accept that. Saying Mason isn't guilty and that as such based on the investigation etc that he should be allowed to continue his career at united does not equal saying we support domestic abusers. Its not a black and white issue, which was clear from the very beginning.

 

[Ish]

How about a simple rule of thumb: you’re not allowed to be more outraged than the victim. How’s that for size?

I mean as a general rule that’s pretty silly though, isn’t it? There are tons and tons of examples of where society/others should step in to protect the rights of others. In some cases, victims aren’t even aware that they are being wronged or abused by those more powerful.

Not applying that to this specific case but that would be a disastrous rule for society to follow.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Are they?!

Yes. Due to the following:

UNITED KINGDOM — The United Kingdom’s Commons Justice Committee reported that 18 to 25-year-old offenders should be kept out of adult prisons because their brains are still developing.

The BBC reported that due to brain development, which occurs until age 25, the age group has the greatest potential to not offend again.

Although the government said “significant efforts” have been made to prevent juvenile offenders, the screening to identify what help is needed needs to improve.

The report said that a person’s "temperance - the ability to evaluate the consequences of actions and to limit impulsiveness and risk-taking" is still developing until age 25.

The bolded is why I don’t think anyone should be pretending a 19 year is an “adult” in anything but a legal term.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility

I agree there’s a lot in the loan that is about “protecting his value”, and the January break-clause in the loan makes sense in that respect because we’re essentially paying him to put himself in the shop window elsewhere.

Equally, when he was being touted to Lazio, a club who could actually afford his wages, the talk was of a free transfer. However he’s ended up moving to a club that couldn’t afford to pay even half of his wages realistically. I’m not naive enough to believe that if he goes away and scores 10+ goals this side of Christmas that we’ll recall him in January and still offer him to clubs for free, but I do think the club recognises the strength of feeling on the matter and would look to sell him rather than reintegrate him and by extension, recoup some of the money they’ve been paying him to sit at home.

My personal view is there is too much water under the bridge at this stage to bring him back into the team whatever happens, and as such he’s now essentially a tool that can enable a good chunk of spending next summer - academy prospect so full profit in FFPs eyes obviously.

Don’t think there’s any chance of him coming back personally, just look at the difference in reactions of the media, politicians & public to his Getafe move in comparison to his possible United return.
United will be hoping he smashes it in Spain and that once the World is used to seeing him on a football pitch again, a couple of bigger overseas clubs will bid 50+ m for him next Summer.

 

[Ole's screen]

What happens? He gets to play football, earn millions of £s, live with his partner & kid and hopefully they all lead a long and happy life.

Everyone else gets to think what they want based on what they have seen and heard.

But he has basically been run out of his hometown. His partner and child are also basically being “banished” from their hometown. That just doesn’t seem fair to me. We can’t just say “oh well he’ll still make money so we can just forget about him and for the sake of our conscience he will not be allowed to play for United again”. Or I guess we can but it doesn’t sit right with me for some reason.

Of course all of this is clouded by the fact that he is potentially a 100+ million pound striker that we are being forced to give up for peanuts, at a time when good strikers are very scarce. And I’ll be lying if I say I would have the same fervour in defending Antony for instance.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

What’s Greggs done?

"The heir to the Greggs bakery chain has been convicted of a string of sex offences against boys.

Colin Gregg, 75, from Gosforth, Newcastle, had denied indecently assaulting four boys while working as a teacher, beginning in 1963.

A jury at Leeds Crown Court found him guilty after a trial lasting almost a month. He was told jail was inevitable"- BBC - 3/3/17

That’s why I think you have to deal with that factor legally and not just in public opinion. That’s why I brought up the possibility that maybe we shouldn’t allow DV reporters to get back with their partners legally without some psychological intervention to ensure SS is not at play here or else you’re setting up a scenario where if DV is reported and not charged - the only available recourse is mob justice where any accusation is basically a guilty verdict in public’s eye.

