Kinsella
Copy & Paste Merchant
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 3,176
No he didn’t.You already did.
No he didn’t.You already did.
There was a thread about what I would have liked to see, but it's now locked. Let me answer that here.
Honest communication, true signs of repentance. Within a week of charges being dropped, Mason should have held a presser in United colors to offer whatever explanation legally possible. Apologize to the family. Apologize to his team. To his club. To his manager. To the fans. He should have told us if he loved his new family, and how he'd never let any harm befall them anymore. He should have said that he's offering 80% of the wages he's collected while suspended to a DV charity. He should have been vulnerable in measures he's taking to be better - the therapy he's receiving, the social good he wishes to do. And that he'll continue to do that for the remainder of his contract. United should have then released a statement stating that despite MG's presser, they would conduct an internal investigation. That as folks raising him since he was a child, they take responsibility for his mistakes, and will conduct an internal review and overhaul of the cultural systems in place so this can never happen again. They should apologize to the family, to the players, to the fans.
A week later, they could have released somewhat similar statements they did now - that they couldn't find any evidence to hold him guilty. He should have been on the tour, with the team. Training separately. Coming on for 5 minutes, repeat. After every game he should have stayed with the fans, taking the abuse, but apologizing. A shirt that says sorry. Hands put together in repentance. Just persist, show us how much you wish you hadn't hurt your family and everyone else. Put in the minutes, the grunt work to earn your spot back. Once the season began, he should do the rounds every game, take the abuse. And stay back again after every game to apologize. If he can win his wife over, make a public appearance with her - let people know she has chosen to forgive him, that the most important person in this situation truly thinks he deserves a second chance. Continue donating your wages, continue putting in the social work, continue trying to be sincere in your apology.
None of this may work, and he may not be able to make it. But at least we'd have appreciated him trying to show repentance. And the club for allowing him to do so. Not this shit show with DVs being flagged as hostile, and ambiguous statements as damage control.
Why mate? Im not defending him Im just not taking her word for granted. There is a difference and you should look it upChrist its not a competition to get the worst post. But well done I guess.
The roleplay argument doesn't make any sense. If it was just roleplay that surely would have been published the very next morning.
"It was a private sex-game that accidentally got published online."
Oh, nothing to see here - young kids having sex, let's spend a few weeks discussing young people's view on sex these days and the suitability of making such a serious topic into a sex-game.
Instead we have messages of support, statements about trying times, CPS involvement, a witness statement that was later retracted and a 7 month process in which no-one has said anything about role-playing.
If it was consensual roleplay this story very likely would have been dead on arrival.
Role play does not make sense once the audio and pictures were released into the public sphereWhat you need to understand here is that you actively relish his guilt, whereas Spaghetti clearly has an unbiased birds eye view of the whole situation. Plus his girlfriend liked role play, so that's pretty definitive and you should apologise and leave the site.
Role play does not make sense once the audio and pictures were released into the public sphere
The roleplay argument doesn't make any sense. If it was just roleplay that surely would have been published the very next morning.
"It was a private sex-game that accidentally got published online."
Oh, nothing to see here - young kids having sex, let's spend a few weeks discussing young people's view on sex these days and the suitability of making such a serious topic into a sex-game.
Instead we have messages of support, statements about trying times, CPS involvement, a witness statement that was later retracted and a 7 month process in which no-one has said anything about role-playing.
If it was consensual roleplay this story very likely would have been dead on arrival.
Clearly it does - otherwise Arnold would not be telling us that he is “satisfied that Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with”.
ah okI know, i was (seemingly not very well) trying to highlight the absurdity of that defence.
In this case the victim was massively failed by the system which allowed greenwood to breach bail and contact her.
I don't know, I think the likelihood is he did something we would not condone but was not criminal, which is not a good enough reason to destroy his career. That's just a guess though, maybe it's just highly personal to them and they don't want it released.
But really when in any other situation does anybody release evidence to show why somebody didn't do something. Why do we think we have the right to see it?
What happened to GifLord?
I don't know, I think the likelihood is he did something we would not condone but was not criminal, which is not a good enough reason to destroy his career. That's just a guess though, maybe it's just highly personal to them and they don't want it released.
But really when in any other situation does anybody release evidence to show why somebody didn't do something. Why do we think we have the right to see it?
