Football 2011-2012

[eFestivals]

It has not been established that Evra has said or admitted that. It has been alleged. That is my point.

then on the same basis there's zero reason for any condemnation of Suarez either. There's similarly nothing more than allegations for that too, there is only newspaper reporting (which I've always accepted might be incorrect).

From the press reports Suarez's story appears to have backtracked slightly from "categorically deny" to "erm, well, I did say negrito" to "um, yeah, Actually, it was negro".

oh, right ... so you're happy to go from press reports for Suarez's wrongdoing, but not the same reports for Evra's wrongdoing.

Do you work for the FA and sit on panels for them?

The Liverpool statement explicitly states that Suarez didn't hear anything, which incidently reduces any chance of claiming provocation/mitigation.

The Liverpool statement explicitly states that Suarez didn't hear **a particular comment***, nothing more.

It removes the possibility of claiming provocation against that one unheard comment, and nothing else.

that doesn't exclude the possibility in private counsel he panicked and said "uh, he called me this so I called him that in retaliation" only to get cold feet in the testimony.

and similarly, Evra might have told Fergie that he'd made the whole thing up and was told by Fergie that for the reputation of the club and himself as a player he now had to follow thru on it, and the whole thing is a lie with Utd's knowing support

We can make up any old bullshit out of nothing, or we can discuss what's been reported.

...and as said, there's no explicit mention of racism in the Liverpool statement.

That's understandable as a comment about nationality isn't strictly racism no matter how it might be couched in UK law.

Nor seemingly have they made a formal complaint to date.

Do they have to?

The FA certainly bring charges without a complaint in some cases. Given that Evra has supposedly made his admission directly to the FA then they should surely be pursuing it?

Suarez's "negro" was not done in a hostile manner? - Has that been determined? Has it been determined whether there was just one usage or multiple. We don't know yet.

If things are as they've been reported and the 'negro' was said after speaking to the ref then it can be seen that Suarez's manner wasn't hostile at that moment.

His manner might have been a scam of course, but until there's further evidence to go on about that I'm taking that at face value rather than make things up out of nothing.

If we're inventing things out of nothing, can I just say that despite the colour of his skin Evra is the leader of the Klu Klux Klan?

[eFestivals]

The FA deemed fit to charge Suarez and he was found guilty by an independent commission

nothing of which says they reached the correct verdict.

Evra to date hasn't had a charge levied against him

Only the FA can make the charge, not me, not you, and not LFC.

Liverpool have asked why they haven't, and from what's been reported it's a 100% valid question.

If he does and is, then I hope United fans are non-partizan, and condemn him similar to how a lot are condemning Suarez.

yeah, that'll happen. PMSL.

Your posts imo have been premature and unacceptable. You're hanging Evra (and by association United fans and Fergie) without knowledge of the source or validity of the comments Evra has allegedly made.

I'm simply doing that in response to others who are doing the same with Suarez.

What part of "I hope Suarez is clearly guilty" that I've said a number of times are you having such difficulty understanding?

It's best to wait.

let's hope all the other Utd fans are listening then - they haven't been so far, but you've chosen not to comment about their posts while you have done mine.

You're clearly operating the double standards you're trying to pin on me - yet I'm the only one saying both are guilty if considered on the same basis from what's been reported because from those reports both are.

Shame you didn't take your own advice, or dish your own advice out evenly.

There's never any bias from Utd fans, especially from those who like to think of themselves as fair minded.

[eFestivals]

Pretty sure the FA verdict wouldn't of been based on criminal level of evidence so I think you might have fuel to complain going forward... I think you are expecting a criminal level of evidence to be presented...

Nope.

All the way thru I've said it's messy because of the cultural angles, and (dependent on the words actually used) someone has to give an opinion on what is meant by those words.

Because it is likely to be merely an opinion on what was meant by the words used that leads to the judgement, the chances of error are far higher than they would be if there was solid irrefutable evidence.

[Wooderson]

Neil, not waxing your car here chief - but youve been bang on the ballicks right on this issue. Kudos, sir.

[strummer77]

Neil, not waxing your car here chief - but youve been bang on the ballicks right on this issue. Kudos, sir.

Edited December 22, 2011 by strummer77

[eFestivals]

Neil, not waxing your car here chief - but youve been bang on the ballicks right on this issue. Kudos, sir.

thank you kind sir.

I've no truck with racism of any kind while knowing that we're all capable of being so even when we think we're not being (and that includes me - I live in a racist culture and some of that is likely to rub off on me no matter how hard I try to be wise to it).

But neither am I going to condemn someone of racism if that's not what was meant. The cultural angles around this case get to mean that a British take on things is not how things necessarily are. That doesn't mean that I might think it was right for Suarez to use in Britain the word it's reported he did, just that it might not have been racist when he did so.

[The Nal]

Nal, funny as that is chief - it is wildly inappropriate.

[Wooderson]

[The Nal]

Ah jaysus.

[The Nal]

OK I'll stop. Sorry, just bored of it all now.

[Wooderson]

Agree. very balanced.

Maybe Efestivals can do the tribunals in future? You, Wooderson and Nal for balance?

[pink_triangle]

In my opinion hansen should be sacked for being a rubbish pundit, not because of the word police.

[Wooderson]

The FA aren't labelling anyone racist.

[Wooderson]

In my opinion hansen should be sacked for being a rubbish pundit, not because of the word police.

[Wooderson]

BTW Dave Maddock shouldnt be let within an arses roar of Melwood for that headline.

[Wooderson]

but thats not the FA....

[The Nal]

Whilst Nal's zero tolerance to racism would make him a quality candidate for this panel - his avowed anti-LFC bias would mitigate.

Think General Melchett in the case of Speckled Jim for example.

"HOWL! HOWL!" etc

[Wooderson]

Evidence please?!

[eFestivals]

The Guardian article made a good point...

what they've missed entirely is the statement from Suarez's agent and lawyer (the same guy) which said something about Suarez appealing because he couldn't believe the harshness of the sentence rather than anything being found guilty of the charge.

(caveat: I've only read a one-liner reported, there might have been more)

So it might be the case that Suarez is going to accept the basis via which the judgement has been made (which I can see the logic in perhaps accepting, given the wording of the charge) but not the implication of racism that is put on him because of it, and not the severity of the punishment either for what could be regarded as a technical breech of the FA rules but not something that fits within why the rule exists in the first place.

If he just takes the advice here we will all be talking about Terry soon and he somewhat gets forgotten...

it depends what happens with that case of course. Because that one is a criminal matter, it's likely to pan out differently at the FA.

I think it's going to be difficult for the FA to proceed with a case against Terry on the same basis as happened with Suarez if Terry is found not guilty at court (where being found guilty in court will require a higher level of evidence and proof than the FA would require to find him guilty) - even tho the fact that the CPS are proceeding with the case implies that there could be irrefutable evidence of Terry using racist language.

If nothing else, the fact of these two incidents happening so close together makes how things play out mighty interesting for how fairness might be done or not at the FA.

Edited December 22, 2011 by eFestivals

[The Nal]

I love Jocky to bits - one of my heros - but he's dropped a bollek here.

Also I've grown tired of his stock phrases that he repeats ad nauseum

"Thah boeys gotitall, huh.

Payce. Arlgrehtion. Meuevment off thah ball."

Mustve said those three things about 1,000s of players over the years. All he facking cares about tbh.

[eFestivals]

what they've missed entirely is the statement from Suarez's agent and lawyer (the same guy) which said something about Suarez appealing because he couldn't believe the harshness of the sentence rather than anything being found guilty of the charge.

(caveat: I've only read a one-liner reported, there might have been more)

So it might be the case that Suarez is going to accept the basis via which the judgement has been made (which I can see the logic in perhaps accepting, given the wording of the charge) but not the implication of racism that is put on him because of it, and not the severity of the punishment either for what could be regarded as a technical breech of the FA rules but not something that fits within why the rule exists in the first place.

there's the stuff his lawyer says here:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16295932.stm

[eFestivals]

here's a part of how the UK can be a bit daft when it comes to race issues....

http://news.bbc.co.u...ll/16301357.stm

Hansen used the word 'coloured' to describe black players. It's a word that was once (not so long ago) the preferred non-racist term to describe people of non-white skin, that for various reasons (including it's use by racists) fell out of fashion and was replaced briefly by 'people of colour' and then today's preferred term of 'black'.

And of course, before 'coloured' the preferred (or one of?) 'polite' word to use in the UK was 'negro', the word that Suarez used (which in Spanish means simply 'black' ... which is today's preferred term ).

Was Hansen being racist? Or was he reflecting the culture of someone of his age and not meaning any insult or slur? Whichever it was, he's apologised for any offence caused (rather than for causing offence) and the world moves on.

Edited December 22, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

They are talking about totally reversing it...

the talk is about the punishment, not the judgement of him being guilty of the charge.

Your poor understanding of what is specifically said explains a lot of what you post.

[The Nal]

Paul McGrath: "As an ex-footballer having experienced racist comments throughout my career I was saddened to see Liverpool players wear those t-shirts last night. I would have been much happier if they had worn anti-racism t-shirts."

Liverpool getting a lot of bad press about the tshirts and their reaction in general. Rightly so.

Also found Kennys "Lets not let him walk alone" comment quite nauseating in a cringing type of way. You'll Never Walk Alone is the club motto. We get it!! Like a WWE catchphrase.

Unless the ban is scratched, the fine is wiped and Suarez is found 100% innocent on appeal (not going to happen), Suarez, Daglish and the entire club are going to be left looking very silly.

Edited December 22, 2011 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

So they totally reverse the eight game ban but the judgement stands... Welcome to the mental hospital...

You really are a bit thick which explains a lot of your posts...

Care to point out where the word "totally" is used ... or have you made that bit up to hide that you're thick?

If you drive your car down the road and the "reverse", do you HAVE TO end up where you started? Or can you reverse a bit but not all the way?

It talks of the punishment being "absolutely out of proportion" and "one of the hardest sanctions handed down in English football".

No where does it say that they expect no punishment after an appeal or imply that's what they're thinking.

Learn to fucking read.

Edited December 22, 2011 by eFestivals