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

flahavaj

Link to that Telegraph story?

herbieflowers

Mr Alan wrote: »

If that is the word used & it's in response to the derogatory term used for South American, Suarez/Liverpool are dead right to be appealing it & dead right to have questions about Evra considering, 1) as a fluent Spanish speaker he is well aware it's not a racist term 2) it's at odds with the version of events he went to the media with.

As Rory Smith has said, all those claiming this sort of cultural difference is not any sort of excuse should keep that in mind the next time a British couple is thrown in prison for having sex on a beach in Dubai, a visiting homosexual is stoned is some Muslim country etc etc.

Xenophobia is so much bigger a problem in English football than racism.

There's a huge difference between being a fluent speaker of a language and being a natively fluent.

Evra may be fluent in Spanish (being able to speak the language and understanding everything) but certain cultural and / or linguistic subtleties can only be understood from having spent a significant period of one's time in a particular country.

There is a difference. Fluency isn't a black and white ( ) thing, there are varying degrees of fluency.

Mr Alan

Fuhrer wrote: »

Link me to the article where it said that Evra abused Suarez multiple times.

The article makes reference to him responding to the South American jibe.

Then Liverpool's statement makes reference to another incident which Suarez admitted he didn't hear.

So that's twice anyway.

The findings will clear it up.

Fuhrer

Mr Alan wrote: »

The article makes reference to him responding to the South American jibe.

Then Liverpool's statement makes reference to another incident which Suarez admitted he didn't hear.

So that's twice anyway.

The findings will clear it up.

Link me to the article

Mr Alan

Find it yourself, Henry Winters article, it was put into this thread and discussed at length.

Blatter

flahavaj wrote: »

Link to that Telegraph story?

Fuhrer wrote: »

Link me to the article

This is the article I presume he's talking about.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8957294/Luis-Suarez-racism-hearing-reputations-at-stake-as-panel-attempt-to-unravel-most-complicated-of-cases.html

Fuhrer

Mr Alan wrote: »

Find it yourself, Henry Winters article, it was put into this thread and discussed at length.

I'm looking for the article that you claimed that Evra abused Suarez multiple times.

Theres one article that claims he abuse him just once, which Suarez has come and said he didn't hear, but I want the one where as you said, they wrote that Evra abused Suarez multiple times.

So, where is it?

Mr Alan

You think me saying it was multiple times if it was once makes a difference?

Interesting

Read the post I made a few back, there's been two reported abusive remarks reported by Evra, one Suarez heard, one he didn't but Evra has admitted to making.

flahavaj

Twice said he with fingers and toes crossed.

Will I Amnt

Mr Alan wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

Not everyone would agree with you on that
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/7453/9/

Doesnt really prove anything as again it was the visiting foreigners who took offence to a word used in every day life in South America. Which is kind of my point.

Fair enough but the fella in question obviously sees he made a mistake saying it hence the apology.

Blatter

Mr Alan wrote: »

You think me saying it was multiple times if it was once makes a difference?

Interesting

Read the post I made a few back, there's been two reported abusive remarks reported by Evra, one Suarez heard, one he didn't but Evra has admitted to making.

Do you think it's possible that Suarez is claiming that Evra referred to his ethnicity in a derogatory way but Evra is denying it? You are assuming that Evra has admitted this, which is a silly assumption given that Evra hasn't been charged.

It wouldn't be the smartest move from Evra to claim he's been racially abused and at the same time admit that he referred to Suarez's ethnicity in a derogatory way, would it?

I'll ask you again. What will your stance be if The FA's report comes back and there is no evidence of Evra making any ethical reference towards Suarez?

Fuhrer

Mr Alan wrote: »

You think me saying it was multiple times if it was once makes a difference?

Interesting

Read the post I made a few back, there's been two reported abusive remarks reported by Evra, one Suarez heard, one he didn't but Evra has admitted to making.

Ive seen no statements from Evra admitting to making any of those.


And yes, it does matter if he is reported to have said it multiple times.

You were worming around earlier on, trying to frame it like it was Evra who was attacking Suarez with ethnic slurs and he only responded with his racist comment as a reaction to being provoked and attacked. Once it was pointed out that Suarez admitted to never hearing these, you backtracked trying to say that he said it multiple times. When you were asked to provide any proof at all about this, you are here trying to ask what difference it makes.


Well, heres why it matters. It proves that you will and have consistently throughout this thread, say anything at all, make up anything, feign ignorance over anything and lie about anything rather then just admitting you were wrong and leaving the thread with some dignity.

Jesus Wept

el dude wrote: »

Perhaps already been posted. But anyway,Tim Vickery on the World football phone-in should be essential listening for anyone that wants to look at this case with any semblance of balance and fair mindedness.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/wf

There aren't many.

Mr Alan

Oh Fuhrer :rolleyes:

I don't have the energy for this. Your seeming inability to understand pretty rudimentary posts is quite frustrating.

I'm done with this topic until the findings are released.

flahavaj

Its a bit futile to be asking Liverpool fan to act with dignity when they are only taking the lead from a club that has done everything but.

Mr Alan

Oh Flah, how the mighty have fallen.

