Of course, the correct and logical opinion is to ignore what we know in the hope that what we don't makes everything great again (MEGA).
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
Will we be allowed to discuss his threatening people with rape in this new thread, without the threat of censure?
Basically, a performance thread is cover for people who want him back regardless discussing how
much they want him back regardless.
The whole 'move on' movement, in which football comes first and those pointing out his abuse are the 'real problem'.
Probably not, this is the rule for every player performance thread:
"Please use this forum for discussing actual player performances not transfer rumours, hair styles and other off topic talking points. Discuss those in the Manchester United Forum."
It'll be interesting to see how it is handled, as we don't want Greenwod's abusive behaviour to be in any way normalised.
Creating separate threads in which such can absolutely happen is a dangerous precedent. I understand we had a split, only for the 'football only' chat to be used for normalisation and for both to be amalgamated.
Not sure how United taking him back changes anything. It's not new evidence of innocence. You may as well reopen the 'football only' thread and let the normalisation recommence now, rather than hide behind the club's decision.
That's a twisted way of misrepresenting an opinion where the major point is to ONLY focus on what we actually know for sure.
Can’t wait for him to be sold so this cyclical debate ends. United are so much bigger than Greenwood.
Last edited:
Sadly, I doubt the debate would end there.
Of course it is
rather than misrepresentation and pointless smileys, you should respond to the post in question if you have anything worthwhile to say about itOf course it is
Thanks for the advice.
I've said this before, but beyond reasonable doubt is a standard for criminal courts, not for individuals.
You cannot hide behind that standard of proof on something like this. It's abundantly obvious what is on that tape and that cannot be ignored.
You cannot hide behind that standard of proof on something like this. It's abundantly obvious what is on that tape and that cannot be ignored.
Unfortunately many will stubbornly hide behind 'he was never convicted so who are we to judge?' (which is a ludicrous bar to set for making 99% of life's decisions) simply because they want united to have another option up top.
I wonder how many of those people would let Bill Cosby make them a drink at a party?
Nar, I think he should leave, both for his family and the club, it’s what is best.
But I also believe it’s a fecking dangerous road to go down, pretending we know absolutely everything about a mess of a case that started on social media, never had it’s day in court, and “ended” with a baby and a family moving to Spain.
Depp’s case should’ve taught us this, but somehow hasn’t.
Wasn’t Cosby sentenced after having his day in court, with multiple complainants and only got his conviction overturned on a bizarre technicality regarding an “agreement” from a previous prosecutor not to prosecute?
Who is doing that?
Anyone claiming reasonable doubt is just for courts and that it’s ok for us individuals to act as judge, jury and executioner.
As I say, Depp’s case should have been a massive fecking eye opener that we don’t always have the full story to make such judgement before we have been presented with all the available evidence from both sides with the possibility of cross examination.
It gets dafter still that so many posters want to paint the above opinion as someone who just wants more options for Manchester United. As I say, I don’t think a return would be good for anyone in the current state, he, his family and the club should stay a million miles away from each other.
I don't disagree with this. We should always think critically about issues of guilt and innocence and assuming or presuming guilt is absolutely a dangerous road to go down. That said, there comes a point where judgments need to be made based on the evidence available. Not to send him away for six years but to decide whether or not you want him representing a club that you support (I mean 'you' in the general sense, not directing it at you personally). For me, the balance of probability is weighed significantly towards him being guilty of at least some form of violence (sexual or otherwise) and coercively controlling behavior. I genuinely believe that most people on the fence about it are there not because they believe he's innocent but because they want him back.
Can’t disagree with this.
I don't really think the broader point that people can be not guilty in court, because court has a set of arbitrary rules which account for the severity of the punishment, but still clearly be guilty is that hard to grasp.
No, that's not the same as pretending to know "absolutely everything" about the case, and I think you know that.
Calm down, it's called having an opinion based on the available data. And anyone who executes anyone will be thread banned at the very least.
