Mason Greenwood.

[Icannotbelieveitatall]

I cannot believe that the charges have been dropped.

Anyone remember the audio recording?

He demanded she put her legs up.
“Mason stop, I don’t want to have sex.”
”I don’t give a fuck what you want.”

Charges dropped. I cannot believe it.

Let me ask you this, you have a massive argument with your partner and you say some awful stuff but they record it and then takes pictures of some bruises to get back at you (it happens all of the time) now they take that to the police and say you beat or raped them, should you be arrested and go to jail

The man says: 'Harriet... move your legs up. Move your fuckinging legs up.' She says: 'No, I don't want to have sex.'

He says: 'I don't give a fuck what you want you little s*.' She tries to protest but he says 'shut up'.

He goes on: 'Talking to me stop.' Robson says: 'Stop putting your dick near me. I don't want to have sex with you.'

He says: 'I don't care if you want to have fucking sex with me. Do you hear me?' She says: 'Why do I have to do this though?'

He says: 'Because I asked you politely and you wouldn't do it. I asked you politely and you wouldn't do it. What else do you want me to do?

Just words, though, right?

Ps above is a quote of the transcript. I didn't type it out.

I have no interest in Mason a Greenwood and if the recording was his voice and he has assaulted the victim he's a truly terrible person.

That is wholly separate to the decision the cps have to make about the evidential burden in the case. They can't prosecute a word against word case without the testimony of the complainant save for in limited circumstances that don't exist here. They could apply to force her to court but if theyre reconciled then she's not going to give evidence helpful to the prosecution.

Please try to use your intellectual ability to understand that you can feel furious about the low numbers of rape convictions as well as believe in the right to a fair trial. It doesn't give you the moral high ground to just say things like 'rape is legal'.

I think this sums up my feelings really well - I’m disgusted that we live in a world whereby women feel they can’t go through with their complaint, or feel manipulated into returning to their relationship whilst also recognise no that a fair trial is a fair trial.

Hes undoubtedly a POS, and I hope any woman now avoids him like the plague

Beautifully put @NashvilleQueen 👏🏼

This is the problem. He has a right in law to a fair trial.

But she also has the right to withdraw her evidence for what ever reason she chooses.

If she does withdraw her evidence and there is no supporting evidence, the case collapses as you have nothing to counter his account.

I think Harriet didn’t have the support she needed from her family., her father’s statement when Mason was arrested was trying to minimise the recordings, ,shocking. Not to mention the on line abuse she will have had to endure .

Ive heard the recording and seen the pictures, he is vile, I hope Man Utd let him go, my 13 DS is a Man Utd fan and I won’t be taking him to any more games if MG stays there. He was rumoured to have an attitude problem before all this came out, and what happened in Iceland was all pretty arranged by MG, (Southgate showed good judgment never letting him back in England squad).

If that is the case and she was telling the truth then that is not a good example to other young women.

Well, in this case the woman has decided that she does not want 'justice'. It's a bit difficult to achieve a conviction if she won't come to court and say she did not consent. Without that direct evidence from her, the recording would be insufficient. For all we know it might have been a game they were playing.

Not sure I agree with this.

We don't know all of the circumstances.

Listening to the recording, most women I know would have physically walked away after the opening line - she obviously didn't do that for whatever reason - maybe she felt physically threatened, maybe she wasn't sure whether he was just being extremely forceful and was actually going stop short of physically assaulting her, maybe it was the sum total of an abusive relationship where she feels trapped and unable to escape, or that by sticking with him is the best chance of escaping an impoverished upbringing. Maybe her life ambition is to be the next Colleen Rooney, regardless of the cost of getting there - God knows she's put up with a lot of shite from her husband...

For someone to be subjected to what that recording implies, and then to be back in a relationship, there's only two real possibilities - either the recording is false, or there's very abnormal / abusive relationship.

None. Hope that helps.

When people say this they mean the conviction rates are so low, it may as well be.

victimscommissioner.org.uk/news/the-distressing-truth-is-that-if-you-are-raped-in-britain-today-your-chances-of-seeing-justice-are-slim/

Rape is effectively decriminalised in the UK because of how broken the system is

And then we are systematically gaslighted about the likes of Greenwood/Evans/Mendy that they did nothing wrong. When any right thinking person can see they have serious issues with women and consent.

The fact that women stay in coercive relationships for many years sometimes is not a reason for Man Utd not to sack him from the club.

