|
Post by starkiller on Jul 24, 2009 15:48:04 GMT
It always amazes me how they bullshit their justification of these decisions.
There hasn't been justice in this country for hundreds of years.
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stokie on Jul 24, 2009 15:50:34 GMT
Premiership footballer = Do whatever you fucking want and get away with it
|
|
lwspj
Academy Starlet
Posts: 104
|
Post by lwspj on Jul 24, 2009 16:31:24 GMT
Old Stokie is right. The evidence against Gerrard appears to be overwhelming
The law allows Gerrard to claim he had reasonable grounds to think he was going to be hit first. But this does not mean that the jury has to believe him. From the video evidence alone, it is very hard to see how an unbiased jury could have done so
Years ago defence lawyers were allowed to question potential members of the jury to see if there were any grounds for bias. In the absence of this, Gerrard has been lucky and seemingly found himself tried by twelve Liverpool season-ticket holders
|
|
|
Post by shaun888 on Jul 24, 2009 18:49:31 GMT
So, when I go to the Forest game on wednesday and a tree hugger calls me a Stokie bastard, I am well within the law to pull his top over his head and land 3 or 4 good right uppercuts into his face?
As I have no criminal record and ..........oh! hang on........... I have an England shirt, but I've never made the squad........... hmmmmm
Gerrard should have gone down.
|
|
|
Post by kingdeano on Jul 24, 2009 19:09:22 GMT
he shouldnt have gone down but he should have got community service and a hefty fine, lets face it if anyone of us hit someone in a pub, and we didnt have a criminal record we wouldnt go straight jail, i still dont get how he is found not guity when he actually admitted to hitting the bloke, complete pisstake in my eyes, that judge should never work again
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jul 24, 2009 19:35:38 GMT
Jury returns to deliver verdict in Gerrard affray case
|
|
|
Post by scotty78 on Jul 24, 2009 20:03:12 GMT
If I am honest been in two situations whereby someone should have got sent down for what they did in a similar situation- but 1) the poilce dont do what they should and 2) as soon as beer is mentioned, it gets pretty much chucked out. Not justifying anything but dont think its to do with him being a footballer just the system doesnt work.
|
|
|
Post by geminichez on Jul 24, 2009 21:06:04 GMT
how may of you guys slag off fuller for being a tit?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jul 24, 2009 21:10:55 GMT
how may of you guys slag off fuller for being a tit? Given that this is a Stoke City message board, full of Stoke City supporters and Ricardo is a Stoke City hero would you like to hazard your own guess?
|
|
|
Post by actongatestokie on Jul 24, 2009 21:14:02 GMT
how may of you guys slag off fuller for being a tit? Given that this is a Stoke City message board, full of Stoke City supporters and Ricardo is a Stoke City hero would you like to hazard your own guess? Quite a few? ;D
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jul 24, 2009 21:21:22 GMT
Exactly ;D
|
|
|
Post by bazzergriff on Jul 24, 2009 23:25:36 GMT
actually I think it would be really funny to take a load of big mock up remote controls to Liverpool away and have mock fights over them, in scouse wigs and taches of course, calm down calm down!
|
|
|
Post by bash62 on Jul 25, 2009 0:16:14 GMT
as i said thursday he will walk money talks joe blogs in stoke slaps an idiot in a boozer up hanley he is in the shit double standards am affraid was the judge a scouser or has he just received a big cheque .
|
|
|
Post by dwr17477 on Jul 25, 2009 0:20:57 GMT
as i said thursday he will walk money talks joe blogs in stoke slaps an idiot in a boozer up hanley he is in the shit double standards am affraid was the judge a scouser or has he just received a big cheque . The judge didn't find Gerrard not guilty, the jury did.
|
|
|
Post by bash62 on Jul 25, 2009 1:07:06 GMT
as i said thursday he will walk money talks joe blogs in stoke slaps an idiot in a boozer up hanley he is in the shit double standards am affraid was the judge a scouser or has he just received a big cheque . The judge didn't find Gerrard not guilty, the jury did. does not a judge guide the jury ,well he does every time my fella goes to see him . like it or not this is bent .
