Mason Greenwood

[Fordy62]

1 hour ago, And Its Smith said:

The conviction rate is completely unacceptable. Something needs to be done 

100% mate. 

[And Its Smith]

27 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

It's hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt,

Greenwood's case there is evidence but most of the time it's his word against hers

I know why it’s low. 

[jonb]

I've not heard the recording, or particularly seen the story so this is absolutely no defence of Greenwood -  but is nobody else surprised that a thread regarding a live criminal case likely to end up in Crown Court has been started by a serving police officer? In what world is that remotely appropriate? I did jury service last year and wasn't even allowed to talk to anyone.   Mental.

Edited January 30, 2022 by jonb

[INCRED]

1 hour ago, lenred said:

Really really strange.  Like you say I’d be preoccupied trying to get MG filled in as opposed worrying about statements if it was my girl! 

I think the police would be dealing with a serious GBH charge as a minimum if it happened to my daughter 

[Gazred]

7 minutes ago, jonb said:

I've not heard the recording, or particularly seen the story so this is absolutely no defence of Greenwood -  but is nobody else surprised that a thread regarding a live criminal case likely to end up in Crown Court has been started by a serving police officer? In what world is that remotely appropriate? I did jury service last year and wasn't even allowed to talk to anyone.   Mental.

 

[Numero Uno]

7 minutes ago, jonb said:

I've not heard the recording, or particularly seen the story so this is absolutely no defence of Greenwood -  but is nobody else surprised that a thread regarding a live criminal case likely to end up in Crown Court has been started by a serving police officer? In what world is that remotely appropriate? I did jury service last year and wasn't even allowed to talk to anyone.   Mental.

This years bizarre post winner is………

[jonb]

The relevance is appropriate behaviour/standards in public life.  Let me give you a comparison  - I'm a Civil Servant,  and a Labour party member.   I am expressly forbidden from active campaigning and make a point (because I'm a professional) not to get involved in conversations about Boris Johnson, or any political issue - however much I might like to.  There is absolutely precedent for this - I wouldn't expect a local councillor to weigh in the media on a sensitive planning issue ahead of judicial review, I wouldn't expect a Civil Servant to talk politics  and I sure as hell wouldn't expect anyone in the criminal justice system to be discussing live criminal cases on the Internet- different force or not.

Edited January 30, 2022 by jonb

[Monkeh]

14 minutes ago, jonb said:

I've not heard the recording, or particularly seen the story so this is absolutely no defence of Greenwood -  but is nobody else surprised that a thread regarding a live criminal case likely to end up in Crown Court has been started by a serving police officer? In what world is that remotely appropriate? I did jury service last year and wasn't even allowed to talk to anyone.   Mental.

It's a different force and a story is being reported in the media

[And Its Smith]

5 minutes ago, jonb said:

The relevance is appropriate behaviour/standards in public life.  Let me give you a comparison  - I'm a Civil Servant,  and a Labour party member.   I am expressly forbidden from active campaigning and make a point (because I'm a professional) not to get involved in conversations about Boris Johnson, or any political issue - however much I might like to.  There is absolutely precedent for this - I wouldn't expect a local councillor to weigh in the media on a sensitive planning issue ahead of judicial review, I wouldn't expect a Civil Servant to talk politics  and I sure as hell wouldn't expect anyone in the criminal justice system to be discussing live criminal cases on the Internet- different force or not.

You don’t do something you aren’t allowed to do. Maybe Fordy is allowed. I don’t know. And nor do you. What you would or wouldn’t expect isn’t relevant 

[Fordy62]

14 minutes ago, jonb said:

I've not heard the recording, or particularly seen the story so this is absolutely no defence of Greenwood -  but is nobody else surprised that a thread regarding a live criminal case likely to end up in Crown Court has been started by a serving police officer? In what world is that remotely appropriate? I did jury service last year and wasn't even allowed to talk to anyone.   Mental.

Then you need to be aware that it’s fine to comment on things in the public domain. Now you’ve learnt that, you should be better informed going forwards. 

If I were talking about me disclosing unrelated data pertaining to a live criminal case, you have a point. 

