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.
