"Legal terms" don't need to be "accepted". Either they are legal terms or they aren't. What law is "trial by social media" on?
Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
- Status
Yes I do understand that and I don't have an issue with anything you have posted there, all valid points.
Although I would say that my social media feeds are close to 50/50 on this subject - so that might just reflect more about who we follow or what algorithms decide to show us, again pointing to the dangers of social media!
Trial by compelling, disturbing evidence shared on social media.
I don't understand your question and don't want to go too far off the thread topic anyway
I've posted the relevant articles, there are many others if you want to dive deeper into that particular subject.
You don't understand the question "What law is "trial by media" on?"?
Legal terms or concepts need to be written and precisely defined in law, otherwise they are not legal terms or concepts, but colloquial ones which can mean anything depending on the subjectivity of the speaker/writer.
Absolutely brilliant post.
And it's clearly true, just from this thread alone, too many people really don't care about DV/sexual abuse whether that be through ignorance of what that means or not. This situation and the threads on him, plus responses all over other social media, show that we simply aren't as forward thinking as we like to think. It's depressing.
But at least we are forced to see how bad the situation is. And how much more is needed to be done for awareness. Especially in the justice system.
Absolutely. It's not even a metric that can easily be gauged, but the point is there was plenty in his favour too.
Which is why even though I agree with your take on "trial by social media" and what it means, I also push back on the idea of how much that actually plays a part. I think, like Doofy very well put it and which I'm sure you would agree, that the issue here as always has been the awful handling of the case by both the Authorities and United themselves.
Surely we can all agree that, and many have said, that if they tasked an independent review with full help and transparency from support groups and professionals then this would surely have been resolved one way or another much quicker and allowed all parties to move forward whilst perhaps being a positive light to shine on DV and these cases. Instead, both the police and United have been shown to once again act ridiculously poorly. And that plain and simple sucks.
And in this case it is utterly bullshit.
Yes totally agree with that - United probably would have preferred that the case actually went to court because then they don't need to get involved.
I have no doubt that one of the main reasons Richard Arnold got the sack was due to this situation being mishandled - as well as negative publicity off the pitch, it's actually part of why we have scored so few goals.
We went into the season weak upfront because ETH was told Greenwood was coming back and didn't get any replacement when it become clear he wasn't.
We wait and see now what the new CEO decides, will be interesting to see how it plays out.
- We were provided with alternative explanations for the audio recording, which was a short excerpt from a much longer recording, and for the images posted online.
- The alleged victim's family participated in the process and were given the opportunity to review and correct our factual findings.
How does it straight up say nothing of the sort? The family were involved in the investigation, United's investigation concluded an alternative explanation for the events. The family were able to review and correct the factual findings. The conclusion United's investigators came to (which the family were able to review and correct) was that an alternative explanation existed. This seems fairly straightforward?
Maybe to you, but the wording is important.
And no, it doesn't mean they support it. Both sides are trying to inject motivation into the family's behaviour, but we don't know anything about that. Just like I could point out the fact her father claimed "hacking" a mere hours after she released those pictures and that audio, and yet somehow that is not even discussed officially and certainly not by (I wonder why...hmmm) and then suggest there's more to the story from that.
But I will stress that we all need to get it into our heads that nothing is straightforward about this. And I mean that from the perspective of Greenwood maybe not being as guilty of what he was charged with as people think too.
It says that someone provided them with an alternative explanation. Greenwood will of course have provided them with an alternative explanation.
It says that the family participated and was given the opportunity to review and correct. One way to do that is to listen to the club repeating Greenwood's story, and not taking that opportunity. Nothing in Arnold's statement necessitates anyone from the family saying a single word.
@redcucumber I think the issue is you used the phrase it’s ’cut and dry the family support the alternative explanation’.
It’s a fair assumption to make but it is an assumption so not cut and dry so to speak.
The family haven’t commented and may well have just decided not to.
It’s a fair assumption to make but it is an assumption so not cut and dry so to speak.
