Racism - Mod Note on 1st Post - Read before posting.

flahavaj

ShamoBuc wrote: »

It was enough to start an investigation!
To actually charge him, they must have found some proof that he was racially abusing another player. As has been mentioned, other players have used that word - and no charges were brought against them!

As I said, I look forward to the proof.

If they had proof already then there would be no need to charge him they could just find him guilty there and then, surely?

As far as I know if a player is charged by the FA they can either

(a) Plead guilty (- which LFC have said he won't do)

(b) Request a personal hearing to plead his case

Like if you or I were charged with theft. We could accept the charge and plead guilty or plead not guilty and fight the case in court. When the police charge you they don't assume your guilt, nor do they have to have absolute proof of your guilt. As long as they are happy that there is a reasonable case to answer the case is passed onto the court system. Its no different here as far as I can tell.

ShamoBuc

niallo27 wrote: »

Ther FA are charging the Uruguay international with "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour contrary to FA rules", including "a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Patrice Evra".

To me that sounds as if it's not all racial abuse, it is hard to make sense of it.

Very hard. As Evra said - he repeated it 10 times. Now, to me that's one word. For that word - " negrito" apparently - to be abusive, surely implies that it would have to be racial aswell. Would calling a player that, be abusive if there wasn't a racial element. So the racial element would have to be proven - that's how I see it. If he called him a "book" ten times - would that be considered abusive and contrary to the FA rules?

ShamoBuc

flahavaj wrote: »

If they had proof already then there would be no need to charge him they could just find him guilty there and then, surely?

.

Seriously?
You have to charge someone.....I believe it's called something like....due process. They can't just ring him up one morning and say - you're guilty!!

flahavaj

Then what exactly is your point Shamo? You understand that theres a process that has to be followed but you think that process should only be followed and people charged if there's definite proof? How then could anyone ever hope to successfully plead not guilty?

ShamoBuc

flahavaj wrote: »

Like if you or I were charged with theft. We could accept the charge and plead guilty or plead not guilty and fight the case in court. When the police charge you they don't assume your guilt, nor do they have to have absolute proof of your guilt. As long as they are happy that there is a reasonable case to answer the case is passed onto the court system. Its no different here as far as I can tell.

Not quite the same though, as the FA are the guards, the DPP and the court system all in one.

The guards arrest first and foremost - if there are sufficient grounds for arrest that is!
The DPP would then see if there is enough proof that the charges could hold true in a court.
In the court both sides can then go head to head to find a guilty or innocent verdict. As I said the FA do all of this - bit different really.

flahavaj

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Not quite the same though, as the FA are the guards, the DPP and the court system all in one.

The guards arrest first and foremost - if there are sufficient grounds for arrest that is!
The DPP would then see if there is enough proof that the charges could hold true in a court.
In the court both sides can then go head to head to find a guilty or innocent verdict. As I said the FA do all of this - bit different really.

You said earlier "to charge him there must be proof."

Therefore everyone that is charged must automatically be guilty? They might as well not bother with hearings!

Leiva

flahavaj wrote: »

You said earlier "to charge him there must be proof."

Therefore everyone that is charged must automatically be guilty? They might as well not bother with hearings!

I think what was trying to say was for the FA to take it to the level of charge (which then moves the investigation into the public arena )then they must have rock solid evidence 'vs' one mans word against another.

Cause if they dont they are possibly slandering Suarez as a racist in the public arena. All for ones mans word against another which would be ludicrous .

It's pointing to the FA having a very strong case before charging Suarez .

ShamoBuc

flahavaj wrote: »

You said earlier "to charge him there must be proof."

Therefore everyone that is charged must automatically be guilty? They might as well not bother with hearings!

Come off it!
Proof - for example an individuals testimony - can be viewed differently/argued upon/dispelled/tainted/made shít of etc at a hearing - that's what lawyers do FFS.

But first of all they must have found some proof - that what he said was racially motivated in some way and thus proof of abuse.
I look forward to seeing it.

flahavaj

mixednuts wrote: »

I think what was trying to say was for the FA to take it to the level of charge (which then moves the investigation into the public arena )then they must have rock solid evidence 'vs' one mans word against another.

