Free the Liverpool One!

Dave Sutton's barnet · Post by **Dave Sutton's barnet** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:52 pm

No idea, EW

Haven't watched the tape or studied the evidence

Seems odd to me, but what are you suggesting?

A bent legal system?

enfieldwhite · Post by **enfieldwhite** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:57 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:No idea, EW

Haven't watched the tape or studied the evidence

Seems odd to me, but what are you suggesting?

A bent legal system?

Not bent. Partial. Biased. Blinkered. Partisan. Imbalanced. Unfair. Inconsistent.

William the White · Post by **William the White** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:29 am

enfieldwhite wrote:
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:No idea, EW

Haven't watched the tape or studied the evidence

Seems odd to me, but what are you suggesting?

A bent legal system?
Not bent. Partial. Biased. Blinkered. Partisan. Imbalanced. Unfair. Inconsistent.

What does a bent one look like then?

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:51 am

enfieldwhite wrote:
Lord Kangana wrote:Having met (and indeed worked with) a guy who purported to be the cellmate of the fella who took the rap for a certain Leeds defender, I wouldn't hold out much hope of justice being served enfield. Famous people don't "do" jail.
Which is entirely my point.

I hope I don't meet anyone anytime soon who makes me feel threatened. Especially if I've got six of my mates backing me up.

This, as a precedent, is legal gold-dust. See also Amy Winehouse.

It's not a question of legal precedent - just that Gerrard and his legal team have managed to convince a jury of a set of facts that leaves him innocent.

I have no idea what went on; I'm not sure the video footage shows anything helpful.

I did find the judge's comments rather odd, though:

"The verdict is a credible one on the full facts of this case and you walk away from this court with your reputation intact."

Doesn't sound like a man blind to the status of the one appearing before him.

Dave Sutton's barnet · Post by **Dave Sutton's barnet** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:20 am

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:I did find the judge's comments rather odd, though:

"The verdict is a credible one on the full facts of this case and you walk away from this court with your reputation intact."

Doesn't sound like a man blind to the status of the one appearing before him.

Isn't "reputation" an important part of law? Certainly something we journos have to bear in mind re: libel.

But I know what you mean. It's an odd one.

jaffka · Post by **jaffka** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:23 am

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:I did find the judge's comments rather odd, though:

"The verdict is a credible one on the full facts of this case and you walk away from this court with your reputation intact."

Doesn't sound like a man blind to the status of the one appearing before him.
Isn't "reputation" an important part of law? Certainly something we journos have to bear in mind re: libel.

But I know what you mean. It's an odd one.

Well if it is, I don't think thats correct, its a disgrace.

Everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law.

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:02 am

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:I did find the judge's comments rather odd, though:

"The verdict is a credible one on the full facts of this case and you walk away from this court with your reputation intact."

Doesn't sound like a man blind to the status of the one appearing before him.
Isn't "reputation" an important part of law? Certainly something we journos have to bear in mind re: libel.

But I know what you mean. It's an odd one.

Reputation and libel are part of an entirely different area of law, and I'm not sure why the judge thought including it in this opportunity to grandstand a little was appropriate.

madmarx · Post by **madmarx** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:31 am

much as i admire the interchange of level headed and thoughtful responses...and much as i admire Gerard as a footballer.

I saw... Gerard knock seven bells out off a bloke who had just been set up by a swift dig off one of his mates... good enough for me.

Put it this way if i saw this happening in real life to one of my lads say..i would be straight over and kick seven bells out of the bloke swinging the punches.

How he has got off with this beggars belief ranks alongside rodney king for evidence.. All the chatting is just academic bullshit, there is a rabbit away somewhere.

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:32 am

Where did you see that?

a1 · Post by a1 » Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:08 pm

he couldve beat him up into a coma , and hedve only got 10 weeks.

madmarx · Post by **madmarx** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:23 pm

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:Where did you see that?

was all over the telly man...footage from inside the club.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:38 pm

On top of it all the guy that got battered is under police survailence, due to death threats and abuse from Scouse supporters. Great stuff.....

Daft thing about it, I've seen a lifetime of pub scuffles that never got anywhere near a court. Course there were few "celebrities" ever involved. Only good thing is it'll be the Scousers who pay the taxman for the court costs...hopefully.

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:58 pm

madmarx wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:Where did you see that?
was all over the telly man...footage from inside the club.

I've only seen grainy footage filmed at some distance and also largely obscured by other people.... have I missed something clearer?

madmarx · Post by **madmarx** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:54 pm

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
madmarx wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:Where did you see that?
was all over the telly man...footage from inside the club.
I've only seen grainy footage filmed at some distance and also largely obscured by other people.... have I missed something clearer?

you werent Gerards brief were you.. yes it was grainy but if you cant make out gerard laying into the guy ( which he does not deny ) like a thug youre not looking very closely..doesnt have to be in 3D or HD to get the picture. If that was you or I it would have been good enough footage for 2 years.

Dave Sutton's barnet · Post by **Dave Sutton's barnet** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:30 am

jaffka wrote:
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:I did find the judge's comments rather odd, though:

"The verdict is a credible one on the full facts of this case and you walk away from this court with your reputation intact."

Doesn't sound like a man blind to the status of the one appearing before him.
Isn't "reputation" an important part of law? Certainly something we journos have to bear in mind re: libel.
Well if it is, I don't think thats correct, its a disgrace.

Everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law.

You slightly (but understandably) misunderstand what I say.

In libel cases, the courts are basically asked if the allegedly offensive comments would "reduce the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of right-minded people". So you would be much less likely to be found guilty of libel if you'd said "This man is a paedophile" about Gary Glitter rather than, say, Timmy Mallet.

But, as our man of the law says, that's libel (civil court, right, Mummy?) as opposed to affray (criminal court).

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:Reputation and libel are part of an entirely different area of law, and I'm not sure why the judge thought including it in this opportunity to grandstand a little was appropriate.

...and as Mummy cleverly alludes to, we should all be judged equally without prejudice (pre-judice, "before judging"). That's why statues representing justice are often blindfolded. But as Elvis Costello wrote for Johnny Cash, "Sometimes justice, you will find, is just dumb, not colour-blind."

Connect with your social network account

Free the Liverpool One!

Who is online