Or just to wind everyone up further, Greenwood returns and takes Martial's number 9 shirt.
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
Yes, that is what I think. I think that is a beneficial way to deal with the situation where any player has been accused of domestic abuse. Like I say, there are organisations that specifically have initiatives for early intervention where there are concerns. I don’t think looking at it in purely black and white terms is helpful if we are truly focused on getting the best outcomes. Similarly this may be a poor analogy, but I don’t think you need to be an admitted alcoholic to benefit from learning more about the damage of alcoholism. It could prevent you ever becoming one.
Maybe, you are right and there’s too much scrutiny here for Greenwood to have stayed. The issue I have with this, is that’s what you think is the right thing to do for them and the situation. Does what the alleged victim wants matter at all in your opinion? Should they have no say at all in what is best for them? I assume from your comments, you either don’t think so or you’ve decided what would be best for them.
Ultimately, whether he is good at kicking a ball is neither here nor there for me. That shouldn’t be a factor in how we deal with it obviously. All I can say is my thoughts on this are not swayed by Greenwood’s ability as a footballer.
Certainly some don't care. It seems clear to me that there are also a bunch that see the Greenwood issue as a fight for male empowerment. They see a rich high status footballer being brought down by allegations from a woman, followed by a public and media backlash and they are furious about it. Just read some of the disgusting vitriol targeted at journalists and female celebrities, in the same breath as them wishing Greenwood all the best. It's become a crusade for some of them.
Just look at the way they repeatedly and endlessly appeal to the CPS decision, bending it and twisting it and rewriting it as an exoneration. And they post the same flawed exoneration not once or twice but over and over, in long drawn out, tedious diatribes.
Greenwood is free and as of right now is not facing prosecution, furthermore he is back playing football so why are these men still so fecking angry about it. We know why. And yes - before anyone says it - I'm pretty furious myself but that's because I know women who follow football and right now the game, clubs, players and governing bodies are seriously failing them (and all of us). With this case being a prime example of their terrible failings.
Again, you are not thinking this through at all. How can both Greenwood and the club come out and say he didn't do it, despite the very public evidence out there, then have him act like he is guilty? Because that's exactly what doing as you suggest would mean to people, potential legal issues too. I'll ask you, do you think the reason both the club and Greenwood didn't go this route because they simply forgot that's an option? You know better than the people involved? Which is ironic considering your paragraph below accusing me of that very thing.
Once again, despite you continuing to ignore the bulk of my points, I'll say that I'm not totally against what you are saying but if anything you are the one seeing this as "black and white". You want to treat every case as the same, and you just can't do that. Others are doing that too, but there are a number of highly irregular issues around this case that seem to continue to be forgotten about.
What you assume is irrelevant, you should know that.
Greenwood himself told you this is for the best, not me, is that not good enough for you then? The two people who know what went on for sure, both think he should leave. You seem to be missing both that point, and my point of why that might be.
That tends to be the outcome in many DV cases. The girl always goes back to the man despite his behaviour towards her. Abusiveness leads to a type of mental trauma for the victim.
He wasn't charged with, or accused of, rape.
All the sensible facts have probably been made before, so not gonna repeat all thay but I see some posters thinking that he didnt have a sentence so he should be very thankful.
But the last 1,5 years must have been living hell to him. It must have been like being sentenced when everyone has an extreme opinion and all eyes are on you. There’s just no way I think he doesn’t regret what he’s done. He lost his whole career basically - and while that will be a very selfish way to look at it, I do think he must have thought more than just his career into it as this will be the talk that forever will surround him. You surely can’t be that blind and live in that much of a parallel World.
Id imagine the public court will forever be out on him and I think that’s a problem in society when you dont have a verdict and it’s all in a gray zone where he obviously cant even comment whether it happened or not for legal reasons.
That’s the good part about society that has been formed for years: People get convicted for something then take their penalty or grt acquitted and move on. There’s a certain “now you have paid for what you’ve done” which is good so everyone in society can move on. But with the public court there’s no end-date and he’ll never be able to fully move on I believe. The case will never be fully closed so to speak.
But the last 1,5 years must have been living hell to him. It must have been like being sentenced when everyone has an extreme opinion and all eyes are on you. There’s just no way I think he doesn’t regret what he’s done. He lost his whole career basically - and while that will be a very selfish way to look at it, I do think he must have thought more than just his career into it as this will be the talk that forever will surround him. You surely can’t be that blind and live in that much of a parallel World.
Id imagine the public court will forever be out on him and I think that’s a problem in society when you dont have a verdict and it’s all in a gray zone where he obviously cant even comment whether it happened or not for legal reasons.
