Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
romufc said:
I dont want to go into this in that detail because I dont for any reason want to come across anything but against sexual assault so lets leave it as this.

My point was not to focus just on Greenwood, moreso the moral compass, the reason for outrage is because it was on twitter correct?

My argument is why are we just so against Greenwood because he was accused and evidence was shown on social media first whilst others such as Partey, Antony because its not in this country, there is no outrage and it is okay, because what it wasn't in this country?
Click to expand...
You don't want to go into that detail but you have already gone into that detail by suggesting the courts had made any kind of judgement on him. The prosecution thought they couldn't secure a conviction without the consent of the victim (who they allowed Greenwood to contact while on police bail) and because of some undefined "new evidence".

The difference between Antony or anyone else and Greenwood is that we have an actual recording of the event in question. The prosecutions aversion to putting a hostile witness through a painful and traumatic recollection of her assault at trail is a sad reality of a rape case, but it doesn't mean we should be ignoring the evidence of our eyes and ears

Courts have high thresholds for proof because they can put people in prison. We can't, so our standard of proof (like a civil lawsuit) is by necessity lower. But a failure of conviction at trial is not innocence and it's not trial by twitter to acknowledge that the evidence in this case is comprehensive and overwhelming in a way it isn't for Partey or Antony.
 
Dion said:
You don't want to go into that detail but you have already gone into that detail by suggesting the courts had made any kind of judgement on him. The prosecution thought they couldn't secure a conviction without the consent of the victim (who they allowed Greenwood to contact while on police bail) and because of some undefined "new evidence".

The difference between Antony or anyone else and Greenwood is that we have an actual recording of the event in question. The prosecutions aversion to putting a hostile witness through a painful and traumatic recollection of her assault at trail is a sad reality of a rape case, but it doesn't mean we should be ignoring the evidence of our eyes and ears

Courts have high thresholds for proof because they can put people in prison. We can't, so our standard of proof (like a civil lawsuit) is by necessity lower. But a failure of conviction at trial is not innocence and it's not trial by twitter to acknowledge that the evidence in this case is comprehensive and overwhelming in a way it isn't for Partey or Antony.
Click to expand...

This is what I dont agree with. You are out here saying things like " horribly untrue and dangerous to victims of sexual assault ". Well just because the Antony and other cases, they have not been put on social media its fine.

Sexual assault victims need to be protected regardless of if clips are on twitter or not. Basically what you are saying is your standard of proof is twitter, Antony and other cases didnt provide social media proof so it doesnt meet your threshold.
 
romufc said:
This is what I dont agree with. You are out here saying things like " horribly untrue and dangerous to victims of sexual assault ". Well just because the Antony and other cases, they have not been put on social media its fine.

Sexual assault victims need to be protected regardless of if clips are on twitter or not. Basically what you are saying is your standard of proof is twitter, Antony and other cases didnt provide social media proof so it doesnt meet your threshold.
Click to expand...

Their standard of proof is a recording that there has been no attempt whatsoever to refute the legitimacy of, not 'Twitter'.
 
romufc said:
This is what I dont agree with. You are out here saying things like " horribly untrue and dangerous to victims of sexual assault ". Well just because the Antony and other cases, they have not been put on social media its fine.

Sexual assault victims need to be protected regardless of if clips are on twitter or not. Basically what you are saying is your standard of proof is twitter, Antony and other cases didnt provide social media proof so it doesnt meet your threshold.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not. And it's woefully disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

It's basic common sense and a legal precedent that the punishment is roughly proportional to the severity of the crime and the level of evidence provided. If an accusation is only someone's word against another then you have to treat the accusation with respect, but also acknowledge the limitations of the evidence and limit your response appropriately. If someone provides video or audio evidence of the act as it's happening that needs to provide a more serious consequence by necessity.

Social media doesn't come into it. Blaming things on social media is just a buzzword like something being bad because it's "woke".
 
Lash said:
Also, a loan with an obligation is basically a sale and will probably allow someone like Dortmund to spread the cost better.
Click to expand...

We are also in need of sales to have more funds for transfers to comply with FFP. We should sell outright. Hope to Napoli or Juventus, if Dortmund don't have the money or they prefer Sancho.
 
romufc said:
My bad charges were dropped. Unless you have the transcript stating the reasoning why they were dropped.

a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. In these circumstances, we are under a duty to stop the case.

Those were the words that came out. No one can factually say he was guilty or innocent. We all assume he is guilty because of what we saw on social media.

