Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic

Rood

nostradamus like gloater
Scout
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
21,409
Location
@United_Hour
You have no idea how it was conducted or what motivated the conclusion. Pure speculation. So much for sticking to the facts.
I'll ignore your usual childish insults and stick to the topic at hand - there is no speculation there, the club did an internal investigation and found him not guilty.

We have these details about the internal investigation:

United have taken their time, establishing an executive panel in the wake of Greenwood’s legal case being discontinued in February and going through all the evidence.

That included having access to the police work done following his initial arrest, such as seeing phone records and witness interviews, as well as making additional enquiries themselves. They have spoken to Greenwood and the complainant, as well as what the club believe are all the other relevant people. In United’s view, this has been a professional process.

“We’ve done a really detailed and thorough internal investigation and we’ve asked as many people as we can around what happened and try to understand it beyond the original investigation done by the police,” Collette Roche, United’s chief operating officer, told The Athletic last week.

“You’d expect us to engage with people who were relevant in terms of stakeholder groups,” she added but stressed the “decision is firmly a decision that’s on us”.

The panel was led by United’s chief executive, Richard Arnold, assisted by Roche, lawyer Patrick Stewart, who is the club’s general counsel, communications chief Ellie Norman and football director John Murtough.

 

Fridge chutney

Do your best.
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Messages
9,000
The club did an internal investigation, found him not guilty, and still couldn't bring him back.

That outcome really screams "everything's totally fine here"...
 

Ludens the Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
17,543
Location
London
Arresting people and then not charging them for it is a failure on their part. It's not a difficult concept.


They could have charged him with breaching the terms of his bail. Again, this has been repeated to you multiple times, you're just wilfully ignoring it.

Because, and I've repeated this several times and you're wilfully ignoring it;

He was never charged with breaching bail. He was arrested for it and they decided not to charge him with breaching bail, he only charged for the 3 main crimes: one count of attempted rape, one count of controlling and coercive behaviour and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. This was confirmed by the CPS.

They never "clicked that button". That's the point. His appeal was against being denied bail for the 3 charges.

But I'm glad we can finally agree GMP could actually do something about it, shame they didn't.
Right. Gonna break this down so you can get it.

- Greenwood arrested in Jan 2022. Bailed, investigation ongoing. He was given pre charge police bail conditions.

Now please see the following and reflect.

A breach of pre-charge bail conditions is not of itself a criminal offence
Breaking bail conditions is not a crime itself but you can be arrested
October 15 2022 - Greenwood arrested for breach of bail and remanded in police custody.
The criminal investigation at that point has reached the point where he can be charged.
In order for him to kept in police custody though and put before a court he has to be remanded. In order to remand someone in custody you have to give reasons. The most appropriate reason possible to give at this point was that Greenwood had breached police bail conditions and so that is what police did. So he would have been charged with breach of police bail in custody (THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL CHARGE). They had the rape/controlling charges finally ready so arrested for the breach knowing full well they could then successfully remand him and send him straight court. This is why the solicitor suggested that police knew about previous breaches and that it was tacitly approved. Pure speculating this though.

October 17th 2022 - He then goes to court where the ACTUAL criminal charges are put forward. Breach of a pre charge police bail is not an actual criminal charge. Nobody gets put in front of a judge/jury to answer to a charge of pre charge police bail condition breaches. Police can’t “punish people” for it. They arrest and that’s it: get that rubber stamped into your mind. There are no sentencing guidelines for it. It’s not a thing so CPS wouldn’t be asked to charge for it and take it to court in front of a jury. It’s supposed to be a contributing factor to successfully remand someone until their first court hearing/date. It can also be used as an aggravating factor if handing out a sentence for the criminal charges. Hence me saying police can “charge” (I use that loosely) and then the court decide what they wanna do with it.

- Greenwood is remanded in custody and is to attend court on 21st November.

- October 19th
- Appeal goes through and Greenwood is no longer remanded in custody until 21st November.

It’s wild isn’t it ….

This is amazing. Your whole performance here is amazing.
Yeah maybe get the knowledge before you chirp in out of the blue with obnoxious input.
 
