The Suarez/Evra Racism Row

[Judge Jules]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

We wouldn't even have to sue them separately. Suarez takes out a writ and we apply to join in the action as a third party.

 

[Molbystwin]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=vantage link=topic=48021.msg1451789#msg1451789 date=1325245887]
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451726#msg1451726 date=1325209857]
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?
[/quote]

Coincidentally, said translator translates "sudaca" as "Greaser" which in itself is an insulting racial slur......
[/quote]

Oh and then some!....

Sudaca has pretty deep racist connotations in spanish, "little sweaty indian immigrant" is usually the sense in which it is used, which considering Suarezs ethnic background would be plenty. It is not as far as I know used lightly though in Spanish they dont always have the same level of sensitivity to such things, but still "Sudaka" is the word you can hear just before a fight kicks off. It is every bit as insulting as "nigger", I've seen people thrown out of bars for saying it and i've seen a pretty marvellous bar fight ensue on the pavement as well.

If it was reported to the FA as being used and Evra was not banned for it then it is double standards of the very worst kind, but then it would also put the lie to Suarez's defence that he himself was not being racist in his own words.

The best we can hope for is to kick up a fuss about unfair treatment and get Evra banned as well.

I dont mind that happening tbh.... i just wish we'd apologise.... the next article i have to read about the admirable nature of John cockney cunt Terry may well tip me over the edge.

 

[Judge Jules]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=48021.msg1451938#msg1451938 date=1325263201]
I'm not only certain the FA would be able to penalize the club (whether by way of points deduction or otherwise) in accordance with its Rules, I'll also be well surprised if any Court, save the CAS, entertained a suit from the club. On what grounds would the club pursue a civil suit against the FA for a sanction levelled against an individual? Zilch. The right of action for a wrong accrues to the individual, not the club.
[/quote]

Really? I'm honestly amazed at that. Were such circumstances to arise, they'd do so because the club were trying (whether or not they eventually succeeded) to exercise a right to have the FA's decision examined in court, a right which the FA surely aren't allowed to prejudice by way of separate punitive action.

 

[vantage]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

There's a large South American (mainly Ecuadorian & Venezualan) community where I live and I have never heard the term Sudaca, but as I posted earlier our town does have a "Bar El Negrito"......

 

[i_rushie]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

For anyone interested in the procedural elements of an appeal, see the FA Handbook at http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/FA%20Handbook%202010-11/FAHandbook-update-1011.ashx/FAHandbook-update-1011.pdf

Page 412 onwards for the charge process but more specifically page 425 onwards in relation to the appeals process.

@420: Participants and The Football Association shall have the right to appeal a decision of a Regulatory Commission to an Appeal Board. Such appeals shall be conducted in accordance with the Regulations for Football Association Appeals. There shall be no further right of challenge in respect of decisions of the Regulatory Commission, which are otherwise final and binding.

@427: A decision of the Appeal Board shall be final and binding and there shall be no right of further Challenge, save for only in relation to appeals to CAS brought only by FIFA or WADA pursuant to the Doping Regulations.

And there's more to have you frothing! An appeal may only be submitted in relation to the severity of the penalty, not the decision on the charge @ 425.

So what to make of the club's official statement? the statement is completely at odds with its stated intention to wait for the reasons to lodge an appeal which will at best deliver a reduced ban, NOT exoneration.

And what of these Court challenges we keep harping on about? There's no incentive to keep waiting if the FA is ultra vires or acting beyond jurisdiction, so there's probably tacit acknowledgment that the FA does. Two, we are bound by the rules we sign up to, rules no Court is going to force a private association and its member clubs that signed up of their own free will to change. I suspect there will be no further legal challenges post appeal.

And one last thing. That lack of clarity in relation to applicable legal principles? Yes, it just got less clear. There is some attempt to emulate the law as we know it, but as you can see even the double jeopardy rule does not apply here (you cannot be charged for the same offence twice in law, but according to the FA you can, once in Courts and then by the FA again.)

@ 416: In any proceedings before a Regulatory Commission, the Regulatory Commissionshall not be obliged to follow the strict rules of evidence, may admit such evidence as it thinks fit and accord such evidence such weight as it thinks appropriate in all the circumstances. Where the subject matter of a complaint or matter before the Regulatory Commission has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that this is not the case.

