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

Mr Alan · 08-11-2011 11:42AM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

4. I'm legally qualified, it's a waste of time debating legal issues with people who don't understand them but still want to argue about them. It's a completely different mindset that's needed (which is why I'm so at odds with most on here)

Aren't you qualified in finance as well?

Cause this is the sort of stuff you trotted out during the G&H reign when you were saying that us plebs couldn't understand that they weren't really an issue at Liverpool. That only your advanced intellect could grasp it.

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

5. I don't see why you hate me, you could learn a lot from me.

Put simply. Answers like this.

Nalz · 08-11-2011 11:44AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

Put simply. Answers like this.

lol well said

PHB · 08-11-2011 11:56AM

Mod Note:

SlickRic wrote: »

Thread re-opened.

Be nice.

Did people simply ignore that?

If you want to continue this discussion without everyone being banned and the thread closed again, I suggest people take a different tone in their posts.

08-11-2011 11:57AM

So a month on and still no evidence that either Suarez racially abused or that Evra is telling the truth.

This investigation is moving at lightning speed...

Bit off topic, but it looks like Tiger woods can be called a black ******** and say himself it's not racist.

Anyway the sooner it's sorted out the better for all parties.

jaykay74 · 08-11-2011 12:10PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

Bit off topic, but it looks like Tiger woods can be called a black ******** and say himself it's not racist.

Did he say the comment wasn't racist. I read he said that the caddie isnt a racist, nothing about the remarks themselves

“We talked it through,” he said. “Steve is certainly not a racist. There is no doubt about that. It was a comment that should not have been made.
"It was one he wished he did not make.”

08-11-2011 12:15PM

jaykay74 wrote: »

Did he say the comment wasn't racist. I read he said that the caddie isnt a racist, nothing about the remarks themselves

Yeah, you're right.

He said the caddie wasn't racist despite saying that.

Anyway, won't drag this off topic anymore.

JimsAlterEgo · 08-11-2011 12:20PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

So a month on and still no evidence that either Suarez racially abused or that Evra is telling the truth.

This investigation is moving at lightning speed...

Bit off topic, but it looks like Tiger woods can be called a black ******** and say himself it's not racist.

Anyway the sooner it's sorted out the better for all parties.

I wouldn't read too much into the speed of it, its so sensitive the FA have to get it right.
I don't know why people expect any evidence given to be in the public domain.

I would guess Suarez told the FA what he actually said so its now up to them to decide if its racist or not. I don't see why he wont actually say what it was he said.

My guess is the FA will say there was a misunderstanding warn Suarez about what he said and take no further action.

Kess73 · 08-11-2011 12:22PM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

1. I have a busy life.

2. We shared a few PM's about it, since the Mods explicitly said they didn't want the conversation to continue.

3. I hate to do this but, Kess was relaying information given to him rather than information he truly understood. He was overstating the importance of some things, and mistaking what could be defamatory and what couldn't. I explained to him why you were wide of the mark though.

4. I'm legally qualified, it's a waste of time debating legal issues with people who don't understand them but still want to argue about them. It's a completely different mindset that's needed (which is why I'm so at odds with most on here)

5. I don't see why you hate me, you could learn a lot from me.

I was going to say nowt about the PMs in the open forum, but I was relaying what I was told by my brother, a man who practises law in England, and whose knowledge of English law will trump a guy who sent me a pm saying he is a solicitor. If you are legally trained here in Ireland, then I am sure your knowledge of Irish law is excellent and if we were debating Irish law then no doubt you would be spot on.

Funnily enough in our PMs you eventually came around to agreeing with what I said about Suarez having enough to go to court to try for libel, but then changed your POV slightly to you reckoning Suarez would not go ahead and take it to court.

So maybe you can tell me what I did not understand about English law with regards to what I said, and point out exactly what I said that is incorrect with regards to English law. You already tried to point out in your pms that there was little difference in how the UK countries and Ireland view defamation despite England being the UK country that makes a very clear distinction with regards to libel and slander.

So please go ahead and tell me where what I said to you in the PMs or in the forum was incorrect in terms of the English legal system. The Irish legal system does not come into it at all and has no relevance.

