Mason Greenwood

[BlazeT44]

1 minute ago, Anderson said:

That separate Chief Exec’s statement is even worse. Name dropping the ‘Lionesses’ as a reason for the delay ffs.

 

Didn't see this. Where is the full statement?

[Miggys First Goal]

2 minutes ago, BlazeT44 said:

 

Didn't see this. Where is the full statement?

 

Quote

 

Richard Arnold, Manchester United CEO, has written this letter to our supporters...

Now that we have concluded and announced the outcome of the club's investigation into Mason Greenwood, I want to be direct and transparent with our fans about the process and the reasons for our decision.

This was an internal disciplinary investigation between employer and employee which would ordinarily take place outside of the public eye. Given the public nature of the allegations and Mason's profile, I acknowledge that this was not an ordinary situation, but I felt it important that we still follow due process and, so far as possible, avoid media comment until I had made a definitive decision.

When audio footage and imagery was posted online in January 2022, my feelings were of shock and concern for the alleged victim. Her welfare, wishes and perspective have been central to the club's approach ever since, as have the club’s standards and values. While we immediately concluded that Mason should be suspended pending investigation, we were also conscious of our duty of care towards him and the importance of making a decision based on full information. Until February this year, this was a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. It was only when charges were dropped that the club discussed the allegations with Mason and others involved in the case.

Our investigation sought to collate as much evidence as possible to establish facts and context. This was not a quick or straightforward process for a variety of reasons. It was essential for us to respect the rights and wishes of the alleged victim. Also, we have limited powers of investigation which meant we were reliant on third party cooperation. Timings have also been influenced by my desire to minimise the impact of the investigation on our men's and women's teams, as well as our Lionesses. I acknowledge that this gave more time for speculation, but the alternative would have been to compromise due process or create untimely disruption.

While we were unable to access certain evidence for reasons we respect, the evidence we did collate led us to conclude that Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with. I am restricted as to what I can say for legal reasons, including the alleged victim's ongoing right to anonymity, but I am able to share the following with you which should give you some insight into the complexity of this case:

- The alleged victim requested the police to drop their investigation in April 2022.
- We were provided with alternative explanations for the audio recording, which was a short excerpt from a much longer recording, and for the images posted online.
- The alleged victim's family participated in the process and were given the opportunity to review and correct our factual findings.

 

Last week the media reported that we had decided to reintegrate Mason and that elements of a plan to do so had been leaked to them. Reintegration was one of the outcomes we considered and planned for. For context, over the course of the past six months several outcomes have been contemplated and planned for, and my view has evolved as our process progressed. While the ultimate decision rested with me, I was taking various factors and views into account right up until the point of finalising my decision.

While I am satisfied that Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with, Mason’s accepted that he has made mistakes which he takes responsibility for. I am also mindful of the challenge that Mason would face rebuilding his career and raising a baby together with his partner in the harsh spotlight of Manchester United. Further, this case has provoked strong opinions, and it is my responsibility to minimise any distraction to the unity we are seeking within the club.

Although we have decided that Mason will seek to rebuild his career away from Manchester United, that does not signal the end of this matter. The club will continue to offer its support both to the alleged victim and Mason to help them rebuild and move forward positively with their lives.

Thank you for your continued support,

Richard Arnold

 

 

[JUICE690]

 

6 minutes ago, Miggys First Goal said:

- The alleged victim requested the police to drop their investigation in April 2022.
- We were provided with alternative explanations for the audio recording, which was a short excerpt from a much longer recording, and for the images posted online.
- The alleged victim's family participated in the process and were given the opportunity to review and correct our factual findings.

But he still kicked the shit out of her. Why is that glossed over in both statements?

[OverThere]

So why did the gf or ex-gf refuse to testify? Are they back together or was this behavior part of the relationship, terrible though that may seem?

[Chris_R]

9 minutes ago, JUICE690 said:

 

But he still kicked the shit out of her. Why is that glossed over in both statements?

 

It's not glossed over, quite the reverse. They literally say they believe he didn't do that and that there's another mysterious reason (that they won't share) for the photos, videos and audio recordings of a woman being beaten up and its aftermath.

 

If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable.

[Skeletor]

Just now, OverThere said:

So why did the gf or ex-gf refuse to testify? Are they back together or was this behavior part of the relationship, terrible though that may seem?

 

 

[Manxst]

Just now, OverThere said:

So why did the gf or ex-gf refuse to testify? Are they back together or was this behavior part of the relationship, terrible though that may seem?

Back together (allegedly never really apart) and now with child.

[Chris_R]

Just now, OverThere said:

So why did the gf or ex-gf refuse to testify? Are they back together or was this behavior part of the relationship, terrible though that may seem?

 

[OverThere]

Just now, Skeletor said:

 

 

 

Oh, I see. Nothing unusual then......

[OverThere]

1 minute ago, Manxst said:

Back together (allegedly never really apart) and now with child.

Jeez.

[Skeletor]

1 minute ago, OverThere said:

 

Oh, I see. Nothing unusual then......

 

Will be interesting now that he's worth nothing though.

[OverThere]

Just now, Skeletor said:

 

Will be interesting now that he's worth nothing though.

Maybe he will claim spousal/partner support from her. Its a crazy world.

[Manxst]

8 minutes ago, Skeletor said:

 

Will be interesting now that he's worth nothing though.

He’s still a multi millionaire and will no doubt go on to earn more millions elsewhere. 

