Dear Guest
Thank you for visiting! est189 will soon be closing its doors (do forums have doors?) please visit the following thread - (to wail & cry perhaps?)
https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=4002484#post4002484
Thanjk you.
Paul.S
Yes he does. It's a lower standard of proof in a civil case.
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
Yes he does. It's a lower standard of proof in a civil case.
Not guilty is not guilty..................on the grounds of self defence. Not a chance he will get anything from Stevie. However, he might get something from the others involved
Not guilty is not guilty..................on the grounds of self defence. Not a chance he will get anything from Stevie. However, he might get something from the others involved
It will be another jury and another case - he could be found guilty in a Civil claim IMO, so will go for the out of court settlement.
"Its not about the long ball or the short ball, its about the right ball." Bob Paisley
Not guilty is not guilty..................on the grounds of self defence. Not a chance he will get anything from Stevie. However, he might get something from the others involved
I'm afraid that's wrong.
OJ Simpson was found not guilty at his criminal trial but was found to be responsible in a civil case. I know it's the other side of the Atlantic but the principle is the same.
Given Gerrard has admitted hitting the guy then he could be held liable for the damage caused.
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
Not guilty is not guilty..................on the grounds of self defence. Not a chance he will get anything from Stevie. However, he might get something from the others involved
In civil law this is not necessarily the case - as Neil Young says, there is a lower standard of proof required. It's more like, "on the grounds of probability"
Whether the guy wins or not judgements in the uk re. damages for something like this are never very big, no matter who the defendant is. He'll be lucky to get a days wages from Stevie
I doubt this'll make a big difference to anyone or be much of a distraction.
I could not dig, I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?
I don't see why. He was attacked, it's not like he chose to be.
This is quite true. As far as i can see, the bloke did nothing agressive, and was set upon...by people acting in self-defense apparently? Or was it just Gerrard acting in self-defence?
Comment