Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

[Halftrack]

Absolutely great post @BigDerek

Of course you're applauding that car crash of a post.

 

[Yorke to Cole]

What is Big Derek supposed to have done. He seems to raising some valid points and asking some very pertinent questions ?

 

[afrocentricity]

What is Big Derek supposed to have done. He seems to raising some valid points and asking some very pertinent questions ?

¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

 

[Raoul]

I was thinking about why the club took so ridiculously long to announce anything, I doubt the internal investigation took 6 months. I think the conclusion that Greenwood was not guilty, was reached by the club months ago and they were just waiting for the birth of child. There was then a timing conflict with the Women's World Cup which seemed to further delay any announcement.

Possibly they believed that once everyone saw the couple were back together with a baby that they would accept Greenwood's return. They even had a happy families Instagram reveal


Clearly they misjudged this completely as things didnt go that way at all. Hardly anyone really cared about the news about the couple or child, all the focus is still on the original audio and pics.

I agree that they will need to do something again if they are considering bringing him back. Many will not accept it until they get an explanation for that audio.

Yeah, pretty sure they deliberately slow walked the internal inquiry because they didn’t want its results to disrupt the 2nd half of last season, particularly with the cup runs and race for 4th hanging in the balance. There was further indecisiveness at seasons end, which only exacerbated things by allowing fan sentiment to simmer below the surface. Had the club been ruthlessly decisive at seasons end (fully committing to one decision or another), it would’ve largely exhausted itself over the summer and things would’ve stabilized significantly imo.

 

[NotThatSoph]

What is Big Derek supposed to have done. He seems to raising some valid points and asking some very pertinent questions ?

Can you explain to me how a woman being friends with women who have had relations with other footballers points to Mason Greenwood not doing what he sounds to be doing on that tape?

 

[Rhyme Animal]

Yeah, pretty sure they deliberately slow walked the internal inquiry because they didn’t want its results to disrupt the 2nd half of last season, particularly with the cup runs and race for 4th hanging in the balance. There was further indecisiveness at seasons end, which only exacerbated things by allowing fan sentiment to simmer below the surface. Had the club been ruthlessly decisive at seasons end (fully committing to one decision or another), it would’ve largely exhausted itself over the summer and things would’ve stabilized significantly imo.

Completely agree.

Every club essentially ends up echoing the leadership traits of its owners, and the dithering cowardice of the Glazers has trickled down and now runs through pretty much every big decision the club makes - toing and froing, flip-flopping, ‘feeling out’ decisions rather than simply making them.

Greenwood and his partner were lead on and then sent off to Spain at very short notice, while at the same time, the club made itself look weak, caving to pressure from the likes of Crafton and Riley.

It was handled woefully.

 

[sullydnl]

What is Big Derek supposed to have done. He seems to raising some valid points and asking some very pertinent questions ?

He offered a rationale for thinking Greenwood was not as guilty as he appeared, and that rationale consisted of victim blaming tropes and misconceptions about DV.

And understandably, people dislike it when someone wades into the thread expressing victim blaming tropes and misconceptions about DV, even when it's dressed up in verbose politeness.

 

[sizzling sausages]

Completely agree.

Every club essentially ends up echoing the leadership traits of its owners, and the dithering cowardice of the Glazers has trickled down and now runs through pretty much every big decision the club makes - toing and froing, flip-flopping, ‘feeling out’ decisions rather than simply making them.

Greenwood and his partner were lead on and then sent off to Spain at very short notice, while at the same time, the club made itself look weak, caving to pressure from the likes of Crafton and Riley.

It was handled woefully.

Why are you saying the club led Greenwood on and then sent him off to Spain when the statement by Arnold said it was a mutual decision between the club and Greenwood.

Aren't you one of the people who believes the club when they said they have evidence that makes them think Greenwood is innocent?

 

[Yorke to Cole]

Can you explain to me how a woman being friends with women who have had relations with other footballers points to Mason Greenwood not doing what he sounds to be doing on that tape?

Perhaps it is one piece of information that is a larger part of different pieces information? Obviously, it is not directly linked to the incident, but it is an insight into the environment people are trying to interpret.

The problem with this case is that we do not have all the information or facts, but what do have is part of a voice recording/transcript, some images and a father's statement straight after the former 2 had been released online.

I do agree that if this is a criminal investigation you need to have the full perspective in order to pass judgment.

What raises questions is the police took it upon themselves to arrest, investigate and then ask for continual bail extensions in order to carry on collating evidence.

However, what did not know was that the complainant withdrew her statement in April 2022, but yet the GMP still amongst (the bail extension requests) insisted on investigating and even then charging Greenwood during that October.

The following February they dropped the charges sighting "that it would be very difficult without the key witness and combined with new information coming to light, it would be difficult to secure a conviction."

So the question for people who are interested in the legal side of this is; why did the father release a statement that placated both his daughter and Greenwood in the immediate aftermath, "what is this new information" and If the GMP knew the key witness was not going to testify, they would have known that further enquiries and charging was a waste of time.

I always felt that although the language used in the audio by the alleged accused was disturbing, frightening etc, it was always likely to be part of wider argument that had escalated between the 2 parties. You do not just jump jnto that type of semantics without a build up of a volatile exchange.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Perhaps it is one piece of information that is a larger part of different pieces information? Obviously, it is not directly linked to the incident, but it is an insight into the environment people are trying to interpret.

Then, explain. On the tape we can hear Mason Greenwood threatening to violently rape a woman. This woman is friends with a person who has been with other footballers. How is this friendship a piece in a puzzle that points to Greenwood not threathening rape?

You're the one bigging up the "valid points" and "pertinent questions". Go on, then.

 

[Yorke to Cole]

He offered a rationale for thinking Greenwood was not as guilty as he appeared, and that rationale consisted of victim blaming tropes and misconceptions about DV.

And understandably, people dislike it when someone wades into the thread expressing victim blaming tropes and misconceptions about DV, even when it's dressed up in verbose politeness.

In terms the " backlash " that derived from the leaks taken up by the online publication. There was a phrase used by the journalist in question. He said "the statement that Manchester United put out was an attempt to seize control of the narrative." That phrase confirmed to me that it was that journalist's and the public location he works for intention to compromise Manchester United's process.

Secondly, the TV presenter who got involved via X online posted the transcript of the voice recording (that was originally made available). Above this post she wrote this is "what Greenwood said, just for context."

The word "context" relates to having a setting or backdrop that relates to a wider perspective that can be fully understood. None of which the TV presenter had full access to, in order tocast such judgement.

 

[sullydnl]

I liked the post because it was well thought out with a comprehensive summary of several different discussion points that have been ongoing in this thread. Doesn't mean I agree with every line of it but I certainly don't agree that anything there constitutes 'victim blaming'.

As I said already, picking out a few lines from a lengthy response is pointless.
I can only assume you and others didn't read past the points you disagreed with to properly digest the general opinion and conclusions being made.

