comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted 35 seconds ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case they're welcome to her
I might actually start to like Rachel Riley if she does stop supporting utd. The utd fan thing is a major turn off for me
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant to the Ronaldo one.
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 15 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great. She can go support Liverpool.
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant to the Ronaldo one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think that then you either haven't read the case or you're a bit simple.
There is also a written statement in which thr individual admits to continuing, despite being told to stop, several times.
Elvis seems to think this statement was faked / altered.
Glad someone else is highlighting the hypocrisy from some re the Ronaldo / Greenwood situations.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 17 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronaldo's solicitors may well still sue Der Spiegel. They said that would just last September, so it may still happen. I'd also point out that Der Spiegel have in recent weeks lost a case relating to Till Lindemann in which they reported that he had given knockout drugs to women. The judge ruled that there was not enough evidence for Der Spiegel to report this fact.
You suggest that it doesn't look good that Ronaldo hasn't (yet) sought justice via a defamation case. Yet ignore the fact that the alleged victim took the money the first time around rather than seeking justice.
I should also mention that although the statement (assuming it is genuine) states that the alleged victim said no, it also says that she made herself available to him.
Again, I am not saying that Ronaldo is definitely innocent. But for me it is a lot less clear than the audio we heard relating to Greenwood.
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant to the Ronaldo one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think that then you either haven't read the case or you're a bit simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk to Elvis about it.
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant to the Ronaldo one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think that then you either haven't read the case or you're a bit simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk to Elvis about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elvis literally said something in his previous post that makes it relevant.
Elvis - 'I should also mention that although the statement (assuming it is genuine) states that the alleged victim said no, it also says that she made herself available to him'
WOW Elvis. So despite saying no, being available, say in bed with a partner, is a Green light for you???
Elvis, there isn't a journalistic outfit in the world that hasn't ever got a story wrong at some point. I really don't think it's useful to pick out an instance where they got stung for not being able to substantiate one story sufficiently to satisfy a judge. My point was that Der Spiegel isn't some gutter outfit, and the likelihood of its journalists fabricating a story, and the editor who ran it going along with it / failing to check they could stand it up seems pretty low to me.
As for the threat to take legal action: of course, if it goes to court and they prove the statement was fabricated, that changes things. Of course Ronaldo can't be convicted on the basis of evidence not tested in court. But the very same can be said of Greenwood: we can't prove that the audio wasn't a role-playing game or an AI fabrication. I couldn't send either of them to prison on the basis of what I know. But I can make a judgement that I don't want either of them representing my club on the balance of probabilities. In the meantime, Ronaldo's lawyer's refutations and threats have evidently been successful (still in the absence of any concrete action) in creating a perception of doubt about the veracity of the witness statements. I still don't know why they wouldn't swiftly move to establish that the content quoted was fabricated, if it can clear the good name of their client, when it is in the possession of Ronaldo's lawyers.
Finally, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that the alleged victim financially settling should cast doubt on her testimony. There are many cases of women who have backed out of pursuing criminal charges in such cases. Her own lawyers will have advised her frankly of the chances of securing a conviction in a case that rests on one word against another. They will have warned her about the way expensive legal teams drag a complainant's reputation through the mud. They will probably have advised her that accepting the financial settlement being aggressively pushed by Ronaldo's representatives was the most realistic means of attaining some kind of restitution for what happened. One thing we do know is that after the incident, her first response was to go to the Las Vegas police, saying she had been raped, but that she was afraid to reveal the identity of the culprit, and that the police collected physical evidence consistent with her statement.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 17 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronaldo's solicitors may well still sue Der Spiegel. They said that would just last September, so it may still happen. I'd also point out that Der Spiegel have in recent weeks lost a case relating to Till Lindemann in which they reported that he had given knockout drugs to women. The judge ruled that there was not enough evidence for Der Spiegel to report this fact.
You suggest that it doesn't look good that Ronaldo hasn't (yet) sought justice via a defamation case. Yet ignore the fact that the alleged victim took the money the first time around rather than seeking justice.
I should also mention that although the statement (assuming it is genuine) states that the alleged victim said no, it also says that she made herself available to him.
Again, I am not saying that Ronaldo is definitely innocent. But for me it is a lot less clear than the audio we heard relating to Greenwood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean made herself available to, and does that supercede the fact consent was not given?
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 17 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronaldo's solicitors may well still sue Der Spiegel. They said that would just last September, so it may still happen. I'd also point out that Der Spiegel have in recent weeks lost a case relating to Till Lindemann in which they reported that he had given knockout drugs to women. The judge ruled that there was not enough evidence for Der Spiegel to report this fact.