You can feel free to copy and paste all our PMs and put them up in this thread as well and point out exactly what is wrong in terms of how I think the English legal system applies to what we discussed. Granted I used layman's language in my PMs but once you show me where you think I fail to understand what I was told with regards to English law, I can get my brother to either supply me with more links as to what the law in England states (some of the links I did put up a few weeks ago in the last superthread) or I can get him to email me a brief synopsis using fancy legal terms as to how Suarez could take things to an English court to press for a libel charge should the FA investigation turn up nothing.

My arguement has been a very simple one all along. It was that based on the accusation that Evra made on tv, and based on the fact he publically claimed there were witnesses to comments made of a racial nature, that Suarez would have enough to take it to an English court of law and try for a charge to be brought against Evra on the grounds of libel. I was not debating whether it is likely or unlikely he would do that, but just that there is enough there as is for to be heard in an English court should one party decide to go down that route. So you can say it in the open forum now whether you agree that there is enough for Suarez to try for a defamation charge, or that in your professional opinion there is not enough for him to try for defamation of character.

So which is it? If Suarez decided he wanted to go to court, is there enough for him to try for a defamation charge?

08-11-2011 12:26PM

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

I would guess

My guess is the FA will say there was a misunderstanding warn Suarez about what he said and take no further action.

Guesswork, the mother of all fúckups !

They can only warn him if he's done something wrong.

_blank_ · 08-11-2011 12:28PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

They can only warn him if he's done something wrong.

No, they can warn him to pick his words more carefully in future.

He has admitted he said "something" to Evra, which has obviously upset Evra. Myabe he didn't mean to, maybe Evra shouldn't be so sensitive, until we know what the word used was, we can't really say.

JimsAlterEgo · 08-11-2011 12:30PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

They can only warn him if he's done something wrong.

I don't mean an offiical warning more of a general warning about future conduct and to be careful what he says in case somebody took it up in a manner it wasn't intended to.

Actually more I think about it this is the most likely outcome IMO, all sides kept happy to some degree.

JimsAlterEgo · 08-11-2011 12:34PM

Des wrote: »

No, they can warn him to pick his words more carefully in future.

He has admitted he said "something" to Evra, which has obviously upset Evra. Myabe he didn't mean to, maybe Evra shouldn't be so sensitive, until we know what the word used was, we can't really say.

what I don't get though is if its a simple misunderstanding why not come out and say what he said. This interview was the opportuniity. He only goes so far.

_blank_ · 08-11-2011 12:35PM

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

what I don't get though is if its a simple misunderstanding why not come out and say what he said. This interview was the opportuniity. He only goes so far.

I do find that bit weird alright.

Paul Tergat · 08-11-2011 12:43PM

re: any confusion over a nickname it could be a case of the way someone says it.

Like taking the word n****r for example it can be about context. Certain friends can say oh he's my n****r meaning my mate or if in the heat of battle someone says something like f*cking n****r then its clear in this example (WHICH OF COURSE IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE) that one can take offence to one way yet the other is a term of affection.

In summary, we still know **** all and its impossible to know who to believe.

Blatter · 08-11-2011 12:45PM

Sounds like there may have been some truth in that paper report last week that said Suarez may have called Evra a Negro but is claiming that it's not interpreted as a racist term in Uruguay.

The FA would want to hurry on with this. The length of time it's taking would indicate to me that it's not a cut and dry situation and there is a lot of thinking for them to do on this. I know they're normally slow but this is taking the p*ss.

Mr Alan · 08-11-2011 12:45PM

I presume those who feel that Suarez should be warned to "pick his words carefully in future", also feel that Evra should be warned about running to the media & branding people racists when there is no foundation to such accusations also?

08-11-2011 12:46PM

Blatter wrote: »

Sounds like there may have been some truth in that paper report last week that said Suarez may have called Evra a Negro but is claiming that it's not interpreted as a racist term in Uruguay.

I think you are putting 2+2 together and getting the right result to suit your own agenda

_blank_ · 08-11-2011 12:48PM

I think even if the word had been printed, you'd get United fans saying it's a racist word, and Liverpool fans saying it isn't. And we'd start ot get arguments about "context" and "in Spanish" etc.

Blatter · 08-11-2011 12:48PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

I presume those who feel that Suarez should be warned to "pick his words carefully in future", also feel that Evra should be warned about running to the media & branding people racists when there is no foundation to such accusations also?

IF Suarez called Evra a N*****, I don't want him warned about his choice of words, I want him banned.

Mr Alan · 08-11-2011 12:49PM

No No Des.