[Monkeh]

9 minutes ago, jonb said:

The relevance is appropriate behaviour/standards in public life.  Let me give you a comparison  - I'm a Civil Servant,  and a Labour party member.   I am expressly forbidden from active campaigning and make a point (because I'm a professional) not to get involved in conversations about Boris Johnson, or any political issue - however much I might like to.  There is absolutely precedent for this - I wouldn't expect a local councillor to weigh in the media on a sensitive planning issue ahead of judicial review, I wouldn't expect a Civil Servant to talk politics  and I sure as hell wouldn't expect anyone in the criminal justice system to be discussing live criminal cases on the Internet- different force or not.

I work for the railway and talk about the tail,

You are suggesting we sensor a member of this forum because you don't like the fact they are talking about something that's been widely reported?

It would matter if it was the investigating force and an investigating officer was posting this thread, not someone who has nothing to do with the case

Edited January 30, 2022 by Monkeh

[jonb]

OK, I'll have one more go and duck out.  You have a serving police officer, ahead of any trial (or charge even) saying it 'certainly looks like' someone is guilty.   Do you really believe that (A) that is appropriate  or (B) allowed? I'm a Civil Servant not a police officer so I'll leave it to the OPs knowledge of their own contract (and,  frankly, his conscience) to decide if its OK.  I'll just say that with my knowledge of the public sector I would be very, very, surprised.   And if people want a justice system where we all think it's OK - well, good luck to you.  I'm probably just being a lefty hand wringer thinking it's not appropriate. 

[Kashmir]

5 minutes ago, jonb said:

OK, I'll have one more go and duck out.  You have a serving police officer, ahead of any trial (or charge even) saying it 'certainly looks like' someone is guilty.   Do you really believe that (A) that is appropriate  or (B) allowed? I'm a Civil Servant not a police officer so I'll leave it to the OPs knowledge of their own contract (and,  frankly, his conscience) to decide if its OK.  I'll just say that with my knowledge of the public sector I would be very, very, surprised.   And if people want a justice system where we all think it's OK - well, good luck to you.  I'm probably just being a lefty hand wringer thinking it's not appropriate. 

You’re being a lefty hand wringer.

[Numero Uno]

7 minutes ago, jonb said:

OK, I'll have one more go and duck out.  You have a serving police officer, ahead of any trial (or charge even) saying it 'certainly looks like' someone is guilty.   Do you really believe that (A) that is appropriate  or (B) allowed? I'm a Civil Servant not a police officer so I'll leave it to the OPs knowledge of their own contract (and,  frankly, his conscience) to decide if its OK.  I'll just say that with my knowledge of the public sector I would be very, very, surprised.   And if people want a justice system where we all think it's OK - well, good luck to you.  I'm probably just being a lefty hand wringer thinking it's not appropriate. 

I think you did jury service once and now you think you are Michael Mansfield QC

[Fordy62]

2 minutes ago, jonb said:

OK, I'll have one more go and duck out.  You have a serving police officer, ahead of any trial (or charge even) saying it 'certainly looks* like' someone is guilty.   Do you really believe that (A) that is appropriate  or (B) allowed? I'm a Civil Servant not a police officer so I'll leave it to the OPs knowledge of their own contract (and,  frankly, his conscience) to decide if its OK.  I'll just say that with my knowledge of the public sector I would be very, very, surprised.   And if people want a justice system where we all think it's OK - well, good luck to you.  I'm probably just being a lefty hand wringer thinking it's not appropriate. 

Again, it’s not a case I’m investigating - so I’m cool to have an opinion.

Try listening to what the majority of us have. See if you disagree then. I’ll be surprised if you do. 

[Ziderarmy]

23 minutes ago, jonb said:

The relevance is appropriate behaviour/standards in public life.  Let me give you a comparison  - I'm a Civil Servant,  and a Labour party member.   I am expressly forbidden from active campaigning and make a point (because I'm a professional) not to get involved in conversations about Boris Johnson, or any political issue - however much I might like to.  There is absolutely precedent for this - I wouldn't expect a local councillor to weigh in the media on a sensitive planning issue ahead of judicial review, I wouldn't expect a Civil Servant to talk politics  and I sure as hell wouldn't expect anyone in the criminal justice system to be discussing live criminal cases on the Internet- different force or not.

Ah that explains it. 

[jonb]

The point isn't whether I think he's guilty or not - it seems fairly clear from what others have said that he's a piece of shit and is probably going down.  I'm merely expressing surprise (and more than happy to be told I'm wrong) that a serving police officer can go on a public forum and say 'it certainly looks like' someone is guilty of a crime that hasn't even been charged.

