This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Mason Greenwood
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 cryrst  The garden of England 31 Jan 22 5.36pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Would he have done it if she was a black girl and would chauvinn have knelt on a white guy.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Midlands Eagle  31 Jan 22 5.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I'm probably being naive in the ways of the young but how and why was Greenwood's rant recorded
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CrazyBadger Ware 31 Jan 22 5.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Exactly my point - if a court decide that evidence is not permissible, why should that affect how me and you (not the legal system) judge him? The audio is very clearly him and it's very clear what he says. My whole point is that the threshold for society to condemn someone for something like this should be considerably lower than the threshold for a legal conviction, which are nigh on impossible to achieve. For a third time; what version of events could Greenwood provide that would satisfy you he's done nothing wrong? You keep referring to his side of the story, but I don't see anything he can say which makes that recording ok... hypothetically, what could that look like? Was it out of context? A joke? I'll take any reasonable explanation. Given the 1.6% figure I've already provided you, I'd suggest sitting back and letting the police get on with it is a terrible course of action for a family who have suffered something like this. As far as I'm concerned it is far from clear that the audio is him or her for that matter, As I have not sat down and compared their voices, though it is clear what 'he' says. Conversely, why should you judge a person based purely on one version of events? I don't know the accuser, or how trustworthy they are all I have is hearsay. Regardless of how I judge him, Social media is not the Place to state as fact when it is not. I haven't answered the question in red, as I am not here to speculate. suffice to say it doesn't look good on the surface, I cannot offer an explanation, but that does not mean there is not onw. I do not think it's right to judge without the right of reply. My main overriding point is that we need to have faith in the system - even if it's not perfect, and improve it where we can.
"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 31 Jan 22 5.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
I'm probably being naive in the ways of the young but how and why was Greenwood's rant recorded Presumably she recorded it covertly to try and have some evidence of the abuse she was facing.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 31 Jan 22 6.00pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Exactly my point - if a court decide that evidence is not permissible, why should that affect how me and you (not the legal system) judge him? The audio is very clearly him and it's very clear what he says. My whole point is that the threshold for society to condemn someone for something like this should be considerably lower than the threshold for a legal conviction, which are nigh on impossible to achieve. For a third time; what version of events could Greenwood provide that would satisfy you he's done nothing wrong? You keep referring to his side of the story, but I don't see anything he can say which makes that recording ok... hypothetically, what could that look like? Was it out of context? A joke? I'll take any reasonable explanation. Given the 1.6% figure I've already provided you, I'd suggest sitting back and letting the police get on with it is a terrible course of action for a family who have suffered something like this. This is a bit awkward because it seems like I'm defending someone who probably has raped this woman but I'm curious what you actually think that recording proves with no doubt. I only listened to it once but I didn't hear a rape on that recording. What I hear was sex turned down and a threat amongst a clearly dysfunctional relationship. You want to throw the book at him, which if he's a rapist I clearly agree with....but you also seem to think that he shouldn't be given a proper hearing. That is not justice.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 31 Jan 22 6.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CrazyBadger
As far as I'm concerned it is far from clear that the audio is him or her for that matter, As I have not sat down and compared their voices, though it is clear what 'he' says. Conversely, why should you judge a person based purely on one version of events? I don't know the accuser, or how trustworthy they are all I have is hearsay. Regardless of how I judge him, Social media is not the Place to state as fact when it is not. I haven't answered the question in red, as I am not here to speculate. suffice to say it doesn't look good on the surface, I cannot offer an explanation, but that does not mean there is not onw. I do not think it's right to judge without the right of reply. My main overriding point is that we need to have faith in the system - even if it's not perfect, and improve it where we can. Your first paragraph genuinely reads like a defence attorney - your position seems genuine but I hope you recognise the harm these type of responses do in dissuading other victims to come forward - this woman literally got it on tape and is being doubted and having her trustworthiness questioned - narratives like this are a big part of why the conviction rate sits so disgracefully low. Again, how does one have faith in a system that so plainly doesn’t work?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 31 Jan 22 6.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I've been out this afternoon and I've just got back so maybe things have moved on since this morning but from what I heard from the father and this girl's initial comments seem to suggest that they don't want to destroy Greenwood's career. Perhaps it's a case of 'not wanting to kill the golden goose' situation as he's their meal ticket. However, once those images and recording became public record the game's afoot and.....if he is a rapey b******....she's better off getting what money she can.....because if she refuses to prosecute, he's going to drop her like a cheap suit....the relationship I mean. All seems highly dysfunctional. I wouldn't let a daughter of mine be involved in that 'golden goose' or not.....I'd be looking to chin him. Edited by Stirlingsays (31 Jan 2022 6.06pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 31 Jan 22 6.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
This is a bit awkward because it seems like I'm defending someone who probably has raped this woman but I'm curious what you actually think that recording proves with no doubt. I only listened to it once but I didn't hear a rape on that recording. What I hear was sex turned down and a threat amongst a clearly dysfunctional relationship. You want to throw the book at him, which if he's a rapist I clearly agree with....but you also seem to think that he shouldn't be given a proper hearing. That is not justice. Again, it’s not about what it proves with no doubt, because we are not in a court of law - but as you acknowledge, it allows you to very confidently assert that he’s an abuser at best, and a rapist at worst - why do I need more information than that to make a judgement about what type of bloke he is. At no point have I said that legally he should not have a fair hearing, but given the history of convictions in this space, I certainly won’t be waiting for the guilty verdict to decide he is scum.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 31 Jan 22 6.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Your first paragraph genuinely reads like a defence attorney - your position seems genuine but I hope you recognise the harm these type of responses do in dissuading other victims to come forward - this woman literally got it on tape and is being doubted and having her trustworthiness questioned - narratives like this are a big part of why the conviction rate sits so disgracefully low. Again, how does one have faith in a system that so plainly doesn’t work?
Rape without physical evidence is a he said/she said. There have been men convicted of rape who later turned out to have been victims of false accusations. Personally I don't think it's acceptable to say that because a crime is hard to prove that we should lower the standards on conviction.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 31 Jan 22 6.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Again, it’s not about what it proves with no doubt, because we are not in a court of law - but as you acknowledge, it allows you to very confidently assert that he’s an abuser at best, and a rapist at worst - why do I need more information than that to make a judgement about what type of bloke he is. At no point have I said that legally he should not have a fair hearing, but given the history of convictions in this space, I certainly won’t be waiting for the guilty verdict to decide he is scum. I think we can all tell he's scum. He's also probably a rapist. I have genuine sympathy for your anger because it's a crime that frequently goes unpunished.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 31 Jan 22 6.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Rape without physical evidence is a he said/she said. There have been men convicted of rape who later turned out to have been victims of false accusations. Personally I don't think it's acceptable to say that because a crime is hard to prove that we should lower the standards on conviction. It sounds entirely logical to me. How do you reckon the men falsely convicted or rape stack up against the women who have been raped without any one being convicted?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Palace Old Geezer Midhurst 31 Jan 22 6.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I sincerely hope none of our boys ever behave in the way it is alleged Greenwood has. Not only has it brought disgrace to him, but also to his club. I would be ashamed if Palace were dragged into the kind of scrutiny that this case is likely to bring to Man U. If true, his behaviour was appalling.
Dad and I watched games standing on the muddy slope of the Holmesdale Road end. He cheered and I rattled. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.