Of Luis Suarez and Sad, Pathetic Whimpers

i think that Taylor guy is a racist.. England is a racist country trying to hide its racism by punishing innocents like suarez. SHAME.

In Uraguay they call them negro and treat them as equals, in England they dont but treat them  as infirior people

I wished evra scored the own goal.

No Champions League. Playing alongside teammates way below his level. And this racisism crap. What do you think would be in Suarez's head?

PFA chief Gordon Taylor: 
"We want our black players to feel comfortable that racism can be dealt with in football terms" 

Two paragraphs later: 

"Any reference to the colour of a person’s skin has to be eradicated."

Not exactly a great start is it Gordon?

"We want our BLACK players to feel comfortable...""Any reference to the colour of a person’s skin has to be eradicated."

bandejo.

"We want our black players to feel comfortable that racism can be dealt with in football terms, as well as the law of the land."

"Any reference to the colour of a person’s skin has to be eradicated."
-- Gordon Taylor, both statements in the same statement

Take a bow, sir.  You win at politics.

I read the majority of the report, stopping at the point where the discussion about the length of the ban was discussed as that wasn't as interesting to me as the discussion about how Suarez was found guilty.  I found myself having to concede that on the basis of the summaries of arguments provided that the commission probably arrived at the right result.  Those summaries might have been insufficient, as the club is suggesting, but obviously we don't have access to any information that might have been left out. 

The FA had to prove that Suarez made an insulting comment that made reference to race-- not that he made a racist comment.  That's it.  And "prove" was at the civil standard, which is to say, that it was 51% likely that he said something insulting that referenced race.  Suarez's own version of events unfortunately pushed him toward that line-- he made a comment that referenced Evra's race by his own admission.  Something like four Man U players, who, as I understood it, were evidently interviewed shortly after the match, all noted that Evra was upset because Suarez had said something about how he wouldn't talk to Evra because he was black.  Suarez's lawyer (or representative?) made no effort to challenge these statements, and subsequently it had to be accepted as true that Evra had already indicated his belief that Suarez had made that comment even before lodging an official complaint.  That gets him a lot closer.  Suarez also evidently changed his story somewhat after seeing footage from the match.  That pushed him farther away from getting himself to a 50% likelihood of being innocent.  Because it was a zero-sum game, that meant his position was again moved toward the 51% threshold.  At some point, he may well have passed it.

The charge itself seems kind of stupid when everyone involved is admitting that Suarez isn't racist.  But the commission can't really be blamed for that-- the FA was probably the body that might have exercised discretion in choosing not to charge him at all, but once they choose to proceed, the commission had to rule on what he said based on the rule.  However, I did think there were a couple of odd moments in the commission's reasoning.  First, in the initial exchange at the goal mouth, Suarez was seen to shrug while speaking with Evra.  The commission said that such a gesture was consistent both with Suarez's version of the conversation-- that he was saying to Evra something about how an earlier foul had been "a normal foul"-- and Evra's version-- that Suarez was then saying to him that he "doesn't speak to blacks" (maybe not an exact quote).  That's kind of laughable, considering the commission described their exchange at that point as appearing pretty hostile.  Suarez wouldn't have shrugged while saying "I don't speak to black people" as though he were making a casual race-conscious joke in the midst of a heated exchange.  Second, the commission also said it considered motives in determining the relative likelihood of each story.  They said that, although Suarez-- the grandson of a black man-- clearly wouldn't have meant such a comment, he might have felt backed into a corner and said something he didn't mean.  When I think of a person who's apparently a quarter black saying he doesn't speak to black people, I think of that scene in the first episode of the Chappelle Show in which the blind leader of a white supremacist movement is revealed to be black and a guy's head explodes.  Why would Luis have felt backed into a corner?  He was getting the better of Evra in the match (as I recall) and it wasn't like he was in the midst of getting beat up. 

