Ok... I'm sure I'd do better than that ten minute Google job, anyway You bring up some interesting technical points, which actually seem more relevant to the latter trial of a certain ex-England captain. When I was a lad, I was on work experience at a law firm and was sat in court watching this puffed-up lawyer get some sleaseball off a very similar case with very similar evidence (except no youtube video obviously ). Afterwards, he took the lad outside afterwards, clipped him round the ear and told him not to do it again. Unbelievable. So perhaps it's not so far fetched that Suarez would have got off (especially if a footballer can drive without licence, while pissed, crash, run away from the scene, and somehow get a slap on the wrist), but nevertheless, that instance alone tells me its nonsense that it "couldn't have been taken to court". More evidence was available against him than Terry, especially given the admittance. In the end it was two utter immature nobs with occasionally inconsistent stories, both of whom should have been punished, but once again, knowing the set-up, nobody would have been surprised by the outcome. The FA did their thing according to their rules. I've suggested, and I think you've highlighted, it's been handled very poorly by fans. If one of our players had called somebody something racist, I wouldn't be buying a WHSmith Spanish dictionary with a special Suarez definition pullout, or calling Evra a liar, or be desperately internet-searching for technicalities in English law. I would be appalled. If they apologised straight away, fair enough, but as I say it was woeful what went on, and there is no excuse whatsoever. So that to me, seems like a justifiable reason to not have him on my birthday guest list, rather than because he might fall over to get a pen! Of course, when he grows up and stops being a twat (no hope for Evra, he's too old now), hopefully he sticks to letting his football do the talking, because I doubt people would hate him for any other reason than jealousy, then.
Good points by the People's Front of Judea Not sure about the evidence bit either, Terry also admitted saying it (only because there was video evidence of it) but they couldn't prove him guilty of racial abuse either. I imagine Suarez's defence would be similar to that of Terry's and he'd get off as its a tough thing to prove that you meant the words in a certain context.
Don't forget that Terry (and Evra with that "Your sister's shell" business) had no option but to admit what they said as it was caught on video. Suarez offered up that he'd used the word negro even though they knew there and then that there was no video evidence tha had captured him saying even that. And in a real court, where intent had to be proved, that would be the cornerstone of his defence - "Why would he admit using the word negro when there was no evidence to prove he had done if he didn't genuinely feel he hadn't intended offence?". In retrospect he should have used the Schmeical defence as advised by Ferguson when Wright alleged far, far worse than what Suarez was eventually done fo,r and said "Prove it". But I do agree with what you say about the racism thing, and while it's no excuse i really believe that had it been anyone but Evra (even a United player such as Valencia or Wellbeck) the club - who did handle it terribly - would have immediately apologised and asked Luis to do the same for the 'misunderstanding'. Then again, i truly can't see either of those players doing what Evra did in the first place. He's an aggravating turd who thinks he can't be criticied because of his skin colour,and while he shouldn't be criticised because of his skin colour he shouldn't throw racial and discrimitory remarks around himself. What some of us can't get over though is that four games were added simply on the word of a witness who had something to gain and had changed his word and evidence three times and had been proved to have lied on a vital point about why he told the referee two different stories during and after the match; how Evra was credited with admitting his prejudicial abuse even though he had no choice as it was on camera: but Suarez was penalised for admitting the use of the word negro even though there was no evidence to otherwise prove he had: and that the standard of evidence, burden of proof and presumption of innocence were woefully inadequate for a man who basically stood accused and was facing a singular prosecution/judge/jury body.
"So perhaps it's not so far fetched that Suarez would have got off " JPF, if you've worked in law even at the work experience level and had dealings with the CPS you should ask yourself why Suarez didn't end up in court. Don't kid yourself it's due to the benevolence of Evra - the Terry case had nothing to do with anton's wishes, the DPP and CPS took that decision themselves based upon police evidence. And don't forget the political pressure - every single-issue race group were on the case getting their name in the paper and the likes of Luther Blissett, Paul Mcgrath and Pinaer Power and Clark carlisle were all calling for Suarez to be prosecuted (they were quiet over Rio being found 'guilty of the exact same charge though -odd that). If the CPS could have made a name for themselves they woud have done. but the proof of the pudding is that Goulding is an officer of the court and is honour bound to bring a case to the DPP and police's attention if he believes a law has been broken. In this aspect Evra had more to fear over breaking public order offences than Suarez did.
[video=youtube;dRmxyTDtPhE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRmxyTDtPhE[/video] You lot dunnarf talk a right load of old b0ll0x when it comes to defending racists. Nope, my mistake, that sentence is 6 words too long.
How's the anti racist fight going down your way Rob; what with those 1 in 10 of your neighbours voting for the BNP? But you keep up the good fight here where it matters......anonymously on a football Internet forum.
