Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
- Status
Is it not? We're not privy to all the information. The information we've seen is taken largely out of context from a much larger fabric. You choose to make your opinion based on that? Good on you. I do not. And thankfully, neither do the courts.Propaganda feck sake thanks for the laugh
Thank feck everyone doesn't operate using this mentality, or we would live in an even shittier world than we currently do. Is the decision to bring him back right or wrong? What does it matter what City or the others would have done.
I guess, as a club, we should be more careful with the footballing aspect and make smart football related decisions, rather than other factors, after all we are a Football Club not a Propaganda Club.
The point was made that we bend over to the media's driven agenda. Other teams give the media the big middle finger and do as they please. We shit the bed and u-turned our decision.
Propaganda?! Yep, I guess 'Team Anti-Domestic Violence' are using this to further their shadowy agenda eh?! Ffs, calling it propaganda is both ludicrous and revealing.
Not at all. The information released was taken massively out of context. Realistically, none of us are privy to the full story and context of the footage/media; despite what some like to believe. Hence, propaganda. The media, as per usual, used partial information to drive their agenda and views. And people lapped it up and took it as gospel. Who actually knows what the feck went on? Not you, not I, and certainly not the media.
I base my opinion on facts. Maybe others should, too, and get off the fecking band-wagon.
So if none of us are privy to the full context how on earth do you know the information released was out of context?
The audio and photos were released on the individuals own personal account. No agenda from media applied there and no denial from anyone involved that the audio and photos are anything but facts of the situation.
Not sure about you but if I were in the position of Greenwood and someone released that about me that wasn't true I'd be damn sure that I fought to make sure that it was denied and squashed. No denial has been made.
Most people here that want nothing to do with Greenwood have made their own mind up without any media influence.
We only heard excerpts of the full audio - and who knows what was said/done prior?
Also, she took him back, which further PROOFS it wasn't that bad.
Ffs this has been done to death. Very few people know categorically but all the evidence that we currently have to go on, coupled with Greenwood not saying anything to explain it, makes it far more probable than not that he's a woman beating scumbag. If your only defense of him is 'we haven't seen evidence that may or may not exist, that may or may not exculpate him' you're on pretty shaky ground.
But mr facts you specifically just said it was massively out of context. Substantiate that claim or admit you're not basing your opinion on facts at all.
You're trying to factualize a release of a material by only one participating side. It matters to jack shit what you want in terms of squashing an accusation like that. It only matters what a good lawyer will advise you to do.
Without having the full context, any grown man needs to understand that, whatever we talk about the subject, is just gossip and this is coming from someone who was accused of assault and rape when I was 17 in a very similar to Greenwood's situation. (I was saved by a fecking random party video and by a janitor seeing the drunk idiot lady falling drunk on the stairs and knocking her teeth out).
We can speculate for days. What if the lady hit him with a frying pan and he just hit her back? (idiotic example but works)
You realise the only reason it didn't go further is because the witness pulled out and wouldn't provide further evidence that is not definitive in any way but do carry on
And neither is the fact that further information actually exists? Who says there is? An assumption?
At the end of the day, he wasn't prosecuted because the witness pulled out. For what reason, nobody knows outside of opinion.
I mean, it's not gossip. It's an audio clip and a series of photos.
If he didn't do it it's quite easy for him to deny it but since he didn't deny anything it's quite clear that there is a very strong suggestion he did do those things and this is why people have a major issue with him returning, no matter what the media will try to influence people into deciding.
I'm basing my opinion on lack of facts?
Excerpts. He may very well have done it. I do not deny this. However, how will we ever know outside of opinions? My personal -opinion- is that there is a very high likelihood that he DID do it. However, we do not definitely know this - so we cannot publicly prosecute without knowing the full story.
He had the opportunity to deny it many times. He didn't. I don't see any reason at all put forward that could possibly explain why he wouldn't deny it unless it was true.
Maybe he's guilty, and cannot deny? Maybe he's not? Maybe there's other reasons? But who honestly knows? He had his reasons to not to deny. Who knows why? Again, not you, not I, and not anybody outside of himself and those directly involved.
Personally, I don't buy any reason why he wouldn't unless it was true and I'm sure many others do too. The evidence for us is strong enough to not want them involved at the club or in English football in general.
If you wish to think otherwise then you do you but to suggest it's all part of a big media agenda is a bit naff.
That's the issue at hand, here. Personal opinions have clouded the actual facts; to the point that people's opinion is now factual in their minds.
I don't buy into that.
