The Suarez/Evra Racism Row
- Thread starter Stulikesdrums
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=48021.msg1451706#msg1451706 date=1325204783]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
Who gives a fuck whether he is or isn't, it's all be proven to a load of bent bollocks anyway.
[/quote]
Mark if you ever find yourself arrested and need legal advice, don't ring Dantes.
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=48021.msg1451706#msg1451706 date=1325204783]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
Who gives a fuck whether he is or isn't, it's all be proven to a load of bent bollocks anyway.
[/quote]
Mark if you ever find yourself arrested and need legal advice, don't ring Dantes.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451708#msg1451708 date=1325204884]
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=48021.msg1451706#msg1451706 date=1325204783]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
Who gives a fuck whether he is or isn't, it's all be proven to a load of bent bollocks anyway.
[/quote]
Mark if you ever find yourself arrested and need legal advice, don't ring Dantes.
[/quote]
Though ring him before you ring, Ros "your argument is stupid" co. Because then you don't have a defence.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451708#msg1451708 date=1325204884]
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=48021.msg1451706#msg1451706 date=1325204783]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
Who gives a fuck whether he is or isn't, it's all be proven to a load of bent bollocks anyway.
[/quote]
Mark if you ever find yourself arrested and need legal advice, don't ring Dantes.
[/quote]
Though ring him before you ring, Ros "your argument is stupid" co. Because then you don't have a defence.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=48021.msg1451710#msg1451710 date=1325205236]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451708#msg1451708 date=1325204884]
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=48021.msg1451706#msg1451706 date=1325204783]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
Who gives a fuck whether he is or isn't, it's all be proven to a load of bent bollocks anyway.
[/quote]
Mark if you ever find yourself arrested and need legal advice, don't ring Dantes.
[/quote]
Though ring him before you ring, Ros "your argument is stupid" co. Because then you don't have a defence.
[/quote]
Suarez never had a defence because of his admission, he had mitigating circumstances at best that would only be relevant to the punishment - not the finding.
Owning up to a strict liability offence is fucking stupid. That you don't understand that is fine, but for you to try to mock me for stating what is the bloody obvious to anyone who has taken a year of a law degree is not.
Suarez was always going to be found guilty because technically he is. You can argue all you like about the extent of the punishment but the fact he was found guilty isn't some grave injustice that needs to be battled through the High Courts. (Molby had it spot on earlier as to what we should have done).
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=48021.msg1451710#msg1451710 date=1325205236]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451708#msg1451708 date=1325204884]
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=48021.msg1451706#msg1451706 date=1325204783]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
Who gives a fuck whether he is or isn't, it's all be proven to a load of bent bollocks anyway.
[/quote]
Mark if you ever find yourself arrested and need legal advice, don't ring Dantes.
[/quote]
Though ring him before you ring, Ros "your argument is stupid" co. Because then you don't have a defence.
[/quote]
Suarez never had a defence because of his admission, he had mitigating circumstances at best that would only be relevant to the punishment - not the finding.
Owning up to a strict liability offence is fucking stupid. That you don't understand that is fine, but for you to try to mock me for stating what is the bloody obvious to anyone who has taken a year of a law degree is not.
Suarez was always going to be found guilty because technically he is. You can argue all you like about the extent of the punishment but the fact he was found guilty isn't some grave injustice that needs to be battled through the High Courts. (Molby had it spot on earlier as to what we should have done).
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
I don't really know what I am. An adjudicator, a lawyer, an appeal panel, they're all just human beings, with qualifications. Whereas I'm a genius and can humiliate them without too much trouble. It's like saying superman isn't a professional boxer....therefore you should back the boxer. Nah, you should back dantes.
I don't really know what I am. An adjudicator, a lawyer, an appeal panel, they're all just human beings, with qualifications. Whereas I'm a genius and can humiliate them without too much trouble. It's like saying superman isn't a professional boxer....therefore you should back the boxer. Nah, you should back dantes.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
Hahaha.
Ross is right in the sense that he was always going to be found guilty because he admitted to it. I understand his integrity and the belief that he did nothing wrong, hence his admission, but he should have just lied and said "Nah, Evra's making it up."
Hahaha.
Ross is right in the sense that he was always going to be found guilty because he admitted to it. I understand his integrity and the belief that he did nothing wrong, hence his admission, but he should have just lied and said "Nah, Evra's making it up."
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
Oh and Terry will definitely not get as hefty a ban/fine as Suarez. Regardless of the outcome of the verdict.
Oh and Terry will definitely not get as hefty a ban/fine as Suarez. Regardless of the outcome of the verdict.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451713#msg1451713 date=1325205912]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=48021.msg1451710#msg1451710 date=1325205236]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451708#msg1451708 date=1325204884]
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=48021.msg1451706#msg1451706 date=1325204783]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
Who gives a fuck whether he is or isn't, it's all be proven to a load of bent bollocks anyway.
[/quote]
Mark if you ever find yourself arrested and need legal advice, don't ring Dantes.
[/quote]
Though ring him before you ring, Ros "your argument is stupid" co. Because then you don't have a defence.
[/quote]
Suarez never had a defence because of his admission, he had mitigating circumstances at best that would only be relevant to the punishment - not the finding.
Owning up to a strict liability offence is fucking stupid. That you don't understand that is fine, but for you to try to mock me for stating what is the bloody obvious to anyone who has taken a year of a law degree is not.
