The Suarez/Evra Racism Row
- Thread starter Stulikesdrums
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=47188.msg1459989#msg1459989 date=1326046977]
Suarez will now be back for the Tottenham game.
Hes going to miss the two carling cup games, the fa cup game and the Stoke, Bolton and Wolves games.
[/quote]
I think Shitty will dump us from the Carling Cup, we'll twat Manure ... I am really really hoping we win those 3 league games though ... For him to come back to a team that is flying will only do him well.
Suarez will now be back for the Tottenham game.
Hes going to miss the two carling cup games, the fa cup game and the Stoke, Bolton and Wolves games.
[/quote]
I think Shitty will dump us from the Carling Cup, we'll twat Manure ... I am really really hoping we win those 3 league games though ... For him to come back to a team that is flying will only do him well.
Re: Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=47188.msg1#msg1 date=1326046677]
[quote author=Atlas link=topic=47188.msg1459096#msg1459096 date=1325957520]
Ross gets lots of names just not any he is willing to have as his username.
Knob
Faty
Twat
Etc etc
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure no ones used those name for Ross actually.
[/quote]
Exactly
it's more :
dick
Chubs
Cunt
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=47188.msg1#msg1 date=1326046677]
[quote author=Atlas link=topic=47188.msg1459096#msg1459096 date=1325957520]
Ross gets lots of names just not any he is willing to have as his username.
Knob
Faty
Twat
Etc etc
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure no ones used those name for Ross actually.
[/quote]
Exactly
it's more :
dick
Chubs
Cunt
[quote author=Fascistio link=topic=47188.msg1460016#msg1460016 date=1326048019]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=47188.msg1#msg1 date=1326046677]
[quote author=Atlas link=topic=47188.msg1459096#msg1459096 date=1325957520]
Ross gets lots of names just not any he is willing to have as his username.
Knob
Faty
Twat
Etc etc
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure no ones used those name for Ross actually.
[/quote]
Exactly
it's more :
dick
Chubs
Cunt
[/quote]
Yep, that's more like it.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=47188.msg1#msg1 date=1326046677]
[quote author=Atlas link=topic=47188.msg1459096#msg1459096 date=1325957520]
Ross gets lots of names just not any he is willing to have as his username.
Knob
Faty
Twat
Etc etc
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure no ones used those name for Ross actually.
[/quote]
Exactly
it's more :
dick
Chubs
Cunt
[/quote]
Yep, that's more like it.
Re: Re: The Suarez/Evra Racism Row
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=47188.msg1#msg1 date=1326048791]
[quote author=Fascistio link=topic=47188.msg1460016#msg1460016 date=1326048019]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=47188.msg1#msg1 date=1326046677]
[quote author=Atlas link=topic=47188.msg1459096#msg1459096 date=1325957520]
Ross gets lots of names just not any he is willing to have as his username.
Knob
Faty
Twat
Etc etc
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure no ones used those name for Ross actually.
[/quote]
Exactly
it's more :
dick
Chubs
Cunt
[/quote]
Yep, that's more like it.
[/quote]
It also describes his favourite hobby
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=47188.msg1#msg1 date=1326048791]
[quote author=Fascistio link=topic=47188.msg1460016#msg1460016 date=1326048019]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=47188.msg1#msg1 date=1326046677]
[quote author=Atlas link=topic=47188.msg1459096#msg1459096 date=1325957520]
Ross gets lots of names just not any he is willing to have as his username.
Knob
Faty
Twat
Etc etc
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure no ones used those name for Ross actually.
[/quote]
Exactly
it's more :
dick
Chubs
Cunt
[/quote]
Yep, that's more like it.
[/quote]
It also describes his favourite hobby
Hahahaha. Very good.
*shouldve spotted that one*
*shouldve spotted that one*
Good watch
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=47188.msg1460091#msg1460091 date=1326052896]
http://news.sky.com/home/video/health/video/16144726
[/quote]
I had no idea how clued up he is about race. It puts the naive idiots working for the kick racism out campaigns to shame. John Barnes would have made a brilliant researcher, such a waste.
http://news.sky.com/home/video/health/video/16144726
[/quote]
I had no idea how clued up he is about race. It puts the naive idiots working for the kick racism out campaigns to shame. John Barnes would have made a brilliant researcher, such a waste.
Media on Racism: Part 1 – Churnalism
with 6 comments
Jan 6, 2012 – 2011 provided some “high-profile” news stories about racism – but even the “quality” press provided little more than churnalism. No doubt it’s safer for reporters to recycle established or “official” views than to delve deeper (or, Editor forbid, to reframe the issue for greater insight). This type of churnalism has its own dangers, as we’ll discover…
Two cases, in particular, are worth looking at (and comparing): BBC2?s Top Gear and Luis Suarez (Liverpool FC footballer). Part 1 considers churnalism and misreporting. (Part 2 will address the media framing).
