• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Greenwood's future


what would you do if you were man united?

what would you do if you owned a local business and the entire world had heard that tape recording, would you stand by him? and if you did, would you expect it to effect your business?

i woulndt want my daughter working anywhere near him
Oh that's easy as i manage a large number of staff - I would take HR advice - allow them to run their processes and then manage the situation following the outcome. If that meant bringing him back to work then its my job to manage that!
 
Oh that's easy as i manage a large number of staff - I would take HR advice - allow them to run their processes and then manage the situation following the outcome. If that meant bringing him back to work then its my job to manage that!

Yep, easy as that. In that scenario it's highly likely that the people you were sending him back to work with would be extremely unhappy, especially young woman. That would need to be taken into consideration on top of the legal HR stuff. Then you have the image of your small business to consider, the commercial effects it would have...would clients back away from giving you business due to having this person working there... There's more to it than just black and white legal jargon
 
Yep, easy as that. In that scenario it's highly likely that the people you were sending him back to work with would be extremely unhappy, especially young woman. That would need to be taken into consideration on top of the legal HR stuff. Then you have the image of your small business to consider, the commercial effects it would have...would clients back away from giving you business due to having this person working there... There's more to it than just black and white legal jargon
Its not a small business m8 - and this happens - and we have to manage it - this person has been nfa by the police and the internal system has found him suitable to return to work - that happens and needs to be managed
 
Five times as many women are killed by domestic violence than by men each year. It’s the leading cause for female premature deaths.
I have no doubt it's one of the leading causes globally but surely not in the UK (note I am not looking to argue I am just genuinely unaware of how prevalent it is)
 
I have no doubt it's one of the leading causes globally but surely not in the UK (note I am not looking to argue I am just genuinely unaware of how prevalent it is)
It certainly is globally but it’s worth noting that it’s not just men who are physically killing their partners it’s also that that it’s a sizeable contributor to suicide among women too. And, yes, I do recognise that you’re not looking to argue that.
 
Ah, people stop responding to you directly when you quote them so instead you post a bait message aimed at anyone, nice

mate I have no interest in "bait messages" so shove that post where the sun dont shine. This is a very serious subject so try and keep your childish attacks for the playground.
 
Utter disgrace if he plays in England again tbh

In what universe is that statement even remotely true? Sorry but many on here just seem to be living on planet Zog.

The lad is innocent in the eyes of the law and an internal review has also found him suitable to return, yet god help us the SMB knows better.
 
In what universe is that statement even remotely true? Sorry but many on here just seem to be living on planet Zog.

The lad is innocent in the eyes of the law and an internal review has also found him suitable to return, yet god help us the SMB knows better.
He isn't innocent, he is simply not guilty in the eyes of the law, meaning there is not enough burden of proof to bring a conviction. It does not mean he is innocent
 
He isn't innocent, he is simply not guilty in the eyes of the law, meaning there is not enough burden of proof to bring a conviction. It does not mean he is innocent


There but for the grace of god go many of us, important to remember.
 
At this point it’s obvious United want him back in the fold or want some money for him.

United could have sacked him for misconduct when all of the social media stuff kicked off which led to the charges originally, but didn’t.

Sackless.
 
In what universe is that statement even remotely true? Sorry but many on here just seem to be living on planet Zog.

The lad is innocent in the eyes of the law and an internal review has also found him suitable to return, yet god help us the SMB knows better.

The evidence was pretty clear. The justice system in this country is a joke for a lot of reasons.

Does that mean Prince Andrew for example is innocent? Not myself living on "planet Zog" marra.
 
Why is anyone responding to these morons?
All up for a reasoned debate but pretty much all we’ve haeard in the defence is

He hasn’t been convicted- neither are the majority of rapists and there’s a lot of evidence been made publicly available I. This case to make our own minds up

She’s back with him- on average it takes an abuse vicitim til the seventh attempt to actually be able to cut ties with their partner, and even if it was genuine that doesn’t mean every other woman in the country should be exposed to him

The clubs internal process has seen fit to bring him back- because football clubs never make immoral decisions when money is on the line
 
Back
Top