It also says new evidence with no prospect of conviction.
Click to expand...
If key witnesses, including thee key witness, withdraw from any case…then the chances of a conviction are reduced to the point where it’s no longer a realistic prospect, as mentioned in the statement.

The court of public opinion has already spoken though.
 
Last edited:
romufc said:
I dont think Greenwood should play for us but to play devils advocate..

What you are saying is factually incorrect, he was literally cleared by the court of law, unless you think Twitter is where law is enforced?
Click to expand...

I know what I heard and although I'm not judge and jury (I'm well aware I'm not), it's enough to form my own opinion and nothing will change that.

You also couldn't be more wrong. Greenwood was NOT "cleared by the court of law". The case was dropped as the prosecutors gave up when the victim was no longer assisting them.
 
romufc said:
Oh yeah he was convicted;.. Didnt realise La LIga is a prison.
Click to expand...

His case was never heard by a court of law.

Saying he was cleared by one is a shocking misrepresentation of what happened. One that has been refuted multiple times in this thread with the reasons why the distinction is very important explained.
 
romufc said:
This is what I dont agree with. You are out here saying things like " horribly untrue and dangerous to victims of sexual assault ". Well just because the Antony and other cases, they have not been put on social media its fine.

Sexual assault victims need to be protected regardless of if clips are on twitter or not. Basically what you are saying is your standard of proof is twitter, Antony and other cases didnt provide social media proof so it doesnt meet your threshold.
Click to expand...
What a load of complete rubbish. It’s hard to tell whether people are pretending at this point.
 
Charges being dropped is the functional equivalent of being cleared of those charges, as a legal matter that is and nothing more. We’re all free to hold whatever opinions we wish, but that’s an entirely different issue.
 
lex talionis said:
Charges being dropped is the functional equivalent of being cleared of those charges, as a legal matter that is and nothing more. We’re all free to hold whatever opinions we wish, but that’s an entirely different issue.
Click to expand...

No it is not, especially not in cases of intimate partner abuse and violence.

The vast majority of this particular type of crime happens in the home with only the respondent and the applicant witnessing it.

It is incredibly rare that the victim will make a police complaint after every incident. As such the most significant evidence in these kinds of cases will be the witness statement and testimony of the applicant/victim.

Making the statement that someone was "cleared by a court of law" is stating that the evidence was heard by a court of law and that they have made a judgement that the criminal offence did not happen.

The case being dropped or rejected by the CPS when the complainent has withdrawn their support is purely a reflection of 2 things.

1. There is very unlikely to be a prosecution when the person who can provide 99% of the evidence will not be providing it.
2. There is limited motivation to move forward when things such as bail conditions or restraining orders won't be kept to anyway.

It is a very, very important distinction and certainly not the "functional equivalent".
 
OverratedOpinion said:
No it is not, especially not in cases of intimate partner abuse and violence.

The vast majority of this particular type of crime happens in the home with only the respondent and the applicant witnessing it.

It is incredibly rare that the victim will make a police complaint after every incident. As such the most significant evidence in these kinds of cases will be the witness statement and testimony of the applicant/victim.

Making the statement that someone was "cleared by a court of law" is stating that the evidence was heard by a court of law and that they have made a judgement that the criminal offence did not happen.

The case being dropped or rejected by the CPS when the complainent has withdrawn their support is purely a reflection of 2 things.

1. There is very unlikely to be a prosecution when the person who can provide 99% of the evidence will not be providing it.
2. There is limited motivation to move forward when things such as bail conditions or restraining orders won't be kept to anyway.

It is a very, very important distinction and certainly not the "functional equivalent".
Click to expand...

You misunderstand what I'm saying. When legal charges are dropped against a person, that person is cleared of legal wrongdoing -- or to be more specific about it, there is no legal basis to claim that the person really did do it even if no court of law or jury came to that verdict (or that the defendant so pled). That doesn't mean that we are not free to judge that person as a shitbag, however, but in the eyes of the law that person is no more guilty of a heinous offense than you or I. Yet it remains the case that you and I do not have a cloud over our name in the eyes of public opinion in the way that a person who was once charged with a heinous offense but those charges were ultimately dropped.

In western law (not 100% sure about the UK but I have to believe this is the case...let's put it this way: it is inconceivable that this is not the case) if you have not been deemed by a competent court of law to be be guilty of a criminal or civil violation, you are not deemed in the eyes of the law to have committed a criminal or civil violation.

