How come...

[Lazie]

Lazie - the JT video was blurred by sky the SECOND time - if you saw it the first time, you could be blind and see he used the words "black c---". Now in suarez case, what video are you referring to that shows he said what the LYAD said he said. I will wait till me skin fall off before you find that crap because it doesn't exist. double standard...an' a call good peeps "hypocrite" when dem ready. Cho.

SKYSPORTS showed the clip time and again. If you as a football fan haven't seen that clip ... then so be it. Suarez racially abuse Evra and no matter how you twist and turn ... its not gonna change.

The fact the police charge Terry they have evidence. The issue is in the courts, lets await the verdict.

[Paul Marin]

SKYSPORTS showed the clip time and again. If you as a football fan haven't seen that clip ... then so be it. Suarez racially abuse Evra and no matter how you twist and turn ... its not gonna change.

The fact the police charge Terry they have evidence. The issue is in the courts, lets await the verdict.

You can fabricate evidence all you want - there is ZERO evidence against Suarez other than Evra's say-so FACT!!! That is just NOT the case with Terry which is why there is a charge from the CPS against Terry and not Suarez.

Unu man eeda dyam fool or blind like bat. Unu mek the press and fi u haytred fi good people mek unu gwaan like EEDIAT.

There is ZERO evidence like THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfoaoQImtaI against Suarez - NONE. Even a blind man can see he said "black c--t". Now, as for context, that the courts will have to decide...but of course...context was not afforded Suarez either...even with no evidence other than the "word" of a liad. Kangaroo court bizness.

Mek we wait and see what happen wid JT but so far, the scoreline from unu read -- FAIRNESS 0 - 6 HYPOCRISY.

[Paul Marin]

Paul it was obvious what Barton did. For words it is a different thing. The ref, or no player or offical complained during or after the game. Everybody complained about Barton, even his own teammates.

Two totally different thing. Evra didn't take long to lodge his complain, did he?

So why didn't the CPS charge Suarez yet they charge JT? You still don't answer that question. And in the answer lies the CRUX of the discrepancy which all of unu have been blind to.

[Paul Marin]

yuh mus desperate to bring up BARTON issue, with this racism issue. Come on now Paul, duh betta than dat !!

You are comparing apples and sour oranges !!

No - I am just pointing out that the FA can charge a player without having another player lodge a complaint. Nothing else.

[Paul Marin]

Uhmm...England included Terry on their Euro squad...what you woulda call that?

All dat to'.

[Paul Marin]

STOP CALL UP MI NAME !! where was I JUDGING Suarez ? show me where i posted anything on Suarez ?

you clutching at straws now PAUL ?

Okay - mistaken identity. Me tink seh u was one a dem wid di hangman noose. Sorry sah. :begyoupardon:

[Assasin]

Because a complain was made to them. I think it was made by other people than the players or officals. The FA said they will wait on until the case is done to rule. Could it be possible that Terry get away and is still suspended by the FA? In the case of law it is beyond a reasonable doubt, for the FA you can be punished even if you are not totally responsible for the action but partially responsible.

[Paul Marin]

Because a complain was made to them. I think it was made by other people than the players or officals. The FA said they will wait on until the case is done to rule. Could it be possible that Terry get away and is still suspended by the FA? In the case of law it is beyond a reasonable doubt, for the FA you can be punished even if you are not totally responsible for the action but partially responsible.

Sass, you are off on this one. The CPS is OBLIGATED to investigate crimes if they become aware of them, regardless of if a complaint is made or not. And while it is not impossible, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the FA will charge Terry if he is found innocent but probable if he's found guilty.

The point I am making that seems to be lost on people is that the CPS found evidence on JT but not Suarez that's why they charged JT and not Suarez. If JT is found innocent, this would only underscore the fact that the FA's tribunal against Suarez was a kangaroo court business as they tried and convicted Suarez on far less evidence than is being contemplated in the JT case.

Now, if JT is found guilty, at least he had "his day in court" which was never afforded Suarez. But this is because there was not enough evidence in the first place for the CPS to bring a charge against Suarez, which also underscores the fact that the FA's tribunal was a kangaroo court. But there are those among us that want to fool themselves into thinking that the FA --that bastion of jurisprudence -- could try and convict an innocent man using methods that even the courts wouldn't employ and evidence that they wouldn't consider sufficient.

