Suarez refuse to shake Evra hand

[Rudi]

Care to guess if TheDread is a Livapool fan. The Suarez episode has been revealing if nothing else.

[GazX]

Victim???? The I gone way pass the reservation into that lala land of sheep. Do you believe all the hype the media spit at you? You mek "the man" with his political correctness lead your thoughts...Darn...another one bites the dust.

Suh if Evra not the victim, then what is he. The offender?
As i said earlier, Suarez was found Guilty and was banned and fined £40k .
That is the Fact people have to deal wid whether we like it or not.

[GazX]

Victim???? The I gone way pass the reservation into that lala land of sheep. Do you believe all the hype the media spit at you? You mek "the man" with his political correctness lead your thoughts...Darn...another one bites the dust.

Suh if Evra not the victim, then what is he. The offender?
As i said earlier, Suarez was found Guilty and was banned and fined £40k .
That is the Facts people have to deal wid whether we like it or not.

[Paul Marin]

You dealing with logic. I dealing wid FACTS which IS the UreAbwoyan, after an investigation where statements and other evidence were taken or submitted to a commission, [b]WAS [/B ]given a ban and a fine for making racist comments. That is the FACTs we have to deal wid and not speculate as to why Police nah do dem job.

GazX - sorry, you are off on this one. If there were FACTS sufficient enough to support a criminal case, Suarez would have been charged. The FACT is that there wasn't hence no charge. The tribunal was a kangaroo court and if you don't believe me - read the report. A first grader can punch holes in the FA tribunal's mock trial as big as the moon.

[Sir X]

Big man seriously how much innocent man deh a jail wid guilty conviction and fine ?

Yuh think justice can be abused,being sentenced isnt proof of guilt ,so is being found not guilty any proof of innocence.

By the way , yuh a one a di bredda dem a look fi WMD in iraq ?

[Paul Marin]

Suh if Evra not the victim, then what is he. The offender?
As i said earlier, Suarez was found Guilty and was banned and fined £40k .
That is the Fact people have to deal wid whether we like it or not.

Found guilty by a tribunal - not a court of law. HUGE difference. The standard by which the tribunal measured "guilt" was on a "balance of probabilities" not "beyond reasonable doubt" which is the case for a criminal proceeding.

Also, for those of us who have read the report, there is no compulsion we have to agree with their misguided findings or are we not allowed to think for ourselves? Those of us who choose to allow ourselves to be manipulated by media need to take a step back and ask: "are we being responsible?"

Anyway, at the end of the day, Evra is only a victim if you believe his version of events which I categorically do not. This is a very simple case of one man's word over another...which would never hold up in court without cooroborating evidence, which is why Suarez was not charged criminally. Deny it all you want - but that is FACT.

[Sir X]

Paul yuh a get too technical with this joker im caan reason a dem deh levels,he asked a simple question basically basing his premise of guilt is founded on a fine or sentence.

The proper response should be simple one,a reflective question or a sarcastic answer....is a fine or sentence the ultimate proof of guilt ? if so why are cases overturned or appealed or even revisted with evidence to exonerate ?

Some man think in black and white ,move them into a grey area and dem tun fool.

[Paul Marin]

Paul yuh a get too technical with this joker im caan reason a dem deh levels,he asked a simple question basically basing his premise of guilt is founded on a fine or sentence.

The proper response should be simple one,a reflective question or a sarcastic answer....is a fine or sentence the ultimate proof of guilt ? if so why are cases overturned or appealed or even revisted with evidence to exonerate ?

Some man think in black and white ,move them into a grey area and dem tun fool.

Thanks X...but it is not rocket science. I am hoping that by them answering the question honestly (i.e. why won't the police charge Suarez?) they will understand. Chupid me! LOL!! De man dem hate di youth so much dem cyan t'ink straight.

[Peter R]

Care to guess if TheDread is a Livapool fan. The Suarez episode has been revealing if nothing else.

You can say that again!

[TheDread]

Care to guess if TheDread is a Livapool fan. The Suarez episode has been revealing if nothing else.

I'm not sure if I despise ManU more than I despise Liverpool. Definitely not a Liverpool fan. Been a long time Hotspurs fan..and any team a yardie playing on..Stoke and Bolton.

My take is Evra knows Suarez is not racist and had no racist intent behind their incident but Evra still chose to report the incident to the FA. The FA instead of doing anything meaningful to stamp out racism came down with a bs judgement for political reasons.

