The Suarez/Evra Racism Row
- Thread starter Stulikesdrums
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
[quote author=Halmeister link=topic=47188.msg1455623#msg1455623 date=1325633179]
Great statements from Luis and the club.
This thread has made me feel sad for a long while now. Hopefully it will be locked and some of the things said will be forgotten.
[/quote]
That is all they are, statements. And if you bothered to think about what the statements mean, and what they condone, it is the reason you should feel sad now.
1. Someone can use racist language, but we don't call them a racist (wonderful)
2. You can abuse anyone because they are black, but as long as you do not make reference to their colour you're ok (yep, wonderful)
3. Don't worry we don't mind what your intention was, your thoughts are your own, just make sure you don't outwardly appear racist so you don't commit a strict liability offence (magnificent statement! oh wow! I couldn't make it better if I wanted! wow!)
4. If a black person abused a mixed race person, and the mixed race person abuses the black person, there is a heirarchy to racism and in this case we must defend the black person, because... he is black (of course! who can argue with that)
5. You better not kick up a fuss about your civil rights, or your human rights becase you need to see the big picture and adhere to our message of "kick it out" kick out racism, kick out the jams, martin luther king? nelson mandela? oh fuck them and their civil rights movements.. kick them out too! (beautiful, totally utterly beautiful).
Shameful.
Great statements from Luis and the club.
This thread has made me feel sad for a long while now. Hopefully it will be locked and some of the things said will be forgotten.
[/quote]
That is all they are, statements. And if you bothered to think about what the statements mean, and what they condone, it is the reason you should feel sad now.
1. Someone can use racist language, but we don't call them a racist (wonderful)
2. You can abuse anyone because they are black, but as long as you do not make reference to their colour you're ok (yep, wonderful)
3. Don't worry we don't mind what your intention was, your thoughts are your own, just make sure you don't outwardly appear racist so you don't commit a strict liability offence (magnificent statement! oh wow! I couldn't make it better if I wanted! wow!)
4. If a black person abused a mixed race person, and the mixed race person abuses the black person, there is a heirarchy to racism and in this case we must defend the black person, because... he is black (of course! who can argue with that)
5. You better not kick up a fuss about your civil rights, or your human rights becase you need to see the big picture and adhere to our message of "kick it out" kick out racism, kick out the jams, martin luther king? nelson mandela? oh fuck them and their civil rights movements.. kick them out too! (beautiful, totally utterly beautiful).
Shameful.
All your moral outrage aside, we played the legal game, we never challenged the authority of the FA to hear the charge, nor the rules, procedure and manner in which it heard it. We simply accepted that all of that was binding and that gave them legal legitimacy. With that in mind, the next thing the legal game comes down to is persuading the Court or tribunal that you are probably right (in a civil case). And we lost for myriad reasons, but chiefly because I think our legal representation was not up to scratch.
I can't stress enough that the Commission was entitled to make the findings it did in its written reasons. That's not me agreeing with the witch hunt against Suarez and for what it's worth, I do think the FA were determined to prove Suarez guilty probably because it was determined to take a very public stand against racism. In fact, I also choose to believe Suarez's account of events. But the truth is not the goal of the game, it's being more persuasive and ultimately, recognized as having the more probable version of events.
The fact that all of you are taking different things from the written reasons is not unusual. Put a dozen judges on the Commission, and I'm certain half of them would find the charge proved and the other half would dismiss it.
Anyway, I'm done trying to explain the legal framework involved. Some of you are convinced otherwise, but this boils down by analogy to the tension between morality and law.
As an aside, right now I'm pleased with the statements from the club and Suarez. It's only right to keep stressing that Suarez was only found guilty of a charge brought by the FA, and not our Courts, on the balance of probabilities. I am confident that with the correct positive publicity, the racist tag will fade from people's minds.
That would have been far more difficult to achieve had we fought the FA, whether on appeal or judicial review. Win or lose, the added attention from protracted legal proceedings would have only consolidated the perception of Suarez as a racist in the minds of a public that will only want snippets of news and headlines.
I can't stress enough that the Commission was entitled to make the findings it did in its written reasons. That's not me agreeing with the witch hunt against Suarez and for what it's worth, I do think the FA were determined to prove Suarez guilty probably because it was determined to take a very public stand against racism. In fact, I also choose to believe Suarez's account of events. But the truth is not the goal of the game, it's being more persuasive and ultimately, recognized as having the more probable version of events.
The fact that all of you are taking different things from the written reasons is not unusual. Put a dozen judges on the Commission, and I'm certain half of them would find the charge proved and the other half would dismiss it.
Anyway, I'm done trying to explain the legal framework involved. Some of you are convinced otherwise, but this boils down by analogy to the tension between morality and law.
As an aside, right now I'm pleased with the statements from the club and Suarez. It's only right to keep stressing that Suarez was only found guilty of a charge brought by the FA, and not our Courts, on the balance of probabilities. I am confident that with the correct positive publicity, the racist tag will fade from people's minds.
That would have been far more difficult to achieve had we fought the FA, whether on appeal or judicial review. Win or lose, the added attention from protracted legal proceedings would have only consolidated the perception of Suarez as a racist in the minds of a public that will only want snippets of news and headlines.
R
RedZeppelin
Guest
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=47188.msg1455057#msg1455057 date=1325618204]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=47188.msg1455012#msg1455012 date=1325617299]
Andy - you've twice in the past few pages insinuated that everyone who didn't follow your point of view is a racist. Please stop - it's not funny.
[/quote]Wizzy for the past three months I have been called a sheep, a shit fan, someone who should 'support the club' someone who doesnt understand what 'you'll never walk alone means' etc etc etc by a bunch of whiney pussyoles who think we should fight all the way to the fucking high court in Zurich or the US senate or some bizarre shit to defend a now CONVICTED racist. When ALL I have done is said IF he was found guilty I would think less of him. But of course the long fingers of Fergie and his friends and the FA and all the Press and the Government and the masons are all against us and poor little hard done Luis and im a shit fan yadda yadda.
But hes been charged and found guilty and suspended and we have accepted that. Despite of course it being a 'kangaroo court' and there being 'a million holes in it' and it being 'EASY to pick to pieces'. We have accepted it. The club now accept the charge. They can say what the fuck they like in their statements (like they did in some of the false ones they made earlier) but ultimately they have run off tail between their legs and said ok hes guilty.
So with all that in mind
Suck my dick.
IMHO of course.
[/quote]
It's been really pissing me off how to media and others have been banging on that suarez is a "racist" . Surely there's a big difference between being a hardcore racist (living your life with deep , hateful views & practices) and using so called racist insults in the heat of the moment . I'm not saying it's fine to use racists insults but to be labelled a pure "racist" because of one incident is well over the top . Surely you'd need more proof and insight into a person's views .
And CONVICTED is a bit too strong , it's only a fucking FA panel , it's hardly the High Court or the Nuremburg Trials .
And again this has all been about punishment , the FA punished Suarez and have done nothing more , did they mention anything about perhaps trying to educate him or help change for the better ? Does punishing really work best in fighting racism ? Personally i wonder , i'd imagine it drives it underground and breaths further resentment .
Anyway whatever , fuck this for a game of soldiers .
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=47188.msg1455012#msg1455012 date=1325617299]
Andy - you've twice in the past few pages insinuated that everyone who didn't follow your point of view is a racist. Please stop - it's not funny.
[/quote]Wizzy for the past three months I have been called a sheep, a shit fan, someone who should 'support the club' someone who doesnt understand what 'you'll never walk alone means' etc etc etc by a bunch of whiney pussyoles who think we should fight all the way to the fucking high court in Zurich or the US senate or some bizarre shit to defend a now CONVICTED racist. When ALL I have done is said IF he was found guilty I would think less of him. But of course the long fingers of Fergie and his friends and the FA and all the Press and the Government and the masons are all against us and poor little hard done Luis and im a shit fan yadda yadda.
But hes been charged and found guilty and suspended and we have accepted that. Despite of course it being a 'kangaroo court' and there being 'a million holes in it' and it being 'EASY to pick to pieces'. We have accepted it. The club now accept the charge. They can say what the fuck they like in their statements (like they did in some of the false ones they made earlier) but ultimately they have run off tail between their legs and said ok hes guilty.
So with all that in mind
Suck my dick.
IMHO of course.
[/quote]
It's been really pissing me off how to media and others have been banging on that suarez is a "racist" . Surely there's a big difference between being a hardcore racist (living your life with deep , hateful views & practices) and using so called racist insults in the heat of the moment . I'm not saying it's fine to use racists insults but to be labelled a pure "racist" because of one incident is well over the top . Surely you'd need more proof and insight into a person's views .
And CONVICTED is a bit too strong , it's only a fucking FA panel , it's hardly the High Court or the Nuremburg Trials .
And again this has all been about punishment , the FA punished Suarez and have done nothing more , did they mention anything about perhaps trying to educate him or help change for the better ? Does punishing really work best in fighting racism ? Personally i wonder , i'd imagine it drives it underground and breaths further resentment .
Anyway whatever , fuck this for a game of soldiers .
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1455049#msg1455049 date=1325618041]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=47188.msg1455036#msg1455036 date=1325617848]
Well those of us who support and believe Suarez are apparently thick racists. Remember that when you cheer on your club next as the whole club, bar some fans, still supports and believe Suarez which is clear as day from the statement released. According to logic, you support a racist club
[/quote]
The point you're missing is Luis was guilty of that charge even if his evidence was accepted.
if you think he is innocent of the charge then yes you are supporting racism.
[/quote]
That's disingenuous Ross.
If a miscarriage of justice took place and somebody was convicted of being guilty of murder or rape etc - then extrapolating your logic, anybody that stood by them would be in support of rape and murder, even if they felt that there was enough doubt as to the veracity of the conviction.
In this circumstance there are several people who don't believe the verdict has been reached on a sound basis, myself included. I'm certainly no legal expert, but I have sat through a proper court case, in a crown court, on a much more serious charge than this one, and so I've some small experience of what it's like. The evidence was not overwhelming, and even taking into account that the burden of proof was not as stringent, even to make a judgement on the 'balance of probabilities', in order to find in Evra's favour there have been massive assumptions, the expert linguistic evidence has been roundly ignored, and the inconsistencies in Suarez's story have been magnified as a testament to his lack of credibility, whereas the inconsistencies in Evra's story have been conveniently ignored.
To say "if you think he is innocent of the charge then yes you are supporting racism" is at best faux naive and deliberately obtuse (because when else would you blindly accept *anything* from the FA and take it as gospel), and at worst it's mildly offensive (because I don't believe the charge has been proven, but are you seriously going to accuse me of supporting racism?)
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=47188.msg1455057#msg1455057 date=1325618204]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=47188.msg1455012#msg1455012 date=1325617299]
Andy - you've twice in the past few pages insinuated that everyone who didn't follow your point of view is a racist. Please stop - it's not funny.
[/quote]Wizzy for the past three months I have been called a sheep, a shit fan, someone who should 'support the club' someone who doesnt understand what 'you'll never walk alone means' etc etc etc by a bunch of whiney pussyoles who think we should fight all the way to the fucking high court in Zurich or the US senate or some bizarre shit to defend a now CONVICTED racist. When ALL I have done is said IF he was found guilty I would think less of him. But of course the long fingers of Fergie and his friends and the FA and all the Press and the Government and the masons are all against us and poor little hard done Luis and im a shit fan yadda yadda.
But hes been charged and found guilty and suspended and we have accepted that. Despite of course it being a 'kangaroo court' and there being 'a million holes in it' and it being 'EASY to pick to pieces'. We have accepted it. The club now accept the charge. They can say what the fuck they like in their statements (like they did in some of the false ones they made earlier) but ultimately they have run off tail between their legs and said ok hes guilty.
So with all that in mind
Suck my dick.
IMHO of course.
[/quote]
Dude, you know I loves ya, but you're being a bit of a prick here
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=47188.msg1455036#msg1455036 date=1325617848]
Well those of us who support and believe Suarez are apparently thick racists. Remember that when you cheer on your club next as the whole club, bar some fans, still supports and believe Suarez which is clear as day from the statement released. According to logic, you support a racist club
[/quote]
The point you're missing is Luis was guilty of that charge even if his evidence was accepted.
if you think he is innocent of the charge then yes you are supporting racism.
[/quote]
That's disingenuous Ross.
If a miscarriage of justice took place and somebody was convicted of being guilty of murder or rape etc - then extrapolating your logic, anybody that stood by them would be in support of rape and murder, even if they felt that there was enough doubt as to the veracity of the conviction.
In this circumstance there are several people who don't believe the verdict has been reached on a sound basis, myself included. I'm certainly no legal expert, but I have sat through a proper court case, in a crown court, on a much more serious charge than this one, and so I've some small experience of what it's like. The evidence was not overwhelming, and even taking into account that the burden of proof was not as stringent, even to make a judgement on the 'balance of probabilities', in order to find in Evra's favour there have been massive assumptions, the expert linguistic evidence has been roundly ignored, and the inconsistencies in Suarez's story have been magnified as a testament to his lack of credibility, whereas the inconsistencies in Evra's story have been conveniently ignored.
To say "if you think he is innocent of the charge then yes you are supporting racism" is at best faux naive and deliberately obtuse (because when else would you blindly accept *anything* from the FA and take it as gospel), and at worst it's mildly offensive (because I don't believe the charge has been proven, but are you seriously going to accuse me of supporting racism?)
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=47188.msg1455057#msg1455057 date=1325618204]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=47188.msg1455012#msg1455012 date=1325617299]
Andy - you've twice in the past few pages insinuated that everyone who didn't follow your point of view is a racist. Please stop - it's not funny.
[/quote]Wizzy for the past three months I have been called a sheep, a shit fan, someone who should 'support the club' someone who doesnt understand what 'you'll never walk alone means' etc etc etc by a bunch of whiney pussyoles who think we should fight all the way to the fucking high court in Zurich or the US senate or some bizarre shit to defend a now CONVICTED racist. When ALL I have done is said IF he was found guilty I would think less of him. But of course the long fingers of Fergie and his friends and the FA and all the Press and the Government and the masons are all against us and poor little hard done Luis and im a shit fan yadda yadda.
But hes been charged and found guilty and suspended and we have accepted that. Despite of course it being a 'kangaroo court' and there being 'a million holes in it' and it being 'EASY to pick to pieces'. We have accepted it. The club now accept the charge. They can say what the fuck they like in their statements (like they did in some of the false ones they made earlier) but ultimately they have run off tail between their legs and said ok hes guilty.
So with all that in mind
Suck my dick.
IMHO of course.
[/quote]
Dude, you know I loves ya, but you're being a bit of a prick here
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1455692#msg1455692 date=1325639904]
All your moral outrage aside, we played the legal game, we never challenged the authority of the FA to hear the charge, nor the rules, procedure and manner in which it heard it. We simply accepted that all of that was binding and that gave them legal legitimacy. With that in mind, the next thing the legal game comes down to is persuading the Court or tribunal that you are probably right (in a civil case). And we lost for myriad reasons, but chiefly because I think our legal representation was not up to scratch.
I can't stress enough that the Commission was entitled to make the findings it did in its written reasons. That's not me agreeing with the witch hunt against Suarez and for what it's worth, I do think the FA were determined to prove Suarez guilty probably because it was determined to take a very public stand against racism. In fact, I also choose to believe Suarez's account of events. But the truth is not the goal of the game, it's being more persuasive and ultimately, recognized as having the more probable version of events.
The fact that all of you are taking different things from the written reasons is not unusual. Put a dozen judges on the Commission, and I'm certain half of them would find the charge proved and the other half would dismiss it.
Anyway, I'm done trying to explain the legal framework involved. Some of you are convinced otherwise, but this boils down by analogy to the tension between morality and law.
As an aside, right now I'm pleased with the statements from the club and Suarez. It's only right to keep stressing that Suarez was only found guilty of a charge brought by the FA, and not our Courts, on the balance of probabilities. I am confident that with the correct positive publicity, the racist tag will fade from people's minds.
That would have been far more difficult to achieve had we fought the FA, whether on appeal or judicial review. Win or lose, the added attention from protracted legal proceedings would have only consolidated the perception of Suarez as a racist in the minds of a public that will only want snippets of news and headlines.
[/quote]
You've been one of the sole voices of reason throughout this (awful) thread
All your moral outrage aside, we played the legal game, we never challenged the authority of the FA to hear the charge, nor the rules, procedure and manner in which it heard it. We simply accepted that all of that was binding and that gave them legal legitimacy. With that in mind, the next thing the legal game comes down to is persuading the Court or tribunal that you are probably right (in a civil case). And we lost for myriad reasons, but chiefly because I think our legal representation was not up to scratch.
I can't stress enough that the Commission was entitled to make the findings it did in its written reasons. That's not me agreeing with the witch hunt against Suarez and for what it's worth, I do think the FA were determined to prove Suarez guilty probably because it was determined to take a very public stand against racism. In fact, I also choose to believe Suarez's account of events. But the truth is not the goal of the game, it's being more persuasive and ultimately, recognized as having the more probable version of events.
The fact that all of you are taking different things from the written reasons is not unusual. Put a dozen judges on the Commission, and I'm certain half of them would find the charge proved and the other half would dismiss it.
Anyway, I'm done trying to explain the legal framework involved. Some of you are convinced otherwise, but this boils down by analogy to the tension between morality and law.
As an aside, right now I'm pleased with the statements from the club and Suarez. It's only right to keep stressing that Suarez was only found guilty of a charge brought by the FA, and not our Courts, on the balance of probabilities. I am confident that with the correct positive publicity, the racist tag will fade from people's minds.
That would have been far more difficult to achieve had we fought the FA, whether on appeal or judicial review. Win or lose, the added attention from protracted legal proceedings would have only consolidated the perception of Suarez as a racist in the minds of a public that will only want snippets of news and headlines.
[/quote]
You've been one of the sole voices of reason throughout this (awful) thread
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=47188.msg1455695#msg1455695 date=1325640055]
I totally understand Dantes' position being a minority in a racist country. Injustice had been served and the club bowed down to it.* Shrug shoulders and move on*
[/quote]
Are you suggesting there are non-racist countries?
I totally understand Dantes' position being a minority in a racist country. Injustice had been served and the club bowed down to it.* Shrug shoulders and move on*
[/quote]
Are you suggesting there are non-racist countries?
[quote author=i_rushie link=topic=47188.msg1455692#msg1455692 date=1325639904]
All your moral outrage aside, we played the legal game, we never challenged the authority of the FA to hear the charge, nor the rules, procedure and manner in which it heard it. We simply accepted that all of that was binding and that gave them legal legitimacy. With that in mind, the next thing the legal game comes down to is persuading the Court or tribunal that you are probably right (in a civil case). And we lost for myriad reasons, but chiefly because I think our legal representation was not up to scratch.
I can't stress enough that the Commission was entitled to make the findings it did in its written reasons. That's not me agreeing with the witch hunt against Suarez and for what it's worth, I do think the FA were determined to prove Suarez guilty probably because it was determined to take a very public stand against racism. In fact, I also choose to believe Suarez's account of events. But the truth is not the goal of the game, it's being more persuasive and ultimately, recognized as having the more probable version of events.
