Judgment of previous character to decide guilt.

............

Or you can ignore it and decide innocence. Now, that would be stupid.

Be honest, would you think like this if it wasn't footie related.

........................

It is footie related, though isn't it. And having played football myself, it isn't difficult to know what Suarez was trying to do. Especially as he pinched him after his 'negro' insult.

And as he had previous (and continued it on after this incident) for bad behavior on the football pitch it isn't hard to come to the right conclusion.

Of course you could have looked ridiculous and got a 'Kenny' shirt.

Well obviously yes, as we’re still in the competition.

Ever team still in the fa cup has a chance of winning it.

Liverpool have zero chance though.

..............

I can only conclude that the dumbass TOOR thought Spurs had been knocked out.

Or you can just rely on available evidence instead, like a regular judicial exercise.

Are you seriously saying evidence of previous character should be used to determine what Suarez said?

Thick.

I still have my Kenny shirt by the way and I love it.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 4 minutes ago
Well obviously yes, as we’re still in the competition.

Ever team still in the fa cup has a chance of winning it.

Liverpool have zero chance though.

..............

I can only conclude that the dumbass TOOR thought Spurs had been knocked out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I'd no idea they went through, there hasn't been about 5000 threads on VAR after the last game.

Still zero chance of winning.

My opinion of course.

Still zero chance of winning.

........................

Not until they are knocked out.

This isn't an opinion, either, it is a fact.

How can still being in the FA cup have any banter value.

Reeks of desperation when a small club has achieved nothing to speak of.

'Still in the FA cup' cup 2018 winners, Cheatingham Bottlingspurs.

Are you seriously saying evidence of previous character should be used to determine what Suarez said?

...............

Look at it this way.

You are known as a bed wetting cretin.

When Mrs Mamba wakes up in the morning and there is a damp spot in the bed, evidence will suggest you weed yourself again.

On a serious note, I'd love Spurs to win Something.

I used to like them more than I do now and I feel sorry for their fans.

I'd probably have stopped following football a decade or two ago if I was a Spudling so they deserve something for hanging in there and feeding on scraps coming from other scraps for about a century.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
Are you seriously saying evidence of previous character should be used to determine what Suarez said?
...............
Look at it this way.

You are known as a bed wetting cretin.

When Mrs Mamba wakes up in the morning and there is a damp spot in the bed, evidence will suggest you weed yourself again.
=======
That's what a kangaroo court would say when the truth is I pleasured her all night, being the superior specimen that I am, with my rock hard 9 incher (as opposed to your shrivelled 90 year old todger that's developed a resistance to Viag®a by now) and she gushed on the bed.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 10 minutes ago
Still zero chance of winning.

........................

Not until they are knocked out.

This isn't an opinion, either, it is a fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine is an opinion. You can have yours as a fact if you like. I really don't mind.

Making a woman come like that is obviously something you have never achieved.

comment by No love - Salah=The Matrix. Everyone else move... (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
On a serious note, I'd love Spurs to win Something.

I used to like them more than I do now and I feel sorry for their fans.

I'd probably have stopped following football a decade or two ago if I was a Spudling so they deserve something for hanging in there and feeding on scraps coming from other scraps for about a century.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah would be nice to see them winning the FA Cup this season. Just can't see it happening. I think Chelsea will win it.

Making a woman come like that is obviously something you have never achieved Viddy.

Also don't talk about my missus or I'll post a photo of yours while she's topless, sitting poolside with super sagging breasts and blowing her bog nose into her own hands.

Yeah would be nice to see them winning the FA Cup this season. Just can't see it happening. I think Chelsea will win it.
=====
Unlucky for Spurs.

One FA cup win is still laughable but at least it's something.

The reality is that a native speaker, in the context provided, would probably not have used either "vos" OR "tú", but only the corresponding verb form.

This is the third time I've explained this today.

comment by No love - Salah=The Matrix. Everyone else moves in slow motion. (U1282)

posted 1 hour, 30 minutes ago

What a thread. 