Cause if the dont they are possibly slandering Suarez as a racist in the public arena all for ones mans word against another which would be ludicrous .

So you and ShamoBuc reckon that Suarez is guilty? Big call lads!:pac:

Given that Suarez has said himself he used a word that could be construed as racist then he's have a fairly massive set of balls on him to try and sue someone for charging him for using such a term!

ShamoBuc

mixednuts wrote: »

I think what was trying to say was for the FA to take it to the level of charge (which then moves the investigation into the public arena )then they must have rock solid evidence 'vs' one mans word against another.

Cause if they dont they are possibly slandering Suarez as a racist in the public arena. All for ones mans word against another which would be ludicrous .

It's pointing to the FA having a very strong case before charging Suarez .

Correct.
It will go one of the 2 ways above. The FA will look like fúcking idiots ( hopefully) or Suarez has a definite case to answer to and could well be in the shít.

flahavaj

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Come off it!
Proof - for example an individuals testimony - can be viewed differently/argued upon/dispelled/tainted/made shít of etc at a hearing - that's what lawyers do FFS.

But first of all they must have found some proof - that what he said was racially motivated in some way and thus proof of abuse.
I look forward to seeing it.

I think you're misusing the word proof then. I think you should be saying some kind of evidence has come to light?

Proof to me would imply evidence that is suficiently robust upon which to base a verdict of guilty or not guilty. If that evidence isn't strong enough it can't be used to prove anything. The job of the hearing would be to decide whether the available avidence is sufficiently robust to convict Suarez of the charge.

Leiva

flahavaj wrote: »

So you and ShamoBuc reckon that Suarez is guilty? Big call lads!:pac:

Given that Suarez has said himself he used a word that could be construed as racist then he's have a fairly massive set of balls on him to try and sue someone for charging him for using such a term!

Nope I'm making presumptions about the calibre/strength of the FA's case .

If I'm wrong then the FA are the biggest joke ever and Suarezs has every right to persue a case against them for releasing a charge of racism to the public when there are no other witness nor evidence bar Evras word

ShamoBuc

flahavaj wrote: »

So you and ShamoBuc reckon that Suarez is guilty? Big call lads!:pac:

Given that Suarez has said himself he used a word that could be construed as racist then he's have a fairly massive set of balls on him to try and sue someone for charging him for using such a term!

Aren't you the fúcking comedian.

I think the FA are quite capable of making a shítstorm for themselves - as has already been mentioned.

Suarez has already said himself he used a word that could be constructed as friendly and should use his fairly massive set of balls on him to try and sue someone for charging him with racial abuse.

ShamoBuc

flahavaj wrote: »

I think you're misusing the word proof then.

I think you are misusing the word proof.

I like this game:pac:

flahavaj

mixednuts wrote: »

Nope I'm making presumptions about the calibre/strength of the FA's case .

If I'm wrong then the FA are the biggest joke ever and Suarezs has every right to persue a case against them for releasing a charge of racism to the public when there are no other witness nor evidence bar Evras word

What kind of proof exactly would you want? Why do you continually ignore the fact that we already have it from the horse's mouth that a term was uttered that could be construed as racist? He has been charged by the FA and has chosen to request a hearing into the matter.

Unless there is indeed some other damning evidence I would presume the hearing will focus on the nature of the word used rather than the fact he actually said it.

flahavaj

ShamoBuc wrote: »

I think you are misusing the word proof.

I like this game:pac:

Look it up in the dictionary.

Leiva

flahavaj wrote: »

What kind of proof exactly would you want? Why do you continually ignore the fact that we already have it from the horse's mouth that a term was uttered that could be construed as racist? He has been charged by the FA and has chosen to request a hearing into the matter.

Unless there is indeed some other damning evidence I would presume the hearing will focus on the nature of the word used rather than the fact he actually said it.

Ok I wil ask more directly ...

If all the FA have is Evras word and alleged word Negrito; do you think it's extremely presumptions of the FA (and leaving themselves open to charges) to release a public charge with Suarezs name and allegations of racism ?

we need new hobbies

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=2056422554

ShamoBuc

flahavaj wrote: »

What kind of proof exactly would you want? Why do you continually ignore the fact that we already have it from the horse's mouth that a term was uttered that could be construed as racist? He has been charged by the FA and has chosen to request a hearing into the matter.