Thankfully I have no experience of domestic violence whatsoever so I'm open to learning more about facts and norms, but I will point out that this is far from a textbook case due to the high profile and media scrutiny.

I know you don't agree that anything there constitutes victim blaming. That's the problem. Because his rationale for thinking Greenwood might not be guilty contained classic victim-blaming tropes (which is what I mean by textbook victim blaming), yet you don't recognise that, even after it has been pointed out by others.

The fact that those sort of arguments have formed ongoing discussion points within this thread is exactly why they should be called out. As opposed to praising/defending someone for managing to espouse several of them at once in a polite way.

I also have no idea why you're pointing us to the rest of his post as if anything within it would in some way ameliorate our problem with his core argument. We've focused in on those paragraphs because the rest of the post is irrelevant.

 

[Yorke to Cole]

Then, explain. On the tape we can hear Mason Greenwood threatening to violently rape a woman. This woman is friends with a person who has been with other footballers. How is this friendship a piece in a puzzle that points to Greenwood not threathening rape?

You're the one bigging up the "valid points" and "pertinent questions". Go on, then.

I told you. This part of a wider list that posted.

The conversation itself was part of a hostile exchange between the two parties in which very few have heard in it's entirety.

When arguments get to that level language can get violent. I know because I have witnessed extremely heated exchanges that has resulted in physical exchanges.

 

[NotThatSoph]

I told you. This part of a wider list that posted.

The conversation itself was part of a hostile exchange between the two parties in which very few have heard in it's entirety.

When arguments get to that level language can get violent. I know because I have witnessed extremely heated exchanges that has resulted in physical exchanges.

That part you're talking about is the fact that she has friends who are together with other footballers.

How does this part point to Greenwood being innocent? You're not answering. Let me be clear: I'm asking you how it shows this, and your answer is that it's on a list. Are you joking? Don't answer that, answer how it points to Greenwood being innocent.

You jumped into this, describing the point as valid and pertinent. Say something.

 

[BigDerek]

You are the guy that was explicitly mentioning the partner's social media activity and friendship group in order to re-frame the situation a few posts back. You can't be serious.

Utterly terrible.

This is a fair piece of criticism and one I take on board given the current speculation by myself in this thread. And I mean calling out my line about respecting privacy.

I haven't tried to frame any situation though.

And the comment about respecting privacy I mean is allowing Greenwood and his partner to have a say in what man utd release(d) in public statements and what they put out to the public domain. So that people such as ourselves don't draw conclusions without knowing the full picture.

Can you explain to me how a woman being friends with women who have had relations with other footballers points to Mason Greenwood not doing what he sounds to be doing on that tape?

I'd have much preferred if you just questioned the parts of my post which you disagreed with rather than insult me.

You've got to understand that we're all looking into this particular case from different perspectives.

How someone who assumes he likely committed the alleged offences reads a post is different to how someone who is undecided may read it.

Firstly let's clear up what you said. It wasn't someone who just had relations with other footballers. It's someone who was convicted of stalking footballers and behaving in a manipulative manner by claiming they were pregnant and other things.

Does this information have any relevance if Mason Greenwood is guilty of the accused acts? No.

Does this information have any relevance if some or all of the allegations against Mason Greenwood were false? Yes.

The reason it's relevant if they're false is because the company one shares is usually looked at in criminal cases. And in a scenario where one made a false allegation, i think this information would be relevant. Just like the company that Ravel Morrison or Nile Ranger share has often been referenced throughout their career.

I understand you may not agree with that and think differently and that's OK. But I hope that while you may not agree with my view that you can see the perspective in which I'm coming from.

I don't think questioning such things means I'm suddenly a domestic abuse apologist and I don't appreciate being labelled as one before you even ask me for an explanation?

I believe I may have also made reference to Greenwood inviting girls back to his hotel in Iceland. What relevance does this information have? Its relevant because it paints a picture on his behaviour and their relationship. It doesn't mean I believe everyone who has potentially cheated is a domestic abuser.

The last thing I'd like to say is that my post was quite lengthy and while you may take issue with certain points. I think it's important to consider the full post and the context in which those things were said rather than label me because you disagree.

He offered a rationale for thinking Greenwood was not as guilty as he appeared, and that rationale consisted of victim blaming tropes and misconceptions about DV.

And understandably, people dislike it when someone wades into the thread expressing victim blaming tropes and misconceptions about DV, even when it's dressed up in verbose politeness.

I donf agree with this. See my post above.

Perhaps it is one piece of information that is a larger part of different pieces information? Obviously, it is not directly linked to the incident, but it is an insight into the environment people are trying to interpret.

The problem with this case is that we do not have all the information or facts, but what do have is part of a voice recording/transcript, some images and a father's statement straight after the former 2 had been released online.

I do agree that if this is a criminal investigation you need to have the full perspective in order to pass judgment.

What raises questions is the police took it upon themselves to arrest, investigate and then ask for continual bail extensions in order to carry on collating evidence.

However, what did not know was that the complainant withdrew her statement in April 2022, but yet the GMP still amongst (the bail extension requests) insisted on investigating and even then charging Greenwood during that October.

The following February they dropped the charges sighting "that it would be very difficult without the key witness and combined with new information coming to light, it would be difficult to secure a conviction."

So the question for people who are I trested in the legal side of this is; why did the father release a statement that placated both his daughter and Greenwood in the immediate aftermath, "what is this new information" and If the GMP knew the key witness was not going to testify, they would have known that further enquiries and charging was a waste of time.

I always felt that although the language used in the audio by the alleged accused was disturbing, frightening etc, it was always likely to be part of wider argument that had escalated between the 2 parties. You do not just jump jnto that type of semantics without a build up of a volatile exchange.

Thank you for this post. You're much better at conveying your thoughts into words than myself and I think you come across much clearer too.

All very good points and food for thought.

I fully agree with your last paragraph too. Did someone say the recording was meant to be 15 minutes long? I'm not sure if this is true or not. But it raises the question about why that snippet was released and what was on the rest. Its natural to question that and doesn't mean you're a DV apologist.

Then, explain. On the tape we can hear Mason Greenwood threatening to violently rape a woman. This woman is friends with a person who has been with other footballers. How is this friendship a piece in a puzzle that points to Greenwood not threathening rape?

You're the one bigging up the "valid points" and "pertinent questions". Go on, then.

The exact thing I said NotThatSoph was:

"- The accuser shared company and was close to other girls who had relationships with PL footballers. One being Orla Sloan who was sentenced for stalking Mason Mount."

You've now made two consecutive posts misquoting me and leaving out the very important detail on Orla Sloan.

For someone that launched into a tirade of personal insults at myself accusing me of being dishonest and obtuse. I find it rather startling that you continue to misquote me to potray me badly. Are you doing it deliberately?

