"Actually much that I hate to say anything positive about the FA after the way they handled Evra/Saurez I think Swarbs has a reasonable point. Rio was never going to (and keeping it in context, fairly) get a ban for re-tweeting despite being found guilty of breech of the same rule E3." Except, in all reasonableness, that isn't what Swarbs said. He said Suarez was charged with 3a because his was on the field of play, whilst Rio's wasn't. That is palpable cr@p.
"Please note as always: my preferred outcome in all 4 cases? Court or no action at all. The FA just keeps proving they are not mature or independent enough to handle this issue. " Frank, even though an FA commission is NOT an established civil court, per se, it does have the right to use balance of probabilities as its burden of proof (or, as is more commonly used in organisational and business investigations/disciplinaries they use reasonable belief,which is more-or-less the same thing). HOWEVER, even in civil law when one is accused (as opposed to using balance of probabilities to judge a property or matromonial dispute between two peers) you SHOULD still have the benefit of the doubt as in dubio pro reo, which is Latin for 'In doubt in favour of the accused', an our civil law is based upon Roman law. If that yardstick is applied I defy anyone with an iota of legal training to say how the hell the FA commission 'irrefutably', in the words of that drunken sot Lawton, found that Suarez had said the word negro (let alone the word '******' which is what Evra originally claimed) a further six times from the once he readily admitted to, even though he knew there was no video evidence to refute him. So my point is, in terms of internal discipline, the FA are (or could have been) competent to administer these cases had they adhered to this principle, legal maxim of presumed innocence of the accused. They dispensed with it in the Suarez case to get a result, so now they must keep this standard in perpetuity, and thus they are, as you say, no longer in a fair position to administer their own regulations. Which serves the fookers right.
Exactly: You can set a rule/s however harsh or insane as long as you follow it /them everytime then those that voluntarily accept that set of rules (as long as they have a choice of course) can not complain at their application. So players come to play in England have to follow the rules. So: if the FA had stuck to that one paragraph declaring literal interpretation of their rule & handed out punishment then Suarez, the club & fans could do no more than shrug.and say harsh but for a good overall cause. Or thems the rules. If they had then applied it in exactly the same way to Rio then we all could shrug and say: well harsh but consistent; good job. And so on. It's the contradiction & inequitable application that will undermine the FA as a body. That undermines the validity of their rules which ultimately undermines the basis of the rules wiping Racism out of football. They have failed, utterly, miserably. In fact I'd argue that they may well have introduced division between groups who have taken sides that should not exist; they may well have reintroduced the beginnings of racism into people that didn't have it before these events. Let's us hope us normal people can process it all in a more sophisticated manner than dictated to us by the truly abhorrent chattering press.
Ah, fair enough. Imo that actually implies that, in the eyes of the FA, both incidents are of similar severity. But as Rio's was off pitch, their hands were tied by their own rules. Ah, my mistake. It's the FA Handbook which details separate punishments for "Field Off ences in First Team Matches" which have to be punished by a suspension, and "incidents on or around fi eld of play and media comments" for which the standard punishment is a fine. It's all there in black and white if you care to read (or are able to read ) http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/~/media/Files/PDF/the-fa-2012-13/the-fa-handbook/fa_handbook-2012-13.ashx
Babel was found guilty of questioning the impartiality of match officials, which is the same offence Drogba was banned for after the Barca match in 09. Like it or not, the FA Handbook says on field incident > off field incident
It seems if a player is racially insulted and the 'offender' apologises the matter is swept under the carpet. Paulo Di Canio got a walkover for doing just that, his club's solicitor said... Swindon's solicitor wrote in response to the French player's lawyers in April, saying: "The club wishes to make it clear that it does not condone the reference made by Mr Di Canio during training on 29 March to your client."The club accepts that the use of this phrase was inappropriate and apologises to your client for any upset that this has caused him." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18278054 Di Canio(a self confessed fascist)was'nt even charged by the FA despite the admittance that he referred to the player by his skin colour directly, also the FA are corrupt in the pathetic stalling of the Terry case to suit the national side.
