Yes, you've said that and been asked to explain the differences. Repeating it doesn't get us anywhere.
RipleysCat (U1862)
But of what relevance is that?
What's the point in telling us Suarez might not have been found guilty of a different law in a different court?
Pray do tell, what relevance you think this has?
I see my request for usall to get together for a sing-along was ignored
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Are you telling me you think the laws of this country and the FA rules of football are the same thing?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 seconds ago
RipleysCat (U1862)
But of what relevance is that?
What's the point in telling us Suarez might not have been found guilty of a different law in a different court?
Pray do tell, what relevance you think this has?
-------------------------
I'm not sure what relevance Ripley thinks it has but I think it is very relevant. I think that something so serious, which is going to follow a player around for life, should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I think the court should decide the guilt and punishment, whilst the FA use their verdict and give their own punishment, if needed.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Are you telling me you think the laws of this country and the FA rules of football are the same thing?
-------------------------------------
No. i'm telling you that had Suarez been charged with the same offence, in court and tried for that offence under a different title, using a differing burden of proof, I believe he'd had been found not guilty.
That is all. I've been trying to tell you this for nearly 24 hours now.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Why would a court of law decide upon a football matter?
He's deemed to have broken the rules of the FA, not the law of the land.
When you understand that, it'll become clearer for you.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
And I've told you that it's not the same offence.
Over and over again.
But of what relevance is that?
-------------------
The relevance relates to how the debate materialised within this thread - page 4 and onwards.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Why would a court of law decide upon a football matter?
He's deemed to have broken the rules of the FA, not the law of the land.
When you understand that, it'll become clearer for you.
---------------------
That's exactly it, it isn't a football matter, for me. It's more serious and thus shouldn't be dealt with by people not qualified to deal with it, nor should somebody be tarred with a tag using 'probably' as a burden of proof.
RipleysCat (U1862)
Not in my opinion.
It seems to me that he wants to tell us that he doesn't agree Suarez is guilty, and his only reasoning is completely flawed.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 seconds ago
RipleysCat (U1862)
Not in my opinion.
It seems to me that he wants to tell us that he doesn't agree Suarez is guilty, and his only reasoning is completely flawed.
---------------------
Yes and that's exactly it. Because you have deemed me to believe something I don't you don't take in the words I say but take the words to mean something you think I believe rather than what I do.
I have repeatedly told you that I accept the panel's verdict and understand it. I have also told you that I believe it would have produced a not guilty verdict in court.
What I believe is irrelevant. I, like the court, like to be sure before I believe something.
That's exactly it, it isn't a football matter, for me.
Well it is a football matter.
He's deemed to have broken rules laid down by the FA, so the FA charged him for it.
It's got nothing to do with a court of law.
I think you now understand my point?
For what it's worth, I actually think there's some logic in what you're saying.
However, I don't agree - because I think it's possible to be guilty of something in a footballing sense, but not necessarily in a legal sense.
He's using words in a way that he shouldn't be, and he was punished for it.
That doesn't mean he deserves to be criminally convicted - but it means he was punished by the governing body of football.
My point - to clarify - is this; the fact that there were no criminal proceedings does not, in any way, mean that the charges by the FA were wrong, inappropriate etc. It's a red herring.
I have repeatedly told you that I accept the panel's verdict and understand it.
So, in your own words, tell us what you feel is wrong about it? You disagree he's guilty?
What?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 19 seconds ago
That's exactly it, it isn't a football matter, for me.
Well it is a football matter.
He's deemed to have broken rules laid down by the FA, so the FA charged him for it.
It's got nothing to do with a court of law.
-----------------------
But it does.
If I kill somebody on the pitch, is it a football matter which has nothing to do with the court?
If rape somebody?
If I run from the pitch and kick a fan in the crowd?
Everything in this country is the subject of law. Football isn't outside of it.
I have understood what you're saying from the start. I just don't agree.
I understand you believe to be dealt with by the two different institutions means they are charged with "entirely different" offences. I don't. For me the offences are the same but they are titled differently and come under a different burden of proof.
I agree it's possible to be guilty in a football sense but not legal sense, however in this case, I don't agree it is. Racial abuse is an offence punishable by law and therefore, should be tried under the court, not three man panel.
If he was guilty, he deserved to be punished by law, like other people would be. If he wasn't, he didn't.
Again, I agree with you that jusy because there were no criminal charges, doesn't mean the panel were wrong, in fact I have said this, that I accept and understand the decision. I believe with the evidence supplied, they could have found him guilty using the burden of proof that they require but in a court, they couldn't have.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
I have repeatedly told you that I accept the panel's verdict and understand it.