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Jul 25, 2009 7:04:39 GMT
From what I saw of the video today - he's gonna be banged up for GBH unless, there are special rules for current internationals[/quote Clearly, there are special rules for England internationals courtesy of a jury and judge(posted after verdict). I am not a bright boy, so can some-one explain to me how some-one can argue for self-defence when the other person never raised any part of his anatomy let alone a fist? Presumably, this is all on CCTV so why did the CPS lawyer lose this case? A village idiot could win this case assuming of course all the jury members weren't 'pool season ticket holders? Apparently, the Judge asked them to put aside the aforementioned soccer considerations. But, where the tests that ensure such an unbiased jury? OJ's lawyers would never have allowed such flimsy vetting of a jury? For once, my sympathies are with the Police and the CPS. But, how did they lose this dead-ringer of a case? I read RAF's comments about limited CCTV? But, there were other witnesses too!
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 25, 2009 7:41:35 GMT
It fucking amazes me how many part time barristers we have on here. Was anyone here actually at the trial ? I fucking doubt it Let's just get one thing straight. You can't convict on cctv footage alone, therefore circumstances clearly dictated otherwise. I fucking hate Liverpool and their wankfest captain but let it go for fucks sake, if it had been a Stoke player half you cunts would be dancing in the streets of Fegg Hayes.
H
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Jul 25, 2009 7:58:28 GMT
It fucking amazes me how many part time barristers we have on here. Was anyone here actually at the trial ? I fucking doubt it Let's just get one thing straight. You can't convict on cctv footage alone, therefore circumstances clearly dictated otherwise. I fucking hate Liverpool and their wankfest captain but let it go for fucks sake, if it had been a Stoke player half you cunts would be dancing in the streets of Fegg Hayes. Yes RAF but neither were you. I suspect some of the part-time barristers could have done better than the CPS lawyer! The case should never have been heard in Liverpool but I guess the rules dictate that it should. H
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 25, 2009 8:01:18 GMT
Correct!
H
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2009 8:17:55 GMT
the average man in the street , gets in a bit of bother nips to his local sol who suggests you plead guilty and prepares for a guilty plea / verdict presenting mitigation and bargaining of sentance etc .. rather than dismissing that entirely and working on a defence case to bring a not guilty verdict.. and then a sentancing hearing later if required
From the little I know - An assault of course doesn't have to include a blow being landed - the fear or belief of being hit is an assault.
I presume
SG's legal team - including the double barrelled barrister main task was to remove the emotive words used by the prosecution , barrage of punches , uppercuts landed with the skill of a boxer etc...as just that emotive words, and not a true reflection of events on the night
To show it was another named member of the SG's party that threw the first strike - the elbow ( of which the lad will be sentanced later ,so no further comment )
Then move the argument onto SG his judgement slightly impaired by drink ( but not drunk) mistook the DJ , who'd he'd had words with throughout the night and who supported a rival club ( man you ) moving quickly off his stool as the sign it was about to go off - it was the movement off the stool that's the key. And acted DEFENSIVELY striking the dj once - that punch landed with his wrist according to the defence...not the actions of a skilled boxer , but the actions fearful of his own and others in his party safety.
If SG's actions were considered lawful - ie he acted in self defence , and it's that the barrister would argue they were , then my understanding is the charge of affray fails - as it's using or threatening to use unlawful actions in a public place.
Now you could argue the CPS brought the wrong charge , but he got found not guilty of the charge they decided was the most appropriate and the one most likely to stick.
|
|
|
Post by bash62 on Jul 25, 2009 11:01:59 GMT
It fucking amazes me how many part time barristers we have on here. Was anyone here actually at the trial ? I fucking doubt it Let's just get one thing straight. You can't convict on cctv footage alone, therefore circumstances clearly dictated otherwise. I fucking hate Liverpool and their wankfest captain but let it go for fucks sake, if it had been a Stoke player half you cunts would be dancing in the streets of Fegg Hayes. H in the past 3 years how many stoke hooligans have been sent down on cctv footage i bet you think its none .