I'd have much preferred it if you just asked me to elaborate on what I meant in the first instance and had a discussion over it. I think considering the perspective in which I'm viewing things and given it's one small part of a much longer post, I don't think it's as bad as you make out. And by misquoting it and taking it out of the context of the whole post as well, it feels to me like you'd rather try to frame me as a DV apologist than have a discussion with me. Why?

 

[NotThatSoph]

I'd have much preferred if you just questioned the parts of my post which you disagreed with rather than insult me.

You've got to understand that we're all looking into this particular case from different perspectives.

How someone who assumes he likely committed the alleged offences reads a post is different to how someone who is undecided may read it.

Firstly let's clear up what you said. It wasn't someone who just had relations with other footballers. It's someone who was convicted of stalking footballers and behaving in a manipulative manner by claiming they were pregnant and other things.

Does this information have any relevance if Mason Greenwood is guilty of the accused acts? No.

Does this information have any relevance if some or all of the allegations against Mason Greenwood were false? Yes.

The reason it's relevant if they're false is because the company one shares is usually looked at in criminal cases. And in a scenario where one made a false allegation, i think this information would be relevant. Just like the company that Ravel Morrison or Nile Ranger share has often been referenced throughout their career.

I understand you may not agree with that and think differently and that's OK. But I hope that while you may not agree with my view that you can see the perspective in which I'm coming from.

I don't think questioning such things means I'm suddenly a domestic abuse apologist and I don't appreciate being labelled as one before you even ask me for an explanation?

I believe I may have also made reference to Greenwood inviting girls back to his hotel in Iceland. What relevance does this information have? Its relevant because it paints a picture on his behaviour and their relationship. It doesn't mean I believe everyone who has potentially cheated is a domestic abuser.

The last thing I'd like to say is that my post was quite lengthy and while you may take issue with certain points. I think it's important to consider the full post and the context in which those things were said rather than label me because you disagree.

I didn't ask you, because I know why you're saying the things you're saying. I'm interested in the reasoning of the guy jumping to your defence, I'm not interested in yours.

The exact thing I said NotThatSoph was:

"- The accuser shared company and was close to other girls who had relationships with PL footballers. One being Orla Sloan who was sentenced for stalking Mason Mount."

You've now made two consecutive posts misquoting me and leaving out the very important detail on Orla Sloan.

For someone that launched into a tirade of personal insults at myself accusing me of being dishonest and obtuse. I find it rather startling that you continue to misquote me to potray me badly. Are you doing it deliberately?

I'd have much preferred it if you just asked me to elaborate on what I meant in the first instance and had a discussion over it. I think considering the perspective in which I'm viewing things and given it's one small part of a much longer post, I don't think it's as bad as you make out. And by misquoting it and taking it out of the context of the whole post as well, it feels to me like you'd rather try to frame me as a DV apologist than have a discussion with me. Why?

I didn't misquote you. If you want to talk about misquoting, you alleged that I said everyone in this thread have called you out, and then offered people defending you as evidence of me being wrong, when I said nothing of the sort.

Your comments speak for themselves. I'm not interested in having a discussion with you because of the way you are, you're welcome to continue playing the victim.

 

[BigDerek]

I didn't ask you, because I know why you're saying the things you're saying. I'm interested in the reasoning of the guy jumping to your defence, I'm not interested in yours.



I didn't misquote you. If you want to talk about misquoting, you alleged that I said everyone in this thread have called you out, and then offered people defending you as evidence of me being wrong, when I said nothing of the sort.

Your comments speak for themselves. I'm not interested in having a discussion with you because of the way you are, you're welcome to continue playing the victim.

You don't know why I'm saying anything, you don't know me.

You did misquote me and I've just provided the full quote in my last post showing the important detail you missed out.

It's like me saying "Bob Smith spent alot of time in Birmingham socialising with fellow football fans. The fans were part of a football mob which often engaged in violent attacks and racism."

And then you quote only my first sentence leaving out the most important details in the second sentence.

In terms of me misquoting you:

All of the people in this thread that have called you out

This is what I read NotThatSoph. I hope you can understand that by running your eye past this sentence it's very easy for somebody to misout "that" and read it as:

"All of the people in this thread have called you out."

This was an honest mistake and I apologise for misquoting you and misinterpreting it.

Can I ask again why you decided to leave the second sentence out when quoting me? For someone who appears to believe they have a deep insight into the human mind and the motives and intentions behind everyone else's posts.
Surely you can understand that the second sentence was critical to.the point, hence it was within the same.bullet point. So by deliberately, on 3 occasions I think, misquoting it. That to me feels quite calculated and an attempt to make me look bad because you disagree with me.

Edit: Full quote again for context:

- The accuser shared company and was close to other girls who had relationships with PL footballers. One being Orla Sloan who was sentenced for stalking Mason Mount.

Edit: I'm not going to use up another one of my posts responding. .

Spoiler

My post is a fully bullet pointed list of points. If that was intended as two separate things then there would be separate bullet points.

For what it's worth I don't even know who her other friends are aside from Orla but I believe i read there were a group of them of which one was convicted for stalking. And it is the stalking I was focusing on.

I think given that your initial responses to me weren't posts querying or challenging my views but instead a character assassination filled with insults. And then the further attempts to delegitimise me by purposely leaving out critical information when quoting me to others and playing dumb about it. When I first challenged you on this I got a 4 word response followed by a paragraph deflecting towards me.

I don't believe my point is disgusting and I feel I've given a rationale and honest explanation to explain my thinking behind it.

Your initial posts to me weren't challenging anything I said - they were filled with you doing a David Blaine impression and deciding that you know exactly what I believe followed by a load of insults. You'd rather think the worst of someone and try to influence others to feel the same than just discuss the points and try to take in a different perspective.

I'm not too sure why you're doing this to me and I don't think anything I say is going to change your mind either. So I feel its now probably best to call it quits.

Please be mindful though of quoting me going forward. Maybe leaving out the stalking conviction was a genuine mistake and unintentional. But now I've explained clearly to you through different posts that it was intended as one point. I'd appreciate if you'd stop trying to make it out to be something different.

 

[NotThatSoph]

- The accuser shared company and was close to other girls who had relationships with PL footballers. One being Orla Sloan who was sentenced for stalking Mason Mount.

First of all, even if you only mentioned Orla Sloan your point would be disgusting. What you actually said was split in two. 1) She is friends with other girls who have or had relations with footballers, and 2) one of these girls is Orla Sloan.

If you didn't think the other girls were relevant, then you wouldn't have mentioned them. I focused on you mentioning the girls who aren't Orla Sloan, instead of you mentioning Orla Sloan. You mentioned all of them. What I chose to mention doesn't make a difference, it's classic victim blaming in any case.

 

[Pickle85]

For what it's worth, those for bringing him back don't care about her either.