But I'm talking about my opinion, other people are talking about their opinion. Public opinion is not a stand alone thing, it's all the personal opinions added together. It doesn't need guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I never watch the BBC anymore, and Will Smith and Kevin Spacey movies, and I'm going to stop using my apple phone. I'll start posting on redcafe by pigeon.

Knock yourself out, but I think your post is bellend

 

[Ole's screen]

"The heir to the Greggs bakery chain has been convicted of a string of sex offences against boys.

Colin Gregg, 75, from Gosforth, Newcastle, had denied indecently assaulting four boys while working as a teacher, beginning in 1963.

A jury at Leeds Crown Court found him guilty after a trial lasting almost a month. He was told jail was inevitable"- BBC - 3/3/17


But I'm talking about my opinion, other people are talking about their opinion. Public opinion is not a stand alone thing, it's all the personal opinions added together. It doesn't need guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Knock yourself out, but I think your post is bellend

When that public opinion is causing him to not be able to work at a place his employer has found him to not be guilty through an internal investigation, I think it reaches too far. You’re welcome to think whatever, but people don’t just stop there do they? They cause public pressure through the social media mob, then opportunists get involved, politicians get in to score political points and all truth is lost in this outrage frenzy.

 

[duffer]

But he has basically been run out of his hometown. His partner and child are also basically being “banished” from their hometown. That just doesn’t seem fair to me. We can’t just say “oh well he’ll still make money so we can just forget about him and for the sake of our conscience he will not be allowed to play for United again”. Or I guess we can but it doesn’t sit right with me for some reason.

Of course all of this is clouded by the fact that he is potentially a 100+ million pound striker that we are being forced to give up for peanuts, at a time when good strikers are very scarce. And I’ll be lying if I say I would have the same fervour in defending Antony for instance.

"Banished"? Have a word!

The only thing he can't do is play for Man United and that was a decision made by Manchester United who apparently know more about what happened than me or you.

He could stay in Manchester picking up £70K a week (or whatever he's on) and be the worlds best dad and boyfriend for the next few years if he wanted to.

 

[fergies coat]

"The heir to the Greggs bakery chain has been convicted of a string of sex offences against boys.

Colin Gregg, 75, from Gosforth, Newcastle, had denied indecently assaulting four boys while working as a teacher, beginning in 1963.

A jury at Leeds Crown Court found him guilty after a trial lasting almost a month. He was told jail was inevitable"- BBC - 3/3/17


But I'm talking about my opinion, other people are talking about their opinion. Public opinion is not a stand alone thing, it's all the personal opinions added together. It doesn't need guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Knock yourself out, but I think your post is bellend

No it really isn't. Newsflash a lot of people in the public eye are cnuts, so you choosing what you watch and what you wont watch Is hypocrisy.

As with Mason Greenwood, yes it doesn't look good, but nobody really knows what happened that night and probably never will, but if you want to believe he's guilty without proper procedures that's your problem.

 

[Ole's screen]

"Banished"? Have a word!

The only thing he can't do is play for Man United and that was a decision made by Manchester United who apparently know more about what happened than me or you.

He could stay in Manchester picking up £70K a week (or whatever he's on) and be the worlds best dad and boyfriend for the next few years if he wanted to.

It wasn’t a decision made by Man United though. Man United decided to bring him back. The Man United that apparently know more about his than me and you by your own admission.

The decision was made by the frothing social media mob that basically decided to abandon all sense of proportion and guilt evaluation by publicly dragging United’s name as being DV apologists and then some politicians getting involved. Why did they not respect that United knew more than them?

 

[Peter van der Gea]

When that public opinion is causing him to not be able to work at a place his employer has found him to not be guilty through an internal investigation, I think it reaches too far. You’re welcome to think whatever, but people don’t just stop there do they? They cause public pressure through the social media mob, then opportunists get involved, politicians get in to score political points and all truth is lost in this outrage frenzy.

As I mentioned before, public opinion is just the amalgamation of individual opinion, it's not it's own thing. If you don't like public opinion, convert the individuals.

