Anything that exonerates him is simultaneously going to throw the mother of his child under the bus. Maybe neither Greenwood nor the club want that.
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
Just to clarify - I'm not saying I believe that's what happened, but the fact that you actually can retrofit it without it falling to pieces at the first hurdle at least makes it a more interesting theory than the photoshop/role play BS some people have presented. Not that it's a high bar though..
The question now is what happens with Antony? If he is charged by the Brazilian police with similar offences against a previous girlfriend, have the club set a precedent with their statement? Will his career at United be over?
Very well said.
You've missed out a big part of the story there. You know, the part where he is arrested for breaking bail conditions about not seeing the alleged victim of coercion which then ultimately leads to the case being dropped when a witness pulls out and new material comes to light. All after making a statement which leads the police to refer it to the CPS in the first place.
We don't know the full story, and never will, but there are parts we do know and that should not be forgotten about. Nor should it be forgotten the charges he faced and why this case was never going to be anything other than highly emotional for people on the outside.
If he's innocent, no it would not. It would be disastrous to hear from Mason if he wanted to stay with her the child. For very obvious reasons.
If they could have paraded them out as a couple and tried to get the public onside, don't you think they would have? Think about it logically, re-read those statements. Something clearly happened, that is admitted to. They've alluded to there being more to that evidence but won't say. The woman has been granted the right to anonymity.
The picture is there as to why they can't and never will just come out and say what led to the assertion that the club found him innocent of those charges, but guilty of other "mistakes". There's a reason he has himself accepted that and told us all he set this in motion and feels it's best to go.
People can blame the "outrage" and public all they want. But it's funny those who want to see the CPS decision as black and white, but won't do the same with Arnold and Greenwood's statements....well, funny isn't the right word.
It really isn't. And we've had some absolute whoppers that even the Greenwood IN camp should be going at. Surprisingly, not, they haven't.
I don't think there is a socially accepted "standard of action". And if there was one, it wouldn't be deontologist, because you're left with individuals who feel good in a sub-optimal society.
I agree most of society isn't 100% consequentialist, but I think for a business (which the football club is), in a rational marketplace, you start from that axis and then veer away until you're in an acceptable compromise.
But I think amongst many things we've learned there is that there is little rational driving decision making in the c-suite in Old Trafford.
Doesn't seem that similar a scenario to be honest. There's nothing out there online for the masses to see/hear and so if he's not charged the club won't even have to address it in my opinion.
Yeah lets forget that there are actual people involved who can choose not to show. There is nothing wrong with United statement. Its just that some people wanted him hanged and were disappointed that didn’t happen
I miss the halcyon days when threads about Mason were locked as soon as they started. I am not sure anyone, myself included, is coming out of this with any dignity. We all seem to be entrenched in our positions so perhaps it is time to draw a line.
If you look at the people who are enraged in this thread I think you’ll find a majority coming from the group who wanted it brushed under the carpet.
He's making shit up. The guy was even charged with threatening to kill the woman but according to the domestic violence apologists nothing happened at all.
As we can see from the hordes of dickheads slagging her off on social media (and on here) the best possible outcome for her would be Greenwood completely exonerated and reintegrated at the club. That’s the only way this whole shit show goes away. I’m sure everyone involved is well aware of that and would have release any evidence that might achieve that goal.
I think what they did was wait for actually morally sound people to have their say and ignore all the anonymous cretins on Twitter who are the lowest of the low.
Why do we expect him to? Why is his private life any of our business? Would you want to share your intimate fantasies with your wife for the world to see? Would you want the world poring over every second of the audio or video or whatever else they have? There's this weird notion that his entire life should be public property and if he wont give us the access he must be guilty.
Don't forget there is at least one other party we are asking to see here, and even though we all know who she is she technically has anonymity.
Irresponsible and horrible woman. This is just a case of a public figure trying to save face in case she is totally wrong about what she though. In her eyes, there is no way Mason can be innocent.
Nobody wants him hanged, people wanted justifiable consequences for his horrendous actions.
You saw the pictures, you heard the audio, that's what people have to go on. If you cannot contradict that in any way shape or form beyond just empty words then you cannot expect people to change their minds.
There is plenty wrong with not only United's statement but their entire process too. By all reports it seemed like we were ready to bring Greenwood back into the fold under the idea that the club have evidence he did nothing wrong but nobody is willing to show this evidence. So of course people weren't going to accept that. Saying that you have evidence but then still kicking him out makes no sense. If you have hard proof that nothing illegal happened why wouldn't you make sure it was known so that Greenwood isn't painted as an abuser and he can carry on with his life at the club?
Let me also point out that Greenwoods statement was also wrong, he was not "cleared of all charges" at all.
