RaoulD

Whilst I was not there, the reports suggested that an application for bail was being made but I suppose it was just the prosecution outlining objections in advance rather than responding to a formal application. I would have thought bail was unlikely given the fact that the investigation is ongoing, the flight risk and the risk to the Defendant's safety but on the other hand, he is allegedly a good family man whose has not seen his wife and family since Monday and served his country etc. As he had counsel representing him, I think it is safe to assume that he has the means to pay for his own representation (for the time being) and has been sensibly advised against making a bail application now.

No just a bit late, they only started arriving about 1500 years ago.

The indictment for the offence has to name an individual who is the victim of the assault/wounding and suffers the requisite grievous bodily harm. You could potentially have 70 charges of varying degrees of assault depending on the injury caused but overloading an indictment makes the criminal trial cumbersome and ultimately adds nothing to the sentence if convicted. The charges are based on the evidence that clearly shows him driving deliberately at an identified victim who he had no cause to take offence with.

Crown Court is in the same building and the Judge is free this afternoon. Sometimes happens in combined courts as I have had a civil appeal interrupted so that the judge can deal with a criminal matter. May also be applying for bail today.

The offence is dealt with in the Magistrates Court so will be dealt with separately to the indictment for the s.18/Dangerous Driving offences. Will probably be issued with a summons in due course unless the second test at the station came back negative.

Heysel ceromonies at Anfield and in Turin (where Billy Hogan and Ian Rush are today) to make the 40th anniversary would almost certainly mean that any other announcements will be postponed until at least tomorrow. As the transfer window opens on Sunday and negotiations about Wirtz appear to be ongoing, I suspect that the club will want to defer any announcement until after those negotiations conclude with the registration being a mere formality. Bayern were probably delaying Tah because they were also expecting Wirtz to sign and have only proceeded to annouce Tah (which has been known for some time) because Wirtz has said no to them.

The drug driving offence would only carry a maximum 6 month term of imprisonment but would cover the police/CPS if there was a medical reason for his behaviour since you can commit the offence with lawful drugs in your system.

Causing serious injury by dangerous driving looks a certainty given what constitutes GBH but they could still go for attempted murder knowing that it could potentially allow a jury to consider analternative attempted GBH charge.

Attempted murder requires proof of the specific intent to kill rather than simply to cause GBH. It is usually charged where there is either a clear intent to kill someone or where the motive behand an act which was likely to cause death or serious injury cannot be clearly established (either because the defendant stays silent or the explanation given leaves doubt as to the real motive). The arrest will be on the basis of the most serious potential offence committed as that makes it easier to justify extension of time for questionning to try and establish a motive. The precise charge will probably be referred to the CPS to decide. Attempted Murder can result in a life sentence as the maximum sentence is the same as if the attempt had succeeded.

I don't disagree but it was the same when I lived within the Notting Hill exclusion zone. We were literally adjacent to the All Saints which is one of the focal points for the carnival. It was not a side stree on the fringe. There were always cars parked right outside our house so anyone who wanted to drive their car within the zone could have done so. The point I am making is that an exclusion zone may prevent cars entering on the day but it cannot totally exclude cars from being driven within the zone because in order to do that you have to remove every vehicle from the zone before it is created. According to the latest information released by the Police, Water Street does appear to have been closed off to traffic and that the driver appears to have followed an ambulance that was being allowed in to respondi o a call for assistance. No doubt there will be an enquiry about how this was allowed to happen without a response but as there is a potential criminal case to come, it is probably best not to speculate as to what could or should have been done in the meantime.

Have seen it happen in the past but generally getting onto the main parade route whilst the floats were on without a permit would not be possible. If you lived within the zone most residents either left their car where it was or moved it out on the Saturday night and brought it back in when the streets reopened. The problem was that you could not clear the area completely of cars as many residents took the opportunity to go away and left their cars in the resident parking zones before the suspension notices were put up (which was usually only a few days beforehand) There is not much you can do if someone is trying to drive out of the zone other than let them out. The parade route was one thing but in the side streets it was not policed to the same extent and therefore there is much more traffic movement in these areas than there should have been. There are obviously questions as to how the car was able to get into Water Street in the first place but an exclusion zone would not necessarily have prevented cars been driven within it.

