Do you need the whole picture to recognize or decide that something is wrong? Since when is that a requirement?Is it the whole picture though?
Do you need the whole picture to recognize or decide that something is wrong? Since when is that a requirement?Is it the whole picture though?
Yeh and I'm fine with that. There is no other explanation that can come out about that audio that can exonerate him in my eyes, and I don't know how anyone could have listened to that and said to themselves "eeeh we're not getting the full context here"You are making a judgment without full context and from incomplete evidence. Don't call me an ass please.
What missing piece makes the audio and imaged tolerable?Is it the whole picture though?
Were you there?What evidence and context are we missing?
I quick 10min chat with Emily Maitlis on Newsnight will soon get this ugly mess cleared up.But I can’t understand why the player and his partner won’t sit down and give an interview to tell their side. It’s the only way to clear a path for him In English football
None, it's a cope out. But imagine this, someone gets drunk because they lose a family member, they then take a care and injure someone. How much leniency do you show toward the driver? Personally, I give the driver zero excuse.What missing piece makes the audio and imaged tolerable?
Come on, man. What would we genuinely be missing to form a seriously informed opinion?Were you there?
Aside from speaking to his partner like a deplorable human being, what else do I know that he's done for sure?Do you need the whole picture to recognize or decide that something is wrong? Since when is that a requirement?
I dont know, but im not comfortable taking a definitive stance based on a very short clip. At least the people in charge of making the decisions will have access to more information and being able to talk to the ones involved, their family and friends, etc.Come on, man. What would we genuinely be missing to form a seriously informed opinion?
We don't have all the info. Therefore we cannot have an opinion. These people must have almost no opinions.Jesus we're back to posters making up ridiculous excuses for him again, it's actually unbelievable
It's very good that you acknowledge what he said because you don't need more or at least I don't need more.Aside from speaking to his partner like a deplorable human being, what else do I know that he's done for sure?
I'm not talking hypotheticals or what you think might have gone on. What actually happened?
If you can shed more light on that then great but if not the simple fact is that none of us know so I'm just not going to comment any further.
Are you one of those zero tolerance for domestic violence fundamentalists?It's very good that you acknowledge what he said because you don't need more or at least I don't need more.
There isn't really a scenario where I will be lenient toward someone who aggressively demand sex from his partner and threaten them with violence if they don't comply. But that's only me, maybe I'm too strict.
Well we know he assaulted her. Unless we're saying she assaulted herself and/or someone else assaulted her and Mason just chose to never deny it. Which obviously makes no sense.Aside from speaking to his partner like a deplorable human being, what else do I know that he's done for sure?
I'm not talking hypotheticals or what you think might have gone on. What actually happened?
If you can shed more light on that then great but if not the simple fact is that none of us know so I'm just not going to comment any further.
That’s the way I took it tooThe quote was very noncommittal and neutral, as one would expect from a co-owner who just took over. Think some people are reading into it too much and hearing what they want (or don't want) to hear.
Yeh I know rightWe don't have all the info. Therefore we cannot have an opinion. These people must have almost no opinions.
Exactly how I took itThe quote was very noncommittal and neutral, as one would expect from a co-owner who just took over. Think some people are reading into it too much and hearing what they want (or don't want) to hear.
No, I don't think it's too strict. I totally understand that viewpoint. I would lean more towards that myself but I'm simply trying to be as objective as I can when thinking about this subject.It's very good that you acknowledge what he said because you don't need more or at least I don't need more.
There isn't really a scenario where I will be lenient toward someone who aggressively demand sex from his partner and threaten them with violence if they don't comply. But that's only me, maybe I'm too strict.
In reality, they are both opinion and us saying no to Greenwood are also making an informed decision, based on the key evidence available.Looking at the evidence to make an informed decision is good. Swaying to please public opinion is bad.
If you’re planning to sell him, then yes it is sensible. There’s no point saying they have no intention of keeping him if they’re hoping to get a good fee. I wouldn’t get your hopes up. There’s no chance that the woman beater is playing for us again, thankfully.A very sensible take, thankfully.
Yep. Nothing new, it just serves to start the merry-go-round on here again.The quote was very noncommittal and neutral, as one would expect from a co-owner who just took over. Think some people are reading into it too much and hearing what they want (or don't want) to hear.
You got me, one day I will fix myself.Are you one of those zero tolerance for domestic violence fundamentalists?
I'm not trying to tell anybody what to think unlike some.We don't have all the info. Therefore we cannot have an opinion. These people must have almost no opinions.
Sorry, which games are you speaking of? United games?There are chants about him at most games now, it's happened at most games I've been to over the past year or so from all fans not just rivals
I'm not trying to tell anybody what to think unlike some.
I simply think it's really important to acknowledge the fact that there is a huge difference between acting like a complete cnut and raping somebody.
There is enough doubt for me to be comfortable with saying I'm not sure about what happened. I also just don't want to speculate about what or did not happen because it seems pointless.
No, it's very likely that he's a massive wanker. But 2+2 does not equal 5.It's possible he's a grand lad and the data we have is altered with context. Possible, highly improbable.
No, but it definitely equals four if you have no more info in the equation.No, it's very likely that he's a massive wanker. But 2+2 does not equal 5.
That's in contradiction with your point about public opinion. The public opinion that you seemingly share is about moral values and not about what is punishable by law.No, I don't think it's too strict. I totally understand that viewpoint. I would lean more towards that myself but I'm simply trying to be as objective as I can when thinking about this subject.
Unfortunately acting like a complete cnut is not a crime.
It's impossible to not be influenced to some degree by public opinion.That's in contradiction with your point about public opinion. The public opinion that you seemingly share is about moral values and not about what is punishable by law.
Especially if you have a marketing department.It's impossible to not be influenced to some degree by public opinion.
What are you suggesting?Especially if you have a marketing department.
I'm not suggesting anything. Public opinion is a huge factor in this instance.What are you suggesting?
I understand that of course but Ratcliffe should not make his mind up (or anyone IMO) like Richard Arnold did based on what the public feedback was.I'm not suggesting anything. Public opinion is a huge factor in this instance.
Well if they did that there are only 2 things that could have happened. He did it, she forgave him they want to move on with their lives but they can’t say that as if that’s the case mofo belongs in jail.Contrary to the popular opinions, I would welcome a fresh investigation into it this summer
But I can’t understand why the player and his partner won’t sit down and give an interview to tell their side. It’s the only way to clear a path for him In English football
That's not practical. Unless there is clarification then sections of the public will be outraged. And like it or not United will be used to highlight this issue so it will be amplified hugely. You have to take that into account. It's just ridiculous not to.I understand that of course but Ratcliffe should not make his mind up (or anyone IMO) like Richard Arnold did based on what the public feedback was.
He needs to make a decision and justify it with factual evidence like he's suggested that he will.
Public opinion in general is a terrible thing to rely on, because it's usually fickle and uninformed.Even when public opinion is based on a fact?