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

Ganymede Glow

Some would say its not what you know its what you can prove.

Blatter

pistolpetes11 wrote: »

Im just having a read through the thread and felt this rubbish need to be pulled up .

Firstly John Terry did not use the word N*****, dont see why you would need bring him into it.

I never said John Terry said the word N*****.

Here's what I said;

and not say John Terry's.

The use of the word 'say' there is very important as it clearly indicates my example is hypothetical.


I could have used Suarez's name too.(I didn't because I didn't want people to falsely presume I was saying he's a racist) I didn't even have to use somebody who was involved in a racism case, I could have used any white person's name. I decided to use John Terry's name as he is involved in a high profile racism case at the moment and I felt people would relate to my point more.

When referring to a race as "them" or "their" are you not belittling the race ?

No. I am not belittling anybody by referring to a race as 'them' or 'their' and I find it extraordinary that you think otherwise.

How exactly would you like me to structure my sentence.

It originated as a claim of social power. The word 'n*****' is now some black peoples' word and not say John Terry's.

I personally don't agree with any black person using it at all, but the context is completely different to when a white person calls a black person a n*****.

Is that better? I don't see what's wrong with inserting the words 'their' or 'them' for the bolded words in that instance. I'm actually insulted that you insinuated that I was belittling a race.

tommyhaas

pistolpetes11 wrote: »

When referring to a race as "them" or "their" are you not belittling the race ?

You're really clutching at straws their, apologies, in that post

Pro. F

SlickRic wrote: »

while Evra, IMO, can never definitively be proven as a liar...

...can those defending him not at least admit that it's pretty fúcking peculiar that no video evidence has come up if Evra claimed it was 10 times?

JT said it once, and it was clear as day to the cameras.

Honestly, I can well believe that the evidence might not be available.

First of all the cameras. There was definitely a camera on Suarez's face every time he was talking to Evra? (I'm saying ''every time he was talking to Evra'' because I don't know when it was supposed to have happened. If I'm misremebering and there is some specific time when it's supposed to have happened then I'm open to correction.) I'm aware of all the tv coverage these days, but I've never been under the impression that every player is covered clearly on the face at all times. Iirc there's been plenty of off the ball incidents in the Sky Sports Age where, in the end, the best camera angle was muck.

So what if John Terry was caught on camera the other week. One incident certainly doesn't prove that the cameras catch every incident.

Secondly, the lip reading. Personly, in all the cases of players being accused of saying things I've never heard from a lip reader about the general effectiveness and reproducability of lip reading. I know that lip readers have in the past made accusations and (I think) given evidence in similar cases. But can they read every word said by every person shown to them on video? Or do they rarely/occasionally/often say ''No, I can't make that bit out.''? If people have answers to these questions then cool. If not then they are just working off their own assumptions.

If we're working off our own assumptions about lip reading, then imo people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea that ''n*****'' is easy to say without moving your mouth much. Just look at yourself in the mirror and say it. I find that I don't have to move my mouth much at all to say it. At the moment I could easily believe that that word could be made impossible for a lip reader to interprete.

Lastly, the fact it was supposedly said ten times. That doesn't really change too much for me simply because of what I've said about the camera coverage and the lip reading.

Just to be clear, I'm not defending Evra. At least I'm not saying he is definitely telling the truth. As far as I'm concerned we don't know either way what the truth is and we have fùck all evidence to go on.

Pro. F

Ganymede Glow wrote: »

Some would say its not what you know its what you can prove.

Some would say you were watching training day on tele the other night.

Crazy Horse 6

Paul Tergat wrote: »

you are looking at this with so much bias its not even funny.

You are'nt of course it's just your honest opinion right.

Pro. F

Blatter wrote: »

The incident Suarez is talking about either wasn't caught on camera at all, or is caught on camera but hasn't been released to the public pending the investigation.

Or it is caught on camera but the lip readers haven't been able to interprete it well enough.

Blatter

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

You are'nt of course it's just your honest opinion right.

Paul Tergat along with Pro. F are two of the most impartial posters I have come across on the forum.

Paul Tergat

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

You are'nt of course it's just your honest opinion right.

Do you wanna go and find the couple of posts ive made on this thread? My stance is I havent a ****ing clue who to believe and I don't think we will ever know what went on. I am therefore not going to label either one a liar

edit: and if something is actually proven either way, which looks pretty impossible at this stage, the book should be thrown at them and I include Evra in that!

