TOSSER!

[Samilktray]

Shocking

It was the most feeble self defence story aswell.

[AjcW]

Shocking

It was the most feeble self defence story aswell.

wow something we agree on for once

[CupidStunt]

Fuking joke, thats what it is, guy got elbowed in the mush,followed by avagoifyouthinkyourgerrardenough onslaught

Anyway, is this something that needed a few days on court and a jury to sort out?

Aint these things normally dealt with at the local magistrate,where your sent down for 3 month

[davieG]

I really don't see why people are getting so uppity about this it's symptomatic of our times.

There's a letter in the Merc tonight from the Prosecution Service explaining why a case wasn't pursued even though there was an eye witness, The explanation was that the witness could only identify one of the protagonists and there was no forensic evidence linking the person to the theft from the car.

Cases have to be fairly watertight to even get to court, even so with a good lawyer it's very easy to identify 'technical' issues or throw doubt on any evidence so that 'without a shadow of a doubt' becomes difficult to instil in a jury.

The Amy Whitehouse assault will be another one difficult to prove one way or the other. These things are subjective and open to interpretation.

Either way none of you were there at the scene of the crime or in court to hear all the evidence so how you can be so shocked I've no idea

[maddog]

Just because he's Steven Gerrard he was found not guilty.

It's clear as day on the CCTV that he attacked him and wasn't hit himself.

It sounded like the reporter on SSN didn't think it was fair either because he said 'obviously the jury has believed the self-defence story'

And the way he said it, he thought Gerrard should have been found guilty as did i.

Ridiculous.

And that reporter actually sat in the court and watched.

Plus the fact all of his mates pleaded gulity didn't they

[James.]

What davieG said.

Quite funny seeing everyone get faux angry over something they actually don't really know anything about. A bit of a row in a bar happens every night in every city in the country and yet just because it's a footballer involved people feel the need to condemn him and get their pants in a twist.

Whatever. The jury said not guilty. Case closed.

[Maybes]

Just because he's Steven Gerrard he was found not guilty.

It's clear as day on the CCTV that he attacked him and wasn't hit himself.

It sounded like the reporter on SSN didn't think it was fair either because he said 'obviously the jury has believed the self-defence story'

And the way he said it, he thought Gerrard should have been found guilty as did i.

Ridiculous.

And that reporter actually sat in the court and watched.

Plus the fact all of his mates pleaded gulity didn't they

Not really, he was just reporting on what they believed and the verdict that had given

[davieG]

Just because he's Steven Gerrard he was found not guilty.

It's clear as day on the CCTV that he attacked him and wasn't hit himself.

It sounded like the reporter on SSN didn't think it was fair either because he said 'obviously the jury has believed the self-defence story'

And the way he said it, he thought Gerrard should have been found guilty as did i.

Ridiculous.

And that reporter actually sat in the court and watched.

Plus the fact all of his mates pleaded gulity didn't they

As these sort of events happen virtually every weekend in nearly every city with, I suspect very few prosecutions taking place you could argue that it only came to court because it was Steven Gerrard

[dandannieldanok]

What davieG said.

Quite funny seeing everyone get faux angry over something they actually don't really know anything about. A bit of a row in a bar happens every night in every city in the country and yet just because it's a footballer involved people feel the need to condemn him and get their pants in a twist.

Whatever. The jury said not guilty. Case closed.

Well hang on a minute, yes the incident was not unusual but Gerrard does have a responsibilty to set an example to the thousands of kids that idolise him. For me the cheek of the self-defence claim riles me most, Gerrard was surrounded by mates against one harmless looking DJ.

[davieG]

Well hang on a minute, yes the incident was not unusual but Gerrard does have a responsibilty to set an example to the thousands of kids that idolise him. For me the cheek of the self-defence claim riles me most, Gerrard was surrounded by mates against one harmless looking DJ.

So the DJ was there on his own

[lou]

So the DJ was there on his own

Maybe not but he didnt have a load of mates getting involved as I understand. Was always going to be the outcome. I dont understand why an affray charge was dealt with in Crown Court either.. especially when they were never going to find an impartial jury. Its not like they were ever going to give him a lengthy custodial sentence for affray. Wonder how much that trial cost the taxpayer?

[Matt]

Maybe not but he didnt have a load of mates getting involved as I understand. Was always going to be the outcome. I dont understand why an affray charge was dealt with in Crown Court either.. especially when they were never going to find an impartial jury. Its not like they were ever going to give him a lengthy custodial sentence for affray. Wonder how much that trial cost the taxpayer?

I'm past caring, worrying and wondering stuff like that now, I gave up caring when the MP's stole off us, that and the fact I ain't paying any at the moment, and claiming the money back myself

[davieG]

Maybe not but he didnt have a load of mates getting involved as I understand. Was always going to be the outcome. I dont understand why an affray charge was dealt with in Crown Court either.. especially when they were never going to find an impartial jury. Its not like they were ever going to give him a lengthy custodial sentence for affray. Wonder how much that trial cost the taxpayer?

This is the thing though, I have no idea whether he's guilty or not but I sure as hell wont make a judgement based on what's in the media all too often they say what they think is newsworthy and not the full facts.

