Mason Greenwood has charges against him dropped

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

Back in the squad.

What’s your legal opinion pal?

Originally Posted by jem

it does.

but we can't see the picture.

it could be that she's coerced or it could be that she's forgiven him.

if it's the latter, I am not sure that anyone else's opinion matters.

(also, if she has only forgiven him because he plays for united, we should not undermine this by making her a wag for a shit team.)

Well said, clearly she needs United's full support as well, and that can only be given while he's under contract, part of the squad, and available for selection.

Originally Posted by jem

it does.

but we can't see the picture.

it could be that she's coerced or it could be that she's forgiven him.

if it's the latter, I am not sure that anyone else's opinion matters.

(also, if she has only forgiven him because he plays for united, we should not undermine this by making her a wag for a shit team.)

If he did it and If she’s forgiven him , it doesn’t take away the fact that he did it and is capable of it.

Originally Posted by Dasilvatwins

If he did it and If she’s forgiven him , it doesn’t take away the fact that he did it and is capable of it.

We don't know what went on behind closed doors, we don't know if he was pissed and acting a #@&%!, there's many explanations for that recording, no matter how uncomfortable it was to hear. condemning an innocent young man on the back of that snippet, and demanding his career be destroyed to make you feel better, is a very slippery slope.

Originally Posted by Sandman

We don't know what went on behind closed doors, we don't know if he was pissed and acting a #@&%!, there's many explanations for that recording, no matter how uncomfortable it was to hear. condemning an innocent young man on the back of that snippet, and demanding his career be destroyed to make you make you feel better, is a very slippery slope.

Fair comment. I didn’t demand his career be destroyed. I just think at United it’s a privilege to play at this club. A club at the very top of its sport in terms of size and out reach.

Maybe the audio clip is explained and it turns out he’s innocent. But I have to take it at face value right now because it was reported to the police. If it was consensual it the case wouldn’t have dragged on this long.

Maybe with the red tape and covid it may have ? Who knows? But I still think there’s more to be done to convince me he should wear the United shirt again

Originally Posted by Dasilvatwins

If he did it and If she’s forgiven him , it doesn’t take away the fact that he did it and is capable of it.

nor did I suggest that it did. what I said was that, if she's forgiven him (for whatever misguided reason), who are you to judge? him or her. it's not up to you to forgive either of them. you are irrelevant.

Like dunk says it’s the worst scenario for United.

Don’t want to see the bastard in a United shirt again tbph and I don’t think we will.

Reckon he’ll be lining up along with Ronaldo in the desert next season.

Originally Posted by Ethers

What’s your legal opinion pal?

They have a problem. From an unfair dismissal point of view (limited rights to compensation though) they should not be relying on a conviction or otherwise in any event. An employer is meant to make its own mind up about the alleged misconduct and whether or not dismissal is appropriate. So you can have a situation where there is no conviction and dismissal is fair. Conversely you can have a situation where there is a conviction and dismissal is unfair. Standard of proof is also different - balance of probabilities in civil and beyond reasonable doubt in criminal. From a contractual point of view (much more costly) there is likely an ability to terminate if convicted, but that has not been triggered. Also likely to be able to terminate if he brings the club into disrepute. But the problem then is that this is an old allegation (because it must relate to the stuff having gone on social media). It may be said that they have waited too long to do this and so have effectively waived the breach of contract.

Originally Posted by jem

nor did I suggest that it did. what I said was that, if she's forgiven him (for whatever misguided reason), who are you to judge? him or her. it's not up to you to forgive either of them. you are irrelevant.

But In this case he still would have done what he has been accused of. I don’t want someone who committed rape playing for Manchester United .

Originally Posted by Dasilvatwins

But In this case he still would have done what he has been accused of. I don’t want someone who committed rape playing for Manchester United .

I understand that this is your opinion.

when I said your opinion doesn't matter, it wasn't because I didn't know what it was.

Originally Posted by jem

I understand that this is your opinion.

when I said your opinion doesn't matter, it wasn't because I didn't know what it was.

