Holy feck. Did you fall from the window to end up with broken bones?
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
I have to agree what you are saying here.
What makes this case difficult for me is that the CPS did mention new evidence coming to light that along with the witness withdrawing their statement, caused them to drop the charges. The problem is the CPS doesn't tell us what that new evidence is and they most likely never will. It seems to me that a lot of people have no interest in this new evidence , they already had their minds made up once they saw the pictures and heard the tape.
Richard Arnold, by saying Greenwood wasn't guilty of what he was charged with, confused me even further. He said he had been given alternate explanations for the pictures and the tape, but can't tell us what they are due to privacy reasons. I understand his hands are tied, but it is impossible to make an informed decision when you don't have all the information.
I fear we are never going to get all the information surrounding this case and I for one will never know whether Greenwood should play for United again or feel good about his future career, whether it's with United or not.
Landed badly, fell forward, cracked my ribs on the wall, rolled off, face first into the pavement.
Would have been hilarious on You've Been Framed
Cheers mate
Best wishes for your recovery!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Hopefully, they won't push him too fast. Doesn't need any more negative press in his life. Just needs space to grow.
Might be arguing about semantics here, but they didn't say evidence per se.
Material can be facts/situations that have changed, potentially also evidence, but if it was new evidence then why wouldn't they just use the word evidence. Nah this was carefully worded.
This "new material" that made a conviction unrealistic was most likely simply the fact that the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator were back together, getting married and having a child together.
You're right, they did say new material. You could also be right about it being as simple as you say. It could also have something to do with what Richard Arnold said about an alternate explanation of the audio recording. The problem is we will never know.
My other half is a social worker, the now generation are into things you can’t comprehend. As far as I’m concerned he’s innocent as that’s what the judicial system said, the more people condone trial by media the worse society will get. In general the vast majority of society are pretty thick, they believe what they read in a rag newspaper, what they don’t understand is media don’t care in general about truth, they care about paper sales. We don’t have legitimate news anymore it’s entertainment news. The sooner people get that and stop sucking the tit the better we will be.
Prome example is Cliff Richard, I’m not a big fan of him but the way hewas treated was IMO horrific, he will never be the same again. Trialed over the coals, for public scandal, for what? It’s absolutely disgusting. We will never be more than an angry mob.
I heard Greenwood joined Getafe because it sounds a little like "get off me" which he heard before.
That's not what the judicial system said. Can't go calling the majority of society thick and then say that. You can think he's innocent, but that's why it's called a presumption.
Also Cliff Richard and Greenwood are hardly comparable situations and it's disingenuous to try and create relevancy.
And the £250 would've softened the blow
People aren't ignoring it they're making the reasonable assumption that it was a statement from the victim or her family explaining away the existing evidence. Given the victims choice to stay with the accused that's expected.
It's really down to others to provide an explanation that is more likely than that given the clubs and police wording. Not knowing is a fine basis not to criminally judge someone but it shouldn't be a sufficient basis to just ignore all other public information and thus nullify any judgment. People rightly will reach for the most probably conclusion over sticking their head in the sand.
We as fans don’t have as big of a voice/influence as we think we do. All these talks about fans needing an explanation before MG can come back just seems self righteous.
The big wigs don’t care quite frankly.
I hope Greenwood crushes it and we can get him back into our squad by January or at latest, start of next season.
If the victim in question has moved on and the case was dropped then not sure what else we want from this situation.
The big wigs don’t care quite frankly.
I hope Greenwood crushes it and we can get him back into our squad by January or at latest, start of next season.
If the victim in question has moved on and the case was dropped then not sure what else we want from this situation.
Has to be post of the year for sure.
I'd prefer a fecking mattress
Ok, but following on from that, is it legitimate for columnists or reporters to write pieces which, when castigating the club, de facto assume his guilt? Or for people to launch social media campaigns threatening to boycott sponsors or attack the club on the basis that the club are seen to have dealt insufficiently harshly with a guilty player, even though both CPS and club have indicated that the evidence lies in his favour?
All through this thread we've had those arguing for the necessity of treating him as guilty relying upon the least 'charitable' or most severe interpretation of the available evidence, and the 'weakest' (necessarily speculative, since none of us know) version of the counter-evidence, despite their case for excluding MG itself relying upon an acknowledgement of how severe the alleged crime was and how compelling the initial evidence was. It is arguably just as probable, whatever framing has taken place regarding probability elsewhere here, that the counter-evidence had to be substantial for the case not to be taken to trial. A case can go to trial even if a key witness refuses to co-operate (as people more familiar with case law have already stated).
You can accurately say, using statistics, that the majority of accusations don't go to trial; conversely I can, albeit anecdotally, note from served on a jury in a similar case, that cases can and do go to court with less evidence than that made public here -and with witnesses also being reluctant to testify. In addition, I've also worked in social service(support work inhouse and outreach) environments where even in cases where there was evidence of partners previously fighting and living in 'chaotic' environments where evidence of substance consumption might make testimony difficult to corroborate, claims of sexual assault were (quite properly) taken seriously by the police and investigated, with prosecution then undertaken in more than one instance - again, despite the victim or alleged victim's reluctance . It doesn't mean that the system is on balance delivering for victims of sexual assault - just that at the least there isn't some absolute rule about thresholds: if anything, arguably it'd be more likely the 'public interest' argument would prevail, all else being equal, in such a high-profile case and the outcry following the evidence made public.
