Topic: Luis Suarez - FA guilty charge and LFC Statement (*)

[kennedy81]

Why can we?

He's been found guilty of making an offensive comment, until we see the evidence we haven't got a clue, we don't even know what he's admitted to saying. It should of been made available when the decision was released.

I'm sure Kenny had a good chat with him and I'm sure Kenny would never back him so vehemently, if he even suspected for a minute he was being racist.
Until I see evidence to the contrary, that's good enough for me.
I thought we do know what he admitted to saying, and why the word he used can not be viewed as racist.
You're right, the evidence should have been made available sooner, I can only assume that is is so thin on the ground that they need time to pad it out and come up with a real justification for the ban.

[Pata]

I fully expect to get banned for this despite the fact this is a genuine attempt to engage you all rather than WUM.

"Negrito" does not neccesarily carry the same reputation as "negro" or the other n words in our culture as it does in South America. That is understandable. It can be used as an objective and descriptive word akin to saying "Patrice Evra is black" and would carry no offence. Similarly, it can be used as affectionately like how the n word is used between some members of the black community in urban culture in the US. Using the word "negrito" is not neccesarily a racist word, but it certainly is a reference to skin colour. And any reference to skin colour can be used to racially abuse someone regardless depending on what context it is used in.

In the context of two opposition players arguing midway through a derby match, to competely rule out any intended offence is naive. If I tell someone to shut up for instance, and then turn around and say "why, black?" I would think that they are trying to annoy me through a completely unneccessary mention of skin colour, even with a term that is not offensive. If repeated I would be certain that offence is meant. Have any of you here had an argument with someone of a different race and then for clarification pointed out the colour of their skin? Why would you unless you wanted to rile them?

This is what Suarez has been found guilty of:

* Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);

* The insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2)


Using the colour of someone else's skin to provoke a rise out of someone is racial abuse. That is not to say that Suarez is a racist, who has a phobia of black people and is a card carrying member of the BNP. Racial abuse can be used to gain an advantage on the pitch rather than reflecting underlying views. However, it is still wholly unacceptable and should be punished if proven, as is the case.

If you have any criticisms of what I have said, highlight it clearly. Hopefully I won't be banned on posting of any sort of non-consensus view.

Yesterday had a little exchange with a mate of mine who used to live in Ecuador and travelled all over South America.

He reckons that in South America (note: NOT Spain) "sudaca" is not massively racist, but pejorative and "you'd say it with a hand over your mouth and a wink". He goes on to say that "sudaca" and "negrito" are probably morally equivalent and if viewed in the context of chit-chat on the pitch, would not carry any racists connotations in either direction.

And he agreed that the following scenario is perfectly feasible:
(Evra is not having the best of games against Suarez and is somewhat irritated)
"Don't touch me, you South American git"
"Why not, mate?"
(which would be followed by a cartoon-style cheeky grin and slo-mo poke to wind him up a bit more)

Of course, if it was stream of "negrito-negrito-negrito" or "negro-negro-negro" in Evra's face, that would be somewhat different.

[Pistolero]

This is where we disagree slightly, Bob. Because make no mistake - Liverpool FC and Liverpool the City have been attacked from all fucking sides for more years than I care to remember. Every year there is another attack from a new source. It's been going on since Thatcher and her Cronies and even before then. Look at the average opinion of your average 'Englishman' about Liverpool.

I'm in a different boat than some because I'm not originally from Liverpool - I'm not a Scouser, but I've lived here for 25 years.

I have lived outside Liverpool and I live in it now and I see what is flung at the City and the Club and the people is utterly unfair. In many cases it's bigoted. I can see it and be objective about it because I always remember what was said about "Scousers" and their "City".

When I first worked in Liverpool I was literally terrified. I remembered all the papers and the press more or less saying everyone there was benefit scum, would kill you if they had the chance and were basically evil. I was terrified.

And then I came across the lovliest, friendliest people I'd personally met in the UK. I came to a vibrant City proud of its past and although in trouble financially proud of its future to come. I found warmth, decency, quiet brilliance and acceptance.

And I've lived here ever since.

And yet look around even now - the same shite about 'Scousers' the same shite about the City. The same shite about Liverpool FC.

I may not be a Scouser but I'm fucking proud of this place, it's people and both Clubs. I used to live in other places in England but if they don't like us then fuck them.

This has been going on for decades.

Nice one Andy...

[SpionBob]

Well since they own the club it probably is. Would be interesting to hear Mr Henry comment on it though.

I would prefer the club to keep its own counsel from now until the report comes out. Once that appears I'm sure our lawyers will drive a bus through it. If necessary take it to a higher court to get justice. In my humble opinion, the FA are almost certainly using Suarez as a scapegoat to get back at FIFA and Blatter. The sad thing is that Suarez himsellf is of mixed race and so the FA are leaving themselves wide open.
So laughable, you couldn't make this up if you wanted to.

[MichaelA]

I fully expect to get banned for this despite the fact this is a genuine attempt to engage you all rather than WUM.

You've stated a clear case. Unfortunately it's based upon the decision made by the FA who have acted as judge, jury and executioner without stating their reasons for reaching their conclusions. The ruling that they have made is the subject of an appeal from the club and player, and will very likely find it's way to the court of arbitration in sport, and maybe the courts of the land. That's why we've got a 177 page thread on our forum.

