# Suarez gets 8 match ban



## Maggot (Dec 21, 2011)

Liverpool's Luis Suarez has been handed an 8 match ban and £40,000 for allegedly racially abusing Patrice Evra. I don't know what he said, but given that no-one else heard it apart from Evra, 8 games seems very harsh. I hope the appeal is successful.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16186556.stm

I expect this is being discussed on the Liverpool thread, but it deserves one of it's own.


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

Er, he's admitted himself he called him a nigger, repeatedly.

But argued that in Uruguay that's not considered insulting. Deserves far more than 8 matches.

You're not in uruguay, Luis, you racist cunt.


----------



## g force (Dec 21, 2011)

Well done on completely mis understanding his defence there. He didn't call him a nigger at any point.


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

the mash's take on it. gotta love LFC.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport...ayan-racism-is-really-friendly'-201112214697/

i seriously cant see Fergie standing by a player in the same situation. Dalglish should be ashamed of himself for defending him.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Dec 21, 2011)

8 matches and a £40K fine.

Shameful that LFC have not disciplined him too.
Then again, LFC aren't the club they use to be.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> Er, he's admitted himself he called him a nigger, repeatedly.
> 
> But argued that in Uruguay that's not considered insulting. Deserves far more than 8 matches.
> 
> You're not in uruguay, Luis, you racist cunt.





g force said:


> Well done on completely mis understanding his defence there. He didn't call him a nigger at any point.



AFAIK the evidence hasn't been released yet so it's still based on the mountains of speculation floating around.


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

g force said:


> Well done on completely mis understanding his defence there. He didn't call him a nigger at any point.



apologies. hes admitted using the word 'negrito'. repeatedly. which is apparently considered acceptable in uruguay when addressing a very close black friend. how close do you think suarez and evra are? particularly in the context of the match in question?

his intention was to racially abuse evra and as such he got punished.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> Er, he's admitted himself he called him a nigger, repeatedly.
> 
> But argued that in Uruguay that's not considered insulting.


 Link please.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> apologies. hes admitted using the word 'negrito'. repeatedly. which is apparently considered acceptable in uruguay when addressing a very close black friend. how close do you think suarez and evra are? particularly in the context of the match in question?
> 
> his intention was to racially abuse evra and as such he got punished.



Similar to the word, Chino when describing Chinese people.
Not at all friendly.


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Link please.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/14/luis-suarez-patrice-evra-race-row


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 21, 2011)

John Terry must be shitting himself, with Suarez it's based upon word of mouth, Terry was caught on camera.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/14/luis-suarez-patrice-evra-race-row



"It is understood..." ie. nothing solid there.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/14/luis-suarez-patrice-evra-race-row


Nowhere in that article does Suarez admit which words he used.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 21, 2011)

TruXta said:


> "It is understood..." ie. nothing solid there.


to be fair, they reported the same thing on five live speak your brains this morning i.e. Suarez had admitted using "negrita" but that it wasn't meant in a derogatory manner.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Nowhere in that article does Suarez admit which words he used.


Nor that he 'repeatably' used them/it. There are though reports that he used a variant of negro once.


----------



## g force (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> apologies. hes admitted using the word 'negrito'. repeatedly. which is apparently considered acceptable in uruguay when addressing a very close black friend. how close do you think suarez and evra are? particularly in the context of the match in question?
> 
> his intention was to racially abuse evra and as such he got punished.



No that's the problem. It's not a term that is used to only describe black people you're close friends with, hence why the FA took so long to make a decision. Until the full report comes out no one knows on what basis they've charged him.

If it's simply that "negrito" is an offensive term then they're on dodgy ground.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

g force said:


> No that's the problem. It's not a term that is used to only describe black people you're close friends with, hence why the FA took so long to make a decision. Until the full report comes out no one knows on what basis they've charged him.
> 
> If it's simply that "negrito" is an offensive term then they're on dodgy ground.



This is what the FA have said/found:



> Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match.
> The insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra’s colour.
> Mr Suarez shall be warned as to his future conduct, be suspended for eight matches covering all first team competitive matches and fined the sum of £40,000.
> The penalty is suspended pending the outcome of any appeal lodged by Mr Suarez against this decision.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> to be fair, they reported the same thing on five live speak your brains this morning i.e. Suarez had admitted using "negrita" but that it wasn't meant in a derogatory manner.



I'm not gonna call it either way until I see the FA statement. But AFAIK whatever word was said (and it seems something was said that upset Evra) it has not been clearly confirmed by anyone what that word was.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 21, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> John Terry must be shitting himself, with Suarez it's based upon word of mouth, Terry was caught on camera.



If the FA don't want to look like a bunch of hypocritical cunts then Terry is looking at a life ban from football.


----------



## hammerntongues (Dec 21, 2011)

g force said:


> No that's the problem. It's not a term that is used to only describe black people you're close friends with, hence why the FA took so long to make a decision. Until the full report comes out no one knows on what basis they've charged him.
> 
> If it's simply that "negrito" is an offensive term then they're on dodgy ground.



I speak to Uruguayans regularly during the course of my work , they insist that the term negrito is generally used more as a friendly term than otherwise , problem is I don`t think Suarez was trying to be friendly .


----------



## RaverDrew (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> the mash's take on it. gotta love LFC.
> 
> http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport...ayan-racism-is-really-friendly'-201112214697/
> 
> i seriously cant see Fergie standing by a player in the same situation. Dalglish should be ashamed of himself for defending him.



Nah, Fergie only stands by them if they shag granny hookers, get into drunken brawls, roast drunk young girls, organise orgies, deliberately skip drugs tests and (allegedly) snort coke in nightclubs...


----------



## mwgdrwg (Dec 21, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> If the FA don't want to look like a bunch of hypocritical cunts then Terry is looking at a life ban from football.



But Terry was only using those words to say that he didn't use those words. He'll get a slap on the wrist, he is captain of England after all.

If Suarez got 8 games, Terry should have double that.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

mwgdrwg said:


> But Terry was only using those words to say that he didn't use those words. He'll get a slap on the wrist, he is captain of England after all.


If the FA agree hat this is what happened then this will only re-inforce the Suarez verdict as will it show a common abhorrence of the use of such terms.


----------



## crusty bloomer (Dec 21, 2011)

Kick racism out of football (for 8 matches with half a weeks salary fine)


----------



## editor (Dec 21, 2011)

Why would Suarez be making any reference to the colour of another player?


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

editor said:


> Why would Suarez be making any reference to the colour of another player?


Why aren't all cultures the same, you mean?


----------



## editor (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> Why aren't all cultures the same, you mean?


No, I mean why would a player be referencing the skin colour of another player during a game?


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

editor said:


> No, I mean why would a player be referencing the colour of another player during a game?


It's entirely normal in Latin American culture to use physical characteristics when referring to others.


----------



## DRINK? (Dec 21, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> John Terry must be shitting himself, with Suarez it's based upon word of mouth, Terry was caught on camera.



Terry's team mates must be shitting themselves, imagine him sitting around for 2 months with nothing to do


----------



## editor (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> It's entirely normal in Latin American culture to use physical characteristics when referring to others.


But he's not playing in Latin America. He's playing in England.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> It's entirely normal in Latin American culture to use physical characteristics when referring to others.



As it is here. "See that black guy over there" is a perfectly legit sentence.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

editor said:


> But he's not playing in Latin America. He's playing in England.


I know, but he's Latin American. Are people expected to adapt immediately to another culture now? Is there no leeway for the ill-educated?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 21, 2011)

DRINK? said:


> Terry's team mates must be shitting themselves, imagine him sitting around for 2 months with nothing to do


dan roan of bbc sports says CPS will announce Terry decision in next hour


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> I know, but he's Latin American. Are people expected to adapt immediately to another culture now? Is there no leeway for the ill-educated?


Of course there is - but from what i can tell you don't use negrito _in a non-friendly situation_ such as this other than to try and wind up the other personand on the basis of skin colour. I reckon he _knew_ there was a line there and tried to be too clever about it and now it's backfired. Using it in the normal friendly way, sure, point out the mistake and see if he learns from it, but i'm not at all convinced hat this is what happened here.


----------



## strung out (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> I know, but he's Latin American. Are people expected to adapt immediately to another culture now? Is there no leeway for the ill-educated?


he's only been playing in europe for 5 years, after all


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 21, 2011)

It is a very different phrase in a Latin American rather than a British context, and on the radio last night they mentioned that Evra had used a term for Latin American people (which wasn't disclosed, so could have been innocuous, or not) that might not - in the UK, where there has only been very small numbers of Latino immigrants - be viewed here as a racial slur but Suarez might have percieved very differently.

I'm not defending using these terms on a British football field, but I do think that there seems to be enough money thrown at players by clubs - a cultural awareness course for all players shouldn't be so difficult on top of punishment . It would be far less complicated should a British-born player be found guilty of using very straightforward racist abuse, but can't really think of any contemporary examples likely to come up soon.......


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Of course there is - but from what i can tell you don't use negrito _in a non-friendly situation_ such as this other than to try and wind up the other personand on the basis of skin colour.


The pejorative line is a very murky one as far as I know. Equivalent english words like 'bruv' or 'bro' could be construed as racist in certain contexts while not being used pejoratively.


butchersapron said:


> I reckon he knew there was a line there and tried to be too clever about it. Using it in the normal friendly way,sure, point out the mistake and see if he learns from it.


I suspect you're right, but given the evidence which has (so far) been made public it's a bit of a leap of faith I think.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 21, 2011)

An interesting article on the matter from Phil Vickery of the BBC.





			
				 Phil Vickery said:
			
		

> Probably the most revered figure in the history of Uruguayan football is Obdulio Varela, captain of the side that won the World Cup in 1950. His nickname was "El Negro Jefe" - the black boss.






			
				 Phil Vickery said:
			
		

> Among Suarez's team-mates these days is Maxi Pereira, who is known as "El Mono" - the monkey. It is a nickname which, apparently, is given and accepted with no offence meant or taken. It appears to be used in the same spirit that Alvaro Fernandez is called "El Flaco", which means skinny.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 21, 2011)

Like I said on the other thread before it moved over here, the questions I think you'd need to ask about the 'it's a regularly used inoffensive term' argument are - 'Does he use it regularly in training (he's been there nearly a year after all not a couple of weeks) and if so why the hell hasn't someone at Liverpool had a word and sorted him out?' and 'If he doesn't why has he suddenly decided to in the context of him trying to wind up an opponent?'


----------



## editor (Dec 21, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> An interesting article on the matter from Phil Vickery of the BBC.


What he calls his team mate is irrelevant. The question is why was he repeatedly using the term against an opponent.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

strung out said:


> he's only been playing in europe for 5 years, after all


In Holland, mostly, where they speak Dutch as far I'm aware. Plenty of people have lived here for many years without integrating to the point of understanding relatively nuanced area of lingusitics.


----------



## editor (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> In Holland, mostly, where they speak Dutch as far I'm aware. Plenty of people have lived here for many years without integrating to the point of understanding relatively nuanced area of lingusitics.


Except he's not some poor immigrant trying to scrape by and bumbling his way around trying to understand local customs. He's an exceptionally privileged and wealthy person who would have been surrounded by all manner of advisors and agents. If he'd been going around using similar language, I'm  pretty sure it would have been pointed out to him by now.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 21, 2011)

editor said:


> What he calls his team mate is irrelevant. The question is why was he repeatedly using the term against an opponent.


Is it really irrelevant? We can speculate and argue on just how 'integrated' and 'culturally aware' he should be, but surely if he's used to a certain term not causing offence then that should be taken into account, in the interests of context?


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

editor said:


> If he'd been going around using similar language, I'm pretty sure it would have been pointed out to him by now.


Perhaps others haven't taken offence?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> Is it really irrelevant? We can speculate and argue on just how 'integrated' and 'culturally aware' he should be, but surely if he's used to a certain term not causing offence then that should be taken into account, in the interests of context?


Context is the way in which it was used, in a confrontational situation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> Perhaps others haven't taken offence?


perhaps others haven't done anything about the offence they've felt.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps others haven't done anything about the offence they've felt.


Perhaps not. So how would he know it's offensive?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> Perhaps others haven't taken offence?


Perhaps he didn't use it aggressively in a confrontational situation?


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

RaverDrew said:


> Nah, Fergie only stands by them if they shag granny hookers, get into drunken brawls, roast drunk young girls, organise orgies, deliberately skip drugs tests and (allegedly) snort coke in nightclubs...



I'm all in favour of all of the above, perhaps this is why I support United 

Not in favour of flagrant racism however, excused on the very very dodgy basis that in some backward part of the world these terms are acceptable. And yes, they are acceptable, across South America. But Suarez is not playing in South America. I hope fans down there have seen the sentence handed down to one of their favourite sons and taken note.

Suarez did a magazine interview afterwards where he admitted to this so I've no idea why LFC would be appealing.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> Perhaps not. So how would he know it's offensive?


By a) his experience and b) it being used normally - as it appears he himself claims - to be a friendly term. He has undermined his own case - as you are also doing now - by using in in a confrontational situation. You and he highlight the distance between 'normal use' and this specific use.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> Not in favour of flagrant racism however, excused on the very very dodgy basis that in some backward part of the world these terms are acceptable. And yes, they are acceptable, across South America.



So, you're against racism, but are quite happy to declare South America a 'backward part of the world'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> Perhaps not. So how would he know it's offensive?


if i called you a nigger i think we both know that would be offensive. in fact, if i made any reference to your race under most circumstances you might reasonably take offence. if i refer to the colour of a footballer on an opposing team be that player ian wright or tony adams i would fairly expect them to take umbrage.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 21, 2011)

editor said:


> What he calls his team mate is irrelevant. The question is why was he repeatedly using the term against an opponent.


i must admit, i think the conclusion to Vickery's piece is actually of far more interest.



> "The Round against Racism" was nothing of the sort. In reality, cynically and opportunistically, it was the "Round against Blatter".
> The English FA has now left itself open to the same accusation of cynicism. What Suarez is alleged to have done is wrong. To draw attention to the colour of someone's skin in a manner that could be construed as pejorative is not acceptable in our reality.
> There is a clear case for punishment as part of a process of education. But the eight-game ban would seem to go much further.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> I'm all in favour of all of the above, perhaps this is why I support United
> 
> Not in favour of flagrant racism however, excused on the very very dodgy basis that in some backward part of the world these terms are acceptable...



There's just no helping some people is there?


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Perhaps he didn't use it aggressively in a confrontational situation?


Perhaps he didn't with Evra either.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

@ Gabi:
You don't follow Hernandez on Twitter, then?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> Perhaps he didn't with Evra either.


Are you suggesting he didn't use the term at all or he used it in the _normal_ affectionate way?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> You don't follow Hernandez on Twitter, then?


Why the fuck would i follow a hernadez on twitter?


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why the fuck would i follow a hernadez on twitter?


Edited, quoted wrong post.


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> @ Gabi:
> You don't follow Hernandez on Twitter, then?



No


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There's just no helping some people is there?



No


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

What has Hernandez said on twitter?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 21, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What has Hernandez said on twitter?



He's called Suarez a nonce, although nonce means Happy Christmas in Mexican.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Are you suggesting he didn't use the term at all or he used it in the _normal_ affectionate way?


He's admitted using the term. He denies he used it to cause offence. So not 'affectionately', just not offensively. Much as someone might say 'bruv' or 'bro' to diffuse a situation here. (He did, according to Evra, use it when they were both being spoken to by the ref, which, unless he is stupid beyond belief, would suggest that he was genuinely unaware that it was going to cause offence).


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What has Hernandez said on twitter?


He's used the word 'negrito' to describe a Chivas player.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> He's used the word 'negrito' to describe a Chivas player.



Oh right, I remember that now.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> He's admitted using the term. He denies he used it to cause offence. So not 'affectionately', just not offensively. Much as someone might say 'bruv' or 'bro' to diffuse a situation here. (He did, according to Evra, use it when they were both being spoken to by the ref, which, unless he is stupid beyond belief, would suggest that he was genuinely unaware that it was going to cause offence).


I fail to see how you use a term of affection like that in the _normal_ sense in the middle of a stand up row.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I fail to see how you use a term of affection like that in the _normal_ sense in the middle of a stand up row.


So do I, but was it definitely said in the middle of a stand up row?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> So do I, but was it definitely said in the middle of a stand up row?


Well yes.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well yes.


Have you seen the full FA report?


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> He's admitted using the term. He denies he used it to cause offence. So not 'affectionately', just not offensively. Much as someone might say 'bruv' or 'bro' to diffuse a situation here. (He did, according to Evra, use it when they were both being spoken to by the ref, which, unless he is stupid beyond belief, would suggest that he was genuinely unaware that it was going to cause offence).



You're a cunt. In New Zealand that means I love your work.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> Have you seen the full FA report?


I've seen the charge:



> Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match.
> The insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra’s colou



Is that not a row?


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match.
> The insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra’s colour
> 
> Is that not a row?


That's the problem though isn't it? They offer no context, just that the word in itself is sufficient to pass judgement.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I fail to see how you use a term of affection like that in the _normal_ sense in the middle of a stand up row.


"Easy there, mate", "Watch yourself, pal", "Do you want some, my little buttercup of joy?".


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> That's the problem though isn't it? They offer no context, just that the word in itself is sufficient to pass judgement.



The context was that it was a match between the most vicious rivals in English football, in a crunch game. Do you think he was being friendly?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> That's the problem though isn't it? They offer no context, just that the word in itself is sufficient to pass judgement.


It's pretty bloody clear that they were having a row. Of all the possible get outs the suggestion that they weren't is surely the weakest.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> The context was that it was a match between the most vicious rivals in English football, in a crunch game. Do you think he was being friendly?


Some are able to rise above the occasion


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> That's the problem though isn't it? They offer no context, just that the word in itself is sufficient to pass judgement.



Have you read the judgement? Where can the rest of us see it?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Dec 21, 2011)

CPS has authorised John Terry prosecution apparently.

http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2011/12/cps-decision-on-john-terry-case.html#tp


----------



## Ted Striker (Dec 21, 2011)

CPS are charging John Terry...Interesting move (beat me to it)


----------



## krink (Dec 21, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> CPS has authorised John Terry prosecution apparently.
> 
> http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2011/12/cps-decision-on-john-terry-case.html#tp



I don't even care if he is guilty, I just hate the fucker. I actually hope he is innocent but gets found guilty and then loses on appeal too.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's pretty bloody clear that they were having a row. Of all the possible get outs the suggestion that they weren't is surely the weakest.


It's clear that they were having a row, it's not clear when he said it. If he shouted it into his face at the height of the spat it would be a pretty clear case. If he said it as the ref was speaking to them both and the situation had been diffused, then it would be less clear.

Terry will face charges it has been announced.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Have you read the judgement? Where can the rest of us see it?


It's on the FA website. The full report will be made public by the end of the week.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Dec 21, 2011)

It seems to me that in both these cases, in different ways, there is a question of intention. To what extent does, and should, intention matter?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> It's clear that they were having a row, it's not clear when he said it. If he shouted it into his face at the height of the spat it would be a pretty clear case. If he said it as the ref was speaking to them both and the situation had been diffused, then it would be less clear.


Well again:



> Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match.
> The insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra’s colour


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well again:


And again: 'negrito' may or may not be deemed as an insulting word. It depends on context. Until the FA provide evidence of the context it is going to be a matter of debate is it not?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> And again: 'negrito' may or may not be deemed as an insulting word. It depends on context. Until the FA provide evidence of the context it is going to be a matter of debate is it not?


We were debating whether it was used in the context of a row - you doubted it. Do you now?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> It's on the FA website. The full report will be made public by the end of the week.



It just says he's been found guilty of the charge AFAIK. So to say they've done that on the basis that 'just saying the word is enough' isn't obviously true at the moment.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> We were debating whether it was used in the context of a row - you doubted it. Do you now?


As I said, if he shouted it into his face at the height of the spat it would be a pretty clear case. If he said it as the ref was speaking to them both and the situation had been diffused, then it would be less clear.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> It just says he's been found guilty of the charge AFAIK. So to say they've done that on the basis that 'just saying the word is enough' isn't obviously true at the moment.


They haven't made public the evidence and their reasoning, is the point.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> It's entirely normal in Latin American culture to use physical characteristics when referring to others.


From experience Latin American culture is extremely racist. Living there it was evident that there is still a caste system and having european blood and looks is seen as better than any other with the majority of people.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> As I said, if he shouted it into his face at the height of the spat it would be a pretty clear case. If he said it as the ref was speaking to them both and the situation had been diffused, then it would be less clear.


Given that the claim is that he used it whilst 'using insulting words' it's pretty odds on that it wasn't during any diffused loving situation but during the original row. This is a very weak defence. I wouldn't allow it in any case involving me. I wonder if Saurez did?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> They haven't made public the evidence and their reasoning, is the point.


Their conduits have been given the story though.


----------



## sylvan (Dec 21, 2011)

eta: meh


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

don't know if it has been mentioned on this thread but a thought provoking article from a correspondent who has good knowledge of Latin American football and its politics:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16262537.stm


----------



## agricola (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Given that the claim is that he used it whilst 'using insulting words' it's pretty odds on that it wasn't during any diffused loving situation but during the original row. This is a very weak defence. I wouldn't allow it in any case involving me. I wonder if Saurez did?



This is the most confusing thing about the whole episode - it is that argument (and its evident absurdity) that has condemned him, if he had denied saying anything then he would not have been banned because the FA could never have proved it.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Given that the claim is that he used it whilst 'using insulting words' it's pretty odds on that it wasn't during any diffused loving situation.


We're going round in circles a bit here and this is particularly pedantic of me, but the claim is not that he 'used it whilst using insulting words' as that would imply he used it as part of an abusive diatribe, which would be clear evidence that it was used in an aggressive context. Rather, they just say 'using insulting words' which could mean that it was used on its own or alongside other, non-aggressive or insulting words.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Their conduits have been given the story though.


You mean selected journo's?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> We're going round in circles a bit here and this is particularly pedantic of me, but the claim is not that he 'used it whilst using insulting words' as that would imply he used it as part of an abusive diatribe, which would be clear evidence that it was used in an aggressive context. Rather, they just say 'using insulting words' which could mean that it was used on its own or alongside other, non-aggressive or insulting words.



No - wrong:


> 1.Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);
> 2.the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);



So thanks,you've established that the claim is that it was used as ' as part of an abusive diatribe'. Are you a lawyer by any chance?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> You mean selected journo's?


Yes. Do you think they're leaking faked up accounts of the issues and debates? If so,why? To what end?


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So thanks,you've established that the claim is that it was used as ' as part of an abusive diatribe'.



Except, of course, I haven't.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

Interesting opinion piece from a sports lawyer here http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/21/luis-suarez-liverpool-appeal-options

Says "It is important to note that Suárez can only appeal against the level of the sanction not the actual verdict."


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> Except, of course, I haven't.


Well you have. You attempted to separate a) a row 'one that would be characterised by 'an abusive diatribe' and b) a peaceful situation. You then attempted to argue that the term was used only in the latter case - the charge is that it was used in the former and thus formed part of 'an abusive diatribe' . Contra your claim that there was no connection between the use of the term and the insulting words.

I've quoted the exact charge at you numerous times now. The connection is there - you helped make it look even worse.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes. Do you think they're leaking faked up accounts of the issues and debates? If so,why? To what end?


I couldn't give a fuck if they're leaking the report, or who they're leaking it to. I'll read the full version when it comes out and make my own mind up.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> I couldn't give a fuck if they're leaking the report, or who they're leaking it to. I'll read the full version when it comes out and make my own mind up.


But you suggested the leaking must have some motivation and that that was helped by the choice of journos they leak to.What could be that motivation? Would they leak a fake report of the proceedings do you think?


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well you have. You attempted to separate a) a row 'one that would be characterised by 'an abusive diatribe' and b) a peaceful situation. You then attempted to argue that the term was used only in the latter case - the charge is that it was used in the former and thus formed part of 'an abusive diatribe' . Contra your claim that there was no connection between the use of the term and the insulting words.



There is no definitive evidence therein of a 'diatribe', merely that words (plural) were used. Maybe he called him a 'cunt' on 35 mins and a 'negrito' on 42 mins. Maybe he called him a 'negrito cunt' on 40 mins. We don't know, and without knowing the exact wording of FA rules E3(1) and E3(2), and the transcript of the row, we can't know!

You are assuming that 'words' in line 2 means 'sentence' or 'in series', no?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> There is no definitive evidence therein of a 'diatribe', merely that words (plural) were used. Maybe he called him a 'cunt' on 35 mins and a 'negrito' on 42 mins. Maybe he called him a 'negrito cunt' on 40 mins. We don't know, and without knowing the exact wording of FA rules E3(1) and E3(2), and the transcript of the row, we can't know!
> 
> You are assuming that 'words' in line 2 means 'sentence' or 'in series', no?



Your claim though was



> We're going round in circles a bit here and this is particularly pedantic of me, but the *claim* is not that he 'used it whilst using insulting words' as that would imply he used it as part of an abusive diatribe, which would be clear evidence that it was used in an aggressive context. Rather, they just say 'using insulting words' which could mean that it was used on its own or alongside other, non-aggressive or insulting words.



There is no separation of *claim* whatsoever. The *claim* is that the word was used as part of the insulting words that occasioned the charges.

No way out down this avenue.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> But you suggested the leaking must have some motivation and that that was helped by the choice of journos they leak to.What could be that motivation? Would they leak a fake report of the proceedings do you think?


I would imagine they're briefing their favoured hacks because they're less than certain of their case and it's helpful in such situations to have some mud slinging around.Mud which said hacks are more than willing to sling, naturally.

What 'fake' report are you referring to, and which paper is it in?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> I would imagine they're briefing their favoured hacks because they're less than certain of their case and it's helpful in such situations to have some mud slinging around.Mud which said hacks are more than willing to sling, naturally.
> 
> What 'fake' report are you referring to, and which paper is it in?



What are they briefing them with? What mud slinging?

I'm suggesting the various reports across the papers of the deliberations are accurate.You're  suggesting something else. What?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 21, 2011)

manny-p said:


> From experience Latin American culture is extremely racist. Living there it was evident that there is still a caste system and having european blood and looks is seen as better than any other with the majority of people.


Generalise about an entire continent and all its people much?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Generalise about an entire continent and all its people much?



All Spanish people are racist. FACT


----------



## editor (Dec 21, 2011)

Yes. But what does Lorro think?


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Your claim though was
> 
> There is no separation of *claim* whatsoever. The *claim* is that the word was used as part of the insulting words that occasioned the charges.
> 
> No way out down this avenue.


So 'negrito' is enough for you?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> So 'negrito' is enough for you?


??

Were you talking about the claim



ignatious said:


> We're going round in circles a bit here and this is particularly pedantic of me, but the claim is not that he 'used it whilst using insulting words' as that would imply he used it as part of an abusive diatribe, which would be clear evidence that it was used in an aggressive context. Rather, they just say 'using insulting words' which could mean that it was used on its own or alongside other, non-aggressive or insulting words.



Or not? You seem to have rather lost hold of what you're arguing.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What are they briefing them with? What mud slinging?
> 
> I'm suggesting the various reports across the papers of the deliberations are accurate.You're suggesting something else. What?


I'm suggesting the papers haven't actually seen an accurate account of the deliberations and are content to accept the verdict without seeing the evidence for themselves. They (and you) have far more faith in the 3 wise men than many others (myself included) do.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> ??
> 
> Were you talking about the claim
> 
> Or not? You seem to have rather lost hold of what you're arguing.


I was taking issue with your insertion of the word 'whilst'.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> I'm suggesting the papers haven't actually seen an accurate account of the deliberations and are content to accept the verdict without seeing the evidence for themselves. They (and you) have far more faith in the 3 wise men than many others (myself included) do.


I'm not talking about the verdict, i'm talking about the way that the deliberations went, what was under discussion. That's all that's been leaked. Please, please catch up.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

ignatious said:


> I was taking issue with your insertion of the word 'whilst'.


Wrongly as now shown definitively.


----------



## DRINK? (Dec 21, 2011)

From LFC statement .....my best mate etc etc

*Luis himself is of a mixed race family background as his grandfather was black. He has played with black players and mixed with their families whilst with the Uruguay national side and was Captain at Ajax Amsterdam of a team with a proud multi-cultural profile, many of whom became good friends. It seems incredible to us that a player of mixed heritage should be accused and found guilty in the way he has based on the evidence presented.*


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

TBH that statement was a massive own goal. If things stand as they are Evra might have a case for libel.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

libel? What?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> libel? What?



The bit about him being an unreliable witness, alleging him having made false accusations in the past.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

That's libel now?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's libel now?



I am not a lawyer, so I can't say for sure. It does however allege something negative about him that doesn't appear to be true. Does that constitute libel? Others have said so.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I am not a lawyer, so I can't say for sure. It does however allege something negative about him that doesn't appear to be true. Does that constitute libel? Others have said so.


If that's libel then we're all fucked


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 21, 2011)

DRINK? said:


> From LFC statement .....my best mate etc etc
> 
> *Luis himself is of a mixed race family background as his grandfather was black. He has played with black players and mixed with their families whilst with the Uruguay national side and was Captain at Ajax Amsterdam of a team with a proud multi-cultural profile, many of whom became good friends. It seems incredible to us that a player of mixed heritage should be accused and found guilty in the way he has based on the evidence presented.*


Liverpool have behaved absolutely shamelessly. Would a degree of caution rather than acting like Suarez is a victim not be in order. He's missing a few football matches not being strung up ffs.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> If that's libel then we're all fucked



It's not exactly news that libel and defamation laws in this country are pretty fucked. The Simon Singh case is not that long ago.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Generalise about an entire continent and all its people much?


Its true.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

manny-p said:


> Its true.



And you're a moron. It's true, because I say so.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

TruXta said:


> It's not exactly news that libel and defamation laws in this country are pretty fucked. The Simon Singh case is not that long ago.


Bu the effective laws are not about saying something false about someone. The threshold to be libel is much higher than being untrue.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

TruXta said:


> And you're a moron. It's true, because I say so.


Lol ok I will not say all of latin america. I will keep it down to Colombia and Venezuela. Still I do stick to my claim that these two countries are more racist than the UK(from my own experience).


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Bu the effective laws are not about saying something false about someone. The threshold to be libel is much higher than being untrue.



It has to be untrue and having a negative effect on them AFAIK. Alleging that Evra is an unreliable witness in matters pertaining to his profession would surely count as libel then? I admit to being unsure of how the law (which seems very vaguely worded) is actually applied.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

TruXta said:


> And you're a moron. It's true, because I say so.


So you don't take peoples experiences into consideration? Or do you need an academic report to tell you so before you believe something?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

manny-p said:


> So you don't take peoples experiences into consideration?



The plural of anecdote is not data.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 21, 2011)

If his grandfather was black then surely one of his parents must be mixed race too? Strange that this has not come to light earlier and was not used in his defence.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

Deareg said:


> If his grandfather was black then surely one of his parents must be mixed race too? Strange that this has not come to light earlier and was not used in his defence.


You can be mixed race and racist you know...


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

manny-p said:


> You can be mixed race and racist you know...



You can in fact be black and racist. Or Chinese and racist.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

TruXta said:


> You can in fact be black and racist. Or Chinese and racist.


Your a daft cunt.


----------



## strung out (Dec 21, 2011)

Deareg said:


> If his grandfather was black then surely one of his parents must be mixed race too? Strange that this has not come to light earlier and was not used in his defence.



if his grandfather was/is black, then suarez is mixed race too. it doesn't peter out two generations down.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 21, 2011)

manny-p said:


> You can be mixed race and racist you know...


You really are a mine of information.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

Deareg said:


> You really are a mine of information.


Well stop saying he can use that in his defence. "I racially abused evra, but my grandad was black so I ain't really-a racist
"


----------



## Deareg (Dec 21, 2011)

manny-p said:


> Well stop saying he can use that in his defence. "I racially abused evra, but my grandad was black so I ain't really"


I said that I am surprised that he did not, Liverpool seemed to have tried to use everything else, if it is even true.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

manny-p said:


> Your a daft cunt.



Why does that statement make me a daft cunt? Do you disagree or are you just a shit-flinging monkey-boy?


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Why does that statement make me a daft cunt? Do you disagree or are you just a shit-flinging _*monkey-boy?*_


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

A lawyer commenting on the possibility of a libel case: http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/engla...a-could-sue-liverpool-for-defamation-and-luis


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

manny-p said:


>



It's implying you're stupid. Which you certainly come across as. Stupid, like a monkey throwing shit at people.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

TruXta said:


> It's implying you're stupid. Which you certainly come across as. Stupid, _*like a monkey*_ throwing shit at people.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 21, 2011)

strung out said:


> if his grandfather was/is black, then suarez is mixed race too. it doesn't peter out two generations down.


No it doesn't, but some would come to consider themselves to be white because of the colour of there skin, I have known people who claimed to be black and others who claimed to be white, I know a fella who was brought to court for enforcing a colour bar at a club he worked the door of and was found not guilty because he used his racial background as evidence in court and was found not guilty.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

manny-p said:


>



Oh I get it, this is where I own up to not realising I was using racist language? Nah, fuck off monkey boy.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Oh I get it, this is where I own up to not realising I was using racist language? Nah, fuck off monkey boy.


Fuck you cunt.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

manny-p said:


> Fuck you cunt.



You already said that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2011)

strung out said:


> if his grandfather was/is black, then suarez is mixed race too. it doesn't peter out two generations down.


Perhaps. But manny-p has a point - in Latin America, racism and racial categories are different from here. There is something of a graduation from black to white, and there are racist attitudes in many parts of LA that effectively boil down to 'the whiter you are, the higher up the ladder you are'.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I know a fella who was brought to court for enforcing a colour bar at a club he worked the door of and was found not guilty because he used his racial background as evidence in court and was found not guilty.


Yeah I can believe that. Fucking lawyers.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 21, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perhaps. But manny-p has a point - in Latin America, racism and racial categories are different from here. There is something of a graduation from black to white, and there are racist attitudes in many parts of LA that effectively boil down to 'the whiter you are, the higher up the ladder you are'.


I think it was more the sweeping generalisation that he made to begin with.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perhaps. But manny-p has a point - in Latin America, racism and racial categories are different from here. There is something of a graduation from black to white, and there are racist attitudes in many parts of LA that effectively boil down to 'the whiter you are, the higher up the ladder you are'.


Yeah but apparently we are not allowed to bring in any personal knowledge to this thread. Unless its an academic journal-its not fact!


----------



## ignatious (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Wrongly as now shown definitively.


What were these other insulting words then, of which 'negrito' was a part?


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I think it was more the sweeping generalisation that he made to begin with.


I clarified what I had said and left the charge to Colombia and Venezuela. Although I have no doubt the practise/culture is widespread throughout the whole of latin america. Baggage from the conquistadors.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 21, 2011)

manny-p said:


> Yeah but apparently we are not allowed to bring in any personal knowledge to this thread. Unless its an academic journal-its not fact!


