Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1169170172174175222

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,916 ✭✭✭NickDrake


    d22ontour wrote: »
    Did you even read KAGs post ? :o

    Probably one of the better ones made on this thread.

    He said he said stuff way worse over the years???

    By the way Paul McGrath spoke sense in his interview and people on here should listen to it


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,894 ✭✭✭Harpy


    I've read up to page 85 of the report. I haven't commented in this thread before because i didn't really see the point seen as no one really knew the ins and outs of the whole situation..

    After reading what i have of the report ive got to say i think the FA were right in there decision.. I don't think suarez is a racist, i think he used racially abusive language in the heat of the moment which i think anyone is probably liable to do without actually meaning it..

    The fact that he changed the timing of when he said things and i think the most damning part is what he said to kuyt and cormill or whatever his name..
    It think its unlikely that both misheard him in two different languages..
    I just feel the story changes a little too much. I think with the evidence in front of them the FA made the correct the decision..

    On another note, bringing in the terry thing ive heard a few people saying that if the police find him not guilty then the fa cant charge him but seen as the fa use the procedure for civil cases, does that not mean in fact that if the police do find him not guilty then the fa could in fact still bring charges??

    Like a lot of the time people are found not guilty in legal trials but guilty in civil suits??


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,432 ✭✭✭willmunny1990


    DOC09UNAM wrote: »
    Oh gtfo, you're only here stirring ****, everyone knows what you're doing.

    **** stirring?

    All im saying is i don't believe Rafa or Roy would be the type of people to act the way Kenny did. I don't believe they would of let this situation spiral into the PR disaster it has become.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,346 ✭✭✭✭homerjay2005


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

    indeed. thats the case for about 90% of liverpool fans tonight.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    indeed. thats the case for about 90% of liverpool fans tonight.

    Exactly. Just like you & others did during the Phelan/Evra thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,787 ✭✭✭Jayob10


    Tusky wrote: »
    Jesus Christ. That link is certainly not a summarized version of the report. Nowhere near it.

    in fairness, you need to read the whole report to get the full gist.

    Read a synopsis or just parts allows you to take alot out of context. People are pulling parts from it that they want to hear.

    As a Liverpool fan myself I don't see any of our fans deal with the parts where Suarez changed his story 3 times in order to fit the perceived evidence the FA held.

    That in itself is quite damning.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    Jayob10 wrote: »
    As a Liverpool fan myself I don't see any of our fans deal with the parts where Suarez changed his story 3 times in order to fit the perceived evidence the FA held.

    That in itself is quite damning.

    *puts hand up*

    Yeah, I did anyway. ;) That's basically the killer for me.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭clubberlang12


    Jayob10 wrote: »
    in fairness, you need to read the whole report to get the full gist.

    Read a synopsis or just parts allows you to take alot out of context. People are pulling parts from it that they want to hear.

    As a Liverpool fan myself I don't see any of our fans deal with the parts where Suarez changed his story 3 times in order to fit the perceived evidence the FA held.

    That in itself is quite damning.

    Fair play Jayo, that is probably only the 3rd post i've read on the matter where a fan has reacted with a non-biased view of the findings.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,092 ✭✭✭✭Tusky


    Jayob10 wrote: »
    in fairness, you need to read the whole report to get the full gist.

    To be a balanced summary it absolute MUST mention that Suarez denied saying the word 7 times. And it must say what he admitted to saying.

    That link reads as if his only defense was the fact that negro has a different meaning in his country. When in fact the real crux of the issue is that they both gave totally different accounts of what happened. That doesn't come across from that summary.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,305 ✭✭✭DOC09UNAM


    LiterallyJamie: LFC statement; "I kicked you because you were black, I don't speak to blacks, blackie, blackie, blackie" means "I ♥ you" in Uruguay.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,222 ✭✭✭Sappy404


    There's a racism thread, lads.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭donfers


    so many glaring inconsistencies, internal contradictions, waffle, self-justifying speculation and dogmatic assertions based on hearsay on that document it's unreal - if Liverpool take their case to any court of substance they'll destroy the FA but whether it's in their interests to do that is another thing

    let's start with a key one, the report states that when Evra who started the whole confrontation said "concha de tu hermana" to Suarez they conveniently decided that that Spanish phrase wasn't so bad and meant something like "effing hell" (my hole that's what it means - it's far more personal and derogatory than that) but then of course Suarez's whole negro/negrito thing is not understoon as "black mate/black pal" but our wise FA heads decide that is bad, bad, bad all of course based on the words/reaction of poor old sensitive soul Evra who takes everything to heart from being receiving a booking to losing the toin coss, it's all because he is black and the officials/opposition are conspiring against him

    they also choose to ignore Evra's South American jibe yet warn players against referring to nationality

    they accept the words of witnesses who support their case, but they dismiss the words of those who don't

    Kuyt says that he may have heard Suarez uttering something about Evra being black and they take it on board, Kuyt says that he is absolutely certain that Evra said to the referee that he is only being booked coz he is black and it's glossed over

    they say Suarez is an unreliable witness and then say there are mitigating circumstances, trivial little stuff like he's new to the game, the country, the league and the language.......then they say that Evra is and I quote "for the most part, consistent in his testimony" - what kind of pathetic semantic games are these, you are either consistent or not, consistent for the most part is typical paradoxical bs from this report - a report that Senator Joseph McCarthy would have been proud of

    Innocent until proven guilty nah, this kangaroo court of three men with links to the complainant have decided that we think his story is more likely to be true than yours and therefore you are going down, we have no real evidence, it's all circumstantial, speculative stuff but there you go, at least people will know we are coming down hard on racism...and justice too.