So, your point of view may not be that of a WUM, but it is not one that many people on here take with any seriousness. And it's not a point of view that will necessarily buy you a ban, but if you're dangling your bait on here to try and catch some small fry then you'll be history.

[only6times]

What if the evidence proves Suarez said it in a racist way? I know the critics haven't saw the evidence but neither have we.

[Juan Loco]

What if the evidence proves Suarez said it in a racist way? I know the critics haven't saw the evidence but neither have we.

The club have though and their reaction to it is pretty telling. I don't think they'd have come out with such a staunch support of Suarez if he'd been found to be quoting No Tears by Scarface at Evra.

[belfast-connection]

I fully expect to get banned for this despite the fact this is a genuine attempt to engage you all rather than WUM.

"Negrito" does not neccesarily carry the same reputation as "negro" or the other n words in our culture as it does in South America. That is understandable. It can be used as an objective and descriptive word akin to saying "Patrice Evra is black" and would carry no offence. Similarly, it can be used as affectionately like how the n word is used between some members of the black community in urban culture in the US. Using the word "negrito" is not neccesarily a racist word, but it certainly is a reference to skin colour. And any reference to skin colour can be used to racially abuse someone regardless depending on what context it is used in.

In the context of two opposition players arguing midway through a derby match, to competely rule out any intended offence is naive. If I tell someone to shut up for instance, and then turn around and say "why, black?" I would think that they are trying to annoy me through a completely unneccessary mention of skin colour, even with a term that is not offensive. If repeated I would be certain that offence is meant. Have any of you here had an argument with someone of a different race and then for clarification pointed out the colour of their skin? Why would you unless you wanted to rile them?

This is what Suarez has been found guilty of:

* Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);

* The insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2)


Using the colour of someone else's skin to provoke a rise out of someone is racial abuse. That is not to say that Suarez is a racist, who has a phobia of black people and is a card carrying member of the BNP. Racial abuse can be used to gain an advantage on the pitch rather than reflecting underlying views. However, it is still wholly unacceptable and should be punished if proven, as is the case.

If you have any criticisms of what I have said, highlight it clearly. Hopefully I won't be banned on posting of any sort of non-consensus view.

i think the issue is how the rule is interpreted, how the FA have interpreted it and how it should be interpreted

read literally the rule, or the aggravating factor includes all reference to colour, race, etc. including those which are completelly benign

reading between the lines, and reading the FA verdict against the LFC statement I suspect that this is the way the FA panel have interpreted the rule, i.e. any reference to colour, no matter how benign, is grounds of aggravation

that to me is not how the rule should be interpreted

this is a disciplinary offence and the issue for the panel was therefore akin to a criminal prosecution rather than a workplace discrimination issue

in the workplace if you discriminate on grounds of race, even if you don't mean to consciously, you are liable

that is fine because that is the civil law

but in the criminal context you can't be guilty of what is in effect, and to all intents and purposes is, a charge of racism without the necessary intent to be racist

the intent of the speaker has to be judged and I suspect when we get the reasons that the FA panel have not addressed that issue and have said 'objectively speaking this is racist language' - that's okay in an employment tribunal but not a disciplinary one

the connotations of the rule and natural reaction are such that the player should not be condemned under the rule without intent proven to the criminal standard or the 'highly flexible civil standard' which is much the same thing (laywer speak there, sorry)

[fromthepen]

in the middle of this negative vindictive media frenzy against Luis and LFC there is a silver lining. You couldn't buy a more powerful team bonding session than we have right now. Kenny has played a blinder, the team in adversity is welded into a very tight collective group which will enhance team spirit and be a massive bonus over the next few years. Whilst not on the same painful level as Heysel and Hillsboro it is making all reds fan group together around the players and the club. It makes us stronger, who gives a flying f..k what any of the media think, the Fa or all the sad vengeful b.......tards who follow our rivals. We are finding out who are friends are and who isn't. So f..k em all every last one of them. We in a storm, its pissing down and the wind is howling around the club.......but we are LFC and we don't give s..t, its at times like this that we know 100% that we never ever walk alone.

COME ON YOU RED MEN!!

[Stussy]

I fully expect to get banned for this despite the fact this is a genuine attempt to engage you all rather than WUM.

If it is correct that Evra said a racist slur ('Sudaca') to Luis, how would your perception of the situation change?

[Shanks1965]

You've stated a clear case. Unfortunately it's based upon the decision made by the FA who have acted as judge, jury and executioner without stating their reasons for reaching their conclusions.

Which is the most annoying part for me. In a court of law a Judge gives his reasons for passing sentence. The FA act like thay are a law unto themselves.

[SpionBob]

What if the evidence proves Suarez said it in a racist way? I know the critics haven't saw the evidence but neither have we.

But apparently our club representatives have and you have seen the club's response have you not?

[1-st-john]

This is where we disagree slightly, Bob. Because make no mistake - Liverpool FC and Liverpool the City have been attacked from all fucking sides for more years than I care to remember. Every year there is another attack from a new source. It's been going on since Thatcher and her Cronies and even before then. Look at the average opinion of your average 'Englishman' about Liverpool.

