*Official* English Football Season 2011-12

[howardj]

If he was falsely accused of racism, I say good on him for not shaking his hand

The charge of racism is perhaps the most potent you can level against a person, outside the criminal sphere

 

[BoyBrumby]

If he was falsely accused of racism, I say good on him for not shaking his hand

The charge of racism is perhaps the most potent you can level against a person, outside the criminal sphere

Wouldn't actually appealing against the charge be somewhat more fruitful? Suarez chose not to do this, which must be be seen as a tacit acceptance of his guilt, regardless of his (and his team's) public pronouncements on the subject.

Besides, Suarez has admitted using a racial term towards Evra ("negrito" or "little black man"), the only dispute was about how many times he used it.

 

[sledger]

If he was falsely accused of racism, I say good on him for not shaking his hand

The charge of racism is perhaps the most potent you can level against a person, outside the criminal sphere

What do you mean outside the criminal sphere?

 

[Furball]

What do you mean outside the criminal sphere?

Australia iirc.

 

[sledger]

Interesting. Assumed that given the similarities in the legal systems between the UK and Aus it would also have been a criminal offence over there.

 

[Uppercut]

So are many others including his own manager! I'll say it one last time - I completely understand the hatred towards Suarez, but Evra has made himself look a right prat.

Hmm I still feel like you're missing something. It's just not really cool to emphasise that kind of thing in a case of racial abuse.

Let's imagine that it didn't happen on a football pitch, but on the street, and a white man had shouted some racist abuse at a black man. If I were to say, "well the black man was acting like a bit of a prick too" or "well in his reaction to the abuse he hardly took the high road", that would make me look awful. It might well be true, of course, but that's not the point- criticising the victim's behaviour in a case of racist abuse is extremely tasteless regardless. That's why the criticism for Dalglish has been so universal.

 

[sledger]

Hmm I still feel like you're missing something. It's just not really cool to emphasise that kind of thing in a case of racial abuse.

Let's imagine that it didn't happen on a football pitch, but on the street, and a white man had shouted some racist abuse at a black man. If I were to say, "well the black man was acting like a bit of a prick too" or "well in his reaction to the abuse he hardly took the high road", that would make me look awful. It might well be true, of course, but that's not the point- criticising the victim's behaviour in a case of racist abuse is extremely tasteless regardless. That's why the criticism for Dalglish has been so universal.

I don't think this is particularly true to be honest, one bad deed does not necessarily justify another. If a victim of any offence has behaved poorly I see no reason why they shouldn't be called for it. I'm not really sure what this has to do with the condemnation of Dalglish either, as for what I can see, he hasn't actually made any comments about Evra's behaviour whatsoever, which is probably the only wise thing he's done throughout the whole debacle.

 

[GIMH]

Wouldn't actually appealing against the charge be somewhat more fruitful? Suarez chose not to do this, which must be be seen as a tacit acceptance of his guilt, regardless of his (and his team's) public pronouncements on the subject.

Besides, Suarez has admitted using a racial term towards Evra ("negrito" or "little black man"), the only dispute was about how many times he used it.

Disagree, not appealing was the club's decision not the player's, and any appeal is based on likelihood of success not just whether they believe he was innocent. The ban could have been upped to ten games and as there was new evidence most likely would have. Whatever your opinion, I don't think lack of appeal proves anything.

 

[GIMH]

For some reason I have no edit button but that should say 'as there was no new evidence...'

 

[sledger]

Disagree, not appealing was the club's decision not the player's, and any appeal is based on likelihood of success not just whether they believe he was innocent. The ban could have been upped to ten games and as there was new evidence most likely would have. Whatever your opinion, I don't think lack of appeal proves anything.

The thing is though, that whilst it was the Club's decision, officials from various levels of the Club have been coming out and strongly stating their belief that Suarez is not guilty. This is the sort of thing that you really need to put your money where your mouth is imo, if they truly were as staunchly committed to this as they have lead us all to believe, it seems a nonsense of them to not appeal. Whilst this might not prove anything in itself, it really doesn't make good reading, and further illustrates that their handling of the thing has been incredibly ill-advised.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Disagree, not appealing was the club's decision not the player's, and any appeal is based on likelihood of success not just whether they believe he was innocent. The ban could have been upped to ten games and as there was new evidence most likely would have. Whatever your opinion, I don't think lack of appeal proves anything.