You are bein all crazy, horse :P

Will I Amnt

It's pointless comparing to the Terry situation as he was caught on the live feed that everyone seen on their televisions.

There was no need to go trawling through footage as it was on YouTube recorded from phones pointed at televisions.

Come to think of it,that's the only footage I have seen of it.Have sky released any footage of it??

Paul Tergat

Blatter wrote: »

Paul Tergat along with Pro. F are two of the most impartial posters I have come across on the forum.

i do love having changed my username people referring to me now as the main man himself

Blatter

Paul Tergat wrote: »

i do love having changed my username people referring to me now as the main man himself

Ah I'll always know you as larkin99, I just used Paul Tergat to satisfy the pedantics out there:p

Paul Tergat

Blatter wrote: »

Ah I'll always know you as larkin99, I just used Paul Tergat to satisfy the pedantics out there:p

*pedants. Hahahaha

Mr Alan

Blatter wrote: »

Suarez has admitted saying something to Evra, and was 'surprised by his reaction'.

Why has no video evidence of what he said to him in this instance surfaced yet?


But there would have been a camera on Suarez all game....oh

Did you watch the match?

Anyone who did saw them tustling in the box & having a bicker. The ref pulling them aside & having a word. Suarez touching Evra in a 'chill out' kinda way & Evra shoving him away.

That footage ties in exactly with what Suarez has said including his surprise at Evra's reaction.

Blatter

Paul Tergat wrote: »

*pedants. Hahahaha

LOL. Irony at it's very best

Mr. Presentable

Pro. F wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned we don't know either way what the truth is and we have fùck all evidence to go on.

And on that basis you must presume Suarez is not guilty.

Blatter

Mr Alan wrote: »

Did you watch the match?

Yes

Anyone who did saw them tustling in the box & having a bicker. The ref pulling them aside & having a word. Suarez touching Evra in a 'chill out' kinda way & Evra shoving him away.

That footage ties in exactly with what Suarez has said including his surprise at Evra's reaction.

No video evidence has been released that shows Suarez clearly saying something to Evra. Suarez said it happened, but we haven't seen it yet.

Either it wasn't caught on camera at all, or is caught on camera but hasn't been released to the public pending the investigation, or it is caught on camera but the lip readers haven't been able to interpret it properly.

Your assumption is; if Suarez did make several racist remarks towards Evra, it should have been clear to see on camera and the evidence should have been public shortly after the match.

I think you may be mistaken with that assumption. But maybe Evra was mistaken with that assumption in that interview in France too.

Pro. F

Mr Alan wrote: »

Nope.

If it were a single utterence. Or a sly under the breath remark we were talking about. Then I would think it possible.

It's not however, we're talking about prolonged brazen abuse.

I think there would have been camera all over Suarez during the game full stop, as he is Liverpools main attacking threat. If it was during the corner, there would have been cameras all pointed at the goal mouth as thats where the action was. And after the lads started having a go at eachother, the cameras would have been all over the pair awaiting a potential off the ball incident.

I think its fair to assume any substantial argument would have been caught on camera.

Not a lot. But I know that for other racial incidents in the past that were a lot slyer than this alleged incident-there was always footage available & despite not maybe being 100% on what was said, it certainly gave an idea of what was said.

Despite this incident being fiercer & more extreme than other "lesser" incidents. There doesn't appear to be even an ounce of footage available of it. Its very strange.

No-not as far as I'm aware. But Suarez plays primarily from the left. And that few minutes when they were tangling was imo when "it" happened-its the only time they really came together during the game. There wouldn't really have been a sufficient window for it to happen at anytime other than that.

You are making assumptions based on what you think about lip reading and camera coverage rather than what you know and are arriving at definitives like ''If there is no footage then it definitely wasn't said''.

I'll tell you what would make me believe that the racial abuse definitely didn't happen. A full transcript from lip readers of every word Suarez said to Evra during the game. With an assurance from a few expert lip readers that the accuracy of the transcript can be trusted. And evidence from the TV people that everything Suarez said to Evra was caught on camera.

So far we are a million miles away from that type of evidence and yet you are still wanting to talk in certainties. It's ridiculous imo.

Mr Alan wrote: »

If he could hear it, logically other people around would have been able to hear it.

