Of course you're applauding that car crash of a post.Absolutely great post @BigDerek
Of course you're applauding that car crash of a post.Absolutely great post @BigDerek
¯\_(ツ)_/¯What is Big Derek supposed to have done. He seems to raising some valid points and asking some very pertinent questions ?
Yeah, pretty sure they deliberately slow walked the internal inquiry because they didn’t want its results to disrupt the 2nd half of last season, particularly with the cup runs and race for 4th hanging in the balance. There was further indecisiveness at seasons end, which only exacerbated things by allowing fan sentiment to simmer below the surface. Had the club been ruthlessly decisive at seasons end (fully committing to one decision or another), it would’ve largely exhausted itself over the summer and things would’ve stabilized significantly imo.I was thinking about why the club took so ridiculously long to announce anything, I doubt the internal investigation took 6 months. I think the conclusion that Greenwood was not guilty, was reached by the club months ago and they were just waiting for the birth of child. There was then a timing conflict with the Women's World Cup which seemed to further delay any announcement.
Possibly they believed that once everyone saw the couple were back together with a baby that they would accept Greenwood's return. They even had a happy families Instagram reveal
Clearly they misjudged this completely as things didnt go that way at all. Hardly anyone really cared about the news about the couple or child, all the focus is still on the original audio and pics.
I agree that they will need to do something again if they are considering bringing him back. Many will not accept it until they get an explanation for that audio.
Can you explain to me how a woman being friends with women who have had relations with other footballers points to Mason Greenwood not doing what he sounds to be doing on that tape?What is Big Derek supposed to have done. He seems to raising some valid points and asking some very pertinent questions ?
Completely agree.Yeah, pretty sure they deliberately slow walked the internal inquiry because they didn’t want its results to disrupt the 2nd half of last season, particularly with the cup runs and race for 4th hanging in the balance. There was further indecisiveness at seasons end, which only exacerbated things by allowing fan sentiment to simmer below the surface. Had the club been ruthlessly decisive at seasons end (fully committing to one decision or another), it would’ve largely exhausted itself over the summer and things would’ve stabilized significantly imo.
He offered a rationale for thinking Greenwood was not as guilty as he appeared, and that rationale consisted of victim blaming tropes and misconceptions about DV.What is Big Derek supposed to have done. He seems to raising some valid points and asking some very pertinent questions ?
Why are you saying the club led Greenwood on and then sent him off to Spain when the statement by Arnold said it was a mutual decision between the club and Greenwood.Completely agree.
Every club essentially ends up echoing the leadership traits of its owners, and the dithering cowardice of the Glazers has trickled down and now runs through pretty much every big decision the club makes - toing and froing, flip-flopping, ‘feeling out’ decisions rather than simply making them.
Greenwood and his partner were lead on and then sent off to Spain at very short notice, while at the same time, the club made itself look weak, caving to pressure from the likes of Crafton and Riley.
It was handled woefully.
Perhaps it is one piece of information that is a larger part of different pieces information? Obviously, it is not directly linked to the incident, but it is an insight into the environment people are trying to interpret.Can you explain to me how a woman being friends with women who have had relations with other footballers points to Mason Greenwood not doing what he sounds to be doing on that tape?
Then, explain. On the tape we can hear Mason Greenwood threatening to violently rape a woman. This woman is friends with a person who has been with other footballers. How is this friendship a piece in a puzzle that points to Greenwood not threathening rape?Perhaps it is one piece of information that is a larger part of different pieces information? Obviously, it is not directly linked to the incident, but it is an insight into the environment people are trying to interpret.
In terms the " backlash " that derived from the leaks taken up by the online publication. There was a phrase used by the journalist in question. He said "the statement that Manchester United put out was an attempt to seize control of the narrative." That phrase confirmed to me that it was that journalist's and the public location he works for intention to compromise Manchester United's process.He offered a rationale for thinking Greenwood was not as guilty as he appeared, and that rationale consisted of victim blaming tropes and misconceptions about DV.
And understandably, people dislike it when someone wades into the thread expressing victim blaming tropes and misconceptions about DV, even when it's dressed up in verbose politeness.
