Whut color is Ronaldo skin?
We didn't see/hear what Ronaldo did therefore consciously or subconsciously we can try and make excuses for him. We don't have that luxury for Greenwood.
I know that seems simplistic but that's how I see it.
That’s exactly what I think. Despite that, there are legal documents that prove she said no multiple times and that there was evidence of rape.
comment by Melbourne Red (U5417)
posted 4 minutes ago
That’s exactly what I think. Despite that, there are legal documents that prove she said no multiple times and that there was evidence of rape.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those documents were illegally obtained, some parts written in third person, some parts first person and were refuted by Ronaldo's solicitors as being heavily edited in parts and completely fabricated in others.
I am not saying that Ronaldo is definitely innocent. He might not be. But lets please deal with facts here. Those documents prove nothing
Just because they were illegally obtained, it doesn’t mean they’re not factual.
The medical report was not illegally obtained. And it proves forced sodomy.
I think your stance is exactly what I’m talking about and what Diafol suggested. We have no visual/audio evidence against Ronaldo - like with Greenwood - so we make excuses for him.
comment by Melbourne Red (U5417)
posted 1 minute ago
Just because they were illegally obtained, it doesn’t mean they’re not factual.
The medical report was not illegally obtained. And it proves forced sodomy.
I think your stance is exactly what I’m talking about and what Diafol suggested. We have no visual/audio evidence against Ronaldo - like with Greenwood - so we make excuses for him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact they were illegally obtained means that there is no chain of evidence and thus the claims from Ronaldo's solicitors that they have been doctored carries weight. And a medical report can't prove forced sodomy. It can indicate rough s3x, but not whether it was forced.
Again, not saying Ronaldo is innocent. But the evidence available to us isnt anywhere near as compelling as the audio were heard in the Greenwood case
comment by Melbourne Red (U5417)
posted 2 hours, 31 minutes ago
That’s exactly what I think. Despite that, there are legal documents that prove she said no multiple times and that there was evidence of rape.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How did legal documents prove she said no several times? Unless there are recordings of her saying no then the proof is not there.
It’s a he said she said crime
The court of law needs guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
When all there is that she said he did this and he said he didn’t it’s nigh on impossible to get twelve people to agree to ruin the defendants life based on that.
The conviction rate for those crimes is so low because aside from those predators who prowl on women and do it with extreme force leaving DNA everywhere and not even knowing the women it’s not easy to prove.
If two people meet in a bar and leave together willingly, go back to the others and then the next day she says he did that and he said he didn’t what hope so the police have of proving anything?
Now we can all disagree if it’s right but would you like to be tarred with that brush just because someone said so?
Or would you prefer it to be proven you did it?
If so, then why should your career be ruined just because one person said X?
Greenwood must go, else Rachel Riley will stop supporting Utd.
comment by LustyMonc (U22632)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
Greenwood must go, else Rachel Riley will stop supporting Utd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without Rachel your accounts will be like Man Cheatys.
Because Ronaldo is a Man Utd Legend and for a time was one of the best players in the world, and will therefore be blindly defended as long as there is even a 1% doubt of his guilt, whereas Greenwood is not, and can therefore be tossed aside like trash.
By the way, I think Rachel Riley is all talk. Its easy to make bold statements about not supporting Man Utd when the likelihood is that utd won't welcome back Greenwood. O'll believe she'll stop supporting utd when I see it.
Indeed, OP, very many United fans were reluctant to think too much or inform themselves about the Ronaldo incident in Las Vegas. Some of us did bring it up on this forum when he signed, and urged other members of this forum to read the comprehensive Spiegel report.
There was no audio in the Ronaldo case, but there was a series of police statements he signed, the first of which acknowledges having had rough anal intercoиrse with a woman who was communicating that she didn't want it.
I never want to see him play again either, it’s led me to conclude I’m hypocritical ( aren’t we all ) ?
Only questioned Ronaldo coming back from a football POV not a moral one.
I’ve taken my sons to OT and waxed lyrical about the holy trinity statue, when they were a little older I gave them the “ if you ever lay a hand on a women” lecture.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
Indeed, OP, very many United fans were reluctant to think too much or inform themselves about the Ronaldo incident in Las Vegas. Some of us did bring it up on this forum when he signed, and urged other members of this forum to read the comprehensive Spiegel report.
