Pages

Friday 27 January 2012

The Bar Council; an example for FA disciplinary reform?

It's London 2005, and at the headquarters of two of England's regulatory bodies, events which will dictate the way the respective organisations are perceived in the future are occurring.
Separate as these entities may be, and presiding over completely different professions, some of their duties are very similar within their respective realms, and what's happening to them both in 2005 poses almost identical questions with regard to their common responsibility to govern fairly, and the comparable systems that each has in place for enforcing discipline.

In Holborn, the Bar Council is reeling from recommendations arising as a result of a disciplinary case that went to the Court of Appeal. The case prompts calls for widespread change to the way it handles disciplinary action, based on failings of law arising from conflicts of interest in the way it assembles panels for hearings.
Read more here <-----

Meanwhile, over in Soho square, the Football Association are being forced to consider the recommendations of a comprehensive report compiled by Lord Burns. The report highlights widespread problems with the basic mechanism of the FA's disciplinary process and the way in which hearings are carried out. It calls for changes to the way in which hearings are constructed, and warns of ongoing conflicts of interest if the facility for discipline is not changed to one that is free from interference by the FA board. The recommendations being made by Lord Burns to the FA, almost completely mirror the problems identified with the Bar Council disciplinary system.
Read the full 2005 Burns Report here <-----

"all the regulation and enforcement functions of The FA, ranging from on-field
discipline through to agents’ activities and clubs’ financial reporting obligations should
be carried out by a Regulation and Compliance Unit.  To strengthen the Unit and to
demonstrate its independence from conflicts of interest it is proposed that it should
be semi-autonomous and operate at arms-length, although subject to (published)
policy direction by the Board. It should publicly report its activities to the FA Board,
the FA Council and to stakeholders at large, in a way similar to many of the
independent regulatory organisations created by the government over the past two
decades or so.  Within the unit there should be clear separation between the
functions associated with “decisions to charge” and the convening of “judicial”
commissions to hear cases and appeals"
Lord Burns, from the 2005 Burns Report to the Football Association.

In 2012, I'm bringing both of these events and organisations together in this article, because the failings which existed in their structures and systems for discipline in 2005, were very similar indeed. As striking as the similarities in the failings of the two systems were back then however, it's the distinct difference in the way the two bodies reacted to those calls to reform that raises questions with relevance to the way in which they operate, and the efficacy with which they perform today.

This difference in approach can best be illustrated by looking briefly at how the Bar Council began in 2005, to adapt to the findings that set it at odds with fair process.
The Bar Council set out on a path that fundamentally changed its structure, breaking down the main parts of its fabric and ring-fencing the necessary sections required to provide fairness and independent operation, including the departments within the organisation charged with the implementation of disciplinary rules and regulations.

In January 2006, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) was created.
Outline here <-------
The BSB is the regulatory arm of the Bar Council, and whilst it's not a separate legal entity, it is free to operate without the main council's input and carries out its duties without interference from it.
The full Constitution of the BSB here <----

"A. The Bar Council is an approved regulator for the purposes of the Legal Services Act
2007.
B. The Bar Council has established the Bar Standards Board (“the BSB”) to exercise the
regulatory functions of the Bar Council.
C. The Bar Council wishes to have in place arrangements which observe and respect the
principle of regulatory independence (as defined in  rule 1 of the  Internal Governance
Rules 2009), i.e. the principle that structures or persons with representative  functions
must not exert, or be permitted to exert, undue influence or control over the performance
of regulatory functions, or any person(s) discharging those functions.
D. The Bar Council intends that it should at all times act in a way which is compatible with
the principle of regulatory independence and which it considers is most appropriate for
the purpose of meeting that principle.
E. Accordingly, and under paragraph 1(h) of the Constitution of the Bar Council, the Bar
Council makes the following Constitution for the BSB. "
From the BSB Constitution.