So, in your own words, tell us what you feel is wrong about it? You disagree he's guilty?
What?
---------------------------------
I don't think anything is wrong with it, I think using the burden of proof they require, they could have found him guilty, if they wanted to.
they could have found him guilty, if they wanted to.
Okay - that's the crux of it.
You say that you don't think Suarez would have been found guilty in a court of law, and you use that as if to diminish the credibility of the panel that found Suarez guilty.
My point is that it does nothing of the sort, because the FA weren't charging him for breaking the law, they were charging him for breaking their rules.
See my point?
We both agree that he wouldn't have been convicted in a court of law, but we disagree over what that actually means.
I have to fundamentally disagree with what you've written above.
Just because it's using civil law and not criminal law, it can't just be manipulated to meet some sort of agenda. I think the report shows very clearly why Suarez was found guilty, and I've not heard any credible arguments to say that the guilty verdict was misplaced.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
You misunderstand me.
Of course everything we do is relevant to UK law.
But the verdict with which Suarez was found guilty is nothing to do with a court of law - that was what I meant.
"I agree it's possible to be guilty in a football sense but not legal sense, however in this case, I don't agree it is. Racial abuse is an offence punishable by law and therefore, should be tried under the court, not three man panel."
Then I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
That much can be proven by the fact that the FA decided to press ahead with charges of their own after John Terry was found not guilty in a court of law.
That alone proves that the offence of breaking the FA's laws is different to breaking UK laws, and whilst I appreciate why you think that shouldn't be the case, it is the case.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
they could have found him guilty, if they wanted to.
Okay - that's the crux of it.
You say that you don't think Suarez would have been found guilty in a court of law, and you use that as if to diminish the credibility of the panel that found Suarez guilty.
-----------------------
No, I don't do that. I use it to say that in a court, using a different burden of proof, I believe he wouldn'tbe found guilty.
The reason I say this isn't in fact because I want to rubbish the panel's credibility, it's because I believe the offence is too serious to be dealt with under a burden of proof which needs only probability.
You see it when the FA judge on incidents all the time, they make a decision which is ridiculous but because they only need the balance of probability, charges are rarely successfully appealed, hence the high rate of conviction, at around 98%, last I checked. This is hard to take if your player, or even putting yourself in a players' shoes, has got a red card after being the second last man but deemed to have been the last man and thus misses three games but you'll get over it. However a player labelled for the rest of his life? It's not something you'll get over. So for me, this means, the burden of proof is too low for the offence.
"Then I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
"That much can be proven by the fact that the FA decided to press ahead with charges of their own after John Terry was found not guilty in a court of law."
Exactly, using probability they were able to find him guilty, however if they, like the court used beyond all reasonable doubt, like the court, they wouldn't.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Okay, fair point, but what about the suggestion that there are potential incidents involving racial language that are not serious enough for criminal proceedings but are serious enough to be dealt with by the FA?
Do you think it's realistic that every complaint of using racial language has to be referred to the police for review, with the FA powerless?
I think it's possible for racial language to be used and to be inappropriate enough for punishment, but that would never be considered as breaking UK law, which is why I think the FA needs power to act.
And I think the Suarez case highlights that perfectly.
I also think you should give more credibility to civil law - it's not the FA sitting in a room deciding to find him guilty... it was a far more structured and legally accepted process than that.
Exactly, using probability they were able to find him guilty
No... you're getting it wrong.
They charged him under a different offence.
They didn't take the same offence he'd been charged by the police by reduce the levels of probability!
They didn't take the same offence he'd been charged by the police by reduce the levels of probability!
--------------------------------
In regards to his court case, John Terry was charged with using "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress and the offence was racially aggravated in accordance with section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, contrary to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 31(1)(c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
As we know he was found not guilty. The reason given: "In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty."
The FA charged Terry with "with using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards QPR’s Anton Ferdinand and which included a reference to colour and/or race contrary to FA Rule E3[2] in relation to the Queens Park Rangers FC versus Chelsea FC fixture at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011."
As we know, Terry was found guilty by the FA. In the FA's report, they state that "The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The applicable standard of proof shall be the flexible civil standard of the balance of probability. The more serious the allegation, taking into account the nature of the Misconduct alleged and the context of the case, the greater the burden of evidence required to prove the matter."
