Shame on you Liverpool FC

26 Dec 2011

Quote by Max777
snip
I said I would have supported other forms of action to show that they thought he had made some sort of mistake or error of judgement.

Did you?
Yes I did
quote
He was tried by an organisation he and his fellow Liverpool players, management and shareholders have signed up to abide by therefore there can be no "yes but no but yes but no", I would have to abide by the ruling of a Magistrates or County Courts judgement and I haven't even signed up to thier laws I am simply a resident of the UK by birth, I got no choice in the matter, they did get a choice, if they didn't agree with it then they should be appealing or going on strike or anything but not showing support in this manner, there were other options available to them to show support, the media love to talk to them why not just issue a statement to say that they as one all thought him innocent despite the ruling ? what they did was wear his shirt with his name and his number which says to me, "he is racist and I am the same as him".
Sorry but in the bit you have highlighted, you do not say anywhere that you would have supported other forms of action. What you do say is that there were other options available to them, including appealing and making a statement...both of which I belive Liverpool have done.
errrr I said "they should be appealing or going on strike or anything" how can that not be taken to mean that I would not support other action ?

26 Dec 2011

Quote by MidsCouple24
snip
I said I would have supported other forms of action to show that they thought he had made some sort of mistake or error of judgement.

Did you?
Yes I did
quote
He was tried by an organisation he and his fellow Liverpool players, management and shareholders have signed up to abide by therefore there can be no "yes but no but yes but no", I would have to abide by the ruling of a Magistrates or County Courts judgement and I haven't even signed up to thier laws I am simply a resident of the UK by birth, I got no choice in the matter, they did get a choice, if they didn't agree with it then they should be appealing or going on strike or anything but not showing support in this manner, there were other options available to them to show support, the media love to talk to them why not just issue a statement to say that they as one all thought him innocent despite the ruling ? what they did was wear his shirt with his name and his number which says to me, "he is racist and I am the same as him".
Sorry but in the bit you have highlighted, you do not say anywhere that you would have supported other forms of action. What you do say is that there were other options available to them, including appealing and making a statement...both of which I belive Liverpool have done.
errrr I said "they should be appealing or going on strike or anything" how can that not be taken to mean that I would not support other action ?
Actually what you say is
if they didn't agree with it then they should be appealing or going on strike or anything but not showing support in this manner, there were other options available to them to show support
This does not read support to me, in fact quite the opposite and follows the tenor set in your OP.

26 Dec 2011

Quote by MidsCouple24
:doh:
around and around we go

as already pointed out, the rule of Law and the FA rules are separate.
however whilst the former applies to all in the UK, accepting the separate legal framework that applies in Scotland, the rules covering footballers applied by the FA are the same for all in that profession.
so what if a certain player is foreign and doesn't speak english as their first language, you can bet your bottom dollar that they fully understand the english contact that they signed and fully understand the UK work permit that they also applied for and signed, also in english.
therefore irrespective as to whether FA Rules are 5 pages, 50 pages or 500 pages there are other aspects of these, in english, that they've understood or had explained to them as part of their contract, etc. (Given government legislation and forms aren't usually known for their brevity and clarity either, how many pages written in english have to be waded through and completed by players and their advisors ?)
therefore to claim they didn't know, I'd suggest is naive at best and deceiptful at worst.

Sorry but that's just plain tosh.
The contract will have been agreed by the players agent/legal advisers as will have any necessary work permits. The salient points will have been explained to the player, ie how much is his salary etc I doubt very much that they will have been informed of the meanings of every sub clause within the contract.
The player will not have waded through any forms. I doubt that any English players wade through any forms either.
Thankyou for aggreeing with me then, My thread was "Shame on you Liverpool FC" not shame on Suarez, he has been punished and will know doubt regret his actions (or not last long in the English league) Liverpool FC know the rules and if what you say if right then Liverpool FC have failed to pass vital work information on to Suarez or his agent in a proficient and sufficient manner, they should not just be explaining salary terms should they, if they don't make players aware of the highly topical and possibly explosive situation regarding racism in football they have failed in their duty so I repeat, shame on you Liverpool FC.
The purpose of my post by it's very title was not to discuss the right and wrongs of what he did, for me he was punished and that was enough, it was about the actions of his fellow players and the organisation (Liverpool FC) who seem to think that thier actions were a good thing and help to him when in point of fact they have just prolonged the incident and highlighted it even more.
You have misunderstood me. I was not agreeing with you.

