Most liked posts in thread: Mason Greenwood - a disgrace

See I disagree, to me going to social media to allege crimes is cowardly, especially with things like domestic abuse because since me too its been a case where the man will be convicted by public opinion right away, the woman gets praise and then even if the claim gets proven false it still hangs over the man while the woman faces no consequences.

Especially if they have evidence it should be reported to the police as that's the brave and correct thing to do because then your evidence is tested for validity rather than on social media where it's taken as fact without checks. For example, take the audio, it looks bad but it's a short clip from what is supposedly a bigger audio file. It could be that the rest of the file provides context that changes how it looks. And editing audio is pretty easy these days without being obvious to a point we wouldn't know but a police investigation would be able to verify if it's legit and unedited.

To me, the correct legal process is important, a world where allegations can be made and public opinion convicts without evidence going through the due process (or not even needing evidence in some cases) is a worrying dystopia. Most don't even end up going to the police either, I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't tbh because most people who go to social media never intend on making a formal police report.

 

It's still more fit for purpose than social media though. He said she said is always going to be tough to prosecute for any case but tbh that should be the case because if you favour the accuser it gives accusers a massive ability to ruin peoples lives maliciously. After all, it's a lot harder to prove you didn't do something than proving you did something which is exactly why in the UK our liable system puts the burden on the accuser proving what they have said. Until we have a way of knowing who is telling the truth in those situations its the best we have.

Mind you with the evidence I don't see the police being unwilling to investigate if she reported it to the police. Unless they looked at the evidence and found some issues with it but you would still think they would have arrested him and he would have then already been suspended by United

 

It looks horrific in the context it's being portrayed though and we don't know the validity of that context. The photo meta-data would be interesting because as a footballer there are certain times we have a record of when he wouldn't be around to do this. It's been something that tripped up a few accusations of abuse over the last few years the person in question was nowhere near the accuser on the dates shown in the media's metadata. And what blood experts have to say would be interesting, I have no expertise in this area but I am a big film fan and there is something a bit Hollywood about it. But maybe Hollywood is actually fairly accurate on these things

 

Why would she be going to the club? Going to the Club would raise more red flags as that screams of trying to get a payday. She should have gone to the police

 

I'm not angling either way. I just don't believe in trial by public opinion either with no evidence or evidence that hasn't gone through proper validation. Going through mainstream media probably isn't the correct way either but at least in the UK liable laws are such that they will generally do some due diligence on the evidence so you can put more faith in the evidence being valid. The evidence isn't even being questioned in general, its being taken as proven fact and that is a massively dangerous situation that we are increasingly going down. Do we really want a world where you might split up with someone or have an argument with a neighbour and they can go and accuse you of any number of crimes on social media and it gets taken as fact without the need for the proper legal process?

Again she should have gone to the police, he should then have been taken in for questioning, suspended by United and the proper process is done to decide if there is a case to be answered. It's the same stance I take with anyone.

She has 'evidence' so this isn't a he said she said where the police may decide that it's not worth taking as it can't be proved one way the other. If she had gone to the police the only way they haven't taken it further is if there is trouble with the validity of the evidence.

I've listened to the audio and yes it seems bad but you are making a judgement on a small clip from longer audio that we haven't heard. With enough Audio of you, I could either find an out of context comment you have made which makes you look guilty of something or can splice something together in a few minutes that makes you look bad. It's why due process is important. We live in a world where even seeing a video of someone can't always be trusted as deep fakes are getting more and more impressive and easier to generate which is making the due process even more important but we seem to more and more be going down the using social media to convict people without due process.

If he is actually guilty then he deserves everything he gets but we don't have the data needed to validate the evidence

 

Not really it's standard practice from their PR teams these days. It's like how in Hollywood someone gets accused on social media of something and that person's friends and colleagues will all put out a statement that's been carefully crafted so their brand doesn't get damaged because if they are seen as supporting in any way, even if that's them not commenting on something they don't have the data to make any kind of comment or stand on; they get attacked.

It's seen as better from a PR pov to basically condemn someone and if they get found innocent beg for forgiveness from that person simply because of the power cancel culture through social media now has

 

See if the hacking thing is true this exactly sums up my issue with trial by social media. Unless it was all in a folder called 'Evidence of abuse by Mason' then how does a 3rd party know what the images show? So people have made a judgement without knowing the validity of the evidence