[Groundhog63]

Not deliberately being contrarian here but it's an interesting study of male feminist's thinking when you see them berating "sexist jokes" on the Lionesses' thread but, seemingly, think it's acceptable to suggest a domestic violence victim would stay with her abuser, have his child, just for the coin ?

 

If she was my daughter I don't think I'd be as conciliatory as her dad appears to be but then he's either a cunt or he's not and he's listened to her and her wishes. 

 

Whatever the facts of the matter at the very least the material already in the public domain would be enough for a dismissal in 99.9% of occupations just on Disrepute. 

 

 

[astraguy]

 

[gbandit]

How does he have a following at all, let alone a large following? He’s a pathetic little creep with absolutely zero convictions, all he cares about are clicks, like a huge number of losers online 

[BlazeT44]

33 minutes ago, astraguy said:

 

 

Looks like a horrible and distasteful take, but I never make full judgement based on a "short" clip without any context or listening to the prior discussion.

 

Not withstanding that, he's a little freak 

[The Prophet]

1 hour ago, Chris_R said:

 

 

Bit unfair like given it has all the hallmarks of a domestic violence case, granted it appears her father's thirst for cash comes before his parental instinct.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by The Prophet

[Kid Icarus]

I'm pretty confident that Goldbridge clip will be out of context. Everything I've ever seen from him is him explicitly condemning Greenwood and him saying he doesn't want him at Man United.

[Chris_R]

4 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Bit unfair like given it has all the hallmarks of a domestic violence case, granted it appears her father's thirst for crash comes before his parental instinct.

 

This is one thing I don't get. I'm sure it was Froggy (apologies if not, cba to read back) who said that there was no reason for the father/daughter to be after money as they're already milllionaires.

 

Missing entirely that the greediest people on this Earth have consistently proven to be the rich, and the richer the greedier. As if being already well off has ever stopped anyone craving more coin, in fact it seems to be quite the reverse. And in this case it seems the father would far rather have his daughter be with a rich "alleged" abuser than with some poor kid who'll treat her well, which as I've just said is hardly surprising. Rich people never want their kids marrying poor, it dilutes their wealth which they've fought so hard to hoard.

[Wullie]

1 hour ago, Groundhog63 said:

Not deliberately being contrarian here but it's an interesting study of male feminist's thinking when you see them berating "sexist jokes" on the Lionesses' thread but, seemingly, think it's acceptable to suggest a domestic violence victim would stay with her abuser, have his child, just for the coin ?

 

I completely agree, really grim. Women stay with their abusers every day for many different reasons, in many different economic situations. Maybe she's staying with him because she's scared if she doesn't he'll hunt her down and knife her, an extremely common thing that happens to women who leave violent men. 

[TRon]

3 hours ago, The Prophet said:

 

Bit unfair like given it has all the hallmarks of a domestic violence case, granted it appears her father's thirst for cash comes before his parental instinct.

 

 

 

 

So you know her better than her father?

[Kid Icarus]

How would any of us know either way? It's not like you know her dad.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by Kid Icarus

[Full90minutes]

5 hours ago, Groundhog63 said:

Not deliberately being contrarian here but it's an interesting study of male feminist's thinking when you see them berating "sexist jokes" on the Lionesses' thread but, seemingly, think it's acceptable to suggest a domestic violence victim would stay with her abuser, have his child, just for the coin ?

 

If she was my daughter I don't think I'd be as conciliatory as her dad appears to be but then he's either a cunt or he's not and he's listened to her and her wishes. 

 

Whatever the facts of the matter at the very least the material already in the public domain would be enough for a dismissal in 99.9% of occupations just on Disrepute. 

 

 

I had to do some work in sexual assault and the law, for a project I was writing on. I'm not an expert, so take this all with a grain of salt. And I speak from an Australian perspective, but our law is based on British Law. But false accusations of sexual assault are statistically very very low. Conviction rates for sexual assault are also very low, which acts to deter 'false'  and true victims coming forward to police. The standard of proof necessary for a conviction that can result in gaol time is very high, as little as between 8-12%.  Police treatment of sexual assault victims has also been heavily criticised. What is most interesting is recent studies that show how trauma affects memory and can actually lead to gaps and mistakes in memory - and due to the adversarial nature of legal cases which depends on defence barristers demolishing the credibility of witnesses (often the complainant) these 'gaps' and 'erasures' are exactly the sort of thing that defence uses. I don't know the truth of this, and I doubt anyone can. But victims returning to abusing partner is sadly not uncommon - in fact a victim 'goes back' to an abuser three times (on average) before leaving them, so we can't draw anything conclusive in this. But agree with Groundhog, the club probably has grounds for dismissal on 'professional conduct' grounds if nothing else. Apologies for long post - if anyone is interested there is a great book called 'Witness' by Louise Milligan that goes into depth about sexual assault and the law. 

[Stottie]

The bare minimum for decency here was for Greenwood to confess that it was him on the audio and admit he'd acted in an indefensible way. He could then state (hopefully accurately) that he'd had lots of counselling and was now appalled about how he acted. He could also urge other men to refrain from such behaviour, send the stongest possible message to incel types to not bully his partner or other women (including the Man U womens team and Lionesses) over this, and finally beg for forgiveness. From a PR perspective, he would probably need to frame it all as "DV" to get the conversation about him as far from "rape" as possible. Marriage guidance people will hear of DV all the time, the vast majority of which will not involve criminal investigations. That should not be raised as an issue.

 

This would probably not get him back in the team, but at least some good or reparation would have come out of it. As it is, we are left with "no crime was committed!" as the loudest message and suspicion that he's just paid her off. This is appalling.