Suarez gets 8 match ban

[goldenecitrone]

From an article by Michael Rosen, nicked from Abbottgate thread.

Meanwhile, at a seemingly much, much more trivial level is the Suarez-Evra fracas. Anyone who has been around sport knows that the air is permanently thick with insult and abuse. A good deal of it is sexual either in terms of what the other person can or cannot do, has or has not physically got, or what might or might not happen or has happened to your opponents partner, wife, girlfriend, ex, mother, sister, grandmother. A good deal of it is about personal appearance - height, weight, hair, teeth, eyes and so on. The question in this case wasn't whether Suarez said something derogatory but whether he 'racialised' the conversation. Again and again, people have tried to say that whatever Suarez said was only or merely something that people say to each other in Uruguay, in Latin America, in colloquial Spanish etc etc. Well, let's remember first that Uruguay was once a slave-owning society and the idea that any word meaning 'black' is somehow neutral or 'only' or 'just' anything is hard to believe. I notice that there haven't been long lines of black Uruguayans queueing up to tell British interviewers how they love being called 'black' by white people when tensions are high in arguments and confrontations.

Even so, no matter what kind of codes Suarez was using at the time, there can be little doubt that he changed the nature of the 'conversation' (euphemism, I know) by introducing 'race' into it. And this is the key. Why does a white person do that? What possible purpose is there for a white person in the middle of a confrontation (for whatever reason) suddenly say that the other person is 'black'. It can only be part of the business of trying to get the upper hand. In other words, the white person reaches for the hierarchy he is part of, (the racist hierarchy,) and pluck the trump card from the pack: the one that says 'inferior' (in his book). It is completely irrelevant that black people use this or that term to each other or within the hierarchies of racism use the word 'white'. Racialising the confrontation is to get the upper hand by relying on perceived notions of who is top dog, based on centuries of domination and oppression. The thousands of column inches I've seen written on this case all trying to prove that 'negro' isn't a slur completely miss the point.

Very well put.

 

[Fedayn]

From an article by Michael Rosen, nicked from Abbottgate thread.

Meanwhile, at a seemingly much, much more trivial level is the Suarez-Evra fracas. Anyone who has been around sport knows that the air is permanently thick with insult and abuse. A good deal of it is sexual either in terms of what the other person can or cannot do, has or has not physically got, or what might or might not happen or has happened to your opponents partner, wife, girlfriend, ex, mother, sister, grandmother. A good deal of it is about personal appearance - height, weight, hair, teeth, eyes and so on. The question in this case wasn't whether Suarez said something derogatory but whether he 'racialised' the conversation. Again and again, people have tried to say that whatever Suarez said was only or merely something that people say to each other in Uruguay, in Latin America, in colloquial Spanish etc etc. Well, let's remember first that Uruguay was once a slave-owning society and the idea that any word meaning 'black' is somehow neutral or 'only' or 'just' anything is hard to believe. I notice that there haven't been long lines of black Uruguayans queueing up to tell British interviewers how they love being called 'black' by white people when tensions are high in arguments and confrontations.

Even so, no matter what kind of codes Suarez was using at the time, there can be little doubt that he changed the nature of the 'conversation' (euphemism, I know) by introducing 'race' into it. And this is the key. Why does a white person do that? What possible purpose is there for a white person in the middle of a confrontation (for whatever reason) suddenly say that the other person is 'black'. It can only be part of the business of trying to get the upper hand. In other words, the white person reaches for the hierarchy he is part of, (the racist hierarchy,) and pluck the trump card from the pack: the one that says 'inferior' (in his book). It is completely irrelevant that black people use this or that term to each other or within the hierarchies of racism use the word 'white'. Racialising the confrontation is to get the upper hand by relying on perceived notions of who is top dog, based on centuries of domination and oppression. The thousands of column inches I've seen written on this case all trying to prove that 'negro' isn't a slur completely miss the point.

Very well put.

A piece of writing that surely, you must agree, totally destroys LFC's t-shirt travesty, Suarez defence, Dalglish's idiocy and sleaterkinneys continuing pathetic 'cultural' defence of Suarez?

 

[ChrisFilter]

From an article by Michael Rosen, nicked from Abbottgate thread.

Very well put.

Indeed. And this is what so many people fail to grasp no matter how many times it's explained.

 

[Deareg]

Indeed. And this is what so many people fail to grasp no matter how many times it's explained.

I don't think it is a case of not grasping, rather it is ignoring.

 

[butchersapron]

...and being a bit thick.

 

[goldenecitrone]

A piece of writing that surely, you must agree, totally destroys LFC's t-shirt travesty, Suarez defence, Dalglish's idiocy and sleaterkinneys continuing pathetic 'cultural' defence of Suarez?

Things could have been done differently.

 

[Fedayn]

Things could have been done differently.

To put it mildly and euphemistically yes.

 

[Wilf]

Now that LIverpool look to have got a crack team of PR gimps on the case, we should set up a bingo card of phrases that the next line of retreat statement will include: 'matter of regret', 'all have lessons to learn', 'importance of cultural sensitivity', 'Luis will be appearing in the new series of Mind Your Language ans is available for panto...'.

 

[Fedayn]

Now that LIverpool look to have got a crack team of PR gimps on the case, we should set up a bingo card of phrases that the next line of retreat statement will include: 'matter of regret', 'all have lessons to learn', 'importance of cultural sensitivity', 'Luis will be appearing in the new series of Mind Your Language ans is available for panto...'.