The fact that all of you are taking different things from the written reasons is not unusual. Put a dozen judges on the Commission, and I'm certain half of them would find the charge proved and the other half would dismiss it.
Anyway, I'm done trying to explain the legal framework involved. Some of you are convinced otherwise, but this boils down by analogy to the tension between morality and law.
As an aside, right now I'm pleased with the statements from the club and Suarez. It's only right to keep stressing that Suarez was only found guilty of a charge brought by the FA, and not our Courts, on the balance of probabilities. I am confident that with the correct positive publicity, the racist tag will fade from people's minds.
That would have been far more difficult to achieve had we fought the FA, whether on appeal or judicial review. Win or lose, the added attention from protracted legal proceedings would have only consolidated the perception of Suarez as a racist in the minds of a public that will only want snippets of news and headlines.
[/quote]
This is a fair and well balance assessment of the events. I think most of us here will agree with your summary.
It's very sad that "But the truth is not the goal of the game...". For me there's something wrong if this is indeed the case.
I have a couple of questions to you:
1. You are saying "we played the legal game, we never challenged the authority of the FA to hear the charge, nor the rules, procedure and manner in which it heard it. We simply accepted that all of that was binding and that gave them legal legitimacy".
In retrospective do you think we should have challenged any of those? What alternatives were there and which should we have chosen to get us a better outcome?
2. You're saying "And we lost for myriad reasons, but chiefly because I think our legal representation was not up to scratch" - Once in the process - can you briefly summarize what they did wrong and what you think they should have done?
Thanks.
All your moral outrage aside, we played the legal game, we never challenged the authority of the FA to hear the charge, nor the rules, procedure and manner in which it heard it. We simply accepted that all of that was binding and that gave them legal legitimacy. With that in mind, the next thing the legal game comes down to is persuading the Court or tribunal that you are probably right (in a civil case). And we lost for myriad reasons, but chiefly because I think our legal representation was not up to scratch.
I can't stress enough that the Commission was entitled to make the findings it did in its written reasons. That's not me agreeing with the witch hunt against Suarez and for what it's worth, I do think the FA were determined to prove Suarez guilty probably because it was determined to take a very public stand against racism. In fact, I also choose to believe Suarez's account of events. But the truth is not the goal of the game, it's being more persuasive and ultimately, recognized as having the more probable version of events.
The fact that all of you are taking different things from the written reasons is not unusual. Put a dozen judges on the Commission, and I'm certain half of them would find the charge proved and the other half would dismiss it.
Anyway, I'm done trying to explain the legal framework involved. Some of you are convinced otherwise, but this boils down by analogy to the tension between morality and law.
As an aside, right now I'm pleased with the statements from the club and Suarez. It's only right to keep stressing that Suarez was only found guilty of a charge brought by the FA, and not our Courts, on the balance of probabilities. I am confident that with the correct positive publicity, the racist tag will fade from people's minds.
That would have been far more difficult to achieve had we fought the FA, whether on appeal or judicial review. Win or lose, the added attention from protracted legal proceedings would have only consolidated the perception of Suarez as a racist in the minds of a public that will only want snippets of news and headlines.
[/quote]
This is a fair and well balance assessment of the events. I think most of us here will agree with your summary.
It's very sad that "But the truth is not the goal of the game...". For me there's something wrong if this is indeed the case.
I have a couple of questions to you:
1. You are saying "we played the legal game, we never challenged the authority of the FA to hear the charge, nor the rules, procedure and manner in which it heard it. We simply accepted that all of that was binding and that gave them legal legitimacy".
In retrospective do you think we should have challenged any of those? What alternatives were there and which should we have chosen to get us a better outcome?
2. You're saying "And we lost for myriad reasons, but chiefly because I think our legal representation was not up to scratch" - Once in the process - can you briefly summarize what they did wrong and what you think they should have done?
Thanks.
[quote author=Pesam link=topic=47188.msg1455803#msg1455803 date=1325665014]
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=47188.msg1455695#msg1455695 date=1325640055]
I totally understand Dantes' position being a minority in a racist country. Injustice had been served and the club bowed down to it.* Shrug shoulders and move on*
[/quote]
Are you suggesting there are non-racist countries?
[/quote]
There are countries more racist than others, especially those that base their policies on race and religion - calling them positive affirmation actions while some minorities who are destitute do not have the same affirmative actions. Go figure.
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=47188.msg1455695#msg1455695 date=1325640055]
I totally understand Dantes' position being a minority in a racist country. Injustice had been served and the club bowed down to it.* Shrug shoulders and move on*
[/quote]
Are you suggesting there are non-racist countries?
[/quote]
There are countries more racist than others, especially those that base their policies on race and religion - calling them positive affirmation actions while some minorities who are destitute do not have the same affirmative actions. Go figure.
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=47188.msg1455646#msg1455646 date=1325634779]
[quote author=Halmeister link=topic=47188.msg1455623#msg1455623 date=1325633179]
Great statements from Luis and the club.
This thread has made me feel sad for a long while now. Hopefully it will be locked and some of the things said will be forgotten.
[/quote]
That is all they are, statements. And if you bothered to think about what the statements mean, and what they condone, it is the reason you should feel sad now.
1. Someone can use racist language, but we don't call them a racist (wonderful)
2. You can abuse anyone because they are black, but as long as you do not make reference to their colour you're ok (yep, wonderful)
3. Don't worry we don't mind what your intention was, your thoughts are your own, just make sure you don't outwardly appear racist so you don't commit a strict liability offence (magnificent statement! oh wow! I couldn't make it better if I wanted! wow!)
4. If a black person abused a mixed race person, and the mixed race person abuses the black person, there is a heirarchy to racism and in this case we must defend the black person, because... he is black (of course! who can argue with that)
5. You better not kick up a fuss about your civil rights, or your human rights becase you need to see the big picture and adhere to our message of "kick it out" kick out racism, kick out the jams, martin luther king? nelson mandela? oh fuck them and their civil rights movements.. kick them out too! (beautiful, totally utterly beautiful).
Shameful.
[/quote]
Bravo!
[quote author=Halmeister link=topic=47188.msg1455623#msg1455623 date=1325633179]
Great statements from Luis and the club.
This thread has made me feel sad for a long while now. Hopefully it will be locked and some of the things said will be forgotten.
[/quote]
That is all they are, statements. And if you bothered to think about what the statements mean, and what they condone, it is the reason you should feel sad now.
