Suarez gets 8 match ban

[sleaterkinney]

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?

What? The crown court rate is 80%.

 

[Deareg]

Any time anyone points out the flaws in his argument he just fucking ignores them or ignores the point that they are making.

He is like a fucking child who is still at the stage of believing that because he can't see you then you can't see him.

 

[butchersapron]

What? The crown court rate is 80%.

Yes i know, hence my comparison. Going to have a go at saying how the flaws in the system manifested themselves in the Suarez case? I think you have to now really.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Yes i know,hence my comparison. Going to have a go at saying how the flaws in the system manifested themselves in the Suarez case. I think you have to really now.

80% vs 99.5%?

Why?. Can I not discuss how the system is flawed?

 

[butchersapron]

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.

No, done Suarez enough

That might be better but it's not really a black mark against this independent panel is it?

No, you have to say now how the flaws you've identified in the system manifested themselves in the Suarez case. Or else you are saying precisely nothing.

 

[agricola]

That might be better but it's not really a black mark against this independent panel is it?

No, you have to say now how the flaws you've identified in the system manifested themselves in the Suarez case. Or else you are saying precisely nothing.

black mark? very droll, butchers.

 

[butchersapron]

80% vs 99.5%?

Why?. Can I not discuss how the system is flawed?

Yes, those are the figures.

You can but if you can't relate it to the Suarez case then you're not only not saying anything but you're undermining your own posts by not being able to point out how the flaws work, how they manifest themselves. If they manifest themselves in proceedings (as they must given your argument) then how and where?

 

[sleaterkinney]

That might be better but it's not really a black mark against this independent panel is it?.

Well, it's not independent for a start.

No, you have to say now how the flaws you've identified in the system manifested themselves in the Suarez case. Or else you are saying precisely nothing.

I'm saying precisely nothing but you concede I might have a point above.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

tbf, 80% is vastly different from 99.5%!

It means that there are 4000 per cent more acquittals.

 

[butchersapron]

black mark? very droll, butchers.

Shhh!

 

[sleaterkinney]

Yes, those are the figures.

So out of every 200 people the Crown brings to trial 40 are found not guilty versus 1 found not guilty for every 200 cases the FA brings. those figures aren't close. Maths not your strong point?

You can

And that's what I'm doing.

 

[butchersapron]

Well, it's not independent for a start.

I'm saying precisely nothing but you concede I might have a point above.

I say that you are saying precisely nothing to show that the system is flawed - flawed enough to impact on the Suarez hearing, which surely it would given the universal nature of these flaws

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So out of every 200 people the Crown brings to trial 40 are found not guilty versus 1 found not guilty for every 200 cases the FA brings. those figures aren't close. Maths not your strong point?

Butchers is right, though. In and of itself, that says precisely nothing about the reliability of the Suarez conviction.

 

[butchersapron]

tbf, 80% is vastly different from 99.5%!

It means that there are 4000 per cent more acquittals.

Not if the FA only hears cases it knows it is almost guaranteed to win. Under the same conditions as Crown Court prosecutions/decisions to prosecute i'm sure the figure would drop to something similar.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not if the FA only hears cases it knows it is almost guaranteed to win. Under the same conditions as Crown Court prosecutions/decisions to prosecute i'm sure the figure would drop to something similar.

Yeah yeah. I don't disagree with that. Just saying that the figures are really different.

I think monkeygrinder nailed it. Player A punches player B. It's caught on camera. Player A is called in and is found guilty. Next...

I would also wager that there is a very very high 'guilty' plea too.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Not if the FA only hears cases it knows it is almost guaranteed to win.

Yeah - because it's appointed the judges and is advising them while the trial is going on - while also bringing the prosecution.

 

[butchersapron]

Yeah yeah. I don't disagree with that. Just saying that the figures are really different.

All a side dish anyway. What we need to know now is how these flaws effected the Suarez hearing.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah - because it's appointed the judges and is advising them while the trial is going on - while also bringing the prosecution.

A bit like the state in criminal cases, then...

This is bollocks, anyway. As has been pointed out, three people were appointed and Liverpool were given the opportunity to object to any of them but chose not to. What more do you expect the FA to do? Where's that leg gone, I need to stand on it...

 

[Deareg]

How often do people end up in the crown court after committing a crime or breach of rules after transgressing in front of numerous high definition cameras? I think if it was as often as footballers do then the guilty ratio would be very similar to the FA's.

 

[Red Storm]

New race row: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...-Oldham-player-Tom-Adeyemi-article849913.html

 

[ChrisFilter]

Poor kid. Fucking scum.

 

[London_Calling]

Fwiw, it makes no sense to use Crown Court conviction rates as a comparison because defendents in many of those trials have had a choice of whether to take their chance with a jury or to be dealt with summarily at the Mags.

Plus it's the criminal law again, and this hearing had nothing to do with the criminal law - but that's been said so often in this thread I don't think the point is ever going to sink in. Ditto the BBC.

 

[SushiMo]

The complete racist that is Suarez.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO3oUlRPfpM&feature=endscreen&NR=1

 

[ChrisFilter]

The complete racist that is Suarez.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO3oUlRPfpM&feature=endscreen&NR=1

You can't be serious?

 

[big eejit]

New race row: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...-Oldham-player-Tom-Adeyemi-article849913.html

"Eyewitnesses saw two fans wearing Luis Suarez t-shirts, and heard one of them clearly shout “You f***ing black b***ard”. Police immediately moved in to restrain the two suspects, and later confirmed a formal investigation."​

Liverpool's support for Suarez looking even more misguided now.​

 

[strung out]

Liverpool will be wearing warm up t-shirts in support of the fan who racially abused tom adeyemi before their next match.

 

[butchersapron]

It's these anon eyewitnesses word against the accused. You must acquit.

 

[London_Calling]

Can't 'black bastard' be a term of endearment sometimes...

 

[strung out]

it is on liverpool's training ground

 

[friedaweed]

"Eyewitnesses saw two fans wearing Luis Suarez t-shirts, and heard one of them clearly shout “You f***ing black b***ard”. Police immediately moved in to restrain the two suspects, and later confirmed a formal investigation."​

Liverpool's support for Suarez looking even more misguided now.​

They should be put in stocks outside the ground for the next home game. Fucking cunts.