Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

[Ted Lasso]

Marital rape has only been a crime in the UK since 1991.

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/28/news/in-britain-a-move-to-make-marital-rape-a-crime.html

I saw this fact in a post on Reddit unrelated to Greenwood but had droves of comments that begin to shed light on the kind of family and community we might be dealing with. A very large portion of the western world - US and UK - is still espousing ultra traditional values including that rape within a marriage or strong relationship is not of the same seriousness. Apparently it's not uncommon for mothers and fathers telling their children that marital rape is not a big deal. And here I thought such sentiment was reserved for the far less progressive community out of the Middle East and Asia .

In short, with the evidence on hand it's more likely the parents fall into this category.

 

[dumbo]

This.



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.



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



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.

What a load of horseshit this post is.

But well played, you've hooked a few dullards with power here, with your act. So you're good to go.

 

[BigDerek]

What a load of horseshit this post is.

But well played, you've hooked a few dullards with power here, with your act. So you're good to go.

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

 

[Wibble]

There is lots of blah blah blah that misses the point. Often by a mile.

This is the transcript of what he said and there is no context or explanation (not even ones never offered by anyone directly to do with the case, but championed by many in here) that can make me want him anywhere near United.

 

[reelworld]

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.

There's a very good reason why victims of domestic abuse are not supposed to be in any contact with their abuser. It's not just "irresponsible", it literally a crime. Even if the victim begged to see their abuser, it's still not allowed. The coercive and controlling behaviour that usually comes up along with domestic abuse are very big reason why. Please look it up.

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.

As being repeatedly mentioned in this thread, victims of domestic abuse are often going back to their abuser numerous times before they actually leaves. Or sometimes they don't leave, they just killed themselves.
but hey, as long as they look like a happy couple on instagram right?

 

[Ole'sattheWheel]

Lazy question. What kind of reception is he getting over in Spain? You just know if he ever played for united there would be resounding boos, boycotts et cos we have a huge fanbase. What are getafe's fans saying?

 

[Duafc]

Accuser not victim?

New depths in this thread every day.

 

[Rockets Redglare]

There is lots of blah blah blah that misses the point. Often by a mile.

This is the transcript of what he said and there is no context or explanation (not even ones never offered by anyone directly to do with the case, but championed by many in here) that can make me want him anywhere near United.

There are many many posters who are constantly trying to convince people that it was role play.
The transcript is enough to prove that it wasn’t but it’s even worse when you hear the actual recording, there’s no way on earth it’s anything other than an abuser and his victim.

 

[Wibble]

There's a very good reason why victims of domestic abuse are not supposed to be in any contact with their abuser. It's not just "irresponsible", it literally a crime. Even if the victim begged to see their abuser, it's still not allowed. The coercive and controlling behaviour that usually comes up along with domestic abuse are very big reason why. Please look it up.

As being repeatedly mentioned in this thread, victims of domestic abuse are often going back to their abuser numerous times before they actually leaves. Or sometimes they don't leave, they just killed themselves.
but hey, as long as they look like a happy couple on instagram right?

Agreed. Or get killed. Don't forget that one.

There are many many posters who are constantly trying to convince people that it was role play.
The transcript is enough to prove that it wasn’t but it’s even worse when you hear the actual recording, there’s no way on earth it’s anything other than an abuser and his victim.

Seems very weird people imagining/inventing an explanation/excuse that Greenwood has never even suggested.

Almost as if they are invested in it all being some mistake because he has talent

 

[Rockets Redglare]

Agreed. Or get killed. Don't forget that one.


Seems very weird people imagining/inventing an explanation/excuse that Greenwood has never even suggested.

Almost as if they are invested in it all being some mistake because he has talent

I find it even stranger as no one I know in the real world has the same point of view that he did it and shouldn’t play for the club again.

I’m not sure if it’s a cultural thing or not, but I have been really surprised by the view of quite a lot of United fans on here.

 

[Rood]

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?