I'm in a different boat than some because I'm not originally from Liverpool - I'm not a Scouser, but I've lived here for 25 years.

I have lived outside Liverpool and I live in it now and I see what is flung at the City and the Club and the people is utterly unfair. In many cases it's bigoted. I can see it and be objective about it because I always remember what was said about "Scousers" and their "City".

When I first worked in Liverpool I was literally terrified. I remembered all the papers and the press more or less saying everyone there was benefit scum, would kill you if they had the chance and were basically evil. I was terrified.

And then I came across the lovliest, friendliest people I'd personally met in the UK. I came to a vibrant City proud of its past and although in trouble financially proud of its future to come. I found warmth, decency, quiet brilliance and acceptance.

And I've lived here ever since.

And yet look around even now - the same shite about 'Scousers' the same shite about the City. The same shite about Liverpool FC.

I may not be a Scouser but I'm fucking proud of this place, it's people and both Clubs. I used to live in other places in England but if they don't like us then fuck them.

This has been going on for decades.

Andy   

 You have put into words everything I feel about this city, I'm not a scouser myself and I live just outside the city but I work there and I can safely say I am so proud of its people and football club especially after this week as Kenny said "if we stick together we are stronger"

Well we are together and for 20 odd years  they have tried so hard to bring Liverpool and its people to its knees and they only make us stronger, so bring it on and let the british public see what Liverpool Football Club means to us all
 

[Prince]

Yesterday had a little exchange with a mate of mine who used to live in Ecuador and travelled all over South America.

He reckons that in South America (note: NOT Spain) "sudaca" is not massively racist, but pejorative and "you'd say it with a hand over your mouth and a wink". He goes on to say that "sudaca" and "negrito" are probably morally equivalent and if viewed in the context of chit-chat on the pitch, would not carry any racists connotations in either direction.

And he agreed that the following scenario is perfectly feasible:
(Evra is not having the best of games against Suarez and is somewhat irritated)
"Don't touch me, you South American git"
"Why not, mate?"
(which would be followed by a cartoon-style cheeky grin and slo-mo poke to wind him up a bit more)

Of course, if it was stream of "negrito-negrito-negrito" or "negro-negro-negro" in Evra's face, that would be somewhat different.

Yeah but the word "mate" can't be substituted for "negrito" in this analogy. Mate has no reference to skin colour. Taken as given that Evra said "don't touch me you South American" (I personally find it hard to believe), Suarez's response could end with "why not?" when you introduce a word with reference to skin colour unneccesarily for the syntax at the end of the sentence then you place emphasis on that word. And you'd have to think that in the context of an irritated and priorly insulted, Suarez it was intended to offend. Ergo it would be racial abuse.

You've stated a clear case. Unfortunately it's based upon the decision made by the FA who have acted as judge, jury and executioner without stating their reasons for reaching their conclusions. The ruling that they have made is the subject of an appeal from the club and player, and will very likely find it's way to the court of arbitration in sport, and maybe the courts of the land. That's why we've got a 177 page thread on our forum.

So, your point of view may not be that of a WUM, but it is not one that many people on here take with any seriousness. And it's not a point of view that will necessarily buy you a ban, but if you're dangling your bait on here to try and catch some small fry then you'll be history.

It's fair enough that you want to appeal what is an arbitrary sanction and the verdict pending the release of the full reasoning. But there is a very real chance that Suarez did racially abuse Evra on the field of play, and to ignore that and _unconditionally_ support him sends out the wrong message. Furthermore, the treatment of Evra making (wrong) accusations of previously "playing the race card" is something that I think is not acceptable. At least not if we're serious in trying to eradicate racial abuse in football.

[IrishRed1992]

What if the evidence proves Suarez said it in a racist way? I know the critics haven't saw the evidence but neither have we.

Only Suarez and possibly Evra would know this but seeing as LFC are publicly backing suarez. Suarez must have told them he didnt use it in a racist way and Evra also says that he believes Suarez is not a racist.

[jooneyisdagod]

What if the evidence proves Suarez said it in a racist way? I know the critics haven't saw the evidence but neither have we.

The club were at the hearing and were privy to the statements based on which a decision was made I would think.  And given they have come out so strongly in support of the player I have no reason to believe he would have said something in a racist manner.  Again of the three parties that are privy to the information only one has spoken out and it has given Suarez its complete backing unlike the little FA statement that was so murky. 

[only6times]

But apparently our club representatives have and you have seen the club's response have you not?

I have and I agree with them but i'm wondering how the system works and if indeed the club get to see all the evidence. This is because Luis was only interviewed once to Evra's 2 times and was not given the benefit of video evidence whilst Evra was.

[kennedy81]

Yesterday had a little exchange with a mate of mine who used to live in Ecuador and travelled all over South America.

He reckons that in South America (note: NOT Spain) "sudaca" is not massively racist, but pejorative and "you'd say it with a hand over your mouth and a wink". He goes on to say that "sudaca" and "negrito" are probably morally equivalent and if viewed in the context of chit-chat on the pitch, would not carry any racists connotations in either direction.