Top Gear & “Lazy Mexicans”
In January 2011, Jeremy Clarkson and his fellow Top Gear presenters did a routine about “Mexicans”. This led to a trickle of news coverage after a complaint from the Mexican ambassador, but it didn’t become a “proper” story until after Steve Coogan wrote a comment piece (for the Observer) which pointed out that Clarkson & co would never target Africans, Pakistanis or Jews with comparable group-stereotype jokes. When I say it became a “proper” story, I don’t mean penetrating, insightful coverage… I mean: “Celebrity A blasts Celebrity B”.
The official officials who officiated in this case were the BBC and Ofcom. First, the BBC:
‘In a letter to Mexico’s ambassador in London, the BBC said it was sorry if it had offended some people, but said jokes based on national stereotyping were part of British national humour.’
Coogan commented: “The BBC’s initial mealy-mouthed apology was pitiful. It cited the more benign rivalry that exists between European nations (ah, those arrogant French, over-organised Germans), and in doing so neatly sidestepped one hugely important fact – ethnicity [...] The Beeb’s hand-wringing suggested tolerance of casual racism, arguably the most sinister kind.”
The media regulator, Ofcom, then cleared Top Gear of breaching broadcasting regulations:
‘Ofcom said Top Gear “frequently uses national stereotypes as a comedic trope and that there were few, if any, nationalities that had not at some point been the subject of the presenters’ mockery…”.’
Interestingly, the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) later upheld a complaint about the show:
“Although the remarks were humorously intended [...] their tone and cumulative effect seemed to the ECU to give the impression of reinforcing, rather than ridiculing, the stereotype”
All of which raises some important questions, none of which (to my knowledge) were addressed by media coverage – certainly not by the BBC. (I’ll attempt to deal with these questions in terms of framing in part 2 of this article):
•Is national stereotyping necessarily less serious than racial stereotyping, and if so, why?
•Is national stereotyping okay as long as you abuse all nationalities uniformly and humorously?
•Does the same logic apply to racial stereotyping, and if not, why not?
•Should TV celebrities be punished as severely as, say, footballers?
Trial by media – Luis Suarez
(Note: references to “para” are to relevant numbered paragraphs in the FA report)
This incident started during a football match, after Patrice Evra (Manchester Utd) made the offensive remark, “your sister’s pussy”*, to Luis Suarez. It’s alleged (by Evra) that Suarez used racial insults in the dialogue that followed. (*Evra made the remark in Spanish: “Concha de tu hermana” - para 87).
The official officials who officiated in this case were the Football Association (FA) and their “independent commission” (ie three blokes selected by the FA).
Suarez denies making racial insults. The case boils down to meanings of “negro” in Spanish (nearest equivalent in English is “black”). Suarez claims he said “negro” once, inoffensively. Language experts consulted by the FA agreed that: “the use of ‘negro’ as described here by Mr Suarez would not be offensive. Indeed, it is possible that the term was intended as an attempt at conciliation and/or to establish rapport”. (Para 190)
Suarez claims he said “Por qué, negro?” (“why, black?” – para 205). Evra claims he said “Porque tu eres negro” (“Because you are black” – para 205). The latter could be taken as offensive according to the FA’s language experts, but the phrase struck them as “slightly unusual” (para 182), whereas the phrase claimed by Suarez “sounded right linguistically and culturally”. (Para 191)
Initially Evra claimed (in English) that Suarez said, at one point: “I don’t talk to you because you niggers” (para 131). He later withdrew this claim, after realising Suarez had said, in Spanish, “negro”, not “nigger”. (The report quotes Evra admitting that he is “not exactly fluent in Spanish” – para 87). As the FA’s experts pointed out, “the Spanish word ‘negro’ cannot simply be translated as ‘nigger’.” (They also point out that “It may be used affectionately … it may be used as a nickname in everyday speech … several famous people in Uruguay are known as ‘el negro’…” (para 172)
These important details (and much else of relevance) somehow went unreported in most media coverage following the FA’s publication of a 115-page report (listing the reasons why the 3-man panel found Suarez “guilty”). Unfortunately, ‘churnalism’ had taken the place of responsible reporting…
“Racial abuse” churnalism
The report was published by the FA on New Year’s Eve – which probably didn’t help. What journalist wants to spend the last hours of the year reading 115 pages on racial abuse allegations?
The Guardian led the way with lazy, irresponsible churnalism. Three Guardian articles (each by Stuart James, plus another from Andy Hunter) stated as fact that the panel ‘found that Suárez used the word “negro” or “negros” seven times’.
But no such thing was “found” (even though the panel used that word). There was no evidence or corroborating witness statements confirming the number of times Suarez said “negro”. There was nothing but Patrice Evra’s word. (And Evra had altered his account – he initially told Canal+ TV that Suarez used the racial term “at least ten times” (para 154), but later claimed that this was just “a figure of speech” – para 159 – with the FA report stating that he later claimed Suarez used the word “negro” five times – para 205).
