Haha SO funny seeing others constantly biting to TOORON's bait.
Can't you see he does it cos he wants you to reply, that you're going around and around in the same circle?
If only TOORON could harness his power for something worthwhile.
As it is, as long as you little fishies keep biting, he'll keep dangling his worm in front of you
People say that Evra shouldn't have been charged with using offensive words on a football pitch because it happens all the time.
People speed all the time, how many times have you been driving above the speed limit, and how many times have you been caught? Regardless of how rare a conviction is; if you get caught doing it you should be properly punished, in this case with a 4 game ban.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No. How can something which is not abusive be used to be abusive? It's a question and a descriptive of the colour of Evra's skin, which happens to be black. How is this abusive?
The thing you all can't get into your heads is that Suarez wasn't banned for this, he was banned on the word of Evra.
------------------------------------------
So if I was having an argument with a bloke in the street and sneered at him and called him black, or blackie, you don't think that is abusive? I have to disagree there, and so did the FA.
Also, Suarez was found guilty because the FA decided that his use of the word was done in an abusive manner. A word that he admitted to using of his own free will.
Evra's evidence on the number of times he said the word may have impacted on the seriousness of the punishment. However, he was found guilty because h admitted to saying it.
------------------------------------
If you called him 'blackie' I would consider that as a mild form of racial abuse. Although that is pushing it. If you called him black, I wouldn't and how could I, consider it abuse, nevermind racial abuse.
"Also, Suarez was found guilty because the FA decided that his use of the word was done in an abusive manner. A word that he admitted to using of his own free will."
Wrong. Something you cannot get into your head for whatever reason, maybe you just black(sorry for offense caused) it out is that Suarez wasn't banned for what he admitted to, he was banned on the words Evra said he used, which changed a few times.
"Evra's evidence on the number of times he said the word may have impacted on the seriousness of the punishment. However, he was found guilty because h admitted to saying it."
Again wrong. He wasn't found guilty because he admitted to saying what Evra accused him off. He was found guilty on what Evra accused him of, on the word of Evra.
I think this is the problem here, people don't actually know the outcome of the case and haven't read into it and therefore sound quite ignorant when they attempt to speak about it. Perhaps if everybody could read up on it before giving an opinion, it might turn out, our views are quite similar.
it might turn out, our views are quite similar.
---------------------------------------------
well, no, because pretty much everyone else realises that calling someone 'black' in place of their name, during an argument is offensive. you don't. therefore we are never going to agree.
People try to sound important
Keep painting yourself into a corner fella
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I think this is the problem here, people don't actually know the outcome of the case and haven't read into it and therefore sound quite ignorant when they attempt to speak about it. Perhaps if everybody could read up on it before giving an opinion, it might turn out, our views are quite similar.
-------------------------------------
I have read the whole report mate.
Suarez admitted using the word, although he said it was only once.
Now you seem to have a problem that the FA deemed that he used it in an offensive way. The FA decided that he did use it in an offensive way because they thought Suarez was not trying to calm things down as he initially claimed. They came to this conclusion because of his body language after pinching Evra. At this point in his evidence Suarez contradicted his statement and it was plain to the FA that he was not trying to defuse the situation, but acting as an aggressor. A huge factor in why they thought he was using the word in an abusive way.
The number of times that he used the word (according to Evra) was not key to finding him guilty.
well, no, because pretty much everyone else realises that calling someone 'black' in place of their name, during an argument is offensive. you don't. therefore we are never going to agree.
_________________________________
In that case, so is calling somebody South American but nobody is picking Evra up for that.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I think this is the problem here, people don't actually know the outcome of the case and haven't read into it and therefore sound quite ignorant when they attempt to speak about it. Perhaps if everybody could read up on it before giving an opinion, it might turn out, our views are quite similar.
-------------------------------------
I have read the whole report mate.
Suarez admitted using the word, although he said it was only once.
Now you seem to have a problem that the FA deemed that he used it in an offensive way. The FA decided that he did use it in an offensive way because they thought Suarez was not trying to calm things down as he initially claimed. They came to this conclusion because of his body language after pinching Evra. At this point in his evidence Suarez contradicted his statement and it was plain to the FA that he was not trying to defuse the situation, but acting as an aggressor. A huge factor in why they thought he was using the word in an abusive way.
The number of times that he used the word (according to Evra) was not key to finding him guilty.
-----------------------------------
Again wrong. The FA did not ban Suarez for what he admitted to. The FA banned Suarez for Evra's version of events.
The words, "why, black?" cannot be used in an offensive way. It is a question and a descriptive of the colour of his skin, there is no derogative. This isn't even abuse, nevermind racial abuse.
Suarez was banned on the words of Evra.
If you have already read the report, then you clearly didn't understand it. I suggest reading it again.
comment by VictorGooner™ (U2027)
posted 8 minutes ago
it might turn out, our views are quite similar.
---------------------------------------------
well, no, because pretty much everyone else realises that calling someone 'black' in place of their name, during an argument is offensive. you don't. therefore we are never going to agree.
-------------------------------------------
Well you consider it offensive, I do not. We can agree on that. However, is it racial abuse, if no abuse occurred?
Did you read the link I sent you?
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Again wrong. The FA did not ban Suarez for what he admitted to. The FA banned Suarez for Evra's version of events.
-------------------------------------
They made their verdict on the evidence that was put before them. A point they clearly mention several times in the report. Part of the evidence put before them was Suarez's statement and also his responses to their questioning. Within Suarez's evidence was the admittance that he used the word negro.
The FA said in their conclusion that they made their verdict on the evidence before them. Evra's word comes into that and it was found to be more reliable that Suarez's. However, it wasn't the main evidence, but supportive.
Now if you can find me a part in the report that states that the verdict was on Evra's word, then I would love to see it. However, as I recall it, the report states on several occasions that the verdict is made on all and only the evidence brought before them.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Again wrong. The FA did not ban Suarez for what he admitted to. The FA banned Suarez for Evra's version of events.
-------------------------------------
They made their verdict on the evidence that was put before them. A point they clearly mention several times in the report. Part of the evidence put before them was Suarez's statement and also his responses to their questioning. Within Suarez's evidence was the admittance that he used the word negro.
The FA said in their conclusion that they made their verdict on the evidence before them. Evra's word comes into that and it was found to be more reliable that Suarez's. However, it wasn't the main evidence, but supportive.
Now if you can find me a part in the report that states that the verdict was on Evra's word, then I would love to see it. However, as I recall it, the report states on several occasions that the verdict is made on all and only the evidence brought before them.
---------------------------------------------------
You're wrong. Read the report, throughout the report, it mentions what Evra stated Suarez said and how the language experts said this would be insulting in Spanish language.
It also mentions if Suarez' version of events are correct the language experts believe that this would be inoffensive.
Read the report!
TOORON is King of the fishermen
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
You're wrong. Read the report, throughout the report, it mentions what Evra stated Suarez said and how the language experts said this would be insulting in Spanish language.
It also mentions if Suarez' version of events are correct the language experts believe that this would be inoffensive.
Read the report!
---------------------------------
Of course it mentions what Evra said. They were explaining their verdict and reason for punishment. Evra's word came into that and he was found to be more reliable than Suarez. However, they do not state that Evra's evidence was the only thing used to reach their verdict. Had Suarez not admitted to using the word negro he probably wouldn't have been found guilty, even though his evidence was unreliable. Likewise, had Evra not given evidence that suggested Suarez used the word multiple times the ban might have been less than 8 games.
The correct verdict was reached and I understand the reasoning for it.
comment by Fred Bassett and Anfield Cat vs The World (U3979)
In that case, so is calling somebody South American but nobody is picking Evra up for that.
---------------------------------
Didnt the report state that they found Evra did not use the word South American? In contrast, Suarez admitted to using the word negro.
I wonder if TOORON says
HEEEERRREEEEE FISHY FISHY FISHY
every time he's writing a post?
Are you lot THAT bored that you are willing to play his roundabouts game?
Try getting off at the next exit
I don't know; I've only read the linguistics part of the report, and parts copied and pasted. Honestly I've better things to do with my life than read a 115 page report about something so utterly blown out of proportion.
comment by newWAYNEorder, the smiley god (U1015)
posted 1 minute ago
I wonder if TOORON says
HEEEERRREEEEE FISHY FISHY FISHY
every time he's writing a post?