And he agreed that the following scenario is perfectly feasible:
(Evra is not having the best of games against Suarez and is somewhat irritated)
"Don't touch me, you South American git"
"Why not, mate?"
(which would be followed by a cartoon-style cheeky grin and slo-mo poke to wind him up a bit more)

Of course, if it was stream of "negrito-negrito-negrito" or "negro-negro-negro" in Evra's face, that would be somewhat different.

exactly, this is what people just don't seem to be able to understand.
he was winding him up, not by referring to his skin colour, but by jovial banter.
I bet he never even realized that Evra was getting wound up by the 'negrito' word, and just assumed he was getting wound up by the nature of the banter.

[KennyDaggers]

What if the evidence proves Suarez said it in a racist way? I know the critics haven't saw the evidence but neither have we.

I would hope the club have held a full and proper enquiry themselves.

[SportBilly]

I fully expect to get banned for this despite the fact this is a genuine attempt to engage you all rather than WUM.

"Negrito" does not neccesarily carry the same reputation as "negro" or the other n words in our culture as it does in South America. That is understandable. It can be used as an objective and descriptive word akin to saying "Patrice Evra is black" and would carry no offence. Similarly, it can be used as affectionately like how the n word is used between some members of the black community in urban culture in the US. Using the word "negrito" is not neccesarily a racist word, but it certainly is a reference to skin colour. And any reference to skin colour can be used to racially abuse someone regardless depending on what context it is used in.

In the context of two opposition players arguing midway through a derby match, to competely rule out any intended offence is naive. If I tell someone to shut up for instance, and then turn around and say "why, black?" I would think that they are trying to annoy me through a completely unneccessary mention of skin colour, even with a term that is not offensive. If repeated I would be certain that offence is meant. Have any of you here had an argument with someone of a different race and then for clarification pointed out the colour of their skin? Why would you unless you wanted to rile them?

This is what Suarez has been found guilty of:

* Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);

* The insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2)


Using the colour of someone else's skin to provoke a rise out of someone is racial abuse. That is not to say that Suarez is a racist, who has a phobia of black people and is a card carrying member of the BNP. Racial abuse can be used to gain an advantage on the pitch rather than reflecting underlying views. However, it is still wholly unacceptable and should be punished if proven, as is the case.

If you have any criticisms of what I have said, highlight it clearly. Hopefully I won't be banned on posting of any sort of non-consensus view.

The thing is though that IF the word used was negrito, it's commonly used as 'mate' as opposed to 'black', but the FA have taken it absolutely literally with the 'black' derivative rather than the colloquialism, hence the ruling under E3(2).  It's not 'wholly unacceptable', it was an innocent mistake in a country that doesn't understand words they don't use.

If you call a woman 'love' in the shop or in a club, does it mean you love her?  What if one player calls another a twat on the pitch? That doesn't mean he literally thinks that fella is women's genitalia. Even so, I personally don't believe Suarez meant anything venomous. I speak Spanish, French and Japanese. I have a Mexican and a Brazilian brother-in-law and not only do I know there are words that don't translate, but I know that there are some words that are used as everyday speech (and while I'm on the subject, both of those brother-in-laws say that the word Evra allegedly used is hugely insulting and is something you'd say to try to start a fight). And even if Suarez did say something with malice, it's one non-white person calling another non-white person something that society usually and hypocritically turns a blind eye to.  That's not condoning it - if he said a racist word maliciously he should be punished accordingly and fairly, but I am pointing out that we all know there are double standards when it comes to the use of the 'N' word amongst certain members of society.

[thejbs]

While not related to Suarez, this is the most staggering example of tabloid hypocrisy in the history of newspapers and indicates why we should just ignore them...

[Juan Loco]

Yeah but the word "mate" can't be substituted for "negrito" in this analogy. Mate has no reference to skin colour. Taken as given that Evra said "don't touch me you South American" (I personally find it hard to believe), Suarez's response could end with "why not?" when you introduce a word with reference to skin colour unneccesarily for the syntax at the end of the sentence then you place emphasis on that word. And you'd have to think that in the context of an irritated and priorly insulted, Suarez it was intended to offend. Ergo it would be racial abuse

But if that conversation is in Spanish, which it seems to have been, then you have to leave it open to the nuances of Spanish language, and a lot of evidence seems to suggest that it's pretty commonplace in South American Spanish.

We're essentially using our understanding of English and how words are used over here to make a judgement the subtle nuances of the Spanish language. And if Evra did insult Suarez in Spanish then that's the language the conversation was conducted in.

[belfast-connection]

Yeah but the word "mate" can't be substituted for "negrito" in this analogy. Mate has no reference to skin colour. Taken as given that Evra said "don't touch me you South American" (I personally find it hard to believe), Suarez's response could end with "why not?" when you introduce a word with reference to skin colour unneccesarily for the syntax at the end of the sentence then you place emphasis on that word. And you'd have to think that in the context of an irritated and priorly insulted, Suarez it was intended to offend. Ergo it would be racial abuse.

this is the problem with defining the racist intent

a racist intent to me must be an intent to denigrate or demean someone on the basis of the colour of their skin

an incidental reference to colour, i.e. using a friendly colloquialism that has no loading in it and is not per se a racially offensive term may be technically caught by the rule, but that does not in itself make it 'racist abuse'

the fact that, as you appear to accept, negrito has no english equivalent is all the more reason for the panel to have steered well clear of this whole issue and given out some line about educating players, rather than punishing them to make an example

if they wanted to make an example they only had to wait a couple of months until terry's police case is cleared up as there seems little room for misunderstanding or grey areas when one englishman calls another a black c*nt

