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

RasTa · 01-01-2012 09:17AM

Are Liverpool still appealing?

LuckyLloyd · 01-01-2012 09:40AM

jank wrote: »

Video evidence, the ref's, Kuyt's and of course Suarez himself changing his story up to 3 times...... while Suarez himself admitted he used the word. Really you have to do better than that.

A question to Liverpool fans, what evidence would be suffice for you to say "Right, I was wrong. What Suarez did was wrong" In your eyes he will always be innocent just like a beloved son or daughter would be "innocent" if caught.

As regards an vendetta, well a Liverpool fan would think of that wouldn't they. "Poor me" strikes again.

"373. We make a number of observations on these accounts of the conversation viewed as a
whole. Mr Evra's account is more detailed, Mr Suarez's account is shorter. Having viewed
the video evidence, it is clear that there was enough time for these exchanges to take place,
including the greater number of exchanges suggested by Mr Evra. Mr Suarez's version
does not seem to account for all of the comments that we see being made on the video
footage, but we appreciate it is difficult for both players to recall every word or phrase
that was uttered. For Mr Suarez to say to Mr Evra that he kicked him "because you're
black" is initially surprising. We found the "quacking" motion to be a puzzling gesture,
which was not really explained or explored further in the evidence."

Page 93. Essentially this means that the video evidence available to the panel did not provide confirmation of what was (or wasn't said). All it could verify was the length of the exchange.

Leiva · 01-01-2012 09:45AM

jank wrote: »

Video evidence, the ref's, Kuyt's and of course Suarez himself changing his story up to 3 times...... while Suarez himself admitted he used the word. Really you have to do better than that.

A question to Liverpool fans, what evidence would be suffice for you to say "Right, I was wrong. What Suarez did was wrong" In your eyes he will always be innocent just like a beloved son or daughter would be "innocent" if caught.

As regards an vendetta, well a Liverpool fan would think of that wouldn't they. "Poor me" strikes again.

Nope.

I and many others went on the record and said that if the evidence was there then I wanted Suarez banned .

I then seen the verdict and LFC statement and made my decision to wait until the actual evidence in the case was released .

The evidence is now released and from what I have read the FA have made a decision on a presumption and not on hardened evidence from either 3rd party witness or video.

The video evidence available was clearly labelled as insufficient for actual racism remarks made , but used to see how the few moments panned out .

No other persons heard the exchange between both players bar Kuyt who heard a small part which he swears he heard Evra say to the Ref about been booked because he was black .

A conversation between Camolli , Kuyt and Suarez seems to be muddled but the FA totally dismiss it with no clear explanation .

IMOThere simply is not enough to charge Suarez with .

The verdict is based purely on opinion and not fact , and the accusations are made out to be the evidence .

They (FA) hide behind some low level of procedure that they don't need to bring it to a law level or even civil level to find a guilty verdict ???
That's just crazy and stinks of pompous when there is a persons career at stake .

If they are going to stand by racism rules and regs then they need to put in
proper levels to protect both accused and accuser , and not something that has no foundations or structures and built purely on opinion.

Otherwise they should just stay out of the whole racism thing and leave all reported incidents to the police/law.

Happy New Year.

Nalz · 01-01-2012 11:12AM

mixednuts wrote: »

Nope.

I and many others went on the record and said that if the evidence was there then I wanted Suarez banned .

I then seen the verdict and LFC statement and made my decision to wait until the actual evidence in the case was released .

The evidence is now released and from what I have read the FA have made a decision on a presumption and not on hardened evidence from either 3rd party witness or video.

The video evidence available was clearly labelled as insufficient for actual racism remarks made , but used to see how the few moments panned out .

No other persons heard the exchange between both players bar Kuyt who heard a small part which he swears he heard Evra say to the Ref about been booked because he was black .

A conversation between Camolli , Kuyt and Suarez seems to be muddled but the FA totally dismiss it with no clear explanation .

IMOThere simply is not enough to charge Suarez with .

The verdict is based purely on opinion and not fact , and the accusations are made out to be the evidence .

They (FA) hide behind some low level of procedure that they don't need to bring it to a law level or even civil level to find a guilty verdict ???
That's just crazy and stinks of pompous when there is a persons career at stake .

If they are going to stand by racism rules and regs then they need to put in
proper levels to protect both accused and accuser , and not something that has no foundations or structures and built purely on opinion.

Otherwise they should just stay out of the whole racism thing and leave all reported incidents to the police/law.

