Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

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'

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!

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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

    • OOOOooooOOOooohhhHHHHHH 👜 👜 👜 
    • That's actually why the Sherlock Holmes stories were so popular. There was so little crime people found it exciting to imagine robberies and murders happening in London.
    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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