The family haven’t commented and may well have just decided not to.
I’m sure Greenwood would have although the other explanation/s could have also come from other sources too.
The truth is no one knows other than the club and the statement is deliberately vague.
An independent review would have been advantageous as it would counter the evident vested interest the club have in protecting a valuable asset, but I'm not convinced full transparency would be helpful (I'm assuming full transparency to mean all of the details and reasoning made public). Full transparency might have negative consequences for the partner/family. She's entitled to privacy and I think it's upto her if she wants reveal details publicly. Given that they are back together, I suspect any details which they do ever choose to make public would likely be edited or fabricated to cover for Mason anyway. Which means the public will never know, and there will always be doubt about Mason's innocence.
Quality control
Do people actually think Mason wants to come back to United after the way the club treated him and especially the media. There is no way in hell he will ever set foot in the English league again, especially now going to be snubbed by England for rest of his career. Madrid and Barcelona are after him. It’s only a matter of time. His contract is up in 2025 and won’t be back. The club will not be able to extend his contract by one year. You can think he wants to come back or we should bring him back but in reality he is only counting down the days on his contract till he can leave for free or Madrid or Barca put in an offer for him. And to be honest he’s better off. Go to Madrid with the best young team in the world or go to a clusterfeck of a club like United. With a year left on his contract United will take 30 million for him in the summer. They won’t be allowed to renew his contract by sponsors and other people at the club.
Last edited:
There is a bit more info in The Athletic and it's that source that specifically mentions the mother - behind a paywall but this is the relevant bit:
"United’s inquiries, the club say, lasted five months as they sought to gain a broader understanding of the audio and images that brought this case into the public domain. United spoke with Greenwood during the enquiries but did not have direct contact with the complainant. Instead, they spoke with her mother, with the knowledge of the complainant. The club say that both the complainant and her mother received the opportunity to both comment on or correct the club’s factual findings, but the club says she did not choose to do so."
I have said all this previously, and my stance has never once changed on that. I agree with you, we are on the same page.
Hence why I also say he won't play for United again and probably shouldn't.
he obviously said something not that bad, or what he said was justified.
Will Blanc consider a come back?
Remains laughable how many people think he is going to tear it up with Madrid or Barca. I could maybe see a move to Barca but only because they have replaced Juve as masters of hoovering up free and low priced talent with the hope of flipping them for a profit. MG is a pretty good player but he is nowhere near good enough to be a regular starter for either of those clubs.
Doubt it in this window but all options are open for the summer
The club tried to bring Greenwood back, it was a bad idea executed with the typical arrogance and clumsy approach we've come to expect. He wasn't snubbed for England he was dropped for breaching covid rules days after his first team debut and subsequently didn’t do enough to merit winning a recall. As for Barca/Madrid showing interest sounds like paper talk to me, if there is truth to it i couldn't care less, it means nothing, it certainly doesn't exonerate him. If we lose money I'm personally not one bit arsed, the only value to be gained from this is to recognise young players need managing better beyond just football at academy level, for their benefit and the club/fans.
Bit of a rubbish post really and also incorrect.
The club have an option to 2026 in the contract.
If Greenwood gets back on track he’s talented enough to play for any club. In his current state everyone will be watching to see where he’s at and heading to I imagine.
Having watched a few of his games for Getafe he remains a very good but not exceptional player and still displays a high degree of selfishness and immaturity. His talent level and work ethic will get him a contract with a decent top league club but he is not showing anything that would tempt a serious title winning side to pursue him.
He does have time to change things around but it is telling that even after almost losing everything he has not come back like a man on a mission but still looks like a talented kid who is happy enough to coast on his natural ability and if that is all he wants to do then fair enough.
Poor "Mason" the real victim.
This is a tick against why noobs shouldn't be allowed to post up here, trolling by fans of other clubs.
I'm not totally sure about that. However, fair fecks if he does go to one of them!
He's 10 times the player Antony is and if we want to be successful he needs to be brought back. Imagine if Arsenal lost Saka when their whole revival is built around his emergence. Also, the idea that he won't be back to the EPL is laughable. Clubs like Chelsea, Newcastle, and Arsenal will snap him up in a heartbeat once this dies down after a bit more time. The loudest vioces in the media won't give two shits once he's playing for their club. Either we bring him back or they do.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 17,982
- Supports
️
The trouble here is as is highlighted in that very article the system fails so many women to the point where I would argue it failed her too.
I also think there is a difference between trial by social media were she to simply post “Mason Greenwood has done X,Y and Z” she provided audio and images to back up the claim.
The fact that there was any kind of support from her at any point in the investigation is itself for me indicative of what happened.
I don’t mind engaging with you on this topic Rood. I don’t necessarily agree with your views and nor do you mine as I do feel an aspect of your stance is motivated by him being a good footballer.
I sympathise greatly with the victim here because she’s now committed to this man for the rest of her life through a child. The pair didn’t separate during the investigation and I think that has potentially put her at risk of further coercion as is frequently the case in these situations.
An independent investigation or better still a full actual trial would have been best. But again victims of intimate partner violence often withdraw when their abuser promises to change. And with a baby on the way it’s easy to see the appeal of that promise.
I accept a lot of the above is speculative but regrettably I have more experience than I care to share on this matter with friends and close family falling foul of very similar behaviour just within the public online sharing of audio evidence and the eyes of the world on them.
Thanks for sharing this.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 17,982
- Supports
- ️
The fact no transfer plan was made also indicates the plan was for him to return. I know you can argue they possibly just waited and wasted to decide until it was concluded by given the clubs FFP situation I doubt that they were 100% committed to waiting for news before making plans. Now the cynic in me would argue as soon as the charges were dropped that’s what United were actually preparing for and the strength of feeling from staff at the club in opposition is for me one of the key factors in him not returning as planned.
The club themselves were left iunenviable and impossible situation. They couldn’t pass judgement of him to be a domestic abuser even if they wanted to. The legal ramifications of an employer publicly saying that about an employee are significant. I don’t think they could ever actually say that legally.
What we have here is a failing of the justice system to deliver for either party involved. In the event of Greenwood being innocent of all charges he has no way of proving this from a legal standpoint and the initial support of the charges from the victim means the subsequent withdrawal of those makes any future attempt at prosecution is going to be incredibly unlikely.
We’re in legal limbo and so people quite naturally will seek to form their own opinion from the available evidence.
Trial by social media while not ideal at least lets victims know they have a voice and that some degree of accountability can be had in the absence of a system that correctly supports victims throughout an arduous process. If the system worked I don’t think for one moment the audio and pictures are released. But for some reason they were. For some reason it was felt the world needed to know what was going on.
And then the charges were dropped, a child is born and now I’m left praying that the victim and child are never subjected to this again. Or that it is in fact actually a miracle level misunderstanding (which I don’t believe it is at all).
He really wasn't that good, he had potential I use past tense because he has derailed his career twice, and I personally don't see him getting back to playing at a level that warrants the clubs you have mentioned to take a chance on him, there's a reason Saka is where he is, and Greenwood is where he is. I think people are looking at an easy fix, bring in player A instead of player B and we're back to winning ways, i'd say cut our loses learn a lesson and look at better players.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 17,982
- Supports
- ️
Taking all other context out of the equation and from a pure performance point of view.
He wouldn’t be transformative.
We have deeper seated footballing issues that won’t be solved by any single player.
To me it looks like he's put on a bit of size since he's been away and is a real physical handful now as well as being quick. The time out has probably allowed his body to recover from any niggling injuries picked up during his teenage years. It's his directness that we sorely need and that pisses me off the most with his replacements Sancho and Antony who are physically incapable of going past someone. It won't solve our problems but with him on the right and Garnacho on the left there would be real penetration. Right now teams are doubling up on Garnacho and funnelling attacks down the right towards our one-legged winger who slows everything down.
He would certainly threaten penetration
Yes, Mason's the real victim in all of this.
F'cken hell, his fanboys are really something.
Yes there is undoubtedly a failure in the justice system and then the club were indeed left in a difficult position when the CPS left the case in limbo, in hindsight they should have turned to an external investigator. But still if the internal investigation found him guilty of any of the charges (and the burden of proof for a corporate internal investigation is not as high as a court of law) then the club would have been able to announce this and terminate his contract immediately (there is a legal opinion piece about this from a sports lawyer that I have read but I cant find it at the moment).
Terminating his contract would have saved money in the short term at least because we are still currently paying the majority of his wages (and he was paid the whole time he was suspended which I know was difficult to accept for many fans). But it is probable that the club feel his long term valuation as an asset is worth the short term hit on wages, even if he doesnt come back to the club then he obviously has a resale value.
On your point of my stance being motived by him being a good footballer, it's actually not so much that but more the fact that he is an Academy graduate who has grown up in the club. I tend to take an interest in the careers of most of our Academy players (even the shit ones!) and keep an eye on how they are doing years after they leave the club and it will be no different with Mason.
I think he still has a possible path to return to Manchester but a lot of that depends on him and his partner and if they are willing to go through the PR steps that will be needed to make this happen. If not then we should sell to the highest bidder this summer and move on.
I did comment that an external process or someone being drafted in who is an expert in this field from not only legal standpoint but an also an emotional or social perspectives would have helped massively.
For example had those at at Manchester United conducting the investigation liased at length (they may contacted them) with an organisation such as Women's Aid, they would not have used semantics such as 'hostile' when categorising certain groups who would be opposed to any return.
I feel that the club have a degree of duty towards him as an employee, as a young man and someone now with the same partner and young child. It does not sit right with me that the club should just rid themselves of him as I think that will have consequences also.
I haver written this, but it is arguable that the fate of Mason Greenwood's career in his nation of birth lies with Manchester United. There will be those reading this saying he has done this himself and if the circumstances are what they are pinned to what was released online, yes he has.
If the circumstances are not as they first appeared or there is wider context, he is as what has just been mentioned in "limbo." He is unlikely to be able to play in this country (for an English side) or indeed represent England at international level.
It is up to Mason and family members to present an explanation and Manchester United to support this, without being waylaid by online pressure or I hate to say this employees leaking or threatening the club in anyway. Manchester United as an organisation have to rigorous and steadfast in their decisions.
I am firm believer in rehabilitation and I fear certain members of the Club (one in the previous CEO) may look back at this and say to themselves, is there something we could have done? a step in the process we should have taken? Someone's advice we should have sought to may have made this investigation more definitive in order to articulate it's findings.
For example had those at at Manchester United conducting the investigation liased at length (they may contacted them) with an organisation such as Women's Aid, they would not have used semantics such as 'hostile' when categorising certain groups who would be opposed to any return.
I feel that the club have a degree of duty towards him as an employee, as a young man and someone now with the same partner and young child. It does not sit right with me that the club should just rid themselves of him as I think that will have consequences also.
I haver written this, but it is arguable that the fate of Mason Greenwood's career in his nation of birth lies with Manchester United. There will be those reading this saying he has done this himself and if the circumstances are what they are pinned to what was released online, yes he has.
If the circumstances are not as they first appeared or there is wider context, he is as what has just been mentioned in "limbo." He is unlikely to be able to play in this country (for an English side) or indeed represent England at international level.
It is up to Mason and family members to present an explanation and Manchester United to support this, without being waylaid by online pressure or I hate to say this employees leaking or threatening the club in anyway. Manchester United as an organisation have to rigorous and steadfast in their decisions.
I am firm believer in rehabilitation and I fear certain members of the Club (one in the previous CEO) may look back at this and say to themselves, is there something we could have done? a step in the process we should have taken? Someone's advice we should have sought to may have made this investigation more definitive in order to articulate it's findings.
- Status