Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yorke to Cole said:
But there is a discussion to be had. It's not as easy as saying "whataboutism" when delve into other experiences of domestic violence. Sherlock Gascoigne wrote a book "Surviving Paul Gascoigne".

I have not read it and will never read it, but I would say it is a safe bet that are accounts of violence written in that book. Again he is revered as a English football icon to this day.

That is my main criticism of people in here. People are disgusted by the thought of domestic violence, but no one is really prepared to discuss why it may occur and how you confront it to make the steps to resolve it. It is not an issue that simply defined to having one cause. There are many reasons why it occurs.

I have witnessed domestic violence and when I hear people use flippant phrases like "whataboutism" that shows me someone who thinks in this case oh domestic violence must be horrible, thank God I don't have to put up with that in my life.Poor you.
Click to expand...

Trying to ignore what Greenwood has done by saying a long dead player, who last played for United 50 years ago, may have committed DV, is peak whataboutism.

Correctly identifying silly whataboutism used to ignore actual current behaviour doesn't treat DV flippantly. Ignoring what Greenwood did certainly does though.

If we try to sign George Best again I for one will be strongly against it.
 
TheReligion said:
@BenitoSTARR

https://www.cps.gov.uk/north-east/n...n-domestic-abuse-cases-without-support-victim
Click to expand...
Below are some examples of domestic abuse cases recently successfully prosecuted by CPS North East, notwithstanding the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • The Defendant was convicted of Harassment without violence after repeatedly attending his parents' address at all hours of the day and night against their wishes, banging on doors and windows and causing a disturbance. On the day of trial the prosecution intended to proceed on the basis of 999 calls and body-worn video footage, without the victim giving live evidence, whereupon the defendant pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to a 12-month Community Order with unpaid work and rehabilitation activities and given a 12-month restraining order.
  • An evidence-led prosecution based on 999 call and body-worn video footage without the evidence of the victim led to the conviction of a defendant for common assault on his partner and obstructing a police officer. The defendant was sentenced to a conditional discharge for 18 months.
  • The Defendant was convicted on the evidence of an independent witness of assault by beating for grabbing the victim in the street and knocking her to the ground. He was sentenced to 16 weeks' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with unpaid work, rehabilitation activities and a requirement to attend a building better relationships course.
  • The Defendant was convicted of breaching a restraining order, assault causing actual bodily harm and criminal damage after he repeatedly contacted the victim, gained entry to her address and assaulted her in her home. He was sentenced to 64 weeks' imprisonment when the court activated a suspended sentence order as well as sentencing for the current offending. The restraining order was extended by a further three years.
  • The defendant was convicted of theft of money in excess of £30,000 from his disabled sister to meet his gambling debts. He was sentenced at the Crown Court to 16 months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with rehabilitation activities and a six-month curfew. £6,000 compensation was ordered to be paid.
  • The Defendant was convicted of a series of breaches of a restraining order by sending social media messages to the victim. He was sentenced to four weeks' custody for each breach and an existing suspended sentence order was activated, resulting in a total of 32 weeks' imprisonment.
  • The Defendant was convicted of Affray after he held an air pistol to the head of the victim during an argument. He was sentenced to a 12-month imprisonment, suspended for two years, with rehabilitation activities, a curfew and unpaid work. A restraining order was made for two years.
  • The Defendant was convicted of criminal damage and assault after he damaged a sofa and a collection of photographs with a knife in the family home in front of his children causing them to fear for their safety. He was sentenced to ten weeks' imprisonment, ordered to pay compensation of £110 and made the subject of a two-year restraining order in respect of the family.
These are the examples from your link.

Only one comes close to resembling the actions of Greenwood. Unfortunately the commitment to pursue and the actual outcomes are not the same despite intentions to appear serious about n prosecuting.

I cannot find anywhere stats that suggest the % conviction with victim withdrawal is high. Only anecdotes.
 
Redlambs said:
The father said it first thing in the morning, mere hours after it being posted, but nothing since.