I know you don't agree that anything there constitutes victim blaming. That's the problem. Because his rationale for thinking Greenwood might not be guilty contained classic victim-blaming tropes (which is what I mean by textbook victim blaming), yet you don't recognise that, even after it has been pointed out by others.I liked the post because it was well thought out with a comprehensive summary of several different discussion points that have been ongoing in this thread. Doesn't mean I agree with every line of it but I certainly don't agree that anything there constitutes 'victim blaming'.
As I said already, picking out a few lines from a lengthy response is pointless.
I can only assume you and others didn't read past the points you disagreed with to properly digest the general opinion and conclusions being made.
Thankfully I have no experience of domestic violence whatsoever so I'm open to learning more about facts and norms, but I will point out that this is far from a textbook case due to the high profile and media scrutiny.
I told you. This part of a wider list that posted.Then, explain. On the tape we can hear Mason Greenwood threatening to violently rape a woman. This woman is friends with a person who has been with other footballers. How is this friendship a piece in a puzzle that points to Greenwood not threathening rape?
You're the one bigging up the "valid points" and "pertinent questions". Go on, then.
That part you're talking about is the fact that she has friends who are together with other footballers.I told you. This part of a wider list that posted.
The conversation itself was part of a hostile exchange between the two parties in which very few have heard in it's entirety.
When arguments get to that level language can get violent. I know because I have witnessed extremely heated exchanges that has resulted in physical exchanges.
This is a fair piece of criticism and one I take on board given the current speculation by myself in this thread. And I mean calling out my line about respecting privacy.You are the guy that was explicitly mentioning the partner's social media activity and friendship group in order to re-frame the situation a few posts back. You can't be serious.
Utterly terrible.
I'd have much preferred if you just questioned the parts of my post which you disagreed with rather than insult me.Can you explain to me how a woman being friends with women who have had relations with other footballers points to Mason Greenwood not doing what he sounds to be doing on that tape?
I donf agree with this. See my post above.He offered a rationale for thinking Greenwood was not as guilty as he appeared, and that rationale consisted of victim blaming tropes and misconceptions about DV.
And understandably, people dislike it when someone wades into the thread expressing victim blaming tropes and misconceptions about DV, even when it's dressed up in verbose politeness.
Thank you for this post. You're much better at conveying your thoughts into words than myself and I think you come across much clearer too.Perhaps it is one piece of information that is a larger part of different pieces information? Obviously, it is not directly linked to the incident, but it is an insight into the environment people are trying to interpret.
The problem with this case is that we do not have all the information or facts, but what do have is part of a voice recording/transcript, some images and a father's statement straight after the former 2 had been released online.
I do agree that if this is a criminal investigation you need to have the full perspective in order to pass judgment.
What raises questions is the police took it upon themselves to arrest, investigate and then ask for continual bail extensions in order to carry on collating evidence.
However, what did not know was that the complainant withdrew her statement in April 2022, but yet the GMP still amongst (the bail extension requests) insisted on investigating and even then charging Greenwood during that October.
The following February they dropped the charges sighting "that it would be very difficult without the key witness and combined with new information coming to light, it would be difficult to secure a conviction."
So the question for people who are I trested in the legal side of this is; why did the father release a statement that placated both his daughter and Greenwood in the immediate aftermath, "what is this new information" and If the GMP knew the key witness was not going to testify, they would have known that further enquiries and charging was a waste of time.
I always felt that although the language used in the audio by the alleged accused was disturbing, frightening etc, it was always likely to be part of wider argument that had escalated between the 2 parties. You do not just jump jnto that type of semantics without a build up of a volatile exchange.
The exact thing I said NotThatSoph was:Then, explain. On the tape we can hear Mason Greenwood threatening to violently rape a woman. This woman is friends with a person who has been with other footballers. How is this friendship a piece in a puzzle that points to Greenwood not threathening rape?
You're the one bigging up the "valid points" and "pertinent questions". Go on, then.
I didn't ask you, because I know why you're saying the things you're saying. I'm interested in the reasoning of the guy jumping to your defence, I'm not interested in yours.I'd have much preferred if you just questioned the parts of my post which you disagreed with rather than insult me.