1. Someone can use racist language, but we don't call them a racist (wonderful)
2. You can abuse anyone because they are black, but as long as you do not make reference to their colour you're ok (yep, wonderful)
3. Don't worry we don't mind what your intention was, your thoughts are your own, just make sure you don't outwardly appear racist so you don't commit a strict liability offence (magnificent statement! oh wow! I couldn't make it better if I wanted! wow!)
4. If a black person abused a mixed race person, and the mixed race person abuses the black person, there is a heirarchy to racism and in this case we must defend the black person, because... he is black (of course! who can argue with that)
5. You better not kick up a fuss about your civil rights, or your human rights becase you need to see the big picture and adhere to our message of "kick it out" kick out racism, kick out the jams, martin luther king? nelson mandela? oh fuck them and their civil rights movements.. kick them out too! (beautiful, totally utterly beautiful).
Shameful.
[/quote]
Bravo!
What is a bit disgusting is that this case has been constructed to find Suarez guilty by FA, not to seek the truth.
And this is the same FA that didnt accept Rooneys suspension even though it matches their own suspension for the same offence. I dont even bother to mention their defence in that case.
A BIG shame by FA.
And this is the same FA that didnt accept Rooneys suspension even though it matches their own suspension for the same offence. I dont even bother to mention their defence in that case.
A BIG shame by FA.
Liverpool fear row could force Luis Suarez out of England
By Chris Bascombe
10:52PM GMT 03 Jan 2012
The Merseyside club want Suárez protected if rival fans or players tarnish him as a racist because of the report of the Independent Regulatory Commission. The commission made it clear it did not consider Suárez a racist, and that a breach of rule E3 did not necessarily constitute racially motivated abuse. Liverpool expect the FA to act vigorously upon this should the South American be condemned in future.
They scrapped an appeal because they feared the club would have been damaged by prolonging the saga, and felt pursuing their case for another two months just to reduce the ban would have been counter-productive.
However, they are adamant the conclusions of the commission are biased heavily in favour of Evra, and insist there is still no corroborating evidence to validate his allegations.
The club’s hierarchy — including principal owner John W Henry and chairman Tom Werner – remain convinced the commission took a pre-determined stance on the striker’s guilt. That is rejected by the commission, which says Liverpool had an opportunity to challenge the make-up of the panel before the hearing.
Suárez, Liverpool believe, is an innocent victim being used as a scapegoat to enable the FA to show it takes a tough line on racism.
At the heart of Liverpool’s continued rejection of the conclusions is a belief Evra’s evidence was not subject to the same levels of scrutiny as Suárez’s. Liverpool argue there are serious examples of Evra changing his story after giving evidence on Oct 15 which have been under-played, particularly in relation to the severity of the words used by Suárez.
The commission did not consider it of great importance that Evra had claimed to be abused 10 times, in a TV interview on Oct 15, in the most severe of racial terms, but his manager said it was five times to the referee. The report settled on the use of the word “negro” – not the word originally claimed by Evra – seven times in its conclusions.
Liverpool believe this is one of the most inconsistent aspects of the whole case, of fundamental importance to the credibility and accuracy of the accusation, and yet it has been barely given weight by the commission. They also feel the fact Evra admitted provoking Suárez with abusive language of his own should have led to disciplinary procedures.
A thorough analysis of why Suárez pinched Evra, which the French defender himself admitted he had not even recalled or paid attention to during the game, was given huge importance by the panel.
Liverpool are bemused why this was considered more significant than Evra’s insulting words to Suárez which started the altercation.
Instead, the Anfield hierarchy suggest it is evidence related to what Suárez said, which altered during the course of witness testimony from Damien Comolli and Dirk Kuyt, which was decisive in the judgment.
The Merseyside club are also disturbed that the FA met Evra three times before the commission sat, and Liverpool’s legal team were not aware of this until the hearing began.
There has been no criticism from the club of their own legal team’s handling of the saga, but there are clear contradictions — and have been throughout — between what senior Anfield officials believe and what was actually said during the hearing.
Liverpool know their new statement is likely to receive more criticism, but it was decided that abandoning an appeal to reduce the sentence, while re-emphasising their belief in Suárez’s innocence, was the only way to draw a line under the grubby saga.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...f-England.html
By Chris Bascombe
10:52PM GMT 03 Jan 2012
The Merseyside club want Suárez protected if rival fans or players tarnish him as a racist because of the report of the Independent Regulatory Commission. The commission made it clear it did not consider Suárez a racist, and that a breach of rule E3 did not necessarily constitute racially motivated abuse. Liverpool expect the FA to act vigorously upon this should the South American be condemned in future.
They scrapped an appeal because they feared the club would have been damaged by prolonging the saga, and felt pursuing their case for another two months just to reduce the ban would have been counter-productive.
However, they are adamant the conclusions of the commission are biased heavily in favour of Evra, and insist there is still no corroborating evidence to validate his allegations.
The club’s hierarchy — including principal owner John W Henry and chairman Tom Werner – remain convinced the commission took a pre-determined stance on the striker’s guilt. That is rejected by the commission, which says Liverpool had an opportunity to challenge the make-up of the panel before the hearing.
Suárez, Liverpool believe, is an innocent victim being used as a scapegoat to enable the FA to show it takes a tough line on racism.
At the heart of Liverpool’s continued rejection of the conclusions is a belief Evra’s evidence was not subject to the same levels of scrutiny as Suárez’s. Liverpool argue there are serious examples of Evra changing his story after giving evidence on Oct 15 which have been under-played, particularly in relation to the severity of the words used by Suárez.
The commission did not consider it of great importance that Evra had claimed to be abused 10 times, in a TV interview on Oct 15, in the most severe of racial terms, but his manager said it was five times to the referee. The report settled on the use of the word “negro” – not the word originally claimed by Evra – seven times in its conclusions.
Liverpool believe this is one of the most inconsistent aspects of the whole case, of fundamental importance to the credibility and accuracy of the accusation, and yet it has been barely given weight by the commission. They also feel the fact Evra admitted provoking Suárez with abusive language of his own should have led to disciplinary procedures.
A thorough analysis of why Suárez pinched Evra, which the French defender himself admitted he had not even recalled or paid attention to during the game, was given huge importance by the panel.
Liverpool are bemused why this was considered more significant than Evra’s insulting words to Suárez which started the altercation.
Instead, the Anfield hierarchy suggest it is evidence related to what Suárez said, which altered during the course of witness testimony from Damien Comolli and Dirk Kuyt, which was decisive in the judgment.
The Merseyside club are also disturbed that the FA met Evra three times before the commission sat, and Liverpool’s legal team were not aware of this until the hearing began.
There has been no criticism from the club of their own legal team’s handling of the saga, but there are clear contradictions — and have been throughout — between what senior Anfield officials believe and what was actually said during the hearing.
Liverpool know their new statement is likely to receive more criticism, but it was decided that abandoning an appeal to reduce the sentence, while re-emphasising their belief in Suárez’s innocence, was the only way to draw a line under the grubby saga.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...f-England.html
So Bascombe's found a berth with the Torygraph. I thought that was a paper which usually tried to have some connection between its headlines and the stories themselves. The media are already giving it large with this stuff about our reputation being damaged across the world (how would they know?). Headlines like this just fuel a artificially media-created fire.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47188.msg1455857#msg1455857 date=1325670623]
So Bascombe's found a berth with the Torygraph. I thought that was a paper which usually tried to have some connection between its headlines and the stories themselves. The media are already giving it large with this stuff about our reputation being damaged across the world (how would they know?). Headlines like this just fuel a artificially media-created fire.
[/quote]
What world are they talking about?
South America - Nah
USA - Doubt it.
Europe - Not in Spain, the rest maybe but doubt it.
Asia - Nobody cares
Australia - Do they care?
So Bascombe's found a berth with the Torygraph. I thought that was a paper which usually tried to have some connection between its headlines and the stories themselves. The media are already giving it large with this stuff about our reputation being damaged across the world (how would they know?). Headlines like this just fuel a artificially media-created fire.
[/quote]
What world are they talking about?
South America - Nah
USA - Doubt it.
Europe - Not in Spain, the rest maybe but doubt it.
Asia - Nobody cares
Australia - Do they care?
Transcript of Liverpool coach Kenny Dalglish's press conference over Luis Suárez affair
Reporter: No apology for saying 'negro'?
Kenny Dalglish: “I would have thought that if you pronounced the word properly, you maybe understand it better. I think it was Spanish he was speaking and I don’t think you were speaking Spanish there.
“If you get into asking a linguistic expert, which certainly I am not, they will tell you that the part of the country in Uruguay where he (Suarez) comes from, it is perfectly acceptable.
“His wife calls him that and I don’t think he is offended by her. We have made a statement and I think it is there for everybody to read. Luis has made a brilliant statement and we will stand by him.
FA verdict said ‘simply incredible’ to suggest it wasn’t used in an offensive way.
“There’s a lot of things we’d like to say and a lot we could say, but we would only get ourselves in trouble. We are being evasive because we don’t like getting ourselves in trouble.
“We know what has gone on. We know what is not in the report and that’s important for us. Without me getting ourselves in trouble, I think that’s us finished.
Why take the ban now and not play the next three games and Carling Cup semi-final?
“He could have played for a fortnight.
Why didn’t he then?
“He has to serve eight games at some stage and this time is as good as any isn’t it? It was better to get the situation over and done with.
Mark Lawrenson says Suarez may feel unsettled playing in England. Concern?
“Because Mark Lawrenson said it? No. I don’t see why we have to reply to anybody. If you’re asking if I have any concern about Luis playing in England, then no.
Is he strong enough?
“I don’t have a problem with Luis playing in England.
Do you regret the T-shirts?
“You see if one of you guys were in trouble, would you help him? Would you support him if you knew the truth and you knew it was right? Would you support him?
If they want to show their support for their team-mate, what’s wrong with that?
“It was a fabulous statement to make, visually, of their support of a guy who is endeared in the dressing-room, one of their closest friends in the dressing-room, and all of his friends in the dressing-room can speak up adequately and perfectly for him.
“I think it is very dangerous and unfortunate that you don’t actually know the whole content of what went on at the hearing. I’m not prepared, and I can’t say it, but I am just saying it is really unfortunate you never got to hear it.
Given how wider public so opposed to your view, what do you have to lose by telling us?
"It’s up to the club to decide what they want to do.
If you have something to say, surely say it as you are digging a bigger hole for yourself?
“I don’t think we are digging a bigger hole, but I just think it’s unfortunate we can’t be more forthcoming. That’s the unfortunate thing.
You basically accused the FA of conspiracy in your two statements.
"So they have made a statement then.
The hearing was to lay 115 pages of evidence, so why are the FA targeting Liverpool and Suarez?
“I don’t know. Maybe wrong place, wrong time. It could have been anybody. I can’t answer for the FA, you ask them.
You think there is an agenda?
“No. You said that, I never. You get yourself in trouble, I’m all right.
Concerned first game back could be at Old Trafford?
“I’ll just be delighted to get him back.
Reporter: No apology for saying 'negro'?
Kenny Dalglish: “I would have thought that if you pronounced the word properly, you maybe understand it better. I think it was Spanish he was speaking and I don’t think you were speaking Spanish there.
“If you get into asking a linguistic expert, which certainly I am not, they will tell you that the part of the country in Uruguay where he (Suarez) comes from, it is perfectly acceptable.
“His wife calls him that and I don’t think he is offended by her. We have made a statement and I think it is there for everybody to read. Luis has made a brilliant statement and we will stand by him.
FA verdict said ‘simply incredible’ to suggest it wasn’t used in an offensive way.
“There’s a lot of things we’d like to say and a lot we could say, but we would only get ourselves in trouble. We are being evasive because we don’t like getting ourselves in trouble.
“We know what has gone on. We know what is not in the report and that’s important for us. Without me getting ourselves in trouble, I think that’s us finished.
Why take the ban now and not play the next three games and Carling Cup semi-final?
“He could have played for a fortnight.
Why didn’t he then?
“He has to serve eight games at some stage and this time is as good as any isn’t it? It was better to get the situation over and done with.
Mark Lawrenson says Suarez may feel unsettled playing in England. Concern?
“Because Mark Lawrenson said it? No. I don’t see why we have to reply to anybody. If you’re asking if I have any concern about Luis playing in England, then no.
Is he strong enough?
“I don’t have a problem with Luis playing in England.
Do you regret the T-shirts?
“You see if one of you guys were in trouble, would you help him? Would you support him if you knew the truth and you knew it was right? Would you support him?
If they want to show their support for their team-mate, what’s wrong with that?
“It was a fabulous statement to make, visually, of their support of a guy who is endeared in the dressing-room, one of their closest friends in the dressing-room, and all of his friends in the dressing-room can speak up adequately and perfectly for him.
