We know those things based on the statements and the reporting.Known how? Either way, it is not known exactly what extra evidence they had. The only certainty is that they had enough for them to publicly say “Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged”
No, I didn’t
Right there.It is not clear what “mistakes” Mason made but, based on the above, the likelihood is that it fell short of criminal offences.
You can’t believe “reporting” - the press don’t always tell the truth! What statements?We know those things based on the statements and the reporting.
The only thing we know they have that we don't, is an explanation from Greenwood. Yet you said that they have much more, and at the same time claim to not be speculating. It is pure speculation to say what you're saying, you have no basis for it.
I just mean likelihood based on the actions and statements of those with more information than “the bloke on the internet”Right there.
If you're going that route of extreme skepticism, then at least apply it evenly: you don't even know for sure that they have more. Maybe they didn't even talk to Greenwood, and just lied. Maybe they haven't even heard the recording or looked at the pictures, and therefore have even less than the public. People don't always tell the truth, of course.You can’t believe “reporting” - the press don’t always tell the truth! What statements?
OK, they have ”more” - admittedly “much more” was speculation, apologies
Yes, all possible. Although the press are known for not telling the truthIf you're going that route of extreme skepticism, then at least apply it evenly: you don't even know for sure that they have more. Maybe they didn't even talk to Greenwood, and just lied. Maybe they haven't even heard the recording or looked at the pictures, and therefore have even less than the public. People don't always tell the truth, of course.
But that’s not what you did, and surely you can recognise the post reads differently - especially when - if quantifying fan reaction to Greenwood - when it comes to “Asia, Africa and non-Europe continents” people are largely going by what they see on social media (and I don’t need to elaborate on how flawed these insights are), whereas when it comes to Europe - the place you consciously omitted - there’s more substantial markers/data, as mentioned in my previous post.Or simply add Europe to the other three. My point was that most of this is largely contained within the UK.
Right, but it's still speculating.I just mean likelihood based on the actions and statements of those with more information than “the bloke on the internet”
90% of United's global fans are in emerging markets (aka not Europe) and half the club's global fan base are in Asia and and another ~25% in Africa. Therefore, sentiment about him in Europe (either for or against) would be in the minority.But that’s not what you did, and surely you can recognise the post reads differently - especially when - if quantifying fan reaction to Greenwood - when it comes to “Asia, Africa and non-Europe continents” people are largely going by what they see on social media (and I don’t need to elaborate on how flawed these insights are), whereas when it comes to Europe - the place you consciously omitted - there’s more substantial markers/data, as mentioned in my previous post.
"Throughout, we have taken into account the wishes, rights and perspective of the alleged victim along with the club’s standards and values, and sought to collate as much information and context as possible. This has required us to proceed with sensitivity and care to obtain evidence not in the public domain, including from those with direct knowledge of the case."We know those things based on the statements and the reporting.
The only thing we know they have that we don't, is an explanation from Greenwood. Yet you said that they have much more, and at the same time claim to not be speculating. It is pure speculation to say what you're saying, you have no basis for it.
FairRight, but it's still speculating.
I didn't say that, I said that this is all we know they have. We also know some of the things they don't have."Throughout, we have taken into account the wishes, rights and perspective of the alleged victim along with the club’s standards and values, and sought to collate as much information and context as possible. This has required us to proceed with sensitivity and care to obtain evidence not in the public domain, including from those with direct knowledge of the case."
Are you able to post the reports and statements that say all United had to go on was Greenwood's explanation?
You kind of did in the belowI didn't say that, I said that this is all we know they have. We also know some of the things they don't have.
Point being the poster was not necessarily wrong in what they said. Whether United had access to the full recording we don't know (I can't remember whether its been mentioned that they did) however, its clear based on their statement they had access to not only more information but access to the alleged victim as well as others involved.No, they couldn't have anything. For instance, they don't have the whole tape, they don't have a statement from the victim, they don't have anything from the victim's family, and they don't have anything from the criminal investigation.
We do know that they have an explanation from Greenwood. You said that the club had access to much more information than the public, but you don't know that and have no reason to believe that.
