What an incredibly dumb, juvenile statement
Mason Greenwood | Please be respectful and stay on topic
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
I kind of think it would be a bit cowardly and trying to absolve them of any responsibility. A bit like when they were going to ask the opinion of the women's team. I think it's best as you say INEOS look at it and make their own decision, not this halfway house we got.
Once the club investigation found him not guilty then I dont see why they would have any moral qualms about bringing him back, legally at that point they also have a duty of care to the player.
There probably was a question from the footballing side about his mental and physical state after 18months out though. To me that's why a loan first always made sense.
The major issue was always going to be the PR side about how it was presented to the fans/media/etc and that's where they messed up badly.
Yep in hindsight they should have got external people in , although if an independent investigation also cleared Mason but no further details were released - would it make any difference to the fans who won't currently accept the club's findings?
I’m sure it wouldn’t for some and I don’t think that’s indefensible however as an example see this report on a 3rd party investigation into player domestic abuse in tennis. I think both the ATP and Zverev would both be under much less scrutiny/focus/general public interest than United and Greenwood and there was nowhere near the level of evidence in the public domain, I don’t think;
The men’s professional tennis tour will not punish Alexander Zverev, the German star, in connection with allegations that he assaulted his girlfriend in 2019.
After a 15-month investigation, the ATP Tour announced Tuesday that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations and that it would take no disciplinary action against Zverev.
The ATP commissioned the investigation after Zverev’s former girlfriend Olya Sharypova, a Russian former tennis player, said that Zverev repeatedly abused her during confrontations in New York, Shanghai, Monaco and Geneva.
The investigation was conducted by The Lake Forest Group, a third-party consultant, working with the ATP’s outside legal counsel, the Florida-based firm Smith Hulsey & Busey. The ATP issued a news release but did not publish a full report.
Zverev and Sharypova both cooperated with the investigation, which included extensive interviews with them, as well as family members, friends and other tennis players. Investigators also reviewed text messages, audio files and photos, some of which came from a forensic analysis of Zverev’s phone. Sharypova did not file criminal charges against Zverev.
You can actually see much more in depth reports on the investigation from the 3rd party/atp themselves. I don’t really care for the player but I completely agree with the finding and am quite reassured by the robustness of the process and how transparently that’s been laid out.
United’s wasn’t independent, was contradictory in the little information it provided, they are inherently bias and that particular governance team has overseen nothing but mass failure in almost every measurable department.
People have placed huge amounts of faith, cast aside their critical thinking and added insinuation and guesswork that isn’t present in the statement, the CPS statement or Greenwood’s statement - all in aid of holding a position whereby he can play for us.
People of course do the converse to make him seem even worse than the things he is actually accused of, however that at least is driven by a moral stance against DV and not just a desire to have a talented academy player back so we can be good at a game.
All that rhetoric has now led to people routinely casting laughable levels of doubt on the recording or images, which are completely horrific and I think, indefensible, irrespective of what can be proven in a court of law.
As I’ve said on numerous occasions I really have no issue with people just saying I don’t really care about the incident and I just wanna enjoy football and have him back, I think that’s totally reasonable. Or those saying well he’ll play somewhere so may as well be here.
However the attempt to place wanting him back as some kind of most reasonable and equitable take based on a burning belief in previously never discussed or regarded legal maxims (that are 9/10 times entirely misunderstood/misrepresented) is so tiresome and disingenuous in my opinion.
Even worse is the quite insidious attempts at downplaying the recording or the allegations or DV in general and using the behaviour of persons involved to diminish the allegations quite unfairly (and often very stupidly) which is sadly frequent.
To come back to your original point, there is ample reason to not accept the clubs findings. They made a complete balls of it from seemingly every angle and for all parties involved (mason included). It just suits your desired outcome/viewpoint to take it as gospel.
If the recording was Mason rhyming off seriously vile racial slurs but it ultimately wasn’t prosecutable do you think the debate would be similar? I think people would still be keen to overlook/forgive but the whole conversation would be vastly different in terms of the excusing of what is clearly audible and that shines quite a light on how DV/sexual abuse is viewed, sadly.