Think OJ Simpson. It was clear to me from my armchair that he committed the crime he was charged with but a jury found him not guilty and in the eyes of the law he was therefore not guilty of that crime, and that the opinions of the rest of us are completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law.
 
lex talionis said:
When legal charges are dropped against a person, that person is cleared of legal wrongdoing -- or to be more specific about it, there is no legal basis to claim that the person really did do it even if no court of law or jury came to that verdict
Click to expand...
Stay specific then. Having no basis to prosecute is miles off "clearing" anyone.

It's not a neutral term. You are not saying he is "legally innocent until proven guilty". Cleared means innocent, acquitted, vindicated... It doesn't mean "can't prove guilt because key witnesses withdrew".
 
lex talionis said:
You misunderstand what I'm saying. When legal charges are dropped against a person, that person is cleared of legal wrongdoing -- or to be more specific about it, there is no legal basis to claim that the person really did do it even if no court of law or jury came to that verdict (or that the defendant so pled). That doesn't mean that we are not free to judge that person as a shitbag, however, but in the eyes of the law that person is no more guilty of a heinous offense than you or I. Yet it remains the case that you and I do not have a cloud over our name in the eyes of public opinion in the way that a person who was once charged with a heinous offense but those charges were ultimately dropped.

In western law (not 100% sure about the UK but I have to believe this is the case...let's put it this way: it is inconceivable that this is not the case) if you have not been deemed by a competent court of law to be be guilty of a criminal or civil violation, you are not deemed in the eyes of the law to have committed a criminal or civil violation.

Think OJ Simpson. It was clear to me from my armchair that he committed the crime he was charged with but a jury found him not guilty and in the eyes of the law he was therefore not guilty of that crime, and that the opinions of the rest of us are completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...

Without being rude, I have not misunderstood, you have.

The statement in question is that someone was cleared of legal wrongdoing by a court of law.

That is a vastly, vastly different thing than what happened in this circumstance for the reasons I explained above. Saying someone was cleared in court carries the inference that they have been proven innocent.

If you wish to discuss the court of public opinion then that is fine. That is a completely different topic to the fact that stating Mason Greenwood was cleared by a court of law is a false statement and due to the reasons that I have already explained one that is actually harmful.
 
Ali Dia said:
Felix could finally become a huge player here. If he fails fine, it’s a small gamble. I’d play him up front rotating with Rasmus and Bruno
Click to expand...

I'd swap Greenwood for a packet of crisps.

But doesn't that just then leave us with Bruno, Mount, McTominay and then also Felix who all play in the same area of the pitch?

I still quite like Felix as a player but it might be better just to get a fee even if it's a little less than Felix's perceived value.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
I'd swap Greenwood for a packet of crisps.

But doesn't that just then leave us with Bruno, Mount, McTominay and then also Felix who all play in the same area of the pitch?

I still quite like Felix as a player but it might be better just to get a fee even if it's a little less than Felix's perceived value.
Click to expand...

I think he can play further forward if we need him to. He’d be good for 10 goals a season in a team that badly needs goals
 
Ali Dia said:
I think he can play further forward if we need him to. He’d be good for 10 goals a season in a team that badly needs goals
Click to expand...

He has generally shown he is not good up front, potentially if we stick with this system of 2 false 9's I suppose.
 
romufc said:
My argument is why are we just so against Greenwood because he was accused and evidence was shown on social media first whilst others such as Partey, Antony because its not in this country, there is no outrage and it is okay, because what it wasn't in this country?
Click to expand...
Try again, chief. You'll get there eventually...
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Just saying, if really the club would like to bring Greenwood back there is a way around it in term of PR spin.

Mental health issues are valid arguments and can get a lot of sympathy. Case in point, many court cases use mental health issues as defence to get lower sentence or non-guilty verdict.

Don't shoot me!
Click to expand...
Kinda weird to post your wet dreams on a football forum.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Thanks for your comment, moderator.
Click to expand...
To be fair, it deserved moderating. You're suggesting to attribute what he did to mental health issues, without any evidence of that being the case, just to get him back. It's a horrendous post.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
Without being rude, I have not misunderstood, you have.

The statement in question is that someone was cleared of legal wrongdoing by a court of law.

That is a vastly, vastly different thing than what happened in this circumstance for the reasons I explained above. Saying someone was cleared in court carries the inference that they have been proven innocent.

