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

Ordinary man · 01-01-2012 05:21PM

spockety wrote: »

Can you please provide some more information about what in the report tallies with any issue you pointed out that Kenny Dalglish and LFC have to be "sheepish" about? Specific references would be of some help.

Can you also please provide some more concrete information that you have at your disposal to suggest that a particular "guy" will be "gone inside 2 years"?

Can you also please provide any evidence whatsoever that anybody reading your post found it in any way humourous (i.e. "Funny", as you refer to at the end)?

Dagleish's response on hearing it was - "hasn't he done this before?" Since it has been proven that this is the first time that evra made a claim of racial abuse, i'd say dagleish would want to feel "sheepish" about that statement. Would you agree?

ilovelamp2000 · 01-01-2012 05:21PM

spockety wrote: »

People continue to come out with rubbish like:

*) Liverpool fans are blindly defending Suarez
*) Stop "embarrassing" yourselves by arguing about it
*) Liverpool's fans posts are "disgraceful"/"disgusting"

I find those posts embarrassing actually. They scream to me "I don't have the ability to put together a reasoned and cohesive argument on the subject, so instead I will mount my high horse and throw out a few superior sounding statements on the issue. After all, we are in the right, aren't we? Why don't those Liverpool fans just get back in their box and take their medicine?".

Thankfully we live in a society where we have the freedom to question, and the freedom to debate. Anyone who wishes to debate the report should do so. You are not embarrassing yourself. You are not embarrassing the club. You are not blindly supporting.

The issue at hand for most Liverpool fans posting here from what I can see has gone beyond the issue of whether Suarez racially abused Evra (because I think people on both sides will agree that it is not possible to say that definitively and without doubt?), but the process by which his guilt was judged and his sentence handed out.

The issue goes beyond Suarez Vs Evra, and calls into question the entire basis upon which FA disciplinary proceedings are run. There are another set of posters on here who have also stated that Liverpool or people on here attempting to debate the issue have no recourse to debate, because these are the FA rules that Liverpool signed up to, end of story. How short sighted. It is only through the questioning of processes that they are changed for the better. The posters who say we cannot question the FA's processes say so in such a way as to give the impression they are experts on FA procedure. That this is the last in a long line of FA disciplinary procedures they have followed closely and examined, and that the Liverpool fans on here questioning it should know better, if only they were familiar with FA procedures. For most Liverpool fans this is our first exposure to this particular process and the types of evidence which are accepted. I would be willing to wager that for almost everyone posting suggesting that that's the end of the story it is also their first exposure, however it suits their argument to lecture as if it is not.

There are certain countries where a woman can be stoned to death for the crime of being raped. They are the rules, end of story. Is this a process that should not be questioned? Or is there a particular line that should be drawn? At what point should one not be allowed to question process?

The FA procedures on matters like this are appalling. This is the first time I have ever come across them, and whatever about judging whether an elbow in the face was intentional or not, to judge an accusation which in theory could actually merit criminal proceedings (racial abuse is illegal in the UK) using the procedures as followed in the Suarez Evra case is simply incredulous as far as I am concerned.

The guilty verdict is subjective, and based on circumstancial evidence. Perhaps the FA panel involved were correct to find him guilty based on the procedures as laid down. However I don't think I can make clear enough that what is being called into question here are those procedures in and of themselves.

I hope that those posters arguing that those procedures seem fair never find a player from their club on the receiving end of a similar judgment based on similar procedures. I find it hard to imagine they would let it lie as they expect those here to.

Your post amounts to - I don't think Suarez is guilty, but if he is then the problem is the rules not his actions.

You can stand over the use of the word negro if you want to, I'm not prepared to. And Suarez has admitted to using it.

The reason Suarez's evidence was dismissed was simple - if you see two guys having a row and shouting at each other. One says we were just having a friendly chat, the other says well we had a row and this is what was said - which one are you going to believe ? It's quite simple.

That people think that this is some sort of kangaroo court says just how little they actually know about the legal process in general. Nothing unusual actually occurred at the hearing. There is an issue in using hearsay as corroboration, but it doesn't really make much of a difference in light of Suarez's admission.

If you believe that some grave injustice has occured you need to go and protest about how the law is administered in the entire Western World. People have been convicted for murder with less evidence than was available here (TV footage, the Suarez admission, and witness evidence)

Here's a case of a man who was convicted of murder entirely on circumstantial evidence :
http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/64ead7019668a0dc80257571003e85f7?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,o'reilly

I take it you were out protesting in his defence at such a grave injustice ?