No Manny, you were passing opinion off as fact and were pulled for it.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 21, 2011)

manny-p said:


> I clarified what I had said and left the charge to Colombia and Venezuela. Although I have no doubt the practise/culture is widespread throughout the whole of latin america. Baggage from the conquistadors.


But it was your initial statement that started the little spat, don't take it to heart it happens all the time on here.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

Deareg said:


> No Manny, you were passing opinion off as fact and were pulled for it.


Edit- fair enough


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Their conduits have been given the story though.


I don't think they have. There have been leaks from the clubs but not anything from the FA.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> I don't think they have. There have been leaks from the clubs but not anything from the FA.


So what is the other story? The
 hidden one


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So what is the other story? The
> hidden one


I don't think anyone knows at the moment. Do you?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 21, 2011)

manny-p said:


> Its true.


really? My not racist latino friends must all be imaginary then! Twat.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 21, 2011)

incidentally, if Suarez said he said "negrito" and it was during an argument, in Uruguay it'd still be considered racist, according to the Uruguayan I asked. So if that's his defence, it's horseshit.


----------



## Gingerman (Dec 21, 2011)

http://www.lfconline.com/feat/ed11/...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> really? My not racist latino friends must all be imaginary then! Twat.


I didn't say they were all racist did I! FFS!


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 21, 2011)

manny-p said:


> I didn't say they were all racist did I! FFS!


You saying that Latin American culture was extremely racist was a pretty blanket statement!


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> You saying that Latin American culture was extremely racist was a pretty blanket statement!


I clarified what I said, its all in this thread- not that your interested. Lo siento if you think it was a blanket statement, although there is definetly a caste system in operation in many parts of Latin America(in my opinion).


----------



## strung out (Dec 21, 2011)

I don't know why Dalglish and the players are wearing t-shirts with Suarez 7 on them, it's 8 games he's been banned for, stupid Liverpool twats.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 21, 2011)

manny-p said:


> I clarified what I said, its all in this thread- not that your interested. Lo siento if you think it was a blanket statement, although there is definetly a caste system in operation in many parts of Latin America(in my opinion).



What clarification, limiting it to only the countries you've been to?

As to the rest of it, I'd say reducing the state of race relations across a whole continent to a concept which isn't even really applicable in these societies isn't very helpful, to say the least.

I mean what do you even mean by "a caste system"?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 21, 2011)

strung out said:


> I don't know why Dalglish and the players are wearing t-shirts with Suarez 7 on them, it's 8 games he's been banned for, stupid Liverpool twats.


seriously, they're doing that? Do they think he's died or something? Embarrassing.


----------



## thriller (Dec 21, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> seriously, they're doing that? Do they think he's died or something? Embarrassing.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16295992.stm


----------



## Deareg (Dec 21, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> seriously, they're doing that? *Do they think he's died or something*? Embarrassing.


What was left of his reputation probably has.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> What clarification, limiting it to only the countries you've been to?
> 
> As to the rest of it, I'd say reducing the state of race relations across a whole continent to a concept which isn't even really applicable in these societies isn't very helpful, to say the least.
> 
> I mean what do you even mean by "a caste system"?



If one is in, say, Mexico or Brazil or Peru, knowing nothing of those countries, and turns on the television after wandering the streets for a time, one could be forgiven for thinking that there is some kind of caste system in operation. There isn't, not formally, but informally, the result of these countries' history is streets filled with people of many colours and television programmes filled with people of overwhelmingly just one colour. Race and social and economic class are very obviously linked in most parts of Latin America. Somewhere like Uruguay, this will be less obvious simply because there are far fewer people of African or indigenous descent.

manny-p may have expressed themselves a little clumsily, but I think other posters are dismissing what they say a bit too much.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 21, 2011)

thriller said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16295992.stm


fucking hell, even he's wearing it!


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 21, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If one is in, say, Mexico or Brazil or Peru, knowing nothing of those countries, and turns on the television after wandering the streets for a time, one could be forgiven for thinking that there is some kind of caste system in operation. There isn't, not formally, but informally, the result of these countries' history is streets filled with people of many colours and television programmes filled with people of overwhelmingly just one colour. Race and social and economic class are very obviously linked in most parts of Latin America. Somewhere like Uruguay, this will be less obvious simply because there are far fewer people of African or indigenous descent.
> 
> manny-p may have expressed themselves a little clumsily, but I think other posters are dismissing what they say a bit too much.


You could say the exact same thing about British society, the only exception being that public language is slightly more policed. And just like the UK, none of the countries in Latin America really qualify as "caste societies", they aren't marked by official or even semi-official ethnic designations which impose specific restrictions and particular roles to different categories of people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2011)

I don't agree. Class isn't very obviously linked to race in the UK or other countries where minority racial groups are the product of voluntary immigration rather than a legacy of conquest or slavery. Really, the contrast between the media and the average population in many parts of Latin America is stark and startling, and it is revealing of deeper social realities.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 21, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't agree. *Class isn't very obviously linked to race in the UK* or other countries where minority racial groups are the product of voluntary immigration rather than a legacy of conquest or slavery. Really, the contrast between the media and the average population in many parts of Latin America is stark and startling, and it is revealing of deeper social realities.



Are you seriously going to argue this? I could quote statistic after statistic on income, education, social mobility, health, whatever indicator you like, confirming that class _is _very obviously linked to race in the UK. In 2009, one student of afro-caribbean descent was accepted at Oxford, fucking ONE! You're seriously telling me that class, race and social opportunity aren't deeply intertwined in the UK?


----------



## xes (Dec 21, 2011)

He's getting some chants going his way at the Wigan Liverpool game "racist, racist, racist, racist"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Are you seriously going to argue this? I could quote statistic after statistic on income, education, social mobility, health, whatever indicator you like, confirming that class _is _very obviously linked to race in the UK. In 2009, one student of afro-caribbean descent was accepted at Oxford, fucking ONE! You're seriously telling me that class, race and social opportunity aren't deeply intertwined in the UK?


Social mobility in the UK is relatively poor compared to other parts of Europe, but relatively good compared to Latin America. Not only that but economic inequality in Latin America is far greater - and the most socially immobile are those at the very top and those at the very bottom. Among those at the very bottom, race can be a very strong signifier of belonging or not belonging to that poorest group in a way that it simply isn't in the UK. To take Mexico as an example, among the poorest and most socially immobile, those of 'Indian' descent are the overwhelming majority; those of purely European descent (a minority in the country as a whole, but the overwhelming majority on, for instance, TV) are completely absent from this poorest group.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 21, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Social mobility in the UK is relatively poor compared to other parts of Europe, but relatively good compared to Latin America. Not only that but economic inequality in Latin America is far greater - and the most socially immobile are those at the very top and those at the very bottom. Among those at the very bottom, race can be a very strong signifier of belonging or not belonging to that poorest group in a way that it simply isn't in the UK. To take Mexico as an example, among the poorest and most socially immobile, those of 'Indian' descent are the overwhelming majority; those of purely European descent (a minority in the country as a whole, but the overwhelming majority on, for instance, TV) are completely absent from this poorest group.


Differences of degree more than anything. I'm not saying Latin American societies are exactly the same as the UK, but that the UK also has a very strong correlation between race and social class, but is none of these are "caste" societies as stated earlier.

It is one thing to say Latin American societies are institutionally racist, another to say blithely that Latin American culture (singular) is extremely racist. Even taking Mexico as an example, the high levels of intermarriage that would be necessary for the majority of the population to be mixed race rather undermine the idea that you could blanketly determine Mexican culture racist, even if there exists a self-perpetuating European-descended elite.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2011)

I didn't say the culture was extremely racist. But I do disagree that these kinds of differences are merely differences of degree. It is in many ways _differently_ racist.

But anyway, about the subject of the thread, I'm not sure what I think. 'negrito' and 'nigger' are not the same thing, not at all, and what Suarez did is not at all the same as for instance what Ron the racist Atkinson said. But LFC's unqualified support of him seems misjudged to me. No need to vilify Suarez, but at the same time, perhaps a need from him and Liverpool to show some contrition. Claiming it is all down to a cultural misunderstanding is disingenuous.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Are you seriously going to argue this? I could quote statistic after statistic on income, education, social mobility, health, whatever indicator you like, confirming that class _is _very obviously linked to race in the UK. In 2009, one student of afro-caribbean descent was accepted at Oxford, fucking ONE! You're seriously telling me that class, race and social opportunity aren't deeply intertwined in the UK?


The link between race and class are even more pronounced in Colombia and Venezuela(I would also say other countries in Latin America). Btw have you lived in Latin America? I can't believe you are dismissing what me and littlebabyjesus have been saying. I can search for academic journals backing up what we say. On the caste system in latin america I will use wikipedia for the now-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_Latin_America



> During the Spanish colonial period, Spaniards developed a complex caste system based on race, which was used for social control and which also determined a person's rights in society.[15] There were four main categories of race: (1) Peninsular - a Spaniard born in Spain, (2)Criollo (fem. criolla) - a person of Spanish descent born in Mesoamerica, (3) Indio (fem. India) - a person who is a native of, or indigenous to,Mesoamerica, and (4) Negro (fem. Negra) - a person of African slave descent.[15]


----------



## manny-p (Dec 22, 2011)

Under Spanish rule, the following detailed caste system was instituted in Mexico at one time.

Mestizo: Spanish father and Indian mother
Castizo: Spanish father and Mestizo mother
Espomolo: Spanish mother and Castizo father
Mulatto: Spanish and black African
Moor: Spanish and Mulatto
Albino: Spanish father and Moor mother
Throwback: Spanish father and Albino mother
Wolf: Throwback father and Indian mother
Zambiago: Wolf father and Indian mother
Cambujo: Zambiago father and Indian mother
Alvarazado: Cambujo father and Mulatto mother
Borquino: Alvarazado father and Mulatto mother
Coyote: Borquino father and Mulatto mother
Chamizo: Coyote father and Mulatto mother
Coyote-Mestizo: Cahmizo father and Mestizo mother
Ahi Tan Estas: Coyote-Mestizo father and Mulatto mother
http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata55


----------



## SushiMo (Dec 22, 2011)

So, we have Negro as the Spanish word for black, simple, non racist word in it's own context.  However, because some erks have used it in the elongated term of N**ger it is deemed that any variation of black in Spanish is now racist?  Why?  I mean why is Blanco (white), Amarillo (Yellow) etc not racist too?  The man is from a Spanish speaking country and yet he is not allowed to speak his own language on a say as you see basis - to Evra "Little black man" = Negrita.  We have become a very, very sad nation if we call that rasicm, so much for being multi-cultural.  I hope other countries seeing this will now get as tough on Brits abroad - now if you want real racism and insults, get on a package trip to Ibiza.


----------



## strung out (Dec 22, 2011)

abusing someone by calling them little black man is pretty racist if you ask me


----------



## SushiMo (Dec 22, 2011)

So, what are you?  A tall white man?  A freckled ginger fat girl?  How do you describe people after, say, an attack, if you can't state their skin colour etc?  Mental!

No fan of Suarez, but this racist card is very dangerous now, I can forsee every other bloke being sent off a footie field, and most of the stand being banned for life too.  The FA via Evra have opened up a massive can of worms that is going to explode in their faces.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2011)

they'll be picking bit of worm out of the boardroom cieling for weeks


----------



## strung out (Dec 22, 2011)

SushiMo said:


> So, what are you? A tall white man? A freckled ginger fat girl? How do you describe people after, say, an attack, if you can't state their skin colour etc? Mental!


i'm a tall white man, but if someone of a different ethnic background to me was my opponent in a football match and ran around calling me a little white man and insulting me, then yeah, i'd say that was pretty racist.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

SushiMo said:


> So, what are you? A tall white man? A freckled ginger fat girl? How do you describe people after, say, an attack, if you can't state their skin colour etc? Mental!


Um, describing someone to the coppers after an attack - 'I was attacked by a short black man in his 20s,' say - is totally different. There is no need to describe Evra as a black man to his face. I rather suspect that he already knows the colour of his skin.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 22, 2011)

paul mcgrath on twitter saying that as someone who was at the sharp end of racial abuse during his playing career, he was very disappointed to see liverpool players and manager acting as they did last night.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> paul mcgrath on twitter saying that as someone who was at the sharp end of racial abuse during his playing career, he was very disappointed to see liverpool players and manager acting as they did last night.


Yes. I have to say that I find Liverpool's reaction bizarre and totally misjudged.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes. I have to say that I find Liverpool's reaction bizarre and totally misjudged.



While I agree that the tone the club has used is wrong, is it bizarre to believe a player when he says he's not racially abused another player? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? As far as we know this has been his word against Evra's. Hardly a slam dunk case.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 22, 2011)

Interesting piece on goal.com (link has been removed now for some reason but the article is below)

http://www.goal.com/en/news/1717/ed...-word-the-furore-over-luis-suarezs-racism-ban

"It was a situation the likes of which one experiences every day in the Argentine capital of Buenos Aires. Lining up behind an attractive, olive-skinned girl in her mid-20s in a store, in the middle of a December heatwave which pushed the mercury towards 37°C and waiting patiently as the stranger bought a box of Marlboro cigarettes. The clerk passed back her change with a smile, and the salutation "Gracias, negra".

A completely innocuous, mundane interaction, but one that stuck in the mind due to the events that followed a matter of minutes later. On the same day, and at almost exactly the same time as that exchange, Uruguayan forward Luis Suarez was receiving an eight match ban for saying the same word to Patrice Evra on the other side of the world in England. 

It is not the purpose of this article to assign blame, to condone or crucify Suarez or to call Evra's sterling reputation as a footballer into disrepute. The pair are both professionals at the very top of their chosen career, so to descend into simple conclusions - as the temptation has been for many in the sport and in the media - is lazy and poor journalism. But to every story there is two sides, and in South America and especially Luis' home nation the reaction has been of utter disbelief. 

"Senseless", was Sebastian Abreu's word to describe the lengthy suspension, while Uruguay captain Diego Lugano went even further in calling it a "grave error", and accusing Evra of breaking football's unwritten code of what happens on the pitch, stays on the pitch. The Uruguayan government even commented in favour of their striker, but perhaps one of the most considered arguments was provided by Lazio's Alvaro Gonzalez. 

"In Uruguay we use terms that can be misinterpreted and all of us who know Luis know that he wouldn't have made the comment as a defamatory remark," he said in quotes published by Ovacion.

"You can't call a Uruguayan racist because of that ... perhaps we are paying the price for going to live in different cultures."

The word in question, negro, understandably appears ugly and bigoted when laid down on paper in English. As demonstrated by the anecdote at the start of this article, however, in Uruguay as in Argentina and much of Latin America it is considered a neutral, even familiar term. Friends, sons, daughters, parents are addressed with the phrase, or its diminutive negrito/a, whether they are from African, mixed-race or even European descent with blue hair and blonde eyes. 

It is not the language of politicians or diplomats, admittedly, indeed little one hears inside the lines of a football pitch would be suitable in the debating chamber of the UN. But it is the product of a society and continent in which the process of nation and population-building has made traditional labels almost superfluous.

Some four per cent of the country's three million population claim African descent, a proportion double that of the United Kingdom and not including those of mixed heritage, believed to number around 10%. This group have been settled and integrated in Uruguayan society up to 400 years, and have left an indelible imprint on the nation's culture, music and language. Suarez himself has an Afro-Uruguayan grandfather, and he is carrying on a grand tradition of multiculturalism in the Celeste football team. 

Uruguay withstood strong protest to field black players in the 1916 Copa America, a full 63 years before Viv Anderson took the pitch to become England's first black international. The history of the country's football success is littered with great players of African or mixed descent; and many, such as 1950 captain Obdulio Varela, are still remembered fondly as 'El Negro'. 

In this context, then, a misunderstanding of intent and a linguistic confusion appears to be the culprit, one for which Luis Suarez has paid for heavily. Is he really expected to know that the Spanish word he has grown up with as neutral and even affectionate his whole life was co-opted by British and American slavers in the 18th century as a synonym for African people, and used frequently until becoming taboo in the 1960s civil rights struggle? It is the content of a university thesis, not an assumption for a 24-year-old footballer adapting to a new country and culture. 

That is not to paint Uruguay or Argentina as colour-blind paradises, far from it. Racism and racist comments are no rarer than anywhere else in the world, although more often directed towards nationalities rather than ethnicities. The fact that in Buenos Aires the term Boliviano or Paraguayo when referring to immigrants from that country can be much more pejorative than the word negro is a cultural anomaly hard to interpret for someone unfamiliar with the culture, and migrants from South America are no strangers to similar discrimination elsewhere.

It has been widely reported, for example, that Evra called Suarez a "South American" or "Sudaca" before receiving his perceived insult, and the latter especially is horribly demeaning for those from the continent who have chosen to pursue their lives in Europe. The South American, however, left things on the field, most likely taking the angry exchange as part and parcel of making his living in a testosterone-fuelled atmosphere where tempers often fray.

It is equally unfair to say that Evra, perhaps not versed in the history and etymology of the word in its Spanish, Latin-American context, was wrong to take offence at Suarez's language. There is no place for racial insults, however intended, in modern football with the strides it has taken in extracting this cancer in the last 25 years. 

But, as Tim Vickery mentioned in an excellent article on the same subject before the ruling, the FA had a perfect chance to demonstrate their ability to adapt to the demands of modern football. Taking Suarez in front of the board, explaining that such language can be construed in negative ways in England and handing out a light warning would have sent the player a clear message while not castigating him for his linguistic faux pas. 

In throwing the book at the Uruguayan, however, the ruling body has demonstrated an ignorance and clumsiness when faced with cultural sensitivities which has made it the object of outrage in one of the world's most inclusive football nations. 

Suarez's ban may be another step on the road to the English Premier League's enlightenment when it comes to racial controversies, but it also proves that when faced with a question of cultural understanding and compromise in a globalised football world, their attitude remains indisputably in the stone age."

By Daniel Edwards in Buenos Aires


----------



## SushiMo (Dec 22, 2011)

strung out said:


> i'm a tall white man, but if someone of a different ethnic background to me was my opponent in a football match and ran around calling me a little white man and insulting me, then yeah, i'd say that was pretty racist.


 
calling me a little white man *and* insulting me - - - - Yeah sure, if he was insulting you as well by adding 4 letter words etc., but he didn't, he was doing exactly what happens on footie pitches every single day of the year - winding up an opponent.  But racist?  Nope, not in my book, and I have lived all over the world, been called untold names, and laughed in their faces for being so childish.  Evra really needs to grow a pair + a sense of humour, he is the ultimate wimp that uses his 'colour to extremes, now THAT guy does have a problem.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

> It has been widely reported, for example, that Evra called Suarez a "South American" or "Sudaca" before receiving his perceived insult, and the latter especially is horribly demeaning for those from the continent who have chosen to pursue their lives in Europe.



If this is true, then it does change things. tbh, a hearing in which both players were present, forced to talk to each other, then probably both given a warning on future conduct, sounds more appropriate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

SushiMo said:


> calling me a little white man *and* insulting me - - - - Yeah sure, if he was insulting you as well by adding 4 letter words etc., but he didn't, he was doing exactly what happens on footie pitches every single day of the year - winding up an opponent. But racist? Nope, not in my book, and I have lived all over the world, *been called untold names, and laughed in their faces for being so childish*. Evra really needs to grow a pair + a sense of humour, he is the ultimate wimp that uses his 'colour to extremes, now THAT guy does have a problem.


Hmmm. These things are not so simple. A black person from the Caribbean visiting relatives in the UK is likely to dismiss racist abuse as not worthy of their consideration, and perhaps even to be puzzled by the reaction of their black British relatives to the abuse. But if you grow up in a racist society, it is harder to dismiss such things.

Whether they want to or not, people can internalise racist attitudes, and that can make racist abuse especially hurtful. If you have grown up without having to confront racism, you won't have internalised it, so you're far less likely to be emotionally affected by racist abuse.

Patrice Evra grew up in France. You can bet your arse he will have been confronted with a great deal of racism growing up there. Telling him to 'grow a pair' when you have not experienced such things yourself is not right. It shows your lack of understanding of the destructive force of racism, tbh.


----------



## strung out (Dec 22, 2011)

SushiMo said:


> calling me a little white man *and* insulting me - - - - Yeah sure, if he was insulting you as well by adding 4 letter words etc., but he didn't, he was doing exactly what happens on footie pitches every single day of the year - winding up an opponent. But racist? Nope, not in my book, and I have lived all over the world, been called untold names, and laughed in their faces for being so childish. Evra really needs to grow a pair + a sense of humour, he is the ultimate wimp that uses his 'colour to extremes, now THAT guy does have a problem.


winding up an opponent by calling him a little black man? niiiiice


----------



## SushiMo (Dec 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Patrice Evra grew up in France. You can bet your arse he will have been confronted with a great deal of racism growing up there. Telling him to 'grow a pair' when you have not experienced such things yourself is not right. It shows your lack of understanding of the destructive force of racism, tbh.



I have already stated that I have 'grown up' in other countries, and trust me, I have had racial taunts thrown at me from a child and up in France, Germany, Egypt, Spain. Malaysia - need I go on?  If anything it made me tougher and taught me to deal with what I then perceived to be bullying.  Yep, I was the freckled, ginger kid that was the butt of so many jokes regarding the colour of my skin/hair.  Don't assume to know me!


----------



## manny-p (Dec 22, 2011)

Don't even compare ginger 'racism' to black. There ain't the same history of repression/slavery. Obviously its wrong but its different.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I didn't say the culture was extremely racist. But I do disagree that these kinds of differences are merely differences of degree. It is in many ways _differently_ racist.
> 
> But anyway, about the subject of the thread, I'm not sure what I think. 'negrito' and 'nigger' are not the same thing, not at all, and what Suarez did is not at all the same as for instance what Ron the racist Atkinson said. But LFC's unqualified support of him seems misjudged to me. No need to vilify Suarez, but at the same time, perhaps a need from him and Liverpool to show some contrition. Claiming it is all down to a cultural misunderstanding is disingenuous.


Like I said earlier, even in Uruguay referring to someone _during an argument_ as "negrito" would be disparaging, even if some might not consider it racist. Use of racial language for disparaging effect fulfills my criteria for racist abuse.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

I can understand why ginger people get miffed with taunts about being ginger. I would say that it's not quite the same as black people being taunted for being black, though. The power relations and historical baggage are totally different.

I don't assume I know you, but I guessed correctly from your 'grow a pair' remark that you weren't a black person who had grown up in a predominantly white society.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Like I said earlier, even in Uruguay referring to someone _during an argument_ as "negrito" would be disparaging, even if some might not consider it racist.


Yep, absolutely. The 'I'm Uruguayan, so it's ok' argument is piss-poor, imo.

However, if it was a response to a 'sudaca' taunt, I can see how he might have considered it a 'tit-for-tat' response. Not excusing it, but if Evra did say sudaca, that does change things, I think.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 22, 2011)

manny-p said:


> The link between race and class are even more pronounced in Colombia and Venezuela(I would also say other countries in Latin America). Btw have you lived in Latin America? I can't believe you are dismissing what me and littlebabyjesus have been saying. I can search for academic journals backing up what we say. On the caste system in latin america I will use wikipedia for the now-
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_Latin_America


I have not lived in Latin America, but I do know a lot of Latin Americans. I also know a lot of ex-pats with a smug tendency to think themselves superior to backward racist natives. The fact that in one country of Latin America there was an officially racial classification during colonial times is about as relevant as the same classifications made by British Imperialists during their colonial period.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep, absolutely. The 'I'm Uruguayan, so it's ok' argument is piss-poor, imo.
> 
> However, if it was a response to a 'sudaca' taunt, I can see how he might have considered it a 'tit-for-tat' response. Not excusing it, but if Evra did say sudaca, that does change things, I think.


If Evra said "sudaca", that's worse IMO.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> I have not lived in Latin America, but I do know a lot of Latin Americans. I also know a lot of ex-pats with a smug tendency to think themselves superior to backward racist natives. The fact that in one country of Latin America there was an officially racial classification during colonial times is about as relevant as the same classifications made by British Imperialists during their colonial period.


Well I suggest that you don't dismiss the personal experiences of someone who has lived there. It was not just in Mexico that there was racial classification during colonial times. The names are still used in latin america to categorise someones race, that to me suggests that the racist culture left over from spanish colonialism still exists in latin america.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 22, 2011)

manny-p said:


> From experience Latin American culture is extremely racist.



Remember this then, manny?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 22, 2011)

manny-p said:


> Well I suggest that you don't dismiss the personal experiences of someone who has lived there. It was not just in Mexico that there was racial classification during colonial times. The names are still used in latin america to categorise someones race, that to me suggests that the racist culture left over from spanish colonialism still exists in latin america.


I'm going to dismiss the opinions of anyone making blanket generalisations with fuck all by way of caveats or nuance. Especially when my personal experience of people from a part of the continent far similar to Uruguay (mostly Argentinians) is very different.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> If Evra said "sudaca", that's worse IMO.


I'm trying to think of an equivalent in English. 'spic' perhaps, or 'dago'. It's a racist term, in fact.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 22, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Remember this then, manny?


Aye it's true to an extent. Why you coming on here to troll TruXta?


----------



## manny-p (Dec 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> I'm going to dismiss the opinions of anyone making blanket generalisations with fuck all by way of caveats or nuance.


Have you followed the thread? I explained why I said that. Just cos you and some other folk have criticised me for expressing my views about latin american culture, I can't erase what I have seen and experienced in Colombia and Venezuela and read about in other parts of Latin america. Maybe next time you say "no this is not the case cos I have pals who are latin american" and when you have not actually lived there, you should realise that you are going to be found out by someone who has experienced the racism in latin america which owes much to spanish colonialisms past.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm trying to think of an equivalent in English. 'spic' perhaps, or 'dago'. It's a racist term, in fact.


There's no equivalent because the same colonial and post-colonial relationship doesn't exist between the UK and the Spanish speaking world. It's as strong as "paki" and probably the closest equivalent would be the American "wetback".


----------



## SushiMo (Dec 22, 2011)

One final point from me before I go and do something else more useful.  If Suarez is the 'Racist' he is now deemed to be by so many, how come he has lasted this long in the EPL/Europe without this having happened before?  If it had do you not think others would have come forward and backed Evra on this?  If they have and this comes forth in a report, fair enough, but if it is purely Evra that deems the words spoken to be racist then I still feel it is he with the problem, especially as quoted by 'littlebabyjesus' on his upbringing having been tough (if it was).  A true racist is always racist, it doesn't just happen out of the blue after years of playing with and against a b***k person. <<<  I assume that word is now racist so have posted correctly.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 22, 2011)

manny-p said:


> Have you followed the thread? I explained why I said that. Just cos you and some other folk have criticised me for expressing my views about latin american culture, I can't erase what I have seen and experienced in Colombia and Venezuela and read about in other parts of Latin america.


I have followed the thread, you explained it, it's still a dumb assertion to make, even accepting that Latin America has an exceptional problem with racism. It's akin to visiting Serbia and saying Europe is a continent of Croat-haters.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> I have followed the thread, you explained it, it's still a dumb assertion to make, even accepting that Latin America has an exceptional problem with racism. It's akin to visiting Serbia and saying Europe is a continent of Croat-haters.



Fit birds, but the men are too hairy for my tastes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

Oh dear. 

(At SushiMo)


----------



## TruXta (Dec 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Oh dear.



That at me? Twas a joke FFS. Ah ok.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> I have followed the thread, you explained it, it's still a dumb assertion to make, even accepting that Latin America has an exceptional problem with racism. It's akin to visiting Serbia and saying Europe is a continent of Croat-haters.


Can't be arsed to talk to someone who talks about something they know hardly anything about, taking their inside knowledge from some latinos he happens to know.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That at me? Twas a joke FFS.


No, at 'b***k' sushimo.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 22, 2011)

SushiMo said:


> One final point from me before I go and do something else more useful. If Suarez is the 'Racist' he is now deemed to be by so many, how come he has lasted this long in the EPL/Europe without this having happened before? If it had do you not think others would have come forward and backed Evra on this? If they have and this comes forth in a report, fair enough, but if it is purely Evra that deems the words spoken to be racist then I still feel it is he with the problem, especially as quoted by 'littlebabyjesus' on his upbringing having been tough (if it was).* A true racist is always racist*, it doesn't just happen out of the blue after years of playing with and against a b***k person. <<< I assume that word is now racist so have posted correctly.



See this is the kind of horseshit that produces the whole "I can't be a racist I have black friends". It's perfectly possible to like and be friends with non-white individuals and still behave in a degrading and prejudicial way.

And, for the nth time, no one is saying that the word "black" is racist. Certainly the direct translation "little blacky" would be. And certainly in the context of an argument.

It's not that hard:

"Fuck off you Jew": Offensive.
"John is Jewish": Not offensive.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, at 'b***k' sushimo.



Yer I saw your edit.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 22, 2011)

manny-p said:


> Can't be arsed to talk to someone who talks about something they know hardly anything about, taking their inside knowledge from some latinos he happens to know.


Oh really? So your experiences of living somewhere as an expat for a while, in a country that is profoundly different from Uruguay, trump my experience of years of daily interactions with my partner, her entire family and all of her friends? All of them being either from the country that is culturally most similar to Uruguay or actually from Uruguay itself?

That's even before we get into the sheer idiocy of your argument, _as you've expressed it_, which a 6th form debating society could pick apart using Google.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Oh really? So your experiences of living somewhere as an expat for a while, in a country that is profoundly different from Uruguay, trump my experience of years of daily interactions with my partner, her entire family and all of her friends? All of them being either from the country that is culturally most similar to Uruguay or actually from Uruguay itself?


Its different. I didn't live there as an expat. I was not talking about Uruguay but Colombia and Venezuela, so yes your knowledge of Uruguayan culture is better than mine but just like if you don't live in the Uk you can't really gauge what the country is like from going out with a expat brit in Uruguay.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Are you seriously going to argue this? I could quote statistic after statistic on income, education, social mobility, health, whatever indicator you like, confirming that class _is _very obviously linked to race in the UK. In 2009, one student of afro-caribbean descent was accepted at Oxford, fucking ONE! You're seriously telling me that class, race and social opportunity aren't deeply intertwined in the UK?


Where did you get that figure from - David Cameron?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/apr/11/oxford-cameron-black-students

It's actually 27 students.


----------



## ignatious (Dec 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Like I said earlier, even in Uruguay referring to someone _during an argument_ as "negrito" would be disparaging, even if some might not consider it racist. Use of racial language for disparaging effect fulfills my criteria for racist abuse.


Henry Winter wrote in the Telegraph that “Referee Andre Marriner called the pair together for a lecture. Suárez apologised and attempted to pat the United full-back on the head. ‘Don’t touch me, you South American,’ Evra is alleged to have said. To which, the Uruguayan replied: ‘Porque, Negro?’

It's been reported elsewhere that Evra said 'sudaca' but whether that was during this exchange or at another time we don't know, and until the FA publish the full report (now we're told mid Jan which is a fucking disgrace in itself) we won't know.

It's also been reported that Evra subsequently asked the ref if he was being booked because he was black. Like the 'sudaca' thing, this seems to have gone without censure by the FA.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 22, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Where did you get that figure from - David Cameron?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/apr/11/oxford-cameron-black-students
> 
> It's actually 27 students.



Err, Oxford say in that very same article the same thing I did, that they only accepted only one afro-caribbean student (and some other black people, but still well below proportionally to the population as a whole).


----------



## manny-p (Dec 22, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Where did you get that figure from - David Cameron?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/apr/11/oxford-cameron-black-students
> 
> It's actually 27 students.


Lol who is in the 6th form debating society now lo siento? Maybe you should live in latin america before you come on here acting like the spokesmen for the place. Fucking gringo


----------



## agricola (Dec 22, 2011)

ignatious said:


> Henry Winter wrote in the Telegraph that “Referee Andre Marriner called the pair together for a lecture. Suárez apologised and attempted to pat the United full-back on the head. ‘Don’t touch me, you South American,’ Evra is alleged to have said. To which, the Uruguayan replied: ‘Porque, Negro?’
> 
> It's been reported elsewhere that Evra said 'sudaca' but whether that was during this exchange or at another time we don't know, and until the FA publish the full report (now we're told mid Jan which is a fucking disgrace in itself) we won't know.
> 
> It's also been reported that Evra subsequently asked the ref if he was being booked because he was black. Like the 'sudaca' thing, this seems to have gone without censure by the FA.



The problem with this being that noone (Suarez, the RS, "King Kenny" etc) has made any official complaint against Evra.  As for the report, I agree that it should be published now if only to highlight the complete fuckwittery of the RS, their manager and their fans.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 22, 2011)

manny-p said:


> Its different. I didn't live there as an expat. I was not talking about Uruguay but Colombia and Venezuela, so yes your knowledge of Uruguayan culture is better than mine but just like if you don't live in the Uk you can't really gauge what the country is like from going out with a expat brit in Uruguay.


How exactly did you avoid living there as an expat? Did you morph into a Venezuelan when you arrived?
I'd say that having very close relationships with people from a country, being welcomed into their homes etc. over a number of years would give you in some ways a deeper insight into a culture than living and working there for a while would.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

agricola said:


> *The problem with this being that noone (Suarez, the RS, "King Kenny" etc) has made any official complaint against Evra.* As for the report, I agree that it should be published now if only to highlight the complete fuckwittery of the RS, their manager and their fans.


That shouldn't matter, though, should it? In a disciplinary, surely these things would have come out. If it was 'tit-for-tat' racial abuse, started by Evra, that should have been explained in any disciplinary, and presumably was explained.

And if  - _if_ - Evra called Suarez 'sudaca', he should have been called in and asked what the fuck he was doing making a complaint when he was just as guilty himself!

Sorry affair, really. Nobody comes out of it well.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Err, Oxford say in that very same article the same thing I did, that they only accepted only one afro-caribbean student (and some other black people, but still well below proportionally to the population as a whole).


You're as bad as Cameron with your selective use of statistics!

Trying to make this country look more racist than it is.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 22, 2011)

manny-p said:


> Lol who is in the 6th form debating society now lo siento? Maybe you should live in latin america before you come on here acting like the spokesmen for the place. Fucking gringo





> The university's admissions figures for 2009 show that just one "black Caribbean" candidate was accepted for undergraduate study, out of 27 black students in that year's intake.


From the same link.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 22, 2011)

Maggot said:


> You're as bad as Cameron with your selective use of statistics!
> 
> Trying to make this country look more racist than it is.


Well actually, I quoted the figure that I had seen. The real figure is still shit though.


----------



## agricola (Dec 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That shouldn't matter, though, should it? In a disciplinary, surely these things would have come out. If it was 'tit-for-tat' racial abuse, started by Evra, that should have been explained in any disciplinary, and presumably was explained.



If thats what happened, perhaps - but surely the point is that if that is what happened the club/player would have made a complaint?   Evra racially abusing Suarez would considerably weaken his own case, and boost that of Suarez.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 22, 2011)

agricola said:


> If thats what happened, perhaps - but surely the point is that if that is what happened the club/player would have made a complaint? Evra racially abusing Suarez would considerably weaken his own case, and boost that of Suarez.


