United Thread - 2023/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
All they have to do is put a disclaimer on it.
So why still not publish it?
What is in it that is a legally questionable risk for a third party?

Martin Samuel Refers to it here…

“…Far more so than can be set out here. There are even elements of United’s official statement – words the club are happy to place on record, and in print – that the lawyers working for this newspaper will not allow us to publish. If you are reading this in its online format, you will note, again, that below the line comment is not permitted. Some of the absent details would be greatly illuminating, would help explain the processes and how difficult it has been for United, as Greenwood’s employers (the priority of offering sympathy for the alleged victim goes without saying). So there was never an easy answer to this; never, once United had conducted their investigation, a straightforward case for sack or retain. The club were anxious to point out that had their investigation found Greenwood had committed the offences with which he was initially charged then – whether the case proceeded to court or not – his contract would have been terminated…”
 
Last edited:
Seems strange that the mirror online doesn’t allow people to text in today on all of the news of greenwood. Legal stuff?
 
Unlike Greenwood Mendy was cleared of all charges.

But like Greenwood, whilst legally in the clear, the evidence in the public domain showed both to be highly unsavoury characters.

"Legally cleared" and "shown to have behaved acceptably" are not synonymous, something (wilfully?) ignored by many in both cases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.