They completely misrepresented my point of view and I have no interest in discussing someone else's post, anyone who has a problem with @BigDerek opinions can respond to him directly, sadly the only response he had so far was more insults from @dumbo (which ironically was exactly what started this whole tangent)

 

[Lash]

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.

I don't think your first paragraph is the slam dunk you think it is. Is your premise that given what we know, you don't think she could be a victim?

The poster making points like this :

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

Shows what a poor grasp of the topic at hand he's trying to have a conversation on. He has as much information as everyone else, yet sees this as a positive (positive may be poor choice of words, but I couldn't think of a better one), yet everyone is telling him why that could not be the case and he starts saying people are attacking his "opinion". Well no shit.

 

[Rood]

Lazy question. What kind of reception is he getting over in Spain? You just know if he ever played for united there would be resounding boos, boycotts et cos we have a huge fanbase. What are getafe's fans saying?

Getafe fans are mostly happy to have a player of his profile - he's probably the highest profile player ever to sign for them

He has been getting some abuse from opposition fans though

 

[gormless]

Lazy question. What kind of reception is he getting over in Spain? You just know if he ever played for united there would be resounding boos, boycotts et cos we have a huge fanbase. What are getafe's fans saying?

https://metro.co.uk/2023/09/28/geta...ng-greenwood-die-at-mason-greenwood-19572541/

"Die Greenwood Die" chants from rival fans.

Or "The Greenwood The" if you are German.

 

[Rood]

I don't think your first paragraph is the slam dunk you think it is. Is your premise that given what we know, you don't think she could be a victim?

The poster making points like this :

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

Shows what a poor grasp of the topic at hand he's trying to have a conversation on. He has as much information as everyone else, yet sees this as a positive (positive may be poor choice of words, but I couldn't think of a better one), yet everyone is telling him why that could not be the case and he starts saying people are attacking his "opinion". Well no shit.

No - it's absolutely possible that she is a victim but it's certainly not a fact

And again if you have a problem with his post then respond to him about it

 

[Lash]

No - it's absolutely possible that she is a victim but it's certainly not a fact

And again if you have a problem with his post then respond to him about it

Of course, but isn't that why we should err on the side of caution when approaching ? So those points are relevant as there is a potential victim.

I didn't see your post subsequently, but fair point.

 

[sizzling sausages]

What a load of horseshit this post is.

But well played, you've hooked a few dullards with power here, with your act. So you're good to go.

Agreed. Not going to quote it again but its absolutely terrible. Those 2 ridiculous likes he got have clearly emboldened him as he's stopped even pretending to be neutral now.

 

[DJ_21]

He put in a decent cross in yesterdays game against Villareal but their ST are useless and couldn’t head it.

 

[Rood]

Of course, but isn't that why we should err on the side of caution when approaching ? So those points are relevant as there is a potential victim.

I didn't see your post subsequently, but fair point.

Yes absolutely and again there is a lengthy continuation post with further clarification on every point made that anyone is free to respond to

 

[cafecillos]

I'm trying not to lose my shit when posting in this thread but it's very hard. What the feck is that rubbish that there can be no victim blaming if there's no victim? That is dialectically dumb, and everybody in here knows it, so let's not.

 

[BigDerek]

I don't think your first paragraph is the slam dunk you think it is. Is your premise that given what we know, you don't think she could be a victim?

The poster making points like this :

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

Shows what a poor grasp of the topic at hand he's trying to have a conversation on. He has as much information as everyone else, yet sees this as a positive (positive may be poor choice of words, but I couldn't think of a better one), yet everyone is telling him why that could not be the case and he starts saying people are attacking his "opinion". Well no shit.

This isn't the points I made. My points are in my second post in this thread.

That point was me responding to someone who alleged I'm a DV apologist. The first important fact, which many like to ignore - is nobody is currently guilty or a victim of any crime. Someone has been accused by an accuser.