In fact, what the report clearly shows is that there was no evidence or supporting witnesses to back up either player’s version of the crucial dialogue between them on the pitch. The entire case came down to one man’s word against another’s. This explains why the panel spent so much time trying to establish a case (again subjective and uncorroborated) that Suarez’s testimony was “unreliable”.
Headline churnalism: “unreliable” evidence
Following the publication of the report, the Press Association ran with: “FA: Suarez evidence ‘unreliable’,” and virtually all major UK media followed suit with similar headings. In what way was the evidence unreliable? The report cites two things – firstly, a few inconsistencies in Suarez’s accounts of the sequence/timing of events (although the panel concedes this is understandable given that Suarez, unlike Evra, wasn’t permitted to see the video footage while being interviewed, and thus relied on memory more – para 320).
Secondly, the panel said it was “unsustainable and simply incredible” for Suarez to describe his behaviour as “conciliatory and friendly” given that “the players were engaged in an acrimonious argument”. (Para 453)
If journalists hadn’t been so quick to ‘churnalise’ the report’s key “findings”, they might have noticed the problems with this – its circular, subjective nature. The panel apparently took as given the very premise under dispute (ie the “acrimonious” nature of Suarez’s “behaviour” – which remains uncorroborated by witness statements and video footage).
As a result of this churnalism, every major newspaper report covering this “unreliable evidence” story failed to mention one of the most important pieces of “unreliable evidence” – namely Patrice Evra’s withdrawn initial claim that he was repeatedly called “nigger” (he later conceded it was “negro”), and his withdrawn claim that Suarez said the racial ‘N-word’ “at least ten times” (paras 154, 159). These inconsistencies are at the heart of the allegations, unlike the arguably more minor inconsistencies in Suarez’s account.
Inconsistencies in the “official” report
Another thing that journalists might have highlighted (if they hadn’t been in such a hurry to copy-n-paste summary “findings”) was glaring inconsistency in the report itself.
One striking example is the panel’s “rejection” of the claim that Evra was angry throughout the match – that he was “tipped over the edge” by events (para 333), putting him in an agitated/vengeful state of mind. Here’s what the report said:
‘We rejected that submission [...] Mr [Ryan] Giggs described the Liverpool v Manchester United game as the biggest match. He did not consider that Mr Evra was wound up save in so far as everyone was wound up to a certain extent given the fixture. We reject the submission that Mr Evra was unduly wound up such that he was tipped over the edge to pursue vengeance against Mr Suarez.’ [Para 333]
But this is inconsistent with the testimony of Giggs (who is a teammate of Evra) cited earlier in the report:
‘It was obvious to Mr Giggs from looking at Mr Evra that he was upset. He said that Mr Evra did not seem quite with it, you might call it red mist [...] Mr Giggs then told Mr Evra to calm down and not get himself sent off’. (Para 114 – my emphasis)
The report also states that Evra was “angry” from the very start of the match, “when he was seen to dispute the outcome of the coin toss with the referee” (para 329). Of course, none of this negates Evra’s own testimony – but it provides a clearly relevant example of the panel’s inconsistent treatment of the evidence.
To my knowledge, not a single newspaper commented on inconsistencies of this type, which are evident throughout the report. The reporters had their easy-to-churn, momentum-propelled story: the “unreliability” was all Suarez’s. He was not only a racist, but a liar (although they wouldn’t word it quite so bluntly as that). Case closed. How could it possibly be otherwise?
“No Excuse”
An apparently widely-held view arising from the Suarez case (including, it seems, among Guardian writers and editors) is that since Suarez admitted using the Spanish term “negro” (once), he is guilty of racial abuse, that all mitigating circumstances boil down to “excuses”, and that those who defend him are effectively harming efforts to eradicate racism.
This view has far-reaching implications, of course. Even convicted murderers are granted the right to protest their innocence, citing lack of evidence, mitigating factors (such as self-defence, etc). Their defenders are not usually accused of misguidedly supporting murder – at least not by the “liberal” media.
So what explains these “deep” differences in conceptual approach? Was Patrice Evra correct when he claimed that the Spanish for “your sister’s pussy” translates to “fucking hell” in English? (para 87). And are there any meaningful comparisons to be made between the Top Gear and Suarez cases in terms of media treatment? All this will be addressed in Part 2, which concentrates on the media framing aspects…
with 6 comments
Jan 6, 2012 – 2011 provided some “high-profile” news stories about racism – but even the “quality” press provided little more than churnalism. No doubt it’s safer for reporters to recycle established or “official” views than to delve deeper (or, Editor forbid, to reframe the issue for greater insight). This type of churnalism has its own dangers, as we’ll discover…
Two cases, in particular, are worth looking at (and comparing): BBC2?s Top Gear and Luis Suarez (Liverpool FC footballer). Part 1 considers churnalism and misreporting. (Part 2 will address the media framing).