You've got to understand that we're all looking into this particular case from different perspectives.
How someone who assumes he likely committed the alleged offences reads a post is different to how someone who is undecided may read it.
Firstly let's clear up what you said. It wasn't someone who just had relations with other footballers. It's someone who was convicted of stalking footballers and behaving in a manipulative manner by claiming they were pregnant and other things.
Does this information have any relevance if Mason Greenwood is guilty of the accused acts? No.
Does this information have any relevance if some or all of the allegations against Mason Greenwood were false? Yes.
The reason it's relevant if they're false is because the company one shares is usually looked at in criminal cases. And in a scenario where one made a false allegation, i think this information would be relevant. Just like the company that Ravel Morrison or Nile Ranger share has often been referenced throughout their career.
I understand you may not agree with that and think differently and that's OK. But I hope that while you may not agree with my view that you can see the perspective in which I'm coming from.
I don't think questioning such things means I'm suddenly a domestic abuse apologist and I don't appreciate being labelled as one before you even ask me for an explanation?
I believe I may have also made reference to Greenwood inviting girls back to his hotel in Iceland. What relevance does this information have? Its relevant because it paints a picture on his behaviour and their relationship. It doesn't mean I believe everyone who has potentially cheated is a domestic abuser.
The last thing I'd like to say is that my post was quite lengthy and while you may take issue with certain points. I think it's important to consider the full post and the context in which those things were said rather than label me because you disagree.
I didn't misquote you. If you want to talk about misquoting, you alleged that I said everyone in this thread have called you out, and then offered people defending you as evidence of me being wrong, when I said nothing of the sort.The exact thing I said NotThatSoph was:
"- The accuser shared company and was close to other girls who had relationships with PL footballers. One being Orla Sloan who was sentenced for stalking Mason Mount."
You've now made two consecutive posts misquoting me and leaving out the very important detail on Orla Sloan.
For someone that launched into a tirade of personal insults at myself accusing me of being dishonest and obtuse. I find it rather startling that you continue to misquote me to potray me badly. Are you doing it deliberately?
I'd have much preferred it if you just asked me to elaborate on what I meant in the first instance and had a discussion over it. I think considering the perspective in which I'm viewing things and given it's one small part of a much longer post, I don't think it's as bad as you make out. And by misquoting it and taking it out of the context of the whole post as well, it feels to me like you'd rather try to frame me as a DV apologist than have a discussion with me. Why?
You don't know why I'm saying anything, you don't know me.I didn't ask you, because I know why you're saying the things you're saying. I'm interested in the reasoning of the guy jumping to your defence, I'm not interested in yours.
I didn't misquote you. If you want to talk about misquoting, you alleged that I said everyone in this thread have called you out, and then offered people defending you as evidence of me being wrong, when I said nothing of the sort.
Your comments speak for themselves. I'm not interested in having a discussion with you because of the way you are, you're welcome to continue playing the victim.
This is what I read NotThatSoph. I hope you can understand that by running your eye past this sentence it's very easy for somebody to misout "that" and read it as:All of the people in this thread that have called you out
First of all, even if you only mentioned Orla Sloan your point would be disgusting. What you actually said was split in two. 1) She is friends with other girls who have or had relations with footballers, and 2) one of these girls is Orla Sloan.- The accuser shared company and was close to other girls who had relationships with PL footballers. One being Orla Sloan who was sentenced for stalking Mason Mount.
Sorry but how did I prove your point with everything past that? The 'crusade' - which is a term I would take issue with anyway - is, again, because of a learned empathy with victims so absolutely has everything to do with the victim. So again, just because you use phrases like 'let's not pretend that X...' it doesn't make it incontrovertible.For what it's worth, those for bringing him back don't care about her either.
You just proved my point with everything you said after that. If the alleged victim and her family have forgiven/reconciled with Greenwood, carrying on a crusade against him has nothing to do with her. Perfectly reasonable to think Greenwood is a cretin for what he allegedly did to her but let's not pretend there is any concern for her past that.