In 2007, the Legal Services Act was passed, which as well as other things, facilitated some of the changes being made at the Bar Council with regard to the separation of systems, and independence of control.
Also in 2007, the Bar Council created the Bar Quality Advisory Panel (BQAP). The role of the panel is non-regulatory, and seeks to promote excellence through education of the members of the Bar.
Outline of the BQAP here <--------

To fully appreciate however, the gulf in attitude toward urgent need for change between the FA and the Bar Council, you have to bear in mind whilst examining the constituent parts of the new Bar Council, and the swiftness with which they addressed failings, that the FA parked the Burns Report in 2005, and assembles its panels today in much the same way as it did back when the report was published. You need to compare the Bar Council's determination to create and uphold a fiercely independent system, with the FA's contrasting attitude in their ongoing practice of setting themselves up as judge, jury and executioner. It's about how each reacted once the flaws were identified to them.

The FA panel in the Suarez case, for example, was a three man one. Each of the representatives had direct or indirect links with the Football Association, or with a party connected to the case.
The lead QC, Paul Goulding, was appointed from the same Blackstone chambers that the FA used to defend Wayne Rooney against a charge of unsporting behaviour whilst on England duty. The first 'lay' representative, Brian Jones, is the FA regional chairman for Sheffield and Hallamshire. The other, Denis Smith, being a friend and self-proclaimed contributor to the career of one of the key protagonists behind the original accusation - Alex Ferguson, the Manchester United manager.  Smith currently works for Stoke City's academy.
There is no credible way that you can call these people 'independent' or avoid the question of whether a conflict of interest was an influencing factor. The legal benchmark has been set within the Bar Council case: it is a violation of human rights for a regulatory body to act as prosecution, judge and jury in disciplinary matters. This has long been known by the UK Government, which has been lobbying the FA to reform for a period of years.

Fast-forward now to Autumn 2011, and the halls of these two regulatory bodies once again echo with discussions built around the same subject matter. This time it's 'Burden of proof'.
In Holborn, at the Bar Council, by now completely transformed in the way it addresses discipline, a disagreement has broken out between barristers and the relatively new BSB which centres around the BSB's plan to reduce the required level of proof in Bar disciplinary hearings to the civil standard of the 'Balance of Probabilities'. Barristers are offering fierce opposition to any reduction in the level from the current Criminal standard of 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt', and the proposed review by the Bar is called ridiculous by its members.
Outline of the dispute here <-----

Over in Soho square meanwhile, the same old FA is under severe criticism itself from some quarters, including but not limited to the manager of Liverpool Football Club, one Mr Kenneth Dalglish. The concerns are over the lack of fairness offered by the hearing that found Luis Suarez guilty on charges originating during the game against Manchester United. Troubling supporters of the club most is the way in which panels are assembled and the methods by which the verdict was arrived at. Liverpool supporters are up in arms about many factors of the case and hearing, but one of the issues which keeps coming up is the level of the burden of proof employed, and the fact that the FA requirement in condemning Suarez was the lower civil standard.

The arguments about Burden of Proof between the Rumpoles and the BSB rumbles on to this day, and it remains to be seen whether the Bar will cede to the objections of its members. However one thing made certain by the fierce opposition the barristers display to the lowering of the standards of proof in disciplinary matters, is the fact that for professionals employed in the business of upholding legal principles of fairness, and preoccupied with the mechanics of trial through fair process, the idea of subjecting their personal and professional reputations and their livelihoods to the same lower level of proof currently stipulated by the FA is both feared and deemed unacceptable.

And there, for the moment lies the limit to any common ground which may once have existed between the FA and the Bar Council in the way they handle discipline. Whilst the barristers' argument developed last year, the events that would ultimately lead to Luis Suarez being brought up on FA charges, were taking place on a football field in the North West.
The resulting hearing was a high-stakes, one-time exercise.
In the balance went a man's personal and professional reputation while a whole world watched.
With such a charge, and the resulting interest, never before had the problems the FA chose to ignore back in 2005 been applied to such an important, contested case. This wasn't about a three game suspension. Even the resulting eight game ban wasn't the most important issue in a hearing where the public's perception of an individual was what was primarily at stake. The principles of the process deemed so unfit for purpose by Burns seven years earlier were now being applied to a charge based on alleged racist comments and insults - an act deemed as criminal by the laws of this country, and not ordinarily a crime tried by a system that relies on the lower burden of proof to convict.

