• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Is it because I is English?

Forums Unread posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48538.msg1476129#msg1476129 date=1328215909]


if you want to argue there's a double standard it's in the fact that Suarez didn't face criminal charges as well as FA ones, while Terry will face both. But that's not really convenient to your argument is it ?

[/quote]

You are a nutter mate...
 
Rosco, suarez was not "rightly found guilty". He was "found guilty", then a logical argument was presented in which "guilty" was the right conclusion. Secondly the reason you were certain of his guilt was because you had the wrong definition of "subjective". That mistake is the only reason why you could say suarez admitting saying negro = guilty. Yet you have had the correct definition pointed out to you plenty of times now. So stop pretending suarez was guilty by default all along. He was guilty due to the FA being mentally retarded in their ability to read and analyse evidence. Or else due to the FA being corrupt. Neither one is as you say "rightly".
 
Terry won't get convicted because his pathetic excuse would have to be falsified by ashley cole or some new camera angle and lip reader. Neither seems very likely to happen in a lowly magistrates court
 
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=48538.msg1476385#msg1476385 date=1328263914]
Ha, comical. Has anyone else ever been stripped of it for non footballing reasons, even once?
[/quote]
A guy in the 30s (can't remember his name) got stripped of it for refusing to give the Nazi salute.


A slightly different case from Terry.
 
[quote author=athensruairi link=topic=48538.msg1476398#msg1476398 date=1328264356]
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=48538.msg1476385#msg1476385 date=1328263914]
Ha, comical. Has anyone else ever been stripped of it for non footballing reasons, even once?
[/quote]
A guy in the 30s (can't remember his name) got stripped of it for refusing to give the Nazi salute.


A slightly different case from Terry who would probably readily give it.
[/quote]
 
You only have to know that Samuel writes for the Mail to know that he will be contentious and have no sense of irony or self-awareness. He'll also be very thick skinned so won't care how inconsistent his views are.
 
The England captaincy should be retired out of respect for brave John Terry - and the dignity with which the racist banged his mate's wife.
 
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48538.msg1476275#msg1476275 date=1328226943]
Rosco, suarez was not "rightly found guilty". He was "found guilty", then a logical argument was presented in which "guilty" was the right conclusion. Secondly the reason you were certain of his guilt was because you had the wrong definition of "subjective". That mistake is the only reason why you could say suarez admitting saying negro = guilty. Yet you have had the correct definition pointed out to you plenty of times now. So stop pretending suarez was guilty by default all along. He was guilty due to the FA being mentally retarded in their ability to read and analyse evidence. Or else due to the FA being corrupt. Neither one is as you say "rightly".
[/quote]

Well said, clearly Rosco is confused on the issue.
 
[quote author=KopKing link=topic=48538.msg1476618#msg1476618 date=1328285855]
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48538.msg1476275#msg1476275 date=1328226943]
Rosco, suarez was not "rightly found guilty". He was "found guilty", then a logical argument was presented in which "guilty" was the right conclusion. Secondly the reason you were certain of his guilt was because you had the wrong definition of "subjective". That mistake is the only reason why you could say suarez admitting saying negro = guilty. Yet you have had the correct definition pointed out to you plenty of times now. So stop pretending suarez was guilty by default all along. He was guilty due to the FA being mentally retarded in their ability to read and analyse evidence. Or else due to the FA being corrupt. Neither one is as you say "rightly".
[/quote]

Well said, clearly Rosco is confused on the issue.
[/quote]

From EOTK:

Suarez – That Suarez was dealt unfairly by the FA and subsequently the media is not something that has an iota of doubt. Here’s a summary of our disgust:
•Suarez said a word in Spanish (négro) which is racist in English (negro) but only a descriptive term in Spanish and more so in his native colloquial
•Evra was the one who initiated the conversation in Spanish
•Evra initiated the confrontational conversation
•Suarez deposed in Spanish while the questions asked were in English and his answers were deemed to be ambiguous disregarding the fact that he hardly spoke English or understood it well
•Evra recanted his allegation from ‘nigger’ to ‘negro’
•Evra’s version of the number of times the alleged word was used varied from time to time
•There was no video evidence of what Suarez said. In fact, if he and the rest of the team denied saying it altogether, he would have gotten out free
•That Suarez accepted what he said but as per us, it is only a proof of his innocence that he was forthcoming about the conversation.
•While FA found Kenny’s, Kuyt’s and Comolli’s remarks differ slightly from Suarez’s the fact that Evra’s pals had a different accounts to what he said once back in the dressing room was not even considered.
•The FA trained Evra before he gave the statement (although slightly less incriminating since the case was FA vs. Suarez and Evra was FA’s evidence).
•The FA tried Suarez on the basis of balance of probabilities where as when it came to branding a person racist for life on hearsay, it should have done enough to establish that he did pass those remarks.