[GazX]

Found guilty by a tribunal - not a court of law. HUGE difference. The standard by which the tribunal measured "guilt" was on a "balance of probabilities" not "beyond reasonable doubt" which is the case for a criminal proceeding.

Also, for those of us who have read the report, there is no compulsion we have to agree with their misguided findings or are we not allowed to think for ourselves? Those of us who choose to allow ourselves to be manipulated by media need to take a step back and ask: "are we being responsible?"

Anyway, at the end of the day, Evra is only a victim if you believe his version of events which I categorically do not. This is a very simple case of one man's word over another...which would never hold up in court without cooroborating evidence, which is why Suarez was not charged criminally. Deny it all you want - but that is FACT.

And Suarez is only innocent if you believe his version.

PM for someone who earlier was talkin bout being logical, i find it surprising how you can overlook the actual FACTs (whether you agree with it or not) of a man being found guilty by an investigative commission which has more access to any supportive evidence than anyone on here. Splitting hairs over whether the decison reached was by way of a Commission, tribunal, or Law Court, balance of probability, blah blah.... dosent alter the FACT that Suarez was found GUILTY,.... GUILTY,.... GUILTY.
If the decision reached was unfair/wrong, then Liverpool FC rich enough, and im sure have enough top lawyers on their books to have challenged the decision made against one of their STAR PLAYERS and DIDNT which is another FACT. Plenty huffing and puffing but in the end they didnt. FACT
So, if a commission can arrive at a certain decision, and Liverpool themself not legally challenge that same unfavourable decision which seriously damages the reputation of both their player and the clubs image; You & X without such evidence and those legal resources available still insist you know for definate!! Suarez is innocent. If thats the case, then i suggest you offer your unique insight/knowledge to Liverpool FCs lawyers so they can finally clear the name and image of that UreAbwoyan and the club.

[Peter R]

Did YOU read the tribunal's report?

[Peter R]

Did you ever read "To Kill a Mockingbird?"...

I cannot speak for what LFC's legal counsel might have said, but IMO, the best thing for all was to leave well enough alone... to prolong the issue with an appeal especially when you are dealing with a kangaroo court did not make sense... so the tribunal had their findings based upon the Suarez admission that he said "negro" and his accusers six different version of what he said. One man's word against another. If that is how you think justice should be meted out fine, I don't, and therefore the "verdict" of guilty means beans to me as I think I would like to uphold a higher standard.

If Suarez were CONCLUSIVELY found guilty of racist abuse put me first in line to administer punishment... but you tribunal made a mockery of justice.

If the tribunal's case was that great as Paul M has asked and NONE of you jokers can give a rational, reasonable, coherent reason WHY HE WAS NOT CRIMINALLY CHARGED... suh unuh cyan gwaann run unuh mout...

[TheDread]

Did you ever read "To Kill a Mockingbird?"...

I cannot speak for what LFC's legal counsel might have said, but IMO, the best thing for all was to leave well enough alone... to prolong the issue with an appeal especially when you are dealing with a kangaroo court did not make sense... so the tribunal had their findings based upon the Suarez admission that he said "negro" and his accusers six different version of what he said. One man's word against another. If that is how you think justice should be meted out fine, I don't, and therefore the "verdict" of guilty means beans to me as I think I would like to uphold a higher standard.

If Suarez were CONCLUSIVELY found guilty of racist abuse put me first in line to administer punishment... but you tribunal made a mockery of justice.

If the tribunal's case was that great as Paul M has asked and NONE of you jokers can give a rational, reasonable, coherent reason WHY HE WAS NOT CRIMINALLY CHARGED... suh unuh cyan gwaann run unuh mout...

Brethren some man dem just a turn into sheep because they have lost their ability to critically think.

[GazX]

What you mean is nobady is prepared to speculate or deal in pure fantasy or conjecture as to why Liverpool Police havent charged the Liverpool player.
And NOBADY can give any reason that make sense as to why LFC; with all the wealth and legal experts at the disposal were not prepared to overturn a decision which damages both their global branding appeal and revenue, having no doubt read the evidence gathered and decision made by this so-called kangaroo court.
What are we meant to believe? That the mighty and great LFC frighten of challenging a very damaging verdict made by a tin pot Kangaroo Court?.