Woman screws over man. Man pays woman money. Man stays with woman after destroying his life, but it's ok because he didn't just forgive her (which wouldn't make sense), he paid her lots of cash first (which makes a lot more sense).People drop charges, make out of court settlements, sign NDA's, get back with people, forgive people because of money all the time.
We've seen many footballers wives do this never mind wider society. It's a well walked path.
I say this without any judgement whatsoever. Money matters. It plays a huge role in life like it or not.
It's certainly more plausible than Greenwood almost immediately forgiving her for destroying his life.
I'm sure that statement was looked over by lawyers and advisors. You're not exactly going to go into details about mistakes you made as it could put you back into legal trouble, not to mention further reputational damage.He hasn’t admitted to whatever he did though. He just said “mistakes” which is far too vague to stop the questions. If he wanted to stay at OT he needed to come out,’have an interview and be transparent about what happened. But he didn’t so the questions will always be there. Especially for DV
I was just pointing out that it doesn’t work like that in U.K.Completely different sort of case - Doherty pleaded guilty. DV cases - where the defendant denies the charges - will rarely result in a conviction if the complainant is not cooperating. Burglaries are different, as there will likely be physical evidence and potentially independent witnesses linking the defendant to the crime, meaning the complainant’s cooperation is less vital.
I don't want to get into the debate of whether he's actually guilty or innocent (because I don't know), but there's a million reasons one could speculate on regarding the wider context of this voice recording snippet, which was specifically cut from a much longer recording with the express purpose of making Greenwood look like a rapist. These have already been widely covered in this thread, e.g. role-playing, Greenwood being pestered whilst sleepy and unaware of what he/she were actually saying etc..What context could you possibly need from a woman who says no to sex?
Of course, the civil court is an official instrument of our legal system, so we have to respect its rulings. If the day comes when Greenwood is found guilty in such a court of law, then I will change my opinion.Just because a case is dropped and the person can't legally be prosecuted doesn't mean we all can't make our own minds up. It just means he can't go to jail. The burden of proof in a criminal court is very high. There are cases where a criminal case can't be brought but a civil case can find against the defendant as it's based on the balance of probabilities.
Do you think civil cases shouldn't be allowed if there wasn't enough evidence to convict?
I agree with most of what you say, but the key line of your post is in bold. The cold, hard fact we need to keep coming back to is that Greenwood has not been proven guilty of his alleged crimes in a court of law.The problem is that our legal system is not perfect. There's multiple factors that go into it but it's a fact that a lot of sexual assault either doesn't get reported or gets no conviction because again, it's not perfect. There are thousands of people who have got away with these kinds of situations free to walk the streets because of our legal system.
He may or may not have done anything. But things are reported as thus, he was arrested and charged, whilst on bail he broke those bail conditions in order to visit the victim, after that the witness refuses to testify and apparently new evidence emerges, without the key witness they cannot prosecute so the case is dropped, Greenwood emerges as being back with his partner, who is now pregnant and you know the rest.
So I don't believe he's as innocent as being made out by people, especially convenient that he breaks bail conditions to visit the victim and not long after not only is she pregnant but it might also have been the victim that drops out of being a witness.
Some of that is speculation of course, but the bail bit is true.
It's also true that many many victims of abuse stay with the abuser for a long time, these are all statistics you can look up, for people who are saying "but they're together again and have a baby now"
Yes 100 percent they would want that, instead of a life of being called a rapist and whatever abuse comes with it, finishing his career at 21, and I don't want to think about the things that will be said to that child as it grows up.Easier said than done - IIRC under UK legislation the alleged victim has a right for anonymity for life - and if the supposed evidence the club used to ascertain he's not guilty of what he was initially charged with compromises said right for anonymity/the alleged victim - how would they publish those findings? Greenwood and the girl have just had a kid and are in a relationship - would he even want that? would their families? Too many unknowns and variables.
What we do know is the club doesn't believe him to be guilty of what he was initially accused of
That is one example for a different crime.No, it doesn’t work like that in U.K.
The musician Pete Doherty famously went to prison for breaking into his band mate Carl Barat’s flat despite the fact that Barat asked for all charges to be dropped and never even went to the Police about it himself. Barat publicly asked for charges to be abandoned.
Doherty wasn’t just charged - he went to prison for it.
