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

flahavaj · 09-11-2011 12:50AM

If Phelan lied I'd have no problem with him being chucked from the club either tbh.

Can we get back to the guy who apparently told the truth in that case now and the present case?

Mr Alan · 09-11-2011 12:51AM

A tad off topic, but calling Evra an immigrant, even if it did happen, isn't racist. It's a fact.

Blatter · 09-11-2011 12:51AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

The FA released the full findings. The PDF version can be read online. Look it up.

Unfortunately false allegations of this nature have never really been punished in football I'm afraid.

Bodhisopha wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/3814849/FA-Battle-of-the-Bridge-report-in-full.html

See from about point 38 down. Mike Phelan not only contradicts Harris but he also contradicts the oral evidence he gave months earlier. You have to admit, it looks very dodgy.

Yeah, that doesn't reflect well on Mike Phelan I'll admit. We can't say for certain he fabricated the claim though, if we could, he wouldn't be still at United.

I remember people had a few issues with that FA report at the time, I'll try and find the article but iirc it tells things from a much different perspective.

flahavaj · 09-11-2011 12:54AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

A tad off topic, but calling Evra an immigrant, even if it did happen, isn't racist. It's a fact.

If you're in a confrontation with someone and you refrer to them as such though its almost certainly going to be taken as a racist comment 9quite rightly). In the same way that someone being black is a fact, if you call them a "black" anything during a row its only going to be taken one way.

Please don't take the Eagle Eye stance on this one Al.

Mr Alan · 09-11-2011 12:56AM

Blatter wrote: »

Yeah, that doesn't reflect well on Mike Phelan I'll admit. We can't say for certain he fabricated the claim though, if we could, he wouldn't be still at United.

See, this is part of the issue, even when found to have lied-some Utd fans can't admit it. They were crystal clear in their findings.

53. For the reasons summarised above, our finding is the alleged racist remark by Mr Bethell (calling Mr Evra a “******* immigrant”) was not made.

The accusation Phelan made was not true. He lied. It's simple.

Kess73 · 09-11-2011 01:00AM

flahavaj wrote: »

If you're in a confrontation with someone and you refrer to them as such though its almost certainly going to be taken as a racist comment 9quite rightly). In the same way that someone being black is a fact, if you call them a "black" anything during a row its only going to be taken one way.

Please don't take the Eagle Eye stance on this one Al.

Would not regard it as racist, but would regard it as being xenophobic if it were said in a confrontational or insulting manner.

Blatter · 09-11-2011 01:00AM

http://soccerlens.com/the-fas-evra-report-the-united-perspective/19035/

Mike Phelan has been the main focus of the newspaper reports, with him receiving a lot of stick and essentially being called a liar. I imagined there had to be pretty compelling evidence for the FA to write this in their report. It appears as though I was wrong.

Phelan’s first statement was written three weeks after the incident. He claimed that Bethell called Evra a “f*****g immigrant” during the first coming together between the two men. Five months later he was asked to write another statement, in which he claimed the comments were made during the second coming together of the two men. It is the mistiming of when the racist comment was made that has lead the FA to damn Phelan as ‘unimpressive’ and the press label him a liar.

I imagine if I saw two men swinging for each other, being pulled apart by scores of people, before they clashed again, and amongst this mass brawl I heard the words “****ing immigrant” being shouted, five months later I would remember the words said, not the precise moment they were said.

The FA report agrees. “We should not have expected complete detailed accuracy and consistency in witnesses’ recollections of a fast-moving disorderly series of events.”

Richard Hartis, United’s goalkeeping coach, didn’t agree with Phelan on the timing, as stated by the report. “There is some confusion and inconsistency in their placing of the alleged racist insult.”

It is because of that United’s testimonies are regarded ‘unreliable’ and ‘unimpressive’.

However, when there are conflicts between the accounts of Bethell and Martin (another member of Chelsea’s groundstaff), no such judgments are made.

“There was a discrepancy between his [Bethell] evidence and Martin’s evidence about when Bethell first knew that who Evra was by name, but that does not lead us to doubt that Bethell was telling us the truth.”

