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

niallk wrote: »

Just spent 10 mins writing this post for the Racism thread only to find it had been locked whilst I was typing. Here it is anyway:

Gonna try to look at this from a neutral point of view. I'm a United fan but not a big fan of Evra after his PS3 remark a couple of years ago.

In this case, I personally do believe Evra is telling the truth, purely on an instinctual level looking at the body language of the 2 during the game, however:
Evra should not have made this accusation, without conclusive proof.

• Evra gave the interview to Canal+ right after the game and couldn't possibly have known if racial slurs were caught on tape. This does indicate that he was confident that the offences were so blatant that they had to be captured, or he may have said it to display confidence in what he knew to be a lie. Either way, it was silly to go to the press with this straight after the game.
  
• In the likely situation that this accusation goes unproven (I say likely because it is a very hard thing to prove), Evra is guilty of slander. The onus is on the accuser to provide proof of an accusation, not the accused to prove his innocence. If a newspaper accused someone of being a racist without proof, they be sued out the eyeballs. Evra had every right to make a formal complaint against Suarez, but not to publicly accuse him.
  
• Regards to punishment: If proven guilty, I believe Suarez should be punished to the harshest degree, as racism is disgusting and should have no place in the game or anywhere. If no proof is found, Evra can not be punished by the FA, as this would be seen to discourage further instances being reported. However, Suarez would have every right to take legal proceedings against Evra.
  
  

Because Evra made his accusations through a format that is regarded as permanent (ie a format that was recorded) he would not be tried for Slander under English law but for Libel.

Slander, under English law, is when it is word against word with no formal or recorded proof of an accusation or no recorded evidence of a claim of proof. In Scotland and Wales the distinction between Slander and Libel does not carry much importance, but in England there is quite a difference in the eyes of the law.

You are correct to say that if no proof comes to light that the FA cannot touch Evra, but the English legal system can should Suarez lodge an official complaint through the courts. The onus will 100% be upon Evra to produce the evidence he made claims of in a recordable format. If he cannot produce the camera evidence and referee evidence he made claim to on television, then he is open to a serious fine at the very least under UK law as in a Libel case the injured party can claim financial compensation even if there were no loss of earnings through the libelous comments.

amiable wrote: »

Can Evra not be charged with bringing the game into disrepute?(If Suarez is innocent)

The only way Evra could be touched by the FA is if he came out and said he made it up.

Cameras finding no evidence to back Evra up does not mean Evra is automatically guilty of lying. If the FA tried to touch him on it with him still claiming he was abused, then Evra and his legal team would have a field day with the FA and the FA know this.

If it stays a stalemate without any conclusive evidence with each side (Evra and Suarez sticking to their story), then the FA can do nothing to either party, but Suarez can then go after Evra in the English court as Evra has left himself very open on that front to a libel charge.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Thread closed for the moment until any new information or evidence comes to light.

.

Blatter wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/08/luis-suarez-liverpool-patrice-evra?newsfeed=true

So he switched languages briefly when he used "that word"?

killwill wrote: »

Does anyone know what the United players call him that Suarez claims he said to Evra?

I've been trying to figure that out.

Do any Spanish speakers know of a racial slur that sounds similar to mate, chum, bud, pal or friend?

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

He must have called Evra Paddy which he then took offense to on account of his rich Irish heritage.

The whole situation is laughable at this stage and I blame the FA.
Something as serious as this should be dealt with thoroughly and efficiently.
To me at least, it looks like the FA are scared to act on the alleged incident.

Blatter wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/08/luis-suarez-liverpool-patrice-evra?newsfeed=true

So Suarez is now admitting he said something and thats its a misunderstanding, wonder what Kenny thinks about that considering he said Evra was lying (Suarez is basically saying Evra is not lying).

So despite all of the sky cameras Suarez was able to say something uncaptured.

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

So Suarez is now admitting he said something and thats its a misunderstanding, wonder what Kenny thinks about that considering he said Evra was lying (Suarez is basically saying Evra is not lying).

So despite all of the sky cameras Suarez was able to say something uncaptured.

I must have missed the part where Suarez said he racially abused Evra, the sky cameras saw suarez saying plenty but nothing racial.

niallo27 wrote: »

I must have missed the part where Suarez said he racially abused Evra, the sky cameras saw suarez saying plenty but nothing racial.

Suarez is saying he said something the caused a misunderstanding, why won't he say what this is?

niallo27 wrote: »

Yes but Evra said there was 10 different incidents when there clearly wasnt, I think its says a lot about Suarez that he has come out and said there was a misunderstanding when he could have left Evra burn.

the 10 times was probably ill advised but its nothing to do with the FA case, he only has to have said it once.

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

the 10 times was probably ill advised but its nothing to do with the FA case, he only has to have said it once.

Yes but suarez has clearly stated he said nothing racial, so what has changed really.

Mr Alan wrote: »

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

So Suarez is now admitting he said something and thats its a misunderstanding, wonder what Kenny thinks about that considering he said Evra was lying (Suarez is basically saying Evra is not lying).

So despite all of the sky cameras Suarez was able to say something uncaptured.

Evra said he called him a ******. Suarez is saying he didn't. So if Suarez is telling the truth, Evra is still lying. These few words change nothing

We always knew he said 'something' to him, everyone who saw the match saw the two of them arguing. That was never in dispute. Suarez calling him a ****** blatantly more than 10 times is what's being disputed by Kenny & Suarez.

So yes, despite all the cameras-according to Evra, Suarez was able to call him a ****** more than 10 times with nothing being picked up on camera or there being any witnesses in the crowded box. Still sounds as dubious as ever.

The sooner the FA quash this investigation & say there is no basis to it, the better.

I was under the impression that in an interview with canal plus Evra said he called him a bad word he could not repeat. He never actually said it was the N word? Although it is hard to imagine what it could be unless there is a French word it could of been or Spanish or something