That’s the good part about society that has been formed for years: People get convicted for something then take their penalty or grt acquitted and move on. There’s a certain “now you have paid for what you’ve done” which is good so everyone in society can move on. But with the public court there’s no end-date and he’ll never be able to fully move on I believe. The case will never be fully closed so to speak.
The club have said based on the information they have, they do not believe he is guilty. I think there is an acceptance from any adult with half a brain that the club cannot be 100% sure in that assessment. The club even had the caveat that based on the information they had, they did not believe he was guilty. So I can't agree that the club could not offer counselling etc. and say they were doing so out of a duty of care. Again, to me your thinking on that is very binary - guilty or not guilty and only if the club declares the latter, could positive preventative action take place. I believe there is an argument that it should be done as a precaution regardless because domestic abuse is too serious to take risks. It doesn't really matter that your opinion differs to mine on that, but I entirely reject your false premise that it's because I am not thinking it through, rather just having a difference of opinion.
It's a Sunday afternoon, the football is on, and you first responded to me so I apologise if I didn't respond to every point you make. It's probably because I am happy to disagree about things amicably and I don't feel any need to dispute every single thing I might disagree with. It's not that I am not reading what you post.
Let's be clear, Greenwood and his partner were in the end, not given any option to stay at Man Utd. So I think we can all accept that even if that was the preferred wish of the victim in this case, it wasn't an option they had. To say they are going to Getafe so that is what they wanted isn't true. It's what they want from the options they now have available to them, which is a different thing.
Horrible post. Your understanding of legal proceedings is lacking. If she wanted a relationship with him (due to lifestyle and more) there is no chance they could force her to testify against him. She would simply offer other plausible explanations for why she was injured. She ran into a door,.fell down some stairs, it was all roleplay and games. Even if the court assumes that's a lie it's unlikely they can prove it without a doubt unless other people present testify, and it was just the two of them. There absolutely didn't need to be any other new evidence for them to drop the case.
And no one (or at least very few) has suggested he shouldn't play football again, I just don't want him representing my club.
If he was at all innocent he would have stated so publicly, that this was all misunderstandings based on disagreements etc.
Listen To what you are saying!! You are just trying to appease your narrative!! Nothing of the word said it went down like that. Which is why we have a court system.
That's because, once again, you are missing the my point.
You are talking about what you think SHOULD have been done, I'm talking about what WAS done. That's not binary in terms of what I think, that's fact. It's all well and good coming in here with opinions on what should be done, and again you are under the wrong opinion that we necessarily disagree on at least the basics of it, but you shouldn't then overlook what was actually done and respect the posts you are reading when you are told where they are coming from.
If my posts sound harsh, it's not directly aimed at you nor am I trying to mean disrespect. But when someone doesn't read a post properly then simply assumes the point, it's most annoying especially in such a sensitive subject. I'm guilty of that too, so we are just clashing on that, nothing personal ever meant.
For my part though, I could be clearer, but I do have a ridiculous amounts of posts in here and many go into great depth about the subject and my experiences and what I think about it all, but I'd just be repeating myself over and over if I had to do that for everyone. So I shouldn't fully blame you for mistaking my summary as my only depth of point.
I think you are right. But again, what we both think is irrelevant when it comes to to discussing what was done and said. We cant, for example, think that he must be not guilty because the club and he told us that but then think they are both lying about this being the right decision. Too many people are doing exactly that without the slightest thought about it. You get my point there?
Anyway, as with others, I think you and I would be on a very similar page if we were having this conversation face to face and not in wall of texts. As I've repeatedly said, I don't think you are necessarily wrong, but going by what we DO know about this situation, what you or I think would be for the best clearly isn't in line with what happened nor was it ever. Sad as that may be, depending on personal views on how to deal with these desperately sad situations, the fact is neither the club nor Greenwood went down that route. Which suggests this is anything other than incredibly more complex that people are thinking.
Anyway, I do appreciate this conversation mate, again we are both being a little testy but it is a very deep subject so that shows we at least give a bit of a shite about it. Besides, it's a distraction from what's likely to happen later
Not just women. Interestingly the defense that people are using reminds me a case that happened a year or two ago. An Instagram/Onlyfans model stabbed her boyfriend to death, the prosecution had records of recurring DV from her and her defense was that they didn't have "the whole picture" and that she was in fact the real victim. In spite of recordings and previous mentioned stabbings in text messages.
Depends on your definition of force, which is why I asked for someone trained in the law to corroborate this
https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/court-proceedings/witness-at-criminal-trials#:~:text=A person can be compelled,deemed competent to give evidence.