Not correct, We used to live just off the All Sainta Road right in the heart of the carnival zone and the exclusion zone was ineffective at best. We and other residents moved our cars outside the zone but the space was rapidly taken by vans and other vehicles running the catering stalls and there were always access and exit points for resident access for safety/care reasons. You only needed proof of residence within the zone to be allowed access,

Why not sing (to the Pistol’s Silly Thing) oh you silly thing, you’ve really gone and done it now, oh you silly thing, you’ll never be a legend now

Trent was the embodiment of every fans dream to wear the red shirt. It is a privilege afforded to few as Shankly made clear to his players. As a local lad, Trent was not only living the dream but adored for it and he dined out on it, most notably following the European Cup win in 2019. I think most could accept him wanting a new challenge abroad if he had been open and honest about it. Despite Slot's attempts to protect him by saying he was genuinely undecided, Trent's behaviour suggests otherwise. You do not run your contract down and decline offers of extensions, if you genuinely are undecided about your future. If he was unsure at the start of this season, he ought to have agreed an extension when it was offerred if it truly was not about the money as he has claimed. Nobody believes that he has not been negotiating a move to Real Madrid for years and that he made up his mind well before March this year. He had to remain silent about his intentions because any approach to him without the club's permission before January would be seen to contravene the rules. Real Madrid made it clear that they would not sign him if they had to pay a transfer fee that reflected his status as a contracted player of LFC. They did the same with Mbappe and signed him in the same way even after he had frustrated the first attempt by signing an extension to his contract with PSG. Whilst I think the booing of any player wearing a red shirt is an embarrassment, it seemed to me to be a more sponteneous reaction to the dishonesty that Trent has shown to the fans. He may not have been able to honest and admit to wanting to join Real but he should have stayed silent and not allowed any message to go out that he was "undecided" or that there was still a prospect of him remaining beyong this Summer.

Remember Keegan and being devastated. Did not last long because his replacement did alright. Missed Clem initially because Brucie's early games were likely to induce a heart attack. Soon forgotten and in keeping with tradition, he got a good reception on his return as an oppo keeper. Souness was the one that hurt more after the event. At the time we had just done a treble and were confident of continuing where we left off despite him going but it soon became apparent that the impact was greater than anticipated because big Jan took a while to get going and Everton actually had a decent team for a change. McManaman was the one that really annoyed me at the time. We tried to sell him to Barcelona and then he did a Bosman with Real. Time has probably healed a lot of this pain but he was still an Evertonian in a red shirt and he is a useless pundit. Rush was understandable, it did not work out for him and he returned, We got good money for him and it allowed us to buy Barnes, Beardsley and Aldridge in the meantime. They did alright. Torres ought to have been an issue but given that we had Hodge as a manager and were playing like donkeys, it kinda made sense to go to a club that might win something. I think the fact that we got serious money for him and his form declined after leaving us mitigates the anger at him jumping ship. I wish we had seen him and Suarez in tandem because Andy Carroll was not an adequate replacement. Alonso was the one where I really thought the club had let us down. I know Rafa may be partly responsible for this but the guy got us and would probably have stayed if he had been valued in the same way we saw him. Do not begrudge him going to RM but given his background, it was a surprising move for a man who grew up in the Basque country. Still welcome at any time at Anfield as far as I am concerned Mash. As with Alonso, it is hard to feel animostity towards him. I got why he left and believe he still is a fan of us. His dedication of the victory over Man U merely confirmed it in my eyes. Loved him as a player when I first saw him at the 2006 World Cup and was over the moon when we signed him. For me he falls into the same category as Suarez Suarez - our madman and genius. I wish he had stayed longer but grafedul for the time he was with us. Probably the most talented player I have ever seen in a liverpool shirt and certainly the most problematic. Even his leaving felt right given that he was banned for half the season. We got decent money for him and whilst I wished he had stayed to be part of a Klopp team, the toxicity of his remaining might have made it impossible. Coutinho. Bought for 8 million sold for 140 and allowed us to by Allison and Virg.

