Discussion in 'Football' started by JimmyMac, Dec 21, 2011.
Oh dear here we go again.
Apart from the fact that Suarez admitted it.
Other than that, no proof at all.
Admitted what calling him a negrito ???was also sald he used this expression once,Evra said ten times the FA said 7 iirc.
Great justice system there
Now that calls for a
Can a mod change the title? Somebody accidently put it as being about the Terry case, it should say Suarez.
proof that people completely missed the point of the Suarez case (that was not heard in a court of law)...ie he admitted to saying a spanish word that many translated to something in english that had many different meanings depending on the context it was used, that was the crux of the case....yes he said the word but argued that it didn't mean what many claimed that it translated to.
Anyway this is not a Suarez right or wrong debate, but one could argue that a precedent has been set by the FA if Terry is found guilty - will they stick to a similar punishment, if any?
Bit of a nonsical post there where you after a few thanks for that effort here have one from me
No, what calls for a is your continued defence of your player who admitted using an offensive term that referenced the colour of an opposition player's skin.
Another for Liverpool's wearing of the t-shirts supporting Suarez and the ignorance shown by Dalglish.
Another for Liverpool's time in apologising for the behaviour of the player.
Another for Suarez not shaking Evra's hand when it was offered at the Old Trafford game in the league.
and finally for you wishing to be associated with a racist and standing by his side and defending him like he did nothing wrong.
It is embarrassing to see your posts over and over defending someone who admitted the offence and was found guilty and punished.
Liverpool should have booted him out. End of.
Was innocent end of
"not heard in a court of law" - what total balony. He wasn't facing criminal charges and his punishment reflected that.
And your defence of the spanish word / translated is really lame. Are you saying that he didn't mean it to be an offensive term to Evra? He was saying it to be friendly?
Liverpool supporters all round have let themselves down in the continued defence of Evra ... when, had it been the other way round, they would have been condemning it. Similarly, if it was a youth team player - you would have kicked him out - but no, all morals are bankrupt because it was your best player and you needed him.
well gee thanks for giving me my opinion and what I should be thinking as a Liverpool fan! It must be a long way up on that high horse of yours !! Despite not making any claim about Suarez being right or wrong in my post, you took the time to tell me how I should feel...for that I thank you !
OK, so what's balony about that it wasn't in a court of law? It wasn't !! Because if it was it would've been thrown out for a lack of evidence...everyone knows that !! I suspect the bit in bold was a typo?
Daniel Pacheco youth team player called glen Johnson a negrito on twitter.
It didn't have to be in a court of law for him to be found guilty and face an appropriate punishment - which he didn't appeal.
You really are a sensitive soul.
Well if a kangaroo court is a way to get things done in this country where no evidence is required then fair enough, especially when an appeal would've been a waste of time as one can only appeal the sentence, not the verdict ! Great system that !
Anyway, I reckon Terry has a good chance of being found "not guilty".
he still admitted to it. negrito basically means little black man in a negative tone. he deserves all he got. horrible (but talented) player. at least he didnt try and use his vampire skills
Terry has admitted to saying the words he is accused of as well, but that the context was not aggressive towards Ferdinand. Does that make him guilty?
....also you are wrong on the translation of the spanish word, there are multiple meanings depending on context and the spanish-speaking country it is used in which could be positive or negative.
Just for clarity, did Suarez say it in a positive or negative manner?
Why do you think that
no evidence to suggest either
dunno, just a hunch on what I've been reading on the BBC website about his defence and Ferdinand admitting to not even hearing anything racial that Terry is alleged to have said until he was shown the video. Saw a quote of a tweet from BBC's Dan Roan that Ferdinand's case was collapsing....guess it comes down to how the jury/magistrate interprets the video footage and the intent of Terry's words at the time of admitted provocation from Ferdinand.
....mind you I thought Suarez would be cleared at the time as well, due to lack of real evidence so what do I know
thanks for that, I was unsure myself
You mean apart from the pinching from him and the aggressive behavior of both of them to each other.......... Not exactly the situation you would then expect the xchange of christmas cards
Back OT, in my opinion it does not really matter too much the provocation - in fact that just goes to show there was a hostile exchange between them and even less excuse to use terms like that. It would appear clear that he used the terms, and during a heated exchange between them - difficult for me to see how he won't be found guilty.....
Can't wait for Suarez to go on to better things then we can all agree he was guilty.
I see it as completely the opposite, terry defence was that Ferdinand heard him and shook hands after.
And that it was heat of the moment banter,where as he heard nothing to me it throws Terry defence in tatters,but that's just me.
Big difference is that this is not Ferdinand's case, this is a criminal trial so is actually the crown v Terry. CPS would not bring to court unless a good chance (in their opinion) of conviction, right up to the point of trial (an individual would more likely be inclined to carry on even with a collapsing case)
Not an expert but would struggle to see how provocation could help him here either - if this was a normal assault case or something like that, provocation would come into it (he was calling me names so I hit him), but would seem odd to say he provoked me into racially abusing him......
can you be a little careful please with quoting me, you make it look like I put the laughing smilie at the end of that sentence, which I didn't therefore gives the wrong impression. EDIT - thanks for fixing
anyway I agree with the views here on provocation - there is no grounds to racially abusing anyone based on the excuse of being provoked into it. It just seems that the defence were using this as a means to paint Ferdinand in a lesser light for deliberately trying to wind Terry up to get a reaction.
I see the argument as well that if Terry claims that he used the words as a question, ie "do you think I called you a...." and Ferdinand says he heard nothing then that does knock Terry's case back.
Anton did not hear the comment at the time and he accepted a handshake after the game. He later saw the clip on Youtube.
It was his wife that told him that,again I refer you to my previous post and parksy post. Not about Anton vs Terry. But terry defence is that Anton heard it he accepted heat of the moment slur.
Now Anton says he didn't hear terry say it so to me throws out Terry's defence.
I didn't realise that there were so many Liverpool supporting lawyers on here! Good to know in case I need (blinkered hypocritical) representation sometime.
And a couple of utd ones as well ;-)
Separate names with a comma.