Suarez

rick_chasey

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Edit: having looked at the blog - most of the issues are dealt with in the report: i.e. "Evra by and large from the evidence we obtained was a reliable witness. Suarez was not a reliable witness, and neither were his team mates" (to paraphrase).

Nope. You misread it. The FA report claimed Evra was reliable, LS not. The blog makes clear that this was a tad biased towards Evra, in one place pointing out that Evra's evidence was considered reliable because he was a reliable witness. Win win eh?

When your story is inconsistent and changes over time, and your teammates stories are both inconsistent with yours and change, there is a problem.

The FA brought in an independent expert to help them examine Suarez's defence and they decided it was bull.

*shrugs* Seems pretty clear to me.

What is more depressing is Liverpool fans booing Evra for being a victim of said abuse and letting it be known to the authorities.

CiB

Each to their own. I'm not continuing with this because it will invariably lead down the path of me having to somehow defend racism in the end, and I'm not prepared to do that partly because I've got no truck with it, and because DDD might call me uncool again. What's the world come to when DDD rules my opinions on such things?

Paulie W

The problem in football is that abuse in general is acceptable. Footballers frequently calll each other cnuts and mofos. 'Supporters' gleefully sing of the dead at Hillsborough or about Munich and relentlessly abuse players who they believe have cheated, got one of their players into trouble, etc. And this is all accepted or at least tolerated. When race is brought into the equation then it ceases to be tolerated - and rightfully so - but it strikes me that if you accept a culture where abusive behaviour is the norm then it becomes difficult to start drawing lines that people will universally understand.

CiB

I tried to say that the other week but got slaughtered for it. Don't step out of line in the modern world or you'll be the next to be hung out to dry.

ddraver

I was with you CiB, you were very unfairly criticized!

bigmat

I think I was involved in the criticism and you weren't exactly slaughtered, I could see what you were trying to say its just the way that you said it... wasn't good. I wouldn't defend any of the ill informed offensive terrace chants, be they racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, or based on horrible things that have happened to others e.g. Munich, Hillsborough. The people who chant this stuff are scum and it saddens me that it is considered "part of the game". There's a line, people, draw it...

fast as fupp

Wasn't that supporter in Bulgaria subsequently found to be not guilty?

no he was given a pardon i.e. let out of jail but the conviction stands.

the victim actually i.d.'d him as the assailant- shields alibi was that he was in his hotel asleep in bed at the time and numerous scallies attested to this- he must have had a bedroom like the tardis

the press and lfc got hold of this an the campaign started- numerous fund raising concerts were held- merseysides underworld were well represented at these gigs so draw your own conclusions!

bigmat

ddraver wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Again - "dont touch me south American" = fine

"dont touch me blackie" = racist

For anyone to suggest that evra or manchester united are entirely guilt free is rubbish, both are equally unacceptable

You really think "South American" has the same connotations as "Blackie"?

I am not claiming Evra and United are guilt-free in this whole sorry mess, but the two terms above don't begin to compare to each other.

I'm saying that abusing someone based on their race is unacceptable, no matter what race they are.

South American isn't a race. Its like me calling you "European" (just a guess). For a start, it could mean almost anything, and more importantly it isn't focused on your race and therefore doesn't constitute racism.

ddraver

BigMat wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Again - "dont touch me south American" = fine

"dont touch me blackie" = racist

For anyone to suggest that evra or manchester united are entirely guilt free is rubbish, both are equally unacceptable

You really think "South American" has the same connotations as "Blackie"?

I am not claiming Evra and United are guilt-free in this whole sorry mess, but the two terms above don't begin to compare to each other.

I'm saying that abusing someone based on their race is unacceptable, no matter what race they are.

South American isn't a race. Its like me calling you "European" (just a guess). For a start, it could mean almost anything, and more importantly it isn't focused on your race and therefore doesn't constitute racism.

I disagree....

If Suarez had said African would it have all been ok? I think not.

domhnall_dearg

Rick Chasey wrote:

That Suarez did was he was accused of is beyond doubt.

Except that it isn't. Even the FA report by the "independent" panel (two of whom are employed by the prosecution) said that it was only "on the balance of probability" and hence not "beyond doubt".

Wirral_paul

Well i guess it could all have been worse had the police not intervened - something that seems to have slipped under the net whilst everyone wants to make out that Suarez is soooooo bad for not shaking Evra's hand. Guess this is acceptable though...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2099734/Luis-Suarez-KKK-mask-Manchester-United-fanzine-seized-police.html

Seems simple to me - there's blame on all sides and no winners......

Football and the governing of it is rapidly turning into a complete joke. Its like the John Terry issue - he hasnt been given a ban due to the impending court case - but yet the FA deem it fit to strip him of the captaincy months before a major tournament, and dont even discuss it with the manager!! I thought it was the media who are supposed to set out to ruin the England teams chances every tournament - not the FA!!

Anyway - shall we all just watch the rugby instead? Has that been ruined by governing bodies and the PC brigade yet??

ddraver

Wirral_Paul wrote:

Anyway - shall we all just watch the rugby instead? Has that been ruined by governing bodies and the PC brigade yet??