That doesn't mean he didn't commit some if not all of the offences -it just means the any claims we make relating to 'ought' rather than 'my gut says', or 'I would prefer' have to be a lot more modest. And if people say 'I don't have to do anything', then frankly, at a 'meta-level', the one thing they do have to do (unless they're complete nihilists, or illiberal, making a mockery of any idea of objective justice and turning it purely into assertion of will), is refrain from talking about the 'just' thing to do. People are fully entitled to think 'there's no amount of hypothetical evidence that could change my mind', so long as they're not hiding this feeling or gut judgment behind a call to uncover the truth or making their demands and calls for accountability on the part of the club on the basis of' the evidence...
Signing him has really put Getafe on the map, didn't even know they were based in Madrid before this.
That and ‘leave means leave’ will get him through any situation.
this is the weirdest part of this whole sh%tshow, the victim was at Getafe in the stands cheering on MG, more moved in than moved on i'd say.
He is free and out, what more do u want? Your judging someone based on absolutely feck all apart from a audio message? Why would u do that?
I didn’t compare Greenwood to Richard, it was example of media jumping on a bandwagon, which clearly you ride shotgun on. An example of media *entertainment* for the mob rather than actual news.
If this was true he’d be playing for us this season? It was the general public’s reaction as to why he’s now in Spain. So we do have power and the big wigs do care.
This time next season will be very interesting though, depending on how it goes for him on loan.
That wasn’t what happened though… the general public’s opinion was never properly seen in this country (UK).
It was the reaction of specifically Adam Crafton and Rachel Riley that made Utd cave and reverse their decision.
The general public’s reaction can only be seen now by looking at the replies to Getafe’s dozens of posts of Greenwood, and the response to the posts of his partner cheering him on, in Spain, from the stands.
It was a media reaction that dictated Utd’s ‘decision’, not the reaction of the general public.
In seriousness that sounds awful, wishing you a speedy recovery. I know how painful a fractured heel bone can be, I still get the occasional reminder 15 years later.
There are lots of not innocent people free and out, not sure what your point is. I didn't judge him, I haven't got enough information to say either way. You're the one judging him to be innocent on absolutely feck all.
The Richard scenario was completely different, he was publicly outed in the investigation stage and never charged. Greenwood was charged by the CPS with the evidence in the public sphere and key witnesses looking to aid the prosecution (until they changed their minds). Let's not pretend like we made all this up out of thin air.
I….don’t agree. I’m not sure why you’re talking up the impact of Crafton and Riley so highly. Unless you’re being sarcastic? The general public’s reaction was very much everywhere at the first hint that he was coming back.
Getafe is a city located in the southern part of the Community of Madrid in Spain. It has a long history dating back to ancient times. The name "Getafe" is believed to have originated from the Arabic word "Jata" and the Latin word "Ceta," which means "riverbank." This name reflects its location near the Manzanares River.
Even a flaming one?
It's not even the general public's reaction that was the key determining factor anyway - don't know why people seem to have this weird thing about Rachel Riley, she's a weirdo. It's the mass reaction within their own organization that tipped it over the edge - funnily enough, as reported by Crafton.
No, it wasn’t, what Getafe are getting is the genuine public reaction.
Utd didn’t get that far, the public ‘backlash’ was a reaction to posts / articles by mainly just Crafton and Riley, that isn’t to say it’s right or wrong - just stating the obvious as to what actually happened.
The only true reaction to him returning to football is what Getafe are getting - and note, most of those reacting to Getafe doing that are Utd fans.
Wasn't the poll on here largely in favour of Greenwood not returning?
False. It was Crafton and The Athletic's leaks that put huge pressure on our management. Riley and a few others were fanning the flames.
The bolded is correct. From what I saw, it was more of the media frenzy that got Man Utd to fall back.
We’ve been protesting Glazers out for how long but they aren’t any closer to leaving. In fact, fans are still packing OT on home games.
It’s more so corporate sponsors and PR that have more influence.
My flat was on fire, a few minutes later, I'd be flaming
I’m not your biggest fan, far from it - but wish you a speedy recovery.
Agreed. CPS remain under scrutiny for their victimless prosecution against Caroline Flack. If the complainant withdrew and one/both said prosecution would drive them to suicide, I could see CPS bottling it.
It was. The Crafton piece was damning but opinion amongst United fans was split in half if not in favor of him not coming back even before that.
Not really. Have a look at what disclosure relates to and you will see the context of material to the CPS.
They are also under scrutiny for not seeking victimless prosecutions and people being killed.
Victimless prosecutions are more common now than they have ever been.
It's a straightforward graph isn't it, unfortunately or not. Goals scored vs clamour to have him back