You don't know what you saw or heard (and neither do I, or anyone else here,). The accuser has thrown the veracity of all of this apparently conclusive evidence into question, sufficiently for the CPS to accept that they wouldn't be able to take a case forward. If a witness tells you they constructed and misrepresented AV materials respectively, then they might of course be covering something up in turn to protect a partner, but you (and everyone who viewed/heard) that material has to at least strongly consider whether it might not indeed have been manipulated. There's a reason why we've constructed systems of law that go beyond 'they're obviously guilty' or 'simple common sense' or ' you know, of course he did it...' Unfortunately the court of social media and associated, long-standing public hysteria hasn't caught up to this yet. But they're not standards of judgement that any of us should be subject to - what if you aggrieved your partner and they then created a fake audio file in which ' you' stated you were going to kill them, or uttered racial slurs, and posted this on social media? Would you want the world to listen to that audio and and take it as unimpeachable fact without enquiring more deeply into the circumstances. I'm not saying that happened here - in fact I think it's very unlikely - but even the least techsavvy (millennial or gen z person in particular) has access to mobile app tech that can create the most lifelike images or voice conversations.
You can, say, argue that domestic abuse is a serious thing that ought to be addressed at the level of law and stricter sentences as well as pushing back against misogynistic influencers essentially condoning this, whilst also arguing that lots of people are jumping on the MG 'case' for their own clicks or validation and virtue-signalling (or just as oppos) or to get funding for their organizations. Both of those things can be true at the same time. MG can be someone with a history of toxic behaviour and also a scapegoat who isn't guilty of the criminal charges which were levied against him and who has reunited with his partner. Again, both things can be true.
None of that is to suggest that the initial conclusion wasn't true, but you cant pre-emptively convict someone based on that, nor terminate their contract based upon a supposition (at least not someone with proper employment protection, like a footballer, unlike your average agency worker , say ). There's plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest MG was an awful boyfriend and even verbally abusive at the time, but you cant terminate a contract purely over that (it depends, of course, what can be unequivocally attributed to him). You can treat it like a PR issue combined with a disciplinary issue, with the player offering suitable contrition, much like we've had players elsewhere do community service or take fines or 'make up' for using racial slurs or bringing their club/the game into disrepute etc. But at the moment it's a kangaroo court via twitter and protest...