Happy New Year.

Happy new year, but I agree with Jank, blatter and Carlcon. Now waiting on the john terry saga to come to a similar conclusion

spockety · 01-01-2012 11:15AM

This thread has become a place where meaningful discussion is no longer possible.

There are a group of people intent on labelling anybody who criticises or questions the FA report as racist, or racist sympathisers. This is grossly unfair. There are a number of people here, myself included, who are not racist but who having read the report feel that the burden of proof applied is far lower than a person would normally expect in a situation where they are being accused of something so serious.

I am not saying that Luis Suarez did not make a racial slur. What I am saying is that based on the evidence there is nothing which confirms what the accuser is saying, and therefore nobody can be absolutely sure that the conversation of which is he accused actually took place exactly as his accuser has described. Because of this, it is not possible to say beyond a reasonable doubt that Suarez is guilty of racial abuse. However as he has been found guilty, and based on the FA report, there are substantial grounds to argue that a miscarriage of justice may have taken place.

How can it possibly be argued that pointing this out can make one a racist? Can anyone who has accused the report criticisers of being racist please come back here and back up that assertion with some supporting evidence? Is it your view that the lawyers for the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six were terrorists, or terrorist sympathisers simply due to the nature of the crime of which they were accused where the process by which they were found guilty was questioned?

There are also people here who are trying to infer that anyone who has criticised the FA report must also be saying that racially abusive language is acceptable, and are supportive of it. I have not seeing anybody here say that it is acceptable to be racially abusive, again if those accusing people on this forum of it could come back with some evidence to back it up that would be appreciated.

Until the emotive and castaway comments like "disgusting" are done away with, and irrelevant references to Heysel are gone, there is little point in engaging in any meaningful debate.

Just to re-iterate, from what I have personally read on this thread, nobody is defending Luis Suarez by saying that racially abusive language is acceptable. Rather the debate centres around whether or not the burden of proof applied in this case is at an acceptable level.

Either you cannot see that because you haven't taken the time to read and are so intent on writing meaningless emotive throwaway arguments that bear no relevance to what is actually being discussed, or worse, you can see it but you still choose to be a polarising and extremist presence on the thread in order to gain some high horsed satisfaction for yourself.

tommyhaas · 01-01-2012 11:45AM

ricero wrote: »

Also back to the report after reading into it a good bit earlier tonight I honestly think Liverpool fc and suarez should bring the fa to court. The amount of incosistencies and lack of evidance is astonishing I think it could be turned over quite easily

If Liverpool take the FA to court, will it not end up with UEFA interfering? As in the case of Sion. I don't think that's an option

Blatter wrote: »

They can legally call him a racist is what I meant, obviously people can think whatever they like.

The Mirror's headline ''racist'' when he was found guilty would be an example where legally, they were allowed run with that headline.

Yeah, Suarez will no doubt be branded a racist by the vast majority of people, especially seeing as the FA's report vehemently dismissed any possibility of cultural differences being to blame.

The ''racist'' tag is the severe price you pay when you open your mouth and racially abuse someone and are found guilty of it.

If he had been found guilty of a racial act in court, he could be legally be called a racist. However, I doubt the FA panel have the same jurisdiction as a court in this sense, so legally, I very much doubt he could be called a racist

Regarding the Mirror headline, IIRC they didn't specifically refer to one person as racist

Nalz · 01-01-2012 11:47AM

What exactly did suarez change in his story three times?

Dublin_Gunner · 01-01-2012 11:52AM

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

That is by far the stupidest sentence I have ever read on this forum.

Why? Can you not Mention someone's skin colour without being racist? Get s grip ffs.

People are getting way too pc these days which makes it all to easy for others to pull the 'racism card'.

Crazy Horse 6 · 01-01-2012 12:07PM

Kangaroo court

A kangaroo court is "a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted".

The outcome of a trial by kangaroo court is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of ensuring conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all. A kangaroo court's proceedings deny, hinder or obstruct due process rights in the name of expediency or agenda.

