You always get someone trying to argue that somehow it is unfair for someone in the public eye to be tried by social media, as if someone in the public eye should only ever enjoy good press when they have done right but not bad press when they have done wrong. It's just laughable to suggest that anyone is trying to hold this guy to a higher moral standard that a plumber, if we could know the a^%ehole quotient of everyone we had to deal with in life people would apply exactly the same moral standard by avoiding having to deal with such dubious people.
I imagine the various sponsors of Man Utd aren't so keen at the moment to have their logo on air with his face next to it, that will probably hold more weight than Ms Riley, who coming from Southend shouldn't have been a fan of Man Utd in the first place.
The threshold for criminal conviction is (quite rightly) more stringent than when making decisions about employment. The prosecution would have to prove an offence beyond reasonable doubt, whereas an employer can find someone has committed gross misconduct on the balance of probabilities.
While that might sound like splitting hairs, it means that it could be correct both that there is not sufficient proof that someone has committed a crime, but also that there is sufficient evidence for their employer to dismiss them.
thank you @floyd for at least beginning to answer one of the questions I asked. No one else has. Questions to be honest I am not sure I know the answer to myself.
it appears you favour the “make sure they are out of sight” solution to sex and domestic violence offenders. Ok I understand the emotional reaction. My first instinct is the same indeed not sure it’s not my final instinct.
but is it right? Honestly is it really kids you are seeking to protect here or is that really just an excuse to justify your own discomfort at knowingly encountering someone who has committed horrible offences.
if it is kids that are your concern are we really saying that we think kids who understand what he has done would draw the conclusion from the fact he is still playing that his actions are acceptable and that the child is therefore free to act the same way in future life? Alternatively does it give a good opportunity to responsible parents to open up a conversation with their kids about this subject? Are we merely trying to brush the issue under the carpet in much the same way that earlier generations tried to deal with people that were gay?
@TheAndyGrahamFanClub makes a salient point here regarding quality of player. The only reason Man United are "agonizing" over it is that they need more strike options - if we were talking about a less talented player who Man United ideally wanted to offload, they would not be having any crisis of conscience.
@DevC How would you feel if your daughter was home alone, called out a plumber and a serial rapist turned up at her house? Does it not matter because he served his time for the ones that were proven and deserves another chance? This thread was like commissioner Gordon shining the Dev signal into the night sky - we all knew you would pop up here with your demands that others answer the questions that you then admit you don't have an answer for yourself.
A small TV quiz show ?! It’s not a quiz show for starters (and don’t say “no, that’s University Challenge”).
It’s a 15 round contest testing the lexical and numerical dexterity of two contestants, brilliantly chaired by Colin Murray
It has been broadcast from Monday to Friday on Channel 4 since the first day the station came on air 41 years ago.
I wasn’t aware that cohost Rachel Riley had expressed an opinion about the whys and wherefores of the controversy over Mason Greenwood’s future (and it’s a matter of supreme indifference to me) but, judging by the transcript posted by @OxfordBlue, it sounds like he is a thoroughly obnoxious young man. Wouldn’t want someone like that anywhere near Wycombe Wanderers.
He was not 'innocent until proven guilty'. The only reason the CPS discontinued the case, was because they no longer had any witness testimony, without which there was little or no prospect of a conviction for attempted rape, and/or assault. If that had not been the case, it seems far more likely than not, based upon the transcript, that a jury would have found him guilty.
As a high profile footballer with a high profile club, he is a role model for thousands of young fans, and as such must be held to a higher standard of behaviour on and off the pitch than your average plumber.
Man U must find a way, and quickly, to dispense with his services. The Saudi League looks like a sensible option.
I confess I lack your moral certainty @drcongo. I am not clear what we should do with people who have committed sex offences? Where it seems you are clear that they should be banned from public view and seemingly banned from working or presumably going to a bar or in any way interacting with society, I don’t see how that could possibly work. Reality is that sex offenders live in our midst but it is an inconvenient truth and it is perhaps easier to pretend they don’t exist and more comfortable if we are not reminded of that reality.
for that reason, while personally I am uncertain about what is morally the right course of action, I have no doubt that de facto Greenwood can never play football for Man U or any British club again.
