I have read the original victims testimony on twitter, I fully believe he is guilty from her testimony especially everything she went through. He also settled with her making her sign a non-disclosure agreement. The woman also contacted Woolwich and the Premier League over safe guarding and they both responded as she was over 18 there was nothing that they could do. I believe there needs to be an enquiry into how this case and the Mendy case were dealt with by the Police and Premier League because in both cases the accused went on to have further accusations after the original incident, while under investigation.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
News Premier League star arrested on suspicion of rape
- Thread starter Shadydan
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
You are genuinely of the belief that someone being investigated for child abuse would continue to be able to work in a nursery until found guilty?
RA's will be circumstance specific; even if there is a broad truth to the innocent until proven guilty doctrine.
Both the CPS and Man Utd refer to new material that shed a new light on the case… with Utd stating the new material led them to believe Greenwood didn’t commit the offences he was accused of.
The CPS statement is here: Mason Greenwood: CPS discontinuance of charges | The Crown Prosecution Service
“In this case a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. In these circumstances, we are under a duty to stop the case.”
We have no idea what the new material was or how significant it was. Clearly the fact the alleged victim refused to cooperate meant the prospect of conviction would be extremely low in a case like this.
Note: Greenwood claimed that he was “cleared” but he was not at all. Were the victim to change her mind, the CPS could still bring charges.
Manchester United decided he didn’t do what he was accused of (in their opinion) but that he couldn’t play for the club again and that “he has made mistakes which he is taking responsibility for”.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Sounds like a negotiated deal by his no doubt excellent lawyers. Slip out the back door, acknowledge some vague mistakes and we’ll protect both our reputations. There isn’t a victim willing to speak out so it produces the best result for all of us, reputationally. If it looks like a win-win agreement, it probably is…
I will say that there’s a lot that we don’t know about what happened but my personal belief is that Greenwood has got away with one here.
Last edited:
I’ve not mentioned anything about suspected/child abuse.
The footballer is accused of sexual assault against adult(s), his line of work doesn’t solely involve working with an at risk/perceived at risk specific gender or age group. E.g. he’s not as per your example of say a teacher or childminder working solely with children or a male footballing coach of an adult female team. It is highly likely his club have received legal advice and they’re acting accordingly.
I know; but the rhetorical question proves the point.
What would have to happen for Arsenals reputation to be damaged?
No it doesn’t, people want a person who has yet to be charged with an offence to be punished, ignoring ‘innocent until to proven otherwise’ and his right to a ‘fair trial’.
Look at Eleanor Williams case, she falsely accused a group of men of rape. 3 of the men attempted suicide and one was sectioned, reputations destroyed. The woman was later convicted of 9 nine counts of perverting the course of justice and jailed for over 8 years.
There’s 1000s of people who have been convicted of child and/or adult sexual offences, who are either still in prison or have been released either on licence or are no longer subject to any restrictions. They’re either getting on with their lives or in some cases, sadly they’re either at a high risk of or will reoffend. These are people who have an actual conviction but having served their sentence, they’re is some cases free to get on with their lives. Whereas for the footballer, he’s not been charged, he’s not been convicted, he’s not working in an environment where there’s a high risk of offending, yet some people want him suspended, putting his life on hold whilst waiting x amount of years to find out if he’ll ever be charged and/or face trial.
Respond to them directly instead then.
You're basically strawmanning me.
I’m not competent to make that determination.
However, Everton immediately suspended Sigurdsson when he was arrested. It has happened.
Straw manning period. Has anyone said he should be punished without being found guilty in a court of law?
Probably somewhere but I haven’t seen that this past day in here. I want out of my way to draw a distinction between the high bar for the legal process (which is absolutely right) and the lower bar we might have to say “I think he did it”.
An accusation doesn’t come with the deprivation of liberty so it’s quite right there are different standards.
Arteta could commit a mass atrocity and it wouldn’t do any further damage to their reputation. Criminality and cheating have always been their hallmark. Having nonces and rapists at the club is nothing new for them.
They'd have to own up to bribing their way into the top league, admit to tapping up Judas and admit that they know Partey is a rapist.
That's the only way they'll damage their "reputation."
Hopefully every away fan gives Partey hell midweek.