The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Steven Gerrard

Home Forums Lounge Steven Gerrard

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 19 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #12162
    Neil Watson
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1376

    Anyone else surprized at the result today that he bought sorry i meant properly acquitted through a jury finding him not gulity.

    I mean what can anybody expect, The Liverpool Captain being tried in a Liverpool Court and their could of been a chance that some of the jury may have been Liverpool fans although quite rightly that should not be taken into consideration.

    What i dont get is that he claimed self defence even though he had not been struck or attacked in anyway yet he walloped the other guy three times saying he might have attacked him.

    Still when you can afford a good legal team to defend you that can be a bonus.

    Myself have never been to a court in my life but something does not seem right in all this. All my fellow Man Utd fans have been a bit miffed aswell.

    #240787
    moehat
    Participant
    • Total Posts 8373

    Am I right in thinking that he said he hadn’t noticed that his friend [who was standing next to him] had punched the guy first? Can’t help but feel that if it had been you or I we would have been sentenced. Not a good message to youngsters, is it. Getting a bit fed up with professional footballers going out, getting drunk and getting into trouble eg those Newcastle players a few years back. Think they should be role models, not drunken yobs.

    #240791
    crizzy
    Participant
    • Total Posts 788

    mmmm….I think he got away with something here but only have the news etc to go on. This sort of thing (to this degree) must go on every night in most towns and cities and how many get ‘done’? It would be a suspended sentence surely anyway? It still blots his reputation though imo. He didn’t see his mate elbow the guy first? HA HA!!!! Look at it! It just kicked off like it does when t***s have a shandy too many!!

    #240794
    Nathan Hughes
    Participant
    • Total Posts 25894

    All my fellow Man Utd fans have been a bit miffed aswell.

    :roll: Why after all their success over the last couple of decades do United fans seem so obsessed with everything Liverpool?

    Member since March 2008
    #240812
    % MAN
    Participant
    • Total Posts 5104

    It obviously wasn’t a jury from the blue side of the city :wink:

    Regardless of the verdict he still comes out of this affair as a nasty bit of work, a drunken bar room brawler.

    I imagine his so called "friends" are impressed – they plead guilty and he walks away scot free. Woth his money you would think he would have his legal team help his friends as well – but he seemed more interested in looking after himself.

    #240826
    Neil Watson
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1376

    All my fellow Man Utd fans have been a bit miffed aswell.

    :roll: Why after all their success over the last couple of decades do United fans seem so obsessed with everything Liverpool?[/quote

    That bit was only done in jest, How many other people would have used the word miffed.

    #240828
    stilvi
    Participant
    • Total Posts 4515

    Must admit on the basis of what I had read I couldn’t see how it was possible to reach a ‘not guilty’ verdict.

    How does this look against ‘ordinary people’ finding themselves in trouble defending their property against yobs. As far as I am aware this guy didn’t even hit Gerrard.

    #240877
    Friggo
    Member
    • Total Posts 1593

    I’ve long been an advocate for abolishing the jury system (surely the most archaic practice left in our society), and on top of what’s been said on here the fact that the jury took just 70 minutes to reach a verdict, when I’d imagine ‘self defence’ is a fairly difficult to decide upon either way beyond reasonable doubt, just annoys me further.

    #240879
    insomniac
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1453

    The verdict was probably correct. What isn’t correct is that one needs a lot of money to be able to get justice.

    #240890
    stilvi
    Participant
    • Total Posts 4515

    The verdict was probably correct.

    Perhaps you could explain why?

    #240901
    Himself
    Participant
    • Total Posts 3777

    He did’nt see HIMSELF elbow an Italian striker in a European game either.

    He did, but he promised not to say anything – in order to protect my good name. :lol:

    Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning

    #240931
    dave jay
    Member
    • Total Posts 3386

    .. they charged him with affray which is a pretty serious charge, if they had just charged him with drunk and disorderly they might have got a conviction.

    It’s a big might though, in Liverpool, they should have held the trial in Manchester or the Haige.

    #241008
    insomniac
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1453

    I stated ealier that "The verdict was probably correct."

    Stilvi asks..

    Perhaps you could explain why?

    Well, I’m assuming neither you nor any of the other posters on here were actually at the trial. I certainly wasn’t. So, to say that the verdict wasn’t correct is an assumption that’s based on ignorance, arrogance or anti-Liverpool FC bias, perhaps all three. Or maybe just a desire to see a well-paid footballer brought down-to-earth; a touch of jealousy perhaps?
    Ask yourself,did the coverage on TV give ALL the evidence that the jury heard?
    Did you hear or read the judge’s summary or the closing speeches by prosecution and defence council?
    If not, why do you assume that you can arrive at the correct verdict but that the 12 members of the jury who were privy to ALL the info cannot?
    I’m no lover of Liverpool FC or admirer of the average professional footballer, even so, they are entitled to a fair trial and I assume (although you appear not to agree) that’s just what Gerrard got – and the verdict was NOT GUILTY. I’ve yet to hear a rational case on here or anywhere else as to why that’s not so.