Never the less, the FA verdict was 'guilty'. The media descended, raised damning voices and printed angry lines to varying degrees to millions world wide. All of the headlines and commentaries were governed by differing levels of enlightenment with regard to the case. Some of the earlier headlines could have been based on at best, the briefest of consideration for the released reasons.
But it's safe to say that all of the articles written, every cry of disdain by the organisations and proponents of the fight against racism, every word of the pundits and the players that offered their views - were based on a 115 page report compiled by the FA, and based on the output of an FA system that has been known to be unfit for purpose since 2005. A system deemed unfair in that long-parked report by Lord Burns, on the strength of the basic failings of its mechanisms to adhere to fundamental principles of reasonable, good governance and independent judgement. Principles intrinsic to the way in which justice is carried out in this country and vital to the way in which reputations are protected.

In the final days of 2011, whilst the barristers and the Bar Council continued to debate a path of evolving, self-improving reform, the FA finished off a process that had tried a man for an alleged illegal act, using a system declared back in 2005 as being unfit for the purpose of handing down three game bans for straight red cards. In doing so, it subjected Luis Suarez and his reputation - not as a footballer, but as a man, to an ordeal and to a process that through its shortcomings, ignored rights afforded to him by a carefully evolved legal system. A system formed over time in this country to ensure the best possible level of the upholding of the law, and to provide the greatest possible chance that only the guilty should be declared as such.
In a society where judgement is naturally not limited to custodial process but also dealt via the way in which news is reported to an interested public. That dereliction and disregard for a man's constitutional and human rights was incorrect and improper.

The potential dangers associated with subjecting a man or a woman to a process capable of making or breaking their personal and professional reputation and fortunes, while unacceptable faults existed as to the fairness and independent integrity of the system, was why in 2005 the Bar Council undertook immediate and uncompromising action to reform.
And it's why in 2005, when the Burns report was published and the same concerns were levelled at the FA, their failure to act, their careless attitude to the business of providing fair disciplinary hearings, showed a disregard on their part to observe the duty they hold to the people that watch football, manage football and play football in England
It was a failure on the part of the Football Association in terms of its responsibility to respect the people they govern, and a drastic oversight in their duty to be just.

As a football supporter, I'd like to see some assurance from the FA in 2012 that the advice they ignored in 2005 will be revisited.
In the midst of ongoing and distinct pressure from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I want to know that reform will be far-reaching and sensible enough, so that although it won't bring Suarez back for the eight games he'll have missed, it will provide a new, fair disciplinary system. One that, should a player or employee of any football club be accused of a serious offence in the future, they'll receive an appropriately fair hearing, and be subject to a verdict reached by a process and a panel worthy of a power that's capable of destroying a reputation and throwing its subject to the waiting, baying hoardes.
Details of the DCMS call for reform here <------


As a supporter of football, I find myself unable to come to terms with a hearing and a governing body that produces a verdict in such a watered-down, weakened form, that it is accompanied by statements from both the FA and the original complainant in which they state that they do not think the accused is guilty. But a process that is none-the-less capable of resulting in a series of events which generates an environment that allows a football club, it's player and manager to be vilified in public.
It's a breakdown in the FA's own systems which has allowed this to happen without appropriate proof. Good, clear regulation is not possible in the absence of a strong, unquestionable process for discipline. And that breakdown was caused by failures in the mechanics of structures and systems that the Football Association knew about way back in 2005.


(Lee)

Saturday 21 January 2012

Existing Process, isn't Fair Process.

Yesterday, we received a letter from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that we believe vindicates Kenny Dalglish's and Liverpool Football Club's stance during the Luis Suarez episode.

In the immediate aftermath of Luis Suarez being branded as guilty last month, the Media and even the PFA were quick to criticise strongly any public defence of the player by both his club and its support.
Within minutes of the lengthy and detailed report being released publicly, the media pounced to cast damning judgement on the player.
When soon after, the club released a statement detailing their objections to the methods employed by the judging panel, large sections of the media ignored the intricacies of the case and tore into the club, condemning its reasoned criticisms and real concerns as arrogant and departed from reality.
Any arguments against the witch hunt, or dissection of the FA case, were met by feverish responses, aggressive derision, declarations of disgrace and even predictions of decline and untimely doom from various washed up and wheeled out pundits and hangers on.

