How will you know (you don't)? Who gets to make the decision about that, you? You are going to be really fucking busy in a world with 8+billion human souls, and counting.
Or are you just going to 'make a stand' about a snap decision you've made on individual widely publicised cases?
It's a real fucking mess, I honestly don't see a reasonable solution unless we treat our society, and it's entrenched values, to a lot more care and investment.
The Elephant in the room is the Crown Prosecution Service. The inability to successfully and carefully prosecute sexual assault cases in a timely manner is an utter fucking disgrace on our society. My friends daughter was raped by a lad who also raped another 2 girls. One was too scared to go through with the prosecution. They took three years to bring it to court, changing case officers multiple times so the women had to go through the same things repeatedly. The victim ends up on trial. The defending solicitor repeatedly made out it was a party and she was "up for it". They had been in the same pub. 2 witnesses go to court, he's found not guilty. She will now have a life of unresolved trauma.
Now consider the case when it's a millionaire footballer and a club without conscience.
I can believe that she is with him. Big mistake. But without meaningful support I can understand how women seek to rationalise the trauma by making it part of the development of their relationship. He made a mistake and he said sorry.......
As someone said on Twitter, if Forest signed him, my relationship with the club would be over.
If someone did that to my daughter, a few men in masks would visit the fucker some months later. I have no faith in the court system.
Most of my female friends have been raped. They have told me and I believe them. None have been raped by someone the state has found guilty of it.. or mainly even been told about.
I choose to believe them because why wouldn’t I? It doesn’t matter if I’m wrong because I am not the state.
It matters more if Manchester United are wrong, or the press, etc.. I get that.. but if Manchester United decide that enough people reckon he’s a bad un then, on balance, they get to choose them over him.
It is imperfect, but at least I am giving answers here, not just throwing up problems.
In the spirit of exploring answers, very much not arguing.
I have a similar experience (if not rape some level of physical or sexual abuse). I also believe them. I have long spoken, including here, that we as a society need to seriously address that. No real sign so far. Women are not safe in our society.
Their experience does not necessarily mean that Mason Greenwood is guilty.
There is, in my judgement, a real danger that society does not reflect the values that we wish to see upheld. That we do not invest or support it to do so...and that instead we allow ourselves to be divided, and encouraged to take individual action - that may in itself be de-facto anti-social. To some a vigilante is a freedom fighter...but can we really trust all vigilante's to hold appropriate society mandated values? Is there not a danger that we are just encouraging a criminals charter.
My view would not be that individuals should levy their personal sanctions against an action that they perceive to be wrong (causing the death of strangers, abusing women, singing about tits, whatever), but rather that we come together and insist our society upholds the values that collectively we endorse.
I'd prefer to see us take to the streets and march on the establishment to insist that our mothers, our sisters, our partners, our children, have a reasonable expectation of being safe, and in the short term at least the expectation of support and redress in the event of that safety being compromised. That we will disrupt and withdraw our participation from a society that does not uphold those values.
I do not think a bunch of individuals exercising their judgement on individual cases, with imperfect information, and mandating a course of action that placates them, in that scenario.
We need to collectivise, to organise, and to insist on actual democratic processes and building a society that we can be proud of.
There's a lot of work to do, because we are failing ourselves and so many others who hold our values, by lashing out on a case by case basis, and forgetting about it next week.
Man Utd aren't deciding for themselves whether he is guilty of rape or has committed a crime though, they are just deciding whether (based on what they have seen) he has conducted himself in a way which means they don't want to employ him. It's as simple as that.
If you ran around your office building ten times with pencils stuffed up your nose pretending to be a baboon every Tuesday lunchtime for a week, and regularly got so drunk immediately after work every day that you involuntarily shat yourself on the steps outside (and you did this with full mental capacity because you thought it was funny, rather than for any underlying issue), even if within the workplace you were a model employee, your employer might quite legitimately decide it didn't want to keep you on even if none of that behaviour brought you close to being criminally convicted. There would still be evidence it could consider and place reliance on which indicated your were a dickhead, even if there was not evidence of criminality.
