Mason Greenwood

[And Its Smith]

5 minutes ago, jonb said:

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.

You don’t do something you aren’t allowed to do. Maybe Fordy is allowed. I don’t know. And nor do you. What you would or wouldn’t expect isn’t relevant 

[Fordy62]

14 minutes ago, jonb said:

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.

Then you need to be aware that it’s fine to comment on things in the public domain. Now you’ve learnt that, you should be better informed going forwards. 

If I were talking about me disclosing unrelated data pertaining to a live criminal case, you have a point. 

[Monkeh]

9 minutes ago, jonb said:

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 work for the railway and talk about the tail,

You are suggesting we sensor a member of this forum because you don't like the fact they are talking about something that's been widely reported?

It would matter if it was the investigating force and an investigating officer was posting this thread, not someone who has nothing to do with the case

Edited January 30, 2022 by Monkeh

[jonb]

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. 

[Kashmir]

5 minutes ago, jonb said:

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. 

You’re being a lefty hand wringer.

[Numero Uno]

7 minutes ago, jonb said:

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. 

I think you did jury service once and now you think you are Michael Mansfield QC

[Fordy62]

2 minutes ago, jonb said:

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. 

Again, it’s not a case I’m investigating - so I’m cool to have an opinion.

Try listening to what the majority of us have. See if you disagree then. I’ll be surprised if you do. 

[Ziderarmy]

23 minutes ago, jonb said:

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.

Ah that explains it. 

[jonb]

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.

[Monkeh]

13 minutes ago, jonb said:

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. 

Yes you are, the police are not robots and can have opinions on things,

This just seems like an eloquent attack on fordy who in turn has ran circles around you because you don't know what you are talking about

[And Its Smith]

7 minutes ago, jonb said:

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.

Your point is clear but you are wrong. What you are comfortable with or what surprises you has no relevance 

[2015]

28 minutes ago, jonb said:

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. 

You sound like the sort of guy at School who would snitch to the teachers. I'm sure your heart is in the right place but judging by your also pretty flawed political views (each to their own) you're a bit misguided and just being objective for the sake of it, to look intelligent, when you just look rather stupid.

[Southport Red]

10 minutes ago, 2015 said:

You sound like the sort of guy at School who would snitch to the teachers. I'm sure your heart is in the right place but judging by your also pretty flawed political views (each to their own) you're a bit misguided and just being objective for the sake of it, to look intelligent, when you just look rather stupid.

I think his point was more to do with it being sub-judice and that a serving Police officer should know and not have started the thread. At least, I assume that’s his point 

[jonb]

1 minute ago, Southport Red said:

I think his point was more to do with it being sub-judice and that a serving Police officer should know and not have started the thread. At least, I assume that’s his point 

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

[2015]

2 minutes ago, Southport Red said:

I think his point was more to do with it being sub-judice and that a serving Police officer should know and not have started the thread. At least, I assume that’s his point 

It would have been started anyway by someone as it's a football forum and it's come across as just a bit of pointless nit picking. What's he/she gaining from it?

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, Southport Red said:

I think his point was more to do with it being sub-judice and that a serving Police officer should know and not have started the thread. At least, I assume that’s his point 

The case may become sub judice once an arrest is made but I don't think discussing what is in the public domain prejudices proceedings.

You wouldn't expect officers from the GMP to be commenting but I don't see that officers from elsewhere would be precluded. Though not in an official capacity of course.

Edited January 30, 2022 by chinapig

[Bris Red]

3 minutes ago, jonb said:

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

You’ve said you are going to ‘duck out’ 3 posts ago yet still keep coming back for more.. Probably best to do us all a favour and give it a rest pal..

[Akira]

7 minutes ago, bris red said:

You’ve said you are going to ‘duck out’ 3 posts ago yet still keep coming back for more.. Probably best to do us all a favour and give it a rest pal..

Amen to that! 

 

[Southport Red]

9 minutes ago, chinapig said:

The case may become sub judice once an arrest is made but I don't think discussing what is in the public domain prejudices proceedings.

You wouldn't expect officers from the GMP to be commenting but I don't see that officers from elsewhere would be precluded. Though not in an official capacity of course.

I agree. I was just explaining the poster’s comment. BTW, as I type this, a tweet came up saying Sunderland have sacked LJ

[A Horse With No Name]

1 hour ago, jonb said:

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. 

To be fair, he said exactly the same thing about Joey Barton, and he got found not guilty.

[Super]

7 minutes ago, The Horse With No Name said:

To be fair, he said exactly the same thing about Joey Barton, and he got found not guilty.

Who did?

