|
Post by zx10racer22 on Aug 1, 2023 11:18:27 GMT
Not looking to start a fight on this one, but interested in genuine discussion. It's one of those moral dilemmas in life where I find myself genuinely torn. Should Mason Greenwood be allowed back into the squad and back playing football at Man Utd?
I think this issue is actually bigger than just being about Greenwood. It creates a wider discussion about how society deals with public figures who are legally innocent but who many people strongly suspect of serious wrongdoing.
Do we accept the notion of 'innocent until proven guilty'? Does the law trump all? Do we give any weight to the views of social media? Are the views of social media reflective of the views of society as a whole? Do we allow someone strongly suspected of serious crimes against women to carry on playing, even without a conviction?
I will be open and say that I really can't stand the guy. I think he's scum. But, that's not really relevant. And overall I can't get away from the feeling that the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' is a cornerstone of any reasonable justice system that must be respected. On that basis, I feel that he should be allowed to resume his career. If we ignored the legal system and allowed accusations alone to define someone, I fear we are creating a dangerous world where any person can be destroyed with a simple Tweet, where the evidence just isn't there (because if it was, there would be a conviction).
But the result of that feeling is that scummy little abusers and rapists can potentially go about their life unhindered. Which doesn't sit well with me either, for obvious reasons. But if Greenwood becomes untouchable... if every club which is considering signing him gets forced away... we're then living in that world of Twitter trumping legal system. And that doesn't sit well with me either.
|
|
Denton
Reserve team substitute
Posts: 2,889
|
Post by Denton on Aug 1, 2023 11:27:14 GMT
He's guilty, we saw the evidence. The fact she's trapped in an abusive relationship by both her father and Mason is a bit sad to see but sadly some people can't be helped (at least by the people who should be held to account on this). She dropped the case, he never once got to trial so he can't use that as an out.
Others have gone out and proven innocence (Gylfi Siggurdson) Some have been found innocent through loopholes (Partey) and others have just used the failings of the legal system to benefit them (Mendy). Football is a unique position in life that millions would love to be in, once you abuse that system you should be out on your ass. The problem is morally everyone is willing to overlook these issues in search of a hero, the same for how the middle east are sportwashing.
Football is morally fucked and more so at the top level, I stopped caring about it a while ago and see no reason to actually get involved. As long as we as a club hold our morals at a high level then that's all we can do and hope others follow suit. Personally, if we had the morals of a club like Bristol Rovers then i'd have to stop supporting us until all involved with the regime were completely out of the club
|
|
|
Post by zx10racer22 on Aug 1, 2023 11:43:30 GMT
Some have been found innocent through loopholes (Partey) and others have just used the failings of the legal system to benefit them (Mendy). Any serious evidence to back up those assertions?
|
|
imp566
Cult hero
Posts: 16,013
|
Post by imp566 on Aug 1, 2023 11:46:29 GMT
It might be a case of Man Utd thinking his behaviour (guilty or innocent) doesn't align with their values as a club, so don't want him playing for them anymore. That might open up a can of worms contractually and legally if they don't want to pay him off!
Other cases include Mendy at City - who has now been moved on, despite being found not guilty, and of course Jevani Brown, who Bristol Rovers were quick to snap up, even before a verdict had been reached!
|
|
|
Post by hoolaohanrahanrahan on Aug 1, 2023 21:02:43 GMT
Some have been found innocent through loopholes (Partey) and others have just used the failings of the legal system to benefit them (Mendy). Any serious evidence to back up those assertions? Partey was pretty well documented as such, Mendy, despite making my mind up about when the accusations first started, is innocent and has been found innocent twice. Can't really pin that on anything else than the outcome, and to eat humble pie. As for Greenwood, funny how they didn't care about a known rapist playing for them when it was Ronaldo.
