Mason Greenwood

[Ron W]

On 01/02/2022 at 22:02, The Batman said:

Nome of the media (bbc, sky, bt sport etc) have never asked Everton why their record £45 million signing and highest earner hasn't played all season (don't )

If you're hoping for some sort of weird scandal on this I'm afraid you'll be sadly disappointed.

I don't know what the exact reasons are why there's been no major news coverage of that specific topic, but look at Google. All of the results are from overseas. That suggests there are some kind of reporting restrictions in place, which is far from unusual.

Edited February 3, 2022 by RonWalker

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

20 hours ago, billywedlock said:

GoodWillie , Mendy and Greenwood sharing the  headlines on the same day . Football really has got to get its act together . It has pushed heavily kicking racism out of sport , justifiably. Could we now see a much stronger concerted effort at kicking rapists and violence against women out of football and a greater support for keeping women safe . It just seems to me these issues get brushed under the proverbial carpet after the initial outrage with no ongoing efforts or attempts to raise the profile/impact of these incidents made . 
 

In an age when everyone seems to be outraged at verbal abuse and opinion, how can such physical abuse against women not carry a stronger , more visible and ultimately consistent wrath . Leading to change . 

Huge complex subject . But something has to change and football needs to do more . 
 

I disagree, I think the high profile nature of football means it gets more attention when things like this happen, I don't think it has a problem anymore than any other workplace, just the men concerned are celebrities.  I cant remember the study but something like 6% of men showed a predilection to rape, that's a lot of men.   It's a societal issue, I think the celebrity of these individuals help shine a light on it, but lets not kid ourselves "Football" has a problem.  

[Phileas Fogg]

7 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I disagree, I think the high profile nature of football means it gets more attention when things like this happen, I don't think it has a problem anymore than any other workplace, just the men concerned are celebrities.  I cant remember the study but something like 6% of men showed a predilection to rape, that's a lot of men.   It's a societal issue, I think the celebrity of these individuals help shine a light on it, but lets not kid ourselves "Football" has a problem.  

Hmm.. No data to back it up, but I think earning millions a year, getting constant special treatment and being adored by thousands of fans probably isn’t necessarily that healthy for young men in the scheme of things. 

If I had to put money on it, I’d wager the average % of issues like this is far higher in footballers than other professions for men of similar ages. 

[Northern Red]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60244442

David Goodwillie will not play for Raith Rovers and the club is reviewing his contract after admitting it "got it wrong" by signing him.

[The Batman]

34 minutes ago, RonWalker said:

If you're hoping for some sort of weird scandal on this I'm afraid you'll be sadly disappointed.

I don't know what the exact reasons are why there's been no major news coverage of that specific topic, but look at Google. All of the results are from overseas. That suggests there are some kind of reporting restrictions in place, which is far from unusual.

Reporting restrictions you say? Well sherlock holmes' and Colombo's jobs are under threat with you around. Blige. (I jest obviously) 

As the Everton player's name has never been released by the club or the authorities, what is wrong in asking why Everton's record signing and highest earner hasn't played all season? It's not like they're doing well without him. What rules would they be breaking? They're not reporting on a crime, they're asking a football related question......

[Super]

1 minute ago, The Batman said:

Reporting restrictions you say? Well sherlock holmes' and Colombo's jobs are under threat with you around. Blige. (I jest obviously) 

As the Everton player's name has never been released by the club or the authorities, what is wrong in asking why Everton's record signing and highest earner hasn't played all season? It's not like they're doing well without him. What rules would they be breaking? They're not reporting on a crime, they're asking a football related question......

Is he still on fifa though.

[The Batman]

1 minute ago, Super said:

Is he still on fifa though.

Course he would be. His name hasn't been released 

However, he is no longer listed as a player on the official Premier league fantasy football. He was for a while but isn't as of now. 

[Red-Robbo]

21 minutes ago, The Batman said:

Reporting restrictions you say? Well sherlock holmes' and Colombo's jobs are under threat with you around. Blige. (I jest obviously) 

As the Everton player's name has never been released by the club or the authorities, what is wrong in asking why Everton's record signing and highest earner hasn't played all season? It's not like they're doing well without him. What rules would they be breaking? They're not reporting on a crime, they're asking a football related question......

 

Delph played a couple of games in November and was an unused sub in another.

A different player was named as the man arrested in the Icelandic press. 

[Numero Uno]

38 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Delph played a couple of games in November and was an unused sub in another.

A different player was named as the man arrested in the Icelandic press. 

Yeah, you have to ask yourself why the Icelandic press should be so interested…………..in Fabian Delph obviously!!

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

1 hour ago, billywedlock said:

Just like football has the same issues of racism as the rest of society . But in this case football chooses to do something about it . 
 

