Topic: An apology to Tony Barrett (includes 2 TB articles on Suarez)

[mrsphilthefish]

Tony is a very good journalist, we need more like him.

I've known Tony for years and his support of LFC has never faltered and never will. His reports are very fair and just.
You're right, there needs to be more journalists like him. However, at least we've got him fighting our corner.

[redtel]

Thanks for posting these articles Timbo. I missed them too.

Well done TB. He did show the other side of the case and for me makes Brian Reade look even worse as he has, in the past,always written articles to show the Liverpool side of things in many articles. He did not in this case as he seems to have missed several key points in coming to his own conclusion. Unless he was toeing the Mirror line.

[[new username under construction]]

So what? are we saying the majority here never saw the articles as they were only behind the paywall? ...so therefore probably the majority or "normal" people never saw them either?

[red_til_i_die]

So what? are we saying the majority here never saw the articles as they were only behind the paywall? ...so therefore probably the majority or "normal" people never saw them either?

Yeah pretty much plus he was actually doing what a journalist is meant to do. Ask questions, playing devil's advocate and having an opinion rather than just going with the flow.

[[new username under construction]]

well at least they are out here....but still :/

[BUSHMILLS]

Sorry mate but evans is a f**king shithouse,

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=286709.msg9893294#msg9893294

Seconded.

[MiserableP15]

Is it fair to say that Bascombe was the only other journo who actually asked questions and put the LFC side of the case forward?

[Timbo's Goals]

Is it fair to say that Bascombe was the only other journo who actually asked questions and put the LFC side of the case forward?

Not sure Mushy. He's tended to get overlooked in recent times since his NoTW move. But I do seem to recall a few pieces in which he's certainly been more even handed than most albeit not exactly what you'd term staunch in Luis's favour. maybe he has in stuff I haven't seen.

[Timbo's Goals]

I've posted the same pieces on the Official forum [without the apology as they wouldn't have known what I was talking about] 

there's at least one early interesting response from someone who clearly has a more erudite insight into the whole you say knee-groe/I say negg-roe cultural interpretation business than most of us mere mortals who have to take the lingusitic experts at face value

I study Spanish at a Russell Group university. My studies have introduced me to a very wide array of varieties of spoken Spanish, from the medieval, to the modern peninsular, as well as to various brands of Latin and South American parlance. I can therefore safely say that even the FA's consultation with the linguistic experts was flawed and was likely to not have been without a hint of bias. Instead of actually presenting the actual transcript of the corroborated conversation to the professors of Spanish, they were asked the blanket question as to whether the word "negro" can be used in a conciliatory fashion in a heated conversation. They replied in the negative based on the evidence that they were given; quite understandable. However, they were not given the wider context of "¿Por qué, negro?". They could not have known that the use of the word "negro" was not used in an accusatory but in an inquisitive fashion - the fact that he sees fit to ask "Why?" before using what is an entirely acceptable word in Spanish takes any offensive edge off his words.

The way the question was put to them also brought them to one major oversight - "negro" in Montevidean Spanish can often be translated simply as "mate" (had Wayne Rooney a decent command of Spanish then the conversation would have been much the same). In this very same way, the word "negro" can be used in a conciliatory fashion during heated discussion - how many times do you see acrimony between two people referring to each other as "mate"? The FA's handling of the case was so incompetent that they managed to devalue and misinterpret the input of the linguistic experts. I haven't got my degree yet and I know, thanks to seeing all the facts, that Luis Suarez was stitched up, and I'm sure the professors of Spanish would agree if they were given the facts properly.

[wah00ey]

I've posted the same pieces on the Official forum [without the apology as they wouldn't have known what I was talking about] 

there's at least one early interesting response from someone who clearly has a more erudite insight into the whole you say knee-groe/I say negg-roe cultural interpretation business than most of us mere mortals who have to take the lingusitic experts at face value

I study Spanish at a Russell Group university. My studies have introduced me to a very wide array of varieties of spoken Spanish, from the medieval, to the modern peninsular, as well as to various brands of Latin and South American parlance. I can therefore safely say that even the FA's consultation with the linguistic experts was flawed and was likely to not have been without a hint of bias. Instead of actually presenting the actual transcript of the corroborated conversation to the professors of Spanish, they were asked the blanket question as to whether the word "negro" can be used in a conciliatory fashion in a heated conversation. They replied in the negative based on the evidence that they were given; quite understandable. However, they were not given the wider context of "¿Por qué, negro?". They could not have known that the use of the word "negro" was not used in an accusatory but in an inquisitive fashion - the fact that he sees fit to ask "Why?" before using what is an entirely acceptable word in Spanish takes any offensive edge off his words.

The way the question was put to them also brought them to one major oversight - "negro" in Montevidean Spanish can often be translated simply as "mate" (had Wayne Rooney a decent command of Spanish then the conversation would have been much the same). In this very same way, the word "negro" can be used in a conciliatory fashion during heated discussion - how many times do you see acrimony between two people referring to each other as "mate"? The FA's handling of the case was so incompetent that they managed to devalue and misinterpret the input of the linguistic experts. I haven't got my degree yet and I know, thanks to seeing all the facts, that Luis Suarez was stitched up, and I'm sure the professors of Spanish would agree if they were given the facts properly.

