When will he learn?

People can say what they like about "proof" but they never seem to mention that the reason why JT is going to court and Suarez isn't is simply because the Suarez case would have been thrown out by any actual legal system.

Yet the same people who criticise the FA for the hundreds of incompetencies, are here telling the world that their pathetic tribunal is irrefutable evidence.

Beranidez...
SAF dried my hair

 

Do you think that any United fan who dares to suggest that Rio was unfairly treated with his drugs ban should just be told to shut up and basically stop defending a moronic vile possible drug abuser? After all, he was found 'guilty' by a disciplinary panel!

Do you think that the 19 people killed during the witch trials should have just shut up and died quietly, the stupid vile moronic witches!

 

You are wrong. The context is All important and the context is that Suarez did not meanin a friendly way. You sh*t don't put words in my mouth when you run out of arguments.

It s evident hat you won't be persuaded that he is guilty and we here are certainly not going to be swayed by your moronic vile arguments.

 

Wrong.

The reason the Terry case is going to court is because a member of the public made the complaint.

The reason the Suarez case didn't go to court is because it was Evra who made the complaint and so it was a matter for the FA.

 

You may be right on that one - the FA judgement doesn't actually say anything about it. Tho' the judgement does say the suspension would be suspended until after the appeals deadline, which implies that he could have appealed to have it reduced to a fine. If he'd had any grounds to appeal of course.

Well ok, let's say it does matter how many times it was. Here's the explanation from the FA judgement:
a) Evra's "ten times" comment was a French figure of speech made on French TV. It would be like someone saying "There are a million reasons to do something" in English. It wasn't meant literally, and it wasn't in his witness statement to the FA. In his witness statement he stated it was seven times.
b) SAF's "five times" comment was not made by him - it was based on what Ray Haughan (LFC admin) claimed to overhear SAF saying. If we aren't allowed to assume SAF and Evra's evidence is reliable, it's hard to assume an overheard comment is reliable.
c) Suarez' claim he said it one time was probably made in recognition of the fact he was in trouble for admitting he said "negro" at all, and was trying to play it down.

Most court cases don't contain factual evidence, cos if there actually is factual evidence then the guilty person pleads guilty and makes a deal rather than get a harsher penalty in court. The ex Man City player who was just convicted of rape had no factual evidence against him, it was just his word against the woman's. 99% of court cases are not at all clear cut. Suarez' condemnation was based on a number of things:

1. Suarez admitted using racist language
2. Commoli and Kuyt both reported Suarez had told them he said "Because you are black" when Evra asked him "Why did you kick me?"
3. Suarez initially claimed he was trying to calm Evra down, then admitted he was trying to wind him up by patting his head and pinching him. The video also showed both players being aggressive rather than conciliatory
4. Evra gave consistent and reliable evidence whereas Suarez contradicted himself and other witnesses several times

None of this is conclusive, but as the example of the ex City player convicted of rape, it is often enough to convince juries and get people sent to jail.

Yeah right
http://www.cps.gov.uk/thames_chilte...ants_discharged_after_cps_offers_no_evidence/
If the CPS will try to prosecute people with absolutely no evidence, then the testimony of multiple individuals from both Utd and Liverpool, combined with inconsistent witness statements and an admission of using racist language from the accused would be more than enough for them to get involved

Really? Please show me the video evidence of Schmeichel vs Wright, Finnan vs Evra, Harkness vs Collymore, Emre vs Diouf, or indeed any other incident other than the Terry one.

Pretty simple really. His knowledge of Spanish is not great. So when he hears the word "negro", he assumes it relates to the closest French word he knows "negre". If you heard a Russian person call a "nyeger", what would you assume they were calling

People are found 'probably' guilty, as you put it, in civil law courts all the time. If it's good enough for bankruptcy, libel, eviction, negligence, divorce, domestic violence, discrimination and debt collection, how can it not be good enough for football? And I assume you are equally outraged about Rio being convicted under the same system, with absolutely zero evidence and given an eight month ban in 2004?

 

This is going nowhere. The moronic scousers are trying to defend the scumbag. We think he is guilty of vile racist actions, some of which the club the owners and the buffoon manager had to apologise for ( the handshake incident). Neither party will be persuaded to change their stance.

So let's leave the moronic scousers to believe anything they wish.

 

Don't know where this blind loyalty to him stems from. One half decent game against united and then....? Consistently missing glaring chances, giving the finger to opposing fans, and generally being a bit of a disappointment considering his record at Ajax. (Where, incidentally, he was a foaming twat also)

 

He's World Class, apparently.