See my post above mate.That is one example for a different crime.
Domestic violence is a very unique crime in that it typically takes place behind closed doors and the alleged victim of the crime is someone with a strong entanglement to the alleged perpetrator whilst being the only person who can provide evidence due to the crime taking place behind closed doors, especially if they've not talked about what they are experiencing with the police, their GP or support services.
Through 6 years of working in the domestic abuse sector extremely closely with the police there is a depressing truth that even after reported a case can end at any time if the alleged victim decides to withdraw their support of the case which is extremely unlikely to proceed due to no one else having evidence of a crime that takes place behind closed door.
As such whilst the police can proceed with charges without the victims consent it is exremely common in practice that the investigation will be dropped if the victim stops providing support.
I'm sure you'll just say I am trying to start an argument with you again rather than actually addressing someone that disagrees with your point of view in good faith but ho hum.
So an adult then, not a boy.Sad all around.
MG is a cnut but he is also still a 21 year old boy. There was literally no win-win situation, best is to let him and his family rebuild in peace away from the spotlight.
Hopefully he fulfils his undoubted potential and reaches the very top of the game.
I do, I've read your posts and replied.you don't know the meaning of the word.
Well yeah but I mean that's the scenario I'm talking about. The evidence is what it looks like and she's forgiven him. Could purely be down to love. I think it naive to believe his money hasn't played a role. Which as I say I wouldn't judge her on. It's a life changing decision to leave or stay with him.Not if you believe he did it, it's not. It's fairly straightforward then.
The bolded makes zero sense in the context and your assumption I support the other bloke's opinion is way off. I hadn't paid a huge amount of attention to what he wrote. He's living in a fantasy land but the suggestion that she's a gold digger doesn't sit right with me so I pulled you up on it.Believe what you want, the post in question stated as fact a number of things that were anything but facts however you clearly support the original posters agenda so I will leave you to continue writing your Mason Greenwood fanmail.
And yet, here we are with people believing exactly that.It is so kind and honourable of Manchester United to withhold this secret but apparently conclusively exonerating evidence that would allow them to keep a huge asset and one of the best players of his generation in a position they desperate need, all in the aid of protecting the integrity of a his accuser, someone they have no obligation to whatsoever. Or that the player himself would so willingly take the hit, admit he made mistakes and agree to keep such crucial evidence quiet at the expense of ever playing for his boyhood club again for the sake of the person who apparently ruined his career unfoundedly.
Almost unbelievable some would say,
Because they have a duty towards the alledged victim and there is a possibility that the evidence to compleatly clear Mason paints the alleged victim in bad light. So maybe they are protecting the alledged victim.They don't, but if they had done so then public support would've shifted and he would still be at the club.
That's a counter argument to those who are saying "what about his future?" If he's innocent and wants the world to know he's innocent then they would release what they have. The fact they're not is why public opinion won't shift so it's their decision that Mason can't play for the club.
Anyway, it's done now. I hope he and his family are supported by the club moving forward but not as a player.
Not true.Yes 100 percent they would want that, instead of a life of being called a rapist and whatever abuse comes with it, finishing his career at 21, and I don't want to think about the things that will be said to that child as it grows up.
There is no version of this that is better by not public explaining or sharing evidence.
You are just putting your head in the sand because you want to.
I understand completely where you're coming from.No chance in hell. Not a single one.
No club in the UK will touch him with a barge pole and he'll never play for United again, no matter what the statement says. It's been carefully crafted between the lawyers of the club and his own to not completely destroy his career. New materials adds context but certainly doesn't exonerate him or he'd be back to training as of now. If it was a second rate player, he'd have been shown the door a long while ago. The club was just reluctant to lose such a valuable asset for nothing and exploring all possibilities.
The amount of posters defending him and wanting him back is truly shocking. I can't, for the life of me, understand how anyone would want him at their club after hearing the audio and seeing the pictures.
Well, the key decision makers in the club at least.Easier said than done - IIRC under UK legislation the alleged victim has a right for anonymity for life - and if the supposed evidence the club used to ascertain he's not guilty of what he was initially charged with compromises said right for anonymity/the alleged victim - how would they publish those findings? Greenwood and the girl have just had a kid and are in a relationship - would he even want that? would their families? Too many unknowns and variables.
