From what I can make out from the statement from Man Utd, which I assume is truthful, he was innocent of the charges made. Those charges were attempted rape and assault, so it seems clear that if he were the person in the transcript (and whilst there is an assertion of his innocence of the charges, there is no denial of the veracity of the transcript itself) that he did not follow through with the threatened actions. Does that absolve the person in the transcript from any blame or indeed should said person if he were in the public eye be shielded in a way that would not be necessary if he were merely a plumber? I think not. So no, Dev was talking from his a%$e as usual.
ps - whilst Greenwood apparently admits that he made mistakes and accepts responsibility for those mistakes, the mistakes remain unspecified and there is no statement from Greenwood himself. So, it is his choice that the cloud of mystery remains; he's hardly shining a light on a plot to sully his good name.
Gawd what a mess. I assume Man U are trying to balance their duty of care responsibilities towards Greenwood the 'alleged victim' and their child with the potential for uproar both inside and outside the club, the financial implications and the need to get rid.
Just for the record based on their comments neither @mooneyman or @Ed_ appear to have understood what I was trying to say. That of course may have been my fault for not saying it clearly enough.
As @TheAndyGrahamFanClub points out...if they are convinced he is totally innocent, then why are they not standing their ground against the mob and showing some bravery. They can't really care about attendances falling as there will be Man U 'fans' across the nation ready to fill any vacant seat.
Public Image?
Share price?
Worry that they'll have to do it all again with him in a couple of years time?
With our current goal scoring record, why don’t we try and get him on a 6 month deal? Ease him back into the spotlight in front of a relatively small crowd? He would score 15/20 goals by Christmas and would put us in a great position, he is innocent in the eyes of the law.
Obviously, he is far too good for us, but just a thought to use this situation to our advantage?
If you're going to troll nowadays you have to be batshit mental to have a chance of getting away with it. The bloke on the Facebook page who said Wycombe would have more money to spend on players if they stopped selling food and drink because they could then close down all the toilets and save cash...now that's a better effort.
(Wasn't me who gave you a thumbs down, by the way!)
Two simple questions, yes or no. Firstly, would you be happy seeing Greenwood in a Wycombe shirt. Secondly, would you be happy him carrying out plumbing for a young female relation of yours living on her own. No prevarication please.
Sorry, you’ve going to have to enlighten me about my other account that I don’t know I have? Some people on here seem to just be mean to maybe make themselves feel better about their own lives? 🤷♂️
@AinsworthsSillyShoes If you're going to continue to claim that you're a real person, and not a "comedy" sockpuppet account, then you should really read back your post and see if you can work out why people are calling you a particularly rubbish troll. If you're actually not a particularly rubbish troll, maybe don't post comments that a particularly rubbish troll would post.
If however you are a particularly rubbish troll, then you do really need to up your game. A good troll wouldn't start whining about people being mean, and their comments would be much closer to normal so as to leave some room for doubt.
I will very happily give you a direct answer to your questions @mooneyman but on one condition. If I answer your two questions as unequivocally as I can, I would ask you to answer up to two questions I will then ask you. Agreed?
Mad hypothetical us signing Greenwood in the above posts. But just for fun I’ll chip in. My Saturdays would be free.
If he had shown contrition to the specific public information I might be slightly different. But to say ‘I’ve made mistakes lumps domestic abuse in with cheating at Monopoly’.
Q1 - would I be happy seeing Greenwood in a Wycombe shirt.
I am going to expand your question and as well as answering for Greenwood also answer for a player who has served time for a serious offence - let’s use Luke McCormick as an example and a hypothetical player who committed a sexual offence at say 20 served three years in jail and is now free on license.
I am going to ignore issues re media storms etc also, which might change my answer.
