FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Mason Greenwood

Jump to newest
 

By *asycouple1971 OP   Couple
over a year ago

midlands

He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses.

We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids.

Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club.

Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

That isn’t how the law work. A trial is used to determine if the accused is guilty. No trial means he is still, under the law, innocent.

I think ‘bringing the club into disrepute’ could probably be used to sack him but someone will pick him up down the line.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm torn on this one.

On one hand, the man hasn't been found guilty of anything, he was arrested, investigated and then the charges were dropped.

On the other hand.....he was done for breaking his bail conditions not to contact the witnesses. The witnesses suddenly not being willing to cooperate anymore screams of something else having gone on here.

I suspect his career at the highest level may be over either way though. You only have to look at the backlash clubs got for signing Ched Evans and David Goodwillie to see that clubs, and fans, do not want to be associated with someone who, rightly or wrongly, has something like this hanging over their head

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *imi_RougeWoman
over a year ago

Portsmouth

I've just heard the audio... It's awful... I would hope that's the end of his career.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *m3232Man
over a year ago

maidenhead


"He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses.

We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids.

Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club.

Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers.

"

Lack of evidence should mean he is not guilty of committing a crime.

Remember you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I've just heard the audio... It's awful... I would hope that's the end of his career."

I didn’t know about this audio but googled and listened to it. If that’s genuine then it’s truly distributing, awful and sickening. What a sad indictment.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *oeBeansMan
over a year ago

Derby

A key witness pulled out and he broke the conditions of his bail twice by visiting her. Jeez... I wonder why the charges were dropped

That POS shouldn't be anywhere near a football but unfortunately, there's nothing stopping him training with the team. As a Man United fan, if we can't terminate his contract, I hope he's made to train alone " to get back to match fitness" and then offloaded in the Summer because unfortunately, while talented, he will have suitors that would buy him.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses.

We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids.

Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club.

Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers.

Lack of evidence should mean he is not guilty of committing a crime.

Remember you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

"

Not exactly, it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Cases that are dropped due to lack of evidence don't mean the person hasn't done what they were accused of, just that it can't be proven 100%. Even cases that get to court and the defendant is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, just that there is enough doubt to prevent a guilty verdict.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *etcplCouple
over a year ago

Gapping Fanny

Is he on fab?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *icolerobbieCouple
over a year ago

walsall


"He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses.

We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids.

Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club.

Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers.

Lack of evidence should mean he is not guilty of committing a crime.

Remember you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

Not exactly, it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Cases that are dropped due to lack of evidence don't mean the person hasn't done what they were accused of, just that it can't be proven 100%. Even cases that get to court and the defendant is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, just that there is enough doubt to prevent a guilty verdict. "

Committing a crime does not make you guilty. Only being convicted by a court will make a person guilty.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *oeBeansMan
over a year ago

Derby


"He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses.

We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids.

Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club.

Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers.

Lack of evidence should mean he is not guilty of committing a crime.

Remember you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

Not exactly, it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Cases that are dropped due to lack of evidence don't mean the person hasn't done what they were accused of, just that it can't be proven 100%. Even cases that get to court and the defendant is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, just that there is enough doubt to prevent a guilty verdict.

Committing a crime does not make you guilty. Only being convicted by a court will make a person guilty. "

I don't get how people can make these black and white statements. The photos and audio are out there for everyone to see. For the record, he hasn't been found not guilty, the charges were dropped so technically we might never know what would've been ruled.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He will remain guilty in the court of public opinion. But the public are generally a fickle bunch.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *asycouple1971 OP   Couple
over a year ago

midlands

Rumour has it because she or someone released the pics and audio on social media there might have not been a fair trial.

Also a main witness withdrawing their statement sounds fishy atleast. £££

Also sickened by the girls father that stood with Mason Greenwood when these vids surfaced. I guess he misses eating at 5 star restaurants and driving Ferraris.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *icolerobbieCouple
over a year ago

walsall


"He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses.

We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids.

Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club.

Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers.

Lack of evidence should mean he is not guilty of committing a crime.

Remember you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

Not exactly, it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Cases that are dropped due to lack of evidence don't mean the person hasn't done what they were accused of, just that it can't be proven 100%. Even cases that get to court and the defendant is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, just that there is enough doubt to prevent a guilty verdict.

Committing a crime does not make you guilty. Only being convicted by a court will make a person guilty.

