Gabriel and Henderson incident being investigated by FA.

I don't believe this is preferential treatment or a cover up at all. No one heard him say anything untoward so no case to answer.

So, fuck all happened. There's a suprise. No one else heard anything probably because fuck all was said.


I’m intrigued as to what Gabriel thought he heard.

I’d rather this be the outcome all in all, be a bit weird getting off on a human being calling another human being a racial slur.
 
I mentioned on the Liverpool thread about listening to a podcast of a player who was found guilty because he couldn’t prove his innocence despite the 2 players giving contrary evidence.




He had "strongly denied" the charge and the club were "extremely disappointed" by the commission's original decision.
 
I mentioned on the Liverpool thread about listening to a podcast of a player who was found guilty because he couldn’t prove his innocence despite the 2 players giving contrary evidence.




He had "strongly denied" the charge and the club were "extremely disappointed" by the commission's original decision.



Shit do, should have had those who pointed a finger at him without proof in court.
 
Shit do, should have had those who pointed a finger at him without proof in court.

If I remember it correctly he was told by the barrister before that he’s likely to be found guilty no matter what evidence he provides. It’s not a court where you are presumed innocent until proved guilty.

Now it certainly isn’t the same case for Henderson as it seems the investigation occurred prior to a hearing so he has that benefit.

Now I believe the investigation should occur prior & you should be presumed innocent until proven guilty but I also believe in the same rule for all.
 
If I remember it correctly he was told by the barrister before that he’s likely to be found guilty no matter what evidence he provides. It’s not a court where you are presumed innocent until proved guilty.

Now it certainly isn’t the same case for Henderson as it seems the investigation occurred prior to a hearing so he has that benefit.

Now I believe the investigation should occur prior & you should be presumed innocent until proven guilty but I also believe in the same rule for all.

It's scary that someone can be found guilty of anything without proof, those in the court should be ashamed of themselves.
 
It's scary that someone can be found guilty of anything without proof, those in the court should be ashamed of themselves.

Exactly. Just throwing a little weight behind Hendersons case & possibly the worst accusation for a player.

Now I’ll go back to hating all things scouse.
 
That guy wasn’t banned because he couldn’t prove his innocence. He was banned because it was proved to the FA satisfaction that what was alleged actually happened. There was an eye witness who told the exact same story as the victim and the defendants version of events and his witness were both proved to be inconsistent with each other and video evidence.
 
That guy wasn’t banned because he couldn’t prove his innocence. He was banned because it was proved to the FA satisfaction that what was alleged actually happened. There was an eye witness who told the exact same story as the victim and the defendants version of events and his witness were both proved to be inconsistent with each other and video evidence.

I’m going off memory but I thought Turner said something to Yennaris & there was a witness & they both gave contradictory evidence & both versions differed to the video.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.