Unless there is indeed some other damning evidence I would presume the hearing will focus on the nature of the word used rather than the fact he actually said it.

It could equally be construed as a friendly term - Equally - therefore that is neither proof or evidence of racial abuse!! I expect there is more, it would be laughable if there isn't.

ShamoBuc

rarnes1 wrote: »

we need new hobbies

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=2056422554

I'm a newbie to the thread, can this be my hobby:)

flahavaj

ShamoBuc wrote: »

It could equally be construed as a friendly term - Equally - therefore that is neither proof or evidence of racial abuse!! I expect there is more, it would be laughable if there isn't.

The fact that the phrase could be construed as racist and the fact that the player himself has admitted to using it means it is completely reasonable to proceed with matters to teh next stage - deciding if what he said was racist. As you said yourself there is sich thing as due process and the natural next step was to charge him.

Unless you think players that use terms that have racist connotations shouldn't be investigated?

flahavaj

mixednuts wrote: »

Ok I wil ask more directly ...

If all the FA have is Evras word and alleged word Negrito; do you think it's extremely presumptions of the FA (and leaving themselves open to charges) to release a public charge with Suarezs name and allegations of racism ?

They have Suarez admitting to using the word as well. What other way is there to investigate it?

ShamoBuc

ShamoBuc wrote: »

I'm a newbie to the thread, can this be my hobby:)

You can take over from me.

I have a headache from constantly going around in circles

ShamoBuc

flahavaj wrote: »

The fact that the phrase could be construed as racist and the fact that the player himself has admitted to using it means it is completely reasonable to proceed with matters to teh next stage - deciding if what he said was racist. As you said yourself there is sich thing as due process and the natural next step was to charge him.

Unless you think players that use terms that have racist connotations shouldn't be investigated?

Due process was followed! It was investigated!!!!! When they then decided to charge him ( The next stage) - I'm expecting proof/evidence - not the FACT that a word can be equally used in two differing ways. It would be ridiculous after an investigation to charge someone based SOLELY on that.

flahavaj

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Due process was followed! It was investigated!!!!! When they then decided to charge him ( The next stage) - I'm expecting proof/evidence - not the FACT that a word can be equally used in two differing ways. It would be ridiculous after an investigation to charge someone based SOLELY on that.

Your habit of focusing in on one word or phrase in every post I make is a little frustrating.

I still fail to see your problem. The mere fact that there are racist connotations to what he said and the fact that what he said appears not to bein doubt was plenty reason to charge him. He will now be granted a personal hearing to plead his case. If they can prove his guilt he will be punished. If they can't they won't. Simples.

Leiva

flahavaj wrote: »

They have Suarez admitting to using the word as well. What other way is there to investigate it?

Behind closed doors and either look more into the word/meaning Negrito , or totally dismiss it as a defence as they have witness's to dismiss Suarezs claim .

That's why I think the FA case must be/is strong before the public released charge .

if it's not then the really are worse than I ever imagined .

flahavaj

mixednuts wrote: »

Behind closed doors and either look more into the word/meaning Negrito , or totally dismiss it as a defence as they have witness's to dismiss Suarezs claim .

That's why I think the FA case must be/is strong before the public released charge .

if it's not then the really are worse than I ever imagined .

So you kinda are leaning towards him being guilty?

Will I Amnt

rarnes1 wrote: »

we need new hobbies

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=2056422554

6.25% of all my posts on boards.ie have been in this thread

Leiva

flahavaj wrote: »

So you kinda are leaning towards him being guilty?

Again. No

Im probably stupidly thinking that the FA are smarter than they are .

willmunny1990

From where I'm standing Suarez is almost certainly guilty. The 'cultural' excuse doesn't wash with me and I doubt it will wash with the FA, hence the charge IMO.

Repeatedly calling a black french person 'negrito' in one of the fieriest derbys in the world, during a heated exchange.

You will have a hard time explaining to anybody that it was said in a friendly context.

And further more Suarez has been in Europe a while now, he'd know damn well it wasn't acceptable to say it.