Crusade is an apt description; any negative connotation exists solely in your mind.Sorry but how did I prove your point with everything past that? The 'crusade' - which is a term I would take issue with anyway - is, again, because of a learned empathy with victims so absolutely has everything to do with the victim. So again, just because you use phrases like 'let's not pretend that X...' it doesn't make it incontrovertible.
You say its worse for her to live in another country away from her family and friends and with an alleged abuser that faces less scrutiny. But it could be argued that it'd be worse for her to live where it happened and to be publicly reminded of it weekly, with an alleged abuser who would now know there's very little consequences to his actions.Crusade is an apt description; any negative connotation exists solely in your mind.
Your reply references what already happened to her rather than what will happen to her or what she wants in the future. It seems most people are concerned with Greenwood's future (i.e., who he plays for) rather than her and the child. For example, one would think it would be worse for her to live in a foreign country, away from her family and friends, with her alleged abuser, who most likely faces less scrutiny. My commentary wasn't about having empathy for what happened (I'm sure most people do) but rather a lack of concern for allowing her to move forward. I would like to know how denigrating her parents or banishing Greenwood to another club is supposed to benefit the alleged victim.
Just on a personal note, and I know many people and Christians don't consciously think it, I don't really like the crusade word. It's definitely got some negative connotations and we do actually have quite a lot of fans in the West Bank, Jordan and Lebanon.Crusade is an apt description; any negative connotation exists solely in your mind.
Your reply references what already happened to her rather than what will happen to her or what she wants in the future. It seems most people are concerned with Greenwood's future (i.e., who he plays for) rather than her and the child. For example, one would think it would be worse for her to live in a foreign country, away from her family and friends, with her alleged abuser, who most likely faces less scrutiny. My commentary wasn't about having empathy for what happened (I'm sure most people do) but rather a lack of concern for allowing her to move forward. I would like to know how denigrating her parents or banishing Greenwood to another club is supposed to benefit the alleged victim.
I'm guessing the point is, over here they are accessible....You say its worse for her to live in another country away from her family and friends and with an alleged abuser that faces less scrutiny. But it could be argued that it'd be worse for her to live where it happened and to be publicly reminded of it weekly, with an alleged abuser who would now know there's very little consequences to his actions.
Basically none of us know what is preferable for her and her child.
I'm sorry if I offended you but I genuinely believe that being offended by the word crusade is probably more a you thing.Just on a personal note, and I know many people and Christians don't consciously think it, I don't really like the crusade word. It's definitely got some negative connotations and we do actually have quite a lot of fans in the West Bank, Jordan and Lebanon.
This is correct, I have the feeling that the club are currently hoping that the time away will minimise the anger, I imagine they also feel if he scores a few worldies there it might have the same effect.I agree that they will need to do something again if they are considering bringing him back. Many will not accept it until they get an explanation for that audio.
Freethinking and different opinions are not welcome here apparently!What is Big Derek supposed to have done. He seems to raising some valid points and asking some very pertinent questions ?
It doesn't matter how many people point it out, it doesn't make it true - it's just your opinion and my opinion is different.I know you don't agree that anything there constitutes victim blaming. That's the problem. Because his rationale for thinking Greenwood might not be guilty contained classic victim-blaming tropes (which is what I mean by textbook victim blaming), yet you don't recognise that, even after it has been pointed out by others.
The fact that those sort of arguments have formed ongoing discussion points within this thread is exactly why they should be called out. As opposed to praising/defending someone for managing to espouse several of them at once in a polite way.
I also have no idea why you're pointing us to the rest of his post as if anything within it would in some way ameliorate our problem with his core argument. We've focused in on those paragraphs because the rest of the post is irrelevant.
Many definitely do feel the same and I can totally understand it, since the original audio etc was public then some won't be satisfied until they get a public explanation for itThis is correct, I have the feeling that the club are currently hoping that the time away will minimise the anger, I imagine they also feel if he scores a few worldies there it might have the same effect.
I can't speak for anyone else but for me the feeling is totally cut and dry, it will never be acceptable for him to play for us again unless there is a specific and valid explanation for the audio and the images.
I wouldn't be surprised if many feel the same.