Football is a source of role models . You are saying it’s just business as normal then . Football carries a greater responsibility as it has visibility. Football has a problem because it chooses to tackle some subjects such as racism with justified vigour but plays lip service to violence against women .

I totally disagree with you brushing it under the carpet . It is exactly what is wrong and why more needs to be done . 

I didn't say brush it under the carpet, I disagree with making it all about football when there are plenty of bed eggs in society.   Football can still set an example, but using language like they are molly coddled, rich young men, forgets that some of these young men come from abusive homes, and then happen to be rich, its a much more complex conversation than that,  football makes a nice little societal scapegoat, but in reality its just a more visible part of society. 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

Just a couple of (no doubt unpopular) points:

it beats me how anyone can get a fair trial in this country when a case is fully worked out in public prior to any charges even being brought.  Whatever happened to the concept of matters being sub judice?  Nixon declared that Charles Manson was guilty before the verdicts in his court case, and it very nearly caused the whole case to collapse.  Where are they going to find twelve jurors who can swear not to have been influenced by what they have read prior to any trial in the Greenwood case?

And whatever happened to the notion of paying your dues and being rehabilitated?  The concept seems meaningless in todays culture, yet people still reminisce fondly about the iconic part of Dirty Den on EastEnders, as portrayed by Leslie Grantham, a convicted murderer.  I don’t remember many references to the actor as ‘the murderer Leslie Grantham’ in discussion of this, and other roles, on popular tv.

The fact is that innocent people have been accused of crimes they did not commit; and guilty people have gone on to play a valuable role in society.  That’s why we have a justice system.

[Numero Uno]

3 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Just a couple of (no doubt unpopular) points:

it beats me how anyone can get a fair trial in this country when a case is fully worked out in public prior to any charges even being brought.  Whatever happened to the concept of matters being sub judice?  Nixon declared that Charles Manson was guilty before the verdicts in his court case, and it very nearly caused the whole case to collapse.  Where are they going to find twelve jurors who can swear not to have been influenced by what they have read prior to any trial in the Greenwood case?

And whatever happened to the notion of paying your dues and being rehabilitated?  The concept seems meaningless in todays culture, yet people still reminisce fondly about the iconic part of Dirty Den on EastEnders, as portrayed by Leslie Grantham, a convicted murderer.  I don’t remember many references to the actor as ‘the murderer Leslie Grantham’ in discussion of this, and other roles, on popular tv.

The fact is that innocent people have been accused of crimes they did not commit; and guilty people have gone on to play a valuable role in society.  That’s why we have a justice system.

Take your points on board but I could literally walk out of my house this afternoon and find you 12 people who don’t have a clue who Mason Greenwood is, no problem at all.

[Red-Robbo]

43 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Take your points on board but I could literally walk out of my house this afternoon and find you 12 people who don’t have a clue who Mason Greenwood is, no problem at all.

 

Cheers for saving me the bother of writing this.  I'm sitting opposite one such at this very minute. 

[LondonBristolian]

51 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Just a couple of (no doubt unpopular) points:

it beats me how anyone can get a fair trial in this country when a case is fully worked out in public prior to any charges even being brought.  Whatever happened to the concept of matters being sub judice?  Nixon declared that Charles Manson was guilty before the verdicts in his court case, and it very nearly caused the whole case to collapse.  Where are they going to find twelve jurors who can swear not to have been influenced by what they have read prior to any trial in the Greenwood case?

And whatever happened to the notion of paying your dues and being rehabilitated?  The concept seems meaningless in todays culture, yet people still reminisce fondly about the iconic part of Dirty Den on EastEnders, as portrayed by Leslie Grantham, a convicted murderer.  I don’t remember many references to the actor as ‘the murderer Leslie Grantham’ in discussion of this, and other roles, on popular tv.

The fact is that innocent people have been accused of crimes they did not commit; and guilty people have gone on to play a valuable role in society.  That’s why we have a justice system.

The issue for me is that paying your dues and being rehabilitated should be the result of someone atoning, taking responsibility and putting the work in to put right the wrongs they have committed. Yes, everyone deserves a second chance but that doesn't mean the second chance is something is granted automatically. It means that people who atone, apologise and learn from mistakes get the chance to do better next time. 

With certain players - let's take the David Goodwillie case for example- you've got someone who has never pleaded guilty, never publicly taken personal responsibility and never acknowledged to their victim the impact that they had on them. How have they paid their dues? Where is the rehabilitation in that? 

A second chance has to start from an admission of guilt and steps to put things right. If someone is still saying "poor me" and pleading innocence, rehabilitation is impossible. 

