Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
Widow said:
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.
Click to expand...

I made 2 points, 1 of them being about breaching bail. You said neither were proven. It was not implied, it was directly stated but I accept your apology.

My opinion is weighted by what I've heard. If it was debunked or even a single reasonable seed of doubt was sewn then I'd review and potentially revise my stance.
 
Widow said:
It should read, legally he's not guilty.
Click to expand...

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
 
Zed 101 said:
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
Click to expand...
He was charged though.
 
Zed 101 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Widow said:
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.
Click to expand...

With respect, we do know that Greenwood threatened his partner with rape. It's all there in the infamous recording. There's no 'assumption' about it.

We need to now know the context of why he did this. So far, nobody has volunteered any mitigating evidence whatsoever.

I hear what you are saying, but you are saying it from a solicitor's outlook. What would wash in court and such, and that's a valid interpretation, sure, but Greenwood is recorded bang to rights.
 
Widow said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Zed 101 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Widow said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 anyway
 
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.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's correct. A case being dropped allows no legal conclusion other than that the case was dropped, whatever the reason for that may be. Whether we members of the public believe he in fact committed the acts based on the evidence that we have seen or heard is another matter.
 
Wibble said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Widow said:
You're absolutely right, I was focused on the first, apologies.
Click to expand...

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."
 
OverratedOpinion said:
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."
Click to expand...
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)
 
Last edited:
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.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
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.
Click to expand...
True, this wouldn't even be a discussion if Fergie was still here and we were winning leagues.
 
lex talionis said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I think the crux of the matter boils down to what actually was it that happened, if it is not what it looked like at the time.
The failure to provide a plausible public explanation is the problem.
If the club said look we did an internal investigation and what actually happened was xxxxx, then the matter would be resolved a lot easier.
The fact that hasn't happened suggests there is not a credible alternative explanation.
 
bludsucker said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Also for someone to rehabilitate they have to admit to what they've done, something Greenwood has not done.
 
bludsucker said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bludsucker said:
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.
Click to expand...

"One strike and you're out", "tarred and feathered", "cast away".

Getafe is a nice little city, ten minutes from Madrid. Why do you hate it so much, did something happen to you there?
 
bludsucker said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dogs have hair, eyes and teeth, does that mean we are all dogs?
 
amolbhatia50k said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is why I think we will ultimately sell him. A decent parallel is Suarez, who was probably the most controversial player of the 2010s. If Greenwood was a player like him, then I think the club would be more inclined to think the noise around him would be worth it, whereas Greenwood is a very talented young player who missed two years of development, so it would be tough to think the pros outweigh the cons at this point.
 
"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.”
 
suheilsworld said:
"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.”
Click to expand...
"I hope that none of us violently assault our partners and are recorded threatening to rape them" - the Dalai Lama
 
suheilsworld said:
"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.”
Click to expand...

That post is one hell of a Godwin's law breach opportunity.
 
bludsucker said:
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.
Click to expand...
For a club like United, it should be one strike and you’re out. There are enough discipline issues without inviting more
 
bludsucker said:
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.
Click to expand...

So bored of this double speak. Firstly nobody wants him tarred and feathered. And secondly most posters who don't want him back just avoid this thread because they find the rape appolgists and mitigation just vile.

Do you think he assaulted that woman?
 
OverratedOpinion said:
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.
Click to expand...

But nobody said he was guilty so they can cling to that, then claim a lack of data, and fake actually engaging, then ultimately overlook everything and want the obvious scumbag back.
 
Wibble said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
redcucumber said:
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.
Click to expand...

But she took him back, and that always ends well surely?
 
moses said:
But she took him back, and that always ends well surely?
Click to expand...
I know you're being facetious but it's impossible to know - the chances of reoffending obviously increase without intervention. It's why I find it really difficult to get on board with the idea of punting him to Getafe or wherever will take him.

Say he leaves permanently and he reoffends having avoided scrutiny + having his behaviours and emotional responses challenged (we don't know if he'd have to undergo any form of psychological intervention if he came back, feels more likely than not if they had hopes of convincing the public of genuine contrition but who knows), will people be vindicated in wanting him to leave or will it be seen as a missed opportunity for accountability?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.