Rachel Riley...

[Beanstalk]

Man U twitter is a sight to behold.........vitriolic dismissing of anyone who says he shouldn't be returning

Yes, though, and I'd happily chastise them for supporting United in the first place, but I'm yet to see a regular match going fan support his return.

I'm sure there are some, but it seems to me that the active voices in the conversation are all against. Utterly depressing that they matter less than some bloke on Twitter on the other side of the world.

 

[Beanstalk]

A reminder: if you state definitively that someone did or said something, and that thing was not proven in court, then you must be prepared to stand up in court and prove that thing if challenged to do so. The burden of proof will be on YOU to prove it happened, not on the other party to prove it didn't.

Millionaire Premier League footballers have deeper pockets than you.

Are they likely to come after you because of something posted on a Brighton message board? Probably not, no. But I suspect you don't want to find out.

Fair, thanks for editing. Obviously, a very emotive subject.

 

[maltaseagull]

If the case was dropped then he didn;t do it or am I missing something?

The case was dropped as the CPS felt a successful prosecution unlikely as a keywitness withdrew.
Doesn´t mean he did or did not. However some voice recordings were unpleasant to say the least.

 

[Live by the sea]

Vile woman who just happens to be tight in this case.

Vile ! Have you been drinking or something

She’s a lovely woman who stands up for women’s rights and calls out racists and dies a lot for various charities. She’s also very easy on the eye .

If she’s vile as you say , you have very odd morals and probably need to get help .

 

[Audax]

Christ alive, did you not see all of the evidence? It's not just accusations. The only reason the case was dropped was because a "key witness" dropped out. Under 1% of reported rapes lead to convictions in this country. This is the result of a criminal justice system that makes prosecuting rape extremely rare, lengthy and difficult. Not guilty, not proven, whatever - it doesn't equate to the truth, which is more visible in this case than any other in football.

It's an utterly abominable situation, and I just can't believe any sane football fan would be defending him.

No, I haven't. I even said so in my post, so not sure where the aggression is coming from. Here's the bit you might have missed in your rush to condemn:

"I don't personally know enough about the case to form my own opinion."

My post a) was not defending anyone, and b) making the same point you made (that failure for the case to go to court does not prove his innocence). Maybe back off and think about what I actually wrote before going off on a kneejerk response?

 

[A1X]

I suspect this will have put the frighteners on the Man U publicity and marketing departments, a load of people bawling on Twitter is one thing but if she represents a large proportion of the UK-based supporters, and especially the female supporters, that could pose a huge problem for them.

I commend her for daring to put her head above the parapet on this. Just look at the absolute dogs abuse Jessica Ennis-Hill got over Ched Evans at Sheffield United.

 

[Audax]

Not convinced about that at all. Seems they were about to announce his return but a journo got hold of it and tried to validate the news.......

https://theathletic.com/4780813/2023/08/16/mason-greenwood-man-utd-return/

Explained: Mason Greenwood and Manchester United - the charges, investigation and planned return

Senior executives at United have been told that Greenwood is to rejoin the club's squad. But how has that happened and why?

theathletic.com

Like I said - whatever decision they make will be based on a whole lot more than "do we think he was guilty or not?" Lot more will go into it. I didn't mention it in my post, but they'll also be looking at "does having him in the squad improve the squad enough to outweigh any negatives?"

As I said, I've not seen / heard enough about the case to form my own opinion. And not going to change that now. Ideally the evidence would have been tested in court. From what some have said in this thread this morning, it sounds like even without the witness(es) there could/should have been enough to proceed. Which makes me wonder if the prosecution has access to additional material that casts doubt on the evidence that went public.

 

[happypig]

I've sat on several DV trials. They are very difficult to prove to the required standard (beyond reasonable doubt) because there are generally only two people involved so it's one person's word against another. There can be corroborating evidence, such as injuries, previous behaviour (although this would need a bad character hearing to be admissible) or, as in this case, audio/video.
What make's DV almost impossible to prove is if the victim withdraws their statement or makes it clear that they are no longer willing to co-operate with the prosecution.
A prosecution collapsing doesn't mean the alleged perpetrator isn't a wife-beating scumbag, just that he cannot be proved to be so.

Where it gets interesting is that a civil case, such as breach of contract, only has to prove "on the balance of probability" and it's entirely possible that the evidence already available would be sufficient to terminate his contract for bringing the club into disrepute.

