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

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Yet this thread continues with conjecture wrapped up in a big coating of speculation dancing merrily along a road of fury and hand-wringing.

If the fucking FA had released the 'evidence' for which they supposedly referenced to ban a player for eight matches and fine £40,000 and directly lead to him being called a 'Racist' by all and Sundry probably for the rest of this life then perhaps we'd all fucking know.

[thejbs]

Well who's fault is that?

 

[stevied]

I'll support England like I always have in things like Rugby, Cricket and whatever - but the English FC can fuck themselves

i agree

[Red number seven]

To give someone an 8 game ban, there has to be a finding of intent, no?

Example.

During a match, Player A kicks the ball.  It goes into the crowd and hits someone in the face causing serious injury.  They're knocked unconscious, blood everywhere, and end up with a broken nose, and without a couple of teeth.

But Player A was actually shooting at goal.  Their intention was not to cause injury to the spectator.  Their defence is not one of ignorance.  ie Player A does not claim
i) I didnt know there was a spectator behind the goal
ii) I didnt know that my shot might go off target
iii) I didnt know that my shot might hit somebody
iv) I didnt know that my shot might hurt somebody if it hit them

Player A was not "ignorant" about any of those things, but he still deliberately took the shot.  He is not guilty of any FA (or criminal) offence because his intention was to score, and not to hit the fan.


Whereas Player B loses his temper and deliberately kicks the ball at a supporter.  People in the crowd see the ball coming and fist it away.  No-one is injured.

Player B should (a) get a red card and (b) get an FA ban and (c) a talking to (as a minimum) from the police.


In other words, if Suarez did not intend to make any remark which referred to Evra's skin colour, then he is not guilty just because Evra is hurt (emotionally).

Whereas if a different player directs a racist insult at an opponent who is not injured (because they do not hear the remark) then that player does commit a serious offence.  That would be true if the offender played for Liverpool, or else played for a West London team, or else was Patrice Evra.

Morally I think you are spot on. Technically not so sure.

The problem is, and why the verdict is arguably technically correct, is that the definition of racism, slightly bizarrely, needs only that offence is taken (I think it has to be reasonably taken), and if offence isn't taken it isn't racist.

That neatly sidesteps the issue of why Samuel Jackson and Spike Lee can use the word N**ger with abandon, but I am a card carrying BNP Nazi if I do.

Personally, I think the FA could have found him guilty on that basis, but then pointed out he didn't have a clue what he was saying, he meant no racist abuse, is quite the opposite of a racist by deed which entirely mitigates the situation and his draconian sentence should've been suspended.

[thejbs]

If the fucking FA had released the 'evidence' for which they supposedly referenced to ban a player for eight matches and fine £40,000 and directly lead to him being called a 'Racist' by all and Sundry probably for the rest of this life then perhaps we'd all fucking know.

And in absence of said evidence is the right course of action to assume what was said and not said?  There's a difference between speculation and assumption.  I'm afraid this thread crossed the speculation barrier into assumption ages ago.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

And in absence of said evidence is the right course of action to assume what was said and not said?  There's a difference between speculation and absolutism.  I'm afraid this thread crossed the speculation barrier into absolutism ages ago.

The various words had clearly been leaked to media sources. You can see the mention of them if you do a casual search.

Do you think the FA and that committee and the people involved live in a little plastic bubble surrounded by a gulf of voided nothing?

Or do you think that people have been openly leaking shite from day one of all this?

People are fairly/very certain of what was said. You can see from Liverpool's own statement that they know exactly what as said - how could they fucking not? The player PLAYS for them.

How can you think that Evra's own testimony can be known by him and him alone?


Do you honestly think that the clubs won't have spoken to both players? Do you think they won't have told others? Do you think that media sources would find shit out?


Do you live in a bubble?