..... and the new Channel 5 series of The Black & White Minstrel Show.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Now that LIverpool look to have got a crack team of PR gimps on the case, we should set up a bingo card of phrases that the next line of retreat statement will include: 'matter of regret', 'all have lessons to learn', 'importance of cultural sensitivity', 'Luis will be appearing in the new series of Mind Your Language ans is available for panto...'.

as Widow Twanky. Right up your alley, I'd have thought.

 

[Wilf]

as Widow Twanky. Right up your alley, I'd have thought.

From Anfield to Funny Girls, it's just a cockstride away

 

[sleaterkinney]

On the FA's disciplinary system, 99.5% of cases brought to tribunal result in a guilty verdict. None were overturned on appeal. It's also worth noting that the FA appoint both the judge and the prosecutor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16430580.stm

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You still banging on about this?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

The lawyer quoted in that does say it's a surprising figure tbf. Seeing as it suggests that they're only taking on the really obvious guilty cases and must be letting some potential ones go.

 

[butchersapron]

On the FA's disciplinary system, 99.5% of cases brought to tribunal result in a guilty verdict. None were overturned on appeal. It's also worth noting that the FA appoint both the judge and the prosecutor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16430580.stm

And what's your reading of this as regards the Suarez case? What are you suggesting? How does this impact on this case?

 

[sleaterkinney]

And what's your reading of this as regards the Suarez case? What are you suggesting? How does this impact on this case?

I would say that a system where the FA appoint both the judge and the prosecutor and which results in a 99.5% conviction rate is flawed, what do you think?

 

[butchersapron]

I would say that a system where the FA appoint both the judge and the prosecutor and which results in a 99.5% conviction rate is flawed, what do you think?

I would say that you're grasping at straws and are unable to come up with a material reason how this effects the suarez case. Or can you?

 

[goldenecitrone]

I would say that a system where the FA appoint both the judge and the prosecutor and which results in a 99.5% conviction rate is flawed, what do you think?

That's pretty impressive. Slightly better than the conviction rate in China.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I would say that you're grasping at straws and are unable to come up with a material reason how this effects the suarez case. Or can you?

I'm pointing out the system is flawed. Do you think it is too, or not?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm pointing out the system is flawed. Do you think it is too, or not?

Problem with this is that they have released as comprehensive a report of their judgement as you might imagine. We have access to every single thing they considered in their judgement. In that sense, the system's flaws are rather irrelevant if you think, as I do, that their consideration of the evidence and judgement were reasonable. Their decision just seems, well, right.

 

[Fedayn]

I'm pointing out the system is flawed. Do you think it is too, or not?

On what basis is it flawed, the issue as to who chooses the judge and 'prosecution' or the guilty rate?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

There isn't a judge - there was a panel of three people who Liverpool could have objected to, but didn't.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It seems to me that they've gone to enormous lengths, and considerable expense, to ensure that the tribunal was as fair and open as possible. Do you disagree, sk? If so, why?

 

[butchersapron]

I'm pointing out the system is flawed. Do you think it is too, or not?

Doesn't sound particularly flawed no. Actually the comparison with judges and prosecutors is specious - there is an independent panel that hears the FA's charge and comes up with a decision after hearing the defense and the FA's case. You've fallen for a rhetorical trick by Gilhooly.

Can you say how this flaw of the system manifested itself in the proceedings against Suarez?

 

[sleaterkinney]

On what basis is it flawed, the issue as to who chooses the judge and 'prosecution' or the guilty rate?

Both, you have the same body choosing both the judging panel and the prosecutor and also the guilty rate which means either they have been ignoring cases as Monkeygrinder said above or the cases that go to trial are not being heard properly.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Both, you have the same body choosing both the judging panel and the prosecutor and also the guilty rate which means either they have been ignoring cases as Monkeygrinder said above or the cases that go to trial are not being heard properly.

Well given that we have access to a comprehensive report on this case, we are in a very good position to judge whether or not it was heard properly.

 

[butchersapron]

Both, you have the same body choosing both the judging panel and the prosecutor and also the guilty rate which means either they have been ignoring cases as Monkeygrinder said above or the cases that go to trial are not being heard properly.

Or there's been a previous winnowing out of cases they feel they might not win. The rate is not that far off the crown court rate and could be explained in this way. Not that any of this effects the material facts of the Suarez case one iota. Unless you can say where and how. Can you?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Both, you have the same body choosing both the judging panel and the prosecutor and also the guilty rate which means either they have been ignoring cases as Monkeygrinder said above or the cases that go to trial are not being heard properly.

I think the whole 'trial' comparison is a dead end tbh. It isn't one, it's a tribunal. OK this one is particularly high profile but most of them are probably very simple - player punches someone else on TV or with whole teams as witnesses and gets a ban, things along those lines. I'm sure they hardly ever run to several days like this one did.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think the whole 'trial' comparison is a dead end tbh. It isn't one, it's a tribunal. OK this one is particularly high profile but most of them are probably very simple - player punches someone else on TV or with whole teams as witnesses and gets a ban, things along those lines. I'm sure they hardly ever run to several days like this one did.

Yeah, that's another example of a reason for the high 'conviction' rate. It's not considering complex cases with dna evidence, alibi-checking, motive and opportunity judgements, etc.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Doesn't sound particularly flawed no. Actually the comparison with judges and prosecutors is specious - there is an independent panel that hears the FA's charge and comes up with a decision after hearing the defense and the FA's case. You've fallen for a rhetorical trick by Gilhooly.

Not really, if it was properly independent it would have no links with the FA, as they are bringing the prosecution. It would not contain FA members and the QC on the panel would not be advised by an FA member during the trial.

Can you say how this flaw of the system manifested itself in the proceedings against Suarez?

No, done Suarez enough