He works in the entertainment business and receives crazy wages for being a top performer in his field.
Like it or not, those ridiculously high wages are in place because TV companies and multinational sponsors are absolutely desperate to associate themselves with ‘the footy’. They are unlikely to be desperate to associate themselves with Mason Greenwood anymore.
I’m not criticising the wages by the way. Every job has its going rate and the old ‘they get paid more than doctors’ debate is completely pointless in the economic system we live in. But to argue that those wages don’t come with more strings attached than those paid to a jobbing plumber is baffling.
I’m not sure what’s more predictable. Dev’s appearance to play devil’s advocate or learning that Rachel Riley is a celebrity Man U fan.
Look, we've done this several times before, and if you're not going to do it in good faith, then don't bother.
I am not clear what we should do with people who have committed sex offences?
As is obvious every time when you inevitably lament your own lack of answers to your own questions. If you have no answers yourself, why the endless asking of them followed by the endless demanding that others answer the questions that you can't?
Where it seems you are clear that they should be banned from public view and seemingly banned from working or presumably going to a bar or in any way interacting with society, I don’t see how that could possibly work.
At no point did I say any of that. You making up things and claiming I said them damages your arguments far more than it damages mine. I said I'd like to see him die an unpleasant death. Which I would.
My point is that footballers should be treated differently because football is different. No one is seriously arguing Mason Greenwood should be unable to make a living (and therefore unable to provide for his partner and wife) but should he be able to still make a living with thousands of people cheering him on? That's where I'm uncomfortable. Footballers shouldn't be held up as role models, they shouldn't influence children more than their own parents. But they do, we have to play the hand we're dealt.
As others have said, I'm glad it's not my decision to make.
I was expecting at least 'Oh no it wasn't!' . Very disappointed.
I was a stage hand at the Theatre Royal when she was there in Peter Pan and she was a very nice lady. I must admit I never asked her her opinions on the Winter of Discontent though. She was very bad at maths I understand.,
Sorry @drcongo i am confused now. I am trying to have a serious conversation and I genuinely thought that is what you were saying. I am a little confused now.
could I ask you to clarify please - let’s use three examples
1) a 25 yo plumber meets a girl in a bar. They are both intoxicated. They go back to his flat . She doesn’t consent. He goes to jail for six years and is released on license after three. Is it OK for him to work as a plumber on release
2) same circumstances except that he is a footballer not a plumber
3) another 25 year old plumber has drugged and raped multiple victims before getting caught. He is going to be about 50 before he is released. What is he allowed to do then?
I don’t want any human being to die an unpleasant death by the way.
Fair enough @floyd . I understand your discomfort. Actually I share it. On balance I think I disagree with you - I think we need to acknowledge and confront sex offending not brush it under the carpet - but can’t say I am 100% in that view.
Actually I think Man U decision is a pretty simple one to make. The media storm if he played again for them would be unsustainable.
Neither had I (Not read past the headlines until this thread) or that she gave birth a month ago and they are still together.
It would seem she has decided to continue the relationship and I would only be speculating why. It would also seem Man Utd would like to continue the relationship.
Out of everyone involved in this it's the poor child I feel for.
Crikey. What a memory. But, to the best of my own recollection, the reaction to the comment @DevC made at the time was out of all proportion. I don’t recall the detail but it was the kind of comment the vast majority of red-blooded males would have made a few decades ago when chatting to mates in the pub but perhaps it was ill-advised to make it on a public forum.
I also feel some sympathy for the partner who, like many who suffer but do not want the trauma of taking it to the law (sometimes until it is too late!), she has still got to put up with the bloke who did and said the things outlined above...and shown on social media.
Giggs was not exonerated, but his ex-partner could not face the trauma of a retrial.
I hope for her sake, he has matured and is a changed man and we are not going to be seeing all this played out again in a few years time.
Comments
You always get someone trying to argue that somehow it is unfair for someone in the public eye to be tried by social media, as if someone in the public eye should only ever enjoy good press when they have done right but not bad press when they have done wrong. It's just laughable to suggest that anyone is trying to hold this guy to a higher moral standard that a plumber, if we could know the a^%ehole quotient of everyone we had to deal with in life people would apply exactly the same moral standard by avoiding having to deal with such dubious people.