Take greenwood out the equation.

Say player “X” , had all the evidence in the world to convict him of raping someone. However the victim forgave him , didn’t go to the police etc. even if there were countless videos and pics etc etc .

Would you still be ok with him playing for the football team You support?

(I know greenwood doesn’t have overwhelming evidence against him, my point here is, just because someone is forgiven, it doesn’t detract the heinous act they committed. As a result they should not have the privilege to play for one of the biggest teams in the world. I’d like to think most people would agree with this)

Originally Posted by avocado

They have a problem. From an unfair dismissal point of view (limited rights to compensation though) they should not be relying on a conviction or otherwise in any event. An employer is meant to make its own mind up about the alleged misconduct and whether or not dismissal is appropriate. So you can have a situation where there is no conviction and dismissal is fair. Conversely you can have a situation where there is a conviction and dismissal is unfair. Standard of proof is also different - balance of probabilities in civil and beyond reasonable doubt in criminal. From a contractual point of view (much more costly) there is likely an ability to terminate if convicted, but that has not been triggered. Also likely to be able to terminate if he brings the club into disrepute. But the problem then is that this is an old allegation (because it must relate to the stuff having gone on social media). It may be said that they have waited too long to do this and so have effectively waived the breach of contract.

Don't see how they have waived the breach as they suspended him pending the outcome of a police investigation. They need to decide what to do quite promptly now.

Originally Posted by redhegemony

Don't see how they have waived the breach as they suspended him pending the outcome of a police investigation. They need to decide what to do quite promptly now.

Because, as I said, they can't rely on the police investigation - which, in any event, has not given them anything they can act on. If he did bring the Club into disrepute it was not by having the charges dropped - it was his conduct towards her and (more specifically) that becoming public knowledge on social media. That was a long time ago - hence the waiver argument

Originally Posted by Sandman

We don't know what went on behind closed doors, we don't know if he was pissed and acting a d***head, there's many explanations for that recording, no matter how uncomfortable it was to hear. condemning an innocent young man on the back of that snippet, and demanding his career be destroyed to make you feel better, is a very slippery slope.

Yeah dont like the trial by social media stuff that has happened over the past few months. If Haggers wants him back in the squad then it's fine by me.

Anyhow giggs is next up

Regardless of any innocence or guilt it is the last thing the ETH and the team need right now. The feel good factor has been restored, the bond between the players and the fans is getting back to where it should be and the last thing he needs is a divisive character returning to the dressing room and dominating the media.

Club statement

https://twitter.com/samuelluckhurst/status/1621197774254477314?s=20&t=3HdNaWzifmoGKDAWeC2n5Q

Originally Posted by Time For Heroes

Regardless of any innocence or guilt it is the last thing the ETH and the team need right now. The feel good factor has been restored, the bond between the players and the fans is getting back to where it should be and the last thing he needs is a divisive character returning to the dressing room and dominating the media.

^^ This above all else.

We're now entering a crucial part of the season.

Originally Posted by Dasilvatwins

Take greenwood out the equation.

Say player “X” , had all the evidence in the world to convict him of raping someone. However the victim forgave him , didn’t go to the police etc. even if there were countless videos and pics etc etc .

Would you still be ok with him playing for the football team You support?

(I know greenwood doesn’t have overwhelming evidence against him, my point here is, just because someone is forgiven, it doesn’t detract the heinous act they committed. As a result they should not have the privilege to play for one of the biggest teams in the world. I’d like to think most people would agree with this)

well... I tried to provide a nuanced reply to this and it was deleted (possibly because I tried to give a real world example of how the same act might be seen from different perspectives).

basically, my opinion doesn't matter.

however, since you asked a general question, my general answer would be that, whilst I might feel uncomfortable with having a rapist playing for my team, part of me would still question whether anyone has a right to take a different view to the victim, if she has genuinely forgiven (whilst also questioning the rationale and sincerity of her apparent forgiveness). so, it's lucky my opinion doesn't matter.