What we do know is the club doesn't believe him to be guilty of what he was initially accused of
No the case falls apart because of the key witness. Not this mythical recording which exonerates him.I was just pointing out that it doesn’t work like that in U.K.
Also, as has been stated many times - the audio is being taken as hard evidence for many in here - it’s been stated repeatedly that THAT is what makes this case different to Antony / Ronaldo etc.
Most DV charges won’t have evidence like that - yet the CPS, after hearing more of that recording than you or I have, doesn’t consider it as worth pursuing.
Likewise, Utd categorically stated that after hearing the entire recording, they too believe him to be innocent of every charge levelled at him.
My point is that two very different bodies - one of which exists to make prosecutions - has heard / seen MORE than the general public and have both concluded that there isn’t a case here. And this was a very high profile case that the CPS will not have wanted to walk away from.
I just think the club should let him go cleanly and draw a line under the whole thing. It’s been awfully handled and I feel they’ve strung the family along and then essentially caved into the opinions of people who they’re essentially claiming know very little about it.
Don’t be so pedantic mate, you know what I meant. Not sure if you recall yourself at 21, that’s still young (unless you’re Jlingz).So an adult then, not a boy.
No club in the UK will touch him, these are different timesI understand completely where you're coming from.
But Alonso killed someone and played for Chelsea for years afterwards, not a peep.
Luke McCormick killed two kids, 10 and 8 while drink driving and played again after serving about 3 years.
Greenwood who hasn't been found guilty of anything will have a career, just like the guy at Arsenal will, as much as many don't like that fact.
He would have been better if he'd been sentenced and served a year or two (pitiful sentanci in the UK for this type of crime) as he'd be able to come back without the stigma, but in the eyes of the majority, he's gotten away with his crime (I'm also in the majority).
I was genuinely on the fence about wanting him to play, leaning on playing him, but I'm completely fine with him not playing for United again.
Apologies for the strange people confusion. I still can't equate social media hounding of someone, who is on an audio recording threatening their partner, with thousands of innocents who were tortured, drowned or burned to death. It just doesn't seem like the right comparison to make.I don't know how easy it is. And I guess we won't find somebody who is able to compare those to from an affected perspective. But I see your point, there is an actual difference, still don't know the extent. Especially seeing that social media is a much more integral part of younger peoples life than say mine. Don't know about you though.
True. There certainly isn't much and the things with the most substance while not being the end of all things are certainly concerning.
Agreed.
I think, there is a misunderstanding. I meant "strange people" in a sense that people who don't know Greenwood personally would go after him for a certain event, in Greenwoods perspective maybe even only a version of that certain event. This is kind of the connection with the actual witch hunts, people got diffamated for whatever reasons and it triggered strong feelings by completely other people who didn't know the actual involved people.
edit: but sensing the vibe of the forum today, can understand the confusion. But isn't "a complete stranger" a saying about people one doesn't have any connections with?
Then you explain to me this version then.Not true.
Even if you firmly believe him to be a rapist, surely you can see that the statement is incorrect.
The fact you won't admit that, shows your objectivity on the matter.
Correct, but the type of charges make a big difference. Domestic violence charges are obviously far harder to prove than burglary. I would imagine that there was 100% certain DNA/video evidence in that case that the prosecution knew would lead to a conviction. MG case is very different, and that context is important to mention whenever discussing this.No, it doesn’t work like that in U.K.
The musician Pete Doherty famously went to prison for breaking into his band mate Carl Barat’s flat despite the fact that Barat asked for all charges to be dropped and never even went to the Police about it himself. Barat publicly asked for charges to be abandoned.
Doherty wasn’t just charged - he went to prison for it.
I think you may have misunderstood the CPS’s statement. They didn’t say they was no case, they said there was ‘no longer a realistic prospect of conviction’ - that’s very different from saying there was no case, given the standard of proof for a criminal conviction is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. It’s almost impossible to reach that standard in a case like this without the complainant’s cooperation, which she withdrew. Hence the CPS discontinuing the case.I was just pointing out that it doesn’t work like that in U.K.
Also, as has been stated many times - the audio is being taken as hard evidence for many in here - it’s been stated repeatedly that THAT is what makes this case different to Antony / Ronaldo etc.