[PHILINFRANCE]

8 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

The issue for me is that paying your dues and being rehabilitated should be the result of someone atoning, taking responsibility and putting the work in to put right the wrongs they have committed. Yes, everyone deserves a second chance but that doesn't mean the second chance is something is granted automatically. It means that people who atone, apologise and learn from mistakes get the chance to do better next time. 

With certain players - let's take the David Goodwillie case for example- you've got someone who has never pleaded guilty, never publicly taken personal responsibility and never acknowledged to their victim the impact that they had on them. How have they paid their dues? Where is the rehabilitation in that? 

A second chance has to start from an admission of guilt and steps to put things right. If someone is still saying "poor me" and pleading innocence, rehabilitation is impossible. 

Indeed.

Perhaps the phrase might be written better as:

Everyone deserves the right to acknowledge and apologise for their mistake and work to try and earn a second chance.

[Ron W]

3 hours ago, The Batman said:

As the Everton player's name has never been released by the club or the authorities, what is wrong in asking why Everton's record signing and highest earner hasn't played all season? It's not like they're doing well without him. What rules would they be breaking? They're not reporting on a crime, they're asking a football related question......

Even if they're not breaking rules, what is the actual point apart from being antagonistic? At best, it could be a good way of getting yourself banned from press conferences or needlessly souring relations with a club over a question you know they con't answer. At worst, it could be contempt of court.

Edited February 3, 2022 by RonWalker

[Leveller]

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

The issue for me is that paying your dues and being rehabilitated should be the result of someone atoning, taking responsibility and putting the work in to put right the wrongs they have committed. Yes, everyone deserves a second chance but that doesn't mean the second chance is something is granted automatically. It means that people who atone, apologise and learn from mistakes get the chance to do better next time. 

With certain players - let's take the David Goodwillie case for example- you've got someone who has never pleaded guilty, never publicly taken personal responsibility and never acknowledged to their victim the impact that they had on them. How have they paid their dues? Where is the rehabilitation in that? 

A second chance has to start from an admission of guilt and steps to put things right. If someone is still saying "poor me" and pleading innocence, rehabilitation is impossible. 

Unless of course they say “poor me”, continue to plead innocence then get found not guilty on appeal!

[LondonBristolian]

10 minutes ago, Leveller said:

Unless of course they say “poor me”, continue to plead innocence then get found not guilty on appeal!

Of course. But - until that happens - the legal fact is that they are guilty of a crime and that guilt has been established after a detailed trial. Wrong convictions happen but the system is designed to ensure that someone cannot be convicted unless an offence is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The number of guilty people who escape justice due to lack of evidence outweighs the number of innocent people wrongly convicted, and that is the only way it can be for the system to be fair.

At the same time, it's worth considering that you don't have to committed a crime in the eyes of the law to have done a great deal of harm to another person and have things to atone for. 

[BS4 on Tour...]

12 hours ago, The Batman said:

... what is wrong in asking why Everton's record signing and highest earner hasn't played all season? It's not like they're doing well without him. What rules would they be breaking? They're not reporting on a crime, they're asking a football related question......

 

11 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

Delph played a couple of games in November and was an unused sub in another.

Is Delph Everton’s “record signing” ??! I’d be amazed if he was ...

[BS4 on Tour...]

11 hours ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

 ... people still reminisce fondly about the iconic part of Dirty Den on EastEnders, as portrayed by Leslie Grantham, a convicted murderer.  I don’t remember many references to the actor as ‘the murderer Leslie Grantham’ in discussion of this, and other roles, on popular tv.

His past misdemeanour was consistently brought up, and discussed zillions of times back then on many outlets, when he appeared in Eastenders ...

Edited February 3, 2022 by BS4 on Tour...

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

8 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

His past misdemeanour was consistently brought up, and discussed zillions of times back then on many outlets, when he appeared in Eastenders ...

Didn’t stop him being a popular actor and very public celebrity though, did it?

[BS4 on Tour...]

23 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Didn’t stop him being a popular actor and very public celebrity though, did it?

No, fair point 

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Didn’t stop him being a popular actor and very public celebrity though, did it?

 

It's whattabouttery however as maybe it should have. Just because it happened in another context in the past, doesn't excuse footballing abusers in the present.

 

[MarcusX]

On 31/01/2022 at 21:06, PHILINFRANCE said:

I don't know anything about Mason Greenwood's background, but I did read (following the current scandal) that he won a competition as a model as a very young boy, receiving a cheque and a year's guidance with an agency.

I have also read several articles about Marcus Rashford's childhood and how, just like Leeds' Kalvin Phillips, they grew up in virtual poverty and were heavily influnced by their mother.

The latter two appear to have developed into thoroughly decent young men.

A coincidence, perhaps, but Mum usually knows best, and it would do these young stars a lot of good if they would remember their roots, rather than let their privileged position go to their heads.

