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.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 not 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.
It should read, legally he's not guilty.
You're absolutely right, I was focused on the first, apologies.I made 2 points
He was charged though.Innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental principle of most justice systems around the world. The principle is that an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It is also known as “The presumption of innocence”.
Article 6 of the human rights act of 1998 and article 11 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights
Not guilty is a legal verdict which can only be given if somebody is actually charged with an offence
He wasn't actually charged so technically he hasn't been proven not guilty, nor has his innocence been established, the general presumption is of innocence not, not guilty, but yeah if you want to be pedantic and get all up in arms whatever floats your boat
And subsequently charges were dropped, and if he were charged the presumption would be innocent, it would only be not guilty if a verdict had been givenHe was charged though.
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
It's been several years since I studied for my law degree so thank you for the flash back in fact, I remember the 3000 word essay on legal presumption well, omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta. For example, sanity is presumed, it's the only act where the burden falls on the defendant but I digress.Innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental principle of most justice systems around the world. The principle is that an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It is also known as “The presumption of innocence”.
Article 6 of the human rights act of 1998 and article 11 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights
Not guilty is a legal verdict which can only be given if somebody is actually charged with an offence
He wasn't actually charged so technically he hasn't been proven not guilty, nor has his innocence been established, the general presumption is of innocence not, not guilty, but yeah if you want to be pedantic and get all up in arms whatever floats your boat
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.
Admittedly I do not practice criminal law but am due to present to a senior judge in an Upper Tier Tribunal HMCTS in a couple of weeks if I get chance between hearings I will get them to clarify the matter, either way it is splitting heirs and of no real relevance, I won't resort to Latin for no reason if it is all the same to youIt's been several years since I studied for my law degree so thank you for the flash back in fact, I remember the 3000 word essay on legal presumption well, omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta. For example, sanity is presumed, it's the only act where the burden falls on the defendant but I digress.
I'll be with a Circuit Judge tomorrow but I doubt I'll mention it, I presume I'd get a strange look but I hope you enjoy the experience. As for the Latin, it's a necessity in my field, unfortunately, although there is talk of moving away from it.Admittedly I do not practice criminal law but am due to present to a senior judge in an Upper Tier Tribunal HMCTS in a couple of weeks if I get chance between hearings I will get them to clarify the matter, either way it is splitting heirs and of no real relevance, I won't resort to Latin for no reason if it is all the same to you
It's just ridiculous, it's the same tired arguments over and over. You'd swear some on here were related to him with how much they stand up for him.Is it 330 pages ago again?
Haha yeah I can imagine, I normally catch the one who is a Utd fan having a vape outside and we moan about Utd, most of the others would probably tear me a new one... not that judges can ever agree anywayI'll be with a Circuit Judge tomorrow but I doubt I'll mention it, I presume I'd get a strange look but I hope you enjoy the experience. As for the Latin, it's a necessity in my field, unfortunately, although there is talk of moving away from it.
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.
Why are we discussing the legal criminal definition? We aren't debating that. The question is is he a sufficiently large scumbag that he should never be allowed to play for United again.
You're absolutely right, I was focused on the first, apologies.
You believe what you want but you're wrong and I've stated the reason. I have not idea why you're obsessed with thinking it's deeper than that, can we leave it there? (rhetorical)Well it's fine, it's dishonest but fine. You specifically addressed both points but you're backtracking because I've pointed to information that you were unaware of and which highlights how absurd it was to question the point. I accept your apology but it would be more honest to just say "Oh I was unaware his solicitor had admitted this, fair enough."
True, this wouldn't even be a discussion if Fergie was still here and we were winning leagues.The thing with Greenwood is that he probably isn’t even worth the hassle. As incredible a talent as he is, even IF and that’s a huge IF, he has turned a new leaf as a person - he’s lost a large chunk of his developmental phases as a footballer so there’s the chances of him fulfilling his immense potential are significantly lower, and then there’s the huge circus that will surround him / us too which just makes his career in such spotlight difficult. I’m not sure the new regime needs that stress hanging over their head.
It’s not like this is prime Messi who walks in and you just know he’ll tear teams apart. There’s a lot of question marks from a football point of view too regarding Greenwood due to the non footballing causes. And I say this as someone who thinks that based on raw talent, he was set to be among the best 3-4 players of this next PL era.
By that yardstick all humans on this planet are of no legal interest to the law as you have yet to be passed judgement on by the courts. Does that mean we all are mason greenwoods.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.
This is all well and good until you understand how hard it is to prosecute, get to trial and secure a conviction in these cases. Read the news and see how long the court backlog is for cases like these, read the statistics.By that yardstick all humans on this planet are of no legal interest to the law as you have yet to be passed judgement on by the courts. Does that mean we all are mason greenwoods.