|
|
Sandypants
Reserve team star
Posts: 4,045
Favourite CUFC player: Harrison Dunk
|
Post by Sandypants on Aug 2, 2023 8:51:24 GMT
Not looking to start a fight on this one, but interested in genuine discussion. It's one of those moral dilemmas in life where I find myself genuinely torn. Should Mason Greenwood be allowed back into the squad and back playing football at Man Utd? I think this issue is actually bigger than just being about Greenwood. It creates a wider discussion about how society deals with public figures who are legally innocent but who many people strongly suspect of serious wrongdoing. Do we accept the notion of 'innocent until proven guilty'? Does the law trump all? Do we give any weight to the views of social media? Are the views of social media reflective of the views of society as a whole? Do we allow someone strongly suspected of serious crimes against women to carry on playing, even without a conviction? I will be open and say that I really can't stand the guy. I think he's scum. But, that's not really relevant. And overall I can't get away from the feeling that the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' is a cornerstone of any reasonable justice system that must be respected. On that basis, I feel that he should be allowed to resume his career. If we ignored the legal system and allowed accusations alone to define someone, I fear we are creating a dangerous world where any person can be destroyed with a simple Tweet, where the evidence just isn't there (because if it was, there would be a conviction). But the result of that feeling is that scummy little abusers and rapists can potentially go about their life unhindered. Which doesn't sit well with me either, for obvious reasons. But if Greenwood becomes untouchable... if every club which is considering signing him gets forced away... we're then living in that world of Twitter trumping legal system. And that doesn't sit well with me either. Your parenthetical is my point of contention: "(because if [the evidence was there], there would be a conviction)." In an ideal world, we'd let the justice system do the justice. But we're not in an ideal world. Sexual assault is almost universally performed by people that have and are exercising a degree of power over their victim. And the current legal system exacerbates this. Prosecution rates for sexual assault are absurd. Victims are twice victimised. And when the perpetrator is found not guilty, or the case isn't even sent to the CPS, the persecutor gets protections that the victim was never afforded.
|
|
|
Post by Andrewlang on Aug 2, 2023 11:07:33 GMT
"Sexual assault is almost universally performed by people that have and are exercising a degree of power over their victim"
Indeed, on that note I wanted to mention Kevin Spacey. If only to highlight that it's not just women who get sexually abused and struggle to be taken seriously and/or get a conviction.
Either Kevin Spacey is genuinely innocent of the numerous allegations against gim...or there has been a massive injustice that makes it even harder for victims of sexual assaults, whether (male, female or non-binary, to be taken seriously.
As for Greenwood. I don't know, I believe in second chances but I don't neccersarily believe in me being the one to give a second chance. I'd want him gone if he was a United player.
Andrew
|
|
|
Post by zx10racer22 on Aug 4, 2023 14:24:44 GMT
Not looking to start a fight on this one, but interested in genuine discussion. It's one of those moral dilemmas in life where I find myself genuinely torn. Should Mason Greenwood be allowed back into the squad and back playing football at Man Utd? I think this issue is actually bigger than just being about Greenwood. It creates a wider discussion about how society deals with public figures who are legally innocent but who many people strongly suspect of serious wrongdoing. Do we accept the notion of 'innocent until proven guilty'? Does the law trump all? Do we give any weight to the views of social media? Are the views of social media reflective of the views of society as a whole? Do we allow someone strongly suspected of serious crimes against women to carry on playing, even without a conviction? I will be open and say that I really can't stand the guy. I think he's scum. But, that's not really relevant. And overall I can't get away from the feeling that the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' is a cornerstone of any reasonable justice system that must be respected. On that basis, I feel that he should be allowed to resume his career. If we ignored the legal system and allowed accusations alone to define someone, I fear we are creating a dangerous world where any person can be destroyed with a simple Tweet, where the evidence just isn't there (because if it was, there would be a conviction). But the result of that feeling is that scummy little abusers and rapists can potentially go about their life unhindered. Which doesn't sit well with me either, for obvious reasons. But if Greenwood becomes untouchable... if every club which is considering signing him gets forced away... we're then living in that world of Twitter trumping legal system. And that doesn't sit well with me either. Your parenthetical is my point of contention: "(because if [the evidence was there], there would be a conviction)." In an ideal world, we'd let the justice system do the justice. But we're not in an ideal world. Sexual assault is almost universally performed by people that have and are exercising a degree of power over their victim. And the current legal system exacerbates this. Prosecution rates for sexual assault are absurd. Victims are twice victimised. And when the perpetrator is found not guilty, or the case isn't even sent to the CPS, the persecutor gets protections that the victim was never afforded. I don't disagree with the valid point that there are many people walking around who have been labelled "innocent", by the fact there was not sufficient evidence for a conviction, when in reality they are guilty and have basically "got away with it". But, we don't know and cannot know who they are. You don't know if Mason Greenwood is a rapist or an abuser. You don't know if Thomas Partey is. Or Kevin Spacey. And if the absence of proof, you have the choice of either allowing questionable evidence to destroy someone's career or you respect the notion of innocence until proven guilty in court. And whilst the idea of guilty people walking around as "innocent" does not sit well with me, the idea of destroying innocent people because of what social media thinks it knows (but doesn't) does not sit well with me either. Unless someone here knows Mason Greenwood personally or is familiar with his case in a far more detailed manner than simply what has been made public, then no one here can know he is guilty. You can think he is. But you can't know with certainty that he is.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Shaw's Fist of Rage on Aug 4, 2023 17:23:02 GMT
He's not banned from having a career but football clubs and their owners, fans, management, sponsors aren't obliged to pay someone vast sums of money if they don't agree with their behaviour. I'm sure there will be a club that thinks it's appropriate to sign him or if not there's plenty of careers less in the public spotlight where he can earn a living without being a drain on the state.