[alonsoisared]

Yeah but the word "mate" can't be substituted for "negrito" in this analogy. Mate has no reference to skin colour. Taken as given that Evra said "don't touch me you South American" (I personally find it hard to believe), Suarez's response could end with "why not?" when you introduce a word with reference to skin colour unneccesarily for the syntax at the end of the sentence then you place emphasis on that word. And you'd have to think that in the context of an irritated and priorly insulted, Suarez it was intended to offend. Ergo it would be racial abuse.

haha why's that then? Because he plays for you? What about the fact that in our statement we've said that Evra admitted to insulting Suarez in Spanish?

Out of interest where do you come from Prince? Because every single South American that has posted on this forum and indeed redcafe has said that they find it very hard to believe that any offence was intended by Suarez and that "negrito" in a lot of places, including Uruguay, arguably doesn't even mean to have reference to skin colour any more, hence why white people have been referred to by it, even how people refer to their friends and partners by it. I'd trust the word of the locals over anyone else and I think it would be mad not to if these two were having a conversation in Spanish, not English.

I'll also say, you claim you're not here to WUM and yet you start your comment by slagging off the moderating team by claiming you fully expect a ban for putting across a view that goes against the majority and I wonder why you've got that twat as your profile picture if you're not trying to get a reaction. Still i'm sure you'll run back to redcafe and tell everyone how mentally unstable we all are and how it's 1-0 to united.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I fully expect to get banned for this despite the fact this is a genuine attempt to engage you all rather than WUM.

"Negrito" does not neccesarily carry the same reputation as "negro" or the other n words in our culture as it does in South America. That is understandable. It can be used as an objective and descriptive word akin to saying "Patrice Evra is black" and would carry no offence. Similarly, it can be used as affectionately like how the n word is used between some members of the black community in urban culture in the US. Using the word "negrito" is not neccesarily a racist word, but it certainly is a reference to skin colour. And any reference to skin colour can be used to racially abuse someone regardless depending on what context it is used in.

In the context of two opposition players arguing midway through a derby match, to competely rule out any intended offence is naive. If I tell someone to shut up for instance, and then turn around and say "why, black?" I would think that they are trying to annoy me through a completely unneccessary mention of skin colour, even with a term that is not offensive. If repeated I would be certain that offence is meant. Have any of you here had an argument with someone of a different race and then for clarification pointed out the colour of their skin? Why would you unless you wanted to rile them?

This is what Suarez has been found guilty of:

* Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);

* The insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2)


Using the colour of someone else's skin to provoke a rise out of someone is racial abuse. That is not to say that Suarez is a racist, who has a phobia of black people and is a card carrying member of the BNP. Racial abuse can be used to gain an advantage on the pitch rather than reflecting underlying views. However, it is still wholly unacceptable and should be punished if proven, as is the case.

If you have any criticisms of what I have said, highlight it clearly. Hopefully I won't be banned on posting of any sort of non-consensus view.

1. Everything I have read states quite clearly that in Uruguay "Negro" and "Negrito" have nothing to do with skin colour. They are neutral terms, leaning on the sides of friendliness if anything

2. From what I have read it sounds like Evra (Who is fluent in Spanish) began the conversation with a word which apparantly is a deadly racist insult to 'South Americans'

3. The conversation was conducted in Spanish and Suarez responded in Spanish with a word that in Uruguay is not racist nor does it apply to any particular skin colour

4. It appears that although Evra initiated the discussion in Spanish, he has (At a much later time - hours afterwards) complained about to a French TV Station (Canal+). He appears in that interview to be claiming the English version of the word rather than the Spanish version - which is odd in itself as I've read that Suarez can barely speak a word of English (Can anyone confirm this?)

5. It also transpires (From a few sources) that Evra told an official at the game "You only booked me because I'm black"

6. Evra's behaviour before even a ball was kicked was stroppy, angry and confrontational throughout. As he went off it was even more so to the Liverpool fans

7. He didn't report it to any match official at any time

8. No Liverpool players heard anything

9. No Manchester United players heard anything

10. There was no video evidence despite Evra saying "You can all see it"

Obviously we all have to wait for the whole transcript to come out, but if the above was the case then firstly there doesn't seem to be a case to answer for Suarez. Secondly why did Evra use a different language to interpret a Spanish phrase and thirdly why didn't the people investigating it even look into this?

We also have the extra evidence of Hernandez (For instance) openly using the word "Negrito" in a Twitter in a non-racial manner and then we have the entire Argentian team posing with a flag with the word "Negro" upon it - again in a non-racial manner.


There are too many ifs and buts, but from everything I've seen so far (To be backed up / confirmed / denied) I can see why the club is putting up such a robust defence.


The problem here though is that Suarez is openly being called "A racist" by all and sundry (Except by the FA who charged him and not by Evra who brought the whole thing up in the first place)

The fact there are so many loose ends and so much mixed up shite would make me at this moment in time think that the FA have done this to stick up two fingers at Blatter and his organisation and are also using this as a smoke screen to another case going on at present.