Typically, a kangaroo court will deliberately abuse one or more of the following rights of the accused:

- right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
- right to control one's own defense e.g. selecting one's own defense counsel
-right to hear a full and precise statement of the charges made against the accused
-right to have adequate time and resources to prepare a defense against the charges
-right not to incriminate oneself
-right to summon witnesses
-right of cross-examination
-right to introduce evidence which supports acquittal of the accused
-right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g., hearsay
-right not to be tried on secret evidence
-right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality, prejudice or conflict of interest
-right to have a verbatim stenographic record of the trial proceedings created
-right to have no interference or undue influence made by external agencies e.g. political or military leaders
-right of appeal against conviction

doc_17 · 01-01-2012 12:09PM

The report is funny. They need to release this evidence that wasn't in the broadcast. I deal with this sh*t all the time at school with teenagers..."he said such and such to me". I have no power to take disciplinary action if there is no direct evidence. Who cares if Suarez was less than convincing with the meaning and context of what he said and did in the eyes of the panel, unless there is proof then I have an issue with the verdict.

But maybe Evra was more believable as he has more practice of making these allegations....the Chelsea groundkeeper thing has stood to him well.

Paparazzo · 01-01-2012 12:10PM

Does anyone really believe that Suarez goes around calling Glen Johnson "negro"?

adox · 01-01-2012 12:10PM

doc_17 wrote: »

But maybe Evra was more believable as he more practice of making these allegations....the Chelsea groundkeeper thing has stood to him well.

FAIL.

tommyhaas · 01-01-2012 12:11PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Kangaroo court

A kangaroo court is "a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted".

The outcome of a trial by kangaroo court is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of ensuring conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all. A kangaroo court's proceedings deny, hinder or obstruct due process rights in the name of expediency or agenda.

Typically, a kangaroo court will deliberately abuse one or more of the following rights of the accused:

- right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
- right to control one's own defense e.g. selecting one's own defense counsel
-right to hear a full and precise statement of the charges made against the accused
-right to have adequate time and resources to prepare a defense against the charges
-right not to incriminate oneself
-right to summon witnesses
-right of cross-examination
-right to introduce evidence which supports acquittal of the accused
-right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g., hearsay
-right not to be tried on secret evidence
-right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality, prejudice or conflict of interest
-right to have a verbatim stenographic record of the trial proceedings created
-right to have no interference or undue influence made by external agencies e.g. political or military leaders
-right of appeal against conviction

Which of the above points are you claiming apply to the FA hearing?

Crazy Horse 6 · 01-01-2012 12:15PM

Being honest here, reading the report changes nothing IMO.

Everything hangs upon the word of a notoriously exaggerating and unreliable race-paranoid, Patrice Evra.

It's the one constant that in a proper court of law, would render his evidence in this case inadmissible and with the contempt it deserves yet somehow the FA have deemed it enough to charge Suarez and ruin his life.

greendom · 01-01-2012 12:22PM

doc_17 wrote: »

But maybe Evra was more believable as he has more practice of making these allegations....the Chelsea groundkeeper thing has stood to him well.

He did no such thing - you need to do your research

Leiva · 01-01-2012 12:24PM

Forget about Suarez Evra etc and concentrate more on the court and process the FA setup .

This is a question to all regardless of club :

Would you feel comfortable working under a Company , Organisation or Association if their disciplinary procedure had a bottom line which amounted to this ;

"Quote:
FA: "We found that Mr X account is probably what happened "

doc_17 · 01-01-2012 12:27PM

Dirk Kuyt gave evidence that stated he was certain that he heard Evra saying to the ref that he was only booking him because he was black. What a nice little man!

Will I Amnt · 01-01-2012 12:31PM

doc_17 wrote: »

Dirk Kuyt gave evidence that stated he was certain that he heard Evra saying to the ref that he was only booking him because he was black. What a nice little man!

Patrice Evra gave evidence that Suarez racially abused him numerous times.
What a nice little man.

ilovelamp2000 · 01-01-2012 12:35PM

I'll keep it short and sweet.

I'm willing to bet most people who are disgusted with the judgement haven't even read it.

Everyone who is still banging on about the lack of evidence is either deluded or ignorant. There are numerous witness statements, TV footage, and an admission by Suarez. That is all evidence.

There is nothing particularly unusual about the judgement given, the vast majority of it is legally sound. There are a couple of things I would take issue with, but they'd be more towards the extent of his punishment than the offence itself. There is no doubt in my mind that he's guilty of the offence.

As a club we need to take a long look at ourselves, we've acted appallingly throughout. I said it at the time but it was obvious the club statement at the time of the decision was being completely facetious and was merely intended to rile up the masses, it's still having an effect. Knowing what we know now just makes it look even worse. We've drip fed the media bull**** all the way along to cover it all up, and every supporter is clinging to that bull**** as if it's gospel.