Top Gear & “Lazy Mexicans”
In January 2011, Jeremy Clarkson and his fellow Top Gear presenters did a routine about “Mexicans”. This led to a trickle of news coverage after a complaint from the Mexican ambassador, but it didn’t become a “proper” story until after Steve Coogan wrote a comment piece (for the Observer) which pointed out that Clarkson & co would never target Africans, Pakistanis or Jews with comparable group-stereotype jokes. When I say it became a “proper” story, I don’t mean penetrating, insightful coverage… I mean: “Celebrity A blasts Celebrity B”.
The official officials who officiated in this case were the BBC and Ofcom. First, the BBC:
‘In a letter to Mexico’s ambassador in London, the BBC said it was sorry if it had offended some people, but said jokes based on national stereotyping were part of British national humour.’
Coogan commented: “The BBC’s initial mealy-mouthed apology was pitiful. It cited the more benign rivalry that exists between European nations (ah, those arrogant French, over-organised Germans), and in doing so neatly sidestepped one hugely important fact – ethnicity [...] The Beeb’s hand-wringing suggested tolerance of casual racism, arguably the most sinister kind.”
The media regulator, Ofcom, then cleared Top Gear of breaching broadcasting regulations:
‘Ofcom said Top Gear “frequently uses national stereotypes as a comedic trope and that there were few, if any, nationalities that had not at some point been the subject of the presenters’ mockery…”.’
Interestingly, the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) later upheld a complaint about the show:
“Although the remarks were humorously intended [...] their tone and cumulative effect seemed to the ECU to give the impression of reinforcing, rather than ridiculing, the stereotype”
All of which raises some important questions, none of which (to my knowledge) were addressed by media coverage – certainly not by the BBC. (I’ll attempt to deal with these questions in terms of framing in part 2 of this article):
•Is national stereotyping necessarily less serious than racial stereotyping, and if so, why?
•Is national stereotyping okay as long as you abuse all nationalities uniformly and humorously?
•Does the same logic apply to racial stereotyping, and if not, why not?
•Should TV celebrities be punished as severely as, say, footballers?
Trial by media – Luis Suarez
(Note: references to “para” are to relevant numbered paragraphs in the FA report)
This incident started during a football match, after Patrice Evra (Manchester Utd) made the offensive remark, “your sister’s pussy”*, to Luis Suarez. It’s alleged (by Evra) that Suarez used racial insults in the dialogue that followed. (*Evra made the remark in Spanish: “Concha de tu hermana” - para 87).
The official officials who officiated in this case were the Football Association (FA) and their “independent commission” (ie three blokes selected by the FA).
Suarez denies making racial insults. The case boils down to meanings of “negro” in Spanish (nearest equivalent in English is “black”). Suarez claims he said “negro” once, inoffensively. Language experts consulted by the FA agreed that: “the use of ‘negro’ as described here by Mr Suarez would not be offensive. Indeed, it is possible that the term was intended as an attempt at conciliation and/or to establish rapport”. (Para 190)
Suarez claims he said “Por qué, negro?” (“why, black?” – para 205). Evra claims he said “Porque tu eres negro” (“Because you are black” – para 205). The latter could be taken as offensive according to the FA’s language experts, but the phrase struck them as “slightly unusual” (para 182), whereas the phrase claimed by Suarez “sounded right linguistically and culturally”. (Para 191)
Initially Evra claimed (in English) that Suarez said, at one point: “I don’t talk to you because you niggers” (para 131). He later withdrew this claim, after realising Suarez had said, in Spanish, “negro”, not “nigger”. (The report quotes Evra admitting that he is “not exactly fluent in Spanish” – para 87). As the FA’s experts pointed out, “the Spanish word ‘negro’ cannot simply be translated as ‘nigger’.” (They also point out that “It may be used affectionately … it may be used as a nickname in everyday speech … several famous people in Uruguay are known as ‘el negro’…” (para 172)
These important details (and much else of relevance) somehow went unreported in most media coverage following the FA’s publication of a 115-page report (listing the reasons why the 3-man panel found Suarez “guilty”). Unfortunately, ‘churnalism’ had taken the place of responsible reporting…
“Racial abuse” churnalism
The report was published by the FA on New Year’s Eve – which probably didn’t help. What journalist wants to spend the last hours of the year reading 115 pages on racial abuse allegations?
The Guardian led the way with lazy, irresponsible churnalism. Three Guardian articles (each by Stuart James, plus another from Andy Hunter) stated as fact that the panel ‘found that Suárez used the word “negro” or “negros” seven times’.
But no such thing was “found” (even though the panel used that word). There was no evidence or corroborating witness statements confirming the number of times Suarez said “negro”. There was nothing but Patrice Evra’s word. (And Evra had altered his account – he initially told Canal+ TV that Suarez used the racial term “at least ten times” (para 154), but later claimed that this was just “a figure of speech” – para 159 – with the FA report stating that he later claimed Suarez used the word “negro” five times – para 205).