And to be clear to whoever talked about censorship - it's absolutely not a censorship issue, because it isn't the issue for the forum it's posted on. I'm just surprised that the OP is allowed to do it - that is all

 

I can see I'm struggling to get my point over, so will respectfully duck out.

[Monkeh]

13 minutes ago, jonb said:

OK, I'll have one more go and duck out.  You have a serving police officer, ahead of any trial (or charge even) saying it 'certainly looks like' someone is guilty.   Do you really believe that (A) that is appropriate  or (B) allowed? I'm a Civil Servant not a police officer so I'll leave it to the OPs knowledge of their own contract (and,  frankly, his conscience) to decide if its OK.  I'll just say that with my knowledge of the public sector I would be very, very, surprised.   And if people want a justice system where we all think it's OK - well, good luck to you.  I'm probably just being a lefty hand wringer thinking it's not appropriate. 

Yes you are, the police are not robots and can have opinions on things,

This just seems like an eloquent attack on fordy who in turn has ran circles around you because you don't know what you are talking about

[And Its Smith]

7 minutes ago, jonb said:

The point isn't whether I think he's guilty or not - it seems fairly clear from what others have said that he's a piece of shit and is probably going down.  I'm merely expressing surprise (and more than happy to be told I'm wrong) that a serving police officer can go on a public forum and say 'it certainly looks like' someone is guilty of a crime that hasn't even been charged.

And to be clear to whoever talked about censorship - it's absolutely not a censorship issue, because it isn't the issue for the forum it's posted on. I'm just surprised that the OP is allowed to do it - that is all

 

I can see I'm struggling to get my point over, so will respectfully duck out.

Your point is clear but you are wrong. What you are comfortable with or what surprises you has no relevance 

[2015]

28 minutes ago, jonb said:

OK, I'll have one more go and duck out.  You have a serving police officer, ahead of any trial (or charge even) saying it 'certainly looks like' someone is guilty.   Do you really believe that (A) that is appropriate  or (B) allowed? I'm a Civil Servant not a police officer so I'll leave it to the OPs knowledge of their own contract (and,  frankly, his conscience) to decide if its OK.  I'll just say that with my knowledge of the public sector I would be very, very, surprised.   And if people want a justice system where we all think it's OK - well, good luck to you.  I'm probably just being a lefty hand wringer thinking it's not appropriate. 

You sound like the sort of guy at School who would snitch to the teachers. I'm sure your heart is in the right place but judging by your also pretty flawed political views (each to their own) you're a bit misguided and just being objective for the sake of it, to look intelligent, when you just look rather stupid.

[Southport Red]

10 minutes ago, 2015 said:

You sound like the sort of guy at School who would snitch to the teachers. I'm sure your heart is in the right place but judging by your also pretty flawed political views (each to their own) you're a bit misguided and just being objective for the sake of it, to look intelligent, when you just look rather stupid.

I think his point was more to do with it being sub-judice and that a serving Police officer should know and not have started the thread. At least, I assume that’s his point 

[jonb]

1 minute ago, Southport Red said:

I think his point was more to do with it being sub-judice and that a serving Police officer should know and not have started the thread. At least, I assume that’s his point 

That was exactly my point, but worded correctly by someone using the correct terms!

[2015]

2 minutes ago, Southport Red said:

I think his point was more to do with it being sub-judice and that a serving Police officer should know and not have started the thread. At least, I assume that’s his point 

It would have been started anyway by someone as it's a football forum and it's come across as just a bit of pointless nit picking. What's he/she gaining from it?

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, Southport Red said:

I think his point was more to do with it being sub-judice and that a serving Police officer should know and not have started the thread. At least, I assume that’s his point 

The case may become sub judice once an arrest is made but I don't think discussing what is in the public domain prejudices proceedings.

You wouldn't expect officers from the GMP to be commenting but I don't see that officers from elsewhere would be precluded. Though not in an official capacity of course.

Edited January 30, 2022 by chinapig

[Bris Red]

3 minutes ago, jonb said:

That was exactly my point, but worded correctly by someone using the correct terms!

You’ve said you are going to ‘duck out’ 3 posts ago yet still keep coming back for more.. Probably best to do us all a favour and give it a rest pal..

