comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 8 seconds ago
I mean in relation to Evra.
--------------
You mean what in relation to Evra?
-------------------------------
Let's start again Ripley as you seem to be annoying me now.
I don't think Suarez wanted to apologise in relation to refusing to shake Evra's hand. The club forced him to and probably told him what to say, therefore I doubt he meant any of it or even was sorry at all.
I'm sure there was some form of guilt when thinking of the harm he'd caused the club and Kenny when Kenny had suggested beforehand that Suarez would shake Evra's hand but then this didn't materialise.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
This wasn't a severe case?
----------------------------------------
Yes of course it was. Which is why they decided to use the insulting rule to also hit Suarez with the reference to skin colour bit.
------------------------------------
So why didn't they punish Evra for abusing Suarez?
"War & peace" has got flucc all on this!!!!!!!
TOOR.
can you walk into a shop and refer to the staff by just their colour? no.
would they consider this insulting? yes.
(answers extrapolated from your longwinded replies)
insulting someone by referencing their colour is........ yes, you guessed it, a racist insult. well done have a
and now i'm going home. have a fun evening all
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
So why didn't they punish Evra for abusing Suarez?
-----------------------------------
Because he didnt reference skin colour?
comment by VictorGooner™ (U2027)
posted 9 seconds ago
TOOR.
can you walk into a shop and refer to the staff by just their colour? no.
would they consider this insulting? yes.
------------------------------------------------
Yes I could. Would I? No. Would it be racist ABUSE? No.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by VictorGooner™ (U2027)
posted 9 seconds ago
TOOR.
can you walk into a shop and refer to the staff by just their colour? no.
would they consider this insulting? yes.
------------------------------------------------
Yes I could. Would I? No. Would it be racist ABUSE? No.
------------------------------------
It could be if you said it in a certain way and sneered. Quite easily.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
So why didn't they punish Evra for abusing Suarez?
-----------------------------------
Because he didnt reference skin colour?
-----------------------------------
But he did abuse Suarez. If Suarez received a four game ban for abuse, then why didn't Evra, when actually he admitted to abusing Suarez and there was no evidence that Suarez abused Evra?
Could it be that the FA were trying to take the moral high ground with FIFA after recent events between them and wanted to be seen as tough on racism? Therefore decided to ban Suarez and let Evra off?
TOORON, no doubt you filter those, who like me see you for the sad little person you are, you'd never WUMFI anyone feeding you the attention you need.
if you walked into a shop and called the shop assistant "Fatty" im sure they wudnt be impressed either.
its an insult NOT racist
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
But he did abuse Suarez. If Suarez received a four game ban for abuse, then why didn't Evra, when actually he admitted to abusing Suarez and there was no evidence that Suarez abused Evra?
-----------------------------------------------
I think that in order to charge him for the reference to skin colour they have to first charge him for the abuse bit.
As Evra didnt reference skin colour they didnt think that the abuse was serious enough on its own to warrant charging him. Had Evra mentioned skin colour then they would have charged him with both also.
comment by Anfield of Dreams (U6971)
posted 3 seconds ago
if you walked into a shop and called the shop assistant "Fatty" im sure they wudnt be impressed either.
its an insult NOT racist
-----------------------
Did you really just write that?
Elvis.... you just hit the nail on the head
"i think..."
Which is what the FA did...it was just their opinions. one mans word versus the other with no prooof of racism
comment by Anfield of Dreams (U6971)
posted 3 seconds ago
if you walked into a shop and called the shop assistant "Fatty" im sure they wudnt be impressed either.
its an insult NOT racist
-----------------------
Did you really just write that?
----------------------------------------
ummm yes...in refernce to walking into a shop nd saying "hey black"...its all about interpretation. maybe the shop assistant wudnt mind being called black. if they did it wudnt be racist it wud be insutlting to them
comment by Anfield of Dreams (U6971)
posted 11 seconds ago
Elvis.... you just hit the nail on the head
"i think..."
Which is what the FA did...it was just their opinions. one mans word versus the other with no prooof of racism
---------------------------------
Suarez admitted it from his own mouth. What more do you want? They said he wasnt racist. However, he referenced Evra's skin. So he was guilty. Whether he meant to use it as an insult is debatable - but he was guilty of the charges brought against him.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
But he did abuse Suarez. If Suarez received a four game ban for abuse, then why didn't Evra, when actually he admitted to abusing Suarez and there was no evidence that Suarez abused Evra?
-----------------------------------------------
I think that in order to charge him for the reference to skin colour they have to first charge him for the abuse bit.
-------------------------------
That's not true. They charged him secondly with abusing him in relation to abuse. Firstly for abuse. Again I ask, why wasn't Evra charged with this first rule?
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Anfield of Dreams (U6971)
posted 11 seconds ago
Elvis.... you just hit the nail on the head
"i think..."
Which is what the FA did...it was just their opinions. one mans word versus the other with no prooof of racism
---------------------------------
Suarez admitted it from his own mouth.
--------------------------------
No. Suarez did not admit to racially abusing Evra. He admitted to asking, "why, black?" which is not even abuse as there is no derogative used, nevermind racist abuse.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
That's not true. They charged him secondly with abusing him in relation to abuse. Firstly for abuse. Again I ask, why wasn't Evra charged with this first rule?
---------------------------------------
Do you have information that proves this? It is something that I have tried and failed to clarify myself. A link would be good if you have one?
in a court of a law, he would not have been found guilty!!
this was merely a kangaroo court for scoring points.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
That's not true. They charged him secondly with abusing him in relation to abuse. Firstly for abuse. Again I ask, why wasn't Evra charged with this first rule?
---------------------------------------
Do you have information that proves this?
----------------------------------------
it's in your post where you posted two charges. One relating to abuse and one relating to racist abuse.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Anfield of Dreams (U6971)
posted 11 seconds ago
Elvis.... you just hit the nail on the head
"i think..."
Which is what the FA did...it was just their opinions. one mans word versus the other with no prooof of racism
---------------------------------
Suarez admitted it from his own mouth.
--------------------------------
No. Suarez did not admit to racially abusing Evra. He admitted to asking, "why, black?" which is not even abuse as there is no derogative used, nevermind racist abuse.
------------------------------------------
Where did I say that he admitted to racially abusing Evra? I said that he admitted to referencing his skin colour.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Anfield of Dreams (U6971)
posted 11 seconds ago
Elvis.... you just hit the nail on the head
"i think..."
Which is what the FA did...it was just their opinions. one mans word versus the other with no prooof of racism
---------------------------------
Suarez admitted it from his own mouth.
--------------------------------
No. Suarez did not admit to racially abusing Evra. He admitted to asking, "why, black?" which is not even abuse as there is no derogative used, nevermind racist abuse.
------------------------------------------
Where did I say that he admitted to racially abusing Evra? I said that he admitted to referencing his skin colour.
------------------------------------------------
So why was Suarez charged with racist abuse and not with referencing skin colour?
Evra came out of this whole saga looking the more professional and civil.... Having read the surez judgement statement time and time again, i still dont think surez was guilty....never an intent there...... however, abit childish not to shake his hand
TOOR: Just fùck off, soft lad.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
it's in your post where you posted two charges. One relating to abuse and one relating to racist abuse.
---------------------------------------------
Well that doesnt clarify it for me. The two charges are part of the same rule . Which is why I believe (but arent sure) that in order to have access to the second part of the rule, they must first charge the player with the first part.
Sign in if you want to comment
Evra
Page 11 of 16
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
posted on 14/2/12
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 8 seconds ago
I mean in relation to Evra.
--------------
You mean what in relation to Evra?
-------------------------------
Let's start again Ripley as you seem to be annoying me now.
I don't think Suarez wanted to apologise in relation to refusing to shake Evra's hand. The club forced him to and probably told him what to say, therefore I doubt he meant any of it or even was sorry at all.
I'm sure there was some form of guilt when thinking of the harm he'd caused the club and Kenny when Kenny had suggested beforehand that Suarez would shake Evra's hand but then this didn't materialise.
posted on 14/2/12
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
This wasn't a severe case?
----------------------------------------
Yes of course it was. Which is why they decided to use the insulting rule to also hit Suarez with the reference to skin colour bit.
------------------------------------
So why didn't they punish Evra for abusing Suarez?
posted on 14/2/12
"War & peace" has got flucc all on this!!!!!!!
posted on 14/2/12
TOOR.
can you walk into a shop and refer to the staff by just their colour? no.
would they consider this insulting? yes.
(answers extrapolated from your longwinded replies)
insulting someone by referencing their colour is........ yes, you guessed it, a racist insult. well done have a
and now i'm going home. have a fun evening all
posted on 14/2/12
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
So why didn't they punish Evra for abusing Suarez?
-----------------------------------
Because he didnt reference skin colour?
posted on 14/2/12
comment by VictorGooner™ (U2027)
posted 9 seconds ago
TOOR.
can you walk into a shop and refer to the staff by just their colour? no.
would they consider this insulting? yes.
------------------------------------------------
Yes I could. Would I? No. Would it be racist ABUSE? No.
posted on 14/2/12
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by VictorGooner™ (U2027)
posted 9 seconds ago
TOOR.
can you walk into a shop and refer to the staff by just their colour? no.
would they consider this insulting? yes.
------------------------------------------------
Yes I could. Would I? No. Would it be racist ABUSE? No.
------------------------------------
It could be if you said it in a certain way and sneered. Quite easily.
posted on 14/2/12
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
So why didn't they punish Evra for abusing Suarez?
-----------------------------------
Because he didnt reference skin colour?
-----------------------------------
But he did abuse Suarez. If Suarez received a four game ban for abuse, then why didn't Evra, when actually he admitted to abusing Suarez and there was no evidence that Suarez abused Evra?
Could it be that the FA were trying to take the moral high ground with FIFA after recent events between them and wanted to be seen as tough on racism? Therefore decided to ban Suarez and let Evra off?
posted on 14/2/12
TOORON, no doubt you filter those, who like me see you for the sad little person you are, you'd never WUMFI anyone feeding you the attention you need.
posted on 14/2/12
if you walked into a shop and called the shop assistant "Fatty" im sure they wudnt be impressed either.
its an insult NOT racist
posted on 14/2/12
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
But he did abuse Suarez. If Suarez received a four game ban for abuse, then why didn't Evra, when actually he admitted to abusing Suarez and there was no evidence that Suarez abused Evra?
-----------------------------------------------
I think that in order to charge him for the reference to skin colour they have to first charge him for the abuse bit.
As Evra didnt reference skin colour they didnt think that the abuse was serious enough on its own to warrant charging him. Had Evra mentioned skin colour then they would have charged him with both also.
posted on 14/2/12
comment by Anfield of Dreams (U6971)
posted 3 seconds ago
if you walked into a shop and called the shop assistant "Fatty" im sure they wudnt be impressed either.
its an insult NOT racist
-----------------------
Did you really just write that?
posted on 14/2/12
Elvis.... you just hit the nail on the head
"i think..."
Which is what the FA did...it was just their opinions. one mans word versus the other with no prooof of racism
posted on 14/2/12
comment by Anfield of Dreams (U6971)
posted 3 seconds ago
if you walked into a shop and called the shop assistant "Fatty" im sure they wudnt be impressed either.
its an insult NOT racist
-----------------------
Did you really just write that?
----------------------------------------
ummm yes...in refernce to walking into a shop nd saying "hey black"...its all about interpretation. maybe the shop assistant wudnt mind being called black. if they did it wudnt be racist it wud be insutlting to them
posted on 14/2/12
comment by Anfield of Dreams (U6971)
posted 11 seconds ago
Elvis.... you just hit the nail on the head
"i think..."
Which is what the FA did...it was just their opinions. one mans word versus the other with no prooof of racism
---------------------------------
Suarez admitted it from his own mouth. What more do you want? They said he wasnt racist. However, he referenced Evra's skin. So he was guilty. Whether he meant to use it as an insult is debatable - but he was guilty of the charges brought against him.
posted on 14/2/12
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
But he did abuse Suarez. If Suarez received a four game ban for abuse, then why didn't Evra, when actually he admitted to abusing Suarez and there was no evidence that Suarez abused Evra?
-----------------------------------------------
I think that in order to charge him for the reference to skin colour they have to first charge him for the abuse bit.
-------------------------------
That's not true. They charged him secondly with abusing him in relation to abuse. Firstly for abuse. Again I ask, why wasn't Evra charged with this first rule?
posted on 14/2/12
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Anfield of Dreams (U6971)
posted 11 seconds ago
Elvis.... you just hit the nail on the head
"i think..."
Which is what the FA did...it was just their opinions. one mans word versus the other with no prooof of racism
---------------------------------
Suarez admitted it from his own mouth.
--------------------------------
No. Suarez did not admit to racially abusing Evra. He admitted to asking, "why, black?" which is not even abuse as there is no derogative used, nevermind racist abuse.
posted on 14/2/12
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
That's not true. They charged him secondly with abusing him in relation to abuse. Firstly for abuse. Again I ask, why wasn't Evra charged with this first rule?
---------------------------------------
Do you have information that proves this? It is something that I have tried and failed to clarify myself. A link would be good if you have one?
posted on 14/2/12
in a court of a law, he would not have been found guilty!!
this was merely a kangaroo court for scoring points.
posted on 14/2/12
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
That's not true. They charged him secondly with abusing him in relation to abuse. Firstly for abuse. Again I ask, why wasn't Evra charged with this first rule?
---------------------------------------
Do you have information that proves this?
----------------------------------------
it's in your post where you posted two charges. One relating to abuse and one relating to racist abuse.
posted on 14/2/12
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Anfield of Dreams (U6971)
posted 11 seconds ago
Elvis.... you just hit the nail on the head
"i think..."
Which is what the FA did...it was just their opinions. one mans word versus the other with no prooof of racism
---------------------------------
Suarez admitted it from his own mouth.
--------------------------------
No. Suarez did not admit to racially abusing Evra. He admitted to asking, "why, black?" which is not even abuse as there is no derogative used, nevermind racist abuse.
------------------------------------------
Where did I say that he admitted to racially abusing Evra? I said that he admitted to referencing his skin colour.
posted on 14/2/12
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Anfield of Dreams (U6971)
posted 11 seconds ago
Elvis.... you just hit the nail on the head
"i think..."
Which is what the FA did...it was just their opinions. one mans word versus the other with no prooof of racism
---------------------------------
Suarez admitted it from his own mouth.
--------------------------------
No. Suarez did not admit to racially abusing Evra. He admitted to asking, "why, black?" which is not even abuse as there is no derogative used, nevermind racist abuse.
------------------------------------------
Where did I say that he admitted to racially abusing Evra? I said that he admitted to referencing his skin colour.
------------------------------------------------
So why was Suarez charged with racist abuse and not with referencing skin colour?
posted on 14/2/12
Evra came out of this whole saga looking the more professional and civil.... Having read the surez judgement statement time and time again, i still dont think surez was guilty....never an intent there...... however, abit childish not to shake his hand
posted on 14/2/12
TOOR: Just fùck off, soft lad.
posted on 14/2/12
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
it's in your post where you posted two charges. One relating to abuse and one relating to racist abuse.
---------------------------------------------
Well that doesnt clarify it for me. The two charges are part of the same rule . Which is why I believe (but arent sure) that in order to have access to the second part of the rule, they must first charge the player with the first part.
Page 11 of 16
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16