You just proved my point with everything you said after that. If the alleged victim and her family have forgiven/reconciled with Greenwood, carrying on a crusade against him has nothing to do with her. Perfectly reasonable to think Greenwood is a cretin for what he allegedly did to her but let's not pretend there is any concern for her past that.

Sorry but how did I prove your point with everything past that? The 'crusade' - which is a term I would take issue with anyway - is, again, because of a learned empathy with victims so absolutely has everything to do with the victim. So again, just because you use phrases like 'let's not pretend that X...' it doesn't make it incontrovertible.

 

[Pickle85]

Spoiler

My post is a fully bullet pointed list of points. If that was intended as two separate things then there would be separate bullet points.

For what it's worth I don't even know who her other friends are aside from Orla but I believe i read there were a group of them of which one was convicted for stalking. And it is the stalking I was focusing on.

I think given that your initial responses to me weren't posts querying or challenging my views but instead a character assassination filled with insults. And then the further attempts to delegitimise me by purposely leaving out critical information when quoting me to others and playing dumb about it. When I first challenged you on this I got a 4 word response followed by a paragraph deflecting towards me.

I don't believe my point is disgusting and I feel I've given a rationale and honest explanation to explain my thinking behind it.

Your initial posts to me weren't challenging anything I said - they were filled with you doing a David Blaine impression and deciding that you know exactly what I believe followed by a load of insults. You'd rather think the worst of someone and try to influence others to feel the same than just discuss the points and try to take in a different perspective.

I'm not too sure why you're doing this to me and I don't think anything I say is going to change your mind either. So I feel its now probably best to call it quits.

Please be mindful though of quoting me going forward. Maybe leaving out the stalking conviction was a genuine mistake and unintentional. But now I've explained clearly to you through different posts that it was intended as one point. I'd appreciate if you'd stop trying to make it out to be something different.

Edit: I'm not going to use up another one of my posts responding. .
[/QUOTE]
You do realise that it's not a personal attack, right? That you getting called out on having terrible opinions that validate misogynists is a you thing?

 

[afrocentricity]

From what I can tell the man has explained himself several times (several times more than I would have personally). Move on or engage properly with him, it's starting to look like an attempt to silence someone that is articulating good points that some don't want to entertain.... I'm struggling to see what it was that was so out of order anyway.

 

[MackRobinson]

Sorry but how did I prove your point with everything past that? The 'crusade' - which is a term I would take issue with anyway - is, again, because of a learned empathy with victims so absolutely has everything to do with the victim. So again, just because you use phrases like 'let's not pretend that X...' it doesn't make it incontrovertible.

Crusade is an apt description; any negative connotation exists solely in your mind.

Your reply references what already happened to her rather than what will happen to her or what she wants in the future. It seems most people are concerned with Greenwood's future (i.e., who he plays for) rather than her and the child. For example, one would think it would be worse for her to live in a foreign country, away from her family and friends, with her alleged abuser, who most likely faces less scrutiny. My commentary wasn't about having empathy for what happened (I'm sure most people do) but rather a lack of concern for allowing her to move forward. I would like to know how denigrating her parents or banishing Greenwood to another club is supposed to benefit the alleged victim.

 

[sizzling sausages]

Crusade is an apt description; any negative connotation exists solely in your mind.

Your reply references what already happened to her rather than what will happen to her or what she wants in the future. It seems most people are concerned with Greenwood's future (i.e., who he plays for) rather than her and the child. For example, one would think it would be worse for her to live in a foreign country, away from her family and friends, with her alleged abuser, who most likely faces less scrutiny. My commentary wasn't about having empathy for what happened (I'm sure most people do) but rather a lack of concern for allowing her to move forward. I would like to know how denigrating her parents or banishing Greenwood to another club is supposed to benefit the alleged victim.

You say its worse for her to live in another country away from her family and friends and with an alleged abuser that faces less scrutiny. But it could be argued that it'd be worse for her to live where it happened and to be publicly reminded of it weekly, with an alleged abuser who would now know there's very little consequences to his actions.

Basically none of us know what is preferable for her and her child.

 

[Kellyiom]

Crusade is an apt description; any negative connotation exists solely in your mind.

Your reply references what already happened to her rather than what will happen to her or what she wants in the future. It seems most people are concerned with Greenwood's future (i.e., who he plays for) rather than her and the child. For example, one would think it would be worse for her to live in a foreign country, away from her family and friends, with her alleged abuser, who most likely faces less scrutiny. My commentary wasn't about having empathy for what happened (I'm sure most people do) but rather a lack of concern for allowing her to move forward. I would like to know how denigrating her parents or banishing Greenwood to another club is supposed to benefit the alleged victim.

Just on a personal note, and I know many people and Christians don't consciously think it, I don't really like the crusade word. It's definitely got some negative connotations and we do actually have quite a lot of fans in the West Bank, Jordan and Lebanon.

 

[afrocentricity]

You say its worse for her to live in another country away from her family and friends and with an alleged abuser that faces less scrutiny. But it could be argued that it'd be worse for her to live where it happened and to be publicly reminded of it weekly, with an alleged abuser who would now know there's very little consequences to his actions.

Basically none of us know what is preferable for her and her child.

I'm guessing the point is, over here they are accessible....

 

[Pickle85]

Just on a personal note, and I know many people and Christians don't consciously think it, I don't really like the crusade word. It's definitely got some negative connotations and we do actually have quite a lot of fans in the West Bank, Jordan and Lebanon.

I'm sorry if I offended you but I genuinely believe that being offended by the word crusade is probably more a you thing.

 

[reelworld]

Does the "give Mason a second chance" team realize that one of the charges are controlling and coercive behavior AND he purposely broke the law by meeting her and got her pregnant which in the end resulted in the accuser to retract her statements?

Seems like an important point that keep getting ignored

 

[OverratedOpinion]

I agree that they will need to do something again if they are considering bringing him back. Many will not accept it until they get an explanation for that audio.

This is correct, I have the feeling that the club are currently hoping that the time away will minimise the anger, I imagine they also feel if he scores a few worldies there it might have the same effect.

I can't speak for anyone else but for me the feeling is totally cut and dry, it will never be acceptable for him to play for us again unless there is a specific and valid explanation for the audio and the images.

I wouldn't be surprised if many feel the same.

 

[Rood]

What is Big Derek supposed to have done. He seems to raising some valid points and asking some very pertinent questions ?

Freethinking and different opinions are not welcome here apparently!

I know you don't agree that anything there constitutes victim blaming. That's the problem. Because his rationale for thinking Greenwood might not be guilty contained classic victim-blaming tropes (which is what I mean by textbook victim blaming), yet you don't recognise that, even after it has been pointed out by others.

The fact that those sort of arguments have formed ongoing discussion points within this thread is exactly why they should be called out. As opposed to praising/defending someone for managing to espouse several of them at once in a polite way.