I feel like Suarez wasn't very well represented, and as a result, an appeal is untenable.   It sucks, but I guess that's the risk with bringing in a guy who's such a skilled shit-stirrer.

Suarez is going to be hated more by every other fan and club in England. So its our job to make him feel protected and everytime he comes on, cheer until we lose our voices. While we can't do anything about the FA or the legal system, we can let him know that Suarez, you are not alone. I can't wait till he comes back and play and the more people jeer him, the more I'm going to cheer for him.

Anyhow, the point of my ludicrously long post with jnhaydon's contribution is that any appeal is highly technical and lfc's lawyers may not feel technically competent or confident to appeal it.

The length of charge if accepted is  hard to guage.  should it be 3 games, 4, 12?  Who knows.  

So given that the penalty will be served in a month and puts to bed any protracted and debatable legal processes - all the time feeding the media with 'why dont they shut up' stories - it could well be the only option.

This is especially true if FSG have asked for a well defined and prompt resolution to the matter with some certainty of outcome.

This post is from  @jnhaydon:disqus    on the telegraph blog.  It is very impressive and worth reading a couple of times to understand it.  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/spo... 

Suggests in my dodgy interpretation, that the  QC [illegally?] decided which bits of law and FA rules to use and rail roaded it through - not sure what Luis' legal reps did about it and the FA have decided the case will not be published in full.

jhhadon's post.  I hope he has no objection to me posting it here.
>>

The FA, and their legal representatives will doubtless be relieved that in the aftermath of the release of their written reasons for the outcome they reached following the charges brought against Luis Suarez, that so much time, effort and emotion has been spent by so many people on completely missing the point.

Much has been made of the issue of “is Luis Suarez a racist”. The Daily Mirror think so. Manchester United fans seem to think so too, although many Liverpool fans don’t.

It doesn’t matter. The question hasn’t even been addressed.A lot of time and effort has been spent debating how the FA arrived at the conclusion that Evra is a more reliable witness than Suarez.

Doesn’t matter, they are entitled to make whatever findings of fact that they like.

The decisions of juries are far more serious and don’t undergo this scrutiny.

The only real remaining issue, in so far as it affects “what next” is the basis for an appeal.

The FA’s rules say you can lodge an appeal for the following reasons;

(vii) The appeal may only be allowed on one or more of the following grounds:

(a) The Regulatory Commission misinterpreted or failed to comply with the rules or regulations relevant to its decision; and/or

(b) came to a decision to which no reasonable such body could have come; and/or

(c) the penalty, order or sanction imposed was excessive.

So this means that an appeal can be because they got the law wrong, the decision was clearly perverse or the sanction is too harsh.

Do any of these apply?In spite of the feelings of many, the decision is not clearly perverse, nor is the sanction too great, assuming the validity of the outcome is accepted.

This leaves points of law. What points of law applied, and what points of law did the FA consider when reaching its verdict?

First is the “burden of proof”. This is the issue of who has to prove what. This rests with the FA, they have to prove Suarez’s guilt, not he his innocence.

Secondly, the “standard of proof”. This is the extent to which it needs to be proven.

In criminal cases this is “beyond reasonable doubt”, for the purposes of the FA commission it is, as with civil law, “the balance of probabilities” so, is it more likely than not. Critically though, it is the “flexible civil standard”, so the more serious the allegation the more proof needed.

The final, and most controversial issue, is the matter of whether the FA’s disciplinary rule E 3(1) should have an “objective” i.e. do the panel feel the act has been committed, or “subjective” i.e. was the act intended, test applied. This is the issue on which the whole case turned.

The FA made a number of points relating to the applicable law. Their representative, Mr Paul Greaney QC is a barrister, a Queen’s Counsel no less. A QC is the elite amongst barristers, the Fernando Torres 08/09 of legal representation. He made their arguments, covering the area of law that is crucial to the case.

He made the assertion that the FA rule E 3(1) should be tested objectively. That is, it doesn’t matter what Suarez intended, only what the panel felt he had done.

