Bellingham

Liamo said:
Are you sure you're responding to the right person? I'm saying that it's crystal clear from the audio what took place and it's absolutely disgusting.
Click to expand...
I’m backing you up by highlighting Man U actions speak volumes for them to do what they did.
 
Jedi boro said:
I’m backing you up by highlighting Man U actions speak volumes for them to do what they did.
Click to expand...

They only did it because of a mass fan backlash, sadly.

Man United and Ten Hag wanted to reintegrate Greenwood as soon as they could, and tried to do so.
 
sherlock1969 said:
FFS I hope you don't have children with that attitude, what a role model you'd be.....
Click to expand...

You cant go around calling someone a rapist, without there being potential repercussions, if they haven’t been convicted, regardless of whether it may be true or not.
 
sherlock1969 said:
Because he knows there is clear audio that shows him for exactly what he is. Inconceivable that anyone should try and defend him.
Click to expand...


I’m not defending him. I’m talking about the law of the land.

If Greenwood took Bellingham to court what evidence would Bellingham have that Greenwood is a rapist, considering that Greenwood hasn’t been convicted of anything?
 
king_hellfire said:
I’m not defending him. I’m talking about the law of the land.

If Greenwood took Bellingham to court what evidence would Bellingham have that Greenwood is a rapist, considering that Greenwood hasn’t been convicted of anything?
Click to expand...
Well how about the recording for starters!

Prince Andrew wasn't convicted, still paid out in the civil case against him. The burden of proof is different.

I don't know enough about libel law, but to reiterate what others have said, not being charged is not the same as being found not guilty.

Can't imagine Greenwood would want to take this to court and have lawyers go through the evidence that he is a rapist, because it's not like there isn't any. There's a fair bit.
 
festa5 said:
Well how about the recording for starters!

Prince Andrew wasn't convicted, still paid out in the civil case against him. The burden of proof is different.

I don't know enough about libel law, but to reiterate what others have said, not being charged is not the same as being found not guilty.

Can't imagine Greenwood would want to take this to court and have lawyers go through the evidence that he is a rapist, because it's not like there isn't any. There's a fair bit.
Click to expand...


Wouldn’t he need Greenwood’s partner’s consent for the recording, and her cooperation in a courtroom? Also, they are back together, as I understand it, so good luck with that.


I never said he wasn’t guilty, I said you can’t call him a rapist without the risk of a lawsuit.
 
king_hellfire said:
Wouldn’t he need Greenwood’s partner’s consent for the recording, and her cooperation in a courtroom? Also, they are back together, as I understand it, so good luck with that.


I never said he wasn’t guilty, I said you can’t call him a rapist without the risk of a lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Well true, but you asked what evidence does Bellingham have to call him a rapist, implying there wasn't any.

I'm not a lawyer, so don't know about the recording but given she put it in the public domain and millions have probably heard it, it would seem odd if it wasn't admissible. Bellingham has presumably heard it, hence him using the word.

You wouldn't get Greenwood's partner cooperating obviously given its her that caused the case to collapse. But Bellinghams lawyers could argue:

- the recording is damning
- Greenwood was charged with rape, meaning the CPS certainly thought there was enough evidence to convict.
- the charges were only withdrawn after the key witness withdrew her statement. This after Greenwood had breached his bail by contacting her.

Now maybe the killer point is that Greenwood wasn't convicted. But it's not like Bellingham pulled the slur out of thin air. He has very reasonable grounds to think Greenwood is a rapist. And if Greenwood did sue he might well win the case, but probably with his reputation even further damaged (hence why there's zero chance of him sueing).
 
There's also the burden of proof that needs to be taken into account between the civil and criminal burden of proof.

Beyond all reasonable doubt (90%+) in criminal and on the balance of probability (50%+) in civil.

On the evidence of the audio recordings, should a case for slander be brought, I'd have thought Greenwooods case would fail, ie the evidence on the balance of probability would suggest he is a rapist.

Bloke is rancid and the majority of football fans agree on this one.
 
king_hellfire said:
You cant go around calling someone a rapist, without there being potential repercussions, if they haven’t been convicted, regardless of whether it may be true or not.
Click to expand...
Far from being irrelevant, whether it was true or not would be absolutely central to what the repercussions would be if you accused someone of anything, at least in this country, since truth is a complete defence in a defamation case.
 
festa5 said:
Well true, but you asked what evidence does Bellingham have to call him a rapist, implying there wasn't any.

I'm not a lawyer, so don't know about the recording but given she put it in the public domain and millions have probably heard it, it would seem odd if it wasn't admissible. Bellingham has presumably heard it, hence him using the word.

You wouldn't get Greenwood's partner cooperating obviously given its her that caused the case to collapse. But Bellinghams lawyers could argue:

- the recording is damning
- Greenwood was charged with rape, meaning the CPS certainly thought there was enough evidence to convict.
- the charges were only withdrawn after the key witness withdrew her statement. This after Greenwood had breached his bail by contacting her.

Now maybe the killer point is that Greenwood wasn't convicted. But it's not like Bellingham pulled the slur out of thin air. He has very reasonable grounds to think Greenwood is a rapist. And if Greenwood did sue he might well win the case, but probably with his reputation even further damaged (hence why there's zero chance of him sueing).
Click to expand...

I agree with every word of that. 👍🏻


He has very reasonable grounds to think Greenwood is a rapist.
Click to expand...

As do we all.
 
The inconsistency in society sickens me to be fair. Greenwood is a rapist, yet wasn’t convicted, and is pretty much universally hated. Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist who’s never taken accountability for his actions and he’s managed to appear in Hollywood films and is generally liked.

Make it make sense?
 
go-nads! said:
There's also the burden of proof that needs to be taken into account between the civil and criminal burden of proof.

Beyond all reasonable doubt (90%+) in criminal and on the balance of probability (50%+) in civil.

On the evidence of the audio recordings, should a case for slander be brought, I'd have thought Greenwooods case would fail, ie the evidence on the balance of probability would suggest he is a rapist.

Bloke is rancid and the majority of football fans agree on this one.
Click to expand...


Surely his case would fail only if he was convicted of, or admitted, rape. I doubt it would fail because ‘he’s probably a rapist’.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top