King Kenny.........................................The difference is that if Terry is found guilty then the most likely outcome will a much longer ban because he was charged with racially aggravated abuse, which is actually more serious than Suarez's offence(s)
King Kenny - the Messiah Returns
I am sure that they will hope that the courts find him not guilty.
==========================
Only if he gets a jury like Gerrards
different scenarios to me in the sense of one is in court where you need evidence to find a guilty verdict the other it appears you do not..
I think personally if this was in court for the Suarez incident they couldn't confirm one way or the other and would have found not guilty verdict, as to my knowledge they cant turn round and say We believe one persons view of the events to another, they surely would have to be sure.
Terrys situation is different i think(sure all the lawyers we have on here at the moment can tell me i am wrong) but they would apply that logic to his case and without conclusive evidence will have to find him not guilty, although i don't know the evidence they had in the first place for them to charge him.
Don't think it is a case of they have set it up so they can find him not guilty, one is dealt with in court the other by a panel, of who i don't know.
Jenners - "I think personally if this was in court for the Suarez incident they couldn't confirm one way or the other and would have found not guilty verdict"
A strange comment indeed considering Suarez ADMITTED IT
but then surely interpretation comes into it not what he said, but the way Evra claims it was intended.
Can you confirm for me what he said was intended in the way he meant it, or what Evra claims is the interpretation?
That to me boils down to one persons version of the events against another, so why would he be found guilty if this case was dealt with in court?
Can't some of you Liverpools fans just accept Suarez has admiitted to saying he used the N word, and just leave it alone.
The main difference in the two cases is that Evra & United reported the offence to the Referee, whereas as Ferdinand & QPR reported the incident to the police.
The police investigated and took contemparaneous witness statements before passing the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
The CPS ONLY ever prosecute if the matter is in the public interest, and if the believe they have more than a good chance of getting a conviction.
The evidence gathered will have been substantial enough for the CPS to warrant a prosecution. It is my understanding that enhanced video evidence examined extensively by expert lip readers has been used and may form the basis for the CPS seeking a conviction.
The maximum penalty Terry could face if convicted is a £2500 fine (peanuts to him obviously) but the real damage will be to his reputation (such as it is) going forward and any further penalty by the FA.
geniusgreaves
The main difference in the two cases is that Evra & United reported the offence to the Referee, whereas as Ferdinand & QPR reported the incident to the police.
===============
a member of the public reported it to the police.
RED666, many of us have accepted it. We want to move on. JimmyTheRed
JimmyTheRed
Fair do's mate
But I guess its going to take time for the others to see sense
RED........................Thanks
anyway you put it, Terry's case was much much worse.
he should get at least a full season if Suarez gets 8 games
so why would he be found guilty if this case was dealt with in court?
----------------------------
He may be found guilty for the same reason he was found guilty by the panel, Suarez's evidence was "unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance" they also said how it was inconsistent to timings of events, they could tell this using video footage.
Although after saying all that it wont go to court. But if what the report says is true then he should
Red666,
We know what Suarez said, no dispute there.What we are disputing is the context in which the remark was said.
If its true and Evre started this with a remark to Suarez about his sister then he can hardly blame Suarez for how he reacted.
Open season as far as I am concerned or do you think 1 derogatory remark is ok while the response to it is not?
according to the report though Evra asked suarez why he had been kicked to which suarez replied with "because you are black" so the context to that was?
3/9BigrespectSirBob
Evra admitted saying something, and when the FA asked Suarez about it Suarez said he didn't hear any remarks made by Evra, so go figure that one.
>>Suarez has admiitted to saying he used the N word
He's never admitted to using the N word you cheeky one
Red,Sir Digby,
I will when you answer the question I asked!
comment by RED666 (U6562)
Why would people accept he has said the "n-word" when he hasn't? He said 'negro'. This word isn't racist in English and certainly isn't racist in the language he was speaking. I'm sure you can understand that because of this, it is difficult to accept.
Red666,Sir Digby,
Am still waiting on the answer to my question,is 1 derotatory remark ok,but the response not?
There'sOnlyOneReds
hello again fella, I thought you would pop up, look I know what your saying but as we have both shown on here defenitions from different dic's one says it can be an insult and the other says its not, so it can be offensive
3/9BigrespectSirBob (U9041)
posted 51 seconds ago
Red666,Sir Digby,
Am still waiting on the answer to my question,is 1 derotatory remark ok,but the response not?