Anyone considering that panel as a fair quasi-judicial entity is blinded by football.

Nowhere outside of blinkered fandom can such a kangaroo panel be taken seriously.

For instance, I quote from one of the excerpts by a Manc...

"Given that he has spent some considerable time in Europe it is possible that his use of Spanish alters between Uruguayan and European contexts."

Now, for the judge and jury to be coming out with comments like this is madness. In a normal court there'd probably be immediate and forceful recusal.

That sentence is an admission that Suarez is unlikely to use such words unless he alternates between European and Uruguayan contexts when he speaks.

To assume he alternates in the absence of evidence input by witnesses or experts to suggest he does so is the panel introducing damning evidence all on its own accord to force the dots to join. It happens throughout.

In any case, how can an assumption be made to the detriment of the accused person? Any legal mind reading that will laugh their head off.

Are the rules of natural justice, nurtured over millennia, and nurtured out of necessity, now an irrelevance? These principles are there for a reason.

The panel is nothing but assumptions and derivations in a futile process of bias confirmation that ignores all contradictory evidence but highlights and even laughably augments evidence.

And that, ladies and gentlemen is how you end up with Mancs like Elvis and Winston quoting the panel, only the panel, and nothing else, like Benny Hinn and Reinhard Bonke quoting Bible verses in an evangelical crusade in Lagos or Phuket.

Absolute joke and it would be in any other situation except in football.
_________

Did you miss the bit in the report where to experts said that Suarez's interview showed that he used the version that Evra reported. Makes yourong winded post invalid. Thanks for your input though.

comment by No love - Salah=The Matrix. Everyone else moves in slow motion. (U1282)

posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago

"In the interview with Mr Suarez the transcription
indicated to the experts that he uses the "tu" form of the verb, though there are other filmed interviews published on the internet in which he uses the "vos" form of the verb."

So available actual videos indicate he uses vos, which agrees with what Suarez said.

The FA's experts relying on a transcription  decide he uses tu.

The panel then goes on to add that since he's played in Europe, he 'possibly' alternates between the two. And there you have it. It's therefore more likely he used tu as opposed to vos and that likelihood satisfies the burden of proof eliminating all reasonable doubt that he used vos 

The sort of assumption that is made at the local pub when everyone is drunk.

Can this get anymore Kangarooey?
_______

Are you stupid? The transcript of Suarez's interview demonstrates that he uses the verb as Evra described.

comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by No love - Salah=The Matrix. Everyone else moves in slow motion. (U1282)

posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago

"In the interview with Mr Suarez the transcription
indicated to the experts that he uses the "tu" form of the verb, though there are other filmed interviews published on the internet in which he uses the "vos" form of the verb."

So available actual videos indicate he uses vos, which agrees with what Suarez said.

The FA's experts relying on a transcription  decide he uses tu.

The panel then goes on to add that since he's played in Europe, he 'possibly' alternates between the two. And there you have it. It's therefore more likely he used tu as opposed to vos and that likelihood satisfies the burden of proof eliminating all reasonable doubt that he used vos 

The sort of assumption that is made at the local pub when everyone is drunk.

Can this get anymore Kangarooey?
_______

Are you stupid? The transcript of Suarez's interview demonstrates that he uses the verb as Evra described.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by No love - Salah=The Matrix. Everyone else moves in slow motion. (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 4 minutes ago
The only joke was that the little racist nibbler didn't get a longer ban.
========
Not really.

They needed a ban that would be just about acceptable to Suarez too as they didn't want him appealing and having their Kangaroo exercise exposed like a naked mole rat.

When Suarez weighed the value of an appeal against the value of taking it in the chin, they had to make sure the chin won.
..

wow

What started out as the dipshit twins soon went to dipshit triplets once 'der kloppites' (sounds like a gay German kids gang) arrived.

Mamba turns up to make it the dipshit quads.

Liverpool for me.