We are justified to despise FA’s processes here and the way they have conducted, what I and most others believe, is a ‘witch-hunt’. We would have wanted them to work on more solid proof . In the absence of proof, it wasn’t fair on Suarez the way FA treated him. In the meantime, it is pertinent to note that Suarez was not prosecuted or, thence, found guilty, by the Police or CPC. The entire process was run thru the FA.


Maybe he will read it and understand at last?
 
It seems obvious to me that Rosco is taking his devil's advocate role far too seriously in an attempt to drum up a bit of controversy. Hes played the wum in chief role very well lately
 
[quote author=tony link=topic=48538.msg1476688#msg1476688 date=1328291377]
It seems obvious to me that Rosco is taking his devil's advocate role far too seriously in an attempt to drum up a bit of controversy. Hes played the wum in chief role very well lately
[/quote]

He knows too much. Get him!
 
[quote author=jimmy link=topic=48538.msg1476165#msg1476165 date=1328217528]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48538.msg1476129#msg1476129 date=1328215909]
[quote author=jimmy link=topic=48538.msg1476072#msg1476072 date=1328212409]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48538.msg1476064#msg1476064 date=1328210535]
[quote author=jimmy link=topic=48538.msg1476060#msg1476060 date=1328209561]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48538.msg1475987#msg1475987 date=1328194205]
I see two different cases. And the reality is while they arise out of a similar incident they're vastly different in how they'll be judged. That isn't some grave injustice, that's just the way things are.

And you went banging on about xenophobia in the last thread.

It's not surprising to see a London based journo is supporting a Chelsea player (particularly Samuel), they always have done. It's hardly outrageous to suggest that someone shouldn't be punished until they're found guilty. Yet some of you act like it is.

I don't see the point in lying to ourselves and creating some alternate reality where the entirety of the media is against us. Before the full facts came out plenty of papers we're willing to peddle our lies (sudaca, negrito etc etc), I didn't see you complaining about that. Once the facts came out most changed tone, not surprisingly really - it's what any decent human being would do.

As for Terry being England captain, no he shouldn't be. He shouldn't even be in the team but that;s just because he's shit, not because he's a cunt.
[/quote]

1. I don't remeber myself "banging" on about anything on that other thread. I actually think if any of us was "banging" on about anything on that thread it might have been you.
2. I don't think I ever mentioned xenophobia either. I was pointing at "double standards", "cultural differences" etc.
3. If I recall correctly (and a brief check down that "other" thread shows me I do) you didn't wait for the comission's verdict and for the facts to come out before letting us all know what you thought happenned there in the penalty area. You didn't seem like you really needed to wait for that verdict to come out.
4. I can't see how those two cases are so different from each other (I actually do but in favour of Luis Suarez). I do see a problem with the fact that the Terry decision is being delayed so much. Why not deal with it before the Euro 2012?

[/quote]

What I read earlier is that they envisage it being a 5 day trial, and the witnesses aren't free for that length of time during the football season.

[/quote]

So they don't consider racism to be such a severe issue. It can wait. Football season is more important. Euro 2012 is more important. Interesting.
If they consider racism to be a severe issue and they want to fight it they can take to court during the football season.
And then you're mocking my perception...

Here's you're exact quote from a recent thread:

It doesn't really matter, Sunny.
For us, foreigners, it's "England".
On one hand you have the case of Luis Suarez, a foreign player, who was harshly punished in a case with so many doubts.
On the other hand you have John Terry, a local Englishman and captain of the England team, who is seen on video racially abusing a fellow footballer, and having his case dragged due to *technicalities".
This is how the case is perceived. And it rather stinks.
Click to expand...

You clearly think that Terry is being treated better because he's English. That's your perception, and it's your perception that stinks here.
Click to expand...