Are you lot THAT bored that you are willing to play his roundabouts game?
Try getting off at the next exit
------------------------------
For someone that does on about TOOR's need for attention, you sure are doing a lot of commenting on here yourself - looking for a reaction. I know that TOOR does what you are suggesting - I have been first hand witness to it before. But I don't mind proving him wrong. But you arent really being any better than him are you?
comment by Fred Bassett and Anfield Cat vs The World
I don't know; I've only read the linguistics part of the report, and parts copied and pasted. Honestly I've better things to do with my life than read a 115 page report about something so utterly blown out of proportion.
--------------------------------------
How can you know that it has been blown out of proportion if you don't even read the report? Your opinion on the matter is of little value unless you do take the time to read the report.
ah, this is gonna get messy. now now you two, behave.
look, it's good, that a reasonable debate can be had, though i'm at my wits end, with some of the nonsense spouted.
Even people's certain point of view ingrained, surely there comes a part where you say, Agree to disagree, cos all i'm seeing is this going round and round.
Is anyone's original perception changing as a result of this argument.
it doesn't look so to me.....
surely we're into penalties with this....
I've read the parts I've discussed about and listened to what people have to say about parts they have read in the report. I argue the points put against me with logic, not some 115 page legal rubbish of which none of us understand every part. The linguistics part I read, as that is my degree.
I'm not ashamed that unlike you lot, I don't have the time to read a 115 page report just so I can discuss it on a football forum
comment by Fred Bassett and Anfield Cat vs The World (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
I've read the parts I've discussed about and listened to what people have to say about parts they have read in the report. I argue the points put against me with logic, not some 115 page legal rubbish of which none of us understand every part. The linguistics part I read, as that is my degree.
I'm not ashamed that unlike you lot, I don't have the time to read a 115 page report just so I can discuss it on a football forum
------------------------------------
Read it over a few dinner times whilst at my desk. Its no big deal.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by newWAYNEorder, the smiley god (U1015)
posted 1 minute ago
I wonder if TOORON says
HEEEERRREEEEE FISHY FISHY FISHY
every time he's writing a post?
Are you lot THAT bored that you are willing to play his roundabouts game?
Try getting off at the next exit
------------------------------
For someone that does on about TOOR's need for attention, you sure are doing a lot of commenting on here yourself - looking for a reaction. I know that TOOR does what you are suggesting - I have been first hand witness to it before. But I don't mind proving him wrong. But you arent really being any better than him are you?
---------------------------------------------
That's nonsense. I have afforded you the respect of your opinion and have put my points across, I don't expect to be labelled as someone trying to get a rise from people for it. I would hope that you could see that, even if as expected, NWO cannot.
comment by StringerBell (U11749)
posted 14 minutes ago
ah, this is gonna get messy. now now you two, behave.
look, it's good, that a reasonable debate can be had, though i'm at my wits end, with some of the nonsense spouted.
Even people's certain point of view ingrained, surely there comes a part where you say, Agree to disagree, cos all i'm seeing is this going round and round.
Is anyone's original perception changing as a result of this argument.
it doesn't look so to me.....
surely we're into penalties with this....
----------------------------------------------
My opinion on the length of ban has changed as a result of this debate. I now agree that the length of the ban was correct, for the verdict they reached. So I'm sure opinions can be changed as mine have.
Read it over a few dinner times whilst at my desk. Its no big deal.
________________________________
Can't get away with taking lunch breaks at my desk in France, it's "socially unacceptable" and people look down on you for not socialising.
France
comment by Fred Bassett and Anfield Cat vs The World (U3979)
posted 5 minutes ago
Read it over a few dinner times whilst at my desk. Its no big deal.
________________________________
Can't get away with taking lunch breaks at my desk in France, it's "socially unacceptable" and people look down on you for not socialising.
France
---------------------------------------------
Cultural differences Fred!
Sign in if you want to comment
Evra
Page 15 of 16
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
posted on 15/2/12
Haha SO funny seeing others constantly biting to TOORON's bait.
Can't you see he does it cos he wants you to reply, that you're going around and around in the same circle?
If only TOORON could harness his power for something worthwhile.