Last edited:

moses

Can't We Just Be Nice?
Staff
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
44,128
Location
I have no idea either, yet.
I'll ignore your usual childish insults and stick to the topic at hand - there is no speculation there, the club did an internal investigation and found him not guilty.

We have these details about the internal investigation:

United have taken their time, establishing an executive panel in the wake of Greenwood’s legal case being discontinued in February and going through all the evidence.

That included having access to the police work done following his initial arrest, such as seeing phone records and witness interviews, as well as making additional enquiries themselves. They have spoken to Greenwood and the complainant, as well as what the club believe are all the other relevant people. In United’s view, this has been a professional process.

“We’ve done a really detailed and thorough internal investigation and we’ve asked as many people as we can around what happened and try to understand it beyond the original investigation done by the police,” Collette Roche, United’s chief operating officer, told The Athletic last week.

“You’d expect us to engage with people who were relevant in terms of stakeholder groups,” she added but stressed the “decision is firmly a decision that’s on us”.

The panel was led by United’s chief executive, Richard Arnold, assisted by Roche, lawyer Patrick Stewart, who is the club’s general counsel, communications chief Ellie Norman and football director John Murtough.
It's not childish to point out blatant double standards. These are not facts, despite the italics.

Where did you get the details? Was there an investigation about the investigation?

You blindly believe and quote anything that suits your position. As everyone does. But you have the audacity to claim neutrality. Yet have a critical eye in only one direction. It's kinda disgusting considering the topic at hand.

Rape and assault, just in case anyone forgot.
 

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,374
Right. Gonna break this down so you can get it.

- Greenwood arrested in Jan 2022. Bailed, investigation ongoing. He was given pre charge police bail conditions.

Now please see the following and reflect.

October 15 2022 - Greenwood arrested for breach of bail and remanded in police custody.
The criminal investigation at that point has reached the point where he can be charged.
In order for him to kept in police custody though and put before a court he has to be remanded. In order to remand someone in custody you have to give reasons. The most appropriate reason possible to give at this point was that Greenwood had breached police bail conditions and so that is what police did. So he would have been charged with breach of police bail in custody (THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL CHARGE). They had the rape/controlling charges finally ready so arrested for the breach knowing full well they could then successfully remand him and send him straight court. This is why the solicitor suggested that police knew about previous breaches and that it was tacitly approved. Pure speculating this though.
All of this is pure fantasy and invention on your part. And even in this fantastical assumption, GMP should have been arresting him and documenting each breach of pre-trial bail conditions they were aware of so when it came up in his hearing and appeal for his post-charge bail he couldn't so easily pretend he wasn't likely to engage in witness intimidation or perverting the course of justice. Witness intimidation and PtCoJ being something you can charge people who breach pre-charge bail with, PtCoJ has a specific interfering with witnesses guidance.

There are so many aspects of GMP's failings in this case that the absolute desire to defend them is baffling. We know they knew of incidents when Greenwood broke the terms of his bail and they didn't arrest him for it. Even if you bizarrely hold to this notion that the absolute worst they could do was remind him of the terms of his bail and release him on his original terms... that's still a monumental failing on their part. There's just absolutely no reasonable position you can take on this that doesn't make the GMP come out of this smelling badly, even with the make believe about what you think happened.
 
Last edited:

Ludens the Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
17,543
Location
London
All of this is pure fantasy and invention on your part. And even in this fantastical assumption, GMP should have been arresting him and documenting each breach of pre-trial bail conditions they were aware of so when it came up in his hearing and appeal for his post-charge bail he couldn't so easily pretend he wasn't likely to engage in witness intimidation. Witness intimidation being something you can charge people who breach pre-charge bail with.

There are so many aspects of GMP's failings in this case that the absolute desire to defend them is baffling. We know they knew of incidents when Greenwood broke the terms of his bail and they didn't arrest him for it. Even if you bizarrely hold to this notion that the absolute worst they could do was remind him of the terms of his bail and release him on his original terms... that's still a monumental failing on their part. There's just absolutely no reasonable position you can take on this that doesn't make the GMP come out of this smelling badly, even with the make believe about what you think happened.
Aye, actual law and a timeline of events is pure fantasy. Police were able to arrest someone for a breach of bail (then get him remanded and sent to court)
A remand application literally has a designated section referring to “breaching of police bail”. but actually they didn’t bother doing this but somehow he was still remanded/kept in custody and sent to court…..

