Gregor Robertson shocker!

Bit of a surprise

https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/former-grimsby-town-player-headbutted-6530614

might explain why he hasnt been writing for the times

but id have never expected that! shocked

I doubt we will see anymore newspaper articles for a while.

I'm actually lost for words with this one.

You really never seen a short, drunk, angry Scottish bloke nut someone?

Decent player, good journalist, appeared a decent fella, scumbag behaviour

Did not expect that!

Did not expect that!

Blimey!

Shocker.

Ex Grimsby Town player ACTUALLY lands a headbutt on someone. He should give Stefan Payne lessons. There could be a career in it for him.

Not a great surprise from someone writing in The Times…

A steady player for Town, Gregor Robertson. Arguably, right up there in terms of the respect:ability ratio. Or at least he was.

I’m not genuinely not one of those “burn the witch” types, but you can’t condone that. Hands up, I’ve been idiotically drunk many, many times in my life, but even in that altered state I’ve never felt the need to stick a nut on someone. I’m much more of a ‘fall asleep and shít my pants type’, but still.

A Glasgow kiss as it's known. Only he's from the supposedly more genteel Edinburgh.

That’s his cv complete for a job on TalkSPORT

Unfathomable .
A good sports journalist and always enjoyed reading his column in Times which invariably covered the grass roots of the Professional game
Only consolation is that the incident was almost 3 years ago so I hope what triggered this behaviour has past.
How ridiculous that it takes nearly three years to get to court.

You can take the man out of Scotland…. But… you know the rest!

when you have someone who is pretty drunk part of me thinks the Uber driver may have said something when swerving past him which may have made Gregor retaliate.  It then says he ran away from the scene yet was totally drunk he could hardly walk. I think some BS is in there somewhere.

Quoted from HerveJosse

Unfathomable .
A good sports journalist and always enjoyed reading his column in Times which invariably covered the grass roots of the Professional game
Only consolation is that the incident was almost 3 years ago so I hope what triggered this behaviour has past.
How ridiculous that it takes nearly three years to get to court.

There's a massive backlog in the courts due to Covid but must admit I thought it seemed like a very long time to reach what would have been a trial, had he not owned up. The crime took place pre pandemic! No doubt Gregor waited until the 11th hr to plead guilty so he could keep receiving his pay cheque from The Times for as long as possible.

I used to enjoy reading his column as it was a refreshing antidote to the endless, gushing, fawning and sycophantic media coverage of the Premier League.

I'm very surprised and disappointed that Gregor has the unwanted accolade of joining the Scott Neilson club, as I'm sure he is. What a shame.

Surprised but I'm sure he'll never do anything like that again.

Not great behaviour afterwards and sober is it:

"The judge, Mr Recorder David Jeremy QC, called into question whether Robertson had shown 'absolute remorse'.He said: "This is a man who gave a no comment interview, leaving his options open, then only pleaded guilty on the day of trial.

"It's difficult to accept he shows any remorse, let alone absolute remorse. He in effect played the system."

Quoted from promotion plaice

Not great behaviour afterwards and sober is it:

"The judge, Mr Recorder David Jeremy QC, called into question whether Robertson had shown 'absolute remorse'.He said: "This is a man who gave a no comment interview, leaving his options open, then only pleaded guilty on the day of trial.

"It's difficult to accept he shows any remorse, let alone absolute remorse. He in effect played the system."

To be fair he probably did exactly what his lawyer told him. Im sure most of us have done something in our lives that we really regret and wish we hadn't done. It's clearly bad whats happened but let's not destroy this bloke for a moment of madness.

No shock or surprise at a no comment interview, whilst it seems logical one would take an opportunity to defend oneself, with the legal system as it is, always take the advice of your legal team…which would’ve been ‘go no comment’.

The system needs to catch up to some extent, going no comment should not be seen as an admission or guilt nor a lack of remorse.

Of all the players we’ve had though, wouldn’t have put this one in the twit category…

Quoted from Meza

when you have someone who is pretty drunk part of me thinks the Uber driver may have said something when swerving past him which may have made Gregor retaliate.  It then says he ran away from the scene yet was totally drunk he could hardly walk. I think some BS is in there somewhere.

Why did the driver swerve?  Gregor didn't suddenly run into the road, he was staggering.  Don't pedestrians always have the right of way.  He was also close enough the inebriated Scotsman to kick the car. Not condoning what he did, but sounds to me like an incident that could happen to anyone, but usually doesn't go that far.

A real shame, always polite and interesting to talk to No excuse for his actions

Quoted from aldi_01

No shock or surprise at a no comment interview, whilst it seems logical one would take an opportunity to defend oneself, with the legal system as it is, always take the advice of your legal team…which would’ve been ‘go no comment’.

