Poll [Poll] Firmino - Holgate incident update

[doctor_mac]

And I still don't think the fa statement over firmino is that damning

Not 'that damning'. Well that's the point isn't it? It shouldn’t be damning in the slightest. He should be completely exonerated. Instead, they have gone out of their way to exonerate Holgate and left a hint of a smear in respect of Bobby. The fact is that the evidence in this case serves to completely prove Firmino innocent of a heinous charge. The evidence does not do so in respect of the motivations for Holgate's accusation. I get that they don't want to discourage players with genuine grievances, but for God's sake, say unequivocally that Firmino did not have a case to answer.

 

[Rosco]

Says who? The Suarez incident is long gone, I read the FA statement and the papers that were doing the rounds. I'm not sure what you mean by what we briefed the press with, I don't recall us briefing the press with much, other than trying to go someway to protecting our player while he was yet to be charged, as any club would. I doubt there was much transparency from the FA, given how the case was put to them, how Fergie acted on the day and the subsequent report. I also dont doubt that Suarez made racist jibes.

My point in this thread hasn't questioned that at all. Like I say, you can't blame people for being confused by the inconsistencies, and no that FA statement isn't "rubbishing the allegation in the nicest possible way", for Holgate yes, but for Firmino? It insinuates there was an issue they lacked evidence to prove. Which is not something any reputable governing body should be doing.

Negrito was never mentioned in the 115 pages of the FA report, because Suarez never claimed that was the term he used.
It's become patently obvious in the five years since that nobody bothered their hole to read the FA report.

Do you remember when the Independent Disciplinary panel found Suarez guilty and everyone said it was a kangaroo court because they believed the FA bring the charges and the FA decide the outcome (rather than the independent panel, chaired by a QC).

Well if the FA, who have to decide on charges, come out and say he's innocent rather than there isn't any evidence (apart from Holgate's claim) to support the allegation then they are doing exactly what people alleged against them during the Suarez episode.

So you're essentially arguing the opposite of what was argued then - do you want the FA to decide on charges and the outcome or not ?

You can't have it both ways

 

[Fabio]

Not 'that damning'. Well that's the point isn't it? It shouldn’t be damning in the slightest. He should be completely exonerated. Instead, they have gone out of their way to exonerate Holgate and left a hint of a smear in respect of Bobby. The fact is that the evidence in this case serves to completely prove Firmino innocent of a heinous charge. The evidence does not do so in respect of the motivations for Holgate's accusation. I get that they don't want to discourage players with genuine grievances, but for God's sake, say unequivocally that Firmino did not have a case to answer.

Does anyone ever get fully exonerated by the FA? All they can say is there's no evidence surely? Can't say he's innocent without accusing the other fella of lying

Nothing will change if they phrased it differently. Liverpool fans will still hate the FA. No earnings lost, no sponsorships lost, and no reputations tarnished. The only People who will remember all this arr Liverpool and Everton fans, and the only people who care about the FAs statement is us.

 

[Athens]

SCM's guaranteed topics that will generate debate no matter what:

Lucas
Rafa
Racist Suarez

 

[Fabio]

SCM's guaranteed topics that will generate debate no matter what:

Lucas
Rafa
Racist Suarez

I can see klopp when he goes generating similar

 

[Judge Jules]

Does anyone ever get fully exonerated by the FA? All they can say is there's no evidence surely? Can't say he's innocent without accusing the other fella of lying

Nothing will change if they phrased it differently. Liverpool fans will still hate the FA. No earnings lost, no sponsorships lost, and no reputations tarnished. The only People who will remember all this arr Liverpool and Everton fans, and the only people who care about the FAs statement is us.

Of course they can be exonerated. To repeat again, the standard of proof is "on the balance of probabilities". They found no evidence of Firmino saying what he'd been alleged to say, so they should have said straight out that on the balance of probabilities he didn't say it. You and I have already argued about whether that should have led to investigating Holgate for lying but, in a just enquiry process which is fair to both parties involved, that was a risk they should have taken. The fact that they stopped short of doing so is a copout which lays bare their pre-existing bias.

 

[Fabio]

Of course they can be exonerated. To repeat again, the standard of proof is "on the balance of probabilities". They found no evidence of Firmino saying what he'd been alleged to say, so they should have said straight out that on the balance of probabilities he didn't say it. You and I have already argued about whether that should have led to investigating Holgate for lying but, in a just enquiry process which is fair to both parties involved, that was a risk they should have taken. The fact that they stopped short of doing so is a copout which lays bare their pre-existing bias.