No.You kind of did in the below
They did not speak with the victim. Arnold's statement said that the victim's family was involved. From reporting that is the mother, and involved means that the she was made aware of Greenwood's explanation and the club's findings, and was given the opportunity to comment, and that she chose to not take that opportunity.Point being the poster was not necessarily wrong in what they said. Whether United had access to the full recording we don't know (I can't remember whether its been mentioned that they did) however, its clear based on their statement they had access to not only more information but access to the alleged victim as well as others involved.
This isn’t relevant to what I said, which was:90% of United's global fans are in emerging markets (aka not Europe) and half the club's global fan base are in Asia and and another ~25% in Africa. Therefore, sentiment about him in Europe (either for or against) would be in the minority.
Well no, we only know three things for sure.Point being the poster was not necessarily wrong in what they said. Whether United had access to the full recording we don't know (I can't remember whether its been mentioned that they did) however, its clear based on their statement they had access to not only more information but access to the alleged victim as well as others involved.
I accept the point on contacting the victim. However, the point still stands. Arnold's statement says "The alleged victim's family participated in the process and were given the opportunity to review and correct our factual findings." The United statement references that they had access to evidence not out in the public.No.
They did not speak with the victim. Arnold's statement said that the victim's family was involved. From reporting that is the mother, and involved means that the she was made aware of Greenwood's explanation and the club's findings, and was given the opportunity to comment, and that she chose to not take that opportunity.
No, what was said was that the club had access to much more than the public. It is perfectly consistent with the statements and reporting that the only thing they had access to that we don't is Greenwood's explanation.I accept the point on contacting the victim. However, the point still stands. Arnold's statement says "The alleged victim's family participated in the process and were given the opportunity to review and correct our factual findings." The United statement references that they had access to evidence not out in the public.
As the poster said United had access to more than "just Greenwood's explanation".
This is just twisted semantic nonsense - it's absolutely clear that the Robson family (you are correct that the mother specifically was named) were part of the club internal investigation and support/accept the verdict that Mason Greenwood is not guilty.No.
They did not speak with the victim. Arnold's statement said that the victim's family was involved. From reporting that is the mother, and involved means that the she was made aware of Greenwood's explanation and the club's findings, and was given the opportunity to comment, and that she chose to not take that opportunity.
This is just twisted semantic nonsense - it's absolutely clear that the Robson family (you are correct that the mother specifically was named) were part of the club internal investigation and support/accept the verdict that Mason Greenwood is not guilty.
If you want to twist things for disingenuous purposes then feel free but these are the facts according to official statements:
- The alleged victim requested the police to drop their investigation in April 2022.
- We were provided with alternative explanations for the audio recording, which was a short excerpt from a much longer recording, and for the images posted online.
- The alleged victim's family participated in the process and were given the opportunity to review and correct our factual findings.
Agree to disagree I guess. They're fairly similar cases to my mind. It's hard to argue against the "whataboutism" label as they aren't exactly the same but I thought the comparison was valid. Ronaldo's situation was made public prior to his return btwIt is a terrible comparison. So bad it is whataboutism.
Not to say I'd have personally disagreed with us not signing him due to ethical concerns, but moving him on once we signed him (as happened with Greenwood) based on a civil case thrown out with prejudice, that never resulted in criminal charges and events that he had vigorously denied (as opposed to having no explanation for something in plain public view) is an utterly different scenario. So whataboutism. Same with Gigg's moral and ethical failings. And we wouldn't have him back anyway.
If the "alternative explanations" are actually satisfactory in any way, I don't know why they wouldn't be made public. It would seemingly be in the interests of both Greenwood and United to do so.This is just twisted semantic nonsense - it's absolutely clear that the Robson family (you are correct that the mother specifically was named) were part of the club internal investigation and support/accept the verdict that Mason Greenwood is not guilty.
If you want to twist things for disingenuous purposes then feel free but these are the facts according to official statements:
- The alleged victim requested the police to drop their investigation in April 2022.
- We were provided with alternative explanations for the audio recording, which was a short excerpt from a much longer recording, and for the images posted online.
- The alleged victim's family participated in the process and were given the opportunity to review and correct our factual findings.
It's a valid question and in fact the biggest question mark on the club/Greenwood's statements but Arnold said:If the "alternative explanations" are actually satisfactory in any way, I don't know why they wouldn't be made public. It would seemingly be in the interests of both Greenwood and United to do so.