I don't get how people can make these black and white statements. The photos and audio are out there for everyone to see. For the record, he hasn't been found not guilty, the charges were dropped so technically we might never know what would've been ruled."

It’s only a legal perspective, it has nothing to do whether he did it or not.

I’ve just listened to the audio, and to say it’s unpleasant is an understatement.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Our justice system is based on the principle of presumption of innocence or, to put it another way, innocent until PROVEN guilty.

The burden of proof is on the accuser and not the accused.

Nobody is required to prove their innocence.

What I have a big problem with is that the Media seem to be completely unaware of this and, in my view, there should be some regulation brought in to protect anyone accused of 'trial by media' - especially as it has the potential to impact a trial.

Take a recent example.

A certain brother of our current Monarch.

Yes, there may well have been an out of court settlement, but nobody in the media has access to that agreement, so anything printed, including any settlement amount, is pure speculation.

Quite often solicitors advise their clients to settle a case rather than go to trial as it can often be the less ecpensive option - especially if your accuser is unlikely to be able to cover your legal fees if they lose.

And yet, because it was splashed all over the papers with reporters and editors speculating, guessing and fabricating stories, the geberal public believe him to be guilty.

When stuff later crops up about his accuser and her dropping other cases and what her involvement was, it looks pretty likely she'd have lost the case anyway, but that doesn't sell papers

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By * and R cple4Couple
over a year ago

swansea

If the photos and video tape are clear cut them that’s all the cps should need surely..

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *oeBeansMan
over a year ago

Derby


"He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses.

We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids.

Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club.

Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers.

Lack of evidence should mean he is not guilty of committing a crime.

Remember you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

Not exactly, it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Cases that are dropped due to lack of evidence don't mean the person hasn't done what they were accused of, just that it can't be proven 100%. Even cases that get to court and the defendant is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, just that there is enough doubt to prevent a guilty verdict.

Committing a crime does not make you guilty. Only being convicted by a court will make a person guilty.

I don't get how people can make these black and white statements. The photos and audio are out there for everyone to see. For the record, he hasn't been found not guilty, the charges were dropped so technically we might never know what would've been ruled.

It’s only a legal perspective, it has nothing to do whether he did it or not.

I’ve just listened to the audio, and to say it’s unpleasant is an understatement."

But then from a legal perspective he isn't not guilty as it never fully went to trial to make that decision.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *oeBeansMan
over a year ago

Derby


"Our justice system is based on the principle of presumption of innocence or, to put it another way, innocent until PROVEN guilty.

The burden of proof is on the accuser and not the accused.

Nobody is required to prove their innocence.

What I have a big problem with is that the Media seem to be completely unaware of this and, in my view, there should be some regulation brought in to protect anyone accused of 'trial by media' - especially as it has the potential to impact a trial.

Take a recent example.

A certain brother of our current Monarch.

Yes, there may well have been an out of court settlement, but nobody in the media has access to that agreement, so anything printed, including any settlement amount, is pure speculation.

Quite often solicitors advise their clients to settle a case rather than go to trial as it can often be the less ecpensive option - especially if your accuser is unlikely to be able to cover your legal fees if they lose.

And yet, because it was splashed all over the papers with reporters and editors speculating, guessing and fabricating stories, the geberal public believe him to be guilty.

When stuff later crops up about his accuser and her dropping other cases and what her involvement was, it looks pretty likely she'd have lost the case anyway, but that doesn't sell papers"

The proof is there! They only dropped the case because a key witness pulled out and they can't make a case without them. Tue law provides the technicalities but surely everyone can use their common sense

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Our justice system is based on the principle of presumption of innocence or, to put it another way, innocent until PROVEN guilty.

The burden of proof is on the accuser and not the accused.

Nobody is required to prove their innocence.

What I have a big problem with is that the Media seem to be completely unaware of this and, in my view, there should be some regulation brought in to protect anyone accused of 'trial by media' - especially as it has the potential to impact a trial.

Take a recent example.

A certain brother of our current Monarch.

Yes, there may well have been an out of court settlement, but nobody in the media has access to that agreement, so anything printed, including any settlement amount, is pure speculation.

Quite often solicitors advise their clients to settle a case rather than go to trial as it can often be the less ecpensive option - especially if your accuser is unlikely to be able to cover your legal fees if they lose.