I don't know if he's guilty or not. And neither does anyone else outside of Mason himself, and those directly involved.
Why did the CPS not prosecute irrespective of the witness not providing additional evidence? Because the evidence that they actually had was not enough to prosecute? So who are we - the public - to prosecute him?
It's an opinion based on the facts we have been provided with hence why something such as Greenwood not denying those presented facts is an issue.
So why was he not prosecuted based on the facts available?
He did deny it, although obviously that doesn't mean he didn't do it but his statement is clear:
"I was brought up to know that violence or abuse in any relationship is wrong, I did not do the things I was accused of, and in February I was cleared of all charges. However, I fully accept I made mistakes in my relationship, and I take my share of responsibility for the situations which led to the social media post.
"I am learning to understand my responsibilities to set a good example as a professional footballer, and I’m focused on the big responsibility of being a father, as well as a good partner...."
That's not denial of the audio and photos being true.
Spot on. I hope he really came out of it as a better person. Let’s focus on his football sife
The main issue for me is that he's very young. It's proven that adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the rational part of the brain. That isn't fully developed until age 25. The teen brain thinks with the amygdala, which is the emotional part. If you were to go into a typical secondary school in the UK you would be fecking shocked at what social media has done to the sexual opinions of boys (and girls) up and down the country. This is in no way excusing it, rather to highlight just how young Greenwood is and his path to rehabilitation is strong with the correct support network (whether at United or externally).
The other issue is that this is a problem affecting - most likely - every single team in the league, as highlighted by the recent story on the BBC. Not bringing Greenwood back would not be a moralising decision but one purely based on PR, as we (and likely most other teams) are playing players that are or have faced similar claims without public knowledge. If we were to not bring Greenwood back based on public opinion, I would at the very least hope we took the vanguard in combatting the issue across the league. Otherwise, it'll just be a PR stunt without forethought of the actual reason why he's not playing for United (i.e. we don't want to field sexual abusers).
On top of it all, the victim has chosen to start a family with him and has decided to publicly support him at Getafe. She didn't have to do that and I think it's particularly telling.
The other issue is that this is a problem affecting - most likely - every single team in the league, as highlighted by the recent story on the BBC. Not bringing Greenwood back would not be a moralising decision but one purely based on PR, as we (and likely most other teams) are playing players that are or have faced similar claims without public knowledge. If we were to not bring Greenwood back based on public opinion, I would at the very least hope we took the vanguard in combatting the issue across the league. Otherwise, it'll just be a PR stunt without forethought of the actual reason why he's not playing for United (i.e. we don't want to field sexual abusers).
On top of it all, the victim has chosen to start a family with him and has decided to publicly support him at Getafe. She didn't have to do that and I think it's particularly telling.
Come on, man. We're reaching into the world of semantics here. He denied he did it - isn't that what you argued he did NOT do?
I was always talking about the audio and photos. If that's not Greenwood who is speaking and who has done those things then who is it? Why leave a sense of ambiguity over that unless it was you and you're just trying to save face.
Great post. And agree fully.
I don't understand your point here at all - it's a pretty clear denial to me, what exactly would constitute denial for you?
He at no point denies it is him in the audio.
Denying the actual allegations far supersedes the fact of whether it's him in the audio tape or not. He wasn't being prosecuted for being in an audio tape. He was being prosecuted for rape and domestic violence, both of which he denies.
No offense, but I feel like you're grasping a touch here, mate.
Maybe because his lawyers told him not to talk about it, at all?
(* just replying to point…. NOT arguing about what the audio/video showed. Or him as a person or whether he should play here again)
He's denied the claims made against him, which means the audio has a different context to the one that we're assuming.
Were Greenwood to have been convicted there would be no qualms. With charges dropped, the victim proactively supporting him since restarting his career and Greenwood focusing purely on rehabilitation I believe he has every right to play wherever he can including United.
Trial by social media is no reason to rip up a contract. Trial by the courts is. I think that's a fairly established line in the sand that should be stuck to or we open up Pandora's box on who should and who shouldn't be playing whenever there's an accusation of anything, regardless of the veracity of evidence that is posted in the public domain.
What if the full length audio is much worse than the snippets released?
Not really, as if the question is about morals, perhaps people do not wish to have an individual at the club who is like that (inflamed further by images).
- If there is a different context it would be quite easy to come out and say that. There hasn't been, which is very odd. If it were me in that situation I'd make sure damn well that the correct context of the situation was being told.
Many victims of DV go back to their partners.
There is no such thing as trial by social media.
- Status