Topic: Luis Suarez - FA guilty charge and LFC Statement (*)

[GBF]

Christ, so it's ok to be English and racist then?

even the husband of their queen is a well known narrow minded racist git


is it tomorrow, FA will release the written evidence?

[AKABillyGee]

Is that the way you judge people in England?.

I mean...just the word of one accuser is all a court needs to send a person to the gallows?

No lawyers...no defenders...

No need for the court to explain the accused the reason he was convicted?.

Amigos...what kind of law do u have there?

It is rumoured that the North Korean administration have been notified of the FA's disciplinary process and are well impressed.

A process of vilification that requires no third party proof of transgression, where the word of the accuser is allowed to stand alone without substantiation or confirmation. A process that takes no credence of the fact that 22 other potential witnesses, ten of whom were the accusers colleagues, who were all stood within earshot failed completely to recall or register the alleged indiscretion.

The alleged victim openly admitted calling the referee a racist and to verbally abusing the accused with foul and abusive language.

And of course rather than have the evidence open to public scrutiny and examination a three man self-appointed kangaroo court sits in camera, issues its verdict without documentary support and lets a tame media destroy the reputation of the accused without a right to reply.

North Korea may well be interested, Iran and Syria would be proud.

[Jagged Princess]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/clarkson-sees-nothing-wrong-with-his-racist-views-1128836.html
shocking.

The last paragraph from that article should be quoted to the FA to bring a charge against Evra if he did, as alleged, use an insulting or derogatory term against Luis

"On the whole we have produced some very funny television. That is what we are being asked to do and that is what we have done." But Chris Bothman, director of legal services at the Commission for Racial Equality, was not amused. He said: "I do not think comments aimed at a person that seek to humiliate or distress or denigrate them, because of where they come from or what they look like, can be regarded as a joke."[/b]

It should also be sent to the editor of the Times

From Rod Liddle at the Times.

"The Uruguyans, squirming with embarrassment, have insisted they have nothing against the United Kingdom, but a lot in favour of Argentina, hence their vote for the embargo. I can’t think of anything useful or even interesting to have come out of Uruguay, which we might boycott in return. It is just a large river and some fields of maize. There’s the rat-faced racist footballer Luis Suarez, of course, who plays for Liverpool  — perhaps the Football Association was getting its retaliation in early by banning him for eight games."

[BCCC]

Alex Ferguson - mission complete.

[Finn Solomon]

Read this on wiki, the guy has some serious history..

It's obvious that the guy is mentally ill. Nice that they let him have a job.

[GIPPO77]

Good post.

[teri_ma_ki]

A good point ...and a tricky one for LFC's lawyers...

If you object to a Juror in the  Crown Court,  the pool of reserves is quite large and the ongoing influence of the rejected Juror is limited, as you'll probably never see them again. So you can reject away without much thought as to the consequences.

However, if you object to a FA panel member, well,  that's a totally different matter. Despite claiming the opposite, they'll no doubt be offended.  they sit on other FA panels which could have influence over your club and the pool of alternatives is very small and potentially even more impartial (in the past, the FA has been likened to the worse type of Masonic Lodge).

So, do you start off your defence by upsetting the FA as a whole by objecting, say, to the QC on the reasonable grounds  that he has no expertise in the area of race relations, language or culteral differences which form the basis of your defence or, having total confidence in the strength of your argument, do you grit your teeth, smile sweetly and agree to the format of the Panel? 

The real problem is that the FA panel is 'mickey mouse' pretending to be a proper Court, however, the damage they can now inflict on clubs and individuals, goes way beyond what was intended when the FA tribunals were first established. 

They have blundered into very serious and highly complex areas (race relations FFS!) which can have long reaching and potentially permanent damaging effect on an individual's career and reputution, as well as a club's financial well-being.

In the Suarez case, I believe that the FA, due to their overly simplistic and ill-considered approach, have left themselves open to severe criticism.   

Sadly, although a Judicial Review would  have been the ideal mechanism for putting the FA's ruling under the microscope in the High Court, I believe that they can only be invoked when challenging decisions made by a Public Body e.g. a Local Authority etc. (I do not believe that the FA is a Public Body.)

There might be some other mechanism for challenging the FA's ruling in the High Court but I'm not aware of it  (LFC signed up to being bound to FA rulings so....), hence my belief that the only course of action available to LFC/Luis (should they wish to escalate it to the High Court) is to sue (the Mirror) for libel.