This is where all of unu who consider Suarez guilty have to seriously ask yourselves whether you are being fair or not. I hope for y'all sakes you are never in a situation where you are convicted on one liar's word alone with no other supporting evidence.

[Lazie]

You can fabricate evidence all you want - there is ZERO evidence against Suarez other than Evra's say-so FACT!!! That is just NOT the case with Terry which is why there is a charge from the CPS against Terry and not Suarez.

Unu man eeda dyam fool or blind like bat. Unu mek the press and fi u haytred fi good people mek unu gwaan like EEDIAT.

There is ZERO evidence like THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfoaoQImtaI against Suarez - NONE. Even a blind man can see he said "black c--t". Now, as for context, that the courts will have to decide...but of course...context was not afforded Suarez either...even with no evidence other than the "word" of a liad. Kangaroo court bizness.

Mek we wait and see what happen wid JT but so far, the scoreline from unu read -- FAIRNESS 0 - 6 HYPOCRISY.

again, there is a clip used by sky everytime i see the incident mentioned. if you didn't see it so be it. that clip proved suarez was taunting Evra about his color.

its the first I'm seeing this ... what did he say as Cole passed? As I said and you've just said it ... the courts will decide.

[Paul Marin]

again, there is a clip used by sky everytime i see the incident mentioned. if you didn't see it so be it. that clip proved suarez was taunting Evra about his color.

its the first I'm seeing this ... what did he say as Cole passed? As I said and you've just said it ... the courts will decide.

Lazie - let me help you out. There is NO CLIP that shows Suarez saying what EVRA SAID HE SAID. Period!! There is no denial of a taunt and if you read the report, no lip reading expert who could corroborate Evra's testimony. Again, had Suarez's trial been in a "real" court, the chance of conviction would have been ZERO. End of story. Live in your fantasy world all you want, but that is why the CPS didn't charge him, the case would have been thrown out on the first day.

[Paul Marin]

again, there is a clip used by sky everytime i see the incident mentioned. if you didn't see it so be it. that clip proved suarez was taunting Evra about his color.

its the first I'm seeing this ... what did he say as Cole passed? As I said and you've just said it ... the courts will decide.

Sorry - I forgot to answer your question. Originally, I had heard that he said "I didn't call you a black c--t, you f-ing knobhead!" The part that was blocked out by Cole was "I didn't call you a". However, from what I can gather, the testimony as given in court is different from this but to be honest, I haven't seen anything that suggests what was actually said. I will keep looking though, as that seems to me to be the most critical aspect of this particular bit of evidence.

[Lazie]

Lazie - let me help you out. There is NO CLIP that shows Suarez saying what EVRA SAID HE SAID. Period!! There is no denial of a taunt and if you read the report, no lip reading expert who could corroborate Evra's testimony. Again, had Suarez's trial been in a "real" court, the chance of conviction would have been ZERO. End of story. Live in your fantasy world all you want, but that is why the CPS didn't charge him, the case would have been thrown out on the first day.

hang onto that assumption. I will stick to what I know.

[Paul Marin]

hang onto that assumption. I will stick to what I know.

No assumption being made, just a keen mind observing facts dispassionately. But far from me to expect you to argue based on such terms, facts - such as the sky tape you can't produce, are not your strong suit. Nothing new. As I said: FAIRNESS 0 - 6 HYPOCRISY.

[Lazie]

No assumption being made, just a keen mind observing facts dispassionately. But far from me to expect you to argue based on such terms, facts - such as the sky tape you can't produce, are not your strong suit. Nothing new. As I said: FAIRNESS 0 - 6 HYPOCRISY.

... and I have access to sky tapes? You are adamant on defending Suarez ...again he was found guilty so don't run up yuh blood pressure.

[Paul Marin]

... and I have access to sky tapes? You are adamant on defending Suarez ...again he was found guilty so don't run up yuh blood pressure.

Yow - every relevant evidence deh pan youtube, so don' come wid dat. As fi being found guilty, all now you cyan bring uself to acknowledge that the verdict was handed down by a kangaroo court using evidence the real courts found to be too flimsy. Dem might as well did have you and Jangle hold the trial. LOL!! As I said: FAIRNESS 0 - 6 HYPOCRISY.