Premier League 2023-24 (19 Viewers)

[Seven]

Quote me where I personally said the courts should hsve went forward with a prosecution, I'll wait.

I'm saying that I BELIEVE based on a fucking AUDIO RECORDING where the literal fucking definition of rape is heard that Greenwood is a rapist.

In the mean time stop beating around the Bush and tell me if you heard the following conversation coming from a female relatives room, what your opinion would be on the matter.

M: "Move your fucking legs up"

"No I don't want to have sex"

M: "I don't give a fuck what you want you little shit"

"Stop putting your dick there"


M: "I don't care if you want fucking sex with me"

I already know you're a vile piece of shit so don't worry about your answer too much.

I don't care what you 'believe'. This isn't about 'believe'.

If I heard that conversation, I would go in the room and check to see if things were alright. I would then enter the room and try to understand the situation I was in and whether or not my initial instinct was right. You on the other hand didn't check anything. You have no idea what happened. You have a soundbite that was provided by a party who felt aggrieved and you didn't follow up on it.

And now you're making things even worse. You even agree that the 'courts' shouldn't have gone forward with a prosecution. First, courts don't prosecute anyone. The prosecutor's office does. But on what do you even base that opinion? You haven't read the fucking file. You can't possibly know if the decision of the prosecutor, not the court, was right or not. And if you agree, you're saying that he should not have been found guilty, but you're treating him as if he's guilty anyway?

I mean. Damn, dude. You are everything they warn about in 1984.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Pirlo's Beard]

Tell me Mr Saul Goodman

If somebody tells you repeatedly to stop putting your dick in them and the person doesn't comply, what is that exactly?

Being a rapist & having enough evidence against you that you are convicted as one are two different things. There's zero doubt in my mind based on that audio recording that he is a rapist, however I can see why you need more than that to prosecute him.

But it's good to know that the law is always right here. Absolutely air tight. Thank God, otherwise we'd have a bunch of rich people getting away with crimes god forbid.

Hopefully next time you personally get a case like this seeing as you're so passionate about defending a man who was heard demanding sex from his unwilling partner. Prick.

 

[Seven]

Tell me Mr Saul Goodman

If somebody tells you repeatedly to stop putting your dick in them and the person doesn't comply, what is that exactly?

Being a rapist & having enough evidence against you that you are convicted as one are two different things. There's zero doubt in my mind based on that audio recording that he is a rapist, however I can see why you need more than that to prosecute him.

But it's good to know that the law is always right here. Absolutely air tight. Thank God, otherwise we'd have a bunch of rich people getting away with crimes god forbid.

Hopefully next time you personally get a case like this seeing as you're so passionate about defending a man who was heard demanding sex from his unwilling partner. Prick.

Read this sentence again.

You are saying:

a) The audio recording in itself is not sufficient evidence to prosecute him.
b) On the basis of that audio recording there's zero doubt in your mind that he is a rapist.

That makes no sense.

 

[Pirlo's Beard]

Imagine playing the 1984 card and in the same breath telling me that it doesn't matter what I think because the courts have decided that the rich footballer is innocent. The almighty LAW stands free of corruption.

Tone deaf.

- - - Updated - - -

Read this sentence again.

You are saying:

a) The audio recording in itself is not sufficient evidence to prosecute him.
b) On the basis of that audio recording there's zero doubt in your mind that he is a rapist.

That makes no sense.

I didn't write the fucking laws did I?

If you see somebody stealing with your own two eyes but they never get convicted are they a thief?

In this case we all fucking HEARD him caught in the act.

 

[Seven]

Imagine playing the 1984 card and in the same breath telling me that it doesn't matter what I think because the courts have decided that the rich footballer is innocent. The almighty LAW stands free of corruption.

Tone deaf.

The courts have not decided anything.

