TOSSER!

[lou]

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

Ahh didnt know about that! Seems they are well suited to eachother then. Suppose it may not have been true though in her defence.

[Ultra]

Both Gerrard and his wife are known to have links with the Liverpool underworld.

It's possible this may have had an influence on the outcome of the trial.

[Samilktray]

SCUM!

[purpleronnie]

A lot of similar incidents happen up and down the country every weekend only a small percentage make it to court so in that way I guess he's unlucky.

As for the law on self defense you do not have to be attacked for you to defend yourself. If at anytime you feel that your personal safety is threatened i.e. if a person is acting aggresive towards you, you can react in a way that you feel is using "reasonable force" to defend youself. But what is considered reasonable is not for a judge to decide but the jury on the case because there are no rules as to what is reasonable force. To some people telling the aggressor to go away is reasonable and to other knocking them out would also be reasonable.

So the opinion 'he only got off because he's a footballer' is simply untrue, the problem is that if joe bloggs was let off in similar circumstances it wouldnt make the front page of the tabloids so as soon as someone famous avoids prosecuction everyone thinks its because they're famous.

[Radovan's Caravan]

Both Gerrard and his wife are known to have links with the Liverpool underworld.

It's possible this may have had an influence on the outcome of the trial.

I've heard that too.

Apparently they are on first name terms with the two bosses of the biggest firm in the city.

I think they're called Tom Hicks and George Gillett - have you heard of them?

[Uncle Albert]

Both Gerrard and his wife are known to have links with the Liverpool underworld.

It's possible this may have had an influence on the outcome of the trial.

You come out with some stupid shit, what evidence do you have of this?

Pleased for Stevie, hopefully he can have a cracking season and then lead us to a World Cup win, then nobody will be calling him scum.

[Tevez]

Both Gerrard and his wife are known to have links with the Liverpool underworld.

It's possible this may have had an influence on the outcome of the trial.

[Radovan's Caravan]

You come out with some stupid shit, what evidence do you have of this?

Pleased for Stevie, hopefully he can have a cracking season and then lead us to a World Cup win, then nobody will be calling him scum.

Though Ultra rarely (if ever) springs to my defence I will now observe clause 5.1.1, section 5.0.0. of the Balkan Honour Code and come to his.

It is a truth locally acknowledged in Mersey Land that a footballer in possession of the readies must be in want of a mobster's moll (NB not that slag Curran). Said mobster then proceeded to threaten and generally make the young Gerard's life hell. LFC covered this up by spinning the story that it was the collapse of Gerard's parent's marriage that was responsible for his subsequent loss of form.

In despair, Gerard Snr called in the services of a local fixer to get the hoodlum to back off. This he succeeded in doing but Gerard was forced to give up the girl. Last year, said fixer was on trial on charges of robbery. During a recess he walked out for some light refreshment and did not return. Much scanning of your media since has not revealed whether he has as yet been apprehended.

I part company with Ultra on the issue of whether the local underworld exerted its influence in Gerard's case - unless one's definition of 'underworld' is elastic enough to stretch to the proprietors of a well known Scouse sporting organisation.

PS I found Mr Dalglish's character reference for Gerard very moving - particularly the part where he stated that Gerard did not behave like other footballers. However, it never ceases to amaze me how most shy and retiring sportsmen revert to stereotype once they have a drink inside them...

PPS No need for the 'lick lick slurp slurp' routine Ultra - but I'm sure I don't need to tell you that.

[Ultra]

You come out with some stupid shit, what evidence do you have of this?

This, this and this.

There's plenty more evidence out there, too..

[Ultra]

Though Ultra rarely (if ever) springs to my defence I will now observe clause 5.1.1, section 5.0.0. of the Balkan Honour Code and come to his.

It is a truth locally acknowledged in Mersey Land that a footballer in possession of the readies must be in want of a mobster's moll (NB not that slag Curran). Said mobster then proceeded to threaten and generally make the young Gerard's life hell. LFC covered this up by spinning the story that it was the collapse of Gerard's parent's marriage that was responsible for his subsequent loss of form.

