love this pic :D

 

Celtic 1 - 0 Rangers. 3 Rangers players sent off. El Hadji Diouf one of them sent off after the final whistle. Thug.

Barca-Valencia was brilliant, don't know how Barca won.

 

Celtic-Rangers seemed to be a big mess, caught the end and analysis.

 

City-Villa was just a big shit. :disappointed:

 

It depends really, I would rather get shot in the leg with an airgun than punched in the face hard personally.

 

In the leg perhaps but would you rather be punched or have some little moron jumping around with an airgun infront of you knowing it will hit you anywhere? It could have taken his eye out, if it had hit his temple things could have been much worse.

Barca-Valencia was brilliant, don't know how Barca won.

 

Celtic-Rangers seemed to be a big mess, caught the end and analysis.

 

City-Villa was just a big shit. :disappointed:

 

 

 

In the leg perhaps but would you rather be punched or have some little moron jumping around with an airgun infront of you knowing it will hit you anywhere? It could have taken his eye out, if it had hit his temple things could have been much worse.

 

Yeah true, and I have to agree about your description of Cole too:laugh3:.

People keep saying they don't want to see the Rangers Celtic fiasco in football, but I thought it was entertaining.

Basically Gerrard's absolutely fine for getting caught even if he no doubt would've ignored it forever if he didn't but Cole is an absolute thug because it took a few days for him to get caught. :wtf:

 

The fact is, whether you accept the verdict or not, Gerrard was charged, appeared in court, and subsequently acquitted.

Therefore surely Cole should have to appear in court too?

Where's the consistency?:dozey:

The fact is, whether you accept the verdict or not, Gerrard was charged, appeared in court, and subsequently acquitted.

Therefore surely Cole should have to appear in court too?

Where's the consistency?:dozey:

 

Do you understand law? Somebody has to make a complaint and start proceedings against him. That person would be the one who was shot. If he wants it to it will happen.

Do you understand law? Somebody has to make a complaint and start proceedings against him. That person would be the one who was shot. If he wants it to it will happen.

 

Not true. People get arrested and charged all the time without "complaints" being made by a "victim". Otherwise nobody would be arrested for murder or manslaughter.:dozey:

Gerrard and five others were arrested following the incident itself, not because the "victim" lodged a complaint:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/7802932.stm

 

The police only need to decide an offence has been committed, for example, grievous bodily harm.

They were arrested as part of a disturbance and somebody reported them. There was no disturbance or grounds for arrests to be made on the Cole front.

 

Ashley Cole said he was unaware that the gun was loaded and he has formally apologised whereas Steven Gerrard maintained his innocence until proven guilty.

 

Grievous bodily harm? Seriously? I can tell you read the Daily Mail.

 

 

 

 

Edit. As a side note I agree Ashley Cole is a **** by the way. But some of the backlash has been annoying, it's not really that much of a story. It's like a piece of trivia that you laugh at when it's repeated ten years later.

They were arrested as part of a disturbance and somebody reported them. There was no disturbance or grounds for arrests to be made on the Cole front.

 

Ashley Cole said he was unaware that the gun was loaded and he has formally apologised whereas Steven Gerrard maintained his innocence until proven guilty.

 

He wasn't proven guilty. He was found not guilty. Therefore he had every reason to maintain his innocence.:dozey:

 

The case went to trial in Liverpool Crown Court. Gerrard's co-defendants pleaded guilty before the trial but Gerrard maintained his innocence. Gerrard admitted hitting Marcus McGee but claimed it was in self defence and on July 24, Gerrard was found not guilty by the jury.

 

Grievous bodily harm? Seriously? I can tell you read the Daily Mail.

 

I can tell you're not very clued up on the law, as any wound can constitute GBH.

 

Wound

 

This section is about the legal definition of 'wound'. For the medical definition, see wound

For this purpose, a wound is an injury that breaks the continuity of the skin..[2] There must be a division of the whole skin and not merely a division of the [1]cuticle or upper layer

A single drop of blood is sufficient, but it must fall outside the body: see JCC (a minor) v. Eisenhower (1984) 78 Cr. App. R. 48. In this case, a pellet gun was fired at the victim. The bullet ruptured blood vessels above his eye, causing his eye to fill with fluid. Lord Justice Robert Goff said the rupturing of blood vessels is an internal wound, only the breaking of WHOLE skin would warrant a wounding charge.

A bruise or internal rupturing of blood vessels is not a wound,[3] and neither is a broken bone.[4]

Wounding does not imply the use of a weapon; a kick may be wounding.

 

 

it's not really that much of a story.