And yet, because it was splashed all over the papers with reporters and editors speculating, guessing and fabricating stories, the geberal public believe him to be guilty.

When stuff later crops up about his accuser and her dropping other cases and what her involvement was, it looks pretty likely she'd have lost the case anyway, but that doesn't sell papers"

Just to clarify, I'm not taking any side on this, just using an example we're all aware of and looking at it from a technical standpoint.

I spent seven and a half years battling through civil courts (incidentaly where burden of proof is lower - it's based on balance of probability). I was falsely accused of something really rather despicable, which not only could my accuser not prove, but I directed the court to sufficient enough evidence to show thry had falsifued accusations and, not only was I actually found to be innocent but my accuser was found to have committed abuse.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Let's face it in real life society nowadays trial by media is often just as bad if not worse than trial by law.

Don't think that Mason Greenwood's gotten off unscathed from all this simply because charges were dropped. His name and "attempted ****" will forever be plastered all over the Internet with far more numerous regularity than his subsequent attempted **** charges being dropped. And you can't erase stuff off the Internet.

Just look at how many people commented online not just on Fab about how they've seen videos or heard recordings pertaining to the attempted **** accusations levelled against him, saying that doesn't matter he didn't get charged or convicted in a court of law, they KNOW and FEEL that he's guilty.

That's just the ones we read and hear online. Imagine how many more such individuals exist in real life forever viewing him with tinted glasses, and he's not only never getting the past year of his life back, he's never going to realistically rebuild his life in the UK after this because of the baggage hitched to his name, fair or otherwise.

We often say that we're glad to live in a society governed by the rule of law, yet the rule of public opinion is what society resorts to more often than not with far less leniency, tolerance, objectivity, and consistency (apart from being brutal in fuelling the most ill-informed Joe Citizen to be the most judgemental about someone and something that's of no consequence or concern to them).

I think the fairest thing any of us outsiders to Mason Greenwood's case and individual life can say is that he has the same legal rights and benefits as we do to be presumed innocent till found guilty, that his ordeal over the past year is over, and hopefully he'll be able to move on and rebuild his life.

Where, how, when, is not our concern nor in our power to influence. If he truly is a wrong un, trust that one day in future he'll slip up again and next time it'll stick. Otherwise, let's not be too quick to judge people by their past to condemn their present and future.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Just to clarify, I'm not taking any side on this, just using an example we're all aware of and looking at it from a technical standpoint.

I spent seven and a half years battling through civil courts (incidentaly where burden of proof is lower - it's based on balance of probability). I was falsely accused of something really rather despicable, which not only could my accuser not prove, but I directed the court to sufficient enough evidence to show thry had falsifued accusations and, not only was I actually found to be innocent but my accuser was found to have committed abuse. "

Sorry to hear about your ordeal. Did what happened to you have any serious impact on your professional life and social reputation? How did you move on from things in the end?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The proof is there! They only dropped the case because a key witness pulled out and they can't make a case without them. Tue law provides the technicalities but surely everyone can use their common sense"

You've rather contradicted yourself there because if a key witness has pulled out and they can't make a case without them then the proof is most definitely NOT there.

Raises questions about why the witness pulled out.

To be fair, I don't know the case, and have no idea who Mason Greenwood is - which would be good qualification to be on any jury.

Just playing devils advocate here

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *den-Valley-coupleCouple
over a year ago

Cumbria

[Removed by poster at 02/02/23 17:58:49]

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

The proof is there! They only dropped the case because a key witness pulled out and they can't make a case without them. Tue law provides the technicalities but surely everyone can use their common sense"

Well thank god we don't live in a society where the rule of law is simply determined by common sense as held by Joe Citizen such as yourself then.

If journalists can get car-bombed and killed for chasing down corruption and the mafia, yet they still did their investigative journalism and digging anyway, then you can't expect too much sympathy for people who make official public accusations of their most precious bodily autonomy being forcibly violated by someone else, then refusing to see things through with law enforcement and the courts to get justice rightly due to them.

When it comes to making accusations of criminality against others, it's a binary thing. Either you don't, or you do and you go through all the way, because if you pull out halfway you're going to be the one who looks the worse for wasting everybody's time and sowing doubt in their minds about your case against whoever you're accusing.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *den-Valley-coupleCouple
over a year ago

Cumbria

the video recordings and pictures, I saw thanks to reditt would be enough for me to find him guilty.

