Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

[Ludens the Red]

The GMP didn't challenge the appeal to be granted bail after he was charged for rape in October, it was never contested. This is what the judge in his hearing said:

“What I am being told is the defendant flagrantly breached the conditions over weeks or even months and police haven’t done anything about it.”

“If they suspected breaches of bail, the police should be doing something about it but haven’t – why not? What’s the point of someone being on bail conditions if the police don’t enforce them?”

The judge clearly doesn't think police bail means 'diddly squat', in fact he's utterly scathing of their inaction.

Not to mention, that court case wasn't for the breach of bail, it was the hearing where he was formally charged with rape. As I said, he was never actually charged with breaching bail, it was brought up at his session where he was charged but GMP never took sought to actually punish him for it.

see below…

He was arrested on Saturday morning for breaching his police conditional bail”, prosecutor Rebecca Macaulay-Addison told the magistrates court hearing in October.

they arrested him for breach of bail: Which means they would have charged him in custody. It’s there in writing. It’s the easiest thing to ‘police charge’ for once you have the evidence. But most people know after that point it loses its significance. (Google it) There isn’t a police “punishment” for it. I’m actually now curious what you think police can do to someone who breached police bail? Other than arrest and send to court.

I said in my initial post that this judge did take the breaches seriously btw. Well he made out he did anyway.

There are basically no repercussions for breaching it unless a judge actually uses it as a basis for a remand in custody in relation to the criminal case which can happen at any point in the investigation post charge .

You seem to be taking the judges’ comments about police “deliberately ignoring the breaches for months” as gospel and in black and white. There is massive grey area to it.

The court case says “suspected” of breaching bail. If those suspicions weren’t proven, why would they then arrest greenwood for breach of police bail multiple times over ?
How have they come to the conclusion that police were ignoring him breaching bail for months?. Or was it that he did it for months and the police simply didn’t know or werent told?or that they didn’t have sufficient evidence.
Have you also explored the possibility that potentially nobody was willing to provide evidence as to greenwood breaching bail? Like [name dedacted] and her family? At that point in the investigation were they even still assisting police?

I feel your grievances are misdirected tbh.
The question you should really be asking is who in their right mind made the decision to grant the appeal for Greenwood and overturn his remand. This is someone who at the time was charged with rape and had contacted/visited the victim, despite being specifically told not to.
Despite police then arresting him for it. A judge then remanding him for it, somebody still said “nah you’re free to go”….

 

[Bowlcut11]

I know this is a forum to discuss United related topics but every time I come in here it's some variation of the same two posts and arguments.

I'd much rather just see what way this summer plays out.

We all have our opinions and views on what should happen but until INEOS make a new concrete decision we can't really protest either way.

I do hope that United stick to their guns and sell him to avoid the circus but debating the tape for another 4 months just seems like a waste of everyone's time at this point.

 

[simonhch]

I can’t see any circumstance that he can return to the club. Nor should there be. I doubt he’d even want to return to England with the reception he’d face. Hopefully we can sell him for about 40m, plus a major sell on clause or add ons.

Once upon a time, not too long ago, he was the brightest talent to come out of our academy since co92. Players of his calibre being as perfectly two footed as he is, is such an unusual rarity. With the proper progression he would have become a top ten player in the world I believe.

18 months out of the game and all the noise surrounding him, means I am sure he will never hit the heights he would have but he may, and likely still will, be a very, very good player in years to come, Just not at United and not in England.

It’s a shame because with him, Garnacho and Rashford, plus Hojlund, we would have had a great front line mainly built through the academy, for years to come.

 

[MiceOnMeth]

If Greenwood was Spanish and did what he did in Spain would there be any backlash to him coming to play in England?

 

[Pickle85]

If Greenwood was Spanish and did what he did in Spain would there be any backlash to him coming to play in England?

If people were widely aware of it, you'd presume so.

 

[Dion]

see below…

they arrested him for breach of bail: Which means they would have charged him in custody. It’s there in writing. It’s the easiest thing to ‘police charge’ for once you have the evidence. But most people know after that point it loses its significance. (Google it) There isn’t a police “punishment” for it. I’m actually now curious what you think police can do to someone who breached police bail? Other than arrest and send to court.

I said in my initial post that this judge did take the breaches seriously btw. Well he made out he did anyway.

There are basically no repercussions for breaching it unless a judge actually uses it as a basis for a remand in custody in relation to the criminal case which can happen at any point in the investigation post charge .

You seem to be taking the judges’ comments about police “deliberately ignoring the breaches for months” as gospel and in black and white. There is massive grey area to it.

The court case says “suspected” of breaching bail. If those suspicions weren’t proven, why would they then arrest greenwood for breach of police bail multiple times over ?
How have they come to the conclusion that police were ignoring him breaching bail for months?. Or was it that he did it for months and the police simply didn’t know or werent told?or that they didn’t have sufficient evidence.
Have you also explored the possibility that potentially nobody was willing to provide evidence as to greenwood breaching bail? Like [name dedacted] and her family? At that point in the investigation were they even still assisting police?

