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

machiavellianme · 01-01-2012 12:49PM

Oh ban them both. Sick to death of this whole thing.
Seems to me like both used derogatory terms and racial/ethnic slurs whether intentional or not. I'd doubt either are racist.
Neither are particularly credible or reliable. Using translations of one language to another because it sounds similar etc is not a grounds for accusing someone of being a racist. In the past, the use of the word Black wasnt acceptable but Negro was, now its prefferred the other way round. Neger in French is a bad word but in Dansk its a good one? Blah blah blah.

When will it end?

Le King · 01-01-2012 12:50PM

doc_17 wrote: »

I know he used that word. His story, whether you believe that or not, is that it wasn't intended as a racist remark.

So the FA should release the evidence that wasn't broadcast and be done with it.

If Suarez hired a blimp to call Evra a "negro" you would still say that's not a racist remark.

Some people are living in ivory towers here and are really making a mockery of themselves.

ilovelamp2000 · 01-01-2012 12:50PM

doc_17 wrote: »

I know he used that word. His story, whether you believe that or not, is that it wasn't intended as a racist remark.

So the FA should release the evidence that wasn't broadcast and be done with it.

The nature of the offence is that his intention does not matter. Once he admits to saying it he's guilty.

His admission absolutely screwed any chance that he would get away with the charge. But hey I've only been saying this for weeks, why bother taking any notice of me now.

Father Damo · 01-01-2012 12:50PM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

I'll keep it short and sweet.

I'm willing to bet most people who are disgusted with the judgement haven't even read it.

Everyone who is still banging on about the lack of evidence is either deluded or ignorant. There are numerous witness statements, TV footage, and an admission by Suarez. That is all evidence.

There is nothing particularly unusual about the judgement given, the vast majority of it is legally sound. There are a couple of things I would take issue with, but they'd be more towards the extent of his punishment than the offence itself. There is no doubt in my mind that he's guilty of the offence.

As a club we need to take a long look at ourselves, we've acted appallingly throughout. I said it at the time but it was obvious the club statement at the time of the decision was being completely facetious and was merely intended to rile up the masses, it's still having an effect. Knowing what we know now just makes it look even worse. We've drip fed the media bull**** all the way along to cover it all up, and every supporter is clinging to that bull**** as if it's gospel.

Those fans who went along with it, and those who've been trying to justify Suarez's behaviour also need to take look at themselves. You look really really stupid, next time sit back and have an objective look at things, think it through then come to your conclusion. Don't say "well the club says this, so it must be true" and then go off on some hare brained conspiracy buzz.

Nail on head. The whole thing is embarassing. He should have admitted that yes, what he said in the heat was wrong. As I stated before here, I called an Aussie the other week an "arrogant Aussie cnut" because he was being, well, an arrogant Aussie cnut. Wasnt relevant, but I did. Today I was trying to get past some gay gobsh1te on the bus who was hogging the aisle chatting to his mates in a seat, who refused to move after I asked him 3 times to do so politely (and he did hear, he just wanted to finish his retard story). When he got uppity with me I called him a bender. Id have called him a fat cnut, a ginger or a four eyes had it been approproate to his look. But gay was more obvious. Cest la vie- lets move on. Suarez shgould have admitted he was out of order, Liverpool should have done that too rather than the t shirts and other such gimmicks. Liverpool fans are being hypocrites in turning a blind eye. Man Utd fans are being hypocrites given so many of their Irish fans are amongst the most obscenely racist people Ive ever met- and I live in Australia!

I was watching a series of 50 greatest European goals the other day, divided by decade.

The Liverpool goals I watched and the buzz they gave me are a far cry from the McTeam of today. Whilst the Torres/ Hodgson treatment and the cryogenic unfreezing of The King after 70 years in the dark was the final straw, the whole Suarez thing is like a ludicrious comedy sideshow to it all. Honestly couldnt give a fcuk about them until the fans and the board quit behaving like Man Utd without the success. Seriously- how am I meant to enjoy a NW Derby when it is new Liverpool vs their twin, Man U of the last 15 years (in terms of fans/ attitude). Im not bothering until the heart comes back and the attitude wears off.

Nalz · 01-01-2012 12:51PM

mixednuts wrote: »

"Quote:
FA: "We found that Mr X account is probably what happened "

I hear you, but hasn't he admitted to using the word negro and has changed his story 3 times? What are the reasons for these, especially the latter? I believe his reason for using the word negro was taken out of context or meant to mean something different and in his part of the world to be harmless/common. What were his reasons for changing his story? was he probably lying or confused?