Let us be honest, all of the alternative explanations would make HR look like an absolute arsehole who tried to ruin someone’s life/career, and I don’t really see why Mason, HR, the family or anyone else who isn’t just considering money would want to do that to the young girl, especially when her and Mason now have a family together.It's a valid question and in fact the biggest question mark on the club/Greenwood's statements but Arnold said:
" I am restricted as to what I can say for legal reasons, including the alleged victim's ongoing right to anonymity..."
That 'right to anonymity' is a bit strange since everyone knows who she is, but this is the law of the land and obviously her wishes have to be respected.
Then where is it??Let us be honest, all of the alternative explanations would make HR look like an absolute arsehole who tried to ruin someone’s life/career, and I don’t really see why Mason, HR, the family or anyone else who isn’t just considering money would want to do that to the young girl, especially when her and Mason now have a family together.
For example, I split my lip before Christmas in a humorous rubber hammer moment. Now if I posted that online and said that my wife did it, that wouldn’t make it true.
Put simply, there’s many reasons why the pictures could be something else. As for the audio recording, the club themselves have said that it’s part of a longer recording, and I’m sure all of us could understand a situation where a longer recording could possibly turn the story around to something a little bit different.
Why on earth people want to pretend there’s no other possible explanation ? I have no idea.
Big nope.Get him back...! Give him 2 months to show his talent on the field and believe me all of it is forgotten again.....
Read my post again, I explained why HR, Mason & the families would likely not want an explanation to come out.So I repeat, where is it?
Ah, I see, it's the woman's fault.Read my post again, I explained why HR, Mason & the families would likely not want an explanation to come out.
I mean, think about it for a second, the best thing for his career (and her family) at the point it turned into a shit storm in the Summer and United had to stop him being able to play for them and ship him to Spain, would have been for them to cook up an alternative explanation, and they haven’t even done that.
As I say, I believe it’s because any alternative explanation (fabricated by the couple or true) would make her look like an absolute arsehole who tried to ruin the life of her kids father, and possibly put her in legal trouble, so who would want that?
Exactly, the only other explanation makes it her fault, that’s what I’m getting at.Ah, I see, it's the woman's fault.
Would it be in her interest though?If the "alternative explanations" are actually satisfactory in any way, I don't know why they wouldn't be made public. It would seemingly be in the interests of both Greenwood and United to do so.
If you believe there is an alternative explanation rather than what it obviously sounds like in the audio we all heard you would have a point.Exactly, the only other explanation makes it her fault, that’s what I’m getting at.
So they either leave it as it is currently, or place massive blame on her. Hence why you’ll never get a public explanation.
Get it now?
You really don’t have to do massive mental gymnastics though.If you believe there is an alternative explanation rather than what it obviously sounds like in the audio we all heard you would have a point.
You'd have to do some serious mental gymnastics to get there though.
Got to think outside the box man.Why do we keep going back to sex games when there is nothing to suggest that's the case.
Absolutely, there’s nothing to suggest it. But an alternative explanation from the couple for the best of his career could be that.Why do we keep going back to sex games when there is nothing to suggest that's the case.
No it doesn't.That’s the point, that any alternative explanation throws her under the bus. Hence we will never get one.
If that is the case, and that's a big IF, seems like Mason is giving up a hell of a lot to protect someone that would try and ruin him like that.You really don’t have to do massive mental gymnastics though.
They could simply say that when you play out the recording for 20 more seconds, it turns into some kinky sex thing they do, or where she says “fecking stop now Mason. I don’t find this funny” and he apologises profusely for taking a daft sex play too far. There’s some pretty easy explanations to make it much much milder than what it is today, so let’s not pretend that that’s completely impossible as you and many are.
My guess is, this is likely the explanation they gave to Arnold, when he talks about it “being part of a longer recording”.
Arnold didn’t actually get to listen to the recording though it appears, so we have no idea if it was true or just cooked up to make it milder for the internal investigation.
If they were to come out with this explanation and then also say the photos had nothing to do with Mason, but all to do with her being jealous or angry and using pics out of context, she would face massive wrath from many Manchester United fans & she would also be accused of doing real damage to the women’s movement of protection for domestic violence victims, being classed “another one who cried wolf”. She just cannot come out of any alternative explanation looking anything but horrendous and possibly in legal trouble.
So when people are demanding an alternative explanation, it’s a ridiculous thing to demand.
Ok, give me an alternative explanation that doesn’t.No it doesn't.
