Mason Greenwood

[bluerobert]

It's a minefield this one. Whilst I think the tapes were damning and I wouldn't want him here because of them, the fact is that he wasn't found guilty. Should all people who are not found guilty be refused work for the rest of their lives? If he worked in a supermarket should he be let go and forced to sit on the dole? Or does it only apply to well paid jobs? Or just public ones? Is it ok to make £1m pa as a tech CTO but not ok to make £100k playing in league 1?

I'm pleased it's United's problem and not ours.

It’s not about the verdict though is it, it’s about the documented evidence of him committing a) an offence b) being a vile human being. Part of the reason he got the verdict he did is because of how broken the system is when it comes to these types of crimes.

And in regards to the if he worked in a super market question you posed. No young lad grows up idolising the lad filling the freezers on nightshift. That’s not a slight at people who
Work in supermarkets. It’s not about employment it’s about the privileged position people within that industry have and the role models rightly or wrongly they’re seen as

 

[Bkk Andy]

There was no trial, there are no findings of guilt or innocence either way. Less than 2% of domestic abuse cases ever see a court case.

In a certain sense, football is on trial here and society. How should we deal with instances of domestic abuse? Victims rarely report domestic abuse, likewise victims of rape.

I don't feel like football and society should differ. I would wouldn't want him in my team - football or work. But if someone does want to hire him it shouldn't matter whether the employer is Everton or ASDA.

The bigger question is why, with the evidence available, he can't be prosecuted. You shouldn't need a witness when technology provides the evidence. Laws need to adapt with the modern world.

It will be interesting to see how United fans react. Football fans lose morals quickly when it's their own team.

 

[Bkk Andy]

It’s not about the verdict though is it, it’s about the documented evidence of him committing a) an offence b) being a vile human being. Part of the reason he got the verdict he did is because of how broken the system is when it comes to these types of crimes.

And in regards to the if he worked in a super market question you posed. No young lad grows up idolising the lad filling the freezers on nightshift. That’s not a slight at people who
Work in supermarkets. It’s not about employment it’s about the privileged position people within that industry have and the role models rightly or wrongly they’re seen as

I wholeheartedly agree that the system is broken and that's he's a vile human being. I also feel like justice should be served but justice should be wealth/career agnostic. You shouldn't be treated better or worse because you're rich and famous than you should if you're poor and unknown.

Anyway, hopefully a high profile case like this will highlight the deficiencies in the current legal system and lead to positive changes.

 

[LocalNative]

Oh ... has social media ruled him guilty then? I had believed that the legal case didn't progress ... meaning he hasn't actually been found guilty of the allegation. That's how things work isn't it?

Can't say I've been following it mind. What I can't change I show little interest in as I grow older.

I done jury duty on a rape trial earlier this year. Notoriously difficult to prosecute because of the lack of physical evidence, so found not guilty.

The difference here is the evidence is there for everyone to see and hear. He's only been found not guilty because he's played the system and somehow managed to get the accuser to drop the charges.

 

[bluerobert]

I wholeheartedly agree that the system is broken and that's he's a vile human being. I also feel like justice should be served but justice should be wealth/career agnostic. You shouldn't be treated better or worse because you're rich and famous than you should if you're poor and unknown.

Anyway, hopefully a high profile case like this will highlight the deficiencies in the current legal system and lead to positive changes.

I agree mate but I’d put that same argument to a supermarket boss and I should have clarified that. It’s not some disability or accident he was involved with stopping him working. He chose to be a sex offender, he chose to beat up somebody who trusted him. So should he be allowed to work in a supermarket? Like with football there shouldn’t be a law against it but it’s the right of every employer to turn away an employee they don’t want to hire provided those reasons aren’t discriminatory

 

[sd_1992]

It’s not about the verdict though is it, it’s about the documented evidence of him committing a) an offence b) being a vile human being. Part of the reason he got the verdict he did is because of how broken the system is when it comes to these types of crimes.

And in regards to the if he worked in a super market question you posed. No young lad grows up idolising the lad filling the freezers on nightshift. That’s not a slight at people who
Work in supermarkets. It’s not about employment it’s about the privileged position people within that industry have and the role models rightly or wrongly they’re seen as

If he had been found innocent in a court of law then I reckon there would be less of an issue. However with the evidence in the public domain there are a lot of questions about why it never went to court that would always leave the cloud of this likely being a case where the witness withdrew for the wrong reasons (given they are now still a couple).