I feel your grievances are misdirected tbh.
The question you should really be asking is who in their right mind made the decision to grant the appeal for Greenwood and overturn his remand. This is someone who at the time was charged with rape and had contacted/visited the victim, despite being specifically told not to.
Despite police then arresting him for it. A judge then remanding him for it, somebody still said “nah you’re free to go”….

They arrested him because they caught him with the victim just before he was due to be charged for rape, he was never charged for breaching bail. He was charged for the primary offences (assault, c&c, rape). He was denied bail for those charges but granted it on appeal. At no point did the GMP try to punish him for breaching bail.

They didn't suspect, they literally arrested him in the presence of the victim. And I'll take the judges word over yours on that "grey area".

 

[Wibble]

see below…

they arrested him for breach of bail: Which means they would have charged him in custody. It’s there in writing. It’s the easiest thing to ‘police charge’ for once you have the evidence. But most people know after that point it loses its significance. (Google it) There isn’t a police “punishment” for it. I’m actually now curious what you think police can do to someone who breached police bail? Other than arrest and send to court.

I said in my initial post that this judge did take the breaches seriously btw. Well he made out he did anyway.

There are basically no repercussions for breaching it unless a judge actually uses it as a basis for a remand in custody in relation to the criminal case which can happen at any point in the investigation post charge .

You seem to be taking the judges’ comments about police “deliberately ignoring the breaches for months” as gospel and in black and white. There is massive grey area to it.

The court case says “suspected” of breaching bail. If those suspicions weren’t proven, why would they then arrest greenwood for breach of police bail multiple times over ?
How have they come to the conclusion that police were ignoring him breaching bail for months?. Or was it that he did it for months and the police simply didn’t know or werent told?or that they didn’t have sufficient evidence.
Have you also explored the possibility that potentially nobody was willing to provide evidence as to greenwood breaching bail? Like [name dedacted] and her family? At that point in the investigation were they even still assisting police?

I feel your grievances are misdirected tbh.
The question you should really be asking is who in their right mind made the decision to grant the appeal for Greenwood and overturn his remand. This is someone who at the time was charged with rape and had contacted/visited the victim, despite being specifically told not to.
Despite police then arresting him for it. A judge then remanding him for it, somebody still said “nah you’re free to go”….

Please don't name the victim again.

 

[Dion]

There is absolutely nothing in that CPS statement that backs up any of your claims. At least we can agree that you are very confused!

1. There is no mention in the link you provided (or in fact any official communication I have seen) of anything to do with withdrawal of statements so I have absolutely no idea where you have dreamed this up from.

2. The link says 'the withdrawal of key witnesses' - again nothing to do with statements and we actually don't know for sure who this refers to or even if it's one or more witnesses

3. How do you know the victim statement was still in at Oct '22?
Another speculative claim with no evidence

I don't even understand what you are suggesting, are you saying that she asked for the case to be closed and got back with him but was still ready to be a witness against him until the CPS dropped the case?!

Feel free to DM me any Twitter link of actual evidence but don't bother if it's just social media speculation

1. When a defendant refuses to partake in the prosecution their statements are withdrawn. It's procedural. The victim was still an active participant in the investigation.
2. I mean... suuuuure. If this is the hill you want to die on. The key witness definitely wasn't the victim and her family
3. The victim was part of the prosecution basis, which was formally submitted in October-ish. Then she withdrew and the case was dropped.

And she asked for the case to be closed, then (and this bit is speculation) was convinced to proceed by either the police or someone in her group. The fact she didn't withdraw from the case isn't speculation.

“He was arrested on Saturday morning for breaching his police conditional bail”, prosecutor Rebecca Macaulay-Addison told the magistrates court hearing in October. “He was found in the company of the complainant.”

You're no longer the complainant in a case when you withdraw, she was still the complainant in the case as of October.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

I am too drunk to be able to work out the time lines, but it feels like she only withdrew her statement after she became pregnant

 

[Dion]

I am too drunk to be able to work out the time lines, but it feels like she only withdrew her statement after she became pregnant

Their baby was conceived some time in of October 2022 (DOB according to Greenwoods post is 11/07/23), the victim was still a complainant in the case as of 17th October 2022. The case was announced as discontinued on the 2nd of Feb 2023.

There was a 4 month, 16 day window between Greenwood being charged with the victim being willing to participate in the prosecution and the case being dropped. Approximately around the start of that window the victim became pregnant with Greenwood's baby. By the date the case was dropped she would have been 15-16 weeks pregnant. In the UK the first scan is at 12 weeks. Most women find out they're pregnant between 4 and 6 weeks.

I'm not saying you're certainly right on this, but it certainly would fit in with the timeline. If that is what happened it would be quite upsetting.

