Is it because I is English?
- Thread starter Asbo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48538.msg1477126#msg1477126 date=1328381101]
The fact is it can be derogatory in Spanish too depending on how it's expressed, and the Panel didn't accept that Suarez used it in a friendly manner - because quite clearly it wasn't.
[/quote]
What did he say to make it 'unfriendly'? Using Evra's testimony, when you yourself are saying quite clearly Evra isn't really to be trusted here (based on 10 -> 7 -> 5)? Body language? What makes 'negro' unfriendly has to do with what's used before/after the word (example: what cesc added to his alleged comments to kanoute) - even Evra's testimony doesn't hint to anything offensive said after or before (por que negro).
So to sum it up - guilty (we both agree) of using the term once, which no matter how it's said in Spanish, is offensive in England.
The fact is it can be derogatory in Spanish too depending on how it's expressed, and the Panel didn't accept that Suarez used it in a friendly manner - because quite clearly it wasn't.
[/quote]
What did he say to make it 'unfriendly'? Using Evra's testimony, when you yourself are saying quite clearly Evra isn't really to be trusted here (based on 10 -> 7 -> 5)? Body language? What makes 'negro' unfriendly has to do with what's used before/after the word (example: what cesc added to his alleged comments to kanoute) - even Evra's testimony doesn't hint to anything offensive said after or before (por que negro).
So to sum it up - guilty (we both agree) of using the term once, which no matter how it's said in Spanish, is offensive in England.
Rosco, I think that in the end of the day it's basically a question of who one choses to believe to.
You clearly chose to believe to Evra from a very early stage as did the comission eventually . No matter what Suarez actually said and meant - once you made your mind up you'd intrerpret it as derogatory and racist. You conveniently chose to ignore and/or disregard all the inconsistencies in Evra's version as well as the cultural differences. As did the comission.
I chose to accept Suarez's version not just because he's a Liverpool player and a player that I like having South American roots myself (it has a part in my preference of his version - no doubt) but also because it makes sense to me and I can see the inconsistencies in Evra's version.
I also believe that this issue was blown way out of any reasonable proportion and I suspect that the motives of those who helped doing it were far from "pure".
Having said all that - I admit that I haven't read the entire report. I only read "chosen parts" - parts which were highlighted by supporters of both sides. I have no background in law and English is not my mother tongue so I surely am not as aware of the details and nuances of the case and verdict. I'm just a simple LFC fan with some level of intelligence.
You haven't convinced me that the comission was right (I'm sure you won't lose one second's sleep over that), and I surely have not convinced you that you're wrong.
I think I'll have to leave it at this with you and accept this disagreement.
Thanks for debating.
You clearly chose to believe to Evra from a very early stage as did the comission eventually . No matter what Suarez actually said and meant - once you made your mind up you'd intrerpret it as derogatory and racist. You conveniently chose to ignore and/or disregard all the inconsistencies in Evra's version as well as the cultural differences. As did the comission.
I chose to accept Suarez's version not just because he's a Liverpool player and a player that I like having South American roots myself (it has a part in my preference of his version - no doubt) but also because it makes sense to me and I can see the inconsistencies in Evra's version.
I also believe that this issue was blown way out of any reasonable proportion and I suspect that the motives of those who helped doing it were far from "pure".
Having said all that - I admit that I haven't read the entire report. I only read "chosen parts" - parts which were highlighted by supporters of both sides. I have no background in law and English is not my mother tongue so I surely am not as aware of the details and nuances of the case and verdict. I'm just a simple LFC fan with some level of intelligence.
You haven't convinced me that the comission was right (I'm sure you won't lose one second's sleep over that), and I surely have not convinced you that you're wrong.
I think I'll have to leave it at this with you and accept this disagreement.
Thanks for debating.
[quote author=jimmy link=topic=48538.msg1477146#msg1477146 date=1328383238]
Rosco, I think that in the end of the day it's basically a question of who one choses to believe to.
You clearly chose to believe to Evra from a very early stage as did the comission eventually . No matter what Suarez actually said and meant - once you made your mind up you'd intrerpret it as derogatory and racist. You conveniently chose to ignore and/or disregard all the inconsistencies in Evra's version as well as the cultural differences. As did the comission.
I chose to accept Suarez's version not just because he's a Liverpool player and a player that I like having South American roots myself (it has a part in my preference of his version - no doubt) but also because it makes sense to me and I can see the inconsistencies in Evra's version.
I also believe that this issue was blown way out of any reasonable proportion and I suspect that the motives of those who helped doing it were far from "pure".
Having said all that - I admit that I haven't read the entire report. I only read "chosen parts" - parts which were highlighted by supporters of both sides. I have no background in law and English is not my mother tongue so I surely am not as aware of the details and nuances of the case and verdict. I'm just a simple LFC fan with some level of intelligence.
You haven't convinced me that the comission was right (I'm sure you won't lose one second's sleep over that), and I surely have not convinced you that you're wrong.
I think I'll have to leave it at this with you and accept this disagreement.
Thanks for debating.
[/quote]
He can't even get the basic facts right, some fucking lawyer, from his last post to me its obvious he got all his 'facts' from the fucking Sun and Daily Mail
Rosco, I think that in the end of the day it's basically a question of who one choses to believe to.
You clearly chose to believe to Evra from a very early stage as did the comission eventually . No matter what Suarez actually said and meant - once you made your mind up you'd intrerpret it as derogatory and racist. You conveniently chose to ignore and/or disregard all the inconsistencies in Evra's version as well as the cultural differences. As did the comission.
I chose to accept Suarez's version not just because he's a Liverpool player and a player that I like having South American roots myself (it has a part in my preference of his version - no doubt) but also because it makes sense to me and I can see the inconsistencies in Evra's version.
I also believe that this issue was blown way out of any reasonable proportion and I suspect that the motives of those who helped doing it were far from "pure".
Having said all that - I admit that I haven't read the entire report. I only read "chosen parts" - parts which were highlighted by supporters of both sides. I have no background in law and English is not my mother tongue so I surely am not as aware of the details and nuances of the case and verdict. I'm just a simple LFC fan with some level of intelligence.
You haven't convinced me that the comission was right (I'm sure you won't lose one second's sleep over that), and I surely have not convinced you that you're wrong.
I think I'll have to leave it at this with you and accept this disagreement.
Thanks for debating.
[/quote]
He can't even get the basic facts right, some fucking lawyer, from his last post to me its obvious he got all his 'facts' from the fucking Sun and Daily Mail
I don't think Ross has made mistakes b/c he's a 'bad lawyer' - he just hasn't read the report in 1+ month probably. Ross is as thorough as it gets - I'd trust him to get facts right (more so than Rafa, that's for sure :laugh🙂
He didnt know the difference between subjective and objective intent
[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=48538.msg1477162#msg1477162 date=1328391105]
He didnt know the difference between subjective and objective intent
[/quote]
Objective would mean there was no need for intent.
Subjective refers to whether Suarez intended to be racist. Rosco for some reason thought subjective referred to Evra, as in the FA would consider whether Evra felt insulted or did not feel insulted. This is utterly ridiculous. Evra brought about the complaint so he of course felt insulted. I can't fathom what led Rosco to think this is what subjective meant. He later admitted he was wrong to be fair, and then excused his mistake by claiming the FA were using a legally strange definition of subjective/objective. A bullshit excuse I thought at the time. Rosco's definition makes no sense in any circumstances, and it is also different to the definition of subjective in the Public Order Act where the FA's regulations are copy-pasted from. So he is ill-informed and has some fucking balls to claim otherwise after such a mistake.
Like I mentioned, using his incorrect definition, then whether objective/subjective was applied, Suarez was guilty. However, using the correct definition, and assuming the regulations were taken in the subjective sense.... then Suarez would only be guilty if he intended to racially abuse/insult Evra. Given the definition of negro in spanish, and his admission/version of events... then he did not have that intention and he was innocent. Rosco thinks I am wrong here. Go ahead and prove it then. Demonstrate how I am wrong.
He didnt know the difference between subjective and objective intent
[/quote]
Objective would mean there was no need for intent.
Subjective refers to whether Suarez intended to be racist. Rosco for some reason thought subjective referred to Evra, as in the FA would consider whether Evra felt insulted or did not feel insulted. This is utterly ridiculous. Evra brought about the complaint so he of course felt insulted. I can't fathom what led Rosco to think this is what subjective meant. He later admitted he was wrong to be fair, and then excused his mistake by claiming the FA were using a legally strange definition of subjective/objective. A bullshit excuse I thought at the time. Rosco's definition makes no sense in any circumstances, and it is also different to the definition of subjective in the Public Order Act where the FA's regulations are copy-pasted from. So he is ill-informed and has some fucking balls to claim otherwise after such a mistake.
Like I mentioned, using his incorrect definition, then whether objective/subjective was applied, Suarez was guilty. However, using the correct definition, and assuming the regulations were taken in the subjective sense.... then Suarez would only be guilty if he intended to racially abuse/insult Evra. Given the definition of negro in spanish, and his admission/version of events... then he did not have that intention and he was innocent. Rosco thinks I am wrong here. Go ahead and prove it then. Demonstrate how I am wrong.
In fairness to Rosco, the very day he heard that Suarez had admitted, in an interview with the Uruguayan press, that he had used a word that Evra's team mates called him every day,he went, uh oh, Suarez is in trouble here. He has stuck with that to this day. He believes that Suarez was basically found guilty because of his own admission.
Although his admission didnt help, I dont believe that it was the baisis for the verdict. I believe that whether he admitted it or not, the commission, which was selected by the prosecutors, were charged with the job of bringing in a guilty verdict.
Their conclusion, summed up in point 382 of their 115 page document, simply states that "we found that Mr Evra's account is probably what happened". They, ludicrously, go on to say , having gone through the supposed sequence of events that, "This meant that Mr Suarez used the word"negro" five times in the goalmouth. This was the number that Sir Alex Ferguson reported to the referee after the game, and which Sir Alex probably learned from Mr Evra. The "five times" reported to the referee straight after the game corroborates Mr Evra's evidence that the word was used five times in the goalmouth"
So basically, Evra reports being called "negro" five times, He tell this to Ferguson. Ferguson then goes to the referee and claims that Evra was called "negro" five times, and that corroborates Evra's evidence. You couldnt make it up! Or maybe you could.
They then find him guilty of using the word 7 times.
Although his admission didnt help, I dont believe that it was the baisis for the verdict. I believe that whether he admitted it or not, the commission, which was selected by the prosecutors, were charged with the job of bringing in a guilty verdict.
Their conclusion, summed up in point 382 of their 115 page document, simply states that "we found that Mr Evra's account is probably what happened". They, ludicrously, go on to say , having gone through the supposed sequence of events that, "This meant that Mr Suarez used the word"negro" five times in the goalmouth. This was the number that Sir Alex Ferguson reported to the referee after the game, and which Sir Alex probably learned from Mr Evra. The "five times" reported to the referee straight after the game corroborates Mr Evra's evidence that the word was used five times in the goalmouth"
So basically, Evra reports being called "negro" five times, He tell this to Ferguson. Ferguson then goes to the referee and claims that Evra was called "negro" five times, and that corroborates Evra's evidence. You couldnt make it up! Or maybe you could.
They then find him guilty of using the word 7 times.
Jesus, you people need to let the Suarez case go. The man himself had elected not to appeal and served the punishment.
The only people still keeping him in the public eye in relation to this sorry episode are Liverpool fans hell bent on proclaiming injustice and a handful of dimwit journalists delighting in winding up Liverpool fans.
In reality, he's only gotten a suspension from an organization of questionable moral authority, and certainly ZERO legal standing. The rest of world doesn't care. Ten years from now, after he retires, he'll go to various countries on holidays and won't even have a criminal record to speak of or declare to authorities in those countries.
The only people still keeping him in the public eye in relation to this sorry episode are Liverpool fans hell bent on proclaiming injustice and a handful of dimwit journalists delighting in winding up Liverpool fans.
In reality, he's only gotten a suspension from an organization of questionable moral authority, and certainly ZERO legal standing. The rest of world doesn't care. Ten years from now, after he retires, he'll go to various countries on holidays and won't even have a criminal record to speak of or declare to authorities in those countries.
- Status
Similar threads