    The way the report was written and the threadbare findings within it suggest Liverpool could destroy this case in any reputable court "Do you see the angry look on Suarez's face and how he pinched Evra there, that's our case and that's why he was convicted and that's why everything Evra said was true and Suarez is a naughty naughty boy" - laughable agenda-driven mindboggingly insubstantial stuff


    having said all that, we just don't know what was said, it's one man word against another.....the words Suarez used and the context within which he used them are key here and it's an incredibly complex thing to legislate over (hence why I think Liverpool could turn this over quite easily) and as much as I doubt the integrity of Evra it was foolish of Suarez to get involved in the dispute and to refer to colour, naive at best and willfully racist abuse at worse and of course Evra got on the moral high ground and accused Suarez of all sorts (wrongfully saying he was called "******", wrongfully saying the word was said 10 times - of course the panel think these utterances have no affect on Evra's repute)

    all in all, a warning to Suarez to be careful with his future behaviour and a four match ban maximum for referencing a person's colour during an on-field dispute regardless of culteral context and linguistic complexities would have been a far fairer judgement with perhaps 2 of those four games suspended dependent on future behaviour/apology/donation to charity etc so effectively a 2 game ban and we move on from the misunderstanding

    Instead the clueless morons at the FA have gone for the jugular of the easy foreign target (being guilty of xenophobia themselves, they don't see the irony) and created this almighty mess polarising all sides and creating extremes and radicals out of all of us - well done guys, great job!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Leiva


    Jayob10 wrote: »
    in fairness, you need to read the whole report to get the full gist.

    Read a synopsis or just parts allows you to take alot out of context. People are pulling parts from it that they want to hear.

    As a Liverpool fan myself I don't see any of our fans deal with the parts where Suarez changed his story 3 times in order to fit the perceived evidence the FA held.

    That in itself is quite damning.

    You ask not to partial read/quote then yourself quote one aspect ?

    How about the verdict that he said a damming word 7 times , yet there is no video evidence of any sort to confirm exactly what was said ?

    Bit presumption no ? ... So could the "decision" Suarez changed his story .

    Bizarre .


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,578 Mod ✭✭✭✭spockety


    I get the impression from this thread that people are assuming Suarez is being punished for bad use of the word "negro". That he is being judged based on having admitted using the word once, but not in an offensive way.

    That is not what Suarez is being judged on. He is deemed to have said the following:
    The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to
    each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the
    foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because
    you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch
    you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr
    Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr
    Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie".
    As Mr Suarez said this, he reached out to touch Mr Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr
    Kuyt then intervened. When the referee blew his whistle and called the players over to
    him shortly after the exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Evra said to the referee "ref, ref, he
    just called me a ****ing black".

    It's quite an amazing series of statements Suarez has been found guilty of saying. Can anyone actually picture that conversation as having happened?

    People need to forget Suarez's statement on what he apparently said. The FA basically ignored it in favour of Evra's version of events. And there is absolutely nothing, nothing to back up the conversation above as having actually happened.

    Suarez has had his character utterly destroyed. Nobody can come back from having said the things above. Is it really believable?

    People may bluster on about FA rules and regulations, but the FA still have to operate in England with all of it's laws, and I would say that Suarez has a very strong case for libel/defamation of character based on the incredulous things that people have determined he said without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭MD1990


    i don't understand how Evra is a reliable witness
    he falsly accused a Chelsea groundman of racism in 2008


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,222 ✭✭✭✭Will I Amnt


    MD1990 wrote: »
    i don't understand how Evra is a reliable witness
    he falsly accused a Chelsea groundman of racism in 2008
    Oh holy good Jesus ****ing Christ


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭clubberlang12


    MD1990 wrote: »
    i don't understand how Evra is a reliable witness
    he falsly accused a Chelsea groundman of racism in 2008

    Did you even read the report? Some of the posts about this are plainly ridiculous. Read the report and see that the FA state no previous incidents are taken into account in assessing credibility and that the basis of credibility would be founded on the evidence from each party.
    Evra evidence was found to be for the most part very consistant. Suarez's evidence on the other hand had some glaring differences and changes. Hence....................Evra being found to be a credible witness in said case. This is the problem, is that most people are not reading the report and posting hear-say and what they think it said. *****shakes head*****


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    MD1990 wrote: »
    i don't understand how Evra is a reliable witness
    he falsly accused a Chelsea groundman of racism in 2008

    You might want to do a search on that. Perhaps you should have done before you posted


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,578 Mod ✭✭✭✭spockety


    Did you even read the report? Some of the posts about this are plainly ridiculous. Read the report and see that the FA state no previous incidents are taken into account in assessing credibility and that the basis of credibility would be founded on the evidence from each party.
    Evra evidence was found to be for the most part very consistant. Suarez's evidence on the other hand had some glaring differences and changes. Hence....................Evra being found to be a credible witness in said case. This is the problem, is that most people are not reading the report and posting hear-say and what they think it said. *****shakes head*****

    Evra knew how to present himself based on the mistakes he had made in his previous case. He learned well.