You suggest that it doesn't look good that Ronaldo hasn't (yet) sought justice via a defamation case. Yet ignore the fact that the alleged victim took the money the first time around rather than seeking justice.
I should also mention that although the statement (assuming it is genuine) states that the alleged victim said no, it also says that she made herself available to him.
Again, I am not saying that Ronaldo is definitely innocent. But for me it is a lot less clear than the audio we heard relating to Greenwood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean made herself available to, and does that supercede the fact consent was not given?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not Elvis saying it
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 17 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronaldo's solicitors may well still sue Der Spiegel. They said that would just last September, so it may still happen. I'd also point out that Der Spiegel have in recent weeks lost a case relating to Till Lindemann in which they reported that he had given knockout drugs to women. The judge ruled that there was not enough evidence for Der Spiegel to report this fact.
You suggest that it doesn't look good that Ronaldo hasn't (yet) sought justice via a defamation case. Yet ignore the fact that the alleged victim took the money the first time around rather than seeking justice.
I should also mention that although the statement (assuming it is genuine) states that the alleged victim said no, it also says that she made herself available to him.
Again, I am not saying that Ronaldo is definitely innocent. But for me it is a lot less clear than the audio we heard relating to Greenwood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean made herself available to, and does that supercede the fact consent was not given?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not Elvis saying it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it was.
He was commenting on Ronaldos statement , and basically saying, OK, so she said no, but she made herself available to him, so......
'I should also mention that although the statement (assuming it is genuine) states that the alleged victim said no, it also says that she made herself available to him.
Again, I am not saying that Ronaldo is definitely innocent. But for me it is a lot less clear than the audio we heard relating to Greenwood'
He's quite clearly questioning the validity of a statement which says two things which could be contradictory. He isn't saying it's OK to rape someone if they make themselves available to you.
How does that even need explaining? Seriously, how stupid are you?
That's not even mentioning how you immediately ran over to another thread with glee to tell everyone. Just embarrassing.
It's his opinion
'I should also mention that ALTHOUGH SHE SAID NO, it does say that SHE MADE HERSELF AVAILABLE TO HIM.
'IM not saying he is definelty innocent BUT....'
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 6 minutes ago
He's quite clearly questioning the validity of a statement which says two things which could be contradictory. He isn't saying it's OK to rape someone if they make themselves available to you.
How does that even need explaining? Seriously, how stupid are you?
That's not even mentioning how you immediately ran over to another thread with glee to tell everyone. Just embarrassing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elvis has been calling me all sorts over the Greenwood situation.
Imagine if id said re the Greenwood situation. OK, she said no, but she made herself available to him, so...
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 20 seconds ago
It's his opinion
'I should also mention that ALTHOUGH SHE SAID NO, it does say that SHE MADE HERSELF AVAILABLE TO HIM.
'IM not saying he is definelty innocent BUT....'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the it that does say ?
Yeah, see, you've put all that in quotation marks but then changed what Elvis actually said.
Anyway I'm not arguing this with you - anyone with two brain cell to rub together can clearly see what he was getting. Unfortunately that excludes yourself.
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 14 minutes ago
Yeah, see, you've put all that in quotation marks but then changed what Elvis actually said.
Anyway I'm not arguing this with you - anyone with two brain cell to rub together can clearly see what he was getting. Unfortunately that excludes yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worth mentioning for any children reading, it is not recommended to rub any of your brain cells together.
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 6 minutes ago
He's quite clearly questioning the validity of a statement which says two things which could be contradictory. He isn't saying it's OK to rape someone if they make themselves available to you.
How does that even need explaining? Seriously, how stupid are you?
That's not even mentioning how you immediately ran over to another thread with glee to tell everyone. Just embarrassing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elvis has been calling me all sorts over the Greenwood situation.
Imagine if id said re the Greenwood situation. OK, she said no, but she made herself available to him, so...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elvis has been relativity restrained towards you given the amount of creepy shiiit that comes out of your mouth.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
Elvis, there isn't a journalistic outfit in the world that hasn't ever got a story wrong at some point. I really don't think it's useful to pick out an instance where they got stung for not being able to substantiate one story sufficiently to satisfy a judge. My point was that Der Spiegel isn't some gutter outfit, and the likelihood of its journalists fabricating a story, and the editor who ran it going along with it / failing to check they could stand it up seems pretty low to me.