Go get yourself educated man instead of being so obnoxious about things you’re incorrect about. And accept when you’re incorrect.
Look at you now shifting goal posts. At least you’ve finally stopped blabbering on about how pre charge bail conditions constitutes some sort of significant offence that allows police to hand out severe punishments for..but now apparently you’ve decided he should have been charged with witness intimidation. I’d advise looking up witness intimidation and the required evidence and maybe you can work out how that wouldn’t work in this scenario.

I’m not in the habit of making accusations that aren’t proven. If GMP knew about and had evidence of previous breaches of bail and didn’t arrest, I’ve not seen them mentioned anywhere by any solicitor or judge. What you had were allegedly suspicions police knew about breaches of bail. You’re aware that in order to charge someone with something you generally have to prove it? (I’m starting to doubt this)
And as I said a number of posts ago, do we know that the victim and her family were supporting police when they needed to prove these breaches? Or do you think police were following greenwood around 24/7?

We dont know they knew of incidents. Again you’re speculating. greenwood’s defence put that forward as an accusation of the police. The judge then expressed concern that police knew and did nothing about the breaches. Throw in news articles with misleading headlines and I can see why you’ve thought this. However There is no report that has come out that has confirmed this and broken down how and why police ignored breaches. If there is please show me and I’ll shut the feck up about this part of the discussion. Until then, speculation…

Even if you bizarrely hold to this notion that the absolute worst they could do was remind him of the terms of his bail and release him on his original terms... that's still a monumental failing on their part.
It’s not bizarre notion, it’s called the law. I’ll ask one more time and pray for an answer. What do you think the penalty is for pre charge breach of bail? What is it you think happens or should happen that wasn’t done. Do this without trying to create another actual offence out of thin air…or without police making up their own rules.
 
Last edited:

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,374
Aye, actual law and a timeline of events is pure fantasy. Go get yourself educated man instead of being so obnoxious about things you’re incorrect about. And accept when you’re incorrect.
Look at you now shifting goal posts. At least you’ve finally stopped blabbering on about how pre charge bail conditions constitutes some sort of significant offence that allows police to hand out severe punishments for..but now apparently you’ve decided he should have been charged with witness intimidation. How do you know this happened? Pure speculation.

I’m not in the habit of making accusations that aren’t proven. If GMP knew about and had evidence of previous breaches of bail and didn’t arrest, I’ve not seen them mentioned anywhere by any solicitor or judge. What you had were allegedly suspicions police knew about breaches of bail. You’re aware that in order to charge someone with something you generally have to prove it? (I’m starting to doubt this)
And as I said a number of posts ago, do we know that the victim and her family were supporting police when they needed to prove these breaches? Or do you think police were following greenwood around 24/7?

We dont know they knew of incidents. Again you’re speculating. greenwood’s defence put that forward as an accusation of the police. The judge then expressed concern that police knew and did nothing about the breaches. Throw in news articles with misleading headlines and I can see why you’ve thought this. However There is no report that has come out that has confirmed this and broken down how and why police ignored breaches. If there is please show me and I’ll shut the feck up about this part of the discussion. Until then, speculation…
If that was what you were actually doing then sure, but you're simply making up things have never even been suggested to have happened to fit your narrative. You're assuming GMP did stuff there's no actual evidence of, and wilfully ignoring other stuff like totally dismissing the words of the judge as speculation because it would damage your theory. It's massive blinkers. You can't just create some false narrative and then accuse someone of moving the goalposts because they don't indulge you and keep talking about the actual issue they've been talking about since the start. You went from saying "If him being arrested and let go for breaching happens even just once. It’s honestly pointless hauling him in front of a court room again for the same thing" to "nobody gets put in front of a judge/jury to answer to a charge of pre charge police bail condition breaches". See the contradiction?

