Stevie G

I've been paying attention to the Steven Gerrard case recently, and confess to possessing a fairly instinctive (and not necessarily commendable) opinion that he should obviously go down for it. If you throw the first punch (of three) in a fight then you're in trouble. And given the CCTV footage is conclusive
you might think his status as an England international will be the only thing keeping him out - which would be wrong. Yesterday though I was talking about it with someone who said this was an overeaction, and given that he doesn't have any previous a prison sentence would be severe. But what about whene he got done for drink driving?
Now this took me back to my student days, when I was doing my coaching badge and was talking to a guy from Huyton. He said that recently Gerrard got done for drink driving, but Liverpool planted a story in the Echo saying that he had a hamstring injury (not beyond the realms of possibility) and was therefore getting a lift to training from his brother. The fact that his brother (Paul?) started driving a brand new yellow Renault Megane was "coincidental". As far as I was aware, this was not reported by any national newspaper. As time passed I forgot about this, but it's clearly influenced my snap judgment. And guess what's emerged from the trial today:

Mr Gerrard's barrister, John Kelsey-Fry QC, said his client had been in trouble with the police before - when he was 19 he was banned from the roads for nine months for driving while drunk.

Mr Gerrard said he had not been in trouble with the police since, or been involved in any other violent incident.

So I'm curious. Was Gerrard's conviction (a) public information; (b) common knowledge? (For example  he's not on this list, but neither's Big Dunc).Regardless, he won't go down for it will he? The judge is probably Graham Poll.

Update: The BBC article has been modified and the section I've quoted above has been removed.

Comments

[Jim]

Not that you're bitter or anything.

[aje]

I was actually going to write "bitter" rather than "not necessarily commendable", but I'm not sure what I'd be bitter about. Only when he's let off will I be bitter, surely!

But now I'm more interested in the fact that the BBC have removed part of the article. I wonder if there is some injunction.

[David Skinner]

Bang the cunt up!

[Jim]

Eh, the BBC article currently says:

"The court heard earlier that Mr Gerrard had not been in any kind of trouble with the police since he was banned from the roads for nine months for drinking and driving when he was 19."

So I'm not sure what the problem is. Apart from the usual problems Everton fans have, obviously.

[aje]

It's not a problem, just a curiosity. When I first read the article there was the section I quoted. Then I noticed it had gone. Now, apparently, it's been referred to again. I don't know what you mean by the "usual problem" - did you know he'd been done for drink driving?

[Jim]

The problem, obviously, is that you're allowing your views of the case to be swayed by bitterness regarding Liverpool. Personally I think he should be treated like anyone else.

[aje]

If I hadn't fully acknowledged your point in the first sentence of this article, you might be on to something!

[Jim]

Well yes, I was just highlighting that as problematic, since you asked.

[aje]

You're alright though, he got off. Must have been a few Norwegians on the jury...