The mask is starting to slip. I for one I'm shocked.
Last edited:
Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
- Status
You love shutting down a debate.
While Derek may have made some good points he's made a couple of outrageous ones that really should be pointed out, as frequently as people see fit.
How is this a debate? People heard the audio and saw the video. Some decided it was enough to form the opinion they would rather not have him at the club. Others decided that it was inconclusive. It's literally just personal opinion.
Why are the criteria on how we all make decisions up for debate?
We all make decisions on the data available all the time. And that's why opinions vary wildly on every subject. We rarely have all the data. Even things we witness with our own eyes often have elements obscured.
And this is a forum for opinions. The idea that it has suddenly become a court is tedious.
Claim that redcafe thinks it's a court, based on nothing, then argue that it's not a court. It's a tedious debating game, the ultimate straw man.
Why are the criteria on how we all make decisions up for debate?
We all make decisions on the data available all the time. And that's why opinions vary wildly on every subject. We rarely have all the data. Even things we witness with our own eyes often have elements obscured.
And this is a forum for opinions. The idea that it has suddenly become a court is tedious.
Claim that redcafe thinks it's a court, based on nothing, then argue that it's not a court. It's a tedious debating game, the ultimate straw man.
Which ones?
It's not about shutting it down, it's just not looking good. In comparison to Derek's measured responses they aren't coming across well at all moses... just my opinion and I'm allowed that
The one pointing out her sexual history as a factor for Greenwood being innocent is especially egregious.
Safe to say no one will change anyone else's mind in this thread.
Just because Derek writes a lot of words, doesn't make it measured.
You're allowed your opinion, but you literally said we should move on because you think he's made some good points. Just like everyone is allowed to challenge him, because in their opinion, they're not good points.
There actually is a point of debate on how we form our opinions. People tend to jump to conclusions based on short tweets, part of the picture and/or really small amount of information.
Yes, Caf is not a court, society does not need to follow the same rules as courts to form opinions. All agreed.
However, there is a good reason why people should be careful with providing conclusive opinions on matters such as Greenwood situation on the basis of very limited information / material available. In my opinion, such approach will prompt more false accusations and actually undermine the whole fight against DV. Just want to stress, I am not saying that Greenwood situation is an example where the alleged perpetrator was falsely accused.
There is nothing wrong with opinions that say on balance, I think that Greenwood was abusive and unless Greenwood provides good explanation I don’t want him to be associated with our club. Fair play, I don’t share this sentiment for various reasons but the above opinion may absolutely be correct and I fully understand people who are of such opinion. People that I don’t understand are the ones who are absolutely sure that Greenwood is an attempted rapist and so on. There is simply no material publicly available to state this with absolute certainty.
Of course there is no certainty. Even after lengthy court cases there can be uncertainty. In any difference of opinion there will be extreme views and people strategically aim at them to make their own point. It's that bad faith debating that perpetuates the circus.
It's a debate because presumably fan opinion formed at least part of the basis of the rationale for the decision the club made regarding how to approach the handling of Mason. It will presumably also form at least part of the basis of the decision for what to do with him in the future. With the passage of time and the release of additional information at least some have changed their minds about this issue. This forum is about the club so, to the extent that fan opinion matters, then the debate about the criteria to form an opinion matters.
Even if you grant that Redcafe posters will absolutely have no bearing on club decision making or the sentiment of the United fanbase writ large, it's a debate because almost everything on the internet is a debate these days. More to the point, we live in a time where there is a raging debate about the sufficient evidentiary threshold that is appropriate or permissible to enact real harm to individual lives by means of extra-judicial judgement and punishment in cases where a judicially satisfactory level of evidence may not yet be available and/or the judicial system is ill-equipped to mete out justice. We live in a time where there are real ongoing questions about the appropriate parties to bear the brunt of collateral damage in pursuit of broader social ends when justice is dispensed more immediately in this fashion rather than primarily relying on recourse to an adversarial court system with stricter rules of evidence or even just more thorough investigations.