Suarez was always going to be found guilty because technically he is. You can argue all you like about the extent of the punishment but the fact he was found guilty isn't some grave injustice that needs to be battled through the High Courts. (Molby had it spot on earlier as to what we should have done).
[/quote]
that shit will only wash if you're talking about an act of parliament, and even then you could still challenge it in the human rights court. but the FA rules and regulations are not necessarily legal. If they are unfair (which they clearly are), then they get overturned. simple as that. and the FA are at fault for not acting within the spirit of natural justice, or even the spirit of their own rules. this isn't common law. this is more like contract law. you can't enforce a bollocks contract which says you are culpable for another players misunderstanding...and then think you can hide behind strict liability.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451713#msg1451713 date=1325205912]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=48021.msg1451710#msg1451710 date=1325205236]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451708#msg1451708 date=1325204884]
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=48021.msg1451706#msg1451706 date=1325204783]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
Who gives a fuck whether he is or isn't, it's all be proven to a load of bent bollocks anyway.
[/quote]
Mark if you ever find yourself arrested and need legal advice, don't ring Dantes.
[/quote]
Though ring him before you ring, Ros "your argument is stupid" co. Because then you don't have a defence.
[/quote]
Suarez never had a defence because of his admission, he had mitigating circumstances at best that would only be relevant to the punishment - not the finding.
Owning up to a strict liability offence is fucking stupid. That you don't understand that is fine, but for you to try to mock me for stating what is the bloody obvious to anyone who has taken a year of a law degree is not.
Suarez was always going to be found guilty because technically he is. You can argue all you like about the extent of the punishment but the fact he was found guilty isn't some grave injustice that needs to be battled through the High Courts. (Molby had it spot on earlier as to what we should have done).
[/quote]
that shit will only wash if you're talking about an act of parliament, and even then you could still challenge it in the human rights court. but the FA rules and regulations are not necessarily legal. If they are unfair (which they clearly are), then they get overturned. simple as that. and the FA are at fault for not acting within the spirit of natural justice, or even the spirit of their own rules. this isn't common law. this is more like contract law. you can't enforce a bollocks contract which says you are culpable for another players misunderstanding...and then think you can hide behind strict liability.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=Halmeister link=topic=48021.msg1451718#msg1451718 date=1325208109]
Hahaha.
Ross is right in the sense that he was always going to be found guilty because he admitted to it. I understand his integrity and the belief that he did nothing wrong, hence his admission, but he should have just lied and said "Nah, Evra's making it up."
[/quote]
Well he denied the charges. So that means he claimed he wasn't insulting Evra, and therefore the reference to his colour is neither here nor there. It only becomes a factor in the event of an insult. So it seems the FA needed to prove that he insulted Evra. That isn't possible to do. So therefore he is not guilty of any charge.
We all only assumed he was guilty as he was trying to imply Evra was a pussy, and so that would be the insult. But from the clubs statement he didn't even concede that. All he did was talk to him in spanish....Not insult him. I doubt that was the case in reality but who gives a fuck now. So he wasn't as naive or stupid as you think..... He only admitted enough to conclude that rule E3(2) had been "broken", but seeing as though he denied breaking rule E3(1) then rule (2) does not apply. He knew that negrito is not an insult and it can be proved by any homeless bum of the streets of madrid if he needs to. So if it now goes to court the FA will look like clowns. Clowns who get bitchslapped by a homeless bum off the streets of madrid.
[quote author=Halmeister link=topic=48021.msg1451718#msg1451718 date=1325208109]
Hahaha.
Ross is right in the sense that he was always going to be found guilty because he admitted to it. I understand his integrity and the belief that he did nothing wrong, hence his admission, but he should have just lied and said "Nah, Evra's making it up."
[/quote]
Well he denied the charges. So that means he claimed he wasn't insulting Evra, and therefore the reference to his colour is neither here nor there. It only becomes a factor in the event of an insult. So it seems the FA needed to prove that he insulted Evra. That isn't possible to do. So therefore he is not guilty of any charge.
We all only assumed he was guilty as he was trying to imply Evra was a pussy, and so that would be the insult. But from the clubs statement he didn't even concede that. All he did was talk to him in spanish....Not insult him. I doubt that was the case in reality but who gives a fuck now. So he wasn't as naive or stupid as you think..... He only admitted enough to conclude that rule E3(2) had been "broken", but seeing as though he denied breaking rule E3(1) then rule (2) does not apply. He knew that negrito is not an insult and it can be proved by any homeless bum of the streets of madrid if he needs to. So if it now goes to court the FA will look like clowns. Clowns who get bitchslapped by a homeless bum off the streets of madrid.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451723#msg1451723 date=1325209298]
[quote author=Halmeister link=topic=48021.msg1451718#msg1451718 date=1325208109]
Hahaha.
Ross is right in the sense that he was always going to be found guilty because he admitted to it. I understand his integrity and the belief that he did nothing wrong, hence his admission, but he should have just lied and said "Nah, Evra's making it up."
[/quote]
Well he denied the charges. So that means he claimed he wasn't insulting Evra, and therefore the reference to his colour is neither here nor there. It only becomes a factor in the event of an insult. So it seems the FA needed to prove that he insulted Evra. That isn't possible to do. So therefore he is not guilty of any charge.