Whilst we're at it, it seems there is plenty of people on this forum that are willing to excuse extreme abusive behaviour towards women so long as the person doing it plays football for the team you support, which is quite frankly sickening to think about
Yeah, and you are among the likes who think they are being fair here with your absolutely braindead sentences like this.
Yep, the ones talking about hangings and lynchings for a start.
Disgraceful and should be kicked out of this thread.
I like how people think the club is magically listening to us now
I wonder why these angry fans aren't doing their own mob then? If they think we've magically found a way to get the club to actually listen, why aren't they doing it? After all, they are all mouthy in here and all over social media, surely they could manage a U-turn?
Still going with the "role play" defence huh?
This has nothing to do with sharing fantasies, even if that was true. You should understand that by now.
Last edited:
I don't think they followed any public opinion per say , it seems they made a decision but lost their nerve at first sign of trouble I don't know what were they expecting they come across as ill prepared and confused as If no thought had gone into the process quite opposite to How Crafton had them portrayed .
As per the bolded part Red Cafe is kind of Echo chamber in itself .
Last edited:
Yes, I recall that. I also remember there being reports that he was purchasing items for her online and having them sent to her. I will read the information again, but I am just disappointed with everything. The effort and time the club has made. The fac the is so young and should be given the opportunity to continue. I felt that if the club could have set the environment for them and Mason to slowly reintroduce him one step at a time.
If it meant the difference between the whole world thinking I’m a violent sex offender or not then yes, obviously. Is that even a serious question? When an audio clip has been widely shared that everyone assumes records me in the act of trying to rape and/or beat my partner, how on earth could it be a worse outcome for people to find that actually I’m just a bit kinky?!
They don’t even need to release whatever evidence they have for everyone to pore over. A simple explanation about why he’s been so badly misunderstood would have done. The absence of which makes it obvious that there is no simple explanation.
Depends if there's video of it like with Greenwood
Yes, we know that. Because it happened.
However, what contradicted it, the events surrounding that contradiction (such as Greenwood breaking bail to meet up and impregnate her), and the fact the club/Greenwood refuse to say all paints it's own picture, no? And as such, I don't believe you can expect people to suddenly switch positions and think it's all rosy and he can stay.
Because whatever side people want to be on, we all know this isn't a straightforward guilty/innocent case. Well most of us with functioning brains do anyway.
He is being given an opportunity to continue though. He is free to continue to play football and build his life.
You should look for my posts over the last couple of pages about why it isn't possible at United though, or even good for him/them. Because regardless of what we all think about this, any reasonable person would want the best outcome to be a happy life for that family and especially the child.
This is a very fair post.
In that case, you'd expect she would have been charged with wasting police time, given that they spent nigh on a year investigating it based on material she published and a statement she gave to them.
Off course not. I am not being unjust if I don’t hire a babysitter who I witness molesting my child. Now again, what has Greenwood case got to do with this? Are you suggesting Mason committed of all those crimes? Did you read the statement by United? Do you ever ask yourself the question why the case was dropped what such thing happened that they thought lets not even go to court?
As much as we need a talent such as Greenwood possess right now, I believe Rachel is correct in everything she has said.
Alright, so when you were talking about lofty words like rule of law, second chances, the absence of a criminal conviction, you only meant that to apply to innocent people?
Rule of law seems irrelevant, no one is proposing jail. A second chance isn't needed, because you don't think he did it so he should still be on his first chance. The absence of a criminal conviction isn't important, because that seemingly wouldn't carry any weight with you if he actually did it. What you actually meant to say, by " There is “rule of law”. To penalise him after he has not been charged with criminality is unjust. He was just 20 we all commit mistake. I'm sure he has learned the lesson by being 1.5 yrs on the side. And as human being, I believe he deserves a second chance.", seems to boil down to the fact that you don't think he did it. That's fine, but just say that.
You'd have to ask any legal experts on here, but maybe they've cut a deal or decided to let it go for the sake of the family...if that's the case of course.
But also, remember the seemingly inept way they handled Greenwood breaking bail on multiple occasions in such a highly sensitive case. So who knows what they'd bother to do.
But that's ridiculous, isn't it? Because if we all knew he was guilty, all the talk of him coming back would be non-existent. The reason some were willing to accept him back is because they thought either he was innocent or couldn't conclude from the public evidence that he was guilty. Anyone that wanted him back, knowing he was a violent, abusive rapist would be deranged.
Hard to argue too much with this. The problem is we live in an era of experts and where real expert voices are cast aside in favour of the lowdest voice.
Yes, this part in particular I still find challenging. I completely understand the low conviction rates which means a lot of scummy people slip through the net, but even then I think assuming that every other case to the contrary is true, is not the way to go.