In reality, the issue was never about the charge. The actions of the club that stood firm by the man they felt a duty of loyalty to, were never detrimental to the fight against racial intolerance and bigotry in the sport. Liverpool supporters merely analysed all the available information and concluded that the judgement was faulty, that is was without basis in established fact, without evidence that supported the original complaint
For Luis Suarez - a man who actively promotes an approach to football that prioritises equality and tolerance, derision for accepting the backing of his team mates must have been bewildering. He seemed to face it with a dignified, if astonished resignation, but there must have been times when that gave way to despair, as his reputation was torn to pieces by a whipped up public that are largely reliant on a gutter-based tabloid press, and predominantly revenue driven phone-in-and-rant radio and TV based media.
Within the club and within the player, there must have been an overwhelming feeling of injustice and an agonising realisation that there had occurred a massive failure of fair process.

Racism exists in Britain and in British football, but the Luis Suarez case and the aftermath of it in the press wasn't about that. This was always about an inability and an unwillingness on the part of the FA, to enforce discipline within the game by fair means. It was about the structure in place being one that the FA used to pass judgement without fear of reprisal by, or accountability to, the people they exist to serve. A mechanism evolved and operated without thought for the pursuit of establishing, developing and conserving the backbone of a game in this country, that should be sport in the truest sense of the word.
As it is, in a fog of political agendas, somewhere along the line, the FA has lost sight of the importance of being a fair and open governing body. In the fug of a politically motivated determination to appear to be acting in the best interests of political correctness, it's forgotten what sport is, and discarded the values, based on independent judgement, that allow sport to exist.

It was against this backdrop of hostility, that we decided to question the way in which the Luis Suarez verdict was reached. This blog is full of the arguments against the hearing and it's chock-a-block with examples of the holes in the methods of the FA, just in case you've been living under a rock for several weeks and need to have a read, but it's all pretty much summed up anyway, in the email we sent to the FA.

Email to the FA <------ Link

We found that the FA had such faith in the structure of its systems for governance, that it sent a detailed response back.

The FA Response <--------- Link

Undeterred and determined to try to get a response that in some way attempted to address the points we'd made in the email, we then decided to turn to the government Department for Culture, Media and Sport. You may already know that this department have been actively seeking for some time, via the CMS select committee, to encourage dramatic changes in the structure of the FA and its board, and that they've set a deadline in February of this year for the organisation to come to terms with, and address practically those needs for change.
In their reply however, dated 20th January 2012, they went a step further.

Ministerial Support Unit
2-4 Cockspur Street
London SW1Y 5DH
www.culture.gov.uk
Tel 0207 *** ****
Fax
Mr ****** ********
** ******** **
*********
**** ***
Email: ******************

Dear Mr ******,
Thank you for your email to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport enclosing correspondence from the FA regarding the on-going governance reform process. I am replying on behalf of the Department.

The Department is pleased with the responses it has received from members of the House, the media, and the wider public at large at the Government’s response to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee football governance Inquiry. The Department recognise there are issues and related concerns over the FA’s dual role in handling disciplinary matters. In our response to the Select Committee report into football governance we recommended significant reform of the FA’s Board and Council; the introduction of a club licensing system where financial sustainability and robust checks on club owners and directors is included, and for greater supporter representation at football clubs. We have also recommended that the FA considers a review of the disciplinary process that currently operates within football.

At the moment the policy-making, charging and decision-making all sit with the FA. However, we believe there is a good case for this to be modernised with the FA continuing to set the rules and regulation in consultation with all those with an interest, but the charging and decision-making process handled outside of the FA, by an accountable, but independent and separate organisation. We believe this would provide more clarity and enable the football authorities to address disciplinary matters fairly.

The authorities have until the end of February to inform the public about their proposals to make these improvements that will benefit the long-term interests of grassroots football, professional clubs and the national team.

The Department continue to meet with the football authorities to hear what progress they are making. It is our belief that it is for the football authorities to determine the best way of achieving the right changes, but Government will be a key partner in those discussions.
Thank you once again for taking the time to write to the Department.