That's hardly "banging banging on about xenophobia", is it. As I said - there's an issue if double standards and cultural differences here.
You kept ignoring and disregarding those cultural differences and the double standards ever since the Suarez case started up and never ever had a doubt you know better than others. It's just making my point stronger.
As for stinking perceptions - I guess it's subjective.

You're ignoring the fact that Terry is being tried in the Courts system, not by the FA.
You're ignoring the fact that the FA are unable to deal with the case until the Courts have because their decision would be prejudicial to the trial.

Basically anyone putting forward such an argument is ignorant of the facts here. But that's not really surprising, that's been the reality ever since the Suarez case started up - and it still is. Regarding my being certain of things, it's because I took an unbiased look at the facts, anyone that did so could have seen him being found guilty as a certainty after his admission.
Click to expand...

But of course! you took an unbiased look at the fact and made your call. How simple. Who needs courts? who needs FA comissions?
So, everybody who thinks differently than you is either biased or ignorant. Not really surprising (see my point above).

Is it really bliss then ?
Click to expand...
[/quote]

The function of the court is to decide the case, it isn't as you so dramatically put it "to fight racism". To have the case they need to have witnesses available, they aren't going to be available.

if you want to argue there's a double standard it's in the fact that Suarez didn't face criminal charges as well as FA ones, while Terry will face both. But that's not really convenient to your argument is it ?

I just wish LFC fans would stop playing the victim. Suarez was rightly done. Terry will be too. And then you'll have no straw arguments to fall back on.
[/quote]

Just a reminder - the issue here is Racism and fighting it, isn't it?

So you're basically saying (calmly, not dramatically 😉) that the court does not have the authority to make the witnesses available earlier than 9th of July? You are conveniently ignoring this point time and again.
Re: Suarez not facing criminal charges - that's a valid point. I doubt it he'd be convicted at court with such weak evidence.
You think Suarez was rightly done. Some think he wasn't. Why is this playing the victim?
Will Terry be rightly done? maybe. We will have to wait and see. The fact though is that he's allowed to play until after Euro 2012 (which is probably bad for Englad - is this why you're happy with it? 😉)
[/quote]

Suarez was convicted because of his own admission, nothing could be stronger than that. He would have been convicted of that exact charge in a criminal court. It's arguable he might not be convicted of the charge that Terry is facing if he had been charged similarly, because intent is part of the offence it's not in the FA rules.

I'll repeat, the function of the court is not to fight racism - that's for nobheads in pressure groups.
 
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48538.msg1476275#msg1476275 date=1328226943]
Rosco, suarez was not "rightly found guilty". He was "found guilty", then a logical argument was presented in which "guilty" was the right conclusion. Secondly the reason you were certain of his guilt was because you had the wrong definition of "subjective". That mistake is the only reason why you could say suarez admitting saying negro = guilty. Yet you have had the correct definition pointed out to you plenty of times now. So stop pretending suarez was guilty by default all along. He was guilty due to the FA being mentally retarded in their ability to read and analyse evidence. Or else due to the FA being corrupt. Neither one is as you say "rightly".
[/quote]

Wrong on all of the above again.
 
[quote author=Asbo link=topic=48538.msg1476629#msg1476629 date=1328286483]
[quote author=KopKing link=topic=48538.msg1476618#msg1476618 date=1328285855]
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48538.msg1476275#msg1476275 date=1328226943]
Rosco, suarez was not "rightly found guilty". He was "found guilty", then a logical argument was presented in which "guilty" was the right conclusion. Secondly the reason you were certain of his guilt was because you had the wrong definition of "subjective". That mistake is the only reason why you could say suarez admitting saying negro = guilty. Yet you have had the correct definition pointed out to you plenty of times now. So stop pretending suarez was guilty by default all along. He was guilty due to the FA being mentally retarded in their ability to read and analyse evidence. Or else due to the FA being corrupt. Neither one is as you say "rightly".
[/quote]

Well said, clearly Rosco is confused on the issue.
[/quote]

From EOTK:

Suarez – That Suarez was dealt unfairly by the FA and subsequently the media is not something that has an iota of doubt. Here’s a summary of our disgust:
•Suarez said a word in Spanish (négro) which is racist in English (negro) but only a descriptive term in Spanish and more so in his native colloquial
•Evra was the one who initiated the conversation in Spanish
•Evra initiated the confrontational conversation
•Suarez deposed in Spanish while the questions asked were in English and his answers were deemed to be ambiguous disregarding the fact that he hardly spoke English or understood it well
•Evra recanted his allegation from ‘****’ to ‘negro’
•Evra’s version of the number of times the alleged word was used varied from time to time
•There was no video evidence of what Suarez said. In fact, if he and the rest of the team denied saying it altogether, he would have gotten out free
•That Suarez accepted what he said but as per us, it is only a proof of his innocence that he was forthcoming about the conversation.
•While FA found Kenny’s, Kuyt’s and Comolli’s remarks differ slightly from Suarez’s the fact that Evra’s pals had a different accounts to what he said once back in the dressing room was not even considered.
•The FA trained Evra before he gave the statement (although slightly less incriminating since the case was FA vs. Suarez and Evra was FA’s evidence).
•The FA tried Suarez on the basis of balance of probabilities where as when it came to branding a person racist for life on hearsay, it should have done enough to establish that he did pass those remarks.

We are justified to despise FA’s processes here and the way they have conducted, what I and most others believe, is a ‘witch-hunt’. We would have wanted them to work on more solid proof . In the absence of proof, it wasn’t fair on Suarez the way FA treated him. In the meantime, it is pertinent to note that Suarez was not prosecuted or, thence, found guilty, by the Police or CPC. The entire process was run thru the FA.


Maybe he will read it and understand at last?
[/quote]

Not all of that is correct, but anyway - the elephant in the room is Suarez's evidence.

Go through it and see how it stacks up. Try and tell me the conversation that he said happened is one that two adults with IQ's in double figures could have.

Edit having read that summary, it's clearly written by someone who hasn't a fucking clue how the legal system works. All of you need to go and educate yourselves before coming back with this shit again.
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48538.msg1476976#msg1476976 date=1328364178]
[quote author=jimmy link=topic=48538.msg1476165#msg1476165 date=1328217528]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48538.msg1476129#msg1476129 date=1328215909]
[quote author=jimmy link=topic=48538.msg1476072#msg1476072 date=1328212409]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48538.msg1476064#msg1476064 date=1328210535]
[quote author=jimmy link=topic=48538.msg1476060#msg1476060 date=1328209561]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48538.msg1475987#msg1475987 date=1328194205]
I see two different cases. And the reality is while they arise out of a similar incident they're vastly different in how they'll be judged. That isn't some grave injustice, that's just the way things are.

And you went banging on about xenophobia in the last thread.

It's not surprising to see a London based journo is supporting a Chelsea player (particularly Samuel), they always have done. It's hardly outrageous to suggest that someone shouldn't be punished until they're found guilty. Yet some of you act like it is.

I don't see the point in lying to ourselves and creating some alternate reality where the entirety of the media is against us. Before the full facts came out plenty of papers we're willing to peddle our lies (sudaca, negrito etc etc), I didn't see you complaining about that. Once the facts came out most changed tone, not surprisingly really - it's what any decent human being would do.

As for Terry being England captain, no he shouldn't be. He shouldn't even be in the team but that;s just because he's shit, not because he's a cunt.
[/quote]

1. I don't remeber myself "banging" on about anything on that other thread. I actually think if any of us was "banging" on about anything on that thread it might have been you.
2. I don't think I ever mentioned xenophobia either. I was pointing at "double standards", "cultural differences" etc.
3. If I recall correctly (and a brief check down that "other" thread shows me I do) you didn't wait for the comission's verdict and for the facts to come out before letting us all know what you thought happenned there in the penalty area. You didn't seem like you really needed to wait for that verdict to come out.
4. I can't see how those two cases are so different from each other (I actually do but in favour of Luis Suarez). I do see a problem with the fact that the Terry decision is being delayed so much. Why not deal with it before the Euro 2012?

[/quote]

What I read earlier is that they envisage it being a 5 day trial, and the witnesses aren't free for that length of time during the football season.

[/quote]

So they don't consider racism to be such a severe issue. It can wait. Football season is more important. Euro 2012 is more important. Interesting.
If they consider racism to be a severe issue and they want to fight it they can take to court during the football season.
And then you're mocking my perception...