The_Kew_Tour · 01-01-2012 05:22PM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

Your post amounts to - I don't think Suarez is guilty, but if he is then the problem is the rules not his actions.

You can stand over the use of the word negro if you want to, I'm not prepared to. And Suarez has admitted to using it.

The reason Suarez's evidence was dismissed was simple - if you see two guys having a row and shouting at each other. One says we were just having a friendly chat, the other says well we had a row and this is what was said - which one are you going to believe ? It's quite simple.

That people think that this is some sort of kangaroo court says just how little they actually know about the legal process in general. Nothing unusual actually occurred at the hearing. There is an issue in using hearsay as corroboration, but it doesn't really make much of a difference in light of Suarez's admission.

If you believe that some grave injustice has occured you need to go and protest about how the law is administered in the entire Western World. People have been convicted for murder with less evidence than was available here (TV footage, the Suarez admission, and witness evidence)

Here's a case of a man who was convicted of murder entirely on circumstantial evidence :
http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/64ead7019668a0dc80257571003e85f7?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,o'reilly

I take it you were out protesting in his defence at such a grave injustice ?

Good Post

Crazy Horse 6 · 01-01-2012 05:24PM

Ordinary man wrote: »

Dagleish's response on hearing it was - "hasn't he done this before?" Since it has been proven that this is the first time that evra made a claim of racial abuse, i'd say dagleish would want to feel "sheepish" about that statement. Would you agree?

It's "Dalglish" ffs. The level of fckwittery on this thread is astounding at times.

tommyhaas · 01-01-2012 05:24PM

Brain Stroking wrote: »

The report states that Kenny Dalglish commented to the referee that Evra "has done this before". I think it is fairly well established that he was wrong there. And possibly slanderous if looked at in isolation.

Dalglish was under the assumption he had, and asked had he, rather then accuse him of such

This was straight after the incident, when most thought Evra had made the previous claims. Have a look back through the thread at the amount of people who were initially under this impression, I'm sure many Utd fans were too

Liverpool have made plenty of mistakes IMO through out this whole thing, but picking on the above as an example only weakens any argument you have as it appears you're clutching at straws

Ordinary man · 01-01-2012 05:26PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

It's "Dalglish" ffs. The level of fckwittery on this thread is astounding at times.

You're contribution has been noted:rolleyes::rolleyes:

manual_man · 01-01-2012 05:28PM

carlcon wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

To say that is provoking animosity. Not the first time i've seen you take a jibe at Liverpool fans on boards, mind you. There are some 'Pool fans who, yes, have come out with unwholesome comments on here, but for the most part 'Pool fans are demanding some kind of solid evidence before they damn their own player. Not unreasonable, i should think. I have read the entire report, and it is still unclear to me whether Suarez is guilty or not. The FA are basing their judgement almost entirely on the basis of one man's word over another, without any factual evidence of the words that were exchanged, and this for me shows gross negligence on the part of the FA in respect to the right to fair trial, in what is extremely important to all the parties involved. Most Liverpool fans are demanding transparency, which we have absolutely not got, and how any fan, no matter what club they support, can condemn Suarez based on the paperthin evidence that was supplied via the Commission, is well and truly beyond me. Innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. People might do well to remember that.

The bold part shows that you either a) Did not read the report, or b) Did not understand the report. For either of those reasons, along with your history of childishness in the FF forum, I won't be taking the time to show how unbelievably wrong you are.

The bold part is absolutely true, and vitally important. No one outside of the two players heard what was said, there is no video evidence that sheds any more light on what words were actually used, and since the FA is basing it's judgement on what PE claims was said, without a shred of actual evidence to back it up, yes i am highly dubious of the judgement served. Evidence, apparently, is a prerequisite in other cases, though not it appears, in this one. That (some) people appear willing to take the FA's judgement at face value, without the necessary evidence generally considered as an absolute requirement in supporting such a judgement, shows extreme bias, and an inability to think for oneself

Brain Stroking · 01-01-2012 05:28PM

spockety wrote: »

This is quite an amazing post.

It manages to capture in only three sentences, and summarize entirely everything that is wrong about most of the posts here supporting the judgment.

I have to say, hats off.

It's also noteworthy because it manages to completely and utterly miss almost every single point I made in the post quoted!

I'm sorry, maybe i can make my point in a less long-winded way maybe?