============================
How can it be demeed as a derogatory remark when Suarez never HEARD it
comment by RED666 (U6562)
posted 3 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds
hello again fella, I thought you would pop up, look I know what your saying but as we have both shown on here defenitions from different dic's one says it can be an insult and the other says its not, so it can be offensive
--------------------------------------------
Regardless, he was speaking in Spanish. So the words he has admitted to saying, when translated are, "why, black?". That is not racist. Suarez has been banned on Evra's word alone with no evidence, as you can't be banned for saying what he's admitted to.
If indeed Suarez did say the things Evra claimed then throw the book at him. However, with no evidence and only the words of a proven liar whose previous encounter with the FA left them deeming his evidence "exagerrated and unreliable" it is somewhat difficult to accept, contrary to your words which make it sound like a simple situation of fact and acceptance.
No it's not. No ones saying it is, but if suarez didn't report it what exactly can they do?
Also seeing as the report found he used the words "Negro" and "negros" in an offensive way seven times. They used Linguistic experts for a reason, liverpool have no leg to stand on over this anymore. Your club has been made to just look stupid with the way it's handeled it, that t-shirt stunt was pathetic. You need to accept suarez made a mistake, he made several racist remarks and he should be punished.
comment by RED666 (U6562)
posted 6 minutes ago
3/9BigrespectSirBob (U9041)
posted 51 seconds ago
Red666,Sir Digby,
Am still waiting on the answer to my question,is 1 derotatory remark ok,but the response not?
============================
How can it be demeed as a derogatory remark when Suarez never HEARD it
-------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter whether he heard it or not. Evra has admitted to saying it, which is the evidence they have went on for this case, so what would it matter if Suarez said he heard it, when they clearly have taken one man's word over another?
Sign in if you want to comment
suarez and terry and the fa
Page 1 of 4
posted on 2/1/12
King Kenny.........................................The difference is that if Terry is found guilty then the most likely outcome will a much longer ban because he was charged with racially aggravated abuse, which is actually more serious than Suarez's offence(s)
posted on 2/1/12
King Kenny - the Messiah Returns
I am sure that they will hope that the courts find him not guilty.
==========================
Only if he gets a jury like Gerrards
posted on 2/1/12
different scenarios to me in the sense of one is in court where you need evidence to find a guilty verdict the other it appears you do not..
I think personally if this was in court for the Suarez incident they couldn't confirm one way or the other and would have found not guilty verdict, as to my knowledge they cant turn round and say We believe one persons view of the events to another, they surely would have to be sure.
Terrys situation is different i think(sure all the lawyers we have on here at the moment can tell me i am wrong) but they would apply that logic to his case and without conclusive evidence will have to find him not guilty, although i don't know the evidence they had in the first place for them to charge him.
Don't think it is a case of they have set it up so they can find him not guilty, one is dealt with in court the other by a panel, of who i don't know.
posted on 2/1/12
Jenners - "I think personally if this was in court for the Suarez incident they couldn't confirm one way or the other and would have found not guilty verdict"
A strange comment indeed considering Suarez ADMITTED IT
posted on 2/1/12
but then surely interpretation comes into it not what he said, but the way Evra claims it was intended.
Can you confirm for me what he said was intended in the way he meant it, or what Evra claims is the interpretation?
That to me boils down to one persons version of the events against another, so why would he be found guilty if this case was dealt with in court?
posted on 2/1/12
Can't some of you Liverpools fans just accept Suarez has admiitted to saying he used the N word, and just leave it alone.
posted on 2/1/12
The main difference in the two cases is that Evra & United reported the offence to the Referee, whereas as Ferdinand & QPR reported the incident to the police.
The police investigated and took contemparaneous witness statements before passing the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
The CPS ONLY ever prosecute if the matter is in the public interest, and if the believe they have more than a good chance of getting a conviction.
The evidence gathered will have been substantial enough for the CPS to warrant a prosecution. It is my understanding that enhanced video evidence examined extensively by expert lip readers has been used and may form the basis for the CPS seeking a conviction.
The maximum penalty Terry could face if convicted is a £2500 fine (peanuts to him obviously) but the real damage will be to his reputation (such as it is) going forward and any further penalty by the FA.
posted on 2/1/12
geniusgreaves
The main difference in the two cases is that Evra & United reported the offence to the Referee, whereas as Ferdinand & QPR reported the incident to the police.