 

I believe it is, because the perception is that these "overpaid idiots" (as someone aptly put it on The Wright Stuff) seem to be able to do whatever they want and get away with it.:dozey:

Oh wait, yeah, he was found not guilty :laugh3:

My bad. But yes, he denied it when he clearly did do it. I'm surprised his 'innocence' hasn't been used as a defence on here yet when comparing the two cases.

 

 

 

Does firing a pellet gun which you think is not loaded mean you are out of control and believe you can get away with anything?

People keep saying they don't want to see the Rangers Celtic fiasco in football, but I thought it was entertaining.

 

I don't think so. Rivalry is naturally a part of football but with the Old Firm their is a unparalleled nastiness about it which if you experience is not entertaining at all. Seeing blood on the streets outside Parkhead is not pleasant. There is still a major problem in Glasgow and in all honesty it's gotten much worse over the past year.

Seeing Lennon make a prick of himself was entertaining though.

Oh wait, yeah, he was found not guilty :laugh3:

My bad. But yes, he denied it when he clearly did do it.

 

I reckon his lawyers might have something to say about that if they happened to read this.:dozey:

Gerrard said he hit the guy in self-defence, and after weighing up all the evidence, the jury returned a "not guilty" verdict:

 

But the jury at Liverpool Crown Court took just over an hour to decide that Mr Gerrard, 28, had reacted in self-defence when he swung uppercut punches at Marcus McGee, 34, a company director, at the Lounge Inn, in Southport

 

 

Earlier Judge Henry Globe, QC, the Recorder of Liverpool, signalled the end of the footballer’s eight-month ordeal when he told him: “The verdict is a credible one on the full facts of this case and you walk away from this court with your reputation intact.”

 

 

I reckon that speaks for itself.;)

 

 

So Gerrard pleaded 'not guilty' and was acquitted, but you refuse to accept he didn't do it.

 

 

At the same time, Ashley Cole has admitted he accidentally shot and injured that guy with an air rifle, yet you say there's no case to answer.

 

 

Is that twisted logic or what?:dozey:

 

 

Anyway, whatever way you look at it, what kind of imbecile picks up an airgun that happens to be laying around, assumes it isn't loaded and then fires it in the general direction of someone?

You've really got be some sort of moron to do that (just as much as if you throw a fire extinguisher off the roof of a building assuming it won't hit anyone, or if you "cook" a TV in an oven assuming it won't result in a fire).

The idiots who did those things apologised for what they did, incidentally, and didn't mean any harm, but were still charged and convicted, even though nobody was injured.

 

Imagine you went somewhere and saw a firearm of any sort laying around. Would you assume it wasn't loaded, pick it up and fire it at anyone?

 

And if you did, and happened to injure a total stranger by accident, do you reckon saying it was an "accident" and apologising to said person would cut any ice with the police?

I very much doubt it.:dozey:

 

I'm pretty sure your average "man-in-the-street" would at the very least be cautioned, and almost certainly charged with something.

I reckon his lawyers might have something to say about that if they happened to read this.:dozey:

 

Send it to them.

 

 

And all of the above is well and good, but that doesn't mean Chelsea deserved no points in the game against Utd, which was my original point.

Send it to them.

 

 

And all of the above is well and good, but that doesn't mean Chelsea deserved no points in the game against Utd, which was my original point.

 

Different matter entirely. Even if Cole had been charged, he would have been bailed and eligible to play. The airgun incident has nothing to do with what happens on the pitch.

However, there is a strong argument that Rooney shouldn't have been eligible.:dozey:

Yeah, well that's where the whole thing came from and why I piped up. Do you think they would have appealed against the ban just to have him free for the game? Or do you think they'd have given Berbs a call up?

Edit. As a side note I agree Ashley Cole is a **** by the way. But some of the backlash has been annoying, it's not really that much of a story. It's like a piece of trivia that you laugh at when it's repeated ten years later.

 

I'm in two minds like that, normally I take the "thats overblown tripe" stance for most 'shocking' news stories, but even if a regular person had brought a rifle into their workplace, and started messing around with, and shot someone, and were stupid enough to say they didn't realise it was loaded when it's THEIR fucking rifle, that would still make a small news story for the luls. The fact it's happened to not only a very famous overpaid footballer, but everyone's favourite bell-end, it's a big story.

 

I'll agree that they are probably hyping up this being possibly lethal, but technically it is, isn't it? Shot to the juggular wouldn't end well. I'm on the fence with whether or not this is a significant story.

 

I believe it is, because the perception is that these "overpaid idiots" (as someone aptly put it on The Wright Stuff) seem to be able to do whatever they want and get away with it.:dozey:

 

HAHAHA was the source really necessary?