So whether you, or others, like it or not - that is FACT. So if someone wants to twist the language and say "he said the victim did this and that, he is victim blaming" - I have the right to correct those non genuine posts and make it clear that from the start I've said I don't know who is a victim of what. I only know who is accused of what.

And it is a fact, despite how some would like to pretend it isn't, that as of now we simply have an accused and accuser. This isn't a new low. This is a fact. And certain members don't like that fact on here because if their whole counter argument is simply "you're a victim blamer" then it doesn't really stand up.

The real problem here is an inability to look at things from different t perspectives. If someone feels different to me that's fine. We live in a world of 8 billion people, I'd be worried if everyone thought the same.

Because certain members would rather insult and attack the character of people they disagree with - this is not my problem. I'm happy to engage in a respectful conversation and explain my points. But I won't be repeatedly mislabelled because someone lacks the ability to challenge my points and instead wants to potray me as a monster.

In terms of information. Yes I do have access to the same info as others on here. And we all lack access to the same amount too. The difference is I've not concluding what's in the info we don't have and I've not jumped to assumptions or my own conclusions.

Man Utd and the accusers family have access to more info than all of us. But this is ignored because certain members think they're sherlock Holmes and can cracks the case based on persons allegations and then refuse to acknowledge or discuss anything which came out there after. And anyone who does talk about it they attempt to shutdown with abusive name calling and labels (ironic).

I see 3 groups of people on this thread:

- The abusers who have been insulting people they disagree with and have a post history in the thread showing them regularly name calling those with different opinions.

- Those with an open mind that are questioning the unknowns and asking questions which would be asked in a criminal case. The right questions which need to be asked.

- Those who find it difficult to get past the social media post and allegations and think he's guilty but are willing to engage in adult conversation.


It's OK to disagree with someone. I disagree with many people on this thread. I'm not name calling them.

Don't make posts though claiming everything you say is a fact while talking about a victim. People maybe don't like that but the fact is there isn't an official victim. And if someone is going to keep using that word followed by fact as some sort of stamp dunk post. I will correct them.

Edit: Heading out and I know someone will quote one line of my post and try to take it out of context. There is a potential victim. I've not said anywhere that isn't possible, the accuser COULD be a victim of what they alleged. But at the moment they are an accuser and my post is made from the perspective of a court looking at the accused and accuser.

If the accused was found to be a victim of the crimes alleged and I raised those points then YES call me an apologist and victim blamer. I've already said some of my points don't stand up and are irrelevant in the scenario that the allegations are true.

But as of now, like it or not, the fact is we are discussing an accused and accuser. Not a victim and perpetrator. I understand some may find that difficult and I apologise if I come across insensitive in saying it. And I hold my hand up and accept maybe some of my posts haven't been sensitive enough and that's a fair criticism.

But I will defend myself to the hill against anyone accusing me of being an apologist and I have a right too. That is a very dangerous accusation to make and a hurtful one too. And I think some of those saying it aren't being genuine but instead trying to attack me and make me look bad because they disagree.

As I said yesterday it feels very much Ad Hominem were others don't want to challenge the substance of my posts but simply defame me to silence me.

In my first post I said its easier to just go along with social media judge and jury as you don't open yourself up for abuse in doing so. And I stand by that because I have received abuse for my views from those who disagree. If you disagree then challenge and let me explain. I'm happy too. Don't insult me though.

 

[cafecillos]

@BigDerek I strongly recommend you to report all those insults and abuse you're getting, it would help in getting rid of the abusers (sic).

Also, if you were 10% as smart as you think you are, you would know that the victim blaming requiring an actual victim is obvious dialectical stupidity. You either genuinely are in way over your head in the debate or have been debating in bad faith from the beginning, or both. I know which it is, you know it, and everybody else knows it, even, or better, especially, the ones that seem to agree with your "points". Sick to my stomach of the "just asking questions" shtick.

 

[FortunaUtd]

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.

Yeah it is really just a 'hostile exchange' like you would have all the time in a passionate relationship. We do not know the whole story. In the end it is just, he said, she said.