1. She released the most relevant part where he threatened to rape her. Even if you want to go down the victim blaming route and imagine he was innocently sat there and she was antagonising him. He responded by threatening to rape her.- Releasing only a cropped segment of the audio automatically opens up the question about what's been left out and why? What was said before? What was said after?
- It was a toxic relationship with Mason inviting girls back to his hotel on international duty.
- I've seen images in relation to the accusers social media where she boasted about cheating and spoke badly of her partner.
- The accuser shared company and was close to other girls who had relationships with PL footballers. One being Orla Sloan who was sentenced for stalking Mason Mount.
- Given the circles the accuser is involved in, I've not seen any footballers speak out against or shun Mason.
- He also appeared to have the support of the first team to return. Would you want to return to your workplace with a rapist working alongside you?
- The nature of how the information was released wasn't what I'd expect from a rape and domestic abuse victim given they're usually scared to speak out. It felt more like an attack on Mason rather than a cry for help and justice.
- The immediate aftermath and her fathers response.
- The lack of friends or family speaking out against the player on any platforms or making any known attempt to prevent her from getting back into a relationship with him.
- The clubs statement where it suggests they've looked at more evidence than what's available publicly in their investigation and came to a conclusion of no guilt.
- The fact that the accuser never went to the police to report any crimes. The police were only involved after seeing it on social media. And yet her father shortly after was quick to shoot it down, why?
- As a father, I think if another father thought their daughter was being abused - the last thing they'd do is defend the abuser unless they were certain things weren't as portrayed.
- In addition I don't think someone in an abusive relationship who has finally got out of it would run back to an abuser.
- Personally having listened to the audio many times, I cant say with confidence that I believe that's from someone actively raping someone else.
Your posts on this topic have been excellent.I know you don't agree that anything there constitutes victim blaming. That's the problem. Because his rationale for thinking Greenwood might not be guilty contained classic victim-blaming tropes (which is what I mean by textbook victim blaming), yet you don't recognise that, even after it has been pointed out by others.
The fact that those sort of arguments have formed ongoing discussion points within this thread is exactly why they should be called out. As opposed to praising/defending someone for managing to espouse several of them at once in a polite way.
I also have no idea why you're pointing us to the rest of his post as if anything within it would in some way ameliorate our problem with his core argument. We've focused in on those paragraphs because the rest of the post is irrelevant.
Also an excellent post. Makes losing £100 to you a lot easier to stomach.1. She released the most relevant part where he threatened to rape her. Even if you want to go down the victim blaming route and imagine he was innocently sat there and she was antagonising him. He responded by threatening to rape her.
2. Greenwood cheating on her does not excuse him from threatening to rape her.
3. Her cheating on Greenwood would not excuse him threatening to rape her.
4. Her having a friend does not excuse Greenwood threatening to rape her.
5. Men not publically condemning professional colleagues who are accused of sexual misconduct? Shocking.
6. See 5 with an added vested interest.
7. As someone who worked for 4 years as a call handler who often received the initial report of intimate partner violence I can guarantee you there is no "normal way" for a victim to behave. Some would be tearful and sound actively terrified and some would put on a front of humour because that was their defence. People are all different, may be dealing with mental health issues and may have been through something very traumatic.
Re the stuff about her father, interpersonal relationships are weird. Abusers are often extremely good at keeping the family on side and you have no idea about her father's personality or motivation. I frequently heard for years whilst working in the sector "everyone loves him no matter what he does" add to that the fact that she is pregnant with his child and has gone back to him as survivors often do, the father could easily know it will just push her away if he goes against Greenwood. We have no idea and it says nothing in either direction.
Re the police, far more cases of intimate partner violence go unreported than those which are. This has been known for over 30 years.
"I don't think someone who got out of an abusive relationship would run back to the abuser" is one of the most factually incorrect things I've read in this entire thread. One of the major reasons police are quick to use bail conditions in IPV cases is to ensure that separation whilst investigating not just for safety but because victims returning to their abuser is such a ridiculously frequent occurrence
The clubs investigation was overseen by a man who has no expertise in these matters, has a vested interest and openly admitted he relied on 3rd party testimony and limited evidence. I'd need a little more info to place any credence on this.