The answer in all three cases is that my initial reaction would be discomfort at the idea followed when I thought about it by the realisation that once released from prison in the latter two cases and a legally innocent man in the first case must be allowed to operate as normally as possible in society once their custodial sentence is served and hence it would be hypocritical of me to seek to restrict them that right unless there are special circumstances eg a teacher or a childrens care home. Some may argue that a footballer is a special case but I don’t think it crosses that bar.
Would I be happy with him plumbing with a young single female relative alone?
Firstly to get to the essence of your question, I am going to ignore innocent until proven guilty and answer as of Greenwood did commit the offence he is accused of. I will also assume he knows how to plumb!
professionally I am aware that sex offenders and sexual offences are not all the same. So a man who has committed a form of date rape is statistically no more likely to commit stranger rape than anyone else. Different drivers apply.
But again getting to what I suspect is the underlying nub of your question, should sex offenders be allowed to work inroles such as plumbing, my answer is yes. Indeed it is perhaps an unknown fact that a disproportionate number of self employed tradesmen do have criminal records including sex offences for the simple reason that it is very hard for them to get employed jobs.
so my answer would be as comfortable as for any anonymous tradesman to enter my home with just a single female relative at home.
1) I presume you would not wish Greenwood to play. Does the same apply to the other two players I have highlighted. If your answer is different for each could you explain why.
2) most people who have committed sexual offences will only spend a relatively short period in jail - say 3-5 years. Then they are released - initially on license into society. Should they be allowed to work - eg as a plumber. Should they wear some form of visible identification so the public knows their past and can make reasonable adjustments?
Comments
From what I can make out from the statement from Man Utd, which I assume is truthful, he was innocent of the charges made. Those charges were attempted rape and assault, so it seems clear that if he were the person in the transcript (and whilst there is an assertion of his innocence of the charges, there is no denial of the veracity of the transcript itself) that he did not follow through with the threatened actions. Does that absolve the person in the transcript from any blame or indeed should said person if he were in the public eye be shielded in a way that would not be necessary if he were merely a plumber? I think not. So no, Dev was talking from his a%$e as usual.
ps - whilst Greenwood apparently admits that he made mistakes and accepts responsibility for those mistakes, the mistakes remain unspecified and there is no statement from Greenwood himself. So, it is his choice that the cloud of mystery remains; he's hardly shining a light on a plot to sully his good name.
Gawd what a mess. I assume Man U are trying to balance their duty of care responsibilities towards Greenwood the 'alleged victim' and their child with the potential for uproar both inside and outside the club, the financial implications and the need to get rid.
A terrible time to miss out a comma.
I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest Greenwood was the alleged victim.
towards Greenwood, the 'alleged victim' and their child
Thanks @Twizz God forbid! Not like me to miss a comma
Just for the record based on their comments neither @mooneyman or @Ed_ appear to have understood what I was trying to say. That of course may have been my fault for not saying it clearly enough.
As @TheAndyGrahamFanClub points out...if they are convinced he is totally innocent, then why are they not standing their ground against the mob and showing some bravery. They can't really care about attendances falling as there will be Man U 'fans' across the nation ready to fill any vacant seat.
Public Image?
Share price?
Worry that they'll have to do it all again with him in a couple of years time?
With our current goal scoring record, why don’t we try and get him on a 6 month deal? Ease him back into the spotlight in front of a relatively small crowd? He would score 15/20 goals by Christmas and would put us in a great position, he is innocent in the eyes of the law.
Obviously, he is far too good for us, but just a thought to use this situation to our advantage?
Hmmmm......I'm still not 100% sure. Either you are woefully shit at trolling or you are being deliberately shit for extra 'lols'.
Either way, I replied. So I lose.
Do fuck off
When it's you saying that it speaks volumes 🤣
Really uncalled for…? Why is it such a bad idea, to at least enquire?
If you're going to troll nowadays you have to be batshit mental to have a chance of getting away with it. The bloke on the Facebook page who said Wycombe would have more money to spend on players if they stopped selling food and drink because they could then close down all the toilets and save cash...now that's a better effort.
