Should Mason Greenwood ever be allowed play for United again

Nope.

Originally Posted by Lok

A court wouldn't find him to be innocent. They might find him to be 'not guilty' but that is not the same thing.

I remember doing jury duty and we all knew the bloke did it but we couldn't make say guilty because of the way the case was poorly prosecuted and because of some destroyed evidence. It was ridiculous.

The audio is pretty clear. The pictures could obviously be staged but that is unlikely. If (big if) it goes to court, there's a very good chance he'll be found not guilty. But either way, I want him nowhere near the club. I don't care how good he is.

The law declares a person innocent until proven guilty. On that basis, I stand by my earlier post.

And it has nothing to do with how good/bad/average he is.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

I'm shocked some people with actual daughters have voted for yes.

Well exactly. Would be interesting to see if marlo had a daughter and heard a recording of a guy doing the same to her. 'Let's move on'.

Originally Posted by Finport Red

The law declares a person innocent until proven guilty. On that basis, I stand by my earlier post.

And it has nothing to do with how good/bad/average he is.

If evidence has been presented to you that someone is a massive @#%&! do you always wait for a court of law to find them guilty first before firming opinions.....?

It’s a tricky one. If all it ends up being is an accusation and some evidence only ever considered in the court of public opinion then what right does society or an institution have to deny a person the right to make a living however he chooses? Ronaldo was accused, and paid off his accuser, yet everyone seems fine with him in the shirt.

That said I don’t want him playing for us again, but that’s because it would be a circus distraction and I don’t like him. Overrated.

Manchester United isn’t a court of law. He can found innocent there and we can sell his sorry arse. This isn’t some ‘normal job’ where we can stick him in his own cubicle in a corner office. He represents a football club that prides itself on its traditions and values. We might moan about them being lazy bastards on the pitch, but this is entirely different.

He’s entitled to a fair trial and that will determine whether he is an innocent man in the eyes of the law and can avoid prison, but that doesn’t extend to him deserving a career at Manchester United and all the rewards that come with that.

I don’t care how good he is. Some things transcend that and this is certainly one of them.

He’s done. £#%&! him.

Originally Posted by utd99

It’s a tricky one. If all it ends up being is an accusation and some evidence only ever considered in the court of public opinion then what right does society or an institution have to deny a person the right to make a living however he chooses? Ronaldo was accused, and paid off his accuser, yet everyone seems fine with him in the shirt.

That said I don’t want him playing for us again, but that’s because it would be a circus distraction and I don’t like him. Overrated.

But there's an audio recording. If there'd been a recording for Ronaldo we'd have turned on him, or at least I'd like to think so.

If he's found innocent in court then he should be allowed to get on with his life. But I still don't want him in a United shirt because of that recording. It's very clear to me, I don't see anything tricky about it.

The only thing that would change my mind would be if some explanation emerged for the audio - it was a joke, they were role playing, or something. But that seems very unlikely.

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

If evidence has been presented to you that someone is a massive c*** do you always wait for a court of law to find them guilty first before firming opinions.....?

My opinions hold little sway over a person’s ability to earn a wage.

Opinions we hold on others are pretty much always based on partial knowledge of the facts surrounding them and are, as a result, prejudiced to one degree or another.

Everyone can have an opinion but everyone should be equal under the law.

Originally Posted by Finport Red

My opinions hold little sway over a person’s ability to earn a wage.

Opinions we hold on others are pretty much always based on partial knowledge of the facts surrounding them and are, as a result, prejudiced to one degree or another.

Everyone can have an opinion but everyone should be equal under the law.

Separating the law from your own opinion though would you want he representing your football club, advertising products, being a role model for your kids ?

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

Separating the law from your own opinion though would you want he representing your football club, advertising products, being a role model for your kids ?

100% this. There is what happens in terms of the law and then what happens after that as an ‘innocent’ man. We’re obligated to keep him or support him because of that.

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

Separating the law from your own opinion though would you want he representing your football club, advertising products, being a role model for your kids ?

Only if he’s found not guilty, or not charged. I may not particularly like it, but that’s the way it should be.

Originally Posted by Finport Red

The law declares a person innocent until proven guilty. On that basis, I stand by my earlier post.

And it has nothing to do with how good/bad/average he is.

The presumption of innocence means that the court has to assume a person is innocent until the prosecution can prove otherwise. It means that if the prosecution cannot prove that they are guilty, the defendant cannot be punished. It doesn't mean the defendant didn't commit a crime ffs.

Courts don't exist to prove innocence. They're to prove people are guilty and punish them accordingly.

Not guilty means that the prosecution failed to prove that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Many, many people who committed crimes are found 'not guilty'.

Originally Posted by Finport Red

Only if he’s found not guilty, or not charged. I may not particularly like it, but that’s the way it should be.

It really shouldn't, but fair play if you stand on that ...

I never want him anywhere near the shirt again.

We shouldn’t keep him on any more than Johnny Depp should be recast in Fantastic Beasts.

Head says that if he isn’t convicted of any crime then he has a contract and has the right to continue his career. So yes.

But, even then, I’d find it very difficult to get behind him as a United player knowing that he’s (at best) an unpleasant character.

He’d have a long road to travel to get to any sort of redemption.

I don't care if evidence isn't available to further any prosecution or if a court of law fails to prove he's committed any crimes. Bunks' reasoning has summed it up for me.

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

If evidence has been presented to you that someone is a massive @#%&! do you always wait for a court of law to find them guilty first before firming opinions.....?

wait... what? does he post on here?!

Originally Posted by utd99

Ronaldo was accused, and paid off his accuser, yet everyone seems fine with him in the shirt.

yup. and not prince andrew.

inconsistent.

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

The recording and pictures are Very hard to ever forgive on a united stage for me....

So no.

This. I mean the evidence could be withdrawn or the defendant drops the case but once you’ve seen the pics and heard the recordings you know it’s £#%&!ed.

It’s not even a case of the recordings could be part of some weird shit they were into and it was tole play or whatever . It was damning.

If it were, greenwood would be doing all he can to get his names cleared and get the defendant on charges as she would be trying to stitch him up.

Anyone who thinks he should be allowed to play for United again needs a reality check. If he’s found guilty they should lock him away . Absolutely sickening

It’s a no from me. The tape is pretty damning and the pictures are far more convincing than the Amber Heard hack jobs. Not really one to go on the moral high ground but I don’t really want that example being set to my son - even if it’s a ‘not guilty’, it doesn’t mean he isn’t guilty of what I think is reprehensible behaviour, and the thought of him playing for us just says “even if you abuse girls you can still be a star”.

Originally Posted by NedKelly

Do you condemn Ronaldo?

He needs something to do now the Pogba shit-boat has sailed.