We all only assumed he was guilty as he was trying to imply Evra was a pussy, and so that would be the insult. But from the clubs statement he didn't even concede that. All he did was talk to him in spanish....Not insult him. I doubt that was the case in reality but who gives a fuck now. So he wasn't as naive or stupid as you think..... He only admitted enough to conclude that rule E3(2) had been "broken", but seeing as though he denied breaking rule E3(1) then rule (2) does not apply. He knew that negrito is not an insult and it can be proved by any homeless bum of the streets of madrid if he needs to. So if it now goes to court the FA will look like clowns. Clowns who get bitchslapped by a homeless bum off the streets of madrid.
[/quote]
Oh I didn't know that. If you're right, then it sounds like you're right..... if you know what I mean.
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451723#msg1451723 date=1325209298]
[quote author=Halmeister link=topic=48021.msg1451718#msg1451718 date=1325208109]
Hahaha.
Ross is right in the sense that he was always going to be found guilty because he admitted to it. I understand his integrity and the belief that he did nothing wrong, hence his admission, but he should have just lied and said "Nah, Evra's making it up."
[/quote]
Well he denied the charges. So that means he claimed he wasn't insulting Evra, and therefore the reference to his colour is neither here nor there. It only becomes a factor in the event of an insult. So it seems the FA needed to prove that he insulted Evra. That isn't possible to do. So therefore he is not guilty of any charge.
We all only assumed he was guilty as he was trying to imply Evra was a pussy, and so that would be the insult. But from the clubs statement he didn't even concede that. All he did was talk to him in spanish....Not insult him. I doubt that was the case in reality but who gives a fuck now. So he wasn't as naive or stupid as you think..... He only admitted enough to conclude that rule E3(2) had been "broken", but seeing as though he denied breaking rule E3(1) then rule (2) does not apply. He knew that negrito is not an insult and it can be proved by any homeless bum of the streets of madrid if he needs to. So if it now goes to court the FA will look like clowns. Clowns who get bitchslapped by a homeless bum off the streets of madrid.
[/quote]
Oh I didn't know that. If you're right, then it sounds like you're right..... if you know what I mean.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
Think of how it will go in court. The first thing the judge will say is, what the fuck gives? You guys didn't translate the conversation from spanish into english?
FA: Uhmm, we, uhhm, we used a translator your honour, lol, uhmm haha......ha
Judge: Oh, so is he or she going to be called as a witness?
FA: uhhm, it, google translate.......... your honour
Judge: Are you fucking kidding me?
Think of how it will go in court. The first thing the judge will say is, what the fuck gives? You guys didn't translate the conversation from spanish into english?
FA: Uhmm, we, uhhm, we used a translator your honour, lol, uhmm haha......ha
Judge: Oh, so is he or she going to be called as a witness?
FA: uhhm, it, google translate.......... your honour
Judge: Are you fucking kidding me?
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
Its telling the initial charge was "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour" and then they only upheld "insulting words". Tells you how much confidence they have on that part
Its telling the initial charge was "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour" and then they only upheld "insulting words". Tells you how much confidence they have on that part
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
The most likely scenario is that we appeal with the FA and get the ban reduced, because the FA won't want to have to hit Terry with a similarly long ban just prior to the European Championships. We know what happened the last time they had an England Captain up on disciplinary charges (Shearer , for kicking Lennon in the head) - and they won't be able to let Terry walk if he's found guilty in Court.
It'll be interesting to see the timing of any appeal by Suarez, if it comes after Terry's Court case and he's found guilty (which I think he will be) then - you can be certain the ban will be reduced.
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
Has Terry been charged by the FA too? I'll bet he doesn't get charged, even if he is found guilty in Court. And the absence of an FA charge will then be conveniently explained away by the rule against double jeopardy.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
The most likely scenario is that we appeal with the FA and get the ban reduced, because the FA won't want to have to hit Terry with a similarly long ban just prior to the European Championships. We know what happened the last time they had an England Captain up on disciplinary charges (Shearer , for kicking Lennon in the head) - and they won't be able to let Terry walk if he's found guilty in Court.
It'll be interesting to see the timing of any appeal by Suarez, if it comes after Terry's Court case and he's found guilty (which I think he will be) then - you can be certain the ban will be reduced.
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
Has Terry been charged by the FA too? I'll bet he doesn't get charged, even if he is found guilty in Court. And the absence of an FA charge will then be conveniently explained away by the rule against double jeopardy.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
The most likely scenario is that we appeal with the FA and get the ban reduced
[/quote]
Let's see if you ignore this post too - do you think an 8 game ban was fair?
I think a 3 ban game is legitimate and fair.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
The most likely scenario is that we appeal with the FA and get the ban reduced
[/quote]
Let's see if you ignore this post too - do you think an 8 game ban was fair?
I think a 3 ban game is legitimate and fair.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451713#msg1451713 date=1325205912]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=48021.msg1451710#msg1451710 date=1325205236]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451708#msg1451708 date=1325204884]
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=48021.msg1451706#msg1451706 date=1325204783]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
Who gives a fuck whether he is or isn't, it's all be proven to a load of bent bollocks anyway.
[/quote]
Mark if you ever find yourself arrested and need legal advice, don't ring Dantes.
[/quote]
Though ring him before you ring, Ros "your argument is stupid" co. Because then you don't have a defence.