Has anyone raised a charge against holgate

If no one has complained that he's lied, then why should they investigate?

And once again, they probably don't want to get bogged down in someone's motives for something, as that's subjective and can't properly be investigated "on a balance of probabilities" factor. There's room for massive doubt

 

[Judge Jules]

Because, as you said yourself just now, finding that Firmino didn't say what Holgate alleged he said necessarily raises the question whether Holgate lied, which would have been part of the incident and therefore should have been investigated on the same basis as the rest of it. Nobody else would need to have complained.

 

[doctor_mac]

Does anyone ever get fully exonerated by the FA? All they can say is there's no evidence surely? Can't say he's innocent without accusing the other fella of lying

Nothing will change if they phrased it differently. Liverpool fans will still hate the FA. No earnings lost, no sponsorships lost, and no reputations tarnished. The only People who will remember all this arr Liverpool and Everton fans, and the only people who care about the FAs statement is us.

They said: "We are completely satisfied that the allegation was made in absolute good faith by Holgate and that there is no suggestion of this being an intentionally false or malicious allegation"

Now they cannot have any proof of this, and yet they make a very strong affirmative statement.

In respect of Firmino, they said there was 'insufficient evidence' to punish him. INSUFF-UCKING-ICENT! They should have said there was 'no evidence'. Because there wasn't. Because if there was the slightest hint of the poorest evidence, you can be fucking sure he'd have been hung out to dry.

 

[Fabio]

Because, as you said yourself just now, finding that Firmino didn't say what Holgate alleged he said necessarily raises the question whether Holgate lied, which would have been part of the incident and therefore should have been investigated on the same basis as the rest of it. Nobody else would need to have complained.

They would have; everton.

And nobody else is complaining about how it actually panned out except us.

And the club aren't even complaining about it.

 

[Fabio]

They said: "We are completely satisfied that the allegation was made in absolute good faith by Holgate and that there is no suggestion of this being an intentionally false or malicious allegation"

Now they cannot have any proof of this, and yet they make a very strong affirmative statement.

In respect of Firmino, they said there was 'insufficient evidence' to punish him. INSUFF-UCKING-ICENT! They should have said there was 'no evidence'. Because there wasn't. Because if there was the slightest hint of the poorest evidence, you can be fucking sure he'd have been hung out to dry.

Is there a chance that they said the stuff about holgate because of the 7 weeks of our fans kicking off and calling him a liar?

Arguably, they could phrase it better for bobby. But hey ho. The other day someone in the highest ups of football equated the star of David with a swastika. They're not renowned for tact and diplomacy

We should be just happy they didn't find something to ban him for

 

[dantes]

Negrito was never mentioned in the 115 pages of the FA report, because Suarez never claimed that was the term he used.
It's become patently obvious in the five years since that nobody bothered their hole to read the FA report.

Do you remember when the Independent Disciplinary panel found Suarez guilty and everyone said it was a kangaroo court because they believed the FA bring the charges and the FA decide the outcome (rather than the independent panel, chaired by a QC).

Well if the FA, who have to decide on charges, come out and say he's innocent rather than there isn't any evidence (apart from Holgate's claim) to support the allegation then they are doing exactly what people alleged against them during the Suarez episode.

So you're essentially arguing the opposite of what was argued then - do you want the FA to decide on charges and the outcome or not ?

You can't have it both ways

Independent is a vacuous concept in complaints handling processes, it does not mean what you insinuate here. If you ever end up having to challenge this in court the judge is likely to say "The important points about independence in my judgment are that the person who examines any complaint should be independent of the parties to that complaint, and that the Independent Adjudicator should be independent of any pressure from anyone." and that's it.

The panel is appointed and therefore gets paid in accordance with the FA's own rules, so you're there to help the FA enforce their rules. Say I want to smash your head into a pavement Rosco. If I did it, it would be murder. If on the other hand I wrote up some rules, made you sign up to them, and then appointed someone in accordance with those rules to smash your head into the pavement for breaking some other aspect of my rules, then the process would become legally independent. That's all this is. In neither event is it actually established in any fair way whether or not your actually deserved to have your head crushed underfoot.

 

[mark1975]

Negrito was never mentioned in the 115 pages of the FA report, because Suarez never claimed that was the term he used.
It's become patently obvious in the five years since that nobody bothered their hole to read the FA report.

Do you remember when the Independent Disciplinary panel found Suarez guilty and everyone said it was a kangaroo court because they believed the FA bring the charges and the FA decide the outcome (rather than the independent panel, chaired by a QC).

