Mason Greenwood

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...

 

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

 

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

MoH

 

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.

 

Indeed, you can prejudice a trial, not an investigation.

 

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”.

 

Yeah I'd have thought the same. Surely the investigation will be a major part of the trial?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

That's my point. Stop all reporting and you stop anything that could influence the trial.

 

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.

 

When’s giggs getting his trial anyway?

 

Yeah that's dragged on for ****ing ages. Young man United kid same as greenwood. Fergie kept him on the straight and narrow. Or he kept his skeletons firmly locked in the closet