There was no audio in the Ronaldo case, but there was a series of police statements he signed, the first of which acknowledges having had rough anal intercoиrse with a woman who was communicating that she didn't want it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't Ronaldo's solicitors say that the reports were heavily edited and completely fabricated in parts?
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 8 hours, 9 minutes ago
We didn't see/hear what Ronaldo did therefore consciously or subconsciously we can try and make excuses for him. We don't have that luxury for Greenwood.
I know that seems simplistic but that's how I see it.
-------------------------------------------------------------
That
Just as simplistic, but it's the same reason why fans have strong opinions on which players should & shouldn't play despite seeing a fraction of their time on a football pitch & never trusting the manager who sees all of it (including training) from all angles.
People believe what they see & are generally distrusting about what they hear even if it comes from an expert.
It's quite natural that the audio hits people hard. If it weren't for that, this whole thing would have disappeared a while ago.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
Indeed, OP, very many United fans were reluctant to think too much or inform themselves about the Ronaldo incident in Las Vegas. Some of us did bring it up on this forum when he signed, and urged other members of this forum to read the comprehensive Spiegel report.
There was no audio in the Ronaldo case, but there was a series of police statements he signed, the first of which acknowledges having had rough anal intercoиrse with a woman who was communicating that she didn't want it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't Ronaldo's solicitors say that the reports were heavily edited and completely fabricated in parts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On one hand you have one of the world's most respected investigative journalism organisations whose business model depends on maintaining their reputation for rigorous work. On the other, you have an expensive legal team whose business relies on doing whatever is most useful for their client. They face no jeopardy in stating that the article is inaccurate, and if the most damaging claims were indeed fabricated, they would be in a strong position to sue Der Spiegel for defamation.
It's quite a common tactic these days that when a public figure is accused of something bad these days, the response is a very aggressive denial, accusations of fabrication and persecution, sometimes threats to sue for libel, etc. The key thing then is to wait and see: did they follow through to clear their name, or were they fighting for dominance of the news cycle when the story broke?
Anyway, I was disappointed with the club that Ronaldo was brought back, and I guess we shouldn't be surprised by their consistency in having the same inclinations in the case of Greenwood.
I would have thought that obvious. Whilst innocent until proven guilty is the case for both, there is no photographic and audio evidence that we've all see and heard.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 8 hours, 51 minutes ago
We didn't see/hear what Ronaldo did therefore consciously or subconsciously we can try and make excuses for him. We don't have that luxury for Greenwood.
I know that seems simplistic but that's how I see it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This, we heard Greenwood and saw and thats much harder to forget, brush under the carpet. The lad needs a 2nd chance in life sure but not at utd not even in football.
He needs to be made an example of to deter it happening again in the sport. Pay for his help and temrinate his contract for bringing the club into disrepute is what i expected. I know hes a talent in football but the way Utds gone about it has surprised me. Bringing him back sends all the wrong messages and would be tragic.
Ronaldo one isn't clear cut. There are cases where rich people pay off accusers in a he said she said accusation due to trying to keep their reputation and/or avoid huge court costs (yes, sometimes it's cheaper to pay someone off than go to court).
Anyone seen Bill Burr clip on why no doesn't always means no?
comment by LustyMonc (U22632)
posted 4 hours, 10 minutes ago
Greenwood must go, else Rachel Riley will stop supporting Utd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish both of them to go. Can't stand that hypocrite Riley.
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by LustyMonc (U22632)
posted 4 hours, 10 minutes ago
Greenwood must go, else Rachel Riley will stop supporting Utd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish both of them to go. Can't stand that hypocrite Riley.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK you've convinced me, I'll take her away from you. She can stay with me.
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 6 minutes ago
Anyone seen Bill Burr clip on why no doesn't always means no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a stand up act? You think this is relevant here?
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by LustyMonc (U22632)
posted 4 hours, 10 minutes ago
Greenwood must go, else Rachel Riley will stop supporting Utd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish both of them to go. Can't stand that hypocrite Riley.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK you've convinced me, I'll take her away from you. She can stay with me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They come as a pair.
Sign in if you want to comment
Greenwood/Ronaldo
Page 1 of 3
posted on 18/8/23
Whut color is Ronaldo skin?
posted on 18/8/23
We didn't see/hear what Ronaldo did therefore consciously or subconsciously we can try and make excuses for him. We don't have that luxury for Greenwood.
I know that seems simplistic but that's how I see it.
posted on 18/8/23
That’s exactly what I think. Despite that, there are legal documents that prove she said no multiple times and that there was evidence of rape.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by Melbourne Red (U5417)
posted 4 minutes ago
That’s exactly what I think. Despite that, there are legal documents that prove she said no multiple times and that there was evidence of rape.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those documents were illegally obtained, some parts written in third person, some parts first person and were refuted by Ronaldo's solicitors as being heavily edited in parts and completely fabricated in others.
I am not saying that Ronaldo is definitely innocent. He might not be. But lets please deal with facts here. Those documents prove nothing
posted on 18/8/23
Just because they were illegally obtained, it doesn’t mean they’re not factual.
The medical report was not illegally obtained. And it proves forced sodomy.
I think your stance is exactly what I’m talking about and what Diafol suggested. We have no visual/audio evidence against Ronaldo - like with Greenwood - so we make excuses for him.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by Melbourne Red (U5417)
posted 1 minute ago
Just because they were illegally obtained, it doesn’t mean they’re not factual.
The medical report was not illegally obtained. And it proves forced sodomy.
I think your stance is exactly what I’m talking about and what Diafol suggested. We have no visual/audio evidence against Ronaldo - like with Greenwood - so we make excuses for him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact they were illegally obtained means that there is no chain of evidence and thus the claims from Ronaldo's solicitors that they have been doctored carries weight. And a medical report can't prove forced sodomy. It can indicate rough s3x, but not whether it was forced.
Again, not saying Ronaldo is innocent. But the evidence available to us isnt anywhere near as compelling as the audio were heard in the Greenwood case
posted on 18/8/23
comment by Melbourne Red (U5417)
posted 2 hours, 31 minutes ago
That’s exactly what I think. Despite that, there are legal documents that prove she said no multiple times and that there was evidence of rape.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How did legal documents prove she said no several times? Unless there are recordings of her saying no then the proof is not there.
posted on 18/8/23
It’s a he said she said crime
The court of law needs guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
When all there is that she said he did this and he said he didn’t it’s nigh on impossible to get twelve people to agree to ruin the defendants life based on that.
The conviction rate for those crimes is so low because aside from those predators who prowl on women and do it with extreme force leaving DNA everywhere and not even knowing the women it’s not easy to prove.
If two people meet in a bar and leave together willingly, go back to the others and then the next day she says he did that and he said he didn’t what hope so the police have of proving anything?
Now we can all disagree if it’s right but would you like to be tarred with that brush just because someone said so?
Or would you prefer it to be proven you did it?
If so, then why should your career be ruined just because one person said X?
posted on 18/8/23
Greenwood must go, else Rachel Riley will stop supporting Utd.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by LustyMonc (U22632)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
Greenwood must go, else Rachel Riley will stop supporting Utd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without Rachel your accounts will be like Man Cheatys.
posted on 18/8/23
Because Ronaldo is a Man Utd Legend and for a time was one of the best players in the world, and will therefore be blindly defended as long as there is even a 1% doubt of his guilt, whereas Greenwood is not, and can therefore be tossed aside like trash.
By the way, I think Rachel Riley is all talk. Its easy to make bold statements about not supporting Man Utd when the likelihood is that utd won't welcome back Greenwood. O'll believe she'll stop supporting utd when I see it.
posted on 18/8/23
Indeed, OP, very many United fans were reluctant to think too much or inform themselves about the Ronaldo incident in Las Vegas. Some of us did bring it up on this forum when he signed, and urged other members of this forum to read the comprehensive Spiegel report.
There was no audio in the Ronaldo case, but there was a series of police statements he signed, the first of which acknowledges having had rough anal intercoиrse with a woman who was communicating that she didn't want it.
posted on 18/8/23
I never want to see him play again either, it’s led me to conclude I’m hypocritical ( aren’t we all ) ?
Only questioned Ronaldo coming back from a football POV not a moral one.
I’ve taken my sons to OT and waxed lyrical about the holy trinity statue, when they were a little older I gave them the “ if you ever lay a hand on a women” lecture.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
Indeed, OP, very many United fans were reluctant to think too much or inform themselves about the Ronaldo incident in Las Vegas. Some of us did bring it up on this forum when he signed, and urged other members of this forum to read the comprehensive Spiegel report.