 

[manutddjw]

He wasn’t sent to prison, he got a cushy loan in Spain where no doubt he’s getting well paid, enjoying the weather and on the whole going about his life as he pleases.

being a footballer is not an ordinary job, you’re in a male dominated industry where young players are constantly coming through the ranks. The club needed to take the decision to get him out the door as they need to make an example to the other young lads. Some things are not acceptable no matter what.

as for the new evidence it’s my belief it lies in statements from the family.

I’ve made posts giving my support to bringing back mason even though my gut feeling is he’s a scum bag and likely did something wrong.

As for your second point, I disagree. The club wanted him back. The first statement saying he was coming back because charges were dropped and the second saying it would be difficult to stay after the backlash while adding in they had extended audio and explanations is a statement from a club who clearly wanted him back.

 

[Raoul]

If Greenwood was Spanish and did what he did in Spain would there be any backlash to him coming to play in England?

If he was good at football and came to England on a loan at the Getafe of the Premier League (lets say Palace), then he would probably be accepted given most of their fans would view him as someone who can improve them, similar to how Getafe fans have. It might however be different at a bigger club.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

I’ve made posts giving my support to bringing back mason even though my gut feeling is he’s a scum bag and likely did something wrong.

As for your second point, I disagree. The club wanted him back. The first statement saying he was coming back because charges were dropped and the second saying it would be difficult to stay after the backlash while adding in they had extended audio and explanations is a statement from a club who clearly wanted him back.

A club, who at the time were run solely by the bloodsucking Glazers.

 

[pogbasformerbarber]

I spoke on this topic before as I have had a personal experience that influences my judgement...

I was once involved in a legal matter that included a fair amount of media press. It was a long, complicated case, that included a lot context for every aspect of its merit. What struck me was how often the media made incorrect statements based on conjecture. If I'm kind, much of that conjecture was likely in good faith, trying to figure out the "facts" of the case. But wrong "facts" are wrong "facts". So, in may case, if you paint any of the picture with incorrect information...it becomes a completely different overall conclusion. I came away from the experience with a feeling that it's almost impossible to glean a fair assessment of almost anything that includes any measure of media/public opinion. There are too many competing interests and it creates too many false conclusions. I now try to hold off judgement until I feel like I can at least understand as many hard facts as I can, which is admittedly almost impossible these days.

Context was extremely important in my case...for example there was an honest issue that everyone knew was harmless, but the press made it out like it was deliberate malfeasance. If you read that in the paper that day, you could form a very harsh conclusion that would be wrong. It would forever taint your ability to judge the case moving forward.

I have no idea if Greenwood is a good guy or not. I also have no idea how serious his transgressions were. They look very bad to me, but there could be many other facts to this case that I don't know. I think its perfectly reasonable for some on here to not want him on the team ever again...but I also think its perfectly reasonable to want him back and have a second chance. We're fans, we have a right to have an opinion on our team.

For me, I will never condemn a person ever again without all of the hard facts. I don't know why the case the fully dropped...I don't know the circumstances of his GF deciding to not move forward with the case and stay with him...I don't know the full context of the video we all saw...and neither does anyone else here. All I know is that he was charged with a crime, and those charges were dropped. I know in my case, anyone thinking I was bad guy operating in bad faith would have been wrong. I knew my role and was doing the best I could. I made a few mistakes along the way, but they were in no way malicious and made in good faith. People could absolutely disagree with my actions, but not my intent (what was actually part of the cases merit). Mine was a white collar issues, this is more emotional. I get that. But, for me, I would be fine with him returning IF the players and management feel ok with it.

We deal with an age of more information...but also more conjecture. Thats a dangerous thing IMHO. Because conjecture and fact in the media often look exactly the same to a person spending 10 minutes out of their day reading about a topic. So I will forever hold off my opinion of person and their character until I see it directly for myself (i.e Ronaldo acting like a whinny brat on the pitch). Thats my humble opinion here...

 

[NicolaSacco]

I spoke on this topic before as I have had a personal experience that influences my judgement...

I was once involved in a legal matter that included a fair amount of media press. It was a long, complicated case, that included a lot context for every aspect of its merit. What struck me was how often the media made incorrect statements based on conjecture. If I'm kind, much of that conjecture was likely in good faith, trying to figure out the "facts" of the case. But wrong "facts" are wrong "facts". So, in may case, if you paint any of the picture with incorrect information...it becomes a completely different overall conclusion. I came away from the experience with a feeling that it's almost impossible to glean a fair assessment of almost anything that includes any measure of media/public opinion. There are too many competing interests and it creates too many false conclusions. I now try to hold off judgement until I feel like I can at least understand as many hard facts as I can, which is admittedly almost impossible these days.