And i believe you are wrong. So where do we go from there? The fact that this is a case that Liverpool fans are aggrieved due to their first exposure to the procedure at play is, well, irrelevant. Your mentioning of Iranian women being stoned to death is out of place and frankly, symptomatic of the victimhood that Liverpool have portrayed throughout this (i dont know or care where your affiliations lie but i completely reject the statement).

So as you can probably tell i fundementally disagree with you. So rather than attack the points individually (i dont have all day - a lot of fluff to wade through) i decided to succinctly disagree with where you are generally coming from.

doc_17 · 01-01-2012 05:28PM

I'd say this thread could go on for the rest of time and people will still read into the report what they want. It's not as cut and dried as people would want it to be. It's conplicated and people have every right to question the opinions formed by the panel.

Anyone who thinks peole are embarrassing themselves by defending their point should remember that the FA themselves thought it was a very complex case

spockety · 01-01-2012 05:30PM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

Your post amounts to - I don't think Suarez is guilty, but if he is then the problem is the rules not his actions.

You can stand over the use of the word negro if you want to, I'm not prepared to. And Suarez has admitted to using it.

The reason Suarez's evidence was dismissed was simple - if you see two guys having a row and shouting at each other. One says we were just having a friendly chat, the other says well we had a row and this is what was said - which one are you going to believe ? It's quite simple.

That people think that this is some sort of kangaroo court says just how little they actually know about the legal process in general. Nothing unusual actually occurred at the hearing. There is an issue in using hearsay as corroboration, but it doesn't really make much of a difference in light of Suarez's admission.

If you believe that some grave injustice has occured you need to go and protest about how the law is administered in the entire Western World. People have been convicted for murder with less evidence than was available here (TV footage, the Suarez admission, and witness evidence)

Here's a case of a man who was convicted of murder entirely on circumstantial evidence :
http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/64ead7019668a0dc80257571003e85f7?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,o'reilly

I take it you were out protesting in his defence at such a grave injustice ?

I never said I don't think Suarez is guilty. I haven't a clue, there's not enough evidence before me to make a guilty judgment on him, that's my point.

Suarez has admitted using the word "negro" in a way which not offensive, and language experts have confirmed that the phrase uttered by Suarez could very well be used in South America in a way which is not offensive. That puts doubt in my mind.

Joe O'Reilly was convicted based on evidence which put it well beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. There is no evidence in the Suarez case which puts it beyond a reasonable doubt from what I can see. I didn't realise up until yesterday that that burden of proof was not required in these cases, I make no apology for being ignorant on that, but I find it disturbing and that is why I question it.

For the avoidance of any doubt, Suarez is being judged based on what Evra claims he said, and if Suarez did in fact say all of that then I believe he is guilty, yes. The panel found that it was probable that Suarez did indeed say exactly what Evra says he said. I find the process by which that conclusion was drawn to be rather incredible and unreasonable. There is nothing to be embarrassed about for questioning it. It is not a 'blind' defense, in spite of what some posters on here would like to continue peddling.

doc_17 · 01-01-2012 05:30PM

Ordinary man wrote: »

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

It's "Dalglish" ffs. The level of fckwittery on this thread is astounding at times.

You're contribution has been noted:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Your

carlcon · 01-01-2012 05:30PM

spockety wrote: »

Can you also please provide some more concrete information that you have at your disposal to suggest that a particular "guy" will be "gone inside 2 years"?

Torres - 4 years (3.5?)
Keane - 1 year
Crouch - 3 years
Anelka - 1 year
Cissé - 3

There's a record there from the past 10 years or so that back him up. With a year already under his belt, saying Suarez has 2 more years could actually be seen as quite fair.

I won't bother replying to the other tripe, since you've well and truly had your arse handed to you by those who got in before me.

noodler · 01-01-2012 05:31PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

It's "Dalglish" ffs. The level of fckwittery on this thread is astounding at times.

Ordinary man wrote: »

You're contribution has been noted:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I still think you two are the same poster and that little exchange was just an elaborate rouse to fool the masses!

Brain Stroking · 01-01-2012 05:32PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

Dalglish was under the assumption he had, and asked had he, rather then accuse him of such

This was straight after the incident, when most thought Evra had made the previous claims. Have a look back through the thread at the amount of people who were initially under this impression, I'm sure many Utd fans were too

Liverpool have made plenty of mistakes IMO through out this whole thing, but picking on the above as an example only weakens any argument you have as it appears you're clutching at straws

Yes but comparing posters on an anonymous message forum and Dalglish speaking to the referee is a little silly, no? Saying something to a right thinking member of society (referee) which may lower Evra in the eyes of the referee (and possibly affect evra's livelihood) is slanderous. Check the law

doc_17 · 01-01-2012 05:32PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

Brain Stroking wrote: »

The report states that Kenny Dalglish commented to the referee that Evra "has done this before". I think it is fairly well established that he was wrong there. And possibly slanderous if looked at in isolation.