They go on to state that had Terry not used the word black, then "then Mr. Terry would not have been charged with simple Misconduct. If he had been, then it would patently have been unfair for the FA not to have also charged Mr. Ferdinand. The FA recognised this in the way in which it put its case. Consideration of the entry point is therefore artificial, because, absent the reference to skin colour, the balance of Mr. Terry‟s words would have attracted no action and/or no sanction."
TOOR isn't getting it wrong when he states that "using probability they were able to find him guilty", for that is exactly what the FA did. Yes, the charges brought to him by the Court and the FA were different charges, both relating to the same incident, but the crux of each charge is exactly the same: using threatening, abusive, insulting words, with reference to race towards Ferdinand. The court found Terry not guilty because there was doubt over the context in which Terry made his comment in regards to the reference to Ferdinand's ethnic origin. Whereas the FA found Terry guilty precisely because he made reference to Ferdinand's ethnic origin, irrespective of the context in which it was used.
If someone had made a complaint to the police then they would have investigated it. This is a fact but they didn't. I honestly wish they had, in fact I wish I had, as either the CPS would have dropped it for lack of evidence or a court would have cleared him.
The FA hold too much power. Who the feck are they to brand someone racist? They're not the police, the government or even our peers.
Do you think it's realistic that every complaint of using racial language has to be referred to the police for review, with the FA powerless?
--------------------------------
Yes. Football and society are not synonymous and that's why people, by the same token, do not get arrested for assault after making a slide tackle on a football pitch.
The FA are a FOOTBALL association and the CPS is a CRIMINAL prosecution service. Ergo the FA should stick to football and anything involving criminality, such as racial abuse, to be prosecuted by a criminal service. That is why they have their respective names.
When the FA step outside of their remit (in my opinion) you get kangaroo courts (official term) with the power to brand someone a racist regardless of the legal system and this has far reaching consequences that happen outside of football. It would not happen in any other walk of life or profession.
Sign in if you want to comment
Disappointed with Villa fans
Page 14 of 20
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19
posted on 18/12/12
Yes, you've said that and been asked to explain the differences. Repeating it doesn't get us anywhere.
posted on 18/12/12
RipleysCat (U1862)
But of what relevance is that?
What's the point in telling us Suarez might not have been found guilty of a different law in a different court?
Pray do tell, what relevance you think this has?
posted on 18/12/12
I see my request for usall to get together for a sing-along was ignored
posted on 18/12/12
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Are you telling me you think the laws of this country and the FA rules of football are the same thing?
posted on 18/12/12
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 seconds ago
RipleysCat (U1862)
But of what relevance is that?
What's the point in telling us Suarez might not have been found guilty of a different law in a different court?
Pray do tell, what relevance you think this has?
-------------------------
I'm not sure what relevance Ripley thinks it has but I think it is very relevant. I think that something so serious, which is going to follow a player around for life, should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I think the court should decide the guilt and punishment, whilst the FA use their verdict and give their own punishment, if needed.
posted on 18/12/12
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Are you telling me you think the laws of this country and the FA rules of football are the same thing?
-------------------------------------
No. i'm telling you that had Suarez been charged with the same offence, in court and tried for that offence under a different title, using a differing burden of proof, I believe he'd had been found not guilty.
That is all. I've been trying to tell you this for nearly 24 hours now.
posted on 18/12/12
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Why would a court of law decide upon a football matter?
He's deemed to have broken the rules of the FA, not the law of the land.
When you understand that, it'll become clearer for you.
posted on 18/12/12
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
And I've told you that it's not the same offence.
Over and over again.
posted on 18/12/12
But of what relevance is that?
-------------------
The relevance relates to how the debate materialised within this thread - page 4 and onwards.
posted on 18/12/12
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Why would a court of law decide upon a football matter?
He's deemed to have broken the rules of the FA, not the law of the land.
When you understand that, it'll become clearer for you.
---------------------
That's exactly it, it isn't a football matter, for me. It's more serious and thus shouldn't be dealt with by people not qualified to deal with it, nor should somebody be tarred with a tag using 'probably' as a burden of proof.
posted on 18/12/12
RipleysCat (U1862)
Not in my opinion.
It seems to me that he wants to tell us that he doesn't agree Suarez is guilty, and his only reasoning is completely flawed.
posted on 18/12/12
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 seconds ago
RipleysCat (U1862)
Not in my opinion.
It seems to me that he wants to tell us that he doesn't agree Suarez is guilty, and his only reasoning is completely flawed.