Yeah that’s fair. I’m in agreement too.
That said would people accept the view of INEOS if it didn’t go their way?
I’d have a very hard time watching United with him involved if there wasn’t further explanation around the whole thing.
However, as for the decision makers I’d much rather a transparent but strong decision be made either way and to feel like the club had faith in themselves and their processes and weren’t just constantly taking fans for a ride and seeing what they could get away with (super league, this, transfers/anything from or to do with the Glazers and most of all United official media…).
Last edited:
This is a truly excellent post. Thank you for taking the time to write it.
I think that would be a decision for every fan to make based on how they presented the decision. Say if it didn't go my way, I'd want quite the explanation as to why, in order for me to accept it - I probably wouldn't be able to based on what I could hypothetically think of right now.
Agree totally. A good example was how we were the first out the blocks on the super league stuff - the recent announcement anyway!
I think given how we don’t trust the Glazers and how the club has been run, it’s fully understandable why people would question its actions. This is why I’m curious if people would change that views now INEOS are in full control of our sporting operations irrespective of the outcome.
And again this isn’t a criticism but it sounds you are quite intrenched in your views so it doesn’t really matter what was revealed your mind is made up. Fair play for being honest though and I understand why some on this side of the debate would be.
I understand why that comes across, but if there was much more transparency, I'd be open to redemption. Currently I feel uncomfortable with the explanations given and also the way it's been handled, so currently don't have a lot of faith in the process. INEOS's decision would need to quell those concerns for me, it's not to say it can't, I just struggle at the moment to even think what that looks like.
Normally maybe, but this stuff is out in the open. He can't go back into the team with people hearing what happened if he's innocent here.
I don't believe any of the parties went into that announcement without knowing that.
Quality control
Silly reply. First of all, we honestly don't know whether a rape actually happened or not. So it's silly to conclude anything.
What we know is the behavior heard on the social media shared material. And that isn't nice. But we have no idea what type his girlfriend is.
Luckily, more and more understand that it's rarely as simple as one might think in situations when it comes to domestic violence/control. Gaslighting is a thing you know.. Point is, it isn't a "either you love or not" type of situation.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? It reeks of victim blaming.
I think though you are underestimating how the potential wishes of an expectant mother can be taken into account here. What we think we’d do in a situation and what we actually would do don’t always align. Also how anyone interprets danger is also very subjective. Plenty of people have returned to abusers with family and friends aware of the abuse. The one thing in the victims favour here is maybe the increased scrutiny now on their relationship will stop the behaviour being easily repeated without consequence. Again speculation but no more speculative than your own.
And you say as far as you understand it but the statement doesn’t say that. We know that at one point in time she was pressing charges against Greenwood.
I also don’t expect anyone to change an opinion but I’d hope that people are able to be honest at least with themselves as to why they are truly feeling what they are feeling or believing what they are believing.
I know where my potential bias in interpretation of the “grey” areas comes from and I’m ok with that.
Your point about fine details also comes across a bit patronising. I’ve looked quite extensively into all publicly available information hoping to find some information that completely shatters and explains the audio and images that were presented to the world.
I have seen nothing that contradicts the initial interpretation and impression that those audio and images present. I am 100% open to completely changing my view on this whole situation if that becomes available. But in context with all publicly available information I feel quite comfortable with my position.
- Greenwood broke bail conditions to have sex with his alleged victim resulting in a pregnancy that would have influenced any decisions to pursue conviction from any interested parties.
- I believe aspects of this behaviour to have come about from further coercive control that was not adequately protected against occurring by authorities, police did not act despite being aware.
- I believe the victim was assaulted and threatened with rape. I do not know if Greenwood carried out the threats but I also don’t think this matters in terms of forming an opinion on him as an abuser and in any way lessens the impact on the victim.
- As a result of the above (which is a shortened version of my wider views) I do not want Greenwood to come back.
