|
|
Post by Mango Fan on May 12, 2015 19:55:15 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by liviman on May 13, 2015 22:09:20 GMT 1
Looks like he done it. It's whether it can be proved it was self defence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Angry on May 14, 2015 19:34:46 GMT 1
Should get the jail if guilty. |
|
|
|
Post by livijimbo on May 15, 2015 10:29:56 GMT 1
O' dear thought the boy was a decent player for us
|
|
|
|
Post by monkeysocks on May 15, 2015 17:14:35 GMT 1
According to the Hamilton Advertiser this evening, Gallagher has been found guilty and may be facing a jail sentence. The Sheriff has asked for background reports and will pass sentence next month.
|
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on May 15, 2015 22:24:04 GMT 1
If he has no record & some respected people to vouch for him he may get suspended sentence or probation. But I suspect it will be jail time. His performances towards the end of the season in particular were outstanding & all the more so when you factor in the fact that he knew this case was looming large.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Angry on May 15, 2015 22:55:57 GMT 1
Either way the club should boot him the hell out! Assuming he;s still under contract he's not the sort of character that I want to have playing for us! Bad b*stard!
|
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on May 17, 2015 0:25:05 GMT 1
If he avoids jail time & we have the option to do so I'd keep him; everyone deserves a second chance & he is a very good player for our level.
|
|
|
|
Post by liviman on May 17, 2015 12:47:04 GMT 1
Doesn't make great reading.
|
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on May 17, 2015 22:15:41 GMT 1
From what I read he doesn't deny hitting the guy but denied that it was with the severity described.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gregory's Girl on May 18, 2015 13:26:52 GMT 1
From what I read he doesn't deny hitting the guy but denied that it was with the severity described. Now that he's been found guilty of the crime I don't think it would show us in a good light if we do try to keep him as that's an awful thing to do and I have no respect for someone who does something like that. |
|
|
|
Post by durnford on May 18, 2015 14:01:33 GMT 1
Surely we knew about his history when we signed him up? It was well publicised and there was a strong possibility that he wouldn't have been able to fulfil the entire season if found guilty.
Actually I think the need to get away from things might have been partially to do with his choice of moving to us rather than staying with Dundee.
|
|
|
|
Post by theflashingblade on May 18, 2015 16:58:45 GMT 1
From what I read he doesn't deny hitting the guy but denied that it was with the severity described. Well he's guilty now so you'd have to assume that he'll be behind bars no matter if they wheel his mum out to vouch for him being nice to his elderly neighbours when he was younger. |
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on May 19, 2015 0:17:51 GMT 1
From what I read he doesn't deny hitting the guy but denied that it was with the severity described. Well he's guilty now so you'd have to assume that he'll be behind bars no matter if they wheel his mum out to vouch for him being nice to his elderly neighbours when he was younger. I think I did assume jail time further up the thread, all I'm saying is that even if he is guilty (which he has been found to be by a jury, which means he is guilty under the law...of course juries never get it wrong do they?) IMO he shouldn't be prevented from earning a living from the sport when he is released. I wonder if they will lodge an appeal or simply accept it. |
|
|
|
Post by Benedict Le Gauche on May 19, 2015 19:12:50 GMT 1
What's the world coming to when we're even discussing retaining the services of a convicted criminal? My oh my.
|
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on May 19, 2015 23:31:16 GMT 1
So in your opinion if someone is found guilty & serves a sentence & is subsequently released having served that sentence, they are no longer entitled to earn a living?
Or maybe your opinion is that they would be entitled to earn a living, just not near you? So they are someone else's problem?
May as well just lock up every person found guilty of anything for life.
|
|
|
|
Post by durnford on May 20, 2015 10:44:47 GMT 1
To be honest we all knew that he had this charge hanging over him when he came to the club and were happy for us to play for us. The story seemed like he was pretty banged to rights so I'm not sure why people are getting in a lather now.