26 Dec 2011

Quote by Max777
snip
I said I would have supported other forms of action to show that they thought he had made some sort of mistake or error of judgement.

Did you?
Yes I did
quote
He was tried by an organisation he and his fellow Liverpool players, management and shareholders have signed up to abide by therefore there can be no "yes but no but yes but no", I would have to abide by the ruling of a Magistrates or County Courts judgement and I haven't even signed up to thier laws I am simply a resident of the UK by birth, I got no choice in the matter, they did get a choice, if they didn't agree with it then they should be appealing or going on strike or anything but not showing support in this manner, there were other options available to them to show support, the media love to talk to them why not just issue a statement to say that they as one all thought him innocent despite the ruling ? what they did was wear his shirt with his name and his number which says to me, "he is racist and I am the same as him".
Sorry but in the bit you have highlighted, you do not say anywhere that you would have supported other forms of action. What you do say is that there were other options available to them, including appealing and making a statement...both of which I belive Liverpool have done.
errrr I said "they should be appealing or going on strike or anything" how can that not be taken to mean that I would not support other action ?
Actually what you say is
if they didn't agree with it then they should be appealing or going on strike or anything but not showing support in this manner, there were other options available to them to show support
This does not read support to me, in fact quite the opposite and follows the tenor set in your OP.
Well I tell you what let's agree to disagree after all your opinion is your opinion and your perfectly entitled to it lol

have a good christmas and a better new year

26 Dec 2011

Quote by Max777
:doh:
around and around we go

as already pointed out, the rule of Law and the FA rules are separate.
however whilst the former applies to all in the UK, accepting the separate legal framework that applies in Scotland, the rules covering footballers applied by the FA are the same for all in that profession.
so what if a certain player is foreign and doesn't speak english as their first language, you can bet your bottom dollar that they fully understand the english contact that they signed and fully understand the UK work permit that they also applied for and signed, also in english.
therefore irrespective as to whether FA Rules are 5 pages, 50 pages or 500 pages there are other aspects of these, in english, that they've understood or had explained to them as part of their contract, etc. (Given government legislation and forms aren't usually known for their brevity and clarity either, how many pages written in english have to be waded through and completed by players and their advisors ?)
therefore to claim they didn't know, I'd suggest is naive at best and deceiptful at worst.

Sorry but that's just plain tosh.
The contract will have been agreed by the players agent/legal advisers as will have any necessary work permits. The salient points will have been explained to the player, ie how much is his salary etc I doubt very much that they will have been informed of the meanings of every sub clause within the contract.
The player will not have waded through any forms. I doubt that any English players wade through any forms either.
Thankyou for aggreeing with me then, My thread was "Shame on you Liverpool FC" not shame on Suarez, he has been punished and will know doubt regret his actions (or not last long in the English league) Liverpool FC know the rules and if what you say if right then Liverpool FC have failed to pass vital work information on to Suarez or his agent in a proficient and sufficient manner, they should not just be explaining salary terms should they, if they don't make players aware of the highly topical and possibly explosive situation regarding racism in football they have failed in their duty so I repeat, shame on you Liverpool FC.
The purpose of my post by it's very title was not to discuss the right and wrongs of what he did, for me he was punished and that was enough, it was about the actions of his fellow players and the organisation (Liverpool FC) who seem to think that thier actions were a good thing and help to him when in point of fact they have just prolonged the incident and highlighted it even more.
You have misunderstood me. I was not agreeing with you.
But you certainly did wink

26 Dec 2011

Tell you what! Let's agree to disagree once more. And the compliments of the season to you too

30 Dec 2011

Is the main language of South America Spanish?
Negrita in Spanish is "Dear". So Suarez called someone "dear" and the FA have charged him with racisim???
Now where are the Rolling Stones fans, who I thought would have been shouting that it is a name of one of their songs......."Hey negrita".
Anyway, back to the OP. To openly support racism is wrong IMO..........however, racism is a crimainal offence and this case was never heard in court. Therefore the players were supporting a person and not the accusation IMO. Well done to them for having the balls and be counted when their work-collegue has been wrongfully accused of racism and made to admit they are racist because it sounds racist in the country they work in.
This is a bloody farce.
The young man called him dear. Just because his native language has the word dear sounding like a racist comment does not make him a racist. We'll have to ban Spanish in this country next.
Dave_Notts

30 Dec 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
Is the main language of South America Spanish?
Negrita in Spanish is "Dear". So Suarez called someone "dear" and the FA have charged him with racisim???
Now where are the Rolling Stones fans, who I thought would have been shouting that it is a name of one of their songs......."Hey negrita".
Anyway, back to the OP. To openly support racism is wrong IMO..........however, racism is a crimainal offence and this case was never heard in court. Therefore the players were supporting a person and not the accusation IMO. Well done to them for having the balls and be counted when their work-collegue has been wrongfully accused of racism and made to admit they are racist because it sounds racist in the country they work in.
This is a bloody farce.
The young man called him dear. Just because his native language has the word dear sounding like a racist comment does not make him a racist. We'll have to ban Spanish in this country next.
Dave_Notts

Dave from Notts - Presumably at some stage in your life you have played competitive football? Would ANY player in a busy penalty box refer to an opponent as "Dear?" You know very well it is all about winding your opponent up, digging, kicking, elbows and verbal is the norm, not the exception and no player would call an opponent "Dear" - as you well know.

30 Dec 2011

Quote by Too Hot
Dave from Notts - Presumably at some stage in your life you have played competitive football? Would ANY player in a busy penalty box refer to an opponent as "Dear?" You know very well it is all about winding your opponent up, digging, kicking, elbows and verbal is the norm, not the exception and no player would call an opponent "Dear" - as you well know.

He might have done...

30 Dec 2011

Quote by Too Hot
Dave from Notts - Presumably at some stage in your life you have played competitive football? Would ANY player in a busy penalty box refer to an opponent as "Dear?" You know very well it is all about winding your opponent up, digging, kicking, elbows and verbal is the norm, not the exception and no player would call an opponent "Dear" - as you well know.

And people think footballers are suitable role models for their children. Barmy.
And I hear the parents on the side-lines at kids matches are little better than hooligans; screaming at the ref and instructing their 8 year-olds to assault their friends.
Is it a particular species of person that behaves this way - and thinks it acceptable?

30 Dec 2011

Quote by foxylady2209
And people think footballers are suitable role models for their children. Barmy.
And I hear the parents on the side-lines at kids matches are little better than hooligans; screaming at the ref and instructing their 8 year-olds to assault their friends.
Is it a particular species of person that behaves this way - and thinks it acceptable?

Errrr, chavs dunno

30 Dec 2011

Quote by Too Hot
Dave from Notts - Presumably at some stage in your life you have played competitive football? Would ANY player in a busy penalty box refer to an opponent as "Dear?" You know very well it is all about winding your opponent up, digging, kicking, elbows and verbal is the norm, not the exception and no player would call an opponent "Dear" - as you well know.

I played amateur rugby and one of our players used to kiss opponents, stick his tongue in their ear, call them sweetheart or anything else to wind the other side up in the scrum so they lose their cohesion.
So do I know he never called him dear? I do not, and neither do you.
However, the allegation is that he called him negrita.........which is dear in his language and is not a word in English. So if the word is to be taken literal then he called him dear.
Dave_Notts

30 Dec 2011

Quote by GnV
And people think footballers are suitable role models for their children. Barmy.
And I hear the parents on the side-lines at kids matches are little better than hooligans; screaming at the ref and instructing their 8 year-olds to assault their friends.
Is it a particular species of person that behaves this way - and thinks it acceptable?

Errrr, chavs dunno

I think Foxy has gone to a boxing match rather than a football match lol

Assault is against the rules of the game and is dealt with severely by a referree. The same with parents at a local level on the byeline. There is always exception to the rule and things do go on, but by and by the game is well officiated and discipline is part of that.
Dave_Notts

30 Dec 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
Dave from Notts - Presumably at some stage in your life you have played competitive football? Would ANY player in a busy penalty box refer to an opponent as "Dear?" You know very well it is all about winding your opponent up, digging, kicking, elbows and verbal is the norm, not the exception and no player would call an opponent "Dear" - as you well know.

I played amateur rugby and one of our players used to kiss opponents, stick his tongue in their ear, call them sweetheart or anything else to wind the other side up in the scrum so they lose their cohesion.
So do I know he never called him dear? I do not, and neither do you.
However, the allegation is that he called him negrita.........which is dear in his language and is not a word in English. So if the word is to be taken literal then he called him dear.
Dave_Notts
In any event, I think you mean Negrito, not Negrita.
Negrito:
noun pl. Negritos or Negritoes
a member of any of certain dark-skinned peoples of short stature living in Oceania and SE Asia
Negrita:
bold type face

30 Dec 2011

I love the world of double standards.
Sexism is rife on this site, with women being described as sluts, dirty bitch etc throughout. We have all been in a chatroom when someone is spoken about in a manner that would not be acceptable around the family dinner table on Christmas day haven't we? Have we not also all seen comments exactly like Keys and Gray made? But do we bat an eyelid? No, because it is generally within the context of this site and the reason we are here. It is in fact accepted as common practice.
So why are so many people quick to jump on one man for using what he believed was an acceptable term? He admitted he said it, but that's the only reason he was found guilty. there was no evidence, unlike with JT, it was merely one mans word against another.
I don't believe his actions were racist, they were out of context and innapropriate had it been a UK born citizen saying it. But Ignorance is no excuse. He has been tried and found guilty of his ignorance by his own honesty.

30 Dec 2011

Quote by Too Hot
In any event, I think you mean Negrito, not Negrita.
Negrito:
noun pl. Negritos or Negritoes
a member of any of certain dark-skinned peoples of short stature living in Oceania and SE Asia
Negrita:
bold type face

hardly cause for the punishment is it?
he called him a negrita. did evra get the hump because he thought he was refering to the fact that he is indeed a dark skinned person of small stature dunno

sorry but the whole thing stinks of over the top bollocks from idiots.:thumbup:

30 Dec 2011

Quote by Too Hot
Dave from Notts - Presumably at some stage in your life you have played competitive football? Would ANY player in a busy penalty box refer to an opponent as "Dear?" You know very well it is all about winding your opponent up, digging, kicking, elbows and verbal is the norm, not the exception and no player would call an opponent "Dear" - as you well know.

oh i see so all footballers are the same thus typecast as to intent to hurt/wind up the opponent
Ive got to say this is the best masterpiece yet to grace this thread
its a shame you really don't see some of the true sportsmanship in the game or even give the guy the benefit of the doubt

30 Dec 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
he called him a negrita

Can you please link to where you have seen this?
Much has been written about what was said, the reasons for it, and how it is not offensive elsewhere.
People are still out with their pitchforks, Suarez has been punished as a racist, with the whole nation becoming Judge, Jury and Executioner. All on the basis of reported stories, and no proof. He has been punished by a committee, one of whom sits in a high position within the English FA, and a harsh punishment has been handed out.
If there is absolute proof that Suarez has been racist, then he deserves the severest punishment possible, there is no place for it. But for racism to be diluted, much has to change. Alan Hansen was heavily criticised for using the word 'coloured' when describing black players. He wasn't being offensive, he just used an outdated word. Was he being racist? It didn't matter, he said the wrong thing, at the wrong time, and was forced to apologise for it. As long as racism is selective, this problem will remain.

30 Dec 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob

Dave from Notts - Presumably at some stage in your life you have played competitive football? Would ANY player in a busy penalty box refer to an opponent as "Dear?" You know very well it is all about winding your opponent up, digging, kicking, elbows and verbal is the norm, not the exception and no player would call an opponent "Dear" - as you well know.

oh i see so all footballers are the same thus typecast as to intent to hurt/wind up the opponent
Ive got to say this is the best masterpiece yet to grace this thread
its a shame you really don't see some of the true sportsmanship in the game or even give the guy the benefit of the doubt
You are absolutely right, there is much sportsmanship to grace the game, but equally, the winding up of an opponent is very commonplace, I played at a reasonable amateur level, I have seen it done, I have done it. the winding up of an opponent will never go away, if anything, it is encouraged.
And it is not confined to football either, a quick search for the word 'sledging' would back this up.

31 Dec 2011

Quote by essex34m
Alan Hansen was heavily criticised for using the word 'coloured' when describing black players. He wasn't being offensive, he just used an outdated word. Was he being racist? It didn't matter, he said the wrong thing, at the wrong time, and was forced to apologise for it. As long as racism is selective, this problem will remain.

This is where racism is gong wrong in my eyes.
Racism is wrong, full stop.
Using coloured, black, afro-british, african-british...........or whatever is in vogue this year is not being racist. It is a description of a person that helps you identify them. If I was describing two people to another then I would have their race as the first descriptor i.e. Tom is white and Bob is black. I needn't then need to describe eye, hair, height, etc as this is the biggest difference between the two. For this reason I feel sorry for Alan Hanson on this point. I attended an equality course quite recently and they are now teaching that if you use the term coloured then it is not a racist comment as it is an historically correct term, it just depends on your age. As long as it is not used as an insult, that is where racism can creep in. So after that course I was more confused than ever, but not as much of my mate (who is black) as the first thing he said when we left the room was "I went in as Bob but after three and half hours I don't know what to tell the wife what I am when I get back home".

31 Dec 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
Alan Hansen was heavily criticised for using the word 'coloured' when describing black players. He wasn't being offensive, he just used an outdated word. Was he being racist? It didn't matter, he said the wrong thing, at the wrong time, and was forced to apologise for it. As long as racism is selective, this problem will remain.

This is where racism is gong wrong in my eyes.
Racism is wrong, full stop.
Using coloured, black, afro-british, african-british...........or whatever is in vogue this year is not being racist. It is a description of a person that helps you identify them. If I was describing two people to another then I would have their race as the first descriptor i.e. Tom is white and Bob is black. I needn't then need to describe eye, hair, height, etc as this is the biggest difference between the two. For this reason I feel sorry for Alan Hanson on this point. I attended an equality course quite recently and they are now teaching that if you use the term coloured then it is not a racist comment as it is an historically correct term, it just depends on your age. As long as it is not used as an insult, that is where racism can creep in. So after that course I was more confused than ever, but not as much of my mate (who is black) as the first thing he said when we left the room was "I went in as Bob but after three and half hours I don't know what to tell the wife what I am when I get back home".
:thumbup:

31 Dec 2011

confused here.
why would a person who is brown in colour want to be called black? seriusly why?
a jamaican for example is not black in colour are they? they are brown in differant shades of brown, but not black.
this is something i have always found strange.
i would like someone to explain this to me. that is like calling a scotsman british. it might say so on there passport but i do not know of any scots person who would ever want to be known as british. the same could be said for the Irish as well.
with mr hansen i wonder how many peeple forced him to say sorry for his coloured comment? i mean how crazy are we becoming where now it is deemed offensive to even call them coloured?

31 Dec 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
confused here.
why would a person who is brown in colour want to be called black? seriusly why?
a jamaican for example is not black in colour are they? they are brown in differant shades of brown, but not black.
this is something i have always found strange.
i would like someone to explain this to me. that is like calling a scotsman british. it might say so on there passport but i do not know of any scots person who would ever want to be known as british. the same could be said for the Irish as well.
with mr hansen i wonder how many peeple forced him to say sorry for his coloured comment? i mean how crazy are we becoming where now it is deemed offensive to even call them coloured?

A scot is British :confused: He's just not English...

31 Dec 2011

The report has been released, it is 115 pages long.

It still boils down to one man's word against another. The following has been taken from a Liverpool supporters forum:
"FA's case:
The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". As Mr Suarez said this, he reached out to touch Mr Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr Kuyt then intervened. When the referee blew his whistle and called the players over to him shortly after the exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Evra said to the referee "ref, ref, he just called me a fucking black".
LFC case:
Mr Suarez denied the Charge. His case, in short, was as follows. He agreed with Mr Evra that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. When Mr Evra asked why he had kicked him, Mr Suarez replied that it was a normal foul and shrugged his shoulders. Mr Evra then said that he was going to kick Mr Suarez, to which Mr Suarez told him to shut up. As Mr Kuyt was approaching, Mr Suarez touched Mr Evra's left arm in a pinching style movement. According to Mr Suarez, at no point in the goalmouth did he use the word "negro". When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra spoke to Mr Suarez and said (in English) "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez replied "Por que, negro?". He says that he used the word “negro” in a way with which he was familiar from his upbringing in Uruguay. In this sense, Mr Suarez claimed, it is used as a noun and as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned (or even just black- haired). Thus, it meant "Why, black?" Mr Suarez maintained that when he said "Por que, negro?" to Mr Evra, it was intended in a conciliatory and friendly way. Mr Suarez said this was the only time that he used the word “negro” in his exchanges with Mr Evra during the match."

Both statements are a world apart, if Evra's version is correct, that was quite an exchange, surely someone else would have heard it? Surely one of his team mates would have jumped in? Surely complaint's would have been made to the ref at that point?

31 Dec 2011

Quote by GnV
A scot is British :confused: He's just not English...

he is SCOTTISH.
try going to scotland and calling them british. you might lose a tooth or two innocent

31 Dec 2011

Quote by essex34m
The report has been released, it is 115 pages long.

It still boils down to one man's word against another. The following has been taken from a Liverpool supporters forum:
"FA's case:
The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". As Mr Suarez said this, he reached out to touch Mr Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr Kuyt then intervened. When the referee blew his whistle and called the players over to him shortly after the exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Evra said to the referee "ref, ref, he just called me a fucking black".
LFC case:
Mr Suarez denied the Charge. His case, in short, was as follows. He agreed with Mr Evra that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. When Mr Evra asked why he had kicked him, Mr Suarez replied that it was a normal foul and shrugged his shoulders. Mr Evra then said that he was going to kick Mr Suarez, to which Mr Suarez told him to shut up. As Mr Kuyt was approaching, Mr Suarez touched Mr Evra's left arm in a pinching style movement. According to Mr Suarez, at no point in the goalmouth did he use the word "negro". When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra spoke to Mr Suarez and said (in English) "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez replied "Por que, negro?". He says that he used the word “negro” in a way with which he was familiar from his upbringing in Uruguay. In this sense, Mr Suarez claimed, it is used as a noun and as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned (or even just black- haired). Thus, it meant "Why, black?" Mr Suarez maintained that when he said "Por que, negro?" to Mr Evra, it was intended in a conciliatory and friendly way. Mr Suarez said this was the only time that he used the word “negro” in his exchanges with Mr Evra during the match."

Both statements are a world apart, if Evra's version is correct, that was quite an exchange, surely someone else would have heard it? Surely one of his team mates would have jumped in? Surely complaint's would have been made to the ref at that point?

Uhmmm - take any crminal case and yopu will have a case made by the Crown (F.A.) and a case made by the Defence (LFC). Where the defendent Suarez has pleaded not guilty it is unlikely that the case for the Crown and the case for the Defence will be in agreement.
In this country we put our faith behind a system of Law that is by and large fair and reliable.
I guess we could take a leaf out of Liverpools book and create a new law where only the defence can pass judgement.

31 Dec 2011

Appears to me Suarez is trying to deflect away from Evra's allegations by accepting he called Evra "Negro" in an affectionate manner.
The evidence against Suarez isn't water tight and Evra isn't the most honourable of people .. but think here Liverpool may be backing an assett in an attempt to keep him playing
Interesting ... only people who really know what was said is Evra and Suarez
Warning ... only start to read if you have hours !

31 Dec 2011

a brief history of mr evra and his claims of racism

1 Jan 2012

Quote by Too Hot
The report has been released, it is 115 pages long.

It still boils down to one man's word against another. The following has been taken from a Liverpool supporters forum:
"FA's case:
The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". As Mr Suarez said this, he reached out to touch Mr Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr Kuyt then intervened. When the referee blew his whistle and called the players over to him shortly after the exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Evra said to the referee "ref, ref, he just called me a fucking black".
LFC case:
Mr Suarez denied the Charge. His case, in short, was as follows. He agreed with Mr Evra that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. When Mr Evra asked why he had kicked him, Mr Suarez replied that it was a normal foul and shrugged his shoulders. Mr Evra then said that he was going to kick Mr Suarez, to which Mr Suarez told him to shut up. As Mr Kuyt was approaching, Mr Suarez touched Mr Evra's left arm in a pinching style movement. According to Mr Suarez, at no point in the goalmouth did he use the word "negro". When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra spoke to Mr Suarez and said (in English) "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez replied "Por que, negro?". He says that he used the word “negro” in a way with which he was familiar from his upbringing in Uruguay. In this sense, Mr Suarez claimed, it is used as a noun and as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned (or even just black- haired). Thus, it meant "Why, black?" Mr Suarez maintained that when he said "Por que, negro?" to Mr Evra, it was intended in a conciliatory and friendly way. Mr Suarez said this was the only time that he used the word “negro” in his exchanges with Mr Evra during the match."

Both statements are a world apart, if Evra's version is correct, that was quite an exchange, surely someone else would have heard it? Surely one of his team mates would have jumped in? Surely complaint's would have been made to the ref at that point?

Uhmmm - take any crminal case and yopu will have a case made by the Crown (F.A.) and a case made by the Defence (LFC). Where the defendent Suarez has pleaded not guilty it is unlikely that the case for the Crown and the case for the Defence will be in agreement.
In this country we put our faith behind a system of Law that is by and large fair and reliable.
I guess we could take a leaf out of Liverpools book and create a new law where only the defence can pass judgement.
Would a court of law prosecute a man who is accused of racial abuse where its one mans word against anothers with little to no other evidence? They would not and even before that the CPS wouldent even deem the matter worthy of a court case and it would be dropped. There ends any similarity between the Law and the FA.

1 Jan 2012

Quote by tweeky
Would a court of law prosecute a man who is accused of racial abuse where its one mans word against anothers with little to no other evidence? They would not and even before that the CPS wouldent even deem the matter worthy of a court case and it would be dropped. There ends any similarity between the Law and the FA.

So your argument is that the Independant FA who have studied the evidence and who have nothing to gain or lose are wrong, but Liverpool Football Club who have much to lose are singularly right in their defence? The FA is not a Court of law and do not have to act in the same way - but the parallels are obvious in this case especially if you are keen to insist that only the defence case is valid.
By the way, I think he has been found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute - not being a racist.
I don't think the laws in this country are ALL right and certainly political correctness has gone way too far but you just can't differentiate between people anymore in this country on racial or sexual grounds and by his own admission he used words that are unsavoury.
Liverpool Football Club, despite him admitting to this then got supportive t-shirts printed proclaiming support for a player who has been found guilty by an Independant body thereby putting themselves at risk of further bringing the game into disrepute by going so publically against the FA.
I can't speak for most people but I think that LFC should have simply accepted the verdict in a dignified and respectful way and possibly made a mitigating statement about cultural differences would have been a much more dignified response in my opinion.