I imagine the various sponsors of Man Utd aren't so keen at the moment to have their logo on air with his face next to it, that will probably hold more weight than Ms Riley, who coming from Southend shouldn't have been a fan of Man Utd in the first place.
The threshold for criminal conviction is (quite rightly) more stringent than when making decisions about employment. The prosecution would have to prove an offence beyond reasonable doubt, whereas an employer can find someone has committed gross misconduct on the balance of probabilities.
While that might sound like splitting hairs, it means that it could be correct both that there is not sufficient proof that someone has committed a crime, but also that there is sufficient evidence for their employer to dismiss them.
I wouldn't go that far. I would give him a full penectomy without any anaesthetic!
thank you @floyd for at least beginning to answer one of the questions I asked. No one else has. Questions to be honest I am not sure I know the answer to myself.
it appears you favour the “make sure they are out of sight” solution to sex and domestic violence offenders. Ok I understand the emotional reaction. My first instinct is the same indeed not sure it’s not my final instinct.
but is it right? Honestly is it really kids you are seeking to protect here or is that really just an excuse to justify your own discomfort at knowingly encountering someone who has committed horrible offences.
if it is kids that are your concern are we really saying that we think kids who understand what he has done would draw the conclusion from the fact he is still playing that his actions are acceptable and that the child is therefore free to act the same way in future life? Alternatively does it give a good opportunity to responsible parents to open up a conversation with their kids about this subject? Are we merely trying to brush the issue under the carpet in much the same way that earlier generations tried to deal with people that were gay?
@TheAndyGrahamFanClub makes a salient point here regarding quality of player. The only reason Man United are "agonizing" over it is that they need more strike options - if we were talking about a less talented player who Man United ideally wanted to offload, they would not be having any crisis of conscience.
@DevC How would you feel if your daughter was home alone, called out a plumber and a serial rapist turned up at her house? Does it not matter because he served his time for the ones that were proven and deserves another chance? This thread was like commissioner Gordon shining the Dev signal into the night sky - we all knew you would pop up here with your demands that others answer the questions that you then admit you don't have an answer for yourself.
A small TV quiz show ?! It’s not a quiz show for starters (and don’t say “no, that’s University Challenge”).
It’s a 15 round contest testing the lexical and numerical dexterity of two contestants, brilliantly chaired by Colin Murray
It has been broadcast from Monday to Friday on Channel 4 since the first day the station came on air 41 years ago.
I wasn’t aware that cohost Rachel Riley had expressed an opinion about the whys and wherefores of the controversy over Mason Greenwood’s future (and it’s a matter of supreme indifference to me) but, judging by the transcript posted by @OxfordBlue, it sounds like he is a thoroughly obnoxious young man. Wouldn’t want someone like that anywhere near Wycombe Wanderers.
He was not 'innocent until proven guilty'. The only reason the CPS discontinued the case, was because they no longer had any witness testimony, without which there was little or no prospect of a conviction for attempted rape, and/or assault. If that had not been the case, it seems far more likely than not, based upon the transcript, that a jury would have found him guilty.
As a high profile footballer with a high profile club, he is a role model for thousands of young fans, and as such must be held to a higher standard of behaviour on and off the pitch than your average plumber.
Man U must find a way, and quickly, to dispense with his services. The Saudi League looks like a sensible option.
I confess I lack your moral certainty @drcongo. I am not clear what we should do with people who have committed sex offences? Where it seems you are clear that they should be banned from public view and seemingly banned from working or presumably going to a bar or in any way interacting with society, I don’t see how that could possibly work. Reality is that sex offenders live in our midst but it is an inconvenient truth and it is perhaps easier to pretend they don’t exist and more comfortable if we are not reminded of that reality.
for that reason, while personally I am uncertain about what is morally the right course of action, I have no doubt that de facto Greenwood can never play football for Man U or any British club again.
After editing (twice), press “save”, not “post comment” !
He works in the entertainment business and receives crazy wages for being a top performer in his field.
Like it or not, those ridiculously high wages are in place because TV companies and multinational sponsors are absolutely desperate to associate themselves with ‘the footy’. They are unlikely to be desperate to associate themselves with Mason Greenwood anymore.