We will only know for sure once the full transcript appears of course.

[montysmum]

Why can we?

Well, Kenny Dalglish, a man generally accepted to be a decent and honourable human being has come out and  thrown his support behing Suarez.  He would know the details of the case, what was said as Suarez will have told him and Dalglish was at the hearing.

If knowing the details of the case and the player involved, he believes Suarez is not a racist then that counts for something.

The players, who know Suarez and will probably know some of the details of the case, have taken the unprecedented step of wearing t shirts in his support, come out in the media  in his support and made a strongly worded statement saying how they believe in the player, all of that makes me believe that Suarez is not thought of as a racist.

The strongly worded statement from the club following the FA verdict would never have been issued (in my opinion) if there was a hint of doubt that Suarez was either a racist or had used a racist term towards Evra.  In fact, Dalglish has said from the beginning that the club is totally opposed to racism in any way and would not tolerate it.

We, as supporters, might not know the fine details of the case, but I think we do know enough to make a fairly balanced view about whether any of the things above would have been done in support of a racist player.

[Em5y]

Matter of time until they tell us that Racism causes Cancer.

[jooneyisdagod]

Yeah but the word "mate" can't be substituted for "negrito" in this analogy. Mate has no reference to skin colour. Taken as given that Evra said "don't touch me you South American" (I personally find it hard to believe), Suarez's response could end with "why not?" when you introduce a word with reference to skin colour unneccesarily for the syntax at the end of the sentence then you place emphasis on that word. And you'd have to think that in the context of an irritated and priorly insulted, Suarez it was intended to offend. Ergo it would be racial abuse.

Negrito might not be a reference to a person's colour at all.  I've read quite a few articles mentioning that it is a neutral term used in a manner similar to mate or pal.  I think that list of players that had nicknames with versions of the term negrito might say something.  A number of players of varying skin tones seem to have been given the nickname.  So lets get this straight, negrito may not be a reference to colour at all in Spanish. 

[mercurial]

I fully expect to get banned for this despite the fact this is a genuine attempt to engage you all rather than WUM.

"Negrito" does not neccesarily carry the same reputation as "negro" or the other n words in our culture as it does in South America. That is understandable. It can be used as an objective and descriptive word akin to saying "Patrice Evra is black" and would carry no offence. Similarly, it can be used as affectionately like how the n word is used between some members of the black community in urban culture in the US. Using the word "negrito" is not neccesarily a racist word, but it certainly is a reference to skin colour. And any reference to skin colour can be used to racially abuse someone regardless depending on what context it is used in.

In the context of two opposition players arguing midway through a derby match, to competely rule out any intended offence is naive. If I tell someone to shut up for instance, and then turn around and say "why, black?" I would think that they are trying to annoy me through a completely unneccessary mention of skin colour, even with a term that is not offensive. If repeated I would be certain that offence is meant. Have any of you here had an argument with someone of a different race and then for clarification pointed out the colour of their skin? Why would you unless you wanted to rile them?

This is what Suarez has been found guilty of:

* Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);

* The insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2)


Using the colour of someone else's skin to provoke a rise out of someone is racial abuse. That is not to say that Suarez is a racist, who has a phobia of black people and is a card carrying member of the BNP. Racial abuse can be used to gain an advantage on the pitch rather than reflecting underlying views. However, it is still wholly unacceptable and should be punished if proven, as is the case.

If you have any criticisms of what I have said, highlight it clearly. Hopefully I won't be banned on posting of any sort of non-consensus view.

Kya bol raha hain baap ..... buri nazaar wale tera muh kaala.

Thats something where I have taken a reference to a colour and had a jibe at you as well and I heard it used it to a ref on a football pitch. Ended up with everyone around laughing. It is not a racial term and never would be used as such.In fact what I posted translates to "what are you saying boss, black face on your evil eye". Looks damn racist and bad when I translate to English does it not.

In India or even Pakistan, it would be laughable to even consider this an abuse forget any racial bias. In fact, forget abuse.. its written on the back of every other transport truck here. What I would advise is that we should not try and judge someone else culture and language based on our perception because our brain is simply not equipped to understand that.

Suarez did not start a conversation with Evra. Evra started it in Spanish and do you know what,  allegedly used a racial term called 'sudaca' for it. If so, it cannot be interpreted in any other way no matter how you form the words. So, FA is trying to interject its meaning and wisdom into a conversation in spanish is my opinion. Hopefully that is a reasoned argument to you and no offense meant.

[yes]

You were alluding to people being racist in the other thread. Are you accusing me and the other people discussing what was acceptable 'back in the day' and what is acceptable now of being racists? If you are - come out with it.

It depends on what your interpretation of racism is I suppose.

I don't think it's black and white, pardon the pun. For instance, I can't say with any conviction that I wouldn't be more wary of walking through a gang of black lads than I would a gang of Chinese lads. In fact despite being white myself I think I'd rather walk through a gang of Chinese lads than I would a gang of white lads.  Is that a racist belief? Well it's definitely prejudicial and a belief based solely upon race so how can it not be? Does that in turn make me a racist per se? I'd like to think not.

