Jump to content

Football XXXIX: The Magic of M-S-N


Consigliere

Recommended Posts

Lol @ The Telegraph saying that we should offer Liverpool 20 million + Walcott for Sterling. That's never going to happen.

Assuming Walcott's worth £20m - and in today's ridiculously inflated market, that's being conservative - that puts Sterling at £40m. Seems a fair valuation for an unproven 20-year-old with an attitude problem and a history of beating women.

I would much rather we sold Szczesny, Walcott, Podolski, Campbell, and any of the other dead wood we're currently lumbered with and went after Gareth Bale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a history of beating women.

You keep bringing this up as if there was a big pile of Floyd Mayweather/Ravel Morrison/Chris Brown like evidence against him, rather than one case which collapsed in court after his ex-girlfriend (who he was charged with assaulting) made it pretty clear that what happened was at worsed an undignified shoving-match which she started and the prosecution went 'pfffffft why are we even here then, we're done'.

Which is not to say that he should have been pushing his girlfriend but calling that sort of thing 'woman beating' is disingenuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because he got away with it, doesn't mean he didn't do it. Because we all know how good the courts are at making sure violent footballers are called to account over their actions.



Sterling has been to court on two separate occasions for violence against women. Both cases involved different women. The first time was when he got arrested for punching a woman in the face outside a nightclub. After Liverpool's lawyers had the case adjourned three times, the case was finally dropped when the victim failed to appear at the courtroom. I wonder why (£££££?).



The other was the case you refer to, when Sterling was acquitted after the prosecution labeled the victim a hostile witness for giving evidence to the court that conflicted with her original 999 call (I'm sure she called 999 just for the lolz, eh?). Again, I wonder why (£££££££?). The CPS thought there was enough evidence to bring charges, otherwise Sterling wouldn't have seen the inside of a courtroom.



There is a clear history of unsavoury behaviour, and possible witness tampering, which I find almost as repugnant as the Ched Evans stuff. Personally, I have never been arrested for beating on women, much less been to court over it. That's because I don't go around beating on women. I wouldn't have him at the Arsenal.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because he got away with it, doesn't mean he didn't do it. Because we all know how good the courts are at making sure violent footballers are called to account over their actions.

Sterling has been to court on two separate occasions for violence against women. Both cases involved different women. The first time was when he got arrested for punching a woman in the face outside a nightclub. The case was dropped when the victim failed to appear at the courtroom. I wonder why (£££££?).

The other was the case you refer to, when Sterling was acquitted after the prosecution labeled the victim a hostile witness for giving evidence to the court that conflicted with her original 999 call (I'm sure she called 999 just for the lolz, eh?). Again, I wonder why (£££££££?). The CPS thought there was enough evidence to bring charges, otherwise Sterling wouldn't have seen the inside of a courtroom.

There is a clear history of unsavoury behaviour, and possible witness tampering, which I find almost as repugnant as the Ched Evans stuff. Personally, I have never been arrested for beating on women, much less been to court over it. That's because I don't go around beating on women. I wouldn't have him at the Arsenal.

You seem to be implying that being arrested and charged for a crime is enough to assume guilt on the part of the accused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be implying that being arrested and charged for a crime is enough to assume guilt on the part of the accused.

What I'm implying is that Sterling did, in fact, beat on these women, then Liverpool FC's legal machine went to work and got him off. It's really not much of a stretch.

And to be sent before the courts once would be unfortunate, twice implies a pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the CPS thought they had enough evidence to proceed to trial on two separate occasions. And you have to wonder why, after the first case was adjourned three times, the victim then failed to appear, leading to Sterling's acquittal. Fear, intimidation, money?



And the victim in the second case changed her story in court. Again, you have to wonder why.



Of course, we don't know for certain if he's innocent or guilty, but as I said, sent to trial once would be unfortunate, twice is indicative of a pattern.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but the CPS thinking they had enough evidence/a victim with a credible story isn't the same thing as evidence of coercion when the witness fails to show up. Maybe they didn't want to testify but were pressured by prosecutors who wanted to go after a rich young black guy called Raheem...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they didn't want to testify but were pressured by prosecutors who wanted to go after a rich young black guy called Raheem...

Sure. And maybe, just maybe, he is a young man who enjoys using his fists against women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that there is a second case makes him look worse, granted, and yeah, it's possible that he paid both of them off (though the judge in the girlfriend case seemed happy enough with her testimony), but your claim that 'he punched her in the face' when there's no indication that that's what he did doesn't make it look any less like you're trying to sell us a narrative against him that you've got no evidence whatsoever for.