At least assault.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ananaman41Man
over a year ago

Dublin


"the video recordings and pictures, I saw thanks to reditt would be enough for me to find him guilty.

At least assault."

Just as well youre not a magistrate then isnt it

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *oeBeansMan
over a year ago

Derby


"

The proof is there! They only dropped the case because a key witness pulled out and they can't make a case without them. Tue law provides the technicalities but surely everyone can use their common sense

Well thank god we don't live in a society where the rule of law is simply determined by common sense as held by Joe Citizen such as yourself then.

If journalists can get car-bombed and killed for chasing down corruption and the mafia, yet they still did their investigative journalism and digging anyway, then you can't expect too much sympathy for people who make official public accusations of their most precious bodily autonomy being forcibly violated by someone else, then refusing to see things through with law enforcement and the courts to get justice rightly due to them.

When it comes to making accusations of criminality against others, it's a binary thing. Either you don't, or you do and you go through all the way, because if you pull out halfway you're going to be the one who looks the worse for wasting everybody's time and sowing doubt in their minds about your case against whoever you're accusing. "

I mean, it kind of is when you put it in front of a jury if "Joe Citizens" because they would consider the proof at hand i.e the recording and the photos. They just never let get to court because he broke his terms of bail twice by visiting her and then all of a sudden they lose a key witness? Are those the actions of an innocent man or am I using too much common sense for you?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ikeC81Man
over a year ago

harrow

As a united fan

One I see this as follows

He is innocent under law. Has he been tried nope. Is there insufficient evidence to try him and get a conviction. ‘Yes’. The statement innocent upon proven by all reasonable doubt comes in to play, is there information that we are not privy to that throws the accusation by the woman in to doubt. Maybe we don’t know. Has she changed her story etc - we don’t know

So under the letter of the law he innocent

Now obviously a lot of us have heard / watched footage and feel the that he is guilty. However that is not enough. The evidence needs to prove he is guilty.

Do I think he is guilty, from what I know it is not an open and shut case, so whilst I think there is a strong level of guilt, would it be enough to convict. I doubt it. Which is shame as if he has done that then he should be locked up

Now on to united

Most workplace contracts have a disrepute clause, associated with misconduct. Technically he has done nothing illegal: however he has embarrassed himself and the club. Could they fire him on this basis alone. Possible.

Do I want him at the club, he will become a circus. Other fans will call him out, and I know a number of our fans want him knowhere near the club. My stance, more trouble than it’s worth and get rid

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ananaman41Man
over a year ago

Dublin


"

The proof is there! They only dropped the case because a key witness pulled out and they can't make a case without them. Tue law provides the technicalities but surely everyone can use their common sense

Well thank god we don't live in a society where the rule of law is simply determined by common sense as held by Joe Citizen such as yourself then.

If journalists can get car-bombed and killed for chasing down corruption and the mafia, yet they still did their investigative journalism and digging anyway, then you can't expect too much sympathy for people who make official public accusations of their most precious bodily autonomy being forcibly violated by someone else, then refusing to see things through with law enforcement and the courts to get justice rightly due to them.

When it comes to making accusations of criminality against others, it's a binary thing. Either you don't, or you do and you go through all the way, because if you pull out halfway you're going to be the one who looks the worse for wasting everybody's time and sowing doubt in their minds about your case against whoever you're accusing.

I mean, it kind of is when you put it in front of a jury if "Joe Citizens" because they would consider the proof at hand i.e the recording and the photos. They just never let get to court because he broke his terms of bail twice by visiting her and then all of a sudden they lose a key witness? Are those the actions of an innocent man or am I using too much common sense for you?"

No, i think you're just using too many assumptions based on your pre-conceived belief in his guilt

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

The proof is there! They only dropped the case because a key witness pulled out and they can't make a case without them. Tue law provides the technicalities but surely everyone can use their common sense

Well thank god we don't live in a society where the rule of law is simply determined by common sense as held by Joe Citizen such as yourself then.

If journalists can get car-bombed and killed for chasing down corruption and the mafia, yet they still did their investigative journalism and digging anyway, then you can't expect too much sympathy for people who make official public accusations of their most precious bodily autonomy being forcibly violated by someone else, then refusing to see things through with law enforcement and the courts to get justice rightly due to them.

When it comes to making accusations of criminality against others, it's a binary thing. Either you don't, or you do and you go through all the way, because if you pull out halfway you're going to be the one who looks the worse for wasting everybody's time and sowing doubt in their minds about your case against whoever you're accusing.

I mean, it kind of is when you put it in front of a jury if "Joe Citizens" because they would consider the proof at hand i.e the recording and the photos. They just never let get to court because he broke his terms of bail twice by visiting her and then all of a sudden they lose a key witness? Are those the actions of an innocent man or am I using too much common sense for you?

No, i think you're just using too many assumptions based on your pre-conceived belief in his guilt"

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *oeBeansMan
over a year ago

Derby


"

The proof is there! They only dropped the case because a key witness pulled out and they can't make a case without them. Tue law provides the technicalities but surely everyone can use their common sense

Well thank god we don't live in a society where the rule of law is simply determined by common sense as held by Joe Citizen such as yourself then.

If journalists can get car-bombed and killed for chasing down corruption and the mafia, yet they still did their investigative journalism and digging anyway, then you can't expect too much sympathy for people who make official public accusations of their most precious bodily autonomy being forcibly violated by someone else, then refusing to see things through with law enforcement and the courts to get justice rightly due to them.

When it comes to making accusations of criminality against others, it's a binary thing. Either you don't, or you do and you go through all the way, because if you pull out halfway you're going to be the one who looks the worse for wasting everybody's time and sowing doubt in their minds about your case against whoever you're accusing.

I mean, it kind of is when you put it in front of a jury if "Joe Citizens" because they would consider the proof at hand i.e the recording and the photos. They just never let get to court because he broke his terms of bail twice by visiting her and then all of a sudden they lose a key witness? Are those the actions of an innocent man or am I using too much common sense for you?

No, i think you're just using too many assumptions based on your pre-conceived belief in his guilt"

Are the assumptions unfounded? Do they not have a single modicum of viability?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *oeBeansMan
over a year ago

Derby

Actually, fuck it. I'm done with this thread because I can literally see the ban message in my inbox

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ormorantMan
over a year ago

Lincolnshire

He’s innocent…:: just like Johnny Depo….

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"CPS- Can't Prosecute Shit service- as we used to say. Not that any public body in England functions efficiently after 13 years of cuts.

The court of public opinion will slay him surely as a shank in prison..."

And this is a good thing why and how? Do you know how fickle and ill-informed the court of public opinion is?

Because you may have heard or seen stuff on the Internet about Mason Greenwood which makes you feel subjectively that he's guilty based off what you saw as an individual, you support the idea of the court of public opinion "slaying him surely as a shank in prison". I'd wager every pound in my possession that if it were a TV/TS individual instead and anyone made the same remark as you just did, you'd be crying out that they were transphobic, judgemental, and discriminatory.

Tell me I'm wrong. Or don't. You know the answer in your heart yourself, up to you to be honest about it openly.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *oft_SensualTV/TS
over a year ago

Yorkshire


"CPS- Can't Prosecute Shit service- as we used to say. Not that any public body in England functions efficiently after 13 years of cuts.

The court of public opinion will slay him surely as a shank in prison...

And this is a good thing why and how? Do you know how fickle and ill-informed the court of public opinion is?

Because you may have heard or seen stuff on the Internet about Mason Greenwood which makes you feel subjectively that he's guilty based off what you saw as an individual, you support the idea of the court of public opinion "slaying him surely as a shank in prison". I'd wager every pound in my possession that if it were a TV/TS individual instead and anyone made the same remark as you just did, you'd be crying out that they were transphobic, judgemental, and discriminatory.

Tell me I'm wrong. Or don't. You know the answer in your heart yourself, up to you to be honest about it openly. "

It's called humour. Lighten up Francis.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ebauchedDeviantsPt2Couple
over a year ago

Cumbria

Anyone who has heard the audio and seen the pics, and STILL defends Greenwood may as well just walk around with a massive red flag all day.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *oft_SensualTV/TS
over a year ago

Yorkshire


"Anyone who has heard the audio and seen the pics, and STILL defends Greenwood may as well just walk around with a massive red flag all day."

Exactly.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Then you get the flip side, as in the case of the protesters in Bristol who tossed a statue into the harbour and were caught on video doing it, were aquitted by a Jury

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"CPS- Can't Prosecute Shit service- as we used to say. Not that any public body in England functions efficiently after 13 years of cuts.

The court of public opinion will slay him surely as a shank in prison...

