Mason Greenwood

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

2 hours ago, Greavsy said:

It isn't her decision to prosecute or not, that's down to the CPS, if they believe there is a strong case of a conviction & its in the public interest. She can refuse to give evidence for what ever reason but potentially in not doing so could be charged with perverting the course of justice. She wasn't. 

CPS can still bring a case without her giving agreeing to give evidence - they didnt.

So as ive stated previously there was little chance of a conviction despite all the (so called) factual evidence that has appeared in the media and been repeated here. 

As he has no conviction he is an innocent man. Legally & factually.   

It would have been unthinkable under the circumstances to prosecute her for that. People get charged with perverting the course of justice if they actively lie or act to get someone acquitted, or in rare cases to frame someone for a crime they haven't committed. The girlfriend just - understandably -  decided she didn't want to go through the public ordeal again.

[Greavsy 2,423]

2 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

It would have been unthinkable under the circumstances to prosecute her for that. People get charged with perverting the course of justice if they actively lie or act to get someone acquitted, or in rare cases to frame someone for a crime they haven't committed. The girlfriend just - understandably -  decided she didn't want to go through the public ordeal again.

Fair point Purple, and I agree it would have been harsh in her circumstances, but I was just pointing out that it would have been a decision she shouldn't / wouldn't have made lightly.

Although havent her actions had the same effect as getting MG acquitted? 

He is certainly guilty by social media jury, irrespective of the known / proven facts. 

If the accuser didnt want to go through the ordeal in public again, maybe she should have gone to the authorities initially rather than posting the allegations on her socials. 

The case was also dropped due to new evidence coming to light - I have no idea what that evidence is. 

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

36 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

We wouldn't need that unwanted publicity. Only he knows what went on. Leave it at that.

Incorrect . She knows too.  I agree though, why would we do something that could , or more likely would , upset a large proportion of the fans.  Could we use his talent  , of course. Do we need the media circus.....No !. 

[Barbe bleu 832]

9 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

 It's not clear why she chose to accuse Evans and not the other man (who wasn't a footballer). 

My recollection is that she didn't accuse either of them. She went to the police thinking her drink had been spiked and it all came out after that. Both men went on trial;  The friend was acquitted but Evans was convicted.  

Edited August 12, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[TheGunnShow 5,987]

In the Ched Evans case he'd overturned it later but had come out of prison. At that point he's served his sentence, and stopping him from restarting his career strikes me as a form of double jeopardy. 

Ultimately Greenwood has been considered innocent on a technicality so I think he should be allowed to resume his career. 

However, I wouldn't be happy to see him here on a moral level, and I really do not blame the women's' team for being particularly sceptical. Agree with those who think he'll end up in another country. Probably Saudi Arabia, considerable swathes of their society has views on women that are somewhere between the Stone Age and the Roman Empire.

[Fen Canary 865]

I’d have no problem signing Greenwood personally. He’s not been convicted of any crime therefore I don’t think you should effectively cancel his career over an allegation. Having known a few people who have been falsely accused I’m deeply uncomfortable with trial by social media and labelling him as a monster unless a he is found guilty of being so.

I appreciate the media circus surrounding his signing would be a distraction, but that’s for the clubs to decide whether his talent is enough to wait for that to die down.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

6 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Fair point Purple, and I agree it would have been harsh in her circumstances, but I was just pointing out that it would have been a decision she shouldn't / wouldn't have made lightly.

Although havent her actions had the same effect as getting MG acquitted? 

He is certainly guilty by social media jury, irrespective of the known / proven facts. 

If the accuser didnt want to go through the ordeal in public again, maybe she should have gone to the authorities initially rather than posting the allegations on her socials. 

The case was also dropped due to new evidence coming to light - I have no idea what that evidence is. 

No. There is a clear difference between actively perjuring oneself, or whatever, to get someone acquitted, and not being able to bear going through another ordeal of testifying and being cross-examined.

For professional reasons I have sat through two rape trials, and in both cases the defence set out to blacken the reputation of the complainant and make them wish they were anywhere but in a witness box. I can still picture one of them now. She had dressed very soberly, presumably on the advice of her barrister, but ended up looking broken.

Both defendants were acquitted but if there had been a hung jury I suspect neither woman would have agreed to go though the horror again.

