Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 48 of 48 FirstFirst ... 38464748
Results 1,411 to 1,428 of 1428

Thread: FA release Suarez evidence reasons

  1. #1411  
    cravenz is offline LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25,058
    Quote Originally Posted by LLS View Post
    cravenz, have a look in my crowdsourcing thread.

    We're still looking at compiling a definitive list of all the errors and inconsistencies.

    Also need advice on best way to publish it all, eg. away from anything associated with Liverpool so our findings don't look partisan.
    Will do. I've dropped the reading though, stopped at page 62 or thereabouts.

    In terms of publishing it, see if there is anyone around who tweets any of the LFC-"bias" journalists and see where they go with it first. After that, if we have a strong case, I reckon just set it up on a blog site or something which just analyses the whole case. Alternatively, drop it off at all the papers front desk like we are on some Hollywood film waiting for it to get picked up for the front page h34r:

    The most important thing is to not solely attack Evra's case. We have to admit the deficiencies seen in our case, but raise more issues on balance on Evra's case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dioltas View Post
    Publish it on the FA.com...I'm sure there's a few reds who could quite easily help you out there.
    I'm sure you were being mildly sarcastic about that...
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #1412  
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    12,733
    Quote Originally Posted by cravenz View Post
    I'm sure you were being mildly sarcastic about that...
    No I was 'probably' just suggesting that 'probably' there are a few reds that could 'probably' get access to the sites administration through 'probably' some means or other....probably.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #1413  
    cravenz is offline LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Dioltas View Post
    No I was 'probably' just suggesting that 'probably' there are a few reds that could 'probably' get access to the sites administration through 'probably' some means or other....probably.
    I 'probably' see what you did there.com
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #1414  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by cravenz View Post
    To be fair, you are right, but it was the only way to get him done in. But it is also the way the CPS would probably go about things as well. To prove that a person is racist would be a tough task. He would have escaped if not for the choice of test. But then again, there is the whole credibility issue and whose story was true hurdle that needed to be tackled first. To prove someone is a racist is evidentially harder than to prove someone used racially offensive language, especially given the broad test they have used under the Rules.
    As you seem to have some legal understanding a couple of questions:

    To be racial abusive does it have to be in the eye's of the person receiving the abuse or as the person speaking the comments understands the words. I ask because nobody disputes that certain words where used but in what context the person speaking it is the defence. (Here even accepting it was said only once rather than more times as per the allegation).

    In Suarez statement he says:
    In my country, 'negro' is a word we use commonly, a word which doesn't show any lack of respect and is even less so a form of racist abuse. Based on this, everything which has been said so far is totally false.

    Thus we accept the word was used, but of course as far as Suarez is concerned it is a term that had no racist context to him. Also Comolli says that Suarez said comments that included the word but again not in the context that would be offensive from Suarez language and culture.

    2 Another but I guess contentious query is... why didn't Suarez and the club just come out with an apology based upon misunderstanding and the term being misconstrued of how the term would be taken differently than what Suarez use of it was meant to be. Then we could have had a better defence surely...
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #1415  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,054
    Quote Originally Posted by redjonn View Post
    As you seem to have some legal understanding a couple of questions:

    To be racial abusive does it have to be in the eye's of the person receiving the abuse or as the person speaking the comments understands the words. I ask because nobody disputes that certain words where used but in what context the person speaking it is the defence. (Here even accepting it was said only once rather than more times as per the allegation).

    In Suarez statement he says:
    In my country, 'negro' is a word we use commonly, a word which doesn't show any lack of respect and is even less so a form of racist abuse. Based on this, everything which has been said so far is totally false.

    Thus we accept the word was used, but of course as far as Suarez is concerned it is a term that had no racist context to him. Also Comolli says that Suarez said comments that included the word but again not in the context that would be offensive from Suarez language and culture.

    2 Another but I guess contentious query is... why didn't Suarez and the club just come out with an apology based upon misunderstanding and the term being misconstrued of how the term would be taken differently than what Suarez use of it was meant to be. Then we could have had a better defence surely...
    I can answer this bit ...
    Because Evra reported to Marriner that Luis had called him 'n****r' 5 times. Suarez admits to only saying 'negro' once, and not used in a pejorative way in his language. I am quite sure that even if Luis had offered an apology and explained the misunderstanding, Evra would not have accepted it anyway.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #1416  
    graham-47 is offline Never fought alone
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,959
    My god I must have fell asleep and woke up in a alternative universe.
    skysports news gave us a fair news report about the Louis's case and what
    what KK said last night and about the players wearing the shirts at Wigan showing there support for Louis,
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #1417  
    cravenz is offline LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25,058
    Quote Originally Posted by redjonn View Post
    As you seem to have some legal understanding a couple of questions:

    To be racial abusive does it have to be in the eye's of the person receiving the abuse or as the person speaking the comments understands the words. I ask because nobody disputes that certain words where used but in what context the person speaking it is the defence. (Here even accepting it was said only once rather than more times as per the allegation).