Well if the FA, who have to decide on charges, come out and say he's innocent rather than there isn't any evidence (apart from Holgate's claim) to support the allegation then they are doing exactly what people alleged against them during the Suarez episode.

So you're essentially arguing the opposite of what was argued then - do you want the FA to decide on charges and the outcome or not ?

You can't have it both ways

What are you going on about? The FA statement about Firmino suggests there was something untoward that they couldn't prove, which is a ridiculous scenario to put themselves in or to insinuate. It's two entirely separate situations. "Can't have it both ways", fuck off.

 

[Jack D Rips]

They said there was insufficient evidence. They interviewed 12 people and none of them heard anything racist. Three were Liverpool players, two were officials. Presumably the rest were Everton players.

The balance of probabilities here was OVERFUCKINGWHELMINGLY that he didn't say anything racist and that was what the FA should have said.

That would still not stop them from saying that the believed Holgate was being genuine in his claim.

 

[doctor_mac]

They said there was insufficient evidence. They interviewed 12 people and none of them heard anything racist. Three were Liverpool players, two were officials. Presumably the rest were Everton players.

The balance of probabilities here was OVERFUCKINGWHELMINGLY that he didn't say anything racist and that was what the FA should have said.

That would still not stop them from saying that the believed Holgate was being genuine in his claim.

Exactly. There was sufficient evidence, all pointing to the fact that Firmino was 'absolutely' and 'completely' innocent of saying the things his opponent (who had incidentally just committed a red card offence against him) accused him of saying. Instead they use these same superlatives in respect of Holgate's baseless accusation.

 

[Silver Sean]

Not like the FA to be complete hypocritical screaming fannies with no more worth than a trickle of stinking shite. Fucking cunts the lot of them.

 

[manwithnoname]

Sean closes the thread in style

 

[Rosco]

They said there was insufficient evidence. They interviewed 12 people and none of them heard anything racist. Three were Liverpool players, two were officials. Presumably the rest were Everton players.

The balance of probabilities here was OVERFUCKINGWHELMINGLY that he didn't say anything racist and that was what the FA should have said.

That would still not stop them from saying that the believed Holgate was being genuine in his claim.

The FA bring the charges. (like the Crown or DPP)
The independent panel decide upon innocence or guilt. (like a Court).

for the FA to have done what you and Mark wanted they would have to entirely overstep their authority.

This is fair procedures 101 in an adversarial system, ridiculously simple stuff. But if you want to see a conspiracy in it, be my guest.

 

[Rosco]

What are you going on about? The FA statement about Firmino suggests there was something untoward that they couldn't prove, which is a ridiculous scenario to put themselves in or to insinuate. It's two entirely separate situations. "Can't have it both ways", fuck off.

If you can't read the FA report and see them giving Holgate's case the iron fist within the velvet glove and still don't have a fucking clue about what Suarez admitted to saying i'm not sure you understand much about either situation.

 

[LeTallecWiz]

If you can't read the FA report and see them giving Holgate's case the iron fist within the velvet glove and still don't have a fucking clue about what Suarez admitted to saying i'm not sure you understand much about either situation.

Is this article about what Suarez said to the FA inaccurate? Evra says he was called negro x5, but the article says Suarez said he used it once:

[article] Mr Suárez said that he turned to Mr Evra and said "Por que, negro?". He said that he used the word "negro" at this point in the way that he did when he was growing up in Uruguay, that is as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned or even just black-haired. He said that he used it in the same way that he did when he spoke to Glen Johnson, the black Liverpool player. He said in no way was the use of the word "negro" intended to be offensive or to be racially offensive. It was intended as an attempt at conciliation.[/article]

 

[dantes]

If you can't read the FA report and see them giving Holgate's case the iron fist within the velvet glove and still don't have a fucking clue about what Suarez admitted to saying i'm not sure you understand much about either situation.

Your authoritative interpretation of that FA report has apparently improved with the passage of time. At the time, I quite clearly recall dismantling your bullshit opinions about the process. (1) there is no material difference between 'negrito' or 'negro' as far as Suarez is concerned, they both convey the same non-racist meaning in spanish, so you don't even understand what the position was for you to point out this difference as some sort of ah ha see I told you so thing. (2) the fa had no counter to the position that suarez was talking in Spanish and his intention was not racist, so the first thing they did is tell the panel that you know what, our rules on this should not take the intention into account, they're strict liability, even though that's not the way the same rules in the legislation are drawn up, the panel has to accept the FA know their own rules, so without intention suarez was guilty of racial abuse for talking in Spanish, and they dressed that up with some bullshit about he has lives in England now and its up to him to know the language. (3) to bolster their ban they said even if we considered his intention as a factor, then we'd still have have had to ban him because the way the rules are written is that he was using insulting words to evra because of some lip reading facial expression evidence we have, and then he made reference to the colour of black, so the charge is met, in otherwords the reference to colour doesn't have to itself be insulting, but so long as there are other words which cause insult then it counts as an aggravating factor.