I also have no idea why you're pointing us to the rest of his post as if anything within it would in some way ameliorate our problem with his core argument. We've focused in on those paragraphs because the rest of the post is irrelevant.

It doesn't matter how many people point it out, it doesn't make it true - it's just your opinion and my opinion is different.

You see that's the big problem here, some can't seem to accept that others have a different opinion.

And the rest of the post IS the core argument - that's the issue, you and others ignored the most important parts and focused on the minutiae.

Anyway my major issue was the insulting responses to a perfectly reasonable post, disagreement and debate is fine but it's a shame that several posters here prefer insults and personal attacks.

This is correct, I have the feeling that the club are currently hoping that the time away will minimise the anger, I imagine they also feel if he scores a few worldies there it might have the same effect.

I can't speak for anyone else but for me the feeling is totally cut and dry, it will never be acceptable for him to play for us again unless there is a specific and valid explanation for the audio and the images.

I wouldn't be surprised if many feel the same.

Many definitely do feel the same and I can totally understand it, since the original audio etc was public then some won't be satisfied until they get a public explanation for it

I was surprised he didn't do some kind of PR interview in the summer, surely has to happen at some point.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

- Releasing only a cropped segment of the audio automatically opens up the question about what's been left out and why? What was said before? What was said after?
- It was a toxic relationship with Mason inviting girls back to his hotel on international duty.
- I've seen images in relation to the accusers social media where she boasted about cheating and spoke badly of her partner.
- The accuser shared company and was close to other girls who had relationships with PL footballers. One being Orla Sloan who was sentenced for stalking Mason Mount.
- Given the circles the accuser is involved in, I've not seen any footballers speak out against or shun Mason.
- He also appeared to have the support of the first team to return. Would you want to return to your workplace with a rapist working alongside you?
- The nature of how the information was released wasn't what I'd expect from a rape and domestic abuse victim given they're usually scared to speak out. It felt more like an attack on Mason rather than a cry for help and justice.
- The immediate aftermath and her fathers response.
- The lack of friends or family speaking out against the player on any platforms or making any known attempt to prevent her from getting back into a relationship with him.
- The clubs statement where it suggests they've looked at more evidence than what's available publicly in their investigation and came to a conclusion of no guilt.
- The fact that the accuser never went to the police to report any crimes. The police were only involved after seeing it on social media. And yet her father shortly after was quick to shoot it down, why?
- As a father, I think if another father thought their daughter was being abused - the last thing they'd do is defend the abuser unless they were certain things weren't as portrayed.
- In addition I don't think someone in an abusive relationship who has finally got out of it would run back to an abuser.
- Personally having listened to the audio many times, I cant say with confidence that I believe that's from someone actively raping someone else.

1. She released the most relevant part where he threatened to rape her. Even if you want to go down the victim blaming route and imagine he was innocently sat there and she was antagonising him. He responded by threatening to rape her.
2. Greenwood cheating on her does not excuse him from threatening to rape her.
3. Her cheating on Greenwood would not excuse him threatening to rape her.
4. Her having a friend does not excuse Greenwood threatening to rape her.
5. Men not publically condemning professional colleagues who are accused of sexual misconduct? Shocking.
6. See 5 with an added vested interest.
7. As someone who worked for 4 years as a call handler who often received the initial report of intimate partner violence I can guarantee you there is no "normal way" for a victim to behave. Some would be tearful and sound actively terrified and some would put on a front of humour because that was their defence. People are all different, may be dealing with mental health issues and may have been through something very traumatic.

Re the stuff about her father, interpersonal relationships are weird. Abusers are often extremely good at keeping the family on side and you have no idea about her father's personality or motivation. I frequently heard for years whilst working in the sector "everyone loves him no matter what he does" add to that the fact that she is pregnant with his child and has gone back to him as survivors often do, the father could easily know it will just push her away if he goes against Greenwood. We have no idea and it says nothing in either direction.

Re the police, far more cases of intimate partner violence go unreported than those which are. This has been known for over 30 years.

"I don't think someone who got out of an abusive relationship would run back to the abuser" is one of the most factually incorrect things I've read in this entire thread. One of the major reasons police are quick to use bail conditions in IPV cases is to ensure that separation whilst investigating not just for safety but because victims returning to their abuser is such a ridiculously frequent occurrence

The clubs investigation was overseen by a man who has no expertise in these matters, has a vested interest and openly admitted he relied on 3rd party testimony and limited evidence. I'd need a little more info to place any credence on this.

Re your last point of it "not sounding like someone who wanted to rape". She LITERALLY tells him not to put his penis there and says she doesn't want to feck and he agressively tells her he doesn't care and not to push him. God knows what it would take for you to think otherwise.

None of the above says for certain that this was an ongoing abusive relationship but literally none of what you said even slightly indicates it wasn't.

What we do know for a fact is there is a tape of him threatening to rape her. Surely that is enough to say we shouldn't want him at a club we cheer on unless a valid explanation is provided?

 

[Cascarino]

I know you don't agree that anything there constitutes victim blaming. That's the problem. Because his rationale for thinking Greenwood might not be guilty contained classic victim-blaming tropes (which is what I mean by textbook victim blaming), yet you don't recognise that, even after it has been pointed out by others.

The fact that those sort of arguments have formed ongoing discussion points within this thread is exactly why they should be called out. As opposed to praising/defending someone for managing to espouse several of them at once in a polite way.

I also have no idea why you're pointing us to the rest of his post as if anything within it would in some way ameliorate our problem with his core argument. We've focused in on those paragraphs because the rest of the post is irrelevant.

Your posts on this topic have been excellent.

 

[Cascarino]

1. She released the most relevant part where he threatened to rape her. Even if you want to go down the victim blaming route and imagine he was innocently sat there and she was antagonising him. He responded by threatening to rape her.
2. Greenwood cheating on her does not excuse him from threatening to rape her.
3. Her cheating on Greenwood would not excuse him threatening to rape her.
4. Her having a friend does not excuse Greenwood threatening to rape her.
5. Men not publically condemning professional colleagues who are accused of sexual misconduct? Shocking.
6. See 5 with an added vested interest.
7. As someone who worked for 4 years as a call handler who often received the initial report of intimate partner violence I can guarantee you there is no "normal way" for a victim to behave. Some would be tearful and sound actively terrified and some would put on a front of humour because that was their defence. People are all different, may be dealing with mental health issues and may have been through something very traumatic.

Re the stuff about her father, interpersonal relationships are weird. Abusers are often extremely good at keeping the family on side and you have no idea about her father's personality or motivation. I frequently heard for years whilst working in the sector "everyone loves him no matter what he does" add to that the fact that she is pregnant with his child and has gone back to him as survivors often do, the father could easily know it will just push her away if he goes against Greenwood. We have no idea and it says nothing in either direction.

Re the police, far more cases of intimate partner violence go unreported than those which are. This has been known for over 30 years.