Here's you're exact quote from a recent thread:

It doesn't really matter, Sunny.
For us, foreigners, it's "England".
On one hand you have the case of Luis Suarez, a foreign player, who was harshly punished in a case with so many doubts.
On the other hand you have John Terry, a local Englishman and captain of the England team, who is seen on video racially abusing a fellow footballer, and having his case dragged due to *technicalities".
This is how the case is perceived. And it rather stinks.
Click to expand...

You clearly think that Terry is being treated better because he's English. That's your perception, and it's your perception that stinks here.
Click to expand...

That's hardly "banging banging on about xenophobia", is it. As I said - there's an issue if double standards and cultural differences here.
You kept ignoring and disregarding those cultural differences and the double standards ever since the Suarez case started up and never ever had a doubt you know better than others. It's just making my point stronger.
As for stinking perceptions - I guess it's subjective.

You're ignoring the fact that Terry is being tried in the Courts system, not by the FA.
You're ignoring the fact that the FA are unable to deal with the case until the Courts have because their decision would be prejudicial to the trial.

Basically anyone putting forward such an argument is ignorant of the facts here. But that's not really surprising, that's been the reality ever since the Suarez case started up - and it still is. Regarding my being certain of things, it's because I took an unbiased look at the facts, anyone that did so could have seen him being found guilty as a certainty after his admission.
Click to expand...

But of course! you took an unbiased look at the fact and made your call. How simple. Who needs courts? who needs FA comissions?
So, everybody who thinks differently than you is either biased or ignorant. Not really surprising (see my point above).

Is it really bliss then ?
Click to expand...
[/quote]

The function of the court is to decide the case, it isn't as you so dramatically put it "to fight racism". To have the case they need to have witnesses available, they aren't going to be available.

if you want to argue there's a double standard it's in the fact that Suarez didn't face criminal charges as well as FA ones, while Terry will face both. But that's not really convenient to your argument is it ?

I just wish LFC fans would stop playing the victim. Suarez was rightly done. Terry will be too. And then you'll have no straw arguments to fall back on.
[/quote]

Just a reminder - the issue here is Racism and fighting it, isn't it?

So you're basically saying (calmly, not dramatically 😉) that the court does not have the authority to make the witnesses available earlier than 9th of July? You are conveniently ignoring this point time and again.
Re: Suarez not facing criminal charges - that's a valid point. I doubt it he'd be convicted at court with such weak evidence.
You think Suarez was rightly done. Some think he wasn't. Why is this playing the victim?
Will Terry be rightly done? maybe. We will have to wait and see. The fact though is that he's allowed to play until after Euro 2012 (which is probably bad for Englad - is this why you're happy with it? 😉)
[/quote]

Suarez was convicted because of his own admission, nothing could be stronger than that. He would have been convicted of that exact charge in a criminal court. It's arguable he might not be convicted of the charge that Terry is facing if he had been charged similarly, because intent is part of the offence it's not in the FA rules.

I'll repeat, the function of the court is not to fight racism - that's for nobheads in pressure groups.
[/quote]

Suarez admitted of saying "negro" in Spanish which has a different meaning than "Negro" in English.
I believe the conversation was in Spanish.

i know you have a degree in law which I don't, but would a court not refer to that big difference?

BTW, he was accused of saying it 10->7->5 times while he only admitted of saying it once. I believe his ban was for saying it multiple times. So do they believe his admission or do they not?

BTW, looks like the English public opinion is noting some differences between the way the two have been treated, hence pushing Terry away from the captaincy and maybe from the England team altogether. I'm sorry for you as it probably means a stronger England... 😉
 
Evra said on French tv he was called N8gger 10 times and the Ref knew, he changed it to Negro 8 times, then 5 times, and the FA said his staements where more consistant than that of Mr Suarez.
 
[quote author=jimmy link=topic=48538.msg1477122#msg1477122 date=1328379857]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48538.msg1476976#msg1476976 date=1328364178]
[quote author=jimmy link=topic=48538.msg1476165#msg1476165 date=1328217528]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48538.msg1476129#msg1476129 date=1328215909]
[quote author=jimmy link=topic=48538.msg1476072#msg1476072 date=1328212409]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48538.msg1476064#msg1476064 date=1328210535]
[quote author=jimmy link=topic=48538.msg1476060#msg1476060 date=1328209561]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48538.msg1475987#msg1475987 date=1328194205]
I see two different cases. And the reality is while they arise out of a similar incident they're vastly different in how they'll be judged. That isn't some grave injustice, that's just the way things are.

And you went banging on about xenophobia in the last thread.

It's not surprising to see a London based journo is supporting a Chelsea player (particularly Samuel), they always have done. It's hardly outrageous to suggest that someone shouldn't be punished until they're found guilty. Yet some of you act like it is.

I don't see the point in lying to ourselves and creating some alternate reality where the entirety of the media is against us. Before the full facts came out plenty of papers we're willing to peddle our lies (sudaca, negrito etc etc), I didn't see you complaining about that. Once the facts came out most changed tone, not surprisingly really - it's what any decent human being would do.

As for Terry being England captain, no he shouldn't be. He shouldn't even be in the team but that;s just because he's shit, not because he's a cunt.
[/quote]

1. I don't remeber myself "banging" on about anything on that other thread. I actually think if any of us was "banging" on about anything on that thread it might have been you.
2. I don't think I ever mentioned xenophobia either. I was pointing at "double standards", "cultural differences" etc.
3. If I recall correctly (and a brief check down that "other" thread shows me I do) you didn't wait for the comission's verdict and for the facts to come out before letting us all know what you thought happenned there in the penalty area. You didn't seem like you really needed to wait for that verdict to come out.
4. I can't see how those two cases are so different from each other (I actually do but in favour of Luis Suarez). I do see a problem with the fact that the Terry decision is being delayed so much. Why not deal with it before the Euro 2012?

[/quote]

What I read earlier is that they envisage it being a 5 day trial, and the witnesses aren't free for that length of time during the football season.

[/quote]

So they don't consider racism to be such a severe issue. It can wait. Football season is more important. Euro 2012 is more important. Interesting.
If they consider racism to be a severe issue and they want to fight it they can take to court during the football season.
And then you're mocking my perception...

Here's you're exact quote from a recent thread:

It doesn't really matter, Sunny.
For us, foreigners, it's "England".
On one hand you have the case of Luis Suarez, a foreign player, who was harshly punished in a case with so many doubts.
On the other hand you have John Terry, a local Englishman and captain of the England team, who is seen on video racially abusing a fellow footballer, and having his case dragged due to *technicalities".
This is how the case is perceived. And it rather stinks.
Click to expand...

You clearly think that Terry is being treated better because he's English. That's your perception, and it's your perception that stinks here.
Click to expand...

That's hardly "banging banging on about xenophobia", is it. As I said - there's an issue if double standards and cultural differences here.
You kept ignoring and disregarding those cultural differences and the double standards ever since the Suarez case started up and never ever had a doubt you know better than others. It's just making my point stronger.
As for stinking perceptions - I guess it's subjective.

You're ignoring the fact that Terry is being tried in the Courts system, not by the FA.
You're ignoring the fact that the FA are unable to deal with the case until the Courts have because their decision would be prejudicial to the trial.

Basically anyone putting forward such an argument is ignorant of the facts here. But that's not really surprising, that's been the reality ever since the Suarez case started up - and it still is. Regarding my being certain of things, it's because I took an unbiased look at the facts, anyone that did so could have seen him being found guilty as a certainty after his admission.
Click to expand...

But of course! you took an unbiased look at the fact and made your call. How simple. Who needs courts? who needs FA comissions?
So, everybody who thinks differently than you is either biased or ignorant. Not really surprising (see my point above).

Is it really bliss then ?
Click to expand...
[/quote]

The function of the court is to decide the case, it isn't as you so dramatically put it "to fight racism". To have the case they need to have witnesses available, they aren't going to be available.

if you want to argue there's a double standard it's in the fact that Suarez didn't face criminal charges as well as FA ones, while Terry will face both. But that's not really convenient to your argument is it ?

I just wish LFC fans would stop playing the victim. Suarez was rightly done. Terry will be too. And then you'll have no straw arguments to fall back on.
[/quote]

Just a reminder - the issue here is Racism and fighting it, isn't it?

So you're basically saying (calmly, not dramatically 😉) that the court does not have the authority to make the witnesses available earlier than 9th of July? You are conveniently ignoring this point time and again.
Re: Suarez not facing criminal charges - that's a valid point. I doubt it he'd be convicted at court with such weak evidence.
You think Suarez was rightly done. Some think he wasn't. Why is this playing the victim?
Will Terry be rightly done? maybe. We will have to wait and see. The fact though is that he's allowed to play until after Euro 2012 (which is probably bad for Englad - is this why you're happy with it? 😉)
[/quote]

Suarez was convicted because of his own admission, nothing could be stronger than that. He would have been convicted of that exact charge in a criminal court. It's arguable he might not be convicted of the charge that Terry is facing if he had been charged similarly, because intent is part of the offence it's not in the FA rules.

I'll repeat, the function of the court is not to fight racism - that's for nobheads in pressure groups.
[/quote]

Suarez admitted of saying "negro" in Spanish which has a different meaning than "Negro" in English.
I believe the conversation was in Spanish.

i know you have a degree in law which I don't, but would a court not refer to that big difference?

BTW, he was accused of saying it 10->7->5 times while he only admitted of saying it once. I believe his ban was for saying it multiple times. So do they believe his admission or do they not?

BTW, looks like the English public opinion is noting some differences between the way the two have been treated, hence pushing Terry away from the captaincy and maybe from the England team altogether. I'm sorry for you as it probably means a stronger England... 😉
[/quote]

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.

And the fact is the Panel has to decide what's acceptable on an English football pitch, under no circumstances were they going to allow you to say it Spanish but not English. It creates an easy out for genuine racists.

Suarez only has to say it once to be guilty. So there is no argument for him being innocent. There is an argument to say the proof doesn't stack up to decide he said it seven times, but that only goes to the length of the ban - he's still guilty.

I'm not really concerned about public opinion, because the public clearly don't have a fucking clue about the legal system.
 
[quote author=Asbo link=topic=48538.msg1477124#msg1477124 date=1328380155]
Evra said on French tv he was called N8gger 10 times and the Ref knew, he changed it to Negro 8 times, then 5 times, and the FA said his staements where more consistant than that of Mr Suarez.
[/quote]

As I said apply the same critical thinking to Suarez's evidence.

Evras evidence was consistent with TV evidence, Comolli's evidence and Kuyt's evidence.

Suarez's first statement was consistent with Comolli's and Kuyt's, but then he changed it - to a statement that differed from theirs.

So when faced with three statements saying the same thing then one from the accused saying something different ? There's only going to be one outcome, then if you apply any sort of common sense to Suarez's account of what was said you're left thinking he's either a retard or lying.
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48538.msg1477128#msg1477128 date=1328381311]
[quote author=Asbo link=topic=48538.msg1477124#msg1477124 date=1328380155]
Evra said on French tv he was called N8gger 10 times and the Ref knew, he changed it to Negro 8 times, then 5 times, and the FA said his staements where more consistant than that of Mr Suarez.
[/quote]

As I said apply the same critical thinking to Suarez's evidence.

Evras evidence was consistent with TV evidence, Comolli's evidence and Kuyt's evidence.

Suarez's first statement was consistent with Comolli's and Kuyt's, but then he changed it - to a statement that differed from theirs.

So when faced with three statements saying the same thing then one from the accused saying something different ? There's only going to be one outcome, then if you apply any sort of common sense to Suarez's account of what was said you're left thinking he's either a retard or lying.
[/quote]

Haha you haven't read the fucking 115 pages have you?

The difference was TWO FUCKING LETTERS, yet the difference between Evra's statement in the dressing room and his 3 teammates was totally different TOTALLY different.

Then they went to to say what he said to SAF confirmed it, so saying a lie once and then again through someone else was taking as confirmation of telling a truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

rurikbird
    • Like
  • Poll Poll
I’ll just say it…
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
180
Views
5K
Frogfish
Frogfish
moron
Is TAA worth breaking the wage structure ?
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Replies
508
Views
11K
Frogfish
Frogfish
Brizzle
    • Like
  • Locked
Pre Match Pre Match - Saints (A) - Sunday 2pm
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
163
Views
4K
Shadey
Shadey
Hansern
    • Like
  • Locked
Hamisson
Replies
22
Views
637
Calibra1
Calibra1
Brizzle
    • Like
    • Haha
  • Locked
Pre Match Pre Match - Nottingham Forest (H) - Sat 14th Sept 15:00
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Replies
419
Views
8K
binomial
binomial
Back
Top Bottom