That's putting the cart before the horses tho, surely?

No likelihood of success in an appeal is as good an indicator of guilt as one could wish for, short of DNA evidence. The fact the judge had been so thorough means it's unlikely that there has been a miscarriage.

I doubt he gave an (IIRC) 118 page judgement for the good of his health.

 

[Pothas]

Isn't everyone more interested in Wolves v West Brom anyway?

I swear that there are a disproportionate amount of midlands derbys on at Sunday lunchtime, this one has started fairly brightly to be fair.

 

[Ikki]

There was no appeal because the appeal could not overturn the decision. Just the length of the ban - which I think there was a risk of increasing IIRC.

I read the report. The commission's decisions were a joke. Flimsy hearsay evidence added to concocted non-professional interpretation of poor match video. In a real court Suarez would never have been convicted.

 

[Ikki]

Wouldn't actually appealing against the charge be somewhat more fruitful? Suarez chose not to do this, which must be be seen as a tacit acceptance of his guilt, regardless of his (and his team's) public pronouncements on the subject.

Besides, Suarez has admitted using a racial term towards Evra ("negrito" or "little black man"), the only dispute was about how many times he used it.

Wrong. Suarez admitted saying negro, but in a non-racial, colloquial way. Akin to saying 'mate'. The experts even stated that in the context he described it couldn't be seen as racist.

Evra actually, mistakenly, thought Suarez had called him '******' (n-word KKK would use) and later retracted that.

 

[sledger]

The experts even stated that in the context he described it couldn't be seen as racist.

Hahahaha, what?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Ooh a Suarez denier. This could be fun.

 

[Woodster]

Isn't everyone more interested in Wolves v West Brom anyway?

I swear that there are a disproportionate amount of midlands derbys on at Sunday lunchtime, this one has started fairly brightly to be fair.

Surely you're not trying to discuss football in this thread are you ? It seems a handshake (or not) deserves far more scrutiny! Evra and Suarez don't like each other.

WBA just taken a deserved lead, Wolves have not clicked at all in this game, changes needed Big Mick for the second half. Hennessey kept the score respectable at this point.

 

[BoyBrumby]

There was no appeal because the appeal could not overturn the decision. Just the length of the ban - which I think there was a risk of increasing IIRC.

I read the report. The commission's decisions were a joke. Flimsy hearsay evidence added to concocted non-professional interpretation of poor match video. In a real court Suarez would never have been convicted.

Paul Goulding, a QC and the man who drafted the report would presumably disagree.

&, with all due respect, I've no doubt his legal acumen would knock yours into a corked hat.

Wrong. Suarez admitted saying negro, but in a non-racial, colloquial way. Akin to saying 'mate'. The experts even stated that in the context he described it couldn't be seen as racist.

Evra actually, mistakenly, thought Suarez had called him '******' (n-word KKK would use) and later retracted that.

Crap, frankly.

Even if one accepts "negrito" isn't always used in an overtly racist way, it stretches credulity way past breaking point to attempt to suggest calling an opponent by a racial epithet (which at no point anyone has attempted to suggest it isn't, contrary to your assertion) isn't offensive. He has no history of friendship with Evra which clearly fatally undermines any attempt to suggest he was attempting ingratiation. He was using it to belittle Evra.

If I called an opponent a "little black man", I'd frankly expect a smack in the chops for it.

 

[Ikki]

Hahahaha, what?

The linguistic experts looked at what both players alleged and said if Suarez's testimony is accepted, then in that context he didn't mean it as racist.

 

[sledger]

The linguistic experts looked at what both players alleged and said if Suarez's testimony is accepted, then in that context he didn't mean it as racist.

Yes, but we all know his testimony was not accepted, with good reason by the sounds of things. Besides, I don't know what the FA was working on, but in the criminal law here you don't have to "mean it" to be convicted of said offence.