There was no audio in the Ronaldo case, but there was a series of police statements he signed, the first of which acknowledges having had rough anal intercoиrse with a woman who was communicating that she didn't want it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't Ronaldo's solicitors say that the reports were heavily edited and completely fabricated in parts?
posted on 18/8/23
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 8 hours, 9 minutes ago
We didn't see/hear what Ronaldo did therefore consciously or subconsciously we can try and make excuses for him. We don't have that luxury for Greenwood.
I know that seems simplistic but that's how I see it.
-------------------------------------------------------------
That
Just as simplistic, but it's the same reason why fans have strong opinions on which players should & shouldn't play despite seeing a fraction of their time on a football pitch & never trusting the manager who sees all of it (including training) from all angles.
People believe what they see & are generally distrusting about what they hear even if it comes from an expert.
posted on 18/8/23
It's quite natural that the audio hits people hard. If it weren't for that, this whole thing would have disappeared a while ago.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
Indeed, OP, very many United fans were reluctant to think too much or inform themselves about the Ronaldo incident in Las Vegas. Some of us did bring it up on this forum when he signed, and urged other members of this forum to read the comprehensive Spiegel report.
There was no audio in the Ronaldo case, but there was a series of police statements he signed, the first of which acknowledges having had rough anal intercoиrse with a woman who was communicating that she didn't want it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't Ronaldo's solicitors say that the reports were heavily edited and completely fabricated in parts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On one hand you have one of the world's most respected investigative journalism organisations whose business model depends on maintaining their reputation for rigorous work. On the other, you have an expensive legal team whose business relies on doing whatever is most useful for their client. They face no jeopardy in stating that the article is inaccurate, and if the most damaging claims were indeed fabricated, they would be in a strong position to sue Der Spiegel for defamation.
It's quite a common tactic these days that when a public figure is accused of something bad these days, the response is a very aggressive denial, accusations of fabrication and persecution, sometimes threats to sue for libel, etc. The key thing then is to wait and see: did they follow through to clear their name, or were they fighting for dominance of the news cycle when the story broke?
Anyway, I was disappointed with the club that Ronaldo was brought back, and I guess we shouldn't be surprised by their consistency in having the same inclinations in the case of Greenwood.
posted on 18/8/23
I would have thought that obvious. Whilst innocent until proven guilty is the case for both, there is no photographic and audio evidence that we've all see and heard.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 8 hours, 51 minutes ago
We didn't see/hear what Ronaldo did therefore consciously or subconsciously we can try and make excuses for him. We don't have that luxury for Greenwood.
I know that seems simplistic but that's how I see it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This, we heard Greenwood and saw and thats much harder to forget, brush under the carpet. The lad needs a 2nd chance in life sure but not at utd not even in football.
He needs to be made an example of to deter it happening again in the sport. Pay for his help and temrinate his contract for bringing the club into disrepute is what i expected. I know hes a talent in football but the way Utds gone about it has surprised me. Bringing him back sends all the wrong messages and would be tragic.
posted on 18/8/23
Ronaldo one isn't clear cut. There are cases where rich people pay off accusers in a he said she said accusation due to trying to keep their reputation and/or avoid huge court costs (yes, sometimes it's cheaper to pay someone off than go to court).
posted on 18/8/23
Anyone seen Bill Burr clip on why no doesn't always means no?
posted on 18/8/23
comment by LustyMonc (U22632)
posted 4 hours, 10 minutes ago
Greenwood must go, else Rachel Riley will stop supporting Utd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish both of them to go. Can't stand that hypocrite Riley.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by LustyMonc (U22632)
posted 4 hours, 10 minutes ago
Greenwood must go, else Rachel Riley will stop supporting Utd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish both of them to go. Can't stand that hypocrite Riley.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK you've convinced me, I'll take her away from you. She can stay with me.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 6 minutes ago
Anyone seen Bill Burr clip on why no doesn't always means no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a stand up act? You think this is relevant here?
posted on 18/8/23
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by LustyMonc (U22632)
posted 4 hours, 10 minutes ago
Greenwood must go, else Rachel Riley will stop supporting Utd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish both of them to go. Can't stand that hypocrite Riley.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK you've convinced me, I'll take her away from you. She can stay with me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They come as a pair.
Page 1 of 3