[Akira]

7 minutes ago, bris red said:

You’ve said you are going to ‘duck out’ 3 posts ago yet still keep coming back for more.. Probably best to do us all a favour and give it a rest pal..

Amen to that! 

 

[Southport Red]

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

The case may become sub judice once an arrest is made but I don't think discussing what is in the public domain prejudices proceedings.

You wouldn't expect officers from the GMP to be commenting but I don't see that officers from elsewhere would be precluded. Though not in an official capacity of course.

I agree. I was just explaining the poster’s comment. BTW, as I type this, a tweet came up saying Sunderland have sacked LJ

[A Horse With No Name]

1 hour ago, jonb said:

OK, I'll have one more go and duck out.  You have a serving police officer, ahead of any trial (or charge even) saying it 'certainly looks like' someone is guilty.   Do you really believe that (A) that is appropriate  or (B) allowed? I'm a Civil Servant not a police officer so I'll leave it to the OPs knowledge of their own contract (and,  frankly, his conscience) to decide if its OK.  I'll just say that with my knowledge of the public sector I would be very, very, surprised.   And if people want a justice system where we all think it's OK - well, good luck to you.  I'm probably just being a lefty hand wringer thinking it's not appropriate. 

To be fair, he said exactly the same thing about Joey Barton, and he got found not guilty.

[Super]

7 minutes ago, The Horse With No Name said:

To be fair, he said exactly the same thing about Joey Barton, and he got found not guilty.

Who did?

[Colombo Robin]

Give the man jonb a break. Lots of overreacting on here. All he said was he found it suprising that a police officer would be so keen to imply guilt before anyone has even been charged. I think its a fair point. Christopher Jefferies springs to mind and that alleged Israeli gang rape case in Cyprus a while ago. People just need to let investigations run their course and not instantly spray stuff all over social media

 

 

[A Horse With No Name]

8 minutes ago, Super said:

Who did?

Fordy, while reviewing the evidence said words to the effect that Barton was bang to rights, and was looking at a custodial sentence. Just pointing out that just because he is a police officer, his views are his own, and can be as wrong as anyone elses. Obviously not comparing Barton's misdemeanour with Greenwoods alleged crimes.

Edited January 30, 2022 by The Horse With No Name

[chinapig]

21 minutes ago, Southport Red said:

31 minutes ago, chinapig said:

The case may become sub judice once an arrest is made but I don't think discussing what is in the public domain prejudices proceedings.

You wouldn't expect officers from the GMP to be commenting but I don't see that officers from elsewhere would be precluded. Though not in an official capacity of course.

Expand  

I agree. I was just explaining the poster’s comment

In that case we'll have to agree to agree.

[RED4LIFE]

6 hours ago, The Batman said:

If rumour is to be believed, something terrible happened in late 2020 of a Manchester based footballer. Many thought it was tied in the Mendy story, but it was a separate issue. 

Greenwood missed an Everton game unexpectedly and the club said it was in "illness"

I won't say it in here due to legalities and thread closures, etc, but it's not hard to find.

Carpet brushing at its finest if it's been known this whole time and they've continuously ignored it hoping it goes away. 

As disappointing as that is to the normal person, football clubs seems to have a history of ignoring disgraceful actions by players if they feel its in their own best interests. 

Take Ched Evans for example. Yes, his conviction was, eventually, overturned, but his actions that night were less than desirable (to put it mildly) yet he still manages to get contracts.

Greenwood, being a player of huge potential, will almost certainly have interest if/when found guilty, once his sentence is served.

Football is the greatest sport on earth, but its morals are usually in the gutter.

[Lanterne Rouge]

5 minutes ago, RED4LIFE said:

As disappointing as that is to the normal person, football clubs seems to have a history of ignoring disgraceful actions by players if they feel its in their own best interests. 

Take Ched Evans for example. Yes, his conviction was, eventually, overturned, but his actions that night were less than desirable (to put it mildly) yet he still manages to get contracts.

Greenwood, being a player of huge potential, will almost certainly have interest if/when found guilty, once his sentence is served.

Football is the greatest sport on earth, but its morals are usually in the gutter.

Derby and drink/driving springs to mind.

[Wiltshire robin]

5 minutes ago, RED4LIFE said:

As disappointing as that is to the normal person, football clubs seems to have a history of ignoring disgraceful actions by players if they feel its in their own best interests. 

