Horrendous PR, terrible team morale, a furious women’s team, potentially future issues and booing every single game?
Not like there’s other RW available. Let’s just go straight to the most problematic one.
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
Not like there’s other RW available. Let’s just go straight to the most problematic one.
Just hypothetically would you also take peak Ronaldo to lead the line even though you are (seemingly) convinced he was guilty of the alleged crime?
But these people are the whole basis of your argument, without them you have no point, so how about backing up your claims with some evidence?Well I was wrong with my argument, sorry for derailing this thread, don't know what the feck I was on about.
Don't worry about it! It wasn't a derailment, this thread is a circus anyway!
Thanks but I still didn’t get the answers to these key questions. I will take that nobody knows what the new evidence was and nobody has seen/heard the larger audio recording.
The case has been dropped. The prosecutor says there is no case. Why people get so emotional on something when we will never have a full picture to make any sort of judgement? Never make judgement calls on incomplete data. Leaves one open to biases and predilections, and that's the worst kind of injustice.
Ok, fair enough then.
And now your motives are clear, was obvious tbf.
We have to make judgment calls on incomplete data all the time. As a medical professional, you have to surely?
Still, it's fun watching it.
He telegraphed it like a windmill.
Off course, we save millions of lives in healthcare even in the context of limited data. But, the Greenwood case is a sensitive topic where we shouldn’t have a bias or choose a side. There are numerous factors that are not made clear to the public, so we should be careful when making judgement. Maybe he did some really really bad stuff, maybe the new evidence shows a different picture. However, we will never know.
Because I have a high IQ
So not "never" then.
No, the not choosing a side nonsense has perpetuated domestic violence for generations. The public can only judge the data they have if that data is not explained. Silence is not always a neutral stance.
Can't We Just Be Nice?
Oh this is me being nice. I'm awful.
Just want to point out this takes more balls than what most do on this forum. To admit you misjudged something is a strength and I would love to see more of it! This is how this kind of stuff should work.
This! Someone admitting they’re wrong on the internet is as rare as an eclipse.
Fair enough,
In situations like this, we must remain neutral unless we have access to all the information. We don't know what really happened but I find it hard to condemn/prosecute someone when the law hasn't. We've just got to hope that there was significant new evidence and they got it right. I doubt we'll ever know the whole truth.
No, I disagree. And explained why.
I know you had issues with Google earlier but trying Goggling "break the silence domestic abuse / violence".
We don’t have to do anything. There is no context that makes those pictures ok. We know at the very least he has assaulted her multiple times, because the ‘alternative angle’ is some role play bollocks that he would’ve been screaming from the rooftops if that were the case and he was utterly innocent.
The law should neutral, we don't have to be.
I'm free to judge the evidence presented until such a time as that evidence is proved to be incorrect, that hasn't happened yet and probably never will.
Fair enough,
Opinions are like people. We are different.
I appreciate that and I stand against all forms of DV - physical, mental and emotional.
I heard you but I disagree. These things are life altering. no joke! for both of them and all involved.
I don’t disagree with you but what was this new material that came to light that made a conviction unlikely? The prosecution should have told the public about this new material/evidence that made them dropping the case instead of just going around the bush.
Wonder who altered those lives?
Staying neutral is often siding with the most powerful in any given power dynamic, so potentially very dangerous. It's as powerful a choice as making a judgment call.
Nobody knows but the fact that she has reconciled with him and the Dad is a wet-wipe who clearly doesn’t care about his daughter leads me to believe it’s likely a classic case of the victim forgiving their abuser as is extremely common in domestic violence situations. Her not testifying and probably pleading with the police to drop it all has likely contributed.
Completely disagree. Otherwise we can’t make any decision on anything in life as how do we truly know if we have all the facts.
I think it’s a poor view to hold that simply because his partner dropped the case that he’s innocent. You should know that in our profession people return to their abusing partners more often than not.
If the extended audio does indeed show that he’s completely innocent, I would want it released as soon as possible if I was Greenwood or United as both have advantages to proving his innocence. Greenwood will forever have a black mark next to his name because of this.
When I see his name - I think “scrout”.
If you want to forgive him and support him, completely up to you. I admire your lack of tolerance as it must been life is very non-cynical for you. But there is no point painting a view that no one should judge him because we don’t know everything.
Sometimes enough significant information in incomplete cases are enough to form an opinion. It may not be fact, but we can all form a strong opinion on what kind of person he is.
I disagree.
We know.
He's free to put up his defence, until then I will base my opinion on what has been presented and he can deal with the consequences of his own actions.
You don't have a problem with condemning Italian fans for racially abusing Lukaku, even though racial abuse is illegal and I'm not aware of anyone being convicted. You don't have a problem with saying that City cheated for a decade, and the way they are accused of cheating necessitates several people breaking laws.
I assume you want to take back your point about footballers low IQ then? Must be neutral.
You have the rule of law in your country. To penalise him after he has not been charged with criminality is in itself criminal.
Which part of 'my opinion' did you not understand?
That' was my opinion and I admit I maybe wrong.
Okay fair enough
I "disagree" with your opinion. Take notice I didn't say you are "wrong"
And we're back to "beyond reasonable doubt" vs "balance of probabilities", "legally guilty" vs "personally I think he is/is not guilty"
At least we seem to agree that he's definitely not 100% innocent. I think the "role play" bollocks has died down.
At least we seem to agree that he's definitely not 100% innocent. I think the "role play" bollocks has died down.