FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Mason Greenwood
Mason Greenwood
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses. We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids. Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club. Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers. " Lack of evidence should mean he is not guilty of committing a crime. Remember you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I've just heard the audio... It's awful... I would hope that's the end of his career." I didn’t know about this audio but googled and listened to it. If that’s genuine then it’s truly distributing, awful and sickening. What a sad indictment. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
That POS shouldn't be anywhere near a football but unfortunately, there's nothing stopping him training with the team. As a Man United fan, if we can't terminate his contract, I hope he's made to train alone " to get back to match fitness" and then offloaded in the Summer because unfortunately, while talented, he will have suitors that would buy him. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses. We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids. Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club. Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers. Lack of evidence should mean he is not guilty of committing a crime. Remember you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. " Not exactly, it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Cases that are dropped due to lack of evidence don't mean the person hasn't done what they were accused of, just that it can't be proven 100%. Even cases that get to court and the defendant is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, just that there is enough doubt to prevent a guilty verdict. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses. We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids. Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club. Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers. Lack of evidence should mean he is not guilty of committing a crime. Remember you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Not exactly, it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Cases that are dropped due to lack of evidence don't mean the person hasn't done what they were accused of, just that it can't be proven 100%. Even cases that get to court and the defendant is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, just that there is enough doubt to prevent a guilty verdict. " Committing a crime does not make you guilty. Only being convicted by a court will make a person guilty. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses. We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids. Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club. Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers. Lack of evidence should mean he is not guilty of committing a crime. Remember you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Not exactly, it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Cases that are dropped due to lack of evidence don't mean the person hasn't done what they were accused of, just that it can't be proven 100%. Even cases that get to court and the defendant is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, just that there is enough doubt to prevent a guilty verdict. Committing a crime does not make you guilty. Only being convicted by a court will make a person guilty. " I don't get how people can make these black and white statements. The photos and audio are out there for everyone to see. For the record, he hasn't been found not guilty, the charges were dropped so technically we might never know what would've been ruled. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses. We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids. Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club. Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers. Lack of evidence should mean he is not guilty of committing a crime. Remember you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Not exactly, it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Cases that are dropped due to lack of evidence don't mean the person hasn't done what they were accused of, just that it can't be proven 100%. Even cases that get to court and the defendant is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, just that there is enough doubt to prevent a guilty verdict. Committing a crime does not make you guilty. Only being convicted by a court will make a person guilty. I don't get how people can make these black and white statements. The photos and audio are out there for everyone to see. For the record, he hasn't been found not guilty, the charges were dropped so technically we might never know what would've been ruled." It’s only a legal perspective, it has nothing to do whether he did it or not. I’ve just listened to the audio, and to say it’s unpleasant is an understatement. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses. We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids. Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club. Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers. Lack of evidence should mean he is not guilty of committing a crime. Remember you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Not exactly, it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Cases that are dropped due to lack of evidence don't mean the person hasn't done what they were accused of, just that it can't be proven 100%. Even cases that get to court and the defendant is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, just that there is enough doubt to prevent a guilty verdict. Committing a crime does not make you guilty. Only being convicted by a court will make a person guilty. I don't get how people can make these black and white statements. The photos and audio are out there for everyone to see. For the record, he hasn't been found not guilty, the charges were dropped so technically we might never know what would've been ruled. It’s only a legal perspective, it has nothing to do whether he did it or not. I’ve just listened to the audio, and to say it’s unpleasant is an understatement." But then from a legal perspective he isn't not guilty as it never fully went to trial to make that decision. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Our justice system is based on the principle of presumption of innocence or, to put it another way, innocent until PROVEN guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser and not the accused. Nobody is required to prove their innocence. What I have a big problem with is that the Media seem to be completely unaware of this and, in my view, there should be some regulation brought in to protect anyone accused of 'trial by media' - especially as it has the potential to impact a trial. Take a recent example. A certain brother of our current Monarch. Yes, there may well have been an out of court settlement, but nobody in the media has access to that agreement, so anything printed, including any settlement amount, is pure speculation. Quite often solicitors advise their clients to settle a case rather than go to trial as it can often be the less ecpensive option - especially if your accuser is unlikely to be able to cover your legal fees if they lose. And yet, because it was splashed all over the papers with reporters and editors speculating, guessing and fabricating stories, the geberal public believe him to be guilty. When stuff later crops up about his accuser and her dropping other cases and what her involvement was, it looks pretty likely she'd have lost the case anyway, but that doesn't sell papers" The proof is there! They only dropped the case because a key witness pulled out and they can't make a case without them. Tue law provides the technicalities but surely everyone can use their common sense | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Our justice system is based on the principle of presumption of innocence or, to put it another way, innocent until PROVEN guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser and not the accused. Nobody is required to prove their innocence. What I have a big problem with is that the Media seem to be completely unaware of this and, in my view, there should be some regulation brought in to protect anyone accused of 'trial by media' - especially as it has the potential to impact a trial. Take a recent example. A certain brother of our current Monarch. Yes, there may well have been an out of court settlement, but nobody in the media has access to that agreement, so anything printed, including any settlement amount, is pure speculation. Quite often solicitors advise their clients to settle a case rather than go to trial as it can often be the less ecpensive option - especially if your accuser is unlikely to be able to cover your legal fees if they lose. And yet, because it was splashed all over the papers with reporters and editors speculating, guessing and fabricating stories, the geberal public believe him to be guilty. When stuff later crops up about his accuser and her dropping other cases and what her involvement was, it looks pretty likely she'd have lost the case anyway, but that doesn't sell papers" Just to clarify, I'm not taking any side on this, just using an example we're all aware of and looking at it from a technical standpoint. I spent seven and a half years battling through civil courts (incidentaly where burden of proof is lower - it's based on balance of probability). I was falsely accused of something really rather despicable, which not only could my accuser not prove, but I directed the court to sufficient enough evidence to show thry had falsifued accusations and, not only was I actually found to be innocent but my accuser was found to have committed abuse. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" Just to clarify, I'm not taking any side on this, just using an example we're all aware of and looking at it from a technical standpoint. I spent seven and a half years battling through civil courts (incidentaly where burden of proof is lower - it's based on balance of probability). I was falsely accused of something really rather despicable, which not only could my accuser not prove, but I directed the court to sufficient enough evidence to show thry had falsifued accusations and, not only was I actually found to be innocent but my accuser was found to have committed abuse. " Sorry to hear about your ordeal. Did what happened to you have any serious impact on your professional life and social reputation? How did you move on from things in the end? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The proof is there! They only dropped the case because a key witness pulled out and they can't make a case without them. Tue law provides the technicalities but surely everyone can use their common sense" You've rather contradicted yourself there because if a key witness has pulled out and they can't make a case without them then the proof is most definitely NOT there. Raises questions about why the witness pulled out. To be fair, I don't know the case, and have no idea who Mason Greenwood is - which would be good qualification to be on any jury. Just playing devils advocate here | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" The proof is there! They only dropped the case because a key witness pulled out and they can't make a case without them. Tue law provides the technicalities but surely everyone can use their common sense" Well thank god we don't live in a society where the rule of law is simply determined by common sense as held by Joe Citizen such as yourself then. If journalists can get car-bombed and killed for chasing down corruption and the mafia, yet they still did their investigative journalism and digging anyway, then you can't expect too much sympathy for people who make official public accusations of their most precious bodily autonomy being forcibly violated by someone else, then refusing to see things through with law enforcement and the courts to get justice rightly due to them. When it comes to making accusations of criminality against others, it's a binary thing. Either you don't, or you do and you go through all the way, because if you pull out halfway you're going to be the one who looks the worse for wasting everybody's time and sowing doubt in their minds about your case against whoever you're accusing. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"the video recordings and pictures, I saw thanks to reditt would be enough for me to find him guilty. At least assault." Just as well youre not a magistrate then isnt it | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" The proof is there! They only dropped the case because a key witness pulled out and they can't make a case without them. Tue law provides the technicalities but surely everyone can use their common sense Well thank god we don't live in a society where the rule of law is simply determined by common sense as held by Joe Citizen such as yourself then. If journalists can get car-bombed and killed for chasing down corruption and the mafia, yet they still did their investigative journalism and digging anyway, then you can't expect too much sympathy for people who make official public accusations of their most precious bodily autonomy being forcibly violated by someone else, then refusing to see things through with law enforcement and the courts to get justice rightly due to them. When it comes to making accusations of criminality against others, it's a binary thing. Either you don't, or you do and you go through all the way, because if you pull out halfway you're going to be the one who looks the worse for wasting everybody's time and sowing doubt in their minds about your case against whoever you're accusing. " I mean, it kind of is when you put it in front of a jury if "Joe Citizens" because they would consider the proof at hand i.e the recording and the photos. They just never let get to court because he broke his terms of bail twice by visiting her and then all of a sudden they lose a key witness? Are those the actions of an innocent man or am I using too much common sense for you? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" The proof is there! They only dropped the case because a key witness pulled out and they can't make a case without them. Tue law provides the technicalities but surely everyone can use their common sense Well thank god we don't live in a society where the rule of law is simply determined by common sense as held by Joe Citizen such as yourself then. If journalists can get car-bombed and killed for chasing down corruption and the mafia, yet they still did their investigative journalism and digging anyway, then you can't expect too much sympathy for people who make official public accusations of their most precious bodily autonomy being forcibly violated by someone else, then refusing to see things through with law enforcement and the courts to get justice rightly due to them. When it comes to making accusations of criminality against others, it's a binary thing. Either you don't, or you do and you go through all the way, because if you pull out halfway you're going to be the one who looks the worse for wasting everybody's time and sowing doubt in their minds about your case against whoever you're accusing. I mean, it kind of is when you put it in front of a jury if "Joe Citizens" because they would consider the proof at hand i.e the recording and the photos. They just never let get to court because he broke his terms of bail twice by visiting her and then all of a sudden they lose a key witness? Are those the actions of an innocent man or am I using too much common sense for you?" No, i think you're just using too many assumptions based on your pre-conceived belief in his guilt | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" The proof is there! They only dropped the case because a key witness pulled out and they can't make a case without them. Tue law provides the technicalities but surely everyone can use their common sense Well thank god we don't live in a society where the rule of law is simply determined by common sense as held by Joe Citizen such as yourself then. If journalists can get car-bombed and killed for chasing down corruption and the mafia, yet they still did their investigative journalism and digging anyway, then you can't expect too much sympathy for people who make official public accusations of their most precious bodily autonomy being forcibly violated by someone else, then refusing to see things through with law enforcement and the courts to get justice rightly due to them. When it comes to making accusations of criminality against others, it's a binary thing. Either you don't, or you do and you go through all the way, because if you pull out halfway you're going to be the one who looks the worse for wasting everybody's time and sowing doubt in their minds about your case against whoever you're accusing. I mean, it kind of is when you put it in front of a jury if "Joe Citizens" because they would consider the proof at hand i.e the recording and the photos. They just never let get to court because he broke his terms of bail twice by visiting her and then all of a sudden they lose a key witness? Are those the actions of an innocent man or am I using too much common sense for you? No, i think you're just using too many assumptions based on your pre-conceived belief in his guilt"  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" The proof is there! They only dropped the case because a key witness pulled out and they can't make a case without them. Tue law provides the technicalities but surely everyone can use their common sense Well thank god we don't live in a society where the rule of law is simply determined by common sense as held by Joe Citizen such as yourself then. If journalists can get car-bombed and killed for chasing down corruption and the mafia, yet they still did their investigative journalism and digging anyway, then you can't expect too much sympathy for people who make official public accusations of their most precious bodily autonomy being forcibly violated by someone else, then refusing to see things through with law enforcement and the courts to get justice rightly due to them. When it comes to making accusations of criminality against others, it's a binary thing. Either you don't, or you do and you go through all the way, because if you pull out halfway you're going to be the one who looks the worse for wasting everybody's time and sowing doubt in their minds about your case against whoever you're accusing. I mean, it kind of is when you put it in front of a jury if "Joe Citizens" because they would consider the proof at hand i.e the recording and the photos. They just never let get to court because he broke his terms of bail twice by visiting her and then all of a sudden they lose a key witness? Are those the actions of an innocent man or am I using too much common sense for you? No, i think you're just using too many assumptions based on your pre-conceived belief in his guilt" Are the assumptions unfounded? Do they not have a single modicum of viability? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"CPS- Can't Prosecute Shit service- as we used to say. Not that any public body in England functions efficiently after 13 years of cuts. The court of public opinion will slay him surely as a shank in prison..." And this is a good thing why and how? Do you know how fickle and ill-informed the court of public opinion is? Because you may have heard or seen stuff on the Internet about Mason Greenwood which makes you feel subjectively that he's guilty based off what you saw as an individual, you support the idea of the court of public opinion "slaying him surely as a shank in prison". I'd wager every pound in my possession that if it were a TV/TS individual instead and anyone made the same remark as you just did, you'd be crying out that they were transphobic, judgemental, and discriminatory. Tell me I'm wrong. Or don't. You know the answer in your heart yourself, up to you to be honest about it openly. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"CPS- Can't Prosecute Shit service- as we used to say. Not that any public body in England functions efficiently after 13 years of cuts. The court of public opinion will slay him surely as a shank in prison... And this is a good thing why and how? Do you know how fickle and ill-informed the court of public opinion is? Because you may have heard or seen stuff on the Internet about Mason Greenwood which makes you feel subjectively that he's guilty based off what you saw as an individual, you support the idea of the court of public opinion "slaying him surely as a shank in prison". I'd wager every pound in my possession that if it were a TV/TS individual instead and anyone made the same remark as you just did, you'd be crying out that they were transphobic, judgemental, and discriminatory. Tell me I'm wrong. Or don't. You know the answer in your heart yourself, up to you to be honest about it openly. "It's called humour. Lighten up Francis. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Anyone who has heard the audio and seen the pics, and STILL defends Greenwood may as well just walk around with a massive red flag all day." Exactly. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"CPS- Can't Prosecute Shit service- as we used to say. Not that any public body in England functions efficiently after 13 years of cuts. The court of public opinion will slay him surely as a shank in prison... And this is a good thing why and how? Do you know how fickle and ill-informed the court of public opinion is? Because you may have heard or seen stuff on the Internet about Mason Greenwood which makes you feel subjectively that he's guilty based off what you saw as an individual, you support the idea of the court of public opinion "slaying him surely as a shank in prison". I'd wager every pound in my possession that if it were a TV/TS individual instead and anyone made the same remark as you just did, you'd be crying out that they were transphobic, judgemental, and discriminatory. Tell me I'm wrong. Or don't. You know the answer in your heart yourself, up to you to be honest about it openly. "To make a 'fab' comparrison, it's like naming and shaming - which we all know is against site rules, and many of us understand why | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes definitely even cps dropped case so no charge so in law he's innocent do we tell prisoners that are guilty on release sorry but you can't go back to your old job." Well certainly only if their previous jobs were those that were very specific about certain clearance requirements or had higher safeguarding measures due to their job nature and who engages with individuals in such jobs. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Anyone who has heard the audio and seen the pics, and STILL defends Greenwood may as well just walk around with a massive red flag all day." Once again, another reason why cases are dealt with in public. Pieces of evidence being used, without any veracity or context to convict the guy in public. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses. We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids. Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club. Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers. Lack of evidence should mean he is not guilty of committing a crime. Remember you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Not exactly, it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Cases that are dropped due to lack of evidence don't mean the person hasn't done what they were accused of, just that it can't be proven 100%. Even cases that get to court and the defendant is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, just that there is enough doubt to prevent a guilty verdict. Committing a crime does not make you guilty. Only being convicted by a court will make a person guilty. I don't get how people can make these black and white statements. The photos and audio are out there for everyone to see. For the record, he hasn't been found not guilty, the charges were dropped so technically we might never know what would've been ruled." so still innocent in the law then | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"CPS- Can't Prosecute Shit service- as we used to say. Not that any public body in England functions efficiently after 13 years of cuts. The court of public opinion will slay him surely as a shank in prison... And this is a good thing why and how? Do you know how fickle and ill-informed the court of public opinion is? Because you may have heard or seen stuff on the Internet about Mason Greenwood which makes you feel subjectively that he's guilty based off what you saw as an individual, you support the idea of the court of public opinion "slaying him surely as a shank in prison". I'd wager every pound in my possession that if it were a TV/TS individual instead and anyone made the same remark as you just did, you'd be crying out that they were transphobic, judgemental, and discriminatory. Tell me I'm wrong. Or don't. You know the answer in your heart yourself, up to you to be honest about it openly.
