Footballer Mason Greenwood has rape charges dropped

[hash tag]

Just announced on the radio that greenwood is going Mason Greenwood: Manchester United striker will leave club after internal investigation - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66554874

 

[Petcha]

The BBC article reckons he's still under contract on full pay. They're just looking to move him on.

Which, let us remind ourselves, is £75,000 a week, which he's been on throughout this entire process and will continue to be for the foreseeable

 

[Sasaferrato]

he's avoided conviction which is being painted as vindication by man u

I've just read the Man U statement. Nauseating.

 

[Wilf]

Which, let us remind ourselves, is £75,000 a week, which he's been on throughout this entire process and will continue to be for the foreseeable

Must admit, from the statements made, I'm not quite sure what his status is for now. His contract hasn't been cancelled and he hasn't been put up for transfer in the normal sense. However they will 'help him to leave'. The obvious outcome will be an overseas move, though whether United have the nerve to accept money for him is another matter (my guess is they won't, they'll just be happy for him to go and to stop paying him all that money). Who knows though, they might accept a fee and try and hide it behind a 'the terms of his release have not been made public' type statement.

 

[Pickman's model]

I've just read the Man U statement. Nauseating.

That's United for you

 

[Flavour]

they have to say they think he's innocent in order to be able to sell him at a higher value

 

[Pickman's model]

they have to say they think he's innocent in order to be able to sell him at a higher value

No, they simply could have said he hasn't been convicted and so they presume innocence. They didn't have to say what they have said, unilaterally exonerating him of allegations which haven't been tested in a court

 

[pbsmooth]

I'm tempted to ask whether you think a club owned by the Glazers are well placed to make a decision of this sort. But actually, that's irrelevant, the question is whether a football club, with an 'asset' they've invested in for years, who have few other concerns than success and making money are in a position to carry out an objective and/or moral decision of this sort. If you think they are, you are either very partisan or very naive.

Sure.
But you still seem to be assuming you/others on this thread know what happened? You called him a rapist. But you literally have zero clue of what actually happened and are presumably basing your entire argument on a short audio clip. Or do you have other evidence?

 

[Pickman's model]

Sure.
But you still seem to be assuming you/others on this thread know what happened? You called him a rapist. But you literally have zero clue of what actually happened and are presumably basing your entire argument on a short audio clip. Or do you have other evidence?

I don't know why you're so invested in this

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Must admit, from the statements made, I'm not quite sure what his status is for now. His contract hasn't been cancelled and he hasn't been put up for transfer in the normal sense. However they will 'help him to leave'. The obvious outcome will be an overseas move, though whether United have the nerve to accept money for him is another matter (my guess is they won't, they'll just be happy for him to go and to stop paying him all that money). Who knows though, they might accept a fee and try and hide it behind a 'the terms of his release have not been made public' type statement.

My reading of it is that their ‘help him to leave’ will include an option for his return and some form of payment that settles his contract/rolls some of it into the wages he’ll get for his new club (with Manchester United paying some of his wage going forward).

The statement is emphatically not a parting of the ways and he is an asset and one worth lots of money, which is the only consideration that really counts in football.

 

[Petcha]

Sure.
But you still seem to be assuming you/others on this thread know what happened? You called him a rapist. But you literally have zero clue of what actually happened and are presumably basing your entire argument on a short audio clip. Or do you have other evidence?

She felt the need to record him on the occasion of that rape. Which would suggest it wasn't the first time he'd done this. Please dont try to excuse this fucker.

 

[Pickman's model]

.

 

[pbsmooth]

She felt the need to record him on the occasion of that rape. Which would suggest it wasn't the first time he'd done this. Please dont try to excuse this fucker.

But you're still filling in gaps, adding what you think and making assumptions. I don't think that's right with such serious allegations.

 

[pbsmooth]

Look we can go round and round. I don't want to call someone a rapist when I don't know the facts and he's not been found guilty. If you want to do that then that's on you.

 

[Pickman's model]

But you're still filling in gaps, adding what you think and making assumptions. I don't think that's right with such serious allegations.

You're not coming across well in this thread tho Mason should award you some sort of medal for going above and beyond in his defence

 

[Pickman's model]

Look we can go round and round. I don't want to call someone a rapist when I don't know the facts and he's not been found guilty. If you want to do that then that's on you.

No one knows all the facts. You're subjecting things on an unrealistic bar.

 

[Wilf]

Sure.
But you still seem to be assuming you/others on this thread know what happened? You called him a rapist. But you literally have zero clue of what actually happened and are presumably basing your entire argument on a short audio clip. Or do you have other evidence?

Yes, I do. The police and CPS thought he was a rapist. Whereas you, staggeringly, prefer to believe United themselves.

 

[Wilf]

My reading of it is that their ‘help him to leave’ will include an option for his return and some form of payment that settles his contract/rolls some of it into the wages he’ll get for his new club (with Manchester United paying some of his wage going forward).

The statement is emphatically not a parting of the ways and he is an asset and one worth lots of money, which is the only consideration that really counts in football.

Ah, yes, that makes sense.

 

[The39thStep]

Just announced on the radio that greenwood is going Mason Greenwood: Manchester United striker will leave club after internal investigation - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66554874

It's a terrible and clumsy statement .It's not for them to determine guilt ,it's simply a matter for them to determine whether they want to be associated with someone who would have been in court for domestic violence had it not been for the victim retracting.

What is encouraging is the pressure that Man Utd supporters who are against dometic violence put on the board .If they and others hadn't campaigned the board ,with the managers backing ,would have had him back in the first team.

 

[Wilf]

Look we can go round and round. I don't want to call someone a rapist when I don't know the facts and he's not been found guilty. If you want to do that then that's on you.

Pretty much your line on Ronaldo, iirc. * Yes, of course, there's one starting point when it comes to any kind of crime, to assume innocence. But then we also know that rape is massively underreported and underprosecuted, so another starting point is to believe victims (and to be aware that malicious/false accusations of rape are so rare as to be just about irrelevant. Pretty much an ideological construct from 'mens's rights' activists, yuk). That means that the vast majority of accusations will, statistically, be accurate and truthful. That in turn doesn't mean that you can apply those stats to all specific cases and simply say case x 'must be true'. There's got to be a combination of due process and information in the public domain that should lead you to a reasonable judgement about that case. And here we've got the recording and social media post, plus the police and CPS thinking there was a reasonable chance of conviction. And, for what it's worth, yes, Ronaldo was never prosecuted, but what I know about the case (the second rape accusation against him), including 'the questionnaire', I'm happy to make my own judgement.

Edit: * Actually, that was a bit snidey on my part, a lot of fans just didn't want to know about the accusations against Ronaldo. However, it's worth mentioning the case given that United bought him back knowing all that background and then managed to get, spectacularly, on the wrong side of this case as well.

 

[Petcha]

Pretty much your line on Ronaldo, iirc. * Yes, of course, there's one starting point when it comes to any kind of crime, to assume innocence. But then we also know that rape is massively underreported and underprosecuted, so another starting point is to believe victims (and to be aware that malicious/false accusations of rape are so rare as to be just about irrelevant. Pretty much an ideological construct from 'mens's rights' activists, yuk). That means that the vast majority of accusations will, statistically, be accurate and truthful. That in turn doesn't mean that you can apply those stats to all specific cases and simply say case x 'must be true'. There's got to be a combination of due process and information in the public domain that should lead you to a reasonable judgement about that case. And here we've got the recording and social media post, plus the police and CPS thinking there was a reasonable chance of conviction. And, for what it's worth, yes, Ronaldo was never prosecuted, but what I know about the case (the second rape accusation against him), including 'the questionnaire', I'm happy to make my own judgement.

Edit: * Actually, that was a bit snidey on part, a lot of fans just didn't want to know about the accusations against Ronaldo. However, it's worth mentioning the case given that United bought him back knowing all that background and then managed to get, spectacularly, on the wrong side of this case as well.

The Ronaldo one never quite felt right to me. The evidence in this one is pretty unequivocal. I don't know. Rape has to be the worst possible crime to prove. There's (usually) only two people in the room, although Mendy seemed to get off despite having all his mates joining in.

 

[hash tag]

It is being debated on LBC at the mo. Some of the statements are unreal.

 

[Wilf]

The Ronaldo one never quite felt right to me. The evidence in this one is pretty unequivocal. I don't know. Rape has to be the worst possible crime to prove. There's (usually) only two people in the room, although Mendy seemed to get off despite having all his mates joining in.

For me, it was the leaked questionnaire he completed for his lawyers that did it. However, I suspect the details of his case are a derail (my fault). However, United choosing to buy him back is relevant to the Greenwood case.

 

[SpookyFrank]

they have to say they think he's innocent in order to be able to sell him at a higher value

Probably irrelevant if they sell him to Saudi Arabia.

 

[Wilf]

Probably irrelevant if they sell him to Saudi Arabia.

Newcastle?

 

[pbsmooth]

Pretty much your line on Ronaldo, iirc. * Yes, of course, there's one starting point when it comes to any kind of crime, to assume innocence. But then we also know that rape is massively underreported and underprosecuted, so another starting point is to believe victims (and to be aware that malicious/false accusations of rape are so rare as to be just about irrelevant. Pretty much an ideological construct from 'mens's rights' activists, yuk). That means that the vast majority of accusations will, statistically, be accurate and truthful. That in turn doesn't mean that you can apply those stats to all specific cases and simply say case x 'must be true'. There's got to be a combination of due process and information in the public domain that should lead you to a reasonable judgement about that case. And here we've got the recording and social media post, plus the police and CPS thinking there was a reasonable chance of conviction. And, for what it's worth, yes, Ronaldo was never prosecuted, but what I know about the case (the second rape accusation against him), including 'the questionnaire', I'm happy to make my own judgement.

Edit: * Actually, that was a bit snidey on part, a lot of fans just didn't want to know about the accusations against Ronaldo. However, it's worth mentioning the case given that United bought him back knowing all that background and then managed to get, spectacularly, on the wrong side of this case as well.

But... None of that changes anything, in fact it confirms my point. It's called conjecture. We don't know all the facts or even close.

 

[hash tag]

Probably irrelevant if they sell him to Saudi Arabia.

That might well happen to the club

 

[1927]

I gather that the women's Man U team were contemplating resigning en masse if Greenwood was kept on.

He has not been found to be innocent in any way. The principal witness withdrew, not because she had mislead, but because she couldn't face getting torn to bits by a hostile QC (how do those people sleep?), and I don't blame her. She has avoided being violated for the second time.

Im pretty sure the principal witness withdrew cos she was pregnant with his child, a child conceived while there was a restraining order in place against him making contact with her, yet no action was taken against him by the CPS. They have never explained why!

 

[Wilf]

But... None of that changes anything, in fact it confirms my point. It's called conjecture. We don't know all the facts or even close.

We know the prosecution was stopped due to the withdrawal of the key witness, right? Not conjecture, fact. So, what do you make of the original decision to prosecute? The CPS belief that there was a realistic prospect of a guilty verdict. The people who had all the 'evidence', as gathered together by the police. What do you make of that?

 

[agricola]

Just posted this in the United thread:

So, United think the police and CPS got it wrong. Fucking rape apologists.



https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/aug/21/mason-greenwood-to-leave-manchester-united-after-internal-inquiry\

TBF that is just an obscenely over-lawyered and flattering (to the player) way of saying that they've read the statement where the victim withdrew her previous statements.