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

The_Kew_Tour · 22-12-2011 02:09AM

Eric Cantona and Rio did the time for the crime.

United fans got on and moved on.

Ye should do the same, instead of making up ****.

Blatter · 22-12-2011 02:10AM

The other part of the statement that was laughable was these two seperate parts.

“It is key to note that Patrice Evra himself in his written statement in this case said: “I don’t think that Luis Suarez is racist.” The FA in their opening remarks accepted that Luis Suarez was not racist.

Evra has admitted here that he does not believe Suarez is racist and Liverpool are now happy to quote a player only a paragraph earlier they noted:''(Evra is) certainly no more credible than his prior unfounded accusations.”

Is he credible when he says Suarez isn’t racist but not credible when he says he’s made a racist slur? How does it work? When is Evra allowed to be considered ‘credible’?

niallo27 · 22-12-2011 02:12AM

cournioni wrote: »

Absolutely despicable show from Liverpool tonight. Showing support for a player that has racially abused another player. Hardly surprising from a club that has a history of showing no accountability for their actions. Some of the statements of victimisation have been truly sickening to be honest as was their accusation that Patrice Evra was "playing the race card" even though Suarez had admitted using the word albeit "in a different context".

Let me ask you, what context between fierce rivals in the heat of battle can the word negrito be used that isn't derogatory?! Especially when you take both players facial expressions at the time of the confrontation into account. They are more or less condoning covering up of the issue of racism for their own benefit. No surprise there I suppose.

Blame Evra, blame United, blame the FA, blame Uruguayan culture, blame context, blame anything and anyone but yourselves Liverpool. What else is new?!

cournioni wrote: »

There still are a number of United fans that hate Rio for what he did. I wouldn't be the biggest fan of him as a person either.

Cantona was banned by United for doing what he did. He will always be held in high regard amongst United fans because he didn't stand back and put up with abuse from a fan that thought he was untouchable and saying disgusting things to Cantona.

Thats the double standards im talking about.

flahavaj · 22-12-2011 02:13AM

Blatter wrote: »

The other part of the statement that was laughable was these two seperate parts.

“It is key to note that Patrice Evra himself in his written statement in this case said: “I don’t think that Luis Suarez is racist.” The FA in their opening remarks accepted that Luis Suarez was not racist.

Evra has admitted here that he does not believe Suarez is racist and Liverpool are now happy to quote a player only a paragraph earlier they noted:''(Evra is) certainly no more credible than his prior unfounded accusations.”

Is he credible when he says Suarez isn’t racist but not credible when he says he’s made a racist slur? How does it work? When is Evra allowed to be considered ‘credible’?

Exactly. In the same way Suarez apologists are quite happy to accept the FA's findings in the Chelsea groundskeeper case but when they find Suarez guilty they're the first to reject it....

niallo27 · 22-12-2011 02:16AM

flahavaj wrote: »

Exactly. In the same way Suarez apologists are quite happy to accept the FA's findings in the Chelsea groundskeeper case but when they find Suarez guilty they're the first to reject it....

No we are waiting for the official report to make up our minds, this has being said thousands of times, why cant you lot understand this.

Mr Alan · 22-12-2011 02:16AM

1. No one knows what the FA have charged Suarez for. Whether is was the South American/Negro exchange. Or the continual abuse in the box as per Evra's original accusation. Well, no one except the parties involved. By all accounts Suarez has admitted to saying 'something' to Evra once, after Evra brought ethnicity into it. Common sense & Liverpool's statement last night (as a party privy to the proceedings) would indicate that is NOT what they've charged Suarez with. Tbh, if it's his admission they're charging him with, they also have to charge Evra who's admitted abusing Suarez & bringing ethnicity into it.

Ok, so that should deal with that misconception you have.
2. Now to the 'prior accusations'. Well first off, Evra played a central part in a case where a man was accused by colleagues of Evra's of making racist remarks at Evra. During those proceedings Evra was found to have lied & exaggerated so Liverpool are clearly somewhat justified in questioning Evra's previous form in these type of investigations. It has also been alleged that Evra accused the ref during the match of only booking him cause he's black. If true, that's another false accusation.

Simple fact is;

1) if the FA is basing their findings on Evra's word in the absence of any witnesses & corroborating evidence &
2) if Suarez sole admission was the south American/negro-negrito exchange...then Liverpool's statement is factually correct & entirely justified.

Jesus Wept · 22-12-2011 02:17AM

flahavaj wrote: »

Exactly. In the same way Suarez apologists are quite happy to accept the FA's findings in the Chelsea groundskeeper case but when they find Suarez guilty they're the first to reject it....

Serious question: Is it that much to expect the evidence at the same time as the verdict? Honestly?

Will you acknowledge that element of proceedings is just wrong?

homer simpson · 22-12-2011 02:19AM

Ridiculous thread is ridiculous...

It was a half decent read for a while but like so many threads on here its away to ....

*unfollow's thread*

jank · 22-12-2011 02:19AM

If a new user to boards.ie started using that word "Nigerito" to describe black football players they would get a site wide ban. It wouldnt matter if the user was from South America.

K-9 · 22-12-2011 02:19AM

cournioni wrote: »

Eric did his time, without any fuss. Liverpool claim innocence and then change that to victimisation whenever they are punished.

The evidence was slightly less debatable in that case.

Wtf is it with Football that makes people lose all sense of reason.

cournioni · 22-12-2011 02:20AM

niallo27 wrote: »

Thats the double standards im talking about.

Not really a double standard as they are completely different issues. One is cowardly racism and the other is a reaction to goading.

Like I said, Cantona did his time with minimal fuss. You didn't see any of this innocent craic from us or our club.

flahavaj · 22-12-2011 02:21AM

The-Rigger wrote: »

Serious question: Is it that much to expect the evidence at the same time as the verdict? Honestly?

Will you acknowledge that element of proceedings is just wrong?

If you're that hung up on evidence being presented then you must be disgusted with the tone of your club's statement, given as it was in the absence of this all-important evidence?

I'm as anxious as anyone to see the details of the case, I have strong feeling it will expose even more blatant lies and character assassination in LFC's official statement.

For example I fully expect the FA to punish Liverpool if it emerges that Suarez himself admitted to using any derivative of negro or negrito, as they blatantly have stated that its Evra's word vs Suarez's.

Also if it was the word "negro" then the question must be asked where did the=is whole "negrito" thing come from? How did it end up being drip fed into the media?

Mr Alan · 22-12-2011 02:25AM

jank wrote: »

If a new user to boards.ie started using that word "Nigerito" to describe black football players they would get a site wide ban. It wouldnt matter if the user was from South America.

1) we don't know if that's what was said
2) it negrito, I know you want it to be like 'nigger, but it's not. There's no need to link to the cereal brand, bars, vending machines etc, it's been done.

Those who feel that if there was any reference to skin colour the ban is justified, presumably also think that if it's in the findings that Evra referred to Suarez as 'south american' or some similar slang term that Evra should be facing the exact same punishment, right?

cournioni · 22-12-2011 02:26AM

K-9 wrote: »

The evidence was slightly less debatable in that case.

Wtf is it with Football that makes people lose all sense of reason.

Suarez admitted to using the word "in a different context" what is debatable about it?!

flahavaj · 22-12-2011 02:29AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

1. No one knows what the FA have charged Suarez for. Whether is was the South American/Negro exchange. Or the continual abuse in the box as per Evra's original accusation. Well, no one except the parties involved. By all accounts Suarez has admitted to saying 'something' to Evra once, after Evra brought ethnicity into it. Common sense & Liverpool's statement last night (as a party privy to the proceedings) would indicate that is NOT what they've charged Suarez with. Tbh, if it's his admission they're charging him with, they also have to charge Evra who's admitted abusing Suarez & bringing ethnicity into it.

Ok, so that should deal with that misconception you have.
2. Now to the 'prior accusations'. Well first off, Evra played a central part in a case where a man was accused by colleagues of Evra's of making racist remarks at Evra. During those proceedings Evra was found to have lied & exaggerated so Liverpool are clearly somewhat justified in questioning Evra's previous form in these type of investigations. It has also been alleged that Evra accused the ref during the match of only booking him cause he's black. If true, that's another false accusation.

Simple fact is;

1) if the FA is basing their findings on Evra's word in the absence of any witnesses & corroborating evidence &
2) if Suarez sole admission was the south American/negro-negrito exchange...then Liverpool's statement is factually correct & entirely justified.

They didn't do that though they referred specifically to "previous unfounded accusations." Wording is vitally important in these things. How a legal team let that statement go out is beyond me.

We know and have discussed many many times that there are none of these. They're doing exactly what Kristian whatsisname from LFC TV did when the case broke; it didn't work then and it won't work now - but the fact that the club continues to use these tricks is a big shock tbh.

Mr Alan · 22-12-2011 02:31AM

Context is everything.

If for example Evra said (in Spanish), 'get your hands off me south american' to which Suarez responded 'what's your problem blackman', how could it possibly be justified to punish one when they're both in breach of the exact same rules?

flahavaj · 22-12-2011 02:32AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

1) we don't know if that's what was said
2) it negrito, I know you want it to be like 'nigger, but it's not. There's no need to link to the cereal brand, bars, vending machines etc, it's been done.

Those who feel that if there was any reference to skin colour the ban is justified, presumably also think that if it's in the findings that Evra referred to Suarez as 'south american' or some similar slang term that Evra should be facing the exact same punishment, right?

So you think that if Suarez had called Evra a European we'd be having this sh*t vstrom right now? GTFO.

If you bring skin colour into an argument with a black man you're asking for trouble straight away. While I don't believe that someone who does so is necessarily racist, they have to accept that by going there I the first place you are inevitably going to be acused of being so.

Blatter · 22-12-2011 02:34AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

Context is everything.

If for example Evra said (in Spanish), 'get your hands off me south american' to which Suarez responded 'what's your problem blackman', how could it possibly be justified to punish one when they're both in breach of the exact same rules?

Didn't Liverpool claim that Suarez didn't hear the alleged abuse from Evra in their statement?

How could he have responded to anything if he didn't hear it?

Peyton Manning · 22-12-2011 02:35AM

Alan Hansen is getting criticised now for describing black players as "coloured players" on Match of the Day tonight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa2JYCNF2_g

The guy commentating at the end is hilarious, as is Dixon's nervous glance to Lineker when Hansen says it

DOC09UNAM · 22-12-2011 02:35AM

Do ye not eventually get sick of typing the same posts over and over again, neither of you will change the others minds tbh.

K-9 · 22-12-2011 02:36AM

cournioni wrote: »

Suarez admitted to using the word "in a different context" what is debatable about it?!

You brought Cantona into it.

You compared Cantona to Suarez and said United just got on with it.

You realise how dumb that post is?

Edit: You'll never realise it, I'm out.

Blatter · 22-12-2011 02:36AM

Peyton Manning wrote: »

Alan Hansen is getting criticised now for describing black players as "coloured players" on Match of the Day tonight.

But his Grandad is black.

Mr Alan · 22-12-2011 02:37AM

flahavaj wrote: »

They didn't do that though they referred specifically to "previous unfounded accusations." Wording is vitally important in these things. How a legal team let that statement go out is beyond me.

I awaited the legal action with baited breath (clue: there'll be none, Evra accused the Chelsea groundsman of plenty of things in the report that were proven to be untrue).

Flah wrote:

We know and have discussed many many times that there are none of these. They're doing exactly what Kristian whatsisname from LFC TV did when the case broke; it didn't work then and it won't work now - but the fact that the club continues to use these tricks is a big shock tbh.

The funniest thing about that is the people most responsible for that myth that Evra was the one who made the accusations were Utd fans who throughout that period defended Evra by constantly saying he was sticking up for himself after being racially abused.

Peyton Manning · 22-12-2011 02:38AM

Blatter wrote: »

But his Grandad is black.

Relax, Kenny has got this.

Blatter · 22-12-2011 02:39AM

vwp:pac:

Jesus Wept · 22-12-2011 02:41AM

Words and peoples are funny things. The 'correct' term today for referring to someone will no doubt be considered offensive by many by the simple adding of time.

The_Kew_Tour · 22-12-2011 02:41AM

K-9 wrote: »

You brought Cantona into it.

You compared Cantona to Suarez and said United just got on with it.

You realise how dumb that post is?

Edit: You'll never realise it, I'm out.

Actually it was mentioned quite few times by Liverpool fans on this thread.

Mr Alan · 22-12-2011 02:42AM

flahavaj wrote: »

So you think that if Suarez had called Evra a European we'd be having this sh*t vstrom right now? GTFO.

If you bring skin colour into an argument with a black man you're asking for trouble straight away. While I don't believe that someone who does so is necessarily racist, they have to accept that by going there I the first place you are inevitably going to be acused of being so.

Read the rules, Suarez is being charged with insulting language & has had his ban doubled as he also made reference to race.

Under that section it clearly states that's what happens if someone makes reference to race/religion/ethnicity/nationality/sexuality etc.

It's the exact same rule.

Blatter wrote: »

Didn't Liverpool claim that Suarez didn't hear the alleged abuse from Evra in their statement?

How could he have responded to anything if he didn't hear it?

2 different instances apparently.

Reference to his nationality came later. The abusive comments came earlier & yes Suarez said he didn't hear them but Evra has admitted he said them.

The_Kew_Tour · 22-12-2011 02:44AM

Peyton Manning wrote: »

Alan Hansen is getting criticised now for describing black players as "coloured players" on Match of the Day tonight.

The guy commentating at the end is hilarious, as is Dixon's nervous glance to Lineker when Hansen says it

Give that man a medal at end of the video..:pac:

flahavaj · 22-12-2011 02:44AM

Mr Alan wrote: »

I awaited the legal action with baited breath (clue: there'll be none, Evra accused the Chelsea groundsman of plenty of things in the report that were proven to be untrue).

The funniest thing about that is the people most responsible for that myth that Evra was the one who made the accusations were Utd fans who throughout that period defended Evra by constantly saying he was sticking up for himself after being racially abused.

Based on something that was said by Mike Phelan NOT Evra.

But yeah it was the United fans not the LFC employee that got ye all hot and bothered under the collar from the outset. Nice one.:rolleyes:

The funniest thing actually is this line from the statement:

We remain committed to this ideal and equality for all, irrespective of a person's background.

Unless of course that person happens to be Patrice Evra presumbaly, given that the next paragraph goes onto call into question Evra, based on thieir (wrong) interpretation of his background.

Hypocrites.

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

Comments