Context was extremely important in my case...for example there was an honest issue that everyone knew was harmless, but the press made it out like it was deliberate malfeasance. If you read that in the paper that day, you could form a very harsh conclusion that would be wrong. It would forever taint your ability to judge the case moving forward.

I have no idea if Greenwood is a good guy or not. I also have no idea how serious his transgressions were. They look very bad to me, but there could be many other facts to this case that I don't know. I think its perfectly reasonable for some on here to not want him on the team ever again...but I also think its perfectly reasonable to want him back and have a second chance. We're fans, we have a right to have an opinion on our team.

For me, I will never condemn a person ever again without all of the hard facts. I don't know why the case the fully dropped...I don't know the circumstances of his GF deciding to not move forward with the case and stay with him...I don't know the full context of the video we all saw...and neither does anyone else here. All I know is that he was charged with a crime, and those charges were dropped. I know in my case, anyone thinking I was bad guy operating in bad faith would have been wrong. I knew my role and was doing the best I could. I made a few mistakes along the way, but they were in no way malicious and made in good faith. People could absolutely disagree with my actions, but not my intent (what was actually part of the cases merit). Mine was a white collar issues, this is more emotional. I get that. But, for me, I would be fine with him returning IF the players and management feel ok with it.

We deal with an age of more information...but also more conjecture. Thats a dangerous thing IMHO. Because conjecture and fact in the media often look exactly the same to person spending 10 minutes out of their day reading about a topic. So I will forever hold off my opinion of person and their character until I see it directly for myself (i.e Ronaldo acting like a whinny brat on the pitch). Thats my humble opinion here...

apropos of nothing to do with Greenwood, I’m very sorry you had to go through that. It’s my worst nightmare.

 

[pogbasformerbarber]

apropos of nothing to do with Greenwood, I’m very sorry you had to go through that. It’s my worst nightmare.

Thanks so much...It was a many year ordeal, and it really did feel like a nightmare at times. Having the media and people think totally false things about you and DISCUSS them publicly and openly is a wild feeling. Impossible to fully describe. Especially when you know the truth and that many of the facts being presented are totally wrong.

 

[johnnyteutonic]

I spoke on this topic before as I have had a personal experience that influences my judgement...

I was once involved in a legal matter that included a fair amount of media press. It was a long, complicated case, that included a lot context for every aspect of its merit. What struck me was how often the media made incorrect statements based on conjecture. If I'm kind, much of that conjecture was likely in good faith, trying to figure out the "facts" of the case. But wrong "facts" are wrong "facts". So, in may case, if you paint any of the picture with incorrect information...it becomes a completely different overall conclusion. I came away from the experience with a feeling that it's almost impossible to glean a fair assessment of almost anything that includes any measure of media/public opinion. There are too many competing interests and it creates too many false conclusions. I now try to hold off judgement until I feel like I can at least understand as many hard facts as I can, which is admittedly almost impossible these days.

Context was extremely important in my case...for example there was an honest issue that everyone knew was harmless, but the press made it out like it was deliberate malfeasance. If you read that in the paper that day, you could form a very harsh conclusion that would be wrong. It would forever taint your ability to judge the case moving forward.

I have no idea if Greenwood is a good guy or not. I also have no idea how serious his transgressions were. They look very bad to me, but there could be many other facts to this case that I don't know. I think its perfectly reasonable for some on here to not want him on the team ever again...but I also think its perfectly reasonable to want him back and have a second chance. We're fans, we have a right to have an opinion on our team.

For me, I will never condemn a person ever again without all of the hard facts. I don't know why the case the fully dropped...I don't know the circumstances of his GF deciding to not move forward with the case and stay with him...I don't know the full context of the video we all saw...and neither does anyone else here. All I know is that he was charged with a crime, and those charges were dropped. I know in my case, anyone thinking I was bad guy operating in bad faith would have been wrong. I knew my role and was doing the best I could. I made a few mistakes along the way, but they were in no way malicious and made in good faith. People could absolutely disagree with my actions, but not my intent (what was actually part of the cases merit). Mine was a white collar issues, this is more emotional. I get that. But, for me, I would be fine with him returning IF the players and management feel ok with it.

We deal with an age of more information...but also more conjecture. Thats a dangerous thing IMHO. Because conjecture and fact in the media often look exactly the same to person spending 10 minutes out of their day reading about a topic. So I will forever hold off my opinion of person and their character until I see it directly for myself (i.e Ronaldo acting like a whinny brat on the pitch). Thats my humble opinion here...

That is absolutely terrible. Honestly, your post is quite moving. I have no idea what that would be like to go through. I am just an average citizen never subjected to the whims of the media.
I just want to politely, without any malice, point out that it is a fact that Greenwood breached his bail:

“He was arrested on Saturday morning for breaching his police conditional bail”, prosecutor Rebecca Macaulay-Addison told the magistrates court hearing in October.
“He was found in the company of the complainant.”
Greenwood’s lawyer, David Toal, admitted the breach had taken place, saying: “I absolutely concede it is his responsibility to abide by all bail conditions imposed.”
He told the court: “Contact has occurred for many months.”