In order to justify this he claims that it is analogous to some pieces of criminal law.

This then, needs a little background.In criminal law there a two principles, mens rea the guilty mind, and actus reus, the guilty act. Fitting perhaps that bad Latin creeps into the discussion of bad Spanish.

In order to be convicted of a crime it must be established that, not only have you done the act, but also that there is some element of intent. This may be outright intent, it may be negligence or even recklessness, but there is a mental component.

The are some exceptions to this, strict liability offences, but they are few and far between and include things like speeding or statutory rape.

For these offences there can be no excuse of “I didn’t mean it”.

The FA made the case that rule E 3(1) was to be tested objectively – was strict liability. They likened it to an offence under the Public Order Act, Liverpool’s lawyer, seemingly the Christian Purslow of legal representation, noted this, but doesn’t seem to have pursed it very vigorously.

In effect the FA state that rule E 3(1) is analogous to a crime under the Public Order Act 1986. The part of the statute they quote is:

5 Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour,or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

They say the wording of this is similar enough to E 3(1) to use it as an analogy, and that because later in the same act it says;

(4)A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if he intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting or (as the case may be) he intends his behaviour to be or is aware that it may be disorderly.

The FA reasoned that because this is separate to section 5 that section 5 therefore does not have an inherent intention for a mental element for the offence.

All well and good, you might say. But they left out another part of section 5;
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c) that his conduct was reasonable.So section 5 expressly provides for a mental element but the FA ignore it.

So, either the FA’s QC is not legally competent, or, in order to make a case against Suarez they have resorted to outright mendacity in their legal reasoning.

There is a further issue here. If you are convicted of an offence under section 5 you are facing a fine of up to up to £1000, level 3.

In the same act there is a more serious version of this offence, providing for up to 6 months in prison, and a £5000 fine, the maximum a magistrate can issue. The wording is almost identical to the section 5 offence. The difference? Intent.

4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour,or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Now, the FA reckon Suarez has committed a serious offence. They have banned him for 8 games and fined him £40,000. They say it’s serious, “wholly unacceptable” yet, the analogy they use in criminal law is the lesser of two almost identical offences.

Incompetence, or again, mendacity?

In seeking to establish that a subjective test should be used they cite the House of Lords in a 1973 case. They ignore though, the following guidance from the same court on the issue of strict liability offences in the case of Sweet v Parsley [1970];

Wherever a section is silent as to mens rea there is a presumption that, in order to give effect to the will of Parliament, words importing mens rea must be read into the provision.

It is a universal principle that if a penal provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations, that interpretation which is most favourable to the accused must be adopted.

The fact that other sections of the Act expressly require mens rea is not in itself sufficient to justify a decision that a section which is silent as to mens rea creates an absolute offence.

It is necessary to go outside the Act and examine all relevant circumstances in order to establish that this must have been the intention of Parliament.

So, the highest court in the land basically forbids their line of reasoning?

And what do the FA do?

I’ll leave it to you to decide what the FA were trying to achieve here, suffice it to say, there appears to be, even to the untrained eye, more than grounds for appeal on a number of issues in law, and it would be fair to say the FA won’t really want this playing out in a real court with proper legal representation for Luis Suarez.

I wonder what Grabiner would make of it all? 

************end of post*******

My words: Anyhow, I thought it was a fascinating read and a real insight into legal procedures and such. Hope you agree as it is a loooooooooooong post!!
Thanks to jnhadon.

I guess I can understand the club's decision to cut their losses and drop the fight. To the FA and to most journalists (and subsequently most average citizens) the guilt of Suarez was already pre-determined. Their main focus was giving Blatter and the rest of the "ignorant" world two fingers and put an arm around every black player in the Football League, point at Suarez and say "see that evil man? THAT'S what we do to evil men who use their hands to keep balls out of goals and bite people here in England. You're safe here!" while patting them on the head to feel their funny hair.

