BillyBobTaunton
No, no evidence mate, I am using 'balance of probability', he's got form for this, so he probably lied!
============
well applying the same logic as yourself and the FA, he probably didn't lie
siempre
Haha, I thought it was perfectly clear that Liverpool were talking about 'guilty' as in found guilty by the courts, that is what I was talking about too, surprisingly!
Unless Liverpool football club have all of a sudden been given judicial licence to impose guilty verdicts on people who have been arrested, I thought this was pretty obvious....obviously not!
By the way, Suarez was not technically found guilty...the case against him was proven, the word guilty (I think I am right) was never used! A technicality I know, but I think this is how the FA and their panels have always worded their decisions!
Billybob, you should apply for the job as Liverpool's lawyer, you surely cant be worse than the shower they have got advising them now.
red666
Maybe not, I am guessing, isn't that good enough any more?
In fact, I am not guessing, I was being facetious before, I was presuming that you had read the report and therefore knew that Evra had lied about certain things...he told Fergie and the referee that he was called 'ni***er', he told Canal+ that he was called it ten times. He later admitted that he wasn't called 'n***er' and that he wasn't called it ten times! So, from what I can work out from all of this, is that Evra lied twice. He also saif he didn't use the word n***er on the pitch to the referee because he doesn't like using the word, but he was filmed using it himself and seemingly not being bothered about it a few years ago, another lie, maybe so, maybe he has just grown to dislike it in the last 4 years, who knows, my guess is that he was telling porkies again in order to substantiate his argument and excuse the discrepancies in his evidence!
The above facts are in the report, and are part of Evra's testimony, so I guess they can be called evidence, evidence of lying!
from the Telegraph no less
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8967560/Luis-Suarez-found-guilty-eight-match-ban-and-40000-fine-for-race-abuse-row-with-Patrice-Evra-angers-Liverpool.html
BillyBobTaunton
All that is left for me to say, is that the Fa and Evra declared that Suarez wasn't a racist and at no popint was Evra called a liar.
I have said before at the time FIFA were defending Blatter after the English FA had condemed Blatter for his remarks
and from Liverpool themselves
"The Anfield club also said they were ‘very surprised and disappointed with the decision’. The statement added: ‘We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone
Siempre
Haha, he was poor it seems! He should imo have made a big deal of the fact that Evra gave his evidence to the FA investigators whilst watching the video of the incident with them...this evidence then formed the 'prosecution' case against Suarez.
Yet when the hearing started, neither Liverpool nor the panel had any knowledge that Evra had met with the FA and went through the video. The notes from that meeting were not part of the 'bundle' that was presented to Liverpool's lawyer and Suarez had no access to the video that they used until the hearing itself! The FA said they 'forgot' about the notes and then went and found them so Liverpool could see them!!!
The lawyer agreed to let it pass after skimming over the notes prior to Evra's evidence being presented to the panel! That to me is poor lawyering, it could have easily been shown that the FA was with-holding evidence, but he let it go...I imagine he is either not at Liverpool any more, or at least won't be much longer!
oops caught send
anyway FIFA told the FA to sort there own problems out which put our thick FA in a corner.
good night
red666
Ok mate...as i'm banned off the United board you may not see much of me around, nice chat!
siempre
Obviously the Telegraph and Liverpool don't understand the FA's terminology!
no but they used the same terminology when talking about life bans. looks like their stance is about as consistent as Suarez's testimony.
siempre
Oh, I see what you are saying now!
Because Suarez was guilty then he should be banned for life if Liverpool are to be consistent, is that what you have been getting at for the last hour?
Anyway, it's obvious what Liverpool are saying with regards to the fans, i.e. if found guilty by the courts, and it is also obvious that Liverpool do not accept the 'proven/guilty' verdict against Suarez.
That last paragraph actually encapsulates this whole issue. The verdict against Suarez should imo have been delivered with evidence to support the decision, and should have left people in no doubt as to what happened! I know the remit that the panel had was not as stringent as the law courts but seriously, does anyone want/like it the way that it is? If something cannot be proven then deliver a 'not proven' verdict, don't guess at it...by guessing at it, it makes a mockery of the whole process imo and just becomes 'some blokes' opinion!
nearly every court case is decided on some blokes (or 12 blokes) opinion. thats how the justice system works. very very rarely is there conclusive proof.
There is usually some evidence though, other than one person's word isn't there? The odd independent witness maybe, some video evidence, stuff like that!
Having said that, the incident happened in a crowded penalty area and the two of them were no further than 4 yards away from at least 9 other players, including a Spanish speaking keeper, in a game that was broadcast around the world by numerous broadcasting companies that provided 30+ cameras and microphones.
So it is no surprise that Suarez' 5 episodes of racial abuse, sorry, 10 episodes of racial abuse, sorry, 7 episodes of racial abuse...I always get that bit mixed up, so it's no surprise that no video,audio or witness evidence was available, I mean what are the chances of that! Silly me thinking that there would be some sort of evidence given the amount of times it happened!!!
Hold on a minute, didn't Evra tell Canal+ that you can see the abuse on television, yep, yes he did...so if you can see Suarez abusing Evra on television then where is the footage? Unless Evra was lying again...hmmmm, not very credible is he!
show me a link to a single occasion where Evra is proven to have lied.
I am sorry BB but you and your adopted club are digging such a deep hole you will be playing in the Australian league next season.
watch this for a completely impartial view of the saga
http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,26691,13989_7463880,00.html
dont let the truth get in the way of a good excuse, see below :
On Saturday, Patrice Evra of Manchester United accused Luis Suarez of Liverpool of making racist remarks towards him. Unfortunately, though the ‘of”s in the previous sentence should not be of importance, they have been made so. It has become about football. This is not an incident about football. It took place on a football pitch, between two men wearing football shirts, but it’s not about football. To bastardise a famous Bill Shankly quote, it’s much more important than that.
Immediately after the allegations were made, a lot of people reacted based on which team they supported. United fans were quick to label Suarez a racist, with certainty, whilst Liverpool fans accused Evra of lying, also with certainty.
The latter however, took a somewhat more sinister form. Liverpool fans, and employees, claimed Evra had a history of playing the ‘race card’. For those who don’t know, the race card refers to exploitation of racist attitudes to gain a personal advantage, typically by falsely accusing others of racism against oneself. In essence, they were saying Evra had in the past lied about being targeted by racial abuse. A very serious claim, I’m sure you’ll agree. It stands to reason that if it is a serious thing to claim racist abuse, it is also a serious thing to claim someone has lied about claiming racial abuse.
Liverpool’s official website columnist, Kristian Walsh, claimed on Twitter that “Patrice Evra has accused racism of three players before today. All three have been cleared.” This tweet was retweeted by hundreds of Liverpool fans, as were similar ones. The problem was, that it wasn’t remotely true, not one bit.
In fact, before Saturday, Evra had accused zero people of racism, not the three quoted by Mr. Walsh and dozens of other Liverpool fans, not two, nor even one. There have been two incidents involving Evra and accusations of racial insults, the only problem is that Evra did not claim in either that he was racially abused – the claims came from others.
In the 2006 case of claimed racial abuse by Steve Finnan, the accusation was levelled at Finnan by a deaf fan who claimed he lip-read the racial slur. Evra declined to complain. A rather odd thing to do for a man with a supposed inclination to play the race card, I’m sure you’ll agree.
In the case with involving Chelsea groundsman, Sam Bethell, it was Mike Phelan and Richard Hartis of Manchester United’s coaching staff who claimed they heard the abuse. As the FA report says “The two witnesses who say they heard those words directed by Mr Bethell at Mr Evra are the Manchester United first team coach Mr Mike Phelan and the goalkeeping coach Mr Richard Hartis.” It later goes on to say “Even if we disregard the fact that Mr Evra has never claimed to have heard such a remark on that day, it is notable that there were several other people far nearer to Mr Bethell at the critical point in time than were either Mr Phelan or Mr Hartis.”
So in reality, Evra accused neither Finnan nor Bethell of a racist remark. The claims were made by others. These are the cold, hard facts.
Liverpool is a club that has been hit hard by lies in the past, namely by the despicable Kelvin Mackenzie and The Sun. One might therefore assume that their fans would be careful to ensure that they themselves endeavor to have the full facts of any case emerge. Of course, accusations of racism against Luis Suarez and accusations of the actions of fans on a day where 96 people died are on different scales, however the principle should remain. If in one instance you abhor lies being told where an accusation is made, you should probably endeavor not do so yourself in another instance.
Siempre
I have already explained to you that Evra lied at least three, and possibly four times during the course of this incident!
Lie 1: He claimed he was called a n****er to both Fergie and the referee.
He wasn't called a n****er, he later changed his story to being called negro. That makes his first claim a lie.
Lie 2: He said he was called n****er ten times to Canal+.
He wasn't called n****er once, but anyway...he wasn't called anything 10 times, he later changed his story to 5 times, making his first claim a lie.
Lie 3: He said the abuse was captured on TV and it can be seen by everyone.
It wasn't, not one piece of evidence was captured on video/audio...never mind 10, not 1!
Lie 4: He said he never told the referee he was being called a n****er on the pitch, because he doesn't like to use the word.
He was captured on camera using the word in a joking manner a few years ago, referring to Hasselbaink as a n****er!
The link you so desperately crave as evidence is the actual report, Evra admits to not being called a n****er, he admits that he was not abused 10 times, the panel inform us that there is no video evidence and Evra's n****er rant is widely available on youtube, I'm sure you've seen it so I won't bother posting that link!
Anyway, here you go...http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written%20reasons/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.ashx
I am not sure why you posted that long piece about Evra's past non-existent racial abuse claims!
Unless you are suggesting that I have said Evra has accused people of racism in the past, which I haven't, I fail to see the point you are trying to make!
Or are you pointing out that other people have got it wrong about Evra in the past? Fair enough if that's what you are striving for...what that has to do with me and this debate I do not know...I'll happily stick with providing you with evidence of Evra's lies in this most recent case, that's what you asked for, that's what you have been given....enjoy!
siempre
As for your impartial link, hahaha, do me a favour!
If you really think Evra was booed because he was black or because he was the victim of racial abuse then you really haven't listened to anything that anybody has said on this matter!
Seriously, why do you think Evra was booed?
Anyway, let's face facts here...Liverpool fans feel that Suarez was unfairly treated and was found guilty when there was no evidence to prove his guilt, Evra was the reason for this and thus he was booed. If Suarez had been found not guilty then Evra would have been booed. The only way that Evra would not have been booed yesterday was imo if the FA had proved Suarez' guilt...but they did not, they guessed at it and due to inconsistencies with Evra's version of events they feel it is unfair, and I agree!
Evra had a decision to make that day, he could have came off the pitch and taken a while to understand what had happened, but he didn't, he accused Suarez of racially abusing but crucially got the actual abusive term wrong, he misunderstood Suarez by his own admission but still charged ahead with his untrue account, he deserves to be booed in my opinion, not because of his skin colour, but because he started all this and it was all based on a lie, he was never called n****er! That to me is reason to boo him, and ironically he may well have been booed into making the mistake that led to Liverpool's winning goal, never mind!
the panel's conclusion was that Evra's evidence was reliable and that Suarez's wasn't. That was a decision made by three people, one of them a very experienced QC who heard all the evidence. So I prefer their opinion to yours if you don't mind.
I see United fans are still sticking with Evra and Liverpool fans are still backing Suarez
I have a question. Only a theoretical one to make a salient point
If it had been Carragher that had called Evra 'Negro' or even 'black something', like JT allegedly, what would Liverpool fans have expected to happen?
i can't get my head around people coming out with this 'negro' only means black where he comes from.
So what? it is still firmly against FA rules which all players playing here have a duty to know.
I can't have a beer on the streets of Saudi just because it's ok where I come from
Those people saying he only called him black make it sound as if that is perfectly ok.
Is it really ok for someone like Phil Jones to say to Emile Heskey, 'Hey, you aint getting past me black man'?
Macca,
To be honest, I think Liverpool fans reaction to Evra on Saturday, said it all about them to be honest.
Every single one of them who booed Evra was condoning racism on the football pitch as far as I am concerned.
Liverpool had a chance as a club to move forward, they did not choose to do so.
That's a shame VidicsChin, as we all hold your opinion in the highest esteem.
Bobby
I couldn't really care less, as I have no idea who you are.
it was an example of scousers, as ever, being classless.
Sign in if you want to comment
United allocation reduced!
Page 22 of 26
22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26
posted on 30/1/12
BillyBobTaunton
No, no evidence mate, I am using 'balance of probability', he's got form for this, so he probably lied!
============
well applying the same logic as yourself and the FA, he probably didn't lie
posted on 30/1/12
siempre
Haha, I thought it was perfectly clear that Liverpool were talking about 'guilty' as in found guilty by the courts, that is what I was talking about too, surprisingly!
Unless Liverpool football club have all of a sudden been given judicial licence to impose guilty verdicts on people who have been arrested, I thought this was pretty obvious....obviously not!
By the way, Suarez was not technically found guilty...the case against him was proven, the word guilty (I think I am right) was never used! A technicality I know, but I think this is how the FA and their panels have always worded their decisions!
posted on 30/1/12
Billybob, you should apply for the job as Liverpool's lawyer, you surely cant be worse than the shower they have got advising them now.
posted on 30/1/12
red666
Maybe not, I am guessing, isn't that good enough any more?
In fact, I am not guessing, I was being facetious before, I was presuming that you had read the report and therefore knew that Evra had lied about certain things...he told Fergie and the referee that he was called 'ni***er', he told Canal+ that he was called it ten times. He later admitted that he wasn't called 'n***er' and that he wasn't called it ten times! So, from what I can work out from all of this, is that Evra lied twice. He also saif he didn't use the word n***er on the pitch to the referee because he doesn't like using the word, but he was filmed using it himself and seemingly not being bothered about it a few years ago, another lie, maybe so, maybe he has just grown to dislike it in the last 4 years, who knows, my guess is that he was telling porkies again in order to substantiate his argument and excuse the discrepancies in his evidence!
The above facts are in the report, and are part of Evra's testimony, so I guess they can be called evidence, evidence of lying!
posted on 30/1/12
from the Telegraph no less
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8967560/Luis-Suarez-found-guilty-eight-match-ban-and-40000-fine-for-race-abuse-row-with-Patrice-Evra-angers-Liverpool.html
posted on 30/1/12
BillyBobTaunton
All that is left for me to say, is that the Fa and Evra declared that Suarez wasn't a racist and at no popint was Evra called a liar.
I have said before at the time FIFA were defending Blatter after the English FA had condemed Blatter for his remarks
posted on 30/1/12
and from Liverpool themselves
"The Anfield club also said they were ‘very surprised and disappointed with the decision’. The statement added: ‘We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone
posted on 30/1/12
Siempre
Haha, he was poor it seems! He should imo have made a big deal of the fact that Evra gave his evidence to the FA investigators whilst watching the video of the incident with them...this evidence then formed the 'prosecution' case against Suarez.
Yet when the hearing started, neither Liverpool nor the panel had any knowledge that Evra had met with the FA and went through the video. The notes from that meeting were not part of the 'bundle' that was presented to Liverpool's lawyer and Suarez had no access to the video that they used until the hearing itself! The FA said they 'forgot' about the notes and then went and found them so Liverpool could see them!!!
The lawyer agreed to let it pass after skimming over the notes prior to Evra's evidence being presented to the panel! That to me is poor lawyering, it could have easily been shown that the FA was with-holding evidence, but he let it go...I imagine he is either not at Liverpool any more, or at least won't be much longer!
posted on 30/1/12
oops caught send
anyway FIFA told the FA to sort there own problems out which put our thick FA in a corner.
good night
posted on 30/1/12
red666
Ok mate...as i'm banned off the United board you may not see much of me around, nice chat!
posted on 30/1/12
siempre
Obviously the Telegraph and Liverpool don't understand the FA's terminology!
posted on 30/1/12
no but they used the same terminology when talking about life bans. looks like their stance is about as consistent as Suarez's testimony.
posted on 31/1/12
siempre
Oh, I see what you are saying now!
Because Suarez was guilty then he should be banned for life if Liverpool are to be consistent, is that what you have been getting at for the last hour?
Anyway, it's obvious what Liverpool are saying with regards to the fans, i.e. if found guilty by the courts, and it is also obvious that Liverpool do not accept the 'proven/guilty' verdict against Suarez.
That last paragraph actually encapsulates this whole issue. The verdict against Suarez should imo have been delivered with evidence to support the decision, and should have left people in no doubt as to what happened! I know the remit that the panel had was not as stringent as the law courts but seriously, does anyone want/like it the way that it is? If something cannot be proven then deliver a 'not proven' verdict, don't guess at it...by guessing at it, it makes a mockery of the whole process imo and just becomes 'some blokes' opinion!
posted on 31/1/12
nearly every court case is decided on some blokes (or 12 blokes) opinion. thats how the justice system works. very very rarely is there conclusive proof.
posted on 31/1/12
There is usually some evidence though, other than one person's word isn't there? The odd independent witness maybe, some video evidence, stuff like that!
Having said that, the incident happened in a crowded penalty area and the two of them were no further than 4 yards away from at least 9 other players, including a Spanish speaking keeper, in a game that was broadcast around the world by numerous broadcasting companies that provided 30+ cameras and microphones.
So it is no surprise that Suarez' 5 episodes of racial abuse, sorry, 10 episodes of racial abuse, sorry, 7 episodes of racial abuse...I always get that bit mixed up, so it's no surprise that no video,audio or witness evidence was available, I mean what are the chances of that! Silly me thinking that there would be some sort of evidence given the amount of times it happened!!!
Hold on a minute, didn't Evra tell Canal+ that you can see the abuse on television, yep, yes he did...so if you can see Suarez abusing Evra on television then where is the footage? Unless Evra was lying again...hmmmm, not very credible is he!
posted on 31/1/12
show me a link to a single occasion where Evra is proven to have lied.
I am sorry BB but you and your adopted club are digging such a deep hole you will be playing in the Australian league next season.
watch this for a completely impartial view of the saga
http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,26691,13989_7463880,00.html
posted on 31/1/12
dont let the truth get in the way of a good excuse, see below :
On Saturday, Patrice Evra of Manchester United accused Luis Suarez of Liverpool of making racist remarks towards him. Unfortunately, though the ‘of”s in the previous sentence should not be of importance, they have been made so. It has become about football. This is not an incident about football. It took place on a football pitch, between two men wearing football shirts, but it’s not about football. To bastardise a famous Bill Shankly quote, it’s much more important than that.
Immediately after the allegations were made, a lot of people reacted based on which team they supported. United fans were quick to label Suarez a racist, with certainty, whilst Liverpool fans accused Evra of lying, also with certainty.
The latter however, took a somewhat more sinister form. Liverpool fans, and employees, claimed Evra had a history of playing the ‘race card’. For those who don’t know, the race card refers to exploitation of racist attitudes to gain a personal advantage, typically by falsely accusing others of racism against oneself. In essence, they were saying Evra had in the past lied about being targeted by racial abuse. A very serious claim, I’m sure you’ll agree. It stands to reason that if it is a serious thing to claim racist abuse, it is also a serious thing to claim someone has lied about claiming racial abuse.
Liverpool’s official website columnist, Kristian Walsh, claimed on Twitter that “Patrice Evra has accused racism of three players before today. All three have been cleared.” This tweet was retweeted by hundreds of Liverpool fans, as were similar ones. The problem was, that it wasn’t remotely true, not one bit.
In fact, before Saturday, Evra had accused zero people of racism, not the three quoted by Mr. Walsh and dozens of other Liverpool fans, not two, nor even one. There have been two incidents involving Evra and accusations of racial insults, the only problem is that Evra did not claim in either that he was racially abused – the claims came from others.
In the 2006 case of claimed racial abuse by Steve Finnan, the accusation was levelled at Finnan by a deaf fan who claimed he lip-read the racial slur. Evra declined to complain. A rather odd thing to do for a man with a supposed inclination to play the race card, I’m sure you’ll agree.
In the case with involving Chelsea groundsman, Sam Bethell, it was Mike Phelan and Richard Hartis of Manchester United’s coaching staff who claimed they heard the abuse. As the FA report says “The two witnesses who say they heard those words directed by Mr Bethell at Mr Evra are the Manchester United first team coach Mr Mike Phelan and the goalkeeping coach Mr Richard Hartis.” It later goes on to say “Even if we disregard the fact that Mr Evra has never claimed to have heard such a remark on that day, it is notable that there were several other people far nearer to Mr Bethell at the critical point in time than were either Mr Phelan or Mr Hartis.”
So in reality, Evra accused neither Finnan nor Bethell of a racist remark. The claims were made by others. These are the cold, hard facts.
Liverpool is a club that has been hit hard by lies in the past, namely by the despicable Kelvin Mackenzie and The Sun. One might therefore assume that their fans would be careful to ensure that they themselves endeavor to have the full facts of any case emerge. Of course, accusations of racism against Luis Suarez and accusations of the actions of fans on a day where 96 people died are on different scales, however the principle should remain. If in one instance you abhor lies being told where an accusation is made, you should probably endeavor not do so yourself in another instance.
posted on 31/1/12
Siempre
I have already explained to you that Evra lied at least three, and possibly four times during the course of this incident!
Lie 1: He claimed he was called a n****er to both Fergie and the referee.
He wasn't called a n****er, he later changed his story to being called negro. That makes his first claim a lie.
Lie 2: He said he was called n****er ten times to Canal+.
He wasn't called n****er once, but anyway...he wasn't called anything 10 times, he later changed his story to 5 times, making his first claim a lie.
Lie 3: He said the abuse was captured on TV and it can be seen by everyone.
It wasn't, not one piece of evidence was captured on video/audio...never mind 10, not 1!
Lie 4: He said he never told the referee he was being called a n****er on the pitch, because he doesn't like to use the word.
He was captured on camera using the word in a joking manner a few years ago, referring to Hasselbaink as a n****er!
The link you so desperately crave as evidence is the actual report, Evra admits to not being called a n****er, he admits that he was not abused 10 times, the panel inform us that there is no video evidence and Evra's n****er rant is widely available on youtube, I'm sure you've seen it so I won't bother posting that link!
Anyway, here you go...http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written%20reasons/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.ashx
I am not sure why you posted that long piece about Evra's past non-existent racial abuse claims!
Unless you are suggesting that I have said Evra has accused people of racism in the past, which I haven't, I fail to see the point you are trying to make!
Or are you pointing out that other people have got it wrong about Evra in the past? Fair enough if that's what you are striving for...what that has to do with me and this debate I do not know...I'll happily stick with providing you with evidence of Evra's lies in this most recent case, that's what you asked for, that's what you have been given....enjoy!
posted on 31/1/12
siempre
As for your impartial link, hahaha, do me a favour!
If you really think Evra was booed because he was black or because he was the victim of racial abuse then you really haven't listened to anything that anybody has said on this matter!
Seriously, why do you think Evra was booed?
Anyway, let's face facts here...Liverpool fans feel that Suarez was unfairly treated and was found guilty when there was no evidence to prove his guilt, Evra was the reason for this and thus he was booed. If Suarez had been found not guilty then Evra would have been booed. The only way that Evra would not have been booed yesterday was imo if the FA had proved Suarez' guilt...but they did not, they guessed at it and due to inconsistencies with Evra's version of events they feel it is unfair, and I agree!
Evra had a decision to make that day, he could have came off the pitch and taken a while to understand what had happened, but he didn't, he accused Suarez of racially abusing but crucially got the actual abusive term wrong, he misunderstood Suarez by his own admission but still charged ahead with his untrue account, he deserves to be booed in my opinion, not because of his skin colour, but because he started all this and it was all based on a lie, he was never called n****er! That to me is reason to boo him, and ironically he may well have been booed into making the mistake that led to Liverpool's winning goal, never mind!
posted on 31/1/12
the panel's conclusion was that Evra's evidence was reliable and that Suarez's wasn't. That was a decision made by three people, one of them a very experienced QC who heard all the evidence. So I prefer their opinion to yours if you don't mind.
posted on 31/1/12
I see United fans are still sticking with Evra and Liverpool fans are still backing Suarez
I have a question. Only a theoretical one to make a salient point
If it had been Carragher that had called Evra 'Negro' or even 'black something', like JT allegedly, what would Liverpool fans have expected to happen?
i can't get my head around people coming out with this 'negro' only means black where he comes from.
So what? it is still firmly against FA rules which all players playing here have a duty to know.
I can't have a beer on the streets of Saudi just because it's ok where I come from
Those people saying he only called him black make it sound as if that is perfectly ok.
Is it really ok for someone like Phil Jones to say to Emile Heskey, 'Hey, you aint getting past me black man'?
posted on 31/1/12
Macca,
To be honest, I think Liverpool fans reaction to Evra on Saturday, said it all about them to be honest.
Every single one of them who booed Evra was condoning racism on the football pitch as far as I am concerned.
Liverpool had a chance as a club to move forward, they did not choose to do so.
posted on 31/1/12
That's a shame VidicsChin, as we all hold your opinion in the highest esteem.
posted on 31/1/12
Bobby
I couldn't really care less, as I have no idea who you are.
posted on 31/1/12
it was an example of scousers, as ever, being classless.
Page 22 of 26
22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26