[/quote]
Suarez never had a defence because of his admission
[/quote]
Does anyone have a link to what he said exactly? I read it when it came out again, but just want to re-read it and can't find it now.
Wrt Ross says - I think FFF mentioned it when he replied to this, "He should have just shut up." If he was the only reason he was given the ban, than he's an eejit (and another good lesson for Liverpool players).
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451713#msg1451713 date=1325205912]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=48021.msg1451710#msg1451710 date=1325205236]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451708#msg1451708 date=1325204884]
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=48021.msg1451706#msg1451706 date=1325204783]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
Who gives a fuck whether he is or isn't, it's all be proven to a load of bent bollocks anyway.
[/quote]
Mark if you ever find yourself arrested and need legal advice, don't ring Dantes.
[/quote]
Though ring him before you ring, Ros "your argument is stupid" co. Because then you don't have a defence.
[/quote]
Suarez never had a defence because of his admission
[/quote]
Does anyone have a link to what he said exactly? I read it when it came out again, but just want to re-read it and can't find it now.
Wrt Ross says - I think FFF mentioned it when he replied to this, "He should have just shut up." If he was the only reason he was given the ban, than he's an eejit (and another good lesson for Liverpool players).
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=48021.msg1451711#msg1451711 date=1325205237]
If Dantes is no legal expert at least he is like an activist fighting for a just cause when the legal proceedings are the cause for injustice.
[/quote]
That's the problem though, a lot of people are arguing in favour of a just outcome (which I agree with and support), but it may not necessarily be a legal conclusion.
The FA not applying its own rules consistently in relation to abusive and/or insulting words and/or behavior, is unjust.
The FA not providing a statement of written decisions three days after its verdict in accordance with its rules may be unjust (although all Courts and tribunals routinely reserve their reasons - yes, for months even. And what is the prejudice suffered here? The penalties have been suspended pending resolution of the appeal so this is a non-starter, IMO)
The FA imposing a disproportionate ban may be unjust (one would have to examine precedent to find out what's proportionate though).
The FA making a ruling that is criminal in character and beyond jurisdiction may be unjust. (although I doubt it - you play in the FA's competition, you abide by its rules. If those rules happen to grant the FA jurisdiction, then you are bound.)
But these are all extraneous to the legality of the reasoning.
The legality of the reasoning will mainly be scrutinized by its interpretation of the rules allegedly contravened and the evidence. No one knows the evidence. And it is also true that no one here knows how the rules are to be interpreted, but what Rosco, myself and a few others here are putting forth, is the argument that on a "black letter law" interpretation, Suarez had hung himself IF he had admitted to using the words "negro" or "negrito".
I understand the whole cultural/linguistic misunderstanding or intent argument, but judging by the verdict, I'd venture a guess the Panel has chosen NOT to adopt a "purposive" interpretation of the rules. I also go as far as to suggest that even if it did, it was open to the Panel to infer that in the heat of the moment, Suarez would have been more likely to use a word or phrase pejoratively rather than benignly. And circumstantial inference such as that is perfectly valid.
So before the next post, I ask this: what are you fighting for? Remedy for an injustice? Then fuck the appeal. Like all Courts and tribunals, the FA panel is bound by the FA's own rules and procedures and is unlikely to be able to remedy its own procedural defects. Challenge the jurisdiction of the FA elsewhere and void the verdict altogether, in the CAS perhaps, given that (I am led to believe) the High Court in 1992 has ruled it has limited jurisdiction over the FA.
If you are after a legal outcome, in accordance with the FA's rules, then I'm afraid no one is going to be vindicated until the release of the reasons.
That's my take on the debate.
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=48021.msg1451711#msg1451711 date=1325205237]
If Dantes is no legal expert at least he is like an activist fighting for a just cause when the legal proceedings are the cause for injustice.
[/quote]
That's the problem though, a lot of people are arguing in favour of a just outcome (which I agree with and support), but it may not necessarily be a legal conclusion.
The FA not applying its own rules consistently in relation to abusive and/or insulting words and/or behavior, is unjust.
The FA not providing a statement of written decisions three days after its verdict in accordance with its rules may be unjust (although all Courts and tribunals routinely reserve their reasons - yes, for months even. And what is the prejudice suffered here? The penalties have been suspended pending resolution of the appeal so this is a non-starter, IMO)
The FA imposing a disproportionate ban may be unjust (one would have to examine precedent to find out what's proportionate though).
The FA making a ruling that is criminal in character and beyond jurisdiction may be unjust. (although I doubt it - you play in the FA's competition, you abide by its rules. If those rules happen to grant the FA jurisdiction, then you are bound.)
But these are all extraneous to the legality of the reasoning.
The legality of the reasoning will mainly be scrutinized by its interpretation of the rules allegedly contravened and the evidence. No one knows the evidence. And it is also true that no one here knows how the rules are to be interpreted, but what Rosco, myself and a few others here are putting forth, is the argument that on a "black letter law" interpretation, Suarez had hung himself IF he had admitted to using the words "negro" or "negrito".
I understand the whole cultural/linguistic misunderstanding or intent argument, but judging by the verdict, I'd venture a guess the Panel has chosen NOT to adopt a "purposive" interpretation of the rules. I also go as far as to suggest that even if it did, it was open to the Panel to infer that in the heat of the moment, Suarez would have been more likely to use a word or phrase pejoratively rather than benignly. And circumstantial inference such as that is perfectly valid.