Ease up on the hyperbole. It just perpetuates this cesspit of a thread.
That's the entire point though. Beyond reasonable doubt is because courts have the power to be "judge, jury and executioner". That's literally why it exists. In civil court it's balance of probabilities.
Nobody at Man Utd, on this forum or anywhere else has the power to do that. They do not have the power of a civil court, even. We cannot send Greenwood to prison, which is the actual punishment for rape in a criminal court.
So yes, the standard of proof known as 'beyond reasonable doubt' is only for courts. And criminal ones at that.
The problem is, we didn’t even go to civil / county court did we?
Therein lies the problem, as with Depp’s case, of being as certain as many are. How did you feel about Depp before hearing all of the evidence by the way?
Take it easy Moses, it’s a turn of phrase mate.
It's ridiculous exaggeration for effect where it's not needed.
It creates a hysterical strawman that fuels this thread.
Bit ott mate but I’ll keep it in mind.
I'm not judge, jury and executioner. I'm not sending him to jail. I just don't want him to play for this football club anymore.
There are plenty of totally justifiable reasons someone might not want a player to play for their club again, that don't involve a criminal conviction. For a lot of people, the recording was quite enough regardless of the outcome of the criminal case. Those people don't know (and aren't claiming to know) every single fact about the case, but I think it's pretty laughable to claim they don't know enough.
There are plenty of totally justifiable reasons someone might not want a player to play for their club again, that don't involve a criminal conviction. For a lot of people, the recording was quite enough regardless of the outcome of the criminal case. Those people don't know (and aren't claiming to know) every single fact about the case, but I think it's pretty laughable to claim they don't know enough.
Like a civil court, Man United's internal investigation was also based on balance of probabilities - they found him not guilty.
I assume INEOS will now review that internal investigation as part of their decision making process.
No, and we haven't imprisoned anyone or fined them either.
I think the same thing about Depp as I thought about him before his trial, he's a creepy old man who dates girls half his age and I'd be extremely uncomfortable seeing him romantically involved with anyone I cared about. Lots of the things he described before and during the trial where massive red flags which should put off anyone from becoming romantically involved and I certainly wouldn't hire him to work on any project I was responsible for.
I also wouldn't send him to prison.
Man Utd's internal investigation was conducted people people who 1) I do not consider to be unbiased or without conflicting interests in the same way a proper civil court should be and 2) offered no explanation as to what the more probable alternative was. If the probable alternative was the rape didn't occur and he simply threatened her then that wouldn't change my stance on him coming back.
If the judge in a civil case stood to lose a £40m asset if he found the individual guilty/liable I would expect him to recuse himself. The fact United's investigation was done in house and not by an independent legal team is a massive red flag and one I'd still have irreconcilable problems with if it was INEOS doing it too.
A fair way of looking at it.
I personally think the thing that will inform whether or not he returns is how well the likes of Antony and Amad perform down the stretch. If one or both are performing exceptionally well, then it will create a more leverage for SJR to sell. If on the other hand, we aren't getting sufficient production from our attackers, then that will probably result in a return.
You have no idea how it was conducted or what motivated the conclusion. Pure speculation. So much for sticking to the facts. The hypocrisy in your posts is shameless. You're usually better at spacing it out.
@rimaldo would, and has on multiple occasions.
I skipped over this because even if it was the way he speculated it would still be flawed as I couldn't be bothered for another exchange, but I'm glad someone else called it out.
A free drink is a free drink I suppose.
This entire thread is built on pure speculation.
I'm not saying it's same as a civil case as obviously it's not, just mentioned because an internal investigation is also based on balance of probabilities so a lower threshold for a verdict.
And I agree it should definitely have been an external investigation. I doubt they would have been able to give any more detailed explanation though due to confidentiality rules so I don't know if it would be enough for more people to accept the verdict. I'm sure they would have done a better job than the club of explaining the process, evidence considered etc at least.
Which I'm fine with, but he isn't, usually. That's why I pointed it out.