Yours sincerely,
Charles Tetteh
Ministerial Support Unit


In stating clearly that they consider the current system for disciplinary action against players to be unsuitable and unfair, the DCMS have confirmed what a  lot of football supporters suspected all along about the suspiciously timed FA report, which was released late on New Year's Eve of last year.

.......but the charging and decision-making process handled outside of the FA, by an accountable, but independent and separate organisation. We believe this would provide more clarity and enable the football authorities to address disciplinary matters fairly.

In clearly qualifying that their belief in a need for change in the FA disciplinary process, is based on a requirement for a new, fair method, the DCMS have well and truly set out their stall.
Let's be clear here; the letter doesn't speak of a fairer process - it speaks of the requirement for a new, fair one.

When you start to appreciate the view of the DCMS, in terms of what it indicates with regard to the system currently in place at the FA for carrying out disciplinary hearings, then everything changes with regard to there being any justification available to those that overlooked the evidence.
The absence of any navigable avenue of recourse that was capable of overturning a verdict or challenging the findings of that inadequate and unfair report, and the resulting decision by the football club to waive the right to an appeal, which instead could only offer a change in the duration of the already imposed ban, further reinforces the DCMS's concerns over the unfit for purpose systems in place at the FA. The nature of a system condemned in the wake of a government select committee, certainly explains why the club may have felt that there was a greater likelihood that the term would be increased, than decreased if an appeal was pursued.

For a club that have been branded as arrogant and inappropriate by an over zealous media, the unmistakable view of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will feel a lot like redemption.
If the case were to be heard in front of a committee assembled under the recommendations of the forthcoming reforms, how many reasonable people could say with even the smallest amount of confidence, that on the basis of the 'evidence' detailed in the New Year's Eve report, the verdict would have been guilty?

The most important question that the media and the PFA failed to ask is; was the player given a fair hearing, when the conflicting interests and agendas of the FA were an influencing factor in the disciplinary process?

Because if the answer to that is No, then there is no way that the verdict can be just, or as the DCMS have put it - fair. And it's no wonder therefore that the Government department concerned with sport and the overseeing of the regulation of domestic football have stated so clearly that the systems that are currently in place, require replacing with a system that is fair.
No surprise either, that with the consequences of such ineptitude so apparent in the wake of the Suarez case, they've been active in forcing the FA to adhere to a finite schedule, in an effort to get the changes made as soon as is possible.

If the opinions of football supporters are not enough for a national media, which shows headlong determination to disregard the good reputations of great institutions in pursuit of that next, sensational titbit, then maybe they'll take note whilst confirmation is issued by parliamentary process and authority - declared by the highest house in the land.

Supporters are angry because they were ignored on the basis of scant, ill founded claims.
Supporters are dissatisfied because good progress has been impeded by an inadequate and unfair system for the regulation of domestic football.
That's a feeling that in the DCMS, has been echoed by the weightiest of assessors.
And it's a position on fairness that has today been reiterated by the Government body responsible for FA reform.


(Lee)

Sunday 8 January 2012

EPPP: The end of lower-league football as we know it?


December the 20th, 2011 was a day to savour for 16-year-old Jordon Ibe. The youngster who came through Wycombe Wanderers' youth academy had just signed a contract with Liverpool. A month earlier, 14-year-old Seyi Ojo did the same thing, signing with the Reds after being scouted at his then-club MK Dons. Big clubs signing prodigious youth talent is nothing new - but in all likelihood Ibe and Ojo are the first two in an exodus of youth prospects moving from lower-league clubs to the big time. The reason? In October, the 72 Football League clubs voted - reluctantly - to allow the EPPP (Elite Player Performance Plan) to come into effect from the start of the 2012-2013 season. That vote potentially opens up the biggest gap between top-flight and lower-league clubs since the advent of the Premiership.

