Racism - Mod Note on 1st Post - Read before posting.

K-9

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Actually it was mentioned quite few times by Liverpool fans on this thread.

A couple of times.

It was a rather dumb comparison, then I realised its cournioni, he's a history on Liverpool matters for years. Logic eludes him when it comes to Liverpool, so dumb posts are par for the course. He's a mod though.

flahavaj

Mr Alan wrote: »

Read the rules, Suarez is being charged with insulting language & has had his ban doubled as he also made reference to race.

Under that section it clearly states that's what happens if someone makes reference to race/religion/ethnicity/nationality/sexuality etc.

It's the exact same rule.

2 different instances apparently.

Reference to his nationality came later. The abusive comments came earlier & yes Suarez said he didn't hear them but Evra has admitted he said them.

If being referred to as a South American offensive to Suartez then he should report them to the FA. But I suspect he won't because there's nothing offensive whatsorver in being referred to according to the continent from which you hail. Whereas we know how much people have suffered in the past due to the colour of their skin and how sensitive an issue it is and how raising skin coulour in any way shape or form is a big no-no in the western world.

Nice wriggling though, you're very good at it.

Mr Alan

flahavaj wrote: »

Based on something that was said by Mike Phelan NOT Evras.

You're not getting this.

When that fracas occurred, the excuse given by Utd fans for Evra's behaviour was that he was reacting to racist abuse. This was peddled morning noon & night for a period straight after.

Then the summer break came, everything died down & no one gave a **** when the FA ruled later that summer. No one looked into the nuances of the case as it had been done to death at the time.

Everyone just presumed Evra made the accussations as that was the excuse given by Utd fans for his behaviour. An excuse that in hindsight didn't hold any weight as he never even heard the fabricated abuse.

He did however tell lies & make false accusations in an effort to fool the tribunal and get off. This is what Liverpool is referencing.

For those outraged that Liverpool have voiced their displeasure about the decision & been quite emotive about doing so, here is Fergusons reaction to the Evra decision;

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/ferguson-stunned-by-evra-ban-1058919.html

flahavaj

Mr Alan wrote: »

You're not getting this.

When that fracas occurred, the excuse given by Utd fans for Evra's behaviour was that he was reacting to racist abuse. This was peddled morning noon & night for a period straight after.

Then the summer break came, everything died down & no one gave a **** when the FA ruled later that summer. No one looked into the nuances of the case as it had been done to death at the time.

Everyone just presumed Evra made the accussations as that was the excuse given by Utd fans for his behaviour. An excuse that in hindsight didn't hold any weight as he never even heard the fabricated abuse.

He did however tell lies & make false accusations in an effort to fool the tribunal and get off. This is what Liverpool is referencing.

You should take that up with whatever United fans you were arguing with at the time tbh.

Its the same ploy you keep using to dodge the issue that in this instance the inaccurate portrayal of what Evra did in part originated from twitter rumours started by a LFC employee which continued to be spread like wildfire for weeks after no matter how many times the truth was pointed out. You and others were only too happy to gleefully seize upon it. Blaming United fans for it is bizarrein the extreme tbh!

Jesus Wept

Mr Alan wrote: »

Context is everything.

If for example Evra said (in Spanish), 'get your hands off me south american' to which Suarez responded 'what's your problem blackman', how could it possibly be justified to punish one when they're both in breach of the exact same rules?

The term apparently used by Evra is not ambiguous and is a derogatory term, it was said in Spanish. I saw it earlier somewhere else but I can't recall what it is now. He did not say 'you south american' in English, he said something in Spanish.

Whether he actually said it or not I have no idea.
If he did and acknowledged it in his statement, then he should receive a ban.

Also if he said to the referee that he was only booking him because he was black - this shouldn't go unmentioned either.

And if he said neither, fair enough, see below.

flahavaj wrote:

If you're that hung up on evidence being presented

You say it like I am being a pedant!
Presenting evidence of findings prior to or concurrently with a verdict is acceptable, not doing so is just wrong and ridiculous.