The system needs to catch up to some extent, going no comment should not be seen as an admission or guilt nor a lack of remorse.

Of all the players we’ve had though, wouldn’t have put this one in the twit category…

The legal system has caught up, it was changed from the way you describe it to the current system in order to allow an inference that people may not be being entirely truthful if they have to wait months and years to get their story straight, rather than being able to explain in the police interview what happened. If there is  no good reason for that the judge is able to take that into account and consider they may have been less than truthful and slowed up justice and cost lots of time and money and act accordingly. The system worked as intended.

On a few occasions I met Gregor at Lincoln services where he used to meet up with Marcus Marshall & Richard Tait before home games, seemed a nice bloke and happy to chat for a bit.

Whether you’re p1ssed or not you just can’t behave in that manner, looks like there’s a chance he could end up in the big house by the sounds of it.

Quoted from toontown

The legal system has caught up, it was changed from the way you describe it to the current system in order to allow an inference that people may not be being entirely truthful if they have to wait months and years to get their story straight, rather than being able to explain in the police interview what happened. If there is  no good reason for that the judge is able to take that into account and consider they may have been less than truthful and slowed up justice and cost lots of time and money and act accordingly. The system worked as intended.

But, as most folk would, he listened to his solicitor. The system may recognise that hold ups are intentional but the system must surely recognise that 99% of folk employ a solicitor for their legal advice and representation.

I suspect the full extent of this will never really come out so to speak given its being reported by a newspaper, they’ll always have an angle.

You’d fancy that’s his career finished though…

Quoted from aldi_01

But, as most folk would, he listened to his solicitor. The system may recognise that hold ups are intentional but the system must surely recognise that 99% of folk employ a solicitor for their legal advice and representation.

I suspect the full extent of this will never really come out so to speak given its being reported by a newspaper, they’ll always have an angle.

You’d fancy that’s his career finished though…

That's why under the current system a legal adviser might be less likely to suggest no comment, they have to take the ramifications into account. It effects that judgement call, and thar was the point.

I don't see why a "no comment" interview should be held against someone.  The police arrest you on suspicion of committing an illegal act.  They are not interested in your version of events.  They just try to manipulate you into saying something incriminating on tape.

Quoted from White_shorts

I don't see why a "no comment" interview should be held against someone.  The police arrest you on suspicion of committing an illegal act.  They are not interested in your version of events.  They just try to manipulate you into saying something incriminating on tape.

Because it's not something an innocent person would do. It gives you time to plan and scheme a lie to deny things. Much harder on the spot when you've just been caught.

Quoted from pen penfras

Because it's not something an innocent person would do. It gives you time to plan and scheme a lie to deny things. Much harder on the spot when you've just been caught.

Wow…

Quoted from pen penfras

Because it's not something an innocent person would do. It gives you time to plan and scheme a lie to deny things. Much harder on the spot when you've just been caught.

When you have been arrested the police do not believe you are innocent whether you are or not, they believe you are guilty and are trying to prove it
The stress of being locked in a cell overnight without sleep and being led in in a statement by someone who is quite willing to twist what you say while you are  under extreme duress is not always the best the to make a statement that will probably have ramifications for the rest of your life

Until you have been arrested you do not realise how devious the police can be.
The first thing your solicitor advises you is to say nothing and that the police are not interested in justice only getting a conviction

Old news this is t it?

Quoted from White_shorts

I don't see why a "no comment" interview should be held against someone.  The police arrest you on suspicion of committing an illegal act.  They are not interested in your version of events.  They just try to manipulate you into saying something incriminating on tape.

i have to say Whiteshorts, you are one of the most bizarre posters on this site. Generally your contributions are responses  to age-old new ground threads. However you've exceeded yourself with a random comment on a fairly irrelevant 6 month old thread

Necro bump!

What's next some Slade threads

Quoted from pen penfras

Because it's not something an innocent person would do. It gives you time to plan and scheme a lie to deny things. Much harder on the spot when you've just been caught.

If the police suspect you of a crime, then you should NEVER speak to them.  As the Miranda caution says, anything you say can be used against you, blah, blah, etc.  Why say something that might incriminate you, just either remain silent, say No Comment, or I don't answer questions, there is nothing they can do about that.