In fact, what the report clearly shows is that there was no evidence or supporting witnesses to back up either player’s version of the crucial dialogue between them on the pitch. The entire case came down to one man’s word against another’s. This explains why the panel spent so much time trying to establish a case (again subjective and uncorroborated) that Suarez’s testimony was “unreliable”.
Headline churnalism: “unreliable” evidence
Following the publication of the report, the Press Association ran with: “FA: Suarez evidence ‘unreliable’,” and virtually all major UK media followed suit with similar headings. In what way was the evidence unreliable? The report cites two things – firstly, a few inconsistencies in Suarez’s accounts of the sequence/timing of events (although the panel concedes this is understandable given that Suarez, unlike Evra, wasn’t permitted to see the video footage while being interviewed, and thus relied on memory more – para 320).
Secondly, the panel said it was “unsustainable and simply incredible” for Suarez to describe his behaviour as “conciliatory and friendly” given that “the players were engaged in an acrimonious argument”. (Para 453)
If journalists hadn’t been so quick to ‘churnalise’ the report’s key “findings”, they might have noticed the problems with this – its circular, subjective nature. The panel apparently took as given the very premise under dispute (ie the “acrimonious” nature of Suarez’s “behaviour” – which remains uncorroborated by witness statements and video footage).
As a result of this churnalism, every major newspaper report covering this “unreliable evidence” story failed to mention one of the most important pieces of “unreliable evidence” – namely Patrice Evra’s withdrawn initial claim that he was repeatedly called “nigger” (he later conceded it was “negro”), and his withdrawn claim that Suarez said the racial ‘N-word’ “at least ten times” (paras 154, 159). These inconsistencies are at the heart of the allegations, unlike the arguably more minor inconsistencies in Suarez’s account.
Inconsistencies in the “official” report
Another thing that journalists might have highlighted (if they hadn’t been in such a hurry to copy-n-paste summary “findings”) was glaring inconsistency in the report itself.
One striking example is the panel’s “rejection” of the claim that Evra was angry throughout the match – that he was “tipped over the edge” by events (para 333), putting him in an agitated/vengeful state of mind. Here’s what the report said:
‘We rejected that submission [...] Mr [Ryan] Giggs described the Liverpool v Manchester United game as the biggest match. He did not consider that Mr Evra was wound up save in so far as everyone was wound up to a certain extent given the fixture. We reject the submission that Mr Evra was unduly wound up such that he was tipped over the edge to pursue vengeance against Mr Suarez.’ [Para 333]
But this is inconsistent with the testimony of Giggs (who is a teammate of Evra) cited earlier in the report:
‘It was obvious to Mr Giggs from looking at Mr Evra that he was upset. He said that Mr Evra did not seem quite with it, you might call it red mist [...] Mr Giggs then told Mr Evra to calm down and not get himself sent off’. (Para 114 – my emphasis)
The report also states that Evra was “angry” from the very start of the match, “when he was seen to dispute the outcome of the coin toss with the referee” (para 329). Of course, none of this negates Evra’s own testimony – but it provides a clearly relevant example of the panel’s inconsistent treatment of the evidence.
To my knowledge, not a single newspaper commented on inconsistencies of this type, which are evident throughout the report. The reporters had their easy-to-churn, momentum-propelled story: the “unreliability” was all Suarez’s. He was not only a racist, but a liar (although they wouldn’t word it quite so bluntly as that). Case closed. How could it possibly be otherwise?
“No Excuse”
An apparently widely-held view arising from the Suarez case (including, it seems, among Guardian writers and editors) is that since Suarez admitted using the Spanish term “negro” (once), he is guilty of racial abuse, that all mitigating circumstances boil down to “excuses”, and that those who defend him are effectively harming efforts to eradicate racism.
This view has far-reaching implications, of course. Even convicted murderers are granted the right to protest their innocence, citing lack of evidence, mitigating factors (such as self-defence, etc). Their defenders are not usually accused of misguidedly supporting murder – at least not by the “liberal” media.
So what explains these “deep” differences in conceptual approach? Was Patrice Evra correct when he claimed that the Spanish for “your sister’s pussy” translates to “fucking hell” in English? (para 87). And are there any meaningful comparisons to be made between the Top Gear and Suarez cases in terms of media treatment? All this will be addressed in Part 2, which concentrates on the media framing aspects…
LUIS SUAREZ’S black international pal Alvaro Pereira has warned Patrice Evra he will have to wear body armour when France meet Uruguay in a friendly later this year.
There is uproar in South America over the Liverpool man’s eight-match ban, and the clash between Evra’s country and Uruguay in August threatens to become an all-out war.
FC Porto’s Pereira said: “Evra is going to have to wear body armour. If I ’m called negro, I laugh. But now it’s a crime to say something on the pitch.
“If this happened in South America, they’d have to suspend everyone. I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
There is uproar in South America over the Liverpool man’s eight-match ban, and the clash between Evra’s country and Uruguay in August threatens to become an all-out war.