"I don't think someone who got out of an abusive relationship would run back to the abuser" is one of the most factually incorrect things I've read in this entire thread. One of the major reasons police are quick to use bail conditions in IPV cases is to ensure that separation whilst investigating not just for safety but because victims returning to their abuser is such a ridiculously frequent occurrence

The clubs investigation was overseen by a man who has no expertise in these matters, has a vested interest and openly admitted he relied on 3rd party testimony and limited evidence. I'd need a little more info to place any credence on this.

Re your last point of it "not sounding like someone who wanted to rape". She LITERALLY tells him not to put his penis there and says she doesn't want to feck and he agressively tells her he doesn't care and not to push him. God knows what it would take for you to think otherwise.

None of the above says for certain that this was an ongoing abusive relationship but literally none of what you said even slightly indicates it wasn't.

What we do know for a fact is there is a tape of him threatening to rape her. Surely that is enough to say we shouldn't want him at a club we cheer on unless a valid explanation is provided?

Also an excellent post. Makes losing £100 to you a lot easier to stomach.

 

[sullydnl]

It doesn't matter how many people point it out, it doesn't make it true - it's just your opinion and my opinion is different.

You see that's the big problem here, some can't seem to accept that others have a different opinion.

And the rest of the post IS the core argument - that's the issue, you and others ignored the most important parts and focused on the minutiae.

Anyway my major issue was the insulting responses to a perfectly reasonable post, disagreement and debate is fine but it's a shame that several posters here prefer insults and personal attacks.

His post highlighted the following as "red flags" over the accusations:

- The victim's alleged prior sexual behaviour.
- The company the victim keeps.
- The victim not having reported the matter to the police.
-The victim not having responded the way he thinks a victim would respond.
- The victim not being as scared as he thinks they would normally be.
- The victim having returned to the abuser.
- The people around the victim/perpetrator either not knowing of the abuse or not reacting in the way he thinks they would react.

These are all tropes that are regularly cited by anti-rape, anti-DV, victim advocate groups and research groups as examples of victim-blaming arguments and/or misinformation around rape/DV. That isn't a matter of opinion, that's a matter of fact.

Whether you accept that and stop defending extremely obvious victim-blaming and DV-myth arguments, or you continue insisting that you have a better understanding of victim blaming than experts in this field do is entirely up to you.

I would hope you opt for the former, as the latter would suggest substantial ignorance, stubbornness or implicit unpleasant views on your part. But either way, it's been explained to you repeatedly at this point and there's not much point in continuing to do so. You either understand you were wrong or you don't.

 

[MackRobinson]

You say its worse for her to live in another country away from her family and friends and with an alleged abuser that faces less scrutiny. But it could be argued that it'd be worse for her to live where it happened and to be publicly reminded of it weekly, with an alleged abuser who would now know there's very little consequences to his actions.

Basically none of us know what is preferable for her and her child.

It's merely an example that illustrates her future well-being has largely been ignored. Whatever could be argued hasn't.

Just on a personal note, and I know many people and Christians don't consciously think it, I don't really like the crusade word. It's definitely got some negative connotations and we do actually have quite a lot of fans in the West Bank, Jordan and Lebanon.

I'm obviously not talking about the Crusades, nor have I attached the adjective "moral"

 

[Kellyiom]

I'm sorry if I offended you but I genuinely believe that being offended by the word crusade is probably more a you thing.

Quite possibly! I'm sorry also to you and @MackRobinson , was out of line, cheers

 

[Yorke to Cole]

Does the "give Mason a second chance" team realize that one of the charges are controlling and coercive behavior AND he purposely broke the law by meeting her and got her pregnant which in the end resulted in the accuser to retract her statements?

Seems like an important point that keep getting ignored

That was a charge that was allegedly related to behaviours in late 2018/ 2019 and the evidence for that was a text message. That was supposedly a weak "charge" against him.

The breaking of bail conditions is irresponsible. It could have been primarily his fault, it could have been both parties. Again there was speculation that he he gave her his credit/debit card details so she purchase things she needed? That could be paper talk. That is what I read.

My feeling on that was again it was irresponsible,but probably inevitable as they both got clearly back together again. In a world of Internet/ social media and combined with the ages of the 2 parties, it was inevitable that they were both not going to follow the protocol set out by the bail conditions in respective position of accused and key witness.

 

[BigDerek]

You see that's the big problem here, some can't seem to accept that others have a different opinion.

This.

1. She released the most relevant part where he threatened to rape her. Even if you want to go down the victim blaming route and imagine he was innocently sat there and she was antagonising him. He responded by threatening to rape her.
2. Greenwood cheating on her does not excuse him from threatening to rape her.
3. Her cheating on Greenwood would not excuse him threatening to rape her.
4. Her having a friend does not excuse Greenwood threatening to rape her.
5. Men not publically condemning professional colleagues who are accused of sexual misconduct? Shocking.
6. See 5 with an added vested interest.
7. As someone who worked for 4 years as a call handler who often received the initial report of intimate partner violence I can guarantee you there is no "normal way" for a victim to behave. Some would be tearful and sound actively terrified and some would put on a front of humour because that was their defence. People are all different, may be dealing with mental health issues and may have been through something very traumatic.

Re the stuff about her father, interpersonal relationships are weird. Abusers are often extremely good at keeping the family on side and you have no idea about her father's personality or motivation. I frequently heard for years whilst working in the sector "everyone loves him no matter what he does" add to that the fact that she is pregnant with his child and has gone back to him as survivors often do, the father could easily know it will just push her away if he goes against Greenwood. We have no idea and it says nothing in either direction.

Re the police, far more cases of intimate partner violence go unreported than those which are. This has been known for over 30 years.

"I don't think someone who got out of an abusive relationship would run back to the abuser" is one of the most factually incorrect things I've read in this entire thread. One of the major reasons police are quick to use bail conditions in IPV cases is to ensure that separation whilst investigating not just for safety but because victims returning to their abuser is such a ridiculously frequent occurrence

The clubs investigation was overseen by a man who has no expertise in these matters, has a vested interest and openly admitted he relied on 3rd party testimony and limited evidence. I'd need a little more info to place any credence on this.

Did the statement actually say anywhere

Re your last point of it "not sounding like someone who wanted to rape". She LITERALLY tells him not to put his penis there and says she doesn't want to feck and he agressively tells her he doesn't care and not to push him. God knows what it would take for you to think otherwise.

None of the above says for certain that this was an ongoing abusive relationship but literally none of what you said even slightly indicates it wasn't.

What we do know for a fact is there is a tape of him threatening to rape her. Surely that is enough to say we shouldn't want him at a club we cheer on unless a valid explanation is provided?

Thank you for taking the time to challenge some of my beliefs and putting a decent argument against some of them too.