 

A lot is said about having a strong father figure, but I think  a good mother is just as important for boys and young men to know how to behave.

For me, I'm not so close to my Dad, but my mum's the most important person in my life. She's heavily shaped my behaviour and respect for women.

[MarcusX]

On 01/02/2022 at 20:51, BRIAN WILSON said:

An interesting Statement by Raith Rovers over the Goodwillie signing

They obviously understood and considered the gravity of what opinion such a signing would make BUT it does beg the question WHY ??? considering the ramifications (losing main sponsor/Directors etc...) 

 

As announced on our website last night, Raith Rovers FC can confirm that we have signed David Goodwillie from Clyde FC.

David is a proven goal scorer, and this will be his second stint with the club, having previously played for us on loan from Dundee United during season 2007-08.

As with all new signings, the club has carefully considered our position as a Community Club and we completely respect the differing views among fans and stakeholders, many of whom we have spoken to directly in the past 24 hours and are continuing to engage with.

As David has previously played for Raith Rovers earlier in his career, we consider him to be part of Raith Rovers Football Club. The management team is familiar with David’s career and background and – in particular – his footballing ability. That is our foremost consideration, and we believe that he will strengthen the Raith Rovers playing squad.

Please be assured that as a community football club we fully acknowledge this signing has divided opinion amongst our loyal fans and commercial stakeholders; We aim to rebuild that trust.

While acknowledging the gravity of what happened ten years ago, as a club we fully support and encourage rehabilitation, and many factors influenced our signing.

First and foremost, this was a football related decision.

Basically, we know he's done a bad thing, but hes good at football so that's more important to us.

[MarcusX]

On 01/02/2022 at 21:43, The Batman said:

You're funny. 

They wanted champions league football and to win the Europa league. As if they'd drop one of their top young talents in the process. 

The key is the Everton game that he missed in November 2020. An arrest was made on a Manchester based player around that time and he missed the Everton game due to "illness". Course once the Mendy stuff came out, everyone thought it was him..... Well.... 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.manutd.com/en/amp/news/detail/solskjaer-reveals-why-greenwood-missed-everton-1-man-utd-2-on-7-nov-2020

Could be nothing. Could just be a nasty coincidence. 

Didn't that turn out to be Giggs? He was arrested in November 2020

[The Batman]

5 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

Didn't that turn out to be Giggs? He was arrested in November 2020

Could be both.... Or neither.... See what comes out over time in the investigations. 

[PHILINFRANCE]

15 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

A lot is said about having a strong father figure, but I think  a good mother is just as important for boys and young men to know how to behave.

For me, I'm not so close to my Dad, but my mum's the most important person in my life. She's heavily shaped my behaviour and respect for women.

In an ideal world, of course, children would be raised by two law abiding parents, preferably (and I am not trying to bring in another topic) both a mother and a father.

[ExiledAjax]

23 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

Basically, we know he's done a bad thing, but hes good at football so that's more important to us.

Raith have backtracked on the Goodwillie signing now though. Now seeking to terminate his contract after the backlash and comments from sponsors, fans, and members of their ladies team.

[BRIAN WILSON]

3 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Raith have backtracked on the Goodwillie signing now though. Now seeking to terminate his contract after the backlash and comments from sponsors, fans, and members of their ladies team.

Interesting HOWEVER I believe that the damage has been done, and just maybe no way back 

[1960maaan]

2 minutes ago, BRIAN WILSON said:

Interesting HOWEVER I believe that the damage has been done, and just maybe no way back 

I saw some Sponsors have said they have lost confidence in the Board and feel they have to go, they are still taking back their Sponsorship.

I did see earlier they we in talks about Goodwillie's contract. I wonder if it will be as simple as terminating the contract .

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I did see earlier they we in talks about Goodwillie's contract. I wonder if it will be as simple as terminating the contract .

Without seeing his contract, or knowing about any intricacies of Scottish employment or contract law, I would think it will be hard for them. He's not committed the offence whilst under his Raith contract, so gross misconduct isn't an option. The club also had full knowledge of his past when they signed him, so they can't argue he has hidden anything from them which now brings them into disrepute etc. It was public knowledge. Honestly, I suspect the starting position is that Raith need to pay him out - ie pay all wages he'd receive over the life of the contract. 

9 minutes ago, BRIAN WILSON said:

Interesting HOWEVER I believe that the damage has been done, and just maybe no way back 

I agree, was just pointing it out.

Depressing that we have to talk about this kind of stuff in football.