Well, I do - The RFU are trying their best but luckily they re so inept, they can't even do the first part properly! The fans however have some brain cells to rub together and some links to the real world and so the second stuff doesn't happen!

domhnall_dearg

Wirral_Paul wrote:

Anyway - shall we all just watch the rugby instead? Has that been ruined by governing bodies and the PC brigade yet??

Yep, totally spoiled, you're not allowed to stamp on peoples' heads any more. Sorry, ruck them. It's political correctness gawn mad I tell you.

Wirral_paul

Domhnall Dearg wrote:

Wirral_Paul wrote:

Anyway - shall we all just watch the rugby instead? Has that been ruined by governing bodies and the PC brigade yet??

Yep, totally spoiled, you're not allowed to stamp on peoples' heads any more. Sorry, ruck them. It's political correctness gawn mad I tell you.

Darn....how about a nice game of Rollerball then??

RonB

I know, let's head for pro cycling. No controversy there

Cleat Eastwood

anyone for tennis

andyrac

Domhnall Dearg wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

That Suarez did was he was accused of is beyond doubt.

Except that it isn't. Even the FA report by the "independent" panel (two of whom are employed by the prosecution) said that it was only "on the balance of probability" and hence not "beyond doubt".

How on earth did they find him guilty on "balance of probability"? Quite simply unbelievable, talk about a kangaroo court. Until somebody shows absolute conclusive proof that he actually racially abused Evra, then as far as I'm concerned, he's innocent. The whole sorry saga stinks, the only person who was spoken sense has been John Barnes. Everybody else has had an agenda, without knowing all the facts.....

ddraver

What you're looking at, Is the master plan...

mattshrops

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

anyone for tennis

You've just sullied a childhood memory

Wirral_paul

mattshrops wrote:

You've just sullied a childhood memory

better now??

Pross

AndyRAC wrote:

Domhnall Dearg wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

That Suarez did was he was accused of is beyond doubt.

Except that it isn't. Even the FA report by the "independent" panel (two of whom are employed by the prosecution) said that it was only "on the balance of probability" and hence not "beyond doubt".

How on earth did they find him guilty on "balance of probability"? Quite simply unbelievable, talk about a kangaroo court. Until somebody shows absolute conclusive proof that he actually racially abused Evra, then as far as I'm concerned, he's innocent. The whole sorry saga stinks, the only person who was spoken sense has been John Barnes. Everybody else has had an agenda, without knowing all the facts.....

The burden of proof in civil courts is "balance of probablities" so a lot of law suits are won that way. It is why some people have won damages taking out civil action on someone who has been found not guilty in the criminal courts.

Gazzaputt

Ben6899 wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Does anyone believe one tiny part of the apology?
He may be sorry about something (upsetting his bosses) but I severely doubt he cares one jot about Evra.

I don't believe ANYTHING coming from Anfield where this sorry affair is concerned. It's all lip-service to keep the FA off Liverpool FC's case.

All through, the club has stood by Suarez - wearing t shirts FFS - and I don't believe for a minute there was any instruction to the player to make sure he shook hands with Evra.

First the public support for a fan banged up in Bulgaria for murdering an opposition fan... and now this. It's never the fault of Liverpool FC and it's lamentable.

Gotta be a manc to make a outrageously stupid comment like that.

Attempted Murder. I apologise for the inaccuracy.

The simple fact is: some lad was convicted of attempted murder of an opposition supporter after the Champions League final and - only knowing as much as anyone else at the time - LFC campaigned to have him released. You have the other guys confession, but how reliable was that given he later retracted it!? I thought this was a massive PR faux pas by LFC and the club should have stayed well out of the matter.

I'm not sure why my comment can be deemed "outrageously stupid"... I'm not commenting on the accuracy of the conviction, but the club's reaction to it. You probably need to provide an element of elucidation to support your assertion.

Outrageously stupid because you clearly know none of the facts of the case. I'd suggest enlighten yourself before posting crap like that.

LFC were brilliant in helping prove Micheal Shields innocence. They knew what a massive injustice it was and were not going to leave one of their own out to dry.

Ben6899

Gazzaputt wrote:

Outrageously stupid because you clearly know none of the facts of the case. I'd suggest enlighten yourself before posting crap like that.

LFC were brilliant in helping prove Micheal Shields innocence. They knew what a massive injustice it was and were not going to leave one of their own out to dry.

They knew? Knew? How could they have possibly known? They may have blindly believed the assailant's alibi, but they didn't know whether he was innocent or guilty.

And as another poster has stated on this thread:

fast as fupp wrote:

no he [Shields] was given a pardon i.e. let out of jail but the conviction stands.

the victim actually i.d.'d him as the assailant- shields alibi was that he was in his hotel asleep in bed at the time and numerous scallies attested to this- he must have had a bedroom like the tardis

the press and lfc got hold of this an the campaign started- numerous fund raising concerts were held- merseysides underworld were well represented at these gigs so draw your own conclusions!