I can say that I am surprised, it has been on the cards since at least the Summer when he had not signed an extension to his contract. There is little the club can do if a player refuses to agree terms and I suspect that FSG and the club have known this for some time. When this situation arises you have to decide whether to keep the player for the remainder of his contract or sell him and try and get a premium for him. Either way you are going to have to buy a replacement unless you can recruit from within and this will involve a capital outlay (that can be amortised over the length of the contract up to a maximum of 5 years). The advantage of selling a player is that you get a transfer fee but you may have to compensate them for the premature termination of their contract unless the player seeks the transfer. Keeping a player who runs down his contract avoids the immediate need for a replacement and any claim for compensation but also deprives you of a transfer fee. A player like Trent is not someone you can easily replace with a like for like swap. The team will probably have to make changes to the way it plays if someone else is at right back. This may not be a bad thing in future as we seem to have become over-reliant on Trent's attacking threat on the right flank particularly when this is combined with Mo's usual positioning. This is probably why we have kept Trent and not sold him. You cannot blame a player for wanting a change of scene or wanting to try another league. He has won pretty much everything with us and his part in the game against Barcelona will never be forgotten. I think it is because it is Real Madrid that some have a problem in him running down his contract and joining them given that the same thing happened with McMannaman and Owen. His form has not been the best this season in my view but he was still a key member of the team that ought to see title number 20 at the end of the season. It is his part in securing the trophies we have won in the last 6 years that should be recognised and not the fact that he has decided to leave. If he was going to another English club, I would feel differently about it but he isn't.

It is to be expected. He is in the last year of his contract and his biggest bargaining chip in negotiations for a new contract is the threat of him leaving on a free in the summer and his ability to talk to other clubs from January, He knows the best deal he can do is to force the club to give him a long contract on the same if not higher wages than the one he has at present. The club's position is that he is 33 and a long contract at his current wage presents a huge risk should his form dip or he gets injured, The latter risk is inherent in all contracts but probably greater given his age (muscles are less elastic and healing/recovery time is longer the older you get). He is doing his best on the pitch this season to disprove the former. The coded message to the club is that he wants to stay, the fans want him to stay so don't let them down and get it sorted now. The club on the other hand are probably thinking that the interest in him in January might not be as attractive as some seem to think and that his desire to remain in the Premier League will outweigh a move to a less competitive league. Italy is probably not an option given he moved from there and the big Spanish giants probably have no room/budget for him. It's a high stakes poker game at the moment but I think it will get sorted but probably not until after January when the strenght of his agent's hand will be clearer.

I think that is the correct interpretation on what he was saying overall on Sunday. Of course everyone in the media seized on the "its my last year" quote and interpretated it as him leaving but it was no more than a factually accurate statement of how things stand at present in terms of his contractual position with the club. It seems to me that there are really only 2 scenarios here: (1) Salah decides that he is not going to renew his contract and seek to play elsewhere. He can do this regardless of whether the club offer him a new contract or not so it is out of the club's control; alternatively (2) Salah elects to stay and an extension to his contract is agreed. I doubt it will be more than 3 years given his age and the potential for diminution in his effectiveness but I suspect that the club beieve that he is keen to stay hence the fairly relaxed approach to the fact that he is now in the final year of his contract. The fact that he turned down the opportunity to play for Eqypt in the Olympics coupled with his performances both in pre-season and in the first 3 games, suggests that he wants to extend his Liverpool career and is making it known to FSG. If FSG wanted to cash in on Salah, the last opportunity was this Summer so not offering him a contract and letting him leave as a free agent next year makes no sense.

Chiesa is a player that would have been a stand out signing if we had managed to sign him a few years back. He would have cost far more then than now and was a key player for Juventus last season. This looks to me to be a bargain given the quality of player he is and whilst the ACL injury might raise a question mark about whether he still has the turn of speed that he had prior to the injury, he is potentially a very good fit for the way that Slot is setting us up to play. I think his availability at the price we have now agreed was not common knowledge because it would have cost a lot more in the early part of the summer given that he was part of the Italy squad in the Euros and played reqularly in the Juventus team last season. The change in management appears to have been the catalyst for him becoming available at a much lower price and it looks like we got the heads up and moved quickly to secure him before others got wind.

At the moment we really don't know what Slot is going to do with the players he has got. The pre-season gave some clues but the Euros and other competitions in the summer meant that he has had little time to work with the full squad. Much like Jurgen when he first arrived, I suspect that he is happy to evaluate the existing squad and take his time to identify where the squad needs strengthening to play in his style. If there is a player available who he thinks will improve what he has already got, then I don't doubt he will push for the player to be signed. The real team building began the summer after Klopp had arrived with the signings of Mane, Matip and Wijnaldum so I don't expect much different with Slot. The weakness in defensive midfield was highlighted because of Klopp's high press/high line/fast counter tactics which mean't that there were gaps behind our full-backs if we lost possession. This was where Fab came to be crucial to that system. Klopp had to tweak his system last season as he could not replace Fab. Slot appears to want to have more possession in midfield and we may see more bodies in there than we did under Klopp. I think we will need more cover at Centre Back over the course of the season because of the likelihood of injuries and suspension but other than that I can see Slot keeping faith with the existing squad until next Summer in the same way that Klopp did.

