Seatbelts engage.
I think you will find that the use of words that refer to the colour of somebody’s skin in the midst of a heated argument is actually racially inherent language, that’s what is known as a fact, as is the definition of inherent, you cannot therefore claim different. That’s just how it works.
Then you go on to accuse the commission was biased at some level without giving an iota of evidence, whilst at the same time making reference to a rival player in regards to idiocy… Ha. If that doesn’t allow the casual reader to make assumptions as to your biased outlook on this matter, then its not too far off being your give-away.
Then there is the comments on the difference between civil law and criminal law, which whilst informed really do miss the point. You’re a reasonably intelligent lad; I’ll let you work that one out yourself. (I’m still laughing at the ‘reasonably low’ description of the evidence by the way.)
Finally; I’ve saved the best until last. You’re unhappy about the preparation of your defence; you wanted the legal team to tell Suarez exactly what to say. How about the f***ing truth, yeah? It is so very unfortunate for Suarez that everyone told the truth, isn’t it?
So, it seems that the tl:dr version of your post for all our sane board members, who unlike me, didn’t wake up on a Saturday and begin the day by reading your post: Liverpool actually allowed Suarez to… walk alone.