[The main thread is locked so hope it's ok to post this here]
So it seems a man is only innocent until stitched up by an institution and media dripping with posturing, pious, self-righteous indignation.
Thank goodness there are so many Reds who are strident in their support for Luis Suarez and the club’s support of their player – based not simply on loyalty but rather on the application of a rationale that rightly sees the injustice in what has taken place. In sobering contrast, the views of Brian Reade, Tony Evans and several other notable Reds rank as dispiriting as anything I've read from tried and trusted high profile Liverpool fans. We now even have the manifestation of that all so rare breed – the self-righteous Liverpudlian – as Tony Evans apparently queries the distinct absence of empathy amongst Liverpool supporters for Patrice Evra.
Either by maintaining that a racial law/rule has been unequivocally broken and/or that LFC are wrong to have contested the FA ruling and/or are wrong for not having apologized and/or, finally, are wrong in challenging Evra's credibility; these prominent Liverpudlians - whether they care to admit or not – have effectively aligned themselves behind a contemptible witch hunt via their support for the ruling of an inept, corrupt and morally bankrupt organisation and, worse, the xenophobic scum that ranks as the English media.
Now for all we mere mortals know, it may be that such a coincidental ‘collective’ take on the fact that a racism law/rule has been broken stems from some underground grapevine – a shared/privileged insight that reveals Luis Suarez has indeed lied about the innocence of his alleged 'negro/negrito' remark and has knowingly used either the former remark in its ‘black person’ English idiom or has used some other remark, one that is incontrovertibly racist.
If either were proven to be the case then Luis Suarez will have wilfully made a fool of everybody who believes in his innocence. In which case, he would be rendered a pariah by every Liverpudlian.
What seems more likely is that these high profile folks have accepted 'communally' an interpretation – perhaps even on advice from a shared ‘expert’ legal source – that in England the law of the land deems that the word 'negro/negrito' ranks as racist whatever its innocuous Uruguayan meaning. If so, then I’m sure many of us will be dismayed that people hitherto regarded highly within the Liverpool family have so eagerly and readily bought into such narrow and intolerant interpretation – especially prior to the disclosure of the full facts of the episode.
From where many ordinary reds are standing, such a stance – certainly at this premature stage of proceedings - seems tantamount to a betrayal. The very antipathy of solidarity. Shoulder to shoulder with an odious c*nt rather than one of our own.
Where is objective reasoning in such a stance? Why the seemingly intrinsic rejection of what to any reasonable interpretation seems fair and just merely to ensure a distancing from what the politically correct seem to be falling over themselves to brand as a racist mentality/fraternity?
Of course, by bending to the baying Englander majority, they will have lost respect of many Reds – most I would wager without a single ounce of genuine racist feeling within their entire being – who can see the absurdity of implementing in this particular instance such a misguided and self-serving philosophy – particularly at this juncture without any hard facts disclosed one way or the other save for the findings of a three man panel minus the remotest expertise in the Spanish tongue and, more pointedly, within the complex minefield of racism.
I presume most of us are by now aware about how the Uruguayan ‘street level’ colloquilism 'Porque, negro/negrito' can – dependent upon situation and context – mean anything from 'why, pal' to 'what the fuck's up with you cunthooks'. How it carries no racist connotations whatsoever, in the minds of a Uruguayan whether he be resident in Uruguay, Walton Breck Road or Timbuckfuckingtu. And a Uruguayan, that is, barely able to converse about a goal he has scored in the tongue of his latest adopted land let alone the complexities of which of his pet Latin phrases constitutes a racist term to his new neighbours. To deem it a racist insult simply because the English derivative of the original Spanish word has but one interpretation to a native Englander tells us only of the intolerance and ignorance of those viewing it as such.
To expand on this, I'm posting a link to an intelligent and insightful article written on the subject. Though written by an expert in South American linguistic studies, personally I believe the article is actually attempting to be too impartial. The guy is certainly no Luis Suarez apologist. It actually does Luis no favours in portraying his character. It also fails spectacularly to mention the root cause of the entire affair – namely what an out and out skin colour paranoid snarling c*nt of a man Evra truly is. In effect - bar rightly and justly sticking up for South Americans to get a fair crack of the whip in the arena of racism - the person writing it has no axe to grind with regard to either protaganist.
Nevertheless, the principal theme of the piece captures beautifully the hypocritical ineptitude and almost unquestionably, as far as I'm concerned, the prejudice, corruption and perniciousness that lies at the heart of the FA and, by association, any body appointed by it to provide any investigative work on its behalf. What it says about the mixed up sensibilities of some of our fellow Liverpudlians I’ll leave folks to decide for themselves.
http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/premierleague/story/football-association-taking-narrow-view-of-racism-luis-suarez-patrice-evra-manuel-barcia-122411?m_n=true