The only get out is if the video is fake. Surely you would say that straight away though if that were the case?

And then we are systematically gaslighted about the likes of Greenwood/Evans/Mendy that they did nothing wrong. When any right thinking person can see they have serious issues with women and consent.

No one is saying they did nothing wrong. What people are saying is that without evidence available to put before a court then MG can't be fairly prosecuted. Stop suggesting that believing in fair trial principles makes you some kind of apologist for rape.

Mendy has been prosecuted once and will face a retrial. The jury hearing the evidence (not mumsnet or social media) will determine if he's guilty in the eyes of the law. Regardless of that I may take a moral view about him. But that doesn't render him guilty of anything.

It's also important to remember that not guilty DOES NOT mean innocent.

Rape has a good conviction rate for cases that actually get to court. The reason the conviction rate for rape is low is that most cases don't get to court, the most common reason being the complainant withdrawing which is what seems to have happened here. The statement talks about "witnesses" plural withdrawing rather than a single witness, but I expect his ex-girlfriend, who was the complainant, is one of them.

It is unlikely we will ever get to see the new evidence. The police won't tell us so, unless someone else does, we will only have speculation.

Hmm. I think you will find a lot of commentary about why/how they've been treated unfairly if you look.

There are lots of people out there who think not guilty = woman was lying.

E.g.
"This is exactly why innocent until proven guilty is so important. I really hope the women who accused Benjamin Mendy get as much prison time as he would have had if he was found guilty."

twitter.com/SCFC_Rhys2/status/1613946174893101056?s=20&t=dp94B6pgkTAGTfBU7Uu9HA

It's disgusting. And now this morning brings news that Nick Kyrgios, who has ADMITTED to assaulting an ex-girlfriend by shoving her onto a pavement, avoided a criminal conviction.

''The magistrate called the incident 'a single act of stupidity or frustration' when sparing him a criminal record.''

🤢

Ched Evans victim had to change her name and move house due to the threat of violence, despite the fact she never actually reported a rape and he was charged based on what came out of his own stupid mouth in police interview

"The woman who accused Ched Evans of raping her has been forced to change her name at least five times since 2011, after receiving hundreds of death threats.....Her father has said his daughter has been "living her life on the run" since the incident in 2011."

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ched-evans-rape-case-cleared-not-guilty-sets-us-back-30-years-vera-baird-solicitor-general-womens-groups-a7363291.html%3famp

@AdamRyan I'm honestly not sure what point you're making here.

Just so I'm clear. I am not defending any man accused of rape. I'm defending the integrity of the criminal justice system and the right to a fair trial.

There was no testimony from a former boyfriend It was two other men, neither of them a former boyfriend although one of them had known the victim for a number of years, who described specific instances of her behaving in a very similar fashion when having casual sex as the way Evans and McDonald alleged she behaved with them. This wasn't just words she used, still less a single phrase. That would not have been remotely enough for the Court of Appeal to order a retrial, let alone convince a jury.

Her testimony was not that she was so intoxicated that she woke up with no recollection. She did indeed wake up with no recollection, but her testimony was that she was only mildly drunk. She thought that her drink must have been spiked and that this caused her loss of memory. Note that she did not drink anything when with Evans and/or McDonald. The toxicology report found that she had not drunk remotely enough to cause loss of memory and that there was no evidence that her drink had been spiked. The loss of memory is therefore unexplained.

It was not the hotel staff who contacted the police. She contacted the police to report that her handbag was missing. She never, at any point, claimed that she had been raped.

Do not believe what you read on social media about this case. Much of it is wildly inaccurate. You will read, for example, that the defence was that Evans asked McDonald if he could have sex with the victim and McDonald said yes. That was not the defence. Evans and McDonald throughout said that the victim was asked if Evans could have sex with her and that she looked at him and said yes. She then asked Evans for oral sex after McDonald had refused. Evans obliged and this then proceeded to full sex. That was what they said in their initial statements, when the police were just investigating a missing handbag, and it was the story they stuck to throughout.

You said that noone said the footballers did nothing wrong

I was pointing out lots of people think that the victims were lying as the men were found not guilty. It feeds into a broader narrative around lying, gold digging women that resonates with young men.

By trying to frame the conversation around the rights of men to be tried "innocent until proven guilty" you are also stopping the conversation around the rights of women to get justice if they are raped.

dont know anything about this but the simple fact that you have heard a recording which is presumably evidence, means no trial can go ahead