Should Greenwood be allowed to play for us again?

Originally Posted by jem

hmmm.... infuriating.

if it went to trial, he would be found not guilty. the cps said there is no reasonable chance of a conviction.

that doesn't change how you feel, but that's the law.

Yes because evidence was withdrawn. That why the charges were dropped. There was no chance of conviction because evidence was withdrawn. If it wasn’t there could be a case

Originally Posted by jem

it must be demoralising know that you can't make choices for yourself without other people questioning them.

if she doesn't want to pursue the case, it's dead. do you know that she wanted to pursue it, but there wasn't enough evidence and everyone was on his side? pretty sure that's not accurate.

That was a statement in general not specific to this case.

In this case if she’s decided not to pursue for whatever reason, that’s up to her. Doesn’t change whether or not he did what he was accused of, or the evidence that was made public.

Originally Posted by Dasilvatwins

Yes because evidence was withdrawn. That why the charges were dropped. There was no chance of conviction because evidence was withdrawn. If it wasn’t there could be a case

indeed. although I think it would be more accurate to say that witnesses were withdrawn.

now, you said "if it went to trial and he was found not guilty then fair enough , welcome him back with open arms." so... he's merely being denied the opportunity to be found not guilty.

Originally Posted by dunk

That was a statement in general not specific to this case.

fair enough. probably deserves its own thread. armers likes comments to be relevant to the thread in which they appear.

Originally Posted by jem

indeed. although I think it would be more accurate to say that witnesses were withdrawn.

now, you said "if it went to trial and he was found not guilty then fair enough , welcome him back with open arms." so... he's merely being denied the opportunity to be found not guilty.

No because it would have gone to trial. The audio and pics etc would have been used. The truth of that would have been found , or at the very least we could hear his defence of the audio.

As of this moment we can’t, now he could in the coming days come out and explain the audio and it may have been consensual. But until it’s proven otherwise you have to take it at face value

That was never consensual audio....

The mental hoops people are trying to jump through to welcome him back....

Horrid horrid little boy....

Hopefully £#%&!ed right off pronto

Originally Posted by jem

fair enough. probably deserves its own thread. armers likes comments to be relevant to the thread in which they appear.

Pretty £#%&!ing relevant I’d say. Even if it’s a more generalised comment, the subject remains the same.

One things for certain, it’s certainly highlighting the proper misogynists out

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

That was never consensual audio....

The mental hoops people are trying to jump through to welcome him back....

Horrid horrid little boy....

Hopefully £#%&!ed right off pronto

This.

Originally Posted by Dasilvatwins

No because it would have gone to trial. The audio and pics etc would have been used. The truth of that would have been found , or at the very least we could hear his defence of the audio.

As of this moment we can’t, now he could in the coming days come out and explain the audio and it may have been consensual. But until it’s proven otherwise you have to take it at face value

yes, but... if it went to trial... there is no realistic prospect of conviction. trials are not there to find "the truth", incidentally. only to prove guilt.

Originally Posted by dunk

it’s certainly highlighting the proper misogynists out

you mean the ones who want to make her decision for her, no matter what the cost to her? understood.

No jem, and you’re highlighting yourself.

We'd be best off just finishing the contract by mutual consent with the less said the better.

Originally Posted by dunk

Heath, you are plummeting in my estimation on a daily basis atm.

Just because the case was dropped because key witnesses refused to testify does not mean the law worked.

I’m semi playing devils advocate and I agree with your points

I’m just pointing out it is a murky and delicate situation

Do we bin him as he’s a #@&%!? If so…where do we draw the line?

I’m not defending him - just saying it’s another one of life’s murky situations

Originally Posted by armchair

We'd be best off just finishing the contract by mutual consent with the less said the better.

Interview with Piers Morgan then off to Galatasaray?

I think that’s the best option for all imho

Originally Posted by dunk

No jem, and you’re highlighting yourself.

citation needed.

Never want to see him in a United shirt ever again.

Of course, that's assuming he still wants to play for United. He might want out of the club himself.
Either way, let him ply his trade somewhere else. Anywhere else.

Originally Posted by jem

citation needed.