Dalglish was under the assumption he had, and asked had he, rather then accuse him of such

This was straight after the incident, when most thought Evra had made the previous claims. Have a look back through the thread at the amount of people who were initially under this impression, I'm sure many Utd fans were too

Liverpool have made plenty of mistakes IMO through out this whole thing, but picking on the above as an example only weakens any argument you have as it appears you're clutching at straws

It's a case of repeating a lie often enough and people believe it. I thought Evra made that claim as well but a few posters earlier in the thread put me right on that. I apologise.

spockety · 01-01-2012 05:34PM

carlcon wrote: »

Torres - 4 years (3.5?)
Keane - 1 year
Crouch - 3 years
Anelka - 1 year
Cissé - 3

There's a record there from the past 10 years or so that back him up. With a year already under his belt, saying Suarez has 2 more years could actually be seen as quite fair.

I won't bother replying to the other tripe, since you've well and truly had your arse handed to you by those who got in before me.

Thank you for your reply. Based on what you've said, and what the original poster said, there's actually nothing concrete to suggest that Suarez will not be a Liverpool player in 2 years. My suspicion is that it was said purely to enflame and already tense thread, and nothing more. Unfortunately though that's my opinion, I will give the poster the benefit of the doubt.

I honestly don't feel like I have had anything handed to me. I am well up for a reasonable discussion on the topic, as I hope my posts show. I understand the dynamics here, it is essentially a United Vs Liverpool meltdown. That's fine, it's human nature and it's football tribal nature. You will feel I have had my rear end handed to me because it suits your side of the argument. Other people, probably mostly Liverpool fans, will feel that I'm putting forward some good points. And so round and round we go. I've had nothing handed to me however.

Brain Stroking · 01-01-2012 05:34PM

manual_man wrote: »

The bold part is absolutely true, and vitally important. No one outside of the two players heard what was said, there is no video evidence that sheds any more light on what words were actually used, and since the FA is basing it's judgement on what PE claims was said, without a shred of actual evidence to back it up, yes i am highly dubious of the judgement served. Evidence, apparently, is a prerequisite in other cases, though not it appears, in this one. That (some) people appear willing to take the FA's judgement at face value, without the necessary evidence generally considered as an absolute requirement in supporting such a judgement, shows extreme bias, and an inability to think for oneself

You have to be trolling. They have stated that they had additional tv footage that wasnt publicly aired. It then became slightly more than one man's word against another. Is this too difficult for you?

spockety · 01-01-2012 05:35PM

doc_17 wrote: »

It's a case of repeating a lie often enough and people believe it.

And that is exactly what is going to happen to Suarez now. It will be repeated ad nauseum that he has been found guilty of being "a racist".

Nalz · 01-01-2012 05:36PM

Trilla wrote: »

What to...

And...

Why....

Did suarez change his story 3 times?

Baz did someone answer this?

01-01-2012 05:36PM

noodler wrote: »

I still think you two are the same poster and that little exchange was just an elaborate rouse to fool the masses!

A few people have said that.

I think the FA should investigate it !

spockety · 01-01-2012 05:36PM

Brain Stroking wrote: »

You have to be trolling. They have stated that they had additional tv footage that wasnt publicly aired. It then became slightly more than one man's word against another. Is this too difficult for you?

The TV footage does nothing to prove that the conversation was exactly as Evra describes. E.g. there is nothing to lip read etc.

Crazy Horse 6 · 01-01-2012 05:37PM

noodler wrote: »

I still think you two are the same poster and that little exchange was just an elaborate rouse to fool the masses!

They are easily swayed. Hold on i thought i was mister man?

Crazy Horse 6 · 01-01-2012 05:38PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

A few people have said that.

I think the FA should investigate it !

You tell the lie long enough and loud enough and the sheeple are easily lead.;)

Brain Stroking · 01-01-2012 05:38PM

spockety wrote: »

I never said I don't think Suarez is guilty. I haven't a clue, there's not enough evidence before me to make a guilty judgment on him, that's my point.