It is possible that you're right, of course it is. In the first case, reading up on it, it's pretty clear he probably did something wrong. But there's a big gap between 'he's a twat who throws hissy-fits easily' and 'he likes to use his fists against women', and from what I can see there's a lot more evidence for the former than the latter.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they didn't want to testify but were pressured by prosecutors who wanted to go after a rich young black guy called Raheem...

Sure. And maybe, just maybe, he is a young man who enjoys using his fists against women.

Both versions are within the realm of possibility.

The thing is that until it's proven one way or the other (or some other way entirely) none of those can be considered a certainty.

EDIT:

And, since we're talking about criminal offenses he went to trial for and wasn't found guilty, the case for "he enjoys using his fists against women" version is rather weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that there is a second case makes him look worse, granted, and yeah, it's possible that he paid both of them off (though the judge in the girlfriend case seemed happy enough with her testimony), but your claim that 'he punched her in the face' when there's no indication that that's what he did doesn't make it look any less like you're trying to sell us a narrative against him that you've got no evidence whatsoever for.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-21291106

"The 18-year-old Liverpool and England winger from Woolton, Liverpool, was summonsed to Liverpool Youth Court on a charge of common assault. Police said a 27-year-old suffered "slight" facial injuries in an alleged incident in Toxteth on 2 November."

Slight facial injuries could mean anything from a black eye to a busted lip, usually the result of being punched. Or, I dunno, perhaps he kicked her in the face. Who knows, but whatever happened, I wouldn't want him anywhere near any of my female relatives.

ETA: I'm trying to think of mitigating circumstances for a situation in which a women can sustain facial injuries, however slight, the police become involved, the man responsible is charged, and then taken to trial. The 'he's a twat who throws hissy fits easily' argument just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, maybe I just don't understand lawspeak good, but a busted lip or black eye is something I'd understand as more than 'slight facial injuries', and is something I'm pretty sure would be met with a charge of ABH, not common assault (maybe a policeman or lawyer will correct me here). Having looked a little bit, a punch can be classed as common assault (something that usually involves no or little physical contact- pushing, shoving etc) but not if it causes injury. So there's a discrepancy between the police statement and the charge, which makes it eve harder to know what went on without having been there than it already was.


I don't know what mitigating circumstances there might be, or if there are any. I'm not saying Raheem Sterling is an angel of a man, or even a nice man. What I'm saying is that I see no evidence that he's the woman-beating brute that you're painting him as.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, Polish. According to the CPS, whether someone is charged with Common Assault or ABH appears to depend on whether or not the victim's injuries are serious and require medical treatment.



But anyway, the fact remains that Sterling has been hauled before the beak on two occasions, both times to answer to charges of violence against women. In my book, that makes it extremely likely that he is, in fact, a woman beater. No smoke without fire, and all that. I also find myself wondering how many times he has been involved in situations that didn't lead to the police being called.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've just got it in for Liverpool. Next you'll try to claim that Gerrard beats up DJs.



In other news, Arsenal are set to "earn" another £3million if Barcelona win the CL as part of the deal for Vermaelen. Not a bad bonus to get for a guy who hasn't played a single game all season!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't get Sterling, but not because he potentially is a woman beater(even though that is a rather large factor), but because he isn't what Arsenal needs at the moment.



The current rumours for Arsenal are that they are close to getting Cech and that they started negotiating to buy James Milner.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rumours have died down on this front but I've come to the conclusion that swapping out Bale for Sterling would actually improve Madrid because Sterling is a footballer designed for the role Bale is being uncomfortably forced into playing.



Also, he'd add some pace into the attack.




He'd still get slaughtered for his finishing same as Bale, though.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rumours have died down on this front but I've come to the conclusion that swapping out Bale for Sterling would actually improve Madrid because Sterling is a footballer designed for the role Bale is being uncomfortably forced into playing.

Also, he'd add some pace into the attack.

He'd still get slaughtered for his finishing same as Bale, though.

I do not approve of this. Just think about how the Ultras would react.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current rumours for Arsenal are that they are close to getting Cech and that they started negotiating to buy James Milner.

I'll believe the Cech thing when I see it. I know Mourinho has given him leave to go where he wants, but I still don't think he'll sell him to Arsenal. As for Milner, not the first time we've been tied to him. I'd be happy with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...