The benefit of arresting people for breach of police bail is it allows the police a window to gather evidence to establish if a substantive offence has occurred, such as witness intimidation or perverting the course of justice through witness intimidation. They at no point did any of this, despite being aware of breaches.

It’s not bizarre notion, it’s called the law. I’ll ask one more time and pray for an answer. What do you think the penalty is for pre charge breach of bail? What is it you think happens or should happen that wasn’t done. Do this without trying to create another actual offence out of thin air…or without police making up their own rules.
The process for breaking pre-charge bail is arrest, first and foremost. The GMP failed to do that and failed at every point from there onwards. The only way you can make your argument is to pretend the GMP had no evidence he was breaking police bail, that alone should tell you you're talking absolute nonsense.

Find a single piece of guidance for cases where police observe a breach of bail and the first step is not to arrest and investigate. But if your entire argument about the GMPs conduct relies on Greenwood's solicitor making a claim that wasn't true at his hearing that the GMP didn't push back on, to the point where the judge verbally admonished them then we kind of have no where to go because frankly that's hysterical.

But the big giveaway here is that the judge himself felt the need to criticise them, after a full hearing. Your weird defence of them which totally contradicts that criticism is not especially substantive.

I'll quote the exchange between Greenwood's lawyers and the judge again just in case anyone hasn't seen it:
Greenwood’s lawyer, David Toal, admitted the breach had taken place, saying: “I absolutely concede it is his responsibility to abide by all bail conditions imposed.”

He told the court: “Contact has occurred for many months.”

But Mr Toal added that it was “no secret” to Greater Manchester Police, putting forward a robust argument that Greenwood believed the breaches had been tacitly approved.

District Judge Mark Hadfield expressed “real concern” at the news, saying: “What I am being told is the defendant flagrantly breached the conditions over weeks or even months and police haven’t done anything about it.

He insisted: “If they suspected breaches of bail, the police should be doing something about it but haven’t – why not?

“What’s the point of someone being on bail conditions if the police don’t enforce them?”


Call me cynical, but this whole "what did you want GMP to do?" doesn't really stick.
 
Last edited:

Ludens the Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
17,543
Location
London
If that was what you were actually doing then sure, but you're simply making up things have never even been suggested to have happened to fit your narrative. You're assuming GMP did stuff there's no actual evidence of, and wilfully ignoring other stuff like totally dismissing the words of the judge as speculation because it would damage your theory. It's massive blinkers. You can't just create some false narrative and then accuse someone of moving the goalposts because they don't indulge you and keep talking about the actual issue they've been talking about since the start. You went from saying "If him being arrested and let go for breaching happens even just once. It’s honestly pointless hauling him in front of a court room again for the same thing" to "nobody gets put in front of a judge/jury to answer to a charge of pre charge police bail condition breaches". See the contradiction?

The benefit of arresting people for breach of police bail is it allows the police a window to gather evidence to establish if a substantive offence has occurred, such as witness intimidation or perverting the course of justice through witness intimidation. They at no point did any of this, despite being aware of breaches.


The process for breaking pre-charge bail is arrest, first and foremost. The GMP failed to do that and failed at every point from there onwards. The only way you can make your argument is to pretend the GMP had no evidence he was breaking police bail, that alone should tell you you're talking absolute nonsense.

Find a single piece of guidance for cases where police observe a breach of bail and the first step is not to arrest and investigate. But if your entire argument about the GMPs conduct relies on Greenwood's solicitor making a claim that wasn't true at his hearing that the GMP didn't push back on, to the point where the judge verbally admonished them then we kind of have no where to go because frankly that's hysterical.

But the big giveaway here is that the judge himself felt the need to criticise them, after a full hearing. Your weird defence of them which totally contradicts that criticism is rather clownish.
Nothing has been made up. The problem is you don’t really know the system and you’ve decided on your narrative so you’ve not filled in the obvious blanks and then pretended that it’s made up when someone fills them out for you.
The obvious blank here being police arresting someone for a relatively black and white offence and then charging them for it. But supposedly whilst in custody they’ve actually just done nothing about it and not mentioned it to a court despite arresting him for it.