Personally it would be a no from me if it was Everton.

The media of course will shrug their shoulders and ignore it because it is United.

 

[bluerobert]

If he had been found innocent in a court of law then I reckon there would be less of an issue. However with the evidence in the public domain there are a lot of questions about why it never went to court that would always leave the cloud of this likely being a case where the witness withdrew for the wrong reasons (given they are now still a couple).

Personally it would be a no from me if it was Everton.

The media of course will shrug their shoulders and ignore it because it is United.

I think the evidence makes such a difference though. If he’d been found innocent and people didn’t know what they know because of the recordings then it might well have been different. If he’d have been found innocent with those recordings in the public domain all it would have done is highlight how broken the system is

 

[sd_1992]

I think the evidence makes such a difference though. If he’d been found innocent and people didn’t know what they know because of the recordings then it might well have been different. If he’d have been found innocent with those recordings in the public domain all it would have done is highlight how broken the system is

I think if he is found innocent in a court of law then people would accept that there are things we are not privy to on this. Recordings may has been falsified etc (not suggesting this is likely in any way). A jury returning a not guilty verdict is a layer of validation that doesn’t exist in this case.

As it stand it very much looks like he has just gamed the system.

 

[PhilM]

I done jury duty on a rape trial earlier this year. Notoriously difficult to prosecute because of the lack of physical evidence, so found not guilty.

The difference here is the evidence is there for everyone to see and hear. He's only been found not guilty because he's played the system and somehow managed to get the accuser to drop the charges.

He hasn't actually been found not guilty. For most, it won't matter, but the CPS dropped the preceding pre-trial, therefore he never faced a jury.

 

[bluerobert]

I think if he is found innocent in a court of law then people would accept that there are things we are not privy to on this. Recordings may has been falsified etc (not suggesting this is likely in any way). A jury returning a not guilty verdict is a layer of validation that doesn’t exist in this case.

As it stand it very much looks like he has just gamed the system.

That’s the problem with so many of these offences though as somebody said who’s sat on a jury of a rape case mentioned earlier in the thread. They’re notoriously hard to prosecute in. If that’s because of misogynistic attitudes within the legal system or simply just a case of the proceedings being a case of he said she said I don’t know.

Again though a not guilty verdict could be due to a technical issue like in OJ Simpsons case. I wouldn’t say his career exactly recovered after the not guilty verdict.

I think your last point is spot on, unfortunately rather then the girl go through with the case it’s been dropped and there should be another way to bring him to justice.

 

[stony]

It's hardly a surprise they are bringing him back. The club who likes to judge everyone else has long since lacked any decency or morals. They have a history of appalling behaviour that is ignored by the media. This is the club who evicted the widows and orphans of Munich from club owned houses. Bringing a violent rapist back into the fold is par for the course for them.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Caroline Flack was pursued by the law. The person she was said to have attacked didn't want to press charges either. The law in this country is a lottery, and like most things - the wealthier you are the easier it is to evade.

 

[trueblue84]

It's a minefield this one. Whilst I think the tapes were damning and I wouldn't want him here because of them, the fact is that he wasn't found guilty. Should all people who are not found guilty be refused work for the rest of their lives? If he worked in a supermarket should he be let go and forced to sit on the dole? Or does it only apply to well paid jobs? Or just public ones? Is it ok to make £1m pa as a tech CTO but not ok to make £100k playing in league 1?

I'm pleased it's United's problem and not ours.

Yes, if it is clear they commited the crime. People have gotten off on technicalities or due to witness coersion or reluctance to testify since the dawn of time. That doesn't mean the perpetrator is "innocent".

 

[LocalNative]

He hasn't actually been found not guilty. For most, it won't matter, but the CPS dropped the preceding pre-trial, therefore he never faced a jury.

Good point, phrased my original sentence incorrectly. Never went to trial so no verdict ever given. You can bet your arse if it did though what the outcome would've been.

 

[chrismpw]

You know the vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults don't get prosecuted, right? Does that mean they didn't happen?

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. I'm not saying this has happened here - I know nothing of the case - but they happen too.