This is the relevant part about Mike Phelan, which tells things from a different perspective.

And no Alan, we can't be sure he lied so I will refrain from calling him a liar.

Mr Alan · 09-11-2011 01:01AM

flahavaj wrote: »

If you're in a confrontation with someone and you refrer to them as such though its almost certainly going to be taken as a racist comment 9quite rightly). In the same way that someone being black is a fact, if you call them a "black" anything during a row its only going to be taken one way.

Please don't take the Eagle Eye stance on this one Al.

Suppose so. But there's an interesting conversation to be had there. Immigration is nothing at all to do with race, it'd possibly be more to do with xenophobia.

If I call a white polish lad an immigrant in an argument, am I 'racist' or is it a 'racial' slur?

Blatter · 09-11-2011 01:03AM

Kess73 wrote: »

Would not regard it as racist, but would regard it as being xenophobic if it were said in a confrontational or insulting manner.

Racism is a very broad concept and afaik, xenophobia falls under it.

Mr Alan · 09-11-2011 01:04AM

Blatter wrote: »

http://soccerlens.com/the-fas-evra-report-the-united-perspective/19035/

This is the relevant part about Mike Phelan, which tells things from a different perspective.

And no Alan, we can't be sure he lied so I will refrain from calling him a liar.

Are you for real?

A blog by 'Scott the Red' versus the FA's independent enquiry?

Hmmmmm. Tough call.

The FA found Phelan was lying. Accept it.

Blatter · 09-11-2011 01:06AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

Are you for real?

A blog by 'Scott the Red' versus the FA's independent enquiry?

Hmmmmm. Tough call.

Ha, I'm not giving them equal weight by any means. I'm just saying he raises some interesting points and it's worth a read.:)

flahavaj · 09-11-2011 01:07AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

Suppose so. But there's an interesting conversation to be had there. Immigration is nothing at all to do with race, it'd possibly be more to do with xenophobia.

If I call a white polish lad an immigrant in an argument, am I 'racist' or is it a 'racial' slur?

If you use a racial slur I don't think you can complain if you're labelled a racist tbh. Anyone that goes there in any shape or form in an argument is asking for trouble an deserves what they get if they do. Simple as.

You'd have to be retarded to say anyting along those lines and think people will listem later on if you start banging on about the fine line between race and immigration.

Mr Alan · 09-11-2011 01:12AM

Blatter wrote: »

Ha, I'm not giving them equal weight by any means. I'm just saying he raises some interesting points and it's worth a read.:)

He really doesn't. He just doesn't wanna accept Phelan was caught lying.

Blatter · 09-11-2011 01:16AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

He really doesn't. He just doesn't wanna accept Phelan was caught lying.

Why, which specific points that he made(concerning Phelan) would you like to discard as nonsense/illogical?

Assuming you read it of course, which I shouldn't really:pac:

Pro. F · 09-11-2011 01:16AM

niallo27 wrote: »

Well don't nearly all utd fans back evra and believe he is telling the truth and that he was racially abused even though there is no evidence to back this.

No! Stop trying to bring this argument down to your level!

niallo27 · 09-11-2011 01:19AM

Pro. F wrote: »

No! Stop trying to bring this argument down to your level!

What you mean by that, I believe Suarez is telling the truth and until i get proof otherwise i will continue to back him.

tommyhaas · 09-11-2011 01:20AM

Its easy to see how in an argument, specifically one that you're being asked to recall 5 months later, the timeline could become blurred in someone's mind. Could anyone one here give an accurate timeline regarding the discussion in this thread tonight, in 5 months time?