As for the threat to take legal action: of course, if it goes to court and they prove the statement was fabricated, that changes things. Of course Ronaldo can't be convicted on the basis of evidence not tested in court. But the very same can be said of Greenwood: we can't prove that the audio wasn't a role-playing game or an AI fabrication. I couldn't send either of them to prison on the basis of what I know. But I can make a judgement that I don't want either of them representing my club on the balance of probabilities. In the meantime, Ronaldo's lawyer's refutations and threats have evidently been successful (still in the absence of any concrete action) in creating a perception of doubt about the veracity of the witness statements. I still don't know why they wouldn't swiftly move to establish that the content quoted was fabricated, if it can clear the good name of their client, when it is in the possession of Ronaldo's lawyers.
Finally, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that the alleged victim financially settling should cast doubt on her testimony. There are many cases of women who have backed out of pursuing criminal charges in such cases. Her own lawyers will have advised her frankly of the chances of securing a conviction in a case that rests on one word against another. They will have warned her about the way expensive legal teams drag a complainant's reputation through the mud. They will probably have advised her that accepting the financial settlement being aggressively pushed by Ronaldo's representatives was the most realistic means of attaining some kind of restitution for what happened. One thing we do know is that after the incident, her first response was to go to the Las Vegas police, saying she had been raped, but that she was afraid to reveal the identity of the culprit, and that the police collected physical evidence consistent with her statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't said that the journos have fabricated anything. Just that the document in question has been obtained illegally and a chain of evidence cannot to be established. There is a a chance that it has been altered before it was leaked. Which brings the document into question. As does the fact that it has clearly been written/completed by different people. As does the fact that it has been refuted by Ronaldo's lawyers. In contrast, no-one has refuted that it is Greenwood in the audio. Or offered up any explanation for the audio. So for me, the evidence against Greenwood is worse/stronger/more reliable.
Ronaldo/his solicitors may have decided that they would rather let sleeping dogs lie than bring it all back into the public domain.
And I am not saying that the fact she took the money means that she is lying. I am just highlighting the fact that it works both ways. The fact that Ronaldo/his solicitors haven't opted to clear his name/prove the fact the documents are fabricated also doesn't mean that they aren't. It works both ways.
Sign in if you want to comment
Greenwood/Ronaldo
Page 2 of 3
posted on 18/8/23
comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted 35 seconds ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case they're welcome to her
posted on 18/8/23
I might actually start to like Rachel Riley if she does stop supporting utd. The utd fan thing is a major turn off for me
posted on 18/8/23
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant to the Ronaldo one.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 15 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great. She can go support Liverpool.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant to the Ronaldo one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think that then you either haven't read the case or you're a bit simple.
posted on 18/8/23
There is also a written statement in which thr individual admits to continuing, despite being told to stop, several times.
Elvis seems to think this statement was faked / altered.
posted on 18/8/23
Glad someone else is highlighting the hypocrisy from some re the Ronaldo / Greenwood situations.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 17 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronaldo's solicitors may well still sue Der Spiegel. They said that would just last September, so it may still happen. I'd also point out that Der Spiegel have in recent weeks lost a case relating to Till Lindemann in which they reported that he had given knockout drugs to women. The judge ruled that there was not enough evidence for Der Spiegel to report this fact.
You suggest that it doesn't look good that Ronaldo hasn't (yet) sought justice via a defamation case. Yet ignore the fact that the alleged victim took the money the first time around rather than seeking justice.
I should also mention that although the statement (assuming it is genuine) states that the alleged victim said no, it also says that she made herself available to him.
Again, I am not saying that Ronaldo is definitely innocent. But for me it is a lot less clear than the audio we heard relating to Greenwood.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant to the Ronaldo one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think that then you either haven't read the case or you're a bit simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk to Elvis about it.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant to the Ronaldo one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think that then you either haven't read the case or you're a bit simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk to Elvis about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elvis literally said something in his previous post that makes it relevant.
posted on 18/8/23
Elvis - 'I should also mention that although the statement (assuming it is genuine) states that the alleged victim said no, it also says that she made herself available to him'
WOW Elvis. So despite saying no, being available, say in bed with a partner, is a Green light for you???
posted on 18/8/23
Elvis, there isn't a journalistic outfit in the world that hasn't ever got a story wrong at some point. I really don't think it's useful to pick out an instance where they got stung for not being able to substantiate one story sufficiently to satisfy a judge. My point was that Der Spiegel isn't some gutter outfit, and the likelihood of its journalists fabricating a story, and the editor who ran it going along with it / failing to check they could stand it up seems pretty low to me.
