Wait a minute...the latest speculation is
----------------------------------
That's all it is - speculation. Until the full report from the case is made public you can't take that as fact can you?
The only fact that is in the public domain, is that the QC lead panel found him guilty after a 6 day case.
Also, didn't Evra complain that he used that term to him at least 10 times during that match? If true your scenario doesn't hold any water.
"I've not seen any racist remarks aimed at Suarez.2
You mean other than what Evra called him?
I've read all sorts of comments from professors to lawyers (not hot-headed fans) who think the ruling is wrong based on discrimination based on nationality should be as harshly punished as referring to colour. I'm old enough to remember Everton fans wearing badges with 'Everton are White' on and to digress slightly, although all clubs have their racist element, Everton hve topped the racist league of shame quite recently! Did you react to that as strongly?
Suarez has been his own worst enemy in this - if the ban stays in place he will serve it and hopefully learn from his mistakes.
Wayne - what did you think when Defoe bit Mascherano - probably congratulated him for biting a Liverpool player no doubt!
My mistake - he was a WH player at the time.
That's all it is - speculation. Until the full report from the case is made public you can't take that as fact can you?
===============================================
Thats not what you said, though, is it?
What you said was "I just think he's a vile individual, who chose to use that offensive term to get a reaction from Evra"., when you don't know who said what first.
The FA's ruling doesn't mention anything about him being a vile individual trying to get a reaction out of Evra. It says:
1.Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);
2.the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);
'Vile individual' and 'getting a reaction' are words which you've used to describe what you've read into it. If you don't want speculation to be used in any counter-argument, don't speculate yourself.
Or to put it another way, "vile individual who chose to use that offensive term to get a reaction" is TB's opinion.
Is it your opinion therefore that Evra did call Suarez a "sp ic"?
TB - were you all over 606 four years ago when Yobo was racially abused by a Newcastle player? It was reported to the FA and they did...............nothing! There's politics at play here.
Everton hve topped the racist league of shame quite recently!
-------------------------------
What league is this?
The only 2 recent incidents at Goodison involved a STH being banned for 3 years by the club - for calling Saha "French"...
& that end bell Diouf's tale about bananas being thrown at him from the paddock - which after viewing every camera angle & hours of footage, was proven to be a total lie.
What you said was "I just think he's a vile individual, who chose to use that offensive term to get a reaction from Evra"., when you don't know who said what first.
'Vile individual' and 'getting a reaction' are words which you've used to describe what you've read into it. If you don't want speculation to be used in any counter-argument, don't speculate yourself.
-------------------------------
The difference being that I used the word THINK i.e. it's my opinion or my guess if you like.
You were attempting to portray your scenario as being factual, by saying that if the press speculation was correct, then "it went like this".
You haven't got a scoob, what it went like, same as I haven't.
For the last time, the only fact available, is that he's been found guilty of racial abuse by an independant panel who consider the evidence over 6 days & were lead by a QC.
EVERYTHING else is merely opinion, most of which has some form of bias.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/everton-fans-to-face-away-ban-over-racism-619909.html
Is it your opinion therefore that Evra did call Suarez a "sp ic"?
=================================================
No, it isn't.
My point was that if you're going to form an opinion based on speculation, why not include all of the speculation? ...and I then outlined what that speculation was.
The case is under appeal, so any "opinions" formed about it, and before the transcripts are released, are speculation, as I clearly stated when I said "it all depends on the transcript of the case".
TB - were you all over 606 four years ago when Yobo was racially abused by a Newcastle player? It was reported to the FA and they did...............nothing
-----------------------------------
That case was a disgrace. Emre's comments were heard by a number of the Everton side & yet they still did sweet FA about it.
Politics or more of a will to stamp it out? Take your pick.
No, it isn't.
My point was that if you're going to form an opinion based on speculation, why not include all of the speculation?
---------------------
My opinion of Suarez being a 'vile individual' isn't based on speculation, you plum.
It's my opinion of him - an opinion that I have arrived at, after watching the cheating, diving, biting, snide little runt wearing a number of different shirts.
http://boards.footymad.net/forum.php?tno=219&fid=6&sty=2&act=1&mid=2117523245
Is it your opinion therefore that Evra did call Suarez a "sp ic"?
=================================================
No, it isn't.
My point was that if you're going to form an opinion based on speculation, why not include all of the speculation? ...and I then outlined what that speculation was.
--------------------------------
Well you didn't include ALL of the speculation. You only brought up what is a particularly damning piece of speculation, and one that it transpires you don't even believe in anyway.
It's my opinion of him - an opinion that I have arrived at, after watching the cheating, diving, biting, snide little runt wearing a number of different shirts.
=================================================
Lucky we've got such temperate, reasonable people on our shores to show him the error of his ways .
'Vile indiviidual' was not the speculative bit. I am not surprised to find an Everton fan with such a view, because hatred and spite is how some of you "enjoy" your football, (as per, to be fair, some other fans on here, who keep coming on to say he's a "diving cheat, week-in, week-out", but can't name a dive he's commited in any of the last 5 games, because they haven't actually watched them).
The speculative bit was that he deliberately said something debilerately, offensive to get a reaction, when there is further specualtion that he was the one doing the reacting, and that the term he used is not offensive in the language he used it.
'Vile indiviidual' was not the speculative bit. I am not surprised to find an Everton fan with such a view, because hatred and spite is how some of you "enjoy" your football, (as per, to be fair, some other fans on here, who keep coming on to say he's a "diving cheat, week-in, week-out", but can't name a dive he's commited in any of the last 5 games, because they haven't actually watched them).
The speculative bit was that he deliberately said something debilerately, offensive to get a reaction, when there is further specualtion that he was the one doing the reacting, and that the term he used is not offensive in the language he used it.
----------------------------------------------
Too right my view on him has something to do with being an Everton fan - as he ruined what could have been a classic derby with his 'party piece' earlier this season - so I've witnessed his behaviour first hand thanks.
Suarez is a diving, biting, cheat - it's been proven.
Limiting the view to the last 5 games is an act of desperation on your part. He is what he is.....if you love him for it, then fine, the rest of us don't have to.
Finally, you've again chosen to be selective with your use of speculation, as it's been reported that Evra claimed he called him that name at least 10 times during the game. I suppose in your world he was 'reacting' to Evra x10
Too right my view on him has something to do with being an Everton fan - as he ruined what could have been a classic derby with his 'party piece' earlier this season - so I've witnessed his behaviour first hand thanks.
===============================================
Oh, yes, that would be the derby in which Saha went down like he’d been shot to get Lucas booked, when replays showed that Lucas never touched him, and the ball was won cleanly.
Suarez was equally theatrical, but there was contact, and the referee sent Rodwell off because he interpreted it (wrongly, in the opinion of all the Liverpool fans I know) as a 2-footed tackle.
But why blame the referee when you can blame big, bad Liverpool?...absolutely ideal for you, really, you should be pleased that Suarez gave you the opportunity.
I don’t think Saha is a vile cheat, though. First of all, because I don’t get over-excited about these things, due to having a life), and secondly because they all do it now, whenever there is the slightest contact (or sometimes even when not). It’s just that some of us see it selectively, and some don’t.
================================================
Limiting the view to the last 5 games is an act of desperation on your part
================================================
I didn’t limit it to 5 games….they just happen to be the most recent in my memory, funnily enough, and since he’s such a habitual “cheat”, I thought that might be enough.
But as it’s not enough, I’m happy for you to use your selective memories of the derby game from 3 months ago.
================================================
it's been reported that Evra claimed he called him that name at least 10 times during the game
================================================
My point was that you had formed your opinion speculatively….it makes no difference how much speculation you used. Adding some more makes no difference to the point, whether you add some that reinforces your speculative opinion, or I add some that demonstrates the opposite.
There is further speculation that of the 10 times Evra claims it was used, there is one particular reference which is central to the case, but we could go on all day with that, because neither of us knows.
You win, he's a charmer, in fact I'm surprised he's not in the running for Sports personality of the year, or maybe a knighthood in the New years list.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAl74ovJP-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VH0XUra09Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=9RPGX0dePcc&feature=endscreen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHtHXgfbgZw
Deluded kopite, you'd be screaming blue murder if the roles were reversed in this case.
Instead you're club sank to the depths of wearing T shirts "to support him" last night - cringeworthy.
The rat found his ideal home, is all I can say
TTFN
I'm surprised he's not in the running for Sports personality of the year, or maybe a knighthood in the New years list.
==========================================
He’s in the running for Player of the Year, apparently, but Patrick Barclay of the Times was saying last week that he won’t get it if he doesn’t clear his name of this charge in time for the vote (which it now looks like he won’t).
==========================================
Deluded kopite, you'd be screaming blue murder if the roles were reversed in this case.
==========================================
No, I don’t think so. I enjoy my football, and I don’t have that kind of spite coursing through my veins. Personally, I found the mob-rule vilification of Beckham, after he was sent off in the WC, equally as disgusting as the mob-rule vilification of Suarez is now.
==========================================
Instead you're club sank to the depths of wearing T shirts "to support him" last night - cringeworthy.
=========================================
Yes, and it was reported in the Independent this morning that opinion-polls are running 2-1 in favour of Suarez on this issue, so I suspect that those without any spite coursing through their veins wouldn’t have found it remotely cringeworthy, since the general public appears to be broadly sympathetic to him.
==========================================
The rat found his ideal home, is all I can say
==========================================
Nothing "vile" about calling people "rats". We’ll soon show those slimy foreigners how to behave in our country, eh?
TTFN
Yes, and it was reported in the Independent this morning that opinion-polls are running 2-1 in favour of Suarez on this issue, so I suspect that those without any spite coursing through their veins wouldn’t have found it remotely cringeworthy, since the general public appears to be broadly sympathetic to him.
-----------------------------------------------
The only support being shown is from your lot, to suggest that the majority are "2-1" behind him is absolute rot & no doubt based on some kopite facebook page
Read the press this morning for the general concensus on what the press consider the T shirt embarrassment to be. I'd suggest that my cringeworthy comment from yesterday was spot on.
Here's a great piece from the Guardian;
"As with Kenny Dalglish's tweet on Tuesday night – "This is the time when @luis16suarez needs our full support. Let's not let him walk alone" – and the club's official statement, here was a club closing ranks in a refusal to accept an independent finding, thus earning the disapproval of those who felt that every step had been taken to ensure that justice would be served.
Liverpool being Liverpool, and virtually impervious to outside opinion (which makes Dalglish, who shares that trait, their ideal manager), they are unlikely to look back in the cold light of another day and feel a twinge of regret at speaking in haste. But they are not flattered by angry words which appear to contradict so much of the good work they, like many other clubs, have done in the fight against racism over the past 20 years.
Lord Ouseley, a former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality and the current chair of Kick It Out, the body set up to end racism in football, was commenting on the case of John Terry and Chelsea on Wednesday when he criticised clubs for defending their players without having first made adequate inquiries, but his general point could be applied to Suárez and Liverpool. "Clubs, who are large employers, must consider the implications of dealing with allegations made against their players, and not simply offer blanket support without carrying out their own full investigations and being certain of the ground on which they are standing when they offer full support," he told Sky Sports.
Suárez was found guilty by a tribunal of three men: Paul Goulding QC, a specialist in employment law who also holds FA coaching qualifications; Brian Jones, the chairman of Sheffield and Hallamshire FA; and Denis Smith, once a ferocious old‑school centre-half with Tony Waddington's Stoke City, more recently the manager of York City, Sunderland and Oxford United, and currently helping to guide Stoke City's young players through their lives off the pitch. Appointed by the FA, the members of the panel were nevertheless independent from it – although that did not prevent Liverpool's supporters from detecting possible signs of bias, such as Smith's allegedly friendly relations with Sir Alex Ferguson.
In the statement that emerged from Anfield, it was asserted that the club had gone over the facts of the case and concluded "that Luis Suárez did not commit any racist act". The Uruguayan forward's defence included the claim that in his native country the Spanish terms referring to skin colour are used in a matter-of-fact way during amicable conversations. That may be true, to some extent or other, but it could be said that even though he arrived in Groningen from Montevideo in 2006 without a word of English or Dutch, he has lived in Europe long enough – five years in the multicultural Netherlands, one year in equally diverse Liverpool – to know how to avoid causing unnecessary offence.
Suárez has not been convicted of being a racist. To prove or demolish such a contention would require rather more than the 40 hours of deliberation undertaken, over four days of hearing and sifting evidence, by the panel. He was simply convicted of insulting Evra during the course of an exchange in which, as he admitted, he used the word "negro". The way Evra heard it, the term was used to add weight to the insult. The panel must have had good reasons for agreeing, while declining to accept the view that there is a cultural context in which the use of such a term – particularly as part of an exchange of abuse – may be acceptable.
The football pitch is no place for angels and, as we saw during the 2010 World Cup, Suárez and Evra share an ability to get themselves embroiled in unfortunate incidents. The Uruguayan, having been sent off in the quarter-final for throwing up his hand to prevent the ball crossing the line at the end of extra time, was then caught on TV celebrating with what, in the circumstances, seemed improper glee as Asamoah Gyan failed to convert the resulting penalty. A goalscorer of glittering deadliness, he is also the master of the crafty nudge, a congenital wind‑up merchant who infuriates opposing spectators through his habit of reacting to every unsuccessful challenge for the ball by sitting on the turf with his arms raised, imploring the referee to come to his aid. At Craven Cottage earlier this month he reacted by raising his middle finger to the Fulham fans, for which he has also been charged by the FA.
In the judgment of the tribunal, Suárez was guilty of unacceptable behaviour. He should learn from that, rather than rail against perceived injustice. And Liverpool, a club with a long and proud history of their own, might in turn recognise the significance of the week's events to the long struggle in which Howard Gayle played a part all those years ago, and which allowed his successors – the likes of John Barnes, Mark Walters, Michael Thomas, David James, Ryan Babel and Glen Johnson – to go about their business in an atmosphere increasingly free from fear and hatred.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/dec/21/luis-suarez-liverpool-racism-fight
http://toffeeweb.com/season/03-04/comment/fans/fans31_Cox.asp
The Telegraph - 23 December 2011 - " Dr Manuel Barcia, Senior Lecturer in Latin American Studies and Deputy Director of the Institute for Colonial and Postcolonial Studies at University of Leeds, has been in touch and has a couple of points to make, largely in defence of Suarez.
First I think that the FA has blown the whole thing out of proportion. If indeed they agreed that Suarez was guilty, they should have warned him against future similar incidents. The lad just arrived and the whole idea that living in Holland is anything like living in the UK is total nonsense, at least for a Latin American immigrant who does not speak Dutch (that was my case and having lived in both in Holland and the UK I can tell you, they are as close as water and oil to me).
My second point refers to what I would call the very biased British perception of what constitutes racism and what doesn't.
Suarez was charged for calling Evra "Negr-", a term that across Hispanic speaking countries in Latin American is frequently used. I've been called Negr- several times; my best friend calls his brother "negri" just because he grew up using the term, and neither of them is black. Now, I am wondering why Patrice Evra can call Luis Suarez, in a very pejorative manner if we are to believe to the articles published by the Daily Telegraph, "a South American" and get away with it. Just think about it.
Had Suarez been an Arab or an Asian, would Evra had dared to tell him, "don't touch me you Asian" or "don't touch me you Arab". I don't think so. In my opinion there is very little understanding of the discrimination that Latin Americans suffer in places such as the USA and more close to home, Spain, where especially for people like Luis Suarez, born in the southern part of the Americas, they have the very offensive term "sudaca", which is the equivalent of "Pak-i" here in the UK. So, the FA considers discrimination based on the colour of the skin as racist, but discrimination based on your place of origin a fine thing? "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8969738/Liverpools-Luis-Suarez-guilty-of-racially-abusing-Patrice-Evra-live.html
The ensuing poll found these results :
What do you think of the FA's judgment of Luis Suarez?
Too lenient - 1,188
Firm but fair - 2,064
Satisfactory - 1,169
Too harsh - 2,515
Completely wrong - 6,615
Other - 12
13, 563 votes cast - which means that Kemlyn was absolutely correct in the assertion that people are 2-1 in favour of it being the wrong decision.
I wonder what the people voting other thought??
13, 563 votes cast
-----------------------
Of whom at least 6,615 are obviously kopites you belter.
Take a read of the press today & tell that the 2:1 'majority' exists outside of your own clubs fanbase?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/jan/07/race.world
http://www.nsno.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=16043.15
TB - Do you seriously think Liverpool fans were falling over themselves to vote in a Telegraph poll? Which most probably don't even read. I suppose all the ones who said it was too lenient were all utd fans, because we all know only utd and Liverpool fans would have been reading it
You are shameless in you biased views. I know how bitter you are but come on, to suggest only Liverpool fans voted that it was 'completely wrong' is a stretch even for you!
Sign in if you want to comment
Hypothetical situation
Page 2 of 3
posted on 22/12/11
Wait a minute...the latest speculation is
----------------------------------
That's all it is - speculation. Until the full report from the case is made public you can't take that as fact can you?
The only fact that is in the public domain, is that the QC lead panel found him guilty after a 6 day case.
Also, didn't Evra complain that he used that term to him at least 10 times during that match? If true your scenario doesn't hold any water.
posted on 22/12/11
"I've not seen any racist remarks aimed at Suarez.2
You mean other than what Evra called him?
I've read all sorts of comments from professors to lawyers (not hot-headed fans) who think the ruling is wrong based on discrimination based on nationality should be as harshly punished as referring to colour. I'm old enough to remember Everton fans wearing badges with 'Everton are White' on and to digress slightly, although all clubs have their racist element, Everton hve topped the racist league of shame quite recently! Did you react to that as strongly?
Suarez has been his own worst enemy in this - if the ban stays in place he will serve it and hopefully learn from his mistakes.
posted on 22/12/11
Wayne - what did you think when Defoe bit Mascherano - probably congratulated him for biting a Liverpool player no doubt!
posted on 22/12/11
My mistake - he was a WH player at the time.
posted on 22/12/11
That's all it is - speculation. Until the full report from the case is made public you can't take that as fact can you?
===============================================
Thats not what you said, though, is it?
What you said was "I just think he's a vile individual, who chose to use that offensive term to get a reaction from Evra"., when you don't know who said what first.
The FA's ruling doesn't mention anything about him being a vile individual trying to get a reaction out of Evra. It says:
1.Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);
2.the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);
'Vile individual' and 'getting a reaction' are words which you've used to describe what you've read into it. If you don't want speculation to be used in any counter-argument, don't speculate yourself.
posted on 22/12/11
Or to put it another way, "vile individual who chose to use that offensive term to get a reaction" is TB's opinion.
Is it your opinion therefore that Evra did call Suarez a "sp ic"?
posted on 22/12/11
TB - were you all over 606 four years ago when Yobo was racially abused by a Newcastle player? It was reported to the FA and they did...............nothing! There's politics at play here.
posted on 22/12/11
Everton hve topped the racist league of shame quite recently!
-------------------------------
What league is this?
The only 2 recent incidents at Goodison involved a STH being banned for 3 years by the club - for calling Saha "French"...
& that end bell Diouf's tale about bananas being thrown at him from the paddock - which after viewing every camera angle & hours of footage, was proven to be a total lie.
posted on 22/12/11
What you said was "I just think he's a vile individual, who chose to use that offensive term to get a reaction from Evra"., when you don't know who said what first.
'Vile individual' and 'getting a reaction' are words which you've used to describe what you've read into it. If you don't want speculation to be used in any counter-argument, don't speculate yourself.
-------------------------------
The difference being that I used the word THINK i.e. it's my opinion or my guess if you like.
You were attempting to portray your scenario as being factual, by saying that if the press speculation was correct, then "it went like this".
You haven't got a scoob, what it went like, same as I haven't.
For the last time, the only fact available, is that he's been found guilty of racial abuse by an independant panel who consider the evidence over 6 days & were lead by a QC.
EVERYTHING else is merely opinion, most of which has some form of bias.
posted on 22/12/11
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/everton-fans-to-face-away-ban-over-racism-619909.html
posted on 22/12/11
Is it your opinion therefore that Evra did call Suarez a "sp ic"?
=================================================
No, it isn't.
My point was that if you're going to form an opinion based on speculation, why not include all of the speculation? ...and I then outlined what that speculation was.
The case is under appeal, so any "opinions" formed about it, and before the transcripts are released, are speculation, as I clearly stated when I said "it all depends on the transcript of the case".
posted on 22/12/11
TB - were you all over 606 four years ago when Yobo was racially abused by a Newcastle player? It was reported to the FA and they did...............nothing
-----------------------------------
That case was a disgrace. Emre's comments were heard by a number of the Everton side & yet they still did sweet FA about it.
Politics or more of a will to stamp it out? Take your pick.
posted on 22/12/11
No, it isn't.
My point was that if you're going to form an opinion based on speculation, why not include all of the speculation?
---------------------
My opinion of Suarez being a 'vile individual' isn't based on speculation, you plum.
It's my opinion of him - an opinion that I have arrived at, after watching the cheating, diving, biting, snide little runt wearing a number of different shirts.
posted on 22/12/11
http://boards.footymad.net/forum.php?tno=219&fid=6&sty=2&act=1&mid=2117523245
posted on 22/12/11
Is it your opinion therefore that Evra did call Suarez a "sp ic"?
=================================================
No, it isn't.
My point was that if you're going to form an opinion based on speculation, why not include all of the speculation? ...and I then outlined what that speculation was.
--------------------------------
Well you didn't include ALL of the speculation. You only brought up what is a particularly damning piece of speculation, and one that it transpires you don't even believe in anyway.
posted on 22/12/11
It's my opinion of him - an opinion that I have arrived at, after watching the cheating, diving, biting, snide little runt wearing a number of different shirts.
=================================================
Lucky we've got such temperate, reasonable people on our shores to show him the error of his ways .
'Vile indiviidual' was not the speculative bit. I am not surprised to find an Everton fan with such a view, because hatred and spite is how some of you "enjoy" your football, (as per, to be fair, some other fans on here, who keep coming on to say he's a "diving cheat, week-in, week-out", but can't name a dive he's commited in any of the last 5 games, because they haven't actually watched them).
The speculative bit was that he deliberately said something debilerately, offensive to get a reaction, when there is further specualtion that he was the one doing the reacting, and that the term he used is not offensive in the language he used it.
posted on 22/12/11
'Vile indiviidual' was not the speculative bit. I am not surprised to find an Everton fan with such a view, because hatred and spite is how some of you "enjoy" your football, (as per, to be fair, some other fans on here, who keep coming on to say he's a "diving cheat, week-in, week-out", but can't name a dive he's commited in any of the last 5 games, because they haven't actually watched them).
The speculative bit was that he deliberately said something debilerately, offensive to get a reaction, when there is further specualtion that he was the one doing the reacting, and that the term he used is not offensive in the language he used it.
----------------------------------------------
Too right my view on him has something to do with being an Everton fan - as he ruined what could have been a classic derby with his 'party piece' earlier this season - so I've witnessed his behaviour first hand thanks.
Suarez is a diving, biting, cheat - it's been proven.
Limiting the view to the last 5 games is an act of desperation on your part. He is what he is.....if you love him for it, then fine, the rest of us don't have to.
Finally, you've again chosen to be selective with your use of speculation, as it's been reported that Evra claimed he called him that name at least 10 times during the game. I suppose in your world he was 'reacting' to Evra x10
posted on 22/12/11
Too right my view on him has something to do with being an Everton fan - as he ruined what could have been a classic derby with his 'party piece' earlier this season - so I've witnessed his behaviour first hand thanks.
===============================================
Oh, yes, that would be the derby in which Saha went down like he’d been shot to get Lucas booked, when replays showed that Lucas never touched him, and the ball was won cleanly.
Suarez was equally theatrical, but there was contact, and the referee sent Rodwell off because he interpreted it (wrongly, in the opinion of all the Liverpool fans I know) as a 2-footed tackle.
But why blame the referee when you can blame big, bad Liverpool?...absolutely ideal for you, really, you should be pleased that Suarez gave you the opportunity.
I don’t think Saha is a vile cheat, though. First of all, because I don’t get over-excited about these things, due to having a life), and secondly because they all do it now, whenever there is the slightest contact (or sometimes even when not). It’s just that some of us see it selectively, and some don’t.
================================================
Limiting the view to the last 5 games is an act of desperation on your part
================================================
I didn’t limit it to 5 games….they just happen to be the most recent in my memory, funnily enough, and since he’s such a habitual “cheat”, I thought that might be enough.
But as it’s not enough, I’m happy for you to use your selective memories of the derby game from 3 months ago.
================================================
it's been reported that Evra claimed he called him that name at least 10 times during the game
================================================
My point was that you had formed your opinion speculatively….it makes no difference how much speculation you used. Adding some more makes no difference to the point, whether you add some that reinforces your speculative opinion, or I add some that demonstrates the opposite.
There is further speculation that of the 10 times Evra claims it was used, there is one particular reference which is central to the case, but we could go on all day with that, because neither of us knows.
posted on 22/12/11
You win, he's a charmer, in fact I'm surprised he's not in the running for Sports personality of the year, or maybe a knighthood in the New years list.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAl74ovJP-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VH0XUra09Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=9RPGX0dePcc&feature=endscreen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHtHXgfbgZw
Deluded kopite, you'd be screaming blue murder if the roles were reversed in this case.
Instead you're club sank to the depths of wearing T shirts "to support him" last night - cringeworthy.
The rat found his ideal home, is all I can say
TTFN
posted on 22/12/11
I'm surprised he's not in the running for Sports personality of the year, or maybe a knighthood in the New years list.
==========================================
He’s in the running for Player of the Year, apparently, but Patrick Barclay of the Times was saying last week that he won’t get it if he doesn’t clear his name of this charge in time for the vote (which it now looks like he won’t).
==========================================
Deluded kopite, you'd be screaming blue murder if the roles were reversed in this case.
==========================================
No, I don’t think so. I enjoy my football, and I don’t have that kind of spite coursing through my veins. Personally, I found the mob-rule vilification of Beckham, after he was sent off in the WC, equally as disgusting as the mob-rule vilification of Suarez is now.
==========================================
Instead you're club sank to the depths of wearing T shirts "to support him" last night - cringeworthy.
=========================================
Yes, and it was reported in the Independent this morning that opinion-polls are running 2-1 in favour of Suarez on this issue, so I suspect that those without any spite coursing through their veins wouldn’t have found it remotely cringeworthy, since the general public appears to be broadly sympathetic to him.
==========================================
The rat found his ideal home, is all I can say
==========================================
Nothing "vile" about calling people "rats". We’ll soon show those slimy foreigners how to behave in our country, eh?
TTFN
posted on 23/12/11
Yes, and it was reported in the Independent this morning that opinion-polls are running 2-1 in favour of Suarez on this issue, so I suspect that those without any spite coursing through their veins wouldn’t have found it remotely cringeworthy, since the general public appears to be broadly sympathetic to him.
-----------------------------------------------
The only support being shown is from your lot, to suggest that the majority are "2-1" behind him is absolute rot & no doubt based on some kopite facebook page
Read the press this morning for the general concensus on what the press consider the T shirt embarrassment to be. I'd suggest that my cringeworthy comment from yesterday was spot on.
Here's a great piece from the Guardian;
"As with Kenny Dalglish's tweet on Tuesday night – "This is the time when @luis16suarez needs our full support. Let's not let him walk alone" – and the club's official statement, here was a club closing ranks in a refusal to accept an independent finding, thus earning the disapproval of those who felt that every step had been taken to ensure that justice would be served.
Liverpool being Liverpool, and virtually impervious to outside opinion (which makes Dalglish, who shares that trait, their ideal manager), they are unlikely to look back in the cold light of another day and feel a twinge of regret at speaking in haste. But they are not flattered by angry words which appear to contradict so much of the good work they, like many other clubs, have done in the fight against racism over the past 20 years.
Lord Ouseley, a former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality and the current chair of Kick It Out, the body set up to end racism in football, was commenting on the case of John Terry and Chelsea on Wednesday when he criticised clubs for defending their players without having first made adequate inquiries, but his general point could be applied to Suárez and Liverpool. "Clubs, who are large employers, must consider the implications of dealing with allegations made against their players, and not simply offer blanket support without carrying out their own full investigations and being certain of the ground on which they are standing when they offer full support," he told Sky Sports.
Suárez was found guilty by a tribunal of three men: Paul Goulding QC, a specialist in employment law who also holds FA coaching qualifications; Brian Jones, the chairman of Sheffield and Hallamshire FA; and Denis Smith, once a ferocious old‑school centre-half with Tony Waddington's Stoke City, more recently the manager of York City, Sunderland and Oxford United, and currently helping to guide Stoke City's young players through their lives off the pitch. Appointed by the FA, the members of the panel were nevertheless independent from it – although that did not prevent Liverpool's supporters from detecting possible signs of bias, such as Smith's allegedly friendly relations with Sir Alex Ferguson.
In the statement that emerged from Anfield, it was asserted that the club had gone over the facts of the case and concluded "that Luis Suárez did not commit any racist act". The Uruguayan forward's defence included the claim that in his native country the Spanish terms referring to skin colour are used in a matter-of-fact way during amicable conversations. That may be true, to some extent or other, but it could be said that even though he arrived in Groningen from Montevideo in 2006 without a word of English or Dutch, he has lived in Europe long enough – five years in the multicultural Netherlands, one year in equally diverse Liverpool – to know how to avoid causing unnecessary offence.
Suárez has not been convicted of being a racist. To prove or demolish such a contention would require rather more than the 40 hours of deliberation undertaken, over four days of hearing and sifting evidence, by the panel. He was simply convicted of insulting Evra during the course of an exchange in which, as he admitted, he used the word "negro". The way Evra heard it, the term was used to add weight to the insult. The panel must have had good reasons for agreeing, while declining to accept the view that there is a cultural context in which the use of such a term – particularly as part of an exchange of abuse – may be acceptable.
The football pitch is no place for angels and, as we saw during the 2010 World Cup, Suárez and Evra share an ability to get themselves embroiled in unfortunate incidents. The Uruguayan, having been sent off in the quarter-final for throwing up his hand to prevent the ball crossing the line at the end of extra time, was then caught on TV celebrating with what, in the circumstances, seemed improper glee as Asamoah Gyan failed to convert the resulting penalty. A goalscorer of glittering deadliness, he is also the master of the crafty nudge, a congenital wind‑up merchant who infuriates opposing spectators through his habit of reacting to every unsuccessful challenge for the ball by sitting on the turf with his arms raised, imploring the referee to come to his aid. At Craven Cottage earlier this month he reacted by raising his middle finger to the Fulham fans, for which he has also been charged by the FA.
In the judgment of the tribunal, Suárez was guilty of unacceptable behaviour. He should learn from that, rather than rail against perceived injustice. And Liverpool, a club with a long and proud history of their own, might in turn recognise the significance of the week's events to the long struggle in which Howard Gayle played a part all those years ago, and which allowed his successors – the likes of John Barnes, Mark Walters, Michael Thomas, David James, Ryan Babel and Glen Johnson – to go about their business in an atmosphere increasingly free from fear and hatred.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/dec/21/luis-suarez-liverpool-racism-fight
posted on 23/12/11
http://toffeeweb.com/season/03-04/comment/fans/fans31_Cox.asp
The Telegraph - 23 December 2011 - " Dr Manuel Barcia, Senior Lecturer in Latin American Studies and Deputy Director of the Institute for Colonial and Postcolonial Studies at University of Leeds, has been in touch and has a couple of points to make, largely in defence of Suarez.
First I think that the FA has blown the whole thing out of proportion. If indeed they agreed that Suarez was guilty, they should have warned him against future similar incidents. The lad just arrived and the whole idea that living in Holland is anything like living in the UK is total nonsense, at least for a Latin American immigrant who does not speak Dutch (that was my case and having lived in both in Holland and the UK I can tell you, they are as close as water and oil to me).
My second point refers to what I would call the very biased British perception of what constitutes racism and what doesn't.
Suarez was charged for calling Evra "Negr-", a term that across Hispanic speaking countries in Latin American is frequently used. I've been called Negr- several times; my best friend calls his brother "negri" just because he grew up using the term, and neither of them is black. Now, I am wondering why Patrice Evra can call Luis Suarez, in a very pejorative manner if we are to believe to the articles published by the Daily Telegraph, "a South American" and get away with it. Just think about it.
Had Suarez been an Arab or an Asian, would Evra had dared to tell him, "don't touch me you Asian" or "don't touch me you Arab". I don't think so. In my opinion there is very little understanding of the discrimination that Latin Americans suffer in places such as the USA and more close to home, Spain, where especially for people like Luis Suarez, born in the southern part of the Americas, they have the very offensive term "sudaca", which is the equivalent of "Pak-i" here in the UK. So, the FA considers discrimination based on the colour of the skin as racist, but discrimination based on your place of origin a fine thing? "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8969738/Liverpools-Luis-Suarez-guilty-of-racially-abusing-Patrice-Evra-live.html
The ensuing poll found these results :
What do you think of the FA's judgment of Luis Suarez?
Too lenient - 1,188
Firm but fair - 2,064
Satisfactory - 1,169
Too harsh - 2,515
Completely wrong - 6,615
Other - 12
13, 563 votes cast - which means that Kemlyn was absolutely correct in the assertion that people are 2-1 in favour of it being the wrong decision.
posted on 23/12/11
I wonder what the people voting other thought??
posted on 23/12/11
13, 563 votes cast
-----------------------
Of whom at least 6,615 are obviously kopites you belter.
Take a read of the press today & tell that the 2:1 'majority' exists outside of your own clubs fanbase?
posted on 23/12/11
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/jan/07/race.world
http://www.nsno.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=16043.15
TB - Do you seriously think Liverpool fans were falling over themselves to vote in a Telegraph poll? Which most probably don't even read. I suppose all the ones who said it was too lenient were all utd fans, because we all know only utd and Liverpool fans would have been reading it
You are shameless in you biased views. I know how bitter you are but come on, to suggest only Liverpool fans voted that it was 'completely wrong' is a stretch even for you!
Page 2 of 3