---------------------
Yes and that's exactly it. Because you have deemed me to believe something I don't you don't take in the words I say but take the words to mean something you think I believe rather than what I do.
I have repeatedly told you that I accept the panel's verdict and understand it. I have also told you that I believe it would have produced a not guilty verdict in court.
What I believe is irrelevant. I, like the court, like to be sure before I believe something.
posted on 18/12/12
That's exactly it, it isn't a football matter, for me.
Well it is a football matter.
He's deemed to have broken rules laid down by the FA, so the FA charged him for it.
It's got nothing to do with a court of law.
I think you now understand my point?
For what it's worth, I actually think there's some logic in what you're saying.
However, I don't agree - because I think it's possible to be guilty of something in a footballing sense, but not necessarily in a legal sense.
He's using words in a way that he shouldn't be, and he was punished for it.
That doesn't mean he deserves to be criminally convicted - but it means he was punished by the governing body of football.
My point - to clarify - is this; the fact that there were no criminal proceedings does not, in any way, mean that the charges by the FA were wrong, inappropriate etc. It's a red herring.
posted on 18/12/12
I have repeatedly told you that I accept the panel's verdict and understand it.
So, in your own words, tell us what you feel is wrong about it? You disagree he's guilty?
What?
posted on 18/12/12
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 19 seconds ago
That's exactly it, it isn't a football matter, for me.
Well it is a football matter.
He's deemed to have broken rules laid down by the FA, so the FA charged him for it.
It's got nothing to do with a court of law.
-----------------------
But it does.
If I kill somebody on the pitch, is it a football matter which has nothing to do with the court?
If rape somebody?
If I run from the pitch and kick a fan in the crowd?
Everything in this country is the subject of law. Football isn't outside of it.
I have understood what you're saying from the start. I just don't agree.
I understand you believe to be dealt with by the two different institutions means they are charged with "entirely different" offences. I don't. For me the offences are the same but they are titled differently and come under a different burden of proof.
I agree it's possible to be guilty in a football sense but not legal sense, however in this case, I don't agree it is. Racial abuse is an offence punishable by law and therefore, should be tried under the court, not three man panel.
If he was guilty, he deserved to be punished by law, like other people would be. If he wasn't, he didn't.
Again, I agree with you that jusy because there were no criminal charges, doesn't mean the panel were wrong, in fact I have said this, that I accept and understand the decision. I believe with the evidence supplied, they could have found him guilty using the burden of proof that they require but in a court, they couldn't have.
posted on 18/12/12
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
I have repeatedly told you that I accept the panel's verdict and understand it.
So, in your own words, tell us what you feel is wrong about it? You disagree he's guilty?
What?
---------------------------------
I don't think anything is wrong with it, I think using the burden of proof they require, they could have found him guilty, if they wanted to.
posted on 18/12/12
they could have found him guilty, if they wanted to.
Okay - that's the crux of it.
You say that you don't think Suarez would have been found guilty in a court of law, and you use that as if to diminish the credibility of the panel that found Suarez guilty.
My point is that it does nothing of the sort, because the FA weren't charging him for breaking the law, they were charging him for breaking their rules.
See my point?
We both agree that he wouldn't have been convicted in a court of law, but we disagree over what that actually means.
I have to fundamentally disagree with what you've written above.
Just because it's using civil law and not criminal law, it can't just be manipulated to meet some sort of agenda. I think the report shows very clearly why Suarez was found guilty, and I've not heard any credible arguments to say that the guilty verdict was misplaced.
posted on 18/12/12
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
You misunderstand me.
Of course everything we do is relevant to UK law.
But the verdict with which Suarez was found guilty is nothing to do with a court of law - that was what I meant.
"I agree it's possible to be guilty in a football sense but not legal sense, however in this case, I don't agree it is. Racial abuse is an offence punishable by law and therefore, should be tried under the court, not three man panel."
Then I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
That much can be proven by the fact that the FA decided to press ahead with charges of their own after John Terry was found not guilty in a court of law.
That alone proves that the offence of breaking the FA's laws is different to breaking UK laws, and whilst I appreciate why you think that shouldn't be the case, it is the case.
posted on 18/12/12
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
they could have found him guilty, if they wanted to.
Okay - that's the crux of it.
You say that you don't think Suarez would have been found guilty in a court of law, and you use that as if to diminish the credibility of the panel that found Suarez guilty.
-----------------------
No, I don't do that. I use it to say that in a court, using a different burden of proof, I believe he wouldn'tbe found guilty.