So before the next post, I ask this: what are you fighting for? Remedy for an injustice? Then fuck the appeal. Like all Courts and tribunals, the FA panel is bound by the FA's own rules and procedures and is unlikely to be able to remedy its own procedural defects. Challenge the jurisdiction of the FA elsewhere and void the verdict altogether, in the CAS perhaps, given that (I am led to believe) the High Court in 1992 has ruled it has limited jurisdiction over the FA.
If you are after a legal outcome, in accordance with the FA's rules, then I'm afraid no one is going to be vindicated until the release of the reasons.
That's my take on the debate.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
Interesting post I ...
Interesting post I ...
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
Apologies, but I came across this earlier post. Generally, you make a choice to be part of an organization with rules, you implicitly agree to be bound by those rules, regardless of its policy objectives. If you think the rules are unjust, try not to be part of such an organization. If you are already part of one, and find yourself on the wrong end of the stick and are outraged at its breaching notional fairness, then I'd suggest in most circumstances, it's quite futile to redress the problem within the same organization, unles it has some sort of independent regulatory function.
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=48021.msg1451322#msg1451322 date=1325120194]
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451320#msg1451320 date=1325119912]
I don't care about changing anyone else's mind. I just want to know what the fuck gives? I don't get what some people are thinking in order to go from the available information and facts to the position that they have adopted. I imagine it goes like this.
Dantes: Why should Suarez be banned?
Oncy: Because he made a reference to colour
Dantes: But it had no racist connotations...
Oncy: I know that, but
Dantes: What the fuck gives then?
Oncy: But it is a good thing as we need to prevent people in future thinking they can make a reference to colour and get away with it
Dantes: Fuck me. Ok, why is that a good thing?
Oncy: Because it is bad to make a reference to colour of course. Why the fuck would you even question that?
Dantes: Don't fuck with me you cunt. Ok, why is making reference to colour bad?
Oncy:Because it's racist Because the rules say that when you make a reference to colour, you have your ban for merely using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour doubled. And each time you break the rules, you risk being penalized for it.
Dantes: Right, and the part where I told you that in this instance, IT HAD NO RACIST CONNOTATIONS? What the fuck about that part?
Oncy: We still need to send out the message that it is unacceptable to make reference to colour
Dantes: And again, why exactly do we want to send out that message?
Oncy: Because its racist to do that, are you fucking deaf?
Dantes: No. Cunt. So is it a good idea to use an example which had no racist connotations, in order to set an example against racism?
Oncy: This thread is stupid.
Dantes: Fuck me.
[/quote]Aye good one. Very funny. You own this thread etc etc.
[/quote]
Apologies, but I came across this earlier post. Generally, you make a choice to be part of an organization with rules, you implicitly agree to be bound by those rules, regardless of its policy objectives. If you think the rules are unjust, try not to be part of such an organization. If you are already part of one, and find yourself on the wrong end of the stick and are outraged at its breaching notional fairness, then I'd suggest in most circumstances, it's quite futile to redress the problem within the same organization, unles it has some sort of independent regulatory function.
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=48021.msg1451322#msg1451322 date=1325120194]
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451320#msg1451320 date=1325119912]
I don't care about changing anyone else's mind. I just want to know what the fuck gives? I don't get what some people are thinking in order to go from the available information and facts to the position that they have adopted. I imagine it goes like this.
Dantes: Why should Suarez be banned?
Oncy: Because he made a reference to colour
Dantes: But it had no racist connotations...
Oncy: I know that, but
Dantes: What the fuck gives then?
Oncy: But it is a good thing as we need to prevent people in future thinking they can make a reference to colour and get away with it
Dantes: Fuck me. Ok, why is that a good thing?
Oncy: Because it is bad to make a reference to colour of course. Why the fuck would you even question that?
Dantes: Don't fuck with me you cunt. Ok, why is making reference to colour bad?
Oncy:
Oncy: We still need to send out the message that it is unacceptable to make reference to colour
Dantes: And again, why exactly do we want to send out that message?
Oncy: Because its racist to do that, are you fucking deaf?
Dantes: No. Cunt. So is it a good idea to use an example which had no racist connotations, in order to set an example against racism?
Oncy: This thread is stupid.
Dantes: Fuck me.
[/quote]Aye good one. Very funny. You own this thread etc etc.
[/quote]
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
I know it's bad form to reply to my own post, but I'd also suggest that if the reasons showed that a black letter law approach to interpretation was adopted, we could seriously have a lot of fun with that at the return match at Old Toilet (which may possibly be before the appeal).
Notwithstanding the club's desire or lack of desire to overly antagonize the FA, I'd have our players go running to the ref EVERY single time a scum player screams an expletive (an "abusive" word within the scope of the rules) within earshot, and then file the complaints with the FA after the match. We'd have a contemporaneous record of a grievance, upon which the FA will be obligated to take action against by virtue of it's own precedent in the Suarez case, or risk looking completely inconsistent and biased. Oh, and the penalty? 4 match ban, there being no reference to nationality, skin colour, etc.
Of course, this course of action being not very well thought out, as I write I realize our players are exposed to the same risk, it's unrealistic to think the FA will entertain something that appears frivolous, not to mention it being unplatable for all administrative distractions it will cause etc etc, and will probably fail for one of the myriad of reasons I can now think of.