Source: Mason Greenwood: Police ‘deliberately ignored’ bail breaches by Manchester United star during investigation | Evening Standard

Just thought I would add that in because I personally do believe that is an important piece of information to have in one's arsenal when at least trying to formulate an opinion on this topic, not that one ought to have an opinion, especially in light of, as you correctly point out from your personal experience, how much we don't actually know.

 

[pogbasformerbarber]

That is absolutely terrible. Honestly, your post is quite moving. I have no idea what that would be like to go through. I am just an average citizen never subjected to the whims of the media.
I just want to politely, without any malice, point out that it is a fact that Greenwood breached his bail:



Source: Mason Greenwood: Police ‘deliberately ignored’ bail breaches by Manchester United star during investigation | Evening Standard

Just thought I would add that in because I personally do believe that is an important piece of information to have in one's arsenal when at least trying to formulate an opinion on this topic, not that one ought to have an opinion, especially in light of, as you correctly point out from your personal experience, how much we don't actually know.

Appreciate the thoughts very much. I agree I have no idea if he is a bad person, he very well could be the worst.

But even to your point we don’t know why he ignored bail. Maybe it’s because he is total jerk or maybe it was avoidance based on severe fear. It could be a lot of things. It’s not right, and it’s a knock, but again these are all very public and very hard to decipher imho. Again that’s just for me, I don’t actually think it’s wrong to dislike him based a lot of what has been reported. Intent is an important part of the judgment of character…and I’m finding the intent hard to figure out with this whole saga….

 

[johnnyteutonic]

Appreciate the thoughts very much. I agree I have no idea if he is a bad person, he very well could be the worst.

But even to your point we don’t know why he ignored bail. Maybe it’s because he is total jerk or maybe it was avoidance based on severe fear. It could be a lot of things. It’s not right, and it’s a knock, but again these are all very public and very hard to decipher imho. Again that’s just for me, I don’t actually think it’s wrong to dislike him based a lot of what has been reported. Intent is an important part of the judgment of character…and I’m finding the intent hard to figure out with this whole saga….

Of course, intent is incredibly important to one's actions.
In relation to your own experiences with the media, I think that 'trial by media' is a serious problem everywhere.
I haven't been closely following this thread as of late, as my work commitments have been quite demanding, but I do recall a couple of posters a while back referencing this phenomenon.
There is a really good netflix series about a variety of people, who were subjected to this treatment, that I encourage anyone to watch who is interested in it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_Media_(TV_series)

 

[golden_blunder]

I’ve made posts giving my support to bringing back mason even though my gut feeling is he’s a scum bag and likely did something wrong.

As for your second point, I disagree. The club wanted him back. The first statement saying he was coming back because charges were dropped and the second saying it would be difficult to stay after the backlash while adding in they had extended audio and explanations is a statement from a club who clearly wanted him back.

Re my 2nd point I’ve worded it badly, I mean from a setting standards that people don’t cross, the club have did the right thing, however they got there

 

[pogbasformerbarber]

Of course, intent is incredibly important to one's actions.
In relation to your own experiences with the media, I think that 'trial by media' is a serious problem everywhere.
I haven't been closely following this thread as of late, as my work commitments have been quite demanding, but I do recall a couple of posters a while back referencing this phenomenon.
There is a really good netflix series about a variety of people, who were subjected to this treatment, that I encourage anyone to watch who is interested in it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_Media_(TV_series)

Very interesting…a huge topic given articles people write now love forever online…I’ll check it out.

 

[The Urban Goose]

I spoke on this topic before as I have had a personal experience that influences my judgement...

I was once involved in a legal matter that included a fair amount of media press. It was a long, complicated case, that included a lot context for every aspect of its merit. What struck me was how often the media made incorrect statements based on conjecture. If I'm kind, much of that conjecture was likely in good faith, trying to figure out the "facts" of the case. But wrong "facts" are wrong "facts". So, in may case, if you paint any of the picture with incorrect information...it becomes a completely different overall conclusion. I came away from the experience with a feeling that it's almost impossible to glean a fair assessment of almost anything that includes any measure of media/public opinion. There are too many competing interests and it creates too many false conclusions. I now try to hold off judgement until I feel like I can at least understand as many hard facts as I can, which is admittedly almost impossible these days.

Context was extremely important in my case...for example there was an honest issue that everyone knew was harmless, but the press made it out like it was deliberate malfeasance. If you read that in the paper that day, you could form a very harsh conclusion that would be wrong. It would forever taint your ability to judge the case moving forward.

I have no idea if Greenwood is a good guy or not. I also have no idea how serious his transgressions were. They look very bad to me, but there could be many other facts to this case that I don't know. I think its perfectly reasonable for some on here to not want him on the team ever again...but I also think its perfectly reasonable to want him back and have a second chance. We're fans, we have a right to have an opinion on our team.