And feck politicians, they would say the sky is green if public opinion was leaning that way.

No it really isn't. Newsflash a lot of people in the public eye are cnuts, so you choosing what you watch and what you wont watch Is hypocrisy.

As with Mason Greenwood, yes it doesn't look good, but nobody really knows what happened that night and probably never will, but if you want to believe he's guilty without proper procedures that's your problem.

I have my own personal experiences and access to evidence that define the way I percieve things. When things cross my personal red lines, I cut them out of my life.

I don't believe you would cut any those of those individuals /organizations out of your life. I don't think that you would have the will power

 

[duffer]

It wasn’t a decision made by Man United though. Man United decided to bring him back. The Man United that apparently know more about his than me and you by your own admission.

The decision was made by the frothing social media mob that basically decided to abandon all sense of proportion and guilt evaluation by publicly dragging United’s name as being DV apologists and then some politicians getting involved. Why did they not respect that United knew more than them?

A definative club statement saying "He didn't do it. The police dropped the charges we've investigated and we're happy with what we found. He didn't didn't hit her, hurt her or abuse her. We back him completely and welcome him back into the side." was all it would've taken.

You can make your own mind up on why the club took so long and eventually decided not to back him. If you think it's people on Twitter then ok. I personally don't think you would write off that much money/talent if you thought someone was innocent.

 

[I_am_zlatan]

It wasn’t a decision made by Man United though. Man United decided to bring him back. The Man United that apparently know more about his than me and you by your own admission.

The decision was made by the frothing social media mob that basically decided to abandon all sense of proportion and guilt evaluation by publicly dragging United’s name as being DV apologists and then some politicians getting involved. Why did they not respect that United knew more than them?

United are clearly trying to protect the value of their 'asset', the club statement and what was reported by Crafton shows that.

No one has a god given right to play football, he's not been banished from society, he can go work other numerous jobs which don't involve having thousands of people cheering you on. I'm glad the 'social media mob' have an influence, I'd rather the club take that into account as I'd be more comfortable supporting a team which isn't full of potential rapists or players who go home and beat the shit out of their partners.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

A definative club statement saying "He didn't do it. The police dropped the charges we've investigated and we're happy with what we found. He didn't didn't hit her, hurt her or abuse her. We back him completely and welcome him back into the side." was all it would've taken.

You can make your own mind up on why the club took so long and eventually decided not to back him. If you think it's people on Twitter then ok. I personally don't think you would write off that much money/talent if you thought someone was innocent.

He didn't do the initial charges he was arrested for

Edit @Fingeredmouse ,i replied above

 

[macheda14]

Neither is acquittal by the court. All that says is that the evidence was not enough to declare him guilty. That’s no better than evidence wasn’t enough to charge him. In fact your scenario is even worse since the CPS clearly feels the evidence is enough to charge and go to trial which means they are at least convinced of guilt.

“then realise there is no opportunity to win a conviction so could drop the charges.”
So you mean that CPS think a court will acquit you right? How’s that worse than, CPS think there’s enough evidence to convict and then the court doesn’t?


The order of innocent to guilty in law goes as follows:
1. Completely innocent - no arrest no charge
2. Arrest but no charge
3. Arrest and charge then charges dropped (where MG is)
4. Arrest, charge, trial, aquittal (what you consider a better scenario to above which I say is just wrong)
5. Guilty verdict

Once you’ve been arrested, there is no completely “declared innocent” anymore. Every step that goes forward means more people in the system think you’re guilty and are willing to proceed further. The earlier the process stops due to lack of evidence, the higher the chance of being actually innocent (but never being “declared” innocent). This line of “it’s better to be charged and brought to trial than charges being dropped” is completely batshit.

Do you know why so few rape cases go to court? Because for many the only evidence is witness testimony. It amounts to he said she said. Charges are usually dropped because the CPS decide there isn’t enough evidence to convict. It is nigh on impossible to win a case when the only evidence you have is one persons word against the other.

Are you saying in the hundreds of unconvicted rape cases, the cases that don’t even go to court, they didn’t happen? All of those men are ‘declared innocent’ because the only evidence is the testimony from the witness? You said “Charges being dropped is as close to “declared innocent” as the legal system gets.”

Going to court and being acquitted in the face of evidence is as close as the legal system gets to declaring innocence. Even then in the case of sexual assault the water is murky.

Charges being dropped just means the CPS didn’t have enough evidence. Not the accused has practically been ‘declared innocent’

 

[Ole's screen]

A definative club statement saying "He didn't do it. The police dropped the charges we've investigated and we're happy with what we found. He didn't didn't hit her, hurt her or abuse her. We back him completely and welcome him back into the side." was all it would've taken.

You can make your own mind up on why the club took so long and eventually decided not to back him. If you think it's people on Twitter then ok. I personally don't think you would write off that much money/talent if you thought someone was innocent.

"Based on the evidence available to us, we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged."

Direct quote from United's statement which its basically what you asked them to do but would never accept as sufficient.

"You can make your own mind up on why the club took so long and eventually decided not to back him. If you think it's people on Twitter then ok. I personally don't think you would write off that much money/talent if you thought someone was innocent."

Now you're just lying. The club did decide to back him but had to change course because of media and public pressure - any attempts to deny this is straight up misinformation and lies. United (especial at the admin level) aren't exactly known to stick to their guns in response to public pressure (see: how quickly they abandoned the Super League). Further, it's super disingenuous to label that pressure as "just twitter". It was in all the newspapers, TV, we had media personalities, oppositions fans, politicians, etc. all basically calling United DV apologists for standing with Greenwood.

This is an interesting discussion about how we as a society deal with such situations legally and in the public square, but it can't be had with people blatantly willing to lie and misrepresent the reality of the facts - which you are doing now so I'm not gonna respond further to you. Have a good day.

 

[Red71]

Stop it. He's not innocence

The tape proven it.. he's lucky he grovel back to his GF during investigation and impregnated his GF and made her drop the case.

And he's not jailed, he's not even getting a fine, the club just feel repuged by his attidue just as so many fans and just dont want to see him in our jersey.

He's still free and hell he even still receiving salary

“The tape has proven it” “He’s not innocent”.

Don’t pass off your opinion as fact…

I mean, do you honestly listen to that audio and conclude he's not guilty of some sort of domestic abuse? I find that very difficult.

The presumption of innocence is part of legal mechanisms to protect people who are being accused of a crime, that's it, it's not an absolute truth that people have to follow in random conversation.

Regardless of what courts say, I'm sure you think some politicians are guilty of some wrongdoing or even crimes and you'll keep that idea regardless of what the justice system says. That's because the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to citizen's opinions.

Honestly…? I’ve hear the recording of course and it sounds awful but no, I haven’t concluded anything, for the various reasons many others in here have explained far more eloquently than I could.

I haven’t come into this thread to build a defense for Greenwood either. I do not know all of the facts. I’ve just seen a debate which, for the most part, is respectful with plenty of nuanced, well argued positions. I wanted to try to explore the concept of guilty/not guilty/innocent and how it should be applied to Greenwood but there are those who refuse to even consider it.

You say that “the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to citizen's opinions” but it seems to me that presumption of guilt does.

My boys were taught from a very early age never to raise a hand to a woman, regardless of any provocation, and have also had my example to follow. I trust them with all of my heart. I would be devastated if an audio came out like that but even more so that the social media police then judged them as guilty until proven innocent. If additional evidence was produced to either completely clear them or cast an entirely different light on the matter, I would be particularly aggrieved to have the same people still calling them guilty. I say this purely for perspective.

Lastly, I have mostly blanket disdain for politicians. At best, I think that most of them are liars. You’ve brought them up, mentioned a man not paying his taxes and somebody else mentioned people speeding. I am NOT suggesting you are equating any of them with Greenwood but in general terms, those are pretty low thresholds for innocence and if applied as such, how many of us can say we’re completely innocent…?

