Suarez handed eight-match FA ban - discuss

[Otta]

Turned on Radio 4 this morning half way through a discussion about this, and they pointed out that in a law court, it would need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in this case, it was just based on what the panel deemed as more likely.

[pk]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Turned on Radio 4 this morning half way through a

> discussion about this, and they pointed out that

> in a law court, it would need to be proven beyond

> reasonable doubt, whereas in this case, it was

> just based on what the panel deemed as more

> likely.

they were probably talking about JT not Suarez here - 'beyond reasonable doubt' is for criminal offences, otherwise it's on the 'balance of probabilities'

[Otta]

No, it was definitely Suarez, and yes, "balance of probabilities" is the term they used.

[Loz]

Same as the difference between a civil and a criminal case.

[DaveR]

UDT, the link you posted was to the ACAS code relating to the Employment Act. A public Act of Parliament. Part of the 'law'. Unsurprisingly, the code operates within a legal framework.

Suarez's case was decided under the FA Rules and Regulations; you can find them here:

The FA

These are rules. Of a club. They only apply to you if you join the club. They're not the 'law'.

I put it in short sentences. So it would be easy to read. And maybe understand.

Damn you Undisputedtruth, you're still wrong. And you have an entirely groundless sense of your own superiority.

Merry Xmas!

[Undisputedtruth]

DaveR, I suspect you will spend the rest of your poor existent life trying to prove me wrong with your irrelevant points. :)) I've got far more important things to do like tracking down Worcester sauce favoured Twiglets!

But the fact you failed to understand is that a decision can be challenged in court and as a consequence the QC would have made his decision, given his expertise, based on a legal framework.

Sorry if you think I failed to understand your points. The point is that I consider them irrelevant or low level detail at the best.

Have a good Xmas too, DaveR.

[DJKillaQueen]

The rules of the FA/ club etc normally apply to a code of conduct within which issues of prejudice and racism are referenced, and the club and/or FA can rule on breaches of that code of conduct as they see fit and usually based on a probablity of fact. The law on the other hand has it's own rules and procedures in relation to racism as a crimal offence and it goes without saying, requires a higher burden of proof. So a player for example can find himself in trouble with both his club, the FA and the courts and be punished in different ways by all of them.

I too have listened to various debates on the radio about Suarez and I think what has amazed me are the apologies some commentators have made for him because he is from 'another country and culture'. Negrito is clearly a word that points out the colour of someones skin, however it is translated, and I'm afraid the moment you use that in a context in which colour has no bearing, then you are being racist. Suarez deserves his punishment because there has to be a culture of zero tolerance on this. The same will go for JT if he is found to be guilty.

[Alan Medic]

Does the punishment fit the crime is what I wonder? If he was given say a 4 game ban would LFC have made such a meal of it? I think the FA is right to put their foot down as an example to all those other countries where nothing seems to be done to rid themselves of racism.

Evra's history shows how he has been a victim of racism since he was a kid and signed his first pro contract to play in Sicily. He is probably particularly sensitive to remarks about his skin colour. Suarez might be excused for using terminology that is not considered offensive in his country.

I think the bottom line is in what context Suarez used the word to Evra? If it was to wind him up then it isn't acceptable. The fact that he supposedly admitted to using 'negrito' suggests he had no idea what the consequences might be or possibly the effect it might have had on Evra.

If I went to a middle east country and was caught stealing I'm likely to have my hand chopped off. It may seem harsh but it would stop me from doing it again and others from ever doing it.

[DaveR]

"DaveR, I suspect you will spend the rest of your poor existent life trying to prove me wrong with your irrelevant points. I've got far more important things to do like tracking down Worcester sauce favoured Twiglets!

But the fact you failed to understand is that a decision can be challenged in court and as a consequence the QC would have made his decision, given his expertise, based on a legal framework.

Sorry if you think I failed to understand your points. The point is that I consider them irrelevant or low level detail at the best"

UDT, I understand perfectly well how the FA tribunal decision will have been arrived at, and how it might be challenged in court, but I don't care all that much tbh. The only reason I posted was because of your ridiculous patronising attitude towards Otta and others, in circumstances where it is clear that you have no particular knowledge or insight. But that's obviously not going to change.

[Undisputedtruth]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The only reason I posted

> was because of your ridiculous patronising

> attitude towards Otta and others, in circumstances

> where it is clear that you have no particular

> knowledge or insight. But that's obviously not

> going to change.

Otta has made a number of personal attacks on me so I think it's rather weird that you're supporting his cause. I don't particularly care whether you think I've got no knowledge or insight. Your statement is just a reflection of yourself in not understanding the bigger picture and on a mission to attack me. Also I was the first to mention balance of probabilities. Where was my credit? Oh no, no credit will ever be given to me it seems, but amazingly I've seen an attack based on a mere half a sentence towards me. How ridiculous is that?

Sorry DaveR if you don't agree with my statements but it doesn't mean they're wrong.

[DaveR]

"Also I was the first to mention balance of probabilities. Where was my credit?"

You can have 5 smart guy points. So far your total is.....5.

[Alan Medic]

That wasn't an attack. It was an attempt to show you, you write shite like the rest of us on occasions.

[Undisputedtruth]

A badly executed attempt.