Quoted from codcheeky

When you have been arrested the police do not believe you are innocent whether you are or not, they believe you are guilty and are trying to prove it
The stress of being locked in a cell overnight without sleep and being led in in a statement by someone who is quite willing to twist what you say while you are  under extreme duress is not always the best the to make a statement that will probably have ramifications for the rest of your life

Until you have been arrested you do not realise how devious the police can be.
The first thing your solicitor advises you is to say nothing and that the police are not interested in justice only getting a conviction

How well put, I couldn’t agree more. Conviction, not truth - that’s the copper’s aim.

Quoted from pen penfras

Because it's not something an innocent person would do. It gives you time to plan and scheme a lie to deny things. Much harder on the spot when you've just been caught.

Your mate couldn’t keep his gob shut but was about as innocent as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.

Most people who say no comment do so when their legal representative advises them to do so.

It does not make them innocent or guilty, it makes them sensible

Quoted from HertsGTFC

Old news this is t it?

Think the conviction's spent by now!

Quoted from 123614

If the police suspect you of a crime, then you should NEVER speak to them.  As the Miranda caution says, anything you say can be used against you, blah, blah, etc.  Why say something that might incriminate you, just either remain silent, say No Comment, or I don't answer questions, there is nothing they can do about that.

As Bernard Manning used to say...if you find yourself under caution your first words must be .."don't hit me again officer"  😆

Quoted from 123614

If the police suspect you of a crime, then you should NEVER speak to them.  As the Miranda caution says, anything you say can be used against you, blah, blah, etc.  Why say something that might incriminate you, just either remain silent, say No Comment, or I don't answer questions, there is nothing they can do about that.

The miranda warning is American. In the American system it makes no sense to ever talk to the police really as there is no legal benefit to doing so, but a lot of potential downsides.

Here's a video I enjoyed explaining why

https://youtu.be/Vi434yXk_qo

Ours is different:

You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

The difference is that a failure to mention something in the police interview which you then rely on later can be inferred to potentially being less reliable. If you remain silent when you have an alibi for example the police can't do anything about it but the court may doubt your word when afterwards you say you was with your mum/brother/best mate all along and so couldn't have committed the crime.

Its not an absolute thing, that you will never be believed, but the court can make up its own mind. So it might be best to speak to the police at time of interview rather than potentially await the court and risk this being seen as you making it up. It depends on the circumstances, its not a black and white thing. This video  isn't very entertaining though

https://youtu.be/mKE9d09c75g

Seems to be a lot of people with experience.  The last time I spoke to a copper was in London in 1983 and all he said was " 10 past 3 mate "

Quoted from golfer

The last time I spoke to a copper was in London in 1983 and all he said was " 10 past 3 mate "

Sounds brutal. Did they make you lie on your side for cavity searches in the 80s?

Quoted from toontown

The miranda warning is American. In the American system it makes no sense to ever talk to the police really as there is no legal benefit to doing so, but a lot of potential downsides.

Here's a video I enjoyed explaining why

https://youtu.be/Vi434yXk_qo

Ours is different:

You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

The difference is that a failure to mention something in the police interview which you then rely on later can be inferred to potentially being less reliable. If you remain silent when you have an alibi for example the police can't do anything about it but the court may doubt your word when afterwards you say you was with your mum/brother/best mate all along and so couldn't have committed the crime.

Its not an absolute thing, that you will never be believed, but the court can make up its own mind. So it might be best to speak to the police at time of interview rather than potentially await the court and risk this being seen as you making it up. It depends on the circumstances, its not a black and white thing. This video  isn't very entertaining though

https://youtu.be/mKE9d09c75g

Regardless, it still says we have the right to remain silent, and that was my point!

No comment, every time. A £650 an hour barrister defending a murderer in my previous job told me that…I’d be inclined to follow his advice…

Quoted from toontown

The miranda warning is American. In the American system it makes no sense to ever talk to the police really as there is no legal benefit to doing so, but a lot of potential downsides.

Here's a video I enjoyed explaining why

https://youtu.be/Vi434yXk_qo

Ours is different:

You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

The difference is that a failure to mention something in the police interview which you then rely on later can be inferred to potentially being less reliable. If you remain silent when you have an alibi for example the police can't do anything about it but the court may doubt your word when afterwards you say you was with your mum/brother/best mate all along and so couldn't have committed the crime.

Its not an absolute thing, that you will never be believed, but the court can make up its own mind. So it might be best to speak to the police at time of interview rather than potentially await the court and risk this being seen as you making it up. It depends on the circumstances, its not a black and white thing. This video  isn't very entertaining though

https://youtu.be/mKE9d09c75g

You are correct in that ours is different, however the caution should be changed to reflect the inability of the police to turn in their own:-

You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence, unless you are a serving Police officer, in which case we will assume you are innocent even to the point that any evidence proves beyond all doubt that you are guilty.