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

J. Marston · 22-12-2011 03:17PM

Look away now if you care about how football portrays itself because a great institution is falling on its irresponsible sword. There is no opprobrium too great to be levelled at Liverpool because at the heart of this sorry episode - bad enough to begin with, worsening by the day because of the club's not-sorry sorry response to a shame of their own escalation - is their absolute refusal to remember who they are.

Remove the tribalism for a moment and all football fans should be able to agree that Liverpool are a great institution within the game. Now put those blinkers back on because it's all that Liverpool - a great institution turned blind by their own one-eyed irresponsibility - deserve. If they don't want to see the wider responsibilities a great institution is beholden to uphold then nobody else ought to adjudge them from a neutral perspective. If they want to see everyone out to get them then let them see it.

There's a 'hear no evil, see no evil' line in here somewhere because the first pitiful retort to the playing staff's misguided show of support for Luis Suarez before the game at Wigan is the reminder that, as per the club's own statement, not one of them heard the exchange between Suarez and Patrice Evra. No matter. He's one of them and the other isn't. Case closed.

Truly, did nobody at the club stop to consider what sort of message their Suarez shirts sent out? Can it really be true that nobody at Liverpool Football Club remembered that their name lists Football as well as Club? Was it really so hard to spot the benefits which would have been accrued for all concerned - including the club, including Suarez himself, including the game - if the entire playing staff had lined up in anti-racism shirts?

Apparently not. And here's the message that Liverpool, a great institution turned in on itself without a single dissenting thought for a wider perspective, spelt out last night: English football has turned absolutely tribal.

http://www.football365.com/winners-losers/7391513/Winners-Losers

I think that's a good point. The whole Liverpool team, including Suarez, warming up in anti-racism shirts instead of pro-Suarez shirts would have sent a far better message.

Will I Amnt · 22-12-2011 03:17PM

mixednuts wrote: »

That wasn't my question but go ahead have your smiley fun .

My question was ..

Whatever word was used do you know what context or environment it was said in ?
Cause a conversation , argument ,placid chat can change its context quickly and depending on when the alleged word was said does have a very important baring on the facts .

Cause no one here , on the pitch , cameras or the Ref knew when or what was said or under what context it was said in (baring in mind the exact time it was said )

All i can go on (until the facts are released) are from one party who was at the Interview stage, and that was LFC , and in their statement they clearly say that its one mans word against another .

So to summaries ..it is important to the facts in the case to know exactly when the offending word was said

We dont know that so bringing the "context" argument into the debate is as much of a guess as to what word(s) got actually used .

Do you honestly believe it could have been said in a friendly way???honestly???

gerryo777 · 22-12-2011 03:19PM

Paully D wrote: »

The way Dalglish has conducted himself is, quite frankly, a joke. Shankly would be turning in his grave. No class at all.

Yea, the manager shouldn't back his player should he, you wouldn't see ferguson doing that no would ya?

K-9 · 22-12-2011 03:20PM

cournioni wrote: »

Like I said, Cantona did his time. Neither Manchester United nor Cantona tried to claim any innocence for what he done. Cantona is an honest man and was an honest player, and that should be adored.

That is what sets him apart from the cowardly racism, biting, diving, and cheating that Suarez is now known for. Liverpool also have a history of not taking responsibility for their actions and have the cheek to claim innocence and victimisation in some of those cases (and yes, that has been discussed on many occasions before and I am not getting into it again).

Cantona could hardly defend it though he still pleaded the "well he made me do it, he racially abused me" excuse.

What Cantona done was for all to see. How you don't get the distinction is pretty telling.

Brain Stroking · 22-12-2011 03:21PM

mixednuts wrote: »

That wasn't my question but go ahead have your smiley fun .

My question was ..

Whatever word was used do you know what context or environment it was said in ?
Cause a conversation , argument ,placid chat can change its context quickly and depending on when the alleged word was said does have a very important baring on the facts .

Cause no one here , on the pitch , cameras or the Ref knew when or what was said or under what context it was said in (baring in mind the exact time it was said )

All i can go on (until the facts are released) are from one party who was at the Interview stage, and that was LFC , and in their statement they clearly say that its one mans word against another .

