Yep, I saw that before it got wiped. There's a lot of really poor opinions thinly veiled by "how can we really know what ever happened and who am I to judge".
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
Think you may be right. One for the ignore list.
This is degenerating into petty arguments now, so I'm going to pop you on ignore and quit while we're both behind. Not sure who you think 'my people' are but let's not open that can of worms...
Erm hmm
To me, it's strange many can't accept how utterly normal it is to think him unsavory at best considering what we have seen.
If you take away all the speculation and only deal with what we know surely it's conceivable people have issues?
You are all acting like he's on loan to regain fitness or something.
“All those involved, including Mason, recognise the difficulties with him recommencing his career at Manchester United. It has, therefore, been mutually agreed that it would be most appropriate for him to do so away from Old Trafford, and we will now work with Mason to achieve that outcome.”
If he was innocent, and they believe that he is then this is a disgrace by the club. Because sending him away doesn't clear his name in any way.
My point is not that he's 100% guilty but there is room for doubting his innocence.
And again, in a court of law what you say is correct, but I presume you are aware people have committed crimes and not been found guilty by a court?
Come on you started being petty first mate. Instead of countering my arguments, which imo you have none, you ask me if I'm alright ...
Anyway it seems you (and your lot) don't really like to being called out so some have also attacked me. They don't even have the guts to directly quote me. Well the truth hurts I guess but it is what it is
It was clearly always going to happen, and will again. A nasty streak like that can't be hidden.
Anyway, it's best ignored and let the mods do their thing.
I don't think it is any different at all.
Last edited:
One of the worst posts ever on the Caf. And that is saying something.
Time for you to depart.
A victory for sanity! I know things can get quite heated in this thread but I think most would agree that that guy was something else.
Excellent film.
You should check out 'Another Round' if you haven't.
Same director and Mads stars in it too.
Also The Celebration.
It was always there in his posts, but the context added of late really underpinned what he really was.
It's a shame to have to ban anyone though, but people like him who hide what they really think will always burst at some point and say something abhorrent like he did.
I'm surprised he wasn't flat out booted for that alone tbh, but he was given a chance to continue and that's the thanks you guys get I suppose!
Happily most didn't see what he said and was deleted.
Wrong'un no matter the side you are on.
Greenwood the player - would love him back. Never understood his critics when he was being “selfish” under Ole. He was clearly doing what he was asked to by the coach…you don’t score if you don’t shoot kind of stuff. If anything, Ole stunted his development and he would have benefited from playing in a team with a better shape and style. He has not had a proper run of top level football in literally years and before that it was well accepted he was only growing into his physique and men’s football. In that regard, after another half a season in Spain, imo, he would return next year as our best and most threatening attacker by some way. A front line of Garnacho, Hojlund, Greenwood and Mount in behind might actually work.
Greenwood the person - hard to see how that situation is reconciled without more information being given. Whether he should have to do that or not is not the question. It’s a fact. There is a gap in the narrative and if it’s not filled, the public will never let him move on and that will inevitably mean that he won’t perform on the pitch.
If he and his partner can put out some reasonable explaination for the audio then I would have no problem supporting him again.
Greenwood the person - hard to see how that situation is reconciled without more information being given. Whether he should have to do that or not is not the question. It’s a fact. There is a gap in the narrative and if it’s not filled, the public will never let him move on and that will inevitably mean that he won’t perform on the pitch.
If he and his partner can put out some reasonable explaination for the audio then I would have no problem supporting him again.
Again that is simply 'trial by social media' which is an incredibly dangerous route to follow.
Since we dont have access to many of the facts and info that the CPS or club had, I dont see much value in speculation about the details.
In fact I find your unfounded theories about her and her family quite distasteful - I see several others makes these kind of libelous claims making out that her and/or her parents are some kind of gold diggers too, not sure why it's allowed when other speculative theories are rightly deleted.
Fair enough, edited to get rid of what you found objectionable there, though libelous it was not.
WTF?
There's levels in how unhinged this post is The almighty ME is amused, thank you.
Edit: It got infarcted ! Well done mods, great process
Yeah, this.
But we all know what this is really about, let's not feck around: a lot of people want him back for football reasons. And many of those people are looking for ways to justify it.
They wouldn't have bothered in the slightest if he weren't a) a United player and b) a good player, at least potentially.
There are some, granted, who simply and honestly say they don't give a feck about his character, they just want him back because he could improve us.
I prefer that lot over the ones who are stretching and bending pathetically to justify themselves.
Greenwood is a magical footballer but not a nice person in his private life. We all know he's not in jail because the witnesses withdrew their evidence. The backlash if he played for us would be long and loud and quite right too. Best of luck to him with another club and let's all hope he's learned his lesson and have grown up a lot.