I’m not criticising the wages by the way. Every job has its going rate and the old ‘they get paid more than doctors’ debate is completely pointless in the economic system we live in. But to argue that those wages don’t come with more strings attached than those paid to a jobbing plumber is baffling.
I’m not sure what’s more predictable. Dev’s appearance to play devil’s advocate or learning that Rachel Riley is a celebrity Man U fan.
Look, we've done this several times before, and if you're not going to do it in good faith, then don't bother.
I am not clear what we should do with people who have committed sex offences?
As is obvious every time when you inevitably lament your own lack of answers to your own questions. If you have no answers yourself, why the endless asking of them followed by the endless demanding that others answer the questions that you can't?
Where it seems you are clear that they should be banned from public view and seemingly banned from working or presumably going to a bar or in any way interacting with society, I don’t see how that could possibly work.
At no point did I say any of that. You making up things and claiming I said them damages your arguments far more than it damages mine. I said I'd like to see him die an unpleasant death. Which I would.
Must say I’m not very comfortable with that view, @drcongo.
Suppose that makes me woke.
Perhaps one very small mitigating factor is Greenwood having Ryan Giggs as a role model in his early youth career!
Rachel’s idol at one time, I believe.
My point is that footballers should be treated differently because football is different. No one is seriously arguing Mason Greenwood should be unable to make a living (and therefore unable to provide for his partner and wife) but should he be able to still make a living with thousands of people cheering him on? That's where I'm uncomfortable. Footballers shouldn't be held up as role models, they shouldn't influence children more than their own parents. But they do, we have to play the hand we're dealt.
As others have said, I'm glad it's not my decision to make.
I was expecting at least 'Oh no it wasn't!' . Very disappointed.
I was a stage hand at the Theatre Royal when she was there in Peter Pan and she was a very nice lady. I must admit I never asked her her opinions on the Winter of Discontent though. She was very bad at maths I understand.,
Have you got any jobs going for a sporty young man with a young family who may soon find himself at a loose end @DevC ?
And for the absolute avoidance of doubt, what I 'favour' for violent sex offenders is that they are punished to the maximum extremity of the law.
Oh no she wasn’t
Sorry @drcongo i am confused now. I am trying to have a serious conversation and I genuinely thought that is what you were saying. I am a little confused now.
could I ask you to clarify please - let’s use three examples
1) a 25 yo plumber meets a girl in a bar. They are both intoxicated. They go back to his flat . She doesn’t consent. He goes to jail for six years and is released on license after three. Is it OK for him to work as a plumber on release
2) same circumstances except that he is a footballer not a plumber
3) another 25 year old plumber has drugged and raped multiple victims before getting caught. He is going to be about 50 before he is released. What is he allowed to do then?
I don’t want any human being to die an unpleasant death by the way.
To see certain people making comments in such a way on this subject after the ‘girls on the train’ affair on the old Gasroom is quite uncomfortable.
Fair enough @floyd . I understand your discomfort. Actually I share it. On balance I think I disagree with you - I think we need to acknowledge and confront sex offending not brush it under the carpet - but can’t say I am 100% in that view.
Actually I think Man U decision is a pretty simple one to make. The media storm if he played again for them would be unsustainable.
Neither had I (Not read past the headlines until this thread) or that she gave birth a month ago and they are still together.
It would seem she has decided to continue the relationship and I would only be speculating why. It would also seem Man Utd would like to continue the relationship.
Out of everyone involved in this it's the poor child I feel for.
Dare I ask?
Crikey. What a memory. But, to the best of my own recollection, the reaction to the comment @DevC made at the time was out of all proportion. I don’t recall the detail but it was the kind of comment the vast majority of red-blooded males would have made a few decades ago when chatting to mates in the pub but perhaps it was ill-advised to make it on a public forum.
I also feel some sympathy for the partner who, like many who suffer but do not want the trauma of taking it to the law (sometimes until it is too late!), she has still got to put up with the bloke who did and said the things outlined above...and shown on social media.
Giggs was not exonerated, but his ex-partner could not face the trauma of a retrial.
I hope for her sake, he has matured and is a changed man and we are not going to be seeing all this played out again in a few years time.
System won’t let me quote you, @Wendoverman but I was going to suggest car park attendant.