As to what was said by the CPS, it was this: 

"In this case a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. In these circumstances, we are under a duty to stop the case."

Note that "key witnesses" in in the plural, suggesting not just the girlfriend, and is stated first. To be fair "new material" might well mean new evidence, although it doesn't say so explicitly.

Edited August 12, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[Greavsy 2,423]

10 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

No. There is a clear difference between actively perjuring oneself, or whatever, to get someone acquitted, and not being able to bear going through another ordeal of testifying and being cross-examined.

For professional reasons I have sat through two rape trials, and in both cases the defence set out to blacken the reputation of the complainant and make them wish they were anywhere but in a witness box. I can still picture one of them now. She had dressed very soberly, presumably on the advice of her barrister, but ended up looking broken.

Both defendants were acquitted but if there had been a hung jury I suspect neither woman would have agreed to go though the horror again.

As to what was said by the CPS, it was this: 

"In this case a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. In these circumstances, we are under a duty to stop the case."

Note that "key witnesses" in in the plural, suggesting not just the girlfriend, and is stated first. To be fair "new material" might well mean new evidence, although it doesn't say so explicitly.

Thanks for your constructive reply, as always purple.

I to have sat through a court case for child abuse / rape and agree its not a pleasent experience for anyone involved. In the case i was involved in the barrister pointed out that the indictments would paint the accused in a very bad light and people would feel anger towards him. They also pointed this out that there would be some grim descriptions of alleged activities that would shock the court. They were right. And at that point the accused was facing a 100% guilty verdict given peoples perception. 

It was then pointed out that its up to the accusers to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and not for the accused to prove their innocence.  

When the accuser gave evidence but the judge made the court aware she had made a request to appear behind a screen when testifying but this was refused. 

All parties were given a thorough grilling , particularly during cross examination, as you would expect.

After 3 weeks the case ended with a not guilty verdict and the accuser dramatically running out of court. 

All very dramatic and certainly emotional for all concerned.  Did the activities as presented take place, we will never know. BUT due process was followed and there was not enough evidence provided for a unanimous guilty verdict and hence a conviction. That's how it works, which I know you know. 

So likewise with MG, in the eyes of the law he is innocent as no case was brought for reasons you state above. 

I'll accept the two scenarios are slightly different, my point is even if the case gets to court, a guilty verdict isn't nailed on but the cps have believe they have a good chance of one to bring the case. In MGs case for whatever reason they didn't. That's the law in this land. Yes people can make their own views on MG from the press and how thats presented, but the one view that matters is the legal one. 

You say the accuser wouldn't want to go through it again, the only time she went through it was when she took the case to the police. I agree that would have extremely traumatic for her. But she would have been there of her own free will. She freely put it on her socials, thus making it harder to get a jury if it went to court. As you have to know nothing about the case you are on. So whilst I stress im not defending MG or his alleged actions in any way. If she was so traumatised by the actions (and understandably so if they are true) and she was happy to share on her socials, which we all know is a cesspit at the best of times, but not in a court with a proper framework of support etc. 

This is all off topic from the original OP, to which I agree with another poster who said despite however good a footballer is we don't need the circus it would bring to carrow road. 

[mrD66M 102]

IMO there are currently serious problems with laws and the UK justice system, especially in cases of alleged abuse/rape. I believe this to be the case for both accusers and defendants. One of the things on which current Govt has much to answer for.

Laws aside, about this MG, I'd sooner sign someone who has allegedly done drugs, or harmful actions only towards themselves.. letting in anyone who would bring the club into this kind of disrepute would not be good for a "family friendly" NCFC. Precedent followed by pitchforks.

[By Hook or Ian crook 917]

5 hours ago, mrD66M said:

IMO there are currently serious problems with laws and the UK justice system, especially in cases of alleged abuse/rape. I believe this to be the case for both accusers and defendants. One of the things on which current Govt has much to answer for.

Laws aside, about this MG, I'd sooner sign someone who has allegedly done drugs, or harmful actions only towards themselves.. letting in anyone who would bring the club into this kind of disrepute would not be good for a "family friendly" NCFC. Precedent followed by pitchforks.

