Did I say that?
I think he should.
Will you heading back to Wembley Way and the The Parish on the 23rd of April or will you be in Cusack Park Ennis?
Breathtaking double standards here from @carryharry. Seize the moral high ground most of the time unless itâs a player at his own club Woolwich, when itâs a Sweep Sweep and turn a blind eye job.
2 Likes
I wonât be in Ennis anyway. I dont do âRound Robinâ nonsense.
My preference as it stands would be to wait for the Final at Wembley but i will need to discuss with my relevant stakeholders on the ground in London.
Will you be there yourself @Copper_pipe
Of course you do based on your hatred for the club.
Does he not deserve another shot at life?
Apparently his partner does as sheâs marrying him.
His partners father behaved more like a, well letâs just leave that one there.
For that family it was back to mason or a checkout in Asda. Her father made it pretty clear where his loyalties lay.
There is actual video evidence of him having assaulted her, leaving her with a burst lip. She intimated that it wasnât the first time. Iâd not want my business anywhere near greenwood. Heâs a thug.
Either that or the video she released was a fake, and sheâs a liar.
Calling a black man a âthugâ is a racist trope.
Donât you support Salford City? No issues with Ryan Giggs?
Put the bottle down.
2 Likes
I donât drink alcohol mate
I think its etymology is more rooted in south-east Asia (primarily India from what I read before?)
Iâll be in FBD Semple Stadium on that day.
I must have a proper look at the fixtures this week and try and plan another trip over.
1 Like
united always loved their bad boys
I think @Tierneevin1979 takes the George Hook view that though it may have been rape, it wasnât rape rape because it happened within a relationship. Similar to his opinion on the matter of Ivana Trump saying Donald Trump raped her.
It seems fairly likely what happened here is that Greenwood did it, then yer wan relented on the charges on basis that she had Greenwood over a barrel in terms of money. A nice sham marriage, quickie divorce and lucrative divorce settlement should complete the job. Greenwood gets to stay âinnocentâ and the lady gets lots of money in the absence of a conviction.
Arenât you the lad who said all women must be believed (during the Paddy Jackson trial)
Does that include Greenwoodâs partner and the individual who destroyed three lads lives in the UK recently?
Are you beginning to see the moral hazard of #IBelieveHer?
They should. Trust and verify. Thatâs how it works. Thatâs literally how all claims of assault are supposed to work.
Sometimes there will not be enough evidence to convict, but thereâs still very good reason to believe the complainant, as in the Jackson trial. Thatâs a far, far different thing to what happened with those cases in England where the woman was blatantly lying abut being raped by an Asian grooming gang or the fake claim by the woman down in Waterford.
Same. No moral hazard. Trust but verify. Greenwood was caught on tape assaulting his partner. A much different case to the woman who was convicted for lying.
Itâs just unfortunate that the far right has a long history of inventing stuff for propaganda purposes and any claim of a crime which is widely trumpeted by them for propaganda purposes should be treated with the utmost scepticism online.
And thereâs no contradiction there at all. Itâs basic common sense.
So no moral hazard in cases where you personally decide who is guity or innocent, but moral hazard when someone else decides (like the Paddy Jackson jury who actually sat through all the evidence).
Got it.
So in your view anybody who brings a rape complaint in good faith but doesnât secure a conviction (rape has a notoriously low conviction rate because it is so hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt) is automatically a liar. Thatâs the clear implication of what youâre saying.
This is why women tend to be very reluctant about reporting rape.
Do you believe OJ Simpson murdered his wife and that other lad? That was a jury trial too. The Birmingham Six were convicted by jury. Presumably you too believe that to be the correct verdict.
Can you tell me why women shouldnât be believed, but far right propaganda should?
You seem to want people to dispense with critical faculties altogether. Thatâs a long running desire of right wing politics and the right wing mindset.
I judge each case individually and on itâs merits, unlike your cohort who see everything through far right (everyone whi disagrees with you) bad, far left (everyone who agrees with you) good. You decided Paddy Jackson was guilty and that was that, even after the verdict. If it was a Liverpool player you would have decided the oppsoite. Not a good basis for a legal system.
Rape cases where alcohol and consent are the key issues are notoriously difficult. I have little doubt that the woman in Belfast felt she had been violated and the defendents thought they had consent. Messy cases that are very difficult for the legal system to resolve. And of course juries can get things wrong, but in contentious cases surely better to set a guilty man free rather than imprison one wrongly.
My critical facilities are fine, my unbiased open mind has stood me in good stead so far. You should give it a try.
I followed the trial very closely and I think in good faith he and the other lad did it. Neither jury trials nor the bar for conviction are foolproof and people have the right to retain their critical faculties in believing whether somebody committed a crime or not. Itâs also clear to me that Greenwood committed sexual assault. The thing is on tape, FFS sake.
If you believe in judging each case individually and on its merits, you should have no problem in somebody believing that an acquitted person actually committed the crime. That is called judging a case on its merits.
I wasnât the person claiming that jury trials were foolproof. You were the one implying such.
To believe such would be to believe that the jury in the OJ Simpson trial or the Birmingham Six trial arrived at the correct verdicts when any person who exercises their critical faculties knows Simpson did it and the Birmingham Six were entirely innocent.