Re your last point of it "not sounding like someone who wanted to rape". She LITERALLY tells him not to put his penis there and says she doesn't want to feck and he agressively tells her he doesn't care and not to push him. God knows what it would take for you to think otherwise.
None of the above says for certain that this was an ongoing abusive relationship but literally none of what you said even slightly indicates it wasn't.
What we do know for a fact is there is a tape of him threatening to rape her. Surely that is enough to say we shouldn't want him at a club we cheer on unless a valid explanation is provided?
His post highlighted the following as "red flags" over the accusations:It doesn't matter how many people point it out, it doesn't make it true - it's just your opinion and my opinion is different.
You see that's the big problem here, some can't seem to accept that others have a different opinion.
And the rest of the post IS the core argument - that's the issue, you and others ignored the most important parts and focused on the minutiae.
Anyway my major issue was the insulting responses to a perfectly reasonable post, disagreement and debate is fine but it's a shame that several posters here prefer insults and personal attacks.
It's merely an example that illustrates her future well-being has largely been ignored. Whatever could be argued hasn't.You say its worse for her to live in another country away from her family and friends and with an alleged abuser that faces less scrutiny. But it could be argued that it'd be worse for her to live where it happened and to be publicly reminded of it weekly, with an alleged abuser who would now know there's very little consequences to his actions.
Basically none of us know what is preferable for her and her child.
I'm obviously not talking about the Crusades, nor have I attached the adjective "moral"Just on a personal note, and I know many people and Christians don't consciously think it, I don't really like the crusade word. It's definitely got some negative connotations and we do actually have quite a lot of fans in the West Bank, Jordan and Lebanon.
Quite possibly! I'm sorry also to you and @MackRobinson , was out of line, cheersI'm sorry if I offended you but I genuinely believe that being offended by the word crusade is probably more a you thing.
That was a charge that was allegedly related to behaviours in late 2018/ 2019 and the evidence for that was a text message. That was supposedly a weak "charge" against him.Does the "give Mason a second chance" team realize that one of the charges are controlling and coercive behavior AND he purposely broke the law by meeting her and got her pregnant which in the end resulted in the accuser to retract her statements?
Seems like an important point that keep getting ignored
This.You see that's the big problem here, some can't seem to accept that others have a different opinion.
Thank you for taking the time to challenge some of my beliefs and putting a decent argument against some of them too.1. She released the most relevant part where he threatened to rape her. Even if you want to go down the victim blaming route and imagine he was innocently sat there and she was antagonising him. He responded by threatening to rape her.
2. Greenwood cheating on her does not excuse him from threatening to rape her.
3. Her cheating on Greenwood would not excuse him threatening to rape her.
4. Her having a friend does not excuse Greenwood threatening to rape her.
5. Men not publically condemning professional colleagues who are accused of sexual misconduct? Shocking.
6. See 5 with an added vested interest.
7. As someone who worked for 4 years as a call handler who often received the initial report of intimate partner violence I can guarantee you there is no "normal way" for a victim to behave. Some would be tearful and sound actively terrified and some would put on a front of humour because that was their defence. People are all different, may be dealing with mental health issues and may have been through something very traumatic.
Re the stuff about her father, interpersonal relationships are weird. Abusers are often extremely good at keeping the family on side and you have no idea about her father's personality or motivation. I frequently heard for years whilst working in the sector "everyone loves him no matter what he does" add to that the fact that she is pregnant with his child and has gone back to him as survivors often do, the father could easily know it will just push her away if he goes against Greenwood. We have no idea and it says nothing in either direction.
Re the police, far more cases of intimate partner violence go unreported than those which are. This has been known for over 30 years.
"I don't think someone who got out of an abusive relationship would run back to the abuser" is one of the most factually incorrect things I've read in this entire thread. One of the major reasons police are quick to use bail conditions in IPV cases is to ensure that separation whilst investigating not just for safety but because victims returning to their abuser is such a ridiculously frequent occurrence
The clubs investigation was overseen by a man who has no expertise in these matters, has a vested interest and openly admitted he relied on 3rd party testimony and limited evidence. I'd need a little more info to place any credence on this.