When you add the viscerality of the available evidence in this case, the fame and name of the club, the potential of the player, the current struggles of the club and the long, historical association of the player with the club, it will for sure be a debate. A few people are probably debating to change minds, whether of their direct interlocutors or of interested readers. Others might simply be venting because, at present, there is a lot to vent about and internet screeds may provide some weird catharsis.
Last edited:
Eh, stating things matter of factly doesn't make them true. You don't know how contact was initiated between them - you don't know how the pregnancy came to be and if that led to the statements being retracted - certainly not in the way you've framed it.
The information available to us by parties involved in the matter - including the victim's family - and the club, which asserted the victim was aware of the communication between the club and her parents and opted not to correct the club's findings - is that he wasn't guilty of controlling and coercive behaviour.
He's likely a bozo - he admitted to making mistakes (whatever that even means), but people keep acting as if their narrative is the "correct" one, when really everyone has super limited knowledge
There won't be a response from him or his people either.
Well, maybe now there will be, but it should be clear the point being ignored there either way.
No I said you should move on because at this point it just looks like a pile on and I'm not sure that's what you intended... I don't even care anymore
OK, fair enough. I can take that point.
Actually we know that Greenwood's partner retracted her statement as early as April 2022 so the idea she did this only after getting pregnant is false
We don't know when exactly they got back together but it's probable that it was soon after that
Do we? Any source for that? He was charged in October, so I think you're probably wide of the mark on that claim.
‘got her pregnant’…
You talk about his partner like she’s some sort of inanimate doll, lots of people in here do.
Maybe she actually - shock horror -wanted to have a baby with Mason!?
Getting pregnant didn’t automatically mean she had to remove herself from the case and further still I gather she never even approached the Police anyway.
She’s by all accounts an intelligent, capable adult, she isn’t a child or a doll.
He didn’t ‘sneak upon her and get her pregnant’ like nosferatu ffs.
They’re a long term couple - very long term given their ages - who’ve had a baby TOGETHER.
My source is The Athletic, was also reported by MEN and has been mentioned in this thread before:
https://theathletic.com/4151788/2023/02/03/mason-greenwood-manchester-united-explain/
"At a hearing at Manchester & Salford Magistrates’ Court on Monday, October 17, the court was told the complainant had made allegations against Greenwood following an ABE (achieving best evidence) interview — a video-recorded interview with a vulnerable or intimidated witnesses where the recording is intended to be played as evidence in court at a later date — in January of that year. She had then provided a retraction statement in April."
They’re right. I actually posted it in this thread before. I just forgot about it:
The Guardian reported the following:
A court heard last October how a central plank in the inquiry had collapsed only four months after Greenwood was arrested.
It is understood that police and prosecutors initially decided to continue with the case because of the significant level of public interest, given Greenwood’s high profile and the seriousness of the allegations.
But a review of the case by CPS lawyers has concluded that there was no realistic prospect of conviction given the collapse of the case.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...ors-drop-alleged-case-against-mason-greenwood
Thanks both.
That surprised me going ahead without it, but I guess it makes sense with regards to being in public interest and seriousness of original interview.
What has she done? He threatened to rape her (at the very least), I don't see how her character can be compared with his?
Horsechoker's point is a very good one. We know the audio is real, and that Mason Greenwood is the one in the audio. We now know the picture of the two Sheffield supporters is real, yet I doubt a single one of the posters in this thread who continuously claim that because it didn't go to court we can't make up our minds on Greenwood and his guilt, would have the same stance in the other thread.
Maybe if those two Sheffield supporters played on the RW and could finish with both feet they'd feel differently?
That is what I posted a couple of pages back.
I think it was the public interest the social media evidence that made them continue to request extensions of bail in order to try and accumulate more evidence or in this case the key witness changes mind.
When the GMP they stated that the "withdrawal of a statement of the key witness and new information coming to light made the possibility of conviction unrealistic. "
Would have they not known this prior to the October of charging him?
Last edited:
I think the main reason he was charged in October is because he broke his bail conditions.
Its possible the new info came out after October, I guess we will never know what that info is but it must have been significant.
Either way it is strange that the CPS dragged this out so long - obviously they have a duty to investigate and they probably went on longer than they usually would due to the high profile but 10 months after she retracted her statement seems a bit much.
If he wants to come back to the Premier League, some light has to shed to some degree.
I'd be interested to know if you know of any instances where someone has actually changed their mind, and why.
I've seen a few in this thread alone, but also elsewhere and a few personal friends. The reasons people are doing so are all over the map and not all of them are great reasons. Here are a few that I've noticed:
- Some variation of outrage fatigue or time heals all wounds and people just wanting to get on with football now. Football as a means of escapism factors here.
- Greenwood is young and there is no need to derail his career or life anymore by further jettisoning him from the club. He will learn from this mistake; we've all been young and made dumb mistakes etc. With this one there is also a bit of nostalgia and sentimentality for the promise he once held and seeing him back and playing again has brought some of those feelings back and made some less inclined to be punitive.
- The club bears some responsibility for how he developed and should therefore be involved in his rehabilitation with him as a member of the club
- He is a really good and skillful prospect and the club needs good attacking talent, especially given the dearth of forward talent in this overinflated market.
- The club wouldn't risk themselves and include certain language in that statement if they didn't have access to additional information somewhat exonerating Greenwood.
- His partner seems to have forgiven him, so why should I persist in demanding continued punishment for him if the alleged victim isn't even mad anymore?
- Oh no, Mendy was a coordinated setup! These are golddiggers looking for clout and/or money. The back on forth on Antony has further added to this one. If people quickly jumped to condemn in such scenarios and then later the situations become more complicated, some just dispense with the complicated stuff and move on with football.
- Look at Partey! Why should United put themselves at a competitive disadvantage when other clubs are not doing so and are not held to the same standard?
- Regardless of what actually happened, reintegrating Greenwood would not have been worth the PR headache, especially in light of the Rubiales situation. Club has enough ongoing sh*tshows already.
- Greenwood admitted to making mistakes, he needs to pay the price and learn from this elsewhere
You’re talking absolute nonsense.
And I’m not someone who has ever thought the Greenwood audio was roleplay.
Using anything to do with Brad to make snidey little point score ‘jokes’ is fecking pathetic and if you take a step back you know that’s the truth.
I like horsechoker, I’m not calling him / her a bad person, but it wasn’t needed in that thread and it doesn’t make any point at all beyond a snide jibe.
Again I’ve never entertained the notion of roleplay in the Greenwood audio, but games do exist in the bedroom that are essentially geared around non-consent.
There aren’t roleplay games that revolve around going to football grounds and mocking children who’ve passed away - as I said, you know that such a notion is utter fecking nonsense.
You’re standing by it because you agree with horsechoker’s stance on Greenwood, I get that, it’s what people do on here and how cliques works. What I’m saying, as if it needs saying, is that a thread about Bradley Lowry does not need anyone making jibes about Greenwood in it.
Whether she approached the police or not, she may as well have done because she released it on social media
So it is clear they would have, but we don't know what the first interview was like, she could have said some serious accusations, alongside with DV cases it's not being uncommon for complainant to retract a statement. Based on the public interest and also the evidence they had at the time, they probably felt it was proper to charge him - especially as @Rood says, he broke his bail conditions. The CPS are looking at it through the lens of future prosecutions too, so I do see why they went ahead.
Embarrassing that anyone would bring that into this thread - as if there is any comparison at all in the 2 situations
As disgusting as the situation is with that child, for me it's not a crime and the police getting involved is a bit of a joke and down to social pressure.