For LFC to continue the fight to clear Suarez's name would be tantamount (in most people's ignorant minds) to a fight FOR racism and a fight FOR ignorance. The guilt of Suarez was always a mere formality, nothing more than ammunition that the FA have been eagerly waiting for since Blatter made his handshake comment; and leapt onto it they did, salivating and smelling blood. It was always an uphill battle, the "us vs. them" mentality ringing more true now than ever... it was best to just cut their losses and drop it. Life sucks.

The sham moralism of the British media on this issue has been shameful – and of course you just have to join in. It got its pound of flesh yesterday – a token foreign player scapegoated to appease a collective skewed sense of self-righteousness in our reductive and binary cultural purview. But in reading the statements you can tell Liverpool and Suarez wanted to fight but felt cornered by the media and a growing number of anti-racist groups that have not been looking at the events evenly. I’m sad that Liverpool capitulated such pressure but glad they made a firm rebuttal in both statements released.The FA and national media (now including even the Guardian) have been over-keen to paint a black and white image but are guilty of applying reductionalist thinking in forcing their will. It is not a triumph for anti-racism but a triumph for a sham moralist witch-hunt – and the descrimination and defamation of a foreign player. And all by an FA that espoused apartheid and ignored the vulgar English brand of racism for years. I think Suarez will leave England the first chance he gets – as you can hear the powerlessness in his statement and sense the singularity in the way he has been treated. Sadly, the capitulation that you have vehemently called for will solve nothing – the player will still be branded as a racist on the terraces – and neither statement will be received in good grace by the pharisees in the media. A hollow victory for the Fergie-tainted association and their toadies – who have now enabled players to be targeted and convicted on hearsay from here on.The FA and the English media are guilty of the very thing the claim to rail against. Quite simply, it is not a righteous position to condone the skewing of evidence based upon character preferences, Convicting upon probabilities, treating witnesses unequally, condemning one player in an instance where both are alleged to trade insults, defaming one person’s character, setting up a template for hearsay convictions, and completely ignoring the cultural and linguistic elements of a case between two foreign players. Also, where you to do a modicum of research on Luis Suarez you would that his character history and social work in this area is impeccable.

Wait, I'm joining in the sham moralism of the British media and calling for a capitulation of the what now? Your reading comprehension is surprisingly shit for somebody who likes to toss around big words nearly as much as I do.

"The player will still be branded as a racist on the terraces" 
And his every move will be watched by the same FA and swiftly punish him whenever he takes any sort of retaliation against the idiots on the terraces.

I liked this comment better when you posted it on KopTalk this morning and on A Football Report a little bit ago.

At least read the post before copying and pasting a criticism that's not actually all that relevant.

http://tomkinstimes.com/2012/0...
Good article from Paul Tomkins.

Think we could all do with some news after Evra's lies, the FA politics and the media's hypocrisy.

Here it is!

Newcastle 3 Manure 0!   

Well done you Barcodes!    :)

The barcodes didn't have to contest with our boy Bellers. So it was a cakewalk for them. I have to find a replay of the game, wasn't able to catch it live. Wonder what Fergie will have to say? It's that Karma thing coming back to our royal Knight. DeJa Vu all over again. How do you like it now Fergie?

I'm going to put the highlight of Phil Jones' own goal on loop for the next month. 

Ha ha you mean the amazing Phil Jones that combination of Beckenbauer, and Baresi that the Manc loving press keeping going on about? 

Quite happy we got Hendo over Phil Jones right now :D

The barcodes were superb against a clueless ManUre, after their miserable performance against us Pardew went back to 442 with 2 strong guys up front.  they will be tougher for us next time we play.

It was very direct often route 1 footy, but ManUre gave lots of space in the middle of the park aswell (which they've done since they lost Roy Keane), and they scored great goals.