Mitch Connor · 01-01-2012 12:52PM

machiavellianme wrote: »

Oh ban them both. Sick to death of this whole thing.
Seems to me like both used derogatory terms and racial/ethnic slurs whether intentional or not. I'd doubt either are racist.

Why does it seem that way?
Where in the report does it find that Evra said anything that could be considered racist?

Also, Suarez hasn't been found guilty of BEING A RACIST. He has been found guilty of using RACIST LANGUAGE and the report acknowledges that it is not uncommon for people to do things that would be out of character in certain circumstances.

01-01-2012 12:53PM

People who seem to be adamant that the only evidence they took into account was Evra's testimony and continue to insult the victim rather than persecute the convicted must be being deliberately stupid. If Evra was lying why did Comolli and Kuyt's evidence back up his version of events over the member of their own team? It's not going to be the most conclusive verdict but it's pretty much 95% conclusive and really paints Suarez in a bad light. Yet people still seem to be intent on discrediting Evra instead of dealing with what was said, at least once as Suarez' own testimony provides...

Dublin_Gunner · 01-01-2012 12:53PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

Is it possible for the point about this not being a criminal case, and the difference between beyond reasonable doubt and balance of probabilities to be stickied?

Because its up there with ''not the first time Evra has made these sort of allegations'' in terms of repetition at this stage

I'll state it again. The FA go to some length to explain that the burden of proof required in this instance shall be a lot higher than they usually look for due to the seriousness of the allegations.

They then contradict themselves by using a lower burden of proof to find Suarez guilty.

tommyhaas · 01-01-2012 12:56PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

But your club want you to believe he did cause it suits their pathetic defence so that is what thety have been feeding to the media (Sudaca, Negrito too) and you have fallen in line with it. Well done.

How have Liverpool tried to make it seem that Evra has made previous unfounded racial allegations?

The initial statement claimed Evra has previously made allegations that were not proven, which he had. They didn't say allegations of racism, which as we know is untrue

There was that lad Kristan something who made false claims on twitter, but I doubt very much he was being used as an official mouth piece by the club, his views were obviously his own

The other thing I saw people reference was Dalglish's reaction to Evra's claims after the game, where he asked hadn't Evra made similar claims previously. Now I think a lot of people believed he had, I certainly did. Obviously its since been shown otherwise, but it was a common enough belief that Evra had made the allegations at Chelsea, and it was hardly out of line for Dalglish to ask this

As I said previously, I think the clubs handling of this has been a disaster, but I don't agree that the club have tried to feed the notion that Evra has previously made false racial allegations

Le King · 01-01-2012 12:57PM

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I'll state it again. The FA go to dome length to explain that the burden of proof required in this instance shall be a lot higher than they usually look for due to the seriousness of the allegations.

They then contradict themselves by using a lower burden of proof to find Suarez guilty.

Suarez admitted calling Evra a "negro".

And with that your argument is completely invalid.

This is getting massively embarrassing for some people here.

01-01-2012 12:58PM

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I'll state it again. The FA go to dome length to explain that the burden of proof required in this instance shall be a lot higher than they usually look for due to the seriousness of the allegations.

They then contradict themselves by using a lower burden of proof to find Suarez guilty.

There was plenty of evidence convicting Suarez. Can you not see this?

ilovelamp2000 · 01-01-2012 12:58PM

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I'll state it again. The FA go to dome length to explain that the burden of proof required in this instance shall be a lot higher than they usually look for due to the seriousness of the allegations.

They then contradict themselves by using a lower burden of proof to find Suarez guilty.

I replied to you in the LFC thread about this already.

You've made a mistake. They quite clearly say the burden of proof is the balance of probabilities, but that in more serious cases they require a higher burden of evidence.

Two completely different things.

astrofool · 01-01-2012 01:00PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Forget about Suarez Evra etc and concentrate more on the court and process the FA setup .

This is a question to all regardless of club :

Would you feel comfortable working under a Company , Organisation or Association if their disciplinary procedure had a bottom line which amounted to this ;

"Quote:
FA: "We found that Mr X account is probably what happened "

That's pretty much how a tribunal works, of which there are lots in both the uk, Ireland, us etc. A civil suit also pretty much ends up that way, this was not a criminal case, Suarez was not going to go to jail.

tommyhaas · 01-01-2012 01:01PM

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I'll state it again. The FA go to dome length to explain that the burden of proof required in this instance shall be a lot higher than they usually look for due to the seriousness of the allegations.

They then contradict themselves by using a lower burden of proof to find Suarez guilty.

They said that they were sceptical initially about Evra's claims, however they never worked on anything other then balance of probabilities. The comparison between it and a criminal case doesn't stand up

Nalz · 01-01-2012 01:06PM

Trilla wrote: »

I hear you, but hasn't he admitted to using the word negro and has changed his story 3 times? What are the reasons for these, especially the latter? I believe his reason for using the word negro was taken out of context or meant to mean something different and in his part of the world to be harmless/common. What were his reasons for changing his story? was he probably lying or confused?

What were his reasons for changing his story 3 times? What did he change exactly?

K-9 · 01-01-2012 01:07PM

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

They haven't released the evidence though, and apparently there is TV evidence that wasn't released to the public eye.

I shan't lie, I haven't read the full thing yet, but will sit down tomorrow and try get through it all.

The only video evidence they have is that the argument went on longer so fits with Evra's evidence more, not Suarez's shorter version. They see Suarez shrugging his shoulders and Evra starting the row. There isn't a whole lot with the video evidence.

Dublin_Gunner · 01-01-2012 01:10PM

Le King wrote: »

Suarez admitted calling Evra a "negro".

And with that your argument is completely invalid.

This is getting massively embarrassing for some people here.

You obviously have neither read the report not this thread.

01-01-2012 01:12PM

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

You obviously have neither read the report not this thread.

Fine, outline your problems with the report using evidence from it that you find to absolve Suarez then.

M5 · 01-01-2012 01:15PM

eugeneious wrote: »

This was found to be completely untrue...

Edit: Did you actually read the report at all? It clearly says that it was found that the term Suarez used would have been deemed offensive/racist in all over Latin America including Uruguay.

It also states that he is not a Racist??? Bizarre post

J. Marston · 01-01-2012 01:17PM

Any words of wisdom from Gus Poyet yet?

Leiva · 01-01-2012 01:19PM

Evra admitted to starting the conflict by saying something along the lines of "your sisters pussy " which then seems to also get lost in translation into "fcuk sake" ????

Is this admission not a direct breach of the first charge the Suarez faced with an auto 2 match ban ?

I know Evra wasn't on charge and admitted it but also I remember reading it was Suarez who admitted using the word "Negro " first ?

Nalz · 01-01-2012 01:19PM

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

You obviously have neither read the report not this thread.

All these so called experts, journalists and pundits on sky sports are stating that Liverpool should just accept this punishment and that Suarez got off lightly.

Apparently Suarez contradicted himself on two major points when giving evidence and was found inconsistent and unreliable.

Also, and I haven't read in to this at all, but one expert is claiming within the report the FA investigated in to the cultural differences by contacting other experts in the know (in reference to the word Suarez has admitted to have used). Their findings were supposed to be conclusive that this word is never used as Suarez claims it to be. I did however see pics of an Argentina team with a flag using a similar word to "negro" so I'm confused on that one. Maybe the key thing here is it was a similar word and not the word Suarez admitted to have said.

homerjay2005 · 01-01-2012 01:24PM

machiavellianme wrote: »

When will it end?

when will it end? when liverpool fans actually burst the bubble they are in and realise that for once, the need to accept that one of their players did something wrong.

this will go on and on until they do. the club should apologise for the way they have acted, but i dont think they will.

heres a few more views -

OllieHoltMirror Oliver Holt
I have nothing but respect for LFC and Dalglish but commission report justifies a ban for Suarez. Hope we can all move on now.

OllieHoltMirror Oliver Holt
Critical point is that it is simply not credible to suggest Suarez was using 'negro' as a term of endearment. In fact, it is laughable.

OllieHoltMirror Oliver Holt
It was fun being lectured about 'negrito' by people saying how ridiculous it was to prejudge Suarez before the evidence was available

but this point is crucial. how in gods name can liverpool fans say its one word against another when this is the reality -

DTguardian daniel taylor
FA's full written findings confirm that Suarez admits calling Evra a "negro" (though claims it was friendly) #LFC #MUFC

@DTguardian we "LFC" will miss him but this has gone on too long. Make public apology, take the ban & move on

DTguardian daniel taylor

@therealjimboboo you need to read the report, it isn't one word against another, as LS's own lawyer accepts

this whole episode reflects horribly on liverpool fans.

Dublin_Gunner · 01-01-2012 01:27PM

Trilla wrote: »

All these so called experts, journalists and pundits on sky sports are stating that Liverpool should just accept this punishment and that Suarez got off lightly.

Apparently Suarez contradicted himself on two major points when giving evidence and was found inconsistent and unreliable.