 

[sect2k]

Do you know why so few rape cases go to court? Because for many the only evidence is witness testimony. It amounts to he said she said. Charges are usually dropped because the CPS decide there isn’t enough evidence to convict. It is nigh on impossible to win a case when the only evidence you have is one persons word against the other.

Are you saying in the hundreds of unconvicted rape cases, the cases that don’t even go to court, they didn’t happen? All of those men are ‘declared innocent’ because the only evidence is the testimony from the witness? You said “Charges being dropped is as close to “declared innocent” as the legal system gets.”

Going to court and being acquitted in the face of evidence is as close as the legal system gets to declaring innocence. Even then in the case of sexual assault the water is murky.

Charges being dropped just means the CPS didn’t have enough evidence. Not the accused has practically been ‘declared innocent’

No one is ever declared innocent. The verdict of "not guilty" does not mean that someone is innocent, it just means there was not enough evidence to convict. People who are not innocent, can be found not guilty and vice versa. Presumption of innocence just means that without strong evidence that hold up in court, people are not automatically presumed to be guilty and the burden of proof is on the accuser.

In this specific case, the charges were dropped because the victim recanted the statement and new material came into light, which made the CSP (the accuser) realize there wasn't really a case to be made.

 

[dumbo]

The decision was made by the frothing social media mob that basically decided to abandon all sense of proportion and guilt evaluation by publicly dragging United’s name as being DV apologists and then some politicians getting involved. Why did they not respect that United knew more than them?

These are extremely violent images and audio of abuse we are talking about here. Material that has yet to be explained, and their existence has never been denied. Many feel that as a community club and as a player of a community club, United and Greenwood have a responsibility to properly address this material. Many feel they didn't.

Women and young girls watch football, play football, support club football. Women's safety should be one of the very top priorities for the game of football. This case and others in the news right now at club and international level suggests that it isn't being taken seriously enough.

Dismissing criticism and justified anger in this cheap way is fecking crap.

 

[duffer]

"Based on the evidence available to us, we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged."

Direct quote from United's statement which its basically what you asked them to do but would never accept as sufficient.

I'm not asking them to do anything. Just giving an example of how you could back an innocent person.

Also , "He didn't hit her, hurt her, didn't abuse her" is nowhere near "he didn't commit the offences he was originally charged with".

 

[Ole's screen]

Do you know why so few rape cases go to court? Because for many the only evidence is witness testimony. It amounts to he said she said. Charges are usually dropped because the CPS decide there isn’t enough evidence to convict. It is nigh on impossible to win a case when the only evidence you have is one persons word against the other.

Are you saying in the hundreds of unconvicted rape cases, the cases that don’t even go to court, they didn’t happen? All of those men are ‘declared innocent’ because the only evidence is the testimony from the witness? You said “Charges being dropped is as close to “declared innocent” as the legal system gets.”

Going to court and being acquitted in the face of evidence is as close as the legal system gets to declaring innocence. Even then in the case of sexual assault the water is murky.

Charges being dropped just means the CPS didn’t have enough evidence. Not the accused has practically been ‘declared innocent’

I didn't say they are declared innocent - I clearly said nobody is ever declared innocent.

Like you said a minority of all SA cases are brought to trial. That means that the cases brought to trial have much more evidence for sexual assault. Ergo, the cases not brought to trial have lesser evidence. Now if the court acquits, it means that even the evidence the CPS decided to act on is insufficient. So why is that considered closer to "declared innocent" than the rest where even the CPS doesn't believe there is enough evidence? CPS dropping charges because they think he'll be acquitted is basically a default acquittal by the court.

Had the CPS decided to bring the case without evidence and it gets thrown out of court - that somehow does more to prove Greenwood's innocence? How does that make sense?

"Are you saying in the hundreds of unconvicted rape cases, the cases that don’t even go to court, they didn’t happen?"
No. And neither can you say that about cases where the court acquits someone.