Let's be honest no justice will come from the appeal to the FA. Their agenda has already been written. This will either go to arbitration - just like Goulding's case on Sheffield United/WHU, where SU won Ł27m, or it will go to the Court of Arbitration of Sport, where we would win with our eyes closed. There is precedent backing up our case. If we're backed into a corner like a wounded tiger, I wouldn't bet against an appeal to CAS.



First, arbitration.

[BCCC]

I wouldn't worry about upsetting the FA, we've already (rightly) done enough damage.

[Lord Roger Hunt]

Let's be honest no justice will come from the appeal to the FA. Their agenda has already been written. This will either go to arbitration - just like Goulding's case on Sheffield United/WHU, where SU won Ł27m, or it will go to the Court of Arbitration of Sport, where we would win with our eyes closed. There is precedent backing up our case. If we're backed into a corner like a wounded tiger, I wouldn't bet against an appeal to CAS.

First, arbitration.

Good call - hope so but as its a 'foreign court', can they 'stay' the 8 game ban pending their decision...? 

[teri_ma_ki]

I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if this point has been raised - I haven't seen it anywhere myself. The FA rules on on-the-field abuse of another player treat references to the race of the injured party as an exacerbating element rather than an offence in and of itself. For the first offence the penalty for abusing another player is doubled if there is a reference to race.

This suggests that under the FA rules Suarez was in line for a four game ban for abusing Evra, increased to 8 games for the racial reference.

Now I have to say I have never heard of any player being handed a ban of any kind for non-racial abuse of another. And I have definitely heard some pretty foul abuse bandied about - the kind of thing that would get you a public order arrest if you said it at going home time in your local.

Perhaps the FA's rules have been shown up as inadequate for dealing with purely racial abuse. But if the panel has had to make up a punishment as it went along that is pretty unfair to Suarez it seems to me.

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk

no, the racial slur could be the insulting or offensive words used in the first place. for which he got a two game ban. the fact that it related to colour of evra's skin meant that his punishment was thus extended to a total 8 game ban

[teri_ma_ki]

Good call - hope so but as its a 'foreign court', can they 'stay' the 8 game ban pending their decision...? 

i think they can. thats the impression i got from the CAS judgment but let me have a full look at all this today and will revert

[latortuga]

I support Luis Suarez 100%.

However, when the decision comes out I think Liverpool will have some difficulty in overturning the decision if Suarez has admitted using words which reference the colour of someone's skin. It is pathetic in my view but I think that is almost strict liability these days whether any offence was meant or not.

Where they must be able to appeal though is the severity of the ban and by use of the FA's own precedents. If we are being told that because he is in England then he is judged by English standards and his own cultural views make no difference, then surely in England precedent plays a huge part in any decision.

We have FA decisions where Mark Bosnich does a Nazi salute to Spurs fans, is found guilty of disrepute but fined a grand with no match ban.

We have Jon Mackie at Reading calling Carl Asaba a n****r and getting 8 matches, 3 of which are suspended. Surely Suarez cannot be viewed as being more serious than that.

We have Emre at Newcastle calling Yobo a "f****g negro" and it being deemed not worthy of a disrepute charge.

Where does the length of Suarez ban come from ?

As you say this is what it really comes down to. 

The interesting part is that from the way I read Liverpool's media statement post the FA's findings, they mention it being a case of one person's word against another - IIRC.  Which to me implies that he hasn't admitted using any racially offensive language - as to admit this fact would make Liverpool's statement redundant.  Additionally if Liverpool's lawyers thought it okay for Suarez to include the word 'Negrito' in their statement, then to have not been prepared for it's potential interpretation and implication would be a gross oversight. 

[Timbo's Goals]

Speaking personally and reading your post/s, I'm sure that you don't merit a reasoned response..

Translation.

There's no way I can provide any reasoned response to dispute what Timbo has said [as the reason why he is saying what he is saying] so I'll respond like a big girl's blouse and hope I get away with it.

 

[bigbear]

As you say this is what it really comes down to. 

The interesting part is that from the way I read Liverpool's media statement post the FA's findings, they mention it being a case of one person's word against another - IIRC.  Which to me implies that he hasn't admitted using any racially offensive language - as to admit this fact would make Liverpool's statement redundant.  Additionally if Liverpool's lawyers thought it okay for Suarez to include the word 'Negrito' in their statement, then to have not been prepared for it's potential interpretation and implication would be a gross oversight. 

My interpretation of the "one man's word against another" is the number of times Suarez said whatever word he used.

