Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure lube is a thing in Hull.
Blood and tears....
This fight is using Truss rules. No Lube required.
Jesus what a load of bollocks
Nonsense isn't it. 'The world is a terrible place so who cares' seems to be the takeaway there.Jesus what a load of bollocks
Yep that's exactly it. Yet another newbie spouting the same shite yet again.
The Tebas quotes are excellent news for us. Should help us get money for him if they want him to stay in Spain.
There would have had to be a court case to be found innocent.
Not true because there was also an internal investigation
And that's what is being refering to in that post
Cheeky FdJ swap?
Why are Barca enquiring about REAL targets?
Ah yes, fair point.
Bottom line you, me and everyone in this forum is not party to the full facts of this case, I can say I do not like the feel of it but ultimately the context that all the information would provide could make all the difference.
In terms of monetary value or even value as a player, it would be nice to take some morale high ground and just walk away, but realistically the club is not in any sort of financial position to write off assets let alone potentially have to pay Greenwood off to cancel his contract or face a legal case for settlement, legally he is innocent, he did not release the information on social media and there is information/evidence which contradicts the veracity of the initial narrative so hard to establish he is in breach of contract, i.e. disrepute, even if he did perpetrate the acts he was accused of he did not make it public.
I hate trial by media, it screams against every aspect of what justice should be, I have to remind myself to give Horner the benefit of the doubt despite believing him to be one of the most insidious little pricks going.
I would love for Greenwood to be sold so we can all move on, him and his family included, if he returns to Utd, I will live with it but I cannot say I will be thrilled.
I have no idea how the law works in the UK but in the US one is not found through due process to be "innocent". One either is found through due process to be guilty or not guilty of the crime charged. And in the absence of a trial that results in a verdict one is neither innocent nor not guilty. One is free to go about their business with each of free to decide on their own whether that person did or did not commit a crime or any kind of offense.
Casually, we can use words like "innocent" or "guilty" any way we please, but if we're going to refer to a the outcome of a "court case" one is either found guilty or not guilty, but never "innocent". At least this is how it is in the US.
Yet again, for the umpteenth time in this thread, this is not true.
It should read, legally he's not guilty.
No it shouldn't, because there's been no court case, so he's nothing. He's neither not guilty or guilty. The case was dropped.
So, in the eyes of law, he’s innocent. Correct?
Well done. In the eyes of the law the man to whom we are referring is nothing, neither innocent nor not guilty. He is just a man who is in the eyes of the law, a person of no legal interest.
As for the rest of us and how we feel or what we think, that's another matter.
Not correct.
No.
Yep exactly.
Innocent is a finding, you can't have a finding if a case is dropped.
The "law" I.e. the CPS have not had an opportunity to take a view as to whether he is innocent or guilty.
The court case being dropped due to his partner withdrawing support after he breached his bail conditions is no indication to the idea that he is innocent of what he was initially accused. Either way it is far easier to focus on what we do know.
- We know he threatened to rape a woman.
- We know he breached bail conditions.
With respect, I've been practicing law for many years and I'll trust my own thoughts.
Too many assumptions here. The evidence hasn't been tested in court so no, we don't know he did either of the points you state.
Have you? Ok, you mustn't be very good at it so.
Not a single assumption has been made.
There is a public recording of him threatening to rape her and his own solicitor admitted in court that he had breached bail for months.
He literally got her pregnant when he was subject to bail conditions. Unless you believe in immaculate conception I'm not sure there could be more damning proof
There is a presumption of innocence in English law, so he is presumed innocent unless or until found guilty. He hasn’t been found guilty, so is presumed innocent. He hasn’t been “proved” innocent of course but that would never be the case, even if he went to trial.
Now, whether any of us personally believe that he is innocent is another matter but, legally, he is.
Legally speaking, the recordings haven't been tested court. His defence could argue that it's not actually him in the recordings. I'm not claiming to know if that would happen though, just playing devil's advocate.
Correct, and we are all free to form our own opinions about what we heard. But in the eyes of the law the man to whom we are all referring is neither innocent nor not guilty. He walks among us a man like the rest of us without having been subjected to a criminal trial. He was investigated and the investigation was dropped.
Yet that has never been muted and would be very quickly debunked.
No that's where your wrong, legally he isn't innocent, he isn't anything because there's been no court case. This isn't an argument for either side on this debate, this is just a fact. Because the case was dropped he's neither guilty or not guilty.
Maybe but that's another assumption, we may never know.
Yes no trial happened.
A case being dropped is no indication of innocence or guilt, especially with complaints regarding intimate partner violence where the very nature of it means that without the full support of the victim it is extremely unlikely to be accepted by the CPS.
We know that a multi million pound career was on the brink and a hugely valuable asset. We know that if it was not him that would have ended the entire situation. We know that the suggestion was never muted by any of those who would benifit hugely if it were the case.
You know full well it was him in that recording and you're being intentionally obtuse and contrarian either in the hope of defending him or just to pass the time.
Given you're a so called solicitor who said there was no evidence of a respondent breaching their bail when he got the applicant pregnant during the timeframe of the conditions I'd not take your word on very much.
I was offering an alternative view to counter you claims of factual statements, at no point have I offended my opinion on what I believe to be true. Furthermore, I never mentioned his bail or the breach of it, I apologise if that was implied.
Your type don't tend to want to hear anything that pushes back against your weighted opinion and that's absolutely fine. I'm certainly not here to convince you either way, it would be far to painful.
- Status