As for the threat to take legal action: of course, if it goes to court and they prove the statement was fabricated, that changes things. Of course Ronaldo can't be convicted on the basis of evidence not tested in court. But the very same can be said of Greenwood: we can't prove that the audio wasn't a role-playing game or an AI fabrication. I couldn't send either of them to prison on the basis of what I know. But I can make a judgement that I don't want either of them representing my club on the balance of probabilities. In the meantime, Ronaldo's lawyer's refutations and threats have evidently been successful (still in the absence of any concrete action) in creating a perception of doubt about the veracity of the witness statements. I still don't know why they wouldn't swiftly move to establish that the content quoted was fabricated, if it can clear the good name of their client, when it is in the possession of Ronaldo's lawyers.
Finally, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that the alleged victim financially settling should cast doubt on her testimony. There are many cases of women who have backed out of pursuing criminal charges in such cases. Her own lawyers will have advised her frankly of the chances of securing a conviction in a case that rests on one word against another. They will have warned her about the way expensive legal teams drag a complainant's reputation through the mud. They will probably have advised her that accepting the financial settlement being aggressively pushed by Ronaldo's representatives was the most realistic means of attaining some kind of restitution for what happened. One thing we do know is that after the incident, her first response was to go to the Las Vegas police, saying she had been raped, but that she was afraid to reveal the identity of the culprit, and that the police collected physical evidence consistent with her statement.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 17 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronaldo's solicitors may well still sue Der Spiegel. They said that would just last September, so it may still happen. I'd also point out that Der Spiegel have in recent weeks lost a case relating to Till Lindemann in which they reported that he had given knockout drugs to women. The judge ruled that there was not enough evidence for Der Spiegel to report this fact.
You suggest that it doesn't look good that Ronaldo hasn't (yet) sought justice via a defamation case. Yet ignore the fact that the alleged victim took the money the first time around rather than seeking justice.
I should also mention that although the statement (assuming it is genuine) states that the alleged victim said no, it also says that she made herself available to him.
Again, I am not saying that Ronaldo is definitely innocent. But for me it is a lot less clear than the audio we heard relating to Greenwood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean made herself available to, and does that supercede the fact consent was not given?
posted on 18/8/23
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 17 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronaldo's solicitors may well still sue Der Spiegel. They said that would just last September, so it may still happen. I'd also point out that Der Spiegel have in recent weeks lost a case relating to Till Lindemann in which they reported that he had given knockout drugs to women. The judge ruled that there was not enough evidence for Der Spiegel to report this fact.
You suggest that it doesn't look good that Ronaldo hasn't (yet) sought justice via a defamation case. Yet ignore the fact that the alleged victim took the money the first time around rather than seeking justice.
I should also mention that although the statement (assuming it is genuine) states that the alleged victim said no, it also says that she made herself available to him.
Again, I am not saying that Ronaldo is definitely innocent. But for me it is a lot less clear than the audio we heard relating to Greenwood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean made herself available to, and does that supercede the fact consent was not given?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not Elvis saying it
posted on 18/8/23
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 17 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronaldo's solicitors may well still sue Der Spiegel. They said that would just last September, so it may still happen. I'd also point out that Der Spiegel have in recent weeks lost a case relating to Till Lindemann in which they reported that he had given knockout drugs to women. The judge ruled that there was not enough evidence for Der Spiegel to report this fact.
You suggest that it doesn't look good that Ronaldo hasn't (yet) sought justice via a defamation case. Yet ignore the fact that the alleged victim took the money the first time around rather than seeking justice.
I should also mention that although the statement (assuming it is genuine) states that the alleged victim said no, it also says that she made herself available to him.
Again, I am not saying that Ronaldo is definitely innocent. But for me it is a lot less clear than the audio we heard relating to Greenwood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean made herself available to, and does that supercede the fact consent was not given?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not Elvis saying it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it was.
He was commenting on Ronaldos statement , and basically saying, OK, so she said no, but she made herself available to him, so......
posted on 18/8/23
'I should also mention that although the statement (assuming it is genuine) states that the alleged victim said no, it also says that she made herself available to him.
Again, I am not saying that Ronaldo is definitely innocent. But for me it is a lot less clear than the audio we heard relating to Greenwood'
posted on 18/8/23
It was in the statement
posted on 18/8/23
He's quite clearly questioning the validity of a statement which says two things which could be contradictory. He isn't saying it's OK to rape someone if they make themselves available to you.
How does that even need explaining? Seriously, how stupid are you?
That's not even mentioning how you immediately ran over to another thread with glee to tell everyone. Just embarrassing.
posted on 18/8/23
It's his opinion
'I should also mention that ALTHOUGH SHE SAID NO, it does say that SHE MADE HERSELF AVAILABLE TO HIM.
