Let's All Laugh At... let's all laugh at United

[Col_M]

So I've just had a chat with an agent who has a player at United. There are a group of players who don't want him back some members of the women's team have threatened to walk, sponsors are asking what's going on and are awaiting an onslaught on their socials. Not to mention large sections of their own supporter base want him nowhere near the club.

I just can't see they'd value him as a player over everything they'll face if he plays for them again.

This just won't go away over time, and he'll get abuse from fans for the rest of his career.

Maguire can split opinions that’s for sure.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

But if his partner is unwilling to testify against him and there is no video evidence or eyewitnesses, isn't he innocent until proven guilty?

No.

It means his guilt can't be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.

It certainly does not mean he is innocent.

 

[quackers]

You can't help people that can't help themselves if she doesn't want to help herself and cooperate then doesn't really leave much.

Answered above coercive toxic relationships do not mean we shouldn't see the real facts and do the morally right thing.

It will be alot easier for her to leave if he isn't allowed to play again.

 

[ItsBoris]

He basically got her pregnant and she 'forgave' him... She was the only witness and hard to prosecute of she doesn't want to.

Her dad basically worships the footballer lifestyle he gives them. Imagine your dad giving the OK for your partner to rape you. It's a horrible situation and no way he should be playing football again.

End.

But that's your interpretation of the situation and filling in the gaps with your own speculation. You don't know how she actually feels about the event or her general situation. You may well be right, but you don't know, and I don't know.

 

[ItsBoris]

No.

It means his guilt can't be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.

It certainly does not mean he is innocent.

Of course, and neither does the fact that bigfoot hasn't been seen mean that bigfoot doesn't exist. But we only believe it when there's reason to. Same way we only convict and punish someone if there's enough evidence to reliably do so.

Dude..."innocent until proven guilty" is an epistemological standard not a metaphysical one lol. We know it doesn't mean someone is literally innocent but it's a standard of how to arrive at such judgments.

 

[qqq1]

All my United mates don't want him anywhere near the club. The support for him online seems to mostly be from non UK fans. I think the board have massively underestimated how big the backlash from fans will be.

 

[spursgirls]

You can't help people that can't help themselves if she doesn't want to help herself and cooperate then doesn't really leave much.

Maybe it's too traumatic for her and she doesn't feel she can cope with going through it all publicly ? Many rapes go unreported because some women say it made them feel like they were being raped all over again. I have no idea what the background is in this case, but I have to play devil's advocate and say it's not always as easy as you think.
Edit: Just seen she's back with him. Unbelievable!

 

[spursgirls]

The defendant dropped the case, which makes it difficult to prosecute without your lead witness.

She got back together with him.

Stupid woman.
Edit. @bc205 has made me realise that this was a reactive post. My first thought was how can she stay with him when he has treated her like that? and that she was silly if she did, but now I've calmed down a bit, I can see that if she does love him he could have given reasons why he was like that, that she has accepted those and forgiven. him.

 

[bc205]

Of course, and neither does the fact that bigfoot hasn't been seen mean that bigfoot doesn't exist. But we only believe it when there's reason to. Same way we only convict and punish someone if there's enough evidence to reliably do so.

Dude..."innocent until proven guilty" is an epistemological standard not a metaphysical one lol. We know it doesn't mean someone is literally innocent but it's a standard of how to arrive at such judgments.

The whole innocent till guilty thing is so misused. Anyone vaguely familiar with this issue knows that there is a much higher evidence bar in sexual assault cases. It's incredibly hard to get enough evidence to secure a charge, let alone a conviction. In 2021 for example, just 1.3% of rape cases recorded by police resulted in a suspect being charged. If a coercive relationship means that your key witness stops cooperating then you have no shot at all.

Given the contents of the recordings released, which clearly demonstrated coercive control and sexual assault, i find it very hard to believe he is innocent. It's much more likely that the CPS now feel that they are unable to prove that he is guilty.

There might not be enough evidence to convict him. But there is more than enough for his club to make a decision on whether he plays for them again.

Also, it's not really similar to bigfoot in any way, shape or form.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

Dude..."innocent until proven guilty" is an epistemological standard not a metaphysical one lol. We know it doesn't mean someone is literally innocent but it's a standard of how to arrive at such judgments.

Dude - I'm a lawyer. I know what it means, and I know its limitations - better than most.

It's simply the standard that we hold the government to before allowing the government to impose punishments on its citizens. That's it. It has never been intended to be used in any other circumstances. People are always free - in a free society - to form their own conclusions. Only the government is bound by the limitations of what they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you want to go cheer for Greenwood, then I am not going to tell you you should feel differently.

 

[DJS]

I find it appalling Man U anre even considering this.

Also find it very sad that his partner not only dropped the charges, but is back together with him and having his baby.

Society is going to the shitter.

 

[ItsBoris]

The whole innocent till guilty thing is so misused. Anyone vaguely familiar with this issue knows that there is a much higher evidence bar in sexual assault cases. It's incredibly hard to get enough evidence to secure a charge, let alone a conviction. In 2021 for example, just 1.3% of rape cases recorded by police resulted in a suspect being charged. If a coercive relationship means that your key witness stops cooperating then you have no shot at all.

Given the contents of the recordings released, which clearly demonstrated coercive control and sexual assault, i find it very hard to believe he is innocent. It's much more likely that the CPS now feel that they are unable to prove that he is guilty.

There might not be enough evidence to convict him. But there is more than enough for his club to make a decision on whether he plays for them again.

Also, it's not really similar to bigfoot in any way, shape or form.