I don't agree with the victim blaming allegations because victim blaming requires a victim. If you're not sure whom is a victim of which crimes then how can one victim blame? I'm keeping an open mind not victim blaming. I can understand that from the perspective of someone who sees the accuser as a victim and the accused guilty that they may think this. But I hope you can see that if one is looking at this case from the perspective of this being unproven allegations that they're simply asking reasonable questions which would be asked in a court and should be asked.

It would be a kangaroo court if we concluded all allegations based on one side of a story and didn't question it. It's dangerous to convict someone without challenging the claims and allowing the accused the opportunity to defend themselves.

What if Mason has been the victim of domestic violence too? Does that mean that you're victim blaming? Because you've decided that he's guilty of all these alleged crimes. Again I'm not suggesting he is a victim but it's equally a possibility.

If someone questioned parts of Kirsty Barrs claims against Ryan Kerrison which were printed on newspapers and seen him spend time in jail - you'd call them a victim blamer too. What about Ryan who was actually identified to be the victim in the end?

It's not useful nor is it helpful to accuse people of being DV apologists or victim blamers to try and delegitimise their points. Especially in a case where most of the views are based of one social media post.

1. How do you know without doubt that it's the most relevant part? What was in the rest of the audio then? And based on the last 2 sentences. If my partner launched into a 10 minute tirade of verbal and physical abuse at myself and I finally reacted with an empty threat of rape. That cropped recording would give a much different picture. Same goes for role-playing and many other things. The whole audio is what's important and we shouldn't deduce which part is most relevant unless we've been able to listen to all of it and conclude that it is.
You do not know what is on the full recording. I do not know what is on the full recording. Neither you or me know which part is most relevant. And that's fact, not opinion. Anything else is speculation and speculation only. Speculation isn't enough for me to decide someone's guilt.

2. Who said greenwood cheating excuses a threat of rape? So is it confirmed it was a legitimate threat of rape? Where was this cleared up? Or is that just your opinion again which you're trying to potray as a fact?

3. Who said the accused cheating cheating excuses a threat of rape? So is it confirmed it was a legitimate threat of rape? Where was this cleared up? Or is that just your opinion again which you're trying to potray as a fact?

4.Her sharing company with someone convicted of stalking and making false claims against PL footballers is relevant if the claims made by the accused are false, misleading or exagerated. Where was it confirmed that none of the claims were false? So is it confirmed it was a threat of rape and not a role play or other? Where was this cleared up? Or is that an opinion again which you're trying to potray as a fact?

5. If you're colleague was accused of the same stuff and you were consulted in their return to work. And if you believed they were guilty. Would you support their return? Would you keep quiet about their crimes and cover it up? Your views suggest you wouldn't. Do you think PL footballers would behave differently? Why is this and do you have evidence to support it or is it an opinion? And of course I don't know the ins and outs here either. Was there a vote amongst playing staff and majority wins? Did 40% of the squad oppose his return? Were they provided more info than we have in the public domain? I don't know the answers and neither do you. But it's worth questioning because it was made out that the playing squad supported his return.

7. Correct there isn't a normal way to behave. Like you said though every case is different and that's exactly why we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions having only heard one side of a story. And we certainly shouldn't be labelling others who disagree with us with horrible tags either and engaging in abuse ourselves.

I'd be interested to know how many calls you received from male victims of domestic abuse. 1 in 4 women are victims roughly. 1 in 6-7 men also. The rate for men is probably higher than that given the large percentage of male suicides too. I'd be interested to know how many reports come through to call handlers though, i imagine its not quite the same amount. For instance 66% of men who contact menkind had never told anyone about their abuse before and 64% said they wouldnt have contscted them unless it was annonymous. There's alos many examples in the public domain of men such as Ryan who were in coercive relationships and went to prison and had their name dragged through the newspapers for being abusers despite being the victim themselves. This is why it's important for us to scrutinise and not jump to conclusions. The redcafe kangaroo court would lock up most of those male victims as abusers.

Some of the main reasons people run back to abusers or never leave is finances, kids, co parenting, pets, loneliness, lack of support network and many more. The accused doesn't meet alot of these key traits but I do accept it certainly happens and is possible. But then again I don't even know if they're a victim or what they're a victim of. So it's just hypothetical. I know you've got a different perspective but you have to remember I'm looking through the lens of these being allegations not truths. That doesn't mean I'm warranted to abuse (not that you have).

Most of the people in this thread, including myself, have no expertise in the area either. The club isn't the CPS so why would an expert be doing an investigation? When anyone in a workplace is accused of crimes or unacceptable behaviour its handled by internal staff, that is standard. Do we know exactly who was involved in the investigation internally? Or are we just assuming?

A vested interest can go both ways can't it? Do you believe that the clubs conclusions are solely based on vested interests? Is the club not interested in maintaining their reputation and sponsorships? For a club so keen in acting to protect vested interests, it appears to have had the opposite affect with the verdict from their investigation. If protecting vested interests would it not have been easier to let him go? Especially considering that the results of their investigation has still reached that conclusion for now.

As for relying on third part testiomny, did united statement say this was relied on or do you mean its just another form of evidence available to them and not us? Or do you mean they just had a third party testimony amongst other evidence of which neither you or i know the contents. Which is at least one more piece of evidence that neither you or I have seen. So surely that would mean they're in a better position than you or I to conclude what's happened?

Had the club came out with a statement to say they feel he is guilty of some of the alleged crimes having reviewed additional evidence and will be letting him go. Would you have still suggested that was a vested interest to find an easy way to get rid of him?

You can repeat how much you like about how certain you are because of the short segment of a cropped audio you've listened to. It's very easy to take things out of context or edit them to potray a different picture. NotThatSoph decided to do it three times yesterday evening to make me look worse. Reading what they posted out of context gives a much different picture compared to quoting the full point. So it's only natural to question what we don't hear because I doubt someone who is accusing their partner of committing serious crimes over social media is going to post up audio which doesn't support that claim. Do you think they would?

But unfortunately that audio alone isn't enough for me to decide somebody's guilt. And it's not enough for her parents to decide somebody's guilty either.

You mention earlier "Abusers are often extremely good at keeping the family on side". Do you have a breakdown of how many family's stay on side of the abuser after being presented with audio of their child being raped and images of them beaten? I can certainly imagine it occurs particularly with abusers who inflict coercive control. I however think it's probably alot less common after evidence like that is released? I'm sure you'd agree with that. So... why are they still on side? Can you tell us why? Because you know, or at least you're alluding that you know exactly what's happening in the audio. So why? Would you support your daughters abuser after that too?

And no a tape isn't enough for me to decide if I think someone's guilty and if I think they should be at the club or not. There is too many unanswered parts and while you and others may be happy to fill in the blanks with your assumptions - I'm not.

I know we don't share the same views but I hope you can understand where I'm coming from better. I respect where you're coming from and I think you raise good points but I feel it would be complacent and careless of me to profess I know whether one is innocent or guilty based on allegations made on social media alone.