In despair, Gerard Snr called in the services of a local fixer to get the hoodlum to back off. This he succeeded in doing but Gerard was forced to give up the girl. Last year, said fixer was on trial on charges of robbery. During a recess he walked out for some light refreshment and did not return. Much scanning of your media since has not revealed whether he has as yet been apprehended.

Apparently so..

I part company with Ultra on the issue of whether the local underworld exerted its influence in Gerard's case - unless one's definition of 'underworld' is elastic enough to stretch to the proprietors of a well known Scouse sporting organisation.

PS I found Mr Dalglish's character reference for Gerard very moving - particularly the part where he stated that Gerard did not behave like other footballers. However, it never ceases to amaze me how most shy and retiring sportsmen revert to stereotype once they have a drink inside them...

PPS No need for the 'lick lick slurp slurp' routine Ultra - but I'm sure I don't need to tell you that.

Not that I needed your assistance - but thanks anyway..

[Radovan's Caravan]

Apparently so..

Not that I needed your assistance - but thanks anyway..

Phew! Me off the top of me head recollection was largely accurate (can lay off the ol' Gingko for a bit then!)!

Well searched that man!

[CupidStunt]

Reckon it will be a new footie chant?

AVAGOIFYOUTHINKYOURGERRADENOUGH

[Guest]

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?

An aquitted defendant can claim back reasonable costs from the public purse. My understanding is, and someone like skinnydipper might prove me wrong, that the defendant has to cover the rest, or the instructing solicitors make up the cost from elsewhere.

A lot of similar incidents happen up and down the country every weekend only a small percentage make it to court so in that way I guess he's unlucky.

As for the law on self defense you do not have to be attacked for you to defend yourself. If at anytime you feel that your personal safety is threatened i.e. if a person is acting aggresive towards you, you can react in a way that you feel is using "reasonable force" to defend youself. But what is considered reasonable is not for a judge to decide but the jury on the case because there are no rules as to what is reasonable force. To some people telling the aggressor to go away is reasonable and to other knocking them out would also be reasonable.

So the opinion 'he only got off because he's a footballer' is simply untrue, the problem is that if joe bloggs was let off in similar circumstances it wouldnt make the front page of the tabloids so as soon as someone famous avoids prosecuction everyone thinks its because they're famous.

Juries are funny things. I question if you could find an unbiased jury in Liverpool where there is a trial involving a Liverpool player for a start.

The other thing that strikes me as strange is that his mates admitted to affray, yet Gerrard, who acted no differently, was the only one who tried to justify his actions.

I also believe that a jury faced with a jobless bloke of the same age, faced with the same facts, would find the guy guilty. Money does talk; on the same day Amy Wino was found not guilty of assault. An alcoholic druggie who was not famous would be found guilty by a jury. I honestly believe that.

[James.]

Lisa don't you think there's a good argument for having legal experts forming a jury, or at least people with some legal knowledge.

It just strikes me as a bit odd that we get any old person off the street and bestow on them a responsibility for something that they have no experience of.

[Darkzzz_]

Juries are funny things. I question if you could find an unbiased jury in Liverpool where there is a trial involving a Liverpool player for a start.

The other thing that strikes me as strange is that his mates admitted to affray, yet Gerrard, who acted no differently, was the only one who tried to justify his actions.

I also believe that a jury faced with a jobless bloke of the same age, faced with the same facts, would find the guy guilty. Money does talk; on the same day Amy Wino was found not guilty of assault. An alcoholic druggie who was not famous would be found guilty by a jury. I honestly believe that.

Agreed. It seriously takes the piss.

[Guest]

Lisa don't you think there's a good argument for having legal experts forming a jury, or at least people with some legal knowledge.

It just strikes me as a bit odd that we get any old person off the street and bestow on them a responsibility for something that they have no experience of.

This is really difficult to answer. On the one hand, yes, there should be someone involved with legal knowledge. Judges can do a good job in directing juries on points of law, but it is the jury who have the final say, and it can be so easy to get caught away on the subjective parts of the facts, and not the facts themselves. It's all about impressions, and a well turned out defendant is going to have a positive effect on the jury. If you've ever seen a trial, the jury tends to be made up of retired busybodies and those who can't find an excuse to get out of it, especially younger adults with little life experience to date. The kind of people who ought to be on a jury, those who might be better placed to separate the facts from the emotive issues, are the ones who manage to get out of jury service. I know this is a sweeping generalisation, but I can't think of a better way of putting it.