We set a high bar for guilty verdicts to be given and rightly so. Even then many many people are given guilty verdicts and are proved innocent many years later. Ched Evan’s being a perfect example of which. Many many people have their lives ruined by false accusations and trial by social media these days. 
 

I think some introspection should be taken by yourself before you decide to take moral stances on situations you have limited knowledge on. 

[duke63 545]

5 hours ago, mrD66M said:

IMO there are currently serious problems with laws and the UK justice system, especially in cases of alleged abuse/rape. I believe this to be the case for both accusers and defendants. One of the things on which current Govt has much to answer for.

Laws aside, about this MG, I'd sooner sign someone who has allegedly done drugs, or harmful actions only towards themselves.. letting in anyone who would bring the club into this kind of disrepute would not be good for a "family friendly" NCFC. Precedent followed by pitchforks.

It’s fairly obvious these days that if you have sufficient funds behind you and can afford top lawyers you can get off serious crimes on a technicality. 

[Fen Canary 865]

2 hours ago, duke63 said:

It’s fairly obvious these days that if you have sufficient funds behind you and can afford top lawyers you can get off serious crimes on a technicality. 

So you’ve already deemed him guilty then, simply from what you’ve read on social media 

[mrD66M 102]

12 hours ago, duke63 said:

It’s fairly obvious these days that if you have sufficient funds behind you and can afford top lawyers you can get off serious crimes on a technicality. 

One that came to public attention recently is the case of Andrew Malkinson. What he has been through - after DNA evidence came to light - is disgusting. But unlike Greenwood, Malkinson does not have football skills or money behind him, so not only he gets to rot for a sizeable span of his life for something he didn't do, he is liable to pay for time spent in HMP. Everything about this feels wrong.

Now, I don't know the ins and outs of every case, or technical, legalese, lawyer jargon. Haven't been to Uni or Law school. All I have as a common peasant is my gut instinct and moral compass, forged by family events that I will never discuss with strangers on the net. And my gut instinct tells me - after hearing a certain voice clip of MG - he may not have broken any laws over this, but he has crossed a line.

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by mrD66M

[duke63 545]

54 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So you’ve already deemed him guilty then, simply from what you’ve read on social media 

I wasn’t thinking of Greenwood tbh, there have been plenty of other cases where wealthy individuals avoid prison because they can afford the very best legal minds. 
 

However if anyone thinks the way the man on the tapes on the internet acts is an acceptable way to treat anyone then they want their heads examining. The actions are a criminal way to treat any woman. 

[mrD66M 102]

On 12/08/2023 at 12:07, By Hook or Ian crook said:

I don’t think football fans are the moral arbiters of society

Football fans are (mostly a positive) part of society, yes? They are not only football fans, they are citizens, taxpayers, who with their choices and votes shape society, right?

You - and everyone around you who abides by laws and common sense - ARE in a small but meaningful part a moral arbiter of the society you're invested in. 

Where do you think "moral arbitration" comes from, some entity behind the clouds in the sky? Or from the political class?

Whatever your morals may be (as long as they are within the law, and not preaching abuse/hatred) if you think they don't matter because you are a football fan... how reductive a view you do have of yourself.

 

[By Hook or Ian crook 917]

Just now, mrD66M said:

Football fans are (mostly a positive) part of society, yes? They are not only football fans, they are citizens, taxpayers, who with their choices and votes shape society, right?

You - and everyone around you who abides by laws and common sense - ARE in a small but meaningful part a moral arbiter of the society you're invested in. 

Where do you think "moral arbitration" comes from, some entity behind the clouds in the sky? Or from the political class?

Whatever your morals may be (as long as they are within the law, and not preaching abuse/hatred) if you think they don't matter because you are a football fan... how reductive a view you do have of yourself.

 

I think when you compare football fans to fans of any other professional sport it’s no coincidence that football fans have to be segregated and those at say cricket or rugby do not need to me. As the old saying goes it’s a Gentleman’s game played by thugs. The national average of criminal convictions is 1 in 3 id argue amongst groups of football fans that number would be higher than the national average and I’ll die on that hill. A vast vast majority of the violent, racist, vile behaviour I’ve seen in my life has been associated with football some at carrow road. 
 