The prosecution - which is tasked with prosecuting criminals (but remember, just a couple of posts ago you were mocking me for not understanding how the law works, despite the fact I have 10 years of experience as a lawyer and you can't even understand the difference between the prosecution and the court) - decided there was no proof of rape.

Mason Greenwood has a net worth of a couple of million Euros. That's not bad for a 21 year old, but it's hardly enough money to be of any real significance to a prosecutor or a judge. Drug dealers have that kind of money and they sure as fuck get prosecuted. Greenwood is also just some kid. I don't see how he could have any important ties to high ranking magistrates. Your insinuation that they have gone easy on him is backed by absolutely nothing and does not seem likely at all. It stems from the resentment of a bitter man who is likely to amount to nothing in life.

If you don't understand why I referred to 1984, you don't understand the core message of that book. I can't help you with that.

 

[Badass J Elkann]

Correct me if I'm wrong, given the recent scandals involving Juve in which these wire taps aren't deemed as evidence in a civil court but was somehow enough to incriminate us in a sporting court. If all we have and know that could suggest that Greenwood is a rapist/attempted rape then are we suggesting that Juve was 100% guilty for the charges based off those wire taps/audio and transcripts as well now?

 

[Seven]

I didn't write the fucking laws did I?

If you see somebody stealing with your own two eyes but they never get convicted are they a thief?

In this case we all fucking HEARD him caught in the act.

You did not write the laws, no. We all agree on that.

You did say:

a) The audio recording in itself is not sufficient evidence to prosecute him.
b) On the basis of that audio recording there's zero doubt in your mind that he is a rapist.

Which means you don't believe the audio recording in and of itself is enough to be certain Mason Greenwood raped that woman. But then there is also zero doubt in your mind that Greenwood is a rapist based on that recording. This makes no sense.

 

[s4tch]

 

[GordoDeCentral]

How can you not love tuz

 

[DAiDEViL]

How can you not love tuz

Idk man, clearly some people are rather vanilla.

 

[Lion]

how do you make your wife/gf scream during an orgasm?

wipe your dick on the curtain

 

[X Æ A-12]

I don't understand why you find this amusing. Because, without any second thought whatsoever, you did decide it was proof of rape. Now you're being offered an alternative hypothesis and you won't even consider it. And not only that, but you're still saying it is proof of rape despite the fact there has been both a criminal and internal investigation clearing Greenwood of those accusations.

Your thought process is an absolute cancer to society. It hurts millions of people on a daily basis and often causes irreparable harm. I don't know what Greenwood is. But I do know this: you disgust me.

I'm not sure what you're on about. i don't know how the british justice system works but imo, because he was acquitted in a court of law, doesn't mean he isnt most likely still
guilty. Yes, if the girl recants, cause he's rich and she doesn't want to lose the mealticket, then yes he shouldn't go to prison, cause high burden of proof for criminal charges i guess, but its still an absurd idea to sign him. He looks guilty as shit from that audio whether legally convicted or not

Kyle rittenhouse may have been fully acquitted but its not like youre gonna see him in a Wheaties commercial any time soon

 

[Badass J Elkann]

I'm not sure what you're on about. i don't know how the british justice system works but imo, because he was acquitted in a court of law, doesn't mean he isnt most likely still
guilty. Yes, if the girl recants, cause he's rich and she doesn't want to lose the mealticket, then yes he shouldn't go to prison, cause high burden of proof for criminal charges i guess, but its still an absurd idea to sign him. He looks guilty as shit from that audio whether legally convicted or not

Kyle rittenhouse may have been fully acquitted but its not like youre gonna see him in a Wheaties commercial any time soon

Looking guilty is very different to being proven guilty though

 

[X Æ A-12]

Looking guilty is very different to being proven guilty though

let's pretend she did make it all up, for god knows what reason, then is that really better? He's still in a relationship with her no? And they've got a kid?