“I think it is very dangerous and unfortunate that you don’t actually know the whole content of what went on at the hearing. I’m not prepared, and I can’t say it, but I am just saying it is really unfortunate you never got to hear it.
Given how wider public so opposed to your view, what do you have to lose by telling us?
"It’s up to the club to decide what they want to do.
If you have something to say, surely say it as you are digging a bigger hole for yourself?
“I don’t think we are digging a bigger hole, but I just think it’s unfortunate we can’t be more forthcoming. That’s the unfortunate thing.
You basically accused the FA of conspiracy in your two statements.
"So they have made a statement then.
The hearing was to lay 115 pages of evidence, so why are the FA targeting Liverpool and Suarez?
“I don’t know. Maybe wrong place, wrong time. It could have been anybody. I can’t answer for the FA, you ask them.
You think there is an agenda?
“No. You said that, I never. You get yourself in trouble, I’m all right.
Concerned first game back could be at Old Trafford?
“I’ll just be delighted to get him back.
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=47188.msg1455862#msg1455862 date=1325671167]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47188.msg1455857#msg1455857 date=1325670623]
So Bascombe's found a berth with the Torygraph. I thought that was a paper which usually tried to have some connection between its headlines and the stories themselves. The media are already giving it large with this stuff about our reputation being damaged across the world (how would they know?). Headlines like this just fuel a artificially media-created fire.
[/quote]
What world are they talking about?
South America - Nah
USA - Doubt it.
Europe - Not in Spain, the rest maybe but doubt it.
Asia - Nobody cares
Australia - Do they care?
[/quote]
England === the entire world.
That world...
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47188.msg1455857#msg1455857 date=1325670623]
So Bascombe's found a berth with the Torygraph. I thought that was a paper which usually tried to have some connection between its headlines and the stories themselves. The media are already giving it large with this stuff about our reputation being damaged across the world (how would they know?). Headlines like this just fuel a artificially media-created fire.
[/quote]
What world are they talking about?
South America - Nah
USA - Doubt it.
Europe - Not in Spain, the rest maybe but doubt it.
Asia - Nobody cares
Australia - Do they care?
[/quote]
England === the entire world.
That world...
It wouldn't surprise me if it's actually English football whose rep ends up taking a knock in some of those countries, especially S.America, over the sheer arrogance underlying the FA's and the English media's dismissal of the cultural aspect of Luis' case.
Superb statement by the King. He'll get stick from the media, and from some on here, but so the f'ck what?
Superb statement by the King. He'll get stick from the media, and from some on here, but so the f'ck what?
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47188.msg1455857#msg1455857 date=1325670623]
So Bascombe's found a berth with the Torygraph. I thought that was a paper which usually tried to have some connection between its headlines and the stories themselves. The media are already giving it large with this stuff about our reputation being damaged across the world (how would they know?). Headlines like this just fuel a artificially media-created fire.
[/quote]
The headline may be misleading, but to be honest I thought the main body of the article trys to show the reasons why the club feel agreived.
I was surprised by it to be honest.
So Bascombe's found a berth with the Torygraph. I thought that was a paper which usually tried to have some connection between its headlines and the stories themselves. The media are already giving it large with this stuff about our reputation being damaged across the world (how would they know?). Headlines like this just fuel a artificially media-created fire.
[/quote]
The headline may be misleading, but to be honest I thought the main body of the article trys to show the reasons why the club feel agreived.
I was surprised by it to be honest.
That's fair comment, and I should have given him more credit for the main body of the article, but the headline is a serious dampener on it.
[quote author=jimmy link=topic=47188.msg1455865#msg1455865 date=1325671539]
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=47188.msg1455862#msg1455862 date=1325671167]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47188.msg1455857#msg1455857 date=1325670623]
So Bascombe's found a berth with the Torygraph. I thought that was a paper which usually tried to have some connection between its headlines and the stories themselves. The media are already giving it large with this stuff about our reputation being damaged across the world (how would they know?). Headlines like this just fuel a artificially media-created fire.
[/quote]
What world are they talking about?
South America - Nah
USA - Doubt it.
Europe - Not in Spain, the rest maybe but doubt it.
Asia - Nobody cares
Australia - Do they care?
[/quote]
England === the entire world.
That world...
[/quote]
Anglo centric world indeed! Oh am I being a racist by saying that?
[quote author=Y1 link=topic=47188.msg1455862#msg1455862 date=1325671167]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47188.msg1455857#msg1455857 date=1325670623]
So Bascombe's found a berth with the Torygraph. I thought that was a paper which usually tried to have some connection between its headlines and the stories themselves. The media are already giving it large with this stuff about our reputation being damaged across the world (how would they know?). Headlines like this just fuel a artificially media-created fire.
[/quote]
What world are they talking about?
South America - Nah
USA - Doubt it.
Europe - Not in Spain, the rest maybe but doubt it.
Asia - Nobody cares
Australia - Do they care?
[/quote]
England === the entire world.
That world...
[/quote]
Anglo centric world indeed! Oh am I being a racist by saying that?
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1455912#msg1455912 date=1325674974]
A decent post robbed from another site, in response to someone claiming the decision was reached "on the balance of probabilities rather than actual evidence":
[/quote]
Oh my god. Are you serious? Is this what you thought I misunderstand? I thought you were referring to some laws or statutory procedures that I wasn't aware of. But seriously, you think dantes couldn't grasp the concept of probability?
Let me explain something now. You are using probability, and looking up to those "scholarly works" as a reference point. Dantes lives in the sky, and he looks down on your scholarly works.
Can you say "high school probability". You know who works out real world probabilities which make your brain melt? Physicists do when they calculate risks for hedge funds, and for insurance purposes. Based on stochastic calculus. The probability people working in law and forensic issues like DNA do is based on high school GCSE mathematics. You have some fucking balls if this is the grounds you were trying to say I had no clue about. Fuck me.
A decent post robbed from another site, in response to someone claiming the decision was reached "on the balance of probabilities rather than actual evidence":
[/quote]
Oh my god. Are you serious? Is this what you thought I misunderstand? I thought you were referring to some laws or statutory procedures that I wasn't aware of. But seriously, you think dantes couldn't grasp the concept of probability?
Let me explain something now. You are using probability, and looking up to those "scholarly works" as a reference point. Dantes lives in the sky, and he looks down on your scholarly works.