Those fans who went along with it, and those who've been trying to justify Suarez's behaviour also need to take look at themselves. You look really really stupid, next time sit back and have an objective look at things, think it through then come to your conclusion. Don't say "well the club says this, so it must be true" and then go off on some hare brained conspiracy buzz.

doc_17 · 01-01-2012 12:39PM

I really hope that people who use the phrase "legally sound" are solicitors themselves.

I still want to know if there is a court in the UK that would convict someone of racist behaviour because he "probably" did it.

ilovelamp2000 · 01-01-2012 12:41PM

doc_17 wrote: »

I really hope that people who use the phrase "legally sound" are solicitors themselves.

I still want to know if there is a court in the UK that would convict someone of racist behaviour because he "probably" did it.

It's easy to see those who aren't solicitors anyway.

Suarez wasn't on a criminal charge, so the burden of proof would never be beyond reasonable doubt.

And you're still forgetting that Suarez admitted to using the word negro. He would be guilty in every court around the world because he himself put it beyond all doubt.

I fully expect you (and everyone else) to ignore this though.

doc_17 · 01-01-2012 12:42PM

greendom wrote: »

He did no such thing - you need to do your research

Really?

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Patrice-Evra-banned-for-four-games-following-Chelsea-bust-up-article34519.html

The statement from the FA is on that page.

"An allegation that Mr Bethell had engaged in racist conduct or language was not proved"

So if it wasn't Evra who made the allegation who was it?

tommyhaas · 01-01-2012 12:43PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Forget about Suarez Evra etc and concentrate more on the court and process the FA setup .

This is a question to all regardless of club :

Would you feel comfortable working under a Company , Organisation or Association if their disciplinary procedure had a bottom line which amounted to this ;

"Quote:
FA: "We found that Mr X account is probably what happened "

The judgement was delivered on the balance of probabilities. That's the standard that they work to, its the standard they've always worked to. To appeal or dismiss the judgement on this basis is pathetic IMO, as its raising an issue with a process that there had been no issue with previously. But when the outcome doesn't suit, suddenly there's an issue?

doc_17 · 01-01-2012 12:45PM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

It's easy to see those who aren't solicitors anyway.

Suarez wasn't on a criminal charge, so the burden of proof would never be beyond reasonable doubt.

And you're still forgetting that Suarez admitted to using the word negro. He would be guilty in every court around the world because he himself put it beyond all doubt.

I fully expect you (and everyone else) to ignore this though.

I know he used that word. His story, whether you believe that or not, is that it wasn't intended as a racist remark.

So the FA should release the evidence that wasn't broadcast and be done with it.

Le King · 01-01-2012 12:45PM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

I'll keep it short and sweet.

I'm willing to bet most people who are disgusted with the judgement haven't even read it.

Everyone who is still banging on about the lack of evidence is either deluded or ignorant. There are numerous witness statements, TV footage, and an admission by Suarez. That is all evidence.

There is nothing particularly unusual about the judgement given, the vast majority of it is legally sound. There are a couple of things I would take issue with, but they'd be more towards the extent of his punishment than the offence itself. There is no doubt in my mind that he's guilty of the offence.

As a club we need to take a long look at ourselves, we've acted appallingly throughout. I said it at the time but it was obvious the club statement at the time of the decision was being completely facetious and was merely intended to rile up the masses, it's still having an effect. Knowing what we know now just makes it look even worse. We've drip fed the media bull**** all the way along to cover it all up, and every supporter is clinging to that bull**** as if it's gospel.

Those fans who went along with it, and those who've been trying to justify Suarez's behaviour also need to take look at themselves. You look really really stupid, next time sit back and have an objective look at things, think it through then come to your conclusion. Don't say "well the club says this, so it must be true" and then go off on some hare brained conspiracy buzz.

Well said and with reading the judgment an appeal is likely to increase the length of the ban.

Suarez and Liverpool have managed to make this look a lot worse for himself and the club than it needed to be.

Mitch Connor · 01-01-2012 12:47PM

doc_17 wrote: »

Really?

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Patrice-Evra-banned-for-four-games-following-Chelsea-bust-up-article34519.html

The statement from the FA is on that page.

"An allegation that Mr Bethell had engaged in racist conduct or language was not proved"

So if it wasn't Evra who made the allegation who was it?

One of the United staff I believe- have a read of the report - it is well freaking known at this stage that Evra did not make racism accusations against the chelsea ground staff nor, for that matter, Steve Finnan.