'IM not saying he is definelty innocent BUT....'
posted on 18/8/23
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 6 minutes ago
He's quite clearly questioning the validity of a statement which says two things which could be contradictory. He isn't saying it's OK to rape someone if they make themselves available to you.
How does that even need explaining? Seriously, how stupid are you?
That's not even mentioning how you immediately ran over to another thread with glee to tell everyone. Just embarrassing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elvis has been calling me all sorts over the Greenwood situation.
Imagine if id said re the Greenwood situation. OK, she said no, but she made herself available to him, so...
posted on 18/8/23
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 20 seconds ago
It's his opinion
'I should also mention that ALTHOUGH SHE SAID NO, it does say that SHE MADE HERSELF AVAILABLE TO HIM.
'IM not saying he is definelty innocent BUT....'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the it that does say ?
posted on 18/8/23
Yeah, see, you've put all that in quotation marks but then changed what Elvis actually said.
Anyway I'm not arguing this with you - anyone with two brain cell to rub together can clearly see what he was getting. Unfortunately that excludes yourself.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 14 minutes ago
Yeah, see, you've put all that in quotation marks but then changed what Elvis actually said.
Anyway I'm not arguing this with you - anyone with two brain cell to rub together can clearly see what he was getting. Unfortunately that excludes yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worth mentioning for any children reading, it is not recommended to rub any of your brain cells together.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by Ohnono (U22987)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 6 minutes ago
He's quite clearly questioning the validity of a statement which says two things which could be contradictory. He isn't saying it's OK to rape someone if they make themselves available to you.
How does that even need explaining? Seriously, how stupid are you?
That's not even mentioning how you immediately ran over to another thread with glee to tell everyone. Just embarrassing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elvis has been calling me all sorts over the Greenwood situation.
Imagine if id said re the Greenwood situation. OK, she said no, but she made herself available to him, so...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elvis has been relativity restrained towards you given the amount of creepy shiiit that comes out of your mouth.
posted on 18/8/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
Elvis, there isn't a journalistic outfit in the world that hasn't ever got a story wrong at some point. I really don't think it's useful to pick out an instance where they got stung for not being able to substantiate one story sufficiently to satisfy a judge. My point was that Der Spiegel isn't some gutter outfit, and the likelihood of its journalists fabricating a story, and the editor who ran it going along with it / failing to check they could stand it up seems pretty low to me.
As for the threat to take legal action: of course, if it goes to court and they prove the statement was fabricated, that changes things. Of course Ronaldo can't be convicted on the basis of evidence not tested in court. But the very same can be said of Greenwood: we can't prove that the audio wasn't a role-playing game or an AI fabrication. I couldn't send either of them to prison on the basis of what I know. But I can make a judgement that I don't want either of them representing my club on the balance of probabilities. In the meantime, Ronaldo's lawyer's refutations and threats have evidently been successful (still in the absence of any concrete action) in creating a perception of doubt about the veracity of the witness statements. I still don't know why they wouldn't swiftly move to establish that the content quoted was fabricated, if it can clear the good name of their client, when it is in the possession of Ronaldo's lawyers.
Finally, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that the alleged victim financially settling should cast doubt on her testimony. There are many cases of women who have backed out of pursuing criminal charges in such cases. Her own lawyers will have advised her frankly of the chances of securing a conviction in a case that rests on one word against another. They will have warned her about the way expensive legal teams drag a complainant's reputation through the mud. They will probably have advised her that accepting the financial settlement being aggressively pushed by Ronaldo's representatives was the most realistic means of attaining some kind of restitution for what happened. One thing we do know is that after the incident, her first response was to go to the Las Vegas police, saying she had been raped, but that she was afraid to reveal the identity of the culprit, and that the police collected physical evidence consistent with her statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't said that the journos have fabricated anything. Just that the document in question has been obtained illegally and a chain of evidence cannot to be established. There is a a chance that it has been altered before it was leaked. Which brings the document into question. As does the fact that it has clearly been written/completed by different people. As does the fact that it has been refuted by Ronaldo's lawyers. In contrast, no-one has refuted that it is Greenwood in the audio. Or offered up any explanation for the audio. So for me, the evidence against Greenwood is worse/stronger/more reliable.
Ronaldo/his solicitors may have decided that they would rather let sleeping dogs lie than bring it all back into the public domain.
And I am not saying that the fact she took the money means that she is lying. I am just highlighting the fact that it works both ways. The fact that Ronaldo/his solicitors haven't opted to clear his name/prove the fact the documents are fabricated also doesn't mean that they aren't. It works both ways.
Page 2 of 3