The OFFICIAL Liverpool Supporters thread

Started by Gabriel_Hurl, November 09, 2006, 10:52:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 540 541 542 543 544 ... 616
User actions

brokencrossbar1

#8115
January 14, 2009, 09:51:46 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 13, 2009, 07:24:51 PM
Rumour has it over here that there's video evidence Gerrard went over to yer man in the bar, hit him knocking him down, started to kick him when he was on the ground.  Gerrard's mates waded in and he went away and came back with a bottle and threw it at the boy on the ground.

Bad if that's true but could be bullshit.

If this is what actually happened I can guarantee that Gerard would not have been charged with a s47 assault.  The way things work is that the police charge with with the highest offence that they can as a holding charge and then when the case is being set for trial, the actual charges that the defendant will be facing will be put to him.  A s47 assault is the next step up from common assault which is the lowest level of assault charge available.  If there was CCTV evidence of Gerard doing this, and there was evidence that the complainant had injuries, which there is, then he would have been charged with a minimum s 20 assault for GBH, or possibly a s 18 GBH with intent, as he went back and threw a bottle at him. 

Billys Boots

#8116
January 14, 2009, 10:01:19 AM
What's the likely penalty if he's found guilty as charged bc?
My hands are stained with thistle milk ...

Hound

#8117
January 14, 2009, 10:10:20 AM
I heard there was CCTV. I would expect there to be CCTV is such a place, and if there wasnt I would have expected Liverpool to pay off the victim to make it go away (which they couldnt do if there was CCTV evidence).

But I dont believe its near as bad as said above, otherwise surely he would have been charged with assault rather than affray.

brokencrossbar1

#8118
January 14, 2009, 10:25:43 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on January 14, 2009, 10:01:19 AM
What's the likely penalty if he's found guilty as charged bc?

If it was in the north and he was convicted of s47, with no record, there would be community service or possibly a short suspended sentence.  The likelihood is that it would be a community service type penalty with a compensation payment to the victim.

EC Unique

#8119
January 14, 2009, 11:34:18 AM
If he is found guilty do you think the FA will act and if so what is likely?

brokencrossbar1

#8120
January 14, 2009, 11:40:22 AM
I wouldn't think so, it is not football related.  They didn't get involved in Joey Barton's case involving the assault in Liverpool, but they did suspend him over whacking his team mate.  The FA would have no grounds to get involved officially, but unofficially he might never get the England captain's armband again of convicted.

Minder

#8122
January 15, 2009, 02:14:36 PM
"When it's too tough for them, it's just right for us"

Norf Tyrone

#8123
January 15, 2009, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: Hound on January 14, 2009, 10:10:20 AM
I heard there was CCTV. I would expect there to be CCTV is such a place, and if there wasnt I would have expected Liverpool to pay off the victim to make it go away (which they couldnt do if there was CCTV evidence).

But I dont believe its near as bad as said above, otherwise surely he would have been charged with assault rather than affray.


There was CCTV in the Terry/Morris/ Byrne case that showed that Terry was innocent but he still was taken to court.

QuoteI wouldn't think so, it is not football related.  They didn't get involved in Joey Barton's case involving the assault in Liverpool, but they did suspend him over whacking his team mate.  The FA would have no grounds to get involved officially, but unofficially he might never get the England captain's armband again of convicted.

The FA have banned players while charged in the past... why not again?
Owen Roe O'Neills GAC, Leckpatrick, Tyrone

isourboydownyet

#8124
January 15, 2009, 02:46:16 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 13, 2009, 07:24:51 PM
Rumour has it over here that there's video evidence Gerrard went over to yer man in the bar, hit him knocking him down, started to kick him when he was on the ground.  Gerrard's mates waded in and he went away and came back with a bottle and threw it at the boy on the ground.

Bad if that's true but could be bullshit.

this is totally untrue,of the offences committed Gerrard was minimal.i know your going to ask me how i know,just trust me i know.

new devil

#8125
January 15, 2009, 02:48:31 PM
How do you know  ::) ::)

Minder

#8126
January 15, 2009, 02:52:43 PM
"When it's too tough for them, it's just right for us"

Hound

#8127
January 15, 2009, 04:19:30 PM
Quote from: Norf Tyrone on January 15, 2009, 02:29:45 PM
The FA have banned players while charged in the past... why not again?
Who have the FA banned for getting arrested for a non-football incident?

ExiledGael

#8128
January 15, 2009, 05:46:14 PM
Quote from: Hound on January 15, 2009, 04:19:30 PM
Quote from: Norf Tyrone on January 15, 2009, 02:29:45 PM
The FA have banned players while charged in the past... why not again?
Who have the FA banned for getting arrested for a non-football incident?

Wasn't Woodgate banned?

full back

#8129
January 16, 2009, 11:48:09 AM
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-new s/2009/01/16/liverpool-fc-exclusive-rafa-benitez-rejects-new -contract-100252-22708447/


RAFA Benitez has rejected the contract offered to him by Liverpool Football Club.

The Spaniard insists he will only agree to the new deal if given more control over football matters - rather than having to answer to a club chief executive.

Benitez, who insists money is not an issue, has informed American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett of his stand.

Today he said: ""The owners feel that the manager's decisions need to be subject to the chief executive.

"But I know that I am subject to results and to our fans and they are the best judges I will ever have."
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 540 541 542 543 544 ... 616
User actions