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

I think your looking at the wrong section. As I said a dick wrote that..... and they copy paste hundreds of pages needlessly. scroll down to the bit which relates to misconduct charges. there it looks almost identical but says u can appeal the verdict and/or punishment. sorry im on phone so cant be more specific

 

[i_rushie]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=48021.msg1451960#msg1451960 date=1325266675]
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=48021.msg1451938#msg1451938 date=1325263201]
I'm not only certain the FA would be able to penalize the club (whether by way of points deduction or otherwise) in accordance with its Rules, I'll also be well surprised if any Court, save the CAS, entertained a suit from the club. On what grounds would the club pursue a civil suit against the FA for a sanction levelled against an individual? Zilch. The right of action for a wrong accrues to the individual, not the club.
[/quote]

Really? I'm honestly amazed at that. Were such circumstances to arise, they'd do so because the club were trying (whether or not they eventually succeeded) to exercise a right to have the FA's decision examined in court, a right which the FA surely aren't allowed to prejudice by way of separate punitive action.
[/quote]

I take that all back. My view now is simply that the Courts won't entertain any challenge to the FA's decision. 1. No jurisidction.

2. What's your cause of action? Negligence? Really? Is it negligent for the FA to make a finding after hearing the evidence and coming to a conclusion? No, I think you're after unreasonableness, but that's quite different from negligence as a recognized cause of action at law. Defamation? No the media did that, not the FA.

And say IF you find a cause of action that sticks, what then, how do you quantify your damages for an intangible? Millions for damaged reputation you say? Right, how much would any of you say Suarez is worth when Barca or Real come in for him, and I'll bet they won't give two hoots about this allegation. Find an "independent" valuer to make an assessment for us, and it'll be countered by the FA's own "independent" valuer. Millions? I highly doubt it. Not to mention the costs of the legal proceedings, including a possible costs order against us if we lose. And what about the intangible costs? How much of a distraction would a court case be? The last one we were involved in was quite the nuisance. But I've gone on a tangent now.

 

[i_rushie]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1451989#msg1451989 date=1325268649]
I think your looking at the wrong section. As I said a dick wrote that..... and they copy paste hundreds of pages needlessly. scroll down to the bit which relates to misconduct charges. there it looks almost identical but says u can appeal the verdict and/or punishment. sorry im on phone so cant be more specific
[/quote]

Well i'm not sure whatyou're referring to, but at the bottom of page 416, continuing at top of 417:

Where a Player is charged with Misconduct contrary to Rule E3 of The Association, for a matter on the Field of Play (which falls under Law 12 but was not seen by Match Officials during the period of the game), the proceedings shall follow the specific procedures and time limits set out in the relevant directions concerning such matters as determined by Council from time to time (the “Standard Directions – Incidents on the Field of Play which fall within Law 12, which were not seen by Match Officials, but caught on video (violent conduct, spitting at an opponent or any other person, offensive, insulting or serious foul play, abusive language or gestures)” – see Schedule A). If the Regulatory Commission finds the case proved, an appeal will be allowed only against the level of sanction, and then only if the suspension given is greater than three matches. The procedures set out in Schedule D - “Standard Directions for Appeals against decisions of Regulatory Commissions in relation to: Incidents on the Field of Play which fall within Law 12, which were not seen by Match Officials, but caught on video (serious foul play, violent conduct, spitting at an opponent or any other person, offensive, insulting or abusive language or gestures)” will then apply.

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

im talking about schedule C. specifically point (f) on page 397.

 

[Judge Jules]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

I_rushie: I am indeed after "unreasonable" and surely that's exactly what judicial review is there to combat. Nor TBH am I exercised in the least by the difficulty there may be in quantifying any resultant damages. No doubt the other side would put up a counter-argument. Is that a reason not to go ahead?

Barca or Real may well not give a hoot about all this as far as the player himself is concerned (in fact I suspect the whole of the Spanish-speaking world thinks English football has taken leave of its collective senses), but they'll certainly give a hoot about the fee they'll try and stiff us for, which will be lowered if this whole farrago has naffed Suarez off enough for him to want to leave. In that event the difference will unquestionably run into millions.

Interesting you should mention as a parallel the last action we were involved in. For sure that was both a distraction and a risk. It was also absolutely necessary.

 

[i_rushie]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

@ Dante

Schedule C
Standard Directions for incidents of Misconduct (except as set out below*) on or around the field of play (including the tunnel area) and media comments, for Participants of the FA Premier League, Football League, Football Conference National Division and The FA WSL.
*These Standard Directions do not apply to any Misconduct Charges which are subject to the Standard Directions set out at Schedule A or B, or any Misconduct Charges for any of the following –
• The conduct of a Club’s spectators and / or supporters and / or followers;
• Betting or any conduct relating to match fixing;
• Doping Offences

@ JJ

RE: unreasonableness, that is indeed a ground of judicial review, which means the court could set the impugned decision aside if it satisfies the Wednesbury test. But it is not a civil cause of action, I.e. your remedy does not extend to damages. That aside, I do not believe that the FA's decision is an administrative decision by a public body which is liable to judicial review. The FA is simply not a public body constituted by Act, nor was the decision an "administrative" decision.