As it is, as long as you little fishies keep biting, he'll keep dangling his worm in front of you
posted on 15/2/12
People say that Evra shouldn't have been charged with using offensive words on a football pitch because it happens all the time.
People speed all the time, how many times have you been driving above the speed limit, and how many times have you been caught? Regardless of how rare a conviction is; if you get caught doing it you should be properly punished, in this case with a 4 game ban.
posted on 15/2/12
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No. How can something which is not abusive be used to be abusive? It's a question and a descriptive of the colour of Evra's skin, which happens to be black. How is this abusive?
The thing you all can't get into your heads is that Suarez wasn't banned for this, he was banned on the word of Evra.
------------------------------------------
So if I was having an argument with a bloke in the street and sneered at him and called him black, or blackie, you don't think that is abusive? I have to disagree there, and so did the FA.
Also, Suarez was found guilty because the FA decided that his use of the word was done in an abusive manner. A word that he admitted to using of his own free will.
Evra's evidence on the number of times he said the word may have impacted on the seriousness of the punishment. However, he was found guilty because h admitted to saying it.
------------------------------------
If you called him 'blackie' I would consider that as a mild form of racial abuse. Although that is pushing it. If you called him black, I wouldn't and how could I, consider it abuse, nevermind racial abuse.
"Also, Suarez was found guilty because the FA decided that his use of the word was done in an abusive manner. A word that he admitted to using of his own free will."
Wrong. Something you cannot get into your head for whatever reason, maybe you just black(sorry for offense caused) it out is that Suarez wasn't banned for what he admitted to, he was banned on the words Evra said he used, which changed a few times.
"Evra's evidence on the number of times he said the word may have impacted on the seriousness of the punishment. However, he was found guilty because h admitted to saying it."
Again wrong. He wasn't found guilty because he admitted to saying what Evra accused him off. He was found guilty on what Evra accused him of, on the word of Evra.
I think this is the problem here, people don't actually know the outcome of the case and haven't read into it and therefore sound quite ignorant when they attempt to speak about it. Perhaps if everybody could read up on it before giving an opinion, it might turn out, our views are quite similar.
posted on 15/2/12
it might turn out, our views are quite similar.
---------------------------------------------
well, no, because pretty much everyone else realises that calling someone 'black' in place of their name, during an argument is offensive. you don't. therefore we are never going to agree.
posted on 15/2/12
People try to sound important
Keep painting yourself into a corner fella
posted on 15/2/12
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I think this is the problem here, people don't actually know the outcome of the case and haven't read into it and therefore sound quite ignorant when they attempt to speak about it. Perhaps if everybody could read up on it before giving an opinion, it might turn out, our views are quite similar.
-------------------------------------
I have read the whole report mate.
Suarez admitted using the word, although he said it was only once.
Now you seem to have a problem that the FA deemed that he used it in an offensive way. The FA decided that he did use it in an offensive way because they thought Suarez was not trying to calm things down as he initially claimed. They came to this conclusion because of his body language after pinching Evra. At this point in his evidence Suarez contradicted his statement and it was plain to the FA that he was not trying to defuse the situation, but acting as an aggressor. A huge factor in why they thought he was using the word in an abusive way.
The number of times that he used the word (according to Evra) was not key to finding him guilty.
posted on 15/2/12
well, no, because pretty much everyone else realises that calling someone 'black' in place of their name, during an argument is offensive. you don't. therefore we are never going to agree.
_________________________________
In that case, so is calling somebody South American but nobody is picking Evra up for that.
posted on 15/2/12
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I think this is the problem here, people don't actually know the outcome of the case and haven't read into it and therefore sound quite ignorant when they attempt to speak about it. Perhaps if everybody could read up on it before giving an opinion, it might turn out, our views are quite similar.
-------------------------------------
I have read the whole report mate.
Suarez admitted using the word, although he said it was only once.
Now you seem to have a problem that the FA deemed that he used it in an offensive way. The FA decided that he did use it in an offensive way because they thought Suarez was not trying to calm things down as he initially claimed. They came to this conclusion because of his body language after pinching Evra. At this point in his evidence Suarez contradicted his statement and it was plain to the FA that he was not trying to defuse the situation, but acting as an aggressor. A huge factor in why they thought he was using the word in an abusive way.