And this is a good thing why and how? Do you know how fickle and ill-informed the court of public opinion is?

Because you may have heard or seen stuff on the Internet about Mason Greenwood which makes you feel subjectively that he's guilty based off what you saw as an individual, you support the idea of the court of public opinion "slaying him surely as a shank in prison". I'd wager every pound in my possession that if it were a TV/TS individual instead and anyone made the same remark as you just did, you'd be crying out that they were transphobic, judgemental, and discriminatory.

Tell me I'm wrong. Or don't. You know the answer in your heart yourself, up to you to be honest about it openly. "

To make a 'fab' comparrison, it's like naming and shaming - which we all know is against site rules, and many of us understand why

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *os19Man
over a year ago

Edmonton

At the end of the day if the CPS can’t prosecute then Mason Greenwood should be allowed to try to rebuild his life.Whether that is at Man Utd or another club remains to be seen.As a Man Utd fan I have no problem with him returning to the first team ASAP

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes definitely even cps dropped case so no charge so in law he's innocent do we tell prisoners that are guilty on release sorry but you can't go back to your old job.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes definitely even cps dropped case so no charge so in law he's innocent do we tell prisoners that are guilty on release sorry but you can't go back to your old job."

Well certainly only if their previous jobs were those that were very specific about certain clearance requirements or had higher safeguarding measures due to their job nature and who engages with individuals in such jobs.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ananaman41Man
over a year ago

Dublin


"Anyone who has heard the audio and seen the pics, and STILL defends Greenwood may as well just walk around with a massive red flag all day."

Once again, another reason why cases are dealt with in public. Pieces of evidence being used, without any veracity or context to convict the guy in public.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses.

We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids.

Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club.

Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers.

Lack of evidence should mean he is not guilty of committing a crime.

Remember you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

Not exactly, it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Cases that are dropped due to lack of evidence don't mean the person hasn't done what they were accused of, just that it can't be proven 100%. Even cases that get to court and the defendant is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, just that there is enough doubt to prevent a guilty verdict.

Committing a crime does not make you guilty. Only being convicted by a court will make a person guilty.

I don't get how people can make these black and white statements. The photos and audio are out there for everyone to see. For the record, he hasn't been found not guilty, the charges were dropped so technically we might never know what would've been ruled."
so still innocent in the law then

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"CPS- Can't Prosecute Shit service- as we used to say. Not that any public body in England functions efficiently after 13 years of cuts.

The court of public opinion will slay him surely as a shank in prison...

And this is a good thing why and how? Do you know how fickle and ill-informed the court of public opinion is?

Because you may have heard or seen stuff on the Internet about Mason Greenwood which makes you feel subjectively that he's guilty based off what you saw as an individual, you support the idea of the court of public opinion "slaying him surely as a shank in prison". I'd wager every pound in my possession that if it were a TV/TS individual instead and anyone made the same remark as you just did, you'd be crying out that they were transphobic, judgemental, and discriminatory.

Tell me I'm wrong. Or don't. You know the answer in your heart yourself, up to you to be honest about it openly.

To make a 'fab' comparrison, it's like naming and shaming - which we all know is against site rules, and many of us understand why"

Well, we're human. Logic doesn't always win. And when emotions about something are strong enough in us, rare is the person who doesn't go "fuck it, I KNOW this is what it is objectively speaking, but I don't have to like it and I will NOT accept it".

Full disclaimer: I'm equally vulnerable to this as well. Part of being human.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ananaman41Man
over a year ago

Dublin


"He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses.

We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids.

Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club.

Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers.

Lack of evidence should mean he is not guilty of committing a crime.

Remember you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

Not exactly, it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Cases that are dropped due to lack of evidence don't mean the person hasn't done what they were accused of, just that it can't be proven 100%. Even cases that get to court and the defendant is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, just that there is enough doubt to prevent a guilty verdict.

Committing a crime does not make you guilty. Only being convicted by a court will make a person guilty.

I don't get how people can make these black and white statements. The photos and audio are out there for everyone to see. For the record, he hasn't been found not guilty, the charges were dropped so technically we might never know what would've been ruled.so still innocent in the law then "

Yes. And in fact it hasnt even gotten to the stage of whether hes guilty or not, so its no different to you or i as we sit at home on a Thursday evening. His record is clean

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *oft_SensualTV/TS
over a year ago

Yorkshire

Gentlemen, would you want your daughters going out with him? That famous litmus test...