But you are questioning the procedures whereby the verdict was reached. How can you do that having not seen the full evidence they saw? I'm going to say it again, they saw additional tv footage which we havent seen.
In light of that fact, why adopt the starting position of distrusting the procedure by which the verdict was reached?

3hn2givr7mx1sc · 01-01-2012 05:40PM

Trilla wrote: »

Baz did someone answer this?

No, I just find it humorous that you keep getting ignored.:P I'd also like to know the answer to it myself, tbh!

doc_17 · 01-01-2012 05:40PM

Brain Stroking wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

The bold part is absolutely true, and vitally important. No one outside of the two players heard what was said, there is no video evidence that sheds any more light on what words were actually used, and since the FA is basing it's judgement on what PE claims was said, without a shred of actual evidence to back it up, yes i am highly dubious of the judgement served. Evidence, apparently, is a prerequisite in other cases, though not it appears, in this one. That (some) people appear willing to take the FA's judgement at face value, without the necessary evidence generally considered as an absolute requirement in supporting such a judgement, shows extreme bias, and an inability to think for oneself

You have to be trolling. They have stated that they had additional tv footage that wasnt publicly aired. It then became slightly more than one man's word against another. Is this too difficult for you?

So release the footage

manual_man · 01-01-2012 05:41PM

Brain Stroking wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

The bold part is absolutely true, and vitally important. No one outside of the two players heard what was said, there is no video evidence that sheds any more light on what words were actually used, and since the FA is basing it's judgement on what PE claims was said, without a shred of actual evidence to back it up, yes i am highly dubious of the judgement served. Evidence, apparently, is a prerequisite in other cases, though not it appears, in this one. That (some) people appear willing to take the FA's judgement at face value, without the necessary evidence generally considered as an absolute requirement in supporting such a judgement, shows extreme bias, and an inability to think for oneself

You have to be trolling. They have stated that they had additional tv footage that wasnt publicly aired. It then became slightly more than one man's word against another. Is this too difficult for you?

I read the report from start to finish. They did indeed have additional tv footage. This was discussed in the report. And concluded that it did not shed any more light as to the actual words exchanged, though it did note the expressions and gestures of the players during the confrontation, as well as the 'amount' of words that appeared to have been exchange during different stages of the confrontation

That good enough for you?

Ordinary man · 01-01-2012 05:41PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

A few people have said that.

I think the FA should investigate it !

So ye could dismiss that report too?:p:p

ilovelamp2000 · 01-01-2012 05:42PM

spockety wrote: »

I never said I don't think Suarez is guilty. I haven't a clue, there's not enough evidence before me to make a guilty judgment on him, that's my point.

Suarez has admitted using the word "negro" in a way which not offensive, and language experts have confirmed that the phrase uttered by Suarez could very well be used in South America in a way which is not offensive. That puts doubt in my mind.

Joe O'Reilly was convicted based on evidence which put it well beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. There is no evidence in the Suarez case which puts it beyond a reasonable doubt from what I can see. I didn't realise up until yesterday that that burden of proof was not required in these cases, I make no apology for being ignorant on that, but I find it disturbing and that is why I question it.

For the avoidance of any doubt, Suarez is being judged based on what Evra claims he said, and if Suarez did in fact say all of that then I believe he is guilty, yes. The panel found that it was probable that Suarez did indeed say exactly what Evra says he said. I find the process by which that conclusion was drawn to be rather incredible and unreasonable. There is nothing to be embarrassed about for questioning it. It is not a 'blind' defense, in spite of what some posters on here would like to continue peddling.

Again your ignorance of legal priniciples and everyday court matters is evident.

Joe O'Reilly was convicted on emails he sent months before the murder, and telephone records which indicate he lied about his whereabouts. No physical evidence, no witnesses.

Suarez was found guilty based upon his own admission, his evidence which was deemed not credible because it didn't fit with TV footage (perfectly reasonable), and then the various bits of witness testimony that exists including Evra. That admission by Suarez alone is more evidence that was available to the jury in Joe O'Reilly's case.

Anyone who is claiming there is not enough evidence is simply operating out of ignorance. There's not really any other conclusion that can be drawn. Particularly when you find everyday legal matters to be incredible and unreasonable.

Brain Stroking · 01-01-2012 05:42PM

spockety wrote: »

The TV footage does nothing to prove that the conversation was exactly as Evra describes. E.g. there is nothing to lip read etc.

Can you send me a link to the footage? Would love to see it. Until then, and in light of the fact that they have had the benefit of the said footage in reaching their verdict, i'll trust their decision.

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

Comments