Ba failed his medical with Stoke who said they couldn't get insurance for him but Newcastle have decided they can deal with it.  He's the most exciting goal scorer / centre forward in the league this year but again, newcastle play to him, route 1 footy.

oh and Webb denied the toons a penalty early on aswell!!!

Toon spanked Man U...somewhere out there Andy Carroll is jumping up and down, spilling his beer on himself.

fuck Man Utd ,and everytime wen a win would take us to the top 4 we end up losing,it so depressing! :(

haha.. you people really know how to have malice on carroll

A pure example of Man U and the Fa being in a solid marriage together. Everyone knows it from the countless times referees get them out of jail, from the countless times their players abuse referees and nothing gets done, from the countless times ferguson abuses referees and nothing gets done, to the countless times ferguson stops journalists from attending press conferences and nothing gets done.

After the way the press treated Rafa, it is so easy to see that the English are Xenophobic. And the fact Evra teased Suarez about being South American and this is brushed over, really sends a statement to the rest of the league and the world, that Man U can do whatever they please to stop a threat in its tracks using any method they choose. And the FA, being their prime backers are the tool they use. Very similar to AL CAPONE in how he bribed the police and authorities during the bootlegging era. So similar.

So... if Utd and the FA are married, and Fergie abuses refs... does that count as domestic violence?

Perhaps it's more of an pet-and-owner thing, or puppet-and-master.

Frankly, I'm not sure about the whole conspiracy theory thing.  Especially after Newcastle beat them 3-0 with Howard Webb in charge.  He knew he wasn't supposed to allow that.  But I think it is true with refs and in the courts and in the transfer market that Utd do a lot of their competing off the pitch.  And they're very good at it too.

Webb denied the toons a penalty tonight.  But perhaps he's sniffing the air and will become a citeh extra man now.

Anyhow, Whiskey nose will trade him for another.  It's January.

who we gonna buy?

I really don't know.  Generally we can only put 11 players on the field and our 12th one has to be in the stands.  Only Utd's 12th gets to wear black and carry a whistle.  So, it's hard for us to buy anyone...  

'We want our black players to feel comfortable that racism can be dealt with in football terms'  - Gordon Taylor

Does this idiot think that racism only effects black players/people? That's a very racist thing to say.

Oh, irony of ironies!  I wonder if Mr. Taylor is aware that if you translate this quote into Spanish, you will have to use the word "negro"?

I'd laugh, if it wasn't so fucking sad.

It's not racist if you say something to a white dude. Duh.

Asians, Sout Americans......duh.

I honestly believe that there is next to no racism in English football.

However, Xenophobia is absolutely rife throughout all levels of the English game.

At weekend league setups in the UK there is a strong division between black and non-black players.  each group keeps to itself.  
the problem is a big one in the UK so the FA is being very  political about this.
The commission was a sham.  it was predetermined.  

The media were never going to say this is something to be considered either, they can't afford to be caught on the fence on that issue.

Noel, to add to your possible scenarios: a draw with Oldham would also use up a game with the replay. So we need only avoid a loss in that game for Suarez to return vs Spurs.

Terry will be "whitewashed" as he always is, because they've had their scapegoat already. Ferguson and the FA will be having a few beers on it no doubt......

If you put together the threats about Liverpools status in the world of football from the anti-racism groups and basically being told to shut up or else, bit like by the school ground racist or bully.
What more could the club do but back down ask anyone who has been threatened about keeping quiet and would happen, saying your good but if you don't shut up I will make you look bad!
They should let British justice take its cause not stop it in its tracks.
.
 

any ideas of where lpf will end up until luis comes back, they didn't look good against city.

I'm not sure if things will go much differently than Liverpool keep playing the way they have. There is much more work to be done than just getting Suarez to score more. His ban probably couldn't come at a better time; there will be so many fixtures with the FA cup and all that 8 matches will fly by. But this could be a nice shock to Dalglish's system that we need good finishing, badly, and since it's January, he could take matters into his own hands. 