They seem to be making things up after he has been found guilty or else he had a completely shit lawyer.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

agricola said:


> If thats what happened, perhaps - but surely the point is that if that is what happened the club/player would have made a complaint? .


Not necessarily. Not everyone wants to take this kind of thing further.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 22, 2011)

manny-p said:


> Lol who is in the 6th form debating society now lo siento? Maybe you should live in latin america before you come on here acting like the spokesmen for the place. Fucking gringo


oh, and as for spokesman for "the place", I've not made a single categorical statement other than to say the reality is more complicated across a large, very diverse continent than your blanket condemnation of all latinoculture allows. I didn't even mention my connection to the place until you started making residency part of criteria for making a sodding rational argument.


----------



## agricola (Dec 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not necessarily. Not everyone wants to take this kind of thing further.



TBH I find that very difficult to believe, given the nature of this complaint and the clubs/players involved.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

agricola said:


> TBH I find that very difficult to believe, given the nature of this complaint and the clubs/players involved.


You find what very difficult to believe? That Evra called Suarez 'sudaca' and Suarez didn't want to make an official complaint about it? I find that very easy to believe.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not necessarily. Not everyone wants to take this kind of thing further.


Personally that Evra called him "sudaca" and Suarez let it slide, even though Evra reported him, seems a little implausible. It's not like he's some great principled statesman, is it?


----------



## ignatious (Dec 22, 2011)

Deareg said:


> They seem to be making things up after he has been found guilty or else he had a completely shit lawyer.


You've completely discounted the possibility that the ruling may have been unfair then?


----------



## Deareg (Dec 22, 2011)

I think Evra should count himself lucky that Suarez did not bite him too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Personally that Evra called him "sudaca" and Suarez let it slide, even though Evra reported him, seems a little implausible. It's not like he's some great principled statesman, is it?


Oh, I don't know. There seem to be a lot of ifs and buts in this. I'd want to know what actually happened before commenting further. I can well believe that Suarez had no desire to make a complaint though.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 22, 2011)

ignatious said:


> You've completely discounted the possibility that the ruling may have been unfair then?


Yes.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Oh, I don't know. There seem to be a lot of ifs and buts in this. I'd want to know what actually happened before commenting further. I can well believe that Suarez had no desire to make a complaint though.


yeah I know we just don't know, but that's just my personal view. Just that the whole t-shirt response to me doesn't say "I'm too dignified to get into a he said, she said, slanging match" to me.


----------



## agricola (Dec 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You find what very difficult to believe? That Evra called Suarez 'sudaca' and Suarez didn't want to make an official complaint about it? I find that very easy to believe.



_"I know, here is something that would in all likelyhood get me out of a lengthy ban and which would get a player from our most hated rivals banned in my place.  On second thoughts, I refuse to use such dishonest tactics despite my own predeliction for diving, biting people and being the most infamous cheat at the last World Cup.  Lets just tell a few friendly journalists about it instead, and put on these lovely t-shirts."_


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

agricola said:


> _"I know, here is something that would in all likelyhood get me out of a lengthy ban and which would get a player from our most hated rivals banned in my place. On second thoughts, I refuse to use such dishonest tactics despite my own predeliction for diving, biting people and being the most infamous cheat at the last World Cup. Lets just tell a few friendly journalists about it instead, and put on these lovely t-shirts."_


Seems reasonable to me. 

Perhaps you have a point... I don't care about the handball incident, though. He got his team through, didn't he?


----------



## Deareg (Dec 22, 2011)

ignatious said:


> You've completely discounted the possibility that the ruling may have been unfair then?


How come you have never asked that question to those who have discounted the possibility of him being guilty?


----------



## ignatious (Dec 22, 2011)

Deareg said:


> How come you have never asked that question to those who have discounted the possibility of him being guilty?


Because it would be pretty obvious that they think the ruling's unfair.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 22, 2011)

ignatious said:


> Because it would be pretty obvious that they think the ruling's unfair.



 Nice wriggle.


----------



## trampie (Dec 22, 2011)

Its a pity if one player insulted another player and the insulted player gave it back in kind and then got reported by the original aggressor, not privy to what happened in this case but if there is one thing in general terms that is very poor form it is somebody that gives it but cant take it whether it be teasing, jokes or abuse.

Also in this case the accuser has a history of accusing others [rightly or wrongly ?], some groups of people culturally are used to taking it when perhaps other groups are not so used to taking it, some groups for example are often the butt of stand up comedians jokes and they generally take it and laugh at themselves yet if a stand up comedian was to make a joke about another group perhaps they wouldnt take it so well.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 22, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> How exactly did you avoid living there as an expat? Did you morph into a Venezuelan when you arrived?
> I'd say that having very close relationships with people from a country, being welcomed into their homes etc. over a number of years would give you in some ways a deeper insight into a culture than living and working there for a while would.


I grew up there.


----------



## trampie (Dec 22, 2011)

Saying a racist remark and being a racist are two totally and utterly different things, i can remember a football manager that did loads for ethnic minority players in the 70s yet made remarks that cost him his job as a pundit years later, both are totally seperate and should be treated as such, one is naughty and one is vile, they are miles apart yet this is seldom recognised.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 22, 2011)

The people have spoken.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5PA6lah_kY&feature=player_embedded

With thanks to Revlon.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 23, 2011)

manny-p said:


> I grew up there.


Well done. Surprising that during all that time you never noticed that different parts of the continent are strikingly different


----------



## Big Gunz (Dec 23, 2011)

John Barnes defends Suarez http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-16309990

"Former Liverpool and England footballer John Barnes has attacked a "witch hunt" against Luis Suarez after he was banned for racially abusing another player.
The Liverpool striker was banned by the FA for eight games for using "insulting words" in reference to Manchester United defender Patrice Evra's colour.
Barnes defended Suarez, saying: "As much as we will say ignorance is no excuse, ignorance is an excuse."
He said that *"cultural differences have to be taken into consideration".*

*+*

"Twenty years ago in England, the same people in England now condemning him were ignorant as to what racism is. Why don't they condemn themselves?"

Too fucking right.


----------



## big eejit (Dec 23, 2011)

Charming RS fans collated by Stan Collymore:

https://twitter.com/#!/StanCollymore/favorites


----------



## agricola (Dec 23, 2011)

Big Gunz said:


> Too fucking right.



He is talking bollocks, though. The "cultural differences" argument is absurd (after all, they were clearly rowing at the time, and would anyone excuse what goes on when black players go to parts of Eastern Europe and get abused because of "cultural differences"?), and what makes it worse is that they have publically accused Evra of lying (and called for him to face charges if the case against Suarez was disproved, dont forget), even though their own argument accepts that Suarez said something suspiciously close to what Evra implied was said right after the match.


----------



## Dandred (Dec 23, 2011)

Who won player of the year for Sky this year?


----------



## Dandred (Dec 23, 2011)

big eejit said:


> Charming RS fans collated by Stan Collymore:
> 
> https://twitter.com/#!/StanCollymore/favorites



Bunch of utter and fucking load of twats.......

I imagine every Football Club has these kind of neanderthal idiots.

I deplore racism no matter what the circumstances.

Suarez has admitted that he called Evera negrito, I doubt he would have used that word he really meant it in the same way the word nigger is used here in the UK/Europe/USA.

 Foolish, yes. Ignorant, yes. A racist, I don't believe it.

It will be very interesting to see what happens to John Terry....


----------



## Big Gunz (Dec 23, 2011)

agricola said:


> He is talking bollocks, though. The "cultural differences" argument is absurd (after all, they were clearly rowing at the time, and would anyone excuse what goes on when black players go to parts of Eastern Europe and get abused because of "cultural differences"?), and what makes it worse is that they have publically accused Evra of lying (and called for him to face charges if the case against Suarez was disproved, dont forget), even though their own argument accepts that Suarez said something suspiciously close to what Evra implied was said right after the match.



He comes from a culture where it's okay to use that term though, maybe they'e a bunch of racists in Uruguay according to the British media.



Dandred said:


> Suarez has admitted that he called Evera negrito, I doubt he would have used that word he really meant it in the same way the word nigger is used here in the UK/Europe/USA.
> 
> Foolish, yes. Ignorant, yes. A racist, I don't believe it.
> 
> It will be very interesting to see what happens to John Terry....



Same word found on a chocolate bar.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2011)

And who was the bar rowing with exactly?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 23, 2011)

Big Gunz said:


> He comes from a culture where it's okay to use that term though, maybe they'e a bunch of racists in Uruguay according to the British media.
> 
> Same word found on a chocolate bar.


For the umpteenth time... if u call someone negrito in the context of an argument it is offensive in Uruguay and it is racist.

If you're not sure, try and find a black Uruguayan and tell him "andate a cagar, negrito" and see if he thinks you're racist or not. Probably after he's Finished "partiendote la cara" 

Fuck sake!


----------



## agricola (Dec 23, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> For the umpteenth time... if u call someone negrito in the context of an argument it is offensive in Uruguay and it is racist.
> 
> If you're not sure, try and find a black Uruguayan and tell him "andate a cagar, negrito" and see if he thinks you're racist or not. Probably after he's Finished "partiendo te la cara"
> 
> Fuck sake!



Good luck getting any of them to acknowledge that though, they are after all in full on uberkopite mode now and are immune to all logic, facts, evidence and indeed reality.  Lets just hope they come out of it before the _March for Luis_ happens.


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 23, 2011)

Big Gunz said:


> He comes from a culture where it's okay to use that term though, maybe they'e a bunch of racists in Uruguay according to the British media.
> 
> Same word found on a chocolate bar.



Oh look, there's a south American version of this on there too


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 23, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> Oh look, there's a south American version of this on there too



Chocolate drops called little blackies with pictures of golliwogs on them. Maybe this Uruguayan cultural defence isn't going to help Suarez in the long run.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 23, 2011)

I near spat out my pint when I realised what the t shirts were, deluded muppets to a man.

if you're liverpool's pr team would you not be aiming to express regret about the incident and say that Suarez now understands the issue, apologises whilst restating that he is not racist and would never wish to give such an impression...

or you could continue to call Evra a liar and that he's playing the race card and then all wear t shirts in solidarity with poor misunderstood Suarez...

mentalists.


----------



## RaverDrew (Dec 23, 2011)

trampie said:


> Its a pity if one player insulted another player and the insulted player gave it back in kind and then got reported by the original aggressor, not privy to what happened in this case but if there is one thing in general terms that is very poor form it is somebody that gives it but cant take it whether it be teasing, jokes or abuse.
> 
> Also in this case the accuser has a history of accusing others [rightly or wrongly ?], some groups of people culturally are used to taking it when perhaps other groups are not so used to taking it, some groups for example are often the butt of stand up comedians jokes and they generally take it and laugh at themselves yet if a stand up comedian was to make a joke about another group perhaps they wouldnt take it so well.



Oh stop ya bleating


----------



## Biffo (Dec 23, 2011)

http://m24digital.com/en/2009/11/14/argentinas-players-paid-tribute-to-caceres/


----------



## agricola (Dec 23, 2011)

Biffo said:


> http://m24digital.com/en/2009/11/14/argentinas-players-paid-tribute-to-caceres/



The obvious difference of course being that whilst the Argentinians were paying respect to Caceres, Suarez was clearly not paying respect to Evra when he used similar words.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 23, 2011)

big eejit said:


> Charming RS fans collated by Stan Collymore:
> 
> https://twitter.com/#!/StanCollymore/favorites



It's a media fit up, didn't happen. Blame Chelsea.... The more this goes on the more deluded, rotten and fucking loathsome a section of the RS look.


----------



## denniseagle (Dec 23, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> It's a media fit up, didn't happen. Blame Chelsea.... The more this goes on the more deluded, rotten and fucking loathsome a section of the RS look.



And it takes how long to set up a twitter account? try seeing just how many 'followers' some of those who've twittered have.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 23, 2011)

And as if by magic....


----------



## denniseagle (Dec 23, 2011)

Deareg said:


> They seem to be making things up after he has been found guilty or else he had a completely shit lawyer.


 Read the statement from Liverpool football club, they clearly state that evra himself admitted to the FA inquiry  to insulting suarez in the most objectionable of terms Suarez to his credit told the FA he had not heard the insult


----------



## Deareg (Dec 23, 2011)

denniseagle said:


> Read the statement from Liverpool football club, they clearly state that evra himself admitted to the FA inquiry to insulting suarez in the most objectionable of terms Suarez to his credit told the FA he had not heard the insult


People insult each other all the time in the heat of argument, it happens all the time on urban, the vast majority though draw a line when it comes to racial insults.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 23, 2011)

agricola said:


> Good luck getting any of them to acknowledge that though, they are after all in full on uberkopite mode now and are immune to all logic, facts, evidence and indeed reality.


Well the facts and evidence haven't been made public yet and won't be for a while - so what are we immune to?


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 23, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well the facts and evidence haven't been made public yet and won't be for a while - so what are we immune to?


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 23, 2011)

revol68 said:


> I near spat out my pint when I realised what the t shirts were, deluded muppets to a man.
> 
> if you're liverpool's pr team would you not be aiming to express regret about the incident and say that Suarez now understands the issue, apologises whilst restating that he is not racist and would never wish to give such an impression...
> 
> ...



Indeed. Extremely stupid PR department.


----------



## big eejit (Dec 23, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> Indeed. Extremely stupid PR department.



Probably being advised by Alan 'Coloured' Hansen. Bad week for the RS.

I feel a bit sorry for them actually. Lost all class when Benitez arrived and been sliding downhill ever since.


----------



## denniseagle (Dec 23, 2011)

big eejit said:


> Probably being advised by Alan 'Coloured' Hansen. Bad week for the RS.
> 
> I feel a bit sorry for them actually. Lost all class when Benitez arrived and been sliding downhill ever since.





Deareg said:


> People insult each other all the time in the heat of argument, it happens all the time on urban, the vast majority though draw a line when it comes to racial insults.



What has Benitez got to do with anything even remotely concerned with this 'incident'?????????????????

Since when has the term coloured been decreed offensive?
By whom precisely and why??
Anyone remember when gay used to mean being happy and carefree.......................

Tell me is Evra NOT playing the race card?? HE reported a racial element to whatever occurred during the match.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 23, 2011)

denniseagle said:


> Tell me is Evra NOT playing the race card?? HE reported a racial element to whatever occurred during the match.



Have you just woke up?


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 24, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Have you just woke up?



Maybe he works for the Liverpool FC press office?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 24, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> It's a media fit up, didn't happen. Blame Chelsea.... The more this goes on the more deluded, rotten and fucking loathsome a section of the RS look.



Football does seem to attract more than its fair share of social inadequates who get off on denigrating and reviling others.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 24, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Football does seem to attract more than its fair share of social inadequates who get off on denigrating and reviling others.


And everyone knows Liverpool fans are above that sort of thing.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 24, 2011)

Deareg said:


> And everyone knows Liverpool fans are above that sort of thing.



You're quite right that most of those twitter racist scumbags aren't real Liverpool fans, although sadly a few of them probably are.


----------



## big eejit (Dec 24, 2011)

denniseagle said:


> What has Benitez got to do with anything even remotely concerned with this 'incident'?????????????????



Benitez turned a club with a proud tradition into a petty, smaller club. Can't see this sort of mess happening under managers pre Benitez. Surprised at Dalglish to be honest. I thought he was made of better stuff, but maybe he's been infested with the new atmos at Anfield.



denniseagle said:


> Since when has the term coloured been decreed offensive?
> By whom precisely and why??
> Anyone remember when gay used to mean being happy and carefree.......................



Good to see you have access to the internet from your hospital bed, Prince Philip.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 24, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> You're quite right that most of those twitter racist scumbags aren't real Liverpool fans, although sadly a few of them probably are.


In denial much?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 24, 2011)

Deareg said:


> In denial much?



Not at all. Are you claiming all Man U fans are model citizens then? That seems a bit deluded.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 24, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Not at all. Are you claiming all Man U fans are model citizens then? That seems a bit deluded.


Nice twist, the only claim that I am making is Suarez is a racist.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 24, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Nice twist, the only claim that I am making is Suarez is a racist.



Even Patrice Evra has denied that.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 24, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Even Patrice Evra has denied that.


Shows Evra is a bigger man than Suarez or any one else connected with Liverpool then doesn't it.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 24, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Shows Evra is a bigger man than Suarez or any one else connected with Liverpool then doesn't it.


No, it shows that Suarez isn't a racist!


----------



## Deareg (Dec 24, 2011)

Maggot said:


> No, it shows that Suarez isn't a racist!


He should have called you as a witness, his lawyers really fucked up on this one.


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 24, 2011)

Maggot said:


> No, it shows that Suarez isn't a racist!



Yeah I was wondering what you were doing on the pitch at Anfield that day.
I'll take your word for it then.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 24, 2011)

He is not a racist, he just uses racist insults.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 24, 2011)

Deareg said:


> He should have called you as a witness, his lawyers really fucked up on this one.





twistedAM said:


> Yeah I was wondering what you were doing on the pitch at Anfield that day.
> I'll take your word for it then.



Well, the pair of you obviously only have contempt for Patrice Evra's word. I'm sure he's thrilled by your support.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 24, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Well, the pair of you obviously only have contempt for Patrice Evra's word. I'm sure he's thrilled by your support.


Because Evra decides not to put the boot in when Suarez is down means that we have contempt for him? get a grip.


----------



## agricola (Dec 24, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Well, the pair of you obviously only have contempt for Patrice Evra's word. I'm sure he's thrilled by your support.



I think the point is that (based on the reports that have been seen) beyond making the initial complaint Evra really hasnt had to do anything.  Its Suarez's own testimony that has screwed him - which is of course something that a decent defence lawyer will seek to avoid when in court.


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 24, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Well, the pair of you obviously only have contempt for Patrice Evra's word. I'm sure he's thrilled by your support.



Nah, I'm just glad maggot plus several thousand Liverpool fans were there on the pitch and we know the full story now.


----------



## Centurian (Dec 24, 2011)

Everyone points out how hot we are on racism compared to the rest of the (racist) world (apart from America) but isn't that in itself racist?  Or is it just xenophobic of us?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 24, 2011)

Centurian said:


> Everyone points out how hot we are on racism compared to the rest of the (racist) world (apart from America) but isn't that in itself racist? Or is it just xenophobic of us?



Do they? Are you sure you aren't making the mistake of confusing reality with something off RAWK there?


----------



## Centurian (Dec 25, 2011)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Do they? Are you sure you aren't making the mistake of confusing reality with something off RAWK there?



I take it you haven't been listening to hour upon hour of debate on this issue on the radio and media in general? Ask around if you don't believe me. The "all cultures are equal" brigade have been very quite on this particular issue. The thick cunts!

PS What's this Rawk of which you speak?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 25, 2011)




----------



## twistedAM (Dec 25, 2011)

Centurian said:


> PS What's this Rawk of which you speak?



this drivel: www.redandwhitekop.com/


----------



## binka (Dec 26, 2011)

im _almost_ tempted to watch the liverpool game tomorrow just out of curiosity to see if the fans in the stadium show their support for suarez in a similar manner to those online.


----------



## Centurian (Dec 26, 2011)

It's interesting how few black players Liverpool have - just Johnson isn't it? And Suarez himself of course.


----------



## Big Gunz (Dec 27, 2011)

Centurian said:


> It's interesting how few black players Liverpool have - just Johnson isn't it? And Suarez himself of course.



King Kenny is clearly racist getting rid of Ngog and Babel those quality players.  He also signed John Barnes, must have been an administrative error?


----------



## Maggot (Dec 27, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> Yeah I was wondering what you were doing on the pitch at Anfield that day.
> I'll take your word for it then.





twistedAM said:


> Nah, I'm just glad maggot plus several thousand Liverpool fans were there on the pitch and we know the full story now.


I'm not claiming I heard what was said. Just that no-one's accusing Suarez of being racist (apart from deareg).


----------



## Deareg (Dec 27, 2011)

Maggot said:


> I'm not claiming I heard what was said. Just that no-one's accusing Suarez of being racist (apart from deareg).


And the FA.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 27, 2011)

Deareg said:


> And the FA.


Nothing about him being a racist in their report.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 27, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Nothing about him being a racist in their report.


have you read the report? and if not racist abuse, then what was he banned for?


----------



## Deareg (Dec 27, 2011)

Maggot said:


> I'm not claiming I heard what was said. Just that no-one's accusing Suarez of being racist (apart from deareg).


I would love to be there to see the result if you walked up to a black man in Brixton and said hey "little black boy"


----------



## Maggot (Dec 27, 2011)

Deareg said:


> have you read the report? and if not racist abuse, then what was he banned for?


Yeah, racial abuse - not _being _a racist. They are different things.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 27, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Yeah, racial abuse - not _being _a racist. They are different things.


So it's allright to use racist abuse as long as you are not a racist?

Are you really this fucking thick?


----------



## Big Gunz (Dec 27, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I would love to be there to see the result if you walked up to a black man in Brixton and said hey "little black boy"



It's not racist to say that.  People have said "hey Chinaman" to me when I was a lot younger (and less mean looking) I don't take that as racist.  It's disrespectful but certainly not racist.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 27, 2011)

Big Gunz said:


> It's not racist to say that. People have said "hey Chinaman" to me when I was a lot younger (and less mean looking) I don't take that as racist. It's disrespectful but certainly not racist.


That is your prerogative, but it is racist.


----------



## Big Gunz (Dec 27, 2011)

Deareg said:


> That is your prerogative, but it is racist.



Well I didn't get racial abuse, just an ignorant persons way of attracting my attention.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Dec 27, 2011)

Big Gunz said:


> It's not racist to say that. People have said "hey Chinaman" to me when I was a lot younger (and less mean looking) I don't take that as racist. It's disrespectful but certainly not racist.



Sorry but that's racism in my book. Like generalising the entire SE race is Chinamen.

It's like old Jamaican men trying to pick up young SE Asian women (stereotype but sadly true, it's like some kinda 'prize) by saying, "ere, ere Miss Ching."
The wife, family and our Japanese girlfriends get it all the time.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 27, 2011)

Deareg said:


> So it's allright to use racist abuse as long as you are not a racist?
> 
> Are you really this fucking thick?


Where have I said it's alright to use racist abuse?


----------



## Deareg (Dec 27, 2011)

Big Gunz said:


> Well I didn't get racial abuse, just an ignorant persons way of attracting my attention.


I have a black mate who we all referred to as chink when we were kids, I would not dream of calling him that now even though some people still do and he does not mind, It isn't my place to tell him or you whether to take offence but I think to even use the word chink is racist.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 27, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Where have I said it's alright to use racist abuse?


I am not surprised that I am confused when you are even confusing yourself.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 27, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Yeah, racial abuse - not _being _a racist. They are different things.



TBF I don't think there's any way you could charge someone - under the law or FA rules or whatever - of 'being a racist.' You can only be done for behaving in a racist manner.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 27, 2011)

yeah let's not essentialise it too much, saying something racist doesn't make you a racist in the same way saying something stupid doesn't make you automatically stupid.

infact I think Suarez is the kind of cunt who would use racist remarks simply to wind up another player, to try and gain an advantage.

I think the tendency not to make a distinction between racist, homophobic or sexist behaviours and someone being a sexist, racist or homophobes is problematic in that it makes people overly defensive and reduces the issue to a matter of policing language rather than examining underlying discourses that run through out society and aren't just in the heads of individual sinners.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 27, 2011)

revol68 said:


> yeah let's not essentialise it too much, saying something racist doesn't make you a racist in the same way saying something stupid doesn't make you automatically stupid.
> 
> infact I think Suarez is the kind of cunt who would use racist remarks simply to wind up another player, to try and gain an advantage.
> 
> I think the tendency not to make a distinction between racist, homophobic or sexist behaviours and someone being a sexist, racist or homophobes is problematic in that it makes people overly defensive and reduces the issue to a matter of policing language rather than examining underlying discourses that run through out society and aren't just in the heads of individual sinners.



I wasn't expecting anything so sensible from you.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 27, 2011)

my shits always bang on, you just don't recognise it as sensible when it extends beyond the parameters of your liberal sensibilities.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 27, 2011)

revol68 said:


> my shits always bang on, you just don't recognise it as sensible when it extends beyond the parameters of your liberal sensibilities.



 off you fuck again then.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 27, 2011)

You say that shit in Moss side, Brixton, Toxteth or many other places to a black man and do you think he is going to give a shit whether or not you consider yourself to be a racist?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 27, 2011)

Deareg said:


> You say that shit in Moss side, Brixton, Toxteth or many other places to a black man and do you think he is going to give a shit whether or not you consider yourself to be a racist?



your point being?


----------



## Deareg (Dec 27, 2011)

revol68 said:


> your point being?


I was asking a throwaway question, but I have made my point numerous times all ready, it being, if you use racist language you are a racist.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 27, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I was asking a throwaway question, but I have made my point numerous times all ready, it being, if you use racist language you are a racist.



I think that is stupidly reductionist and as I said serves to make racism about the policing of language and individual sinners transgressions rather than deeper lying social discourses.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 27, 2011)

revol68 said:


> I think that is stupidly reductionist and as I said serves to make racism about the policing of language and individual sinners transgressions rather than deeper lying social discourses.


And I think that as usual you are over analysing something and talking yourself right up your own arse.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 27, 2011)

"Thinking is rubbish, and rubbish isn’t cool. Stuff and shit is cool."


----------



## Deareg (Dec 27, 2011)

revol68 said:


> "Thinking is rubbish, and rubbish isn’t cool. Stuff and shit is cool."


There you go again.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 27, 2011)

with that damn thinking...

anyway it won't stop me calling Suarez a racist to wind up Liverpool supporters


----------



## Deareg (Dec 27, 2011)

revol68 said:


> with that damn thinking...
> 
> anyway it won't stop me calling Suarez a racist *to wind up Liverpool supporters*



I will settle for that.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 28, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I have a black mate who we all referred to as chink when we were kids, I would not dream of calling him that now even though some people still do and he does not mind, It isn't my place to tell him or you whether to take offence but I think to even use the word chink is racist.


So you used to be a racist?


----------



## Deareg (Dec 28, 2011)

Maggot said:


> So you used to be a racist?


Yeah, and you are still an apologist for a racist.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 28, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Yeah, and you are still an apologist for a racist.


Suarez won't magically become a racist just cos you keep repeating it. No-one agrees with you and you're wrong.


----------



## strung out (Dec 28, 2011)

is there much of a difference between a racist and someone who behaves like a racist?


----------



## Maggot (Dec 28, 2011)

strung out said:


> is there much of a difference between a racist and someone who behaves like a racist?


Behaves like a racist - lol. It was one comment in the heat of an argument.


----------



## strung out (Dec 28, 2011)

so it wasn't racist behaviour?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2011)

seems pretty racist to me


----------



## Deareg (Dec 28, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Behaves like a racist - lol. It was one comment in the heat of an argument.


One comment repeated 10 times.


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 28, 2011)

Deareg said:


> One comment repeated 10 times.



I had to explain this to some unreconstructed apologist in a pub the other night. The closest i cam to getting through to him was saying if I called you something fairly mild like a wanker you could shake it off as a kind of joke if I called you it once. But, if i called you wanker 10 times in the course of the night you'd think there was malice behind it.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 28, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> I had to explain this to some unreconstructed apologist in a pub the other night. The closest i cam to getting through to him was saying if I called you something fairly mild like a wanker you could shake it off as a kind of joke if I called you it once. But, if i called you wanker 10 times in the course of the night you'd think there was malice behind it.


I can't believe the shite some people are coming out with.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 28, 2011)

So now he's got one match and a fine for giving the finger. Fair enough, was a silly thing to do.


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 28, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I can't believe the shite some people are coming out with.



Yeah but they all seem to know Suarez personally and I presume, like myself, you've never been out drinking with him so we can't possible comment. Or can we?


----------



## Deareg (Dec 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> So now he's got one match and a fine for giving the finger. Fair enough, was a silly thing to do.



But he only gave the finger once.


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> So now he's got one match and a fine for giving the finger. Fair enough, was a silly thing to do.



That seems pretty low. Can't be arsed googling but what did Adebayor get for winding up the north London socialites? And, Rooney?
Not having another pop at Suarez, just curious.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 28, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> That seems pretty low. Can't be arsed googling but what did Adebayor get for winding up the north London socialites? And, Rooney?
> Not having another pop at Suarez, just curious.



I wasn't gonna say it, but now you brought it up. I don't think he got anything for the celebration, but I'm sure he was banned for stamping RVP in the face. Rooney... which incident are you referring to?


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I wasn't gonna say it, but now you brought it up. I don't think he got anything for the celebration, but I'm sure he was banned for stamping RVP in the face. Rooney... which incident are you referring to?



Not sure tbh but there are some precedents. Trying to do some work so sorry for the vagueness/lack of facts.


----------



## Big Gunz (Dec 28, 2011)

One positive about all this is that I seriously doubt Man C or Chelski will try to poach Suarez, at least until next season anyway.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 28, 2011)

Deareg said:


> One comment repeated 10 times.



You've made stupid comments more than 10 times - doesn't mean you are stupid.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 28, 2011)

Maggot said:


> You've made stupid comments more than 10 times - doesn't mean you are stupid.


Refute it then, because your defence of him makes you sound fucking stupid.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 28, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> That seems pretty low. Can't be arsed googling but what did Adebayor get for winding up the north London socialites? And, Rooney?
> Not having another pop at Suarez, just curious.



Rooney got three games for swearing into the camera didn't he? Assuming that's the one you mean. Not sure about Adebayor.


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 28, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Refute it then, because your defence of him makes you sound fucking stupid.



Well the whole thread is fucking stupid if you read the OP: "I hope he wins the appeal"

Not sure why I'm getting my hands dirty in this but there is something strange happening on these boards when people WITHOUT SEEING THE EVIDENCE, think they know what happened.


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 28, 2011)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Rooney got three games for swearing into the camera didn't he? Assuming that's the one you mean. Not sure about Adebayor.



Found it:
"He was awarded a two-game suspended ban for improper conduct, but was banned for three games for violent conduct as he stamped on Robin van Persie’s face in the same game."


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 28, 2011)

TBH I thought the charge against Liverpool for failing to control their players might be more controversial than the Suarez finger one. I don't see anything wrong with it in itself - a couple of players barged into the ref which really shouldn't be on - but the line between acceptable and not seems to be pretty arbitrary. I suppose it's down to whether the ref himself reports it.

Having said that a 20k fine for a club the sizr of Liverpool is peanuts really.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 29, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> Well the whole thread is fucking stupid if you read the OP: "I hope he wins the appeal"


What's wrong with that?  An 8 game ban is excessive just for saying something - whatever it is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2011)

Maggot said:


> What's wrong with that? An 8 game ban is excessive just for saying something - whatever it is.


I don't agree. If he'd said something like 'fuck you, you stupid fucking nigger', I would say eight games off would have been lenient. That 'negrito' is not synonymous with 'nigger' saves him somewhat, but there's no 'just saying something' where the intent is nasty, ignorant racism, imo.


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 29, 2011)

Maggot said:


> What's wrong with that? An 8 game ban is excessive just for saying something - whatever it is.



Really? If eight games is the number they've come up with for racist behaviour, I think that's fair enough. Players have to set examples to fans and that's why i don't think it's that extreme.
Sure, you can argue about how the decision was made and Liverpool's reaction but all I'm saying is it seems a fair amount for the charge.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't agree. If he'd said something like 'fuck you, you stupid fucking nigger', I would say eight games off would have been lenient. That 'negrito' is not synonymous with 'nigger' saves him somewhat, but there's no 'just saying something' where the intent is nasty, ignorant racism, imo.


There are worse things than racist comments - punching someone for example.  Sticks and stones etc. How long do you get banned for a punch?



twistedAM said:


> Really? If eight games is the number they've come up with for racist behaviour, I think that's fair enough. Players have to set examples to fans and that's why i don't think it's that extreme.



If none of the fans could hear what he said - then how can that be a bad example to them?  If Evra hadn't played the race card then none of us would have any idea what he said.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2011)

Again, I do not agree. IMO, racist abuse - properly nasty racist abuse - is far worse than punching someone.


----------



## strung out (Dec 29, 2011)

Maggot said:


> If none of the fans could hear what he said - then how can that be a bad example to them? If Evra hadn't played the race card then none of us would have any idea what he said.


i'm sorry, but the whole idea that by reporting what he took to be racist insults, evra is somehow 'playing the race card' is really fucking nasty imo.

that whole phrase has got really nasty connotations and is used frequently by racists to make out that the target of their insults should just 'get over it'


----------



## Maggot (Dec 29, 2011)

strung out said:


> i'm sorry, but the whole idea that by reporting what he took to be racist insults, evra is somehow 'playing the race card' is really fucking nasty imo.



Do you really think Evra was upset by what he heard?  Players get badly insulted all the time, by fans and opposing players and are usually unaffected by it. Evra only reported it to get Suarez into trouble IMO.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 29, 2011)

I reckon Evra is the racist and only reported Suarez because he hates whites.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 29, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I reckon Evra is the racist and only reported Suarez because he hates whites mixed-race people.



FTFY.


----------



## strung out (Dec 29, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Do you really think Evra was upset by what he heard? Players get badly insulted all the time, by fans and opposing players and are usually unaffected by it. Evra only reported it to get Suarez into trouble IMO.


you're right, players do get insulted all the time, but not often racist abuse (not anymore thankfully), and evra's got every right to be upset by racist abuse thrown designed to wind him up.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 29, 2011)

TruXta said:


> FTFY.


It was common knowledge when I was growing up that blacks hated mixed race people even more than they hated whites, so this is even more evidence that it is Evra who is to blame.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 29, 2011)

Deareg said:


> It was common knowledge when I was growing up that blacks hated mixed race people even more than they hated whites, so this is even more evidence that it is Evra who is to blame.



My work here is done.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 29, 2011)

TruXta said:


> My work here is done.


Was that sudden whisp of smoke you disappearing?


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 29, 2011)

Maggot said:


> There are worse things than racist comments - punching someone for example. Sticks and stones etc. How long do you get banned for a punch?



Great.

Racism now equals sticks and stones.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 29, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Was that sudden whisp of smoke you disappearing?



Could be. TBH I can't be arsed with this debate anymore (not just the thread, and nothing personal to any of the posters). What has happened happened, let's wait and see what the outcome is re appeal and all that.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 29, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> Great.
> 
> Racism now equals sticks and stones.




That's not what I was saying.


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 29, 2011)

Maggot said:


> That's not what I was saying.



It sounded like it. Right now in football racism is more important to deal with than a slap here or there.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Again, I do not agree. IMO, racist abuse - properly nasty racist abuse - is far worse than punching someone.



Bollocks.  Obviously you haven't taken a serious punch to the face recently.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 29, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Could be. TBH I can't be arsed with this debate anymore



Phew, praise the Lord.  Small mercies etc...


----------



## TruXta (Dec 29, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Phew, praise the Lord. Small mercies etc...



Remember what I said yesterday about posting personal crap on unrelated threads?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Bollocks. Obviously you haven't taken a serious punch to the face recently.


