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

SoulTrader wrote: »

The complaint went to the FA because it was part of the referee's match report, not because United called a press conference. Ferguson accompanied Evra after the game and made the complaint to the referee.

K-9 wrote: »

Which actually reinforces my point. The complaint was made hours after the match. Time for apologies or clarifications never really existed.

noodler wrote: »

Relieved to see that many people feel the same way I did about the club's statement and the unprofessional t-shirt stunt.

Blatter wrote: »

I'm sorry, but he has been found guilty of racism.

Being guilty of racism doesn't mean he's an actual racist, he's more guilty of making a racial slur but that is the same as being guilty of racism nonetheless.

ricero wrote: »

As a Liverpool fan what disgusts me is that if the rumours are true and that they did in fact take one mans word over another as their only evidence. Also evra admitted to saying offensive words about suarez being south American is that not racism ? Suarez should be banned but not for 8 bans as I feel it's a miss understanding of culture rather than clear racism

K-9 wrote: »

Dalglish have never said it was a United vs. Pool thing. Far too much is made of that.

You think Lfc would have acted differently if this was Stoke? Its the retard fan base on both sides making it a United vs. Pool thing, it isn't though.

Fergie never had to say anything, why would he?

My new T-shirt should be under the Christmas tree. I've asked Santa for one with the silhouette of a Premier League manager on it and the words 'blind', 'dumb' and 'irresponsible' printed underneath.
It's my protest against the protests. My stand against the embarrassing displays of boorishness and the idiotic, infantile statements made by men who are certainly intelligent enough to know better. Men like Kenny Dalglish and Andre Villas-Boas, for instance.

Shamefully, this duo's reaction to racism scandals involving players at their respective clubs has served to demonstrate football stands shoulder-to-shoulder in any campaign to eradicate racism within the game - unless it might inconveniently involve one of their own.

Then it's a witch-hunt, political posturing, a co-ordinated vendetta or the result of some other cockamamie conspiracy theory. And principles that should be enshrined for the greater good of the game are trampled underfoot in the mad rush of tribalism. What on earth were Liverpool Football Club thinking when they traipsed out in those pathetic screen-printed tops in support of Luis Suarez this week?

The Uruguayan had been banned by the Football Association for eight games for calling Patrice Evra a 'little black man' during a squabble on the pitch.
Suarez himself admitted he made the remark, yet argued it would be considered inoffensive in his native South America. So what? Ignorance isn't a justifiable defence and saying 'little black man' is not a purely descriptive phrase, as some at Liverpool have laughably attempted to argue.
It is a remark designed to belittle and demean and, in that context, it is racist language.

Moreover, Suarez hasn't just stepped off a plane from Montevideo. He joined Ajax in the Dutch league in 2007 so has - or should have - a grasp of what is, and what is not, acceptable outside of South America.

The FA's ban is harsh - but at least they sent out a message that these issues will be taken seriously and dealt with accordingly.

We saw Dalglish thinks otherwise. He led the puerile protests, even conducting television interviews in the cheap, rebellious Save Our Suarez clobber. Is this really what Liverpool FC is about - crusading for a footballer's right to call a fellow professional a 'little black man'?

I think not. It was self-interested rabble rousing of the unthinking kind. Liverpool is known as a club with a tradition of conducting itself with dignity, a reputation enhanced by the manner in which it dealt with the traumas of Hillsborough, thanks in no small part to the way Dalglish himself led the way.

But as statements go, this juvenile display was more in keeping with Rick from The Young Ones than an historic, global sporting institution.

Past custodians of Liverpool's image, like former chief executive and boardroom manipulator Peter Robinson, would surely have counselled against what occurred at Anfield, carefully steering the club away from such asinine exhibitionism. The current American owners should have shown some leadership with a quiet word.

As for Dalglish's teenage tweet that Suarez would 'never walk alone', that depends on the audience. If Suarez happens to find himself accompanied by a gaggle of small black men, I'd say he might find himself very much alone.

Liverpool are better than this. I find it hard to believe there were not fans of the club who felt genuine discomfort on seeing the T-shirt parade, or has football become so blindly tribal now that all good sense has been lost?

Best not ask Andre Villas-Boas for an objective view on racism in football. Chelsea have not been so crass as to print off 'JT is Innocent' shirts, but the manager has often been gushingly tactless in his comments about John Terry.

The England (yes, still) and Chelsea captain discovered he will face prosecution over allegations that he racially abused Anton Ferdinand at Loftus Road and is to appear at West London Magistrates' Court on February 1.

My own position on Terry has been consistently expressed on this page. To me, his explanation that he was only repeating a phrase denying he called Ferdinand 'a f****** black ****' appears to have more holes in it than The Beatles found in Blackburn, Lancashire, but the court will establish his guilt or innocence.

In the meantime, the honourable and decent thing for Terry to do would be to relinquish the captaincy of his country pending the outcome of the court case. Unsurprisingly, he has declined this option.

However, Villas-Boas's insistence that he 'will be fully supportive of JT whatever the outcome' of the court case is wilfully provocative.

So was the manager's boast that Terry's 'performances, commitment and concentration have increased since the incident' at Queens Park Rangers. Yep, there's nothing like a racism storm to focus the mind.

I find it particularly galling to read nausea-inducing twaddle that Terry is 'heroically' battling on as this scandal continues. He is continuing to do his job, no more, no less, and somewhat patchily too on the available evidence.

In many walks of life he would be suspended on full pay pending the outcome of the case, so he can consider himself fortunate to still be granted the opportunity to be beating his bare chest in front of a cheering crowd.

And we will be able to establish how 'heroic' he was if he is subsequently cleared completely of all charges.

But these issues should not be divided on club lines. They need to be addressed sensibly - which leads me on to Ian Wright. Thankfully, the former Arsenal striker proves you don't have to have a blind allegiance to a club or a cause to be misinformed.

On the Suarez decision, he declared: 'As it is, this could be said to have opened the way for any black player who might have an axe to grind to accuse others in a similar way (to Evra) - and that sets a very dangerous precedent indeed.'

Ah, that's better. Unbiased stupidity. It does exist.

Football is a wonderful sport and has the capacity to bring people together. But, contradictorily, when it comes to recrimination and poisonous hate the game has also been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Amid all the noise and incessant fury, it pays to accept there are times when your club, players and fans might be in the wrong. And to remember a conscience should not come in club colours.

K-9 wrote: »

You think Lfc would have acted differently if this was Stoke?