    In Suarez statement he says:
    In my country, 'negro' is a word we use commonly, a word which doesn't show any lack of respect and is even less so a form of racist abuse. Based on this, everything which has been said so far is totally false.

    Thus we accept the word was used, but of course as far as Suarez is concerned it is a term that had no racist context to him. Also Comolli says that Suarez said comments that included the word but again not in the context that would be offensive from Suarez language and culture.
    I would be under the assumption that it would be similar to what was mentioned about the Public Order Act in the UK cited in the Panel's report i.e. it is the intent of the person speaking or acting it out.

    66. However, it is notable that the requirement of subjective intention is introduced to this offence in express terms by section 6(4) of the same Act, which provides:

    "A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if he intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening,abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting or (as the case may be) he intends his behaviour to be or is aware that it may be disorderly."
    I'm not based in the UK so I'm not even sure what the UK utilises to legislate against racism.

    Scratch that, I just had a look at the Public Order Act itself and I have to admit that I'm a tad shocked. Why the Panel chose the above section when the Public Order Act has a section dealing with racial hatred is bordering on baffling.

    Here is what it says under Section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986 (UK):

    Use of words or behaviour or display of written material.(1)A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
    (a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
    (b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby
    .
    On that note, it would be my opinion that these two sections should have been read together. I have no doubt now that they have utilised a legislative interpretation to suit their own agenda. Even then, the way they explained themselves to not utilise subjective intention on the part of the defendant was weak.

    Even if the issue falls under (b), though it would seem to enlarge the ambit of catching offensive racial behaviour, I don't think that is as easy to make out as we would think. I can't be certain unless I have a look at cases involving the particular section.

    Also, because an offence under this particular section may result in imprisonment, this will trigger a higher standard and burden of proof i.e. beyond reasonable doubt i.e. I can't see Suarez being charged under this. I really don't know if or why we didn't contest this.

    2 Another but I guess contentious query is... why didn't Suarez and the club just come out with an apology based upon misunderstanding and the term being misconstrued of how the term would be taken differently than what Suarez use of it was meant to be. Then we could have had a better defence surely...
    I think it is hard for Suarez because he felt that his words were being twisted and maybe felt he didn't need to apologise for something he didn't do. It may be that Evra wanted to carry on and didn't want to work things out i.e. he wanted to proceed with the charge and wouldn't agree to an apology based on a misunderstanding. We've done everything to put our case forward as a "misunderstanding" but Evra seems to want to have none of that. I can only speculate as I have no answer to this. Only the people concerned will be aware of this unfortunately.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #1418  
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,539
    Quote Originally Posted by graham-47 View Post
    My god I must have fell asleep and woke up in a alternative universe.
    skysports news gave us a fair news report about the Louis's case and what
    what KK said last night and about the players wearing the shirts at Wigan showing there support for Louis,
    Why do you fail to spell his name correctly every single time?! It's LUIS!

    L-U-I-S
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #1419  
    graham-47 is offline Never fought alone
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,959
    Quote Originally Posted by -Jiggy- View Post
    Why do you fail to spell his name correctly every single time?! It's LUIS!

    L-U-I-S
    sorry luis luis luis luis im old and i forget
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #1420  
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,065
    Quote Originally Posted by cravenz View Post
    I
    Scratch that, I just had a look at the Public Order Act itself and I have to admit that I'm a tad shocked. Why the Panel chose the above section when the Public Order Act has a section dealing with racial hatred is bordering on baffling.
    cravenz - is the racial hatred clause not different, relating to sort of rabble-rousing, Hitlerish comments?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #1421  
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,539
    Quote Originally Posted by graham-47 View Post
    sorry luis luis luis luis im old and i forget
    Write it on your computer screen in large black permanent marker, that way you'll always be able to refer to it.


    Na, don't
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #1422  
    cravenz is offline LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Attack View Post
    cravenz - is the racial hatred clause not different, relating to sort of rabble-rousing, Hitlerish comments?
    The definition for "racial hatred" under Section 17 is:

    Meaning of “racial hatred”.In this Part “racial hatred” means hatred against a group of persons . . . defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
    I'm not sure if it has to be stated to a "group of persons" or targeted to include a person that would fall under a "group of persons". I'll need to look at the Parliamentary brief, but I don't have access to that I think. Correct me if I'm wrong by the way. Again, I don't study UK law directly, so I'm not sure how it is "interpreted" legislatively.

    Even if it does mean only direction towards a group of persons, the section should still not be ignored because it is more closely connected due to "racism" issues.