I just wonder why that wouldn't be mentioned if it were true. Greenwood already admits to being at least partially responsible for what lead to those posts, I can't think of why they couldn't say it was hacked and leaked. Can you think of any legal reason, within your knowledge of course, why they couldn't and wouldn't say that?


Unless of course, much like this whole affair, it's more cover ups for situations we will never (and probably shouldn't ever) know. But that's pure speculation on my part. Certainly explains a whole lot more about what he isn't playing for us right now and yet isn't just booted out though.


@Rhyme Animal Apologies my friend if you've ever mentioned it as I'm a doughnut for remembering people and not mixing up usernames, but you seemingly work within range of this, so maybe you have input as to this question line?
Click to expand...

It’s difficult as we don’t know what people put in their statements (or if they provided them)

It could be a case of not wanting to implicate themselves for being misleading.

This is why putting things in the public domain is always a bad idea. In this case for instance would it have been possible for Greenwood to have a fair trial? Debatable either way but just look at the Caf and how people sit on both sides, and in the middle, of the debate.
 
BenitoSTARR said:
Below are some examples of domestic abuse cases recently successfully prosecuted by CPS North East, notwithstanding the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • The Defendant was convicted of Harassment without violence after repeatedly attending his parents' address at all hours of the day and night against their wishes, banging on doors and windows and causing a disturbance. On the day of trial the prosecution intended to proceed on the basis of 999 calls and body-worn video footage, without the victim giving live evidence, whereupon the defendant pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to a 12-month Community Order with unpaid work and rehabilitation activities and given a 12-month restraining order.
  • An evidence-led prosecution based on 999 call and body-worn video footage without the evidence of the victim led to the conviction of a defendant for common assault on his partner and obstructing a police officer. The defendant was sentenced to a conditional discharge for 18 months.
  • The Defendant was convicted on the evidence of an independent witness of assault by beating for grabbing the victim in the street and knocking her to the ground. He was sentenced to 16 weeks' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with unpaid work, rehabilitation activities and a requirement to attend a building better relationships course.
  • The Defendant was convicted of breaching a restraining order, assault causing actual bodily harm and criminal damage after he repeatedly contacted the victim, gained entry to her address and assaulted her in her home. He was sentenced to 64 weeks' imprisonment when the court activated a suspended sentence order as well as sentencing for the current offending. The restraining order was extended by a further three years.
  • The defendant was convicted of theft of money in excess of £30,000 from his disabled sister to meet his gambling debts. He was sentenced at the Crown Court to 16 months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with rehabilitation activities and a six-month curfew. £6,000 compensation was ordered to be paid.
  • The Defendant was convicted of a series of breaches of a restraining order by sending social media messages to the victim. He was sentenced to four weeks' custody for each breach and an existing suspended sentence order was activated, resulting in a total of 32 weeks' imprisonment.
  • The Defendant was convicted of Affray after he held an air pistol to the head of the victim during an argument. He was sentenced to a 12-month imprisonment, suspended for two years, with rehabilitation activities, a curfew and unpaid work. A restraining order was made for two years.
  • The Defendant was convicted of criminal damage and assault after he damaged a sofa and a collection of photographs with a knife in the family home in front of his children causing them to fear for their safety. He was sentenced to ten weeks' imprisonment, ordered to pay compensation of £110 and made the subject of a two-year restraining order in respect of the family.
These are the examples from your link.

Only one comes close to resembling the actions of Greenwood. Unfortunately the commitment to pursue and the actual outcomes are not the same despite intentions to appear serious about n prosecuting.

I cannot find anywhere stats that suggest the % conviction with victim withdrawal is high. Only anecdotes.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what your point is here?
 
TheReligion said:
I’m not sure what your point is here?
Click to expand...
The point being in those cases body worn footage or independent witnesses who were present at the events were used to convict.

And none of those cases resemble one in which a pregnancy occurred during breach of bail.

Essentially systemic failures occurred to safeguard the victim.
 
Wibble said:
Trying to ignore what Greenwood has done by saying a long dead player who last played for United 50 years ago may have committed DV is peak whataboutism.

Correctly identifying silly whataboutism used to ignore actual current behaviour doesn't treat DV flippantly. Ignoring what Greenwood did certainly does though.

If we try to sign George Best again I for one will be strongly against it.
Click to expand...

That last line in his post is so weird to me. "I have witnessed domestic violence..." then some woe is me attitude.



TheReligion said:
It’s difficult as we don’t know what people put in their statements (or if they provided them)

It could be a case of not wanting to implicate themselves for being misleading.

This is why putting things in the public domain is always a bad idea. In this case for instance would it have been possible for Greenwood to have a fair trial? Debatable either way but just look at the Caf and how people sit on both sides, and in the middle, of the debate.
Click to expand...

I was and am talking legally. Why would they not mention that aspect if it were true? I'd argue that not telling that truth makes it look worse on her in fact. Not the CPS, but both United and Greenwood would have benefitted from that...quite clearly.

Your post I agree with, she should never have put it out that way. Either it was a long time pent up act, or he did what he has told us in his statement and "made mistakes in the relationship" and she acted out then regretted it.
 
BenitoSTARR said:
The point being in those cases body worn footage or independent witnesses who were present at the events were used to convict.

And none of those cases resemble one in which a pregnancy occurred during breach of bail.

Essentially systemic failures occurred to safeguard the victim.
Click to expand...

Again I’m not sure of the point here.

Victimless prosecutions, or evidence led prosecutions, are far more common these days. Especially with more serious offences.

I thought that’s what you were discussing with @Rhyme Animal?
 
TheReligion said:
Again I’m not sure of the point here.

Victimless prosecutions, or evidence led prosecutions, are far more common these days. Especially with more serious offences.

I thought that’s what you were discussing with @Rhyme Animal?
Click to expand...
These cases are shown as examples of the improvement yet have body footage or independent witnesses.

They also don’t quantify the % conviction in these cases. This could be 6 in 600 for example. They are anecdotal and not enough to show a significant improvement.
 
Trust me, we have tons of amazing facts we found that would make you all love Greenwood again, but we aren’t going to reveal them. Sorry.
—the management
 
BenitoSTARR said:
These cases are shown as examples of the improvement yet have body footage or independent witnesses.

They also don’t quantify the % conviction in these cases. This could be 6 in 600 for example. They are anecdotal and not enough to show a significant improvement.
Click to expand...

I imagine they’ll be body worn footage in the Greenwood case. Pretty certain in fact as it’s mandatory it is used in such circumstances.

The use will be to capture an account from the victim and any witnesses. Along with injuries and other visual evidence.

Such evidence can be classed as ‘Res gestae’ and deemed admissible as evidence when usually, as hearsay, it would be inadmissible.
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
Trust me, we have tons of amazing facts we found that would make you all love Greenwood again, but we aren’t going to reveal them. Sorry.
—the management
Click to expand...

The images and audio were fake but Greenwood just forgot to use that smoking gun to prove his innocence.
 
Wibble said:
Peak whataboutism. A player from the 70s was a drunk with form for DV, albeit not as bad as Greenwood as far as we know, so let's forget Greenwood's behaviour. Nice one.
Click to expand...
To be fair George Best was far worst DV abuser (committed same crimes multiple occasions on multiple victims). Yet the club still have his statue displayed at Old Trafford and our fans still worship him as club legend.

Quite hypocrites from you lot who still regard him as club legend while at the same time despised Greenwood in every sense and refused to give him 2nd chance here to be honest.
 
Beachryan said:
I'd say the one thing that both sides of this 'debate' can agree on is that the club, and Greenwood himself (or his people) have not given the public enough information to properly make a judgement. I think this is largely down to the legal culture involved: saying nothing being better than saying the wrong thing, and releasing meaningless statements that again, elucidate nothing.

From where I sit, the decision point is simple: if Greenwood did what is implied by the audio (and pictures) then he obviously should be nowhere near our club ever again. And even though I don't have a lot faith in humanity as a whole, I believe that would also be true for the majority of people working at Manchester United.

But, outside of that 'evidence' I have nothing to go on, other than the bigger picture. The victim having the data released against her will. The victim not only staying with Mason, but also having a subsequent child, and still being together - now in a foreign country - years later as adults. Mason's own proclamations of innocence and of course the entire dropping of a high-profile case by the police. Those are context, and certainly suggest something more than the simple situation the evidence suggests.

I think the club has a responsiblity to, if they want us to accept Greenwood back, treat us as not idiots and explain it. Or Greenwood and family need to do similarly. Just releasing pat legalise won't cut it. Get the two of them on one of those godawful tv specials telling what happened. Or even better, get a proper press conference to do so. Just something.

Because none of us know enough to say much more at this stage. For all those well-intetioned posters talking about the cycle of domestic violence, women being forced to remain and so forth - that's all true but you have no idea whatsoever if it applies to Mason and his partner. It might. It might not. You're guessing. For those saying there's some explanation that makes this all make sense and not what it look like - again, maybe there is but you have no idea.

Greenwood doesn't get privacy, I'm afraid, playing at Manchester United.
Click to expand...

This is one of the best balanced post in this thread. The fact is 99.9% of us don't know enough to make judgement. We need Greenwood and his partner to come out to clarify the situation.
 
BenitoSTARR said:
Out of interest what leaps in logic do you believe are required to conclude he is guilty of:
  1. Breaching bail conditions
  2. Coercive controlling behaviour
  3. Assault occassioning actual bodily harm
  4. Attempted rape
And what leaps of logic are required to completely absolve him of all of the above?

Can you appreciate how the grey areas will always exist in cases of intimate partner violence?
Click to expand...

There is no doubt he breached his bail conditions, but we do not know any of the details about how this happened - when did it begin? who instigated it? were the families aware? etc

The rest is the unknown area and those who are convinced he is guilty have to perform 'mental gymnastics' to ignore the findings of the club investigation which, although far from conclusive, had access to more information than you or I.
You also have to find an explanation for the CPS mention of 'new material'.
Plus you need to satisfy yourself not just about the father of the alledged victim but also the mother, sister, brother and potentially other family/friends who may know more but have all chosen to remain silent. At the same time, it is also possible that one or more of these parties are the 'key witnesses' who withdrew - again we have absolutely no idea what the reality is.

On the other side, if you want to absolve him completely then you have to come up with an explanation for the initial audio and pics that were released.
Why did she have these? Who released them and why? Why have the 'alternative explanations' not been made public? etc

Just to note that there often tends to be a hysterical reaction from some posters when anyone tries to throw out theories to absolve Greenwood but not so much from the other angle, which seems hypocritical to me.
I understand that this can be an emotive subject and sadly some will have negative personal experiences which impact their thinking, but there needs to be some balance in this discussion seeing as none of us know the actual truth. As I said, I think it's best not to speculate and just stick to the facts but that goes for both sides of the discussion.
 
RedRonaldo said:
To be fair George Best was far worst DV abuser (committed same crimes multiple occasions on multiple victims). Yet the club still have his statue displayed at Old Trafford and our fans still worship him as club legend.

Quite hypocrites from you lot who still regard him as club legend while at the same time despised Greenwood in every sense and refused to give him 2nd chance here to be honest.
Click to expand...

George Best is just as not guilty as Greenwood is.
 
RedRonaldo said:
To be fair George Best was far worst DV abuser (committed same crimes multiple occasions on multiple victims). Yet the club still have his statue displayed at Old Trafford and our fans still worship him as club legend.

Quite hypocrites from you lot who still regard him as club legend while at the same time despised Greenwood in every sense and refused to give him 2nd chance here to be honest.
Click to expand...
U wot m8?
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
Trust me, we have tons of amazing facts we found that would make you all love Greenwood again, but we aren’t going to reveal them because it's very possible they could paint his partner and the mother of his child in a bad light or could constitute a breech in their privacy. Sorry.
—the management
Click to expand...
 
interesting to see one of his majesty’s own trying to use technicalities to get a young, black man off a crime, rather than just planting drugs on him after giving him a shoeing. it’s a wonder he got through the multiple choice interview questions.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
Or perhaps, crazy as it sounds, maybe her family who obviously Love her and care for her deeply are actually privy to infinitely more information and knowledge than anyone else, and that knowledge and information has lead to them sticking with him and supporting the couple…?