[1960maaan]

5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Without seeing his contract, or knowing about any intricacies of Scottish employment or contract law, I would think it will be hard for them. He's not committed the offence whilst under his Raith contract, so gross misconduct isn't an option. The club also had full knowledge of his past when they signed him, so they can't argue he has hidden anything from them which now brings them into disrepute etc. It was public knowledge. Honestly, I suspect the starting position is that Raith need to pay him out - ie pay all wages he'd receive over the life of the contract. 

 

Exactly my thoughts. He has never been convicted in a criminal Court. He was found guilty in Civil Court, and as you say that was well before they signed him. I imagine they will hope they can negotiate something, TBH in his position, I would hold out for the full term.

It always amazes me that Clubs can be so far out of touch with their Fan base.

[Numero Uno]

19 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

 

Is Delph Everton’s “record signing” ??! I’d be amazed if he was ...

The point about Delph that many people miss is that when "the other bloke who cannot be identified yet we all know his identity" was arrested the Police only gave out the players age it was Delph who was initially suspected by the majority of people on social media.

[Numero Uno]

11 hours ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Didn’t stop him being a popular actor and very public celebrity though, did it?

So what's the point, that we should legalise murder or that you feel Greenwood is being unfairly targeted because he is a footballer?

[Maesknoll Red]

Just stop, it’s not clever, and FFS stop quoting posts that you know contain things that possibly shouldn’t be aired.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

1 hour ago, Numero Uno said:

So what's the point, that we should legalise murder or that you feel Greenwood is being unfairly targeted because he is a footballer?

Actually I was thinking more of Goodwillie in this context.  Greenwood is presently not a convicted criminal.  My point was to highlight the double standards of denying a living to a person found in a civil action to have committed rape, while continuing to celebrate the performances of an actor who happened to be a criminally convicted murderer.

[Numero Uno]

7 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Actually I was thinking more of Goodwillie in this context.  Greenwood is presently not a convicted criminal.  My point was to highlight the double standards of denying a living to a person found in a civil action to have committed rape, while continuing to celebrate the performances of an actor who happened to be a criminally convicted murderer.

Understand where you are coming from. The Goodwillie case is interesting in that he was found "guilty" in a civil case on the "balance of probabilities" a far, far lower threshold than required in Crown Court. It's an awkward truth that if you really were innocent but with a lot of "circumstantial" evidence going against you there is a very high chance you would get convicted in a civil case brought against you. That would apply to many an innocent person who was found not guilty at crown court, if not the majority.

[Numero Uno]

2 hours ago, Tafkarmlf said:

Just to clarify , not guilty, doesn't actually mean innocent. 

It means that there was not enough evidence to successfully convict. 

It's something to remember and gets lost in all of this as people will have had enough evidence to get arrested and charged and CPS will have proceeded on evidence on a potential conviction. 

When something is quoshed because of lack of evidence, that would me more suggesting of innocence, but even then it may not mean that someone is. 

Agree totally with that point in the same way that being charged does not mean someone is ipso facto guilty although it certainly indicates they have a case to answer. In terms of Greenwood if that is his voice on the audio people will make their own minds up irrespective of whether or not he passes the charging threshold.

Sometimes people are found not guilty in court because their defence barrister has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that they ARE INNOCENT of the charges being tried regardless of the evidence and case the Police/CPS thought they had.

[The Batman]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2022/02/13/premier-league-star-arrested-after-attacking-girlfriend-16096579/amp/

Dean Henderson has had to come out and make a statement saying that it wasn't him. That's why the dangers of naming people on social media / forums can be a dangerous thing. 

Who knows how many pay offs and gagging orders women have been put under over the years. 

[Northern Red]

 

[BTRFTG]

On 05/02/2022 at 13:56, Numero Uno said:

....that being charged does not mean someone is ipso facto guilty although it certainly indicates they have a case to answer. 

Actually, it only means The Police believe the person they have charged has a case to answer, not the person DOES have a case to answer.

Plenty of convicted Post Office staffs presently fighting this very point, not they were wrongfully convicted rather they should never have been charged in the first place.

[Numero Uno]

3 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Actually, it only means The Police believe the person they have charged has a case to answer, not the person DOES have a case to answer.

Plenty of convicted Post Office staffs presently fighting this very point, not they were wrongfully convicted rather they should never have been charged in the first place.

Somebody really needs to do a significant amount of time for that whole fiasco and serious compensation should be paid out. Won't happen though.

[BTRFTG]

48 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Somebody really needs to do a significant amount of time for that whole fiasco and serious compensation should be paid out. Won't happen though.

Sadly, quite a few are already dead. 

[Sleepy1968]

1 hour ago, Numero Uno said:

Somebody really needs to do a significant amount of time for that whole fiasco and serious compensation should be paid out. Won't happen though.

I agree with your sentiment, and conclusion.

PS Many who were forced into "paying back" money they didn't steal to avoid prosecution (and who also lost their jobs to boot) should not be forgotton in this either.

