In the race to dish out the worst possible punishment for Suarez

Danny Mills could well be the winner who has opted for a lifetime gaol sentence with no chance of parole.

Danny Mills: "It has to be the longest ban in football ever. A worldwide ban, not just an international ban."
"It is the third time it has happened and it is a clear bite this time, in a tournament of this magnitude, the most watched tournament in the world. They have got to throw him in jail and lock him up forever."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28010967

Although Alan Shearer appears to be suggesting we use a hammer on him.

 

Remove his teeth and his ****** that should calm him down a bit it works on most animals

 

Danny Mills the dirtiest right back ever (after Kevin Muscat) and Alan Shearer, the chap that volleyed Neil Lennon's head ?

 

The very same.

What do you do when you think the rest of the world has gone ******* barmy? That you're living on a planet full of lunatics? That everyone has lost all sense of perspective and are being ruled by umbrage one-upmanship?

I can only conclude that it must be me that has gone loopy. Luis Suraez should be sent to gaol for the rest of his life and I don't see the justice in that because I'm a fruitcake.

 

Did he mean an actual gaol or a metaphorical gaol?

 

What's a metaphorical gaol?

 

The gaol of despair in Conan's head. A cold, angry place.

 

Is it just me but I can't understand why putting him the nets would help this situation?

He can still bite someone even with gloves on.

 

Someone might say lock him up and throw away the key but they don't really mean that - they mean give the worst possible punishment that the situation allows I.e a lifetime world wide ban. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and giving Danny Mills too much credit. Maybe he did mean a lifelong prison sentence. Which seems a bit extreme for someone who hasn't even drawn blood. He probably would have given Morgan the death penalty.

 

smiling broadly

 

I think a cuddle and a pre match snack to cure his hunger pangs strikes the right balance of tough on crime tough on the causes of crime. Or he could be flayed alive by the Krankies.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

I'm not angry at all. A bit weary sometimes of reading the snidey comments that you post but not angry at all.

 

Pulling out his teeth would be a good start

 

He probably didn't mean it literally, although I don't know for sure, but it's a daft thing to say when you're looking to the BBC to offer some balance in their analysis. No one is arguing what Suarez did isn't wrong, well, no one with any sort of credibility, I'm sure there are some Uruguayans and Liverpool supporters who are spouting some right *****. But exactly how wrong it is, in comparison to other infringements committed by footballers, and what is a suitable punishment, should be up for balanced debate. It shouldn't be about who is the most offended and who can think of the worst punishment, which seems to be the way it's going. It doesn't matter on here, but it does matter when the BBC are at it too.

 

Coming from the snidey master in relation to owt BFC related that's a cracking complement, cheers.

 

We should insist the bugger buys a season ticket for the Ponty End & he must attend every home game (even cup games). Let him experience real punishment. Also, he must pay for all Jay's drinks at half time!
Obviously this is not to be taken seriously. He isn't wealthy enough to pay for all Jay's drinks.

 

Football authority's have a duty to safeguard footballers from dangerous situations wile in the working environment, (banning pitch invaders for life and people who throw things) this is 3 times he's bitten someone in the work place now, no matter what fine ban or other punishment they dish out its not going to deter him, he's proven that by repeating offending I can't see anything but a life long ban if your not going to ban him for live just let him carry on biting people

 

That depends, if he said "he should literally be throw in jail", then of course he didn't mean it literally!

 

To me it is obvious from the rest of the quote that he is talking metaphorically. He says that he should be given a lifetime ban and to me the 'throw him in jail and lock him up' bit means a ban. It is meant in the same way as if he had said "It has to be the longest ban in football ever. A worldwide ban, not just an international ban."
"It is the third time it has happened and it is a clear bite this time, in a tournament of this magnitude, the most watched tournament in the world. They have got to send him to Coventry and leave him there." He wouldn't literally mean that Suarez should be forced to buy a two bed semi in the West Midlands

 

I agree (for once). I also don't understand this talk of 'helping him' which makes it sound like Suarez has got an addiction for eating people and needs psychiatric help when clearly he is just a dirty cheating lovely person who will happily and deliberately injure opposing players. If he should be 'helped' not punished then Chris Morgan and all the other elbowers should be helped too