    ;)


    (joke)

    (maybe)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    Kuyts testimony is the most damning here. How Liverpool acted the way they did knowing what he knew is beyond me. Funny how they are capable of holding their tongues until they have read the report but chose not to when it hadnt even been published. State of them.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭MD1990


    Did you even read the report? Some of the posts about this are plainly ridiculous. Read the report and see that the FA state no previous incidents are taken into account in assessing credibility and that the basis of credibility would be founded on the evidence from each party.
    Evra evidence was found to be for the most part very consistant. Suarez's evidence on the other hand had some glaring differences and changes. Hence....................Evra being found to be a credible witness in said case. This is the problem, is that most people are not reading the report and posting hear-say and what they think it said. *****shakes head*****
    i've read most of it
    there is no Man utd player who can back up Evra
    all the Man Utd players say in there statement's i think as well
    which suggest they don't remember what happened with Evra after the game at all


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,578 Mod ✭✭✭✭spockety


    flahavaj wrote: »
    Kuyts testimony is the most damning here. How Liverpool acted the way they did knowing what he knew is beyond me. Funny how they are capable of holding their tongues until they have read the report but chose not to when it hadnt even been published. State of them.

    But Kuyt's testimony that he heard Evra say to the ref that he was only being booked because he was black was dismissed by the FA, even though they acknowledge that he is "certain" that that was what he had heard. Lots of selectiveness all round.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,490 ✭✭✭Ordinary man


    MD1990 wrote: »
    i've read most of it
    there is no Man utd player who can back up Evra
    all the Man Utd players say in there statement's i think as well
    which suggest they don't remember what happened with Evra after the game at all

    Or they don't speak spanish:confused: Evra told the ref and giggs during the game about it. Did you read the part where suarez told comoli and kuyt what he said to evra


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭clubberlang12


    MD1990 wrote: »
    i've read most of it
    there is no Man utd player who can back up Evra
    all the Man Utd players say in there statement's i think as well
    which suggest they don't remember what happened with Evra after the game at all

    I've read it. Because no United player has heard it means Evra made it all up, despite Suarez himself admitting to using the word "negro"? Suarez's defense by deciding not to counter examine Nani's, Anderson's, Valencia's, Hernandez's, Gigg's and the other United players/staff statements in effect concede that their testimonies are valid. Seriously, read the whole report and not just snippets of it as you are coming across as foolish.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    spockety wrote: »
    But Kuyt's testimony that he heard Evra say to the ref that he was only being booked because he was black was dismissed by the FA, even though they acknowledge that he is "certain" that that was what he had heard. Lots of selectiveness all round.

    Indeed, he's reliable when it suits, not when it doesn't!

    Anyway, MotD on!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭clubberlang12


    spockety wrote: »
    But Kuyt's testimony that he heard Evra say to the ref that he was only being booked because he was black was dismissed by the FA, even though they acknowledge that he is "certain" that that was what he had heard. Lots of selectiveness all round.

    This is the same Kuyt who had to go back on his initial statement as to what he thought Suarez had said to him in his native Dutch language after the game?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    spockety wrote: »
    But Kuyt's testimony that he heard Evra say to the ref that he was only being booked because he was black was dismissed by the FA, even though they acknowledge that he is "certain" that that was what he had heard. Lots of selectiveness all round.

    Even if Evra did say that it wouldnt really make anything I said earlier any less true. His other evidence makes a lot of people ITT and at LFC look like fools.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,578 Mod ✭✭✭✭spockety


    Or they don't speak spanish:confused: Evra told the ref and giggs during the game about it. Did you read the part where suarez told comoli and kuyt what he said to evra

    This is the conversation Suarez had with Kuyt where Suarez wasn't speaking his own native language?

    Or the conversation Suarez had with Comolli where Comolli wasn't listening in his own native language?


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,578 Mod ✭✭✭✭spockety


    flahavaj wrote: »
    Even if Evra did say that it wouldnt really make anything I said earlier any less true. His other evidence makes a lot of people ITT and at LFC look like fools.

    But surely selectively choosing only some of Kuyt's testimony as being valid does not make him a very credible witness.

    Hardly damning.

    In fact the most damning thing about this report is that there is absolutely nothing damning in it whatsoever.

    I'd say even hardened anti-Suarez's or anti-LFC types are a little surprised at the lack of a knockout blow that we were expecting the report to produce.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,490 ✭✭✭Ordinary man


    spockety wrote: »
    This is the conversation Suarez had with Kuyt where Suarez wasn't speaking his own native language?

    Or the conversation Suarez had with Comolli where Comolli wasn't listening in his own native language?

    It would be the initial one before they were coached on what to say. ;);)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement