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

SlickRic wrote: »

from my reading of the report, Evra thought the phrase he heard Suarez use at the time of the coming together meant "n****r", but at the hearing he acknowledged that he'd learned that it meant "black".

it's not taboo to criticise Evra, it's just unfortunately hard to when he actually won the case.

seriously, i do think there are some that haven't read the report still.

I think you are the on that has not read the report. If you are going to be so condescending towards niallo at least get the facts right.

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".

Opr

So going by the cultural differences premise it is ok for a foreign player ( say an American ) to play against Glasgow Rangers and call one of their players "Hun" during an altercation.

His defence will be that back in America the it is a freindly term and he saying it during this altercation in this friendly manner.

Decent article from Darren Lewis ( Happens to be a Liverpool fan )


So much has already been said about the Suarez-Evra case.

So I'll just add a couple of things.

It is fascinating that, in a week when we have reached the conclusion of a high-profile court case following a man's death because of the colour of his skin, football fans - and one of the country's highest profile clubs - are still defending a man found guilty of using a racially offensive term.

As a black man I can tell you this: There is no context in which any term referring to the colour of my skin during an argument can be termed as anything other than racist.


That might be hard for Liverpool fans to accept but it is a fact.

Suarez admitted using the word 'negro' to Patrice Evra in his own evidence to the FA's three-man independent commission.

Having seen friends attacked for being black, having been racially abused myself, and even having been on the end of the attempts to use racist terms in an apparently affectionate, friendly way, I don't need anybody to tell me what does and does not constitute racism.

Many Liverpool fans have been in touch with me, outraged, to complain about the Daily Mirror's infamous 'Racist' back page.

And yet there has been a spectacular irony about the way some of them, trying to defend Suarez against the charge, have themselves directed racist language of the most disgraceful kind at other pundits and journalists.

Some fans have fumed to me that they would be unfollowing me and my newspaper on Twitter. As if some sort of Twitter boycott would have anywhere near the same significance as basic human decency.

This is way bigger than all of that nonsense.

Liverpool are a great club with good people, good administrators and many, many good fans. But they have got it wrong on this occasion from start to finish.

They demanded the written reasons after the guilty verdict was announced last month but have gone on to dismiss those, maintaining they are right and the rest of world was wrong.

Even then, in their incendiary latest statement they claim to be a "leader on taking a progressive stance on race issues". But privately the anti-racism groups in this country that I have spoken to are horrified at the Reds' intransigence on Suarez.

The wearing of those infamous T-shirts was at best an open defiance of our football authorities and at worst a massive blow - from a club with worldwide renown - for the fight to kick racism out of football.

The use of that word 'Racist' on the back page of the Mirror indicated that an independent three-man panel had listened to all the evidence and ruled that the words used by Suarez were racially offensive.

And yet Liverpool have accused the FA of a witch-hunt and appear to be questioning the independence and the honesty of a respected QC with their most recent statement.

The FA have had little if anything to do with the judgment, acting on this occasion as the messenger once said judgment had been reached.

The decision of the independent panel to use their discretion to give eight-matches shows that we in this country have set a benchmark in the fight against racism.

It shows that while there would have been a denial, or even a shameful acceptance of racism from the people in charge years ago, the will is now there to show zero tolerance - whatever the ability or the status of the player, or club, concerned.

It is understandable that Liverpool's instinctive stance at the start of this row would have been to back their man. Particularly one so talented and valuable to them as Suarez is in comparison to his fellow (inferior) strikers.

But somewhere along the line they have made it about them and now the image of the club is taking a battering.

That could yet change if Suarez, who insisted in November that either he or Evra would have to apologise if the ruling went against them, did the decent thing and said sorry.

Certainly relations between Liverpool and Manchester United need to be repaired ahead of his return game in early February.

In the meantime the credibility of the people who run our game remains intact on this issue.

Liverpool continue digging.

Source:- http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/columnists/darren-lewis/Luis-Suarez-and-Patrice-Evra-racism-row-Why-Liverpool-striker-must-now-do-the-decent-thing-and-say-sorry-by-Darren-Lewis-article849147.html

J. Marston wrote: »

I think Liverpool and Suarez will apologise eventually, the media are ripping Liverpool and Dalglish a new one over this. The owner, Henry, won't like that, he's a business-man and if his asset is taking a PR battering, he's going to want it to stop. I doubt he subscribes to Dalglish's ''us against the world'' conspiracy theories.

They'll have to do something before the United match assuming he's back and in the squad.

Blatter wrote: »

Yeah, the explanations as to why are given in the report and were deemed satisfactory.

It may have been used to attack Evra's credibility with had Suarez not admitted to using the word negro. The minute that happened, it just blew any theory that Evra was making it all up, completely out of the water.

It's a minor inconsistency, that was fully explained and accepted.

Suarez' inconsistencies were not minor and did not have reasonable explanations.

To try and make out that both Evra and Suarez were equally inconsistent is laughable when he weight of inconsistencies lies firmly on Suarez' side.

The fact that Suarez admitted to using the word Negro makes Evra inconsistency even worse if he knew what the word meant and actually made it out to be something different after the game.

Oh you mean the explanation in which he talks about how he can't bring himself to even utter the word. That explanation seems so credible in light of the video below.



Opr