[Colombo Robin]

Give the man jonb a break. Lots of overreacting on here. All he said was he found it suprising that a police officer would be so keen to imply guilt before anyone has even been charged. I think its a fair point. Christopher Jefferies springs to mind and that alleged Israeli gang rape case in Cyprus a while ago. People just need to let investigations run their course and not instantly spray stuff all over social media

 

 

[A Horse With No Name]

8 minutes ago, Super said:

Who did?

Fordy, while reviewing the evidence said words to the effect that Barton was bang to rights, and was looking at a custodial sentence. Just pointing out that just because he is a police officer, his views are his own, and can be as wrong as anyone elses. Obviously not comparing Barton's misdemeanour with Greenwoods alleged crimes.

Edited January 30, 2022 by The Horse With No Name

[chinapig]

21 minutes ago, Southport Red said:

31 minutes ago, chinapig said:

The case may become sub judice once an arrest is made but I don't think discussing what is in the public domain prejudices proceedings.

You wouldn't expect officers from the GMP to be commenting but I don't see that officers from elsewhere would be precluded. Though not in an official capacity of course.

Expand  

I agree. I was just explaining the poster’s comment

In that case we'll have to agree to agree.

[RED4LIFE]

6 hours ago, The Batman said:

If rumour is to be believed, something terrible happened in late 2020 of a Manchester based footballer. Many thought it was tied in the Mendy story, but it was a separate issue. 

Greenwood missed an Everton game unexpectedly and the club said it was in "illness"

I won't say it in here due to legalities and thread closures, etc, but it's not hard to find.

Carpet brushing at its finest if it's been known this whole time and they've continuously ignored it hoping it goes away. 

As disappointing as that is to the normal person, football clubs seems to have a history of ignoring disgraceful actions by players if they feel its in their own best interests. 

Take Ched Evans for example. Yes, his conviction was, eventually, overturned, but his actions that night were less than desirable (to put it mildly) yet he still manages to get contracts.

Greenwood, being a player of huge potential, will almost certainly have interest if/when found guilty, once his sentence is served.

Football is the greatest sport on earth, but its morals are usually in the gutter.

[Lanterne Rouge]

5 minutes ago, RED4LIFE said:

As disappointing as that is to the normal person, football clubs seems to have a history of ignoring disgraceful actions by players if they feel its in their own best interests. 

Take Ched Evans for example. Yes, his conviction was, eventually, overturned, but his actions that night were less than desirable (to put it mildly) yet he still manages to get contracts.

Greenwood, being a player of huge potential, will almost certainly have interest if/when found guilty, once his sentence is served.

Football is the greatest sport on earth, but its morals are usually in the gutter.

Derby and drink/driving springs to mind.

[Wiltshire robin]

5 minutes ago, RED4LIFE said:

As disappointing as that is to the normal person, football clubs seems to have a history of ignoring disgraceful actions by players if they feel its in their own best interests. 

Take Ched Evans for example. Yes, his conviction was, eventually, overturned, but his actions that night were less than desirable (to put it mildly) yet he still manages to get contracts.

Greenwood, being a player of huge potential, will almost certainly have interest if/when found guilty, once his sentence is served.

Football is the greatest sport on earth, but its morals are usually in the gutter.

I might be missing something here but why should Ched evans struggle to get a contract . The girl was found to be lying and he was released .

[Numero Uno]

1 minute ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Derby and drink/driving springs to mind.

If we are talking domestic violence something closer to home springs to mind…….

[Fordy62]

21 minutes ago, The Horse With No Name said:

Fordy, while reviewing the evidence said words to the effect that Barton was bang to rights, and was looking at a custodial sentence. Just pointing out that just because he is a police officer, his views are his own, and can be as wrong as anyone elses. Obviously not comparing Barton's misdemeanour with Greenwoods alleged crimes.

You’re sort of right… but there was a twist in the tail at trial where the witness who saw him said he didn’t see his face… that’s a massive flaw that I wasn’t privy to and so that accounts for that anomaly. I pretty sure I didn’t say he was looking at custodial - quite the opposite in fact. 

[MarcusX]

17 minutes ago, Wiltshire robin said:

I might be missing something here but why should Ched evans struggle to get a contract . The girl was found to be lying and he was released .

That’s not true, not going to argue the rights and wrongs of the decision but him being found not guilty does not technically mean he didn’t do it and it certainly doesn’t mean she lied.

The jury decided in the retrial they could not beyond reasonable date conclude that his victim was too drunk to consent. That does not mean she lied. A classic example of why it’s so hard to convict a person accused of rape in a 1 on 1 scenario with no direct witnesses - with the lack of concrete evidence I’m amazed he was found guilty in the first place.