 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Sleepy1968

[The Batman]

He's back on the man utd website. 

Cavani was injured for Uruguay the other day. Martial still out on loan. 

https://www.manutd.com/en/players-and-staff/first-team

. 

. 

. 

He was taken off the site when all this came about. Something has happened behind the scenes. We shall see. 

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

On 04/02/2022 at 21:05, Numero Uno said:

Understand where you are coming from. The Goodwillie case is interesting in that he was found "guilty" in a civil case on the "balance of probabilities" a far, far lower threshold than required in Crown Court. It's an awkward truth that if you really were innocent but with a lot of "circumstantial" evidence going against you there is a very high chance you would get convicted in a civil case brought against you. That would apply to many an innocent person who was found not guilty at crown court, if not the majority.

 

On 04/02/2022 at 20:53, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Actually I was thinking more of Goodwillie in this context.  Greenwood is presently not a convicted criminal.  My point was to highlight the double standards of denying a living to a person found in a civil action to have committed rape, while continuing to celebrate the performances of an actor who happened to be a criminally convicted murderer.

 

I get what you're saying here, I did remember looking at the Goodwillie case a while back and thinking he was guilty it just didn't go through the criminal process, it does bother me though that there is this sense of trying to erase people though, I personally think its better to have these people still in the public eye, as there is scrutiny that comes with that.  Out of the public eye they are free to drop off the radar and to a certain extent reoffend easier, our reactions to these events are far to emotionally driven they should be more driven by thoughtful consideration.  In Greenwoods case he will get a disproportionate sentence for what he's clearly done, there will be a drive to make sure justice is seen to be done, however it wont happen for all the other cases where there is not such a public figure involved, this disjointedness does not sit well with me at all. 

[joe jordans teeth]

Shouldn’t laugh but 

 

[Fordy62]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-63269379
 

Interesting development this morning. Arrested for breaching bail. 

This will give us a good idea of how the CPS view GMP’s case… the arrest for breach of bail forces the urgency of a charging decision. We’ll know more very soon I’d have thought. 

[Super]

Really not looking good for him.

[Fordy62]

3 minutes ago, Super said:

Really not looking good for him.

Well… we don’t know…

we know that he’s probably breached his bail, but actually that doesn’t matter too much, it’s more of an administrationy kind of thing…

I could go into the ins and outs… in fact **** it…

imagine you were arrested shoplifting in Asda. You did it, but you don’t admit it. You don’t have any previous. 

The police get a statement from a 2 members of staff who saw you do it and detained you, but the Cctv operator isn’t there to download the footage and can’t be within the 24 hours the police have to charge you. Now, they cannot charge you because they’re missing the Cctv. They need all key evidence to make a charging decision - after all the Cctv might attest to your innocence. Now because they haven’t got it and because they can’t get it in them, they have to release you on bail.

Because you’ve got no previous, then bail has to be the assumption.

You have conditions to not go to Asda, to not contact the two members of staff who detained you and to live and sleep at your home address. 

Let’s say that night you go to Asda. A clear breach of your bail conditions. The police arrest you from Asda. There still hasn’t been time for the police to get hold of the Cctv footage, but because you’ve breached your bail conditions the games changes as to how it was before. You’ve now shown a tendency to have little regard for bail and the police can now making a charging decision on a lower threshold of evidence than before because you went back to Asda. So you’d probably now get charged with theft and kept in custody overnight to go to court the next day. 

When Greenwood was initially released on bail that meant that the police needed to get every single shred of evidence before CPs would consider charging him. Absolutely every minute detail. Because now he’s breached his bail (I don’t know how - let’s say he’s contacted the complainant) this ups his risk factor to interfere with justice. So now the police need good evidence to charge, but not necessarily all of it as they had required previously. They’ll obviously have to get all evidence for trial, but this could be done while he’s on remand. 

Like I said, the next 24 hours are crucial and will give us a big steer as to what the current level of evidence is like. 

 

[Phileas Fogg]

7 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

Well… we don’t know…

we know that he’s probably breached his bail, but actually that doesn’t matter too much, it’s more of an administrationy kind of thing…

I could go into the ins and outs… in fact **** it…

imagine you were arrested shoplifting in Asda. You did it, but you don’t admit it. You don’t have any previous. 

The police get a statement from a 2 members of staff who saw you do it and detained you, but the Cctv operator isn’t there to download the footage and can’t be within the 24 hours the police have to charge you. Now, they cannot charge you because they’re missing the Cctv. They need all key evidence to make a charging decision - after all the Cctv might attest to your innocence. Now because they haven’t got it and because they can’t get it in them, they have to release you on bail.

Because you’ve got no previous, then bail has to be the assumption.