What you've presented is conjecture. Any of those things may be true, or none of them - I'm not denying that there exists evidence in favour of guilt as well as a range of possibilities as to the circumstances. However, lots of people here are claiming to know what really happened, rather than what's been established by those in fuller possession of the evidence (i.,.e none of us) . Also, why do you think a post is horrible just because it tries, to the best of ability, to be scrupulous rather than knee-jerk; it didn't claim to 'know' his actual rather than legal status. You should at least give posters credit for trying to lay out an argument- this is rather bad form otherwise.
Anyway, I'm not a lawyer but any prosecution case would explore those possibilities, and a jury would be asked to weight the likelihood that the witness's retraction was itself based on a lie. Do you think a 'hostile' witness has never been called under similar, if less public, circumstances to have their retraction examined in court because the case is deemed to be in the public interest?[
Edit: Also, whilst as mentioned, I'm not a lawyer and not claiming technical legal knowledge, I have been involved as a juror on a rape case several years ago, involving a couple who at the time of the alleged offence were in a relationship and of similar age (about a year younger) to MG and his partner at the time of his alleged offence. This was taken to trial despite the witness being openly reluctant to pursue it and there being no photographic or audio evidence of the kind made public here. Anecdotal, so I'm not saying this case offers a hard and fast rule, but worth bearing in mind when it comes to discussion of thresholds for prosecutions being pursued,..as well as presuming posters have had no experience around trials etc]...
The question is , then, if you don't think he can be reasonably described as guilty, on what grounds do you object to him playing for the club. The onus, as other posters have also expressed, is upon the people 'objecting' to MG being permitted to play or being treated de facto as guilty of the serious charges. There might be many reasons, for prejudice to evaluation of footballing ability why someone would object to a player playing for the club. For instance, I don't rate McTominay, as a United level player but I wouldn't want him driven out of the club under false pretences, and I'd be honest about why i don't want McT playing when I call for him to be sold. If people don't think Greenwood should be forgiven for his actually proven infractions, then be open about this for a start.
Last edited:
We heard the audio.
And for the people who are saying the club found him not guilty, read the statement again, it says not guilty of the initial allegations.
He still broke bail as a minimum, so he is quite possibly guilty of other crimes as well that are not covered in the statement
The irony.
I'll take that as a yes. I'm always suspect of those who staunchly defend sex offenders, looking for a shred of doubt in the face of overwhelming evidence.
If there was ‘overwhelming’ evidence then he’d have gone to court and now be serving a long jail term.
Mason Greenwood isn’t a fecking sex offender.
FFS are you gonna say the same about Jonny Evans or RvP?
At the very least, people should stop saying these kind of claims as it’s libellous.
Last edited:
Well I said it before, I had a bad experience with a really toxic girlfriend. Girls can destroy your life and career if you want to.
Based on that, I don't judge Greenwood without proper conviction.
Not defending him. Just simply pointing out the obvious irony in your post and the fact you are calling him a rapist with no proof. Quit acting weird.
there's an article in the Sunday times, saying that a charity working against. domestic abuse in Spain has called for the club in Spain to cancel the. contract....doesnt seem to. be gaining much traction at the moment, but it could always catch on.
I hope mg and his partner are. having counselling....im not specifically saying domestic. abuse, because officially he's not guilty, but the apparently. dramatic circumstances in which they split up. and got back together need working through.
I think hell be ok in Spain, because hell get. his head down and work through the year...its the time. afterwards that might. be testing
I hope mg and his partner are. having counselling....im not specifically saying domestic. abuse, because officially he's not guilty, but the apparently. dramatic circumstances in which they split up. and got back together need working through.
I think hell be ok in Spain, because hell get. his head down and work through the year...its the time. afterwards that might. be testing
You clearly are ignorant of the Jonny Evan's case. Did you even bother googling it. Here is the first result that comes up:
https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2008/mar/15/newsstory.sport5
“Evans, was arrested after a woman made an allegation of rape at the team's Christmas party at the Great John Street hotel. Police were called to the hotel at 4.15am on December 18 last year after receiving calls that a 26-year-old woman had been raped.
Evans, who has won nine caps for Northern Ireland, was arrested later that evening and then released on police bail. A CPS statement said there was "insufficient evidence" to charge Evans, who was sent out on loan to Sunderland in January.”
Why would a women go to a Man Utd Christmas party then ring the police the same night to accuse Evans. Its clear something awfull happened.
Some people here expect the victim to take out here phone from her handbag while she is being assaulted by a 6ft 2 man. Otherwise the give him the benefit of the doubt.
The victim never went to the media. She never spoke about on social media. She when straight to the police but they couldnt find enough evidence to go to trial.
How people can defend Evans is beyond me.
So were back to labelling guilt without the burden of proof again?
I won’t defend him but I also won’t condemn him either
People are fine with victim blaming in the Evans case for some reason, it’s like it’s just a completely different set of rules and you just have to go along with it.
Anyway, the point should not be to condemn Evans - the charges were dropped - it should just be to point out the HUGE, gaping difference in how Greenwood’s been treated vs Evans - particularly by the media.
And further still, the almost unbelievable situation where Evans has actually been signed back for Utd at the exact same time that Greenwood has been jettisoned with no one even mentioning it in the media or fanbase…
All those who absolutely will not accept Greenwood’s charges being dropped, why do they accept it with Evans?
All those who claim they’d abandon Utd if Greenwood is brought back - why are they not bothered in the slightest by Evans coming back!?
Maximum irony that many times it’s been claimed that ‘no one would want Greenwood back if he was a crap defender’… at the very same time that Evans has been welcomed back while Greenwood, the talented prospect is booted out.
There is an insanity that runs through this.
Agree overall
Please stop comparing the Johnny evans case. The mere fact that greenwoods mrs recorded the stuff she did, means it is highly probable that it was not a first time occurrence. The burden of proof against evans was nigh on non existent, and it’s perfectly reasonable that he wouldn’t face as much scrutiny. Extrapolating the Evans case, there were no civil cases (like Goodwillie) and from my understanding not a single other issue involving him. Extrapolating from the Greenwood case, it’s only damning stuff.
if he can rehabilitate in getafe, somehow show genuine remorse, and get back to a high level (which I think he should be commended for, given what he’s had to go through Even if it is all his fault) I will be much more okay with him coming back.
if he can rehabilitate in getafe, somehow show genuine remorse, and get back to a high level (which I think he should be commended for, given what he’s had to go through Even if it is all his fault) I will be much more okay with him coming back.
I was under the impression the Evans incident turned out to be a case of mistaken identity?
Let's also mention Ronaldo has admitted paying off a women who has accused him of rape, although he denies the accusation.
Then when she tried to bring it to the courts it was thrown out because of misappropriation of documents, and we will never know if there any evidence.
It's same with lot of footballers, lots of then have been accused and had charges dropped. But have been welcomed back. Mendy is a prime example.
I believe without the pictures and video in the public domain, if he was cleared or charges dropped, most people would of accepted him back. he probably would of just carried on playing throughout and everybody would of been fine. However as those are out there everyone has become judge, jury and executioner in the court of public opinion and none of us have the full details.
Agree with all of this.
The Ronaldo case is nasty as well:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ga-said-no-multiple-times-apologised-sex.html
From 2009:
“'Ronaldo: She said that she didn't want to, but she made herself available. The whole time it was rough, I turned her onto her side, and it was fast. Maybe she got some bruises when I grabbed her.
She didn't want to give it to me, she kept saying "No. Don't do it, I'm not like the others." I apologized afterwards.'
According to the documents, Ronaldo confessed: 'She said no and stop several times.'
There is a reason Ronaldo doesn't visit America
To the MG defenders on this thread, a question:
Do you believe the girlfriend gave herself a bloody lip?
Do you believe the girlfriend gave herself a bloody lip?
Van Persie is another that comes to mind
This thread is more positive than the one discussing a player that scored 30 goals for us last season.
Bizarre
Bizarre
Nobody expects her to record it.
Nobody is defending Evans.
You know as much as I do about the case.
The cases are materially different, and that’s the point why outrage exists for Greenwood and less so for Evans.
We know next to nothing about the Evans case beyond the statement about the arrest / release / charges dropped - and the “hearsay” when Evan friend said the girl’s boyfriend was jealous and attacked Evans and later rang the police to accuse him of rape.
“She’s adamant it happened” - how do you know that? You know nothing about what she herself said back then, and nothing about what she thinks of the situation now.
Also you have to consider how the media operates - when they believe there is a strong case they’re more comfortable is going after and demonising the accused; when they are less confident they’re more hands off. They can get it wrong on both sides sometimes.
With Evans it isn’t “clear” something awful happened - we just don’t know. With Greenwood we are “clear” something awful happened.
So let me repeat. No one is defending Evans, you yourself brought Evans up. This is a thread about Greenwood and we’re talking about Greenwood.
So I’ll ask you again:
How do you feel about a reported rapist, or a reported domestic violence perpetrator playing for the team? - Do you support that happening? Why? What is the line in the sand for you to not want someone to play for the club?
The difference is everyone has heard the recordings from Greenwood abusing his girlfriend.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Good luck to him.
You’re not allowed to have that opinion.
And yet he had it, posted it, and nearly half an hour later the only reply was your snarky comment. That's how stifling censorship is in this forum.
Can't say I'm an expert on the history of Getafe, but I'm assuming that Greenwood is one of the highest profile signings in their history