For me, I will never condemn a person ever again without all of the hard facts. I don't know why the case the fully dropped...I don't know the circumstances of his GF deciding to not move forward with the case and stay with him...I don't know the full context of the video we all saw...and neither does anyone else here. All I know is that he was charged with a crime, and those charges were dropped. I know in my case, anyone thinking I was bad guy operating in bad faith would have been wrong. I knew my role and was doing the best I could. I made a few mistakes along the way, but they were in no way malicious and made in good faith. People could absolutely disagree with my actions, but not my intent (what was actually part of the cases merit). Mine was a white collar issues, this is more emotional. I get that. But, for me, I would be fine with him returning IF the players and management feel ok with it.

We deal with an age of more information...but also more conjecture. Thats a dangerous thing IMHO. Because conjecture and fact in the media often look exactly the same to a person spending 10 minutes out of their day reading about a topic. So I will forever hold off my opinion of person and their character until I see it directly for myself (i.e Ronaldo acting like a whinny brat on the pitch). Thats my humble opinion here...

Best post on this thread. Sadly the vocal pitchforks will always outweigh the more circumspect.

 

[Ludens the Red]

They arrested him because they caught him with the victim just before he was due to be charged for rape, he was never charged for breaching bail. He was charged for the primary offences (assault, c&c, rape). He was denied bail for those charges but granted it on appeal. At no point did the GMP try to punish him for breaching bail.

They didn't suspect, they literally arrested him in the presence of the victim. And I'll take the judges word over yours on that "grey area".

So therefore they arrested him for breach of bail Because catching him with the victim would be the breach…..
Police arrested him for breach of bail, the lawyer said they did. Youve literally just said they did. What the feck are you arguing exactly .

How many times do I have to say there is no “police punishment” for breach of bail? I’ve asked you to tell me what punishment police can give people for breach of bail and you’ve said nothing. Please please tell me, educate us on what punishment police can give for breach of police bail. I’m dying to know, show me the legislation …
You can only arrest and charge in custody for it and then send the person to court. Charging someone for breaching bail IN Custody is simple. It’s a matter of a button click. But there is nothing beyond that. It’s supposed to act as a contributing factor to remand and charges when the criminal charge actually goes to court. At which point the court decide on any bail requirements etc. They did hence him being remanded except it was appealed against. Breaching the police bail would have formed part of the remand application/bail refusal.

The report said there were suspicions greenwood was breaching bail for months and that police ignored it. If police had these suspicions but then didn’t get the evidence he wouldn’t have been arrested. They obviously then did get the evidence and then did arrest him:

 

[Sandikan]

I know this is a forum to discuss United related topics but every time I come in here it's some variation of the same two posts and arguments.

I'd much rather just see what way this summer plays out.

We all have our opinions and views on what should happen but until INEOS make a new concrete decision we can't really protest either way.

I do hope that United stick to their guns and sell him to avoid the circus but debating the tape for another 4 months just seems like a waste of everyone's time at this point.

United made a very interesting comment along the lines of how they'd delved into the full details, and were convinced he wasn't guilty of what was reported.

The only valid way Greenwood could return is if United opened up on what these supposed extra unknown details were, and convince people.

As that'll surely not happen, it's definitely best if we can manage to shift him for a decent fee, and he carries on elsewhere in less of a fishbowl

 

[Dion]

So therefore they arrested him for breach of bail Because catching him with the victim would be the breach…..
Police arrested him for breach of bail, the lawyer said they did. Youve literally just said they did. What the feck are you arguing exactly .

Arresting people and then not charging them for it is a failure on their part. It's not a difficult concept.

How many times do I have to say there is no “police punishment” for breach of bail? I’ve asked you to tell me what punishment police can give people for breach of bail and you’ve said nothing. Please please tell me, educate us on what punishment police can give for breach of police bail. I’m dying to know, show me the legislation …
You can only arrest and charge in custody for it and then send the person to court. Charging someone for breaching bail IN Custody is simple. It’s a matter of a button click. But there is nothing beyond that. It’s supposed to act as a contributing factor to remand and charges when the criminal charge actually goes to court. At which point the court decide on any bail requirements etc. They did hence him being remanded except it was appealed against. Breaching the police bail would have formed part of the remand application/bail refusal.

The report said there were suspicions greenwood was breaching bail for months and that police ignored it. If police had these suspicions but then didn’t get the evidence he wouldn’t have been arrested. They obviously then did get the evidence and then did arrest him:

They could have charged him with breaching the terms of his bail. Again, this has been repeated to you multiple times, you're just wilfully ignoring it.

Because, and I've repeated this several times and you're wilfully ignoring it;

He was never charged with breaching bail. He was arrested for it and they decided not to charge him with breaching bail, he only charged for the 3 main crimes: one count of attempted rape, one count of controlling and coercive behaviour and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. This was confirmed by the CPS.

