Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Footballer Mason Greenwood has rape charges dropped

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.

A lot of this isn't correct. To suggest that false accusations of rape are a mens rights construct is beyond ridiculous, particularly in the wake of the release of Andy Malkinson who's just done 17 years for a rape he didn't commit. False rape claims do get made for various reasons. As far as the police and CPS believing they had a reasonable chance of conviction is concerned, no store should be set on that at all.

People who are brought to trial on the same beliefs are frequently acquitted.
 
Last edited:
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.
Actually, let's make this into a fun quiz! So, who would be the people who 'knew all the facts'?

A. The people who paid his wages and had a financial interest in Mason Greenwood, but did their own 'investigation'?

B. The police and CPS who decided to prosecute Greenwood with 'attempted rape, controlling and coercive behaviour and assault'?

Phew, it's a tricky one!
 
A lot of this isn't correct. To suggest that false accusations of rape are a mens rights construct is beyond ridiculous, particularly in the wake of the release of Andy Malkinson who's just done 17 years for a rape he didn't commit. False rape claims do get made for various reasons. As far as the police and CPS believing they had a reasonable chance of conviction is concerned, no store should be set on that at all.

People who are brought to trial on the same beliefs are frequently acquitted.

The Malkinson case wasn't a false rape accusation. It was a brutal stranger attack, the victim might have misidentified him but she didn't make it up.
 
A lot of this isn't correct. To suggest that false accusations of rape are a mens rights construct is beyond ridiculous, particularly in the wake of the release of Andy Malkinson who's just done 17 years for a rape he didn't commit. False rape claims do get made for various reasons.
Just to be clear. In the Malkinson case, there wasn't a false rape accusation and I understand no-one is maintaining there was. He was convicted of a rape which very much did occur and was wrongly identified and found guilty of being the perpetrator. (And yes, he was clearly treated appallingly.)
 
Last edited:
A lot of this isn't correct. To suggest that false accusations of rape are a mens rights construct is beyond ridiculous, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the release of Andy Malkinson who's just done 17 years for a rape he didn't commit. False rape claims do get made for various reasons. As far as the police and CPS believing they had a reasonable chance of conviction is concerned, no store should be set on that. People who are brought to trial on the same beliefs are frequently acquitted.
Yes, of course, there have been false accusations, but shrinkingly few. I said 'pretty much an ideological construct from 'mens's rights' activists'. Okay, clumsily put, I meant that the notion of women making false accusations has been spun into men's rights narratives and used to undermine individual complainants as well as movements to end sexual violence. It feeds into rape myths.
 
Given that less than 1% of reported rapes lead to a conviction I’d say personally that it’s a shame that the police and CPS don’t make more strenuous attempts to build cases with a reasonable chance of conviction.

I agree. But that shouldn't mean reducing standards of proof to increase convictions.

And suggesting that the police and CPS belief that a reasonable chance of conviction may result, is in any way indicative of a persons guilt, would be laughed out of Urban75 court if it were any other offence.
 
Yes, of course, there have been false accusations, but shrinkingly few. I said 'pretty much an ideological construct from 'mens's rights' activists'. Okay, clumsily put…

It was a bit, but a) the weaponised use of false accusations in the broader debate is very much the construct you describe it as, and b) in this instance everyone has seen the video and photos and testimony
 
It was a bit, but a) the weaponised use of false accusations in the broader debate is very much the constrict you describe it as, and b) in this instance everyone has seen the video and photos and testimony
I have not seen any video nor have I heard it and have no wish to.
 
I agree. But that shouldn't mean reducing standards of proof to increase convictions.

But that’s exactly what has happened. Manchester United’s has asserted that ‘we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged”

And suggesting that the police and CPS belief that a reasonable chance of conviction may result, is in any way indicative of a persons guilt, would be laughed out of Urban75 court

I’ve not suggested that. I’ve suggested that they put some effort in to prosecuting rapists. Even 2% prosecuted would be seismic progress
 
A piece on false accusations, which says they make up around 4% of sexual violence accusations (though as rapes/assaults NOT reported to police are much higher, false accusations to police as a % of all rapes/assaults will be much lower than 4%). It also makes the point that a conflation can take place between false accusations and accusations which are recorded as 'no crime', not the same thing. Furthermore, not all false accusations are made against a named person. In some cases a victim/non-victim may feel that they have been raped, but there is no evidence. Numbers of 'false accusations' are really trivial, statistically (though, of course, that's not the case for someone who is falsely accused).

 
I've seen a fair bit on comments sections saying [paraphrased] "Greenwood wasn't found guilty, therefore he's innocent. He's the victim of a false accusation."

I simply can't fathom the mindset that effectively says 1% of rapes end in conviction = 99% of accusers are lying harlots.
 
Wilf did.

And suggesting that the police and CPS belief that a reasonable chance of conviction may result, is in any way indicative of a persons guilt, would be laughed out of Urban75 court
You don't think the decision to prosecute was 'in any way' indicative that he might be guilty?
 
I've seen a fair bit on comments sections saying [paraphrased] "Greenwood wasn't found guilty, therefore he's innocent. He's the victim of a false accusation."

I simply can't fathom the mindset that effectively says 1% of rapes end in conviction = 99% of accusers are lying harlots.
There were many comments like that on LBC...the host kept correcting them to say charges dropped. Entirely different things.
 
Actually, let's make this into a fun quiz! So, who would be the people who 'knew all the facts'?

A. The people who paid his wages and had a financial interest in Mason Greenwood, but did their own 'investigation'?

B. The police and CPS who decided to prosecute Greenwood with 'attempted rape, controlling and coercive behaviour and assault'?

Phew, it's a tricky one!
Well neither has found him guilty, so not sure your point.

You seem to be labouring this and desperate to label him a rapist. That's your choice. I've said before I'd reserve judgement until he's convicted of a crime, which is a fairly standard position. Over and out on this one.
 
You don't think the decision to prosecute was 'in any way' indicative that he might be guilty?

Not in any way worthy of mention in this particular debate.

If this was about an assault on a police officer or the murder of a Tory, would you allow the fact that the cops and CPS think there's a reasonable chance of conviction, to influence your opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused?

This is "no smoke without fire".
 
Last edited:
Well neither has found him guilty, so not sure your point.

You seem to be labouring this and desperate to label him a rapist. That's your choice. I've said before I'd reserve judgement until he's convicted of a crime, which is a fairly standard position. Over and out on this one.
Given that the prosecution was stopped due to the withdrawal of the key witness, there was no way this could get to court to 'find him guilty'. This whole discussion is taking place in the context of what we know about gendered violence, what we do know about this case and the decisions made by police and CPS. You however choose to give United's own what shall we do with our multi million pound investment' investigation equal billing. Hmmm.
 
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!
Probably the same reason family court continues to give abusive men access to their children. Some hogwash about men who are shit partners can be good dads or some other mealy mouthed bullshit.
 
Not in any way worthy of mention in this particular debate.

If this was about an assault on a police officer or the murder of a Tory, would you allow the fact that the cops and CPS think there's a reasonable chance of conviction, to influence your opinion?

This is "no smoke without fire".
I've no idea what your first sentence means. You really put no weight on the CPS taking it to court?

On the second, there's a whole range of offences, I might not give a shit about or might hope the accused gets off (and so we don't go on a derail, I'm not referring to the murders). That's different to having an honest opinion as to whether the person did it or not. More to the point, police investigations and CPS prosecutions work through the same channels and are part of of a common criminal justice system. However offences are very different in terms of a whole range of contexts, values, histories. There might be rather good grounds for doubting police/CPS prosecutions for property crimes, particularly if the accused is poor, black etc. Equally, there might be reasons why they under prosecute rapists. Aside from the police having a significant number of rapists in their own ranks, gendered violence and sexual violence emerge from a vastly unequal society. So, on the rare occasions the police and CPS do take a rape prosecution forward, I'm tempted to think they on the right lines.
 
You really put no weight on the CPS taking it to court?

Most certainly not. Not for rape or for any other crime.

The fact that someone's in court means that someone is trying to convince others that they're guilty. No more than that.
 
Most certainly not. Not for rape or for any other crime.

The fact that someone's in court means that someone is trying to convince others that they're guilty. No more than that.
No, that might be what happens when they are in court, but it isn't the reason they get to court.
 
I've seen a fair bit on comments sections saying [paraphrased] "Greenwood wasn't found guilty, therefore he's innocent. He's the victim of a false accusation."

I simply can't fathom the mindset that effectively says 1% of rapes end in conviction = 99% of accusers are lying harlots.
Comments sections on this online are horrendous.
 
No, that might be what happens when they are in court, but it isn't the reason they get to court.

The reason they get to court is that the police investigation has supposedly produced enough evidence that the CPS are happy to run with, but it hasn't been tested yet.

That shouldn't be enough for anyone to presume guilt or innocence.
 
The reason they get to court is that the police investigation has supposedly produced enough evidence that the CPS are happy to run with.

That shouldn't be enough for anyone to presume guilt or innocence.
The recording is extremely disturbing
 
Back
Top Bottom