So what is the EPPP? In layman's terms, the EPPP sets out to ensure that top quality youth players across England get scouted, identified and are allowed access to the finest coaching and training to achieve optimum development at England's elite clubs. This, the FA say, will ensure that England's youth prospects flourish in the coming years, allowing us to dominate the world to the sounds of "INGERLUND" while we all get misty-eyed watching Jack Wilshere lift the World Cup in 2018. Sounds great on paper, right?

Wrong.

There are downsides - and in this case they're absolutely massive ones. As mentioned, one of the tenets of the EPPP is that the best youth talent get developed at the best teams - who obviously play in the Premier League. The Premier League, in all their compassionate wisdom, threatened to withhold funding (estimated at over £6m a year) for youth development at lower league clubs if they didn't accept the terms of the EPPP. The EPPP was also drawn up solely by Premier League members, even though it influences and affects the entire Football League.

The EPPP champions a four-tier academy system; the best club academies are level one, and the worst (not worst per se, but roll with me) are level four. The FA estimates a level one academy will cost around £2.5m a year to run; in short, only the big clubs will be able to afford them. However, a club with a level one academy will also get financial rewards from the FA for HAVING such a great academy - rewards that they don't need, due to being a club that can already afford such an academy! Baffling logic, but then again it IS the FA we're talking about here.

It gets worse, though. Clubs with category three or four academies (i.e the majority of League One and Two clubs) won't be allowed to sign players until they're 12-years-old. Currently they're allowed to sign players at nine - enabling them to pick-up undiscovered talent ready for developing. The EPPP will remove that three-year cushion, ensuring that the best talent will have been snapped up by the clubs with the top academies by the time the lower-league clubs are allowed to sign any players.

Another major change that the EPPP is set to bring in is the end of tribunals. A tribunal is called when clubs can't agree a reasonable transfer fee for a youth player - such as in the transfer of Crystal Palace teenager John Bostock to Tottenham. Crystal Palace said they wanted a certain amount for Bostock. Tottenham said he was worth less. They couldn't agree, so a tribunal said "right Tottenham, this is how much you have to pay Palace." Not ideal, but certainly better than the ruling EPPP will bring in. With no more tribunals, the club that's selling the player (almost always a lower-league club) will receive a flat fee based on every year the player has spent at the club's academy - which is almost comically low (we're talking hundreds of thousands of pounds (and in some cases millions) less).

So what to do? As we've seen in the cases of Ibe and Ojo, lower-league clubs are now pressured into selling their best prospects before EPPP comes in. Wait until after it's introduced? Sorry mate, that's millions of pounds less you'll be getting.

A worrying effect of the EPPP is the simple fact that many lower-league clubs may simply abandon their youth system altogether. What's the point in spending money that these teams can ill afford to waste on running a youth system if the bigger clubs will simply swoop in and poach them for pennies? What does an extra £500,000 or couple of million matter to the biggest clubs in the land? Nothing. What does the same money matter to a club like Leyton Orient, Hereford or Plymouth? Everything. That additional money could mean the difference between survival and administration, but a negligible initial transfer fee means that the top clubs have barely any risk in signing the hottest prospects from other academies. No fee, no risk. No risk, no hesitation.

As MK Dons boss Karl Robinson says: "If we lose our youth players for nominal fees, how are we going to survive? I don't think it's fair. Kids develop at a phenomenal rate at the highest level, but are these kids going to play in people's first teams at the age of 16 or 17?"

Whether you support Liverpool or Morecambe, the feelings should be the same. Yet again the big teams are screwing over the little ones. Capitalism at its finest, ladies and gentlemen.

(Contributor: Kriz)

The Unfair Application of Inconsistent Standards

Being a mixed race person myself, this Suarez issue has generated conflicting thoughts at times in my mind.
Even now, in checking the after-match reports from the Oldham FA Cup game earlier this evening, I find myself reading about another 'possibly racially related' incident that may, or may not have happened during the game. I'll state this now : too many people of all origins are too quick to play the race card. It is something I'd be extremely careful about, and even reluctant to do personally, but so often it seems - that for some, especially among those who are not intelligent, playing the race card can be an easy way out of having to deal with their own problems and faults.