I’m assuming GMP did stuff there’s no actual evidence of? That’s rich when you’ve basically decided they were knowingly ignoring breaches for months. Even though all we have is what I’ve pointed out is an implication from a solicitor and a judge elaborating on said implication . Again find me reports where the GMP has done this it is evidenced. I will accept I am completely wrong if you can find even one report that shows this.

You went from saying "If him being arrested and let go for breaching happens even just once. It’s honestly pointless hauling him in front of a court room again for the same thing" to "nobody gets put in front of a judge/jury to answer to a charge of pre charge police bail condition breaches". See the contradiction?
There’s absolutely no contradiction here.
If you arrest someone for breaching bail and still haven’t charged them it is definitely pointless arresting them again in the grand scheme of things . They spend less than 24 hours in custody and then come out and rinse repeat. System needs changing and even Greenwoods solicitor didn’t think much of it. As he literally said Greenwood had breached it numerous times. If it actually mattered do you think a solicitor stands in front of a judge and his client openly telling the judge his client breached numerous times.

I don’t know what that has to do with me saying that nobody will go to court and be charged with an offence that isn’t actually an offence….

As for witness intimidation, as advised previously, go and look up the points to prove/guidelines for that offence, reflect on it and then decide if you think that’s something that would apply here and would have a realistic chance of conviction. If you do that and still think that to be the case then I think you live in serious bubble.

The process for breaking pre-charge bail is arrest, first and foremost. The GMP failed to do that and failed at every point from there onwards. The only way you can make your argument is to pretend the GMP had no evidence he was breaking police bail, that alone should tell you you're talking absolute nonsense.
That is absolutely and unequivocally not the case for every matter involving breach of police bail.
The only way you can make your argument is to pretend that there is evidence that police had actual evidence Greenwood had breached bail numerous times and deliberately ignored it.
Please explain a scenario to me where Police would have proven Greenwood breached his bail without some form of co-oberation from a person or another.

On a side note, what is it exactly GmP had to gain from deliberately ignoring evidenced greenwood breaches and not arresting for it? So they went through the effort of taking on the initial investigation before the victim had even alleged anything. Did all this work gathering statements, evidence, phone evidence etc. pushed forward with very serious charges that the CPS deemed good enough to charge for? Which isn’t always the case…. But for some reason, a simple breach of bail they just decided they would just completely drop the ball on?

I also love how much you go on about the judge, like his opinion is sacred. Judges in this country are as corrupt, incompetent, outlandish and agenda driven as all the people and organisations they pass judgment on. I wouldn’t be taking their word or actions as gospel. You don’t do it for the police or the cps so why then for a judge?

What’s weird here is your inability to see the absolutely flawed justice system in this case. As I initially retorted you are gravely mistaken if you don’t realise the issues here go far beyond the police. If breaching police bail actually meant something maybe just maybe this thing could have been dealt with differently.
 
Last edited:

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,374
I was prepared to write out a long response to this, but I had just remembered where I'd saw your name previously. You're the "Andy Mitten needs to wind his neck in" guy who turned out to know absolutely nothing about Andy Mitten and claimed that was an excuse.
Was Andy Mitten in the dressing room that day? Odd he’s come out saying that so emphatically. Some of these journalists need to wind their neck in sometimes.
When I pointed out to you the close relationship by Mitten you justified it by saying
As I’ve said. It’s a view and reaction shared by many because that’s the normal reaction. The tweet read as a challenge to what Ole said.
It simply isn’t a remit of mine to have knowledge of every relationship between a journalist and manager especially as mitten made no mention of it in the tweet. So please, spare me the sanctimonious tripe.
Essentially "you can't hold me accountable for the things I offer an obnoxious opinion on because I didn't know what I was talking about". It's not my remit to know what the relationship between the person I'm telling to wind his neck in and the person he's quoting is one of the most baffling stances I've ever seen here. Then to call out the people who do for correcting your weird rudeness as sanctimonious... well.