Case dropped or not, the evidence is still openly available for sentient beings to make their minds up about his guilt or lack thereof.

There are plenty of famous people who didn't get convicted but are guilty AF.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sometimes the CPS get it wrong, though. The case against the Rochdale grooming gang (a network of grown men grooming and abusing young teenage girls) is a perfect example of this.

What it does, is send another clear message out to all abusers - keep doing whatever you like, because there are no real consequences for your actions.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *amie HantsWoman
over a year ago

Atlantis


"Sometimes the CPS get it wrong, though. The case against the Rochdale grooming gang (a network of grown men grooming and abusing young teenage girls) is a perfect example of this.

What it does, is send another clear message out to all abusers - keep doing whatever you like, because there are no real consequences for your actions."

I wonder if the people who are quick to defend a footballer would be so quick to defend those guys that were involved.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ulieAndBeefCouple
over a year ago

Manchester-ish

The burden of proof is so much higher for a criminal case. As a woman, there are several posters on this thread that I wouldn't meet on my own after reading how quick they are to proclaim the innocence of someone in a very murky case.

J

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *rispyDuckMan
over a year ago

Chinese Takeaway near you

Let's just hope the young twat has learnt his lesson & other would be that's have seen the potential consequences of such behaviour!

I'm guessing they settled out of court hence the charges have been dropped.

As for the question: should he lose his job? I don't think so, he would just go on benefits and we'll all be paying for him so let him work and contribute . And besides if we all hot sacked from our jobs for bad deeds we do in our private lives, an even higher majority of the population would be unemployed right now!

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ananaman41Man
over a year ago

Dublin


"Sometimes the CPS get it wrong, though. The case against the Rochdale grooming gang (a network of grown men grooming and abusing young teenage girls) is a perfect example of this.

What it does, is send another clear message out to all abusers - keep doing whatever you like, because there are no real consequences for your actions.

I wonder if the people who are quick to defend a footballer would be so quick to defend those guys that were involved. "

His profession is irrelevant.

Hes being 'defended' on here because the cps have decided there is no case for him to answer.

What more do you want to see?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ananaman41Man
over a year ago

Dublin


"The burden of proof is so much higher for a criminal case. As a woman, there are several posters on this thread that I wouldn't meet on my own after reading how quick they are to proclaim the innocence of someone in a very murky case.

J"

Youd rather we resort to mob justice instead so would you?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ulieAndBeefCouple
over a year ago

Manchester-ish


"The burden of proof is so much higher for a criminal case. As a woman, there are several posters on this thread that I wouldn't meet on my own after reading how quick they are to proclaim the innocence of someone in a very murky case.

J

Youd rather we resort to mob justice instead so would you? "

Please don't sealion me and twist my words. I'd hope a bit of nuance, a bit of understanding that the CPS and courts don't always get it right (both ways) might be shown in people's posts. When it isn't I am well within my rights to think I wouldn't want to meet them.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ananaman41Man
over a year ago

Dublin


"The burden of proof is so much higher for a criminal case. As a woman, there are several posters on this thread that I wouldn't meet on my own after reading how quick they are to proclaim the innocence of someone in a very murky case.

J

Youd rather we resort to mob justice instead so would you?

Please don't sealion me and twist my words. I'd hope a bit of nuance, a bit of understanding that the CPS and courts don't always get it right (both ways) might be shown in people's posts. When it isn't I am well within my rights to think I wouldn't want to meet them."

I never said you werent. Which is why i asked the question instead

And what in gods name is to 'sealion' someone??

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ulieAndBeefCouple
over a year ago

Manchester-ish


"And what in gods name is to 'sealion' someone?? "

Sealioning is derailing a debate with polite but relentless questions that have little bearing on what someone has said.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"And what in gods name is to 'sealion' someone??

Sealioning is derailing a debate with polite but relentless questions that have little bearing on what someone has said."

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 
 

By *ananaman41Man
over a year ago

Dublin


"And what in gods name is to 'sealion' someone??

Sealioning is derailing a debate with polite but relentless questions that have little bearing on what someone has said."

Christ almight, does there have to be a stupid name made up for everything these days

Not only is it complete garbage, but it also doesnt apply to me. Polite, yes. Relentless and little bearing? Everything I've said has been relevant to the subject, and each time i post something , its in response to someone else, which im entitled to do as much as you are

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
back to top