FC Porto’s Pereira said: “Evra is going to have to wear body armour. If I ’m called negro, I laugh. But now it’s a crime to say something on the pitch.
“If this happened in South America, they’d have to suspend everyone. I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=47188.msg1460259#msg1460259 date=1326067222]I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
Nail on head! Uruguayans seem more perceptive than English people!
[/quote]
Nail on head! Uruguayans seem more perceptive than English people!
[quote author=Portly link=topic=47188.msg1460261#msg1460261 date=1326067900]
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=47188.msg1460259#msg1460259 date=1326067222]I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
Nail on head! Uruguayans seem more perceptive than English people!
[/quote]
He just missed the 'la' at the end of the sentence. It would have been well Scouse.
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=47188.msg1460259#msg1460259 date=1326067222]I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
Nail on head! Uruguayans seem more perceptive than English people!
[/quote]
He just missed the 'la' at the end of the sentence. It would have been well Scouse.
The Med doesn't have a tide as any fool know.
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=47188.msg1460259#msg1460259 date=1326067222]
LUIS SUAREZ’S black international pal Alvaro Pereira has warned Patrice Evra he will have to wear body armour when France meet Uruguay in a friendly later this year.
There is uproar in South America over the Liverpool man’s eight-match ban, and the clash between Evra’s country and Uruguay in August threatens to become an all-out war.
FC Porto’s Pereira said: “Evra is going to have to wear body armour. If I ’m called negro, I laugh. But now it’s a crime to say something on the pitch.
“If this happened in South America, they’d have to suspend everyone. I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
You missed this part.
"Evra has a complex. He is not proud to be black. If I am called 'negro', I start laughing. My team-mates call me 'negro' and in South America it can also be used in an affectionate way.
"It is obvious that you can use this word with good or bad intentions, but I always laugh. Evra must have some kind of problem about being black, or some inferiority complex. I do not."
LUIS SUAREZ’S black international pal Alvaro Pereira has warned Patrice Evra he will have to wear body armour when France meet Uruguay in a friendly later this year.
There is uproar in South America over the Liverpool man’s eight-match ban, and the clash between Evra’s country and Uruguay in August threatens to become an all-out war.
FC Porto’s Pereira said: “Evra is going to have to wear body armour. If I ’m called negro, I laugh. But now it’s a crime to say something on the pitch.
“If this happened in South America, they’d have to suspend everyone. I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
You missed this part.
"Evra has a complex. He is not proud to be black. If I am called 'negro', I start laughing. My team-mates call me 'negro' and in South America it can also be used in an affectionate way.
"It is obvious that you can use this word with good or bad intentions, but I always laugh. Evra must have some kind of problem about being black, or some inferiority complex. I do not."
[quote author=Fascistio link=topic=47188.msg1459063#msg1459063 date=1325954641]
I got called an arsehole last time I locked a thread
[/quote]
Just one poster may or may not have called you an asshole, let's not forget you could have misread the post. Anyway, that can't be seen as representative of everyone, if it even happened.
I got called an arsehole last time I locked a thread
[/quote]
Just one poster may or may not have called you an asshole, let's not forget you could have misread the post. Anyway, that can't be seen as representative of everyone, if it even happened.
Getting back to Digger's video, that's the crux of the "Did LFC act the right way?" debate...
They believe Luis did not do what he has been acused of doing and that he's been unfairly convicted... So, they are 100% right in backing him, and loudly protesting his innocence.
In a case of he said, he said, where there was so little evidence and such glaring irregularities and clutural differences, I don't have a problem with the stance that we have taken, at all.
I honestly don't understand why anybody - that hasn't already decided that Luis is guilty, evidence (or lack thereof be damned - would have a big problem with it.
They believe Luis did not do what he has been acused of doing and that he's been unfairly convicted... So, they are 100% right in backing him, and loudly protesting his innocence.
In a case of he said, he said, where there was so little evidence and such glaring irregularities and clutural differences, I don't have a problem with the stance that we have taken, at all.
I honestly don't understand why anybody - that hasn't already decided that Luis is guilty, evidence (or lack thereof be damned - would have a big problem with it.
[quote author=Portly link=topic=47188.msg1460261#msg1460261 date=1326067900]
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=47188.msg1460259#msg1460259 date=1326067222]I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
Nail on head! Uruguayans seem more perceptive than English people!
[/quote]
EGGxackerly!
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=47188.msg1460259#msg1460259 date=1326067222]I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
Nail on head! Uruguayans seem more perceptive than English people!
[/quote]
EGGxackerly!
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=47188.msg1460259#msg1460259 date=1326067222]
I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
That's the crux of my anger over this, because it's been so blatantly obvious from the off. Of course, I'm probably just being paranoid and creating conspiracy theories. Fergie wouldn't do that sort of thing and the FA wouldn't be up United's backside at all.