Of course you should be concerned about proving damages.. Along with proving your case, if you have difficulty in proving let alone obtaining the order for damages, you run the risk of costs exceeding damages.

As to the matter of it running into millions, I'll only say I'm doubtful about the prospects of quantifying that.

It's also interesting that you'd imply that further legal action in this matter is necessary. For whom is it necessary? Suarez? I'd have difficulty believing that since there has been minimal effort to redress public vilification of him, which is surely more damaging than the FA's verdict (as you say, English reaction has been quite curious).

 

[Judge Jules]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

I'm aware that applications for judicial review don't themselves lead to damages, but last time I was aware of such things (and yes. it was a long time ago) as far as I remember one could join a claim for damages to such an application. If the FA isn't covered by the judicial review provisions so be it, but if it IS (and you don't seem 100% certain about that yourself) an application as I see it would be based not on the decision of the Regulatory Commission but on the decision to bring charges in the first place.

I didn't say I wasn't concerned about proving damages - of course I realise that would be crucial. I said I wasn't concerned that the other side would try to put up a counter-argument regarding the amount, which is a rather different matter. That's bound to happen in any dispute over damages, and I'm still more confident than you that we'd have a good chance of winning the argument.

As I've said before in passing, I recognise that a decision on whether or not to proceed would depend on the legal advice we received. In my last paragraph I was also taking issue with your implication that the elements of distraction and risk should necessarily prevent us from going ahead. If legal advice does not rule it out, however, I would indeed consider action to be necessary for the following reasons:

1. I believe the whole process to have been an injustice;
2. More importantly, I suspect Suarez does as well, and I do not want to see him fatally disenchanted by the whole business or by a feeling that we did not give him all the support we could;
3. While I don't think Ferguson planned all this, I do think he saw his chance of undermining Suarez - hence also us - and took it, and I think it's important to resist that;
4. The FA punished Mascherano and no-one else that I can recall in the interests of their Respect campaign. They've punished us for "failure to control our players" when other teams, ManUre prominent among them, have done as much or worse and not got even a slap on the wrist. They've given Suarez a penalty which they themselves have acknowledged to be stiffer than they would otherwise have handed out. Ostriches on here and elsewhere may prefer to pretend they haven't noticed, as they have re Ferguson's involvement, but there IS a pattern emerging and I think it's time we stood out against it. Otherwise the message we send out is that we can be shafted with impunity.

 

[Buddha]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

I like cats.

 

[Atlas]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=Buddha link=topic=48021.msg1452402#msg1452402 date=1325282051]
I like cats.
[/quote]

Why?

 

[Fabio]

Re: Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=Atlas link=topic=48021.msg1#msg1 date=1325282150]
[quote author=Buddha link=topic=48021.msg1452402#msg1452402 date=1325282051]
I like cats.
[/quote]

Why?
[/quote]

Duh, they're cute

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=Fascistio link=topic=48021.msg1452470#msg1452470 date=1325284442]
[quote author=Atlas link=topic=48021.msg1#msg1 date=1325282150]
[quote author=Buddha link=topic=48021.msg1452402#msg1452402 date=1325282051]
I like cats.
[/quote]

Why?
[/quote]

Duh, they're cute
[/quote]

Most certainly. As are miniature donkeys. Dolphins. And some monkeys.

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

@rushie you quit too early. have some faith, where there's a will there is a way. or just ask yourself if the FA are somehow by virtue of cleverly stipulated regulations, are they (along with the vatican and diplomats) the only entity on earth that is immune from legal proceedings. does that notion make sense to you? well of course not. by hook or by crook the FA will be made to answer in court like everyone. They have no special magic power.

Judicial review? This isn't impossible to rule out. The FA weren't always a limited company, they started off from a conglomeration of schools. So their orignal charter might be useful. Also judicial reviews are not totally limited to public entities. The FA perform a public function. They govern football which is a public spectator sport. You can argue that it is in the public interest that their decisions be reviews. If they get financial handouts from the government, then you can argue that it is in the financial interests of the public taxpayer that their decisions are reviewed. There can be all sorts of reasons. It depends on how expensive your lawyer is.

High court/defamation? It is not the media that has defamed Suarez. The FA released their second statement which stated that suarez used insulting words, which included a reference to colour. If that is not true, it's libel. Think about this. You and I can't set up our own limited company together, then stipulate rules which make us immune from libel. If that was possible the newspapers would have done it long ago. But you'll know more about how this can play out in a court.

Failing that, there is employment law. Suarez is a member of the FA, subject to its disciplinary proceedings, and his ability to work (play games) is subject to them not banning him. This is very very similar to an employment contract and therefore tort law. I did this for a student. A student is not an employee, but her relationship to the university was governed by employment law or contract law. She had the same rights to claim constructive dismissal, sexual discrimination, and everything just as an employee. Suarez is no different. The FA have a duty of care to him, implicit in that contract. If they breach it, thats a breach of contract and they owe damages.

And of course the courts will overturn private rules and regulations. Just like in an employment contract. Regardless of whether Suarez signed up to them of his own volition. It makes not a jot of difference. If those rules are not legal, they aren't worth the paper they are written on. And the FA has no right to enforce them.

Where there's a will, there is always a way.

 

[monsieurdantes]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=48021.msg1452035#msg1452035 date=1325271772]
@ Dante

Schedule C
Standard Directions for incidents of Misconduct (except as set out below*) on or around the field of play (including the tunnel area) and media comments, for Participants of the FA Premier League, Football League, Football Conference National Division and The FA WSL.
*These Standard Directions do not apply to any Misconduct Charges which are subject to the Standard Directions set out at Schedule A or B, or any Misconduct Charges for any of the following –
• The conduct of a Club’s spectators and / or supporters and / or followers;
• Betting or any conduct relating to match fixing;
• Doping Offences
[/quote]

Schedule A is for offences captured on video (and only in that one do they say you can not appeal the verdict.... which makes some sense as the incident is captured on video so you don't have an legitmate grounds to appeal the verdict). Schedule B is for offences outside of the referee's jurisdiction, so neither one of those schedules apply. And even if B did apply, the appeal info for that one says you can appeal the verdict. Are we happy so far?

Scroll down to schedule D, which is the bit you quoted governing the appeal procedures. 1. they say that the standard practice is only a guide, so the FA can go beyond it if they want. 2. its too many pages for me to be fucked to read through, but I'll take your word for what it says about the grounds of appeal.

So what the fuck? In the same document, it has two completely different contradictory statements about what you can/can't appeal on. And also the third statement saying by the way the FA reserve the right to do what they want anyway cos these 600 pages are just the standard guidelines. I ask you... what kind of total fucking dickwad wrote this handbook?

 

[Modo]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

Shame On a Negrito

 

[i_rushie]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

Dantes, you and I aren't going to agree on much, that much is evident, but it's always good to hear what others think of my ideas. Don't mistake my lack of enthusiasm for challenge against the FA's decision for a lack of desire to fight the perceived FA bias. I simply don't think some of the ideas pondered in this thread have any realistic prospect of success (but then again, I have practically nil experience in sports law, so my opinion is only that, and not more valuable than anyone else's).

There are a few things I am fairly confident of though:

1. The Courts will likely have no jurisdiction over a suit brought by Suarez or the club. We are unlikey to obtain leave to proceed with judicial review, because the FA is not a public body. In 1992, Rose J in R v Football Association Limited Ex Parte Football League Limited [1992] COD 52 said that the FA, "despite it's virtually monopolistic powers and the importance of its decisions to many members of the public Who are not contractually bound to it... s a domestic body whose powers arise from and duties exist in private law only." I say we are unlikely to succeed, because I am informed that if we could prove there was some manifest irrationality or unreasonableness, then the Courts may granted us that leave. but it is a high bar, and we'd almost have to prove that on the evidence received by the FA, a reasonable person would find that the decisions was absurd or perverse.

The parallel with employment law is a good idea, certainly interesting to think about, but I think it suffers from the fact that private companies and their contractual relations with their employees are legally brought within the purview of legal authorities by legislation. To me, "by hook or by crook" is an overly optimistic approach to litigation. Too frequently, overly creative causes of action end up being tossed out of court for being abuses of process.

As to your point about defamation, you can call it semantics but I do think that given they have made a finding after a hearing of evidence, the doctrine of qualified privilege applies. You'd then have to prove malice to succeed in defamation, which is again a fairly high threshold.

2. I agree the FA rules and regulations do seem to have some air of arbitrariness and high-handedness to them and I wouldn't be surprised if they were written "by a dick". Bt that's besides the point. These rules were not put in place only just before the hearing. We willingly agreed to abide by the rules, with full notice. As a rule of thumb, the Courts are generally reluctant to intervene where relationships between private parties are governed by an agreed set of "rules", e.g. a contract, or broadly speaking, private law. Exceptions apply of course, such as the example of employment law above.