I think you probably didnt see some of the context of why I made the 'innocent until proven guilty' comment - it was in response to a few posts which were basically saying that we should assume he's guilty until he proves otherwise.
If you read the bits of my post that you deleted, you will find some answers to the questions you have asked.
Just to be clear, my position is not that he's innocent - it's that we do not know either way.
I have an issue with those at both ends who think he's either definitely guilty or definitely innocent - no one should be making such judgements based on the limited info we have.
It has also become clear to me that many people do not know the facts of this case - in terms of timelines, official statements etc so I have tried to provide them.
While the natural reaction to the audio and pics posted online is utter disgust and contempt for Mason, there is a lot of info that has come out since then which suggests that things are not as they initially seemed.
Yours were not the worst TBF - I've seen others make some really terrible accusations about her father in particular.
Fair enough, sorry.
He's been banned altogether now. That post seems to have been the final straw, there was far worse said previously.WTF?
The almighty ME is amused, thank you.
Edit: It got infarcted ! Well done mods, great process
This is absolutely correct and should be the underpin of all opinions no matter the side.
I think we need to remember that the discussion on it is just that, a discussion. We are never going to fully find out either way and it's fair to have an opinion that he shouldn't play for us again, or that he should, but personal attacks on the people involved is way too far.
This is just not a reasonable position in real life though is it. If there was a rumour someone was a bit unreliable with cash and they asked you to borrow some money, your rightly not take the risk. People weigh up the risks of someone being unsavoury based on little information all the time.
I agree, Rood.
However, until we can verify his innocence, he cannot play for us again. Certainly not in the light of empirical evidence.
How do we verify innocence?
"He's a great competitor, but he's a dirty human being."
I don't think this is a thing. Like, outside of the Greenwood situation - I don't think that 's a tenet of any system or at the very least I don't think it should be. In any case, back to the Greenwood situation, the club's internal investigation already deemed him not guilty. Whether you believe it or not it's a different conversation - but the language used was very "matter of factly" as/for an institution. That's what was asserted by the people leading the club and in much closer proximity to this than any of us.
You mean that same institution who won't stand by those words?
Yeah, that doesn't mean a whole lot considering their actual actions.
He wasn’t let off on a technicality. The prosecution withdrew their case due to a lack of evidence. Primarily because his girlfriend, the victim, withdrew her evidence and claims and decided to raise a child and marry him.
Your last sentence is precisely the issue I have with the whole situation. You’ve charged, tried and condemned him off the back of an isolated post on social media. To think that you and others believe that the case is so simplistic that no other evidence would have been presented at trial just boggles my mind. It’s the whole point we have a justice system. A justice system which starts with innocent until proven guilty and finishes with ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Neither of those things exist with your logic, yet they literally underpin our justice system for the last 200 years.
I don't think people do think it is so simplistic or not realise that other evidence would have been presented given that we have been told that other evidence exists.
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean that a person is innocent though, it's a presumption and as the case didn't make it through the justice system there has been no judgement of guilty or not guilty, so people can only form opinions based on what they've seen or been told by the parties involved in the case and/or investigation.
Greenwood and his partner and those involved in the situation and/or investigation don't have to disclose the true explanation of the audio or images but without doing so it doesn't reflect well on him at all and quite fairly, some people will see that as a red flag and lead them to the opinion that Greenwood has done something or things which people do not morally wish any of their players to do or have done, hence wanting nothing to do with him at their club.
And the problem with what you are saying is this:
"withdrew her evidence"
Think long and hard about your words in this post because I can point out other inconsistencies that should challenge your mindset if you'd like.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. I just stick to my point about those opinions being formed from an isolated social media post. Yes they’ve said nothing and that could be a red flag. Or it could be a family which wants to move on from a terrible and possibly isolated incident that was regrettable to all. Who knows?
innocent until proven guiltydoes mean innocent in terms of conviction. And punishment, whether penal or losing your whole career should only come with conviction.in my opinion. Certainly not from social bloody media.
So the guilty who get off on technicalities or things like lack of evidence are innocent.
Noted.
Happy for you to just quote the sentence I wrote in full:
“withdrew her evidence and claims and decided to raise a child and marry him”
No, those who are not convicted are not guilty.
Yeah, you clearly don't understand the point. Can't say I'm not surprised I only hoped for something more I guess.
My bad.
...
Well that’s really where the justice system comes in. It takes the opinions of mere mortals such as you or I, both of whose opinions on this relationship are likely true or untrue in equal parts, and puts it beyond reasonable doubt. At which point societal, contractual and ultimately penal measures can be placed on the individual with confidence. Unfortunately purely due to his career and prominent position, Mason has had all but the penal measures implemented upon him, all from a social media post.
In a court of law, unfortunately, yes.
No, in a court of law they are not guilty.
That distinction is very important. And that also plays into the whole "innocent until proven guilty" misnomer too.