To make a 'fab' comparrison, it's like naming and shaming - which we all know is against site rules, and many of us understand why"Well, we're human. Logic doesn't always win. And when emotions about something are strong enough in us, rare is the person who doesn't go "fuck it, I KNOW this is what it is objectively speaking, but I don't have to like it and I will NOT accept it". Full disclaimer: I'm equally vulnerable to this as well. Part of being human. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"He has not been found innocent, charges were dropped from CPS due to lack of evidence and witnesses. We have all heard the recordings and seen the pics and vids. Debate on if he should be allowed to play football at Utd or any other club. Lets hope this does not stop similar women coming forward against their attackers. Lack of evidence should mean he is not guilty of committing a crime. Remember you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Not exactly, it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Cases that are dropped due to lack of evidence don't mean the person hasn't done what they were accused of, just that it can't be proven 100%. Even cases that get to court and the defendant is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, just that there is enough doubt to prevent a guilty verdict. Committing a crime does not make you guilty. Only being convicted by a court will make a person guilty. I don't get how people can make these black and white statements. The photos and audio are out there for everyone to see. For the record, he hasn't been found not guilty, the charges were dropped so technically we might never know what would've been ruled.so still innocent in the law then " Yes. And in fact it hasnt even gotten to the stage of whether hes guilty or not, so its no different to you or i as we sit at home on a Thursday evening. His record is clean | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Sometimes the CPS get it wrong, though. The case against the Rochdale grooming gang (a network of grown men grooming and abusing young teenage girls) is a perfect example of this. What it does, is send another clear message out to all abusers - keep doing whatever you like, because there are no real consequences for your actions." I wonder if the people who are quick to defend a footballer would be so quick to defend those guys that were involved. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 . And besides if we all hot sacked from our jobs for bad deeds we do in our private lives, an even higher majority of the population would be unemployed right now! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Sometimes the CPS get it wrong, though. The case against the Rochdale grooming gang (a network of grown men grooming and abusing young teenage girls) is a perfect example of this. What it does, is send another clear message out to all abusers - keep doing whatever you like, because there are no real consequences for your actions. I wonder if the people who are quick to defend a footballer would be so quick to defend those guys that were involved. " His profession is irrelevant. Hes being 'defended' on here because the cps have decided there is no case for him to answer. What more do you want to see? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The burden of proof is so much higher for a criminal case. As a woman, there are several posters on this thread that I wouldn't meet on my own after reading how quick they are to proclaim the innocence of someone in a very murky case. J" Youd rather we resort to mob justice instead so would you? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The burden of proof is so much higher for a criminal case. As a woman, there are several posters on this thread that I wouldn't meet on my own after reading how quick they are to proclaim the innocence of someone in a very murky case. J Youd rather we resort to mob justice instead so would you? " Please don't sealion me and twist my words. I'd hope a bit of nuance, a bit of understanding that the CPS and courts don't always get it right (both ways) might be shown in people's posts. When it isn't I am well within my rights to think I wouldn't want to meet them. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The burden of proof is so much higher for a criminal case. As a woman, there are several posters on this thread that I wouldn't meet on my own after reading how quick they are to proclaim the innocence of someone in a very murky case. J Youd rather we resort to mob justice instead so would you? Please don't sealion me and twist my words. I'd hope a bit of nuance, a bit of understanding that the CPS and courts don't always get it right (both ways) might be shown in people's posts. When it isn't I am well within my rights to think I wouldn't want to meet them." I never said you werent. Which is why i asked the question instead And what in gods name is to 'sealion' someone?? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"And what in gods name is to 'sealion' someone?? " Sealioning is derailing a debate with polite but relentless questions that have little bearing on what someone has said. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"And what in gods name is to 'sealion' someone?? Sealioning is derailing a debate with polite but relentless questions that have little bearing on what someone has said." | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"And what in gods name is to 'sealion' someone?? Sealioning is derailing a debate with polite but relentless questions that have little bearing on what someone has said." Christ almight, does there have to be a stupid name made up for everything these days Not only is it complete garbage, but it also doesnt apply to me. Polite, yes. Relentless and little bearing? Everything I've said has been relevant to the subject, and each time i post something , its in response to someone else, which im entitled to do as much as you are | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