Also, and I haven't read in to this at all, but one expert is claiming within the report the FA investigated in to the cultural differences by contacting other experts in the know (in reference to the word Suarez has admitted to have used). Their findings were supposed to be conclusive that this word is never used as Suarez claims it to be. I did however see pics of an Argentina team with a flag using a similar word to "negro" so I'm confused on that one. Maybe the key thing here is it was a similar word and not the word Suarez admitted to have said.

No they clearly state that the word is commonly used as Suarez describes, but that they're not certain if that's how he intended.

Nalz · 01-01-2012 01:27PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

when will it end? when liverpool fans actually burst the bubble they are in and realise that for once, the need to accept that one of their players did something wrong.

Maybe you'll answer or at least entertain me Homerjay. Why did he change his story 3 times?

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

No they clearly state that the word is commonly used as Suarez describes, but that they're not certain if that's how he intended.

So that bald dude on sky sports (Pardon my ignorance I havent a clue who he is) was lying?

Le King · 01-01-2012 01:32PM

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

You obviously have neither read the report not this thread.

I think you need to read the report badly before you embarrass yourself any further.

lordgoat · 01-01-2012 01:34PM

spockety wrote: »

This thread has become a place where meaningful discussion is no longer possible.

There are a group of people intent on labelling anybody who criticises or questions the FA report as racist, or racist sympathisers. This is grossly unfair. There are a number of people here, myself included, who are not racist but who having read the report feel that the burden of proof applied is far lower than a person would normally expect in a situation where they are being accused of something so serious.

I am not saying that Luis Suarez did not make a racial slur. What I am saying is that based on the evidence there is nothing which confirms what the accuser is saying, and therefore nobody can be absolutely sure that the conversation of which is he accused actually took place exactly as his accuser has described. Because of this, it is not possible to say beyond a reasonable doubt that Suarez is guilty of racial abuse. However as he has been found guilty, and based on the FA report, there are substantial grounds to argue that a miscarriage of justice may have taken place.

How can it possibly be argued that pointing this out can make one a racist? Can anyone who has accused the report criticisers of being racist please come back here and back up that assertion with some supporting evidence? Is it your view that the lawyers for the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six were terrorists, or terrorist sympathisers simply due to the nature of the crime of which they were accused where the process by which they were found guilty was questioned?

There are also people here who are trying to infer that anyone who has criticised the FA report must also be saying that racially abusive language is acceptable, and are supportive of it. I have not seeing anybody here say that it is acceptable to be racially abusive, again if those accusing people on this forum of it could come back with some evidence to back it up that would be appreciated.

Until the emotive and castaway comments like "disgusting" are done away with, and irrelevant references to Heysel are gone, there is little point in engaging in any meaningful debate.

Just to re-iterate, from what I have personally read on this thread, nobody is defending Luis Suarez by saying that racially abusive language is acceptable. Rather the debate centres around whether or not the burden of proof applied in this case is at an acceptable level.

Either you cannot see that because you haven't taken the time to read and are so intent on writing meaningless emotive throwaway arguments that bear no relevance to what is actually being discussed, or worse, you can see it but you still choose to be a polarising and extremist presence on the thread in order to gain some high horsed satisfaction for yourself.

Seriously there's shi-te from both sides, trying to play the martyr card is no real argument.

For me it boils down to, Suarez trying to wind Evra up, which is grand in my eyes part of the game. But Suarez used one of a very few types of abuse that is a no-no in modern society. Very foolish on his behalf.

mixednuts wrote: »

Evra admitted to starting the conflict by saying something along the lines of "your sisters pussy " which then seems to also get lost in translation into "fcuk sake" ????
?

Yes but you see this is completely fine. Nothing wrong with it apart from it being a bit ****. I believe Materazzi used this method to help his country win the world cup by getting Zidane sent off, when he should have known better. Cost his country a world cup possibly.

Dublin_Gunner · 01-01-2012 01:34PM

Le King wrote: »

I think you need to read the report badly before you embarrass yourself any further.

Says the person that keeps mentioning the word 'negro' without realising Suarez was talking Spanish.

People are seeing that word and immediately applying our English understanding of it.

Oh, and I've read the report well, thanks. Not badly like many of you have.

K-9 · 01-01-2012 01:37PM

Paparazzo wrote: »

Does anyone really believe that Suarez goes around calling Glen Johnson "negro"?

Well he said he'd called Toure that during a match so very possible.

Indeed the FA used it as a basis for saying it was likely he could repeatedly use the term.

Handsome Bob · 01-01-2012 01:37PM

The 4th time I've said this what the hell: the report that establishes that Suarez's use of the word "negro" wasn't the problem, but rather, the context in which he used it. Read the ****ing report.

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

Comments