"Going to court and being acquitted in the face of evidence is as close as the legal system gets to declaring innocence. Even then in the case of sexual assault the water is murky."
The court acquits because of lack of evidence of guilt not because of evidence of innocence as you seem to think. The CPS decides against prosecuting when there is even lesser evidence of guilt but somehow you think that makes guilt more likely.

These are extremely violent images and audio of abuse we are talking about here. Material that has yet to be explained, and their existence has never been denied. Many feel that as a community club and as a player of a community club, United and Greenwood have a responsibility to properly address this material. Many feel they didn't.

Women and young girls watch football, play football, support club football. Women's safety should be one of the very top priorities for the game of football. This case and others in the news right now at club and international level suggests that it isn't being taken seriously enough.

Dismissing criticism and justified anger in this cheap way is fecking crap.

I actually agree with you. However, there can be any number of reason why we're not getting the full picture. The anger is justified - and I am angry as well. If there is exculpatory evidence I wanna see it - and if there isn't then investigation wasn't necessary to begin with. And United handled the whole thing with the sort of competence we've come to expect from United over the last decade.

But I don't see how stopping him from playing for United specifically helps in all this. Either he's too deplorable to be allowed to play football at all, or he's not. This middle ground of "yeah we think there's more evidence to show he's not guilty of the charges but we can't share it. But we want to make an example of him to avoid negative PR" isn't helping anyone - not Greenwood, and not any women or potential DV victims in the future. All it does is protect United from some short term negative press.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Jesus.

When will people realise that personal opinion is not decided by beyond reasonable doubt. Humans are not Law Courts.

We cannot jail someone, ergo we need less evidence to determine guilt. Even Civil Courts need at +50% opinion.

As an individual, if the crime is so extreme, understanding that most of the information is redacted from you, but on the balance of probabilities, 40%, 30% might be enough for you not to want a player to play for us.

Then, when you amalgamate all of those individual opinions, you get public opinion.

Public opinion is not what a fecking TV presenter thinks, but a TV presenters allowed to have an opinion.

 

[MackRobinson]

I don't believe you would cut any those of those individuals /organizations out of your life. I don't think that you would have the will power

Give it a rest. You didn't have to add this self-righteous nonsense to make your point.

 

[Rood]

A definative club statement saying "He didn't do it. The police dropped the charges we've investigated and we're happy with what we found. He didn't didn't hit her, hurt her or abuse her. We back him completely and welcome him back into the side." was all it would've taken.

You can make your own mind up on why the club took so long and eventually decided not to back him. If you think it's people on Twitter then ok. I personally don't think you would write off that much money/talent if you thought someone was innocent.

Your statement seems pretty close to what United said - just getting into semantics really.

I doubt it would have made any difference anyway because fans generally don't trust the club (understandable after years of mismanagement) plus there are many who will not be satisfied until they actually see/hear the evidence for themselves.

I don't think actual Twitter opinions make much difference because it's full of absolute morons, but there was a fan email campaign that went viral from there and it was undoubtedly negative publicity with articles appearing on the BBC from Riley etc that made the club change it's stance.

I think it's the right move that he went on loan in the end even it took the club far too long to make that decision.

 

[afrocentricity]

I keep popping in for some news but it's mostly ideology clashes at this point....

 

[Escobar]

I never watch the BBC anymore, and Will Smith and Kevin Spacey movies, and I'm going to stop using my apple phone. I'll start posting on redcafe by pigeon.

I stopped driving cars, using cell phones, or any product made abroad

 

[Wibble]

Exactly, we don't. And now that that has been established perhaps we can stop posting about their "kinks" and "what the both of them were into" because it's really pathetic and of no value.

Not to mention an explanation/excuse only suggested by those who seem to want to invent excuses for what happened and not something ever suggested by Greenwood himself.

 

[Wibble]

How stupid am I, I actually thought this would go away or at least die down, how wrong I was, the defending of him is IMHO shocking.
I honestly think my days watching United are numbered, because I think the club is paving the way for him to come back, does not matter if you agree with me or not, my opinions have not changed.
If he comes back I will not watch a match with him in the squad.

