Mason Greenwood

[PITA]

Why Rachel Riley 'won’t' support Manchester United if Greenwood returns

Channel 4's Countdown co-presenter Rachel Riley has voiced her concerns over the return of Mason Greenwood to Manchester United on X (Twitter).

www.thenational.scot

I thought she was a RS fan.

 

[Rita_Poon]

I thought she was a RS fan.

Thankfully not, but she's a big fan of boris johnson and the tory oiks. Her outspokenness for certain right leaning divisive issues hasn't gone unnoticed in the big bad world of social media.

All the world's a stage I suppose...

 

[chrismpw]

What is the FA’s position on this? Have they even commented on it? Surely they’d be worried about how fans from his own clubs are going to react, never mind other fans? Surely they are putting players, staff and fans at risk at whatever ground he turns up to in a United shirt? We’ve seen fans getting on pitches a lot easier nowadays to protest, attack players and coaches. He’ll be targeted in every game, especially if he scores a goal and celebrates.


Clearly the lad has a lot of issues. If he’s playing football again(which he shouldn’t) the abuse he’s going to receive will trigger him and he will eventually snap and who knows what damage he can do to his child, parter or anyone for that matter. It’s a very tricky situation.

I don’t know the ins and out, neither does anyone apart from the pictures, audio transcripts and documents of what happened on that occasion. But they are very damaging and enough for him to be sacked, in jail and never allowed to play professionally again. Do people deserve a second chance, yes. Sometimes they do. He’s a young man, that can change, no doubt about it but for his own good, he shouldn’t be allowed to play football again. Nothing good will come from it. The abuse, pressure from the public, the chants, potentially been attacked and put others around him at danger. How much can he handle that?

A good point this. I remember the dogs abuse Beckham got, for over a season, after being sent off in the world Cup and letting down the beer bellied vest wearing masses back home in the pub.

Today, they've not only got righteous anger to deal with they've also got the absolute nutters who will use any indignation to justify the violence they want the opportunity to indulge in.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

I'll go with the feedback I got from thousands of kids, dozens of colleagues and professionals about my communication over a handful of trolls on here who can't be bothered to read properly mate.

‘Trolls’ ‘special school’ ‘can’t read properly’. Not much of an argument is it?

This is what happened - you came into a thread admitting that you know nothing about Greenwood’s behaviour but that women often make up accusations like this. That’s why you’re being criticised.

As for thousands of children/colleagues telling you how great you are at communicating, in your day how much interaction was online rather than face to face? Because maybe, just maybe, you’re an arl fella who’s no good with social media.

And who also has issues with women

 

[chrismpw]

‘Trolls’ ‘special school’ ‘can’t read properly’. Not much of an argument is it?

This is what happened - you came into a thread admitting that you know nothing about Greenwood’s behaviour but that women often make up accusations like this. That’s why you’re being criticised.

As for thousands of children/colleagues telling you how great you are at communicating, in your day how much interaction was online rather than face to face? Because maybe, just maybe, you’re an arl fella who’s no good with social media.

And who also has issues with women

Yes mate.
Of only your posts were more memorable I might bother to fling something back your way, but I can't say I've ever paid much attention to them after I read the first few. You're clearly a very poor troll - like chico but without the wit, imagination or creativity. But although I enjoy grown up discussion I'm bored of this thread now.

Oh ... and again you're wrong with your comprehension. Read the thread again.

 

[DualityNSNO]

Zionist shill, i hate her.

?????????????????????

 

[efcste97]

?????????????????????

Saying Corbyn is a 'aspiring anti-semite' during the 2019 GE. For someone who is seemingly as intelligent as she is she does not seem understand the difference between being a anti-Zionist and a antisemite, if you're anti-zionist in her eyes you're a antisemite.

Calling her a 'shill' may be a overstatement, she may just be blinded by ignorance because of her attachment to her faith. This is not uncommon no matter the faith/religion, it becomes a extension of peoples identity and they defend said faith/religion tooth and nail.

 

[Margarita]

An issue like this is always contaminated by tribalism and bad faith perspective. United are a big club so many people commenting on this are motivated by their opinion of the club.

However, United’s standing in the game as an elite institution needs to come into the debate. What they do matters.