At no point have I questioned what she’s done or her decision. I have come at this purely from a what United need to do perspective. You have attempted to colour it that way to try and justify your position.

Anyone advocating bringing him back is looking to summarily dismiss the evidence of the abuse he carried out, whether he was convicted or not, which to me proves they’ve no regard for the woman who was the victim, regardless of her decisions since. To be happy to have someone like that represent United would be to admit you don’t care how they behave with or treat women so long as you get to see them play.

Simple really. No ifs, buts or maybes. The footage and pics were horrendous and were him. End of story.

some are saying we should release him? £#%&!ing hell!

he is a young lad and even if he overstepped the mark with his missus, they’ve resolved their issues , he is obviously learning his lesson, her parents are fine with everything so who are you #@&%!s to draw some Wierd moral line when your have posters of a Portuguese man who paid of his accuser for actual rape!

if anything I’d give him a 2nd chance and try rehabilitate him not condemn the young boy!

Originally Posted by dunk

At no point have I questioned what she’s done or her decision. I have come at this purely from a what United need to do perspective. You have attempted to colour it that way to try and justify your position.

Anyone advocating bringing him back is looking to summarily dismiss the evidence of the abuse he carried out, whether he was convicted or not, which to me proves they’ve no regard for the woman who was the victim, regardless of her decisions since. To be happy to have someone like that represent United would be to admit you don’t care how they behave with or treat women so long as you get to see them play.

Simple really. No ifs, buts or maybes. The footage and pics were horrendous and were him. End of story.

the girls own father who knows the ins and outs more than we will ever know seems to be fine with everything

Surely his second chance is just being allowed to continue his life like nothing happened?

No problem. At another club.

Originally Posted by marlo

the girls own father who knows the ins and outs more than we will ever know seems to be fine with everything

I’m not sure that’s the flex you think it is.

Originally Posted by dunk

Surely his second chance is just being allowed to continue his life like nothing happened?

No problem. At another club.



I’m not sure that’s the flex you think it is.

I don’t need to flex.
whatever has gone on, it’s insufficient for him to be convicted, the “monster” is still with the victim with the parents blessing and the young couple are learning from this and the relationship is probably healthier than ever...

Originally Posted by goldfinger II

Ordinarily, if not actually found guilty of the crime, I'd think he should be free to resume playing, but in this case, we've actually heard some of the evidence and it's difficult to ignore.

Whilst not actual proof of rape, that audio strongly suggests he was an abusive @#%&!. Unless the audio was proven to something other than what it appears to be at face value, I don't see how he can play for the club again.

The best solution for everyone is for him to be sold to a foreign club as soon as possible. Tricky one for the club to handle in the meantime. Do they allow him to train etc?

The tapes are key. Hearing them and knowing they’re out there means more than mere speculation.

As others have said, if he was found not guilty. If the tapes were revealed to be something other than what they seem to be, then there might be a road to redemption.

But dropping the charges ….nah. That means something from a legal perspective, but nothing from a morality perspective.

He may be ‘innocent’ from a legal perspective, but we don’t owe him a career because of that. We probably won’t sack him now, but that’s not stopping us deciding we don’t want him around and selling him. We ditch players if they don’t fit an ethos or have the right attitude, so there’s no issue binning him off.

ETH has worked wonders on the spirit of the squad. We’ve just manage to rid ourselves of Ronaldo and the circus that comes with him. Last thing we need is more ‘scandal’.

And what if we’re wrong? What if he actually didn’t do anything. Unlikely, and frankly, a chance I’m willing to take. I’d rather be wrong this way round.

Was anyone clutching pearls about Van Persie's arrest for a sex attack in 2005 when he was banging the goals in in 2012?

Or Ronaldo, when he was banging in goals last season?

Just checking.

Again, no publicly released evidence on Ronaldo or RvP, so difficult to make a call.

Not sure how supposedly intelligent men are struggling to grasp the difference tbh

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

That was never consensual audio....

The mental hoops people are trying to jump through to welcome him back....

Horrid horrid little boy....

Hopefully £#%&!ed right off pronto

Yep.