    But yes, to be fair, "hatred" seems to carry a more serious allegation.
    Last edited by cravenz; 4-1-12 at 15:56.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #1423  
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,065
    Quote Originally Posted by cravenz View Post

    Even if it does mean only direction towards a group of persons, the section should still not be ignored because it is more closely connected due to "racism" issues.
    Yes, good point, and anyway you'd think Suarez was Hitler the way he's been portrayed :dry:
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #1424  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,739
    Quote Originally Posted by graham-47 View Post
    My god I must have fell asleep and woke up in a alternative universe.
    skysports news gave us a fair news report about the Louis's case and what
    what KK said last night and about the players wearing the shirts at Wigan showing there support for Louis,
    Where? :huh:
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #1425  
    cravenz is offline LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Attack View Post
    Yes, good point, and anyway you'd think Suarez was Hitler the way he's been portrayed :dry:
    Alternatively, they could have looked to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 under which Terry is being charged. :dry:
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #1426  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by cravenz View Post
    I would be under the assumption that it would be similar to what was mentioned about the Public Order Act in the UK cited in the Panel's report i.e. it is the intent of the person speaking or acting it out.



    I'm not based in the UK so I'm not even sure what the UK utilises to legislate against racism.

    Scratch that, I just had a look at the Public Order Act itself and I have to admit that I'm a tad shocked. Why the Panel chose the above section when the Public Order Act has a section dealing with racial hatred is bordering on baffling.

    Here is what it says under Section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986 (UK):



    On that note, it would be my opinion that these two sections should have been read together. I have no doubt now that they have utilised a legislative interpretation to suit their own agenda. Even then, the way they explained themselves to not utilise subjective intention on the part of the defendant was weak.

    Even if the issue falls under (b), though it would seem to enlarge the ambit of catching offensive racial behaviour, I don't think that is as easy to make out as we would think. I can't be certain unless I have a look at cases involving the particular section.

    Also, because an offence under this particular section may result in imprisonment, this will trigger a higher standard and burden of proof i.e. beyond reasonable doubt i.e. I can't see Suarez being charged under this. I really don't know if or why we didn't contest this.



    I think it is hard for Suarez because he felt that his words were being twisted and maybe felt he didn't need to apologise for something he didn't do. It may be that Evra wanted to carry on and didn't want to work things out i.e. he wanted to proceed with the charge and wouldn't agree to an apology based on a misunderstanding. We've done everything to put our case forward as a "misunderstanding" but Evra seems to want to have none of that. I can only speculate as I have no answer to this. Only the people concerned will be aware of this unfortunately.
    Thanks for your response but just to follow on to your comments.
    1. The intent of the person speaking... would seem to be how it should be considered therefore:

    I guess the inference from the panel is that the conversation was not a friendly one and thus they found it difficult to accept the usage as defended in such, to them, an obvious contentious conversation in which each are trading negative comments, body language and even insults.

    The context of the conversion being the key aspect as to whether the usage is as intended or to be abusive. Hence the defendant may only be using that defence as a subsequent convenience.

    Now I am not saying that is the case as I have no clue but it has to be considered if trying to disprove .

    2. The apology.

    But most public persons and many have done (in other misunderstood contentious circumstances) would offer an apology if somebody misconstrued their comments. Particular in such a public situation as this. I just think an apology would have helped given the clubs and players reasonable defence of a misunderstanding of language and culture it seems to me. To-date neither the club or Suarez have tended any type of public apology which is something that the media and non Liverpool fans seem to think would have been appropriate for the misunderstanding and hence would have helped with the wider public perception.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #1427  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,434
    Has this article been posted?

    just seen it linked on twitter and probably one of the best articles to date.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #1428  
    cravenz is offline LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25,058
    Quote Originally Posted by redjonn View Post
    Thanks for your response but just to follow on to your comments.
    1. The intent of the person speaking... would seem to be how it should be considered therefore:

    I guess the inference from the panel is that the conversation was not a friendly one and thus they found it difficult to accept the usage as defended in such, to them, an obvious contentious conversation in which each are trading negative comments, body language and even insults.

    The context of the conversion being the key aspect as to whether the usage is as intended or to be abusive. Hence the defendant may only be using that defence as a subsequent convenience.

    Now I am not saying that is the case as I have no clue but it has to be considered if trying to disprove .

    2. The apology.

    But most public persons and many have done (in other misunderstood contentious circumstances) would offer an apology if somebody misconstrued their comments. Particular in such a public situation as this. I just think an apology would have helped given the clubs and players reasonable defence of a misunderstanding of language and culture it seems to me. To-date neither the club or Suarez have tended any type of public apology which is something that the media and non Liverpool fans seem to think would have been appropriate for the misunderstanding and hence would have helped with the wider public perception.
    Sorry mate, I only just saw this post since the thread got bumped today. Apologies.

    Yes, you would probably be right in thinking that the Panel found it unlikely for the words in question to have been mutterred.

    Regarding the apology, suffice to say, I'm in agreement with that as well, but only where we qualify our apology. I think the main thing is that Suarez and by extension this probably includes the club, felt that Evra was lying about the whole affair and therefore felt an apology would have swung things further in his favour somehow. That or Suarez felt he said it once, but was being accused of something he felt he didn't do, so felt it difficult to apologise to.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •