"But lets continue to discuss Suarez and Evra eh?"
Yep, as long as you want. It's you who wants to jump around from accusation to slur that is not even remotely proved, by any standard, in the 115 pages (but then again, the panel were obviously hoping that ****wits like Lawton, Samuel and yourself would just skim read the summary and not spend a moment scrutinising the staggering amount of contradictions and blatant falsifications in Evra's evidence, or the coaching, preparation and favourable hearing that he received from the FA and the United Commission). But to do that is 'nitpicking' according to Lawton today: how dare anyone point out that the basic tenet of pressumption of innocence was trampled over in order to give the FA the head-on-a-stick that the FA wanted urgently wanted when they realised they couldn't touch Terry as he was going to a PROPER court, eh?
And for th record, for the FIFTH time, I DO appreciate that though Suarez may have used the word negro in an innappropriate manner, and he and the club should have immeadiately THEN apologised for the misunderstanding created and ensured that it was never uttered again (and still should, for that matter) this issue became far, far bigger than that when Ferguson and Evra started upping the ante over the words that were said (how on earth can YOU deny that Evra changed his story again and again over what he was actually called, but was indulged and coached by the FA in several meeting before the actual 'trial' to get his story right) and the number of times he was called it. In a hearing about a man's reputation WHERE THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PARAMOUNT these are not events that will simply go away in the crusade to look like the FA is doing something about an issue that will get up Blatter's nose.
But it's a good cause, isn't it? Who can argue against motherhood, apple-pie and the evils of racism? Certainly not me, a quarter-Chinese Scouser, and whover stands up for the basic principles of English law, such as a pressumption of innocence when an accused is up in any hearing, quasi-court or not, can only be motivated by backing racism, just as anyone who tries to insist upon evidence when someone claims to be raped must themselves be a rapist.
I'm reminded of this quote: "In order to further the needs of our cause and the greater good it is sometimes necessary that 99 innocent people are convicted to get to the one guilty man". That was Heinrich Himmler in 1937. The anti-racim zealots, and those who are just opportunistic chisselers using it as a flag of convenience to further their ends, have some strange ideological bedfellows, when all is said and done. Oh, and the showtrial has also establihed one other thing - in the eyes of the FA 'racial abuse' can only be committed against a black man by someone who is not black (or indeed is only a quarter black, as the case would be). But, that is now the precedent, and be well aware that as that standard of unstubstantiated evidence and the simple word of any black person claiming a non-black person has abused them is now established we will indeed ensure that the same justice is meted out to all those accused. Even those where the evidence may be unearthed retrospectively.
Enjoy your brave new world, for the Matthew Hopkins's of anti-racism will now embrace it with a gusto that even you may come to regret.
I'm supposed to remember 115 pages word for word. The fact of the matter is Comolli and Kuyt made a statement each in two different languages saying the same thing how in God's name can you not see you don't get any clearer than that? They then changed what they said when Suarez said they had misunderstood. Not only are they condoning racism but they are liars as well!
