JfR

Correction:
KIERAN DOWELL HAS CONTRIBUTED TO A GOAL
I REPEAT: KIERAN DOWELL HAS CONTRIBUTED TO A GOAL

Correction:
KIERAN DOWELL HAS CONTRIBUTED TO A GOAL
I REPEAT: KIERAN DOWELL HAS CONTRIBUTED TO A GOAL

KIERAN DOWELL HAS SCORED
I REPEAT: KIERAN DOWELL HAS SCORED

Someone get the Joy Division started

Correction:
KIERAN DOWELL HAS CONTRIBUTED TO A GOAL
I REPEAT: KIERAN DOWELL HAS CONTRIBUTED TO A GOAL

Crazy to think Lampard's won more league titles for Liverpool than Gerrard has

Crazy to think Lampard's won more league titles for Liverpool than Gerrard has

Crazy to think Lampard's won more league titles for Liverpool than Gerrard has

Crazy to think Lampard's won more league titles for Liverpool than Gerrard has

Crazy to think Lampard's won more league titles for Liverpool than Gerrard has

Crazy to think Lampard's won more league titles for Liverpool than Gerrard has

Crazy to think Lampard's won more league titles for Liverpool than Gerrard has

Classic Bamford
 

Classic Bamford
 

Classic Bamford
 

Classic Bamford
 

Classic Bamford
 

Classic Bamford
 

Classic Bamford
 

I'm more shocked that they didn't include the living legend that is Conor Sammon

What on Earth is he thinking?

The part of the club statement regarding Keogh's sacking that everyone is calling hypocritical is exactly the same as part of the statement made about Lawrence and Bennett:
https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2019/10/club-statement-7
"Irrespective of the outcome of that process, the club will not tolerate any of its players or staff behaving in a manner which puts themselves, their colleagues, and members of the general public at risk of injury or worse, or which brings the club into disrepute."
I think a lot of people viewing that quote out of context and in isolation are viewing it to mean more than it does. It's just a cookie-cutter statement to suggest that misconduct at the club will not go without punishment, and that has been the case, even if the punishment has been different for different parties due to their different actions.

If Keogh feels he's been wrongfully dismissed then he'll almost certainly bring action against the club. Until then can we please stop speculating on this? All we know is that the club's internal investigations have found that Lawrence and Bennett's behaviour amounted to lower level misconduct whilst Keogh's amounted to gross misconduct (and that is a very important distinction, by the way). We don't know the details uncovered in these investigations. We don't know the exact actions that have led to Keogh's dismissal. We can't comment upon how "fair" or "moral" it is when it's fallacious to assume that the three players have been found to have committed the exact same wrongdoing without distinction. The implication of the club's statements and actions is that they found that Keogh has committed an act or acts that Lawrence and Bennett did not and which were more serious than the acts Lawrence and Bennett committed. We do not know what these alleged acts were. Nor, for that matter, should any of the news outlets that are reporting on this, as protocol would seek to keep the findings of any investigation private and internal without the full consent of all parties involved. It's easy to assume that the differentiation between parties has been made due to their physical states in the aftermath of the incident, but there has been no confirmation that this is the case. The club's statement did not say this.
I think it also needs clarifying that criminal acts are not in and of themselves a basis for a charge of gross misconduct, especially if it is outside of the workplace, and likewise that gross misconduct does not have to be criminal. It's entirely possible for Keogh to have committed a non-criminal act that makes his position in and relationship with the club untenable, while the criminal acts committed by Lawrence and Bennett did not.
I just felt like I needed to make this post because I think a lot of people are viewing this as a very simple issue when in actuality law is nothing if not extremely, perhaps at times needlessly, complicated.

If Keogh feels he's been wrongfully dismissed then he'll almost certainly bring action against the club. Until then can we please stop speculating on this? All we know is that the club's internal investigations have found that Lawrence and Bennett's behaviour amounted to lower level misconduct whilst Keogh's amounted to gross misconduct (and that is a very important distinction, by the way). We don't know the details uncovered in these investigations. We don't know the exact actions that have led to Keogh's dismissal. We can't comment upon how "fair" or "moral" it is when it's fallacious to assume that the three players have been found to have committed the exact same wrongdoing without distinction. The implication of the club's statements and actions is that they found that Keogh has committed an act or acts that Lawrence and Bennett did not and which were more serious than the acts Lawrence and Bennett committed. We do not know what these alleged acts were. Nor, for that matter, should any of the news outlets that are reporting on this, as protocol would seek to keep the findings of any investigation private and internal without the full consent of all parties involved. It's easy to assume that the differentiation between parties has been made due to their physical states in the aftermath of the incident, but there has been no confirmation that this is the case. The club's statement did not say this.
I think it also needs clarifying that criminal acts are not in and of themselves a basis for a charge of gross misconduct, especially if it is outside of the workplace, and likewise that gross misconduct does not have to be criminal. It's entirely possible for Keogh to have committed a non-criminal act that makes his position in and relationship with the club untenable, while the criminal acts committed by Lawrence and Bennett did not.
I just felt like I needed to make this post because I think a lot of people are viewing this as a very simple issue when in actuality law is nothing if not extremely, perhaps at times needlessly, complicated.

If Keogh feels he's been wrongfully dismissed then he'll almost certainly bring action against the club. Until then can we please stop speculating on this? All we know is that the club's internal investigations have found that Lawrence and Bennett's behaviour amounted to lower level misconduct whilst Keogh's amounted to gross misconduct (and that is a very important distinction, by the way). We don't know the details uncovered in these investigations. We don't know the exact actions that have led to Keogh's dismissal. We can't comment upon how "fair" or "moral" it is when it's fallacious to assume that the three players have been found to have committed the exact same wrongdoing without distinction. The implication of the club's statements and actions is that they found that Keogh has committed an act or acts that Lawrence and Bennett did not and which were more serious than the acts Lawrence and Bennett committed. We do not know what these alleged acts were. Nor, for that matter, should any of the news outlets that are reporting on this, as protocol would seek to keep the findings of any investigation private and internal without the full consent of all parties involved. It's easy to assume that the differentiation between parties has been made due to their physical states in the aftermath of the incident, but there has been no confirmation that this is the case. The club's statement did not say this.
I think it also needs clarifying that criminal acts are not in and of themselves a basis for a charge of gross misconduct, especially if it is outside of the workplace, and likewise that gross misconduct does not have to be criminal. It's entirely possible for Keogh to have committed a non-criminal act that makes his position in and relationship with the club untenable, while the criminal acts committed by Lawrence and Bennett did not.
I just felt like I needed to make this post because I think a lot of people are viewing this as a very simple issue when in actuality law is nothing if not extremely, perhaps at times needlessly, complicated.