[TheMightyReds]

Read quite a few intelligent posts on here. As i stated before we would have to be careful about our response to this verdict. I disagree on the T shirt show of support the other day. It was not needed. Instead the players focus may have been lost, and a better way simply would have been to hand Suarez the opportunity to score and win the game. Then show our team unity.

The most glaring thing for me out of all this is the term of the ban. It is way way over the top. Its double to anything closely resembling it. Even if should the verdict have been entirely correct and Suarez is indeed guilty, at most it should have been a 3 game ban with a small fine. That fits the crime and a suitable punishment is handed down, as well as the club also taking its own sanctions against the player. The player would also apologise I have no doubt and that would be the end of the matter. Said individual is not a murderer or rapist that he serves a life sentence. One of the greatest attributes of being human is the ability of redemption and being able to forgive and forget.

Yes it is a crime and a low form of insulting someone. At the same time one must consider the person making that comment, the context and whether there was any other parties that also formed this view and were acting aggressive. Of course everyone reacts differently to an insult. Some take it as an ignorant comment that it is and simply inform that person of it. Another might have a history of insults against them and take it badly and react with anger and confront the person making the insult. Whilst the third type of person i have witnessed is the ones that have a inferiority complex and do not like being made a fool of, or put down in any way whatsoever. They have a chip on their shoulder and blame today's present generation for the many wrongs of the past. They react in a way that Patrice Evra has done and utilize the race card on the slightest indignation (or use discriminatory language themselves). The same must also be true of the other person making the comments. Either they know what they are doing at aim to cause offence, or they play dumb or was reckless, or they have no idea it might cause offense. If the FA think Suarez is the latter but the term is offensive then what is the world coming to. The key is the mens rea of the person making that comment. 

We have come a long way and i get that the FA would like to take the moral high ground with this case, but it is a punishment that they simply cannot justify. Especially as it seems that Suarez was simply ignorant on what he could be saying innocently (as he has said himself). This could have been handled a lot better. Clubs talking to one another, players meetings if need be, public apologies, Liverpool FC and Manchester United coming together on a racism campaign. This excessive punishment does nobody any good, least of all the players future career when people are quick to hand him down a life sentence.

I hope the FA see sense. 

[thejbs]

No, I live outside the patronising partisan bubble that others seem to be living in...

I've 'casually searched' and found no real mention of Sudaca.

All I know is that Luis Suarez said a word that Evra found objectionable and that Liverpool said Evra did the same.  I know nothing more than this for certain.  And neither do you.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Read quite a few intelligent posts on here. As i stated before we would have to be careful about our response to this verdict. I disagree on the T shirt show of support the other day. It was not needed. Instead the players focus may have been lost, and a better way simply would have been to hand Suarez the opportunity to score and win the game. Then show our team unity.

The most glaring thing for me out of all this is the term of the ban. It is way way over the top. Its double to anything closely resembling it. Even if should the verdict have been entirely correct and Suarez is indeed guilty, at most it should have been a 3 game ban with a small fine. That fits the crime and a suitable punishment is handed down, as well as the club also taking its own sanctions against the player. The player would also apologise I have no doubt and that would be the end of the matter. Said individual is not a murderer or rapist that he serves a life sentence. One of the greatest attributes of being human is the ability of redemption and being able to forgive and forget.

Yes it is a crime and a low form of insulting someone. At the same time one must consider the person making that comment, the context and whether there was any other parties that also formed this view and were acting aggressive. Of course everyone reacts differently to an insult. Some take it as an ignorant comment that it is and simply inform that person of it. Another might have a history of insults against them and take it badly and react with anger and confront the person making the insult. Whilst the third type of person i have witnessed is the ones that have a inferiority complex and do not like being made a fool of, or put down in any way whatsoever. They have a chip on their shoulder and blame today's present generation for the many wrongs of the past. They react in a way that Patrice Evra has done and utilize the race card on the slightest indignation (or use discriminatory language themselves). The same must also be true of the other person making the comments. Either they know what they are doing at aim to cause offence, or they play dumb or was reckless, or they have no idea it might cause offense. If the FA think Suarez is the latter but the term is offensive then what is the world coming to. The key is the mens rea of the person making that comment. 

