Club statement on Mason

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by Rdd is back (U22942)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Rdd is back (U22942)
posted 15 minutes ago
If they were to terminate now, it would be on the strength of the audio alone, which wasn’t considered grounds to terminate 14 months ago, and has seen us pay him £5-10m in wages while suspended.

The case being dropped is the absolute best outcome he could have hoped for, so if it wasn’t enough 14 months ago, I don’t believe it will be now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What are you going on about? This is all about reputational damage and whether they believe it is salvageable or not, not whether he is a criminal or not.

That’s not a decision they needed to or would have ever wanted to take while the court case was ongoing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The damage only comes if he is proven to be guilty.

The only people who will have issue with Greenwood playing for us again are those that think they know better than the CPS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No it doesn’t! Are you seriously saying the only bar you have is whether someone is a convicted criminal or not?!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

No. I'm saying in the absence of all the facts, people (the club, sponsors, fans) should accept that the CPS have made the correct, informed decision.

People have accepted that. Unless you are saying that the only bar you have is whether someone is a convicted criminal or not, it’s now irrelevant.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 57 minutes ago
People have accepted that. Unless you are saying that the only bar you have is whether someone is a convicted criminal or not, it’s now irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it isn't.

If the CPS came out and told you there was a satisfactory explanation (but not what it was) for the audio, would that satisfy you?

Not without knowing what the explanation was, no, how could it? That’s exactly why they usually do a hearing for no evidence for cases like this.

You’re still setting the bar at whether he’s a criminal or not if you’re only interested in what the CPS might tell you.

And they aren’t doing a hearing for no evidence so you won’t find out anything from them.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
Not without knowing what the explanation was, no, how could it? That’s exactly why they usually do a hearing for no evidence for cases like this.

You’re still setting the bar at whether he’s a criminal or not if you’re only interested in what the CPS might tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Criminal / Moral, he either did it, or there was a satisfactory explanation offered.

Why else would the CPS not pursue a trial if the main piece of evidence (audio) hadn't been investigated and resolved?

comment by Rdd is back (U22942)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
Not without knowing what the explanation was, no, how could it? That’s exactly why they usually do a hearing for no evidence for cases like this.

You’re still setting the bar at whether he’s a criminal or not if you’re only interested in what the CPS might tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Criminal / Moral, he either did it, or there was a satisfactory explanation offered.

Why else would the CPS not pursue a trial if the main piece of evidence (audio) hadn't been investigated and resolved?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So since saying “of course not” to your only bar being whether he was a criminal or not, that is still the only bar you’re talking about?! I’ve literally just told you they’re not having a hearing for no evidence so why ask a question that no one can actually answer?

If there is a satisfactory explanation to his conduct in that video that United deem is enough to salvage his reputation, then it’ll be made public and you’ll keep him. If there isn’t, you’ll agree a settlement and pay him off.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 15 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by Rdd is back (U22942)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
Not without knowing what the explanation was, no, how could it? That’s exactly why they usually do a hearing for no evidence for cases like this.

You’re still setting the bar at whether he’s a criminal or not if you’re only interested in what the CPS might tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Criminal / Moral, he either did it, or there was a satisfactory explanation offered.

Why else would the CPS not pursue a trial if the main piece of evidence (audio) hadn't been investigated and resolved?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So since saying “of course not” to your only bar being whether he was a criminal or not, that is still the only bar you’re talking about?! I’ve literally just told you they’re not having a hearing for no evidence so why ask a question that no one can actually answer?

If there is a satisfactory explanation to his conduct in that video that United deem is enough to salvage his reputation, then it’ll be made public and you’ll keep him. If there isn’t, you’ll agree a settlement and pay him off.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Forget criminal / civil / morale offence for a moment.

You either think he did what he was accused of, or he didnt.

In the absence of all of the facts, WE (the general public) cannot say for sure, so should arrive at our own conclusion based on the facts we do know.

What we do know is that the experts have evidence that means they doubt they could convince a jury (the general public) that he was guilty of ANY of the 3 charges.

Yes the criminal burden of proof is high, but they aren’t even prepared to go to trial, which means that whatever the evidence is that has come to light, it must be pretty significant that they aren’t even willing to try.

I don’t know the kid, I don’t profit in anyway from him returning to United, I’m. I not motivated to argue his case out of some petty squabbles on here.

I just think this is a young lad who has already paid a pretty heavy price for the unfounded accusations, and should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt.

On whose behalf are you so vehemently arguing against his return to United for?

The ‘victim’ isn’t pursuing criminal charges.

He isn’t responsible for all the bad faced by women.

The fans, club and sponsors have turned a blind eye to worse (She said no and stop many times, but I carried on)

His career may be ruined before it really started, and
he is very unlikely to put himself In such a position again, so who are we fighting for?

I’m not vehemently fighting anything, I haven’t proffered any judgment on Greenwood at all. I’m pointing out to you what is likely to happen next. You are giving your opinion, which is clearly at odds to United already as they’re doing an investigation.

And it not proceeding to trial does not mean it is unfounded, that’s an interpretation that is far more likely to be untrue.