I always saw Feb as the defining month for us with all the tough fixtures, but Jan could be fairly pivotal.  We've got Stoke, Bolton and Wolves.  

In theory we could end up with only half points or less for the month having already lost to Citeh and being very reliant on Carroll for goals.

A bad January will pretty much cook our chances of top 4.  Unfortunately each month is like that from here.

Ok, let me get this straight.  Instead of making an example out of John Terry to fight racism, an issue that was clearly targeted on the race of Anton Ferdinand, the FA targets Luis who even Evra said was not racist and understands the tone in which Luis was using to address him.  All of this on top of the fact the FA did a very bad job on letting the public know that the charges against Suarez had no racist intent and were brought up about Suarez using offensive language. 

@_@  No comprendo.

Since the Terry investigation is being conducted by the police, the FA are unable to get involved at this point.  I sincerely hope that they do after the police investigation concludes.  And while Evra did say that he doesn't think that Suarez is racist, the inquiry was not about whether Suarez is racist or not--it was about whether he said something that was racist.  The report made this distinction very clearly.  Also, Evra did not understand the tone in which Suarez was using to address him.  He was clearly offended, which was why he filed the report.  The explanation given by the FA was also that upon looking at the video footage, there was a great deal of acrimony between the players, indicating that Suarez probably was not using the word "negro" in a friendly, familiar manner in an effort to appease Evra.  
From my understanding of the report, he was found to be in violation of two rules: first, that he was using offensive language, and second, that the language was in reference to Evra's race, causing them to impose on Suarez a larger sanction than if he had used offensive language alone.

If you read the 115 page document, then more power to you and you're probably totally right.  But, from what I've seen in the press, online and just word of mouth it seems as though the FA needs to make sure everyone knows that Suarez it not racist whatsoever.  

Evra, whether he knew the tone or not, should have consulted someone who speaks spanish (Hernandez) to figure out what Suarez might have been saying.  This investigation was blown out of proportion and to go on and say, PRETTY MUCH, that an entire culture is racist is over the line.  

The fact that they convicted Suarez over this is beyond me.  They should've excused him, but at the same time let people know that from now on this cross culture is unexceptable and after this is now inexcusable.  I don't know what else could have been done, well I do and I could get into it if you want, but to me it was the worst possible way to do it.

To sum up what I said, I guess what I really want is for the FA to make sure everyone knows that Suarez is NOT racist.    

Well, both those rules are linked.  

Rule E3(1) - offensive language - has been something consistently denied by Suarez, and with good reason too.  He used a term that was neutral in the context it was used.  It's like an Englishman being charged for saying 'pal' because the other guy didn't like his tone.  And frankly, if Suarez is to be charged on this rule, he could well have been saying 'pal' or any other word with no racist connotation whatsoever and still be convicted simply because Evra found it offensive and the FA believed him.   

Rule E3(2) - reference to race - depends entirely on Rule E3(1).  If no offensive language was used, then E3(2) doesn't come into play.  The argument is whether the language was offensive.  One says yes, one says no, in the absence of evidence the panel chooses to believe one and not the other because he sounds better.

So, this entire case rests on whether or not offensive language was used.  Ironically, the only established instance of clearly offensive language used here is by Evra.  He's the only one who has flouted Rule E3(1) beyond any doubt.  But he's not the one being charged, so nevermind that.

I just find it tragically funny that in the twisted FA rules, mentioning someone's ethnic background is enough grounds for a lynching, whereas making reference to a fellow player's sibling's reproductive anatomy is perfectly fine.  Does that not sound just a bit wrong?

I'm definitely not on board with the "concha de tu hermana" comment that Evra made.  It's disgusting.  When that was said to me in this post, I was incredibly offended.  I wonder how the FA decides what comments they want to charge people with, and which ones they don't. Perhaps someone would have had to file a complaint, or an official would have to hear it, instead of Evra admitting to it?