There is no acceptable reason for it and it just increases the volatility of the situation for no good reason.

Mr Alan

flahavaj wrote: »

If being referred to as a South American offensive to Suartez then he should report them to the FA. But I suspect he won't because there's nothing offensive whatsorver in being referred to according to the continent from which you hail. Whereas we know how much people have suffered in the past due to the colour of their skin and how sensitive an issue it is and how raising skin coulour in any way shape or form is a big no-no in the western world.

Nice wriggling though, you're very good at it.

Again, totally irrelevant. Read the rules.

Referencing nationality/race/ethnicity/sexuality is in clear breach of the rules. Particularly when in a heated argument with someone, you stated that numerous times. Surely if that's what Suarez has done & you think he should be charged, then you also think Evra should be charged?

K-9

cournioni wrote: »

Hey, at least I don't have a picture of racist in my signature.

It is indeed something for me to ponder deeply and logically, without football fandom logic, AFTER his defence and appeal, which he is perfectly entitled to have.

The ould FA hardly inspires confidence in United supporters, so I'll ponder a little while! Ye lot have moaned about the FA for long enough.

Mr Alan

flahavaj wrote: »

You should take that up with whatever United fans you were arguing with at the time tbh.

Its the same ploy you keep using to dodge the issue that in this instance the inaccurate portrayal of what Evra did in part originated from twitter rumours started by a LFC employee which continued to be spread like wildfire for weeks after no matter how many times the truth was pointed out. You and others were only too happy to gleefully seize upon it. Blaming United fans for it is bizarrein the extreme tbh!

You pretending they were intentionally started by a Liverpool employee is pathetic. The 'he's made false racist accussations before' line was peddled out way before that, here & elsewhere.

Likely the fella just made a mistake & passed on the same nugget that was everywhere online already.

flahavaj

Mr Alan wrote: »

Again, totally irrelevant. Read the rules.

Referencing nationality/race/ethnicity/sexuality is in clear breach of the rules. Particularly when in a heated argument with someone, you stated that numerous times. Surely if that's what Suarez has done & you think he should be charged, then you also think Evra should be charged?

There's nothing wrong with referencing the continet womeone was born in. It has no hostorical conotations that would be offensive to an individual like skin colour soes. The FA rules are obviously subkject to context. Everytime a nationality is mentioned you don't chatge someone. Its all about context.

And I go back to my previous point, if Suarez finds that offensive he can go to the FA and have Evra charged. but he hasn't because it would never hold up (or he has and they've told him to take a jump). Blindly applying the rules to suit your argument won't get you anywhere. Equating "South American" to rasing the topic of skin colour and expecting the roles to be applied to both im exactly the same way is laughable.

cournioni

K-9 wrote: »

A couple of times.

It was a rather dumb comparison, then I realised its cournioni, he's a history on Liverpool matters for years. Logic eludes him when it comes to Liverpool, so dumb posts are par for the course. He's a mod though.

What have I said that isn't logical in this thread. Possibly not logical to you, judging by your signature. It may be tough for you to accept that he is a cheater (vs Ghana), a biter (vs PSV), a diver (evident all season) and a now a racist.

But go on, claim innocence, claim that you're being victimised. It is no different to what your club has a history of doing.

Mr Alan

You realise South American is an ethnicity & as such is explicitly listed in their rule book, right?

flahavaj

Mr Alan wrote: »

You pretending they were intentionally started by a Liverpool employee is pathetic. The 'he's made false racist accussations before' line was peddled out way before that, here & elsewhere.

Likely the fella just made a mistake & passed on the same nugget that was everywhere online already.

I bthink it has been established it started with him.

Whether they were started intentionally or not you still gleefully seized upon it with remarkablke fervour. People believed it because he would be seen as a credible source close to the club. Twitter was on fire with it being retweeted left right and centre and this place was similarly awash with the same bullsh*t for weeks afterwards. It suited your little agenda perfectly.

He has also never apologised for his cock up, which is the first thing any decent individual would do. Nor have his employers ever done so.

flahavaj

Mr Alan wrote: »

You realise South American is an ethnicity & as such is explicitly listed in their rule book, right?

Suarez should complain then shouldn't he? Such a clear breach of rules and a grave insult to the continent from which he hails must troubke him deeply.:rolleyes:

Come off it Al. They put these things in the rules so that they can comprehensively cover anything that someone might perceive to be an insult. It doesn't mena that every single time anything that might fall under those terms is uttered it needs to be punished. "South American" certainly doesn't.

Mr Alan

flahavaj wrote: »

I bthink it has been established it started with him.

Seriously. Has someone hijacked your account?

The 'he's made false accussations before' thing surfaced within 15 mins of Evras comments appearing on Twitter, from myself included.

You were online that night and amongst others constantly corrected people on the fact he never made the accussation & the next two days the arguments about the whole affair were ongoing, every couple of hours some lurker would pop in with, 'he's made the same allegations before'....it became tedious for all parties concerned.

The employee you're referring to mentioned it on Twitter on the Monday morning. 2 days later.

Pretending it started with him is pathetic & something you KNOW is not true.

Mr Alan

flahavaj wrote: »

Suarez should complain then shouldn't he? Such a clear breach of rules and a grave insult to the continent from which he hails must troubke him deeply.:rolleyes:

I see zero difference between referring to someone as 'south american', or 'black man'.....truth is referring to anyone by their skin colour/ethnicity is stupid. However, Shouldn't be an issue unless it was abusive, ie. black mother****er, dirty ******, south american prick, dirty greasy south american etc etc.

My point is not that Evra should be charged, it's that if that's all theyre basing the charge on, Suarez shouldn't.

However, as I've said, as yet weeding know, so we need to read the full findings.

flahavaj

Mr Alan wrote: »

Seriously. Has someone hijacked your account?

The 'he's made false accussations before' thing surfaced within 15 mins of Evras comments appearing on Twitter, from myself included.

You were online that night and amongst others constantly corrected people on the fact he never made the accussation & the next two days the arguments about the whole affair were ongoing, every couple of hours some lurker would pop in with, 'he's made the same allegations before'....it became tedious for all parties concerned.

The employee you're referring to mentioned it on Twitter on the Monday morning. 2 days later.

Pretending it started with him is pathetic & something you KNOW is not true.

I may have gotten my wires crossed on that one, in terms of it originating from him. Nonetheless such a cock up from what should be a rock solid source certainly wasn't helpful at the time.

K-9

cournioni wrote: »

What have I said that isn't logical in this thread. Possibly not logical to you, judging by your signature. It may be tough for you to accept that he is a cheater (vs Ghana), a biter (vs PSV), a diver (evident all season) and a now a racist.

But go on, claim innocence, claim that you're being victimised. It is no different to what your club has a history of doing.

Indeed, and Evra has a history of unreliable evidence to the same FA who accepted his word.

Please do go on about the clubs history? Its a pretty big claim worthy of exactly posting what you mean.

flahavaj

Mr Alan wrote: »

I see zero difference between referring to someone as 'south american', or 'black man'.....truth is referring to anyone by their skin colour/ethnicity is stupid. However, Shouldn't be an issue unless it was abusive, ie. black mother****er, dirty ******, south american prick, dirty greasy south american etc etc.

Referring to skin colour is particulalry sensitive though Al, you know that. When its done in a heated argument its bound to inflame things and anyone who does so must know a sh*tstorm will ensue.

Referring to being a South American isn't.

SoulTrader

Fromthetrees wrote: »

What a dementedly long thread.
Suarez isn't even white.

Are you saying that a person can only commit a racist offense if he is white?

Mr Alan

flahavaj wrote: »

I may have gotten my wires crossed on that one, in terms of it originating from him. Nonetheless such a cock up from what should be a rock solid source certainly wasn't helpful at the time.

It was his personal account inclusive of his disclaimer 'personal views, not that of my employer etc', but yes, I would hope the club had a word with him about it.

I genuinely don't think it had any effect whatsoever on the publics opinion however.

Mr Alan

flahavaj wrote: »

Referring to skin colour is particulalry sensitive though Al, you know that. When its done in a heated argument its bound to inflame things and anyone who does so must know a sh*tstorm will ensue.

Referring to being a South American isn't.

This is the sort of molly coddling, politically correct societ we live in.
It's ****ing lunacy. Seriously.

If the encounter went down as was reported last week, inclusive of his Ali G momemt with the ref, Evra needs to man the **** up, running off crying to the media after he apparently brought ethnicity into it would be absolutely pathetic.

Ebbs

flahavaj wrote: »

Suarez should complain then shouldn't he? Such a clear breach of rules and a grave insult to the continent from which he hails must troubke him deeply.:rolleyes:

I think you're trying to be sarcastic...and in doing so you dont realise the irony.

None the less, Suarez said he didnt hear Evra abuse him. Evra was the one who submitted that he had abused Suarez. Considering the FA have this evidence they should be dusting off their wigs to hand a ban down to Evra too. I assume Suarez doesnt want to make a big deal out of Evra's ethnic slurs, after all Suarez is a big supporter charities relating to ethnic diversity.

Edit: Just to note, the logic being applied in this thread is crazy. Just because one person's skin colour offends them more than another persons ethnicity is crazy. The rules apply a blanket to gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability. You cant give punishments based on how much someone is upset, its based on a generic rule. Suarez could put on his saddest face tomorrow and say how upset he is that evra offended him but he's a bigger man than some.

flahavaj

Mr Alan wrote: »

This is the sort of molly coddling, politically correct societ we live in.
It's ****ing lunacy. Seriously.

If the encounter went down as was reported last week, Evra needs to man the **** up, running off crying to the media after he apparently brought ethnicity into it would be absolutely pathetic.

No. No. No.

He does not need to man the f*ck up. People need to realise that you cannot bring race into arguments and expect to get away with it. Suarez has and will learn the hard way that he can't. Others will see what has happened and will think very carefully about what they say next time they're getting into it with someone on the pitch. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

You cannot afford to take such a blase and laissez faire attitude towards these kind of things. If you come down hard on such matters, people's behaviour will change for the better in the future.

I only wish they had such a hard line stance on diving and the other types of cheating that have infected the game in recent years (and no thats not a dig at Suarez, its a general comment oin tte players at every single club that does it).

Jesus Wept

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

That's the thing is'nt it "he COULD be telling the truth" but if there is no evidence you can not take his word alone. Without having the whole facts of course, the impression i get is of a narrow-minded, parochial panel completely ignorant of any cultural issues outside England. they think Suarez is racist because he used a word that sounds like a bad word in English, regardless of context, and Evra did nothing wrong because they've never heard of the term "sudaca" and anyway, racism for them is simply a black and white issue. Right?

It's been said Suarez and others need to adapt to cultural norms when they come to England which is fair enough, but the FA also needs to realise that it is a global game, a league with a worldwide following and cultures exist outside England too. It's this in particular that annoys the sh it otta me.

Crazy Horse, where did the sudaca thing come from?

flahavaj wrote: »

Suarez should complain then shouldn't he? Such a clear breach of rules and a grave insult to the continent from which he hails must troubke him deeply.:rolleyes:

Come off it Al. They put these things in the rules so that they can comprehensively cover anything that someone might perceive to be an insult. It doesn't mena that every single time anything that might fall under those terms is uttered it needs to be punished. "South American" certainly doesn't.

You're all over the place tbh.

It has been suggested that Evra wasn't speaking in English (which seems entirely plausible considering he and Suarez both speak fluent Spanish, I believe).

So how do you feel if he used the term 'sudaca' as opposed to 'Don't touch me you South American.'

flahavaj

Ebbs wrote: »

I think you're trying to be sarcastic...and in doing so you dont realise the irony.

None the less, Suarez said he didnt hear Evra abuse him. Evra was the one who submitted that he had abused Suarez. Considering the FA have this evidence they should be dusting off their wigs to hand a ban down to Evra too. I assume Suarez doesnt want to make a big deal out of Evra's ethnic slurs, after all Suarez is a big supporter charities relating to ethnic diversity.

What ethnic slurs? He's not making a big deal of it because its not a big deal.

Referring to skin colour however is.

flahavaj

The-Rigger wrote: »

Crazy Horse, where did the sudaca thing come from?



You're all over the place tbh.

It has been suggested that Evra wasn't speaking in English (which seems entirely plausible considering he and Suarez both speak fluent Spanish, I believe).

So how do you feel if he used the term 'sudaca' as opposed to 'Don't touch me you South American.'

Was this used? Or are you just hoping he did?

I might as well start saying Suarez called hima n*gger in that case, it would make my stance a whole lot easier.

jank

Mr Alan wrote: »

1) we don't know if that's what was said
2) it negrito, I know you want it to be like 'nigger, but it's not. There's no need to link to the cereal brand, bars, vending machines etc, it's been done.

1) So an independant commision decided to find Suarez guilty for the sake of it.
2) My point still stands. If a user uses the word "negrito" to describe a black player they will get a site wide ban.

Mr Alan wrote: »

Those who feel that if there was any reference to skin colour the ban is justified, presumably also think that if it's in the findings that Evra referred to Suarez as 'south american' or some similar slang term that Evra should be facing the exact same punishment, right?

Jesus Wept

flahavaj wrote: »

Was this used? Or are you just hoping he did?

I might as well start saying Suarez called hima n*gger in that case, it would make my stance a whole lot easier.

I have no idea if it was used, it is idle speculation.
As is every post where you've engaged in conversation about 'negrito'.

The idle speculation exists because the evidence is delivered a month after the verdict, something that needlessly fuels the fire.

jank wrote: »

2) My point still stands. If a users uses the word "negrito" to descibe a black player they will get a site wide ban.

Probably not (in my personal opinion) if the mod took a moment to google the word rather than went mental because it sounds similar to another.

Blatter

The-Rigger wrote: »

So how do you feel if he used the term 'sudaca' as opposed to 'Don't touch me you South American.'

If he admitted saying that word to Suarez then yes he should be banned.

But I find it hard to believe that he admitted using that word and has still not been charged yet, it really is inconceivable.

And I haven't heard any suggestion of that word in any reputable source.

I'd imagine this is where that theory is emerging from;

http://www.anfieldroad.com/news/lfc/2011-12-19/5526/will-suarez-evra-verdict-help-fight-discrimination.html/

What wasn’t made clear in that article is whether the words from Evra were also in Spanish. If they were in Spanish, did he use “sudamericano” or a shortened version often used in Spain, “sudaca”?
“Sudaca” means “South American” but isn’t usually directed in a nice way. It’s usually aimed at South American immigrants; it doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to see how offensive it can be. It’s more difficult to imagine Evra actually saying, in English, “you South American,” as part of his order to Suarez not to touch him.

daithijjj

Blatter wrote: »

If he admitted saying that word to Suarez then yes he should be banned.

But I find it hard to believe that he admitted using that word and has still not been charged yet, it really is inconceivable.

And I haven't heard any suggestion of that word in any reputable source.

I'd imagine this is where that theory is emerging from;

http://www.anfieldroad.com/news/lfc/2011-12-19/5526/will-suarez-evra-verdict-help-fight-discrimination.html/

When the full written reasons come out we will know, but only then.

Anyway, im sure there are folk in high places who know exactly what is going on and there is some drip feeding going on. Henry Winter is saying that the reasons wont come out until mid Jan now apparently.

And also, the 'sudaca' reference has travelled and has been referred to today by the Sports Director for the Uruguayan Government.

http://www.insidefutbol.com/2011/12/21/uruguayan-government-offers-support-to-luis-suarez/54891/