Did I say it was? Bigfoot is nothing like aliens, or the lock ness monster, or the Kevin Spacey case (as one example), but in each case I use a similar method to evaluate whether my belief is justified. The point is that the actual existence of each is a different question than whether I am justified in believing in each. Ontological vs epistemological questions as they're called in philosophy.

I don't have a particular viewpoint on this case, but even if I felt that there's enough evidence for me to personally hold the opinion that he's guilty, that's still a lower standard that actionably destroying his career over it. I think turning someone into a social leper for the rest of their lives should be closer to the standard of conviction that a court uses.

 

[PCozzie]

No.

It means his guilt can't be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.

It certainly does not mean he is innocent.

To take this away from Greenwood for a moment and make a general point, you are right that a defendent is never found 'innocent' at trial. That is because there is no need to find a defendent innocent; it is the state they enjoy at all times unless a jury returns a guilty verdict. There is no 'third' state after a trial in England. Unless a defendent is found guilty at trial, or pleads guilty, then they are innocent of the crime for which they were charged.

That doesn't mean society must treat him as though nothing has happened. It will protect itself extra-judicially through things such as refusing to work with him, or date him, or go for a pint with him. All fair. I haven't heard the tapes but I've read enough comment to be happy he's as nasty a piece of work as described.

However, unless he is found guilty of a crime, then in law he is innocent.

EDIT: To illustrate what I mean here, if Greenwood is thrown out of United and goes for a job at his local supermarket and is asked on the application form 'do you have any unspent convictions', which box will he tick?

 

[Tucker]

Also find it very sad that his partner not only dropped the charges, but is back together with him and having his baby.

It’s an all too familiar story. Once these kind of people get their hooks into their partners they get this hold over them and often they’ll go back to them even though they really shouldn’t. Someone I went to school with had a violent dad, and his mum just kept going back to him, my mother always asked her why she put up with it. She’d just say “he’s changed” “he’s the kids father” etc etc. I don’t think they’re stupid, they’ve just been hooked into something they can’t get out of.

 

[McFlash]

Did I say it was? Bigfoot is nothing like aliens, or the lock ness monster, or the Kevin Spacey case (as one example), but in each case I use a similar method to evaluate whether my belief is justified. The point is that the actual existence of each is a different question than whether I am justified in believing in each. Ontological vs epistemological questions as they're called in philosophy.

I don't have a particular viewpoint on this case, but even if I felt that there's enough evidence for me to personally hold the opinion that he's guilty, that's still a lower standard that actionably destroying his career over it. I think turning someone into a social leper for the rest of their lives should be closer to the standard of conviction that a court uses.

There's enough evidence for me to see that he's a narcissistic, abusive arsehole and I don't need a court to rule on that.
Abusers don't deserve your defence of them.
He may not be classed as a criminal but he can certainly be classed as a ****.

 

[ItsBoris]

Dude - I'm a lawyer. I know what it means, and I know its limitations - better than most.

It's simply the standard that we hold the government to before allowing the government to impose punishments on its citizens. That's it. It has never been intended to be used in any other circumstances. People are always free - in a free society - to form their own conclusions. Only the government is bound by the limitations of what they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you want to go cheer for Greenwood, then I am not going to tell you you should feel differently.

Actually it's not just a standard we hold the government to. Presumption of innocence is just the legal application of a philosophical theory of knowledge. Just as an example, if you read statistical studies you find a very similar principle - a hypothesis is rejected (and it's antithesis "accepted" so to speak) when a certain threshold of evidence is surpassed.

Tell me when I said people shouldn't be free to form their own conclusions? (how would I even stop people from doing so?) Or when I cheered for greenwood? Maybe as a lawyer you should know better than to use strawmen

 

[bc205]

Did I say it was? Bigfoot is nothing like aliens, or the lock ness monster, or the Kevin Spacey case (as one example), but in each case I use a similar method to evaluate whether my belief is justified. The point is that the actual existence of each is a different question than whether I am justified in believing in each. Ontological vs epistemological questions as they're called in philosophy.

I don't have a particular viewpoint on this case, but even if I felt that there's enough evidence for me to personally hold the opinion that he's guilty, that's still a lower standard that actionably destroying his career over it. I think turning someone into a social leper for the rest of their lives should be closer to the standard of conviction that a court uses.

My point was your analogy was shite.

If you want to use bigfoot then it is more like a witness clearly filming bigfoot, and then stating much later (almost certainly under a form of coercion) that bigfoot does not exist.

And to repeat, we aren't talking about court here. We are talkimg about whether his club continues to play him and pay him obscene amounts of money.

 

[KaribYid]

But if his partner is unwilling to testify against him and there is no video evidence or eyewitnesses, isn't he innocent until proven guilty?

There's audio and photo evidence released publicly by his partner.

 

[ItsBoris]

My point was your analogy was shite.

If you want to use bigfoot then it is more like a witness clearly filming bigfoot, and then stating much later (almost certainly under a form of coercion) that bigfoot does not exist.

And to repeat, we aren't talking about court here. We are talkimg about whether his club continues to play him and pay him obscene amounts of money.

Well she didn't record the act he's accused of committing (attempted rape), she recorded him stating an intention to commit that act. That would be strong evidence in a court but we don't know why she dropped the case, or got back together with him, or if there's any other evidence that could add more context to that recording. Maybe the recording alone is bad enough to fire him from united - I don't know. But I think most people are saying he shouldn't play again because they believe he tried to rape his girlfriend, and I don't think that conclusion should be jumped to without a fair hearing in a court where all evidence can be presented.

 

[Japhet]

Stupid woman.

Whatever her motives, she's let an awful lot of women down.