PP

What’s the difference between the upskirter and MG?

Both accused but not convicted.

Is MG also an offender free to re-offend?



MG was charged then the CPS decided there was no chance of a guilty verdict. i.e. he would have been found not guilty.

The upskirter was never even reported to the police let alone investigated and charged.

But that's the point... whether it's right or wrong.
It's what catches the whim of the public so then
needs to be avoided by those making money.

This fred will still be going long after Mason has hung up his boots I fear.

bdj - I don't listen to talksport, never mind actually think of ringing in! Shudder!

I said ages ago, there was a clear path for Greenwood to return. It involved showing contrition first off and a little savvy PR. Maybe that's what Deeney did, though not needed as much as his profile as a second div player was obviously much lower. So a 4-page splash with friendly journo in a red top, pics of the young family, talk of regret, growing up, maybe therapy and helping other young people deal with anger issues. Suddenly he's turning the negative action into a lot of positives.

Then the club just needs to deal with it effectively. Loan him out for a year. Be up front with people. We can understand the concerns but he's not been found guilty of anything and it's our job to support both of them, rather than just turf them out. Loan him out for a year, chance to rebuild his confidence etc. Let him show his quality. If he's crap and his head's gone then you can sell. If he's doing well there'll be plenty of people clamouring for him to return and it'll be an easy decision.

Instead both sides have massively mismanaged it. Greenwood has shown no contrition whatsoever. Stayed silent till the decision was made and he came out with some mealy-mouthed comments. The club laughably tries to bring him back on the QT, figuring out how to deal with the new enemy: not Liverpool or City, but women's campaign groups. And then it folds like a deckchair.

Literally couldn't have been handled any worse.

Now the kid's out of the country (potentially good) but under a huge spotlight and everyone is still thinking of him as a woman-beater, rather than a rehabilitated young kid. And there's no path back at Utd. They've already said he's finished. If he pulls up trees in Getafe they'll look like they're reneging on their agreement if they want to use him next season and look worse again, dragging this whole affair out once more.

Literally couldn't have been handled any worse.

Christ, this thread is like a vortex.


Only came on to laugh at the "men are the victims in all this" and hours later...Bailing out as there's been more than enough squirming for my liking.

Greenwood is not going to show contrition if he didn't do anything wrong. That has always been his position. Arnold has also seen material which came to light after the initial scandal and has said that he believes he is innocent. Nobody in Arnold's position is going to come out and say something that emphatic unless he is almost certain of his innocence. Then there's the almost sympathetic attitude of the alleged victim's father to Greenwood from the very start. 

At some point you have to look at the above, the allegations being withdrawn, them getting back together and having a child together as all being inconsistent with guilt and consistent with Greenwood being innocent. It is a massive red flag that they have got back together and had a child, it is highly indicative of the allegations being false or at least very questionable. There is no other way of saying it.

If he is innocent, as he has maintained throughout and which is somewhat corroborated by the statements and conduct of those involved and people more in the know than any member of the public, then there is a clear path for him to come back to United - the alleged victim can clarify why the allegations were withdrawn or why she has got back with him in a way that doesn't involve her getting charged with making false allegations or wasting police time.

Many on here clearly aren't bothered about VAWG so will happily give Greenwood the benefit of any doubt.



Who has said they are not bothered about violence against women?

" It is a massive red flag that they have got back together and had a child"

I know where you're coming from, but sadly it's not a "massive red flag". Some domestic violence victims go back to their attackers time and time again, others leave and end up in a similar relationship again.

Indeed.

Now if I was a really cynical advisor and my client, a client who will make me rich beyond my wildest dreams over the next 15 years, did something like the allegations and had accusations hanging over him, then what would I do? My own wealth and lifestyle relies on me getting this right.

I could let it run its course, not intervene, roll the dice. But that would be daft. What kind of advice would that be?

But I know that the court case would rely on the victim's testimony. You need to get her to retract her statement. But how? Threatening her seems very risky as she's already shown she will happily show off her cuts and bruises and the blowback could be catastrophic.

But she's a young girl, and also set for life with the lad in question. Maybe there's a bridge to be mended. So get them back together. On the QT. Small matter of him being barred from seeing her but you can win her round. I love you really. I'll never do it again, I promise. I can change. What victim of abuse hasn't heard words like that after all? And how many have gone back? So get them back together, and even better, advise him to get a kid on the scene as well.

Now surely she's not going to testify with a kid involved and the alleged perp now a reformed character. Of course not. Job done.



But then, I'm not a cynical advisor.

So do you think that's the end of it, or do you agree with those people who feel he still has questions to answer?

Greenwood issued a statement;


"I want to start by saying I understand that people will judge me because of what they have seen and heard on social media, and I know people will think the worst.

"I was brought up to know that violence or abuse in any relationship is wrong, I did not do the things I was accused of, and in February I was cleared of all charges. However, I fully accept I made mistakes... and I take my share of responsibility for the situations which led to the social media post.

"I am learning to understand my responsibilities to set a good example as a professional footballer, and I’m focused on the big responsibility of being a father, as well as a good partner.

"Today’s decision has been part of a collaborative process between Manchester United, my family and me. The best decision for us all, is for me to continue my football career away from Old Trafford, where my presence will not be a distraction for the club.

"I thank the club for their support since I joined aged seven. There will always be a part of me which is United.
I am enormously grateful to my family and all my loved ones for their support, and it is now for me to repay the trust those around me have shown.

"I intend to be a better footballer, but most importantly a good father, a better person, and to use my talents in a positive way on and off the pitch."


More than likely Greenwood had help writing that.

Does he have questions to answer? I think he has probably answered all the questions he needs to answer, to his partner, his family, his employers, the police, te CPS. I don't think  he owes you or me or Rachel Riley anything.

They'd probably do a better job tbf.
The CPS have a poor track record in prosecuting abuse & grooming cases.

I don't think  he owes you or me or Rachel Riley anything.

It's not that he owes anybody anything, it's that he might stand a better chance of being allowed to carry on unhindered with his career if more of the story was elaborated upon - assuming everything is innocent and above board, of course.

He owes no one anything. But he does need to answer questions if he wants some people not to believe the recording.

Have you not noticed that there is a difficulty in him even referring to the victim? Certainly he couldn't while charges were still on the table, not sure if he is still legally restricted but if not he's been advised against doing it. He hasn't referred to her directly at all, he hasn't even acknowledged that she is his partner and mother of his child despite referring to his relationship and child.

The alleged victim however, has never had any restriction in naming him - which is what she did before the police even got involved. Seeing as she has withdrawn the allegations and got back with her alleged attacker, surely she is the one, if anyone, who ought to explain why that is.

I thought that might challenge you.

https://twitter.com/UTDKara/status/1736089797314150403?s=19

..

Countdown to Rachel giving up season ticket..

See if that one survives...

https://twitter.com/Afolabiolamide8/status/1736155986073649247?s=19

..

Tie a yellow ribbon round the old oak tree...