But your club want you to believe he did cause it suits their pathetic defence so that is what thety have been feeding to the media (Sudaca, Negrito too) and you have fallen in line with it. Well done.

tommyhaas · 01-01-2012 12:47PM

doc_17 wrote: »

I really hope that people who use the phrase "legally sound" are solicitors themselves.

I still want to know if there is a court in the UK that would convict someone of racist behaviour because he "probably" did it.

Is it possible for the point about this not being a criminal case, and the difference between beyond reasonable doubt and balance of probabilities to be stickied?

Because its up there with ''not the first time Evra has made these sort of allegations'' in terms of repetition at this stage

LuckyLloyd · 01-01-2012 12:48PM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

It's easy to see those who aren't solicitors anyway.

Suarez wasn't on a criminal charge, so the burden of proof would never be beyond reasonable doubt.

And you're still forgetting that Suarez admitted to using the word negro. He would be guilty in every court around the world because he himself put it beyond all doubt.

I fully expect you (and everyone else) to ignore this though.

Nope, your right - it was never going to be necessary for the decision to be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt". However in my opinion the severity of punishment would need to run parallel to the extent of certainty the available evidence provided for exactly what was said. You believe he's guilty on balance of probability of saying something he shouldn't and you've set a base point for punishment, fine. But now you're doubling that base point when exactly what was said (and how many times it was said) is a matter of hot dispute without video evidence? Well, that is definitely a problem.

01-01-2012 12:48PM

spockety wrote: »

This thread has become a place where meaningful discussion is no longer possible.

There are a group of people intent on labelling anybody who criticises or questions the FA report as racist, or racist sympathisers. This is grossly unfair. There are a number of people here, myself included, who are not racist but who having read the report feel that the burden of proof applied is far lower than a person would normally expect in a situation where they are being accused of something so serious.

I am not saying that Luis Suarez did not make a racial slur. What I am saying is that based on the evidence there is nothing which confirms what the accuser is saying, and therefore nobody can be absolutely sure that the conversation of which is he accused actually took place exactly as his accuser has described. Because of this, it is not possible to say beyond a reasonable doubt that Suarez is guilty of racial abuse. However as he has been found guilty, and based on the FA report, there are substantial grounds to argue that a miscarriage of justice may have taken place.

How can it possibly be argued that pointing this out can make one a racist? Can anyone who has accused the report criticisers of being racist please come back here and back up that assertion with some supporting evidence? Is it your view that the lawyers for the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six were terrorists, or terrorist sympathisers simply due to the nature of the crime of which they were accused where the process by which they were found guilty was questioned?

There are also people here who are trying to infer that anyone who has criticised the FA report must also be saying that racially abusive language is acceptable, and are supportive of it. I have not seeing anybody here say that it is acceptable to be racially abusive, again if those accusing people on this forum of it could come back with some evidence to back it up that would be appreciated.

Until the emotive and castaway comments like "disgusting" are done away with, and irrelevant references to Heysel are gone, there is little point in engaging in any meaningful debate.

Just to re-iterate, from what I have personally read on this thread, nobody is defending Luis Suarez by saying that racially abusive language is acceptable. Rather the debate centres around whether or not the burden of proof applied in this case is at an acceptable level.

Either you cannot see that because you haven't taken the time to read and are so intent on writing meaningless emotive throwaway arguments that bear no relevance to what is actually being discussed, or worse, you can see it but you still choose to be a polarising and extremist presence on the thread in order to gain some high horsed satisfaction for yourself.

Excellent post.

Will I Amnt · 01-01-2012 12:48PM

doc_17 wrote: »

greendom wrote: »

He did no such thing - you need to do your research

Really?

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Patrice-Evra-banned-for-four-games-following-Chelsea-bust-up-article34519.html

The statement from the FA is on that page.

"An allegation that Mr Bethell had engaged in racist conduct or language was not proved"

So if it wasn't Evra who made the allegation who was it?

"The lie perpetuated here was that Evra filed a a race complaint against Chelsea groundsman Mike Bethel. The Official FA report into the incident states:

"The two witnesses who say they heard those words directed by Mr Bethell at Mr Evra are the Manchester United first team coach Mr Mike Phelan and the goalkeeping coach Mr Richard Hartis. Mr Evra has never claimed to have heard such a remark on that day".

Can't believe some people still have to be told this.

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

Comments