Mason Greenwood

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

I love the way it's just taken as established fact he's a rapist.

What did that audio suggest to you?

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

I love the way it's just taken as established fact he's a rapist.

Ok, ‘rapist’. Better?

I’m still seeing a gap between perfection and Mason Greenwood.

Just to be clear, I’m saying anything along the lines of ‘we all make mistakes’ for something 99% of us wouldn’t do is beyond a cop out.

Anyone who’s physically or sexual abused their partner is usually a leopard that won’t change their spots

He might have matured, got counselling and even feel he’s a new man but it just takes one bad day when he’s feeling stressed, his child or partner is pissing him off and then he just snaps again
If that happens then Utd’s reputation is in tatters

If I was in a position of power at Utd I wouldn’t want to be fearful that any call you get could be someone informing you that Mason’s done it again

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

What did that audio suggest to you?

To be a rapist there has to be a rape.

To be a rape a man has to penetrate the @#%&!, @&%! or mouth of another person.

Did that audio establish any of that happened?

Grinchers going full Solly Attwell

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

To be a rapist there has to be a rape.

To be a rape a man has to penetrate the @#%&!, @&%! or mouth of another person.

Did that audio establish any of that happened?

But have got a daughter

Originally Posted by NedKelly

Grinchers going full Solly Attwell

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

What did that audio suggest to you?

Suggestion is subjective.

I think he's a @#%&! who's been horribly violent to his partner but I can't prove it.

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

To be a rapist there has to be a rape.

To be a rape a man has to penetrate the @#%&!, @&%! or mouth of another person.

Did that audio establish any of that happened?

£#%&!ing hell

If she'd have stuck to her guns and gone to court, he'd be convicted of (at the very least) attempted rape. Because she's dropped it, it doesn't mean he's any less of that person (yes, not TECHNICALLY ffs).

Unreal.

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

£#%&!ing hell

If she'd have stuck to her guns and gone to court, he'd be convicted of (at the very least) attempted rape. Because she's dropped it, it doesn't mean he's any less of that person (yes, not TECHNICALLY ffs).

Unreal.

She can't drop it.

What did she say in her statement about the recording? You seem pretty sure he'd be convicted of attempt rape - what did she allege happened?

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

She can't drop it.

What did she say in her statement about the recording? You seem pretty sure he'd be convicted of attempt rape - what did she allege happened?

Which statement? The one to the police or the one where he was trying to rape her?

Harriet: No, I don't want to have to have sex

Mason: I don't give a £#%&! what you want you little shit

Harriet: Mason!

Mason: Shut up! Talking to me, Stop!

Harriet: Stop putting your dick there

Mason: I want to £#%&! you you @#%&!

Harriet: I don't wanna have sex with you

Mason: I don't care if you don't want sex with me. Damn me!

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

She can't drop it.

What did she say in her statement about the recording? You seem pretty sure he'd be convicted of attempt rape - what did she allege happened?

Didn't think she dropped it either. I thought it was "witnesses refused to cooperate" which is different I guess (from a legal perspective).

The fact she sat on this recording for several months and only brought it to light when he decided he wanted to end the relationship, didn’t help either.

Her mate released them, didn’t she? Allegedly..

Originally Posted by Curtis

The fact she sat on this recording for several months and only brought it to light when he decided he wanted to end the relationship, didn’t help either.

Yeah, wish abused women would come forward quicker, the process to prosecute and stop these crimes is made so easy these days, especially if the accused is a high profile footballer....

Originally Posted by Patty_b

Which statement? The one to the police or the one where he was trying to rape her?

Patty - are you upset? Are you going to be able to discuss this without getting upset?

It's obviously an emotive issue. Try not to get emotional about it if you can.

A statement is given to the police. It contains the complainant's account of what they allege happened. It's in a written format.

What you seem to have confused with a statement, is a transcript of the audio recording. No - that's not a statement. It could be an exhibit if there was ever to be a trial.

If i accept that the persons in the recording are Mason Greenwood and Harriet (is it Harriet?) - you can hear him being horrible to his partner. He is demanding that she have sex with him and telling her to move her legs. He talks at points in an aggressive tone and is undoubtedly a horrible human being.

What he doesn't do on the recording is penetrate her. What he also doesn't do is anything which would be considered more than merely preparatory for a rape in the context of this being a long-term couple seemingly already in bed together.

That's why i was interesting is she alleged anything in her statement too this end mate?

Don't let me interrupt your hysterical input on this issue though.

Originally Posted by windy waffles

Didn't think she dropped it either. I thought it was "witnesses refused to cooperate" which is different I guess (from a legal perspective).

She can't drop it. I only bring it up to address the definitive knowing pronunciations on this topic by persons who know £#%&! all about this process.

Would bloody love Atticus to represent me in court tbh

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

Are you ill? He never got charged, never convicted, no audio, no nothing - or have I missed all that?

well you’ve missed the fact he paid the woman off?
Abit of a Wierd thing for an innocent man to do that has been accused of rape?

Ronaldo case is nearly as circumstantial but you conveniently overlook it

Also a billionaire and one of the most famous men in the world hasn’t been back to America since. That’s like 15 years. When when his teams have had pre season tours in America he misses them.
why is that do you think?

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

Patty - are you upset? Are you going to be able to discuss this without getting upset?

It's obviously an emotive issue. Try not to get emotional about it if you can.

A statement is given to the police. It contains the complainant's account of what they allege happened. It's in a written format.

What you seem to have confused with a statement, is a transcript of the audio recording. No - that's not a statement. It could be an exhibit if there was ever to be a trial.

If i accept that the persons in the recording are Mason Greenwood and Harriet (is it Harriet?) - you can hear him being horrible to his partner. He is demanding that she have sex with him and telling her to move her legs. He talks at points in an aggressive tone and is undoubtedly a horrible human being.

What he doesn't do on the recording is penetrate her. What he also doesn't do is anything which would be considered more than merely preparatory for a rape in the context of this being a long-term couple seemingly already in bed together.

That's why i was interesting is she alleged anything in her statement too this end mate?

Don't let me interrupt your hysterical input on this issue though.

It was a tongue in cheek comment mate. You're talking about statements she may have given to the police and what was said within them. I couldn't give the tiniest £#%&! about any of that, and I'd assume most of the people that voted 'no' feel the same. No-one gives a shit about exhibits at trials.

We're talking about whether he should features for the club again, not whether he should be charged for a crime. People who don't want him to play again are basing that off what they know happened and what type of person that makes him, not whether or not he should be locked up.

If you will only solely make a decision based on whether or not he should play again for the club based solely on what would happen if it went to court, then fine. But for other people having someone of that character representing what they consider to be 'their club' is £#%&!ed up.

And unfortunately it is personal for me, and I know how hard it is for rape to get convictions. If a criminal conviction for sexual assault is limit that you're basing your decision on, then you should already know it's a pathetically low bar.

Now we’re back into that territory of him being not guilty in the eyes of the law is not being the same as us owing him a career.

Nothing has come off it. They’re back together. In the eyes of the law, he’s not guilty of anything.

We can’t call him what we like with any suggestion that it’s fact….but we also do get to have a say in who we want representing our club. We have sponsors, we have a women’s team, we have morale and character of a group to consider and I’d like to think we have some £#%&!ing standards.

We’ve all heard the tape. It might not be enough to convict him of a crime, but it’s enough to confidently suggest he’s not a good person and that’s he’s done something that no person of character would do or approve of.

We can want him £#%&!ed off for that and most of us do.