Your posts on this topic have been excellent.

Thanks mate. I'll forgive you for accidently quoting the wrong post.

His post highlighted the following as "red flags" over the accusations:

- The victim's alleged prior sexual behaviour.

- The company the victim keeps.

- The victim not having reported the matter to the police.

-The victim not having responded the way he thinks a victim would respond.

- The victim not being as scared as he thinks they would normally be.

- The victim having returned to the abuser.

- The people around the victim/perpetrator either not knowing of the abuse or not reacting in the way he thinks they would react.

These are all tropes that are regularly cited by anti-rape, anti-DV, victim advocate groups and research groups as examples of victim-blaming arguments and/or misinformation around rape/DV. That isn't a matter of opinion, that's a matter of fact.

Whether you accept that and stop defending extremely obvious victim-blaming and DV-myth arguments, or you continue insisting that you have a better understanding of victim blaming than experts in this field do is entirely up to you.

I would hope you opt for the former, as the latter would suggest substantial ignorance, stubbornness or implicit unpleasant views on your part. But either way, it's been explained to you repeatedly at this point and there's not much point in continuing to do so. You either understand you were wrong or you don't.

Out of interest. Why are you following the same path as NotThatSoph when it comes to quoting some, but not all, of my red flags.

If you wish to quote them then quote them in full. Taking things out of context is very dangerous and a tactic regularly used by abusers.

Let's go through it though. I see you dangerously use the word victim alot. Lets correct this to accuser because nobody has been found to be the victim of any crime as of yet. Unless im wrong in which case correct me.:

- "The victim's alleged prior sexual behaviour." - what did I say on this? Quote it in FULL. And who is the victim? Or do you mean the accuser?

- "The company the victim keeps.". Why don't you give the full quote on this along with the explanation I provided on it. If you don't agree with the explanation then challenge it. Don't continue to peddle the same narrative in a desperate attempt to turn people against someone who you disagree with.

- "The victim not having reported the matter to the police. "A very important detail. Do you think its common for victims of DV who are scared to leave their partners to make allegations about them on social media for their partner to see but not report them to the police?

- "The victim not having responded the way he thinks a victim would respond.". Again what is key here is your use of the word victim rather than accuser. I've not decided anyone's guilty based on a social media post so there is no victim. A court would challenge this stuff too. Its not a trope or an apologist. It's normal behaviour and what happens in a court when allegations of this nature are made.

- "The victim not being as scared as he thinks they would normally be". Accuser. Let's not mislead here. This is actually part of the same original quote as the last point you made. So let's use the original quote:

"- The nature of how the information was released wasn't what I'd expect from a rape and domestic abuse victim given they're usually scared to speak out. It felt more like an attack on Mason rather than a cry for help and justice."

Now a quick Google search and all the corresponding articles which all talk about domestic abuse victims being scared to speak up is exactly why I mentioned this. Have a Google yourself here. Information wasn't released in the way I'd expect. Domestic abuse victims are usually scared to speak out. It did feel more like an attack rather than someone scared of an abuser going to the police.

"- The victim having returned to the abuser.". Accuser returning to the accused. And this is a fact. Not an opinion.

- "The people around the victim/perpetrator either not knowing of the abuse or not reacting in the way he thinks they would react." Around the accused/accuser. If you think the parents reacted how you expect then say it. I don't think they did though. And because you don't like this fact. You once again want to use it as a line of attack.


What we have here from you is a classic case of argumentum ad hominem. You have little interest in attacking or challenging the substance of the argument itself. Instead you'd rather attack my character and motive to try and delegitimise my argument and make out that anyone who agrees with me is agreeing with a domestic abuse apologist.

You've not been genuine in how you've carried yourself in this discussion and instead you're engaging in a very passive aggressive character assisination instead where you're frequently misquoting and ignoring my explanations in an attempt to make me look bad.

At least OveratedOpinion actually challenges the points made and engages in a conversation directly with the subject - me. You'd rather not engage in discussing the substance you'd rather try to besmirch my name.

 

[Pickle85]

Quite possibly! I'm sorry also to you and @MackRobinson , was out of line, cheers

Not at all! No need to be sorry...I honestly would never mean to offend and you shouldn't need to feel bad about what offends you.

 

[Rood]

His post highlighted the following as "red flags" over the accusations:

- The victim's alleged prior sexual behaviour.
- The company the victim keeps.
- The victim not having reported the matter to the police.
-The victim not having responded the way he thinks a victim would respond.
- The victim not being as scared as he thinks they would normally be.
- The victim having returned to the abuser.
- The people around the victim/perpetrator either not knowing of the abuse or not reacting in the way he thinks they would react.

These are all tropes that are regularly cited by anti-rape, anti-DV, victim advocate groups and research groups as examples of victim-blaming arguments and/or misinformation around rape/DV. That isn't a matter of opinion, that's a matter of fact.

Whether you accept that and stop defending extremely obvious victim-blaming and DV-myth arguments, or you continue insisting that you have a better understanding of victim blaming than experts in this field do is entirely up to you.

I would hope you opt for the former, as the latter would suggest substantial ignorance, stubbornness or implicit unpleasant views on your part. But either way, it's been explained to you repeatedly at this point and there's not much point in continuing to do so. You either understand you were wrong or you don't.

Wrong about what?! Your entire premise is a waste of time because it's not been established that there is a victim in this case, again you try to pass off your speculative opinions as fact!

If you have a problem with a post then respond to it, the conversation has already moved on significantly with further clarifications on the exact points your raised.

While your 'tropes' are interesting from an awareness perspective, i don't find them of much relevance to this specific case. This is not a textbook case on any level.

I havent claimed anywhere to be an expert on domestic violence, I have actually made very little comment on the subject. You are simply making things up that I haven't said and I have little interest in discussing the fine detail of this topic in the Manchester United forum anyway.

If you have anything of use to add about Mason Greenwood or this case then let me know, otherwise bore off to Current Events forum where you might find someone who wants to discuss this kind of thing.

 

[sizzling sausages]

Wrong about what?! Your entire premise is a waste of time because it's not been established that there is a victim in this case, again you try to pass off your speculative opinions as fact!

If you have a problem with a post then respond to it, the conversation has already moved on significantly with further clarifications on the exact points your raised.

While your 'tropes' are interesting from an awareness perspective, i don't find them of much relevance to this specific case. This is not a textbook case on any level.

I havent claimed anywhere to be an expert on domestic violence, I have actually made very little comment on the subject. You are simply making things up that I haven't said and I have little interest in discussing the fine detail of this topic in the Manchester United forum anyway.

If you have anything of use to add about Mason Greenwood or this case then let me know, otherwise bore off to Current Events forum where you might find someone who wants to discuss this kind of thing.

This is an absolutely pathetic response. He calls you out on certain points and instead of responding you throw your toys out of the pram?