Sorry, but we've done this dance before and you've show you have absolutely no interest in being informed or discussing actual events. The fact you attempt to casually brush over the bit where you say it's "pointless to haul him in front of a court room again" for breach of bail then a day or so later say "nobody gets put in front of a judge/jury to answer to a charge of pre charge police bail condition breaches" is telling enough. "It's pointless to do it twice" to "there's no mechanism to do it at all" in a day.

I'll trust the judge who criticises the police over the police who don't issue any kind of rejection of that implication. Seems like extremely wishful thinking that this judge is corrupt in just the right way that makes him want to embarrass the police force and not any of the regular ways judges are corrupt and GMP didn't bother trying to claim otherwise. I'll let others decide which of those two scenarios are most likely.
 
Last edited:

Jersey Heel

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
200
Is there really a reason to have this thread anymore? Has anyone had their opinion changed? People write paragraphs and paragraphs and you could go back to page 1 and see the same points being made.
 

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,374
Is there really a reason to have this thread anymore? Has anyone had their opinion changed? People write paragraphs and paragraphs and you could go back to page 1 and see the same points being made.
I assume it's still here because the alternative would be the mods having to deal with people asking why they're not allowed to talk about Greenwood on the forum.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,697
Location
Hollywood CA
Is there really a reason to have this thread anymore? Has anyone had their opinion changed? People write paragraphs and paragraphs and you could go back to page 1 and see the same points being made.
The thread isn’t here to change anyone’s opinion. It’s simply a discussion thread, like every other thread.
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
57,583
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
Is there really a reason to have this thread anymore? Has anyone had their opinion changed? People write paragraphs and paragraphs and you could go back to page 1 and see the same points being made.
There are 439,276 threads on this forum. Why don't you just find another one to go in?
 

Ludens the Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
17,543
Location
London
I was prepared to write out a long response to this, but I had just remembered where I'd saw your name previously. You're the "Andy Mitten needs to wind his neck in" guy who turned out to know absolutely nothing about Andy Mitten and claimed that was an excuse.

When I pointed out to you the close relationship by Mitten you justified it by saying

Essentially "you can't hold me accountable for the things I offer an obnoxious opinion on because I didn't know what I was talking about". It's not my remit to know what the relationship between the person I'm telling to wind his neck in and the person he's quoting is one of the most baffling stances I've ever seen here. Then to call out the people who do for correcting your weird rudeness as sanctimonious... well.

Sorry, but we've done this dance before and you've show you have absolutely no interest in being informed or discussing actual events. The fact you attempt to casually brush over the bit where you say it's "pointless to haul him in front of a court room again" for breach of bail then a day or so later say "nobody gets put in front of a judge/jury to answer to a charge of pre charge police bail condition breaches" is telling enough. "It's pointless to do it twice" to "there's no mechanism to do it at all" in a day.

I'll trust the judge who criticises the police over the police who don't issue any kind of rejection of that implication. Seems like extremely wishful thinking that this judge is corrupt in just the right way that makes him want to embarrass the police force and not any of the regular ways judges are corrupt and GMP didn't bother trying to claim otherwise. I'll let others decide which of those two scenarios are most likely.
Feckin hell, bringing up irrelevant stuff from another thread. I mean I’ve seen deflection tactics and then there’s that.

You’ve tied yourself in complete knots over and over again. You spent several posts arguing that there was some form of significant “punishment” for breaching police bail. Then you danced around the realisation when you were told repeatedly that wasn’t the case and decided to say that police should have then charged him for witness intimidation. You’ve now began twisting things I said in attempt to undermine the overall point. Laughable.

You don’t seem to understand the remit and grounds for remanding someone in custody and again tried to say I made things up. Go and get yourself educated please.

Your scenario makes absolutely no fecking sense.
Do you understand the resources, man power, cost and effort it takes to investigate a rape case? Do you understand the volume of evidence police would have had to get to even get that past the CPS for a charge? Do you understand Police took away Greenwoods right to liberty through arrest twice?

