OT - Mason Greenwood

BFC_BFC_BFC said:
It’s Lost Seasider’s response to me accusing him of going all Perry Mason on me earlier..

I’ve no idea who Clyde is…
Click to expand...

At this point it's apparent that you're practising a form of gaslighting on here, whereby you make statements that invite the reader to draw some obvious conclusions about your position, only for you to then row back and claim that wasn't what you meant at all and you've no idea how anyone could possibly think otherwise.

It's not a game I'm prepared to play, Clyde.
 
If it is Greenwood then his career is over. As for the victim in this case whilst she is free to post what she has (and it is her right to do so), I would worry that in doing so it might undermine the chances of securing a conviction as his lawyers will undoubtedly challenge every element.

If this was done before informing the police there could be issues around admissibility.
 
Lost Seasider said:
At this point it's apparent that you're practising a form of gaslighting on here, whereby you make statements that invite the reader to draw some obvious conclusions about your position, only for you to then row back and claim that wasn't what you meant at all and you've no idea how anyone could possibly think otherwise.

It's not a game I'm prepared to play, Clyde.
Click to expand...
OK Lost, it’s nothing to do with you completely misinterpreting / misunderstanding my comments and then continuing to claim that you know what I meant (despite clarification)..

I’m now purposely gaslighting you….😂

If that’s the extent you wish to go to in order to chalk up some Internet points fair play …. 👍
 
Lost Seasider said:
No idea.

Otherwise see my post above.
Click to expand...
I'll tell you what I'll do Lost... I'll try and explain my thoughts in terms that you should hopefully understand as a courtesy and in the hope that you can climb back down from your flounce.

So...from my personal point of view, if I was the victim (knowing 100% that an abuse had been committed against me), then I would prefer to rely on the court of public opinion as my priority, than I would a court of law. To me, in those circumstances, it would be more important that my circle of friends, the friends, colleagues & family of my partner and the public at large were made aware of my evidence. I made that comment in light of a comment from Tigger, which suggested that the act of publication, might prejudice the legal case... I was therefore making the point, that in those circumstances, as the victim, the legal case would not be my priority... The reason it wouldn't be my personal priority is that I personally would get a greater sense of justice from the publication and the related public reaction and I wouldn't trust the Justice system at all to deliver (especially give their monumental failures in delivering justice for the victims of this sort of crime).

Despite how I would feel if I were the victim, that does not mean that a) I believe everything I read or hear on the internet or in the media and b) That I trust the court of public opinion or believe it to be safer or even better than the courts, but rather that as a victim of abuse / rape, I believe it would better serve my own purpose and meet my personal needs in delivering me a sense of justice much better.

If I were the accused or speaking in more general terms as to what might be better for society at large, then that is something quite different. In those circumstances then I would say that despite some of the failings in the justice system, that it is still better than mob rule.

I also went on to explain how I personally would react if I were the parent of the victim and again, despite my knowing that it would be legally and possibly morally wrong, again, I would prefer to impose my own justice, rather than rely on the courts.

Now I understand perfectly well that I am being hypocritical, by essentially wanting on the one hand to rely on the law courts, when it suits and impose my own justice also when it suits and I'm happy to acknowledge that it is hypocritical and selfish, but to my mind, that is just honesty... It's human nature to seek to protect your own interests and those closest to you.


So there was no 'Gaslighting' from me at all, nor any rowing back....
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I'll tell you what I'll do Lost... I'll try and explain my thoughts in terms that you should hopefully understand as a courtesy and in the hope that you can climb back down from your flounce.

So...from my personal point of view, if I was the victim (knowing 100% that an abuse had been committed against me), then I would prefer to rely on the court of public opinion as my priority, than I would a court of law. To me, in those circumstances, it would be more important that my circle of friends, the friends, colleagues & family of my partner and the public at large were made aware of my evidence. I made that comment in light of a comment from Tigger, which suggested that the act of publication, might prejudice the legal case... I was therefore making the point, that in those circumstances, as the victim, the legal case would not be my priority... The reason it wouldn't be my personal priority is that I personally would get a greater sense of justice from the publication and the related public reaction and I wouldn't trust the Justice system at all to deliver (especially give their monumental failures in delivering justice for the victims of this sort of crime).

Despite how I would feel if I were the victim, that does not mean that a) I believe everything I read or hear on the internet or in the media and b) That I trust the court of public opinion or believe it to be safer or even better than the courts, but rather that as a victim of abuse / rape, I believe it would better serve my own purpose and meet my personal needs in delivering me a sense of justice much better.

If I were the accused or speaking in more general terms as to what might be better for society at large, then that is something quite different. In those circumstances then I would say that despite some of the failings in the justice system, that it is still better than mob rule.

I also went on to explain how I personally would react if I were the parent of the victim and again, despite my knowing that it would be legally and possibly morally wrong, again, I would prefer to impose my own justice, rather than rely on the courts.

Now I understand perfectly well that I am being hypocritical, by essentially wanting on the one hand to rely on the law courts, when it suits and impose my own justice also when it suits and I'm happy to acknowledge that it is hypocritical and selfish, but to my mind, that is just honesty... It's human nature to seek to protect your own interests and those closest to you.