They don't calibrate the system each time. The hawkeye system is calibrated to the pitch before the season starts so that a 3D model is created which is used for the rest of the season. The system then uses 5 cameras plus any other broadcast cameras which are calibrated each match to synchronise with each other so that a virtual picture can be created even where one of more camera angles might be obscured. The lines however are inserted manually by the VAR and it is this that introduces an element of subjective judgment by the VAR as to where the lines are to be placed. There is also an element of judgment as to when the ball is played in determining the appropriate screen capture to use. The lines that you see on TV are thicker than the lines originally drawn as a tweak was introduced a few years ago to allow a small margin for error but it still probably does not overcome the fundamental problem that a marginal decision will still depend on the human input into the system by the VAR. As in any virtual model, there is an inherent margin for error which does not seem to have been properly recognised under the current offside system. In cricket, this is recognised by the use of the umpire's call and in rugby by the application of the referee's on field decision where it falls within the margin of error. The real issue is that there is total reliance on technology which still requires human input from the VAR to the exclusion of the on-field officials view in real time. If there was no human input into the decision, then removing their input would not be problematic but substituting their view for that of another individual miles away in a room (albeit with the benefit of television replays and the hawkeye system) leads to the sort of marginal decision that could easily have gone the other way had the lines been inputed manually by the VAR differently.

We narrowed the gap between us and Arsenal.

This content is not viewable to guests.

If Klopp told FSG in November that he wanted to leave at the end of the season and that was accepted then, the timing of the announcement only makes sense if the replacement is already lined up or even on board. As there may need to be a negotiation with another club, I anticipate that it is being kept quiet so as not to disrupt that club's season and to allow them to make plans themselves for a replacement without having to do it in the full glare of publicity that will inevitably follow. The press are currently feeding on the speculation that when Klopp goes, it will all fall apart at LFC. It was going to happen at some point and I would much rather have the certainty of knowing when it was happening and allow plans for succession to be put in place in advance than the sudden shock of the departure of an icon. It happened with Shankly, Dalglish (twice), Joe Fagan and to a lesser extent even Bob Paisley. In each case the club was not fully prepared for the departure and the replacement was still to be decided. It is no surprise that players being asked about their future by members of the press answer in a non-committal way as I suspect that they are either as much in the dark as everyone else or sworn to secrecy given the sensitivities involved.

The problem I have with the red card decision on Curtis is why VAR were reviewing it in the first place. It is my understanding that the protocols in place limit the review in circumstances other than when a red card is issues, a goal is scored or a penalty given/not given to incidents where the referee has made a clear and obvious error or has clearly not seen the incident in question. The referee clearly saw the incident and deemed it worthy of a yellow card. Whilst some might debate whether a yellow was merited, there is no power to review yellow card unless the referee has made a clear and obvious error. I cannot see how the Curtis incident justified VAR's intervention since whilst Curtis could have been shown a straight red by the referee, a yellow was equally justifiable in the circumstances. To then have the Diaz offside decision merely 6 minutes later and then the purported explanation makes the earlier decision even more suspect in my mind. The explanation for not checking offside when, as we know there is communication between the referee, his assistants and VAR makes it very hard to believe that the VAR genuinely believed that the on field decision was to award a goal. The fact that the same "mistake" was made not only by the VAR but also by the AVAR is improbable but the real difficulty with the account is that they must have realised that the referee was not allowing the goal almost instanteously with the whistle being blown for the freekick since it is pretty fundamental that play restarts from the centre of the pitch where there is a goal and not with a free kick where the opposition have moved up field. Surely if they realised an error in communication had been made there was nothing to stop them advising the referee to correct his error by stopping play awarding the goal and restarting with a kick off since that is what happens any time VAR get involved. This would not have involved the referee re-reviewing the incident, merely correcting a miscommunication of the outcome of the original review. It should have been done immediately and the fact that it was not done at all or even acknowledged until after the game cannot be justified.