So we’re supposed to believe police did all this and then for some inexplicable fecking reason when it came to something as straight forward and simple as arresting someone for a breach of bail, what they did was they deliberately ignored loads of evidence and just let greenwood get away with it. Or is there a possibility that there is more to it and is yet to be explained? Is there a possibility Greenwoods defence tried to undermine the police in court in an attempt to get his client off a long term remand. Of course not because the Judge said….. something something. Stop pushing your narrative and taking click bait headlines as gospel and actually have a think.
 
Last edited:

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,374
Feckin hell, bringing up irrelevant stuff from another thread. I mean I’ve seen deflection tactics and then there’s that.

You’ve tied yourself in complete knots over and over again. You spent several posts arguing that there was some form of significant “punishment” for breaching police bail. Then you danced around the realisation when you were told repeatedly that wasn’t the case and decided to say that police should have then charged him for witness intimidation. You’ve now began twisting things I said in attempt to undermine the overall point. Laughable.

You don’t seem to understand the remit and grounds for remanding someone in custody and again tried to say I made things up. Go and get yourself educated please.

Your scenario makes absolutely no fecking sense.
Do you understand the resources, man power, cost and effort it takes to investigate a rape case? Do you understand the volume of evidence police would have had to get to even get that past the CPS for a charge? Do you understand Police took away Greenwoods right to liberty through arrest twice?

So we’re supposed to believe police did all this and then for some inexplicable fecking reason when it came to something as straight forward and simple as arresting someone for a breach of bail, what they did was they deliberately ignored loads of evidence and just let greenwood get away with it. Or is there a possibility that there is more to it and is yet to be explained? Is there a possibility Greenwoods defence tried to undermine the police in court in an attempt to get his client off a long term remand. Of course not because the Judge said….. something something. Stop pushing your narrative and have a think.
Sorry, but like I said, I'm not doing this with you anymore. I'm more than happy to let other people make up their minds from what has already been said. While the other thread might be "irrelevant stuff" in terms of whether you're right or wrong current bail discussion (I've given the actual arguments for this extensively already), it certainly is relevant in whether you're someone who is capable of having a discussion. This whole "we can just ignore the judge" thing being a rather clear example of the problematic behaviour you've previously exhibited and why you're not.

Have a good day.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,697
Location
Hollywood CA
Those are the attacking players I want to see at United next season. I thought it was pretty much self-explanatory.
Yes, I'm sure no one is asking about the fact that those are attacking players. Its your use of slashes and hyphens that may have led to the post being perceived as more convoluting than informative.
 

FrankWhite

Not Frank White
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
1,091
Romano is claiming there's interest in Greenwood from domestic clubs. That's interesting.. I guess some people out there believe he can still play in this country. I saw a clip where the crowd was chanting "show us some tits" to Kalvin Philips. Imagine what sorts Greenwood will get.
 

Reapersoul20

Can Anderson score? No.
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
12,201
Location
Jog on
Romano is claiming there's interest in Greenwood from domestic clubs. That's interesting.. I guess some people out there believe he can still play in this country. I saw a clip where the crowd was chanting "show us some tits" to Kalvin Philips. Imagine what sorts Greenwood will get.
Would you mind posting a link to this if you have it handy, please? Unsurprisingly googling "mason Greenwood news" + "domestic" yields different results than for most players
 

Walters_19_MuFc

Full Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2013
Messages
29,763
Location
Birmingham
Yes, I'm sure no one is asking about the fact that those are attacking players. Its your use of slashes and hyphens that may have led to the post being perceived as more convoluting than informative.
Deary me!

I think we both know why @Semper Fudge quoted me, and I can bet my bottom dollar is has nothing to do with my use of slashes and hyphens. :lol:
 

Walters_19_MuFc

Full Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2013
Messages
29,763
Location
Birmingham
Romano is claiming there's interest in Greenwood from domestic clubs. That's interesting.. I guess some people out there believe he can still play in this country. I saw a clip where the crowd was chanting "show us some tits" to Kalvin Philips. Imagine what sorts Greenwood will get.
Rightly or wrongly, footballers have to deal with abuse from the crowd all the time. As professionals, they have try their best to block it out, which I'm sure Greenwood will have no problem doing so.
 