If Suarez said ******/Monkey, it's racist abuse & he should be done for it (note: I don't actually think it would nescessarily make Suarez a racist, but that's a different argument).

Blatter wrote: »

IF Suarez called Evra a N*****, I don't want him warned about his choice of words, I want him banned.

I agree.

And if there is no proof of him calling him a ****** more than 10 times, I'd like there to be serious questions of Evra.

Crazy Horse 6 · 08-11-2011 12:51PM

Negro is a racist word now.

_blank_ · 08-11-2011 12:52PM

I don't think Evra should face any sanction.

If he does, it means that future victims of hate crimes would be less likely to report them, for fear of being belittled and scorned and not believed, and that is not a society in which I'd like to partake.

_blank_ · 08-11-2011 12:53PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Negro is a racist word now.

"you ****ing negro" is a tad racist, yes.

edit, actually

"Hi negro, how are you" is also a bit racist - would YOU say it to a black person?

Blatter · 08-11-2011 12:57PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

I think you are putting 2+2 together and getting the right result to suit your own agenda

Im not, no agenda.

Suarez had admitted saying something.

He talks about saying things in Spanish and English and he said he (and Evra's teamates) were surprised at Evra's reaction, which hints that hes claiming a 'misunderstanding'.

That misunderstanding, could have been that paper report last week, where Suarez could have called Evra a Negro, but is claiming he didn't mean it as a racial/offensive comment as it's used in Uruguay all the time.

I never said that was the case, just saying that there's grounds to believe that it's a possibility.

Nalz · 08-11-2011 01:00PM

Des wrote: »

If he does, it means that future victims of hate crimes would be less likely to report them, for fear of being belittled and scorned and not believed, and that is not a society in which I'd like to partake.

Yep, this is the problem! Can of worms.

Then theres the argument of what is descriptive and what is actually racist... its all a load of bullshít if you ask me. It's scummy and its low but its too difficult to police at times and too much being made out of it due to this.

Mr Alan · 08-11-2011 01:03PM

Des wrote: »

I don't think Evra should face any sanction.

If he does, it means that future victims of hate crimes would be less likely to report them, for fear of being belittled and scorned and not believed, and that is not a society in which I'd like to partake.

I think "victims" should learn that such serious allegations such as this should be dealt with properly & through the correct channels. Not frivilously in the media including statements which are not true-but provide the charges with more weight than they would ordinarily carry.

_blank_ · 08-11-2011 01:04PM

Trilla wrote: »

Yep, this is the problem! Can of worms.

Then theres the argument of what is descriptive and what is actually racist... its all a load of bullshít if you ask me. It's scummy and its low but its too difficult to police at times and too much being made out of it due to this.

"He is a black man" - "Two men robbed the bank, a white man and a black man" Not Racist - Descriptive

"He is a black cúnt" - "He is a fúcking nígger bastard" - "Some black wanker stole my bike" - Racist!

"Hey negro!" - context. one black dude to another - not racist. A white guy to his black friend who is ok with it - not racist. White guy using it to a black guy, who he doesn't know, but the black guy's friends do it - probably racist, if not extremely stupid.

amiable · 08-11-2011 01:05PM

Des wrote: »

I don't think Evra should face any sanction.

If he does, it means that future victims of hate crimes would be less likely to report them, for fear of being belittled and scorned and not believed, and that is not a society in which I'd like to partake.

But then the flip side is it gives players a carte blanche to make any allegations they want without needing proof and walk away scot free if they make it up.

_blank_ · 08-11-2011 01:08PM

amiable wrote: »

But then the flip side is it gives players a carte blanche to make any allegations they want without needing proof and walk away scot free if they make it up.

yep. I'm more comfortable with that than I am with victims of hate crime hiding away, afraid to say anything.

Sure look at Evra's reputation now among Pool fans and further afield, they think he's some kind of "boy who cried wolf" - I agree that people shouldn't be casting frivolous assertions, but if you do it too many times without proof or back up, people will eventually see you for the bullshít artist you are.

08-11-2011 01:09PM

Blatter wrote: »

IF Suarez called Evra a N*****, I don't want him warned about his choice of words, I want him banned.

I certainly dont, even if he said something (which I dont believe he did) I hope he gets away with it. He is far to important to lose over a silly incident like this. Having him on the field is the most important thing.

The world is getting far too PC imo. The latest incident with Tiger woods is proof of this, I think its laughable claiming what his former caddy said was racist.

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

Comments