You've slowly morphed into a poster similar to the likes of The Muppet, Nailz, and Homerjay. Very disappointing tbh.

Fuhrer

Mr Alan wrote: »

Oh Fuhrer :rolleyes:

I don't have the energy for this. Your seeming inability to understand pretty rudimentary posts is quite frustrating.

I'm done with this topic until the findings are released.

Really, what have I not understood? I asked you for proof of something you claimed and you couldn't give it.


I can understand it being frustrating being asked to explain your lies given how many you have in this thread alone.

I really hope the findings aren't released for a good long time so we don't have to listen to your utter inane bull****.

Blatter

Mr Alan wrote: »

Oh Flah, how the mighty have fallen.

You've slowly morphed into a poster similar to the likes of The Muppet, Nailz, and Homerjay. Very disappointing tbh.

Says your man who said this shortly after the story broke:pac:

Originally Posted by Mr Alan

I can't wait until these charges are dropped dismissed & Utd fans tell us, 'well there's no smoke without fire!'

I would love if Suarez sued Evra for every penny he had & left him destitute.

We'll get years of entertainment from some of your lies, contradictions, false assumptions and blatant double standards you've managed to deliver throughout the course of this saga Al.

Mr Alan

I was definitely too rash in thinking Evra made the entire thing up.
I've subsequently apologised.

Fuhrer

Mr Alan wrote: »

I was definitely too rash in thinking Evra made the entire thing up.
I've subsequently apologised.

Mr Alan wrote: »

I'm done with this topic until the findings are released.

Oh Mr Alan!

Nalz

What a shít thread where decent enough posters are getting slated when they are not here. Go eat some turkey sambos lads

Blatter

Mr Alan wrote: »

I was definitely too rash in thinking Evra made the entire thing up.
I've subsequently apologised.

You killed yourself by making convenient assumptions and focusing on things that didn't really matter while ignoring the bigger picture.

And you're still doing it.

flahavaj

Mr Alan wrote: »

Oh Flah, how the mighty have fallen.

You've slowly morphed into a poster similar to the likes of The Muppet, Nailz, and Homerjay. Very disappointing tbh.

LOL your condascening faux disappointment would be more believeable if you hadn't been the epitome of blinkered, embarrassing and downright ofthe wall throughout the thread, right from your all to revealing instant reaction. GTFO

As I said before I dont blame you when your club and manager conduct themselves no better.

flahavaj

Blatter wrote: »

Says your man who said this shortly after the story broke:pac:




We'll get years of entertainment from some of your lies, contradictions, false assumptions and blatant double standards you've managed to deliver throughout the course of this saga Al.

Hopefully you and the lads raly round and get some t shirts to support me for the next game?

Or would that seem a bit sad and pathetic and make everyone laugh at you?

ShamoBuc

Have the FA come out and said when ( if ever) they were willing to go public with the indisputable proof that they say they have proving Suarez's guilt?
Surely had they gone public - or at least shown LFC and Suarez - this could be put to bed fairly easily.
I cannot see what benefit there is to not showing the proof

Mr Alan

Flah considering your club has been found to invent allegations of racial abuse when it suits them in the past, the high & mighty attitude you've adopted against Liverpool here is very silly IMO.

Also, just to clarify a question you asked earlier as to why if it was a misunderstanding it wasnt just sorted out after the game between the pair, the answer would likely be because after the game Evra added some nice additional details & some nice ambiguous language to what actually happened and went running straight to the media crying 'racist'. Suarez & Liverpool replied in a suitable fashion.

parker kent

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Have the FA come out and said when ( if ever) they were willing to go public with the indisputable proof that they say they have proving Suarez's guilt?
Surely had they gone public - or at least shown LFC and Suarez - this could be put to bed fairly easily.
I cannot see what benefit there is to not showing the proof

Liverpool will be presented with the findings and then decide whether to appeal based on that. Also, given they were obviously present for the case, they already know the evidence.

Liverpool have 14 days in which to appeal against the extent of the FA’s punishment once they receive the commission’s findings in writing.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2011/1222/1224309380620.html

lordgoat

This thread needs someone to rustle up some tshirts to try and save it's credibility.

Will I Amnt

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Have the FA come out and said when ( if ever) they were willing to go public with the indisputable proof that they say they have proving Suarez's guilt?
Surely had they gone public - or at least shown LFC and Suarez - this could be put to bed fairly easily.
I cannot see what benefit there is to not showing the proof

There was an article linked here a while back,here's a quote from it.

The FA is keen for the findings of the independent commission that found Suarez guilty, led by Paul Goulding QC, to be published as quickly as possible, given the controversial and often uninformed debate that has erupted around the case. Goulding, however, does not work for the FA and the reasons may not be released until after Christmas.

ShamoBuc

parker kent wrote: »

Liverpool will be presented with the findings and then decide whether to appeal based on that. Also, given they were obviously present for the case, they already know the evidence.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2011/1222/1224309380620.html

Does that imply that the evidence they saw was all of the evidence? I'd be shocked ( and obviously disappoined ) if they saw undisputable Proof but still came out with their stance. I presumed they were given the result - guilty - but not the proof?