Fordy62 Posted January 30, 2022 Author Share Posted January 30, 2022 1 hour ago, And Its Smith said: The conviction rate is completely unacceptable. Something needs to be done 100% mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonb Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 (edited) 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 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INCRED Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazred Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numero Uno Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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……… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonb Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 (edited) 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted January 30, 2022 Author Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonb Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kashmir Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. 2 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numero Uno Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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 1 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted January 30, 2022 Author Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziderarmy Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonb Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2015 Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southport Red Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonb Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2015 Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Red Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akira Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southport Red Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colombo Robin Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RED4LIFE Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire robin Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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 . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numero Uno Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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……. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted January 30, 2022 Author Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. 4 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrumpylegs Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Constant Rabbit Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire robin Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted January 30, 2022 Admin Share Posted January 30, 2022 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Red Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Constant Rabbit Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Constant Rabbit Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolman_Stand Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the1stknowle Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the1stknowle Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS3_RED Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted January 30, 2022 Admin Share Posted January 30, 2022 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTRFTG Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedNachos Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 Can't imagine having morons like these on twitter who probably spend their lives worshipping Greenwood helps. Some of these are disgusting. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted January 30, 2022 Admin Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Batman Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Constant Rabbit Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted January 31, 2022 Admin Share Posted January 31, 2022 Nike have now suspended their association with Greenwood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Batman Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numero Uno Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 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................ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Batman Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 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? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Batman Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonR Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Geoff Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.