Mason Greenwood

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
AlRawdah said:
Suspect Greenwood’s career is toast. Zero sympathy.
Click to expand...
I remember someone on perhaps TS talking about him albeit from a football perspective which said he was a total loose cannon a bit like Ravel Morrison ex Manchester United and others that had gone before him and that he needed guidance.... seemingly, he hasn't been getting it...
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
I didn't think you could prejudice a police investigation? Either it's happened or it hasn't. Someone saying they think it has shouldn't have any bearing.
Click to expand...

You absolutely can. The club statement is standard and what they needed to say at this stage. I suspect MG will not play until this concludes.

MoH
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
I didn't think you could prejudice a police investigation? Either it's happened or it hasn't. Someone saying they think it has shouldn't have any bearing.
Click to expand...

The “prejudice” element is in relation to ensuring the defendant can have a fair hearing / trial depending on the type of investigation.

MoH
 
  • Like
Reactions: SydneyTiger14
If true he deserves everything the law can throw at him, there is no justification in life which allows a bloke to hit a woman in circumstances like this.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
Indeed, you can prejudice a trial, not an investigation.
Click to expand...
So the Met have got it wrong with the Sue Gray report?

The Metropolitan Police has told Sue Gray to make “minimal reference” to potentially lawbreaking No 10 parties in her report, the force has confirmed.

The statement said the requests for some details to be left out had been “to avoid prejudice to our investigation”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spesupersydera and DMD
Plum said:
So the Met have got it wrong with the Sue Gray report?

The Metropolitan Police has told Sue Gray to make “minimal reference” to potentially lawbreaking No 10 parties in her report, the force has confirmed.

The statement said the requests for some details to be left out had been “to avoid prejudice to our investigation”.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'd have thought the same. Surely the investigation will be a major part of the trial?
 
Plum said:
So the Met have got it wrong with the Sue Gray report?

The Metropolitan Police has told Sue Gray to make “minimal reference” to potentially lawbreaking No 10 parties in her report, the force has confirmed.

The statement said the requests for some details to be left out had been “to avoid prejudice to our investigation”.
Click to expand...

Believe they've been told they're wrong, yes.

That whole situation (which is actually what I assumed was being alluded to above) is utter nonsense and a clear case of doing everything they can to pardon the PM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tigermaul and Porthmeor Tiger
Kevin Francis said:
Yeah I'd have thought the same. Surely the investigation will be a major part of the trial?
Click to expand...

Indeed, and any public discussion of the investigation can influence the trial and as such can prejudice a trial, but you cannot prejudice an investigation.

The sheer notion that a headline in a paper could make a detective think "Er well there's this video here that suggests something, but John Edwards in the Daily Mail reckons she's innocent so I reckon we dismiss the whole investigation" is ridiculous.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
Believe they've been told they're wrong, yes.

That whole situation (which is actually what I assumed was being alluded to above) is utter nonsense and a clear case of doing everything they can to pardon the PM.
Click to expand...
They've been criticised for it but it isn't actually 'wrong'.

Totally agree with your second statement though.

No more from me, getting too close to politics now!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMD
Plum said:
They've been criticised for it but it isn't actually 'wrong'.

Totally agree with your second statement though.

No more from me, getting too close to politics now!
Click to expand...

Best to move on though, as you said. The bottom line is that yes the papers reporting on the Greenwood information do have to use alleged, United need to determine the facts in their investigation so as not to prejudice any potential legal proceedings that follow.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
Indeed, and any public discussion of the investigation can influence the trial and as such can prejudice a trial, but you cannot prejudice an investigation.

The sheer notion that a headline in a paper could make a detective think "Er well there's this video here that suggests something, but John Edwards in the Daily Mail reckons she's innocent so I reckon we dismiss the whole investigation" is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Well yeah I get the principal but what if it's not just a reporter thinks she's inoccent. What if a reporter starts a campaign in the rag based on hearsay and rumour that she got him pissed and set it up. What if that reporter gets interviews with "sources" who speak to the bad character of this lass?
I know it all sounds fanciful but I assume that if you put a stop to all reporting, factual or not. You stop the gutter press ruining a fair democratic trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chazz Rheinhold
Plum said:
So the Met have got it wrong with the Sue Gray report?

The Metropolitan Police has told Sue Gray to make “minimal reference” to potentially lawbreaking No 10 parties in her report, the force has confirmed.

The statement said the requests for some details to be left out had been “to avoid prejudice to our investigation”.
Click to expand...

Usually, a criminal (police) investigation will take precedent over any other special to type (STT) investigation e.g. an internal discipline investigation.

The STT investigation will usually be stayed pending the conclusion of the police investigation.

MoH
 
  • Like
Reactions: SydneyTiger14
Kevin Francis said:
Well yeah I get the principal but what if it's not just a reporter thinks she's inoccent. What if a reporter starts a campaign in the rag based on hearsay and rumour that she got him pissed and set it up. What if that reporter gets interviews with "sources" who speak to the bad character of this lass?
I know it all sounds fanciful but I assume that if you put a stop to all reporting, factual or not. You stop the gutter press ruining a fair democratic trial.
Click to expand...

Then that would certainly influence any legal proceedings and would prevent him from having a fair trial.

I think we're saying the same thing here, which is that it can have an influence on the trial.
 
It can prejudice an investigation by disclosing evidence that could give the potential defendant an opportunity to conceal or alter evidence (that’s the usual reason given by the police).
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
Best to move on though, as you said. The bottom line is that yes the papers reporting on the Greenwood information do have to use alleged, United need to determine the facts in their investigation so as not to prejudice any potential legal proceedings that follow.
Click to expand...
MingofHarlem78 said:
Usually, a criminal (police) investigation will take precedent over any other special to type (STT) investigation e.g. an internal discipline investigation.

The STT investigation will usually be stayed pending the conclusion of the police investigation.

MoH
Click to expand...

You must log in or register to see images
 
That sounds more like tampering with an investigation since prejudice literally means to pre judge, which seems like something far more relevant to a trial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back