Printable View
I suspect there is a bit of both rA, in no way would or I or indeed am I condoning inappropriate or criminal behaviour, but one is tempted to ask the question in some of these cases as to what the young ladies were doing getting themselves into the situations they found themselves in in some of these cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
The Giggs case was of course very different, difficult to know what the truth is there and why the case didn't proceed.
See Rachel Riley has announced she will stop supporting United if they play Greenwood. Fair enough if you assume no smoke without fire, but for someone who is clearly very intelligent you have to question that she should pick and choose as I don't recall her taking such a stance when Ronaldo re signed.
Her rection is bizarre at best. If the prosecutors have dropped actions against him, what does she know that they don't - how does she know it - and why doesn't she disclose what it is? This sort of things makes a bit of a farce of the judicial system when (semi) public figures can form an opinion / influence based on little evidence (on the face of it). We are talking about the career of a talented player who has had his development put on hold for over a year and his reputation sullied, seemingly for no good reason: I wonder how she would like it if there were public calls for her to be "cancelled" on TV for no proven, possibly trumped up, reasons?
Now it is possibly fair to say that there is no smoke without fire and, even if not guilty as charged, Greenwood's previous actions may have been open to criticism, but for a self made celebrity to make public this opinion is to my mind a disgrace and she needs to be called out for it.
I just hope nobody takes any notice of her, but fear that "mud sticks".
Who cares what she thinks? But agree with your sentiments GP.
I don't ask my calculator for directions so don't particularly care what she thinksQuote:
Originally Posted by SithHappens
Have you heard the audio where he tells a girl who said no to, basically, STFU and spread her legs as he wanted *** even if she didn't?
The only reason he's not going to court is that witnesses have withdrawn their statements. I'd love to know why. Threats? Paid off?
IMO it stinks.
He is clearly a total knob, my point is why did united feel its OK to sign Ronaldo for a 2nd time? Double standards?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadAmster
I remember there being reports of "misbehaviour" on his part but not whether there were ever any charges, did it go to court, if not why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by SithHappens
Will somebody refresh my memory please?
Accused of Rape. Paid her off to keep quiet so it didn't go to court. They tried to prove later she signed the NDA under duress so it could go to court but they found some holes in her lawyers claims that she did.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadAmster
Ronaldo appears to have admitted she said No several times and it was rough but maintains it was consensual.
In my head paying someone off, is an admittance of something, if not guilt that he lacked confidence in his own version of the events.
He is also a convicted criminal for a different offence which would probably stop most employers taking you on in other walks of life.
What did he get done for?Quote:
Originally Posted by SithHappens