There is proof that John Terry is Kai's dad...Kai hasn't got a spudhead. The baby's not yours The baby's not youuurs/ Wayne Rooney The baby's not yours.
The big difference is that gerrard is allowed by law to do what he did. Rooney was not, or are you telling me that rooneys many elbows have all been in self defence?
I don't think you are allowed by law to attack a DJ and I'm fairly sure if you or I had done that, with the video evidence to back it up, the verdict would have been very different.
You were right with "I dont think" and then it all went wrong from there. Self defence is not about who hit who first, this is not the playground. Well.....
I also believe that provocation was taken into account. Gerrard was provoked by an abusive Man United fan who had an anti scouse atitude.Nobody knows what Mr McGhee said to him. Gerrard was acquitted of any wrong-doing. Rooney was found guilty of having threesomes with whores when his wife was up the duff.
I am lost here. I said that Gerrard's actions were illegal whether he was found guilty or not and you are babbling about playground fights.
Well a court said that there was sufficient provocation to justify the action that Gerrard took. I think I'll accept their verdict over yours.
Yes because that's how it works. Everyone who is acquitted has committed no crime 100 percent of UK time.
That's the one. Can anyone spot the difference between that tackle and this one: please log in to view this image
No. Legally, they haven't been found guilty. That doesn't mean that they haven't committed an act that is unlawful. What it means is that they haven't been found guilty by the jury. I could commit murder tomorrow but cover my tracks very well, then be tried by a jury and it could be found that there isn't substantial enough evidence to put me away and a not guilty verdict could be returned. I have still committed the murder though, so have I committed an illegal act? I haven't, nor will I, be committing murder btw. Just giving an example
There is a difference between people doing something illegal and getting away with it because of a lack of evidence etc and this case (and 1000's others) where it was decided that no crime had been committed.
Can you please answer the following questions: (1) The date that you were appointed as the sole arbiter of FACT in the UK? (2) The date when you were apponited as a judge in the Spreme Court? Unless you can do either or both of the above then you have no authority to declare any act illegal and especially not one that has been before a court of law (and who's decision has not been subject to appeal)