They never "clicked that button". That's the point. His appeal was against being denied bail for the 3 charges.

But I'm glad we can finally agree GMP could actually do something about it, shame they didn't.

 

[Red_toad]

What's the topic in this thread? Is it just about his case? As it just seems like endless speculation and opinions on him, his partner etc.

 

[Raoul]

What's the topic in this thread? Is it just about his case? As it just seems like endless speculation and opinions on him, his partner etc.

Mason Greenwood - both football and non-football.

 

[Halftrack]

So therefore they arrested him for breach of bail Because catching him with the victim would be the breach…..
Police arrested him for breach of bail, the lawyer said they did. Youve literally just said they did. What the feck are you arguing exactly .

How many times do I have to say there is no “police punishment” for breach of bail? I’ve asked you to tell me what punishment police can give people for breach of bail and you’ve said nothing. Please please tell me, educate us on what punishment police can give for breach of police bail. I’m dying to know, show me the legislation …
You can only arrest and charge in custody for it and then send the person to court. Charging someone for breaching bail IN Custody is simple. It’s a matter of a button click. But there is nothing beyond that. It’s supposed to act as a contributing factor to remand and charges when the criminal charge actually goes to court. At which point the court decide on any bail requirements etc. They did hence him being remanded except it was appealed against. Breaching the police bail would have formed part of the remand application/bail refusal.

The report said there were suspicions greenwood was breaching bail for months and that police ignored it. If police had these suspicions but then didn’t get the evidence he wouldn’t have been arrested. They obviously then did get the evidence and then did arrest him:

This is amazing. Your whole performance here is amazing.

 

[Rood]

1. When a defendant refuses to partake in the prosecution their statements are withdrawn. It's procedural. The victim was still an active participant in the investigation.
2. I mean... suuuuure. If this is the hill you want to die on. The key witness definitely wasn't the victim and her family
3. The victim was part of the prosecution basis, which was formally submitted in October-ish. Then she withdrew and the case was dropped.

And she asked for the case to be closed, then (and this bit is speculation) was convinced to proceed by either the police or someone in her group. The fact she didn't withdraw from the case isn't speculation.

“He was arrested on Saturday morning for breaching his police conditional bail”, prosecutor Rebecca Macaulay-Addison told the magistrates court hearing in October. “He was found in the company of the complainant.”

You're no longer the complainant in a case when you withdraw, she was still the complainant in the case as of October.

She's still the original complainant regardless if she decided to withdraw so yes it is speculation to claim all this as fact based solely on that one word from the prosecutor in court.

And to be clear, I'm not climbing any hill and Im ok with speculative theories but just making sure we know what's facts and what's your opinion because you have tried to pass off a lot of speculation as fact. At least you now admit that your entire premise is based on a theory that she asked for the case to be closed in April '22 but then changed her mind, before then withdrawing again.

I dont think this makes much sense but at least it's something new in this circular thread!

 

[Dion]

She's still the original complainant regardless if she decided to withdraw so yes it is speculation to claim all this as fact based solely on that one word from the prosecutor in court.

And to be clear, I'm not climbing any hill and Im ok with speculative theories but just making sure we know what's facts and what's your opinion because you have tried to pass off a lot of speculation as fact. At least you now admit that your entire premise is based on a theory that she asked for the case to be closed in April '22 but then changed her mind, before then withdrawing again.

I dont think this makes much sense but at least it's something new in this circular thread!

No she's not. You're no longer the complainant in a case once you've withdrawn from it. And it's not solely on the word of one prosecutor (although the prosecutor misspoke is a hell of a leap for someone who isn't trying to make a leap), it's also the fact that the prosecution wasn't suspended until February 2023. And the fact one of the reasons for the prosecution was the withdrawal of the key witness.

It's okay to admit you didn't realise she hadn't withdrawn from the case. Even the wording of the statement by Arnold suggests her request went no further that that, if she had withdrawn from the process in April '22 I'm pretty sure Arnold would have lead with that rather than that she "asked".

This is amazing. Your whole performance here is amazing.

It's wild, he spends two sentences saying there's nothing the police can do, then the next two saying how easy it is for the police to charge him with it. But then glosses over the fact the police never charged him with it.

 

[Rood]

No she's not. You're no longer the complainant in a case once you've withdrawn from it. And it's not solely on the word of one prosecutor (although the prosecutor misspoke is a hell of a leap for someone who isn't trying to make a leap), it's also the fact that the prosecution wasn't suspended until February 2023. And the fact one of the reasons for the prosecution was the withdrawal of the key witness.

It's okay to admit you didn't realise she hadn't withdrawn from the case. Even the wording of the statement by Arnold suggests her request went no further that that, if she had withdrawn from the process in April '22 I'm pretty sure Arnold would have lead with that rather than that she "asked".