I don't know whether or not Phelan was lying, but I don't think that the panel finding his evidence inconsistent is proof he was

People have been mentioning the previous Evra/Chelsea case a lot, however I would have thought the incident when he did actually accuse people of racism, people of his own race infact, to be more relevant, as, as far as I can see, it pretty much demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what racism is

SlickRic · 09-11-2011 01:22AM

flahavaj wrote: »

If it is there is going to be some serious egg on face for an awful lot of posters on this forum...

not at all.

i think it's pretty normal to want actual evidence before assuming guilt.

very few people have definitively said that Suarez is innocent, it's just some are going the innocent before proven guilty route, which, let's be honest, isn't the most shameful route to go down now is it?

it's actually worked out brilliantly for many Utd fans tbh. they can assume guilt, and if it happens that no evidence comes forward, they can just say the evidence couldn't be found. it's win-win. either Suarez is guilty, or he's still possibly guilty, it's just it can't be proven.

yet anyone who assumes innocence now, with no concrete evidence as of yet, will have egg on their face once evidence comes out? (if it comes out)...give me a break. there'll be no such thing for the majority of Liverpool fans.

Blatter · 09-11-2011 01:31AM

tommyhaas wrote: »

Its easy to see how in an argument, specifically one that you're being asked to recall 5 months later, the timeline could become blurred in someone's mind. Could anyone one here give an accurate timeline regarding the discussion in this thread tonight, in 5 months time?

I don't know whether or not Phelan was lying, but I don't think that the panel finding his evidence inconsistent is proof he was

Absolutely.

People have been mentioning the previous Evra/Chelsea case a lot, however I would have thought the incident when he did actually accuse people of racism, people of his own race infact, to be more relevant, as, as far as I can see, it pretty much demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what racism is.

Well, these were Evra's quotes from that incident;

"I grew up amid a Senegalese culture at home." Evra said. "But we became westernised very quickly and when I had to choose between playing for Senegal or France my father told me to follow my heart.

"I opted for France, as that was where I had grown up, but I then came in for lots of abuse in Senegal.

"I was called a monkey who grovels before the white man and labelled a money-obsessed traitor to the nation. But my parents helped me get through it.

"I had not been back to Senegal since the age of 10. I have still not returned. It is 19 years now and I need an incentive to make me go."

All he did is state a fact and said how sad he was about it. The media construes it as racism in the headlines. I don't think Evra demonstrated a lack of understanding of racism in this instance.

Pro. F · 09-11-2011 01:34AM

tommyhaas wrote: »

People have been mentioning the previous Evra/Chelsea case a lot, however I would have thought the incident when he did actually accuse people of racism, people of his own race infact, to be more relevant, as, as far as I can see, it pretty much demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what racism is

It does sound a bit like that. But it's surely highly unlikely that somebody with as good English as Evra and as fully integrated into English speaking society wouldn't understand the concept of racism. Maybe the interview was in French and it's been poorly translated. Or maybe, as somebody on this thread suggested ages ago, it could have been the Senegalese equivalent of an ''Uncle Tom'' insult.

Either way, the FA enquiry will presumably leave no room for ambiguity and that type of misunderstanding.

Edit: Ignore all this. Blatter's quote from Evra makes it irrelevant.

Blatter · 09-11-2011 01:36AM

SlickRic wrote: »

not at all.

i think it's pretty normal to want actual evidence before assuming guilt.

very few people have definitively said that Suarez is innocent, it's just some are going the innocent before proven guilty route, which, let's be honest, isn't the most shameful route to go down now is it?

it's actually worked out brilliantly for many Utd fans tbh. they can assume guilt, and if it happens that no evidence comes forward, they can just say the evidence couldn't be found. it's win-win. either Suarez is guilty, or he's still possibly guilty, it's just it can't be proven.

yet anyone who assumes innocence now, with no concrete evidence as of yet, will have egg on their face once evidence comes out? (if it comes out)...give me a break. there'll be no such thing for the majority of Liverpool fans.

Flah is talking about those who were assuming that Evra has lied, and there were plenty who did that.

He and I, and most United fans (as far as I can see) have not assumed Suarez is a racist.

But the key is, we're also not assuming Evra is lying. It is possible not to assume either, and it is the correct course of action at the moment in this case.

Mr Alan · 09-11-2011 01:37AM

Pro. F wrote: »

Either way, the FA enquiry will presumably leave no room for ambiguity and that type of misunderstanding.

If the enquiry findings go against what some people want to believe they'll simply refuse to accept it.

The Phelan/Chelsea incident is a case in point.

Pro. F · 09-11-2011 01:39AM

niallo27 wrote: »

What you mean by that, I believe Suarez is telling the truth and until i get proof otherwise i will continue to back him.

Yes, that's the level your argument is at - biased and stunted. Whereas the people making a more considered argument are saying that, for now, it's one guy's word against the other and we can't possibly know who is telling the truth.

Mr Alan · 09-11-2011 01:42AM

Pro. F wrote: »

Yes, that's the level your argument is at - biased and stunted. Whereas the people making a more considered argument are saying that, for now, it's one guy's word against the other and we can't possibly know who is telling the truth.

Innocent until proven guilty though, no?

The burden of prove would be on people to prove Evra isn't lying.

K-9 · 09-11-2011 01:42AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

Suppose so. But there's an interesting conversation to be had there. Immigration is nothing at all to do with race, it'd possibly be more to do with xenophobia.

If I call a white polish lad an immigrant in an argument, am I 'racist' or is it a 'racial' slur?

It's an anti foreigner sentiment in an argument so xenophobic, politically correct on all foreign nationalities and races.

niallo27 · 09-11-2011 01:56AM

Pro. F wrote: »

Yes, that's the level your argument is at - biased and stunted. Whereas the people making a more considered argument are saying that, for now, it's one guy's word against the other and we can't possibly know who is telling the truth.

You have to assume Suarez is innocent until proven guilty, thats the way it's works, I also find the lack of evidence of any abuse in one of the most televised game in the world to be very odd.

Pro. F · 09-11-2011 02:14AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty though, no?

The burden of prove would be on people to prove Evra isn't lying.

Yes obviously, Suarez is innocent until proven guilty. And Evra is innocent until proven guilty of lying. If Evra fails to prove that Suarez used racist language then we are left with the situation where it's one guy's word against the other's and we have no idea which one is lying or mistaken. Imo it's the simpleton level when somebody ''backs'' one side of the dispute, because there is not enough evidence either way to sensibly determine what happened yet.

In the world of defamation and law suits it turns out that Evra has left himself open to prosecution. But that is a purely legal issue. I mean the law is arranged sort of bluntly to protect people from false accusations, and so sometimes it messes up foolish innocents who weren't lying. So in the situation where we all know it's just one person's word against the other, the law treats the accuser harshly. But that doesn't prove the accuser was lying.

Mr Alan wrote: »

If the enquiry findings go against what some people want to believe they'll simply refuse to accept it.

The Phelan/Chelsea incident is a case in point.

You saying that all findings of FA enquiries should be accepted without question? I wouldn't agree with that.

If the findings of the enquiry are sensible and based on good evidence then I'm sure all reasonable posters will be happy with them.

(I'm reading the Phelan/Chelsea findings now, so I don't really have an opinion on them yet myself)

Pro. F · 09-11-2011 02:17AM

niallo27 wrote: »

You have to assume Suarez is innocent until proven guilty, thats the way it's works, I also find the lack of evidence of any abuse in one of the most televised game in the world to be very odd.

See my response to Alan above for the first part. And see all the talk in the thread about camera angles and lip reading for the other bit. But I doubt you will think about either because you are obviously completely biased on this topic and refuse to think beyond the simplest terms.

citytillidie · 09-11-2011 02:20AM

niallo27 wrote: »

You have to assume Suarez is innocent until proven guilty, thats the way it's works, I also find the lack of evidence of any abuse in one of the most televised game in the world to be very odd.

You would think that yes, but going by this thread and other posts on the forum he is guilty until proven innocent by all other fans bar Liverpool fans

Paul Tergat · 09-11-2011 02:36AM

citytillidie wrote: »

You would think that yes, but going by this thread and other posts on the forum he is guilty until proven innocent by all other fans bar Liverpool fans

you are talking bollocks. read the thread and you will see there are very few saying he is guilty until proven innocent and thats its a case that you are unlikely to prove it either way.

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

Comments