Footballing-wise you’d imagine there’s a motivation to get a talented player back in the squad. He’s also very valuable. Commercially, however, allowing him back may see sponsors walk away. Morally speaking - which should be a central consideration - it’s pretty straightforward. He’s done something very wrong.

In my mind he should be asked to leave the club. This stuff matters far more than having a good player on your books.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

Yes mate.
Of only your posts were more memorable I might bother to fling something back your way, but I can't say I've ever paid much attention to them after I read the first few. You're clearly a very poor troll - like chico but without the wit, imagination or creativity. But although I enjoy grown up discussion I'm bored of this thread now.

Oh ... and again you're wrong with your comprehension. Read the thread again.

You mean grizzled, cynical, observant, less accepting of mob mindset, more questioning? Yes.

I try not to comdemn without first hand evidence. Call it the scientist in me if you like.

Can't say I have listened to it no. Can't really comment other than the case has been dropped. Maybe they made up. Like I said, I haven't been following the chatter.

There are a lot of malicious unfounded claims made up too, which destroy lives. Especially where the allegations point to a man of wealth it seems.

Oh behave. I'm was just reserving judgement until I knew more of the facts and my questionn8ng revealed the facts to me.

And the fact that there are people who make false malicious allegations, for money or fir attention, is also a fact. As a young teacher I was warned that teenage girls are particularly prone to this, by a number if female teachers. Obviously such observations would not be allowed to be stated today.

I'll assume you lazily haven't read the rest of what I've written here , rather than assume you're a total blithering idiot for misunderstanding it. For clarity - at no point have I ever defended him - I can't. I don't know the case, I wouldn't dream of it. I'm just cautioning people to look into evidence, rather than follow a crowd. I've also suggested that women (not in this case) can also (god forbid me fir not being woketastic 3000) guilty of being dishonest or in the wrong eith their claims (ref to the case of female Rooney v female Vardy - both women, one found to be in the wrong. The judge also must have been a misogynist.)

Then read it carefully. I'm questioning ... not stating. Honestly we live in a world now where only the bravest dare ask for balance.

So many people like to misunderstand and misinterpret just so they can leap onto their enormously tall horse, pitfork in hand and virtue signal. It's the easy path to gain unthinking friends.

I challenge anybody who has read this thread to show where I've justified or accepted as decent anything the lad's done. All I've talked shout is consider whether what the public knows is all of the story, all of the circumstances. I've pointed out that some women can lie for gain (as can men - but we live undef sm ethos that elmen are never wrong, greedy or evil, so it needs saying - because they ard, after all, humans too). I don’t care what people call me for saying the truth but honestly, misogynist is just wrong and wide of the mark. I dislike men equally as much as I dislike women, and I like some women as much as I like men. I judge per individual's action not by pigeonhole.

Where have I said any of those things? I th8nk you've used your "probably" assumption on me here. If you read back with the guidance of an English teacher I think you'll see me
1 query what's going on with the mob
2 admit I don't know the story
3 am presented with and read a transcript
4 admit that if the transcript is a true record then it's indefensible behaviour.

The rest is raising awareness that we should be cautious because women have been known to make things up. God forgive me for stating fact.

Do you understand the difference between me saying something may not be true and something is not true?

 

[DualityNSNO]

 

[LinekersLegs]

Does it, though?

All of the allegations against Greenwood stem from him being abusive to his current partner. If he was accused of attacking or abusing multiple women then I could understand some reluctance by the club to put their female employees at risk, but (at least based on reports) that doesn't seem to be the case here.

It isn’t unheard of for domestic violence to spill outside of the relationship though - about two thirds of the mass shootings in the US are done by domestic violence abusers.

Study: Two-Thirds of Mass Shootings Linked to Domestic Violence - The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence

More than two-thirds of mass shootings are domestic violence incidents or are perpetrated by shooters with a history of domestic violence, according to one of the first peer-reviewed research papers exploring the links between domestic violence (DV) and mass shootings. The paper also finds that...

efsgv.org

Now obviously I’m not saying that if I was a United employee that I’d be worried that Greenwood would walk in with an AK47 and mow me down. But, especially since I would find it nigh on impossible to be friendly/collegiate with him, would I be nervous that he might lash out in anger to any incivility shown him - yes.