What would the prosecutor refer to her as if not 'the complainant'?
Prosecution can continue without the support of the original complainant so that means nothing and as you know the CPS refer to 'key witnesses' plus 'new material' so again what you claim as fact is nothing of the sort.

It would be a major PR disaster for the club if it came out that Arnold misrepresented her part in this process, Im pretty sure the likes of The Athletic would have been all over this by now if your theory was true. Still I'm happy to add it to the list of possible theories put forward in this thread so far.

 

[Dion]

I'm sorry but this whole "the prosecutor misspoke" and the "key witness definitely isn't the victim and her family" is such a reach I'm just going to let other people judge the merits of it.

 

[Rood]

I'm sorry but this whole "the prosecutor misspoke" and the "key witness definitely isn't the victim and her family" is such a reach I'm just going to let other people judge the merits of it.

I didnt claim either of those things - I think she is one of the key witnesses refered to, but when exactly she withdrew is the question.

Anyway we can leave it there, I dont think this is going anywhere now.

 

[Rood]

I spoke on this topic before as I have had a personal experience that influences my judgement...

I was once involved in a legal matter that included a fair amount of media press. It was a long, complicated case, that included a lot context for every aspect of its merit. What struck me was how often the media made incorrect statements based on conjecture. If I'm kind, much of that conjecture was likely in good faith, trying to figure out the "facts" of the case. But wrong "facts" are wrong "facts". So, in may case, if you paint any of the picture with incorrect information...it becomes a completely different overall conclusion. I came away from the experience with a feeling that it's almost impossible to glean a fair assessment of almost anything that includes any measure of media/public opinion. There are too many competing interests and it creates too many false conclusions. I now try to hold off judgement until I feel like I can at least understand as many hard facts as I can, which is admittedly almost impossible these days.

Context was extremely important in my case...for example there was an honest issue that everyone knew was harmless, but the press made it out like it was deliberate malfeasance. If you read that in the paper that day, you could form a very harsh conclusion that would be wrong. It would forever taint your ability to judge the case moving forward.

I have no idea if Greenwood is a good guy or not. I also have no idea how serious his transgressions were. They look very bad to me, but there could be many other facts to this case that I don't know. I think its perfectly reasonable for some on here to not want him on the team ever again...but I also think its perfectly reasonable to want him back and have a second chance. We're fans, we have a right to have an opinion on our team.

For me, I will never condemn a person ever again without all of the hard facts. I don't know why the case the fully dropped...I don't know the circumstances of his GF deciding to not move forward with the case and stay with him...I don't know the full context of the video we all saw...and neither does anyone else here. All I know is that he was charged with a crime, and those charges were dropped. I know in my case, anyone thinking I was bad guy operating in bad faith would have been wrong. I knew my role and was doing the best I could. I made a few mistakes along the way, but they were in no way malicious and made in good faith. People could absolutely disagree with my actions, but not my intent (what was actually part of the cases merit). Mine was a white collar issues, this is more emotional. I get that. But, for me, I would be fine with him returning IF the players and management feel ok with it.

We deal with an age of more information...but also more conjecture. Thats a dangerous thing IMHO. Because conjecture and fact in the media often look exactly the same to a person spending 10 minutes out of their day reading about a topic. So I will forever hold off my opinion of person and their character until I see it directly for myself (i.e Ronaldo acting like a whinny brat on the pitch). Thats my humble opinion here...

This is the correct and logical opinion as far as Im concerned - thanks for sharing

 

[Wibble]

The club were correct in stating he wasn't guilty. The charges were dropped so he was not going to be found guilty in court.

He 100% for certain broke bail conditions.

So what?

We aren't now talking about anything other than if he is too big a scumbag to play for United again.

The evidence of the recording, for which there can be no excuse or context that makes it ok, and for which there has been no (even bullshit) attempt to explain, makes it a very simple and obvious choice.

The rest is just noise.

If we get anywhere near the price being talked about we need to snatch their hand off. Especially as he is a good player but talk of generational talent isn't supported by what he did at United or since.

 

[Bondi77]

Mason Greenwood - both football and non-football.

Why is'nt he in the Performance thread so posters could just talk about his football as any reference on here about that just generates more talk about him and the court case which is just Groundhog Day.

 

[Raoul]

Why is'nt he in the Performance thread so posters could just talk about his football as any reference on here about that just generates more talk about him and the court case which is just Groundhog Day.

For reasons already explained multiple times earlier in the thread.

 

[Bondi77]

For reasons already explained multiple times earlier in the thread.

If he is here next season do you think that he will be in the Performance thread?

 

[Raoul]

If he is here next season do you think that he will be in the Performance thread?

If he’s back at United full time next season then he will likely have his own thread as all the others do.

 

[Bondi77]

If he’s back at United full time next season then he will likely have his own thread as all the others do.

Thanks