There were a lot of people keen on getting Riordan in last season and we had our own history with the likes of Nocko Jockovic and others. Likewise could we afford to reject Griffiths if he decided he wanted to return to the side that gave him his chance? Bobby Barr and Myles Hippolyte also had some rumours of being "trouble"
I can also remember a time when half of the Arsenal team were banned from driving for a variety of convictions such as under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
I'm sort of split between the two camps; obviously I remember times when footballers were meant to be role models for many youngsters and some crimes; particularly sexual or racial, would normally mean that I would never want to see them in a Livi shirt or at the vale in any capacity for that matter. However pretty much anyone we get from Dundee will invariably come with some sort of "history"; seems to be a requirement there.
As I say there are undoubtedly some crimes where I would not accept accept them into the team whatever the circumstance but for others I would tend to think its important how they behave themselves under the Livi banner. If someone has had a fracas outside a nightclub or whatever but gets himself back in order afterwards then maybe he should get the chance? By all accounts Gallagher hasn't had any recurrence etc. since; I'd further go to say he's been a good ambassador for the club during his time here.
Personally I feel he's shown remorse and seems to have sorted himself out - given that and the fact that we know about the case when he originally signed for us - I would actually be happy to see him back.
|
|
|
|
Post by livimoaner on May 20, 2015 12:45:43 GMT 1
When it comes to a players behaviour:
There are certain "crimes" which should be clear red line issues, sex offences, domestic abuse, drugs.
Some other crimes need more discussion and a policy decided, I would say crimes of violence, robbery and fraud would be in this area.
There are some which do not need any consideration, motoring offences such as parking fines unless a company vehicle is used.
But football as always is miles behind the issue, all scenarios could have been discussed out at league/ FA level and standard operating procedures agreed. But as we no no one can organise F all in football.
|
|
|
|
Post by livilion on May 20, 2015 19:52:59 GMT 1
Agree with durnford, and no idea why only now people are kicking up a fuss about it, we all knew about this when he signed...
|
|
drwho
Youth Player
Posts: 80 
|
Post by drwho on May 20, 2015 20:12:04 GMT 1
2 important points.
I wasn't actually aware how bad the incident was prior to him signing for Livi FC
He wasn't guilty when he signed for us first time around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Angry on May 20, 2015 21:22:11 GMT 1
How does pleading not guilty equate to showing remorse? If he has expressed any sorrow it'll have been because he knew he was bang to rights and will shortly be playing hunt the soap in cell block H.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Angry on May 20, 2015 21:23:35 GMT 1
I wasn't actually aware how bad the incident was prior to him signing for Livi FC I'd never heard of the incident at all. I wonder if the whole falling down the stairs at home incident was connected to the incident? |
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on May 20, 2015 22:36:30 GMT 1
2 important points. I wasn't actually aware how bad the incident was prior to him signing for Livi FC He wasn't guilty when he signed for us first time around. I think you'll find that he was just as guilty when he signed as now; the only thing that has changed is the formal declaration of his guilt in court. The jury in the court case found him guilty, it didn't suddenly make him guilty, they weighed up the evidence & made a judgement that the prosecution case did enough to prove his guilt. |
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on May 20, 2015 22:43:45 GMT 1
How does pleading not guilty equate to showing remorse? If he has expressed any sorrow it'll have been because he knew he was bang to rights and will shortly be playing hunt the soap in cell block H. I think Durnford's point is that he hasn't been involved in more incidents; perhaps he should have said "he has shown willingness to reform". As for not showing remorse...someone who pleads "not guilty" is hardly likely to show remorse as this would indicate guilt; if he still insists after being found guilty that he is innocent then why would he show remorse, as this would contradict his claims of innocence. |
|
|
|
Post by livimoaner on May 21, 2015 14:36:23 GMT 1
The issue with our legal system is that there is little incentive to tell the truth, no matter who involved and those that do tell the truth seem to end up worse off than those practised at lying.
Add to that a false belief that not grassing up is beneficial and we see a system and culture that serves not the majority but only those intent on doing wrong.
|
|