Swarbs. I've no problem with Rio's punishment. I believe it was fair, I don't in any way think he is racist. However he had to be punished for being foolish and should have thought before tweeting. What I do have a problem with is and this may happen is in relation to John Terry's charge. I will be disgusted if he gets off. He may get off, his reputation will remain intact, even though he did exactly the same thing Luis Suarez did who's reputation is now in ruins. This is due to the exaggeerations of a rival player. Supposing the Suarez/Evra case had gone to court just for opinions sake. Evra to begin with said ''Luis Suarez said x 5 times'' and that was in his police statement, he appears as a witness and has to swear on a bible and says Luis Suarez said x 8 times. This is distorting the truth and when appearing as a witness, you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Not only would that case be thrown out of court and Luis Suarez deemed to be innocent. Patrice Evra would have spent February until August in prison having been charged with contempt of court. So in other words, according to the FA, its okay to bend the truth as all evidence is based on the ''balance of probability'' This is the part that annoys me.
The above is absolute bullshit. Its not even funny bullshit its ridiculous. Devastating to all black people. What the actual ****? Black boys do bad in school because they dont want to seem to be acting white? Madness.
Not the point though really, bit like Evra telling the 'press' he's never felt so insulted by what Suarez called him yet Evra used a much more aggressive use of the word in a Youtube vid. If Amaechi and other black people find the 'choc-ice' reference offensive its their right, isn't it?
"If Amaechi and other black people find the 'choc-ice' reference offensive its their right, isn't it?" it would have only been offensive if a Liverpool player had said it. i wasn't on here at the time, but what was their general opinion on here like with what Pacheco said to Johnson in a tweet?
Not really but if thats whats causing them problems these days then there looking for none issues that they can make into issues. Black kids do bad in school for the same reasons white kids do, poor teachers, poor schools. Seeing rnb and rap artists show that education means nothing when you can be like us. People finding utterly insane excuses for the failings of young black kids or white kids or anyone is doing more harm than good. It is not their right to make an issue out of nothing. Its pathetic and extremely dangerous.
Seriously, call a black person a negrito in the UK and you will get layed out. In Uruguay it may be fine but their laws or accepted practice but over here we follow UK laws and practices. Like for example..... stoning...... accepted in muslim countries as a punishment.........try doing it in the UK. What do you think happens?
he was saying it to a fellow team mate who wasn't offended and knew the reason behind it, and he has said it before, did you have a problem with it then or even know about it?
I knew and it was considered a joke by some liverpool fans. I thought it was childish not unlike the manner which LFC handled the whole affair really.
"If Amaechi and other black people find the 'choc-ice' reference offensive its their right, isn't it?" Love how everything that's been said can now be used in reverse. Fooking lovin' it! "It is not their right to make an issue out of nothing. Its pathetic and extremely dangerous." A bit like saying you've been called a '******' ten times when you know full well you've been called a negro once? Not saying, in context, being called a negro is 'nothing', but in the context of the argument that Evra himself admitted he started with a racial/ethnic/discrimatory remark of his own, he pushed it a lot further than it was - and rewarded by an acquiescent FA, who now have display the same standard to everyone. Wonder if Rio will thank his good mate Patrice?
You're getting mixed up negrito and ni***er(two different meanings) Evra used the latter on youtube and a fellow black person finds Evra has double standards. David Oyelowo, leading black actor at the Royal Shakespeare Company. 'I think it might make a certain sense to try and recapture the word ****** and make it less offensive, but that does not make it right. It is a question of what it means to different people. It will always remain offensive to a section of society. I don't think it would ever be possible for black people to accept that word.I think it is double standards for black people to use it amongst each other and then not expect white people to use it. You can't find something offensive when one set of people say something and not when a different set of people say the same thing. Being black in the 21st century is a positive thing and there is something insidious about trying to make this word inoffensive. What is the point? ​
