JfR

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.

That's actually not true, the responsibility to wear a seatbelt is solely upon the individual, unless the individual is under 14, in which case that is the driver's responsibility
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/wearing-seat-belt-and-exemptions
For some reason it's quite a commonly held misconception, though

Personally not going to jump to any conclusions until I hear it directly from the club, though

I think you think I'm responding to a different post to the one I was responding to. I was responding to your post from the other day about us not getting any Chelsea loans this season. I was just saying that I don't get the feeling we actually really wanted any of the players Chelsea made available for clubs at our level.

Ha ha ha