Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well no, you're the one who just casually said "unlike Greenwood" and added zero context to what he's actually alleged to have done. That was why I originally highlighted that in your post.

I know... I've told you several times he was charged with attempted rape. How do you think the CPS originally came to the conclusion to charge him with that? I'm not deciding anything, that's what happened.

I am a man, but I have no idea what you are on about lumping everything together, he was accused of attempted rape. I'm not aggressively deciding anything, that's what the recording to me shows (just like the leaked emails for Ronaldo does).

Again, you seem to be completely disregarding he was accused of attempted rape - are you lumping that all in with DV? There's a word's difference between the label and I'm not sure how it makes the charge any better, especially when you read what that charge is.

I genuinely have no idea what point your trying to make with the Alonso comment.

If you go back to your original post I quoted and put it into context (paraphrasing) - Bellingham said he likes Ronaldo who was actually alleged to have raped someone. Unlike Greenwood, who was alleged to have attempted to rape, controlling and coercive behaviour and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Seems a fecking weird point to make.

Anyway, that was my original issue with your post. I don't think there's much more to say considering you've failed to mention once he was accused of attempted rape in this discussion. I get your point, we should be clearer if calling him names.
I wouldn't even dignify that user's obtuse nonsense. Greenwood was accused of attempted rape and a bunch of other charges. The key witness pulled out and thus there was no longer a realistic possibility of conviction. We can all speculate as to who the witness was but it does seem somewhat telling Greenwood restarted his relationship with the alleged victim shortly after.

Whether it is rape or attempted rape is not exactly apples and oranges
 
Can they prove I defamed them?
in claims for slander, the claimant must prove actual damage. There are however several exceptions to the rule that actual damage must be proved in claims for slander.

For example, if the spoken words accuse the claimant of committing a crime; of having a contagious disease; of being unfit for his or her office, business or profession; or if the communication is an attack of the credit of trades people; or an accusation of being unchaste or adulterous against a woman or girl. In these cases damage is presumed and need not be proved.
 
Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your questions. In general, I don’t think we should be policing what players say on the football pitch at the heat of the moment with few exceptions such as racism, anti-Semitism, homophobic slurs etc. As for your question about my IQ, never take IQ test but as someone who speaks and understands many languages (English is my 5th language) and as a pediatrician who spent over 10 years with UN in humanitarian aid in middle east, Asia and Africa, I am confident that I have a fairly high IQ.
This reminds of that poster who said he's a doctor and that "my IQ destroys yours" or something to that effect.
 
Is it a moderators job around here to just attack every post if they don't agree with it?
 
Wait, so the moral difference is whether Greenwood succeeded in his attempted raping or not?

2 genuine questions -

1. Would you call someone who was convicted of attempted murder - but had never actually killed anyone - a murderer?

2. What about someone charged with attempted murder, who then had all charges dropped…? Would you call them a murderer?
 
Can they prove I defamed them?
Defamation is against the terms and conditions of this forum nevermind anything else. As is content which promotes hatred towards individuals, being abusive, threatening and much more.

For all the complaints I've read about moderators allegedly being too strict. I actually think they're probably being too lenient when it comes to applying the rules.

"You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws."

"The following is prohibited across the entire website. Please do not post it. If you see it please report it.
  • Advocacy and hate speech: Posts that promote hatred towards a particular group (including content that incites hatred or promotes violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status or sexual orientation/gender identity), harassment, bullying or similar content that advocates harm against an individual or group.
"

Edit - Can a moderator remove? I don't think this thread needs another unrelated thing to debate over.
 
Last edited:
2 genuine questions -

1. Would you call someone who was convicted of attempted murder - but had never actually killed anyone - a murderer?

2. What about someone charged with attempted murder, who then had all charges dropped…? Would you call them a murderer?

OJ Simpson is a murderer.

Marcus Alonso is a murderer.
 
in claims for slander, the claimant must prove actual damage. There are however several exceptions to the rule that actual damage must be proved in claims for slander.

For example, if the spoken words accuse the claimant of committing a crime; of having a contagious disease; of being unfit for his or her office, business or profession; or if the communication is an attack of the credit of trades people; or an accusation of being unchaste or adulterous against a woman or girl. In these cases damage is presumed and need not be proved.
Well, I'm fecked then.

Thank you KC sir
Defamation is against the terms and conditions of this forum nevermind anything else. As is content which promotes hatred towards individuals, being abusive, threatening and much more.

For all the complaints I've read about moderators allegedly being too strict. I actually think they're probably being too lenient when it comes to applying the rules.

"You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws."

"The following is prohibited across the entire website. Please do not post it. If you see it please report it.
  • Advocacy and hate speech: Posts that promote hatred towards a particular group (including content that incites hatred or promotes violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status or sexual orientation/gender identity), harassment, bullying or similar content that advocates harm against an individual or group.
"
I don't agree with you, but, this thread aside, you might be a good moderator.
 
I don’t participate much as it is very much rinse repeat to be honest. I am interested on what goes on with him in Spain though, good and bad, so my irritation is not being able to find out without trawling through the same arguments in a mega thread.

Could you not have a closed thread which was mod updated again?
The thing is though if it was just a performance thread there is a high chance that the positivity would outweigh the negativity and there is always going to be a negative sentence from some even if he bags a hattrick.
 
2 genuine questions -

1. Would you call someone who was convicted of attempted murder - but had never actually killed anyone - a murderer?

2. What about someone charged with attempted murder, who then had all charges dropped…? Would you call them a murderer?

Weird hill to die on.
 
Is it a moderators job around here to just attack every post if they don't agree with it?

Moderators are posters as well and are allowed to post their views just like everyone else.

And irrespective of personal views moderation is generally about how people post and not what "side" of a particular discussion they are.

For example a very anti-Greenwood poster was banned yesterday.
 
2 genuine questions -

1. Would you call someone who was convicted of attempted murder - but had never actually killed anyone - a murderer?

2. What about someone charged with attempted murder, who then had all charges dropped…? Would you call them a murderer?

Probably not but I wouldn't be worrying about someone else doing so if they were convicted. And if the charges were dropped because the complainant withdrew cooperation (as opposed to it coming out that they didn't do it) then I doubt I'd care much either.

Unless they were good a kicking a football of course. Then it would be unconscionable.
 
Jude sounds like a lad who’s got it good and thinks he’ll ride the purple wave all his life. Let’s see how he handles his own when the speed bumps roll on.
He might just be fairly confident he'll never beat a woman to a bloody pulp. Not all speed bumps are created equally.
 
2 genuine questions -

1. Would you call someone who was convicted of attempted murder - but had never actually killed anyone - a murderer?

2. What about someone charged with attempted murder, who then had all charges dropped…? Would you call them a murderer?

With murder it’s usually pretty clear if the attempt was successful or not.
 
2 genuine questions -

1. Would you call someone who was convicted of attempted murder - but had never actually killed anyone - a murderer?

2. What about someone charged with attempted murder, who then had all charges dropped…? Would you call them a murderer?
It does make you see him in a different light when you realise it was only attempted rape, not rape.
 
I think, hypothetically speaking, it would be fine to call someone who attempted to rape someone a rapist.

Especially if, hypothetically, his hypothetical victim had went out of her way to record the encounter because it had happened before so she knew what was going to happen to her.
 
Well no, you're the one who just casually said "unlike Greenwood" and added zero context to what he's actually alleged to have done. That was why I originally highlighted that in your post.

I know... I've told you several times he was charged with attempted rape. How do you think the CPS originally came to the conclusion to charge him with that? I'm not deciding anything, that's what happened.

I am a man, but I have no idea what you are on about lumping everything together, he was accused of attempted rape. I'm not aggressively deciding anything, that's what the recording to me shows (just like the leaked emails for Ronaldo does).

Again, you seem to be completely disregarding he was accused of attempted rape - are you lumping that all in with DV? There's a word's difference between the label and I'm not sure how it makes the charge any better, especially when you read what that charge is.

I genuinely have no idea what point your trying to make with the Alonso comment.

If you go back to your original post I quoted and put it into context (paraphrasing) - Bellingham said he likes Ronaldo who was actually alleged to have raped someone. Unlike Greenwood, who was alleged to have attempted to rape, controlling and coercive behaviour and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Seems a fecking weird point to make.

Anyway, that was my original issue with your post. I don't think there's much more to say considering you've failed to mention once he was accused of attempted rape in this discussion. I get your point, we should be clearer if calling him names.
If you're on the other end of almost any argument to that poster, I think you're usually on the right side.
 
Attempted murder isn’t the same as murder.

You wouldn’t label someone who’d even been convicted of attempted murder a ‘murderer’, it would be nonsensical.

Beautiful.


Do you actually have blind faith in the law or is it just to suit your position here?

Do you really think it's nonsensical or libellous when people refer to OJ as a murderer?

If the available evidence points to something being true or false then people will usually be able to make up their mind as they see fit. Unless Manchester United make a nebulous statement of course.

Also here in Ireland the sentencing guidelines for murder and attempted murder are not that different.

This just shows how really paper thin the argument to have him back is.
 
I can’t stand this. Sooner he’s booted out of the club the better. Let someone else deal with his shit

It’s easy to state an opinion online, but I hope and fully expect those who don’t want him back to change their minds if he came back, fulfilled his potential and wasn’t alleged to have committed any crimes.

But if not, I’d be delighted that those remaining and the club had finally got serious about winning matches and being good at football like the rest of our rivals.
 
Jude having his Onana/Maguire moment :lol:
Love to see him say that to Mike Tyson or even Trump on a Real Madrid US tour....what a hero!
Woah! How do you know he actually said it?! Shouldn’t you let the authorities do their job first?! Talk about trial by social media.
 
Beautiful.


Do you actually have blind faith in the law or is it just to suit your position here?

Do you really think it's nonsensical or libellous when people refer to OJ as a murderer?

If the available evidence points to something being true or false then people will usually be able to make up their mind as they see fit. Unless Manchester United make a nebulous statement of course.

Also here in Ireland the sentencing guidelines for murder and attempted murder are not that different.

This just shows how really paper thin the argument to have him back is.

I have very little interest in American pop culture and know very little about the case. But from my understanding, the OJ case made it to court but wasn’t found guilty due to a jury celeb loving culture? Very different to a case where a tiny percentage of the evidence has been revealed and as a whole isn’t even deemed significant enough to make it to court.

If you're on the other end of almost any argument to that poster, I think you're usually on the right side.

If you believe Mason is 100% guilty but Ronaldo isn’t, I’d suggest there are deeper lying biases at play. Ronaldo has much more evidence against him for a more significant crime
 
I have very little interest in American pop culture and know very little about the case. But from my understanding, the OJ case made it to court but wasn’t found guilty due to a jury celeb loving culture? Very different to a case where a tiny percentage of the evidence has been revealed and as a whole isn’t even deemed significant enough to make it to court.

Irrelevant to the point.
 
At the end of the day, we've invested a lot of money and time in him, we have every right to profit from the sale considering the PR disaster he brought to the club. I don't really care if we don't profit, but I don't see how we wouldn't if big enough club wanted him and he's as good of a talent as people who want him back pin him as.

Yeah but then that same argument of investing a lot of time and money can be used to reintroduce him to the team, especially given the club have cleared him internally. If he's worth 50 Mil as some say (I personally don't think he is, based on current form and his situation perhaps 20ish?) Even if he goes for 20, I would think we'd be more than covering his academy development costs. I dunno I think, if you're thinking of what do with him from a morals POV, then his fees too should be considered - I would expect a few rumblings from people like Rachel Riley if he gets sold for a large fee.

I'm all for letting him go on a free, gives him options as well on which clubs to choose in case a big club don't want him - Given his situation, I think he may have to settle for playing for a lower tier club for some time, at least until the bigger clubs are sure he's not going to be a liability and he's demonstrated some level of stability in his personal life.
 
2 genuine questions -

1. Would you call someone who was convicted of attempted murder - but had never actually killed anyone - a murderer?

2. What about someone charged with attempted murder, who then had all charges dropped…? Would you call them a murderer?


You probably sound like some fancy lawyer in your head but that's just silly.

If you knew someone didn't commit the crime then no, you'd be an idiot to say they had. That's just common sense.

But that's not the case here, the fact that there is a big massive grey area is pretty much the issue.
 
Do you really think it's nonsensical or libellous when people refer to OJ as a murderer?

OJ keeps getting bought up in this thread but it's really not a good comparison of anything because he was found guilty of murder in civil court plus all facts of the case are publicly available so it makes more sense for people to make their own judgements
 
Status
Not open for further replies.