If he said it "ten times" it would suggest it was done to annoy as opposed to a passing comment with no malice. Evra can't back down on what he said on TV about the number of times it was said and yet Suarez is not seen saying it on video and it seems admits saying 'negro/negrito' once.

If the FA believed Evra on the number of times it was used it would be easier to punish Suarez harsher.

[Timbo's Goals]

My own take on how this will pan out.

Unless the FA back down, retract their utter travesty of justice [Shank's term not mine  ] and bid to actively clear Suarez's name then this will inevitably be taken by LFC and their lawyers to the highest court it can possibly go to. Too much is at stake. Most importantly, amongst a myriad of important things, an innocent man's reputation and, hence, life. Anybody who hasn't realised this clearly hasn't thought the thing through. There will not be and cannot possibly be a mere appeal to what is so manifestly a corrupt and utterly inept body.

[Pheeny]

It should also be sent to the editor of the Times

From Rod Liddle at the Times.

"The Uruguyans, squirming with embarrassment, have insisted they have nothing against the United Kingdom, but a lot in favour of Argentina, hence their vote for the embargo. I can’t think of anything useful or even interesting to have come out of Uruguay, which we might boycott in return. It is just a large river and some fields of maize. There’s the rat-faced racist footballer Luis Suarez, of course, who plays for Liverpool  — perhaps the Football Association was getting its retaliation in early by banning him for eight games."

that is shocking surely something must be done to stop these so called journalist spouting this shite.

[Stussy]

Just as an aside - did you know that Rod Liddle nearly made the Stephen Lawrence racist murder trial currently taking place collapse after comments he made in his blog ? The attorney general is also investigating whether to prosecute him too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15778337

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/29/spectator-stephen-lawrence-trial

[Jagged Princess]

that is shocking surely something must be done to stop these so called journalist spouting this shite.

Disgusting isn’t it, I picked it up from one of theJibs posts yesterday and thought it was appropriate with the Telegraph article.

I’m almost tempted to forward it to the Club but I assume they’ll have people monitoring the media constantly now.

[Eeyore]

I wouldn't be surprised when the judgement from the FA is received if Liverpool don't get Suarez to do a polygraph test. Then challenge Evra to do the same, whilst a Polygraph test is not 100% conclusive two Polygraph tests are certainly better than one mans word against another.

Liverpool for me aren't simply going to let this drop we have made a stand and we simply cannot afford to back down now. Backing down would be an admission that our initial statement was just posturing for posturing's sake. Our main sponsors Standard Chartered do business in the far east a traditionally conservative business environment and simply would not want to be involved with a Club that has a reputation for unjustly supporting a racist.

I imagine Liverpool will do everything in their power to clear Luis and the Club of any suggestions of Racism or supporting a racist. No wonder one of the Chief Instigators of this matter Ferguson now wants this matter closed.

Ferguson's stance shows exactly what this matter was about it was about trying to score points against a rival and very little to do with racism. If it was genuinely about racism then Ferguson would surely want the matter addressing and measures taken to ensure that racism is properly discussed and measures put in place to ensure that players are educated and racism is truly defeated.

He doesn't now Suarez is banned he wants the whole issue buried and wants to move on. Well sorry Mr Ferguson that simply isn't going to happen because LFC will go to the ends of the earth to clear both Suarez and the Club and all the better if doing that exposes Mr Ferguson and Patrice Evra for exactly what they are.

[Purdy]

The last paragraph from that article should be quoted to the FA to bring a charge against Evra if he did, as alleged, use an insulting or derogatory term against Luis

"On the whole we have produced some very funny television. That is what we are being asked to do and that is what we have done." But Chris Bothman, director of legal services at the Commission for Racial Equality, was not amused. He said: "I do not think comments aimed at a person that seek to humiliate or distress or denigrate them, because of where they come from or what they look like, can be regarded as a joke."[/b]

It should also be sent to the editor of the Times

From Rod Liddle at the Times.

"The Uruguyans, squirming with embarrassment, have insisted they have nothing against the United Kingdom, but a lot in favour of Argentina, hence their vote for the embargo. I can’t think of anything useful or even interesting to have come out of Uruguay, which we might boycott in return. It is just a large river and some fields of maize. There’s the rat-faced racist footballer Luis Suarez, of course, who plays for Liverpool  — perhaps the Football Association was getting its retaliation in early by banning him for eight games."

Link to those rob liddle quotes?

[Jagged Princess]

Link to those rob liddle quotes?

Sorry, I don't have them, I copied and pasted from a post made in this thread yesterday.