In terms of what it says about the perpetrator, the racist abuse is far worse.

A player loses his rag and throws a punch. Anger management issues for sure, but not a morally bad person necessarily.

A player loses his rag and throws racist abuse. If he does that, he reveals himself to be a nasty ignorant fuck. Far harder to forgive, imo.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In terms of what it says about the perpetrator, the racist abuse is far worse.



True.  But in its effect on the victim, the punch is far worse.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 29, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> True. But in its effect on the victim, the punch is far worse.


How often do you see a decent punch thrown in a football match anyway?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> True. But in its effect on the victim, the punch is far worse.


Not necessarily.

But it's a bit silly getting involved in a discussion about a hierarchy of hurt from different kinds of abuse. I started it, I know, but I'll duck out of it now.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't agree. If he'd said something like 'fuck you, you stupid fucking nigger', I would say eight games off would have been lenient. That 'negrito' is not synonymous with 'nigger' saves him somewhat, but there's no 'just saying something' where the intent is nasty, ignorant racism, imo.



But is the word 'negrito' in its South American context a racist term of abuse? They have biscuits there called negritos. How would a black player react on being called Chiernyechko by a Slavic speaker? It has the same literal meaning as negrito, but I doubt anybody would be offended by it, mainly because they wouldn't understand what it meant. And even if someone translated it, would the word Chiernyechko be outlawed by the FA?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 30, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> But is the word 'negrito' in its South American context a racist term of abuse?


In an argument it could be. I don't know what happened, but the story that Evra called Suarez 'sudaca', then Suarez responded with 'negrito' sounds very believable. If that is what happened, then Evra is more in the wrong of the two. TBH it does sound to me like something that could have been dealt with by a stern telling off for the two of them from the headmaster. As I said earlier, nobody comes out of this well. And John Barnes makes a valid point, I think, about the FA and its high horse. Some humility about past failings over dealing with racism by the very same people who sat in judgement over Suarez is in order.


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 30, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> But is the word 'negrito' in its South American context a racist term of abuse? They have biscuits there called negritos. How would a black player react on being called Chiernyechko by a Slavic speaker? It has the same literal meaning as negrito, but I doubt anybody would be offended by it, mainly because they wouldn't understand what it meant. And even if someone translated it, would the word Chiernyechko be outlawed by the FA?



We used to have jam here with golliwogs on it but we all knew that if we called a black guy a golliwog ten times he might get a tad upset.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 30, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> We used to have jam here with golliwogs on it but we all knew that if we called a black guy a golliwog ten times he might get a tad upset.



Can you make these linguistic comparisons across continents and over decades with such certainty? I don't think so.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 30, 2011)

Negrito isn't equivalent to gollywog. The word in and of itself is pretty neutral in a way that gollywog is not and never was. There's a song I half know that is a love song sung to a 'negrita' - it's not a word that implies any kind of condescension necessarily. However, as ever context is crucial. In a heated exchange, there's no good way to use the word 'negrito'. But, if Evra said sudaca first, then he really should not be complaining. Without knowing what Evra said for sure, it's hard to comment.

Everything is context though. The late poster tbaldwin called his girlfriend his 'paki princess'. Their private thing, no doubt - something that made them laugh. Words out of context don't have any emotional power.They only take on a specific emotional meaning in an exchange.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Negrito isn't equivalent to gollywog. The word in and of itself is pretty neutral in a way that gollywog is not and never was. There's a song I half know that is a love song sung to a 'negrita' - it's not a word that implies any kind of condescension necessarily. However, as ever context is crucial. In a heated exchange, there's no good way to use the word 'negrito'. But, if Evra said sudaca first, then he really should not be complaining. Without knowing what Evra said for sure, it's hard to comment.



I do wonder if Suarez would have said the same thing to someone like Balotelli, a lot bigger in stature than Evra, and with a potential to act more impetuously.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 30, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> I do wonder if Suarez would have said the same thing to someone like Balotelli, a lot bigger in stature than Evra, and with a potential to act more impetuously.


Almost certainly not. Again, context.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 30, 2011)

My understanding is that negrito means "little black boy" and in South America can be used either affectionately or as a term of abuse, common sense alone should tell you that if used repeatedly in the heat of an argument with a black man, then the intent is to cause maximum offence.
Just because something that is wrong is accepted in another country does not mean it should not be challenged or punished in a country where it is not accepted.
Referring to someone's colour during an argument is only going to be taken one way.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 30, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> It sounded like it. Right now in football racism is more important to deal with than a slap here or there.



Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me.

I agree that racism should be tackled, but banning someone for a comment which was only heard by one person is not the answer.


----------



## strung out (Dec 30, 2011)

What is the answer to players who make racist comments to opponents then?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 30, 2011)

just because something rhymes it doesn't confer immediate incontrovertible veracity btw, else 'he who smelt it dealt it' would always be true.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 30, 2011)

strung out said:


> What is the answer to players who make racist comments to opponents then?



If the comments are heard by the ref, or other officials, or recorded by cameras then and are undoubtedly racist then the players should be punished.

If they are only heard by one other player then no action should be taken as it leaves the system open to abuse.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 30, 2011)

Double post


----------



## kained&able (Dec 30, 2011)

lets start a 'can i use the word nigger as i listen to hip-hop and its not meant in a racist way' thread and see how much this shit matters. As i remember it they have never gone well.

I defended dicanio after he did the nazi salute and it got to the point where i was trying to prove that mussolini wasn't a racist before i finally had to admit to myself that maybe god wasn't infallible.

People should learn from my mistake and look at what they are saying and realise they are being dicks.

dave


----------



## Deareg (Dec 30, 2011)

Even if the accused players admits saying the racist words?


----------



## Maggot (Dec 30, 2011)

Triple post!


----------



## strung out (Dec 30, 2011)

Maggot said:


> If the comments are heard by the ref, or other officials, or recorded by cameras then and are undoubtedly racist then the players should be punished.
> 
> If they are only heard by one other player then no action should be taken as it leaves the system open to abuse.


But Suarez has admitted saying it


----------



## Deareg (Dec 30, 2011)

strung out said:


> But Suarez has admitted saying it


And what if no else hears it all but someone lip reads it on TV?


----------



## davie howells (Dec 31, 2011)

gabi said:


> apologies. hes admitted using the word 'negrito'. repeatedly. which is apparently considered acceptable in uruguay when addressing a very close black friend. how close do you think suarez and evra are? particularly in the context of the match in question?
> 
> his intention was to racially abuse evra and as such he got punished.





gabi said:


> apologies. hes admitted using the word 'negrito'. repeatedly. which is apparently considered acceptable in uruguay when addressing a very close black friend. how close do you think suarez and evra are? particularly in the context of the match in question?
> 
> his intention was to racially abuse evra and as such he got punished.


A lot has been said with regards to Luis Suarez, and Liverpool's full support given to him, with a defiant statement, a cringeworthy twitter post and embarrassing attire, with Suarez's silhouette. Not only is this behavior embarrassing, it is simply choosing partisanship over the rules, with the club seemingly willing to support their star man through any situation. I want to look at the facts, an​d determine whether, from the information we have, Luis Suarez has done any wrong, but also to look at the club's position, and try to understand why such backing has been given to someone found guilty of committing a racist act.

An independent panel found Suarez guilty of racially abusing another player. From what I have heard, Suarez has admitted using the word, and has not disagreed with the generally accepted position that he said this on a number of occasions. Liverpool, very kindly, leaked their stance to the press, despite being told that this should not happen, which has led us to note that his defence was on the grounds that the word used was not intended as racist, and the fact that the term is culturally acceptable in Uruguay. Based on the fact that he used the word repeatedly, and continued using it despite Evra's apparent provocation, I am led to believe that he knew what he was doing, and therefore is guilty of the act.

Prior to the verdict, Liverpool leaked the details of their defence to Henry Winter, writer for The Telegraph, and allowed the story to go ahead, breaching the agreed terms of the case. The importance of this is that Liverpool fans, as well as the rest of the interested public, know one side of this story, whilst Manchester United and Patrice Evra adhered to the rules of the case and remained silent. This has led many to question the validity of the United/Evra case, claiming that there is no evidence, rather than understanding that there is no evidence available. The sheer outrage of Liverpool supporters, has been caused by their own club, and has since been backed up by the vehement, and bullish statement that followed the decision.

The final point that I would make is that until the full disclosure is made available to both Liverpool Football Club, and the public, no one (club or supporters) should have to decide where they stand in the issue. Obviously people will have opinions, but the way that the club have dealt with this issue is, in my opinion, classless and confrontational. I believe that the club have created this division, and have created more of a stir than was necessary, and should have waited for full facts before binding themselves to a position.​


----------



## Maggot (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> And what if no else hears it all but someone lip reads it on TV?


If someone shouts racist abuse in the woods and no-one hears it, does it make an offence.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

Maggot said:


> If someone shouts racist abuse in the woods and no-one hears it, does it make an offence.


As long as there are no bears having a shit within earshot???

What the fuck has that got to do with this case?

What if the intended victim does not hear it but someone  else lip reads it?

And why don't you stick to the facts instead of inventing alternate versions in your head?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

gabi said:


> apologies. hes admitted using the word 'negrito'. repeatedly.


Whereabouts?


----------



## Wilf (Dec 31, 2011)

Maggot - are you Alan Hansen in disguise?


----------



## Wilf (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Whereabouts?


FFS, not this again.


----------



## davie howells (Dec 31, 2011)

A lot has been said with regards to Luis Suarez, and Liverpool's full support given to him, with a defiant statement, a cringeworthy twitter post and embarrassing attire, with Suarez's silhouette. Not only is this behavior embarrassing, it is simply choosing partisanship over the rules, with the club seemingly willing to support their star man through any situation. I want to look at the facts, an​d determine whether, from the information we have, Luis Suarez has done any wrong, but also to look at the club's position, and try to understand why such backing has been given to someone found guilty of committing a racist act.

An independent panel found Suarez guilty of racially abusing another player. From what I have heard, Suarez has admitted using the word, and has not disagreed with the generally accepted position that he said this on a number of occasions. Liverpool, very kindly, leaked their stance to the press, despite being told that this should not happen, which has led us to note that his defence was on the grounds that the word used was not intended as racist, and the fact that the term is culturally acceptable in Uruguay. Based on the fact that he used the word repeatedly, and continued using it despite Evra's apparent provocation, I am led to believe that he knew what he was doing, and therefore is guilty of the act.

Prior to the verdict, Liverpool leaked the details of their defence to Henry Winter, writer for The Telegraph, and allowed the story to go ahead, breaching the agreed terms of the case. The importance of this is that Liverpool fans, as well as the rest of the interested public, know one side of this story, whilst Manchester United and Patrice Evra adhered to the rules of the case and remained silent. This has led many to question the validity of the United/Evra case, claiming that there is no evidence, rather than understanding that there is no evidence available. The sheer outrage of Liverpool supporters, has been caused by their own club, and has since been backed up by the vehement, and bullish statement that followed the decision.
The final point that I would make is that until the full disclosure is made available to both Liverpool Football Club, and the public, no one (club or supporters) should have to decide where they stand in the issue. Obviously people will have opinions, but the way that the club have dealt with this issue is, in my opinion, classless and confrontational. I believe that the club have created this division, and have created more of a stir than was necessary, and should have waited for full facts before binding themselves to a position.​


----------



## Wilf (Dec 31, 2011)

Davie - that won't be enough for Sleater. On the Liverpool thread s/he seemed to want a camera and microphone positioned in front of the entire LIverpool squad, manager and owners publicly saying all this outloud.  Sleater doesn't accept that big organisations use their links to the media.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> What the fuck has that got to do with this case?
> 
> What if the intended victim does not hear it but someone else lip reads it?


 Yeah, cos that's really relevant to the case isn't it?


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Yeah, cos that's really relevant to the case isn't it?


More relevant than your lunatic in the woods, you fucking idiot.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Wilf said:


> FFS, not this again.


I could have said that as well.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Wilf said:


> Davie - that won't be enough for Sleater. On the Liverpool thread s/he seemed to want a camera and microphone positioned in front of the entire LIverpool squad, manager and owners publicly saying all this outloud. Sleater doesn't accept that big organisations use their links to the media.


I'm a he, and you can stick your  up your arse. No evidence or statements have been released by the Club, Suarez or the FA about what was said. If you want to believe some journalists speculation it's because you either have an agenda or because you're an idiot.


----------



## davie howells (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm a he, and you can stick your  up your arse. No evidence or statements have been released by the Club, Suarez or the FA about what was said. If you want to believe some journalists speculation it's because you either have an agenda or because you're an idiot.


so how do we know he said neggito or what ever ,,evra has said fook all. no one else heard. so he has said something then so shut up


----------



## davie howells (Dec 31, 2011)

davie howells said:


> so how do we know he said neggito or what ever ,,evra has said fook all. no one else heard. so he has said something then so shut up


it was in liverpool echo, and on twitter from lfc page or is someone hacking it shut kopite,


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

davie howells said:


> so how do we know he said neggito or what ever ,,


Tell me how?. You read it in a paper so it must be true?.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

davie howells said:


> it was in liverpool echo, and on twitter from lfc page or is someone hacking it shut kopite,


Show us then.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Tell me how?. You read it in a paper so it must be true?.


Says the man who quotes the Sun.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Says the man who quotes the Sun.


I did and I apologise - It's the type of paper where you read about man utd players.


----------



## davie howells (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Says the man who quotes the Sun.


was not the sun mate and would not buy it (lee nicol 14 years old) justice for 96 best mate he was.. so get that one right for a START. sorry  having a go at the dirty kopite ...will leave that up in case he starts going down that line.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> I did and I apologise - It's the type of paper where you read about man utd players.


And about Liverpool fans robbing the dead at Hillsborough. Do you believe everything you read in it? or only what suits you?


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

davie howells said:


> was not the sun mate and would not buy it (lee nicol 14 years old) justice for 96 best mate he was.. so get that one right for a START. sorry having a go at the dirty kopite ...will leave that up in case he starts going down that line.


Not you Dave, Sleater, a Liverpool fan who reads and believes what he reads in the Sun, and then accuses someone else of believing what he reads in a newspaper! Couldn't fucking make that one up.


----------



## davie howells (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Not you Dave, Sleater, a Liverpool fan who reads and believes what he reads in the Sun, and then accuses someone else of believing what he reads in a newspaper! Couldn't fucking make that one up.


cheers got onto that in middle of rant will leave it tho in case he ever goes there


----------



## davie howells (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm a he, and you can stick your  up your arse. No evidence or statements have been released by the Club, Suarez or the FA about what was said. If you want to believe some journalists speculation it's because you either have an agenda or because you're an idiot.


my agenda is that i am bitter, no i am not read this kopite Ask any Liverpool fan to describe Everton supporters and the answer, nine times out of ten, will be “Bitter Blues” and that “they care more about us than themselves”. Now, how true is this? There’s no argument that Everton fans in general don’t like Liverpool and that the majority of the time would want them to get beat, but what is so special about this being Everton fans? What exactly makes this bitter and not simply rivalry? The answer: Nothing.​I was driving down Barcelona's Carrer Del Rosselló this morning, taking in the majestic vision of the Barca flags blowing freely in the wind, from the windows and rooftops of houses and pubs as far as the eye could see. It’s residents wearing replica tops, pleading and praying for their team to win tonights massive game. Suddenly I stopped at the lights and realised it wasn’t Barcelona at all, it was Breck Road. So where did all the Spanish come from? Was this the work of Bitter Blues, egging Barcelona on? Or was it the work of the other fans in Liverpool? The ones who definitely aren’t bitter but want their rivals to lose, heavily, and not gain any ground on their incredible record. Is this bitter? Maybe. It certainly would be bitter if it was Everton fans doing it. Or maybe it’s not, maybe it’s just natural rivalry at it’s best.​


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Not you Dave, Sleater, a Liverpool fan who reads and believes what he reads in the Sun,


Get a grip, I don't read the Sun - I simply grabbed a link off the web.


Deareg said:


> and then accuses someone else of believing what he reads in a newspaper! Couldn't fucking make that one up.


I can't believe that people don't know speculation when they read it and are so eager to run with it. I not surprised that some people don't need actual facts before they set off.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> And about Liverpool fans robbing the dead at Hillsborough. Do you believe everything you read in it? or only what suits you?


Given that they man utd players would have been through the courts, then yeah I would believe it.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Get a grip, I don't read the Sun - I simply grabbed a link off the web.
> 
> I can't believe that people don't know speculation when they read it and are so eager to run with it. I not surprised that some people don't need actual facts before they set off.


Fuck off you Sun reading cunt.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Fuck off you Sun reading cunt.


Wow.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Fuck off you Sun reading cunt.


Make me, dickhead.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Make me, dickhead.


Wow.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Wow.


Can you not make up replies of your own?


----------



## davie howells (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Wow.


have you actually been to a game. bet my nan has been to anfield more times than you sleater...


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Can you not make up replies of your own?


Could never better the quality of "Wow, and "Make me, dickhead".


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

davie howells said:


> have you actually been to a game. bet my nan has been to anfield more times than you sleater...


Don't knock him, he reads EVERY match report in the Sun.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

davie howells said:


> have you actually been to a game.


Yes.



davie howells said:


> bet my nan has been to anfield more times than you sleater...


I bet your nan has been all over the shop davie.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Could never better the quality of "Wow, and "Make me, dickhead".


As least you know your limits.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> As least you know your limits.


I do indeed and they stop well before reading the Sun.


----------



## davie howells (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Yes.
> 
> I bet your nan has been all over the shop davie.


whilst pimping your mam


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

davie howells said:


> whilst pimping your mam


Trust a bitter to drag the discussion down.


----------



## davie howells (Dec 31, 2011)

whilst pimping your mum and getting her up the duff with a soft cunt, whos ya daddy any one who had a tenner


----------



## davie howells (Dec 31, 2011)

you started it about nan being all over the shop


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

davie howells said:


> whilst pimping your mum and getting her up the duff with a soft cunt, whos ya daddy any one who had a tenner


You're just making yourself look like an ever bigger idiot now - keep going.


----------



## davie howells (Dec 31, 2011)

any how an eight game ban, he should of just punched him would of only got three


----------



## davie howells (Dec 31, 2011)

love good banter with kopites they take it so well


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

davie howells said:


> you started it about nan being all over the shop


Yeah - with a winking smilie. Trust a bitter to come in with an hysterical over-reaction


----------



## Wilf (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm a he, and you can stick your  up your arse. No evidence or statements have been released by the Club, Suarez or the FA about what was said. If you want to believe some journalists speculation it's because you either have an agenda or because you're an idiot.


Putting on one side the silly stuff in your post, let's get to the issue: various lines have been fed to the media about Liverpool's defence on the Suarez case.  What are you saying - that this didn't happen, that the journalists have made it up?  Don't just go back to your 'fuck off if there's no statemnt I'm ignoring it', tell us what you think.  That the the journalists have made all this up and they have also made up the reports that the club briefed them?  Yes? Is that what you think?


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

Wilf said:


> Putting on one side the silly stuff in your post, let's get to the issue: various lines have been fed to the media about Liverpool's defence on the Suarez case. What are you saying - that this didn't happen, that the journalists have made it up? Don't just go back to your 'fuck off if there's no statemnt I'm ignoring it', tell us what you think. That the the journalists have made all this up and they have also made up the reports that the club briefed them? Yes? Is that what you think?


Dalgliesh spoke on Sky sports news after being agreeing to the FA's request not to talk about it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Wilf said:


> Putting on one side the silly stuff in your post, let's get to the issue: various lines have been fed to the media about Liverpool's defence on the Suarez case. What are you saying - that this didn't happen, that the journalists have made it up? Don't just go back to your 'fuck off if there's no statemnt I'm ignoring it', tell us what you think. That the the journalists have made all this up and they have also made up the reports that the club briefed them? Yes? Is that what you think?


I think that there are a lot of parties who could feed stuff to the media and also yes, journalists do speculate. I won't ignore the evidence when the FA publishes it.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> And why don't you stick to the facts instead of inventing alternate versions in your head?


Yeah, cos you really stick to the facts don't you? 



sleaterkinney said:


> Get a grip, I don't read the Sun - I simply grabbed a link off the web.





Deareg said:


> Fuck off you Sun reading cunt.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> I think that there are a lot of parties who could feed stuff to the media and also yes, journalists do speculate. I won't ignore the evidence when the FA publishes it.


Wasn't asking you about _the evidence_, I was wondering if you thought "the journalists have made all this up and they have also made up the reports that the club briefed them".  Any thoughts?


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Yeah, cos you really stick to the facts don't you?


What the fuck are you mumbling about now? He has admitted in the past AND on this thread to reading the Sun and has also quoted from it, he only started backtracking when pulled on it for accusing someone else of believing  what they read in papers


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Wilf said:


> Wasn't asking you about _the evidence_, I was wondering if you thought "the journalists have made all this up and they have also made up the reports that the club briefed them". Any thoughts?


They could well have made it up, yeah. I don't have your faith in journalistic integrity.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> They could well have made it up, yeah. I don't have your faith in journalistic integrity.


Ah, thanks for the clarification.  Anyway, if you are right Henry Winter and the Telegraph are going to be facing a chilly start to the New Year, massive lawsuit heading their way from Liverpool FC and all that. They must be going fucking _*mental*_ that journalists have made this story up.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> What the fuck are you mumbling about now? He has admitted in the past AND on this thread to reading the Sun and has also quoted from it,


Can you show me where on this thread SK has admitted to reading the sun, please?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Wilf said:


> Ah, thanks for the clarification. Anyway, if you are right Henry Winter and the Telegraph are going to be facing a chilly start to the New Year, massive lawsuit heading their way from Liverpool FC and all that. They must be going fucking _*mental*_ that journalists have made this story up.


I think he's clever enough to have it written as speculation.


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 31, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Can you show me where on this thread SK has admitted to reading the sun, please?



is there any difference in reading the paper or online version?


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> You're just making yourself look like an ever bigger idiot now - keep going.



To be fair, when it comes to being a fucking idiot you are in a class of your own. Ironic really given it's the only time anyone could associate a Kopite with 'class'.

Justice for the 96, Boycott the Sun, but, errr... ahem..... Grab a sneaky wee link on the www and get a link for others to read..... Class.... pure class.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Can you show me where on this thread SK has admitted to reading the sun, please?


Go and search.

eta, Fuck it, here you are, and don't make out it's a joke as he has in the past quoted from the same.




sleaterkinney said:


> I did and I apologise - It's the type of paper where you read about man utd players.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> To be fair, when it comes to being a fucking idiot you are in a class of your own. Ironic really given it's the only time anyone could associate a Kopite with 'class'.
> 
> Justice for the 96, Boycott the Sun, but, errr... ahem..... Grab a sneaky wee link on the www and get a link for others to read..... Class.... pure class.


I'm not losing any sleep over it, I find people - especially non-Liverpool supporters having a go at me for it a bit pathetic tbh.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 31, 2011)

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/luis-suarez-written-reasons

Full report released - let the bickering recommence.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 31, 2011)

From a quick read:

 - The word used was 'negro' not 'negrito.'
 - Suarez did admit saying 'por que negro' as was all over the press.
 - Evra claimed that he also told him 'I don't speak to blacks' (in Spanish obviously) as well as using the word negro several other times.
 - There's a lot of legal stuff about 'objective' offence versus 'subjective' which in this context basically means whether offence was intended. They have ruled that the FA rules apply an objective test.

Sure there's a lot more in there - it's very detailed.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Go and search.
> 
> eta, Fuck it, here you are, and don't make out it's a joke as he has in the past quoted from the same.


Eh? That's where he admits to posting a link from the Sun, not reading the paper.  And don't try and wriggle out of it by saying they are the same thing.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 31, 2011)

OK key point I think - the decision is highly based on Evra's evidence being considered more credible than Suarez's, whose account didn't fit with the evidence. In particular Suarez is seen pinching Evra on the arm at a point where he claimed he was trying to be conciliatory.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Eh? That's where he admits to posting a link from the Sun, not reading the paper. And don't try and wriggle out of it by saying they are the same thing.


He posted a link to an article and admits to reading it, but is not a Sun reader?
Suarez admitted making a racist remark repeatedly but is not a racist?
Seriously what fucking world are you living in?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> OK key point I think - the decision is highly based on Evra's evidence being considered more credible than Suarez's,


One man's word against another...



> We found that Mr Evra's account is *probably* what happened


that's ok then


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> One man's word against another...



Why not read the report?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Why not read the report?


I am.


----------



## Maltin (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Suarez admitted making a racist remark repeatedly but is not a racist?


Haven't had time to read the report in full, but I don't think he has admitted to making the remark repeatedly.  And he hasn't admitted that it was racist either.


----------



## Maggot (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> He posted a link to an article and admits to reading it, but is not a Sun reader?
> Suarez admitted making a racist remark repeatedly but is not a racist?
> Seriously what fucking world are you living in?


I can tell the difference between a looking at a website and buying a paper - It appears you can't.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

They can't decide this on the balance of probabilities, can they?


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

Maltin said:


> Haven't had time to read the report in full, but I don't think he has admitted to making the remark repeatedly. And he hasn't admitted that it was racist either.


This is where the dispute is, at least as to the intent, he has admitted saying it and in the context of when it was said it can only reasonably be taken as racist, as I am getting sick of repeating, you would not refer to a black man during a heated argument as "little black boy" unless you intended to cause maximum offence.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

Maggot said:


> I can tell the difference between a looking at a website and buying a paper - It appears you can't.


You can't even tell the difference between the words buying and reading.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> you would not refer to a black man during a heated argument as "little black boy" unless you intended to cause maximum offence.


What if it doesn't cause offence, where you come from?. Evra kicked off the exchange with a spanish/south american insult - but you then want to take an english view on that word??


----------



## Deareg (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> What if it doesn't cause offence, where you come from?. Evra kicked off the exchange with a spanish/south american insult - but you then want to take an english view on that word??


If Evra should be charged as well then that is another matter, it does not make Suarez less guilty. If I am called a plastic paddy does that make it ok to call the person a nigger?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2011)

Deareg said:


> If Evra should be charged as well then that is another matter, it does not make Suarez less guilty. If I am called a plastic paddy does that make it ok to call the person a nigger?


Where did he get called a nigger?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 31, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> What if it doesn't cause offence, where you come from?. Evra kicked off the exchange with a spanish/south american insult - but you then want to take an english view on that word??


Not according to evra he didn't. And the case hinges on the fact that suarez's evidence was found not to be credible. I've only skim read it but the judgement seems a fair one to me. If nothing else this is a lesson to suarez not to try to bullshit a tribunal which is what he appears to have tried to do. Makes liverpool club's reaction look extremely foolish too.


----------



## davie howells (Dec 31, 2011)

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=htt...QEwms6VAQEemD-7d3h6zStsb98wrvSbc-UZEQ52PogIIA  the linl and full report


----------



## davie howells (Jan 1, 2012)

Just posted the full link above to the report.. it is very very long but well worth a read also find below

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=htt...QEwms6VAQEemD-7d3h6zStsb98wrvSbc-UZEQ52PogIIA


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 1, 2012)

Finally, the truth.



> Despite the punishment, the commission conceded: "This case is not about whether Mr Suarez is in fact a racist. Indeed, the commission will no doubt conclude that there are some indications that he is not."


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 1, 2012)

They said that all along, didn't they? 

I'm surprised that Liverpool fans on here are still arguing in Suarez' favour.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 1, 2012)

Maggot said:


> Eh? That's where he admits to posting a link from the Sun, not reading the paper. And don't try and wriggle out of it by saying they are the same thing.



Do you think he posted a link without reading it? Just posted it on the off chance it might say something he agreed with or thought worth others reading? He clearly thought the article worth reading and it's contents had a veracity he was happy with. However you slice it it's pretty shoddy. Boycott the Sun but hang on let me post a link to their website so others can read it.... And, sleaterkinney even apologised for it, he obviously sorta regrets posting it.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 1, 2012)

ChrisFilter said:


> They said that all along, didn't they?
> 
> *I'm surprised that Liverpool fans on here are still arguing in Suarez' favour*.



Why are you surprised?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 1, 2012)

> In the report, Suarez claimed: "I would refer to Glen Johnson as 'negro' in the same way that I might refer to Dirk Kuyt as 'Blondie' - because he has blond hair, or Andy Carroll as 'Grandote' - 'Big Man' - because he is very tall.



Yes, that would have helped, referring to someone's skin colour/race is just like referring to their hair colour and height..... So we can add moron to the list as well.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 1, 2012)

I still can't get my head around people arguing that he is not a racist!


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 1, 2012)

Deareg said:


> I still can't get my head around people arguing that he is not a racist!



The point is the FA charge wasn't that he was or wasn't a racist but whether he used racist language/racially abused Evra. The evidence certainly infers he's not believable and he's a tad inconsistent. That might indicate a few things.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 1, 2012)

Deareg said:


> I still can't get my head around people arguing that he is not a racist!



It's interesting that many of the people arguing that he is a racist, despite the views of Evra himself and the FA report, are themselves reformed racists. Anyway, it's a New Year, time to forgive and forget and move on. I think Suarez should drop his appeal, accept his punishment, learn his lesson and learn to speak English, too.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 1, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> It's interesting that many of the people arguing that he is a racist, despite the views of Evra himself and the FA report, are themselves reformed racists. Anyway, it's a New Year, time to forgive and forget and move on. I think Suarez should drop his appeal, accept his punishment, learn his lesson and learn to speak English, too.


Who are the reformed racists?


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 1, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Why are you surprised?



Because I expected different from the Liverpool fans on here.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 1, 2012)

ChrisFilter said:


> Because I expected different from the Liverpool fans on here.



Illusions shattered eh?!


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 1, 2012)

Nothing so dramatic. I just thought people might be a little more objective on here, in comparison with your average football fan.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 1, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> The point is the FA charge wasn't that he was or wasn't a racist but whether he used racist language/racially abused Evra. The evidence certainly infers he's not believable and he's a tad inconsistent. That might indicate a few things.


Maybe I am just old fashioned fed, but to me if you use racist language then you are a racist.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 1, 2012)

I think it certainly suggests racist tendancies.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 1, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Maybe I am just old fashioned fed, but to me if you use racist language then you are a racist.



I think that's to simplistic and individualistic. I'm not defending the use, but I think it's too mechanistic to say that if you say this or that word you are by definition a racist.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 1, 2012)

Indeed. It can be said to get a reaction. Seems to be the finding in Suarez' case.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 1, 2012)

ChrisFilter said:


> Indeed. It can be said to get a reaction. Seems to be the finding in Suarez' case.



Very possibly yes, though the reaction he got probably wasn't the one he was hoping for.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 1, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> I think that's to simplistic and individualistic. I'm not defending the use, but I think it's too mechanistic to say that if you say this or that word you are by definition a racist.


If it was a one off remark in the heat of the moment you might have a valid point, but this was repeated abuse and is actually worse than I had believed, "I don't talk to blacks" who the fuck uses that in the heat of an argument?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 1, 2012)

Deareg said:


> If it was a one off remark in the heat of the moment you might have a valid point, but this was repeated abuse and is actually worse than I had believed, "I don't talk to blacks" who the fuck uses that in the heat of an argument?



Isn't that comment what Evra claimed he said? If that bit is true then it would contradict Evra's own claim Suarez isn't a racist. It would certainly make his remarks more overtly racist i'd agree.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 1, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Isn't that comment what Evra claimed he said? If that bit is true then it would contradict Evra's own claim Suarez isn't a racist. It would certainly make his remarks more overtly racist i'd agree.


I can't speak for Evra, or Glen Johnson, but the FA seem to have accepted that he did use these words, I am making my own mind up based on what info I can get from the case and drawing on my own life experience.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 1, 2012)

Deareg said:


> I can't speak for Evra, or Glen Johnson, but the FA seem to have accepted that he did use these words, I am making my own mind up based on what info I can get from the case and drawing on my own life experience.



If the remark re not talking to blacks is true then it makes any 'defence' of Suarez a defence of his racism imho.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 1, 2012)

In a sense, the point you are discussing now (whether he is a racist or whether he used insulting/racist language to wind Evra up) is just about the only one left after the report.  Whatever your take on this, Suarez was guilty [of using insulting words etc] and was not a 'credible witness'.  Equally, the idea that the 'Uraguayan cultural defence' could be used in the heart of an argument has been rejected.  Evra on the other hand was seen as a 'credible witness'.

Having had a chance to look at the report or at least summaries, be interesting to see what Liverpool fans have to say. In particular Sleater, you've said you wouldn't make a judgement till you see the actual report. Well?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 1, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> I think that's to simplistic and individualistic. I'm not defending the use, but I think it's too mechanistic to say that if you say this or that word you are by definition a racist.



Being racist yes, but I don't hold the arguement that by making a remark, an assumption or use of language that it makes anyone a racist or sexist per se. If this was the case then a lot of us would be damned for eternity as being sexist or racist.

What i find quite puzzling generally from people who I speak to ( and that includes Man Utd supporters) is the lack of overhelming sympathy for Evra as victim.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 1, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> What i find quite puzzling generally from people who I speak to ( and that includes Man Utd supporters) is the lack of overhelming sympathy for Evra as victim.



Interesting point.  I imagine that's partly because he and United (unlike Liverpool) have kept quiet throughout the process - as they were supposed to do.  The whole thing has focussed on Suarez. Perhaps there's also the fact that Evra, away from this incident, comes across as cocky and willing to make comments about his oppoents in interviews.  I personally like him and his barbed comments but he's not everyones cup of tea.  However all of that is irrelevant, he was the victim of what might at best be described as sustained racial taunts (I'd just go with racism full stop).  This has certainly affected his form. Perhaps now the hearing (appeal?) is over, he'll do interviews and it will rightly shift onto how he feels about it all.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 1, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> I think Suarez should drop his appeal, accept his punishment, learn his lesson and learn to speak English, too.



This. Been increasingly less sure of Suarez' and the club's stance. Accept the verdict, move on. The club should take a look at its PR department, they didn't handle this at all well.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 2, 2012)

The more I read of the judgment, the more unreliable Suarez appeared as a witness:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jan/01/liverpool-appeal-luis-suarez

Liverpool FC have already embarrassed themselves, it might be an idea to just shut up, accept the judgment and revise the information/assistance they give to players arriving in this country for the first time.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 2, 2012)

Agreed, they've fucked up royally over this.  Best they can do now is craft some kind of statement saying loyalty to their player was important, but that they accept the report/won't appeal.... still committed to Kick it Out principles and the like.  Will sound a bit hollow after the shirts thing and what they said about Evra, but they need to start somewhere. Suarez too needs to think about some kind of 'I never intended to racially abuse him, but I do apologise and accept the report' statement. Even for me, a United fan, I wouldn't want LIverpool saddled with this long term, but it's up to them now.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> In a sense, the point you are discussing now (whether he is a racist or whether he used insulting/racist language to wind Evra up) is just about the only one left after the report. Whatever your take on this, Suarez was guilty [of using insulting words etc] and was not a 'credible witness'. Equally, the idea that the 'Uraguayan cultural defence' could be used in the heart of an argument has been rejected. Evra on the other hand was seen as a 'credible witness'.
> 
> Having had a chance to look at the report or at least summaries, be interesting to see what Liverpool fans have to say. In particular Sleater, you've said you wouldn't make a judgement till you see the actual report. Well?