 

 

I reckon his lawyers might have something to say about that if they happened to read this.:dozey:

Gerrard said he hit the guy in self-defence, and after weighing up all the evidence, the jury returned a "not guilty" verdict:

 

But the jury at Liverpool Crown Court took just over an hour to decide that Mr Gerrard, 28, had reacted in self-defence when he swung uppercut punches at Marcus McGee, 34, a company director, at the Lounge Inn, in Southport

 

 

Earlier Judge Henry Globe, QC, the Recorder of Liverpool, signalled the end of the footballer’s eight-month ordeal when he told him: “The verdict is a credible one on the full facts of this case and you walk away from this court with your reputation intact.”

 

 

I reckon that speaks for itself.;)

 

 

So Gerrard pleaded 'not guilty' and was acquitted, but you refuse to accept he didn't do it.

 

 

At the same time, Ashley Cole has admitted he accidentally shot and injured that guy with an air rifle, yet you say there's no case to answer.

 

 

Is that twisted logic or what?:dozey:

 

 

Anyway, whatever way you look at it, what kind of imbecile picks up an airgun that happens to be laying around, assumes it isn't loaded and then fires it in the general direction of someone?

You've really got be some sort of moron to do that (just as much as if you throw a fire extinguisher off the roof of a building assuming it won't hit anyone, or if you "cook" a TV in an oven assuming it won't result in a fire).

The idiots who did those things apologised for what they did, incidentally, and didn't mean any harm, but were still charged and convicted, even though nobody was injured.

 

Imagine you went somewhere and saw a firearm of any sort laying around. Would you assume it wasn't loaded, pick it up and fire it at anyone?

 

And if you did, and happened to injure a total stranger by accident, do you reckon saying it was an "accident" and apologising to said person would cut any ice with the police?

I very much doubt it.:dozey:

 

I'm pretty sure your average "man-in-the-street" would at the very least be cautioned, and almost certainly charged with something.

 

Wow this time Mark's actually right about something, and he really milks it. This explains why the rest of his debates are usually a few sweeping sentences with a few ;) and :smug:

I'll also point out that this post is me admitting I was wrong, as I have done in a previous post too. This is how it works Mark. When you make a mistake you own up to it. Let's see if you can learn from me ;)

I'm in two minds like that, normally I take the "thats overblown tripe" stance for most 'shocking' news stories, but even if a regular person had brought a rifle into their workplace, and started messing around with, and shot someone, and were stupid enough to say they didn't realise it was loaded when it's THEIR fucking rifle, that would still make a small news story for the luls. The fact it's happened to not only a very famous overpaid footballer, but everyone's favourite bell-end, it's a big story.

 

I'll agree that they are probably hyping up this being possibly lethal, but technically it is, isn't it? Shot to the juggular wouldn't end well. I'm on the fence with whether or not this is a significant story.

 

I'm not sure anyone's seriously suggesting death could have resulted, but maybe Mr. A*Cole should read this before he picks up an air rifle and fires it at someone next time:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216635/Boy-10-killed-air-rifle-accident.html

I'll also admit that I forgot Gerrard was found not guilty, and this is something that I accept, I am wrong. ;)

 

It turns out some people around here are too arrogant to do that, but I wouldn't name names. :smug:

 

:rolleyes:

anyone watching valencia v barca? this is great football! can't believe valencia aren't ahead 1-0, they had a clear goal called offside.

 

Great game. Valencia played really well and if Arsenal is smart, they'll take that style of play to Camp Nou. Barca had more scoring chances though. Messi had 3-4 clear opportunities in the first half alone.

I'll also point out that this post is me admitting I was wrong, as I have done in a previous post too. This is how it works Mark. When you make a mistake you own up to it. Let's see if you can learn from me ;)

 

Where did you actually admit you were wrong about Gerrard?:confused:

Great game. Valencia played really well and if Arsenal is smart, they'll take that style of play to Camp Nou. Barca had more scoring chances though. Messi had 3-4 clear opportunities in the first half alone.

 

I was also glad Adriano finally got his assist. He was running that same play for the entire game and if Valencia were smart, they would have stopped it sooner.

I'll also admit that I forgot Gerrard was found not guilty, and this is something that I accept, I am wrong. ;)

 

It turns out some people around here are too arrogant to do that, but I wouldn't name names. :smug:

 

 

Well even if you did, it would still only be your opinion, not fact.:dozey:

 

Anyway, you didn't ever suggest Gerrard was guilty even though he was acquitted.

 

I'm not for a moment suggesting Gerrard's an "angel" who never puts a foot wrong, by the way.

 

If that bar incident is anything to go by, he should at least be a bit more particular about who he hangs out with.