This isn’t the issue with Greenwood. What he did was outside of work and therefore doesn’t fit the baboonery you describe. However, he is figure whose image and conduct has an impact on the perception of the Manchester United brand and of the values they purport to maintain, regardless of criminality. You don’t need to commit a criminal offence to get fired for disciplinary reasons. Depending on your profile, the company you work for will have different expectations for your public persona.
Actually criminality should not even be the yardstick: there are plenty of players who have been done for speeding or, during lockdown, for having illegal parties with hookers who have been excused and thrive (e.g., captaining their side in major European finals)
It seems extraordinary to me that United would even consider maintaining a relationship with him…
That was meant to be an example of outside of the workplace conduct, so I think we're in agreement.
Society cannot be this monolithic set of rules and norms that we all agree on. You can’t have that in a nation of millions. So, instead, there is a web of rules and norms and we have to figure out what to do when one set does not align with another.
Ask the nation: should we jail rapists? And the nation will say yes, yes we should.
Ask the nation: should we lower the standards by which we decide if someone is a rapist? And you will get quite the debate. Maybe yes.. but by how far and with what safeguards? Maybe no.. cos that would be a bit too scary for all the people who know how many lines they have crossed in that sphere.
Ask the nation: should employers be allowed to fire people they believe may be guilty of rape? That one would be interesting.
Ask the nation: should people accused of rape be a protected class like people of colour, pregnant folk, teh gays, and it be illegal to use their acusee status to discriminate against them… chances are the nation says no, fuck that.
All these tough questions.. is 52% enough of a mandate to upend everything?
Would firing Mason Greenwood be capitulation to a mob, unconcerned with due process? Or would it be listening to a society that says ‘we get why he’s not in jail, but we are sufficiently angry about what we think he’s done that we are fine with him facing professional consequences’?
What harm is done if a man is unfairly robbed of his elite status because society said ‘we can’t prove you did it, but we can make you pay regardless’ how does that compare to the harm done if someone with that public case having been made agains them, is protected?
I’m fine picking a side here, knowing that my doing so has no consequence. I am also fine with Manchester United doing their own due diligence and aiding the same way (at considerable cost) if they so choose. Am I fine with them being under duress when doing so.. I’d prefer they were not, but I’ll accept that evil until someone comes up with a better idea of how the necessarily different questions of ‘who goes to jail’ and ‘who gets to play for ManYoo’ get answered in this kind of scenario.
Your example includes first hand evidence of my dickheadery, in that scenario. What about in less clear cut scenario's where the evidence is "what twitter thinks"?
Manure may, or may not, feel that they have a case to terminate this individuals contract on the basis of the morals clause (hence the title of this thread). That's a matter for them and their business judgement. My concern is more what we as a society, think what we as a society, actually want (objectively preferably, rather than knee jerk)....and what we are going to do about it.
So far we seem to have 'lash out at an individual based on a perception of (unproven) guilt'. No sign so far of commitment to actual change.
...this seems quite extraordinary to me, coming directly after (as it does) you providing examples of immoral and anti-social behaviour, that extended even into the criminal, that has been as you say 'excused'.
Isn't it a bit dim to say that you have seen a thing, and find it extraordinary that you would see the thing again in this case? Are you happy rendering the criminal justice system ineffective in these situations, and leaving the ultimate social conscience to manure's business decisions?
That's what you are saying, and be in no doubt, that is entirely the intent (not just in this area of the law, but many, if not all, others). That's what we voted for, and that's what we are endorsing by complying with our own impotence (intentionally inflicted).
That would be different, but Man U seem to be looking at things a bit more thoroughly than that if what is said in their statement is reliable. To be honest it sounds to me like their statement was designed to test public opinion before they make a decision though. Public opinion is a legitimate factor for them to take account of on a commercial basis but they should consider that factor alongside everything's else including all the evidence available to them about what he actually did or didn't do (but not through the lense of whether there may be evidence of criminality, because that's by the by). Commercially it seems like a bit of a no-brainer though.
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66554874
Greenwood leaves Man Utd.
Not quite. Seems still under contract, and united will help him pursue a career elsewhere.
So that's a loan/transfer?
That was my immediate conclusion.
And if no one else wants him? Steady reintegration?
I don't know. Sounds complicated. Maybe people's uninformed snap judgement on social media isn't the best arbiter of justice.
CDAJFU?
He'll go to Saudi and fit in well.