So to summaries ..it is important to the facts in the case to know exactly when the offending word was said

We dont know that so bringing the "context" argument into the debate is as much of a guess as to what word(s) got actually used .

Yes but the fact that those considering the matter found him guilty should tell you something no? Or do you want to ignore any parts of this that dont suit you? If you heard a man had been found guilty of murder, would you insist on reading the case transcripts before agreeing that he was guilty? Or does that only apply when the accused plays for Liverpool?

eigrod · 22-12-2011 03:22PM

gerryo777 wrote: »

Yea, the manager shouldn't back his player should he, you wouldn't see ferguson doing that no would ya?

No, you would not

Peyton Manning · 22-12-2011 03:23PM

Handsome Bob wrote: »

Le King wrote:

Racists aren't generally liked in our 21st century world.

Good thing he's not a racist so

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'

So Suarez is most definitely not a racist because Evra says so and you put great stock in what Evra believes, yet Evra is also lying about the whole accusation to begin with?

Sappy404 · 22-12-2011 03:23PM

You can make a racial slur and not be a racist. You can support someone accused of making a racial slur and not be a racist if you believe they are innocent.

The Liverpool players are entitled to support Suarez. As they will likely have been made aware of the circumstances and are in a position to make up their own minds, it's fair to say they support him because they believe him innocent. If it turns out there's proof that Suarez racially abused Evra and the team supported him anyway knowing this, then they will have something to answer for.

I don't support Suarez unreservedly. If it emerges he racially abused Evra I want to see him punished. But I want to see how the FA came to their verdict. The club seem to think there's no proof and insufficient evidence, and the FA are taking a long time to release the details. Until they do, I'm still presuming him innocent as I'm not giving the FA the benefit of the doubt.

Also, may I add, I think the Liverpool players should have worn anti-racism t-shirts last night instead of the Suarez ones.

Blatter · 22-12-2011 03:24PM

Melion wrote: »

Wow i regret starting this thread

Don't flatter yourself into thinking somebody else wouldn't have started the thread if you didn't.

Here's the OP actually;

Without wanting to start a Liverpool - United debate. I dont want to put this in the United thread and i dont think it belongs in the match thread either.

Could any punishment be handed down to Patrice Evra if these claims turn out to be false?

No mention of what could happen to Suarez if he's found guilty, it wasn't even contemplated by many.

Attacks on the accusers credibility from the start and focus on what punishment he should receive if his claims were proven to be false.

The OP is characteristic of a lot of peoples' attitudes throughout this thread. Unreal.

Leiva · 22-12-2011 03:24PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

Do you honestly believe it could have been said in a friendly way???honestly???

Yep.
And there have been multiple examples of how the "alleged" word gets used by South Americans .

But keep in mind what i said about how important it is on the timing of when it was said ?

Example :
To support Suarezs case it would of had to have been him who said the word at the start (as any S.American would fondly) and then for Evra to go ape shít , taking him up wrong .

See how the context changed instantly ..be it intentionally or not !

22-12-2011 03:26PM

gerryo777 wrote: »

Yea, the manager shouldn't back his player should he, you wouldn't see ferguson doing that no would ya?

It's Paully, I wouldn't let it upset you too much. When it comes to Liverpool he's as biased as they come. He did post falsly for a good while though before it all came blurting out one faithful day

K-9 · 22-12-2011 03:27PM

cournioni wrote: »

Do you want me to PM you, because I will explain exactly what I meant if it means that much to you.

No. You said this morning you wouldn't provide details and it was off topic. Yet in a couple of posts later on, you keep going on about this history that you wont give further details on. Its a very sly way of debating. Have you stopped beating your wife yet type posts.

22-12-2011 03:28PM

Look I don't believe Suarez is a racist. My opinion is that he said something racist to Evra and he knew what he was doing and continued despite Evra clearly being distressed over it. There is plenty of ways to defend your player while admitting what they did was wrong or at least looking at the facts before you immediately and inconsequentially continue to back him publically despite being found guilty

Paully D · 22-12-2011 03:29PM

gerryo777 wrote: »

Yea, the manager shouldn't back his player should he, you wouldn't see ferguson doing that no would ya?