(Wasn't me who gave you a thumbs down, by the way!)
You know what you are, and you add to the rich tapestry.
Our non welcome pal isn't so welcome. Under either of his accounts. He's been spotted, try again in a few months like everyone else does.
Two simple questions, yes or no. Firstly, would you be happy seeing Greenwood in a Wycombe shirt. Secondly, would you be happy him carrying out plumbing for a young female relation of yours living on her own. No prevarication please.
You're all heart, but ultimately need to work on your subtlety and WUM-craft.
Sorry, you’ve going to have to enlighten me about my other account that I don’t know I have? Some people on here seem to just be mean to maybe make themselves feel better about their own lives? 🤷♂️
I almost responded to the Beast one and then thought better of it.
@AinsworthsSillyShoes If you're going to continue to claim that you're a real person, and not a "comedy" sockpuppet account, then you should really read back your post and see if you can work out why people are calling you a particularly rubbish troll. If you're actually not a particularly rubbish troll, maybe don't post comments that a particularly rubbish troll would post.
If however you are a particularly rubbish troll, then you do really need to up your game. A good troll wouldn't start whining about people being mean, and their comments would be much closer to normal so as to leave some room for doubt.
I will very happily give you a direct answer to your questions @mooneyman but on one condition. If I answer your two questions as unequivocally as I can, I would ask you to answer up to two questions I will then ask you. Agreed?
Mad hypothetical us signing Greenwood in the above posts. But just for fun I’ll chip in. My Saturdays would be free.
If he had shown contrition to the specific public information I might be slightly different. But to say ‘I’ve made mistakes lumps domestic abuse in with cheating at Monopoly’.
Yes if you go first.
Q1 - would I be happy seeing Greenwood in a Wycombe shirt.
I am going to expand your question and as well as answering for Greenwood also answer for a player who has served time for a serious offence - let’s use Luke McCormick as an example and a hypothetical player who committed a sexual offence at say 20 served three years in jail and is now free on license.
I am going to ignore issues re media storms etc also, which might change my answer.
The answer in all three cases is that my initial reaction would be discomfort at the idea followed when I thought about it by the realisation that once released from prison in the latter two cases and a legally innocent man in the first case must be allowed to operate as normally as possible in society once their custodial sentence is served and hence it would be hypocritical of me to seek to restrict them that right unless there are special circumstances eg a teacher or a childrens care home. Some may argue that a footballer is a special case but I don’t think it crosses that bar.
Awful stuff, this.
Would I be happy with him plumbing with a young single female relative alone?
Firstly to get to the essence of your question, I am going to ignore innocent until proven guilty and answer as of Greenwood did commit the offence he is accused of. I will also assume he knows how to plumb!
professionally I am aware that sex offenders and sexual offences are not all the same. So a man who has committed a form of date rape is statistically no more likely to commit stranger rape than anyone else. Different drivers apply.
But again getting to what I suspect is the underlying nub of your question, should sex offenders be allowed to work inroles such as plumbing, my answer is yes. Indeed it is perhaps an unknown fact that a disproportionate number of self employed tradesmen do have criminal records including sex offences for the simple reason that it is very hard for them to get employed jobs.
so my answer would be as comfortable as for any anonymous tradesman to enter my home with just a single female relative at home.
I had forgotten how grim the player with a criminal record debate gets.
I hope I have answered your questions - now mine
1) I presume you would not wish Greenwood to play. Does the same apply to the other two players I have highlighted. If your answer is different for each could you explain why.
2) most people who have committed sexual offences will only spend a relatively short period in jail - say 3-5 years. Then they are released - initially on license into society. Should they be allowed to work - eg as a plumber. Should they wear some form of visible identification so the public knows their past and can make reasonable adjustments?
I wouldn't want an abuser or a child killer playing for my club. Simple as that, really.
Easily solved if all rapey tradesmen have to have a bloke with a sign at all times.