Can you say "high school probability". You know who works out real world probabilities which make your brain melt? Physicists do when they calculate risks for hedge funds, and for insurance purposes. Based on stochastic calculus. The probability people working in law and forensic issues like DNA do is based on high school GCSE mathematics. You have some fucking balls if this is the grounds you were trying to say I had no clue about. Fuck me.
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=47188.msg1455939#msg1455939 date=1325678964]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1455912#msg1455912 date=1325674974]
A decent post robbed from another site, in response to someone claiming the decision was reached "on the balance of probabilities rather than actual evidence":
[/quote]
Oh my god. Are you serious? Is this what you thought I misunderstand? I thought you were referring to some laws or statutory procedures that I wasn't aware of. But seriously, you think dantes couldn't grasp the concept of probability?
Let me explain something now. You are using probability, and looking up to those "scholarly works" as a reference point. Dantes lives in the sky, and he looks down on your scholarly works.
Can you say "high school probability". You know who works out real world probabilities which make your brain melt? Physicists do when they calculate risks for hedge funds, and for insurance purposes. Based on stochastic calculus. The probability people working in law and forensic issues like DNA do is based on high school GCSE mathematics. You have some fucking balls if this is the grounds you were trying to say I had no clue about. Fuck me.
[/quote]
I wasn't saying you didn't understand that, you know everything Dantes.
I'm surprised I haven't bumped into you here in the sky
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=47188.msg1455912#msg1455912 date=1325674974]
A decent post robbed from another site, in response to someone claiming the decision was reached "on the balance of probabilities rather than actual evidence":
[/quote]
Oh my god. Are you serious? Is this what you thought I misunderstand? I thought you were referring to some laws or statutory procedures that I wasn't aware of. But seriously, you think dantes couldn't grasp the concept of probability?
Let me explain something now. You are using probability, and looking up to those "scholarly works" as a reference point. Dantes lives in the sky, and he looks down on your scholarly works.
Can you say "high school probability". You know who works out real world probabilities which make your brain melt? Physicists do when they calculate risks for hedge funds, and for insurance purposes. Based on stochastic calculus. The probability people working in law and forensic issues like DNA do is based on high school GCSE mathematics. You have some fucking balls if this is the grounds you were trying to say I had no clue about. Fuck me.
[/quote]
I wasn't saying you didn't understand that, you know everything Dantes.
I'm surprised I haven't bumped into you here in the sky
No, what I think is I have the potential to know everything. But there's lots of stuff I haven't been taught. For example i_rushie thinks that because our retard solicitor conceded everything there is no way of going back on that. I think that is why he has little faith in the success of an appeal, but I don't know I haven't asked. Where I might be wrong is in not agreeing with that. Even if he conceded stuff whilst a gun was held to his head we could do nothing? Or whilst he was lied to, and conceded it on the basis of that lie? I think you can undo that damage if you have a good argument for doing so. If i_rushie knows of some statute or legal principle which says you cannot argue with it, then it's news to me and I'd be wrong. That's ok, I don't mind being wrong about my assumptions.
But I get the feeling you think I'm wrong not about my assumptions, but rather about things I'm telling you I understand. So you think you understand it correctly, and for some reason I have read the same information as you and failed to understand it. I'm sorry, there is no way on earth that could happen about information. Perhaps with a cooking recipe, or a horoscope, or human emotional things like that. But on matters of intelligence, then you have no chance. Only if I was missing some crucial information would you have a better grasp of the topic than me. And the same goes for everyone else who isn't Einstein or Richard Feynman.
But I get the feeling you think I'm wrong not about my assumptions, but rather about things I'm telling you I understand. So you think you understand it correctly, and for some reason I have read the same information as you and failed to understand it. I'm sorry, there is no way on earth that could happen about information. Perhaps with a cooking recipe, or a horoscope, or human emotional things like that. But on matters of intelligence, then you have no chance. Only if I was missing some crucial information would you have a better grasp of the topic than me. And the same goes for everyone else who isn't Einstein or Richard Feynman.
So can someone explain why after 3 seperate meetings with the fa prior to the hearing and talking through his evidence with the benefit of tv replays on four occasions Evra changed his evidence 3 times and is ( I quote ) deemed to be a credible witness? Why was Ferguson's post match interview with sky sports where he goes out of his way to vilify Suarez as a cheat not brought up?
What an utter crock of shit, if I was Suarez I would sue the lot of them - press fa mu - for slander and fuck off to barcelona pdq.
What an utter crock of shit, if I was Suarez I would sue the lot of them - press fa mu - for slander and fuck off to barcelona pdq.
[quote author=tony link=topic=47188.msg1456006#msg1456006 date=1325681916]
So can someone explain why after 3 seperate meetings with the fa prior to the hearing and talking through his evidence with the benefit of tv replays on four occasions Evra changed his evidence 3 times and is ( I quote ) deemed to be a credible witness? Why was Ferguson's post match interview with sky sports where he goes out of his way to vilify Suarez as a cheat not brought up?
What an utter crock of shit, if I was Suarez I would sue the lot of them - press fa mu - for slander and fuck off to barcelona pdq.
[/quote]
I really think FA should look into comments like the one from Ferguson there. It is way out of order. He did the same last year towards a Torres who had been kicked around by their defenders all day long.
So can someone explain why after 3 seperate meetings with the fa prior to the hearing and talking through his evidence with the benefit of tv replays on four occasions Evra changed his evidence 3 times and is ( I quote ) deemed to be a credible witness? Why was Ferguson's post match interview with sky sports where he goes out of his way to vilify Suarez as a cheat not brought up?
What an utter crock of shit, if I was Suarez I would sue the lot of them - press fa mu - for slander and fuck off to barcelona pdq.
[/quote]
I really think FA should look into comments like the one from Ferguson there. It is way out of order. He did the same last year towards a Torres who had been kicked around by their defenders all day long.
What's a real shame is for when the next innocent person gets accused of racism. Because of liverpool football club and luis suarez backing down (due to fear of losing and fear of damaging their reputation) two things have happened.
1. The FA will handle their future cases much more intelligently, they'll be wiser to the mistakes they made today
2. Noone can now argue that E3 should not be strict liability, because the precedent has been set now
This was the time to put up a fight... but we got scared. The next guy might have courage, pride and a will to fight. But he will have no chance now will he
1. The FA will handle their future cases much more intelligently, they'll be wiser to the mistakes they made today
2. Noone can now argue that E3 should not be strict liability, because the precedent has been set now
This was the time to put up a fight... but we got scared. The next guy might have courage, pride and a will to fight. But he will have no chance now will he
Similar threads
-
- Locked