The number of times that he used the word (according to Evra) was not key to finding him guilty.
-----------------------------------
Again wrong. The FA did not ban Suarez for what he admitted to. The FA banned Suarez for Evra's version of events.
The words, "why, black?" cannot be used in an offensive way. It is a question and a descriptive of the colour of his skin, there is no derogative. This isn't even abuse, nevermind racial abuse.
Suarez was banned on the words of Evra.
If you have already read the report, then you clearly didn't understand it. I suggest reading it again.
posted on 15/2/12
comment by VictorGooner™ (U2027)
posted 8 minutes ago
it might turn out, our views are quite similar.
---------------------------------------------
well, no, because pretty much everyone else realises that calling someone 'black' in place of their name, during an argument is offensive. you don't. therefore we are never going to agree.
-------------------------------------------
Well you consider it offensive, I do not. We can agree on that. However, is it racial abuse, if no abuse occurred?
Did you read the link I sent you?
posted on 15/2/12
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Again wrong. The FA did not ban Suarez for what he admitted to. The FA banned Suarez for Evra's version of events.
-------------------------------------
They made their verdict on the evidence that was put before them. A point they clearly mention several times in the report. Part of the evidence put before them was Suarez's statement and also his responses to their questioning. Within Suarez's evidence was the admittance that he used the word negro.
The FA said in their conclusion that they made their verdict on the evidence before them. Evra's word comes into that and it was found to be more reliable that Suarez's. However, it wasn't the main evidence, but supportive.
Now if you can find me a part in the report that states that the verdict was on Evra's word, then I would love to see it. However, as I recall it, the report states on several occasions that the verdict is made on all and only the evidence brought before them.
posted on 15/2/12
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Again wrong. The FA did not ban Suarez for what he admitted to. The FA banned Suarez for Evra's version of events.
-------------------------------------
They made their verdict on the evidence that was put before them. A point they clearly mention several times in the report. Part of the evidence put before them was Suarez's statement and also his responses to their questioning. Within Suarez's evidence was the admittance that he used the word negro.
The FA said in their conclusion that they made their verdict on the evidence before them. Evra's word comes into that and it was found to be more reliable that Suarez's. However, it wasn't the main evidence, but supportive.
Now if you can find me a part in the report that states that the verdict was on Evra's word, then I would love to see it. However, as I recall it, the report states on several occasions that the verdict is made on all and only the evidence brought before them.
---------------------------------------------------
You're wrong. Read the report, throughout the report, it mentions what Evra stated Suarez said and how the language experts said this would be insulting in Spanish language.
It also mentions if Suarez' version of events are correct the language experts believe that this would be inoffensive.
Read the report!
posted on 15/2/12
TOORON is King of the fishermen
posted on 15/2/12
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
You're wrong. Read the report, throughout the report, it mentions what Evra stated Suarez said and how the language experts said this would be insulting in Spanish language.
It also mentions if Suarez' version of events are correct the language experts believe that this would be inoffensive.
Read the report!
---------------------------------
Of course it mentions what Evra said. They were explaining their verdict and reason for punishment. Evra's word came into that and he was found to be more reliable than Suarez. However, they do not state that Evra's evidence was the only thing used to reach their verdict. Had Suarez not admitted to using the word negro he probably wouldn't have been found guilty, even though his evidence was unreliable. Likewise, had Evra not given evidence that suggested Suarez used the word multiple times the ban might have been less than 8 games.
The correct verdict was reached and I understand the reasoning for it.
posted on 15/2/12
comment by Fred Bassett and Anfield Cat vs The World (U3979)
In that case, so is calling somebody South American but nobody is picking Evra up for that.
---------------------------------
Didnt the report state that they found Evra did not use the word South American? In contrast, Suarez admitted to using the word negro.
posted on 15/2/12
I wonder if TOORON says
HEEEERRREEEEE FISHY FISHY FISHY
every time he's writing a post?
Are you lot THAT bored that you are willing to play his roundabouts game?
Try getting off at the next exit
posted on 15/2/12
I don't know; I've only read the linguistics part of the report, and parts copied and pasted. Honestly I've better things to do with my life than read a 115 page report about something so utterly blown out of proportion.
posted on 15/2/12
comment by newWAYNEorder, the smiley god (U1015)
posted 1 minute ago
I wonder if TOORON says
HEEEERRREEEEE FISHY FISHY FISHY
every time he's writing a post?