Take Ched Evans for example. Yes, his conviction was, eventually, overturned, but his actions that night were less than desirable (to put it mildly) yet he still manages to get contracts.

Greenwood, being a player of huge potential, will almost certainly have interest if/when found guilty, once his sentence is served.

Football is the greatest sport on earth, but its morals are usually in the gutter.

I might be missing something here but why should Ched evans struggle to get a contract . The girl was found to be lying and he was released .

[Numero Uno]

1 minute ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Derby and drink/driving springs to mind.

If we are talking domestic violence something closer to home springs to mind…….

[Fordy62]

21 minutes ago, The Horse With No Name said:

Fordy, while reviewing the evidence said words to the effect that Barton was bang to rights, and was looking at a custodial sentence. Just pointing out that just because he is a police officer, his views are his own, and can be as wrong as anyone elses. Obviously not comparing Barton's misdemeanour with Greenwoods alleged crimes.

You’re sort of right… but there was a twist in the tail at trial where the witness who saw him said he didn’t see his face… that’s a massive flaw that I wasn’t privy to and so that accounts for that anomaly. I pretty sure I didn’t say he was looking at custodial - quite the opposite in fact. 

[MarcusX]

17 minutes ago, Wiltshire robin said:

I might be missing something here but why should Ched evans struggle to get a contract . The girl was found to be lying and he was released .

That’s not true, not going to argue the rights and wrongs of the decision but him being found not guilty does not technically mean he didn’t do it and it certainly doesn’t mean she lied.

The jury decided in the retrial they could not beyond reasonable date conclude that his victim was too drunk to consent. That does not mean she lied. A classic example of why it’s so hard to convict a person accused of rape in a 1 on 1 scenario with no direct witnesses - with the lack of concrete evidence I’m amazed he was found guilty in the first place.

 

 

[LondonBristolian]

24 minutes ago, Wiltshire robin said:

I might be missing something here but why should Ched evans struggle to get a contract . The girl was found to be lying and he was released .

@MarcusXhas covered this above but the false claim that the girl was found to be lying is exactly why women who have been raped are frightened to go to the police. Here's a useful article covering the facts of the case. 

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

The crucial thing - as pointed out in point number 2 - is that in this case, it is very hard to claim the girl lied as she at no point claimed to have been raped but that she had no memory of what had happened. 

[Scrumpylegs]

All this stuff about legal process etc etc is just a load of old b******ks. Anyone who has heard the audio will know exactly what happened that night. Sometimes things ARE exactly as they appear - simple as that! Why do some people feel the need to question even the most obvious and straightforward! Just making themselves look like complete numptys!
 

Oh and for what it’s worth I do consider myself a leftie!!

[A Horse With No Name]

12 minutes ago, Scrumpylegs said:

All this stuff about legal process etc etc is just a load of old b******ks. Anyone who has heard the audio will know exactly what happened that night. Sometimes things ARE exactly as they appear - simple as that! Why do some people feel the need to question even the most obvious and straightforward! Just making themselves look like complete numptys!
 

Oh and for what it’s worth I do consider myself a leftie!!

As has been proved recently, the more expensive legal representation you can afford, the more chance you have of getting off.

[The Constant Rabbit]

Whilst undoubtedly a piece of shit, the family concern me as much.

'Phone hacked' - 'keep it in the family'

Sounds like the family knew and kept quiet.

Now rumours another girl was forcibly held at Greenwoods house (as in tied up) for days and used as a sex-toy. The Police need to take a very long look at Man Utd - I have no doubt that other players knew - and probably management too.

 

There is a huge can of worms here - hopefully GMP have the balls to open it.

[Wiltshire robin]

30 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

That’s not true, not going to argue the rights and wrongs of the decision but him being found not guilty does not technically mean he didn’t do it and it certainly doesn’t mean she lied.

The jury decided in the retrial they could not beyond reasonable date conclude that his victim was too drunk to consent. That does not mean she lied. A classic example of why it’s so hard to convict a person accused of rape in a 1 on 1 scenario with no direct witnesses - with the lack of concrete evidence I’m amazed he was found guilty in the first place.

 

 

Ah sorry my bad . Yeh I guess without concrete evidence it’s extremely hard to convict and a lot get away with it .