Agreed not saying it would be perfect but certainly lessens the clear conflict of interest investigating your own multimillion pound asset of a position you’re weak in. Our transfer activity also in my view supports the notion that Greenwood was an expected returnee.
@Duafc thank you for this.
What exactly are you trying to say here? Please elaborate because you sound like you are perilously close to blaming the victim here.
It's certainly not cut and dry based on Arnold's statement, because it straight up says nothing of the sort.
Inappropriate Behavior
No one would have thought anything of Greenwoods behavior a few years ago, however nowadays anything that impacts negatively on women is punished severely.
Your point being?
I didn't fully understand your last point about racial slurs - are you suggesting the fall out would be bigger? Because I don't agree with that in the slightest.
Personally I don't put verbal abuse in the same category as physical abuse so it wouldn't bother me anywhere near as much and I don't believe there would have been such big campaigns against him returning to play for us either. But this is all pretty irrelevant anyway.
I said many times that the club made a mess of things so I can totally understand why people would question the club's findings and at no point have I suggested that anyone should take it as gospel.
However the club still ultimately know more details about what happened than you or I, so dismissing it completely is illogical.
The biggest factor for me comes from the fact that her family support/accept the club's findings - I cannot believe that a mother/father/sister/brother, if they thought there was even a small risk of their daughter coming to harm would agree to send her away to a foreign country with the original abuser.
Yet you seem to be suggesting that 'trial by social media' based on very limited evidence Vs that available to the CPS, the club and the family should somehow carry more weight and I absolutely will not accept that.
I do think more people would have been convinced by an independent investigation but there will still be many seeking an explanation and it's unlikely they would get one. Although further details about the investigation like the tennis one probably would have helped.
And by the way I've not said at any point that I wanted him to return to play for us this season, I always said a loan deal was the best option as for me he has to prove himself both on and off the pitch before having a chance to return.
The point of many posts like these, including the "we don't know what REALLY happened" crew, is to downplay or trivialize the hard evidence available and/or make it seem like what Greenwood (allegedly) did was not such a big deal, all to justify welcoming him back to United.
I think the point being made is that finding domestic violence objectionable is political correctness gone made from the woke brigade...
@Rood I was typing a response but it’s best to simply put the thread back in ignore, it’s a cyclical and depressing waste of energy.
The audio is very very clear and I haven’t been able to concieve of, or heard anyone offer a single credible alternative explanation. It’s absolutely classic DV in terms of the cycle of abuse and the difficulties/complexities victims (and their families) face in toxic or abusive relationships, notwithstanding, the unique frailty re prosecutions and processes for domestic and particularly sexual cases.
Man United/Mason have not convinced me otherwise, sadly.
I hope they are happy and the relationship is abuse free but irrespective, I, based on the current information coming from Mason and the club (essentially feck all) don’t ever want to be watching or cheering for him. Some things are more important than football, though I really don’t mind those that want to view it as a purely business/football decision, I quite admire that, though I don’t share it.
These are immensely complicated situations and 95% of the inferences and statements here are uninformed at best, despite being presented with classic and unshakeable internet debate confidence.
None of this is a trial by social media, that’s a term quickly reaching nonsense levels, like woke or others. It’s just an opinion shared online, as it would be in person, at work, in the pub or at a game.
The audio is very very clear and I haven’t been able to concieve of, or heard anyone offer a single credible alternative explanation. It’s absolutely classic DV in terms of the cycle of abuse and the difficulties/complexities victims (and their families) face in toxic or abusive relationships, notwithstanding, the unique frailty re prosecutions and processes for domestic and particularly sexual cases.
Man United/Mason have not convinced me otherwise, sadly.
I hope they are happy and the relationship is abuse free but irrespective, I, based on the current information coming from Mason and the club (essentially feck all) don’t ever want to be watching or cheering for him. Some things are more important than football, though I really don’t mind those that want to view it as a purely business/football decision, I quite admire that, though I don’t share it.
These are immensely complicated situations and 95% of the inferences and statements here are uninformed at best, despite being presented with classic and unshakeable internet debate confidence.