The definition is of course a massive grey area and no doubt the reason why the FA have had to tread carefully with the reason given for the ban. There's obviously an absolute position of any belief but the areas leading to those beliefs are at best cloudy, after all even the BNP refute allegations of outright racism. In my opinion though I would perhaps suggest that there's a point where ignorance and racism overlap and this is the area where a few posts on here have fallen into, it's by no means a science though.

What I do know for certain however is that anyone who is still unsure as to what terminology is acceptable in today's society needs to treat themselves to some education rather than proudly publicising their ignorance on here. If you think that, or any of the above, applies to you then that's for you to ponder on, not me.

[HFD]

Not only are the press perverting logic, language and truth about this entire farce of a situation they are deliberately and mechanistically trying to misrepresent our club and all its fans while upholding John Terry, a reknowned scoundrel, as some apotheosis of all that is good, honest and noble... It seems John Terry is a man on a quest to clear his name and reputation while Luis is a convicted Racist if you believe the gutter press! Pah. Chances are Terry is not intrinsically racist ... if he is he must hide it pretty well given the diversity of the Chelsea squad and where he comes from. But there is no doubt what he said and its evidenced and its a really disgusting thing to say, even without thinking and in the heat of the moment.

One of the worst crimes, in my mind, is falsely and knowingly accusing someone of something wrongly.

As WE all agree we do not have the full facts and details its just hearsay with no apparent evidence of this accusation being made 10 times during the game.

There is an inference that Evra used the word Sudaca which is continually over looked and under reported in the shitty press we have. If they do, its just the word 'South American' which is a nothing as an insult, so pointless and inoffensive that youd question why would anyone, anywhere ever make such a weak and innocuous statement out of spite. From my understanding now Sudaca is a totally different response ... and about as pernicious an insult as Evra could care to make.

In terms of how the events unfolded. I saw the Ref call them across make them 'friends' on the edge of Pepe's 18 yard line. As they walk back I saw Suarez try to ruffle Evras hair or rub his head, I believe, in a non-aggressive fashion, his facial expression, for what it means, seemed jovial and relaxed not vicious and spuming . We then saw Evra churlishly, thuggishly, aggressively (whatever word seems appropriate) push his hand forcefully away and say something. Sitting 70 yards away in the Centenary directly opposite I was unable to hear what was said, or what Luis riposte was. Up until now, nobody has come come forward with a view as to what was said from the pitch or the stands.

Anyway, Evras reaction wasnt any more septic to the way he normally is ... and he continued to play the game in his usual spiteful and hateful way. At no stage did he go to the ref or his team mates  or continue to behave as though hed been stung to the core by the outrage of Luis comment, Youd think with his nature hed be harassing everyone in sight for the rest of the match in righteous indignation ... he didnt. At least I didnt notice.

Then we have Ferguson's involvement. Again, there appears to be two things that happened. Ferguson took Evra to the Ref and then Evra whines to Canal + accusing Luis of having offended him.

I wasnt there but  something happened off pitch after the game was over. I think we need to investigate Fergusons part in all this. Did Evra make the statement about "10 times" to the broadcaster before or after he spoke with Ferguson. It seems as though Ferguson may have encouraged or even exaggerated the situation with no knowledge himself of what actually happened but looking to make the most of a situation that was in all likelihood intigated by his own player.
Ferguson has raised the stakes of hatred here and should be made accountable for his action. If he is responsible for the defamation and tainting of an innocent mans character this could well be the end of him and and his exaltationby the press when the full and final truth is ever manifested.

I really think we need to focus on Ferguson and his part in exacerbating this situation from the get go.

This current stand we take as a club and its supporters is not about racism, it never really was, it is now 100% about the truth and now exposing the FA and the press for the complicit incompetents and purveyors of untruths and insults that they are known and continue to be. The Press,  the FA, EVRA and Ferguson are the ones who will ultimately be vilified when all is said and done - we just need to be solid, consistent and tenacious about this entire episode

Thought this was a cracking post.

Especially liked the "reknowned scoundrel" bit.
Never thought of him in those terms, although I might have also added he's bit of a rotter. 

[Andy @ Allerton!]

It depends on what your interpretation of racism is I suppose.

I don't think it's black and white, pardon the pun. For instance, I can't say with any conviction that I wouldn't be more wary of walking through a gang of black lads than I would a gang of Chinese lads. In fact despite being white myself I think I'd rather walk through a gang of Chinese lads than I would a gang of white lads.  Is that a racist belief? Well it's definitely prejudicial and a belief based solely upon race so how can it not be? Does that in turn make me a racist per se? I'd like to think not.

The definition is of course a massive grey area and no doubt the reason why the FA have had to tread carefully with the reason given for the ban. There's obviously an absolute position of any belief but the areas leading to those beliefs are at best cloudy, after all even the BNP refute allegations of outright racism. In my opinion though I would perhaps suggest that there's a point where ignorance and racism overlap and this is the area where a few posts on here have fallen into, it's by no means a science though.

What I do know for certain however is that anyone who is still unsure as to what terminology is acceptable in today's society needs to treat themselves to some education rather than proudly publicising their ignorance on here. If you think that, or any of the above, applies to you then that's for you to ponder on, not me.

That's not an answer.

And I'd advise you to show me a post from this week where someone has "Proudly publicised their ignorance"

And your shit post above and the other snide things you've said are veiled accusations of racism where there clearly is none.

Either you come out with it or fuck off.

[yes]

you're completely missing the point.
this isn't about using words that were ok years ago and saying so-and-so never minded then, it's totally different.
I haven't seen anyone on here using this a veil to hide their racist intentions, and if they were they would be hounded out in no time.
If you have, then I suggest you report it to the mods and let them deal with it, before throwing accusations around and talking shite.

I have done and they have deleted a few of the posts in question. I'll be expecting your heartfelt apology in the post.

[Mutton Geoff]

It depends on what your interpretation of racism is I suppose.

I don't think it's black and white, pardon the pun. For instance, I can't say with any conviction that I wouldn't be more wary of walking through a gang of black lads than I would a gang of Chinese lads. In fact despite being white myself I think I'd rather walk through a gang of Chinese lads than I would a gang of white lads.  Is that a racist belief? Well it's definitely prejudicial and a belief based solely upon race so how can it not be? Does that in turn make me a racist per se? I'd like to think not.
It makes you judgemental simply because of the colour of their skin or nationality actually that is racism so guess that answers your question!


The definition is of course a massive grey area and no doubt the reason why the FA have had to tread carefully with the reason given for the ban. There's obviously an absolute position of any belief but the areas leading to those beliefs are at best cloudy, after all even the BNP refute allegations of outright racism. In my opinion though I would perhaps suggest that there's a point where ignorance and racism overlap and this is the area where a few posts on here have fallen into, it's by no means a science though.

What I do know for certain however is that anyone who is still unsure as to what terminology is acceptable in today's society needs to treat themselves to some education rather than proudly publicising their ignorance on here. If you think that, or any of the above, applies to you then that's for you to ponder on, not me.

Given your comments above I think you need to retrain yourself perhaps! You appear confused!

Racism is in someone's mentality,  Prejudice are actions taken based on what is in their head

[Pata]

Yeah but the word "mate" can't be substituted for "negrito" in this analogy. Mate has no reference to skin colour. Taken as given that Evra said "don't touch me you South American" (I personally find it hard to believe), Suarez's response could end with "why not?" when you introduce a word with reference to skin colour unneccesarily for the syntax at the end of the sentence then you place emphasis on that word. And you'd have to think that in the context of an irritated and priorly insulted, Suarez it was intended to offend. Ergo it would be racial abuse.

Well, yes, it can, according to a couple of my sources, who spent years in South America. This would be the more innocent interpretation.
A couple of others thought it was more offensive; however, even then "negrito" is NOT more offensive than "sudaca".
Finally, in Spain itself, "sudaca" is a full-on racist term.

PS You have to note that (if true) Evra engaged Suarez on a Spanish wavelength, Suarez answered in a similar spirit and... as soon as Evra heard it, the switch flicked, he was no longer on a Spanish wavelength and he went mental, totally ignoring the fact that... well, he kinda started it.

PPS This is based on the speculation of the actual terms used. I would very much like to see what was actually said.

[yes]

That's not an answer.

And I'd advise you to show me a post from this week where someone has "Proudly publicised their ignorance"

And your shit post above and the other snide things you've said are veiled accusations of racism where there clearly is none.

Either you come out with it or fuck off.

See above. I can't show you them because they've been deleted after I reported them.

[Prince]

But if that conversation is in Spanish, which it seems to have been, then you have to leave it open to the nuances of Spanish language, and a lot of evidence seems to suggest that it's pretty commonplace in South American Spanish.

We're essentially using our understanding of English and how words are used over here to make a judgement the subtle nuances of the Spanish language. And if Evra did insult Suarez in Spanish then that's the language the conversation was conducted in.

Still, "mate" can refer to anyone from any race whereas "negr(it)o" refers to specifically darker skinned people. It is undeniably a reference to skin colour/race. You cannot erase that from the word, Suarez would have been aware of that. Correct?

I accept and I think everyone accepts that the word in question is not neccesarily racist. But it can be used in a racially abusive context. Which when you consider the circumstances, having an argument with Evra (and allegedly repeating the word), there's a strong chance it was used to wind him up.

[Pata]

...why did Evra use a different language to interpret a Spanish phrase and thirdly why didn't the people investigating it even look into this?

Yeah, I can see Denis Smith studying this... "Sudaca - that ain't even a proper word, innit? Ignore. Oh, but this other one contains a really familiar set of letters. Oh, just so wrong! Burn him!!!"

[belfast-connection]

Thought this was a cracking post.

Especially liked the "reknowned scoundrel" bit.
Never thought of him in those terms, although I might have also added he's bit of a rotter. 

so cheating on your wife in a public car park , then sleeping with your best mate's girl, knocking her up and arranging for an abortion behind his back , gambling your life away, selling illegal tours of your home ground, parking in disabled spots when you're a 'professional athlete', and pissing on the floor of most nightclubs he's ever been in and the lad calls him a 'reknowned scoundrel'?

he must work for the london press.

[LFC when it suits]

Still, "mate" can refer to anyone from any race whereas "negr(it)o" refers to specifically darker skinned people. It is undeniably a reference to skin colour/race. You cannot erase that from the word, Suarez would have been aware of that. Correct?

This is not entirely true. negrito is also used to refer to those that are not black but have dark features.