Throughout the years its always been fascinating to watch things that happen on a football pitch and get a yellow or red card, that are the result of a deliberate confrontation and cause injury! Things that, had they happened on the street, would have been classified as ABH or GBH and would have qualified for jail sentence possibly! It caused me to think that the Saurez incident which did not get either a yellow or red, were it to have happened on the street would have had him on a charge of cannibalism which in some countries would have put him on the end of a rope! Aint no justice, is there?
Where is the Policeman who reported John Terry over what he think he saw him say? Why isn't he reporting this act of violence to the Police which is clear as daylight?
Sport is an exception in the common law to charges of assault etc because you consent to contact by playing. However things which occur on a pitch not in the course of the sport - like the bite - are another matter. Ivanovic made his choice not to report the incident. EDIT: What Suarez did could certainly be battery (as part of common assault), anyway!
As did Anton Ferdinand but the police still pursued it. No surprise the Merseyside Police chose not to.
Well clearly any policeman who saw the TV then or even now is free to charge Suarez with common assault. That they haven't done so is slightly suspicious.
So long as the police presence is lawful, an arrestable offence has occurred and the officer deems it necessary to deprive the suspect person of their liberty, then an arrest can occur. This is highly unlikely but put it this way if a player was delivering potential fatal blows (e.g. kicks to head) to another player on the pitch, a nearby officer is lawfully and morally bound if they believe another persons Art 2 ECHR rights are under threat, to intervene and take appropriate action.
There is a difference between what Terry said and what Suarez did. The only person to be offended/hurt by the latter is Ivanovic. Millions could have potentially have been offended by what Terry said. For the record, Suarez deserves the book throwing at him
There certainly is a difference. The severity of what occurred is a whole lot different. Would bludgeoning a person to death be less of a crime than what John Terry is rumoured to have said because the former only affects the dead person and their loved ones whilst the latter could potentially offend about a billion people?
Assault only requires an attempt, threat or offer to do harm to another - no actual physical contact or contact with any implement - this element is the battary part of the offence - so you can be assaulted without any contact made on you.
I know mate, I'm studying it. Assault and battery are both forms of common assault, which is the umbrella term.
Fair point but as ****all to do with what I was saying. Maybe you should read the post I was replying too