Maybe we (me and you, Gazza) both need to read the facts on this one?

bompington

Ben6899 wrote:

Maybe we (me and you, Gazza) both need to read the facts on this one?

Absolutely, you pair of numpties. The really depressing thing about football isn't the money, corruption or bad behaviour of the players - it's the astonishing degree to which football supporters are willing to check out their brains at the turnstile.
Basically, the impression us unbiased observers are left with is that one of you feels (thinks would clearly be an inappropriate word in this context) that he must be guilty because he's a Liverpool supporter, the other that he must be innocent because he's a Liverpool supporter. Selective blindness in a nutshell.

Ben6899

bompington wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Maybe we (me and you, Gazza) both need to read the facts on this one?

Absolutely, you pair of numpties. The really depressing thing about football isn't the money, corruption or bad behaviour of the players - it's the astonishing degree to which football supporters are willing to check out their brains at the turnstile.
Basically, the impression us unbiased observers are left with is that one of you feels (thinks would clearly be an inappropriate word in this context) that he must be guilty because he's a Liverpool supporter, the other that he must be innocent because he's a Liverpool supporter. Selective blindness in a nutshell.

It has nothing to do with whether or not he was guilty or innocent or which god forsaken football club he supports.

My criticism was - and is - an objective one: it was a PR faux pas by Liverpool FC to publicly campaign for the release of a man convicted of attempted murder in a European Union court when - at the time - the only alibi was the defendent's own and the only defending evidence was a subsequently retracted statement from a bloke who was also there kicking a few heads.

Q. How can Liverpool FC have been confident enough that 'their man' was innocent to campaign like they did?
A. They cannot have been.

If you think that objective criticism makes me a numpty, then there isn't a lot I can do to resolve that. At least I had the good grace to see that "fast as fupp" knew something of the case that I didn't. That probably tells you that I am thinking about what I am typing and not simply 'feeling'.

And making generalisations about groups of people is a dangerous game.

bompington

Ben6899 wrote:

bompington wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Maybe we (me and you, Gazza) both need to read the facts on this one?

Absolutely, you pair of numpties. The really depressing thing about football isn't the money, corruption or bad behaviour of the players - it's the astonishing degree to which football supporters are willing to check out their brains at the turnstile.
Basically, the impression us unbiased observers are left with is that one of you feels (thinks would clearly be an inappropriate word in this context) that he must be guilty because he's a Liverpool supporter, the other that he must be innocent because he's a Liverpool supporter. Selective blindness in a nutshell.

It has nothing to do with whether or not he was guilty or innocent or which god forsaken football club he supports.

My criticism was - and is - an objective one: it was a PR faux pas by Liverpool FC to publicly campaign for the release of a man convicted of attempted murder in a European Union court when - at the time - the only alibi was the defendent's own and the only defending evidence was a subsequently retracted statement from a bloke who was also there kicking a few heads.

Q. How can Liverpool FC have been confident enough that 'their man' was innocent to campaign like they did?
A. They cannot have been.

If you think that objective criticism makes me a numpty, then there isn't a lot I can do to resolve that. At least I had the good grace to see that "fast as fupp" knew something of the case that I didn't.

Sorry. I was just guessing from your north london location that you were a manc ;-)

Ben6899

bompington wrote:

Sorry. I was just guessing from your north london location that you were a manc ;-)

I am a 'Manc'. People move around with work and life, though. My 'Manc' persuasion has nothing to do with any of my opinions on anything discussed in this thread - anything other would make me a bit of a fool.

I happen to think Patrice Evra - besides being the best leftback in the Premier League - is a melodramatic little tw@t. But Suarez acted like a cunt and Kenny wasn't far behind.

Alex Ferguson should arguably have held his tongue on the handshake matter, but he's made a career out of this kind of thing. Remember Kevin Keegan laying eggs in the SKY interview?

mbrundrett

bompington wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

. How can Liverpool FC have been confident enough that 'their man' was innocent to campaign like they did?
A. They cannot have been.

unless Stevie G did it

siamon

@Ben6899, what are you trying to prove mate?

Q. Has anyone ever had a reasonably balanced conversation with a Liverpool fan about anything that is even remotely related to football

A. No.

But it seems their owner has rather different moral values to King Kenny, Suarez and the fans. After the article appeared in the New York Times yesterday Fenway shares started to fall. Minutes later, the club is publishing apology after apology. Do you think that is coincidence?

Evra is not as good as Benoit or Cashley or even Baines or Enrique.

Ben6899

siamon wrote:

@Ben6899, what are you trying to prove mate?

Q. Has anyone ever had a reasonably balanced conversation with a Liverpool fan about anything that is even remotely related to football

A. No.

But it seems their owner has rather different moral values to King Kenny, Suarez and the fans. After the article appeared in the New York Times yesterday Fenway shares started to fall. Minutes later, the club is publishing apology after apology. Do you think that is coincidence?

Evra is not as good as Benoit or Cashley or even Baines or Enrique.

I'm trying to prove absolutely nothing. I'm merely stating facts.

I'll concede that Cashley might push Evra, but the other lads not quite yet.