FrankWhite

Not Frank White
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
1,091
Rightly or wrongly, footballers have to deal with abuse from the crowd all the time. As professionals, they have try their best to block it out, which I'm sure Greenwood will have no problem doing so.
Football banter is one thing, criminal chants is another. I personally can't see it.
 

Wing Attack Plan R

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
10,834
Location
El Pueblo de la Reyna de los Angeles
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.
99% of male actors would be off limits for you, then.
 

Walters_19_MuFc

Full Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2013
Messages
29,763
Location
Birmingham
Football banter is one thing, criminal chants is another. I personally can't see it.
Not sure I'd call the abuse I was alluding to 'banter', but regardless of where he goes, the likelihood is that he'll have to put up with it irrespective of what country he's in.

What's it been like in Spain for him?
 

Woziak

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
3,851
Looking at recent FFP/FSP especially with UEFA where you are only allowed to lose €90m (£76m) over three years, it’s clear United are looking at Players like Greenwood to help substantially with this.

United have lost £140m in the last two years accounts for June 22 and June 23, I’m pretty sure this is the third year of a three year cycle as FFP started 2009/2010, yes Some of Sir Jim investment offset some losses, especially with EPL PSR rules but it’s less clear cut with UEFA, obviously doesn’t matter if we don’t qualify for Europe like Chelsea didn’t last season but my guess with Mason Latest valuation of €60m(£53m) to Atletico suggests to me they are looking to sell obvious academy players before June 30th. My guess is Greenwood, A Fernandez, Hanibal, Facundo Pellistri, Brandon Williams are all obvious options to sell and the club will probably activate the +1 extensions they have on Greenwood, Williams etc.

https://ministryofsport.com/manchester-united-posts-financial-loss-despite-record-revenues/

The club has some allowances for Covid post 2020 but they will need to sell players from the Academy for circa £50/60m before June 30th 2024 to prevent another fine like last summer of €300,000 from UEFA, this time the fine would be much larger and there could be a chance of transfer embargo. Maybe this is why Ineos are trying to recruit a FFP/PSR finance specialist right now?

My guess is they are happy to let Greenwood go for €42-48m(£35-42m) for a quick sale early June, ideally they would want Athletico, Juventus, Milan and PSG to be all looking to sign Mason this summer. Remember there is a strong rumour Girona take 20% of the sell on value, that’s how desperate Mutpugh was last summer!
 

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,374
99% of male actors would be off limits for you, then.
This is an unsubstantiated baseless number you've pulled out of your ass, but I agree with the general principle that yes, attractive men in their middle age who have grown up in the spotlight contain a larger proportion of people who I'd not want dating my family members than the general population.

Were you expecting a different answer?
 

Wing Attack Plan R

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
10,834
Location
El Pueblo de la Reyna de los Angeles
Insulting another member
This is an unsubstantiated baseless number you've pulled out of your ass, but I agree with the general principle that yes, attractive men in their middle age who have grown up in the spotlight contain a larger proportion of people who I'd not want dating my family members than the general population.

Were you expecting a different answer?
I pulled it out of working in the industry, you fine upstanding gentleman.
 
Last edited:

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,374
I pulled it out of working in the industry, you fine upstanding gentleman.
'The industry' being statistical analysis of the relationship between the age of male actors in Hollywood and their sexual partners? That sounds fascinating!
 

Ludens the Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
17,543
Location
London
Sorry, but like I said, I'm not doing this with you anymore. I'm more than happy to let other people make up their minds from what has already been said. While the other thread might be "irrelevant stuff" in terms of whether you're right or wrong current bail discussion (I've given the actual arguments for this extensively already), it certainly is relevant in whether you're someone who is capable of having a discussion. This whole "we can just ignore the judge" thing being a rather clear example of the problematic behaviour you've previously exhibited and why you're not.

Have a good day.
Says I’m not doing this anymore then proceed to have a dig. Right.
Anyway, I’d strongly advise reading up the below subjects for general improvement on knowledge.
- Bail
- Custody procedures
- Remand applications
- Pace clock
- Law in general
- CPS charging standards

Good day indeed.