So there was no 'Gaslighting' from me at all, nor any rowing back....
Click to expand...
So you want anarchy then? Jesus wept Clive.
 
Wilburrabbit said:
If it is Greenwood then his career is over. As for the victim in this case whilst she is free to post what she has (and it is her right to do so), I would worry that in doing so it might undermine the chances of securing a conviction as his lawyers will undoubtedly challenge every element.

If this was done before informing the police there could be issues around admissibility.
Click to expand...
I very much doubt his career is over. There's plenty of chairmen who will sign a potential 50 million striker for nothing regardless of convictions.
 
Also wouldn't be surprised if United sue him. If guilty then they've lost a massive asset and they'll want some of that money back.
 
I realise I'm late into this one, but I do worry that what has happened here could happen to anyone. Anyone at all. And if we condemn based on what we read on the internet then it could lead to innocent people being hounded, attacked, not being able to work again, all possibly just because somebody has a grudge. (And no, I am not talking about this MG case specifically - I don't know what happened, although the 'evidence' seems, at this time, to be quite damning).
Think back to an (uneducated) idiot attacking a paediatrician because they 'thought' he was a paedophile. Bad things can happen when people draw conclusions based on...who knows what.
We had a case close to home recently - Bez found not guilty but lost 18 months of his life, almost lost his livelihood, will forever be judged by some as guilty, regardless of the fact that he was found not guilty. Will likely never play for BFC again, even though in his eyes he did nothing wrong apart from not declaring something that he thought would not come to anything because he'd done nothing wrong. If you had been accused of some made up crime, one that you knew should never stick, would you walk round declaring it?
What is to stop someone coming on here and accusing somebody on here of something heinous. I'm sure most would dismiss them as a crank, but I'm sure there would be some who would believe it. No smoke without fire etc.
Again, not talking specifically about the MG case, but it is worrying if people can be accused of something and the court of public opinion finds them guilty. It can ruin lives and be based on nothing.
 
I'm not sure what the point is about the idiot who attacked a paediatrician is really... Someone made it earlier...

As you said, it was an uneducated idiot.... You get them... The fact he was an idiot is the issue, it has nothing at all to do with normal balanced people simply forming or expressing an opinion.

I'm afraid you can't stop people from thinking what they choose to think....

And as I've said many times before.... many thousands more female lives are ruined by rapists who get away with it than there are men who get falsely accused. So in reality we need to shift our focus and stop focusing in on the small number of (genuinely falsely accused) 'Male' victims and instead focus on the 1000's of Female victims, who see no justice.
 
Last edited:
Who is this Kyle? Gaslighting? That's a very modern problem for Avftt to be accused of, crikey.
I've not read all this thread (Thank Fcuk), but it appears Lost Seasider should rename to Lost (The Plot) Seasider.
Clive has a lot to answer for too.
 
Junior_BentsPlatformShoes said:
Who is this Kyle? Gaslighting? That's a very modern problem for Avftt to be accused of, crikey.
I've not read all this thread (Thank Fcuk), but it appears Lost Seasider should rename to Lost (The Plot) Seasider.
Clive has a lot to answer for too.
Click to expand...
Kylie-Minogue-in-THOSE-hot-pants-for-Spinning-Around-music-video-in-2000.jpg

If I've read it right?
 
Junior_BentsPlatformShoes said:
Who is this Kyle? Gaslighting? That's a very modern problem for Avftt to be accused of, crikey.
I've not read all this thread (Thank Fcuk), but it appears Lost Seasider should rename to Lost (The Plot) Seasider.
Clive has a lot to answer for too.
Click to expand...

Losing the plot by saying that perhaps we should wait until we know all the facts before forming an opinion, what an odd position indeed.
 
FY4MIKEH said:
I very much doubt his career is over. There's plenty of chairmen who will sign a potential 50 million striker for nothing regardless of convictions.
Click to expand...
Time will tell. Look at the David Goodwillie situation and Tommy Johnson. Even Ched Evans failed to get a club and now he’s playing for Preston and he was innocent!
 
What a bizarre thread, I do wonder how people manage in the real world at times…🤣 all this Angst on a poxy message board…
 
look.its.luke said:
I think if you take a step back and reject the phone hacking excuse, the most likely scenario is a very fragile girl has felt angry, hurt or scared enough to post this in the early hours of the morning after god knows what provocation...and then through guilt or loyalty has tried to walk things back.
I'm not having a go at you, but I don't think anyone really has the right to tell her what the right or wrong thing to do is. It might not be the smartest thing to do in a legal sense, but that's clearly not where her head is.
Click to expand...
Actually, I now agree with what you say...I guess I was viewing it from the legal point of view in terms of getting a conviction - but of course, that might not be her number one aim - which is her choice of course. What she's done does avoid the possibility of a "super injunction" as well (or at least would appear to make one pointless) - and they do seem to favour the financially wealthy...unfairly
 
I have only just heard the recording, and regardless of how cynical people might be about how it was recorded, the fact is it exists and what she said on the recording is damming for him. Unless there is something significant we are yet to be made aware I cannot see how he will get out of this, I suggest his life as he knows it and career are in tatters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top