You failed to grasp any of that, and each time it was argued before you, wah wah wah negrito negro negrito negro wah wah wah.

 

[darkstarexodus]

Sean closes the thread in style

That SHOULD be the close to the thread but, like a Fat Sam fart, it lingers cloyingly and making my eyes water.

 

[doctor_mac]

That SHOULD be the close to the thread but, like a Fat Sam fart, it lingers cloyingly and making my eyes water.

Imagine a Fat Sam fart. I bet it has few equals in terms of olfactory offensiveness.

 

[FoxForceFive]

Imagine a Fat Sam fart. I bet it has few equals in terms of olfactory offensiveness.

I'd actually prefer to be engulfed in the midsts of a Fat Sam fart backwash than I would read this fucking thread.

 

[Woland]

Would be dead funny if Frim was actually guilty

 

[doctor_mac]

I'd actually prefer to be engulfed in the midsts of a Fat Sam fart backwash than I would read this fucking thread.

You say that now, but were you drowning– choking– guttering in that horror then you'd not repeat that lie.

 

[Jack D Rips]

The FA bring the charges. (like the Crown or DPP)
The independent panel decide upon innocence or guilt. (like a Court).

for the FA to have done what you and Mark wanted they would have to entirely overstep their authority.

This is fair procedures 101 in an adversarial system, ridiculously simple stuff. But if you want to see a conspiracy in it, be my guest.

But they didn't overstep their authority in stating their assumption that Holgate made the claim in good faith? Ok.

 

[mark1975]

If you can't read the FA report and see them giving Holgate's case the iron fist within the velvet glove and still don't have a fucking clue about what Suarez admitted to saying i'm not sure you understand much about either situation.

Ross, you're arguing with yourself over this. I have no problem with their treatment of Holgate, they acted with integrity and sympathy about his allegation - I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, that's how both sides, without any reason to take action against either party, should have been handled.

The wording when it comes to Firmino's side is that they didn't have sufficient evidence to take action against him. That's different to their clarity over Holgate's part.

My POINT is that they established that they couldn't, in the midst of the action and confusion on the pitch, ascertain satisfactorily what was said - yet the conclusion they have inexplicably then put across in their closing statement is that:

A) They sympathised with Holgate and felt irrefutably that there was no intended malice on his part. They've established this from what? The same confused series of events on a football pitch? Also, why wasn't his violent conduct dealt with? The ref didn't deal with it because he knew there was an accusation from Holgate, so to then punish him for the push and not punish the perceived racism, would be misconstrued as condoning racism - He wanted both situations to be dealt with away from the pitch. I GET THAT. Only it then wasn't dealt with by the FA after the event. They investigated the racism allegation, but ignored blatant and evidenced violent conduct.

B) They said they couldn't find sufficient evidence to prosecute Firmino, not that Firmino was found to be "not guilty", but that there wasn't enough information to form a decision either way (essentially). They said this because of unclear evidence - it was out there on the pitch, one players word against another, in a heated game, in a loud stadium, the ref didn't hear it, blah blah. The same circumstances that drew the conclusion that Holgate didn't have any intent to fabricate the allegation.

Like I say, I have no problem with them finding Holgate innocent of any wrong doing, but that's not really consistent with their rather clouded judgement of Firmino. You find one player innocent without a shadow doubt, yet the other they say they were unable to find evidence against.

It's a complete inconsistency. I couldn't give a fuck about what went on with Suarez, you're banging on about the FA report from that incident like it's relevant to this. I haven't referenced it once here, I questioned the consistency of fine amounts, of their failure to ban Ferdinand, none of which you have addressed btw.

 

[Woland]

Arsed

 

[mark1975]

At the end of the day, the player who pushed another into the crowd unnecessarily, endangering both the player and fans, walked away from the situation unpunished and with the sympathy of the FA.

The endangered party who reacted angrily verbally, to the push, walked away under a clouded statement from the FA.

Anyone who thinks that is "fair" is a fucking idiot.