On the other hand, people need to be tried fairly, and once you introduce lawyers into the decision making process, there is a chance that other objectives can come into play. At least a jury is going to be made up of 'ordinary' citizens. There is little chance of other factors coming into play (notwithstanding jury tampering...).

It's hard to call, but something isn't right as you are more likely to be found guilty in front of magistrates than you are in front of a jury.

[davieG]

This is really difficult to answer. On the one hand, yes, there should be someone involved with legal knowledge. Judges can do a good job in directing juries on points of law, but it is the jury who have the final say, and it can be so easy to get caught away on the subjective parts of the facts, and not the facts themselves. It's all about impressions, and a well turned out defendant is going to have a positive effect on the jury. If you've ever seen a trial, the jury tends to be made up of retired busybodies and those who can't find an excuse to get out of it, especially younger adults with little life experience to date. The kind of people who ought to be on a jury, those who might be better placed to separate the facts from the emotive issues, are the ones who manage to get out of jury service. I know this is a sweeping generalisation, but I can't think of a better way of putting it.

On the other hand, people need to be tried fairly, and once you introduce lawyers into the decision making process, there is a chance that other objectives can come into play. At least a jury is going to be made up of 'ordinary' citizens. There is little chance of other factors coming into play (notwithstanding jury tampering...).

It's hard to call, but something isn't right as you are more likely to be found guilty in front of magistrates than you are in front of a jury.

I don't think that's surprising as it's bound to be more difficult to get 12 people to think the same as it would 1 person, ok obvious but that's a big factor. Secondly a magistrate will be more harden to the task as he/she will 'have seen it all before' and will be wise to the tactics of the defence. Also for the jury there is the 'novelty' factor and bragging rights.

Do the two councils still get to vet and reject jury participants, in which case it's possible to wheedle out the hard nosed ones.

[TrickyTrev]

I would love to know how the discussions went in the jury room!

Judge seemed in agreement in his summing up. The other bloke was gonna twat him so Gerrard got there first. It is called self-defense and most people here would have done exactly the same, they wouldn't have ended up in court.

I think comparing Steven Gerrard to Joey Barton is a bit much.

[TrickyTrev]

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

If people got sent down for 3 months every time they punched someone our prisons would be pretty full. This is the sort of thing where nobody usually calls the police, if they do the accused spends a night in a cell or gets an £80 fine and no criminal record.

Punching someone is not the same as "battering them." One is reasonable self defense from being punched, the other is going out of your way to cause serious harm to someone.

[Guest]

I don't think that's surprising as it's bound to be more difficult to get 12 people to think the same as it would 1 person, ok obvious but that's a big factor. Secondly a magistrate will be more harden to the task as he/she will 'have seen it all before' and will be wise to the tactics of the defence. Also for the jury there is the 'novelty' factor and bragging rights.

Do the two councils still get to vet and reject jury participants, in which case it's possible to wheedle out the hard nosed ones.

I think that there is some kind of vetting process, but it's done by the court staff. I know one guy who worked at the same place as me had been really looking forward to jury service, but was sent home after the first screening.

Judge seemed in agreement in his summing up. The other bloke was gonna twat him so Gerrard got there first. It is called self-defense and most people here would have done exactly the same, they wouldn't have ended up in court.

I think it was a case of Gerrard believing the other bloke was going to hit him. Self-defence has to be reasonable, and this is a subjective test, so what is reasonable to one jury may not be reasonable to another. On the Breakfast news this morning, there was a report about a criminal lawyer looking into what people believe is dishonest, another element that is subjective and can vary between juries/jurors. Things like status and appearance have an effect on whether a person thinks another is being dishonest or not.

[purpleronnie]

An aquitted defendant can claim back reasonable costs from the public purse. My understanding is, and someone like skinnydipper might prove me wrong, that the defendant has to cover the rest, or the instructing solicitors make up the cost from elsewhere.

Juries are funny things. I question if you could find an unbiased jury in Liverpool where there is a trial involving a Liverpool player for a start.