You have conditions to not go to Asda, to not contact the two members of staff who detained you and to live and sleep at your home address. 

Let’s say that night you go to Asda. A clear breach of your bail conditions. The police arrest you from Asda. There still hasn’t been time for the police to get hold of the Cctv footage, but because you’ve breached your bail conditions the games changes as to how it was before. You’ve now shown a tendency to have little regard for bail and the police can now making a charging decision on a lower threshold of evidence than before because you went back to Asda. So you’d probably now get charged with theft and kept in custody overnight to go to court the next day. 

When Greenwood was initially released on bail that meant that the police needed to get every single shred of evidence before CPs would consider charging him. Absolutely every minute detail. Because now he’s breached his bail (I don’t know how - let’s say he’s contacted the complainant) this ups his risk factor to interfere with justice. So now the police need good evidence to charge, but not necessarily all of it as they had required previously. They’ll obviously have to get all evidence for trial, but this could be done while he’s on remand. 

Like I said, the next 24 hours are crucial and will give us a big steer as to what the current level of evidence is like. 

 

In this instance, I imagine the bolded bit would be quite convoluted - for example sending her a Snapchat or liking an Instagram story?

Or would it be more clear cut?

[Leveller]

Media comments suggest it involves contacting the complainant.

[joe jordans teeth]

8 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

Well… we don’t know…

we know that he’s probably breached his bail, but actually that doesn’t matter too much, it’s more of an administrationy kind of thing…

I could go into the ins and outs… in fact **** it…

imagine you were arrested shoplifting in Asda. You did it, but you don’t admit it. You don’t have any previous. 

The police get a statement from a 2 members of staff who saw you do it and detained you, but the Cctv operator isn’t there to download the footage and can’t be within the 24 hours the police have to charge you. Now, they cannot charge you because they’re missing the Cctv. They need all key evidence to make a charging decision - after all the Cctv might attest to your innocence. Now because they haven’t got it and because they can’t get it in them, they have to release you on bail.

Because you’ve got no previous, then bail has to be the assumption.

You have conditions to not go to Asda, to not contact the two members of staff who detained you and to live and sleep at your home address. 

Let’s say that night you go to Asda. A clear breach of your bail conditions. The police arrest you from Asda. There still hasn’t been time for the police to get hold of the Cctv footage, but because you’ve breached your bail conditions the games changes as to how it was before. You’ve now shown a tendency to have little regard for bail and the police can now making a charging decision on a lower threshold of evidence than before because you went back to Asda. So you’d probably now get charged with theft and kept in custody overnight to go to court the next day. 

When Greenwood was initially released on bail that meant that the police needed to get every single shred of evidence before CPs would consider charging him. Absolutely every minute detail. Because now he’s breached his bail (I don’t know how - let’s say he’s contacted the complainant) this ups his risk factor to interfere with justice. So now the police need good evidence to charge, but not necessarily all of it as they had required previously. They’ll obviously have to get all evidence for trial, but this could be done while he’s on remand. 

Like I said, the next 24 hours are crucial and will give us a big steer as to what the current level of evidence is like. 

 

Last time I nick a pair of Asda George pants then 

[LondonBristolian]

1 minute ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Last time I nick a pair of Asda George pants then 

You'd have got away with it if you hadn't immediately changed into them, right in the middle of the aisle...

[RedorDead BCFC]

5 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

You'd have got away with it if you hadn't immediately changed into them, right in the middle of the aisle...

Ironic that you see people eat part of the French loaf whilst waiting in line to be served, they are buying no questions asked. But change into a clean pair of boxers in the line everyone complains. 

Edited October 15, 2022 by RedorDead BCFC

[robinforlife2]

36 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-63269379
 

Interesting development this morning. Arrested for breaching bail. 

This will give us a good idea of how the CPS view GMP’s case… the arrest for breach of bail forces the urgency of a charging decision. We’ll know more very soon I’d have thought. 

Given he has breached bail, wouldn't most people be put on a tag or remanded for something like that ? 

[cityal]

3 minutes ago, RedorDead BCFC said:

Ironic that you see people eat part of the French loaf whilst waiting in line to be served, they are buying no questions asked. But change into a clean pair of boxers in the line everyone complains. 

I guess most people having a nibble in the queue are not (to quote blackadder) "tackle out"

[Fordy62]

16 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

Given he has breached bail, wouldn't most people be put on a tag or remanded for something like that ? 

2 types of bail. Police and court. 
court can tag people. Police cannot.  He’s on police bail so no tag. 

Both can remand but the police remand is after charge and only for one night to attend court the next morning where the court make the longer term remand decision.  But the remand can only take place once he’s charged. 

