Keep Suarez?
- Thread starter LeTallecWiz
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
The FA take on justice is stunning - "We're going to charge you, and before we have even heard your story or looked ta in detail we have already decided you deserve more than a 3 match ban"
Its like being in court & the judge reads out the charges, and asks you "How do you plead? .... but before you say Guilty or Not Guilty let me tell you now as far as I am concerned you are guilty and the recommended sentence fro this crime is not enough so I will likely use my discretion to increase your time in prison.. Now, back to the original question - how do you plead?"
Its like being in court & the judge reads out the charges, and asks you "How do you plead? .... but before you say Guilty or Not Guilty let me tell you now as far as I am concerned you are guilty and the recommended sentence fro this crime is not enough so I will likely use my discretion to increase your time in prison.. Now, back to the original question - how do you plead?"
And precisely what has the Cantona (or any other incident) got to do with it? Do we gauge how acceptable it is simply by comparing it to other despicable acts?
Personally, I couldn't give a fuck what Man Utd find acceptable. He bit someone. That's inexcusable, whichever way you look at it. I'm not sure telling him it's naughty and fining him a couple of week's wages really puts us in the clear.
Not really that fair a comparison.
Crown Court gets used instead of magistrates court dependant on the charge, well before the evidence is seen to substantiate the charge.
Crown Court gets used instead of magistrates court dependant on the charge, well before the evidence is seen to substantiate the charge.
I'm misunderstanding the process then. I thought that the charge Suarez is now under (which opens up more than a 3 match ban) is possible (according to FA own rules) regardless of the incident being seen/dealt with during the match or not. Ergo, Defoe could have been charged also in addition to his yellow card at the time.
Beyond that, the FA rules have no basis in UEFA guidelines anyway, no?
And of course at the heart of it is the fact that he's a great high profile player. If it had been, say, Flanagan - and it's quite amazing he hasn't yet taken a bite or two out of opponents - the club would have happily booted him out and the FA wouldn't have bothered too much as the media wouldn't have pressured them. So ultimately it's a fine for fame rather than a foul.
....but but Suarez is a role model, isn't he?
We can't have kids running around biting each other.
Who the fuck is gonna copy Flanagan?
I never made it in the end.
Bad dose of the trots :-(
Even then, take my iPad on the Kop? No way, I'd rather wear a jester hat!
But he's admitted doing it.
And Lord John Barnes.
Er, okay. I have no idea what you're arguing against, but as you wish.
The issue with role models is that it takes away accountability of the individual. " I only bit him cos Suarez did", any child over a certain age who does that is being a cunt who wants to blame someone else.
All this "he made me do it" bollocks is just that. Bollocks.
Suarez will be punished and rightly so, it's just the level of the punishment that needs to be balanced.
If people start biting people on the pitch more often, then people will lay the blame at Suarez door. But, I think whilst most will think its valid, I will say that for people over a certain age, it's just people looking to avoid accountability for their actions. But that's just my opinion.
Too many things seem to allow others to use this excuse as some sort of get out of jail free card. I only did it cos some famous bloke did. Well more fool stupid you then!!!
It's hard to argue against that.
You should read section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Yes, of course, that's a given really and I did think about Barnsey when I wrote that.
O yeah, I see :-
Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999 inserted a new S.15A into the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977 which introduced the specific offence of possesions of drugs with a market value of over 10,000 Irish Pounds, and applied a mandatory minimum sentence with respect to these offences. However S.27(3)(C) of the Misuse of Drugs Act,1977, as amended, does leave an element of discretion to the trial judge to impose a lesser sentence in certain circumstances.
Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999 inserted a new S.15A into the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977 which introduced the specific offence of possesions of drugs with a market value of over 10,000 Irish Pounds, and applied a mandatory minimum sentence with respect to these offences. However S.27(3)(C) of the Misuse of Drugs Act,1977, as amended, does leave an element of discretion to the trial judge to impose a lesser sentence in certain circumstances.
You get warned in the police interview that if you don't plead guilty you're getting ten years.
And as Sheik said Suarez had already admitted he did it.
Fuck Suarez.
Next year was meant to be our season and there's no way he's starting it for us, one way or other.
Fuck him in the throat.
There's no way I'd sell him, even if I were a shapeshifting intergalactic lizard... he's the most entertaining star in the world right now. But he is without doubt one of the stupidest bellends in all of football, and that puts him in the running for stupidest bellend in the known galaxy.
Next year was meant to be our season and there's no way he's starting it for us, one way or other.
Fuck him in the throat.
There's no way I'd sell him, even if I were a shapeshifting intergalactic lizard... he's the most entertaining star in the world right now. But he is without doubt one of the stupidest bellends in all of football, and that puts him in the running for stupidest bellend in the known galaxy.
hush your mouth, he's my fucking rolemodel he is.