[BoneDog]

1. Not exactly a new phenomenon people with money and with the right contacts have been getting away with it for years, even murder.

They don't know what happened to Lord Lucan, now that's funny - 2. Where's El Empty when your looking for a good conspiracy theory?

1. Too right, folks get away with bad stuff if they got the clout, someone I used to knock around with got of with some serious shit due to contacts.

2. Or a bad conspiracy theory eh! Don't get me started on Lucan cos I'll make meself sound crazy again!

[Radovan's Caravan]

Not exactly a new phenomenon people with money and with the right contacts have been getting away with it for years, even murder.

They don't know what happened to Lord Lucan, now that's funny - Where's El Empty when your looking for a good conspiracy theory?

Read 'The Empty House' by Arthur Conan Doyle, follow up with a Wiki bio of John Aspinall and then go to bed.

You'll wake up before dawn... screaming

[lou]

This is the thing though, I have no idea whether he's guilty or not but I sure as hell wont make a judgement based on what's in the media all too often they say what they think is newsworthy and not the full facts.

I dont think Ive ever said he was guilty??

Im just staggered that they thought they could try him in Crown Court in Liverpool with an impartial jury... its never going to happen. I would have thought a magistrate trial would have been fairer.

Id have thought his Mrs would probably give him more grief than any Judge can anyway.. I know I would have done

[davieG]

I dont think Ive ever said he was guilty??

Im just staggered that they thought they could try him in Crown Court in Liverpool with an impartial jury... its never going to happen. I would have thought a magistrate trial would have been fairer.

Id have thought his Mrs would probably give him more grief than any Judge can anyway.. I know I would have done

Sorry that wasn't aimed at you it was in response to the general sway of the thread.

As for the trial by jury I suspect that was down to Gerrard's defence using all legitimate means to ensure he got a fair/biased trial depending on ones view.

[lou]

Sorry that wasn't aimed at you it was in response to the general sway of the thread.

As for the trial by jury I suspect that was down to Gerrard's defence using all legitimate means to ensure he got a fair/biased trial depending on ones view.

No need to apologise I wasnt offended.... Yeah I reckon you could be right.

[BoneDog]

I know where he is.

Yeah me step-cousin said!

[BoneDog]

I always knew you were one of those 'special people'

Fair few on here I've noticed, number 3's I reckon

[Guest]

Fuking joke, thats what it is, guy got elbowed in the mush,followed by avagoifyouthinkyourgerrardenough onslaught

Anyway, is this something that needed a few days on court and a jury to sort out?

Aint these things normally dealt with at the local magistrate,where your sent down for 3 month

Some offences are what are called "either way" offences. The defendant chooses to face the magistrates, where s/he is more likely to be found guilty, but will get a maximum sentence of 6 months (IIRC). Alternatively, s/he can choose a crown court trial in front of a jury, where they will more likely be found not guilty, but would face a much longer prison sentence if the gamble doesn't pay off.

The one reason I can find for not having trial by jury is where celebs are prosecuted. How can it be impartial then? If I was to go on jury service, I would have to be discharged if I tenuously knew a witness, let alone the victim or defendant, so how a celeb can be tried fairly, I don't know.

Wonder how much that trial cost the taxpayer?

He shouldn't be getting legal aid.....

[Radovan's Caravan]

Jury was out for a short time - I wonder what the judges' directions were.

Certain parallels here with the Bowyer (an absolute disgrace) and Terry cases.

And note that all three hooligans were/are playing for clubs with great ambitions and deep pockets.

We do things differently here in Voj but it all ends up the same way.

[Jordan]

Judge Henry Globe did everything but offer Gerrard fellatio after the verdict.

[Radovan's Caravan]

I dont think Ive ever said he was guilty??

Im just staggered that they thought they could try him in Crown Court in Liverpool with an impartial jury... its never going to happen. I would have thought a magistrate trial would have been fairer.

Id have thought his Mrs would probably give him more grief than any Judge can anyway.. I know I would have done

I think not Mrs Lou. I recall that charges of assault against his trollope Curran in a Liverpool 'Restaurant' (Plate of Scouse, Conny Onny Butties that kind of thing) were mysterously dropped last year.

But she wasn't accused of punching anyone - just chucking a glass bottle in a young girl's face

[lou]

Some offences are what are called "either way" offences. The defendant chooses to face the magistrates, where s/he is more likely to be found guilty, but will get a maximum sentence of 6 months (IIRC). Alternatively, s/he can choose a crown court trial in front of a jury, where they will more likely be found not guilty, but would face a much longer prison sentence if the gamble doesn't pay off.

The one reason I can find for not having trial by jury is where celebs are prosecuted. How can it be impartial then? If I was to go on jury service, I would have to be discharged if I tenuously knew a witness, let alone the victim or defendant, so how a celeb can be tried fairly, I don't know.

He shouldn't be getting legal aid.....

I thought they only had to pay the costs of the trial if found Guilty? He would only have to pay for his legal team surely? Who pays for the Court time, judges, jury expenses etc?