I think it's a disgrace, just because Suarez was inconsistent they've taken Evra's story as the truth - I don't see how they can do that.

Also, I'm not comfortable with them coming to a verdict - "on the balance of probabilites"  - it means they don't have a enough evidence for "reasonable doubt" - and they don't have any evidence bar Evra's word against Suarez's and this is a serious matter. I hope we appeal though I can see us just wanting it to go away.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I think it's a disgrace, just because Suarez was inconsistent they've taken Evra's story as the truth - I don't see how they can do that.
> 
> Also, I'm not comfortable with them coming to a verdict - "on the balance of probabilites" - it means they don't have a enough evidence for "reasonable doubt" - and they don't have any evidence bar Evra's word against Suarez's and this is a serious matter. I hope we appeal though I can see us just wanting it to go away.


It has been quoted the Kuyt said he heard Suarez saying that he kicked Evra "because he was black", I thought that you intended to read the report, you obviously haven't fucking bothered.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Also, I'm not comfortable with them coming to a verdict - "on the balance of probabilites" - it means they don't have a enough evidence for "reasonable doubt" - and they don't have any evidence bar Evra's word against Suarez's and this is a serious matter. I hope we appeal though I can see us just wanting it to go away.



It really, really doesn't. 'The balance of probability' is the civil law standard. You're saying there was a choice between the criminal and civil and there was no such choice. This was not a criminal court. The burden of proof is the correct burden.

Also, they did not take Evra's word, Suarez agreed the substance of the allegation but claimed a different intention, a non-racist intention.

Just give it up and have some respect. The world is losing respect for Liverpool FC as it is.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

A small sample of the report.

However, we apply the standards that we consider appropriate to games played
in England under the FA Rules. Whether the words or behaviour are abusive or
insulting is an objective matter; it does not depend on whether the alleged
offender intended his words to be abusive or insulting

(3) We received expert evidence as to the use of the word "negro" in Uruguay and
other areas of Latin America. It is often used as a noun to address people,
whether family, friends or passers-by, and is widely seen as inoffensive.
However, its use can also be offensive. It depends on the context. It is inoffensive
when its use implies a sense of rapport or the attempt to create such rapport.
However, if it were used, for example, with a sneer, then it might carry negative
connotations. The Spanish language experts told us that if Mr Suarez said the
things that Mr Evra alleged, they would be considered racially offensive in
Uruguay and other regions of Latin America

(4) Mr Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and
clear way. It was, for the most part, consistent, although both he and Mr Suarez
were understandably unable to remember every detail of the exchanges between
them (paragraphs 229 to 234 above).
(5) Mr Suarez's evidence was unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance.
It was, in part, inconsistent with the contemporaneous evidence, especially the
video footage. For example, Mr Suarez said that he pinched Mr Evra's skin in an
attempt to defuse the situation. He also said that his use of the word "negro" to
address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence. To 113
describe his own behaviour in that way was unsustainable and simply incredible
given that the players were engaged in an acrimonious argument. That this was
put forward by Mr Suarez was surprising and seriously undermined the
reliability of his evidence on other matters (paragraphs 235 to 267 above). There
were also inconsistencies between his accounts given at different times as to
what happened


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 2, 2012)

I have to say after Reading that that I see absolutely no grounds for an appeal at all. They should accept the judgement and accept it quickly IMO


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 2, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> It really, really doesn't. 'The balance of probability' is the civil law standard. You're saying there was a choice between the criminal and civil and there was no such choice. This was not a criminal court. The burden of proof is the correct burden.


I'm saying that it's such a serious matter that it should be tried under the criminal law standard. This will hang over the guy for the rest of his career so it's more important than "a balance of probability".



London_Calling said:


> Also, they did not take Evra's word, Suarez agreed the substance of the allegation but claimed a different intention, a non-racist intention.


They did:



> In all the circumstances, we preferred the evidence of Mr Evra. His account was clear and
> consistent in all material respects. There is no basis for saying that he lied or was mistaken
> in what he heard. We found that Mr Evra's account is *probably* what happened





London_Calling said:


> Just give it up and have some respect. The world is losing respect for Liverpool FC as it is.


Give up what?. I was asked for my opinion on the evidence and I've giving it. Do you have a problem with that?.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 2, 2012)

Sleater - as has been said, 'balance of probability' is absolutely the right standard for UK disciplnary hearings. Edit - and presumably the standard your club _*agreed*_ to.

Also, you said you wanted to wait till you saw the evidence. Has reading the report made you more or less sympathetic to Suarez?


----------



## strung out (Jan 2, 2012)

it's no surprise that sleaterkinney is still disputing this tbh. it's a despicable viewpoint to take, but entirely in line with form.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 2, 2012)

It wasn't a criminal case, though, and suarez clearly lied while evra's story was consistent with the evidence. What do you say to evra ( and anyone else on the future) by clearing him? Your evidence is entirely credible while his isn't yet we're going to rule as if you were lying and he were telling the truth?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Sleater - as has been said, 'balance of probability' is absolutely the right standard for UK disciplnary hearings. Edit - and presumably the standard your club _*agreed*_ to.


I'm not sure they should have, because it looks like he could be fitted up without serious evidence.


Wilf said:


> Also, you said you wanted to wait till you saw the evidence. Has reading the report made you more or less sympathetic to Suarez?


It has, Evra kicked it all of with a curse in Spanish, the argument continued in Spanish and Suarez used a word he uses in Spanish back home - And the FA take the English view on that word.


----------



## Epico (Jan 2, 2012)

It's just a good job Liverpool have got a class act £35 million striker to fall back on.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not sure they should have, because it looks like he could be fitted up without serious evidence.
> 
> It has, Evra kicked it all of with a curse in Spanish, the argument continued in Spanish and Suarez used a word he uses in Spanish back home - And the FA take the English view on that word.


Come off it. That is a gross mirepresentation of the report. The 'a word he uses back home' defence is laughable.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 2, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It wasn't a criminal case, though, and suarez clearly lied while evra's story was consistent with the evidence. What do you say to evra ( and anyone else on the future) by clearing him? Your evidence is entirely credible while his isn't yet we're going to rule as if you were lying and he were telling the truth?



I would have said to Evra - there's no clear evidence so we're giving Suarez a warning.

You can't fit a person up because they're a crap witness, I can barely recall stuff that happened last week.  You have to have proof.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> And the FA take the English view on that word.



No they fucking didn't.

(3) We received expert evidence as to the use of the word "negro" in Uruguay and
other areas of Latin America. It is often used as a noun to address people,
whether family, friends or passers-by, and is widely seen as inoffensive.
However, its use can also be offensive. It depends on the context. It is inoffensive
when its use implies a sense of rapport or the attempt to create such rapport.
However, if it were used, for example, with a sneer, then it might carry negative
connotations. The Spanish language experts told us that if Mr Suarez said the
things that Mr Evra alleged, they would be considered racially offensive in
Uruguay and other regions of Latin America


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 2, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Come off it. That is a gross mirepresentation of the report. The 'a word he uses back home' defence is laughable.


Evra started it off by cursing at him in spanish - what language should he have used?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 2, 2012)

Deareg said:


> No they fucking didn't.
> 
> (3) We received expert evidence as to the use of the word "negro" in Uruguay and
> other areas of Latin America. It is often used as a noun to address people,
> ...


Can you even read?, I've bolded it for you


----------



## strung out (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I would have said to Evra - there's no clear evidence so we're giving Suarez a warning.
> 
> You can't fit a person up because they're a crap witness, I can barely recall stuff that happened last week. You have to have proof.


what do you mean there wasn't clear evidence? the facts of the case were pretty much undisputed by suarez. he tried blagging his way out of it by explaining it away as harmless chat that he'd use back home, and he was called up on his bullshit by evra and the fa.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Evra started it off by cursing at him in spanish - what language should he have used?


That's the only bit of your post that wasn't a gross misrepresentation.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 2, 2012)

strung out said:


> what do you mean there wasn't clear evidence? the facts of the case were pretty much undisputed by suarez. he tried blagging his way out of it by explaining it away as harmless chat that he'd use back home, and he was called up on his bullshit by evra and the fa.


You haven't read it then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Can you even read?, I've bolded it for you


Your posts are not consistent with each other. Are you luis suarez perchance?


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Can you even read?, I've bolded it for you


Well the FA believe he did say it.


----------



## strung out (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> You haven't read it then.


you're a disgrace. i vote we ban you for 8 matches.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 2, 2012)

And again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yITzZmhFjko


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Can you even read?, I've bolded it for you


Even Comolli says that he used racist fucking language.

Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination
that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he
had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black"


----------



## Wilf (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> It has, Evra kicked it all of with a curse in Spanish, the argument continued in Spanish and Suarez used a word he uses in Spanish back home - And the FA take the English view on that word.



You are seriously suggesting that reading the report has made you _*more favourable*_ to Suarez??!!  Wow, fucking wow.

And no, the FA (independent panel) didn't just go on the English usage.  They got expert advice on the Uraguayan usage and got unambiguous advice that the word was offensive in the context of an argument.  Of all the things you are arguing, that is the most dishonest.  Well, no, go on, I'll let you make it clear what you think: is it the case that negro or little black boy, used in the context of an on-field battle could be used innocently? _Is that what you really think?_


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 2, 2012)

> He also said that his use of the word "negro" to
> address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence


It's almost all you need to know.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

It is not an acceptable term to all black Uruguayans either.

First, there are some black people in Uruguay and other areas of Latin America who object
to the use of the word "negro" as a term of address, as they say it highlights skin colour
when this should be irrelevant. This is the use of the word "negro" (ie as a term of address)
which Mr Suarez contended before us is acceptable, yet his view appears to be contentious
with some in Uruguay and Latin America


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

Thirdly, the experts' confine their conclusions on Mr Evra's and Mr Suarez's accounts to
how the word would be understood in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more
generally, They were right to do so, no doubt recognising that whilst it is legitimate and
helpful for the experts to give their opinion on whether or not the word might be used to
offend in Uruguay and Latin America, it is the Commission's task to decide whether the
use of the word in England is abusive or insulting. The use of the word in a particular way
might be seen as inoffensive by many in Uruguay. The same use of the same word in
England might nevertheless be abusive or insulting.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> You are seriously suggesting that reading the report has made you _*more favourable*_ to Suarez??!! Wow, fucking wow.


It has, because they took Evra's word on the majority of what happened.


Wilf said:


> And no, the FA (independent panel) didn't just go on the English usage. They got expert advice on the Uraguayan usage and got unambiguous advice that the word was offensive in the context of an argument. Of all the things you are arguing, that is the most dishonest. Well, no, go on, I'll let you make it clear what you think: is it the case that negro or little black boy, used in the context of an on-field battle could be used innocently? _Is that what you really think?_


Did you read the report?:



> 194 The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez's account as follows. If Mr Suarez
> used the word "negro" as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either
> offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America


----------



## strung out (Jan 2, 2012)

so you believe suarez was being friendly when he called evra a negro then? even though they were in the middle of an argument?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> It has, because they took Evra's word on the majority of what happened.
> Did you read the report?:


Did you miss the other half of the experts conclusions:



> that if Mr Suarez used the words "negro"and "negros" a_s described by Mr Evra_, this _would_ be understood as offensive and offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally



My italics.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

Whilst Mr Suarez had, in his interview with the FA, said that he had used the word
"negro" towards Mr Evra in a "friendly and affectionate" way, the first time that he used
the words "conciliation" and "conciliatory" was in his witness statement. This was signed
after Mr Suarez had received the experts' report which referred to the possibility that Mr
Suarez's use of the term was intended as an attempt at conciliation. It is difficult to avoid 67
the conclusion that Mr Suarez used the words conciliation and conciliatory to describe his
use of the word "negro" because the experts had used those terms to describe the
circumstances in which the word would not generally be offensive in Uruguay


----------



## Wilf (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney, said "It has, because they took Evra's word on the majority of what happened."

You've become more favourable to Suarez because the Commission rejected his evidence as unreliable???  Again, fucking Wow!!

Also... "194 The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez's account as follows. If Mr Suarez
used the word "negro" as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either
offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America"

You quote this to suggest the Commission believed the friendly version of 'Negro' line - but missed out the relevant point that they actively REJECTED the idea that this was any any way a pally situation. I've only found a pdf version, so can't quote from the report, but just have a look at 453 part 5.  Oh, and maybe have a look at yourself while you are at it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Did you miss the other half of the experts conclusions:
> 
> _that if Mr Suarez used the words "negro"and "negros" *a*_*s described by Mr Evra*_, this __would__ be understood as offensive and offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally_
> 
> My italics.


My bolding.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> My bolding.


And believed by the FA.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2012)

You've bolded what i had already emphasised sleaterkinney - why?

And it's quite clear the independent panel believed Evra and rejected Suarez testimony as regards this as unreliable inconsistent and frankly came as close as they could to publicly calling him a bit of a bullshitter. This makes his version more reliable to you for some reason.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 2, 2012)

"Harold Shipman pleaded not guilty, which inclines me towards believing him.  It's the family of those pensioners in Hyde who should be in the dock..."


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> sleaterkinney, said "It has, because they took Evra's word on the majority of what happened."
> 
> You've become more favourable to Suarez because the Commission rejected his evidence as unreliable??? Again, fucking Wow!!


 No, it's because all they had to go on was Evra's evidence, and he's been branded - by the FA - as exagerrated and unreliable in the past. What makes you so sure he's correct this time?



Wilf said:


> Also... "194 The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez's account as follows. If Mr Suarez
> used the word "negro" as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either
> offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America"
> 
> You quote this to suggest the Commission believed the friendly version of 'Negro' line - but missed out the relevant point that they actively REJECTED the idea that this was any any way a pally situation.


I'm not sure it has to be a pally situation, they're view seems to be, well he said the N word in the middle of an argument - he said he was trying to calm evra down


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

Comolli was not only caught out lying but went on to near enough call the ref a liar.

The referee recorded in his report that Mr Comolli  spoke fluent Spanish. Mr Comolli
denied in evidence that he had told Mr Marriner that he spoke fluent Spanish, telling us
instead that he simply told Mr Marriner that he spoke Spanish. However, we do not think
that Mr Marriner would have recorded in his report  that Mr Comolli speaks fluent
Spanish unless Mr Comolli had told Mr Marriner that he did. Mr Marriner did not know
who Mr Comolli was when he entered the referee's room, so it is unlikely that Mr
Marriner understood from any other source that Mr Marriner spoke fluent Spanish. Mr
Marriner says in his witness statement that Mr Comolli told him that he speaks fluent
Spanish, and Mr Marriner's witness statement was accepted by Mr Suarez. We accept Mr
Marriner's evidence that Mr Comolli told him that he spoke fluent Spanish.  73
288. In addition, the referee's report was made on the day of the match. It should, therefore, be
given some weight as a contemporaneous record of what people were told had happened
soon after the incident, rather than what they recalled at some later date.
289. With those matters in mind, we turn to consider what Mr Marriner was told. Mr Dalglish
told him that Mr Suarez had said "you are black". Mr Comolli told him that Mr Suarez
said "Tues negro". As Mr Dowd told us, Mr Comolli spelt "Tues negro" and Mr Dowd
noted it down. In cross-examination on this point, Mr Comolli agreed that he told Mr
Marriner that Mr Suarez had said "Porque tu es negro". But, he denied that he dictated all
the words. He said that he just said "negro", that Mr Dowd asked Mr Comolli to spell
"negro", and he did not remember dictating the full sentence. We were surprised by Mr
Comolli's evidence that he only dictated the word "negro" in view of the contents of Mr
Marriner's report, and his and Mr Dowd's witness statements. Mr Dowd stated that he
asked Mr Comolli to spell "Tues negro" and Mr Dowd then noted it down. Those words
appear in Mr Marriner's report. Mr Marriner's and Mr Dowd's witness statements were
accepted in full by Mr Suarez. We find that Mr Comolli told Mr Marriner that Mr Suarez
had said "Porque tu es negro" to Mr Evra, and that Mr Comolli spelt "Tues negro" for Mr
Dowd, who wrote it down.
290. The difficulty this presents for Mr Suarez is that it appears to be inconsistent with the case
that he advanced before us. He told us that all that he said to Mr Evra was "Por que,
negro", and not "Porque tu es negro" or "Porque tu  eres negro". If Mr Suarez had said
"Porque tu es negro", then he would not be using "negro" as a noun to address Mr Evra,
but as an adjective, meaning "Because you are black". At the end of his cross-examination,
Mr Comolli agreed that he believed he was told by Mr Suarez that the words that he had
used translated as "Why, because you are black". Of course, it is Mr Evra's case that Mr
Suarez did say to him "Porque tu eres negro" meaning "Because you are black". It is,
however, right to point out that Mr Evra contends that Mr Suarez said this to him in
response to his question "Why did you kick me", whereas Mr Suarez maintains that he
said "Por que, negro" in response to Mr Evra's comment "Don't touch me, South
American". 74
291. By the time witness statements were served, Mr Suarez and the Liverpool management
had become aware of the apparent discrepancy between Mr Suarez's present case on his
use of the word “negro” on the one hand, and what Mr Comolli and Mr Dalglish had told
the referee on the other.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You've bolded what i had already emphasised sleaterkinney - why?
> 
> And it's quite clear the independent panel believed Evra and rejected Suarez testimony as regards this as unreliable inconsistent and frankly came as close as they could to publicly calling him a bit of a bullshitter. This makes his version more reliable to you for some reason.


It doesn't make his version reliable - but I can't see how it makes Evra's version reliable.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2012)

What sk is doing is the equivalent of reporting witness testimony in a trial as fact and ignoring the following cross examination that exposes the holes in it and the later judgment made as a result of this exposure. It's nutty and it's embarrassing.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not sure it has to be a pally situation, they're view seems to be, well he said the N word in the middle of an argument - he said he was trying to calm evra down



And the FA said that they did not believe him when he said that he was trying calm Evra down.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> It doesn't make his version reliable - but I can't see how it makes Evra's version reliable.


 
231. We found Mr Evra to be an impressive witness. He gave his evidence to us in a calm,
composed and clear manner. Due to the circumstances in which the tape of the FA
interview of Mr Evra on 20 October came to light, which we have described in paragraphs
18-19 above, we were able to listen to him giving his account of events on that previous
occasion also. So far as we could tell from listening to the tape, he gave his evidence in a
similar way to that in which he gave it at the hearing before us.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 2, 2012)

Jesus wept. Sk, leave it. You're entitled to believe that Evra lied and Suarez is innocent, but the fact is his statement sounds shite. Onwards and upwards.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not sure it has to be a pally situation, they're view seems to be, well he said the N word in the middle of an argument - he said he was trying to calm evra down


 
Having said in his witness statement that he was trying to defuse the situation when he
touched Mr Evra's left arm in a "pinching type movement", Mr Suarez eventually
answered, after persistent questioning, *that he was not trying to calm down the situation *
*by doing so.*


----------



## Wilf (Jan 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What sk is doing is the equivalent of reporting witness testimony in a trial as fact and ignoring the following cross examination that exposes the holes in it and the later judgment made as a result of this exposure. It's nutty and it's embarrassing.


I told my wife that I came in at 10 p.m., having just had 2 pints. The fact that she saw fall out of a taxi at 3 a.m. and the pool of sick in the bedside bin only goes to strengthen my case.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> I told my wife that I came in at 10 p.m., having just had 2 pints. The fact that she saw fall out of a taxi at 3 a.m. and the pool of sick in the bedside bin only goes to strengthen my case.


It's only your word against hers right ?


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

248. It was plain to us that Mr Suarez's pinching of Mr Evra's arm was not an attempt to defuse
the situation. It could not conceivably be described in that way. In our judgment, the
pinching was calculated to have the opposite effect, namely to aggravate Mr Evra and to
inflame the situation. We infer that this was Mr Suarez's intention. Mr Suarez's face
reveals hostility towards Mr Evra, the pinching is preceded by Mr Suarez looking Mr Evra
up and down, and Mr Suarez steps away having pinched Mr Evra as Mr Kuyt steps in to
face up to Mr Evra.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's only your word against hers right ?


... and the reasonable man on the Anfield Omnibus


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> ... and the reasonable man on the Anfield Omnibus


You should have called sleater as a witness.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 2, 2012)

To be honest as a life long fan I think the whole thing is a shambolic mess. He used the word Negro on the field of play to wind up/gain a psychological advantage over someone who is black. If that's not racism then I'm sorry we must have slipped through a time warp and ended up back in the 50's without me recognising it.

I can understand the players and Kenny initially swallowing the cultural misinterpretation bollocks and supporting him but having read the report my belief is he's been found out and the club should act accordingly. We're an English club and one which resides in a city which has one of the longest established black community's in the UK. If any community understands the disastrous mistake he's made it should be one that was built on the back of the slave trade. As a footballer I think he's one of the brightest talents we've had for ages but that doesn't excuse what he's done. I don't give a flying fuck what country he's from. You can't behave like that and expect to get away with it.

I think the club need to draw a line under it now and accept the decision and admit that whilst we accept that there is some slim possibility that Suarez thought what he was doing may not have been so racist in the context of his own native culture, it definitely is in ours.

If he was fined by Liverpool as well I think we could at least hold our heads up and admit we got it wrong.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What sk is doing is the equivalent of reporting witness testimony in a trial as fact and ignoring the following cross examination that exposes the holes in it and the later judgment made as a result of this exposure. It's nutty and it's embarrassing.


No, not really.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 2, 2012)

Frieda has it about right. But I think Liverpool need to fine themselves tbh for the way they carried on. At least they need to accept the verdict asap. Tomorrow morning preferably


----------



## Wilf (Jan 2, 2012)

Nice one friedaweed - sums up my feelings (inc. the bit about the players and manager being initially entitled to go along with the 'cultural defence').


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 2, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Jesus wept. Sk, leave it. You're entitled to believe that Evra lied and Suarez is innocent, but the fact is his statement sounds shite. Onwards and upwards.


I know, but i can't help feeling he's been fitted up by a known bullshitter and this mud will stick to him.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I know, but i can't help feeling he's been fitted up by a known bullshitter and this mud will stick to him.


Stitched up by a bullshitter? Suarez has been caught out using racist language and telling lies, Comolli has been caught out telling lies and calling the referee a liar, your whole fucking club, from top to bottom, including many of your supporters have been made at best to look like cunts and at worst as racists or apologists for a racist and you blame the victim of racist abuse for all of this????


----------



## TruXta (Jan 2, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Stitched up by a bullshitter? Suarez has been caught out using racist language and telling lies, Comolli has been caught out telling lies and calling the referee a liar, your whole fucking club, from top to bottom, including many of your supporters have been made at best to look like cunts and at worst as racists or apologists for a racist and you blame the victim of racist abuse for all of this????



I think a lot of fans would have been quicker to climb down hadn't it been for muppets like yourself.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

TruXta said:


> I think a lot of fans would have been quicker to climb down hadn't it been for muppets like yourself.


Explain why?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 2, 2012)

You're calling anyone who doubted Evra cunts at best.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 2, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I know, but i can't help feeling he's been fitted up by a known bullshitter and this mud will stick to him.



Really? I think you've probably got yourself into a "woods for the trees" situation here. Liverpool have become a huge embarrassment over this. Don't follow suite!


----------



## Deareg (Jan 2, 2012)

TruXta said:


> You're calling anyone who doubted Evra cunts at best.


It was me who said from day one to keep an open mind when liverpool fans were declaring Suarez innocent and Evra a liar, and most of what I have had to say has been said on this forum where most people including yourself refused to accept the findings of the inquiry and quite frankly _have_ acted like cunts. Do you really hold me responsible for the actions of the deranged supporters?


----------



## twistedAM (Jan 3, 2012)

TruXta said:


> You're calling anyone who doubted Evra cunts at best.



Much as i hate to side with dearag (sic) most of the people on here asked to wait for the report. It was LFC's cack-handed press office that raised the debate.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Can I just ask, given evra's track record, why are people so sure he's telling the truth this time?. Should the fa have taken his statement as fact?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Can I just ask, given evra's track record, why are people so sure he's telling the truth this time?. Should the fa have taken his statement as fact?


Give it up, eh?

Whatever the truth of what Evra said, Suarez was clearly caught bullshitting. For that alone, he and the club should accept this judgement, imo. You seem to be missing this point.

Lesson to anyone in any kind of civil law dispute, too: if you're innocent, don't tell lies that can be proved to be lies - the judge will end up believing the other person and not you!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Can I just ask, given evra's track record, why are people so sure he's telling the truth this time?. Should the fa have taken his statement as fact?


They should have asked an independent panel to review the evidence, interrogate the parties to the row, examine witness testimony and call for independent expert advice. They they should have deliberated on what they've seen and been presented with and then reached an informed verdict. I wonder what such a process might result in?


----------



## Deareg (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Can I just ask, given evra's track record, why are people so sure he's telling the truth this time?. Should the fa have taken his statement as fact?


I thought that you read the report? They did not take Evra's word as fact, as you will know, IF YOU READ THE REPORT.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Give it up, eh?
> 
> Whatever the truth of what Evra said, Suarez was clearly caught bullshitting. For that alone, he and the club should accept this


There's no whatever though, they've taken evra's version of what was said as fact - could he have not been bullshitting too?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

TruXta said:


> I think a lot of fans would have been quicker to climb down hadn't it been for muppets like yourself.



Always someone else to blame isn't it? Fuck sake you lot are fucking pathetic.... On top of the kind of individuals who defend their players spouting racial abuse and claim it's all a fit up... Like one big collective of Kenneth Williams'


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 3, 2012)

> “ ...there will be *more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents* than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance."



 Luke 15:7


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> There's no whatever though, they've taken evra's version of what was said as fact - could he have not been bullshitting too?



Maybe they could they have asked an independent panel to review the evidence, interrogate the parties to the row, examine witness testimony and call for independent expert advice. They they should have deliberated on what they've seen and been presented with and then reached an informed verdict. I wonder what such a process might result in?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> There's no whatever though, they've taken evra's version of what was said as fact - could he have not been bullshitting too?


You might not like it, but this is how courts work. A very important factor in judgements is the relative credibility of witnesses. Everything Evra said was consistent with the video evidence. Many of the things Suarez said were not, and Suarez also did himself no favours whatever with his idiotic 'I was just being friendly' defence. IMO, the likelihood is that Suarez is guilty as sin. There are certainly no grounds for appeal as far as I can see, and I see precious little room to defend him now. Give it up.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe they could they have asked an independent panel to review the evidence, interrogate the parties to the row, examine witness testimony and call for independent expert advice. They they should have deliberated on what they've seen and been presented with and then reached an informed verdict. I wonder what such a process might result in?


Them taking one guy's word over another?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2012)

You really have no idea of how much of a mug you've made yourself look do you? _How can we judge from the evidence, from the witness testimony, from the players testimony,from the videos, from the expert opinion - how can we judge? _


----------



## Kanda (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Them taking one guy's word over another?



Can't be arsed to re-read everything... Are you still saying Suarez is innocent???


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Can't be arsed to re-read everything... Are you still saying Suarez is innocent???


He's saying that he's _even more innocent_ now the report has been released.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He's saying that he's _even more innocent_ now the report has been released.



really????!!! lol!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Can't be arsed to re-read everything... Are you still saying Suarez is innocent???


I'm saying that they've taken evra's word on what happened and given that he's a known bullshitter I have a problem with that, other people don't seem to


----------



## Kanda (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm saying that they've taken evra's word on what happened and given that he's a known bullshitter I have a problem with that, other people don't seem to



I think there's a bit more evidence than 'just Evra's word' though isn't there?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Kanda said:


> I think there's a bit more evidence than 'just Evra's word' though isn't there?


Nah, their verdict was based on it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He's saying that he's _even more innocent_ now the report has been released.


Don't misquote me, thx


----------



## Deareg (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm saying that they've taken evra's word on what happened and given that he's a known bullshitter I have a problem with that, other people don't seem to


If the guilty verdict was based only on Evra's word you might have a point, but you know all ready that there was a lot more to it, and continuing to refer to Evra as a bullshitter when you know that both Comolli and Suarez have both been caught out lying makes you out to be a liar as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Don't misquote me, thx


Sorry, what was it that you said then?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

This thread is fucking hilarious.....


----------



## Wilf (Jan 3, 2012)

ME: You are seriously suggesting that reading the report has made you _more favourable_ to Suarez??!! Wow, fucking wow.​SK: It has, because they took Evra's word on the majority of what happened.


----------



## agricola (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> This thread is fucking hilarious.....



Their whole behaviour over this has been fucking hilarious.  When they appeal against it it will become even more so.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 3, 2012)

I don't see how they can appeal. When you appeal, you have to present some kind of a case to say that the initial judgement was not fair. I can't see any case at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2012)

They cannot appeal the judgment only the punishment. Of course, in arguing for a lesser punishment they'll have to offer similar arguments as they would if appealing the verdict.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

agricola said:


> Their whole behaviour over this has been fucking hilarious. When they appeal against it it will become even more so.



Not to mention desperate and frankly embarrassing....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 3, 2012)

Ah, in that case, they surely risk an _increase_ in the punishment.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They cannot appeal the judgment only the punishment. Of course, in arguing for a lesser punishment they'll have to offer similar arguments as they would if appealing the verdict.



Because King Kunt will cwy that they believed Evra and not Suarez, that's just sooooo unfair. He'll then stamp his feet, scweam a bit and go home and tell the club and players it's just so unfair.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry, what was it that you said then?


Should I bother replying?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Should I bother replying?


You don't need to, Wilf did it already above. (ta to him)


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

I know, and I didn't say it made him even more innocent, did I?


----------



## han (Jan 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You might not like it, but this is how courts work. A very important factor in judgements is the relative credibility of witnesses. Everything Evra said was consistent with the video evidence. Many of the things Suarez said were not, and Suarez also did himself no favours whatever with his idiotic 'I was just being friendly' defence. IMO, the likelihood is that Suarez is guilty as sin. There are certainly no grounds for appeal as far as I can see, and I see precious little room to defend him now. Give it up.



I agree with that. I've seen alot of Liverpool fans supporting Suarez just because they're Liverpool fans, which is plain silly, if the courts have decided that he's definitely done something wrong. It'll be damaging to the club if people don't just move on from this and accept what's happened.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I know, and I didn't say it made him even more innocent, did I?


You said that you think he's been 'fitted up' - it follows that you therefore think he's innocent. If the report has made you even _more favourable _then it logically follows that you're now _even more_ convinced of his innocence.

You're shit at this.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You said that you think he's been 'fitted up' - it follows that you therefore think he's innocent. If the report has made you even _more favourable _then it logically follows that you're now _even more_ convinced of his innocence.


Can you not suppose what should "follow", and reply to what I post. You do that a lot


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Can you not suppose what should "follow", and reply to what I post. You do that a lot


What part of your posts are you claiming are illogical and contradictory then? Or is my post above correct - both logically and in what you yourself have posted on this thread?


----------



## g force (Jan 3, 2012)

Having read the report - okay skimmed parts and read others - I revise my stance. Clearly the linguistics have been thoroughly reviewed by multiple people and even the FA highlights the use of "negrito" and "negro" within S. American countries has a different tilt than it would as a direct translation into English.

However it's clear Suarez repeatedly used insulting lanugage directly related to Evra's skin colour. Supporting evidence was at best dodgy and at worst contradictory (Kuyt's statement). He honestly thought pinching Evra's skin was going to diffuse the situation? TBH I think the ban is correct and Liverpool should accept it and move on.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 3, 2012)

g force said:


> Having read the report - okay skimmed parts and read others - I revise my stance. Clearly the linguistics have been thoroughly reviewed by multiple people and even the FA highlights the use of "negrito" and "negro" within S. American countries has a different tilt than it would as a direct translation into English.
> 
> However it's clear Suarez repeatedly used insulting lanugage directly related to Evra's skin colour. Supporting evidence was at best dodgy and at worst contradictory (Kuyt's statement). He honestly thought pinching Evra's skin was going to diffuse the situation? TBH I think the ban is correct and Liverpool should accept it and move on.



This expresses the sentiments of the majority of Liverpool fans I expect.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What part of your posts are you claiming are illogical and contradictory then? Or is my post above correct - both logically and in what you yourself have posted on this thread?


I'm not getting into an argument on what you suppose by my posts.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not getting into an argument on what you suppose by my posts.


You don't have to. You actually typed out what i said. That suarez was fitted up (i.e innocent) and that the report made you more favorable to his claim. It's there.

Unless of course you believed a guilty man was being fitted up and more favorable means more inclined to believe in his guilt?


----------



## agricola (Jan 3, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> This expresses the sentiments of the majority of Liverpool fans I expect.



This view has even spread as far as some of the mods on RAWK, not that it has stopped the rabid hordes from continuing to insist on Suarez's innocence mind.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You don't have to. You actually typed out what i said. That suarez was fitted up (i.e innocent) and that the report made you more favorable to his claim. It's there.


If I had typed it then why the I.e.?.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> If I had typed it then why the I.e.?.


Because you didn't have the honesty to.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Because you didn't have the honesty to.


If I could say for certain that suarez was innocent I would, but don't suppose words into my mouth.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> If I could say for certain that suarez was innocent I would, but don't suppose words into my mouth.



So when you said that he was fitted up you weren't sure of his innocence?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So when you said that he was fitted up you weren't sure of his innocence?


I'm not sure, no. The fitted up part is because they relied on evras statement as to what went on, given his unrealiability in the past


----------



## agricola (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not sure, no. The fitted up part is because they relied on evras statement as to what went on, given his unrealiability in the past



And yet that statement was backed up by the evidence more than Luis _"pass the ball, blackie"_ Suarez's was.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney - It seems Citeh's blackie/negro forward may be fit again for the visit of Liverpool tonight.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/16336904.stm


----------



## Wilf (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not sure, no. The fitted up part is because they relied on evras statement as to what went on, given his unrealiability in the past


I'm tempted to ask why you believe the FA's previous findings on the unreliability of Evra, but not the current panel's findings of unreliability with regard to Suarez.  However I think you'd better spend your time finding the fire escape from this thread.  Anything really, but just stop.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Wilf said:


> I'm tempted to ask why you believe the FA's previous findings on the unreliability of Evra, but not the current panel's findings of unreliability with regard to Suarez.  However I think you'd better spend your time finding the fire escape from this thread.  Anything really, but just stop.


Because the fa and evra were bringing the charges I feel that the burden of proof is on them


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 3, 2012)

It was. The case that was brought was proven to the civil law standard.