    #241016
    stilvi
    Participant
    • Total Posts 4515

    I stated ealier that "The verdict was probably correct."

    Stilvi asks..

    Perhaps you could explain why?

    Well, I’m assuming neither you nor any of the other posters on here were actually at the trial. I certainly wasn’t. So, to say that the verdict wasn’t correct is an assumption that’s based on ignorance, arrogance or anti-Liverpool FC bias, perhaps all three. Or maybe just a desire to see a well-paid footballer brought down-to-earth; a touch of jealousy perhaps?
    Ask yourself,did the coverage on TV give ALL the evidence that the jury heard?
    Did you hear or read the judge’s summary or the closing speeches by prosecution and defence council?
    If not, why do you assume that you can arrive at the correct verdict but that the 12 members of the jury who were privy to ALL the info cannot?
    I’m no lover of Liverpool FC or admirer of the average professional footballer, even so, they are entitled to a fair trial and I assume (although you appear not to agree) that’s just what Gerrard got – and the verdict was NOT GUILTY. I’ve yet to hear a rational case on here or anywhere else as to why that’s not so.

    So you have made an assumption that people’s opinion on here is based on ignorance and bias but what are you basing your opinion on? Did you happen to be in court to hear all the evidence? You have answered a question by rubbishing those who have posted, putting yourself on a plateau but saying little more than everyone should just accept the verdict of the jury.

    #241022
    insomniac
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1453

    Stilvi, you asked me why I thought the verdict was probably correct; I answered you.
    To precis, you weren’t at the trial or privy to ALL the evidence and summing up were you? Yes or No? (The jury were and made a decision.)
    If no, it is surely you who is making an assumption that deserves to be rubbished and, I pointed the reasons for this out.. Why did you (and others) make this assumption that Gerrard was guilty and the jury got it wrong? You tell me…it’s certainly not down to hearing ALL the evidence is it? Because you plainly didn’t. Isn’t that so?

    You asked:- (sorry, the quote function’s not working for me)
    "Did you happen to be in court to hear all the evidence? "

    Read my post again, I make it pretty clear by saying "I certainly wasn’t"; could I have put it any clearer?
    Because I wasn’t (as I clearly stated), I am prepared to accept the verdict of those who were and heard ALL the evidence.(ie the Jury) .
    Now, based on that, who is being more irrational?
    Neither of us were there at the trial; neither of us heard all the evidence and summing up and legal subtleties; yet you choose to disagree with the verdict.
    Why? Is it jealousy/hatred of footballers/Liverpool FC or Gerrard in particular?.
    Is it ignorance (that the jury base their verdict on somewhat more than we hear or read about)?
    Or is it arogance that you simply know better than those who actually were in court?.

    #241024
    moehat
    Participant
    • Total Posts 8373

    I’m basing my opinion on what I saw of the video footage shown on the news. No problems with Liverpool football team at all. I do think though that people like professional footballers get drunken people baiting them on a regular basis, and it’s a bit stupid to throw a punch at someone with the sort of reflexes that a top sportsman will have [didn’t actually see that, I hasten to add, I am making an assumption of what I think may have happened]. I just wish out footballers were more in the Thierry Henry mould that tend to celebrate by going out for nice meal in a top restaurant; just another example of English yobbish drunken behavior in Gerrards case I’m afraid. Roy of the Rovers would never have got himself in this sort of a mess.Or Stanley Matthews…..

    #241041
    stilvi
    Participant
    • Total Posts 4515

    Stilvi, you asked me why I thought the verdict was probably correct; I answered you.
    To precis, you weren’t at the trial or privy to ALL the evidence and summing up were you? Yes or No? (The jury were and made a decision.)
    If no, it is surely you who is making an assumption that deserves to be rubbished and, I pointed the reasons for this out.. Why did you (and others) make this assumption that Gerrard was guilty and the jury got it wrong? You tell me…it’s certainly not down to hearing ALL the evidence is it? Because you plainly didn’t. Isn’t that so?

    You asked:- (sorry, the quote function’s not working for me)
    "Did you happen to be in court to hear all the evidence? "

    Read my post again, I make it pretty clear by saying "I certainly wasn’t"; could I have put it any clearer?
    Because I wasn’t (as I clearly stated), I am prepared to accept the verdict of those who were and heard ALL the evidence.(ie the Jury) .
    Now, based on that, who is being more irrational?
    Neither of us were there at the trial; neither of us heard all the evidence and summing up and legal subtleties; yet you choose to disagree with the verdict.
    Why? Is it jealousy/hatred of footballers/Liverpool FC or Gerrard in particular?.
    Is it ignorance (that the jury base their verdict on somewhat more than we hear or read about)?
    Or is it arogance that you simply know better than those who actually were in court?.

    This item is being discussed on here because Gerrard is famous. I have no reason to be jealous of him. If this were Joe Bloggs I would still have doubts about a verdict of ‘not guilty’ on a basis of self defence where there is no evidence that the other person struck any blow whatsoever. If you always want to believe the jury verdict because they have greater access that is up to you but please don’t cast stones about jealousy and bias in an attempt to substantiate your opinion.

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 19 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.