The other thing that strikes me as strange is that his mates admitted to affray, yet Gerrard, who acted no differently, was the only one who tried to justify his actions.

I also believe that a jury faced with a jobless bloke of the same age, faced with the same facts, would find the guy guilty. Money does talk; on the same day Amy Wino was found not guilty of assault. An alcoholic druggie who was not famous would be found guilty by a jury. I honestly believe that.

I also thought this was odd but I think it was because a 2nd brawl broke out and thats why they admitted to affray, another thing I didnt undertsand is if these are all gerrards mates why didnt he pay for top lawers for them? Drop in the ocean for him, but maybe they were guilty and knew it so accepted the charges?

As for an unpartial jury in liverpool I suppose it would be difficult but there could have easily been man u or everton fans on the jury so it could of worked against him.

[Guest]

I also thought this was odd but I think it was because a 2nd brawl broke out and thats why they admitted to affray, another thing I didnt undertsand is if these are all gerrards mates why didnt he pay for top lawers for them? Drop in the ocean for him, but maybe they were guilty and knew it so accepted the charges?

As for an unpartial jury in liverpool I suppose it would be difficult but there could have easily been man u or everton fans on the jury so it could of worked against him.

Who knows?

[Radovan's Caravan]

This is really difficult to answer. On the one hand, yes, there should be someone involved with legal knowledge. Judges can do a good job in directing juries on points of law, but it is the jury who have the final say, and it can be so easy to get caught away on the subjective parts of the facts, and not the facts themselves. It's all about impressions, and a well turned out defendant is going to have a positive effect on the jury. If you've ever seen a trial, the jury tends to be made up of retired busybodies and those who can't find an excuse to get out of it, especially younger adults with little life experience to date. The kind of people who ought to be on a jury, those who might be better placed to separate the facts from the emotive issues, are the ones who manage to get out of jury service. I know this is a sweeping generalisation, but I can't think of a better way of putting it.

On the other hand, people need to be tried fairly, and once you introduce lawyers into the decision making process, there is a chance that other objectives can come into play. At least a jury is going to be made up of 'ordinary' citizens. There is little chance of other factors coming into play (notwithstanding jury tampering...).

It's hard to call, but something isn't right as you are more likely to be found guilty in front of magistrates than you are in front of a jury.

Ms Lisa, your comments are both intelligent and insightful but you appear to preclude the possibility/probability in the Gerrard case that the verdict may have been bought and/or the jury nobbled?

Do you concede that this could have happened?

[Guest]

Ms Lisa, your comments are both intelligent and insightful but you appear to preclude the possibility/probability in the Gerrard case that the verdict may have been bought and/or the jury nobbled?

Do you concede that this could have happened?

I have deliberately not suggested this, as it could be potentially libellous. It also helps to try and argue a point on the one theme, but there are some serious anomalies that suggest it as a possibility, though. The subject of jury nobbling has raised its head, as we see the first criminal trial without a jury. When you consider that this lady was tried in Manchester, whilst coming from the West Midlands, I wonder how and why Gerrard was tried in his hometown, when he is such a high profile figure. I guess that Wino might argue the same about London, but it always seems so much more bigger, if that makes sense, and if it is true about Gerrard's underworld connections, then he should never have been tried so close to home.

[Radovan's Caravan]

I have deliberately not suggested this, as it could be potentially libellous. It also helps to try and argue a point on the one theme, but there are some serious anomalies that suggest it as a possibility, though. The subject of jury nobbling has raised its head, as we see the first criminal trial without a jury. When you consider that this lady was tried in Manchester, whilst coming from the West Midlands, I wonder how and why Gerrard was tried in his hometown, when he is such a high profile figure. I guess that Wino might argue the same about London, but it always seems so much more bigger, if that makes sense, and if it is true about Gerrard's underworld connections, then he should never have been tried so close to home.

Whilst I think the local underworld might have had a role in all this (putting the frighteners on the plaintiff and trail witnesses) there were others that had a direct financial interest in the outcome of proceedings and considerable influence in the city...

and the financial clout to back it up.

But as you clearly work in legal services I won't press you further on the matter.