Perhaps it is a legal loophole that just because Suarez chose to be more adult about it and not complain about the provocation (evidently unwisely), but Evra did choose to complain about the reaction, we have the ruling before us today.  

Perhaps there's also a legality that states now that it's out there as part of this case, Evra can't subsequently be held accountable for it anymore. 

Basically what Evra and the Utd lawyers have done is to play the system, and they've played it well.  They've brought a case against another professional, back up by shaky, inconclusive evidence, and still pulled it off.  I won't be drawn on whether Suarez is a racist or not, or whether he intended to offend, or whether he didn't intend to offend but ended up doing so inadvertently anyway.  That's a decision to be made by the panel and by everyone privately according to their own set of principles.  

But what we know has happened is a legal accusation has been successfully brought against a good man, and as a result he has been branded a racist and is suffering the consequences of it.  Congratulations to Evra and the Utd legal team for succeeding.       

I'd love to straighten you out about the report in detail, but I'm too happy about Phil Jones heading the ball in his own net. So I'll just say CONCHA DE TU HERMANA

Yeahh... totally not cool, bro. I know you and she may not see eye-to-eye but I'd like this blog to stay just a couple notches above childish name-calling and insults.

Dude, seriously? Way to be rude and immature as hell.

Yeah, I'm not really sure what needs straightening out or where you're coming from, but at least you were really cool about it. So...huh?

I don't really understand what I just said about the report that you could argue is incorrect, but by all means, "straighten me out."  But please be an adult about it.  That was incredibly offensive, rude, and uncalled for.  Never refer to my sister's vulva again.

It really is a very nice vulva.

Easy, kids. I know we have a rich (or not) history of objectifying and personifying genetalia around these parts, but even if for the sake of my own sanity I assume that's purely an attempt at harmless groinal humour then I'm not sure it's an all that successful or helpful one. Similarly I'm not sure casually tossing around the phrase Evra aimed at Suarez first is an especially artful way of pointing out the oddity of the how Evra's role as instigator in this whole sordid affair has been so easily ignored, forgotten, or otherwise papered over by so many.

Please don't force us into a corner where we have to start getting regularly violent in the comments section. At the very least we'd like to be able to hold on to our smug sense of superiority for the quality of community below the fold compared to the Bleacher Report.

ok, all vulva references on hold.  Now where's my blackshitdickdipping drink.

He didn't.  He said "fucking hell".  Just ask Evra.

On a lighter note, I think that's the first time someone's said "vulva" in the comments, which has to be a sign of progress. Or something.

Are you thinking about it logically?  You can't do that.

Go get yourself drunk, fall down the stairs a few times while singing God Save The Queen, make sure you get at least two concussions, have a meaningful conversation with a fish, and then come back.  

It'll all make sense then.

When I think about this stuff, the only thought I can conjure up is 'Blurgh', but it means the same thing to me as what's written in this post.

Solid evaluation.

Where do you buy those Suarez 7 t-shirts?

While John Terry's case is being worked through normal the legal systems of this country, I wonder if the FA will do a similar hardline penalty on one of their own boys? I am not holding my breath.

http://www.liverpooltees.com/s...
12gbp + shipping.  

We could only hope that Suarez be tried by the same legal system as John Terry.  The case would be thrown out. But alas that was not to be.  He instead gets sentenced by a panel for which, even in the absence of actual evidence, the accuser seeming 'more impressive' than the defendant is enough for an ironclad judgment.

I was hoping the club would continue to escalate it for Suarez' sake.  Fight for the truth, stand up for what's right, Hillsborough and all that.  Though I can see why for practical reasons they decided to just accept the injustice.  It's a sickening resignation.

Its a no win case. Even if Liverpool fight further for Suarez, all its going to do is damage the club, the players and Suarez because there is no way they can win against such a biased opposition. As much as I want them to continue fighting on, no one will benefit. Its pretty bleak.