 

Really not surprising as there are some moronic ******ed scousers who follow their buffoon ex-manager blindly. Rehashed to death arguments, circulated daily in the scouser fanzines. Nothing new has been said.

 

Wrong. Do you seriously believe that? Which public do you think Evra is a member of if not the British public?

 

You really haven't got a clue have you?

The Terry case was a matter for the courts because a member of the public made a complaint to the police, therefore it was a public order offence.

The Suarez case was a matter for the FA because Evra made the complaint to the FA.

 

Sometimes you have to wonder about how thick some of these scousers fans are.

 

Racial abuse is still a crime. The Suarez case could and would very easily have been brought to court as well if there was actually a shred of evidence that would stand up in court. There wasn't however, as everyone who knows anything about the case knows.

Anyway, now matth is gone, you're the most clueless member of these boards so I'll let you keep revelling in the omniscient glory of the FA disciplinary committee.

 

It's down the victim/offended party to decide to press charges, no?
So, evra complaining to the FA and not the police means the police/courts could do **** all, regardless of the amount of evidence involved.

Give it up, it's high time suarez got what was coming to him, this disgusting act wasn't a one-off, so I wish all the morons defending him would stop acting as though he's the friggin messiah and can do no wrong.

He's a nasty little ****er, deal with it.

 

Swarbs

I am right about the appeal, I am also glad that you now realise that the amount of times the abuse was supposedly said is important, rather than just dismissing it as a non-issue like you did earlier...see what happens when you think about, rather than just jumping in!

With regards to your 'factual evidence' remarks, firstly, Suarez DID NOT admit to using racist language, Suarez admitted to using a word that he thought was inoffensive. As for the rest of your points, as you rightly state 'none of it is conclusive'...again, it is the 'burden of proof' required here that is an issue for me. I know that this system is used in civil law, but what exactly is the FA here? Are they a law court, who decides the proof that is required, and why do they have a 99.5% conviction rate? For me this is THE major problem, if that 99.5 figure does not tell you that something with that system is flawed then nothing will.

I am not sure what you are trying to say with regards to the CPS thing you quoted. My point was that the case would not get to court due to lack of evidence and therefore there being the probability that a conviction would not be gained, you referenced a case that did not go to court due to the CPS feeling that a conviction could not be gained??? Isn't that exactly what I was saying? Your example clearly shows the problems the CPS face with sending matters to court, do you really think they would have taken Suarez to court and presented the evidence as such..."there is no evidence your honour, no video footage, no audio footage, in fact we don't even have any photographic evidence, added to this is the fact that there are galring inconsistencies with what was actually said and the amount of times it was said...however, we have a statement from a bunch of United players and their manager that was made after the game"...and the judge then says, "oh, yeah that'll do"!

The rarely any footage of racism line of yours is still making me giggle, yeah I get your point with regards to the other incidents, but I think that even you would admit that a crowded penalty area, a worldwide audience, 18 cameras, 26 microphones, Sky's technology to zoom in and isolate sounds, god knows how many mobile phone pics and clips being taken etc etc would surely reveal something, anything, considering it was said at least seven and according to Evra 5 (or was that Fergie) times, surely?

And finally, yes I was shocked at Rio's ban, I cannot remember my emotions exactly but I do remember thinking that it was a bit harsh and also thinking, well he may have missed it on purpose but he may also have just forgotten about it, you see what I was doing there? I was understanding the situation and the fact that the level of proof required will usually leave question marks as to what actually happened, so who knows whether Rio missed the test on purpose or not, who knows whether Suarez racially abused Evra?

What I do know is that the system that is used is flawed and in no way determines guilt other than through the use of guesswork, which to me is not good enough when you consider the consequences of these decisions!

 

^^^^

 

Lack of evidence would not be a reason for a case not to go to court if the offended party wanted to push charges.. It would have to go to court for the them to decide that there isn't enough evidence.

It's up to the body who recieved the complaint to deal with it. I thought that would be ****ing obvious to anyone with half a brain.

And you call me clueless

 

It's not loyalty mate, it's the fact that the decision was possibly flawed, that's all!

You know, the same way that the Rio decision was seen by some United fans as flawed, that sort of thing!

 

Suarez deserved everything he got...the scumbag

 

It was flawed Suarez and Liverpool didn't bother appealing.