We have plenty of facts. Just because the facts alone aren't enough for a prosecution, due to the complainant withdrew cooperation, doesn't mean Greenwood isn't an utter flog who shouldn't be within a million miles of the club. He makes Giggs seem angelic in comparison (also a massive flog).
I'm not downplaying his football as it is utterly irrelevant. I am also being totally measured. Those ignoring and/or downplaying his behaviour because he kicks a ball well are not.
Yep and my fault. I wrongly thought you had to demonstrate a level of balance and objectivity in how you voiced it, and the standard bearer for the forum even if in a voluntary capacity.
Possibly.
How is he using his position (you’re talking about @Wibble here)? He can voice his opinion, and off course it’s going to be strong as he strongly believes in his morals and ethics. He has already said that he will not deal with reports that are about his posts. And we don’t hide from calling each other out. @Solius and @SilentWitness will testify that I’m a grumpy fecker behind the scenes constantly querying if we took the right steps. (Not just them btw, they are just examples). We constantly question each other.
That and libellous comments are not occurring generally. Disagreeing with Greenwood apologists isn't liabellous.
This kind of sarcastic straw man nonsense should be deleted as far as I'm concerned (Greenwood was never even accused of rape and certainly not convicted of it) - that it then gets a 'Like' is exactly the reason many are complaining
Apparently that is exactly what he said - according to a local report someone posted earlier. If he didn't why was he sent off?
It isn't strawman. It is pure sarcasm.
Well the suggestion that anyone at all would endorse those things is the strawman.
Off topic of your point, you've said this before, but was he not charged with "one count of attempted rape, one count of controlling and coercive behaviour and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm"?
There is disagreement over what he said - the ref report says 'feck You' (still harsh red but understandable) but his manager claims it was 'feck Sake' or something along those lines, probably not worth appealing anyway
That’s what I thought too
Yes that's correct - 'rape' and 'attempted rape' are 2 different charges though, Mendy for example was charged with both.
This and the Qatar/club sale thread are the only two contenders for that illustrious title. Both exposed a large section of our support to be immoral wankers of the highest order. Also the hallmark of both threads were circular discussions where nobody on either side is convinced about anything because they set up camp in their tower of bullshite and don't want to come down from it.
Accused of Attempted rape and Accused of Rape are different charges .
The hand signals sound like they contributed as well.
They aren't exactly the same. But not similar? Really?
The audio recording was sickening but I don't think it proved rape actually occurred.
Apologies didn't use the right words edited my post , You are right .
Fair enough.
I am aware of that, though I believe they do carry the same sentencing (at least maximum term), but I don't think adding "attempted" before every utterance of the word really makes much of a difference. But then I don't make jokes about it, so I'm not the authority there.
See above.
True, good point.
This is a ridiculous take. Mods have been highly criticized by both pro- and anti-Greenwood posters alike, and this shows that they have done a relatively good job at allowing a discussion to take place. They have also banned staunch anti-Greenwood posters from this thread and deleted comments (mine included) that crossed lines with respect to anti-Greenwood sentiment.
This is not the case here. Mods participate in discussions just like everyone else and there is no quixotic or utopian expectation of "balance and objectivity" in one's personal opinion, which is completely separate from the day to day modding aspects of keeping threads on track. Both can be easily done, and have been for many years.
I don’t know, hence why asked, assumed it was facts based on posts here.
Fixed for you
Anyway to change it to compare against “alleged” attackers?
I think it does make a difference.
I do agree it does make a difference in terms of fair discussion of what he is accused of. So if we are going to be discussing it in legal terms yes the distinction should be made.
How anyone can look at this thread and think “they’re being too harsh on the people defending Greenwood” is absolutely beyond me.
I meant in terms of the "jokes" about it mate.
Agreed, if what he was saying on the audio was racist, we wouldn't need definitive proof of hate in his heart, or context, in order to call him a racist.