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 25, 2009 11:31:02 GMT
You are damn right I think it's none, and if any of them have been convicted from CCTV evidence alone not only can they successfully sue the CPS and probably the police but they must be thick as shit and used a legal aid solicitor. Any lawyer with half a brain would get them off that kind of charge. Mitigating circumstances however could change the verdict!
H
|
|
|
Post by bash62 on Jul 25, 2009 21:13:47 GMT
You are damn right I think it's none, and if any of them have been convicted from CCTV evidence alone not only can they successfully sue the CPS and probably the police but they must be thick as shit and used a legal aid solicitor. Any lawyer with half a brain would get them off that kind of charge. Mitigating circumstances however could change the verdict! H when your caught on cctv and its clear you are the guilty party you lose unless you have a pocket full of sky tvs cash how many more times are the public going to put up with this bullshit and we cop the bill .
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Jul 26, 2009 0:10:00 GMT
It is a genuine relief to see an innocent man escape punishment, so a particularly great sigh of relief at the jury's verdict on Liverpool captain and all-round-hero Stephen Gerrard. There can hardly be a man in the country more innocent that Gerrard. As this report tells us:
The footballer had been drinking Budweiser and a sweet liqueur-based shot called a Jammy Donut. In police interviews, he estimated his level of drunkenness as seven out of 10; one being "sober as a judge" and 10 being "legless".
However, at around 2am, the mood soured when Gerrard walked up to the bar and asked McGee, a customer who had been asked to take charge of the music, for a card to control the CD player. McGee refused.
Six minutes later, Gerrard approached McGee, who was still at the bar. Gerrard's friend John Doran landed the first blow, jabbing his elbow into McGee's face. As McGee reeled backwards, Gerrard thought he was about to be attacked and reacted with punches.
Ian Smith, another member of Gerrard's party, joined in. Doran and Smith then kicked McGee.
And how good to know that his innocence has been so stoutly defended by the man prosecuting him:
During the trial, the prosecutor, David Turner QC, paid homage to Gerrard's skill, describing him as a world-class footballer and "a star". He added: "Wherever you go in Liverpool, and indeed the world, there are little boys proudly wearing that red Liverpool shirt with No 8 and the name Gerrard on the back of it."
And as for the judge, good egg that he is,
"The verdict is a credible verdict on the full facts of this case, and you walk away from this court with your reputation intact."
Intact indeed. Absolutely intacta. Seven (7) men attack one (1) man and not one of the seven is hurt. The one man is hurt. Six of the seven are guilty, all except the one who hit him three (3) times. He is innocent because he was acting in self-defence in case the one man, who had already been hit and 'reeled backwards', hit him. Quite understandable. People who reel backwards after being hit are bound to hit you. Could this have been in Liverpool Crown Court? It could. So that's all settled then. Positively cuddly.
**I pinched this assessment from an aquaintance's site. He sums it up pretty well for me.
OS.
|
|
|
Post by jbstokie on Jul 26, 2009 0:13:36 GMT
Excellent OS ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ddraigcoch on Jul 26, 2009 0:16:44 GMT
He was never gonna get done!...World Cup coming up ??
Has a criminal ever played for England before???
|
|
|
Post by mumf14 on Jul 26, 2009 2:33:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mumf14 on Jul 26, 2009 2:37:39 GMT
"SCOUSERS STICK TOGETHER LIKE SHIT TO A BLANKET "
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 26, 2009 7:49:39 GMT
Well said OS. I think Scouse has a point as well - if they had charged SG with assault the charge might have stuck. EDIT - anyone know how much damage the "victim" suffered? He might be successful if he brings a civil action for damages against his attackers. A case "Liberty" might be willing to take up?
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on Jul 26, 2009 7:54:27 GMT
No fear of that happening Lakeland. I imagine SG has given him some kind of incentive to forget what happened and promise not to do anything else about it.
|
|