Not convince me no. I am not convinced either way, how could any of us be with the little information we have? We can only reflect on personal experience and our faith in mankind.
There have been lots of claims of role play, I’m sure you can Google it.
What part does leaking the “evidence” online play? For me this is where this logic breaks down. They surely would have known that once seen, his career would be in jeopardy never mind possible police action.
I don't know, I think the likelihood is he did something we would not condone but was not criminal, which is not a good enough reason to destroy his career. That's just a guess though, maybe it's just highly personal to them and they don't want it released.
But really when in any other situation does anybody release evidence to show why somebody didn't do something. Why do we think we have the right to see it?
I don't know, I think the likelihood is he did something we would not condone but was not criminal, which is not a good enough reason to destroy his career. That's just a guess though, maybe it's just highly personal to them and they don't want it released.
But really when in any other situation does anybody release evidence to show why somebody didn't do something. Why do we think we have the right to see it?
This has to be the most stupid and ignorant post in a thread littered with bad postsWell its simple mate. If a person is abusive to you its a break up. You do not continue the relationship. Greenwood is obviously stupid but she is not Tina Turner by any means.
Don't you think the audio was damning?
What's your defense of the audio? I could never get past it once I heard it the 1st time.
This thread has turned into a dumpster fire, reading some of the most abhorrent shite. Lock the thread and ban talk of it off the site.
Football is a highly emotive support, you create a bond with your team and support them passionately. It won't be possible to support greenwood on the pitch when he is not cleared in our eyes. If he was a backroom accountant, I doubt any one would have cared.I don't know, I think the likelihood is he did something we would not condone but was not criminal, which is not a good enough reason to destroy his career. That's just a guess though, maybe it's just highly personal to them and they don't want it released.
But really when in any other situation does anybody release evidence to show why somebody didn't do something. Why do we think we have the right to see it?
You have repeatedly stated that people who want him gone must 'want him to be guilty'. It's rubbish, and means you don't get to give advice to other posters on their conduct.
I know there is zero chance you will acknowledge this though.
If there was any evidence to suggest this, or to mitigate the situation in any way at all, the Greenwood camp would surely be falling over themselves to release it? There's no longer a criminal investigation to interere with.
That's why I don't believe the ''partial evidence in the public domain'' excuse. This attempt to make the public believe that, seems like a way to salvage Greenwood's future career as much as possible, whether that's to retain value or just to help him out as some perverse sense of the oft-mention ''duty of care''
Pretty sure hope is the wrong word here.Some people will hope he’s guilty, and others will hope he isn’t.
In my life, I have done role play loads of times, and I’ve sexually abused 0 women. I’m not saying everyone is the same, and I fully understand why some people might not see an excuse for it.
Pretty sure hope is the wrong word here.
You think the audio leaked was indicative of role play potentially?
Seriously?
This thread has turned into a dumpster fire, reading some of the most abhorrent shite. Lock the thread and ban talk of it off the site.
Yeah of course. It sounds like it to me.
I've been putting it on Ignore on and off to stay sane, but those conversations need to happen somewhere if we want things to change in the long run. This may not be the best place but it's certainly not the worst.This thread has turned into a dumpster fire, reading some of the most abhorrent shite. Lock the thread and ban talk of it off the site.
People having an opinion, having seen the stuff released online is not making stuff up, it's making their minds up in light of what they know. I would be amazed if anyone on the caf actually wanted him to be guilty.If people are making things up and assuming negatives, it’s seems like they want him to be guilty. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood but I can’t see any other reason for it.
If people are making things up and assuming negatives, it’s seems like they want him to be guilty. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood but I can’t see any other reason for it.
He made an observation and made it sound like a fact when he said "everybody noticed" then to end his sentence with "I am not going to generelise". Read his statement again.No he didn’t.
Well its simple mate. If a person is abusive to you its a break up. You do not continue the relationship. Greenwood is obviously stupid but she is not Tina Turner by any means.
So you're not even taking the angle that it could be role-play, but you're basically adamant it had to have been role-play?
Wow. Just wow. Not sure what to say.
This thread has turned into a dumpster fire, reading some of the most abhorrent shite. Lock the thread and ban talk of it off the site.