Only if they were as close and paying as much attention as Evra, who was actually the one in conversation with Suarez. It's hardly unlikely that the other players weren't paying close attention to the spat those two were having.

Ps my response is a bit short and doesn't directly answer all the points you raise because I think I talked about my opinions on most of these points in my post to Slick.

Iang87

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

And on that basis you must presume Suarez is not guilty.

on that basis you have to presume suarez is not guilty

flahavaj

SlickRic wrote: »

while Evra, IMO, can never definitively be proven as a liar...

...can those defending him not at least admit that it's pretty fúcking peculiar that no video evidence has come up if Evra claimed it was 10 times?

JT said it once, and it was clear as day to the cameras.

By this logic, surely whatever thing Suarez is claiming he said to Evra thats so innocuous should have also been caught on camera too?

Today's statement by Suarez sounds suspiciously like the "Negro" defence that we discussed earlier in the week. If it is there is going to be some serious egg on face for an awful lot of posters on this forum...

niallo27

flahavaj wrote: »

By this logic, surely whatever thing Suarez is claiming he said to Evra thats so innocuous should have also been caught on camera too?

Today's statement by Suarez sounds suspiciously like the "Negro" defence that we discussed earlier in the week. If it is there is going to be some serious egg on face for an awful lot of posters on this forum...

So hit utd teammates call him NEGRO, what kind of ****en teammates are they to have.

Chucky the tree

Negro isn't a rascist word.

Mr Alan

Blatter wrote: »

No video evidence has been released that shows Suarez clearly saying something to Evra.

I can't do it from my phone, but there's a gif that was doing the rounds that clearly shows Suarez & Evra bickering just prior to the ref pulling them aside.

Pro. F

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

And on that basis you must presume Suarez is not guilty.

Yes obviously. Innocent until proven guilty for both parties. That goes without saying. I usually don't bother explaining things as simple as that.

#15

niallo27 wrote: »

So hit utd teammates call him NEGRO, what kind of ****en teammates are they to have.

I'm 100% sure this point was addressed somewhere in the last 10 pages.

Blatter

niallo27 wrote: »

So hit utd teammates call him NEGRO, what kind of ****en teammates are they to have.

According to Suarez, whatever he called Evra, his teammates call him too.

It doesn't mean he's telling the truth.

And nobody said Suarez definitely used the word Negro anyway, but don't let that stop your outlandish statements.

Mr Alan wrote: »

I can't do it from my phone, but there's a gif that was doing the rounds that clearly shows Suarez & Evra bickering just prior to the ref pulling them aside.

Does the gif show exactly what they are 'bickering' about? Can you see Suarez's lips and determine it? By your logic earlier, you should be able to.

Blatter

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Negro isn't a rascist word.

If used in a derogatory tone, it can be construed as racism...

Anyway, what kind of response would you expect if you went up to a black person and called them a negro? How would you expect the black person to interpret it?

Pro. F

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Negro isn't a rascist word.

It's a word that is of disputed acceptability no? Some black people say it's fine, many say it isn't. That's my understanding anyway.

Anyway context would be everything, especially if they were speaking Spanish. I know you were only talking about the word, not the context btw.

Mr Alan

Blatter wrote: »

Does the gif show exactly what they are 'bickering' about? Can you see Suarez's lips and determine it? By your logic earlier, you should be able to.

Yea, you can see Suarez lips & it's apparent he's not calling him a word beginning with 'n' at least 10 times (most likely ******, going by Evra's statements). They are also surrounded by witnesses who'd clearly be able to hear what was said.

flahavaj

Mr Alan wrote: »

Yea, you can see Suarez lips & it's apparent he's not calling him a word beginning with 'n' at least 10 times (most likely ******, going by Evra's statements). They are also surrounded by witnesses who'd clearly be able to hear what was said.

What was this bizarre word that Suarez reckons the United players call Evra all the time then? If his lips are visible enough to rule out amy racist slurs then surely it should be easy enough to figure out what he said.

Of course if this is indeed a simple misunderstanding as Suarez says then he could easily prove so by just saying what he said instead of the confusing and vague statement he has given.

Indeed if I was a new player in a foreign league and I unknowingly used a word that in Ireland means something harmless but in my new home meant something offensive, the first thing I'd want to do is explain myself to the person I'd insulted and apologise? Why has Suarez not done so? This whole thing could have been nipped in the bud straight away, if what Suarez is now claiming is true.......