No one's. It's silly to suggest that they reached their final conclusion by listening to the fans. The current ownership has never listened to the fans and probably never will. If there was a way to reintegrate him into the first team without damaging the "United brand", they would have done it. I also think the thing that concerned them more than anything else was the possibility that some other club might be able to do just that. Arnold's statement reads like an admission of defeat, the only thing it lacked was a "O tempora, o mores" somewhere in the middle. Which is probably why Croft and Riley had a go at him. I'll be the last person who'll say that PC culture hasn't gone far on several instances. But i consider the awareness that has been raised on many social issues a good thing and a step forward. If some don't understand why his potential return wouldn't sit well with a good number of fans (in 2023), despite the dropped charges, it's on them.
All the talk about rehabilitation, redemption, second chances, duty of care, etc., would be completely irrelevant with no guilt. If he's innocent, what would he need rehabilitation for? Why would he need a second chance? A lot of people want him back even if he is guilty.
All the "innocent until proven guilty" talk also apply to guilty people. Jimmy Saville was a child molester, there is no doubt, but according to the legal principle he is treated as innocent just as anyone else (of course he's dead, but you know). Al Capone, in the eyes of the law, was mostly a law-abiding citizen with some tax issues. O.J. Simpson was a casino robber and a kidnapper, but not a murderer. If we want innocent until proven guilty to be a leading principle to follow even outside of the justice system, as many of people keep saying we should, then that holds even if we all knew that Greenwood was guilty. Knowing is irrelevant, the only variable that matters is being convicted in a criminal court.
Everything else notwithstanding, that part strikes me as very odd.
The judge apparently pretty much asked, at one point: "What the hell is the point of him being on bail and/or what the hell are the GMP playing at here?"
Why are none of the women at the club or high profile fans speaking up against the Qatari bid?
I find this astonishing!
I find this astonishing!
It reeks of the police not taking it seriously, that only the prosecution did out of public interest.
Nothing odd about it. GMP is one of the worst police forces in the country and has been for decades.
None of us know what actually happened but, hes still innocent until proven guilty. Vilifying him as if he was a criminal is grossly unjust. In today's society and Utd being such a huge commercial club there was no chance for him. But the fact they did this BS 'internal investigation' which took so long and in the end decided to release Greenwood anyways means two thing for Mason: 1. He lost valuable time of his life and career in which he could've been playing for another club now and could've got his life back on track. 2. Because its been going on for so long it became such a big deal that the poor boy has no chance of ever playing for a PL team or another top European club. No team will take the risk now the matter has become too big. And this is all while he was never found guilty its just a matter of people making up their own stories... United should be consistent and release him for free ASAP. Surely we have to know profiting from sinners is immoral if we are in this sainthood business.
I feel like you're jumping ahead a bit - we're discussing how one reaches their own personal conclusion as to a perpetrator's initial guilt? I accept that within your analogy, if you are a direct witness to a crime then you hold first hand evidence within your own mind that the justice system can never directly access, thus you can likely make a more informed judgement than the system itself. This is obviously an exception that proves the rule and isn't applicable to our own perspectives on Greenwood's case.
Oh come on now. You are dead set that this is all down to the public that much? Because there's huge backlash against this decision too, and yet where's the U-turn again?
Isn't it the same the other way though? The other side are dragging just the same. This isn't the time for woe ist me thoughts. You and others are putting way too much blame on people who have voiced their opinion, as I've directly said to you in posts. I'm just as worried about this pass the buck culture we are in as I am this perceived "cancel culture" one.
Let's keep in mind who started this all and who made the decision. They've told us in their own words that.
This is such a simplistic view, and part of the reason it's so hard for people to come forward in the first place. Because people don't want to believe them and how hard it is for these cases to proceed.
I bet you don't have such a cast iron view of the criminal system in all cases. It's also interesting at how you take that as black and white, but the statements from the "poor boy" telling you he made mistakes leading to this situation and Arnold telling you HE made the decision suddenly aren't.
But hey, you don't even seem to think he should have been suspended in the first place. So it's probably best to ignore your thoughts from here on out.
The "justice system" also wasn't in that room, nor the ones when he broke bail to go see her.
And since we are talking about "personal conclusion as to a perpetrator's innocence" we are also talking about the opposite. And as such I'm still waiting for you to point out who in here said your "he was angry because he was sleepy" excuse. You never did quote anyone...
And yet we have people in here suddenly believing the police are infallible. Especially the much maligned GMP.
Fine by me
Yes, he's innocent until proven guilty, just as everyone else not convicted of a crime. That's why I asked you about the babysitter: you know they did it, but they're still treated as innocent because they've not been proven guilty. You were very clear there that innocent until proven guilty isn't something you value, the fact that the babysitter is guilty in reality overrides the fact that they haven't been proven guilty by the justice system. Everything you so idealistically say about Greenwood also applies to the babysitter, but you don't mean it. You defend Greenwood because you don't think he did what he has been accused of, or at least because you have very serious doubts, not for any other reasons. It's not about innocent until proven guilty, it's not about second chances.