None of this is a trial by social media, that’s a term quickly reaching nonsense levels, like woke or others. It’s just an opinion shared online, as it would be in person, at work, in the pub or at a game.
You can't do nothing now cuz of the morality police.
It’s cancel culture gone wild!
You spelled "Arse" wrong. It doesn't begin with a d.
There is actually a relevant article about 'trial by social media' that people should read and, whether it directly applies to you or not, it quite clearly is a major part of this story and the basis for many of the opinions formed here: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commen...gers-of-trial-by-social-media/5111441.article
'A cyclical and depressing waste of energy' describes half the threads on here and in fact our entire club over the past decade!
I haven't read all of this thread but I dip in now and again, i actually think there has been some good discussion in recent pages (yes a fair bit of the usual bollocks too which I just ignore) so it's a shame you didn't give your full response to the points.
I'm not going to claim to be an expert in DV, in fact I've already learned a lot about the subject from this thread and hopefully others have too.
I also hope the relationship is now happy and abuse free. The way I see it, Mason is basically on probation at the moment and he needs to prove himself on and off the field to earn his right to play at Old Trafford again.
Still it is clear by now that many cannot accept him back until they get an explanation, that why I was interested to hear opinions if an independent investigation would have made much difference.
If I was the new CEO then I'd basically be asking Mason if he wants to come back and if he does then he and/or she will probably have to do some kind of public interview (I expected something like that last summer). If they are not willing for whatever reason then we should sell him to the higher bidder in the summer, hopefully he keeps performing well to get his price up.
Except there is no trial by social media. A recording was released, there is no reasonable explanation, and indeed not even an implausible one has been offered. Must less any admission of fault or regret. Reasonable people can therefore draw reasonable conclusions that the recording is exactly as it appears.
A criminal conviction isn't required before we are allowed an opinion as to someone's character.
I'm not speaking for @Duafc, but I made this point earlier. I suggested there wouldn't be anywhere near as big of a call for context or a longer excerpt, or excuses like "just banter behind closed doors" which is akin to "people are into weird sexual shit". Also, would we be as outraged as people branding him a racist based on what we heard?
I agree I don't think the fall out would be bigger, maybe that's a factor in how it's discussed, who knows though.
Agree with this, although I personally don't think they'll be willing to do that.
As mentioned early to @Lash much of the above is opinions based and I fully understand why you feel the way you do.
In terms of the listed points, in particular those about the breaches of bail, it is important to know the difference between pre-charge bail and post charge bail, along with the complexities of each.
To my knowledge Greenwood breached pre-charge bail, possibly for months. This was actually brought up by his own defence at a hearing according to reports, so they could infer the victim was complicit and had been accessing his bank amongst other things.
During these breaches the time line, as you point out, would match the pregnancy.
In my opinion it’s clear the pair had continued to see one another. Yes you could say was this a continuation of him controlling her but you could also say she’d decided at this point she didn’t want to continue with the case and to remain with him - we know she was unsupportive from an early stage.
Finally I think it’s a huge leap to blame the authorities when you don’t know any of the details. Police pre charge bail is difficult to enforce, especially if you do have two people who are complicit in breaking it (which seems to be the case here). Even then, if you don’t yet have enough evidence to charge the suspect when you bring them in the likelihood is they will simply be released on bail again. Going through this process would also eat in to your custody/PACE detention clock which would mean if you did it too often the time would expire and you would have to release the suspect without bail anyway (this has recently changed for the better and provides a time buffer to allow a review of evidence and discussion with the CPS by the way under the revised bail legislation).
In this instance, from what I’ve read, he was arrested later on, remanded in custody, put before the courts, then bailed again (on post charge/court bail). So even post charge and upon hearing the details of the breaches the courts decided he should be bailed and not remanded to trial.
It would seem likely that the police had an awareness that bail was being breached but they did not have enough evidence to charge at that point so did not go and formally arrest him until they did. That’s not to say other things were not going on in the background in terms of safeguarding which would be standard practice following DV matters.