I know it's bad form to reply to my own post, but I'd also suggest that if the reasons showed that a black letter law approach to interpretation was adopted, we could seriously have a lot of fun with that at the return match at Old Toilet (which may possibly be before the appeal).
Notwithstanding the club's desire or lack of desire to overly antagonize the FA, I'd have our players go running to the ref EVERY single time a scum player screams an expletive (an "abusive" word within the scope of the rules) within earshot, and then file the complaints with the FA after the match. We'd have a contemporaneous record of a grievance, upon which the FA will be obligated to take action against by virtue of it's own precedent in the Suarez case, or risk looking completely inconsistent and biased. Oh, and the penalty? 4 match ban, there being no reference to nationality, skin colour, etc.
Of course, this course of action being not very well thought out, as I write I realize our players are exposed to the same risk, it's unrealistic to think the FA will entertain something that appears frivolous, not to mention it being unplatable for all administrative distractions it will cause etc etc, and will probably fail for one of the myriad of reasons I can now think of.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
Very good points. But look at the black letters you are referring to...
This isn't written down like laws are, which have the law followed or preceded by a hundred different qualifying statements. These are rules and regulations written down by a dick.
"In the event of any breach of Rule E 3(1) including a reference to any one or more..."
There is no comma between "E3(1)" and "including". So the black letter interpretation of that is that insulting words are the words which included a reference to colour. The FA have either interpreted it as though there was a comma there (maybe there was a speck of dirt in their copy of the handbook) or they are interpreting it as though negrito is an insulting word.
That lack of a comma means (1) and (2) are coupled. The way the FA stipulated the charges back in October they decoupled (1) and (2) and presented them as independent charges. They basically imagined a comma in the rules. And that's all the excuse I need to sadistically begin slicing someone or some institution into little pieces. A comma.
Very good points. But look at the black letters you are referring to...
This isn't written down like laws are, which have the law followed or preceded by a hundred different qualifying statements. These are rules and regulations written down by a dick.
"In the event of any breach of Rule E 3(1) including a reference to any one or more..."
There is no comma between "E3(1)" and "including". So the black letter interpretation of that is that insulting words are the words which included a reference to colour. The FA have either interpreted it as though there was a comma there (maybe there was a speck of dirt in their copy of the handbook) or they are interpreting it as though negrito is an insulting word.
That lack of a comma means (1) and (2) are coupled. The way the FA stipulated the charges back in October they decoupled (1) and (2) and presented them as independent charges. They basically imagined a comma in the rules. And that's all the excuse I need to sadistically begin slicing someone or some institution into little pieces. A comma.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=48021.msg1451736#msg1451736 date=1325226789]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
The most likely scenario is that we appeal with the FA and get the ban reduced
[/quote]
Let's see if you ignore this post too - do you think an 8 game ban was fair?
I think a 3 ban game is legitimate and fair.
[/quote]
8 games is a bit excessive if they accepted the tenuous "cultural differences" bollocks, which it sounds like they did.
It's funny you mention a three game ban, have a look at RAWK's reaction to a three game ban for a similar offence:
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=93131.0
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=48021.msg1451736#msg1451736 date=1325226789]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
The most likely scenario is that we appeal with the FA and get the ban reduced
[/quote]
Let's see if you ignore this post too - do you think an 8 game ban was fair?
I think a 3 ban game is legitimate and fair.
[/quote]
8 games is a bit excessive if they accepted the tenuous "cultural differences" bollocks, which it sounds like they did.
It's funny you mention a three game ban, have a look at RAWK's reaction to a three game ban for a similar offence:
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=93131.0
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451752#msg1451752 date=1325238440]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=48021.msg1451736#msg1451736 date=1325226789]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
The most likely scenario is that we appeal with the FA and get the ban reduced
[/quote]
Let's see if you ignore this post too - do you think an 8 game ban was fair?
I think a 3 ban game is legitimate and fair.
[/quote]
8 games is a bit excessive if they accepted the tenuous "cultural differences" bollocks, which it sounds like they did.
It's funny you mention a three game ban, have a look at RAWK's reaction to a three game ban for a similar offence:
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=93131.0
[/quote]
I can't speak about the incident (the link in the first post doesn't work) as I don't remember it, nor can I speak for RAWK.
I don't get how you can call the 'cultural differences' tenuous ... It smacks of some sort of imperialistic grip on racism that Gordon Taylor (I think that's his name) was mentioning when he complained about the term (As I said before, it surely WAS ok for the English media (& population) when it was their own getting thrown in jail for drinking alcohol in public in one of the Emirates).
Honest question - how many South Americans, or native Spanish speakers, have you talked to wrt the terms used here (Negro, Negrita, Sudaca)?
I don't get your position here b/c we're basically on the same page - he should have never said the term (even though, as per Evra, he was racially abused first) and deserves a ban (I still think that's where most Liverpool fans are).
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451752#msg1451752 date=1325238440]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=48021.msg1451736#msg1451736 date=1325226789]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
The most likely scenario is that we appeal with the FA and get the ban reduced
[/quote]
Let's see if you ignore this post too - do you think an 8 game ban was fair?
I think a 3 ban game is legitimate and fair.
[/quote]
8 games is a bit excessive if they accepted the tenuous "cultural differences" bollocks, which it sounds like they did.
It's funny you mention a three game ban, have a look at RAWK's reaction to a three game ban for a similar offence:
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=93131.0
[/quote]
I can't speak about the incident (the link in the first post doesn't work) as I don't remember it, nor can I speak for RAWK.
I don't get how you can call the 'cultural differences' tenuous ... It smacks of some sort of imperialistic grip on racism that Gordon Taylor (I think that's his name) was mentioning when he complained about the term (As I said before, it surely WAS ok for the English media (& population) when it was their own getting thrown in jail for drinking alcohol in public in one of the Emirates).
Honest question - how many South Americans, or native Spanish speakers, have you talked to wrt the terms used here (Negro, Negrita, Sudaca)?
I don't get your position here b/c we're basically on the same page - he should have never said the term (even though, as per Evra, he was racially abused first) and deserves a ban (I still think that's where most Liverpool fans are).
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
Rooney got a two match ban for swearing a few months ago. So if insulting words = 2 games, then for Suarez' first offense it should be double that, so 4 games. But it doesn't matter, the rules give the FA flexibility to impose any length of ban they want. They are well covered in that respect.
What they should have been thinking about is that they were in the wrong. So they should have picked a punishment that was acceptable enough to Liverpool so as for it to not be challenged. Perhaps a 2 game ban with a clear statement that Suarez used no racist words and that it was a misunderstanding. But an 8 game ban was stupid, they signed their own death warrants.
Rooney got a two match ban for swearing a few months ago. So if insulting words = 2 games, then for Suarez' first offense it should be double that, so 4 games. But it doesn't matter, the rules give the FA flexibility to impose any length of ban they want. They are well covered in that respect.
What they should have been thinking about is that they were in the wrong. So they should have picked a punishment that was acceptable enough to Liverpool so as for it to not be challenged. Perhaps a 2 game ban with a clear statement that Suarez used no racist words and that it was a misunderstanding. But an 8 game ban was stupid, they signed their own death warrants.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=48021.msg1451759#msg1451759 date=1325239420]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
The site has needed one for a while to be fair.
[/quote]
No, you should think of me more as Michael Madsen in resevoir dogs. With comma-comma-comma comma chameleon playing in the background while Denis Smith is tied to a chair.
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=48021.msg1451759#msg1451759 date=1325239420]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
The site has needed one for a while to be fair.
[/quote]
No, you should think of me more as Michael Madsen in resevoir dogs. With comma-comma-comma comma chameleon playing in the background while Denis Smith is tied to a chair.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451713#msg1451713 date=1325205912]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=48021.msg1451710#msg1451710 date=1325205236]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451708#msg1451708 date=1325204884]
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=48021.msg1451706#msg1451706 date=1325204783]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
Who gives a fuck whether he is or isn't, it's all be proven to a load of bent bollocks anyway.
[/quote]
Mark if you ever find yourself arrested and need legal advice, don't ring Dantes.
[/quote]
Though ring him before you ring, Ros "your argument is stupid" co. Because then you don't have a defence.
[/quote]
Owning up to a strict liability offence is fucking stupid. That you don't understand that is fine, but for you to try to mock me for stating what is the bloody obvious to anyone who has taken a year of a law degree is not.
[/quote]
He had already owned up to it Rosco. That horse had bolted. That is also where a decent lawyer would be much more interested in the, I quote, "cultural bollocks".
Here's a strange concept, how about he gives a truthful account? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he did.
And you're wrong to suggest that this only could impact on the verdict. There was something else to take into account, his reputation. He was right to get his perspective out into the world, because it exonerates his actions, at least in respect of him being cast as a racist.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451713#msg1451713 date=1325205912]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=48021.msg1451710#msg1451710 date=1325205236]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451708#msg1451708 date=1325204884]
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=48021.msg1451706#msg1451706 date=1325204783]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
Who gives a fuck whether he is or isn't, it's all be proven to a load of bent bollocks anyway.
[/quote]
Mark if you ever find yourself arrested and need legal advice, don't ring Dantes.
[/quote]
Though ring him before you ring, Ros "your argument is stupid" co. Because then you don't have a defence.
[/quote]
Owning up to a strict liability offence is fucking stupid. That you don't understand that is fine, but for you to try to mock me for stating what is the bloody obvious to anyone who has taken a year of a law degree is not.
[/quote]
He had already owned up to it Rosco. That horse had bolted. That is also where a decent lawyer would be much more interested in the, I quote, "cultural bollocks".
Here's a strange concept, how about he gives a truthful account? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he did.
And you're wrong to suggest that this only could impact on the verdict. There was something else to take into account, his reputation. He was right to get his perspective out into the world, because it exonerates his actions, at least in respect of him being cast as a racist.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451761#msg1451761 date=1325239722]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=48021.msg1451759#msg1451759 date=1325239420]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
The site has needed one for a while to be fair.
[/quote]
No, you should think of me more as Michael Madsen in resevoir dogs. With comma-comma-comma comma chameleon playing in the background while Denis Smith is tied to a chair.
[/quote]
I think of you as one of the chumps from the big bang theory Dantes. Only less cool.
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451761#msg1451761 date=1325239722]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=48021.msg1451759#msg1451759 date=1325239420]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
The site has needed one for a while to be fair.
[/quote]
No, you should think of me more as Michael Madsen in resevoir dogs. With comma-comma-comma comma chameleon playing in the background while Denis Smith is tied to a chair.
[/quote]
I think of you as one of the chumps from the big bang theory Dantes. Only less cool.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=48021.msg1451763#msg1451763 date=1325239919]
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451761#msg1451761 date=1325239722]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=48021.msg1451759#msg1451759 date=1325239420]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
The site has needed one for a while to be fair.
[/quote]
No, you should think of me more as Michael Madsen in resevoir dogs. With comma-comma-comma comma chameleon playing in the background while Denis Smith is tied to a chair.
[/quote]
I think of you as one of the chumps from the big bang theory Dantes. Only less cool.
[/quote]
I've been told that before. I couldn't say as I've only watched the one scene which had summer glau on the train.
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=48021.msg1451763#msg1451763 date=1325239919]
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451761#msg1451761 date=1325239722]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=48021.msg1451759#msg1451759 date=1325239420]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
The site has needed one for a while to be fair.
[/quote]
No, you should think of me more as Michael Madsen in resevoir dogs. With comma-comma-comma comma chameleon playing in the background while Denis Smith is tied to a chair.
[/quote]
I think of you as one of the chumps from the big bang theory Dantes. Only less cool.
[/quote]
I've been told that before. I couldn't say as I've only watched the one scene which had summer glau on the train.
Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=48021.msg1451762#msg1451762 date=1325239847]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451713#msg1451713 date=1325205912]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=48021.msg1451710#msg1451710 date=1325205236]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451708#msg1451708 date=1325204884]
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=48021.msg1451706#msg1451706 date=1325204783]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
Who gives a fuck whether he is or isn't, it's all be proven to a load of bent bollocks anyway.
[/quote]
Mark if you ever find yourself arrested and need legal advice, don't ring Dantes.
[/quote]
Though ring him before you ring, Ros "your argument is stupid" co. Because then you don't have a defence.
[/quote]
Owning up to a strict liability offence is fucking stupid. That you don't understand that is fine, but for you to try to mock me for stating what is the bloody obvious to anyone who has taken a year of a law degree is not.
[/quote]
He had already owned up to it Rosco. That horse had bolted. That is also where a decent lawyer would be much more interested in the, I quote, "cultural bollocks".
Here's a strange concept, how about he gives a truthful account? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he did.
And you're wrong to suggest that this only could impact on the verdict. There was something else to take into account, his reputation. He was right to get his perspective out into the world, because it exonerates his actions, at least in respect of him being cast as a racist.
[/quote]
I don't care what the world thinks about him.
You're both agreeing with me and disagreeing with me on the one issue in the same post. It's no wonder this thread is going around in circles.
I never mentioned the verdict, I used very specific language. The cultural differences thing would not have been taken into account in determining whether he was guilty or not because of the nature of the charges (strict liability), it could only be considered in relation to the punishment.
An everyday example of strict liability in use is speeding, let's say a German comes to the UK, tears it up at 120mph down a motorway and gets caught. He decides to dispute the charge on the basis that back home there are no speed limits on the motorways. All that needs to be proven for him to be found guilty is that he was above the speed limit, his excuses, his intentions etc don't matter in determining his guilt. A judge might consider the excuse when deciding on the punishment.
I can categorically say I'm not wrong, I'm not stating an opinion - it's a well established legal doctrine.
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=48021.msg1451762#msg1451762 date=1325239847]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451713#msg1451713 date=1325205912]
[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=48021.msg1451710#msg1451710 date=1325205236]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451708#msg1451708 date=1325204884]
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=48021.msg1451706#msg1451706 date=1325204783]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48021.msg1451705#msg1451705 date=1325204652]
I see Dantes is a legal expert now too.
[/quote]
Who gives a fuck whether he is or isn't, it's all be proven to a load of bent bollocks anyway.
[/quote]
Mark if you ever find yourself arrested and need legal advice, don't ring Dantes.
[/quote]
Though ring him before you ring, Ros "your argument is stupid" co. Because then you don't have a defence.
[/quote]
Owning up to a strict liability offence is fucking stupid. That you don't understand that is fine, but for you to try to mock me for stating what is the bloody obvious to anyone who has taken a year of a law degree is not.
[/quote]
He had already owned up to it Rosco. That horse had bolted. That is also where a decent lawyer would be much more interested in the, I quote, "cultural bollocks".
Here's a strange concept, how about he gives a truthful account? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he did.
And you're wrong to suggest that this only could impact on the verdict. There was something else to take into account, his reputation. He was right to get his perspective out into the world, because it exonerates his actions, at least in respect of him being cast as a racist.
[/quote]
I don't care what the world thinks about him.
You're both agreeing with me and disagreeing with me on the one issue in the same post. It's no wonder this thread is going around in circles.
I never mentioned the verdict, I used very specific language. The cultural differences thing would not have been taken into account in determining whether he was guilty or not because of the nature of the charges (strict liability), it could only be considered in relation to the punishment.
An everyday example of strict liability in use is speeding, let's say a German comes to the UK, tears it up at 120mph down a motorway and gets caught. He decides to dispute the charge on the basis that back home there are no speed limits on the motorways. All that needs to be proven for him to be found guilty is that he was above the speed limit, his excuses, his intentions etc don't matter in determining his guilt. A judge might consider the excuse when deciding on the punishment.
I can categorically say I'm not wrong, I'm not stating an opinion - it's a well established legal doctrine.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