I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
That's the crux of my anger over this, because it's been so blatantly obvious from the off. Of course, I'm probably just being paranoid and creating conspiracy theories. Fergie wouldn't do that sort of thing and the FA wouldn't be up United's backside at all.
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=47188.msg1460311#msg1460311 date=1326097749]
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=47188.msg1460259#msg1460259 date=1326067222]
I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
That's the crux of my anger over this, because it's been so blatantly obvious from the off. Of course, I'm probably just being paranoid and creating conspiracy theories. Fergie wouldn't do that sort of thing and the FA wouldn't be up United's backside at all.
[/quote]
I am amased that so many people believe that this is a trick the "noble" Sir Ferguson would never pull. Just see his remarks from yesterday as bloody evidence for that this man is willing to do anything to gain one inch advantage on anyone.
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=47188.msg1460259#msg1460259 date=1326067222]
I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
That's the crux of my anger over this, because it's been so blatantly obvious from the off. Of course, I'm probably just being paranoid and creating conspiracy theories. Fergie wouldn't do that sort of thing and the FA wouldn't be up United's backside at all.
[/quote]
I am amased that so many people believe that this is a trick the "noble" Sir Ferguson would never pull. Just see his remarks from yesterday as bloody evidence for that this man is willing to do anything to gain one inch advantage on anyone.
My liking, respect and admiration for the people of Uruguay has rocketed as a result of this affair. A brief perusal of the country's Wikipedia article shows their country to be one of the most civilised in South America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay
With a population of around 3.5 million - similar to that of Wales - they have always punched above their weight in international football and have won the World Cup twice. 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay
With a population of around 3.5 million - similar to that of Wales - they have always punched above their weight in international football and have won the World Cup twice. 🙂
[quote author=Portly link=topic=47188.msg1460332#msg1460332 date=1326101414]
My liking, respect and admiration for the people of Uruguay has rocketed as a result of this affair. A brief perusal of the country's Wikipedia article shows their country to be one of the most civilised in South America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay
With a population of around 3.5 million - similar to that of Wales - they have always punched above their weight in international football and have won the World Cup twice. 🙂
[/quote]
It's a massively progressive country Portly and they're leaps ahead of most countries with their approach to many things. Whats laughable is that the message they are getting from the UK is that their approach to racial integration is fundamentally wrong.
My liking, respect and admiration for the people of Uruguay has rocketed as a result of this affair. A brief perusal of the country's Wikipedia article shows their country to be one of the most civilised in South America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay
With a population of around 3.5 million - similar to that of Wales - they have always punched above their weight in international football and have won the World Cup twice. 🙂
[/quote]
It's a massively progressive country Portly and they're leaps ahead of most countries with their approach to many things. Whats laughable is that the message they are getting from the UK is that their approach to racial integration is fundamentally wrong.
[quote author=Modo link=topic=47188.msg1460269#msg1460269 date=1326068761]
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=47188.msg1460259#msg1460259 date=1326067222]
LUIS SUAREZ’S black international pal Alvaro Pereira has warned Patrice Evra he will have to wear body armour when France meet Uruguay in a friendly later this year.
There is uproar in South America over the Liverpool man’s eight-match ban, and the clash between Evra’s country and Uruguay in August threatens to become an all-out war.
FC Porto’s Pereira said: “Evra is going to have to wear body armour. If I ’m called negro, I laugh. But now it’s a crime to say something on the pitch.
“If this happened in South America, they’d have to suspend everyone. I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
You missed this part.
"Evra has a complex. He is not proud to be black. If I am called 'negro', I start laughing. My team-mates call me 'negro' and in South America it can also be used in an affectionate way.
"It is obvious that you can use this word with good or bad intentions, but I always laugh. Evra must have some kind of problem about being black, or some inferiority complex. I do not."
[/quote]
You know people have made a big point about how our reputation has been tarnished because of this. I actually think our reputation in South America, Uruguay certainly, will increase because of this scenario, and the statement from this guy is an example as to why.
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=47188.msg1460259#msg1460259 date=1326067222]
LUIS SUAREZ’S black international pal Alvaro Pereira has warned Patrice Evra he will have to wear body armour when France meet Uruguay in a friendly later this year.
There is uproar in South America over the Liverpool man’s eight-match ban, and the clash between Evra’s country and Uruguay in August threatens to become an all-out war.
FC Porto’s Pereira said: “Evra is going to have to wear body armour. If I ’m called negro, I laugh. But now it’s a crime to say something on the pitch.
“If this happened in South America, they’d have to suspend everyone. I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
You missed this part.
"Evra has a complex. He is not proud to be black. If I am called 'negro', I start laughing. My team-mates call me 'negro' and in South America it can also be used in an affectionate way.
"It is obvious that you can use this word with good or bad intentions, but I always laugh. Evra must have some kind of problem about being black, or some inferiority complex. I do not."