There was nothing incompetent whatsoever about the FA's handling of the case.  They achieved precisely their desired result from it and I'd go so far to say they have been very, very clever here.  It's been a huge stitch-up from day 1 and the media's reaction and reporting of the case has been everything and more that the FA intended.

[No666]

And in so doing the FA put back the case of racism by years, as evidenced by the contributor on TAW. They did this for their own PR purposes. They had no interest in the impact an unjust verdict would have on the matter of race relations, but the fact is that where there is a demonstrable bias in favour of a black individual, every racist in the country will use it as a catalyst to purvey general race hatred. The FA, however, were only interested in appearances not consequences.

[BUSHMILLS]

Is it fair to say that Bascombe was the only other journo who actually asked questions and put the LFC side of the case forward?

For reasons I can't fathom, Bascombe is vilified on here for working for Murdoch, whereas Barrett and Evans aren't.

[Red Beret]

For reasons I can't fathom, Bascombe is vilified on here for working for Murdoch, whereas Barrett and Evans aren't.

He worked for the NotW, plus had it in for Rafa.  I don't see the difficulty in understanding the ire.

[GrkStav]

 

ARTICLE ONE

APART from advising Luis Suarez to seek advice from Fair Trials Abroad, it is hard to know how Kenny Dalglish could have hammered home the message that Liverpool feel the forward did not receive a fair hearing with greater force than the pronouncements which accompanied acceptance of his eight game ban for racially abusing Patrice Evra.

“You don’t actually know the whole content of what went on at the hearing” was one soundbite from the Liverpool manager.

An official club statement, meanwhile, accused “the Football Association and the panel it selected” of having “constructed a highly subjective case against Luis Suarez based on an accusation that was ultimately unsubstantiated.”

Suarez’s punishment was reluctantly accepted but Liverpool continue to dispute the procedures that led up to it. Their frustration is not caused by the verdict or the penalty that followed it, rather it is born of a belief that those procedures are deeply flawed, a conviction which is so strongly held that it has prompted them to seek talks with the FA. Liverpool are even considering urging English football’s governing body to hold an inquiry about the systemic failings that they claim to have identified.

Here, The Times examines the reasons for Liverpool’s resentment and highlights the causes of their burning sense of injustice at the way the three man panel, chaired by Paul Goulding QC, arrived at its decision.

Why was Evra deemed to be a reliable witness by the commission?

When Evra first went public with his allegations on Canal Plus, the French television station, he claimed that Suarez called him a “n******” before later alleging that “negro” had been the insult. Similarly, Evra initially reported that he had been abused in this manner “ten times”, a figure which differed from Mr. Ferguson’s post-match claim of five to Andre Marriner, the referee.

Liverpool wonder how such marked inconsistencies can tally with evidence being reliable, particularly as the commission eventually settled on the word negro having been used by Suarez on seven occasions, a figure that is not supported by any corroborative evidence.

Was Evra coached through his evidence?

When Dalglish claimed that some evidence submitted at the four-day hearing was “not in the report” he is believed to have been referring to Liverpool’s belief that Evra was guided through his witness statement by the FA.

This allegation relates to their contention that while Evra was allowed to watch video footage of the confrontation while formulating his evidence, Suarez was denied the same privilege, having to rely on personal recollections only. This was a factor, Liverpool believe, in the forward not being able to offer recollections that were as thorough or as accurate as those of his accuser. Suarez’s evidence was subsequently described as “inconsistent” and “unreliable” by the panel.

Is a higher standard of proof is needed for charges of such seriousness?

Liverpool’s concern that Suarez will be labelled a racist (despite the commission’s stipulation that this is not the case) has hardened their belief that a greater burden of proof is required to sustain allegations of such gravity.

According to civil law, under which the hearing took place, the panel only had to work on the balance of probability, a threshold that falls short of the beyond all reasonable doubt standard required in criminal law. With the stigma that is now attached to Suarez as a result of the verdict, Liverpool contend that the balance of probability was not sufficient for this case.

Why wasn’t Evra charged?

By his own admission, Evra started the verbal confrontation which led to Suarez referring to him as negro. During the course of their spat, Evra told Suarez in Spanish "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada (Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you"), a threat which appeared to put him in clear breach of FA laws.

The commission’s own 115-page report states “Rule E3, with the sub-heading "General Behaviour", provides as follows: ‘(1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.”

Liverpool remain perplexed that Evra has not been charged despite admitting having threatened Suarez, particularly as there has been no clarification offered as to why not.

Was Suarez a victim of his own honesty?

From the moment that Damien Comolli, Liverpool’s director of football, quizzed Suarez about the allegations, the 24-year-old freely admitted to having used the word “negro” on one occasion.

Liverpool believe that this honesty and their own attempts to help Andre Marriner understand what took place in what they believed was a misunderstanding between Suarez and Evra allowed the FA to build a case against him. They feel that such transparency was never taken into account and was instead used evidentially against Suarez when the chances of charges following without Liverpool’s co-operation and admissions would have been slim in the absence of any other corroboration. Liverpool’s opinion that this sends out the wrong signal to clubs and players to plead the fifth amendment and refusing to co-operate should they be investigated.

Liverpool recognise that the word “negro” should not have been used but their acknowledgement is accompanied by a belief that Suarez’s admission should have alerted the panel that he did so innocently and without malice.

My only real reservation here is that I’d have liked to have seen the article explore the Uruguayan street meaning and annunciation of the term ‘negg-row’






ARTICLE TWO (this appeared the day after the verdict)

WHY WAS SUAREZ’S STATEMENT SO POORLY DRAFTED?

At the heart of the commission’s judgement against Suarez was their belief that the Uruguayan had provided “unreliable” evidence. The tone for this was set by his own statement which Peter McCormick, the solicitor acting on his behalf, admitted to the independent panel had been compromised in part by “bad drafting”.

Suarez had initially claimed that he had pinched Evra in an attempt “to defuse the situation”, a claim that he later retracted under cross-examination.

“What concerned us was that Mr Suarez should have made what we considered to be such an unarguable assertion in his witness statement, ie that the pinching was an attempt to defuse the situation when it plainly was not,” the commission said in its report.

The damage done to the credibility of Suarez and his evidence by this “bad drafting” was severe and it was caused by his own legal team.

WHY DID LIVERPOOL APPOINT PETER MCCORMICK TO REPRESENT SUAREZ?

While the FA went for one of the country’s leading criminal lawyers, appointing Paul Greaney QC to make the case against Suarez, Liverpool opted for McCormick, a solicitor whose expertise lies in sports, media and entertainment law. Furthermore, McCormick’s past history made him a most unlikely choice given that he had chaired the FA tribunal which rejected Gabriel Heinze’s bid to overturn Manchester United’s decision to block him from moving to Liverpool in 2007.

McCormick’s involvement in that decision left a bitter taste in the mouths of the Liverpool hierarchy at the time and it seemed inconceivable that he would ever be employed by the club in any capacity but subsequent changes in the Anfield boardroom seem to have given him a second chance with the club. The result, though, was the same as in 2007 – Liverpool ended up on the losing side.

WHERE DOES THE DECISION LEAVE LIVERPOOL’S RECORD ON DIVERSITY?

There is no doubt that their image has suffered as a result of this case and that they have undermined themselves with a series of poor decisions (not least the wearing of T-shirts in support of Suarez), but equally it should be noted that Liverpool have an admirable reputation for pursuing and embracing racial and cultural diversity.

Almost a year ago, they were awarded the Kick It Out Equality Standard Preliminary Level becoming, at that time, only the second Premier League Club to achieve this standard. The distinction was bestowed in recognition of their work in promoting equality in race, religion, age, gender and disability. Suarez’s transgressions will take the spotlight away from such work but it does not detract from it.

WHY DID LIVERPOOL’S OWNERS NOT INTERVENE?

For all the deserved plaudits that Fenway Sports Group have received for restoring stability at Liverpool, one issue they have failed to address is the absence of a senior executive from the organisation with a hands on role in the day to day running of the club. John W Henry, the principle owner, and Tom Werner, the chairman, were kept abreast of the Suarez situation thanks to numerous conference calls and email exchanges but their involvement was both distant and non-public.

An issue as serious as this one has been and which has caused untold damage to Liverpool’s image demanded a suitable response from a senior executive. As yet, two and a half months after the situation first came to light, there is still to be one with Kenny Dalglish being the only senior figure at the club to have spoken on the matter.

WHY WAS PATRICE EVRA NOT CHARGED BY THE FA?

Given the furore surrounding Suarez, Rule E3 of the FA’s disciplinary code has become better known and understood than was the case previously, having been regularly quoted and referenced in all forms of media in recent weeks.

The commission’s own report states “Rule E3, with the sub-heading "General Behaviour", provides as follows: ‘(1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.”

Given that Evra admitted threatening to strike Suarez during the confrontation – saying in Spanish "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada (Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you") – it does appear that the defender’s threats meant he was in breach of the very same rule, albeit without any racial connotations.

I would like to know who made the decision to appoint Peter McCormick Suarez/LFC's 'lead counsel' in front of the FA Commission and what his/her/their rationale was for doing so. It sounds like TB, who's extremely well-informed and plugged-in to LFC, has (or has been informed of) the exact same misgivings (even a bit of anger and frustration) regarding Peter McCormick's performance.

[hassinator]

two excellent pieces i had not seen as i won't pay for murdoch press.

my only question is why is there no mention of evra referring to suarez as a sudaca and also the reference to suarez sister's genitals?

or did i just imagine those points over the several life times this seems to have simmered?

[IndyRed]

I seem to have heard a lot more people who have stood up for Suarez since the apology from LFC.  Would have been nice to have heard more support beforehand, but I do think that some people are starting to get it. Better late than never, nice to see that good sense can sometimes prevail, even if the majority still believe all the ridiculous headlines out there.

[Redrider]

Well done Tony, it is hard to counter the MUFC/Ferguson, publicity machine.