The uproar would have been there no matter what. The point keeps being proven but there are too many people committed, for one reason or another, to their first impressions over this case, and no reframing of the evidence, re-examination, casting into doubt, formal exoneration, etc, whether it came through the legal system, independent investigators or through a hypothetical statement from the chief witness herself describing in greater detail how the initial materials came to be, would change their minds. Any attempt to point this out just sees you branded as an apologist for abuse or cynical. Aside from the general mob-on, I just find it repellent that we're supposed to accept as virtuous this clear collusion between political hacks and bad faith actors like Rachel Riley who have histories in using twitter and the public sphere to smear people they disagree with ( both responsible for genuine social cruelty and malign incompetence or the undermining of opposition to it) now trying to launder their consciences, together with media hucksters and clout chasers, along with third sector organizations trying to raise funds in a time of prolonged financial crises. None of them gave a damn about *******, and with any kind of full public interview pushing back against the narrative and explaining the origins of the material we'd just have the code words emerging - 'coerced', 'naive', or insinuations of money grabbing- either from these minor politicos and influencers and ersatz feminists or, more feasibly, their followers, but backed up and boosted by these high-minded figures
The Athletic - have they investigated City's ability to buy off charges, or the influence their owners have over Manchester politics? They've run a few general stories about city and newcastle and FFP as well as sportswashing but nothing really risky or challenging to them. They're going for the line of least resistance- getting employees with little knowledge of the facts of the case beyond what's being reported to demonstrate their outrage and leak information when the club's dealing with a genuinely delicate situation; where have these threats to strike been in the face of the Glazers running of the club, to their mismanagement, to their support of reactionary causes and destruction of a community institution. Employees here, like many alleged supporters, are practically revelling in the opportunity to take a stand, fully doing so in ignorance of the circumstances except for discredited av materials. If there's an issue it might be one with culture, in the club, a disease connected to the Glazers that's made its way into every aspect, including a moralization rather than aspiration to succeed alongside genuine moral virtue: do you think people at PSG would behave like this if , say, Mbappe were faced with equivalent circumstances, or Madrid if one of their first team players faced this same scenario- neither employees nor fans. No-one would or should countenance any of the female footballers being driven out of a club because of innuendo, which, since we've been asked to discount the visual evidence in the public domain for reasons that aren't fully available either to us or to the Athletic , is all that remains), or subject to 'shaming' over their personal lives in the absence of any current complaint, so why MG.
In this case what the Athletic are asking for , in full knowledge of how unfeasible this is, are for confidential details to be leaked out - the only things that could potentially fully exonerate Mason. Since they know full well the club is having to communicate decisions without revealing the full reasons for those decisions being taken, and likewise, were faced having to potentially reintroduce MG without being able to revealing information that might impugn the reputation of the chief witness, for instance, for legal and personal reasons, TA are creating a bind merely for the purposes of demonstrating their own personal and brand virtue to their subscriber base and social circle as journalists. It's irresponsible journalism in terms of priorities, both in terms of challenging any sort of power and in terms of affirming a click-driven piety instead of accepting whatever complexities surrounding MGs' relationship and the circumstances that led to this matter coming into the public domain are in turn reproduced by the lack of 'easy, clean' solutions. Instead he should have been brought back in and reintegrated and the club should have stuck to its guns, protected its asset and suffered the slings in a principled way. If they'd taken a stand, not only does it protect the player but it sets a precedent around institutions reacting to social media bullying, concern-trolling, self-boosting and manipulation and being able to distinguish these from considered, rigorous process of investigation and determining accountability- doubly so, since United are disproportionately subject to all of the former...