More importantly even if someone has committed a crime/mistake does that mean they have no chance to be rehabilitated. One strike and you are out is it. Because the most vocal minority on this forum wants a teenager to be tarred and feathered and cast away for something the law could not prosecute him for. Is this the right stand to take. I believe that we all are and can be more than the worst that we have done.
By that yardstick all humans on this planet are of no legal interest to the law as you have yet to be passed judgement on by the courts. Does that mean we all are mason greenwoods.
More importantly even if someone has committed a crime/mistake does that mean they have no chance to be rehabilitated. One strike and you are out is it. Because the most vocal minority on this forum wants a teenager to be tarred and feathered and cast away for something the law could not prosecute him for. Is this the right stand to take. I believe that we all are and can be more than the worst that we have done.
By that yardstick all humans on this planet are of no legal interest to the law as you have yet to be passed judgement on by the courts. Does that mean we all are mason greenwoods.
More importantly even if someone has committed a crime/mistake does that mean they have no chance to be rehabilitated. One strike and you are out is it. Because the most vocal minority on this forum wants a teenager to be tarred and feathered and cast away for something the law could not prosecute him for. Is this the right stand to take. I believe that we all are and can be more than the worst that we have done.
Dogs have hair, eyes and teeth, does that mean we are all dogs?By that yardstick all humans on this planet are of no legal interest to the law as you have yet to be passed judgement on by the courts. Does that mean we all are mason greenwoods.
More importantly even if someone has committed a crime/mistake does that mean they have no chance to be rehabilitated. One strike and you are out is it. Because the most vocal minority on this forum wants a teenager to be tarred and feathered and cast away for something the law could not prosecute him for. Is this the right stand to take. I believe that we all are and can be more than the worst that we have done.
Dogs have hair, eyes and teeth, does that mean we are all dogs?
The thing with Greenwood is that he probably isn’t even worth the hassle. As incredible a talent as he is, even IF and that’s a huge IF, he has turned a new leaf as a person - he’s lost a large chunk of his developmental phases as a footballer so there’s the chances of him fulfilling his immense potential are significantly lower, and then there’s the huge circus that will surround him / us too which just makes his career in such spotlight difficult. I’m not sure the new regime needs that stress hanging over their head.
It’s not like this is prime Messi who walks in and you just know he’ll tear teams apart. There’s a lot of question marks from a football point of view too regarding Greenwood due to the non footballing causes. And I say this as someone who thinks that based on raw talent, he was set to be among the best 3-4 players of this next PL era.
LOGIC!No. But we are either all fish or there is no such thing as a fish.
"I hope that none of us violently assault our partners and are recorded threatening to rape them" - the Dalai Lama"I hope that either all of us or none of us are judged by the actions of our weakest moments, but rather the strength we show when and if we're ever given a second chance.”
"I hope that either all of us or none of us are judged by the actions of our weakest moments, but rather the strength we show when and if we're ever given a second chance.”
For a club like United, it should be one strike and you’re out. There are enough discipline issues without inviting moreBy that yardstick all humans on this planet are of no legal interest to the law as you have yet to be passed judgement on by the courts. Does that mean we all are mason greenwoods.
More importantly even if someone has committed a crime/mistake does that mean they have no chance to be rehabilitated. One strike and you are out is it. Because the most vocal minority on this forum wants a teenager to be tarred and feathered and cast away for something the law could not prosecute him for. Is this the right stand to take. I believe that we all are and can be more than the worst that we have done.
By that yardstick all humans on this planet are of no legal interest to the law as you have yet to be passed judgement on by the courts. Does that mean we all are mason greenwoods.
More importantly even if someone has committed a crime/mistake does that mean they have no chance to be rehabilitated. One strike and you are out is it. Because the most vocal minority on this forum wants a teenager to be tarred and feathered and cast away for something the law could not prosecute him for. Is this the right stand to take. I believe that we all are and can be more than the worst that we have done.
Because when someone is clearly a complete scumbag but some people want to excuse that, they think that directing the conversation to random minute details is a good method of distraction.
It's a tremendously boring shell game.
Given we're talking about an abusive violent offender, that sounds like a rather bad outcome (for the victim, and/or potential future victims). Nifty for people that don't want their favourite football club to be associated with anti social behaviours, mind. Out of sight and out of mind.Drama much?
The only question is should he be allowed back to play for United given his recorded despicable behaviour.
If the answer is (hopefully) no then no casting aside or tarring and feathering will occur. No rehabilitation will be in play and he will continue to play football and be paid extremely well.
Given we're talking about an abusive violent offender, that sounds like a rather bad outcome (for the victim, and/or potential future victims). Nifty for people that don't want their favourite football club to be associated with anti social behaviours, mind. Out of sight and out of mind.