 

[Randy McNob]

The case was dropped because witnesses withdrew. It's possible he did do it and the evidence just isn't available to make a prosecution viable. Or it's possible the witnesses dropped out because they weren't willing to go through with testifying as they don't believe he actually did what he was accused of. We'll likely never know for sure either way. I don't personally know enough about the case to form my own opinion. Riley has clearly made her mind up that he's guilty, and she's entitled to that opinion.

It sounds like Man U are going through a very thorough process in deciding what they do. But even after they announce their decision we won't be any the wiser - because they'll be looking not just at whether Greenwood is "guilty" but also at the internal cohesion (would club staff / players be comfortable with keeping him?), PR (will external stories about keeping him be damaging?), and commercial (is there a risk of sponsors withdrawing?) angles.

IF he's innocent, he's now in a horrible position - his career is probably gone in terms of top-level football, and the accusations will follow him for the rest of his life. There really ought to be a route for people who are accused, who then don't face trial, to request and get some form of "trial-like" hearing to attempt to establish their innocence.

although not quite the same comparison, Michael Barrymore's name will always be tarnished for his misdemeanour, even though he was never charged with any crime, because of the sordid nature of what happpened. No one really knows what exactly happened and what Barrymore himself did, but in these high profile instances the public simply make their mind up without knowing the true facts. Even if the truth came out it wouldn't make any difference anyway

 

[Pavilionaire]

On balance, if I was the CEO of Man Utd I be advising the board to pay off Greenwood's contract and take the £7 mill hit.

We hear the phrase that someone is "innocent until proven guilty" but the evidence thrown up in cases like this contain images that can't be unseen and audio that can't be unheard.

Simon Jordan's opinion was to get rid of him if the CPS case IS the full story, but retain and "weather the storm" if Man Utd have information that has not been presented in court that is in Greenwood's favour. I understand that viewpoint but - ultimately - Man Utd are trying to build a team, a culture, an ethos, a set of values, a brand and the Greenwood circus will just impede that process.

He is a young man, and young men make mistakes BUT Greenwood has previous - smuggling girls into the England hotel and breaking Covid protocols showed poor judgement but - unlike Phil Foden - he doesn't appear to have learned just how fragile his privileged position is.

 

[essbee1]

Can you see Ten Hag letting him back in the team? I can't.

 

[Randy McNob]

Dilema is he is currently worth about 40-50m at a wild guess, he's only 21, if he becomes a massive player and international he'd be worth 100m+. Can they just kiss such a huge asset goodbye? what if it was Rashford?

Also what about Cantona? He assaulted a fan and was committed in court. Fergie stood by him because he was a massive player for them

 

[Questions]

Vile woman who just happens to be tight in this case.

Why is she vile ? What has she done ?

 

[borat]

Vile woman who just happens to be tight in this case.

She is indeed

 

[carlzeiss]

Easy way out for RR , just go and support your local team Southend United . I am sure they will be most pleased to see her there

 

[Pavilionaire]

Dilema is he is currently worth about 40-50m at a wild guess, he's only 21, if he becomes a massive player and international he'd be worth 100m+. Can they just kiss such a huge asset goodbye? what if it was Rashford?

Also what about Cantona? He assaulted a fan and was committed in court. Fergie stood by him because he was a massive player for them

1. I'd be surprised if a player alleged to have attempted rape with a track record of dickhead behaviour who hasn't played a match for 19 months would fetch anywhere near £40m-£50m unless it was Saudi money.

2. Cantona's assault was on a Palace fan. This act only enhanced his and Man Utd's standing in the football world.

 

[herecomesaregular]

Let's not be misguided here - Man U's position is influenced by his skill and monetary worth as a footballer. Football can really be a poor role model it seems. Very saddening indictment of the times. edit - they might only "do the right thing" if influenced enough by a media or advertising backlash, equally pathetic.

 

[Hamilton]

She is indeed

Why? What has she done?

 

[Mancgull]

Why? What has she done?

Yes, let’s hear it

 

[Pavilionaire]

Let's not be misguided here - Man U's position is influenced by his skill and monetary worth as a footballer.

Who is misguided? His skill and monetary worth are factors, but Man Utd have just paid £72 mill for Rasmus Hojland, and what if he doesn't want to play alongside - or lose his place - to someone like Greenwood? It's been a decade without a title but they are slowly rebuilding and improving. Why jeopardise that?

The women's World Cup is about to reach its climax, England could win it and interest in football from young women in England will reach another level, so it would be a PR disaster for Man Utd to announce in the same week that they'll be keeping Greenwood at the club.

If Man Utd don't give a shit about values then fine - reinstate him - but to most football fans the optics will be awful and he will get dog's abuse from fans, home and away.