Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Parkdrive Wrote:

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

> red devil Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > *sits on hands...*

>

>

> Say what you need to say, both are quotes from the

> same "little boy", and the Defoe bite went off

> with out much of a fuss. I don't advocate such

> behaviour by either player, just stinks of

> inconsistency.


Perhaps because suarez has plenty of previous and for defoe it was an unsightly blot on an otherwise spotless copybook


Either way- the overeaction is laughable.


It was petulant and a little pathetic from suarez; a reaction born out of frustration and certainly no worse than a two footed, studs showing lunge on another players shin (potentially career ending).

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> Nah! It's just that Van Pussy and Defoe play for

> the two clubs PD hates the most.



Not all Defoe got away with it all more or less, and Van Pussy is a c**t. 10 matches for a bite and yet Ben Thatcher got 8 for his assault on Mendes, Aguero gets off scot free as did McManaman on Haidara. That isn't just or fair.

Otta Wrote:

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

> 10 matches is a fecking joke! Yes he was a moron,

> and yes he deserves a ban, but I hope Liverpool

> appeal this, how can he get a bigger ban for this

> than they gave for the racism charge?!?


That's the FA for you, haven't got a scooby.

I've been doing some swatting and Defoe was booked and because of FIFA's stance on retrospective action the FA couldn't do anything. Defoe had just been fouled 3 times by the same player.


I think Suarez's punishment is harsh though given what some people have got 3 game bans for. I think if you break a players leg for example you shouldn't be allowed play again until that player has recovered. That might get rid of the really bad so called tackles.

Are we in a court?


In any normal workplace your previous warnings and misdemeanours would be taken into account


Minimum ban for biting in rugby is 12 weeks. More of this please.


Problem is they will give a smaller suspension for a worse misdemeanour fairly soon to undermine any good work

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I don't think a single specific URL is easily doable.  When you enter a search the system presents the result without any of one's search parameters added to the URL.  So I suggest you go to https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=advanced where you just need to enter the address -- use SE22 8EW -- and the  Date Received start date.  I used 1/1/2025.  The three Tesco applications, all minor things, were all made in May.  The Simple search that I'd done previously had no time limit, and didn't include anything else that might have been from Tesco in the last two years. Incidentally, when I searched on the address 29-35 Lordship Lane it did not pick up the Tesco applications, which were held as 29 - 35 Lordship Lane Grrr!  
    • BBC News - Chancellor admits breaking housing rules by renting out home https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd04d0yxnrvo   One wonders if Southwark will go after her....;-)
    • Used Milk and More for years with satisfaction and very few blips.
    • Do you have a link to this, Monica? I just googled and I can't find anything on the Southwark  planning register, but I'm probably looking in the wrong place.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...