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

amiable · 09-11-2011 07:40PM

Blatter wrote: »

Key word highlighted;

I have not made any definitive judgement, you on the other hand have done.

It's not that hard to understand.

niallo27 wrote: »

I said it was my opinion on what happened on that day, i never said it was definite

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR1W512on0DeYpsVMuUkqEs5WU8nIoEvqox0Q3ZjMR0SelNqwA0sQ

Blatter · 09-11-2011 07:46PM

SlickRic wrote: »

i just look forward to the verdict to see what happens.

as i say, Evra is in a no-lose situation in this, and that's my qualm - not that i want him "done"...it's just a tricky situation.

if Evra can't prove it, and Suarez is found innocent, this will then leave it open to others to make accusations in the future about people, if action isn't at that point taken against Evra.

if Suarez is found guilty, well then it's an open-shut case obviously.

The case will most likely be thrown out due to lack of evidence.

At that stage all we can do is presume Suarez is not guilty, which is what people should be doing now obviously.

But at the same time, Evra will have to presumed is innocent. We will have to presume that Evra did not lie.

We just simply don't know, it's one man's word against another's.

If Evra is making it up, then yes, it is unfair on Suarez. Of course it is, as no one will ever know for sure that Evra lied. But that's life, and there's not a whole lot people can do about it. Life is sometimes like that, an ideal solution doesn't exist in some situations, and this scenario is one of them.

You talk as if the case would set some sort of precedent, that in the future it will leave it open to others to make accusations against people, knowing that they will be in a no lose situation. In reality, everyone knows this can be done anyway. It's obvious that anyone can claim somebody called them something in a one on one situation, and it will never be able to be proven that they've lied. That's just common sense, it's nothing new, everyone knows it can be done. It's not really a problem because so few people are despicable enough to carry out such an action.

Blatter · 09-11-2011 07:54PM

amiable wrote: »

It's bad enough being in the same thread and on the same forum. I do think I'd go insane if I was in the same room:D

Hank Scorpio · 09-11-2011 08:49PM

Wouldn't be surprised if Evra is making stuff up, doesn't seem like a very likeable character

Mr Alan · 09-11-2011 09:03PM

Blatter wrote: »

At that stage all we can do is presume Suarez is not guilty, which is what people should be doing now obviously.

But at the same time, Evra will have to presumed is innocent. We will have to presume that Evra did not lie.

This is the crux of it for me.

If you're presuming Suarez is innocent, how can you presume Evra isn't lying at the same time? It's a huge contradiction.

niallo27 · 09-11-2011 09:11PM

Blatter wrote: »

I asked you what you were basing that opinion on and you have not answered. Do you not think it's a stretch to go around saying you **think** you know what happened, with so little evidence available?

Well Suarez said he said something to evra, he said it wasn't racist and evra said it was, so either one is lieing or there is a misunderstanding between in what was said. I think there was a misunderstanding as I don't think either is lieing, that's why my opinion just like it was your opinion Suarez may have called evra a Negro.

parker kent · 09-11-2011 09:20PM

niallo27 wrote: »

Well Suarez said he said something to evra, he said it wasn't racist and evra said it was, so either one is lieing or there is a misunderstanding between in what was said. I think there was a misunderstanding as I don't think either is lieing, that's why my opinion just like it was your opinion Suarez may have called evra a Negro.

Surely you see the difference between somebody speaking about a report and referring to what it contains as "what may have happened" and you creating your own hypothesis? Blatter referred to a report and said it may have happened, he didn't just pull a story out of his arse.

niallo27 · 09-11-2011 09:38PM

parker kent wrote: »

Surely you see the difference between somebody speaking about a report and referring to what it contains as "what may have happened" and you creating your own hypothesis? Blatter referred to a report and said it may have happened, he didn't just pull a story out of his arse.

He didn't pull the story out of his arse, are you for ****en real, where did it mention in the report about Suarez saying anything about calling evra a Negro, yet some how blatter got this, this licking the balls off each other utd circle that's going is embarrassing.

Pro. F · 09-11-2011 09:44PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

This is the crux of it for me.

If you're presuming Suarez is innocent, how can you presume Evra isn't lying at the same time? It's a huge contradiction.

You can presume that they both are innocent. You don't have to worry about the contradiction because that would be getting into the details. And we don't have them. It's like just saying you don't really know.

niallo27 wrote: »

He didn't pull the story out of his arse, are you for ****en real, where did it mention in the report about Suarez saying anything about calling evra a Negro, yet some how blatter got this, this licking the balls off each other utd circle that's going is embarrassing.

Yeah that's it Niallo, it's a conspiracy.
It's nothing at all to do with the fact that you are unable to understand the difference between statements like ''there may be some truth in something'' and ''I believe this is what happened''.

Pro. F · 09-11-2011 09:49PM

SlickRic wrote: »

i just look forward to the verdict to see what happens.

as i say, Evra is in a no-lose situation in this, and that's my qualm - not that i want him "done"...it's just a tricky situation.

if Evra can't prove it, and Suarez is found innocent, this will then leave it open to others to make accusations in the future about people, if action isn't at that point taken against Evra.

if Suarez is found guilty, well then it's an open-shut case obviously.

Don't forget that Evra will have left himself open to a civil defamation case from Suarez if the enquiry doesn't find any evidence. Kess made a great post about it just before this thread was closed. So that is at least some kind of deterrent, even if Suarez doesn't follow through with it.

Also the FA enquiry could still decide to punish Evra if they don't find any evidence. It's just that people around here think that they shouldn't, but people think the FA make bad decisions all the time.

niallo27 · 09-11-2011 10:04PM

Pro. F wrote: »

You can presume that they both are innocent. You don't have to worry about the contradiction because that would be getting into the details. And we don't have them. It's like just saying you don't really know.

Yeah that's it Niallo, it's a conspiracy.
It's nothing at all to do with the fact that you are unable to understand the difference between statements like ''there may be some truth in something'' and ''I believe this is what happened''.

Where did it say in the report anything about Suarez calling evra a Negro, what is he basing this on, did he make it up, is it his opinion.

Blatter · 09-11-2011 10:18PM

niallo27 wrote: »

Where did it say in the report anything about Suarez calling evra a Negro, what is he basing this on, did he make it up, is it his opinion.

I was referring to this report

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/PFA-bid-to-make-peace-in-racism-row-between-Liverpools-Luiz-Suarez-and-Manchester-Uniteds-Patrice-Evra-has-been-blocked-article822175.html

But the Mirror understands the row centres around the Spanish word “negro” having a different meaning culturally, and not being as offensive in that language as it is in English.

And note I never said I believed the report, I said it may have been accurate.

Big difference, and one you appear not to be able to grasp.

Pro. F · 09-11-2011 10:20PM

niallo27 wrote: »

Where did it say in the report anything about Suarez calling evra a Negro, what is he basing this on, did he make it up, is it his opinion.

Look Niallo, I think the vast majority of people in this thread can follow what Blatter said in that quote. It is very simple. If you read it and still can't work out an idea of where Blatter got the ''negro'' thing from then it would be a waste of my time repeating it for you. If you don't have the mental capacity to understand a simple post that is your own problem.

You are now fixating on the word ''opinion''. Nobody said that people shouldn't have opinions. It is just a fact that some opinions are sensible and some opinions are mentally retarded. Some of the opinions you are posting here look a lot closer to being mentally retarded than they do to being sensible.

niallo27 · 09-11-2011 10:33PM

Pro. F wrote: »

Look Niallo, I think the vast majority of people in this thread can follow what Blatter said in that quote. It is very simple. If you read it and still can't work out an idea of where Blatter got the ''negro'' thing from then it would be a waste of my time repeating it for you. If you don't have the mental capacity to understand a simple post that is your own problem.

You are now fixating on the word ''opinion''. Nobody said that people shouldn't have opinions. It is just a fact that some opinions are sensible and some opinions are mentally retarded. Some of the opinions you are posting here look a lot closer to being mentally retarded than they do to being sensible.

Well i think a misunderstanding between two players in front of 44,000 people is very plausible, what is so mentally retarded about it, why do you keep using words like retarded, are you trying to get a reaction out of me. I don't get it.

flahavaj · 09-11-2011 10:41PM

Blatter and Pro F are taking a hell of a lot of sense ITT.

Blatter · 09-11-2011 10:52PM

niallo27 wrote: »

Well i think a misunderstanding between two players in front of 44,000 people is very plausible, what is so mentally retarded about it, why do you keep using words like retarded, are you trying to get a reaction out of me. I don't get it.

Yes, a misunderstanding between two players is a possibility.

There is a difference between saying it's a possibility and saying you think it happened.

Saying that it's a possibility is a reasonable thing to say.

Saying that you believed it happened, despite there being a distinct lack of evidence available to us, is retarded.

niallo27 · 09-11-2011 11:01PM

Blatter wrote: »

Yes, a misunderstanding between two players is a possibility.

There is a difference between saying it's a possibility and saying you think it happened.

Saying that it's a possibility is a reasonable thing to say.

Saying that you believed it happened, despite there being a distinct lack of evidence available to us, is retarded.

I said it was my opinion that this happened, when did opinions become fact, i said i have no evidence to back it up and i may be wrong, i dont see why you lot are throwing your tampons out of your handbags for. its handicapped they way your going on.

Pro. F · 09-11-2011 11:08PM

niallo27 wrote: »

I said it was my opinion that this happened, when did opinions become fact, i said i have no evidence to back it up and i may be wrong, i dont see why you lot are throwing your tampons out of your handbags for. its handicapped they way your going on.

AN OPINION CAN BE STUPID.

Just because it is your opinion doesn't preclude that opinion from being demonstrably stupid.

niallo27 wrote: »

Well i think a misunderstanding between two players in front of 44,000 people is very plausible, what is so mentally retarded about it, why do you keep using words like retarded, are you trying to get a reaction out of me. I don't get it.

I keep saying things like ''mentally retarded'' because you keep on arguing like a retard. Are you trying to get a reaction out of me?

flahavaj · 09-11-2011 11:11PM

niallo27 wrote: »

I said it was my opinion that this happened, when did opinions become fact, i said i have no evidence to back it up and i may be wrong, i dont see why you lot are throwing your tampons out of your handbags for. its handicapped they way your going on.

Amazing how you follow up a post taking offence to the use of "mentally retarded" with this statement.

parker kent · 09-11-2011 11:11PM

niallo27 wrote: »

I said it was my opinion that this happened, when did opinions become fact, i said i have no evidence to back it up and i may be wrong, i dont see why you lot are throwing your tampons out of your handbags for. its handicapped they way your going on.

Probably because of nonsense posts like that. They are arguing with some logic and reason. You are now resorting to playground, sexist, insulting replies.

Nobody (I repeat NOBODY) has an issue with you having an opinion. It is the posts of yours alleging that people are saying stuff that they have never said that caused people to get annoyed at you. Your reactions are not really helping yourself either. Instead of debating posts, you seem to resort to discrediting the poster or childish taunts.

BTW this is not "a United circle jerk" like you said earlier. I've disagreed with these guys over plenty of things on here.

niallo27 · 09-11-2011 11:18PM

flahavaj wrote: »

Amazing how you follow up a post taking offence to the use of "mentally retarded" with this statement.

Yes it's ****ty isn't it.

JimsAlterEgo · 10-11-2011 11:02AM

Have the FA said anything? Am wondering what the delay means, if anything can be read into it. Probably not, just incompetence.

10-11-2011 11:04AM

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

Have the FA said anything? Am wondering what the delay means, if anything can be read into it. Probably not, just incompetence.

They've said sweet FA

parker kent · 10-11-2011 11:41AM

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

Have the FA said anything? Am wondering what the delay means, if anything can be read into it. Probably not, just incompetence.

Presumably there has to be an investigation and a hearing. Since it could be a criminal case in each instance, I guess that may hold things up as well. Just because they are taking their time, it doesn't necessarily indicate incompetence. This could have pretty big repercussions for the players, so better they take their time than rush a decision to satisfy the public.

JimsAlterEgo · 10-11-2011 12:12PM

parker kent wrote: »

Presumably there has to be an investigation and a hearing. Since it could be a criminal case in each instance, I guess that may hold things up as well. Just because they are taking their time, it doesn't necessarily indicate incompetence. This could have pretty big repercussions for the players, so better they take their time than rush a decision to satisfy the public.

Starting to think now there is probably going to be a hearing, especially given Suarez comments that something was said. I assume the FA cant really decide if what was said is/isnt racists without a hearing, wouldn't be fair on either. But would that mean Suarez would have to be charged or could they just have a hearing to establish both sides.

citytillidie · 10-11-2011 06:34PM

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

Have the FA said anything? Am wondering what the delay means, if anything can be read into it. Probably not, just incompetence.

They have been too worried about a poppy to look into either racist investigation.

flahavaj · 14-11-2011 01:15AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/13/luis-suarez-patrice-evra?INTCMP=SRCH

Ho hum.

killwill · 14-11-2011 01:27AM

flahavaj wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/13/luis-suarez-patrice-evra?INTCMP=SRCH

Ho hum.

Nothing really new there but IF that is going to the the defences argument it is a weak one.
Why use Negrito when he could have said Patrice or Evra?

K-9 · 14-11-2011 01:39AM

So do some United players call him that?

Ah never mind. I'm not your pal, buddy!

flahavaj · 14-11-2011 01:49AM

If true, I'm mystified as to how him saying it wasn't caught in camera.:rolleyes:

According to our Liverpool supporting chums the cameras see everything that happens on the pitch. Presumably Sky should have produced footage by now....

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

Comments