oh you sick bastard.
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
I wouldn't even dignify that user's obtuse nonsense. Greenwood was accused of attempted rape and a bunch of other charges. The key witness pulled out and thus there was no longer a realistic possibility of conviction. We can all speculate as to who the witness was but it does seem somewhat telling Greenwood restarted his relationship with the alleged victim shortly after.
Whether it is rape or attempted rape is not exactly apples and oranges
Can they prove I defamed them?
in claims for slander, the claimant must prove actual damage. There are however several exceptions to the rule that actual damage must be proved in claims for slander.
For example, if the spoken words accuse the claimant of committing a crime; of having a contagious disease; of being unfit for his or her office, business or profession; or if the communication is an attack of the credit of trades people; or an accusation of being unchaste or adulterous against a woman or girl. In these cases damage is presumed and need not be proved.
Oh piss off with this crap, jesusJude having his Onana/Maguire moment
Love to see him say that to Mike Tyson or even Trump on a Real Madrid US tour....what a hero!
This reminds of that poster who said he's a doctor and that "my IQ destroys yours" or something to that effect.
Is it a moderators job around here to just attack every post if they don't agree with it?
Wait, so the moral difference is whether Greenwood succeeded in his attempted raping or not?
Why don't you do the same?Oh piss off with this crap, jesus
I thought the same....what was Jude thinking?
2 genuine questions -
1. Would you call someone who was convicted of attempted murder - but had never actually killed anyone - a murderer?
2. What about someone charged with attempted murder, who then had all charges dropped…? Would you call them a murderer?
I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything else from such a shocking poster like yourself anyway.
Defamation is against the terms and conditions of this forum nevermind anything else. As is content which promotes hatred towards individuals, being abusive, threatening and much more.
For all the complaints I've read about moderators allegedly being too strict. I actually think they're probably being too lenient when it comes to applying the rules.
"You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws."
"The following is prohibited across the entire website. Please do not post it. If you see it please report it.
- Advocacy and hate speech: Posts that promote hatred towards a particular group (including content that incites hatred or promotes violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status or sexual orientation/gender identity), harassment, bullying or similar content that advocates harm against an individual or group.
Edit - Can a moderator remove? I don't think this thread needs another unrelated thing to debate over.
Last edited:
Right back at ya buddy!
Well, I'm fecked then.
Thank you KC sir
I don't agree with you, but, this thread aside, you might be a good moderator.
The thing is though if it was just a performance thread there is a high chance that the positivity would outweigh the negativity and there is always going to be a negative sentence from some even if he bags a hattrick.
Weird hill to die on.
Moderators are posters as well and are allowed to post their views just like everyone else.
And irrespective of personal views moderation is generally about how people post and not what "side" of a particular discussion they are.
For example a very anti-Greenwood poster was banned yesterday.
Probably not but I wouldn't be worrying about someone else doing so if they were convicted. And if the charges were dropped because the complainant withdrew cooperation (as opposed to it coming out that they didn't do it) then I doubt I'd care much either.
Unless they were good a kicking a football of course. Then it would be unconscionable.
He might just be fairly confident he'll never beat a woman to a bloody pulp. Not all speed bumps are created equally.
Weird way to avoid answering the questions.
With murder it’s usually pretty clear if the attempt was successful or not.
It does make you see him in a different light when you realise it was only attempted rape, not rape.
I think, hypothetically speaking, it would be fine to call someone who attempted to rape someone a rapist.
Especially if, hypothetically, his hypothetical victim had went out of her way to record the encounter because it had happened before so she knew what was going to happen to her.
Especially if, hypothetically, his hypothetical victim had went out of her way to record the encounter because it had happened before so she knew what was going to happen to her.
Bellingham's social credit went up by +1000 in my eyes.
If you're on the other end of almost any argument to that poster, I think you're usually on the right side.
Beautiful.
Do you actually have blind faith in the law or is it just to suit your position here?
Do you really think it's nonsensical or libellous when people refer to OJ as a murderer?
If the available evidence points to something being true or false then people will usually be able to make up their mind as they see fit. Unless Manchester United make a nebulous statement of course.
Also here in Ireland the sentencing guidelines for murder and attempted murder are not that different.
This just shows how really paper thin the argument to have him back is.
It’s easy to state an opinion online, but I hope and fully expect those who don’t want him back to change their minds if he came back, fulfilled his potential and wasn’t alleged to have committed any crimes.
But if not, I’d be delighted that those remaining and the club had finally got serious about winning matches and being good at football like the rest of our rivals.
Woah! How do you know he actually said it?! Shouldn’t you let the authorities do their job first?! Talk about trial by social media.Jude having his Onana/Maguire moment
Love to see him say that to Mike Tyson or even Trump on a Real Madrid US tour....what a hero!
But he was though. That's never going to change now.
I have very little interest in American pop culture and know very little about the case. But from my understanding, the OJ case made it to court but wasn’t found guilty due to a jury celeb loving culture? Very different to a case where a tiny percentage of the evidence has been revealed and as a whole isn’t even deemed significant enough to make it to court.
If you believe Mason is 100% guilty but Ronaldo isn’t, I’d suggest there are deeper lying biases at play. Ronaldo has much more evidence against him for a more significant crime
Irrelevant to the point.
Yeah but then that same argument of investing a lot of time and money can be used to reintroduce him to the team, especially given the club have cleared him internally. If he's worth 50 Mil as some say (I personally don't think he is, based on current form and his situation perhaps 20ish?) Even if he goes for 20, I would think we'd be more than covering his academy development costs. I dunno I think, if you're thinking of what do with him from a morals POV, then his fees too should be considered - I would expect a few rumblings from people like Rachel Riley if he gets sold for a large fee.
I'm all for letting him go on a free, gives him options as well on which clubs to choose in case a big club don't want him - Given his situation, I think he may have to settle for playing for a lower tier club for some time, at least until the bigger clubs are sure he's not going to be a liability and he's demonstrated some level of stability in his personal life.
Would you be able to message me directly as I have a query you may be able to help me with?
You probably sound like some fancy lawyer in your head but that's just silly.
If you knew someone didn't commit the crime then no, you'd be an idiot to say they had. That's just common sense.
But that's not the case here, the fact that there is a big massive grey area is pretty much the issue.
No,
I just have a query about quality control and I am wondering if you are the current moderator?
OJ keeps getting bought up in this thread but it's really not a good comparison of anything because he was found guilty of murder in civil court plus all facts of the case are publicly available so it makes more sense for people to make their own judgements