Most DV charges won’t have evidence like that - yet the CPS, after hearing more of that recording than you or I have, doesn’t consider it as worth pursuing.
Likewise, Utd categorically stated that after hearing the entire recording, they too believe him to be innocent of every charge levelled at him.
My point is that two very different bodies - one of which exists to make prosecutions - has heard / seen MORE than the general public and have both concluded that there isn’t a case here.
I just think the club should let him go cleanly and draw a line under the whole thing. It’s been awfully handled and I feel they’ve strung the family along and then essentially caved into the opinions of people who they’re essentially claiming know very little about it.
When I read bolded passages like this, I understand how people can believe in the most batshit and incredible things. Brexit, Trump, QAnon etc.I don't want to get into the debate of whether he's actually guilty or innocent (because I don't know), but there's a million reasons one could speculate on regarding the wider context of this voice recording snippet, which was specifically cut from a much longer recording with the express purpose of making Greenwood look like a rapist. These have already been widely covered in this thread, e.g. role-playing, Greenwood being pestered whilst sleepy and unaware of what he/she were actually saying etc..
Of course, the civil court is an official instrument of our legal system, so we have to respect its rulings. If the day comes when Greenwood is found guilty in such a court of law, then I will change my opinion.
I agree with most of what you say, but the key line of your post is in bold. The cold, hard fact we need to keep coming back to is that Greenwood has not been proven guilty of his alleged crimes in a court of law.
Of course we need to review the system, but do you really think it's right for us to take it upon ourselves and ruin the life of Greenwood on the basis of mere suspicion?
That’s fine, but you’re disagreeing with the CPS and Utd, not me.No the case falls apart because of the key witness. Not this mythical recording which exonerates him.
Pray tell, why don't they release this "longer version" so we can all understand the context and then judge him more fairly?
Because it doesn't exonerate him nor does it add ANY context.
Second chance? Sure but doesn't mean he gets to keep playing here.So am i to understand that when someone makes a mistake in life he cannot have a second chance ?
When people go to jail they get a chance afterwards to rebuild their life.
This was mishandled so badly by United!
Could you post the CPS statement if you have it?I think you may have misunderstood the CPS’s statement. They didn’t say they was no case, they said there was ‘no longer a realistic prospect of conviction’ - that’s very different from saying there was no case, given the standard of proof for a criminal conviction is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. It’s almost impossible to reach that standard in a case like this without the complainant’s cooperation, which she withdrew. Hence the CPS discontinuing the case.
Apologies if I misunderstood you. I also think she is the victim and my initial comment was a flippant response to someone who seems to think that everything can be handwaved away because she has forgiven him.The bolded makes zero sense in the context and your assumption I support the other bloke's opinion is way off. I hadn't paid a huge amount of attention to what he wrote. He's living in a fantasy land but the suggestion that she's a gold digger doesn't sit right with me so I pulled you up on it.
As far as I'm concerned she's the victim, and my concern is she's possibly still a victim given she didn't even speak to the club during the investigation. Her mother was authorised, apparently by her, to speak on her behalf and convinced the club that no coercive control went on. It seems a bit fishy to me.
Yeah if we really believed he was innocent and on the path of redemption then we shouldn’t have let him go. Send him out on loan, follow his progress and ensure that he’s a new and reformed man before taking him back. On the other hand if he’s committed those heinous acts and is the scumbag we all thought he was, then make it clear and send him packing.Should have sent him on loan for 2 years but am not overly disappointed with the decision to release him as it was clearly becoming a bit of circus around the club and squads and he clearly did something terrible.
I am still waiting for just as much outrage towards the mass murdering Newcastle owners but money speaks and morals can easily be brought
No chance, he will never come back. Otherwise Rachel Riley will stop supporting us.I’m calling it now. He goes to Italy, they sell him to PSG after two years, we end up in a huge transfer saga that lasts all summer to bring him back and end up paying 200m,
then he flops
I'm not, you're misinterpretation of the CPS is obtuse.That’s fine, but you’re disagreeing with the CPS and Utd, not me.
My opinion comes from people who have seen and heard and thus KNOW more than you or I.
And even then - my opinion is simply that it is unclear as to what exactly has gone on.
Until there is evidence which shows he is guilty of what he was accused of why should Arsenal not play him?Yet Arsenal continue to play their accused player
Disgusting