None of the above absolves Greenwood in anyway but I do think it’s important to have an understanding of the processes which can be quite complex legally and both practically.
Hypothetically, would those willing Greenwood back be willing to accept him if he did an interview, and in the interview he admits wrongdoing - DV/attempted rape - and he says "Yep, mea culpa, I'll do some courses to learn from my mis" in more verbose, flowery language ?
I dont know why people have such an issue with the 'trial by social media' tag - this case is literally the text book definition of the phenomenon with legal experts writing entire articles about it.
It’s a textbook case of trial by social media in fairness, even the recording and pics were released on social media.
Because it is a term used to dismiss and diminish behaviour (and women).
And the legal expert in question does lots of criminal defence. Unsurprisingly.
And this isn't even about criminality any more. So irrelevant.
No. Trial by social media implies a Simpson's style mob with burning torches. Which this isn't. Using the term is like using "woke" when what you mean is "I don't agree".
Last edited:
Well I can only speak for myself and tell you that I absolutely would be calling for context and wanting to hear the whole conversation before branding anyone a racist.
Plus being branded a racist is nowhere near as bad as being branded a rapist, so I don't really get the point behind this comparison.
It's possible that they declined to do any kind of interview last summer due to the baby, next summer it could be different but we shall see.
Probably because it's a fecking stupid tag. That you have found a non-technical op-ed by a "legal expert" that supports what you already believed doesn't make it any less stupid. A "legal expert" using the word "trial" that way tells you all you need to know about their neutrality and rigour on the subject. "Trial by social media" is an ideological concept, not a legal one, regardless of who's writing about it.
Think you’ve got this completely wrong. That’s nothing like how I, or anything I have read explains it.
@Duafc amazing posts and sums it all up so succintly.
That's fair enough and personally I would stick with my line as with this scenario, I am yet to hear a plausible context where it would make me think otherwise.
That's a good point. For what it's worth, I hope the time off he had was spent well by them both on working out their relationship and themselves. I hope their family unit stays intact and happy. Trying to put myself in their shoes, if I spent all this time moving past something, I'm not sure a career at United is worth putting my family through all that. It's obvious he'll have a good career in the game somewhere else without having to do that.
Maybe because it's used as an excuse as much as anything? As I've said before, it's funny how situations like this also get a ton of positivity towards the person too, twitter and especially FB had so much more support for Greenwood than negativity from what I saw. And yet, when social media is used to change things for the better (those very rare occasions), it's not given the same thought.
As for that article, the fact she has to ask "why go to social media and not to the police" and then put the answer and it will still be ignored by many says it all really. It can't be a one way street, if you don't want people putting things up on social media rather than going to the police, then you need to trust the police. And women can't and don't, for very good reason. Not just women, I don't trust the police to handle anything like this correctly at all, my experiences of this situation (and I have direct experience from numerous angles too, wouldn't wish it on anyone) are all negative of the justice system even though the correct outcomes eventually occurred in the cases I've been involved in.
The woeful misunderstanding of DV all round, as evidenced in this thread too, shows that we are barely any closer to resolution. But blaming some new phenomenon like social media is backwards and completely incorrect. DV has been around since the dawn of time and if people suffering can get their voice out more and be heard and not be hidden away by those who want to close the curtains, then so be it.
And before anyone goes on about "what about if he's innocent!" well no, in this case he has told us he is responsible for the situation leading up to the release of that evidence. If anything, remember that.
edit: @Rood I'm not suggesting you personally are doing some of the things mentioned above, I should make that clear. I get you probably understand that, and I'm coming from a place of rebuttal to the situation and how is perceived not your thoughts personally, but you know, social media posts and all that!
It might be used in that way by some but that's not the way I see it and not my intention.
There are loads of other articles by other legal experts on this subject, I picked that one because it was written specifically in reaction to this case.
Whether you like it or not, 'trial by social media' absolutely is an accepted legal term and applies directly to this case.
https://www.davidgray.co.uk/blog/crime/trial-by-social-media/
https://www.rpc.co.uk/perspectives/trainees-take-on-business/trial-by-social-media/