jonb

Long shot, but does anyone have a streaming link? Overseas in Romania currently and my BT sub doesn't work here so any help appreciated!

That was exactly my point, but worded correctly by someone using the correct terms!

The point isn't whether I think he's guilty or not - it seems fairly clear from what others have said that he's a piece of shit and is probably going down. I'm merely expressing surprise (and more than happy to be told I'm wrong) that a serving police officer can go on a public forum and say 'it certainly looks like' someone is guilty of a crime that hasn't even been charged. And to be clear to whoever talked about censorship - it's absolutely not a censorship issue, because it isn't the issue for the forum it's posted on. I'm just surprised that the OP is allowed to do it - that is all I can see I'm struggling to get my point over, so will respectfully duck out.

OK, I'll have one more go and duck out. You have a serving police officer, ahead of any trial (or charge even) saying it 'certainly looks like' someone is guilty. Do you really believe that (A) that is appropriate or (B) allowed? I'm a Civil Servant not a police officer so I'll leave it to the OPs knowledge of their own contract (and, frankly, his conscience) to decide if its OK. I'll just say that with my knowledge of the public sector I would be very, very, surprised. And if people want a justice system where we all think it's OK - well, good luck to you. I'm probably just being a lefty hand wringer thinking it's not appropriate.

The relevance is appropriate behaviour/standards in public life. Let me give you a comparison - I'm a Civil Servant, and a Labour party member. I am expressly forbidden from active campaigning and make a point (because I'm a professional) not to get involved in conversations about Boris Johnson, or any political issue - however much I might like to. There is absolutely precedent for this - I wouldn't expect a local councillor to weigh in the media on a sensitive planning issue ahead of judicial review, I wouldn't expect a Civil Servant to talk politics and I sure as hell wouldn't expect anyone in the criminal justice system to be discussing live criminal cases on the Internet- different force or not.

I've not heard the recording, or particularly seen the story so this is absolutely no defence of Greenwood - but is nobody else surprised that a thread regarding a live criminal case likely to end up in Crown Court has been started by a serving police officer? In what world is that remotely appropriate? I did jury service last year and wasn't even allowed to talk to anyone. Mental.

No, it isn't a moral issue limited to football, but don't we always have people saying that football clubs are more than businesses? And plenty of people recognise the moral issue with other companies and are free to make their point about those companies. Like others on this thread, I love what SL has done for the club. But for any businessman worth as much as he is to be taking money from the taxpayer whilst exiling himself - if this was any other club, would it really not be leaving a bad taste in your mouth? What this fundamentally boils down to is people who have made fortunes in the good times (whether that be HL, Virgin or Sports Direct) not wanting to take a hit in the bad times. I thought that was the point of capitalism - you invested money and took risks? Not come to the tax payer as soon as there is a problem (admittedly one out of your control). It does rather question why Jon Lansdown asked for the survey run by then supporters club regarding furlough etc. to be done if they weren't going to wait for results. I have to say, I've supported the club for 40 years, and this has left as bad a taste in the mouth as any high profile defeat or off pitch cock up. Seriously - any football club looking to taxpayers for money when they are operating the business models they do should be ashamed.