If you think, after all this, Suarez had to prove he didn't make racist remarks, you're really not getting this. Actually, atm you're not demonstrating an understanding of the general principles of law.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 3, 2012)

Sleater, if you admit you are doing this as some kind of performance art, we can all have a good old laugh (pat you on the head, pinch your skin, y'know the kind of thing). Otherwise, why on earth are you doing this?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> It was. The case that was brought was proven to the civil law standard.
> 
> If you think, after all this, Suarez had to prove he didn't make racist remarks, you're really not getting this. Actually, atm you're not demonstrating an understanding of the general principles of law.


I know, and I think a case as big as this shouldn't rest on a balance of probabilites.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 3, 2012)

No, you don't know.


----------



## han (Jan 3, 2012)

I wish I had Sky, this evening.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 3, 2012)

han said:


> I wish I had Sky, this evening.



Just because, or to watch the football? Cos there are Sky-free ways to manage that...


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 3, 2012)

Yep, among them The Effra


----------



## han (Jan 3, 2012)

too watch the football. Also, in a perverse way, I'm interested to see the general reaction to Suarez if he's playing (is he?) now the verdict has been delivered.

Thanks - I am aware of these 'Sky-free' ways - these funny websites that you find before the match - can be a bit blocky though - do you know other ways too? pls pm me if so! - ta v much


----------



## han (Jan 3, 2012)

The Effra shows footy?

The Hand In Hand is also good and near us, but it still smells a bit of wee.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 3, 2012)

The Effra is where I go, it's a good place to watch.

Lime and soda with ice in a pint glass is a nice refreshing pub drink.....


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 3, 2012)

han said:


> too watch the football. Also, in a perverse way, I'm interested to see the general reaction to Suarez if he's playing (is he?) now the verdict has been delivered.
> 
> Thanks - I am aware of these 'Sky-free' ways - these funny websites that you find before the match - can be a bit blocky though - do you know other ways too? pls pm me if so! - ta v much



That's the one - there are some good ones usually especially for a big game.

The reaction will be that he gets booed a lot tbh, but that would be likely to happen anyway.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 3, 2012)

han said:


> The Hand In Hand is also good and near us, but it still smells a bit of wee.



Not any more it doesn't! 

Hand does have the full footy programme though, Sky and foreign satelite channels. £3.30 minimum spend per half though. Too many people were going in there and making a glass of coke or a Red Bull last 2 hours.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 3, 2012)

Actually, as an MU fan, I'm hoping Suarez goes out in a blaze of glory and puts 3 past citeh.   Come on Louis!


----------



## TruXta (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Always someone else to blame isn't it? Fuck sake you lot are fucking pathetic.... On top of the kind of individuals who defend their players spouting racial abuse and claim it's all a fit up... Like one big collective of Kenneth Williams'



You know the difference between explanation and justification don't you? Being willing to suspend judgment and so implicitly support our player until available evidence suggests otherwise doesn't make me any more of a cunt than you.


----------



## han (Jan 3, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Not any more it doesn't!



Sorry, I was being mean.  It didn't the last time I went in there, tbh. The pub is probably the best bet for watching the match (without Sky), eh. The new landlord seems like a nice fella.


----------



## han (Jan 3, 2012)

The only problem with the Hand is that if there's a choice between a Chelsea and a Liverpool match, they'll always show Chelsea. Well, I guess we are in London.....


----------



## han (Jan 3, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Actually, as an MU fan, I'm hoping Suarez goes out in a blaze of glory and puts 3 past citeh.  Come on Louis!


 wow, MU fans supporting Liverpool!


----------



## agricola (Jan 3, 2012)

They arent appealing, and Suarez is out of the city game.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 3, 2012)

agricola said:


> They arent appealing, and Suarez is out of the city game.



So they got that right at least.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 3, 2012)

agricola said:


> They arent appealing, and Suarez is out of the city game.


Sleater will be livid at this injustice.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 3, 2012)

The kit man will be desperately hunting round for a set of traditional warm-up tops.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

TruXta said:


> You know the difference between explanation and justification don't you? Being willing to suspend judgment and so implicitly support our player until available evidence suggests otherwise doesn't make me any more of a cunt than you.



No, your desperation, continuing it seems, to blame some Liverpools fans atrocious justification for and defence of Suarez on others is there for all to see.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> No, your desperation, continuing it seems, to blame some Liverpools fans atrocious justification for and defence of Suarez on others is there for all to see.



Funny how you're a nuanced and intelligent chap in most matters apart from those to do with LFC. Anyway, I'm done with this thread.


----------



## agricola (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> No, your desperation, continuing it seems, to blame some Liverpools fans atrocious justification for and defence of Suarez on others is there for all to see.



At least the club have done the right thing and accepted the punishment with good grace and in order to set an example to all:



> It is our strongly held conviction that the Football Association and the panel it selected constructed a highly subjective case against Luis Suarez based on an accusation that was ultimately unsubstantiated.
> 
> The FA and the panel chose to consistently and methodically accept and embrace arguments leading to a set of conclusions that found Mr. Suarez to "probably" be guilty while in the same manner deciding to completely dismiss the testimony that countered their overall suppositions.
> Mr. Evra was deemed to be credible in spite of admitting that he himself used insulting and threatening words towards Luis and that his initial charge as to the word used was somehow a mistake.
> ...



and from the racist:



> First of all I would like to thank everyone so much for all the help and support I have received during these last few weeks.
> 
> Thank you to my family, my friends and everybody at LFC (the staff, manager and coaching staff, the directors, my team mates and everyone who is working on a daily basis for this great club) and thank you especially to all the fans who made sure I never felt let down for one second. During those days I understood more than ever what 'You'll Never Walk Alone' means.
> 
> ...





http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/


----------



## Kanda (Jan 3, 2012)

han said:


> The only problem with the Hand is that if there's a choice between a Chelsea and a Liverpool match, they'll always show Chelsea. Well, I guess we are in London.....



Not now they have more screens.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 3, 2012)

Now that's all cleared up, what are the FA going to do about clearing up misogyny from the game. You bunch of conchas de tus hermanas?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 3, 2012)

oh dear


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Sleater will be livid at this injustice.


I can see how they wouldn't want it to drag on and I've had enough of it too.

Suarez's next game is manu away.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Funny how you're a nuanced and intelligent chap in most matters apart from those to do with LFC. Anyway, I'm done with this thread.



What need is there to be nuanced in reply to pathetic desperate defence of idiocy? You made your laughably pathetic point on a public messageboard, there's no need for nuance in reply to such stupidity.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I can see how they wouldn't want it to drag on and I've had enough of it too.
> 
> Suarez's next game is manu away.



Or perhaps they have absolutely no grounds for appeal.

Why have you had enough of it? What has made you not want to continue the justifiable campaign to stand stoically in defence of this tragically maligned man Luis Suarez?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Or perhaps they have absolutely no grounds for appeal.


Perhaps, but I'd say it's more likely they want to put it to rest.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Perhaps, but I'd say it's more likely they want to put it to rest.



"_It is our strongly held conviction that the Football Association and the panel it selected constructed a highly subjective case against Luis Suarez based on an accusation that was ultimately unsubstantiated._"

And yet, if we accept your opinion above, not strong enough to carry on.....


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Perhaps, but I'd say it's more likely they want to put it to rest.


Bit like the Lawrence case then.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> "_It is our strongly held conviction that the Football Association and the panel it selected constructed a highly subjective case against Luis Suarez based on an accusation that was ultimately unsubstantiated._"
> 
> And yet, if we accept your opinion above, not strong enough to carry on.....


No, i said they might want to let the matter rest.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Bit like the Lawrence case then.


Indeed.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> What need is there to be nuanced in reply to pathetic desperate defence of idiocy? You made your laughably pathetic point on a public messageboard, there's no need for nuance in reply to such stupidity.



Great to see you avoiding my point altogether. Well done that.


----------



## han (Jan 3, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Not now they have more screens.



oh really? great!


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 3, 2012)

Ugh. Liverpool are disgusting. I've lost any like for them I ever had. Whiny fucks.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 3, 2012)

When you walk, through a race-storm...


----------



## Wilf (Jan 3, 2012)

ChrisFilter said:


> Ugh. Liverpool are disgusting. I've lost any like for them I ever had. Whiny fucks.


Yep. A truly graceless statement, awful.  The Suarez one isn't much better:

"In my country, 'negro' is a word we use commonly, a word which doesn't show any lack of respect and is even less so a form of racist abuse. Based on this, everything which has been said so far is totally false."

Hardly needs repeating that he is knowingly ignoring the context issue.  He is even twisting his own culture to try and twist out of what he has done.  Furthermore, both he and the club forget the logic of their position.  If this was a _cultural misunderstanding_ - something that is okay in Uraguay but not here (even though in an argument it _isn't_), that means Evra was fully entitled to be upset at what would at least appear to be a racial taunt.  Rather than accepting that - what must the logic of the Liverpool defence - they have gone on the attack and accused him of deception. There were probably a couple of points where Liverpool could have pulled out of this disaster, but chose not to. They are now trapped in their own shit.

To be honest, the Liverpool _fans_ deserve better.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 3, 2012)

Wilf said:


> To be honest, the Liverpool _fans_ deserve better.


Some of them, tbh, have shown that they really don't. Unfortunately.


----------



## twistedAM (Jan 3, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Actually, as an MU fan, I'm hoping Suarez goes out in a blaze of glory and puts 3 past citeh.  Come on Louis!


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, i said they might want to let the matter rest.



Why would they want a matter to rest when they consider that matter to be "_an accusation that was ultimately unsubstantiated._"? Perhaps they have realised how appallingly they behaved in the aftermath or that they realised how fucking idiotic their remarks and actions were?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Funny how you're a nuanced and intelligent chap in most matters *apart from those to do with LFC*. Anyway, I'm done with this thread.



Yeah, my remarks and posts here and elsewhere on Hillsborough have been dripping with anti LFC sentiment haven't they? You utter clown.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Why would they want a matter to rest when they consider that matter to be "_an accusation that was ultimately unsubstantiated._"?


Perhaps they don't want to extend the circus that's been going on for the past few months?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Perhaps they don't want to extend the circus that's been going on for the past few months?



The cirucs? Like wearing fucking stupid t-shirts during warm up, that circus? Or perhaps ignoring the stories told by their own man Comolli and the utter inconsistency of Suarez evidence? Or is the 'circus' you refer to the rather laborious process of finding that Suarez did make racist remarks to Evra? Which 'circus' are you referring to?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 3, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Now that's all cleared up, what are the FA going to do about clearing up misogyny from the game. You bunch of conchas de tus hermanas?


In the future all visiting Saudi teams will be driven round by female drivers. If they refuse, they'll be pinched within an inch of their lives (but in a friendly way).


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> The cirucs? Like wearing fucking stupid t-shirts during warm up, that circus? Or perhaps ignoring the stories told by their own man Comolli and the utter inconsistency of Suarez evidence? Or is the 'circus' you refer to the rather laborious process of finding that Suarez did make racist remarks to Evra? Which 'circus' are you referring to?


 None of those things could be described as a circus. No idea what you're on about.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

By the way, previously Suarez admits he refers to Johnson as 'negro'. I assume this is in training and if he continues to do it neither Johnson nor LFC have told him it's unacceptable?! Paints a rather appalling picture frankly.....


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> By the way, previously Suarez admits he refers to Johnson as 'negro'. I assume this is in training and if he continues to do it neither Johnson nor LFC have told him it's unacceptable?! Paints a rather appalling picture frankly.....


Do you think he means it as racist abuse?


----------



## Kanda (Jan 3, 2012)

It doesn't matter if he does!!!! Geezus!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Kanda said:


> It doesn't matter if he does!!!! Geezus!


Of course it matters!.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 3, 2012)

So it's ok to go round calling people negro or nigger or paki.. As long as its not meant in a racist way?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Do you think he means it as racist abuse?



Fuck me sideways you're a fucking idiot. Even if he didn't do you think it acceptable? Do you thinki LFC might have told him it's not acceptable over here?


----------



## strung out (Jan 3, 2012)

i regularly go around calling black people darkies, but it's ok, because i only mean it in a friendly way


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

strung out said:


> i regularly go around calling black people darkies, but it's ok, because i only mean it in a friendly way



Of course you pinch them after making that remark in an attempt to diffuse the situation don't you?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Fuck me sideways you're a fucking idiot. Even if he didn't do you think it acceptable? Do you thinki LFC might have told him it's not acceptable over here?


So he doesn't mean it as a term of abuse and it's still not acceptable?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> None of those things could be described as a circus. No idea what you're on about.



You've no fucking idea full stop.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 3, 2012)

Of course it's not! 

Are you trolling or really this fucking thick??


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

strung out said:


> i regularly go around calling black people darkies, but it's ok, because i only mean it in a friendly way


Yeah, but darkie is a term of abuse where you come from (I presume)


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> So he doesn't mean it as a term of abuse and it's still not acceptable?



Sweet fucking jesus.......


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> By the way, previously Suarez admits he refers to Johnson as 'negro'. I assume this is in training and if he continues to do it neither Johnson nor LFC have told him it's unacceptable?! Paints a rather appalling picture frankly.....





sleaterkinney said:


> Do you think he means it as racist abuse?





Fedayn said:


> Fuck me sideways you're a fucking idiot. Even if he didn't do you think it acceptable? Do you thinki LFC might have told him it's not acceptable over here?





sleaterkinney said:


> So he doesn't mean it as a term of abuse and it's still not acceptable?


 
I'm quoting this in it's full fucking glory for the sheer wonderment of it.....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 3, 2012)

I find that statement from Liverpool extraordinary. Either appeal or accept it. A stronger ruling body would be calling them on publicly questioning the partiality of the tribunal. If that's not bringing the game into disrepute I don't know what is. And suarez. He should be forced to go on some pointless course for continuing to dispute it. Idiot.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Sweet fucking jesus.......


No room for context then?.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 3, 2012)

The 'it's ok to call someone a racist name if you don't mean it as racist abuse' surely deserves a thread of its own!


----------



## Kanda (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> No room for context then?.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 3, 2012)

How many times have been around this circle now?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 3, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> How many times have been around this circle now?



Given we're on 680+ posts now, I'd guess around 100?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> No room for context then?.


What like when in an argument with an opposing player? That kind of context? The context in which he used the word in the match in question? You're all over the place on this.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> No room for context then?.



Yes, the context is that in this country, as you fucking well know, referring to black people as 'negro' is a bit off, you know, a tad unacceptable. And yet we find he continually used it and LFC seemingly, given no-one has said they told Suarez to desist and Suarez himself doesn't mention this, find this behaviour acceptable.....


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What like when in an argument with an opposing player? That kind of context? The context in which he used the word in the match in question? You're all over the place on this.


No, we've moved on to how he speaks to a team mate in training.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> No room for context then?.


That's probably a very witty reply


----------



## Wilf (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, _we've moved on_ to how he speaks to a team mate in training.



Have you all of a sudden become self aware and ironic?   This thread clearly still has potential.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Yes, the context is that in this country, as you fucking well know, referring to black people as 'negro' is a bit off, you know, a tad unacceptable.


 No, the context is team mates on a multicultural training ground.



> And yet we find he continually used it and LFC seemingly, given no-one has said they told Suarez to desist and Suarez himself doesn't mention this, find this behaviour acceptable.....




Or maybe they just saw it as not a form of abuse, just something from his culture.


----------



## Kanda (Jan 3, 2012)

It wouldn't be accepted in any normal workplace. Why is it ok at LFC?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, the context is team mates on a multicultural training ground.
> 
> Or maybe they just saw it as not a form of abuse, just something from his culture.



This is brilliant..... Truly brilliant, calling someone a negro 'on a multicultural training ground' is something not only not to be criticised but something to be resolutely defended....


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> This is brilliant..... Truly brilliant, calling someone a negro 'on a multicultural training ground' is something not only not to be criticised but something to be resolutely defended....


I don't believe he called him "a negro", did he?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> This is brilliant..... Truly brilliant, calling someone a negro 'on a multicultural training ground' is something not only not to be criticised but something to be resolutely defended....




Everything comes in inverted commas on the Liverpool training pitch. It's a hotbed of postmodernism.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Anyway, i don't think Suarez will be referring to anyone as negro for a long while.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I don't believe he called him "a negro", did he?



It's in this thread, even if it was negrito instead does that makes it better....??


----------



## Wilf (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Anyway, i don't think Suarez will be referring to anyone as negro for a long while.


 
[The End]​


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Was it negrito instead? That makes it so much better....


Sorry, I thought you knew how they referred to each other.....


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I don't believe he called him "a negro", did he?





sleaterkinney said:


> Sorry, I thought you knew how they referred to each other.....



From the FA written reasons and recalling what Suarez himself said, so YES he did call Johnson negro...



> 353. On occasions, Mr Suarez has used the word "negro" to address people with black skin
> without any intention to offend and in a way that would be seen as inoffensive in
> Uruguay. He is familiar with this use of the word from his upbringing in Uruguay. *He *
> *said he uses it in this way when speaking to other black players in England, such as when *
> *he says "Just pass the ball, negro" to Glen Johnson*.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Anyway, i don't think Suarez will be referring to anyone as negro for a long while.



I think he will, just to show how it's a normal word for him. "Hey Negro Gerrard, play it wide..."


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2012)

Wilf said:


> [The End]​


I don't think it is, people will make hay out of it for a long time, but in the spirit of LFC's statement, I'm leaving it.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I don't think it is, people will make hay out of it for a long time, but in the spirit of LFC's statement, I'm leaving it.


The spirit of denial.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I don't think it is, people will make hay out of it for a long time, but in the spirit of LFC's statement, *I'm leaving it.*



And at such a high point for you.... So sad.....


----------



## Wilf (Jan 3, 2012)

Best thread Evra?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 3, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I don't think it is, people will make hay out of it for a long time, but in the spirit of LFC's statement, I'm leaving it.


What, petulantly and with bad grace?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 3, 2012)

There's nothing in this that hasn't been said by various posters on here, but this Grauniad piece does nicely sum up how shitty Liverpool have behaved throughout:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jan/03/liverpool-loyalty-luis-suarez-contrition


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 4, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I don't think it is, people will make hay out of it for a long time, *but in the spirit of LFC's statement, I'm leaving it*.



LFC a're not leaving it though are they. They really are graceless scum cunts.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 4, 2012)

Watching some of the Liverpool presser, Dalgleish is coming across like a demented fool. Let's remember he was demanding full asccess and full disclosure of what happened at the hearing yet Dalgleish, like some demented freemason, was wittering on about things we don't know and that they do know. Truly truly laughable.....


----------



## Wilf (Jan 4, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Watching some of the Liverpool presser, Dalgleish is coming across like a demented fool. Let's remember he was demanding full asccess and full disclosure of what happened at the hearing yet Dalgleish, like some demented freemason, was wittering on about things we don't know and that they do know. Truly truly laughable.....


Aye. It was weird seeing that, just came across as a weird rant, no evidence that there is any kind of PR strategy in place.  You expect in the world of corporate football that the owners and directors will be seeking to at least get some coherence around their response to the report, but it didn't look like that from the evidence of yesterday's statement or the press conference.

As a United fan I've not got too much sympathy, but the odd thing is I do find myself wanting Liverpool to sort this out or at least get back some sort of self respect.  The legacy of all this is going to be nasty, between the clubs and beyond.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 4, 2012)

It sounds like sleater runs the LFC PR department.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 4, 2012)

Deareg said:


> It sounds like sleater runs the LFC PR department.


Gerald Ratner must be looking on in awe.


----------



## agricola (Jan 4, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Watching some of the Liverpool presser, Dalgleish is coming across like a demented fool. Let's remember he was demanding full asccess and full disclosure of what happened at the hearing yet Dalgleish, like some demented freemason, was wittering on about things we don't know and that they do know. Truly truly laughable.....



Indeed.  One would imagine that - based on the detailed mentions of the responses of various parties to various questions in the tribunal report - the whole tribunal was either tape recorded and/or had a stenographer recording everything.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 4, 2012)

Deareg said:


> It sounds like sleater runs the LFC PR department.


I said I'd leave this so you can stop with your childish digs.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 4, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Yeah, my remarks and posts here and elsewhere on Hillsborough have been dripping with anti LFC sentiment haven't they? You utter clown.





Fedayn said:


> LFC a're not leaving it though are they. They really are graceless scum cunts.


----------



## agricola (Jan 4, 2012)

The car-crash continues:



> *Reporter:* "The hearing was to lay out all the evidence, 115 pages of evidence, and you have said they [the FA] have done it subjectively. So why do you think the FA are targeting Liverpool and Suárez?"
> *Dalglish:* "Maybe wrong place, wrong time. It could have been anybody. I can't answer for the FA, you ask them."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jan/04/kenny-dalglish-luis-suarez-transcript


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 4, 2012)

*



			Reporter:
		
Click to expand...

*


> "OK, if a player calls someone 'negro' [Spanish pronunciation], surely the player who takes offence deserves an apology?"
> *Dalglish:* "Ask a linguistic expert, which certainly I am not. They will tell you that the part of the country in Uruguay where he [Luis Suárez] comes from, it is perfectly acceptable. His wife calls him that and I don't think he is offended by her. We have made a statement and I think it is there for everybody to read. Luis has made a brilliant statement and we will stand by him."


this, for me, is just extraordinary. Great point from the journo there. Even if Suarez didn't intend to offend Evra, given that he clearly did, wouldn't the logical thing to do be to say sorry for any inadvertent offence caused?


----------



## Kanda (Jan 4, 2012)

So he's ignoring the 2 linguistic experts the FA hired?

Quality.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 4, 2012)

Kanda said:


> So he's ignoring the 2 linguistic experts the FA hired?
> 
> Quality.


in on the conspiracy, obviously.


----------



## twistedAM (Jan 4, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Watching some of the Liverpool presser, Dalgleish is coming across like a demented fool. Let's remember he was demanding full asccess and full disclosure of what happened at the hearing yet Dalgleish, like some demented freemason, was wittering on about things we don't know and that they do know. Truly truly laughable.....



If this was at City, there'd be guys running round the corridors with Blackberrys and clipboards telling the Sheikh to tell Mancini what to say or to STFU.
Seems the Boot Room still runs LFC or else they just don't have a press dept to gag a manager who now seems like an out-of-touch fool.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 4, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> If this was at City, there'd be guys running round the corridors with Blackberrys and clipboards telling the Sheikh to tell Mancini what to say or to STFU.
> Seems the Boot Room still runs LFC or else they just don't have a press dept to gag a manager who now seems like an out-of-touch fool.


it's just bizarre. Like he and Suarez gets to decide FOR Evra if he has a right to be offended.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 4, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> it's just bizarre. Like he and Suarez gets to decide FOR Evra if he has a right to be offended.


Not just whether Evra has the right to be offended. It is not an acceptable term to all black Uruguayans either. From the expert witness's that the FA called.

First, there are some black people in Uruguay and other areas of Latin America who object​to the use of the word "negro" as a term of address, as they say it highlights skin colour​when this should be irrelevant. This is the use of the word "negro" (ie as a term of address)​which Mr Suarez contended before us is acceptable, yet his view appears to be contentious​with some in Uruguay and Latin America​


----------



## twistedAM (Jan 4, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> it's just bizarre. Like he and Suarez gets to decide FOR Evra if he has a right to be offended.



Old dude not moving with the times. I'm kind of surprised at the American owners.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 4, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


>



So, you quote a comment from this thread and not from a thread re Hillsborough to which I was referring. I'd go back to bed if I were you....


----------



## Wilf (Jan 4, 2012)

I actually like Dalglish and particularly the idea of a manager saying what he thinks unmediated by corporate PR. Just happens that in this case he's got it so spectacularly wrong and is making the whole thing worse. In the Business Schools they'll be taking Gerald Ratner off their Powerpoint slides and putting Kenny in as an example of foot in mouth PR.

Not that well up on Liverpool's structure, but did I hear they've now got a less powerful Chief Exec? This whole thing is certainly playing out as if there is nobody sat in that particular office.  Edit: was the last one sacked by the previous owner or summat??


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 4, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> it's just bizarre. Like he and Suarez gets to decide FOR Evra if he has a right to be offended.



What surprises me re Dalglish utterly inadequate and frankly cretinous behaviour in all of this is how far he has slipped from his days as manager previously when he handled the horror of Hillsborough with genuine dignity, genuine humanity and frankly without peer. And yet here we have the same man behaving like an idiot on a mission to make himself king of idiots.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 4, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Not just whether Evra has the right to be offended. It is not an acceptable term to all black Uruguayans either. From the expert witness's that the FA called.
> 
> First, there are some black people in Uruguay and other areas of Latin America who object​to the use of the word "negro" as a term of address, as they say it highlights skin colour​when this should be irrelevant. This is the use of the word "negro" (ie as a term of address)​which Mr Suarez contended before us is acceptable, yet his view appears to be contentious​with some in Uruguay and Latin America​


Even if that weren't the case though. Take "paki" for example, now, to my knowledge, the UK is the only country where the shortened form of Pakistani is deemed offensive. A lot of my students (am a TEFL teacher) have used it in my classes. Now, they're not trying to demean anyone or be racist (and obviously I correct it and tell them it's not acceptable here), but if they used it to describe a Pakistani person it would be offensive, unintentionally. Does it make them racists? No. Should they apologise for offence caused? Of course they fucking should. Is a simple "sorry, I didn't mean to offend you" so hard?


----------



## Deareg (Jan 4, 2012)

Absolutely, a simple sorry should be enough as long as it is not used again.

On another point, the use of that word seems to be changing, my brother who was dating a pakistani woman at the time reckoned it was acceptable to pakistanis to use the word, I would imagine again though it would be about context and probably whether or not they knew the person using it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 4, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> So, you quote a comment from this thread and not from a thread re Hillsborough to which I was referring.



Just noting again your hatred for everything to do with LFC, which is barely hidden behind your figleaf of concern for the Hillsborough families.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Just noting again your hatred for everything to do with LFC, which is barely hidden behind your figleaf of concern for the Hillsborough families.


And now you look like a bigger dick than SK.Well done. Some going.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 4, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Just noting again your hatred for everything to do with LFC, which is barely hidden behind your figleaf of concern for the Hillsborough families.



What's not to despise about Liverpool and Dalglish handling of this?

'figleaf of concern'? Yes dear, off you pop now, back to bed.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> And now you look like a bigger dick than SK.Well done. Some going.



Least my dick works, you impotent arse.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 4, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> What's not to despise about Liverpool and Dalglish handling of this?
> 
> 'figleaf of concern'? Yes dear, off you pop now, back to bed.



You've despised LFC for years, for whatever weird reason. It's hardly a new development.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Least my dick works, you impotent arse.


Biology lesson for GC i think.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 4, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> You've despised LFC for years, for whatever weird reason. It's hardly a new development.



Of course I don't like them, I hate the club. But, weirdly enough, I think LFC fans should be able to go to a game, and get home safely rather than be killed by incompetent liars and then have their deaths lied about, their lives lied about, and their deaths and famiies grief rubbed in the dirt.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 4, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Of course I don't like them, I hate the club. But, weirdly enough, I think LFC fans should be able to go to a game, and get home safely rather than be killed by incompetent liars and then have their deaths lied about, their lives lied about, and their deaths and famiies grief rubbed in the dirt.



I know. Bad choice of metaphor on my part. I actually meant your sincere feelings about that didn't disguise your hatred of the club.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 4, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> I know. Bad choice of metaphor on my part. I actually meant your sincere feelings about that didn't disguise your hatred of the club.



Slightly different than 'figleaf'.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 4, 2012)

He's apologised.

http://twitpic.com/837tuv/full


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 4, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> He's apologised.
> 
> http://twitpic.com/837tuv/full



If the article is correct it actually says-in the article-he apologises publically but has stopped short of apologising to Evra, the victim of his remarks.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 4, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> He's apologised.
> 
> http://twitpic.com/837tuv/full


from the same source
http://twitpic.com/82t10z


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 4, 2012)

friedaweed said:


> from the same source
> http://twitpic.com/82t10z


What do you mean, that story is from today's paper?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 4, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> If the article is correct it actually says-in the article-he apologises publically but has stopped short of apologising to Evra, the victim of his remarks.


So he's not included in "anyone" then?.



> Of course I don't like them, I hate the club.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2012)

What does the first paragraph say sk? Are you really going to mess even this up?


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 4, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> What do you mean, that story is from today's paper?


So it is. As you were


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What does the first paragraph say sk? Are you really going to mess even this up?


I'm not asking about some Daily mail journo's take on it?.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2012)

He's still bullshitting. He was having an argument with a black man, called him 'black man', and didn't mean it in a derogatory way?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 4, 2012)

A different take on it

http://twitpic.com/837vxs/full


----------



## twistedAM (Jan 4, 2012)

What will it be like for him when he actually returns? He's going to get a lot of shit.
Maybe time to sell him and buy Tevez. He's not racist. He hates everyone.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 4, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> So he's not included in "anyone" then?.



If you called someone a negro, would you just issue a public apology via the press/media or would you actually apologise to the person you abused? I think and would hope you'd do the latter.

And does quoting me saying I hate LFC make your post any less stupid? I think we both know the answer to that one.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 4, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> If you called someone a negro, would you just issue a public apology via the press/media or would you actually apologise to the person you abused?


The case has been in the public eye and he's issued an public apology - I don't see why you felt the need to put in the or in there.


Fedayn said:


> And does quoting me saying I hate LFC make your post any less stupid? I think we both know the answer to that one.


No - it's relevant.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 4, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> The case has been in the public eye and he's issued an public apology - I don't see why you felt the need to put in the or in there.
> 
> No - it's relevant.



You mean point out that the article says he hasn't apologised to the person he abused. I'd say that it's entirely relevant frankly. And again, if you'd some somethign like this and abused a person would you have the decency to apologise to him or just issue one via the press??

And still no less stupid.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> You mean point out that the article says he hasn't apologised to the person he abused. I'd say that it's entirely relevant frankly. And again, if you'd some somethign like this and abused a person would you have the decency to apologise to him or just issue one via the press??
> 
> And still no less stupid.


He's still maintaining that Evra's lying about him, though. As long as he continues to maintain that, he's not going to apologise to him.

Of course, he's also still maintaining that his use of 'negro' wasn't in any way intended to wind Evra up. I, for one, do not believe that for a second, and that makes this particular apology worse than nothing really. He's just continuing to dig afaic.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not asking about some Daily mail journo's take on it?.


You're not talking about the newspaper article that you posted a link to and then made a very specific claim about?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2012)

Where's the apology anyway?

It's a sorry people were offended by my offensive behaviour apology. _I'm sorry you were offended by me behaving like an offensive arsehole._


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> A different take on it
> 
> http://twitpic.com/837vxs/full


Have a look at the headline in that 'other view' - what do you spot there around the word apology? Even the stuff you're trying to use to support your posts undermines you, even the headline writers recognise this isn't an apology and mock it as best they publicly can


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 4, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> A different take on it
> 
> http://twitpic.com/837vxs/full


That's a pretty good advert at the bottom of that page. I've just applied for some viagra. This needs sharing with the DF


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Where's the apology anyway?
> 
> It's a sorry people were offended by my offensive behaviour apology. _I'm sorry you were offended by me behaving like an offensive arsehole._


It's not even that. _I'm sorry you were offended by my behaviour, which you mistakenly took to be that of an offensive arsehole but actually wasn't._


----------



## Wilf (Jan 4, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not even that. _I'm sorry you were offended by my behaviour, which you mistakenly took to be that of an offensive arsehole but actually wasn't._


Absolutely - though it's very different in tone from yesterday's ranting by Dalglish and Suarez.  A sign that the phone call from the owners has finally got through?


----------



## Kanda (Jan 5, 2012)

Have LFC or Suarez apologized or anything yet?

Or was this an overblown incident where Evra made it all up and it's a load of bollocks?

Just wondered.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You're not talking about the newspaper article that you posted a link to and then made a very specific claim about?


Has he not apologised then?


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 5, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Has he not apologised then?



Not really.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

What do you think he apologised for and to who? You must have some idea given that its your claim - despite the two pieces of evidence you presented of this apology actually mocking it, both of them recognising it for the non-apology that it is.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What do you think he apologised for and to who?


Do you want me to quote it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

Yes. And i'd like you to have a go at answering the question i asked you - after a critical examination of the 'apology' of course - who is he apologising to and for what?


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 5, 2012)

Most definitely  feels like a very clear and intentional non-apology.

Just a word for the FA though; though you are generally the most abject shower of incompetent, self-serving shit, well done for getting this absolutely right.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 5, 2012)

On my phone so can't do a c+p, he apologises to anyone he may have offended.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> On my phone so can't do a c+p, he apologises to anyone he may have offended.


Why do you think the two sources that you used to illustrate the universal nature of this apology first specified that this didn't appear to include Evra and, second, mocked it as not really apology at all?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 5, 2012)

Why do journalists put slants on things?. To sell newspapers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

Yes, and sometimes they simply don't need to as the evidence speaks for itself. This is one of those times.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 5, 2012)

They simply didn't need to - yet they 'mocked' it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

Yes, because of its patent absurdity and duplicity. Sometimes people do things that are so stupid or clumsy that they are mocked. This is what happened here.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

I must say, it shows the rottenness of your position SK that you are now reduced to attacking as biased or slanted the very sources you presented to us as somehow supporting your own posts. Tied up in knots and you don't even recognise it.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 5, 2012)

A spokesman for a LFC supporters group has just been on Sky sports news blaming the FA for the whole thing.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 5, 2012)

That apology, as apologies go,  is shit. It is as said a non-apology. And that's arguably another PR blunder on top of the many others that have happened. That said I think it's perfectly obvious why it's come out as it has. Neither Suarez nor, by extension, LFC agree with the verdict given by the FA panel. At the end of the day there is still only the word of Evra against the word of Suarez wrt how many times and in what context the offending word was used. Suarez maintains it was a one time, not intentionally offensive usage in a context where it was ill-advised to use that word (i.e. any English, or even Europea pitch), whereas Evra maintains it was malignly used either 7, 8 or more than 10 times (according to different statements to press and the commission). Seen in that light I can understand why Suarez feels the need to try and protect his reputation, such as it is. That doesn't make it right, even if his version of events is the true one. He should've realised straight off that it was a stupid thing to say and said sorry to Evra at once, in person.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I must say, it shows the rottenness of your position SK that you are now reduced to attacking as biased or slanted the very sources you presented to us as somehow supporting your own posts. Tied up in knots and you don't even recognise it.


I'm not though, did I ever reference the articles to say which part of them proved or disproved my points?.
This is your imagination going off again.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> That apology, as apologies go, is shit. It is as said a non-apology. And that's arguably another PR blunder on top of the many others that have happened. That said I think it's perfectly obvious why it's come out as it has. Neither Suarez nor, by extension, LFC agree with the verdict given by the FA panel. At the end of the day there is still only the word of Evra against the word of Suarez wrt how many times and in what context the offending word was used. Suarez maintains it was a one time, not intentionally offensive usage in a context where it was ill-advised to use that word (i.e. any English, or even Europea pitch), whereas Evra maintains it was malignly used either 7, 8 or more than 10 times (according to different statements to press and the commission). Seen in that light I can understand why Suarez feels the need to try and protect his reputation, such as it is. That doesn't make it right, even if his version of events is the true one. He should've realised straight off that it was a stupid thing to say and said sorry to Evra at once, in person.