What Greenwood did based on the audio (and given no one has denied it) is a slam-dunk crime. He didn't get to go to court with it but the comparison here is that this does not mean it's not a crime and anyone trying to make this case is being disingenuous.
Is anyone making that case?
Not that I've seen
The CPS did not agree that it is a 'slam-dunk crime', if it was then it would have gone to court and be in prison by now.
As I said, you're being disingenuous here.
I don't need the CPS to tell me it's wet outside if it's pissing down with rain We've seen plenty of cases where lack of conviction is not equal to being innocent.
The verdict in law itself says 'not guilty' precisely because of this.
Additionally, in such criminal cases the burden of 'beyond reasonable doubt ' is tough to satisfy even when a crime has been committed and with these DV cases, the number of witnesses are limited to both parties, so the CPS's hands would be tied.
Disingenuous about what? I note you didn't answer my last question, seems you are arguing against a position no one holds - did I say anything about a lack of trial meaning he is innocent ?
The point is that there is nothing 'slam-dunk' about this case - again this is just your opinion.
Whereas the facts show that neither the CPS nor the club (after completing an internal investigation) agree with you.
Obviously not. I thought it was clear enough, but let me clarify it even further: I'm saying that people are using the following "logic" as an actual argument in these debates: "They're back together, she has clearly forgiven him for whatever he did, so why shouldn't we?" Which is deplorable as feck, yes - because it ignores (willfully or not) a - for lack of a better word - classic trait of abusive relationships.
I don't like to push anecdotes on people, but a close relative of mine kept doing just this: forgiving someone who abused them, getting back together, rinse and repeat. If it weren't for the fact that the bastard in question was finally arrested and locked up for abusing someone else (too), this sad pattern probably would've continued to this day.
Of course Greenwood and his partner could end up in a happy, normal relationship - they are very young, after all. And I sincerely hope they do. It's the nature of this line of argument I have problem with.
Spot on.
This has been my point all along. No prosecution doesn't mean no wrong-doing and/or future issues.
The simplicity of some of these arguments is ignorant, at best.
The sheer (willful?) ignorance of many posting in this thread is breathtaking (and very depressing).
Possibly the five most ludicrous assertions are that 1) There was no conviction so how can there be victim blaming?, 2) She didn't seem scared enough, 3) she has forgiven him so why can't we, 4) you can't have an ethically or morally based opinion because he wasn't convicted in a court of law (bonus buzzword bingo points for mentioning "trial by social media" or a "kangaroo court"), and 5) ignoring all the undisputable evidence that DV victims often go back to their abusers.
Here in Australia about 1 woman a week is murdered by their domestic partner. Many will have "voluntarily" gone back to their abuser (now killer). The figure is nearly double that in the UK, an average of 88 per year (10 year average).
Possibly the five most ludicrous assertions are that 1) There was no conviction so how can there be victim blaming?, 2) She didn't seem scared enough, 3) she has forgiven him so why can't we, 4) you can't have an ethically or morally based opinion because he wasn't convicted in a court of law (bonus buzzword bingo points for mentioning "trial by social media" or a "kangaroo court"), and 5) ignoring all the undisputable evidence that DV victims often go back to their abusers.
Here in Australia about 1 woman a week is murdered by their domestic partner. Many will have "voluntarily" gone back to their abuser (now killer). The figure is nearly double that in the UK, an average of 88 per year (10 year average).
It's the brazen fact it's because we are shit at the moment and he's got some god-like status as a player that gets me.
On a separate note, people really shouldn't be getting likes in this thread for siding with the opinions of those who can do so. That's not what the system is for.
The person that held up his phone has been charged 4a public order charge.
This means nothing in a court of law. Not sure why you're using made up terms now. Either you have a very limited understanding of the law, or you live in your own world with your own rules. Either way, it's interesting to hear your attempts at making sense of the world.
Last edited:
- Status