As I know you know abusers generally don’t confine themselves to only physical abuse, they are often adept at verbal and emotional abuse too, behaviors that can happen more easily in an office environment. His presence would certainly create a very tense working environment and I expect I’d be especially anxious if I myself had ever experienced domestic violence.

As @Daveysgingerlovechild said it is to be hoped that Greenwood is genuinely trying to be a better man and can reform. But change can be very difficult and if his circumstances are the same (same relationship, same working environment and privileged job) to me it seems like there is less pressure on him to maintain higher standards and also for others to avoid following the same path.

You seem to hint at that yourself

That rarely happens, at least over here. If it did, there would be far less domestic abuse.

 

[chrismpw]

Not reading all that lad.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

Not reading all that lad.

Don't blame you mate, it's not a pretty read. Just the ramblings of an ageing mysogynist.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

It isn’t unheard of for domestic violence to spill outside of the relationship though - about two thirds of the mass shootings in the US are done by domestic violence abusers.

Study: Two-Thirds of Mass Shootings Linked to Domestic Violence - The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence

More than two-thirds of mass shootings are domestic violence incidents or are perpetrated by shooters with a history of domestic violence, according to one of the first peer-reviewed research papers exploring the links between domestic violence (DV) and mass shootings. The paper also finds that...

efsgv.org

Now obviously I’m not saying that if I was a United employee that I’d be worried that Greenwood would walk in with an AK47 and mow me down. But, especially since I would find it nigh on impossible to be friendly/collegiate with him, would I be nervous that he might lash out in anger to any incivility shown him - yes.

As I know you know abusers generally don’t confine themselves to only physical abuse, they are often adept at verbal and emotional abuse too, behaviors that can happen more easily in an office environment. His presence would certainly create a very tense working environment and I expect I’d be especially anxious if I myself had ever experienced domestic violence.

As @Daveysgingerlovechild said it is to be hoped that Greenwood is genuinely trying to be a better man and can reform. But change can be very difficult and if his circumstances are the same (same relationship, same working environment and privileged job) to me it seems like there is less pressure on him to maintain higher standards and also for others to avoid following the same path.

You seem to hint at that yourself

Unfortunately it can be a pattern of behaviour which escalates over time. And repeats from partner to partner. Worryingly during pregnancy is a known trigger point for worsening of abuse by male partners.

Having said that, the local MARAC will no doubt have him high on its list, so one would hope health visitors etc will be vigilant.

That's not say there will be an ongoing problem. But the above is my concern.

As for his footie career, well, Utd would possibly have grounds to boot him on bringing them into disrepute with his behaviour. The question is should he be given a second chance? In part the response to that is IF he is genuinely trying to address his behaviour. But it's not a comfortable topic, for sure. And if he were to end up doing similar Utd risk looking foolish.

 

[Brett Angell Delight]

Does it, though?

All of the allegations against Greenwood stem from him being abusive to his current partner. If he was accused of attacking or abusing multiple women then I could understand some reluctance by the club to put their female employees at risk, but (at least based on reports) that doesn't seem to be the case here.

So, if there was someone who “only” nonced one kid, you’d be alright with them being in the playground with your kids/grandkids/niece/nephew/friend’s kid(s)?

This is a horrifying take to be honest, mate. Of course, his partner can choose how far she wants to take any potential prosecution, and of course she has the right to get back with him; what is NOT in her control, however, is how his employers react to his actions. His actions, while “only” committed against one person, have far, far, far wider implications and the club SHOULD be sending a clear message that they are unacceptable and terminate/run down his contract accordingly.

As stated in the fans’ letter to United, 1-in-4 (and honestly that’s likely a conservative estimate) women will experience sexual assault and/or domestic violence in their lives, so any instance of a player being guilty of committing those atrocities (whether criminally prosecuted or not) should be condemned in the harshest possible terms by the club. Female stakeholders and the wider female public deserve the reassurance that big, influential sports teams and corporate bodies have a zero tolerance policy towards such violence.

Even if employees at the club aren’t directly at risk (questionable, but ok), the club would still be asking them to rub shoulders on a daily basis with someone who has sexually abused another woman without remorse. If any of them had experienced assault that they’d yet to report, do you think seeing him going about his daily business with no issues would encourage them to report their own attackers?!

Reading some parts of this thread is honestly a ghastly experience.