===============
a member of the public reported it to the police.
posted on 2/1/12
RED666, many of us have accepted it. We want to move on. JimmyTheRed
posted on 2/1/12
JimmyTheRed
Fair do's mate
But I guess its going to take time for the others to see sense
posted on 2/1/12
RED........................Thanks
posted on 2/1/12
anyway you put it, Terry's case was much much worse.
he should get at least a full season if Suarez gets 8 games
posted on 2/1/12
so why would he be found guilty if this case was dealt with in court?
----------------------------
He may be found guilty for the same reason he was found guilty by the panel, Suarez's evidence was "unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance" they also said how it was inconsistent to timings of events, they could tell this using video footage.
Although after saying all that it wont go to court. But if what the report says is true then he should
posted on 2/1/12
Red666,
We know what Suarez said, no dispute there.What we are disputing is the context in which the remark was said.
If its true and Evre started this with a remark to Suarez about his sister then he can hardly blame Suarez for how he reacted.
Open season as far as I am concerned or do you think 1 derogatory remark is ok while the response to it is not?
posted on 2/1/12
according to the report though Evra asked suarez why he had been kicked to which suarez replied with "because you are black" so the context to that was?
posted on 2/1/12
3/9BigrespectSirBob
Evra admitted saying something, and when the FA asked Suarez about it Suarez said he didn't hear any remarks made by Evra, so go figure that one.
posted on 2/1/12
>>Suarez has admiitted to saying he used the N word
He's never admitted to using the N word you cheeky one
posted on 2/1/12
Red,Sir Digby,
I will when you answer the question I asked!
posted on 2/1/12
comment by RED666 (U6562)
Why would people accept he has said the "n-word" when he hasn't? He said 'negro'. This word isn't racist in English and certainly isn't racist in the language he was speaking. I'm sure you can understand that because of this, it is difficult to accept.
posted on 2/1/12
Red666,Sir Digby,
Am still waiting on the answer to my question,is 1 derotatory remark ok,but the response not?
posted on 2/1/12
There'sOnlyOneReds
hello again fella, I thought you would pop up, look I know what your saying but as we have both shown on here defenitions from different dic's one says it can be an insult and the other says its not, so it can be offensive
posted on 2/1/12
3/9BigrespectSirBob (U9041)
posted 51 seconds ago
Red666,Sir Digby,
Am still waiting on the answer to my question,is 1 derotatory remark ok,but the response not?
============================
How can it be demeed as a derogatory remark when Suarez never HEARD it
posted on 2/1/12
comment by RED666 (U6562)
posted 3 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds
hello again fella, I thought you would pop up, look I know what your saying but as we have both shown on here defenitions from different dic's one says it can be an insult and the other says its not, so it can be offensive
--------------------------------------------
Regardless, he was speaking in Spanish. So the words he has admitted to saying, when translated are, "why, black?". That is not racist. Suarez has been banned on Evra's word alone with no evidence, as you can't be banned for saying what he's admitted to.
If indeed Suarez did say the things Evra claimed then throw the book at him. However, with no evidence and only the words of a proven liar whose previous encounter with the FA left them deeming his evidence "exagerrated and unreliable" it is somewhat difficult to accept, contrary to your words which make it sound like a simple situation of fact and acceptance.
posted on 2/1/12
No it's not. No ones saying it is, but if suarez didn't report it what exactly can they do?
Also seeing as the report found he used the words "Negro" and "negros" in an offensive way seven times. They used Linguistic experts for a reason, liverpool have no leg to stand on over this anymore. Your club has been made to just look stupid with the way it's handeled it, that t-shirt stunt was pathetic. You need to accept suarez made a mistake, he made several racist remarks and he should be punished.
posted on 2/1/12
comment by RED666 (U6562)
posted 6 minutes ago
3/9BigrespectSirBob (U9041)
posted 51 seconds ago
Red666,Sir Digby,
Am still waiting on the answer to my question,is 1 derotatory remark ok,but the response not?
============================
How can it be demeed as a derogatory remark when Suarez never HEARD it
-------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter whether he heard it or not. Evra has admitted to saying it, which is the evidence they have went on for this case, so what would it matter if Suarez said he heard it, when they clearly have taken one man's word over another?
Page 1 of 4