As in, he said, " Let me feck you you twat", she said "No", then he said "I don't care what you want you little shit", and the she said "Why, why do you have to do this".

As far as I can see, noone is the victim here.

 

[afrocentricity]

I reckon, whether you like what he says or not Derek has made good points.... y'all should probably move on now.

 

[cafecillos]

I reckon, whether you like what he says or not Derek has made good points.... y'all should probably move on now.

We probably should. But would you just move on if I said: "whether you like what he says or not, this user hasn't made any good points"? It's just an aspect of the debate, and I for one I'm not going to concede they are "good points" I happen to disagree with. I of course disagree with them, but I also think they are trite, stale, incorrect, uninformed, harmful, and thus generally bad points.

 

[Taribo's Gap]

We probably should. But would you just move on if I said: "whether you like what he says or not, this user hasn't made any good points"? It's just an aspect of the debate, and I for one I'm not going to concede they are "good points" I happen to disagree with. I of course disagree with them, but I also think they are trite, stale, incorrect, uninformed, harmful, and thus generally bad points.

In your view, have any "good points that you simply disagree with" been made from the camp that is more favorable to Greenwood?

 

[cafecillos]

In your view, have any "good points that you simply disagree with" been made from the camp that is more favorable to Greenwood?

Not sure how that's relevant, but yeah, probably, for example those who focus on his value as an "asset". I wholeheartedly disagree with those and I think that shouldn't be a factor at all, but I understand the logic and appreciate their candor. So generally speaking, yes, I think some "good" points can be made that are fairly "favourable" to Greenwood.

 

[FortunaUtd]

This.



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.



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



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.

Holy shit, this post must be up there with the most offensive, disingenious, brazen-faced things I have read here..

"How can I be guilty of victim-blaming when I do not believe she is a victim"?

That is truly invincible logic.
And do not think we have not noticed how in your posts suddenly both Mason Greenwood and, bizarrely, you, end up as the true victims of abuse.
Does this naive-innocence-virtue-signalling, yet clandestinely super aggressive and offensive, wolf in sheep clothes act get you far in life? You definitively have the chops to be the next Kellyanne Conway.

Absolute favourite quote:

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 is meme material..

 

[Acquire Me]

He put in a decent cross in yesterdays game against Villareal but their ST are useless and couldn’t head it.

I watched the game with a mate before the United game. Tbf on him, he was very good. His finishing and crossing should improve with more game time. Also his team mates should be better finding him. They rather cross 25 times without getting results than trying a pass to him. His positioning was excellent, but they just don’t seem to understand yet.

All in all, this was a good move from him.

 

[cafecillos]

Absolute favourite quote:


That is meme material..

Can't wait for his defenders to applaud that fecking shite.

 

[BigDerek]

@BigDerek I strongly recommend you to report all those insults and abuse you're getting, it would help in getting rid of the abusers (sic).

Also, if you were 10% as smart as you think you are, you would know that the victim blaming requiring an actual victim is obvious dialectical stupidity. You either genuinely are in way over your head in the debate or have been debating in bad faith from the beginning, or both. I know which it is, you know it, and everybody else knows it, even, or better, especially, the ones that seem to agree with your "points". Sick to my stomach of the "just asking questions" shtick.

I already reported one and was happy with the moderators response to the report. I don't want to deny people the freedom of speech though and would rather discuss our differences than silence others. I don't find labelling people who disagree with as productive on such complex topics. It usually results in ending any civil conversation and furthering division.

I don't appreciate being called a victim blamer for speculating on accusations.

I referenced the case of Ryan Kerrison yesterday who was imprisoned for alleged domestic abuse. He was a victim.

Eleanor Williams is another example of someone who made false allegations and seen men kicked out of their homes and lose their jobs and businesses. They were victims.

It's dangerous to say with certainty who is a victim, and what of, when most of that is based of one social media post. If I was querying some of the allegations by Eleanor or Emily before the truth came out you would call me a victim blamer. They were perpetrators. Using accused/accuser is the correct language to use whether you like it or not.

What adds further doubt is that both the accusers parents as well as those involved in Man Utds investigations, each of these parties have access to more information than you or I and neither consider him guilty.

Are all of these individuals also Domestic Abuse apologists and victim blamers? Do they consider the accuser a victim of the alleged crimes?

We probably should. But would you just move on if I said: "whether you like what he says or not, this user hasn't made any good points"? It's just an aspect of the debate, and I for one I'm not going to concede they are "good points" I happen to disagree with. I of course disagree with them, but I also think they are trite, stale, incorrect, uninformed, harmful, and thus generally bad points.

If everybody agreed with everyone's opinion the world would be a very boring place.

I'm not expecting you to agree with everything I say but it does not allow you the right to label me because you disagree.

Challenge my points and contest my argument but I will not accept being labelled because you disagree. I've had many arguments with right wingers who call me woke and a snowflake but don't contest my arguments, it's a weak line of debate which comes from the playground.

If I'm what you accuse me of then every lawyer in the land is also a victim blamer and domestic abuse apologist too. As well as murder apologist, pedo apologist and every other crime too. These are normal lines of inquiry and questions to be asked in a criminal case whether you like it or not.

Holy shit, this post must be up there with the most offensive, disingenious, brazen-faced things I have read here..

"How can I be guilty of victim-blaming when I do not believe she is a victim"?

That is truly invincible logic.
And do not think we have not noticed how in your posts suddenly both Mason Greenwood and, bizarrely, you, end up as the true victims of abuse.
Does this naive-innocence-virtue-signalling, yet clandestinely super aggressive and offensive, wolf in sheep clothes act get you far in life? You definitively have the chops to be the next Kellyanne Conway.

Absolute favourite quote:


That is meme material..

Edit: Heading out and I know someone will quote one line of my post and try to take it out of context. There is a potential victim. I've not said anywhere that isn't possible, the accuser COULD be a victim of what they alleged. But at the moment they are an accuser and my post is made from the perspective of a court looking at the accused and accuser.

If the accused was found to be a victim of the crimes alleged and I raised those points then YES call me an apologist and victim blamer. I've already said some of my points don't stand up and are irrelevant in the scenario that the allegations are true.

But as of now, like it or not, the fact is we are discussing an accused and accuser. Not a victim and perpetrator. I understand some may find that difficult and I apologise if I come across insensitive in saying it. And I hold my hand up and accept maybe some of my posts haven't been sensitive enough and that's a fair criticism.

But I will defend myself to the hill against anyone accusing me of being an apologist and I have a right too. That is a very dangerous accusation to make and a hurtful one too. And I think some of those saying it aren't being genuine but instead trying to attack me and make me look bad because they disagree.

As I said yesterday it feels very much Ad Hominem were others don't want to challenge the substance of my posts but simply defame me to silence me.

In my first post I said its easier to just go along with social media judge and jury as you don't open yourself up for abuse in doing so. And I stand by that because I have received abuse for my views from those who disagree. If you disagree then challenge and let me explain. I'm happy too. Don't insult me though.

The bold is very important as I forseen this coming from a mile off. Please read the rest which is quoted too as it relates.

For every single person in this thread who continues to take sentences of mine out of context it just further strengthens my views on the audio. You're literally demonstrating exactly what I'm speculating can happen - cropping a larger piece of content and taking one part out of context.

Do you think the audio should be judged on just 40 seconds or should it be judged on 15 minutes? I presume it's the latter. And thus you and I have listened to less than 10% so you're not equipped to know with certainty what happened.

I've not said anywhere that Mason is a victim of abuse. I don't know what happened. I'm just asking questions to the unknowns and it seems nobody else knows the answers either. He could be a victim we don't know.

I have received abuse. I was called disgusting, horrible, embarrassing, a coward, domestic abuse apologist, a victim blamer and much more. It's not a myth, its in the thread.

I'm not sure what my personal life has to do with the topic of Mason Greenwood. Is it relevant? Why are you bringing it into the thread?

Great quote by the way, doesn't look good at all. Again it is part of a larger post which explains the perspective but you wish to ignore that.

Alone though it does look quite insensitive and on hindsight was a poor example to use. The fact was that people often say things in the heat of the moment such as Emily Barrs when she threatened to burn the house down with the kids in it and the police considered it an empty threat in the heat of the moment. (There is a clear attempt by some to trip me up. I'm near adamant this happened in the Emily Barr/Ryan Kerrison case but it is possible it was from another. If that's the case and challenged then I'll provide the source. Just clearing that up as I know some are desperate to trip me up.)

 

[NotThatSoph]

I reckon, whether you like what he says or not Derek has made good points.... y'all should probably move on now.

Some of those points you like so much would be illegal for a lawyer to make in several countries, because of rape shield laws aimed at reducing vicitm blaming.

 

[FortunaUtd]

I already reported one and was happy with the moderators response to the report. I don't want to deny people the freedom of speech though and would rather discuss our differences than silence others. I don't find labelling people who disagree with as productive on such complex topics. It usually results in ending any civil conversation and furthering division.

I don't appreciate being called a victim blamer for speculating on accusations.

I referenced the case of Ryan Kerrison yesterday who was imprisoned for alleged domestic abuse. He was a victim.

Eleanor Williams is another example of someone who made false allegations and seen men kicked out of their homes and lose their jobs and businesses. They were victims.

It's dangerous to say with certainty who is a victim when most of that is based of one social media post. If I was querying some of the allegations by Eleanor or Emily before the truth came out you would call me a victim blamer. They were perpetrators. Using accused/accuser is the correct language to use whether you like it or not.

What adds further doubt is that both the accusers parents as well as those involved in Man Utds investigations, each of these parties have access to more information than you or I and neither consider him guilty.

Are all of these individuals also Domestic Abuse apologists and victim blamers? Do they consider the accuser a victim of the alleged crimes?



If everybody agreed with everyone's opinion the world would be a very boring place.

I'm not expecting you to agree with everything I say but it does not allow you the right to label me because you disagree.

Challenge my points and contest my argument but I will not accept being labelled because you disagree. I've had many arguments with right wingers who call me woke and a snowflake but don't contest my arguments, it's a weak line of debate which comes from the playground.

If I'm what you accuse me of then every lawyer in the land is also a victim blamed and domestic abuse apologist too. As well as murder apologist, pedo apologist and every other crime too. This are normal lines of inquiry and questions to be asked in a criminal case whether you like it or not.





The bold is very important as I forseen this coming from a mile off. Please read the rest which is quoted too as it relates.

For every single person in this thread who continues to take sentences of mine out of context it just further strengthens my views on the audio. You're literally demonstrating exactly what I'm speculating can happen.

I've not said anywhere that Mason is a victim of abuse. I don't know what happened. I'm just asking questions to the unknowns and it seems nobody else knows the answers either.

I have received abuse. I was called disgusting, horrible, embarrassing, a coward, domestic abuse apologist, a victim blamer and much more. It's not a myth, its in the thread.

I'm not sure what my personal life has to do with the topic of Mason Greenwood. Is it relevant?

Great quote by the way, doesn't look good at all. Again it is part of a larger post which explains the perspective but you wish to ignore that.

Alone though it does look quite insensitive and on hindsight was a poor example to use. The fact was that people often say things in the heat of the moment such as Emily Barrs when she threatened to burn the house down with the kids in it and the police considered it an empty threat in the heat of the moment. (There is a clear attempt by some to trip me up. I'm near adamant this happened in the Emily Barr/Ryan Kerrison case but it is possible it was from another. If that's the case and challenged then I'll provide the source. Just clearing that up as I know some are desperate to trip me up.)

You are digging and digging... You poor thing, being abused by accusers just like "Mason".
Btw I did not take your quote out of context. I just highlighted it.

 

[Redlambs]

For every single person in this thread who continues to take sentences of mine out of context it just further strengthens my views on the audio.

This is an interesting line.

 

[SteveCoppellFan]

People should draw a line under this and move on.

She outed him as a potential abuser on social media.

She then basically refused to press charges but in the process ruined his career.

She is still with him and having his baby.

He is still with her after everything that has happened.

They obviously have a very toxic relationship so good luck to both of them, they probably deserve each other.

Give a young man a ton of money and you will see his true character ( whether that is good or bad ) and will no doubt hook up with a similar type of women.

 

[FortunaUtd]

I'm not sure what my personal life has to do with the topic of Mason Greenwood. Is it relevant? Why are you bringing it into the thread?

Nothing, and I should not have made that remark. Your personal life, or really anything apart from the posts you write here, is not topic of discussion nor up to being commented on by me in any kind. Apologies.

 

[cafecillos]

So many wrong "facts", lies and bad faith arguments that I just can't anymore. I wish I had the time/energy/mental strength to contest those walls of text sentence by sentence, politely, but I don't. I'm just sorry I let myself get dragged into it like that. I should have known better.

 

[Lash]

This isn't the points I made. My points are in my second post in this thread.

That point was me responding to someone who alleged I'm a DV apologist. The first important fact, which many like to ignore - is nobody is currently guilty or a victim of any crime. Someone has been accused by an accuser.

So whether you, or others, like it or not - that is FACT. So if someone wants to twist the language and say "he said the victim did this and that, he is victim blaming" - I have the right to correct those non genuine posts and make it clear that from the start I've said I don't know who is a victim of what. I only know who is accused of what.

And it is a fact, despite how some would like to pretend it isn't, that as of now we simply have an accused and accuser. This isn't a new low. This is a fact. And certain members don't like that fact on here because if their whole counter argument is simply "you're a victim blamer" then it doesn't really stand up.

The real problem here is an inability to look at things from different t perspectives. If someone feels different to me that's fine. We live in a world of 8 billion people, I'd be worried if everyone thought the same.

Because certain members would rather insult and attack the character of people they disagree with - this is not my problem. I'm happy to engage in a respectful conversation and explain my points. But I won't be repeatedly mislabelled because someone lacks the ability to challenge my points and instead wants to potray me as a monster.

In terms of information. Yes I do have access to the same info as others on here. And we all lack access to the same amount too. The difference is I've not concluding what's in the info we don't have and I've not jumped to assumptions or my own conclusions.

Man Utd and the accusers family have access to more info than all of us. But this is ignored because certain members think they're sherlock Holmes and can cracks the case based on persons allegations and then refuse to acknowledge or discuss anything which came out there after. And anyone who does talk about it they attempt to shutdown with abusive name calling and labels (ironic).

I see 3 groups of people on this thread:

- The abusers who have been insulting people they disagree with and have a post history in the thread showing them regularly name calling those with different opinions.

- Those with an open mind that are questioning the unknowns and asking questions which would be asked in a criminal case. The right questions which need to be asked.

- Those who find it difficult to get past the social media post and allegations and think he's guilty but are willing to engage in adult conversation.


It's OK to disagree with someone. I disagree with many people on this thread. I'm not name calling them.

Don't make posts though claiming everything you say is a fact while talking about a victim. People maybe don't like that but the fact is there isn't an official victim. And if someone is going to keep using that word followed by fact as some sort of stamp dunk post. I will correct them.

Edit: Heading out and I know someone will quote one line of my post and try to take it out of context. There is a potential victim. I've not said anywhere that isn't possible, the accuser COULD be a victim of what they alleged. But at the moment they are an accuser and my post is made from the perspective of a court looking at the accused and accuser.

If the accused was found to be a victim of the crimes alleged and I raised those points then YES call me an apologist and victim blamer. I've already said some of my points don't stand up and are irrelevant in the scenario that the allegations are true.

But as of now, like it or not, the fact is we are discussing an accused and accuser. Not a victim and perpetrator. I understand some may find that difficult and I apologise if I come across insensitive in saying it. And I hold my hand up and accept maybe some of my posts haven't been sensitive enough and that's a fair criticism.

But I will defend myself to the hill against anyone accusing me of being an apologist and I have a right too. That is a very dangerous accusation to make and a hurtful one too. And I think some of those saying it aren't being genuine but instead trying to attack me and make me look bad because they disagree.

As I said yesterday it feels very much Ad Hominem were others don't want to challenge the substance of my posts but simply defame me to silence me.

In my first post I said its easier to just go along with social media judge and jury as you don't open yourself up for abuse in doing so. And I stand by that because I have received abuse for my views from those who disagree. If you disagree then challenge and let me explain. I'm happy too. Don't insult me though.

I copied and pasted that from your post? I'm not misquoting you, I just couldn't be arsed to directly quote a little slither of your long ramble.

You're just filibusting at this point. Waffling and continuing with the same arguments people are challenging you on and have the cheek to say people aren't engaging with the substance of your argument. You then cap it all off by saying someone's misquoting you or not being open minded.

Your whole "open mind" shtick just is a vehicle to throw doubt on anything that points to him being a DV abuser and her a DV victim. You don't seem to understand that she still could be a potential victim based on the information we have and what we know about domestic abuse, so you're whole "FACT" point is just nonsense. You may have said in your edit, you understand the above, but then you say you're looking it like a court - but you have nothing close to the information required to look at it from that point of view.

I find it odd you're happy to bring up individual cases to show cases where someone accused is the victim, but happy to discount when someone presents you with the arguments of the other side that go against your points.

 

[BigDerek]

Nothing, and I should not have made that remark. Your personal life, or really anything apart from the posts you write here, is not topic of discussion nor up to being commented on by me in any kind. Apologies.

No worries mate. I'm sorry if my views offend you and I probably am digging myself into a hole here as whatever I say will just fall on deaf ears of those who have labelled me.

I wish we spent more time discussing the points and questions I raised rather than trying to label me as something I don't believe I am. Nobody knows anyone's background here and I'm pretty sure our own life experiences will sub consciously influence our views on this case.

- I won't decide what is said in 15 minutes of audio based on 40 seconds. I'll admit the audio doesn't sound good and it disgusted me when it was released. But why was only that segment released? I can't with good hesrt simply disregard the rest of the audio I have not heard.

- Label me whatever you like for raising questions. But the accusers parents along with those from Man Utd involved in an investigation which has more evidence than we have, both of these think the social media doesn't give a full picture and that he isn't guilty of the alleged. Why do you think they think that?

- Can you see why I think it's unfair for people to continually label me? I'm speaking about an accuser and accused because that's what it is. If 2 parties who have more information than you or I don't consider him guilty and thus the accused a victim. Then surely you can understand why i speak of the accused and accuser. I do this because those with more information than I don't see them as a perpetrator and victim.


But I've not said Mason is innocent, I'm simply pointing out why I can't say he's guilty. And I think they're fair points to consider.

And I think it's therefore unfair for people to then misquote and take things out of context and accuse me of victim blaming. Because with the above taken into account it is very much accuser in my eyes at present. And if you change the word accuser to victim in stuff I'm saying then that completely changes the context too.

Everybody in this thread will have their own loved experiences or experiences of friends or family which may or may not sub consciously influence their views. But that does not give anyone the right to label others with disgusting derogatory terms because they disagree or want to deligitimise someone else's views.

How can we have sensible discussion and debates if the objective is not to debate the topic but instead to turn people against those we disagree. That isn't genuine and people should be more cautious of the language they use to describe others including myself.

 

[cafecillos]

This is an interesting line.

The mask is starting to slip. I for one I'm shocked.