Did the statement actually say anywhere
Re your last point of it "not sounding like someone who wanted to rape". She LITERALLY tells him not to put his penis there and says she doesn't want to feck and he agressively tells her he doesn't care and not to push him. God knows what it would take for you to think otherwise.
None of the above says for certain that this was an ongoing abusive relationship but literally none of what you said even slightly indicates it wasn't.
What we do know for a fact is there is a tape of him threatening to rape her. Surely that is enough to say we shouldn't want him at a club we cheer on unless a valid explanation is provided?
Thanks mate. I'll forgive you for accidently quoting the wrong post.Your posts on this topic have been excellent.
Out of interest. Why are you following the same path as NotThatSoph when it comes to quoting some, but not all, of my red flags.His post highlighted the following as "red flags" over the accusations:
- The victim's alleged prior sexual behaviour.
- The company the victim keeps.
- The victim not having reported the matter to the police.
-The victim not having responded the way he thinks a victim would respond.
- The victim not being as scared as he thinks they would normally be.
- The victim having returned to the abuser.
- The people around the victim/perpetrator either not knowing of the abuse or not reacting in the way he thinks they would react.
These are all tropes that are regularly cited by anti-rape, anti-DV, victim advocate groups and research groups as examples of victim-blaming arguments and/or misinformation around rape/DV. That isn't a matter of opinion, that's a matter of fact.
Whether you accept that and stop defending extremely obvious victim-blaming and DV-myth arguments, or you continue insisting that you have a better understanding of victim blaming than experts in this field do is entirely up to you.
I would hope you opt for the former, as the latter would suggest substantial ignorance, stubbornness or implicit unpleasant views on your part. But either way, it's been explained to you repeatedly at this point and there's not much point in continuing to do so. You either understand you were wrong or you don't.
Not at all! No need to be sorry...I honestly would never mean to offend and you shouldn't need to feel bad about what offends you.Quite possibly! I'm sorry also to you and @MackRobinson , was out of line, cheers
Wrong about what?! Your entire premise is a waste of time because it's not been established that there is a victim in this case, again you try to pass off your speculative opinions as fact!His post highlighted the following as "red flags" over the accusations:
- The victim's alleged prior sexual behaviour.
- The company the victim keeps.
- The victim not having reported the matter to the police.
-The victim not having responded the way he thinks a victim would respond.
- The victim not being as scared as he thinks they would normally be.
- The victim having returned to the abuser.
- The people around the victim/perpetrator either not knowing of the abuse or not reacting in the way he thinks they would react.
These are all tropes that are regularly cited by anti-rape, anti-DV, victim advocate groups and research groups as examples of victim-blaming arguments and/or misinformation around rape/DV. That isn't a matter of opinion, that's a matter of fact.
Whether you accept that and stop defending extremely obvious victim-blaming and DV-myth arguments, or you continue insisting that you have a better understanding of victim blaming than experts in this field do is entirely up to you.
I would hope you opt for the former, as the latter would suggest substantial ignorance, stubbornness or implicit unpleasant views on your part. But either way, it's been explained to you repeatedly at this point and there's not much point in continuing to do so. You either understand you were wrong or you don't.
This is an absolutely pathetic response. He calls you out on certain points and instead of responding you throw your toys out of the pram?Wrong about what?! Your entire premise is a waste of time because it's not been established that there is a victim in this case, again you try to pass off your speculative opinions as fact!
If you have a problem with a post then respond to it, the conversation has already moved on significantly with further clarifications on the exact points your raised.
While your 'tropes' are interesting from an awareness perspective, i don't find them of much relevance to this specific case. This is not a textbook case on any level.
I havent claimed anywhere to be an expert on domestic violence, I have actually made very little comment on the subject. You are simply making things up that I haven't said and I have little interest in discussing the fine detail of this topic in the Manchester United forum anyway.
If you have anything of use to add about Mason Greenwood or this case then let me know, otherwise bore off to Current Events forum where you might find someone who wants to discuss this kind of thing.