|
|
|
Post by hoolaohanrahanrahan on Aug 4, 2023 23:09:53 GMT
I mean whatever you think of him, drain on the state isn't one. Probably pays 90k a week in tax to do flip all. It's beneficial to the state that he continues in quasi exile.
Ah well, his career has suffered and long may it continue to do so, the odious little shitbag.
|
|
cambsno
Youth team star
Posts: 1,019
|
Post by cambsno on Aug 10, 2023 20:45:14 GMT
Can't believe the responses here - he is a guilty as anyone on this thread of such offences. Why should someone be punished because of rumours?
Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't, but the fact is he has not been found guilty. How would you feel if you were accused of something you didn't do, and either found not guilty or did not go to court, would you be understanding if your employer sacked you and found it hard to find another job, or that friends dumped you?
|
|
|
Post by hoolaohanrahanrahan on Aug 10, 2023 20:52:52 GMT
Can't believe the responses here - he is a guilty as anyone on this thread of such offences. Bet this will come as a massive surprise to some, Andrew in particular!
|
|
|
Post by Tom Shaw's Fist of Rage on Aug 11, 2023 9:18:00 GMT
Can't believe the responses here - he is a guilty as anyone on this thread of such offences. Why should someone be punished because of rumours? Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't, but the fact is he has not been found guilty. How would you feel if you were accused of something you didn't do, and either found not guilty or did not go to court, would you be understanding if your employer sacked you and found it hard to find another job, or that friends dumped you? Not quite what's happened. Not guilty =/= didn't do it and the courts don't have to be how individuals/companies decide what or what isn't acceptable behaviour. File it along with Mendy, Evans etc - should these people be in jail - not my decision to make, not my problem. Do I want them representing the football club I support, absolutely not, and I feel I have the right to think that regardless of what any court says.
|
|
Sandypants
Reserve team star
Posts: 4,045
Favourite CUFC player: Harrison Dunk
|
Post by Sandypants on Aug 13, 2023 10:30:24 GMT
Can't believe the responses here - he is a guilty as anyone on this thread of such offences. Why should someone be punished because of rumours? Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't, but the fact is he has not been found guilty. How would you feel if you were accused of something you didn't do, and either found not guilty or did not go to court, would you be understanding if your employer sacked you and found it hard to find another job, or that friends dumped you? It's one thing to say that the court hasn't found sufficient evidence to find a person guilty when witnesses and victims have pulled out for reasons outside of the court's remit. It's another thing entirely to say they are completely innocent and accusations were founded only on rumour. Why would you conflate the two? This is especially true for cases of sexual assault, where the conviction rate is in the very low single-digits. Where a contradictory statement from a witness is enough to dismiss their case entirely, but a perpetrator can be proved to have lied without more than a "we know he's lying but can't do anything about it." (Actual words from a police report, by the way.) Where the inherently personal nature of most offences means even with injuries, alcohol, and drugs, it's still one word against another whether a person "wanted it," and the burden of proof is on the victim traumatised thrice over: by the event itself, by its social and financial repurcussions, and by the inherently combative police and court questioning. You can decide whether or not you shun the man, and as far as I can see, no one is telling you otherwise. But by the same token, people are well within their rights to shun someone too, even if a court has ultimately found insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict.
|
|
|
Post by zx10racer22 on Aug 14, 2023 12:16:01 GMT
It's one thing to say that the court hasn't found sufficient evidence to find a person guilty when witnesses and victims have pulled out for reasons outside of the court's remit. It's another thing entirely to say they are completely innocent and accusations were founded only on rumour. Why would you conflate the two? Because people are judging a man as guilty without proof. You clearly believe he did it and you are within your right to believe whatever you want. But, he hasn't had a day in court. He hasn't had a chance to defend himself. He hasn't had the evidence against him scrutinised. So you don't know whether he did it. You have no idea, just like I don't, just like the rest of the public don't. All the public know is that he was accused of something on social media. Irrespective of whether it's the Mason Greenwood case or any other case, if we create a world where anyone with a Twitter account can throw out an allegation and ruin someone's career, that's not a fair or reasonable justice system.
|
|