I always though you seemed like someone I'd like in real life.

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

I agree. It's quite depressing.

This is a rubbish post, where on here Has anyones comments justifies violence towards anyone? People have kinks and fetishes and behind closed doors is up to them.If anything I find it depressing people feel it’s ok to get the pitchforks out based on an audio clip. At the end of the day he is still with the girl, yes domestic violence is real and I in no way at all condone it, support it or like it, again love isn’t black or white. CNC is a a very problematic kink for people to get involved in, and yes we can expect more cases to come in the future.

 

[golden_blunder]

This is a rubbish post, where on here Has anyones comments justifies violence towards anyone? People have kinks and fetishes and behind closed doors is up to them.If anything I find it depressing people feel it’s ok to get the pitchforks out based on an audio clip. At the end of the day he is still with the girl, yes domestic violence is real and I in no way at all condone it, support it or like it, again love isn’t black or white. CNC is a a very problematic kink for people to get involved in, and yes we can expect more cases to come in the future.

People keep saying this like it’s relevant

 

[NZT-One]

People keep saying this like it’s relevant

But it isn't really irrelavant as well, don't you think? I mean, of course Stockholm Syndrome and all this, those things exists and they are part of most of those DV storylines but I think, it is pretty far stretch to just assume, it would be the same in this very case. I mean, it could but we can't just assume. The girl isn't some random stranger with no past, she has a family and a social circle. I am sure, they have made sure she knows the potential dangers and pitfalls.

Some arguments shouldn't just be swept off the table. They aren't really working in both directions, we have to accept their ambivalence.

I would agree though, the fact they are together now, also doesn't work as a "be all, end all" kind of thing to the discussion.

 

[dumbo]

This is a rubbish post, where on here Has anyones comments justifies violence towards anyone? People have kinks and fetishes and behind closed doors is up to them.If anything I find it depressing people feel it’s ok to get the pitchforks out based on an audio clip. At the end of the day he is still with the girl, yes domestic violence is real and I in no way at all condone it, support it or like it, again love isn’t black or white. CNC is a a very problematic kink for people to get involved in, and yes we can expect more cases to come in the future.

Please just drop the fetish angle. You've mention it in practically every post you make on the subject, others have mentioned it too. I think it's obscene and you seem obsessed by it. Either way it's out there now so you don't have to keep bringing it up. It needs no more elaboration and you certainly can't provide any. Can you please just stop it.

 

[TheReligion]

A definative club statement saying "He didn't do it. The police dropped the charges we've investigated and we're happy with what we found. He didn't didn't hit her, hurt her or abuse her. We back him completely and welcome him back into the side." was all it would've taken.

You can make your own mind up on why the club took so long and eventually decided not to back him. If you think it's people on Twitter then ok. I personally don't think you would write off that much money/talent if you thought someone was innocent.

I mean you could argue the club have very much backed him tbh. The wording of the statement does just that.

If they hadn’t he’d of been a free agent a long time ago when fact is he’s still a United player. I genuinely think they will revisit this again following loan.

 

[moses]

This is a rubbish post, where on here Has anyones comments justifies violence towards anyone? People have kinks and fetishes and behind closed doors is up to them.If anything I find it depressing people feel it’s ok to get the pitchforks out based on an audio clip. At the end of the day he is still with the girl, yes domestic violence is real and I in no way at all condone it, support it or like it, again love isn’t black or white. CNC is a a very problematic kink for people to get involved in, and yes we can expect more cases to come in the future.

Calm yourself down. What pitchforks? This imagined injury that comes from sympathy with alleged victims is surreal.

Don't get all hysterical based on your own speculation. Where did you pull the justifying accusation from? And if you must get over excited based on nothing, keep it to yourself.

Since this started the caf has banned many posters for vile misogyny and victim blaming. The threads have been among the worst the forum has seen and moderating them is a pain in the ass.

People have been called ***** and universally adored legend and a mob for having broad sympathy towards female victims of domestic and sexual abuse and I find that that depressing.