Are you lot THAT bored that you are willing to play his roundabouts game?
Try getting off at the next exit
------------------------------
For someone that does on about TOOR's need for attention, you sure are doing a lot of commenting on here yourself - looking for a reaction. I know that TOOR does what you are suggesting - I have been first hand witness to it before. But I don't mind proving him wrong. But you arent really being any better than him are you?
posted on 15/2/12
comment by Fred Bassett and Anfield Cat vs The World
I don't know; I've only read the linguistics part of the report, and parts copied and pasted. Honestly I've better things to do with my life than read a 115 page report about something so utterly blown out of proportion.
--------------------------------------
How can you know that it has been blown out of proportion if you don't even read the report? Your opinion on the matter is of little value unless you do take the time to read the report.
posted on 15/2/12
ah, this is gonna get messy. now now you two, behave.
look, it's good, that a reasonable debate can be had, though i'm at my wits end, with some of the nonsense spouted.
Even people's certain point of view ingrained, surely there comes a part where you say, Agree to disagree, cos all i'm seeing is this going round and round.
Is anyone's original perception changing as a result of this argument.
it doesn't look so to me.....
surely we're into penalties with this....
posted on 15/2/12
I've read the parts I've discussed about and listened to what people have to say about parts they have read in the report. I argue the points put against me with logic, not some 115 page legal rubbish of which none of us understand every part. The linguistics part I read, as that is my degree.
I'm not ashamed that unlike you lot, I don't have the time to read a 115 page report just so I can discuss it on a football forum
posted on 15/2/12
comment by Fred Bassett and Anfield Cat vs The World (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
I've read the parts I've discussed about and listened to what people have to say about parts they have read in the report. I argue the points put against me with logic, not some 115 page legal rubbish of which none of us understand every part. The linguistics part I read, as that is my degree.
I'm not ashamed that unlike you lot, I don't have the time to read a 115 page report just so I can discuss it on a football forum
------------------------------------
Read it over a few dinner times whilst at my desk. Its no big deal.
posted on 15/2/12
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by newWAYNEorder, the smiley god (U1015)
posted 1 minute ago
I wonder if TOORON says
HEEEERRREEEEE FISHY FISHY FISHY
every time he's writing a post?
Are you lot THAT bored that you are willing to play his roundabouts game?
Try getting off at the next exit
------------------------------
For someone that does on about TOOR's need for attention, you sure are doing a lot of commenting on here yourself - looking for a reaction. I know that TOOR does what you are suggesting - I have been first hand witness to it before. But I don't mind proving him wrong. But you arent really being any better than him are you?
---------------------------------------------
That's nonsense. I have afforded you the respect of your opinion and have put my points across, I don't expect to be labelled as someone trying to get a rise from people for it. I would hope that you could see that, even if as expected, NWO cannot.
posted on 15/2/12
comment by StringerBell (U11749)
posted 14 minutes ago
ah, this is gonna get messy. now now you two, behave.
look, it's good, that a reasonable debate can be had, though i'm at my wits end, with some of the nonsense spouted.
Even people's certain point of view ingrained, surely there comes a part where you say, Agree to disagree, cos all i'm seeing is this going round and round.
Is anyone's original perception changing as a result of this argument.
it doesn't look so to me.....
surely we're into penalties with this....
----------------------------------------------
My opinion on the length of ban has changed as a result of this debate. I now agree that the length of the ban was correct, for the verdict they reached. So I'm sure opinions can be changed as mine have.
posted on 15/2/12
Read it over a few dinner times whilst at my desk. Its no big deal.
________________________________
Can't get away with taking lunch breaks at my desk in France, it's "socially unacceptable" and people look down on you for not socialising.
France
posted on 15/2/12
comment by Fred Bassett and Anfield Cat vs The World (U3979)
posted 5 minutes ago
Read it over a few dinner times whilst at my desk. Its no big deal.
________________________________
Can't get away with taking lunch breaks at my desk in France, it's "socially unacceptable" and people look down on you for not socialising.
France
---------------------------------------------
Cultural differences Fred!
Page 15 of 16
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16