3. As to the Schedules that apply in the FA Handbook, I don't detect the inconsistencies you do. The procedures in Schedule A applies to the hearing of the misconduct charge of a breach of E3. The procedures in Schedule D apply to the appeal process. The discretion you are talking about is for the Regulatory Commission to adopt at hearing, and not at appeal.

JJ, you are right that Courts do allow you to seek judicial review as part of a civil claim. for some reason, I read your post as seeking judicial eview independently of any action, sorry.

I should probably stop boring everyone now, and if I have annoyed by sounding negative, I do apologize. Have a Happy New Year in advance.

 

[FoxForceFive]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48021.msg1452471#msg1452471 date=1325284541]
[quote author=Fascistio link=topic=48021.msg1452470#msg1452470 date=1325284442]
[quote author=Atlas link=topic=48021.msg1#msg1 date=1325282150]
[quote author=Buddha link=topic=48021.msg1452402#msg1452402 date=1325282051]
I like cats.
[/quote]

Why?
[/quote]

Duh, they're cute
[/quote]

Most certainly. As are miniature donkeys. Dolphins. And some monkeys.
[/quote]

Dolphins annoy the fuck out of me.

Dunno why, I think it's cos everyone blathers on about how intelligent they are. Octopus are way more intelligent but no-one says they want to go swimming with octopuses (i'm fairly sure that is the right plural, despite popular opinion).

I prefer sharks, they're fucking ace, sharks beat dolphins anytime.

 

[peterhague]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

yeh man, it's a real mystery why people would prefer to swim with a dolphin than a fucking octopus.

 

[Atlas]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

Yeah but you would not want to swim with an octopus or sharks would you?
That's just ridiculous

 

[FoxForceFive]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=Atlas link=topic=48021.msg1452700#msg1452700 date=1325338602]
Yeah but you would not want to swim with an octopus or sharks would you?
That's just ridiculous

[/quote]

It's one of my 'bucket list' experiences to do a cage dive with a great white. I fucking love sharks, amazing creatures.

Evolved simply to kill, every aspect of it's body is aimed at being the most efficient predator possible. Boss.

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=48021.msg1452699#msg1452699 date=1325338591]
yeh man, it's a real mystery why people would prefer to swim with a dolphin than a fucking octopus.
[/quote]

Well they say it's cos they're intelligent, which is bollocks, is cos they're cute, they just don't want to say it, so they dress it up.

 

[tombrown]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

There are three plural forms of octopus: octopuses [??kt?p?s?z], octopi [??kt?pa?], and octopodes [??k?t??p?di?z]. Currently, octopuses is the most common form in the UK as well as the US; octopodes is rare, and octopi is often objectionable.[7]

 

[jexykrodic]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

I wouldn't have thought the club has any recourse in law. Their only viable option is the appeals procedure with the FA.

As an individual though, Suarez could consider bringing a case for defamation. The FA has implied he is racist (despite attempting to cover themselves in their initial statement) and he may argue the term used in his own language doesn't have these connotations.

It would be interesting for legal precedent for a court to decide if FA has the right to deem the meaning of words used in other countries in their own way.

 

[Markeh]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

fuck that dolphins are amazing, they play football with the crowd at marineland a shark wouldn't give a shit

 

[doctor_mac]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

Octopuses are *not* more intelligent than Dolphins. Intelligent and capable of problem solving, but no.


They are more intelligent than Rosco though, and would deffo make better defence lawyers.

 

[FoxForceFive]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=doctor_mac link=topic=48021.msg1452721#msg1452721 date=1325339693]
Octopuses are *not* more intelligent than Dolphins. Intelligent and capable of problem solving, but no.


They are more intelligent than Rosco though, and would deffo make better defence lawyers.


[/quote]

If they were that intelligent they'd have evolved to have eight legs. FACT.

[quote author=Markeh link=topic=48021.msg1452716#msg1452716 date=1325339526]
fuck that dolphins are amazing, they play football with the crowd at marineland a shark wouldn't give a shit
[/quote]

hahaha, yeah, cos playing football means you're intelligent.

 

[FoxForceFive]

Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row (continued)

[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=48021.msg1452707#msg1452707 date=1325339148]
I wouldn't have thought the club has any recourse in law. Their only viable option is the appeals procedure with the FA.

As an individual though, Suarez could consider bringing a case for defamation. The FA has implied he is racist (despite attempting to cover themselves in their initial statement) and he may argue the term used in his own language doesn't have these connotations.

It would be interesting for legal precedent for a court to decide if FA has the right to deem the meaning of words used in other countries in their own way.

[/quote]

WTF are you blathering on about? Dolphins, sharks or octopuses is what we're concerned with.

Stop changing the bloody subject.