There is also the video footage, expert witness's and basic common fucking sense.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 5, 2012)

Also, Suarez's witness's contradicting him and him also admitting lying.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not though, did I ever reference the articles to say which part of them proved or disproved my points?.
> This is your imagination going off again.


Yes you did, when you argued that they were clear and unambiguous evidence of an apology, not only to Evra personally but everyone generally. Do you actually remember your own posts from hour to hour?


----------



## Yelkcub (Jan 5, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> They simply didn't need to - yet they 'mocked' it.



Suarez and Liverpool FC's behaviour has been disgraceful all around SK. I could see why you'd want to defend your club, but it doesn't make them look any better when their position is this weak, it just makes you look a bit deranged.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 5, 2012)

Deareg said:


> There is also the video footage, expert witness's and basic common fucking sense.



AFAIK there's no video footage or sounds recordings showing him using the offending word.The expert witnesses were all about the semantics, not about the incident. Again, this doesn't mean that Suarez' version of the events is the correct one, but IMO neither does it conclusively prove that Evra's is. Anyway, didn't I excuse myself from this thread?  Bye!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

There's visual video evidence of the reactions of both players when certain things happened - i.e facial expressions, physical reactions and so on.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> AFAIK there's no video footage or sounds recordings showing him using the offending word.The expert witnesses were all about the semantics, not about the incident. Again, this doesn't mean that Suarez' version of the events is the correct one, but IMO neither does it conclusively prove that Evra's is. Anyway, didn't I excuse myself from this thread?  Bye!


No, the conclusion of the report was that Suarez's version was not consistent with the evidence they had, whereas Evra's was. Basically, we may not know that Evra was telling the truth, but we do know that Suarez was lying. As butchers says, evidence of the reactions. Above all else, that's what has lost Suarez any sympathy from me. His continued insistence on his complete innocence is really grating now.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> There's visual video evidence of the reactions of both players when certain things happened - i.e facial expressions, physical reactions and so on.



Of course, but to my knowledge none of that has been any help in establishing whether or not Suarez used this word or that, on more than one occassion. He could've called Evra all sorts without referring to the colour of his skin.

Anyway, last word from me in this thread (promise!) will be a link to this piece: http://afootballreport.com/post/15301344153/flaws-and-consequences-the-curious-case-of-luis-suarez written by the solicitor for the Professional Footballers' Association of Ireland. Partisan in favour of Suarez as he's a LFC fan, but nonetheless interesting IMO.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 5, 2012)

Deareg said:


> A spokesman for a LFC supporters group has just been on Sky sports news blaming the FA for the whole thing.



Surely a Liverpool fan isn't blaming someone/anyone/everyone else for the actions of one of their players?!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes you did, when you argued that they were clear and unambiguous evidence of an apology, not only to Evra personally but everyone generally. Do you actually remember your own posts from hour to hour?


Where did I reference the articles to prove a point I was making?, what did I quote?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Where did I reference the articles to prove a point I was making?, what did I quote?


The articles that you linked to in order to argue that Suarez had offered an apology, one that included Evra. When you argued that the 'anyone' included in your link to the mail article included him - in this post.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> That apology, as apologies go, is shit. It is as said a non-apology. And that's arguably another PR blunder on top of the many others that have happened. That said I think it's perfectly obvious why it's come out as it has. Neither Suarez nor, by extension, LFC agree with the verdict given by the FA panel. At the end of the day there is still only the word of Evra against the word of Suarez wrt how many times and in what context the offending word was used. Suarez maintains it was a one time, not intentionally offensive usage in a context where it was ill-advised to use that word (i.e. any English, or even Europea pitch), whereas Evra maintains it was malignly used either 7, 8 or more than 10 times (according to different statements to press and the commission). Seen in that light I can understand why Suarez feels the need to try and protect his reputation, such as it is. That doesn't make it right, even if his version of events is the true one. He should've realised straight off that it was a stupid thing to say and said sorry to Evra at once, in person.


As I understood it, according to what I've seen of the FA's report, in their initial statements both Damien Commoli and Dirk Kuyt told the 4th official that Suarez responded to the question "por que me diste un golpe?" with the response "porque tu eres negro", the former from overhearing it. They later decided otherwise.

Now, there are plenty of reasons why they could change their stories for perfectly innocent reasons, but given that their original statements match Evra's ...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The articles that you linked to in order to argue that Suarez had offered an apology, one that included Evra. When you argued that the 'anyone' included in your link to the mail article included him - in this post.


Referencing to me means specifically quoting or saying which part of the article I was talking about which proved my point, I don't do this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

I get it, you post a link to an article and suggest that this article demonstrates that Suarez has apologised, not only generally but specifically Evra as he was included in the "anyone" offended. (At this point you could only be quoting "anyone" from one of the two articles as this was the only place it was online) but you weren't referencing it/them.

Fair enough if you want to go along with the suggestion that the two newspaper articles both argue that Suarez's apology was a sham which is why you didn't use them to argue that his apology included Evra and was in fact a genuine apology then fine. Let's start again from there. Which still leaves the question of why the two papers responded in such a manner to the 'apology'. Any ideas?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 5, 2012)

I have no idea what mess you've got yourself into, when the news of the apology came out last night I posted up the sources I found for the purpose of quoting the apology, I didn't use or reference the articles beyond that, certainly not to back up my argument. 

As to why they reacted the way they did?.  To sell newspapers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

Or because they easily saw through the dishonest self serving nature of the apology and wanted to mock the apologist.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 5, 2012)

Oh this gets better and better.... Truly brilliant.... Nomination for thread of the year and nomination for idiot of the year aswell and we're only in January.


----------



## Big Gunz (Jan 5, 2012)

We should ban this vile racist too http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html

Credible witness?  Please...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Oh this gets better and better.... Truly brilliant.... Nomination for thread of the year and nomination for idiot of the year aswell and we're only in January.


Hang on, you may have spoke too soon fed...


----------



## kained&able (Jan 5, 2012)

Big Gunz said:


> We should ban this vile racist too http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html
> 
> Credible witness? Please...



Oh cause that's entirely the same thing isn't it!!


----------



## Wilf (Jan 5, 2012)

Big Gunz said:


> We should ban this vile racist too http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html
> 
> Credible witness? Please...


Another Liverpool fan displays a comendable grasp of the word 'context'.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 5, 2012)

Big Gunz said:


> We should ban this vile racist too http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html
> 
> Credible witness? Please...



Absolutely, I mean it's exactly the same isn't it?!


----------



## Combustible (Jan 5, 2012)

Big Gunz said:


> We should ban this vile racist too http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html
> 
> Credible witness? Please...



So how does that indicate Evra is more likely to have lied in his account?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 5, 2012)

Big Gunz said:


> We should ban this vile racist too http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html
> 
> Credible witness? Please...


jesus wept, I'm checking my calendar. Is it really 2012 and there are still people in the world who haven't accepted that "nigger", when a black person uses it to describe another black person, is different in meaning to the same word used a racist slur?


----------



## twistedAM (Jan 5, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Oh this gets better and better.... Truly brilliant.... Nomination for thread of the year and nomination for idiot of the year aswell and we're only in January.



Which idiot? There's at least four on here worthy of the job of Liverpool LFC Press Officer

This thread has descended way beyond the zone


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 5, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Which idiot? There's at least four on here worthy of the job of Liverpool LFC Press Officer
> 
> This thread has descended way beyond the zone



I think there's one who is head and shoulders above the rest frankly....


----------



## mwgdrwg (Jan 5, 2012)

And they call Evertonians bitter! Ha!


----------



## Gingerman (Jan 5, 2012)

Liverpool and their supporters should draw a ________ under this and move fucking on.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jan 5, 2012)

No Liverpool must first apologise for at least two racist official statements and Dalglish personally needs to apologise for his involvement, which comes after Suarez is banned for his entire life.
_Then_ Liverpool FC can draw a line under it and move on.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 5, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> Liverpool and their supporters should draw a ________ under this and move fucking on.



Liverpool FC want further meetings with the FA to discuss the disciplinary procedure and Evra's evidence/statement. They aren't drawing a line under anything.


----------



## han (Jan 5, 2012)

This thread is making me laugh out loud, for some reason.


----------



## Big Gunz (Jan 6, 2012)

Calm down fella's when I posted up that Evra rap my tongue was firmly in cheek!  But I don't think his word should be taken as gospel.  But we've accepted the punishment and there's no point further debating the issue.



Wilf said:


> Another Liverpool fan displays a comendable grasp of the word 'context'.



So it's okay to say "I'm going for a chinky then?" when I know plenty of Chinese who would take offence.  Context isn't always so clear as this case has proved.


----------



## kained&able (Jan 6, 2012)

> So it's okay to say "I'm going for a chinky then?



no, no its not.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

Big Gunz said:


> Calm down fella's when I posted up that Evra rap my tongue was firmly in cheek! But I don't think his word should be taken as gospel. But we've accepted the punishment and there's no point further debating the issue.
> 
> So it's okay to say "I'm going for a chinky then?" when I know plenty of Chinese who would take offence. Context isn't always so clear as this case has proved.


How the fuck did you reach that last conclusion out of what Wilf wrote?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 6, 2012)

Big Gunz said:


> So it's okay to say "I'm going for a chinky then?" when I know plenty of Chinese who would take offence. Context isn't always so clear as this case has proved.



What do you think?!


----------



## Wilf (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How the fuck did you reach that last conclusion out of what Wilf wrote?


I thought we'd struggle to beat sleater's "It's okay to call someone 'negro' on a multicultural training ground", but it seems the competition has heated up!

Oh and BG, the context *is* clear in the Suarez case, that's the whole point. The only way you could dispute that (and deploy the 'Uruguayan defence') is if you think they were two mates joshing away and nipping each other's flesh as only the best of chums can do. Is that what you reckon?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 6, 2012)

From an article by Michael Rosen, nicked from Abbottgate thread.



> Meanwhile, at a seemingly much, much more trivial level is the Suarez-Evra fracas. Anyone who has been around sport knows that the air is permanently thick with insult and abuse. A good deal of it is sexual either in terms of what the other person can or cannot do, has or has not physically got, or what might or might not happen or has happened to your opponents partner, wife, girlfriend, ex, mother, sister, grandmother. A good deal of it is about personal appearance - height, weight, hair, teeth, eyes and so on. The question in this case wasn't whether Suarez said something derogatory but whether he 'racialised' the conversation. Again and again, people have tried to say that whatever Suarez said was only or merely something that people say to each other in Uruguay, in Latin America, in colloquial Spanish etc etc. Well, let's remember first that Uruguay was once a slave-owning society and the idea that any word meaning 'black' is somehow neutral or 'only' or 'just' anything is hard to believe. I notice that there haven't been long lines of black Uruguayans queueing up to tell British interviewers how they love being called 'black' by white people when tensions are high in arguments and confrontations.
> 
> Even so, no matter what kind of codes Suarez was using at the time, there can be little doubt that he changed the nature of the 'conversation' (euphemism, I know) by introducing 'race' into it. And this is the key. Why does a white person do that? What possible purpose is there for a white person in the middle of a confrontation (for whatever reason) suddenly say that the other person is 'black'. It can only be part of the business of trying to get the upper hand. In other words, the white person reaches for the hierarchy he is part of, (the racist hierarchy,) and pluck the trump card from the pack: the one that says 'inferior' (in his book). It is completely irrelevant that black people use this or that term to each other or within the hierarchies of racism use the word 'white'. Racialising the confrontation is to get the upper hand by relying on perceived notions of who is top dog, based on centuries of domination and oppression. The thousands of column inches I've seen written on this case all trying to prove that 'negro' isn't a slur completely miss the point.



Very well put.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 6, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> From an article by Michael Rosen, nicked from Abbottgate thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A piece of writing that surely, you must agree, totally destroys LFC's t-shirt travesty, Suarez defence, Dalglish's idiocy and sleaterkinneys continuing pathetic 'cultural' defence of Suarez?


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 6, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> From an article by Michael Rosen, nicked from Abbottgate thread.
> 
> Very well put.



Indeed. And this is what so many people fail to grasp no matter how many times it's explained.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 6, 2012)

ChrisFilter said:


> Indeed. And this is what so many people fail to grasp no matter how many times it's explained.


I don't think it is a case of not grasping, rather it is ignoring.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

...and being a bit thick.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 6, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> A piece of writing that surely, you must agree, totally destroys LFC's t-shirt travesty, Suarez defence, Dalglish's idiocy and sleaterkinneys continuing pathetic 'cultural' defence of Suarez?



Things could have been done differently.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 6, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Things could have been done differently.



To put it mildly and euphemistically yes.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 6, 2012)

Now that LIverpool look to have got a crack team of PR gimps on the case, we should set up a bingo card of phrases that the next line of retreat statement will include: 'matter of regret', 'all have lessons to learn', 'importance of cultural sensitivity', 'Luis will be appearing in the new series of Mind Your Language ans is available for panto...'.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 6, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Now that LIverpool look to have got a crack team of PR gimps on the case, we should set up a bingo card of phrases that the next line of retreat statement will include: 'matter of regret', 'all have lessons to learn', 'importance of cultural sensitivity', 'Luis will be appearing in the new series of Mind Your Language ans is available for panto...'.



..... and the new Channel 5 series of The Black & White Minstrel Show.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 6, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Now that LIverpool look to have got a crack team of PR gimps on the case, we should set up a bingo card of phrases that the next line of retreat statement will include: 'matter of regret', 'all have lessons to learn', 'importance of cultural sensitivity', 'Luis will be appearing in the new series of Mind Your Language ans is available for panto...'.



as Widow Twanky. Right up your alley, I'd have thought.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 6, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> as Widow Twanky. Right up your alley, I'd have thought.



From Anfield to Funny Girls, it's just a cockstride away


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 6, 2012)

On the FA's disciplinary system, 99.5% of cases brought to tribunal result in a guilty verdict. None were overturned on appeal. It's also worth noting that the FA appoint both the judge and the prosecutor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16430580.stm


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

You still banging on about this?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 6, 2012)

The lawyer quoted in that does say it's a surprising figure tbf. Seeing as it suggests that they're only taking on the really obvious guilty cases and must be letting some potential ones go.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> On the FA's disciplinary system, 99.5% of cases brought to tribunal result in a guilty verdict. None were overturned on appeal. It's also worth noting that the FA appoint both the judge and the prosecutor.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16430580.stm


And what's your reading of this as regards the Suarez case? What are you suggesting? How does this impact on this case?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> And what's your reading of this as regards the Suarez case? What are you suggesting? How does this impact on this case?


I would say that a system where the FA appoint both the judge and the prosecutor and which results in a 99.5% conviction rate is flawed, what do you think?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I would say that a system where the FA appoint both the judge and the prosecutor and which results in a 99.5% conviction rate is flawed, what do you think?


I would say that you're grasping at straws and are unable to come up with a material reason how this effects the suarez case. Or can you?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 6, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I would say that a system where the FA appoint both the judge and the prosecutor and which results in a 99.5% conviction rate is flawed, what do you think?



That's pretty impressive. Slightly better than the conviction rate in China.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I would say that you're grasping at straws and are unable to come up with a material reason how this effects the suarez case. Or can you?


I'm pointing out the system is flawed. Do you think it is too, or not?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm pointing out the system is flawed. Do you think it is too, or not?


Problem with this is that they have released as comprehensive a report of their judgement as you might imagine. We have access to every single thing they considered in their judgement. In that sense, the system's flaws are rather irrelevant if you think, as I do, that their consideration of the evidence and judgement were reasonable. Their decision just seems, well, right.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 6, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm pointing out the system is flawed. Do you think it is too, or not?



On what basis is it flawed, the issue as to who chooses the judge and 'prosecution' or the guilty rate?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 6, 2012)

There isn't a judge - there was a panel of three people who Liverpool could have objected to, but didn't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

It seems to me that they've gone to enormous lengths, and considerable expense, to ensure that the tribunal was as fair and open as possible. Do you disagree, sk? If so, why?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm pointing out the system is flawed. Do you think it is too, or not?


Doesn't sound particularly flawed no. Actually the comparison with judges and prosecutors is specious - there is an independent panel that hears the FA's charge and comes up with a decision after hearing the defense and the FA's case. You've fallen for a rhetorical trick by Gilhooly.

Can you say how this flaw of the system manifested itself in the proceedings against Suarez?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 6, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> On what basis is it flawed, the issue as to who chooses the judge and 'prosecution' or the guilty rate?


Both, you have the same body choosing both the judging panel and the prosecutor and also the guilty rate which means either they have been ignoring cases as Monkeygrinder said above or the cases that go to trial are not being heard properly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Both, you have the same body choosing both the judging panel and the prosecutor and also the guilty rate which means either they have been ignoring cases as Monkeygrinder said above or the cases that go to trial are not being heard properly.


Well given that we have access to a comprehensive report on this case, we are in a very good position to judge whether or not it was heard properly.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Both, you have the same body choosing both the judging panel and the prosecutor and also the guilty rate which means either they have been ignoring cases as Monkeygrinder said above or the cases that go to trial are not being heard properly.



Or there's been a previous winnowing out of cases they feel they might not win. The rate is not that far off the crown court rate and could be explained in this way. Not that any of this effects the material facts of the Suarez case one iota. Unless you can say where and how. Can you?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 6, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Both, you have the same body choosing both the judging panel and the prosecutor and also the guilty rate which means either they have been ignoring cases as Monkeygrinder said above or the cases that go to trial are not being heard properly.



I think the whole 'trial' comparison is a dead end tbh. It isn't one, it's a tribunal. OK this one is particularly high profile but most of them are probably very simple - player punches someone else on TV or with whole teams as witnesses and gets a ban, things along those lines. I'm sure they hardly ever run to several days like this one did.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I think the whole 'trial' comparison is a dead end tbh. It isn't one, it's a tribunal. OK this one is particularly high profile but *most of them are probably very simple* - player punches someone else on TV or with whole teams as witnesses and gets a ban, things along those lines. I'm sure they hardly ever run to several days like this one did.


Yeah, that's another example of a reason for the high 'conviction' rate. It's not considering complex cases with dna evidence, alibi-checking, motive and opportunity judgements, etc.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Doesn't sound particularly flawed no. Actually the comparison with judges and prosecutors is specious - there is an independent panel that hears the FA's charge and comes up with a decision after hearing the defense and the FA's case. You've fallen for a rhetorical trick by Gilhooly.


Not really, if it was properly independent it would have no links with the FA, as they are bringing the prosecution. It would not contain FA members and the QC on the panel would not be advised by an FA member during the trial.


butchersapron said:


> Can you say how this flaw of the system manifested itself in the proceedings against Suarez?


No, done Suarez enough


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Or there's been a previous winnowing out of cases they feel they might not win. The rate is not that far off the crown court rate and could be explained in this way. Not that any of this effects the material facts of the Suarez case one iota. Unless you can say where and how. Can you?


What? The crown court rate is 80%.


----------



## Deareg (Jan 6, 2012)

Any time anyone points out the flaws in his argument he just fucking ignores them or ignores the point that they are making.

He is like a fucking child who is still at the stage of believing that because he can't see you then you can't see him.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> What? The crown court rate is 80%.


 Yes i know, hence my comparison. Going to have a go at saying how the flaws in the system manifested themselves in the Suarez case? I think you have to now really.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes i know,hence my comparison. Going to have a go at saying how the flaws in the system manifested themselves in the Suarez case. I think you have to really now.


80% vs 99.5%?

Why?. Can I not discuss how the system is flawed?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Not really, if it was properly independent it would have no links with the FA, as they are bringing the prosecution. It would not contain FA members and the QC on the panel would not be advised by an FA member during the trial.
> 
> No, done Suarez enough



That might be better but it's not really a black mark against this independent panel is it?

No, you have to say now how the flaws you've identified in the system manifested themselves in the Suarez case. Or else you are saying precisely nothing.


----------



## agricola (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That might be better but it's not really a black mark against this independent panel is it?
> 
> No, you have to say now how the flaws you've identified in the system manifested themselves in the Suarez case. Or else you are saying precisely nothing.



black mark?  very droll, butchers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> 80% vs 99.5%?
> 
> Why?. Can I not discuss how the system is flawed?



Yes, those are the figures.

You can but if you can't relate it to the Suarez case then you're not only not saying anything but you're undermining your own posts by not being able to point out how the flaws work, how they manifest themselves. If they manifest themselves in proceedings (as they must given your argument) then how and where?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That might be better but it's not really a black mark against this independent panel is it?.


Well, it's not independent for a start.


butchersapron said:


> No, you have to say now how the flaws you've identified in the system manifested themselves in the Suarez case. Or else you are saying precisely nothing.


I'm saying precisely nothing but you concede I might have a point above.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

tbf, 80% is vastly different from 99.5%!

It means that there are 4000 per cent more acquittals.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

agricola said:


> black mark? very droll, butchers.


Shhh!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, those are the figures.


So out of every 200 people the Crown brings to trial 40 are found not guilty versus 1 found not guilty for every 200 cases the FA brings. those figures aren't close. Maths not your strong point?


butchersapron said:


> You can


And that's what I'm doing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well, it's not independent for a start.
> 
> I'm saying precisely nothing but you concede I might have a point above.


 I say that you are saying precisely nothing to show that the system is flawed - flawed enough to impact on the Suarez hearing, which surely it would given the universal nature of these flaws


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> So out of every 200 people the Crown brings to trial 40 are found not guilty versus 1 found not guilty for every 200 cases the FA brings. those figures aren't close. Maths not your strong point?


Butchers is right, though. In and of itself, that says precisely nothing about the reliability of the Suarez conviction.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbf, 80% is vastly different from 99.5%!
> 
> It means that there are 4000 per cent more acquittals.


Not if the FA only hears cases it knows it is almost guaranteed to win. Under the same conditions as Crown Court prosecutions/decisions to prosecute i'm sure the figure would drop to something similar.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Not if the FA only hears cases it knows it is almost guaranteed to win. Under the same conditions as Crown Court prosecutions/decisions to prosecute i'm sure the figure would drop to something similar.


Yeah yeah. I don't disagree with that. Just saying that the figures are really different.

I think monkeygrinder nailed it. Player A punches player B. It's caught on camera. Player A is called in and is found guilty. Next...

I would also wager that there is a very very high 'guilty' plea too.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Not if the FA only hears cases it knows it is almost guaranteed to win.


Yeah - because it's appointed the judges and is advising them while the trial is going on - while also bringing the prosecution.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah yeah. I don't disagree with that. Just saying that the figures are really different.


All a side dish anyway. What we need to know now is how these flaws effected the Suarez hearing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Yeah - because it's appointed the judges and is advising them while the trial is going on - while also bringing the prosecution.


A bit like the state in criminal cases, then...

This is bollocks, anyway. As has been pointed out, three people were appointed and Liverpool were given the opportunity to object to any of them but chose not to. What more do you expect the FA to do? Where's that leg gone, I need to stand on it...


----------



## Deareg (Jan 6, 2012)

How often do people end up in the crown court after committing a crime or breach of rules after transgressing in front of numerous high definition cameras? I think if it was as often as footballers do then the guilty ratio would be very similar to the FA's.


----------



## Red Storm (Jan 6, 2012)

New race row: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...-Oldham-player-Tom-Adeyemi-article849913.html


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 6, 2012)

Poor kid. Fucking scum.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 6, 2012)

Fwiw, it makes no sense to use Crown Court conviction rates as a comparison because defendents in many of those trials have had _a choice_ of whether to take their chance with a jury or to be dealt with summarily at the Mags.

Plus it's the criminal law again, and this hearing had nothing to do with the criminal law - but that's been said so often in this thread I don't think the point is ever going to sink in. Ditto the BBC.


----------



## SushiMo (Jan 7, 2012)

The complete racist that is Suarez.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO3oUlRPfpM&feature=endscreen&NR=1


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 7, 2012)

SushiMo said:


> The complete racist that is Suarez.....
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO3oUlRPfpM&feature=endscreen&NR=1



You can't be serious?


----------



## big eejit (Jan 7, 2012)

Red Storm said:


> New race row: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...-Oldham-player-Tom-Adeyemi-article849913.html



_"Eyewitnesses saw two fans wearing Luis Suarez t-shirts, and heard one of them clearly shout “You f***ing black b***ard”. Police immediately moved in to restrain the two suspects, and later confirmed a formal investigation."_​ 
Liverpool's support for Suarez looking even more misguided now.​


----------



## strung out (Jan 7, 2012)

Liverpool will be wearing warm up t-shirts in support of the fan who racially abused tom adeyemi before their next match.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2012)

It's these anon eyewitnesses word against the accused. _You must acquit._


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 7, 2012)

Can't 'black bastard' be a term of endearment sometimes...


----------



## strung out (Jan 7, 2012)

it is on liverpool's training ground


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 7, 2012)

big eejit said:


> _"Eyewitnesses saw two fans wearing Luis Suarez t-shirts, and heard one of them clearly shout “You f***ing black b***ard”. Police immediately moved in to restrain the *two suspects,* and later confirmed a formal investigation."_​
> Liverpool's support for Suarez looking even more misguided now.​


They should be put in stocks outside the ground for the next home game. Fucking cunts.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 7, 2012)

big eejit said:


> _"Eyewitnesses saw two fans wearing Luis Suarez t-shirts, and heard one of them clearly shout “You f***ing black b***ard”. Police immediately moved in to restrain the two suspects, and later confirmed a formal investigation."_​



Hang on, wasn't Suarez watching from the stands last night ?


----------



## Maggot (Jan 8, 2012)

> The two fans who appeared to be at the centre of the controversy had been animated all evening, though another eyewitness at the game later made a statement on Twitter where he said he was stood next to the supporters and they “called the Oldham player a ​_Manc  _b***ard”.​


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 8, 2012)

Yeah, course they did.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2012)

A statement on twitter. And they say the art of investigative journalism is dying.


----------



## strung out (Jan 8, 2012)

what is it with you attempting to defend racism so much recently?

edit: @maggot


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 8, 2012)

I was struck by how upset he was; if things have got to the point where someone playing football for  a living is so very upset at being called a 'black bastard' by one or possobily two people in a crowd, things have moved on somewhat in the past 20-30 years.


----------



## rosa (Jan 8, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> I was struck by how upset he was; if things have got to the point where someone playing football for a living is so very upset at being called a 'black bastard' by one or possobily two people in a crowd, things have moved on somewhat in the past 20-30 years.


I was stunned at how he reacted - i was at the other end and didn't find out until after the match what had happened, but he's been with us since August and i've never once seen him lose his temper, never mind get that worked up. As you say, it's a sign of progress that he was so shocked and angry at what was said, which makes some of the comments people have made about him over-reacting or being soft or 'he must hear stuff like that every week' all the more annoying. How would they like to have reacted? Have we not moved on from the days when players were expected to just put up with it? Should he have jumped into the crowd and twatted the bloke? And as for the snidey comments about him crying and how he should 'man up'....watch the video. He doesn't go into a corner and blub like a little girl. He's a young lad, playing in the biggest game of his life so far, probably quite frustrated with how the game's gone, someone's (allegedly) shouted racist abuse at him (which he quite possibly hasn't experienced during a match before), he's angrily confronted the fan, then gone to the referee, who appears to tell him to calm down, he's probably thought he's not being taken seriously and he's lost it.
As an Oldham fan it was horrible to see one of our players being subjected to that, but as someone from Liverpool it's equally horrible seeing some people using this as a stick to beat Liverpool with. It was one, maybe two dickheads out of 38,000. Good on the Liverpool fans who presumably spoke to the police and identified the bloke who's been arrested.


----------



## Maggot (Jan 8, 2012)

ChrisFilter said:


> Yeah, course they did.


  How can you be so sure what was said?  Black and Manc sound very similar especially in the middle of a noisy crowd.


strung out said:


> what is it with you attempting to defend racism so much recently?
> 
> edit: @maggot


 I'm not trying to defend racism.  I'm just saying we don't know for sure that it was racist. At the moment it's just one eyewitnesses word against anothers.

If it turns out to be racist - of course I won't defend it and hope he gets charged.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Jan 8, 2012)




----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 8, 2012)

Maggot said:


> How can you be so sure what was said?  Black and Manc sound very similar especially in the middle of a noisy crowd.
> I'm not trying to defend racism.  I'm just saying we don't know for sure that it was racist. At the moment it's just one eyewitnesses word against anothers.
> 
> If it turns out to be racist - of course I won't defend it and hope he gets charged.



One guy on twitter vs several Liverpool fan eyewitnesses who spoke to stewards/police. I know who I'd be inclined to believe.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 8, 2012)

Maggot said:


> I'm just saying we don't know for sure that it was racist. At the moment it's just one eyewitnesses word against anothers.



No, even straight after the game there was two eye-witnesses who said it was 'black bastard'.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 8, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> No, even straight after the game there was two eye-witnesses who said it was 'black bastard'.


This time it's the northwest pronunciation experts that are going to make a few quid at the trial.  I used to think it was agents who were the ultimate leeches on football, not its the fat cat linguists.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jan 8, 2012)

Liverpool's statement completely at odds with their actions re: Suarez. So if you don't have a £20 million contract clearly you do walk alone.


----------



## kained&able (Jan 11, 2012)

Downing in trouble as well now. Really not a good couple of weeks to be working in the liverpoll spin/pr department.

dave


----------



## agricola (Jan 12, 2012)

kained&able said:


> Downing in trouble as well now. Really not a good couple of weeks to be working in the liverpoll spin/pr department.
> 
> dave



from the Toffeeweb forums


----------



## PlaidDragon (Jan 13, 2012)

Ffs can't everyone leave the fan alone who shouted at Adeyemi?! He's from a street in Liverpool where 'black bastard' is a friendly greeting. It's a cultural thing.


----------



## twistedAM (Feb 16, 2012)

Worth a read this.
Warning: you'll probably go 
The comments are worth looking at too; most people agree with him.

http://www.theanfieldwrap.com/2012/02/us-and-them-time-to-pull-up-the-drawbridge/


----------



## TruXta (Feb 16, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Worth a read this.
> Warning: you'll probably go
> The comments are worth looking at too; most people agree with him.
> 
> http://www.theanfieldwrap.com/2012/02/us-and-them-time-to-pull-up-the-drawbridge/


 
Do you think he's representative of LFC supporters?


----------



## twistedAM (Feb 16, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Do you think he's representative of LFC supporters?


 
I wasn't claiming that but it does seem to be an established fan site and his readers were in agreement.
Also, how do you know that all this ant-Standard Chartered stuff is not a view shared by many at Anfield?


----------



## Deareg (Feb 16, 2012)

The words deluded idiot spring to mind.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 16, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> I wasn't claiming that but it does seem to be an established fan site and his readers were in agreement.
> Also, how do you know that all this ant-Standard Chartered stuff is not a view shared by many at Anfield?


 
Two words: selection bias.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 16, 2012)

to be fair all the liverpool fans I have regular contact with are extremely embarrassed by the whole affair, though the fact that a large slice of this embarrassment is reserved for their fellow fans says alot too.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 16, 2012)

All clubs have their share of fuckwits in their support base. Liverpool are no different.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 16, 2012)

TruXta said:


> All clubs have their share of fuckwits in their support base. Liverpool are no different.


 
very true but I think that special deluded self pitying characteristic soo defining of Liverpool fans (and their self aggrandising shite about "Best supporters in the world") has produced the perfect crucible for this kind of event.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> very true but I think that special deluded self pitying characteristic soo defining of Liverpool fans (and their self aggrandising shite about "Best supporters in the world") has produced the perfect crucible for this kind of event.


 
Again, selection bias. Are your LFC supporting mates deluded and the rest?


----------



## revol68 (Feb 16, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Again, selection bias. Are your LFC supporting mates deluded and the rest?


 
no but they have laughed about the stereotype and admit there is some truth in it, just as there is a truth in the Man United fans are arrogant claim or Arsenal are whiney soft twats. Sure they are inherently broad-strokes but they paint something of a discernible truth.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 16, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Do you think he's representative of LFC supporters?


 
What about some of those comments after the article?! There's not enough facepalms in the world for some of the deluded fuckwittery writ large on that page.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 16, 2012)

I quite enjoy reading RAWK from time to time and (or because) it's stuffed full of that sort of nonsense. I don't think it's representative of Liverpool fans as such, it's what happens when you take a few myths (the Liverpool way/King Kenny/Alex Ferguson controls everything) and then create an environment where they're totally unquestionable. Anyone even suggesting there was a vague possibility that Suarez might actually have done it would be called a Manc WUM and probably banned within seconds on there. So people encourage each other until you get the sort of idiocy that makes it so entertaining. 
Talking about Liverpool fans as a whole I don't see how they can be that different to anyone else - they come from all over the place and


----------



## binka (Feb 16, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I quite enjoy reading RAWK from time to time


rawk is fucking hillarious tbf


----------



## TruXta (Feb 16, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> What about some of those comments after the article?! There's not enough facepalms in the world for some of the deluded fuckwittery writ large on that page.



What of them? They're written by morons. Doesn't make them representative of most LFC fans.


----------



## Deareg (Feb 16, 2012)

Most fans of most clubs would have reacted the same way that Liverpool's did. The rank amateurish and disgraceful way that the club handled it is what sets this situation apart from any other club and Dalgleish in particular should take a large part of the blame, his behaviour throughout the whole episode was questionable and then he goes and reignites things again after Suarez's comeback game, he must have known that question was coming and all he had to say was 'it is good to have him back' but he could not even manage that.

No matter what Koppites may think, LFC have been made to look like cunts in the eyes of many people both in the football world and now even beyond it, and it is all self inflicted.


----------



## TruXta (Feb 16, 2012)

Not disagreeing with that, sad to say.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 16, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Most fans of most clubs would have reacted the same way that Liverpool's did. The rank amateurish and disgraceful way that the club handled it is what sets this situation apart from any other club and Dalgleish in particular should take a large part of the blame, his behaviour throughout the whole episode was questionable and then he goes and reignites things again after Suarez's comeback game, he must have known that question was coming and all he had to say was 'it is good to have him back' but he could not even manage that.
> 
> No matter what Koppites may think, LFC have been made to look like cunts in the eyes of many people both in the football world and now even beyond it, and it is all self inflicted.


 
Hate to say it, but you're right. You cunt.


----------



## trampie (Feb 16, 2012)

The FA find 99.5% of all cases that come before them guilty, the proof required is clearly so low its virtually non existant, would Suarez have been found guilty by any other panel/board/court ?, considering Evra withdrew his accusation of a word that we all accept is unacceptable to use in this country, instead saying he was called a word that the panel didnt know if it was a bad word or not and asked a linguistic expert who didnt think it was a bad word, but the FA found Suarez guilty anyway, no witnesses or hard evidence they just took one persons word over another persons word that it was meant in a nasty way.
The FA should have tried the case to a higher standard, as it wasnt the normal was it or wasnt it a dangerous tackle ?, Suarez could get labelled in some quarters because of a kangeroo court verdict, Evra has form for accusing people, lots of people think from what they have read of the evidence in the Suarez case is there was not enough evidence to warrent a guilty verdict, not in most trials/courts.