So you want to sign a guy whose still in a relationship with a woman who accused him of rape and tried to ruin his career? That's an insane thing to do on his part and its surely trouble down the road even if he is innocent cause then the woman is a major problem

 

[Seven]

I'm not sure what you're on about. i don't know how the british justice system works but imo, because he was acquitted in a court of law, doesn't mean he isnt most likely still
guilty. Yes, if the girl recants, cause he's rich and she doesn't want to lose the mealticket, then yes he shouldn't go to prison, cause high burden of proof for criminal charges i guess, but its still an absurd idea to sign him. He looks guilty as shit from that audio whether legally convicted or not

Kyle rittenhouse may have been fully acquitted but its not like youre gonna see him in a Wheaties commercial any time soon

Are you crazy? Of course I don't want to sign him.

Like I've said before the issue is this: the absence of evidence is no proof of wrongdoing.

For some reason people seem to believe that when they decide not to prosecute because of the lack of evidence, the person originally charged is still guilty but there's not enough evidence. That's not what that means. It means there's no evidence. Full stop. You can't just act as if he's guilty anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

let's pretend she did make it all up, for god knows what reason, then is that really better? He's still in a relationship with her no? And they've got a kid?

So you want to sign a guy whose still in a relationship with a woman who accused him of rape and tried to ruin his career? That's an insane thing to do on his part and its surely trouble down the road even if he is innocent cause then the woman is a major problem

Signing Greenwood is an insane idea and I don't want him anywhere near our club.

He's clearly in an abusive relationship with the most likely scenario the two of them being absolute morons abusing each other.

 

[X Æ A-12]

Are you crazy? Of course I don't want to sign him.

Like I've said before the issue is this: the absence of evidence is no proof of wrongdoing.

For some reason people seem to believe that when they decide not to prosecute because of the lack of evidence, the person originally charged is still guilty but there's not enough evidence. That's not what that means. It means there's no evidence. Full stop. You can't just act as if he's guilty anyway.

i don't think anyone is arguing for the straw man you seem to be attacking. its a bad idea to sign him strictly in relation to juve, i couldn't care less how his legal case ends up or whether people think he's guilty and that makes him sad lol

 

[Seven]

i don't think anyone is arguing for the straw man you seem to be attacking. its a bad idea to sign him strictly in relation to juve, i couldn't care less how his legal case ends up

Read Pirlo's Beard's post again.

Awful person. His mindset causes tremendous suffering on a daily basis.

 

[Badass J Elkann]

let's pretend she did make it all up, for god knows what reason, then is that really better? He's still in a relationship with her no? And they've got a kid?

So you want to sign a guy whose still in a relationship with a woman who accused him of rape and tried to ruin his career? That's an insane thing to do on his part and its surely trouble down the road even if he is innocent cause then the woman is a major problem

If she made it up as you hypothetically put it then she's a massive piece of shit and deserves all the hate in the world as much as Amber Heard got.
On the footballing side I'm looking at Greenwood as a player a player that I've thought has great promise. Putting the 2 together is another matter, thats something i cant really judge in terms of his current mindset. like I said yesterday Juve had signed Mutu after beating his own wife and done for drugs.

 

[Seven]

If she made it up as you hypothetically put it then she's a massive piece of shit and deserves all the hate in the world as much as Amber Heard got.
On the footballing side I'm looking at Greenwood as a player a player that I've thought has great promise. Putting the 2 together is another matter, thats something i cant really judge in terms of his current mindset. like I said yesterday Juve had signed Mutu after beating his own wife and done for drugs.

Signing Greenwood is something else. We've had a lot of negative press over the last few months. Offering a contract to a player surrounded by rape allegations isn't going to help us.

My point was simply that @Pirlo's Beard is a cancer to society, which we must eradicate both swiftly and thoroughly. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

i don't think anyone is arguing for the straw man you seem to be attacking. its a bad idea to sign him strictly in relation to juve, i couldn't care less how his legal case ends up or whether people think he's guilty and that makes him sad lol

What if it was prime Ronaldo?