[No666]

But as far as I understand it 'neh-gro' (to spell it phonetically) in LA Spanish is NOT a reference to skin colour in terms of ethnicity. It is a reference to skin (from olive to black)/hair/eye colour - in the same way that moreno in Peninsula Spanish is used to describe a brunette with brown eyes etc. Suarez himself might be termed negrito, no?

[Jay797]

Yes. Someone calling me a black c*nt is nothing. Simply referring to someone's race isn't racism. The worst part of that is c*nt.

And Negro isn't a racial slur either.

At last someone who's got some reasoning.

[HarryLabrador]

Just been listening to Thommo on SSN. He is manfully defending Suarez, but I'm sitting here wishing it was Barnes in front of the camera. Thommo is really failing miserably at putting forward the argument for Suarez. Frustrating.

[Pistolero]

Jeff Stelling is a smarmy prick.

[Daranoza]

Re: believing Evra's word on the number of times the word was used. He apparently says ten, Suarez says once, not maliciously. They can say he's guilty of that one time because he's allegedly admitted it, but this leaves a question mark over the further nine plus times he's alleged, by Evra, to have said it. If Suarez denies saying it ten times they cannot simply take Evra's word for it without proof, witnesses, video evidence, if which I believe there is none, so it would seem the ruling is based on that one admitted utterance. If it turns out they HAVE based his guilt upon ten occurrences as cited by Evra then the 'conviction', for lack of a better word, cannot stand.

If there is a denial then the burden of proof is upon Evra. He couldn't prove ten times. Nobody saw, heard.

[R.A.La]

Ten minutes on the abuse that Steve Keane gets, not a mention of the treatment dished up to Luis.

[Jagged Princess]

I understand one needs to be a subscriber to view the article itself, did a quick web-search and the only results where from forums connected to Liverpool.

I don't know about pay-walls, so I don't know if it would be picked up from searching? as I mentioned earlier, I picked it up from theJibs post yesterday (p205) and I think it may have been Andy who later confirmed he'd read it. 

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Ten minutes on the abuse that Steve Keane gets, not a mention of the treatment dished up to Luis.

suarez in fairness is a horrid nasty racist tho

[se9R.F.L]

Just been listening to Thommo on SSN. He is manfully defending Suarez, but I'm sitting here wishing it was Barnes in front of the camera. Thommo is really failing miserably at putting forward the argument for Suarez. Frustrating.

just didn't have the words did he?

[swampy]

Apologies, but I think that's exactly what I'm saying e.g. the FA have over-stepped the mark.

However, I don't know what the mechanism is for challenging it in the High Court, other than Luis suing the Mirror for libel - can you point to any statute or Law they may have broken. Other than maybe the Human Rights Act, I'm struggling....?

I think the FA's stance would be that LFC have joined their association and agreed to be bound by the rules of the FA, which includes discipline matters and if they don't like the way the Association is run, they can always leave. It's effectively a private club.

So, although I hope I'm wrong, I don't think LFC can go to  the High Court simply because they don't agree with a particular ruling made by assocation members  - maybe a lawyer could help here? -  (if  that were the case, I should imagine the High Court would be over-run with 'retired Colonel' types suing their Golf Club Commitee).

As I say, I hope I'm wrong and LFC's lawyers do know of grounds to take the FA's decision in the  High Court. (I do think that, by ignoring culteral differences, the FA have shown racial prejudice e.g. 'it's the Anglo Saxon way, or no way' but whether Luis could start proceedings against them on this basis is beyond my understanding).

But, if not, Luis instigating proceedings for libel against the Mirror (and others) would be a cracking move, as it would put the FA in the dock also, as the Mirror would have to argue that the 'common man's' interpretation of the FA ruling was that Luis was a racist and, in their defence, the FA would have to argue that they were'n't branding Luis a racist,  thereby effectively defending Luis.

Footnote: it all depends what the, yet to be seen, evidence is. There is a risk that the High Court, ruling on one narrow point, could actually exacerbate matters and find that, technically, Luis was being 'racist' (by referring to somone's skin colour during an argument) and the FA were using 'weasel words' in their judgement. That's the danger for Luis.

Similar to cases in Australia where some teams have in the past used an injunction from a court to get the contentious decision which rubbed out a player for a key game held over, not sure if that would work here or if a delay in proceedings is what we need at this stage, its more likely a complete f**king reversal we'd be seeking

[The Red Menace]

200+ page thread.. Who are we signing then??

[Barney_Rubble]

On hold....