When Suarez leaves English football [may get hounded out sooner rather than later the way things are going, hope not] or retires i wonder if he will say what he thinks about Evra, the English FA, the English press and football in England in general.


----------



## Deareg (Feb 16, 2012)

trampie said:


> The FA find 99.5% of all cases that come before them guilty, the proof required is clearly so low its virtually non existant, would Suarez have been found guilty by any other panel/board/court ?, considering Evra withdrew his accusation of a word that we all accept is unacceptable to use in this country, instead saying he was called a word that the panel didnt know if it was a bad word or not and asked a linguistic expert who didnt think it was a bad word, but the FA found Suarez guilty anyway, no witnesses or hard evidence they just took one persons word over another persons word that it was meant in a nasty way.
> The FA should have tried the case to a higher standard, as it wasnt the normal was it or wasnt it a dangerous tackle ?, Suarez could get labelled in some quarters because of a kangeroo court verdict, Evra has form for accusing people, lots of people think from what they have read of the evidence in the Suarez case is there was not enough evidence to warrent a guilty verdict, not in most trials/courts.
> 
> When Suarez leaves English football [may get hounded out sooner rather than later the way things are going, hope not] or retires i wonder if he will say what he thinks about Evra, the English FA, the English press and football in England in general.


Bit fuckin late aren't you?


----------



## trampie (Feb 16, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Bit fuckin late aren't you?


 
What educating you, you mean.


----------



## Deareg (Feb 16, 2012)

trampie said:


> What educating you, you mean.


That, and to the bun fight that has only recently ceased.


----------



## trampie (Feb 16, 2012)




----------



## revol68 (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> The FA find 99.5% of all cases that come before them guilty, the proof required is clearly so low its virtually non existant, would Suarez have been found guilty by any other panel/board/court ?, considering Evra withdrew his accusation of a word that we all accept is unacceptable to use in this country, instead saying he was called a word that the panel didnt know if it was a bad word or not and asked a linguistic expert who didnt think it was a bad word, but the FA found Suarez guilty anyway, no witnesses or hard evidence they just took one persons word over another persons word that it was meant in a nasty way.
> The FA should have tried the case to a higher standard, as it wasnt the normal was it or wasnt it a dangerous tackle ?, Suarez could get labelled in some quarters because of a kangeroo court verdict, Evra has form for accusing people, lots of people think from what they have read of the evidence in the Suarez case is there was not enough evidence to warrent a guilty verdict, not in most trials/courts.
> 
> When Suarez leaves English football [may get hounded out sooner rather than later the way things are going, hope not] or retires i wonder if he will say what he thinks about Evra, the English FA, the English press and football in England in general.


 
Please tell me who Evra has accused before? 

Have you read the report? Suarez is damned by his own stupidity and his own teammates testimony.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> The FA find 99.5% of all cases that come before them guilty, the proof required is clearly so low its virtually non existant, would Suarez have been found guilty by any other panel/board/court ?, considering Evra withdrew his accusation of a word that we all accept is unacceptable to use in this country, instead saying he was called a word that the panel didnt know if it was a bad word or not and asked a linguistic expert who didnt think it was a bad word, but the FA found Suarez guilty anyway, no witnesses or hard evidence they just took one persons word over another persons word that it was meant in a nasty way.
> The FA should have tried the case to a higher standard, as it wasnt the normal was it or wasnt it a dangerous tackle ?, Suarez could get labelled in some quarters because of a kangeroo court verdict, Evra has form for accusing people, lots of people think from what they have read of the evidence in the Suarez case is there was not enough evidence to warrent a guilty verdict, not in most trials/courts.
> 
> When Suarez leaves English football [may get hounded out sooner rather than later the way things are going, hope not] or retires i wonder if he will say what he thinks about Evra, the English FA, the English press and football in England in general.



God, you're stupid.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> The FA find 99.5% of all cases that come before them guilty, the proof required is clearly so low its virtually non existant, would Suarez have been found guilty by any other panel/board/court ?, considering Evra withdrew his accusation of a word that we all accept is unacceptable to use in this country, instead saying he was called a word that the panel didnt know if it was a bad word or not and asked a linguistic expert who didnt think it was a bad word, but the FA found Suarez guilty anyway, no witnesses or hard evidence they just took one persons word over another persons word that it was meant in a nasty way.
> The FA should have tried the case to a higher standard, as it wasnt the normal was it or wasnt it a dangerous tackle ?, Suarez could get labelled in some quarters because of a kangeroo court verdict, Evra has form for accusing people, lots of people think from what they have read of the evidence in the Suarez case is there was not enough evidence to warrent a guilty verdict, not in most trials/courts.
> 
> When Suarez leaves English football [may get hounded out sooner rather than later the way things are going, hope not] or retires i wonder if he will say what he thinks about Evra, the English FA, the English press and football in England in general.


 Only Suarez admitted using the word, and the linguistic expert confirmed it was offensive in his country, which would seem pretty cut and dried to me, but there you go. It's probably the English nazis fault though, I'm sure.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 17, 2012)

Uraguayan President begs to differ with 'expert 'opinion :




> Jose Mujica felt the situation surrounding the 25-year-old *Liverpool* player and his eight-match ban for racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra had been over-hyped.
> Speaking to Uruguayan radio station _M24_, the president said: "There is solidarity with Suarez. Suarez is not a racist and never will be."
> In a separate interview, with weekly newspaper _Busqueda_, he added that the case had been "exaggerated".
> "There is nothing racist," said Mujica, adding that "some do not understand" Suarez and did not study "diplomatic protocol".
> ...


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Please tell me who Evra has accused before?


 Chelsea groundstaff, Senegal supporters.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> Chelsea groundstaff, Senegal supporters.


So he's basically someone who reports racial abuse when he hears it.

You think other black players never get racial abuse? Of course they do. They just don't report it - and given the grief Evra's getting, is that surprising?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So he's basically someone who reports racial abuse when he hears it.
> 
> You think other black players never get racial abuse? Of course they do. They just don't report it - and given the grief Evra's getting, is that surprising?


 
Quite the opposite in Evra's case about reporting racial abuse as there wasn't any.

In the Chelsea case he actually said that he hadn't heard the alleged remark. The alleged remark was found to be fictitious , Evra was found guilty of assualting two Chelsea staff and the FA concluded  '_We find Mr Evra’s account exaggerated and unreliable._*'*

Phelan and Hartis , Utds goalkeeping coach ( he must have his hands full with DeGea) , were the ones who  was stated by the FA to have allegedly heard the 'racist remark'. The FA concluded* '*_Mr Phelan particularly did not impress us._
_We were also not convinced by Mr Hartis, who claims to have heard the same remark from a position at a similar distance from Mr Bethell. We prefer the evidence of Mr Bethell himself_.*'*

In other words they were lying.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 17, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Uraguayan President begs to differ with 'expert 'opinion :


 and? Is a linguist? Is he a black Uruguayan? Can he, as a politician in a country where football is popular and Suarez is one of the stars of the national team, be considered objective?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2012)

Know what, if ever something like this happened to an England player, David Cameron is the man I'd want an opinion from.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Know what, if ever something like this happened to an England player, David Cameron is the man I'd want an opinion from.


 
The right wing are in opposition, its the Broad Front , an alliance of leftist groups,  who make up the government.
Obviously Uraguay is a small country  , been  subjected to colonialism by Spain, invaded by Portugal and Britain who you shouldn't know anything about  before expressing an opinion. They are not worthy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> The right wing are in opposition, its the Broad Front , an alliance of leftist groups, who make up the government.
> Obviously Uraguay is a small country , been subjected to colonialism by Spain, invaded by Portugal and Britain who you shouldn't know anything about before expressing an opinion. They are not worthy.


Yeah, that's what I said. I couldn't give a toss what the president of Uruguay thinks, tbh. I don't need to hear his opinion to form mine.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 17, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> and? Is a linguist? Is he a black Uruguayan? Can he, as a politician in a country where football is popular and Suarez is one of the stars of the national team, be considered objective?


 
so only black people can express a view on racism? LOL! You ought to have read the John Barnes article on racism in the Times this week.

Also read up a bit on Uruguay before you come in with your dismisal of jonny wop


----------



## revol68 (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> Chelsea groundstaff, Senegal supporters.


 you're either an idiotic unwittingly spreading lies or a liar.

Evra did not report the Chelsea groundsman for racist remarks, or Finnan before that

read this you clown, it's from a Liverpool fan

as for the Senegal incident, he never described it as racism, he wasn't happy about it, but he didn't describe them as racist because they called him "a white mans monkey" for choosing to play for France. Welbeck got similar from Ghana fans but again I don't think he presented as racist.

But hey you can't trust them blacks, always playing the race card, chip on the shoulder etc

Keep on spinning lies, just like your classless cunt of a club, whose offical columnist took to twitter to make these accusations against Evra. I feel sorry for the decent Liverpool fans who have been made to look like wankers, especially those fans who stood up for the truth and sought to debunk these lies.


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

revol68 said:


> you're either an idiotic unwittingly spreading lies or a liar.
> 
> Evra did not report the Chelsea groundsman for racist remarks, or Finnan before that
> 
> ...


 Evra went along with the Chelsea groundsman thing, Evra was banned for 4 games for striking a groundsman, Evra led a mutiny of the French national team and was banned, does that make Evra a reliable witness in lots of peoples books ?
Classless c**t of a club you say, im not a Liverpool.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> Evra went along with the Chelsea groundsman thing, Evra was banned for 4 games for striking a groundsman, Evra led a mutiny of the French national team and was banned, does that make Evra a reliable witness in lots of peoples books ?
> Classless c**t of a club you say, im not a Liverpool.


 
Evra didn't say he was racially abused by the groundsman in fact he testified he never heard any racist abuse.

What the fuck does Evras row with a groundsman got to do with anything, or his heroic uprising against French management, got to do with the value of his word regarding racism? If he was a liar surely he would have said he had heard racism from the groundsman?

Suarez on the otherhand was banned for biting another player during a game and is known for doing almost anything to win. Furthermore Evra himself has said he does not think Suarez is racist per se but did engage in racist abuse.

I suppose Kuyt is another liar, considering his statement matched up with Evras?

Still you can't trust those blacks, especially not the uppity ones...


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 17, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> so only black people can express a view on racism? LOL! You ought to have read the John Barnes article on racism in the Times this week.
> 
> Also read up a bit on Uruguay before you come in with your dismisal of jonny wop


Except I mentioned two other aspects, didn't I? He could also be, for example, a white person without an obvious populist reason to support Suarez, or perhaps somebody with a professional knowledge of the nuances of language and context. So your point is utter bollocks, based on deliberately misinterpreting what I said.

And whilst I only know a handful of Uruguayans, my partner is from the culturally almost identical Argentina so I'm guesing I'm a bit closer to understanding cultural nuance in Uruguay than you are. Not that matters, when the case is so utterly cut and dried.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 17, 2012)

oh, and an aside, brilliantly stupid implication that because the president is from the Left he defacto can't be defending racism. Because no left-wing politician has ever done anything racist ever. GENIUS!


----------



## revol68 (Feb 17, 2012)

what bit of cultural nuance am I missing in "because you are black" given in response to Evra asking why Suarez kicked him, or for that matter "I don't talk to blacks"?


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Evra didn't say he was racially abused by the groundsman in fact he testified he never heard any racist abuse.
> 
> What the fuck does Evras row with a groundsman got to do with anything, or his heroic uprising against French management, got to do with the value of his word regarding racism? If he was a liar surely he would have said he had heard racism from the groundsman?
> 
> ...


It is not the first time that Evra has given evidence to an fa tribunal, and seeing as the last time it was Evra that was seen as the inconsistent one and was found guilty and banned, Evra this time was likely to be well prepared, Suarez apparently used a translator to speak to the panel.

Evra is apparently a Spanish speaker, yet he mistranslates a word he should understand ?, if has mistranslated that, why should we take as fact everything that he is translating and giving as evidence ?
Also, he says to the ref during the game that he has been called a ''blah blah'' so was he mistaken at that point ? and then at what point did he admit to mistranslating it ?, after he had heard what Suarez version was and after there was no video evidence forthcoming ?


----------



## revol68 (Feb 17, 2012)

right the FA decided to just pick on Suarez and go with the word of a player they had previously disciplined? Likewise I imagine the Liverpool players whose statements match that of Evra's are also in on this conspiracy? 

Did the FA also take control of Suarez's brain (what little there is) and make him construct an absurd defence on the basis that referring to someones skin is an act of endearment where he's from, even when you are having a confrontational rough?

Fuck the tribalism of United v Liverpool for a minute and think about how you are justifying a racist prick and spreading lies and falsehood in order to do so. Lies and falsehoods that all carry a none to subtle subtext of chips on shoulders and uppity blacks.


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

Address the following points 'revol68' that Evra is apparently a Spanish speaker, yet he mistranslates a word he should understand ?, if has mistranslated that, why should we take as fact everything that he is translating and then giving as evidence ?
Also, he says to the ref during the game that he has been called a ''blah blah'' so was he mistaken at that point ? and then at what point did he admit to mistranslating it ?, after he had heard what Suarez version was and after there was no video evidence forthcoming ?

Also would Suarez had been found guilty by a court/panel/board that had a higher proof of burden than the English FA ?, who apparently find 99.5% of all cases put before it as guilty.


----------



## twistedAM (Feb 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So he's basically someone who reports racial abuse when he hears it.
> 
> You think other black players never get racial abuse? Of course they do. They just don't report it - and given the grief Evra's getting, is that surprising?


 
Good on Mario and Yaya for complaining about those twats last night.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> Address the following points 'revol68' that Evra is apparently a Spanish speaker, yet he mistranslates a word he should understand ?, if has mistranslated that, why should we take as fact everything that he is translating and then giving as evidence ?
> Also, he says to the ref during the game that he has been called a ''blah blah'' so was he mistaken at that point ? and then at what point did he admit to mistranslating it ?, after he had heard what Suarez version was and after there was no video evidence forthcoming ?
> 
> Also would Evra had been found guilty by a court/panel/board that had a higher proof of burden than the English FA ?, who apparently find 99.5% of all cases put before it as guilty.


 Shocking. Non-native speaker of a language mistranslates something, that has never happened before, ever.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 17, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Fuck the tribalism of United v Liverpool for a minute and think about how you are justifying a racist prick and spreading lies and falsehood in order to do so. Lies and falsehoods that all carry a none to subtle subtext of chips on shoulders and uppity blacks.


 
A subtext that the guy abusing Tom Adeyemi, or the the Chelsea fans singing "you know what you are", or the guy at Anfield making monkey signs apparently did not miss.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> Shocking. Non-native speaker of a language mistranslates something, that has never happened before, ever.


Given the context in which it was said, I would contend that he did not really mistranslate it at all. The spirit of the word was there.


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> Shocking. Non-native speaker of a language mistranslates something, that has never happened before, ever.


 Exactly.


----------



## Deareg (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> Exactly.


All the questions and points that you are raising have been addressed in the FA report, There is a link to it somewhere in this thread.


----------



## agricola (Feb 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Given the context in which it was said, I would contend that he did not really mistranslate it at all. The spirit of the word was there.


 
Which is of course why Suarez was found guilty, and the point that the kopites and their "_Luis is a nice boy, really, please forget about the biting thing, the cheating and the general twattishness_" allies keep trying to ignore.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2012)

I feel embarrassed for anyone trying to defend Suarez, tbh - Dalgliesh, Trampie, the Uruguayan president. Muppets, the lot of them.


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I feel embarrassed for anyone trying to defend Suarez, tbh - Dalgliesh, Trampie, the Uruguayan president. Muppets, the lot of them.


 Im not defending Suarez, im passing comment on the lack of evidence, the accusers history and the low standard of proof required by the FA panel for a guilty verdict thats all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> Im not defending Suarez, im passing comment on the lack of evidence, the accusers history and the low standard of proof required by the FA panel for a guilty verdict thats all.


Well I and a few others on this thread have you at a disadvantage. See, I've read the report.

It is, in my judgement, an extremely fair, balanced and thorough report. Do you disagree? If so, can you show me a particular point that they got wrong?


----------



## agricola (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> Im not defending Suarez, im passing comment on the lack of evidence, the accusers history and the low standard of proof required by the FA panel for a guilty verdict thats all.


 
You are defending Suarez though, by perpetuating these myths.  Suarez was found guilty largely because of his own evidence, which was supported by what the other witnesses had said (including employees of the RS).  He would probably have been found guilty even if the standard of proof required was beyond reasonable doubt - unless you believe Luis that he used the words he used in a friendly way towards someone he was having a row with.


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well I and a few others on this thread have you at a disadvantage. See, I've read the report.


So have i, that is why i ask would Suarez had been found guilty by a court/panel/board that had a higher proof of burden than the English FA ?,


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2012)

So what is your judgement of the way that Suarez lied to the tribunal? Or the way that Evra's story was entirely consistent with the available evidence? Do you find Suarez in any way a credible witness, or does he come across as a billy-bullshitter who's guilty as sin?


----------



## agricola (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> So have i, that is why i ask would Suarez had been found guilty by a court/panel/board that had a higher proof of burden than the English FA ?,


 
Do you think he said "_Por que, negro_?" to Evra in a friendly, conciliatory way?


----------



## Deareg (Feb 17, 2012)

A reason the conviction rate is so high might have something to do with the amount of high definition TV cameras at each football match


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2012)

Deareg said:


> A reason the conviction rate is so high might have something to do with the amount of high definition TV cameras at each football match


Stop bringing facts into this.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 17, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> Except I mentioned two other aspects, didn't I? He could also be, for example, a white person without an obvious populist reason to support Suarez, or perhaps somebody with a professional knowledge of the nuances of language and context. So your point is utter bollocks, based on deliberately misinterpreting what I said.
> 
> And whilst I only know a handful of Uruguayans, my partner is from the culturally almost identical Argentina so I'm guesing I'm a bit closer to understanding cultural nuance in Uruguay than you are. Not that matters, when the case is so utterly cut and dried.


 
In the sense that I am not going out with someone from Argentina  yes you are. But in the sense of anyones elses opinion being inferior to yours  because they are not going out with someone from Argentina then no. Argentina's political history and therefore culture is not identical at all.


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> Do you think he said "_Por que, negro_?" to Evra in a friendly, conciliatory way?


It is up to the court to prove guilt, one should not have to prove innocence, one party thought it was meant nastily and one party said it wasnt meant nastily, they basically took one mans word over another mans word.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2012)

Linguistically at least, Argentina and Uruguay are extremely similar. They both speak a very particular form of Spanish.


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So what is your judgement of the way that Suarez lied to the tribunal? Or the way that Evra's story was entirely consistent with the available evidence? Do you find Suarez in any way a credible witness, or does he come across as a billy-bullshitter who's guilty as sin?


 What lies did Suarez tell the tribunal ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> What lies did Suarez tell the tribunal ?


Ah, so you haven't read the report. Thought as much.


----------



## The Octagon (Feb 17, 2012)

Wonder who the lucky 0.5 percent were?

Truly they must rejoice at having bested the evil *English* FA (there you go Trampie, you can have a nice wank over that).


----------



## agricola (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> It is up to the court to prove guilt, one should not have to prove innocence, one party thought it was meant nastily and one party said it wasnt meant nastily, they basically took the mans word over another mans word.


 
Surely the fact that they were having an argument at the time might back up one side rather than the other?


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah, so you haven't read the report. Thought as much.


Yes i have, here is an example Evra withdrew the accusation of being called a certain word as reported in paragraph 272 and Evra withdrew the accusation of being called a certain word 'at least ten times' in paragraphs 279-281.
Now what lies are you stating that Suarez told the tribunal ?


----------



## agricola (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> Yes i have, here is an example Evra withdrew the accusation of being called a certain word as reported in paragraph 272 and Evra withdrew the accusation of being called a certain word 'at least ten times' in paragraphs 279-281.
> Now what lies are you stating that Suarez told the tribunal ?


 
"I only called Evra black to try and calm the situation down" is probably quite a good one.  (edit)  So too is "I only pinched Evra's arm to try and calm the situation down".


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> Address the following points 'revol68' that Evra is apparently a Spanish speaker, yet he mistranslates a word he should understand ?, if has mistranslated that, why should we take as fact everything that he is translating and then giving as evidence ?
> Also, he says to the ref during the game that he has been called a ''blah blah'' so was he mistaken at that point ? and then at what point did he admit to mistranslating it ?, after he had heard what Suarez version was and after there was no video evidence forthcoming ?
> 
> Also would Suarez had been found guilty by a court/panel/board that had a higher proof of burden than the English FA ?, who apparently find 99.5% of all cases put before it as guilty.


 
As unrelaible a witness  as Evra has been in the past doesn't mean that we should always say that he is an unreliable. the incident happened. Time to move on on that.

My only beef is when a) people pretty much make a  case for total character assasination ie  because they have been in the press forsome thing else this is evidence that they are racsit as many have done with both Terry and Suarez  b) this one frain of racist behaviour makes them next to the Klu Klus Klan and c) the jonny wop are racist brigade

Personally i don't particularly like Evra but not for the reason that he made a complaint against Suarez's language and I like Terry as a player  but if he was to be found guilty I would still like him as a player but would support what ever punishment he got.

If you are that keen on testing out the level of proof in our courts report the Suarez incident as a racially motivated offence as someone (not Ferdinand ) did with Terry?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Linguistically at least, Argentina and Uruguay are extremely similar. They both speak a very particular form of Spanish.


 
Well I 'll be blowed


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> Surely the fact that they were having an argument at the time might back up one side rather than the other?


No, as it could give a reason for the accuser to make allegations [original allegations were later withdrawn in this case], it doesnt prove anything, which is the whole point.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Well I 'll be blowed


Language patterns follow deeper historical and cultural patterns. The contention that Argentinian and Uruguayan cultures are very different doesn't stand up.

And neither does your absurd 'johnny wop' bollocks.


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> As unrelaible a witness as Evra has been in the past doesn't mean that we should always say that he is an unreliable. the incident happened. Time to move on on that.
> 
> My only beef is when a) people pretty much make a case for total character assasination ie because they have been in the press forsome thing else this is evidence that they are racsit as many have done with both Terry and Suarez b) this one frain of racist behaviour makes them next to the Klu Klus Klan and c) the jonny wop are racist brigade
> 
> ...


 Evra's claims should still be investigated but if the case boils down to one word against another, then in that senario do you go with somebody that might be deemed as an unreliable witness.


----------



## agricola (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> No, as it could give a reason for the accuser to make allegations [original allegations were later ammended], it doesnt prove anything, which is the whole point.


 
Still not defending Suarez, I see. 

At the risk of wasting more keystrokes, the point is that what Suarez was saying in his evidence was not credible, unless you believe that repeated gestures - the pinch, the hand on the back of Evra's head after the ref had spoken to both, the words exchanged between the two  - were an effort to calm Evra down.  If you dont believe what Suarez said about why he said something, then the only position left is to find him guilty.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> Evra's claims should still be investigated but if the case boils down to one word against another, then in that senario do you go with somebody that might be deemed as an unreliable witness.


 
It wasn't one persons word against anothers, it was one idiots word against many others, including his own teammates and even his own word as his ridiculous argument sank himself, afterall the clown admitted to referring to Evra's skin tone but tried ot pass it off as friendly banter.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Language patterns follow deeper historical and cultural patterns. The contention that Argentinian and Uruguayan cultures are very different doesn't stand up.


 
I think you really need to follow the logic of your statement that language_ follows_ deeper historical and cultural patterns rather than language is the same therefore they are all the same.

Btw before you go on to dismiss jonny wop as a load of Hitler loving racists who don't understand our culture, Uruguay actually had black players in their national team in the 1930s. In the 1930s the English national team had none and the FA were doing quite a good job in Kicking in Racism:


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> Still not defending Suarez, I see.
> 
> At the risk of wasting more keystrokes, the point is that what Suarez was saying in his evidence was not credible, unless you believe that repeated gestures - the pinch, the hand on the back of Evra's head after the ref had spoken to both, the words exchanged between the two - were an effort to calm Evra down. If you dont believe what Suarez said about why he said something, then the only position left is to find him guilty.


The lack of any hard evidence should have resulted in the case not being proven, my personal sense of justice tells me you cant convict somebody if you cant prove it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2012)

I'm not quite sure what your point is here, 39th step. Are you taking offence on behalf of all Uruguay or something?


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

revol68 said:


> It wasn't one persons word against anothers, it was one idiots word against many others, including his own teammates and even his own word as his ridiculous argument sank himself, afterall the clown admitted to referring to Evra's skin tone but tried ot pass it off as friendly banter.


 
Did Evra refer to Suarez ethnic background ?

You still havent addressed the following points 'revol68' that Evra is apparently a Spanish speaker, yet he mistranslates a word he should understand ?, if has mistranslated that, why should we take as fact everything that he is translating and then giving as evidence ?
Also, he says to the ref during the game that he has been called a ''blah blah'' so was he mistaken at that point ? and then at what point did he admit to mistranslating it ?, after he had heard what Suarez version was and after there was no video evidence forthcoming ?

Also would Suarez had been found guilty by a court/panel/board that had a higher proof of burden than the English FA ?, who apparently find 99.5% of all cases put before it as guilty.​


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not quite sure what your point is here, 39th step. Are you taking offence on behalf of all Uruguay or something?


 You are like revol68, littlebabyjesus asking questions but not answering any, what lies exactly are you stating that Suarez told the tribunal ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2012)

agricola very kindly answered for me. Did you miss the bit where Suarez was forced to change his story as the video evidence showed that he was lying?


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> agricola very kindly answered for me. Did you miss the bit where Suarez was forced to change his story as the video evidence showed that he was lying?


 No i havent seen it, tell me all about it, as you are a person that has read the 115 page report, what lies has Mr Suarez said ?, we know that Mr Evra withdrew his accusations of the use of a serious word and i have pointed out that reference to it can be found on para 272 and the fact that Mr Evra also withdrew that the word was said 'at least ten times' can be seen on para 279-281.
Where can i see in the report that Mr Suarez has withdrawn something or other ?


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

Still waiting revol68, it takes a lot of figuring out to answer my questions to you does it ?


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> If you dont believe what Suarez said about why he said something, then the only position left is to find him guilty.


 Oh dear, i wouldnt like to see you on a murder trial, like i said if you cant prove it you shouldnt convict imo, as we are talking about a serious matter. The FA usually deal with, 'was it or wasnt it a dangerous tackle ?', but they should have higher standards for more serious cases.


----------



## Deareg (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> Oh dear, i wouldnt like to see you on a murder trial, like i said if you cant prove it you shouldnt convict imo,


This was not a criminal case so why do you keep pointing out that the evidence would not stand up in a court of law?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2012)

In civil law, disputes between two parties such as this are decided on the balance of probabilities. That's the standard this case was tried to.

I can't believe I'm still responding to you, tbh.  at self.


----------



## Deareg (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> No i havent seen it, tell me all about it, as you are a person that has read the 115 page report, what lies has Mr Suarez said ?, we know that Mr Evra withdrew his accusations of the use of a serious word and i have pointed out that reference to it can be found on para 272 and the fact that Mr Evra also withdrew that the word was said 'at least ten times' can be seen on para 279-281.
> Where can i see in the report that Mr Suarez has withdrawn something or other ?


Suarez has admitted using the words that he was charged with using, the FA did not believe his reasons for using them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Suarez has admitted using the words that he was charged with using, the FA did not believe his reasons for using them.


And neither would any reasonable person, imo.


----------



## agricola (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> Oh dear, i wouldnt like to see you on a murder trial, like i said if you cant prove it you shouldnt convict imo, as we are talking about a serious matter. The FA usually deal with, 'was it or wasnt it a dangerous tackle ?', but they should have higher standards for more serious cases.


 
You are demonstrating the calm, bias-free reasoning and logic that other kopites have been famed for in this case.

Suarez admitted saying "_Por que, negro"_, he just claimed that he did it in a friendly way. To quote the FA tribunal:




			
				FA said:
			
		

> To describe his own behavior in that way was unsustainable and simply incredible given that the players were engaged in an acrimonious argument.


 
If this was a murder trial, what you are asking everyone to believe is that Suarez admitted stabbing the bloke to death - he just did so to make the victim feel better.


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> You are demonstrating the calm, bias-free reasoning and logic that other kopites have been famed for in this case.


I dont support Liverpool.


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Suarez has admitted using the words that he was charged with using, the FA did not believe his reasons for using them.


 Very true.


----------



## agricola (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> I dont support Liverpool.


 
... and yet here you are parrotting their most idiotic lines for all to see.  Have you checked to see whether you are a kopite?  Do you have lots of badges on your favourite jacket?


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

Deareg said:


> This was not a criminal case so why do you keep pointing out that the evidence would not stand up in a court of law?


 Because it could have been a criminal case and i dont think Suarez would have been done, lots of people are unaware that the burden of proof in an FA tribunal is next to nothing.


----------



## agricola (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> Because it could have been a criminal case and i dont think Suarez would have been done, lots of people are unaware that the burden of proof in an FA tribunal is next to nothing.


 
If Suarez went into a criminal trial, admitted the act that was in question but advanced an excuse that was as bad as the one he advanced at the FA hearing, he would have been found guilty.


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> ... and yet here you are parrotting their most idiotic lines for all to see. Have you checked to see whether you are a kopite? Do you have lots of badges on your favourite jacket?


Im not even the same nationality as the people where Liverpool is located, just calling it as i see it as a neutral.


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> If Suarez went into a criminal trial, admitted the act that was in question but advanced an excuse that was as bad as the one he advanced at the FA hearing, he would have been found guilty.


 Once Evra withdrew his accusation at the start, Suarez would have been found not guilty, no jury would convict Suarez for what he said if he testified it wasnt meant in a nasty way.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 17, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> In the sense that I am not going out with someone from Argentina yes you are. But in the sense of anyones elses opinion being inferior to yours because they are not going out with someone from Argentina then no. Argentina's political history and therefore culture is not identical at all.


I wouldn't have brought it up at all if you hadn't originally asked me to "read up on Uruguay". In this particular aspect Argentinian culture and Uruguayan culture and indeed almost identical. In both countries one might use "negro" in a friendly way, as in "pasamela, negro!" (pass me the ball) with a friend in a friendly way, and in both countries it would insulting if used in the context of an argument. 

You're not doing Uruguayan or Latin American cultures any favours by suggesting otherwise and arguing that it's perfectable acceptable to append racial epithets to argumentative phrases, btw.


----------



## agricola (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> Once Evra withdrew his accusation at the start, Suarez would have been found not guilty, no jury would convict Suarez for what he said if he testified it wasnt meant in a nasty way.


 
When did Evra withdraw his accusation, again?

Or are you trying to argue that him saying one thing about how many times Suarez abused him to Canal+ and another number of times to another person invalidates all of his evidence? As for "_no jury would convict Suarez for what he said if he testified it wasnt meant in a nasty way_", the point you seem incapable of noticing is that all the evidence fairly conclusively demonstrated that Suarez and Evra had not been acting in the friendly, banterish sort of way that would be required for the use of the language *that Suarez admitted to using* to be justified.  Once that justification was removed, Suarez was guilty.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 17, 2012)

Deareg said:


> A reason the conviction rate is so high might have something to do with the amount of high definition TV cameras at each football match


 
That's what I thought when I first heard that stat but I don't think it's quite right. As I understand it that covers FA rulings right down the leagues to very low levels. And at the lower levels they probably just go with what the ref said happened and hand out the bans in five minutes. I'm sure it results in some wrong decisions but nobody really cares all that much - no-one is about to get in an expensive lawyer to avoid a month's ban from the Sam's Pies West Staines League Division 2. And at the higher levels then yes there will nearly always be some pretty clear TV evidence. So that will account for the vast majority of those cases, which makes the stat entirely irrelevant in a case like this which has taken 3 days and all the sides have called in very expensive legal advice and representation.


----------



## Deareg (Feb 17, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> That's what I thought when I first heard that stat but I don't think it's quite right. As I understand it that covers FA rulings right down the leagues to very low levels. And at the lower levels they probably just go with what the ref said happened and hand out the bans in five minutes. I'm sure it results in some wrong decisions but nobody really cares all that much - no-one is about to get in an expensive lawyer to avoid a month's ban from the Sam's Pies West Staines League Division 2. And at the higher levels then yes there will nearly always be some pretty clear TV evidence. So that will account for the vast majority of those cases, which makes the stat entirely irrelevant in a case like this which has taken 3 days and all the sides have called in very expensive legal advice and representation.


You have a good point here, I don't know how it is conducted at grass roots level but doubt very much that anyone using these stats as part of their argument ever even considered this point.


----------



## trampie (Feb 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> When did Evra withdraw his accusation, again?
> 
> Or are you trying to argue that him saying one thing about how many times Suarez abused him to Canal+ and another number of times to another person invalidates all of his evidence? As for "_no jury would convict Suarez for what he said if he testified it wasnt meant in a nasty way_", the point you seem incapable of noticing is that all the evidence fairly conclusively demonstrated that Suarez and Evra had not been acting in the friendly, banterish sort of way that would be required for the use of the language *that Suarez admitted to using* to be justified. Once that justification was removed, Suarez was guilty.


Late in the day i would guess Evra withdrew his accusations because it forms part of the FA panel report, Suarez denied Evra's accusations of a word everyone accepts is not acceptable but what Suarez admitted to saying he thought it to be fairly harmless, do you think its ok for somebody to say to Suarez 'dont touch me you South American', is that not refering to Suarez ethnic background ?, is that acceptable ?


----------



## agricola (Feb 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> Late in the day i would guess Evra withdrew his accusations because it forms part of the FA panel report, Suarez denied Evra's accusations of a word everyone accepts is not acceptable but what Suarez admitted to saying he thought it to be fairly harmless, do you think its ok for somebody to say to Suarez 'dont touch me you South American', is that not refering to Suarez ethnic background ?, is that acceptable ?


 
Are you sure you arent a kopite?   As for whether "you South American" is acceptable - perhaps not, but since neither Suarez nor the RS themselves have ever made any complaint about it, even though it might have considerably helped their case, one wonders whether ot not it actually happened.


----------



## Deareg (Feb 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> Are you sure you arent a kopite? As for whether "you South American" is acceptable - perhaps not, but since neither Suarez nor the RS themselves have ever made any complaint about it, even though it might have considerably helped their case, one wonders whether ot not it actually happened.


I think Evra admitted saying something along those lines.


----------



## agricola (Feb 18, 2012)

Deareg said:


> I think Evra admitted saying something along those lines.


 
He didnt admit saying that - he admitted saying "Concha de tu hermana" to Suarez at the start of the row, and then threatening to hit Suarez if he kept calling him negro.


----------



## Deareg (Feb 18, 2012)

agricola said:


> He didnt admit saying that - he admitted saying "Concha de tu hermana" to Suarez at the start of the row, and then threatening to hit Suarez if he kept calling him negro.


Right, I don't speak any Spanish and had read that he had admitted saying something derogatory to him but don't remember a translation being given.


----------