26 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

@MarcusXhas covered this above but the false claim that the girl was found to be lying is exactly why women who have been raped are frightened to go to the police. Here's a useful article covering the facts of the case. 

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

The crucial thing - as pointed out in point number 2 - is that in this case, it is very hard to claim the girl lied as she at no point claimed to have been raped but that she had no memory of what had happened. 

My bad thanks for the info 

[Maesknoll Red]

9 minutes ago, The Constant Rabbit said:

Whilst undoubtedly a piece of shit, the family concern me as much.

'Phone hacked' - 'keep it in the family'

Sounds like the family knew and kept quiet.

Now rumours another girl was forcibly held at Greenwoods house (as in tied up) for days and used as a sex-toy. The Police need to take a very long look at Man Utd - I have no doubt that other players knew - and probably management too.

 

There is a huge can of worms here - hopefully GMP have the balls to open it.

Why would Man U know?  Who in Man U are you saying knew, his teammates, Manager, CEO?  
 

[Northern Red]

59 minutes ago, The Constant Rabbit said:

Whilst undoubtedly a piece of shit, the family concern me as much.

'Phone hacked' - 'keep it in the family'

Sounds like the family knew and kept quiet.

Now rumours another girl was forcibly held at Greenwoods house (as in tied up) for days and used as a sex-toy. The Police need to take a very long look at Man Utd - I have no doubt that other players knew - and probably management too.

 

There is a huge can of worms here - hopefully GMP have the balls to open it.

If this is related to the story that was in the papers last year, it was established at the time that it wasn't him.

[The Constant Rabbit]

46 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Why would Man U know?  Who in Man U are you saying knew, his teammates, Manager, CEO?  
 

Are you honestly suggesting that inside a team dressing room everyone didn't have some idea about everyone else?

Most people know a wrong 'un.

So you think that on a group night out, other WAGS and players didn't see bruises on Harriet and thought 'I bet Masons put one on her'.

This wasn't a one off mate - do it once and they do it again.

Of course people at Man Utd knew EXACTLY what kind of POS Greenwood was.

 

 

 

[The Constant Rabbit]

4 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

If this is related to the story that was in the papers last year, it was established at the time that it wasn't him.

I honestly don't know mate - someone sent me a text.

[Dolman_Stand]

2 hours ago, RED4LIFE said:

As disappointing as that is to the normal person, football clubs seems to have a history of ignoring disgraceful actions by players if they feel its in their own best interests. 

Take Ched Evans for example. Yes, his conviction was, eventually, overturned, but his actions that night were less than desirable (to put it mildly) yet he still manages to get contracts.

Greenwood, being a player of huge potential, will almost certainly have interest if/when found guilty, once his sentence is served.

Football is the greatest sport on earth, but its morals are usually in the gutter.

Not sure about that, there would be a massive outcry if any club attempted to sign him, club sponsors would have a big issue with it as well as the supporters.

[the1stknowle]

2 hours ago, Wiltshire robin said:

I might be missing something here but why should Ched evans struggle to get a contract . The girl was found to be lying and he was released .

Side point - but there is an enormous difference between the prosecution's evidence not proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt and 'the girl was found to be lying'. And that difference matters a lot.

[the1stknowle]

3 minutes ago, the1stknowle said:

Side point - but there is an enormous difference between the prosecution's evidence not proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt and 'the girl was found to be lying'. And that difference matters a lot.

Sorry - just seen others have already made this point and the poster apologised. Good man. 

[BS3_RED]

23 minutes ago, Dolman_Stand said:

Not sure about that, there would be a massive outcry if any club attempted to sign him, club sponsors would have a big issue with it as well as the supporters.

In the world we live and cancel culture this will be the biggest issue.

[Maesknoll Red]

42 minutes ago, The Constant Rabbit said:

Are you honestly suggesting that inside a team dressing room everyone didn't have some idea about everyone else?

Most people know a wrong 'un.

So you think that on a group night out, other WAGS and players didn't see bruises on Harriet and thought 'I bet Masons put one on her'.

This wasn't a one off mate - do it once and they do it again.

Of course people at Man Utd knew EXACTLY what kind of POS Greenwood was.

 

 

 

Knowing a wrong ‘un - so you are talking about team mates, whilst they are employees of the club, they aren’t the establishment of the club that you seemed to imply would know.  Would they take those concerns upwards, without solid evidence?  

I can recall some reports a few years back (from sources I’d trust) of at least one of our players acting a complete nob to bar staff  ( female) in a night club and burning £50 notes to ‘ prove’ how rich he was, could that have been a forerunner to worse behaviour, should someone have reported it?

[BTRFTG]

Haven't seen it, don't care to.

My comment however, and in light of the Manure's unrequited assurance that as an 'innocent abroad' (sic) folks were out to get their starlet,  would be that where sexual assault is alleged and even where wholly innocent there has to be an element of 'Lady Windermere's Fan'. To be once linked with an act of rape may be considered misfortune, to be linked twice, that's carelessness.

[RedNachos]

Can't imagine having morons like these on twitter who probably spend their lives worshipping Greenwood helps. Some of these are disgusting.

 

[Ian M]

6 hours ago, mozo said:

Okay maybe I should have added 'since being a pro footballer'. My comparison stands.

The thing I remember about Rashford is early on in his career (I think it was against Liverpool) he scored and was named Man of the Match. In his post match interview, the interviewer asked how he would be celebrating and Marcus replied that he would be going home to revise as he had important A-Level exams coming up. Always had his head screwed on that kid.

[The Batman]

28 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

 

I can recall some reports a few years back (from sources I’d trust) of at least one of our players acting a complete nob to bar staff  ( female) in a night club and burning £50 notes to ‘ prove’ how rich he was, could that have been a forerunner to worse behaviour, should someone have reported it?

Jermaine Jenus did that at a bar an old colleague worked in when he played for Newcastle. Kicked him straight out. 

[The Constant Rabbit]

6 hours ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Knowing a wrong ‘un - so you are talking about team mates, whilst they are employees of the club, they aren’t the establishment of the club that you seemed to imply would know.  Would they take those concerns upwards, without solid evidence?  

 

It would filter up.

Why - so the club are already ahead of the curve when the shit hits the fan.

Did Man Utd seem shocked and dismayed and in damage control or did they have a presser all ready to go within hours?

[MarcusX]

13 hours ago, RedNachos said:

Can't imagine having morons like these on twitter who probably spend their lives worshipping Greenwood helps. Some of these are disgusting.

 

It’s disappointing how many people seem to think “she could have just left” as if it’s that simple.

[chinapig]

18 hours ago, Colombo Robin said:

Give the man jonb a break. Lots of overreacting on here. All he said was he found it suprising that a police officer would be so keen to imply guilt before anyone has even been charged. I think its a fair point. Christopher Jefferies springs to mind and that alleged Israeli gang rape case in Cyprus a while ago. People just need to let investigations run their course and not instantly spray stuff all over social media

 

 

An update on this. Woman's conviction quashed:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/31/uk-woman-accused-making-up-cyprus-gang-claims-conviction-quashed

[Maesknoll Red]

Nike have now suspended their association with Greenwood.

[RedM]

1 hour ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Nike have now suspended their association with Greenwood.

Not quite the same, but I just read that quite a few of his teamates unfollowed him on social media when the news broke. 

Modern times huh.

[The Batman]

Not been a good week for Man Utd. 

Started off with Rashford and Lingard spending time and being photo'd with drill rapper Wiley, who I can only describe as a Nazi sympathiser based on what he said about Jewish people. Both Rashford and Lingard asked their pr companies to put up half assed apologies on twitter and must use the same one due to the strange choice of the same word. (if you know, you know) 

And now news about Greenwood has come out. More to this story but I don't want to speculate because of legalities but if you piece things together, it becomes clearer. Like why Southgate didn't select him after Iceland. More to it than just the hotel quarentine breech. 

Edited January 31, 2022 by The Batman
Spelling

[Numero Uno]

11 minutes ago, RedM said:

Not quite the same, but I just read that quite a few of his teamates unfollowed him on social media when the news broke. 

Modern times huh.

I bet their Agents had sent them the order, sorry text, within 12 seconds of that audio reaching the interweb................

[RedM]

15 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

I bet their Agents had sent them the order, sorry text, within 12 seconds of that audio reaching the interweb................

Almost certainly. Their sponsors will want them distanced from anything to do with him. Act first, protect their interests and they can always be friends at a later date if it’s appropiate.

[The Batman]

3 minutes ago, RedM said:

Almost certainly. Their sponsors will want them distanced from anything to do with him. Act first, protect their interests and they can always be friends at a later date if it’s appropiate.

Same goes for sky, bt, BBC. Protect the brand. 

[MarcusX]

14 minutes ago, The Batman said:

Not been a good week for Man Utd. 

Started off with Rashford and Lingard spending time and being photo'd with drill rapper Wiley, who I can only describe as a Nazi sympathiser based on what he said about Jewish people. Both Rashford and Lingard asked their pr companies to put up half assed apologies on twitter and must use the same one due to the strange choice of the same word. (if you know, you know) 

And now news about Greenwood has come out. More to this story but I don't want to speculate because of legalities but if you piece things together, it becomes clearer. Like why Southgate didn't select him after Iceland. More to it than just the hotel quarentine breech. 

Did Wiley ask for a photo with them? Did they know Wiley’s history?

It begs the question should footballers worry about who asks them for a photo? How do they know the random fan in the crowd that asks for a photo hasnt recently posted controversial comments?

I realise this is different as Wiley is well known in his own right so perhaps they should have known, but it’s an interesting discussion. Should footballers (or anyone for that matter) be checking the background of everyone that asks for their photo?

[The Batman]

23 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

Did Wiley ask for a photo with them? Did they know Wiley’s history?

It begs the question should footballers worry about who asks them for a photo? How do they know the random fan in the crowd that asks for a photo hasnt recently posted controversial comments?

I realise this is different as Wiley is well known in his own right so perhaps they should have known, but it’s an interesting discussion. Should footballers (or anyone for that matter) be checking the background of everyone that asks for their photo?

It's a perfectly legitimate point to make. Begs the question did they ask him for a photo and only apologised after the backlash, or did he ask them. I don't know whether they knew who he was or not. I'm too trusting a person and treat it in good faith when someone says something to me (it's a problem of mine) but he's a very popular artist who was banned from all social media because of what he said about Jewish people. He's well known enough in my opinion for them to know who he was. Rashford said he got pulled in for a photo opportunity in a tweet (or his pr company said at least) .... 

 

If 2 of our white academy players had a pic with Tommy Robinson and used the same excuse Rashford and Lingard's pr company came out with "it was a photo op, wasn't aware of any comments" , would it be as glossed over? I'd say not. I'd say they'd be out of here ASAP. But that's hypothetical and some don't like those on here. 

[SimonR]

[Sir Geoff]

1 hour ago, The Batman said:

Not been a good week for Man Utd. 

Started off with Rashford and Lingard spending time and being photo'd with drill rapper Wiley, who I can only describe as a Nazi sympathiser based on what he said about Jewish people. Both Rashford and Lingard asked their pr companies to put up half assed apologies on twitter and must use the same one due to the strange choice of the same word. (if you know, you know) 

And now news about Greenwood has come out. More to this story but I don't want to speculate because of legalities but if you piece things together, it becomes clearer. Like why Southgate didn't select him after Iceland. More to it than just the hotel quarentine breech. 

I was thinking this yesterday but was unsure of the time lines. Seemed an odd one that he 'asked' to be left out of the Autumn internationals.

[MarcusX]

24 minutes ago, The Batman said:

It's a perfectly legitimate point to make. Begs the question did they ask him for a photo and only apologised after the backlash, or did he ask them. I don't know whether they knew who he was or not. I'm too trusting a person and treat it in good faith when someone says something to me (it's a problem of mine) but he's a very popular artist who was banned from all social media because of what he said about Jewish people. He's well known enough in my opinion for them to know who he was. Rashford said he got pulled in for a photo opportunity in a tweet (or his pr company said at least) .... 

 

If 2 of our white academy players had a pic with Tommy Robinson and used the same excuse Rashford and Lingard's pr company came out with "it was a photo op, wasn't aware of any comments" , would it be as glossed over? I'd say not. I'd say they'd be out of here ASAP. But that's hypothetical and some don't like those on here. 

Glad my questions were taken in the way it was meant, just a general thought really.

I’d be surprised if Rashford didn’t know who Wiley was, but it’s plausible he didn’t know about the comments. 

I think you’re probably right about Tommy Robinson example though not specifically in that circumstance. It’s a little different if the questionable person is bigger than the people they’re having a photo with - I was trying to think of a better example but couldn’t but get the point you’re making