Well, only 6 weeks ago Dalglish was asking for the guilty party to get his due punishment:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/15494121.stm

Dalglish said: 'We have a case which seems to be dragging its feet. We'd rather have it done and dusted. Whoever the guilty party is - the person who said it or the accuser - should get their due punishment. We look forward to it coming to a conclusion.'

Now that the guilty party is getting their due punishment he's changed his tune.

Sappy404 · 22-12-2011 03:29PM

Paully D wrote: »

Well, only 6 weeks ago Dalglish was asking for the guilty party to get his due punishment:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/15494121.stm

Now that the guilty party is getting their due punishment he's changed his tune.

He doesn't believe Suarez is guilty though. But of course, you knew that...

Will I Amnt · 22-12-2011 03:29PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Example :
To support Suarezs case it would of had to have been him who said the word at the start (as any S.American would fondly) and then for Evra to go ape shít , taking him up wrong .

See how the context changed instantly ..be it intentionally or not !

Well does the Liverpool statement not say it took place while waiting on the corner.
Isn't he supposed to have only said it once.

K-9 · 22-12-2011 03:34PM

cournioni wrote: »

Heysel and Michael Shields.

Now if you wish to continue this argument please pm me. Keep this one on topic.

Well you've made it on topic by your constant bleating on about it, putting it out there and then saying, better not discuss it here.

Might as well get it out there. What exactly are your problems in those cases?

Leiva · 22-12-2011 03:36PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

Well does the Liverpool statement not say it took place while waiting on the corner.
Isn't he supposed to have only said it once.

Yes but it irrelevant where it took place .
Yes supposedly it was said once 'vs' the 10 times said to press by Evra.

Again until mid Jan we will be doing full circles .

niallo27 · 22-12-2011 03:38PM

Paully D wrote: »

The way Dalglish has conducted himself is, quite frankly, a joke. Shankly would be turning in his grave. No class at all.

Shankly would have booted evra up the hole and told him get on with it.

Warper · 22-12-2011 03:38PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

In summary, if you support Liverpool and Chelsea you're a racist.
Support Man utd and you are an adulterer.

Support Rangers and you are in the UVF and Celtic IRA.

Warper - well done. You have enlightened me. Not for the first time in this thread.

No thats not what i said. If you support the way Liverpool and Chelsea are dealing with their respective cases, then you are as bad as the accused. People with your type of attitude who supports LFC even the club supports a convicted racist. Well done, you are a credit to Liverpool as you act the same way. Disgraceful

The rest of your post is just sad, i never said any of those things - you did.

Will I Amnt · 22-12-2011 03:40PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Yes but it irrelevant where it took place .
Yes supposedly it was said once 'vs' the 10 times said to press by Evra.

Again until mid Jan we will be doing full circles .

Irrelevant where but not when.
That corner not only puts a location on it but puts a time on it too.
A time when they were arguing were they not???

Paully D · 22-12-2011 03:41PM

Sappy404 wrote: »

He doesn't believe Suarez is guilty though. But of course, you knew that...

So why didn't he just say that, rather than saying ''whoever is guilty, the accuser or the accused, should get their due punishment''.

He's a hypocrite. He loves to play the victim, as do Liverpool as a club from top to bottom. He, and Liverpool are defending someone who has been found guilty of making comments towards another player with regards to his skin colour and seem to be taking pride in doing so.

J. Marston · 22-12-2011 03:42PM

Paully D wrote: »

Well, only 6 weeks ago Dalglish was asking for the guilty party to get his due punishment:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/15494121.stm

Now that the guilty party is getting their due punishment he's changed his tune.

Dalglish said: 'We have a case which seems to be dragging its feet. We'd rather have it done and dusted. Whoever the guilty party is - the person who said it or the accuser - should get their due punishment, unless it's Luis, they better not touch a hair on that boys head. We look forward to it coming to a conclusion.'

There's the real quote :pac:.

Orando Broom · 22-12-2011 03:42PM

You have to wonder what sort of a character Suarez is that allows the Liverpool squad (and himself) warm up in the t-shirts. Take away the LFC mUFC tribalism and put yourself in Suarez's shoes, say you were done for elbowing a player and criminal charges or very serious footballing sanctions were on foot of the incident would you honestly allow your teammates wear a t-shirt with your face on it. For me at any rate I'd want the team to focus on the job in hand and ignore my troubles. Each and everyone could make their thoughts known behind the closed door of the dressing room. No further statement of support would be required. That would just be me, maybe others would be different. I'd also object to making such a gesture on behalf of a team-mate.

Leiva · 22-12-2011 03:45PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

Irrelevant where but not when.
That corner not only puts a location on it but puts a time on it too.
A time when they were arguing were they not???

Its obvious they were arguing but its not obvious when (context) the alleged word was said .

Was it said fondly then the argument kicked right off = Suarez innocent.

Was it said repeatedly with venow during the argument =Suarez guilty .

See the difference ?

K-9 · 22-12-2011 03:47PM

I really hope some posters on here are being purposefully dumb, I really do.

abelard · 22-12-2011 03:48PM

Warper wrote: »

No thats not what i said. If you support the way Liverpool and Chelsea are dealing with their respective cases, then you are as bad as the accused. People with your type of attitude who supports LFC even the club supports a convicted racist. Well done, you are a credit to Liverpool as you act the same way. Disgraceful

The rest of your post is just sad, i never said any of those things - you did.

No need to lump Chelsea in with Liverpool here, there's a few differences.

Terry is being charged. He hasn't been convicted. Nothing has been presented before any arbiter of fact or law. Suarez has been found guilty by the FA.

Chelsea stated they would support their player through the process as he denies the claim. Liverpool essentially rejected the findings of the FA, tried to deflect attention onto Evra, and said Suarez has diverse friends and family so could never act in a racist manner.

There's a massive gulf there. Chelsea have never stated that they will reject any findings made against Terry, nor should they if Terry is found guilty, which frankly I think he will be. In fact, I thought Chelsea's short statement on their website was fairly dignified - support the player, reaffirm commitment to combat racism, say no more comment will be offered during the legal process.

Will I Amnt · 22-12-2011 03:49PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Was it said fondly then the argument kicked right off = Suarez innocent.

Was it said repeatedly with venow during the argument =Suarez guilty .

See the difference ?

Yea but one scenario sounds far more plausible than the other.

Sappy404 · 22-12-2011 03:51PM

Paully D wrote: »

So why didn't he just say that, rather than saying ''whoever is guilty, the accuser or the accused, should get their due punishment''.

He's a hypocrite. He loves to play the victim, as do Liverpool as a club from top to bottom. He, and Liverpool are defending someone who has been found guilty of making comments towards another player with regards to his skin colour and seem to be taking pride in doing so.

He's familiar with the case and believes him innocent. He has done from the start. Why should he accept the FA's ruling when he believes it to be wrong? If Suarez was found not guilty, would Ferguson come out and accept the decision, or would he defend Evra to the hilt because he felt he'd been racially abused?

eigrod · 22-12-2011 03:54PM

abelard wrote: »

No need to lump Chelsea in with Liverpool here, there's a few differences.

Terry is being charged. He hasn't been convicted. Nothing has been presented before any arbiter of fact or law. Suarez has been found guilty by the FA.

Chelsea stated they would support their player through the process as he denies the claim. Liverpool essentially rejected the findings of the FA, tried to deflect attention onto Evra, and said Suarez has diverse friends and family so could never act in a racist manner.

There's a massive gulf there. Chelsea have never stated that they will reject any findings made against Terry, nor should they if Terry is found guilty, which frankly I think he will be. In fact, I thought Chelsea's short statement on their website was fairly dignified - support the player, reaffirm commitment to combat racism, say no more comment will be offered during the legal process.

Villas Boas said this today, so your point is actually wrong now :

"We know exactly his human values and personality, so we will support him whatever happens."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/16289446.stm

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

Comments