The reason I say this isn't in fact because I want to rubbish the panel's credibility, it's because I believe the offence is too serious to be dealt with under a burden of proof which needs only probability.
You see it when the FA judge on incidents all the time, they make a decision which is ridiculous but because they only need the balance of probability, charges are rarely successfully appealed, hence the high rate of conviction, at around 98%, last I checked. This is hard to take if your player, or even putting yourself in a players' shoes, has got a red card after being the second last man but deemed to have been the last man and thus misses three games but you'll get over it. However a player labelled for the rest of his life? It's not something you'll get over. So for me, this means, the burden of proof is too low for the offence.
posted on 18/12/12
"Then I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
"That much can be proven by the fact that the FA decided to press ahead with charges of their own after John Terry was found not guilty in a court of law."
Exactly, using probability they were able to find him guilty, however if they, like the court used beyond all reasonable doubt, like the court, they wouldn't.
posted on 18/12/12
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Okay, fair point, but what about the suggestion that there are potential incidents involving racial language that are not serious enough for criminal proceedings but are serious enough to be dealt with by the FA?
Do you think it's realistic that every complaint of using racial language has to be referred to the police for review, with the FA powerless?
I think it's possible for racial language to be used and to be inappropriate enough for punishment, but that would never be considered as breaking UK law, which is why I think the FA needs power to act.
And I think the Suarez case highlights that perfectly.
I also think you should give more credibility to civil law - it's not the FA sitting in a room deciding to find him guilty... it was a far more structured and legally accepted process than that.
posted on 18/12/12
Exactly, using probability they were able to find him guilty
No... you're getting it wrong.
They charged him under a different offence.
They didn't take the same offence he'd been charged by the police by reduce the levels of probability!
posted on 18/12/12
They didn't take the same offence he'd been charged by the police by reduce the levels of probability!
--------------------------------
In regards to his court case, John Terry was charged with using "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress and the offence was racially aggravated in accordance with section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, contrary to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 31(1)(c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
As we know he was found not guilty. The reason given: "In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty."
The FA charged Terry with "with using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards QPR’s Anton Ferdinand and which included a reference to colour and/or race contrary to FA Rule E3[2] in relation to the Queens Park Rangers FC versus Chelsea FC fixture at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011."
As we know, Terry was found guilty by the FA. In the FA's report, they state that "The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The applicable standard of proof shall be the flexible civil standard of the balance of probability. The more serious the allegation, taking into account the nature of the Misconduct alleged and the context of the case, the greater the burden of evidence required to prove the matter."
They go on to state that had Terry not used the word black, then "then Mr. Terry would not have been charged with simple Misconduct. If he had been, then it would patently have been unfair for the FA not to have also charged Mr. Ferdinand. The FA recognised this in the way in which it put its case. Consideration of the entry point is therefore artificial, because, absent the reference to skin colour, the balance of Mr. Terry‟s words would have attracted no action and/or no sanction."
TOOR isn't getting it wrong when he states that "using probability they were able to find him guilty", for that is exactly what the FA did. Yes, the charges brought to him by the Court and the FA were different charges, both relating to the same incident, but the crux of each charge is exactly the same: using threatening, abusive, insulting words, with reference to race towards Ferdinand. The court found Terry not guilty because there was doubt over the context in which Terry made his comment in regards to the reference to Ferdinand's ethnic origin. Whereas the FA found Terry guilty precisely because he made reference to Ferdinand's ethnic origin, irrespective of the context in which it was used.
posted on 18/12/12
If someone had made a complaint to the police then they would have investigated it. This is a fact but they didn't. I honestly wish they had, in fact I wish I had, as either the CPS would have dropped it for lack of evidence or a court would have cleared him.
The FA hold too much power. Who the feck are they to brand someone racist? They're not the police, the government or even our peers.
posted on 18/12/12
Do you think it's realistic that every complaint of using racial language has to be referred to the police for review, with the FA powerless?
--------------------------------
Yes. Football and society are not synonymous and that's why people, by the same token, do not get arrested for assault after making a slide tackle on a football pitch.
The FA are a FOOTBALL association and the CPS is a CRIMINAL prosecution service. Ergo the FA should stick to football and anything involving criminality, such as racial abuse, to be prosecuted by a criminal service. That is why they have their respective names.
When the FA step outside of their remit (in my opinion) you get kangaroo courts (official term) with the power to brand someone a racist regardless of the legal system and this has far reaching consequences that happen outside of football. It would not happen in any other walk of life or profession.
Page 14 of 20
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19