As difficult as it obviously is for many on here to accept - her family know infinitely more about this than you do. The CPS know infinitely more about the case than you do. Utd know more about it than you do…

Her family have remained in support of the couple and seem genuinely happy.

The CPS dropped all charges MONTHS AFTER she stated she wanted nothing to do with the case.

Utd stated that they believe him to be innocent of the initial charges.

So maybe, just maybe there’s more to the story than ‘he’s defo guilty’.

As thus far, literally every element that knows a lot about it - her family, the CPS, his partner herself, Man Utd - does not act as though he’s guilty.

But hey, Joe Bloggs sat on the internet knows for sure he is guilty and anyone not convinced of the same is an ‘evil dick’ etc.
Click to expand...
Very well put.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
Or perhaps, crazy as it sounds, maybe her family who obviously Love her and care for her deeply are actually privy to infinitely more information and knowledge than anyone else, and that knowledge and information has lead to them sticking with him and supporting the couple…?

As difficult as it obviously is for many on here to accept - her family know infinitely more about this than you do. The CPS know infinitely more about the case than you do. Utd know more about it than you do…

Her family have remained in support of the couple and seem genuinely happy.

The CPS dropped all charges MONTHS AFTER she stated she wanted nothing to do with the case.

Utd stated that they believe him to be innocent of the initial charges.

So maybe, just maybe there’s more to the story than ‘he’s defo guilty’.

As thus far, literally every element that knows a lot about it - her family, the CPS, his partner herself, Man Utd - does not act as though he’s guilty.

But hey, Joe Bloggs sat on the internet knows for sure he is guilty and anyone not convinced of the same is an ‘evil dick’ etc.
Click to expand...

:) beautifully put. We all hope that Greenwood and his partner will come out sooner rather than later to clear things up. Perhaps with more information to clear things up he will be allowed to come back to Man Utd. The fans don't have to split up on the "moral standards" on the matter anymore.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
This is one of the best balanced post in this thread. The fact is 99.9% of us don't know enough to make judgement. We need Greenwood and his partner to come out to clarify the situation.
Click to expand...

We really dont. Irrespective of what they would say, many have already made up their mind anyway. Also those types of interviews are carefully scripted and edited so can come across even worse than intended. Also there will be all sorts of legality around it, not to contradict what has already been said, and lets be honest, Mason could only be footballer for good reason...not the brightest and would be a risk.

The club has bought themselves time and this is a holding position. What they hope is there will be other things going on a utd and maybe in the world of football, and his return goes under the radar, will less profile. I bet theres some at utd who would love the City cheating scandal to further explode further whilst Mason is putting his boots on at Carrington.
 
Getting married and having a baby are some of the worst punishments a young man could have ever experienced already.
 
rimaldo said:
interesting to see one of his majesty’s own trying to use technicalities to get a young, black man off a crime, rather than just planting drugs on him after giving him a shoeing. it’s a wonder he got through the multiple choice interview questions.
Click to expand...

Good attempt :lol:
 
MDFC Manager said:
I tend to agree. We can't be condoning the present and the future because of what's happened in the past.
Click to expand...

How when the past doesn’t change. So unless we are going to erase George Best from our past then we are hypocrites.
 
Mainoldo said:
How when the past doesn’t change. So unless we are going to erase George Best from our past then we are hypocrites.
Click to expand...
You don't need to erase him, just like you're not a dickhead if you still like and sing along to Imagine. You just need to be aware of his flaws, so you don't worship flawed characters.
 
Putting aside everything he’s done, and the fact that his mrs has forgiven him, had a child with him and they’re now engaged.. I absolutely can’t stand all this weird posturing from the Spanish clubs who can’t believe their luck.. there’s absolutely no way he’d ever be sold to Barcelona if it wasn’t for this situation and they’re talking as if they’re doing us a favour.. I think it would be easier to swallow if the victim still cared.. but seeing as everyone involved seems to have moved on, being offended on their behalf seems like a waste of energy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.