comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

posted 56 seconds ago

I am not aggrieved Evra didn't get charged, at all. I have no interest in Evra, he's a Manchester United player
----------------------------

So why did you bring it up then?
-----------------------------------------
As I believe Suarez has been banned for something that there was no evidence for, whilst another has got off with it, after admitting it.

I feel he wasn't given a fair trial and there was an agenda set even before the trial began. I feel there was a pre-determined decision to ban Suarez.

Suarez said the word negro then he needed someone to have a word

However Evra was equally as insulting to Suarez FIRST. it's extraordinary how this is over looked. All the claims that Evra was innocent are false.

Everyone keeps banging on saying go into here and say <insert word> to the nearest black man like that's what happened.

A better comparison would be me walking into a pub starting a fight with someone then getting a good kicking and making a charge against that person for GBH.

Suarez needed to know you can't say what he said in this country, what he didn't need nor deserve is the one sided castigation he has been subjected to by the sanctimonious, hypocritical and ultimately guilt ridden (for their dubious role in the slave trade) British tabloid press.

comment by Anfield of Dreams (U6971)

posted 1 minute ago

in this case that doesnt make it right as theres clear discrimination...

if youre going to ban Suarez for insulting behaviour on this occassion then Evra must be banned too..
------------------------------------

I have just explained this. They had to charge him with the insult, rule E3(1), so that they could then access the aggravating factor of the charge, rule E3(2), which was the reference to skin colour.

Had Evra referenced skin colour then he would have been charged with the same - both E3(1) and E3(2). As he didnt reference skin colour the FA deem that it isnt serious enough to charge him.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 seconds ago
TOOR

Re: Terry, it was a fan who reproted it but it is backed up by video evidence and Anton has "strong feelings" about the situation and is happy it goes to court...Fan + Video + Anton = strong case against the word of Terry.
---------------------------------
Video evidence? You mean that video doing the rounds which could be him saying absolutely anything? Anton of course has strong feelings on racism but he has never accused Terry. Neither has Rio, who blasted a reporter for trying to say he had, on Twitter.

TalksRubbish (TalksSense)

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

There is a big difference here though. As I'm sure you pointed out when Rooney was banned, many players swear, however Rooney did it directly down the camera.
------------------------------------

Bingo! I said much the same. There is also a big difference, as far as the FA are concerned, between abusing a player and abusing a player in addition to referencing skin colour.

This thread is now all frey stripes, oh god it feels SO good.

Will be funny now to see people biting so easily at TOORON, I am amazed how many get sucked in by his patter.

comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Anfield of Dreams (U6971)

posted 1 minute ago

in this case that doesnt make it right as theres clear discrimination...

if youre going to ban Suarez for insulting behaviour on this occassion then Evra must be banned too..
------------------------------------

I have just explained this. They had to charge him with the insult, rule E3(1), so that they could then access the aggravating factor of the charge, rule E3(2), which was the reference to skin colour.
---------------------------
Yes, you have proved this.
-------------------------------------------------
Had Evra referenced skin colour then he would have been charged with the same - both E3(1) and E3(2). As he didnt reference skin colour the FA deem that it isnt serious enough to charge him.
------------------------------------------
However with this one, he falls foul of E3(1) after admitting to threatening Suarez and abusing him and his non-existent sister.

*grey stripes

Just one part of the evidence.

Just like the TV pictures were used to prove/disprove what Suarez apparently said/did to Evra.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

However with this one, he falls foul of E3(1) after admitting to threatening Suarez and abusing him and his non-existent sister.
----------------------------------

So what? Players do it every week and dont get charged. Why the big deal because it is Evra?

Players do not reference skin colour every week and that is why Suarez got banned. It really is that simple.

comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

There is a big difference here though. As I'm sure you pointed out when Rooney was banned, many players swear, however Rooney did it directly down the camera.
------------------------------------

Bingo! I said much the same. There is also a big difference, as far as the FA are concerned, between abusing a player and abusing a player in addition to referencing skin colour.
------------------------------------------------
Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that front. I believe that abusing the physical appearance of any person is terrible whether it be the colour of their skin, weight, height, hair colour or whatever and I believe it equally terrible.

Also as far as the FA are concerned this seems to be true also, as it is 4 games for E3(1) and four games for E3(2) meaning they both carry the same length of ban, which means they don't think there is a huge difference.

comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

However with this one, he falls foul of E3(1) after admitting to threatening Suarez and abusing him and his non-existent sister.
----------------------------------

So what? Players do it every week and dont get charged. Why the big deal because it is Evra?
----------------------
because he admitted it in front of a panel during a high profile hearing.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

posted 14 seconds ago

comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

There is a big difference here though. As I'm sure you pointed out when Rooney was banned, many players swear, however Rooney did it directly down the camera.
------------------------------------

Bingo! I said much the same. There is also a big difference, as far as the FA are concerned, between abusing a player and abusing a player in addition to referencing skin colour.
------------------------------------------------
Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that front. I believe that abusing the physical appearance of any person is terrible whether it be the colour of their skin, weight, height, hair colour or whatever and I believe it equally terrible.

Also as far as the FA are concerned this seems to be true also, as it is 4 games for E3(1) and four games for E3(2) meaning they both carry the same length of ban, which means they don't think there is a huge difference.
-------------------------

Not really mate. The reality is you dont get any ban for abusing a player. You do get any 8 game ban for mentioning skin colour. Ergo, there is a big difference in the FAs eyes. Nice try though!

Good evening.

TOOR

If you want all name calling to be reported to the FA and players charged then you are some sort of over sensitive wet liberal. It would result in dozens of players being charged week in and week out. Its part of the game, part of the challenge whether on the sunday pitch or the EPL

Racist insults over step the line....its the same difference as singing about whether Posh takes it up the ????, or singing about Hillsborough or The Munich disasters. The former is insulting. The latter 2 over step the line.

newWAYNEorder - whilst many people may disagree with There'sOnlyOneReds opinions I think they all recognise and respect the fact that he is making a genuine argument to what he sees as an injustice against Suarez, media bias and overreaction.

You on the other hand only offer inane thread commentary and typical partisan football fan behaviour; childish insults, preferring to insult posters instead of addressing the issues like Devonshirespur and Elvis.

Frankly anyone you threaten to filter probably takes it as a compliment x

X, NO HE'S NOT!

He's doing what he always does, fishing for attention, taling utter sheeite, cos he knows some people will respond to him.

Basically the same reason I suspect you created "Yet another Evra/Suarez thread" cos you were bored and thought you'd get some WUMMING in.

And well done, 300+ posts, mostly TOORON going round in circles and leading several by the hand

It wasn't my intention to wum, all of the opinions I've expressed within are genuine, except those that are said in jest. However I probably should have realised posting it on the City board would attract numerous rags.

And given that the 'moral' majority seem to have decided that Suarez is a racist who deserves to hounded out of the game; I felt the need to vent on this issue, and express that while Suarez maybe guilty and a victim of circumstance. It seems that I'm not alone.

Frankly there are a lot of hypocrites after Suarez's blood, who should no better. Sir Alex Ferguson for one should not be trying to dictate Liverpool's transfer policy. Perhaps I'd respect his opinion more if he would have said the same thing after Roy Keane attempted to end Haaland's career, but maybe I just have a twisted sense of right and wrong x

child please... SAF blows his nose the wrong way and this place would stink of your farts, blogging on the rights and wrongs of sneezing!

this article has been so bogus, all thats left to say is you won't convince me of your view.
we will agree to disagree.

Keane never attempted to end Haalands career, Roy wasn't pleased at Haalands words when he'd previously been badly injured in a game. Please don't believe the ABU hype. I am not defending Keane deliberately setting out to foul a player, but it is wrong to say he wanted him out of football.

Dictate transfer policy? WHAT ROT!! SAF was simply giving his opinion on the piece of filth you are trying to defend, he was asked his opinion and gave it.

Statements like those 2 loses you a lot of credibility.

Saying someone should never play for a club again, is the same as saying the club should sell that player. I don't see where anything I said is rot; yes it was simply an opinion, but perhaps an opinion he should have kept to himself. But that's simply my opinion.

"Even in the dressing room afterwards, I had no remorse. My attitude was, fu€k him. What goes around comes around. He got his just rewards."

If we accept that Keane was attempting to injure Haaland, then surely we must accept that he was trying to end his career.

Maybe Keane just kicks with surgical precision injuring players just enough, without putting their careers in jeopardy.

Maybe Roy Keane was naive and inexperienced; not realising that stamps aimed at the knee can have severe consequences.

Or maybe you're a paranoid partisan halfwit who sees abus everywhere he looks x

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

''But you will find that the majority of racism claims in this world is because the accuser didn't get his or her way about something.''

wow, possibly the most arrogant, ignorant and senile comment to grace these boards.

and what's with the Boom?!.. did your brain implode?
dumbass..

Dalglish was forced to apologise on Sunday, Fergie never had to apologise to anyone.
I can't believe people are still going on in Suarez's defence, scousers are just not good at letting anything lie.

"wow, possibly the most arrogant, ignorant and senile comment to grace these boards" StringerBell - well at least we agree on something.

Siempre - just because someone is not forced to apologise for something they've said doesn't mean they should of said it.

Also, I know it was mentioned awhile ago, but someone suggested the amount of offense caused proves when someone is wrong: that's a dangerous route to go down. Being offended doesn't make you right or even morally correct x