Mason Greenwood

1finny said:
They could well be motivated by paternal/maternal reasons to try and keep him and rehabilitate - much like a mum and dad would do if it was there son.
Click to expand...
Maternal/paternal in the same way as the victims parents themselves were when they came out and defended him because they didn't want to lose their cash cow. If he was rubbish at football he'd have been long gone.

coluka said:
He will forever be judged, his team will not be able to cope with the barrage of hatred and bile directed at him and all associated with him from a baying mob wanting his life in football ended.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced this will happen over a long period of time. It will be like that at first but a few weeks in and everyone gets used to it, especially if he starts playing well and scoring, then it will die down and it will be forgotten by most. The home fans will sing his name and drown out the away fans taunts. It will only get brought up again when people start asking why we're not including him in England squads.

Utd have the luxury of having enough fans that the principled ones that stop going will be easily replaceable and it won't cost them a penny in ticket sales.
 
Bit far fetched to call a football club a family/parents.
Unless it's normal to kick them out if they are not good enough at 16, like most of his little "brothers". Left for another less well to do family to pick up.
It's an industry that churns youngsters out like confetti.
Man utd owners are looking at his resale value only, pure greed, makes me dislike them even more.
 
1finny said:
You will be in the 'forgive Mason Greenwood' camp then

Oh, and I know the background to the Woodgate incident in quite some detail thanks.
But feel free to tell me what is factually incorrect about what I said earlier - always happy to learn

I will concede that 'pulp' is emotional language - broke his leg, cheek bone, nose and left him unconscious is how the lad ended up.

This might help too

'The victim was already lying bleeding in the street when 21-year-old Woodgate was seen to stand back, leap with both feet in the air and land on the teenager's body, the court heard'
Click to expand...
😂yes that’s what happened. I have no stance on Greenwood but the CPS have give it NO FURTHER ACTION I believe they have all the facts also do Man Utd as I believe innocent till proven guilty which means he is innocent
 
Omega said:
😂yes that’s what happened. I have no stance on Greenwood but the CPS have give it NO FURTHER ACTION I believe they have all the facts also do Man Utd as I believe innocent till proven guilty which means he is innocent
Click to expand...
In the court of law a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

That is a long way off it actually meaning they are innocent in real life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hap
Omega said:
😂yes that’s what happened. I have no stance on Greenwood but the CPS have give it NO FURTHER ACTION I believe they have all the facts also do Man Utd as I believe innocent till proven guilty which means he is innocent
Click to expand...
So by that logic Jimmy Saville is innocent too?
 
Haven’t read the whole thread yet but I’m sure someone will have made the point that those running Manchester United have always intended to bring him back but are fully aware of the backlash, and that’s why it’s taking them so long to announce it.

They will bring him back despite being acutely aware of the feelings of supporters both in the stadium and online - the club have received a lot of correspondence from season ticket holders saying they don’t want him back. There was a protest about it at the Wolves game. Richard Arnold, the Glazers, ten Hag, John Murtagh, they all know the situation. They know that the vast majority of people are against it but have spent months trying to work out how to reintegrate him without losing face.

He will be back playing for them by the end of the calendar year IMO. The reason they haven’t announced anything is because they’re too ashamed to come out and say it.
 
Last edited:
Te BBC did crucify Greenwood on Newsnight last night. Their tone was everything that is sad about him is true, but ocassionally they would say nothing can be proved.

I got frustrated because I was left thinking it must be true based on the tone of the BBC and all their guests, but was presented with no conclusive evidence.

It pointless having a debate (which they did) about if he should play for MU, if nothing has been proved and ther CPS are not convinced either its all true or they would get a guilty verdict

Contrast with say Ched Evans/Adam Johnson cases where they was a conviction and it had gone through the courts.

Saville would have gone to Court and convicted if he was alive - his driver was after Saville died. Saville was protected in the 1990s/2000s because of his MBE, work with the BBC, work with charities/realtionship with very important politicians.
 
Alzi said:
Not sure how much more context you need?

Man: Move your legs up..move your
F***ing legs up
Woman: No...I don't wanna have sex
Man: I don't give a **** what you
want
Man: shut up talking to me ...stop
Woman: stop putting your d*ck there
Man: I'm gonna **** you, you ****
Woman: I don't wanna have sex with
you
Man: I don't care if you don't wanna have F***ing sex with me, do you hear me
Click to expand...
BBC Newsnight did quote this, but they said there was an issue with identity - you quote man/woman not names. They implied this had caused the CPS to not proceed.

I am not taking a particular view, just repeating what was said on the BBC.

Obviously a lot of people are 100% convinced it is him.

If the woman says its not her on the audio recording the CPS will have a problem, but surely they can use voice experts/AI etc and have they discovered why she has changed her mind about going to court? for example he is physically threatening her or paid her off?
 
Redwurzel said:
BBC Newsnight did quote this, but they said there was an issue with identity - you quote man/woman not names. They implied this had caused the CPS to not proceed.

I am not taking a particular view, just repeating what was said on the BBC.

Obviously a lot of people are 100% convinced it is him.

If the woman says its not her on the audio recording the CPS will have a problem, but surely they can use voice experts/AI etc and have they discovered why she has changed her mind about going to court? for example he is physically threatening her or paid her off?
Click to expand...
Last thing you want as a prosecutor before a jury trial is for your main witness to be a hostile witness.
 
Redwurzel said:
BBC Newsnight did quote this, but they said there was an issue with identity - you quote man/woman not names. They implied this had caused the CPS to not proceed.

I am not taking a particular view, just repeating what was said on the BBC.

Obviously a lot of people are 100% convinced it is him.

If the woman says its not her on the audio recording the CPS will have a problem, but surely they can use voice experts/AI etc and have they discovered why she has changed her mind about going to court? for example he is physically threatening her or paid her off?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure she's never denied it is her. Think the excuse is it is just "role-playing". The CPS didn't drop charges because the evidence wasn't strong enough but because she withdrew her witness statement so they couldn't use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top