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

Samich

First post in here, haven't read too much of the thread but....

Absolutely shocking from Liverpool to publicly support and defend Suarez.

Suarez has admitted using the word, which is deemed racist in these parts of the world. They mightn't be racist in Uruguay but they are over here.

It's like a person from Amsterdam coming over and smoking a joint. Just because it's ok to smoke it over there doesn't mean he can smoke it over here. Different laws. Then the stupidity of Liverpool to defend him is like saying he didn't break the law by smoking a joint. This almost makes Liverpool coming across as saying it's ok to call a player that, making them racist.

Paully D

The way it's going Liverpool's next stunt will be to get Suarez to give Glen Johnson a tug in the warm up.

Iang87

Samich wrote: »

First post in here, haven't read too much of the thread but....

Absolutely shocking from Liverpool to publicly support and defend Suarez.

Suarez has admitted using the word, which is deemed racist in these parts of the world. They mightn't be racist in Uruguay but they are over here.

It's like a person from Amsterdam coming over and smoking a joint. Just because it's ok to smoke it over there doesn't mean he can smoke it over here. Different laws. Then the stupidity of Liverpool to defend him is like saying he didn't break the law by smoking a joint. This almost makes Liverpool coming across as saying it's ok to call a player that, making them racist.

Oh Yawn.......

it is nothing like your ridiculous joint example. Its cultural differences, its so much more than just acceptable one place or the next

amiable

willmunny1990 wrote: »

He does have previous in fairness;)

He has previous for leaving Liverpool because the trauma of Hillsborough was too much for him to carry on?

Good job you. No wink saves you here

amiable

flahavaj wrote: »

From a distance the red Suarez looks like a Swastika.:pac:

Perhaps showing your own racist inner thinking?

Ordinary man

Iang87 wrote: »

Oh Yawn.......

it is nothing like your ridiculous joint example. Its cultural differences, its so much more than just acceptable one place or the next

And it's been deemed unacceptable in this case, what part of that do ye have problems understanding?

amiable

Paully D wrote: »

The way it's going Liverpool's next stunt will be to get Suarez to give Glen Johnson a tug in the warm up.

I see what you did there. Dangerous game Paully

homerjay2005

amiable wrote: »

I see what you did there. Dangerous game Paully

how is it dangerous? sure they have tried almost everything else at this stage!!

Iang87

Ordinary man wrote: »

And it's been deemed unacceptable in this case, what part of that do ye have problems understanding?

With no evidence coming out my problem is it appears they took evras word, a man who would shout racism if you offered him chocolate ice cream.

Secondly Suarez was presumed guilty from the start by the media which definitely had a sway on the panel in my view.

Thirdly how can you say I dont think the man is a racist but convict him of a racial charge.

Finally in your very post I will now highlight it, in this fúcking case. Why this case?

Vudgie

Paully D wrote: »

The way it's going Liverpool's next stunt will be to get Suarez to give Glen Johnson a tug in the warm up.

This thread is done.

How silly.

amiable

homerjay2005 wrote: »

how is it dangerous? sure they have tried almost everything else at this stage!!

Maybe you don't see what Paully did then if you don't realise it to be dangerous?

Knex*

Just read this somewhere else and thought it was a pretty good view on things.

The FA's lack of forethought in hanging someone out to dry for racism in particular the decision to ban Luis Suarez for 8 games will likely come back to bite them once the John Terry case is tried.
In the event that JT is found guilty, the maximum penalty that could be imposed by the court is a £2500. To maintain their stance in applying a no tolerance approach to racism, the FA would then need to apply a consequential penalty on JT of at least £37500 (15 times) fine on him and then back that up with a 8 week ban just to keep parity with the punishment applied to Suarez, which was based on hearsay.
This would mean in effect that he is tried for the crime twice and an arbitary punishment applied many times the legal limit and would no doubt call into question the human rights of John Terry.
Nobody wants racism in sport, but the FA are a bunch of fools - Calling someine a black "whatever" is nearly three times as bad as a career wrecking tackle.
The FA doesnt have much credibility worldwide and this course of events is likely to reinforce the fact that they dont have a clue

Kess73

Paully D wrote: »

The way it's going Liverpool's next stunt will be to get Suarez to give Glen Johnson a tug in the warm up.

Not quite sure how an act of manual stimulation on the pitch would be an effective PR stunt for this case , but if you like to think of Glen along those lines, I'm happy for ya.

Blatter

Knex. wrote: »

Just read this somewhere else and thought it was a pretty good view on things.

to keep parity with the punishment applied to Suarez, which was based on hearsay.

What's the author's proof it was based on hearsay when the public have not been made privy to the evidence yet?

K-9

Knex. wrote: »

Just read this somewhere else and thought it was a pretty good view on things.

I don't think there'd be a problem with a legal prosecution and an FA ban. Basically he'd be bringing the game into disrepute and the FA could sanction him as a professional.

LuckyLloyd

homerjay2005 wrote: »

can i ask you, which of the following should liverpool do -

a - do what they did, realease a statement that they knew would cause havoc, lashing everything and blaming it on this and that, spouting lies and defaming the name of evra

or

b - released a short statement 4 or 5 lines, backing the player and vowing to clear his name, once report is realeased in a professional, controlled manner.

or

c - kept quiet and waited until report is released and said or did nothing.

Liverpool's response is in keeping with the ridiculous nature of the ruling. I won't be changing my mind on this unless it is demonstrated that the judgement was based on more substantial evidence than the explanations of both players involved.

everdead.ie

Knex. wrote: »

Just read this somewhere else and thought it was a pretty good view on things.

The FA's lack of forethought in hanging someone out to dry for racism in particular the decision to ban Luis Suarez for 8 games will likely come back to bite them once the John Terry case is tried.
In the event that JT is found guilty, the maximum penalty that could be imposed by the court is a £2500. To maintain their stance in applying a no tolerance approach to racism, the FA would then need to apply a consequential penalty on JT of at least £37500 (15 times) fine on him and then back that up with a 8 week ban just to keep parity with the punishment applied to Suarez, which was based on hearsay.
This would mean in effect that he is tried for the crime twice and an arbitary punishment applied many times the legal limit and would no doubt call into question the human rights of John Terry.
Nobody wants racism in sport, but the FA are a bunch of fools - Calling someine a black "whatever" is nearly three times as bad as a career wrecking tackle.
The FA doesnt have much credibility worldwide and this course of events is likely to reinforce the fact that they dont have a clue

I'm not seeing any problems for the FA there is no such thing as degrees of Guilty so if he's found Guilty and they apply a 40,000 fine and 8 game ban thats that

Kess73

Blatter wrote: »

What' the author's proof it was based on hearsay when the public have not been made privy to the evidence yet?

I guess his "proof" must be as good as that as anyone saying the evidence against Suarez was concrete before the details are made public.

People are believing the "evidence" they read in the tabloids and/or hear from others, and simply moulding it to fit either an anti Liverpool FC bias or a pr Liverpool FC bias at this point. Seems to be more about attacking the club and manager (of either club) at this point that talking about the two incidents (Suarez/Evra and Terry/Ferdinand)

Ordinary man

Iang87 wrote: »

With no evidence coming out my problem is it appears they took evras word, a man who would shout racism if you offered him chocolate ice cream. suarez admitted saying something (presumed to be negritto) to evra

Secondly Suarez was presumed guilty from the start by the media which definitely had a sway on the panel in my view.

Thirdly how can you say I dont think the man is a racist but convict him of a racial charge. He was never charged with being a racist

Finally in your very post I will now highlight it, in this fúcking case. Why this case?

How many other times has the term been used to a black player in england, there always has to be a first case for everything

LuckyLloyd

Ordinary man wrote: »

And it's been deemed unacceptable in this case, what part of that do ye have problems understanding?

And that is the opinion of a panel. It is not necessarily the case. What part of that do ye have problems understanding? Unless a written report based on substantive and convincing evidence is released into the public domain then Liverpool and all involved with it will be forced to conclude, on the basis of the available evidence, that the panel have delivered an indefensible ruling.

Turtyturd

amiable wrote: »

Perhaps showing your own racist inner thinking?

He will be in the Liverpool thread saying how he doesn't stir thing up later looking for a few cheap thanks.

Hopefully Kenny storms out of a press conference over a question about racism he doesn't like to make all the regulars really happy.

Warper

Trilla wrote: »

Thread has gone to fúck

Like my work colleague who's a pool fan said to me:

Harsh banning but needs to be made an example out of.
He admits to saying something that can be taken as a racial slur in England.Statement from Liverpool seems childish and over the top.
The supporting tops are a bit much.
Some United fans need to pipe down and stop gloating its not a victory.
United as a football club stayed clear of the proceedings it seems.
His ban will probably be reduced then topped up with the flip the bird to the Fulhams fans incident.
Field day for tabloids.
FA have to act in similar fashion to Terry.

Fair non bollox summary imo and I felt like shaking his hand and buying him a smoothie.

rover n rout rodger!

Harsh banning ??? What would be the appropriate action then?

No wonder racism is rife if the attitude to it is so blase. Ah sure he didnt mean it, he should get no ban and be fully supported by his club and the majority of fans. Well done - great precedence set once again. Why dont they just ban the "Lets kick racism out of football" campaign if when found guilty, all you get is your club wearing T-shirts declaring how much they support the racist.

LuckyLloyd

It is wonderful that we have so many people posting on this forum though who have never:

- quibbled with how an exam was marked;
- disagreed with aspects of a perfomance review in work;
- disagreed with a decision from a superior in work;

etc, etc. Apparently appointed authority figures are never wrong. They decree something and it becomes gospel, you have to take it on the chin. So much black and white existence out there eh!

Kess73

I think we need to focus more on PaullyD's handjob theory.

Knex*

Blatter wrote: »

What's the author's proof it was based on hearsay when the public have not been made privy to the evidence yet?

It wasn't an official piece, was a comment under an article. Best go back and add that in actually.

Ordinary man

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And that is the opinion of a panel. It is not necessarily the case. What part of that do ye have problems understanding? Unless a written report based on substantive and convincing evidence is released into the public domain then Liverpool and all involved with it will be forced to conclude, on the basis of the available evidence, that the panel have delivered an indefensible ruling.

In the opinion of a panel picked by the fa to decide the case. If suarez has admitted calling evra a negeritto and they have decided that the use of that word is unacceptable, what else do you want?

Turtyturd

Kess73 wrote: »

I think we need to focus more on PaullyD's handjob theory.

It's a change from mentioning Carroll.

Vudgie

Kess73 wrote: »

I think we need to focus more on PaullyD's handjob theory.

A true watershed moment in the history of idiotic posting on message boards.

willmunny1990

homerjay2005 wrote: »

how is it dangerous? sure they have tried almost everything else at this stage!!

Who knows what they will try next?

Kenny wearing that t-shirt of Suarez in the post match interview is the most cringe worthy thing I've seen all year.

Who ever came up with that idea should be locked up, Liverpool have handled this case so poorly it beggars belief. Kenny has to take some responsibility for the fiasco which has occurred IMO.

But Liverpool in general don't like taking ownership of things, they have a murky past and this is just another unsavory incident to add to their list of less than favorable incidents that they will conveniently try and sweep under the carpet.

LuckyLloyd

Ordinary man wrote: »

In the opinion of a panel picked by the fa to decide the case. If suarez has admitted calling evra a negeritto and they have decided that the use of that word is unacceptable, what else do you want?

And that is their opinion, and it is blind of contextual issues of culture and language. And if there is nothing else to it then we will call the ruling what it is: bull****.