The NCAP Soccerball Thread

[theclaud]

The ironic thing here is that those who seek to prevent another club from signing him are actually :

1. punishing the complainant who is facing a future with a lot less income because her partner is unable to work
2. effectively telling the complainant she is wrong to want a relationship with Greenwood and bringing up their child

This is not exactly supporting complainants of domestic abuse or sexual crimes, nor is it supporting the oft put forward idea that complainants should be believed.
I understand the sentiments towards Greenwood from the moral masses, but they seem very deaf to the consequences of their actions on the complainant in this particular case.

What a load of cobblers.

 

[spen666]

What a load of cobblers.

You may not like it, but it is correct

The complainant will suffer because of the actions of the moral masses now in wanting to prevent Greenwood working.

He and the complainant are a family unit with a child to support

 

[icowden]

The decision as to press, or withdraw, charges is not a decision for the victim. If the police/CPS want to go ahead they can do; see Caroline Flack.

Sorry yes - I misread. It was the witnesses that withdrew.

But:-

In a statement last week, the club said they had gathered "extensive evidence and context not in the public domain" and spoken to "numerous people with direct involvement or knowledge of the case".

In an open letter to fans on Monday, United chief executive Richard Arnold said the extra evidence included the alleged victim requesting the police to drop their investigation in April 2022, and the club receiving alternative explanations for the material that was posted online.

So whilst it might not be a decision for victim, it doesn't stop the victim asking for charges to be dropped which accordingly affects the police investigation as now you have a "victim" who will testify that the thing that happened didn't happen.

 

[AndyRM]

"Moral masses"?

Who are they then?

 

[icowden]

"Moral masses"?
Who are they then?

People such as Rachel Riley who have publicly called for him to be sacked? I like Rachel, but as @spen666 points out, in the absence of any conviction, a request from the victim to drop charges and the fact that the alleged victim is still in a relationship with the chap, it does seem rather to be piling on to put the guy out of a job on the basis of what people think might have happened rather than the actual facts of the matter.

 

[Pale Rider]

as now you have a "victim" who will testify that the thing that happened didn't happen.

Not always, most victims in the dozens of cases I've covered have simply withdrawn their cooperation with the prosecution.

In other words, they stop short of committing perjury.

There have been successful prosecutions based on the victim's police interviews and statements, even though he/she has later declined to come to court.

Flack made that mistake, apparently believing that her victim - the boyfriend - withdrawing his cooperation would torpedo the prosecution.

It didn't.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Not always, most victims in the dozens of cases I've covered have simply withdrawn their cooperation with the prosecution.

In other words, they stop short of committing perjury.

I get the first bit.

The second, if you mean the complainant lied at police etc interview but is deterred by the oath, is a hell of leap.

Alternate view:

She's 100% truthful but is (a) frightened of him (b) loves him, or at least thinks she does, even though he beats her black/blue and (c) cannot see anyway out of the relationship as he holds the pursestrings.

 

[Pale Rider]

The second, if you mean the complainant lied at police etc interview but is deterred by the oath, is a hell of leap.

I was merely pointing out that @icowden's assertion that you have a victim 'who will testify that a thing that did happen didn't happen' is rarely correct.

I doubt telling lies in court bothers them overmuch, but being cross-examined by the prosecutor might.

Trying to convince a jury you didn't mean anything you said in statements and an often lengthy police interview is all but impossible.

Bear in mind the course of action is cooked up with the help of the defendant and his legal team.

The best overall advice for a victim wanting to stop a prosecution is to simply withdraw support for it.

This tactic often works, but as Ms Flack found, not always.

Why a victim would choose to withdraw support is a wholly different matter.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

You may not like it, but it is correct

The complainant will suffer because of the actions of the moral masses now in wanting to prevent Greenwood working.

He and the complainant are a family unit with a child to support

I doubt he's on his uppers just yet.
I find myself feeling more affinity with the 'moral masses' than with @spen666 - probably goes without saying.

 

[spen666]

I doubt he's on his uppers just yet.
I find myself feeling more affinity with the 'moral masses' than with @spen666 - probably goes without saying.

I have no sympathy for Greenwood.


My thoughts are with the complainant who is effectively being punished because the moral masses do not like her decision not to testify against Greenwood

If people want us to support people who allege they are victims of domestic violence, then they should be believing the complainant in this case and not causing ger additional suffering because they disagree with her decision to support her man.


Forget Greenwood and consider the complainant

 

[icowden]

Forget Greenwood and consider the complainant

We have. The complainant does not wish to complain any more.

 

[theclaud]

I like Rachel

Takes all sorts! She's right on this tho.

it does seem rather to be piling on to put the guy out of a job on the basis of what people think might have happened.

We heard the tapes. Women involved with the club, men who support or care about women, victims of domestic violence, do not want to support men who do this to women, to watch them every week, to endorse them as role models for their sons. The club's statement and 'investigation' and Greenwood's statement are bullshit. The club were pulling out all the stops to keep him on, happy to legitimise domestic abuse and misogyny, and would have got their way if it weren't for the fans' and public resistance and the efforts of people like Adam Whatsisname at The Athletic, Female Fans Against Greenwood's Return, David Challen and so on.

 

[theclaud]

I have no sympathy for Greenwood.


My thoughts are with the complainant who is effectively being punished because the moral masses do not like her decision not to testify against Greenwood

If people want us to support people who allege they are victims of domestic violence, then they should be believing the complainant in this case and not causing ger additional suffering because they disagree with her decision to support her man.


Forget Greenwood and consider the complainant

What are you on about? Everyone except Greenwood's online army of fanboy rape apologists believed her, and no one in their right mind judges her for withdrawing her support for the prosecution or for staying with her abuser - none of this is inconsistent with the dynamics of coercive control or intimate partner violence. We don't all have to support Greenwood just because she's unwilling or unable to take further action at present. It was courageous of her to risk going public with evidence in the first place.

 

[spen666]

What are you on about? Everyone except Greenwood's online army of fanboy rape apologists believed her, and no one in their right mind judges her for withdrawing her support for the prosecution or for staying with her abuser - none of this is inconsistent with the dynamics of coercive control or intimate partner violence. We don't all have to support Greenwood just because she's unwilling or unable to take further action at present. It was courageous of her to risk going public with evidence in the first place.

So you ignore the harm you are causing to the complainant.

It's hardly supporting those who suffer domestic violence and is likely to discourage alleged victims reporting abuse when the moral masses ensure the complainants suffer because the moral masses do not accept the outcome of the case and do not accept the complainant wants to be with the alleged assailant

However, ignore the suffering it causes the complainant as the moral masses are not interested in her.


Not a single consideration is given to the complainant or her choices by you

 

[theclaud]

So you ignore the harm you are causing to the complainant.

It's hardly supporting those who suffer domestic violence and is likely to discourage alleged victims reporting abuse when the moral masses ensure the complainants suffer because the moral masses do not accept the outcome of the case and do not accept the complainant wants to be with the alleged assailant

However, ignore the suffering it causes the complainant as the moral masses are not interested in her.


Not a single consideration is given to the complainant or her choices by you

This is gibbering nonsense, Spen, and saying it twice doesn't make it make sense.