[/quote]
You know people have made a big point about how our reputation has been tarnished because of this. I actually think our reputation in South America, Uruguay certainly, will increase because of this scenario, and the statement from this guy is an example as to why.
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=47188.msg1460259#msg1460259 date=1326067222]
LUIS SUAREZ’S black international pal Alvaro Pereira has warned Patrice Evra he will have to wear body armour when France meet Uruguay in a friendly later this year.
There is uproar in South America over the Liverpool man’s eight-match ban, and the clash between Evra’s country and Uruguay in August threatens to become an all-out war.
FC Porto’s Pereira said: “Evra is going to have to wear body armour. If I ’m called negro, I laugh. But now it’s a crime to say something on the pitch.
“If this happened in South America, they’d have to suspend everyone. I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
Well, it looks like it might not be Luis Suarez who's damaged the reputation of the English game in the world but rather the Patrice Evra, the English FA and it's commission.
LUIS SUAREZ’S black international pal Alvaro Pereira has warned Patrice Evra he will have to wear body armour when France meet Uruguay in a friendly later this year.
There is uproar in South America over the Liverpool man’s eight-match ban, and the clash between Evra’s country and Uruguay in August threatens to become an all-out war.
FC Porto’s Pereira said: “Evra is going to have to wear body armour. If I ’m called negro, I laugh. But now it’s a crime to say something on the pitch.
“If this happened in South America, they’d have to suspend everyone. I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
Well, it looks like it might not be Luis Suarez who's damaged the reputation of the English game in the world but rather the Patrice Evra, the English FA and it's commission.
[quote author=Mystic link=topic=47188.msg1460338#msg1460338 date=1326102823]
[quote author=Modo link=topic=47188.msg1460269#msg1460269 date=1326068761]
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=47188.msg1460259#msg1460259 date=1326067222]
LUIS SUAREZ’S black international pal Alvaro Pereira has warned Patrice Evra he will have to wear body armour when France meet Uruguay in a friendly later this year.
There is uproar in South America over the Liverpool man’s eight-match ban, and the clash between Evra’s country and Uruguay in August threatens to become an all-out war.
FC Porto’s Pereira said: “Evra is going to have to wear body armour. If I ’m called negro, I laugh. But now it’s a crime to say something on the pitch.
“If this happened in South America, they’d have to suspend everyone. I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
Beat me to it 🙂
You missed this part.
"Evra has a complex. He is not proud to be black. If I am called 'negro', I start laughing. My team-mates call me 'negro' and in South America it can also be used in an affectionate way.
"It is obvious that you can use this word with good or bad intentions, but I always laugh. Evra must have some kind of problem about being black, or some inferiority complex. I do not."
[/quote]
You know people have made a big point about how our reputation has been tarnished because of this. I actually think our reputation in South America, Uruguay certainly, will increase because of this scenario, and the statement from this guy is an example as to why.
[/quote]
[quote author=Modo link=topic=47188.msg1460269#msg1460269 date=1326068761]
[quote author=Sheik Yerbouti link=topic=47188.msg1460259#msg1460259 date=1326067222]
LUIS SUAREZ’S black international pal Alvaro Pereira has warned Patrice Evra he will have to wear body armour when France meet Uruguay in a friendly later this year.
There is uproar in South America over the Liverpool man’s eight-match ban, and the clash between Evra’s country and Uruguay in August threatens to become an all-out war.
FC Porto’s Pereira said: “Evra is going to have to wear body armour. If I ’m called negro, I laugh. But now it’s a crime to say something on the pitch.
“If this happened in South America, they’d have to suspend everyone. I think Man United tried to take advantage of this situation and prevent one of Liverpool’s best players from playing. That’s sad.”
[/quote]
Beat me to it 🙂
You missed this part.
"Evra has a complex. He is not proud to be black. If I am called 'negro', I start laughing. My team-mates call me 'negro' and in South America it can also be used in an affectionate way.
"It is obvious that you can use this word with good or bad intentions, but I always laugh. Evra must have some kind of problem about being black, or some inferiority complex. I do not."
[/quote]
You know people have made a big point about how our reputation has been tarnished because of this. I actually think our reputation in South America, Uruguay certainly, will increase because of this scenario, and the statement from this guy is an example as to why.
[/quote]
I don't want to mention to get into this whole thing again but racial history if Uruguay is different to UK I believe, I don't pretend to understand the migration pattern of another country but what I do know is UK, if a black person UK tells me he doesn't like being called negro in the field of football then you have to respect that. In the 70s when migration was mass, the sort of rubbish people had to go through was disgracefull and we should be wary of saying it's allowable on a field of football just because it's ok in another country. It's not clear whether if it was used as derogatory sense but seems from the report they seemed to think it was. I don't want this sort of word acceptable at any level, it sends a clear message out to sunday league to all premier league. We should not start comparing UK to Uruguay as the model, UK has a massive population made of many different backgrounds with many relating to the british empire, no way can both countries be compared directly.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