Edited October 15, 2022 by Fordy62

[joe jordans teeth]

37 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

You'd have got away with it if you hadn't immediately changed into them, right in the middle of the aisle...

I hung my Calvin’s in it’s place,granted they had holes everywhere and chocolate stains but someone will appreciate them

[!james]

 

 

 

[fixit]

Greenwood has now been charged, so the usual legal restrictions now apply.

[Northern Red]

3 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

Well… we don’t know…

we know that he’s probably breached his bail, but actually that doesn’t matter too much, it’s more of an administrationy kind of thing…

I could go into the ins and outs… in fact **** it…

imagine you were arrested shoplifting in Asda. You did it, but you don’t admit it. You don’t have any previous. 

The police get a statement from a 2 members of staff who saw you do it and detained you, but the Cctv operator isn’t there to download the footage and can’t be within the 24 hours the police have to charge you. Now, they cannot charge you because they’re missing the Cctv. They need all key evidence to make a charging decision - after all the Cctv might attest to your innocence. Now because they haven’t got it and because they can’t get it in them, they have to release you on bail.

Because you’ve got no previous, then bail has to be the assumption.

You have conditions to not go to Asda, to not contact the two members of staff who detained you and to live and sleep at your home address. 

Let’s say that night you go to Asda. A clear breach of your bail conditions. The police arrest you from Asda. There still hasn’t been time for the police to get hold of the Cctv footage, but because you’ve breached your bail conditions the games changes as to how it was before. You’ve now shown a tendency to have little regard for bail and the police can now making a charging decision on a lower threshold of evidence than before because you went back to Asda. So you’d probably now get charged with theft and kept in custody overnight to go to court the next day. 

When Greenwood was initially released on bail that meant that the police needed to get every single shred of evidence before CPs would consider charging him. Absolutely every minute detail. Because now he’s breached his bail (I don’t know how - let’s say he’s contacted the complainant) this ups his risk factor to interfere with justice. So now the police need good evidence to charge, but not necessarily all of it as they had required previously. They’ll obviously have to get all evidence for trial, but this could be done while he’s on remand. 

Like I said, the next 24 hours are crucial and will give us a big steer as to what the current level of evidence is like. 

 

I assume this is what's happened here?

[alexukhc]

Apparently been living with the victim the last 4 months and they was getting back together and she wanted to drop charges.. 

though I did read that on twitter and I don’t believe everything I read.

after what we saw and heard him do to her, he deserves huge punishment, if guilty that is…

scum

[Sheltons Army]

2 minutes ago, alexukhc said:

Apparently been living with the victim the last 4 months and they was getting back together and she wanted to drop charges.. 

though I did read that on twitter and I don’t believe everything I read.

after what we saw and heard him do to her, he deserves huge punishment, if guilty that is…

scum

And if there is any truth to that , and it wouldn’t shock me

She would need certifying

Edited October 15, 2022 by Sheltons Army

[alexukhc]

Just now, Sheltons Army said:

And if there is any truth to that , and it wouldn’t shock me

She needs certifying

Sadly I agree, a similar situation happened with a friend, we all told her to keep away from this lad, but police weren’t doing anything and ended up going back with him after him saying he’d change, was sorry etc. did he? No, he changed for a few days, she has had to contact the police yet again and said boy is on the run

[Sheltons Army]

Just now, alexukhc said:

Sadly I agree, a similar situation happened with a friend, we all told her to keep away from this lad, but police weren’t doing anything and ended up going back with him after him saying he’d change, was sorry etc. did he? No, he changed for a few days, she has had to contact the police yet again and said boy is on the run

It happens a lot

The first occurrence I have absolute , and every sympathy 

After that , I struggle to

[PHILINFRANCE]

8 minutes ago, alexukhc said:

Apparently been living with the victim the last 4 months and they was getting back together and she wanted to drop charges.. 

though I did read that on twitter and I don’t believe everything I read.

after what we saw and heard him do to her, he deserves huge punishment, if guilty that is…

scum

Hard to believe, if his bail conditions were as reported.

[Fordy62]

25 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

I assume this is what's happened here?

I would guess so. I wonder on how many occasions he’s breached his bail? Because if your evidence isn’t up to scratch then there’s no point in acting on a breach because you just end up bailing again. I suspect he’ll get remanded on Monday by the Mags court and then bailed at his first crown court hearing - which i bet will be Tuesday/Wednesday. 

Court will set conditions then and that’s a whole new ball game if you breach those. 

[robinforlife2]

3 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

2 types of bail. Police and court. 
court can tag people. Police cannot.  He’s on police bail so no tag. 

Both can remand but the police remand is after charge and only for one night to attend court the next morning where the court make the longer term remand decision.  But the remand can only take place once he’s charged. 

Thanks for explaining that.