Now dont get me wrong; I know that. racism still exists; It can occur in explicit ways. For example, recently at a night club, just as I was going in, a white dude who wasn't let in by the bouncers exclaimed ''Why cant I get in? Even black people are getting in!''. For me that incident felt more insulting than if someone had called me a n****r, and i wanted to start a fight, but the bouncers held me back.
But also racism occurs institutionally; via non-vocal but more powerful and often sinister or covert means.
However much the issue of race may or may not confer on the black person an advantage, it is usually assumed that the black person wont be racist or cant be racist to a white or Asian person - which in my opinion is untrue.

In this recent case, it seems evident that Evra should have been taken to task over his offensive initial comments with regard to Suarez's ethnic origin - and he wasnt. At the same time however, during the same disciplinary procedure, comments made by Suarez were deemed offensive using the 'balance of probability' as a standard for establishing guilt.
It seems unfair and inconsistent that Evra's comments were not handled in, or assessed in the same way as Suarez's.

I personally believe that Suarez might have been trying to wind Evra up, but that he didn't intend any racial slur at all, in any way.
The way the FA handled the case, suggests that they wanted a scapegoat in the political aftermath of the comments made by Blatter on the subject of racism in football, and that their final verdict wasnt the most objective at all, being based instead on a desire to react politically to that.

It's in that regard, that I feel suarez and LFC have been treated very unfairly.

(Contributor: Samuel, Westmeath, Ireland)

Friday 6 January 2012

The Blog, The Hearing, The FA and the Following Media Free For All.

This blog is primarily intended to be a few different things;

A sounding board for those that wish to comment on, and/or discuss issues surrounding the charge, the hearing, the verdict and the coverage connected with the recent 8 game ban handed down to Luis Suarez, following the game against Manchester United in October last year.

A response to what was largely perceived by Liverpool supporters to be a very partisan FA disciplinary procedure. And to what is felt to have been an extremely sensationalised and biased coverage in the media, since the verdict was announced.

This is also the place to air views about the possible motives for a decision by the FA, that was widely viewed by the supporters of Liverpool Football Club to have been made whilst ignoring a lot of the evidence presented to it during the hearing.
And to consider seemingly unfair access to video evidence with regard to the two parties involved seeing different parts of the available evidence at differing stages of the process, in a way that can easily be judged to be very unfair.

This is a blog on which to discuss the way in which football is regulated domestically, be that applied to this particular case, or to the general frameworks and practices connected to FA disciplinary procedures.
The processes by which personel are selected and deemed suitable to take part in hearing individual cases, and the systems in place for appeals and the manner of the standards of proof by which guilty verdicts are reached.

This blog is also about the way the subject has been processed by some of the press and the wider media. It's about standards of journalism and punditry, and the absence of balance in reporting, that has often seemed loaded in the pursuit of the sensational.
Coverage that's often appeared to be an exercise in shifting copy and nothing more. And about the absence of proper analysis of all the evidence available, when writing the headlines and the stories that don't always add up to the truth about the verdict, the procedure or about the man that's been branded a racist by some.

I'd suggest that the FA may be able to silence the clubs and the players with veiled threats and a media frenzy, but it's harder to silence the supporters of football. Because it's the supporters that it's all really about.
It's the views and the earnest enthusiasm and love for the game and the teams that allows the leagues and the association to exist.
It's the pursuit of truth and of accurate, complete and balanced reporting - to the people, that makes a free and honest press an essential part of society. And it's that society the media must answer to when those standards are absent.

This blog is not intended to push any particular agenda, it's merely an outlet for the frustrations of football supporters that want to have their own say in the face of a tidal wave of misinformation, poor commentary and a domestic regulatory football body that appears to have lost it's way.

You may think we're raging against the machine because we're angry, you may think we're standing by our man and being loyal to our club.
And we are.
But this isn't just a soap box for voicing disappointment and an unwavering and unconditional support - it's a collection of heartfelt anaylsis, based on a lengthy and detailed, balanced assessment of the facts and the events that constitute the current situation and the processes that brought us here.
Engage us by all means, but listen to what we say and ask yourself 'What if this happens to my club next?'"

The views contained are not the views of one man or woman, they're the views and the concerns of many, about the direction that the game is heading, and the way in which the media and the FA have behaved.

(Lee)