If you wish to discuss the court of public opinion then that is fine. That is a completely different topic to the fact that stating Mason Greenwood was cleared by a court of law is a false statement and due to the reasons that I have already explained one that is actually harmful.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. First of all, no judge or jury ever renders a verdict of “innocent”. When a verdict is rendered, the defendant is either found guilty or not guilty, not “innocent”.

If a jury can’t agree on a verdict, there is no verdict of either guilty pr not guilty and what results is a “hung jury”. The prosecution may, legally, seek a new trial or it may drop the charges.

Until a person is convicted of a crime, from a legal perspective that person has not been found to have committed that crime. The public may “know” that that person actually committed the crime, but from a legal perspective that person is not guilty of that crime until a jury agrees that the prosecution has the met of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.

Where your analysis struggles is the meaning of the word “cleared”. The court system does not purport to “prove innocence”, which is implied in how you are using the word “cleared”. When charges or dropped or a not guilty verdict is rendered, all that has happened is that a decision was reached that the evidence that would be or was allowed in court would not likely or or did not meet the standard of proof required to reach a guilty verdict.

We do not live in a world, perhaps not even in Russia, where once a person is charged with a crime the defendant carries the burden of proving one’s innocence. It would be a terribly unjust world if it were so.

I may have video evidence that X shot Y but if that’s my only evidence that X shot Y and for whatever reason a judge suppresses that evidence from being submitted at trial, X walks a free man. You and I would be appalled, but in the eyes of the law that man is not guilty. He wasn’t “cleared” in the sense that the court affirmatively found it was not X who shot Y, but he was cleared in the sense that X was not convicted of that crime (there is often a plea agreement to other charges) and legally is a free man. The record will forever show that he was accused of a crime, but it will also show that he was not convicted of the crime, free to take a job at the local Starbucks or to play for a professional football club.

As for what each of us believes, that’s an entirely separate question and we are all free to believe what we wish based on what we have seen, heard or read.
 
I’d genuinely bring him back for a minimum of 1 season and see how he fares. He doesn’t look to be the same player before all the legal stuff happened. Still looked a level above Antony after 3 years out but I’m not sure his trajectory will be the same as it was. He’s still our player, he’s still under contract, there no legal case to answer.
 
Wrecking ralf said:
I’d genuinely bring him back for a minimum of 1 season and see how he fares. He doesn’t look to be the same player before all the legal stuff happened. Still looked a level above Antony after 3 years out but I’m not sure his trajectory will be the same as it was. He’s still our player, he’s still under contract, there no legal case to answer.
Click to expand...


You know what, I am absolutely sick to the back teeth of this attitude.

The legal case is not to be looked at in this instance. We've all heard the recordings and seen the photos, and no statement has been put forth to suggest these were anything other than how they have been taken at face value. If they were, then legal action would be taken against the accuser to protect the accused's character.

I know none of us were there, I appreciate that.

However, people are saying he is innocent because the charges were dropped by the accuser. Now, my sister's ex-husband used to fairly regularly beat the living daylights out of my sister. She'd have him arrested, then when it came to court, she'd drop the charges. Does that make him innocent? Did she throw herself down the stairs, did she walk into the door multiple times? Should I have welcomed her ex-husband back into the family with open arms every time she dropped the charges?

I've had enough of this now. Get MG out of my football club.
 
Oecobius said:
You know what, I am absolutely sick to the back teeth of this attitude.

The legal case is not to be looked at in this instance. We've all heard the recordings and seen the photos, and no statement has been put forth to suggest these were anything other than how they have been taken at face value. If they were, then legal action would be taken against the accuser to protect the accused's character.

I know none of us were there, I appreciate that.

However, people are saying he is innocent because the charges were dropped by the accuser. Now, my sister's ex-husband used to fairly regularly beat the living daylights out of my sister. She'd have him arrested, then when it came to court, she'd drop the charges. Does that make him innocent? Did she throw herself down the stairs, did she walk into the door multiple times? Should I have welcomed her ex-husband back into the family with open arms every time she dropped the charges?

I've had enough of this now. Get MG out of my football club.
Click to expand...
The post you're replying to didn't say MG was innocent.
 
Jippy said:
The post you're replying to didn't say MG was innocent.
Click to expand...
At least someone bothered to read it before commenting. For the record, I don’t believe he’s guilty or innocent. I don’t have any information, just like everyone else to cast judgment on something I’m not involved in. Nor would I want to for personal reasons. There is only PR and personal opinion to go off and neither matter where the law is concerned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.