I can’t think of any other sports in the world where fans are murdered by opposing fans simply for supporting another side. Are you old enough to remember the West Ham fan killed by a millwall fan with a knitting needle at a pre season friendly. 
 

if I had children I would not take them to some football games where as I would have no problem taking them to any rugby or cricket games. 
 

I think morality comes from the laws and cultures of the civilisation you live in. Different countries have vastly different laws to us, weed in Holland, drinking age in Spain ect I could go on. It’s all a matter of upbringing and geopolitical location. We think it’s fine to eat a cow but in India is sacrilege. We don’t think dogs should be eaten but the Vietnamese think it’s fine, Japan think it’s okay to hunt and eat whales. It’s not a popularity contest it’s about a person, who in the eyes of the law is innocent, being able to resume a career as anyone else would and should have the right to do. 

[mrD66M 102]

"it’s about a person, who in the eyes of the law is innocent, being able to resume a career as anyone else would and should have the right to do"

Here IMO is the crux of the issue - 2 issues being conflated into one.

As an employee I don't need to actively the break any law to lose my job. It would be sufficient for my employer that they deem that I either am not productive enough, or I don't represent the company / display its values *whichever they may be..* well enough - this last part goes beyond active duty, and merges into what I am seen / perceived to do in the eyes of others, to an extent, in my private life. By association, my employer's image to wider society is affected by my actions.

 

 

[pete 320]

Don't know much about case where court was.  But receny case agaonst Giggs ay Manchester CC there was never any fear of conviction of Giggs being found guilty in Manchester.  Needed venue change wher bias would be eloniated.

[The Raptor 1,231]

Same as Gerrard in Liverpool.

29 minutes ago, pete said:

Don't know much about case where court was.  But receny case agaonst Giggs ay Manchester CC there was never any fear of conviction of Giggs being found guilty in Manchester.  Needed venue change wher bias would be eloniated.

This. I suspect anywhere other than Merseyside Steven Gerrard walking over and punching someone wouldn't be classed as self defence!

[......and Smith must score. 1,357]

2 hours ago, pete said:

Don't know much about case where court was.  But receny case agaonst Giggs ay Manchester CC there was never any fear of conviction of Giggs being found guilty in Manchester.  Needed venue change wher bias would be eloniated.

You really must get your spellchecker serviced Pete.

This is painful.

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

2 hours ago, pete said:

eloniated

Whats Musk got to with it?

[Captain Holt 522]

I would never go again.

[Google Bot 3,298]

This came up on my youtube front page this morning, had to laugh, those cheeky Leeds boys. 

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

RAchel Riley says she won't support Manure anymore if Greenwood is taken back into the fold.

As attractive and clever as she is, I don't think that is a deal breaker for the Glazers or the rest of the club.

[City fan 78]

On 12/08/2023 at 11:43, CDMullins said:

What happened to Police/CPS prosecuting without a victim?

Sure it use to happen when all the women would accuse their men of domestic violence on a Sunday morning then drop the case on a Monday evening.

Also, there's absolutely no link to this and Ched Evans IMO.

Very difficult to run a case if there is a hostile victim/witness. 

[Indy 3,314]

Strange case this one! There’s no doubt about his actions from the evidence on social media, yet CPS will and can only prosecute if the evidence is deemed as very strong!

For the actions of witnesses to drop out it makes you wonder if they’ve been bought and changed statements or if they lied!

I can’t say with conviction the lads a bad egg but this has certainly tainted him and his image, if Manure drop him it would be sad to see another club taking him on, unless there’s a massive media involvement in his development inside and outside the game including high level of counselling to show he’s moving his attitude and image on! Trouble is a leopard doesn’t change its spots!

Is he worth the negative impact, I doubt this family club would welcome him!

[ZLF 274]

Across history there are plenty of criminals who have, through fair means and foul ,  evaded or avoided conviction and remain innocent in the eyes of the law.  I would never want to be associated with them, including choosing whether or not to employ them. Others may choose yo but its a firm no for me.

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,425]

On 14/08/2023 at 08:09, ......and Smith must score. said:

You really must get your spellchecker serviced Pete.

This is painful.

I'm hearing this in an Officer Crabtree voice.

[Midlands Yellow 4,053]

Lovely lad, I’m sure any father would be proud of their daughter brought him home for tea. 

[Mr Angry 1,570]

He’s been released by Man Utd.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66554874