We have come a long way and i get that the FA would like to take the moral high ground with this case, but it is a punishment that they simply cannot justify. Especially as it seems that Suarez was simply ignorant on what he could be saying innocently (as he has said himself). This could have been handled a lot better. Clubs talking to one another, players meetings if need be, public apologies, Liverpool FC and Manchester United coming together on a racism campaign. This excessive punishment does nobody any good, least of all the players future career when people are quick to hand him down a life sentence.

I hope the FA see sense. 

I couldn't give a fuck about the ban or the fine. This is the entire career of a player who will be labelled a racist for the rest of his life for making a non-racist statement. His own grandfather is black.

The whole thing is utter shite.

[LFC when it suits]

its a bit like going round in circles this but surely you wouldn't go up to a black person and call them "negrito" after living in the uk your whole life. Would you be surprised if they took offence? And even if you did it to an Black person in Spain do you not think you might be doing something slightly dodgy?

The only context in which a person would use the word negrito is if they are speaking spanish. If anyone was to be offended, then it would be a question of educating that person about the customs and culture of the spanish/south american spanish language so that they understand that it's not racist.

[Red number seven]

They said 'most objectionable' not deeply derogatory.

Apologies for not checking the quote. for the record "We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms."

This doesn't make it fact yet its being treated as fact..

Not by me, I have repeatedly said "if he said that." It seems the most likely word to me, though.

I'm yet to see anyone from the club or any member of the press state that word.  Yes I know the press are unreliable but they also like to sensationalise and stir shit - if they had evidence of the word being used they would never hold it back.

NESN have quoted it. Given that Henry has close ties, I don't think it's a big jump to think that might have been a leak.

That's misleading. He's being punished by the FA based on his own words.  We don't know what those words are.

I never mentioned the FA. He is being called "racist" in big letters on the back of some tabloids, Talksport have been slaughtering him, Paul McGrath has said (in print across the back of most tabs) that Glen Johnson is a disgrace for supporting his mate. None of htese have any more facts than me. He is being hung out to dry.

Yet this thread continues with conjecture wrapped up in a big coating of speculation dancing merrily along a road of fury and hand-wringing.

It's not stopped professional journalists from destroying Luis Surez's reputation, so why should it stop a load of Liverpool fans on an internet forum? In fact, some professional journalists have gone against the findings of the trial and actually called Luis Suarez a racist.

[gerrardsarmy]

No, I live outside the patronising partisan bubble that others seem to be living in...

I've 'casually searched' and found no real mention of Sudaca.

All I know is that Luis Suarez said a word that Evra found objectionable and that Liverpool said Evra did the same.  I know nothing more than this for certain.  And neither do you.

And all this absolutism or speculation or whatever you want to call it could have been avoided if the FA had have just fucking released the evidence but instead we have every man and his dog trying to speculate what was said while the media run riot as well.

[CognacBut]

I couldn't give a fuck about the ban or the fine. This is the entire career of a player who will be labelled a racist for the rest of his life for making a non-racist statement. His own grandfather is black.

The whole thing is utter shite.

Amen to this.

[Dr Manhattan]

Top trending on twitter today, worldwide, have a guess?

#ifsantawasblack

Followed by thousands of people making stereotypes and thinking it's ok, presumably including all those who have been so outraged this week at what's gone on.

Amazing.

[Cid]

And in absence of said evidence is the right course of action to assume what was said and not said?  There's a difference between speculation and assumption.  I'm afraid this thread crossed the speculation barrier into assumption ages ago.

Yes, let's all reserve judgement while the rest of the country are building gallows.  I believe our club and our player over a proven liar and an organisation of corrupt, racist hypocrites.

[24/7]

Top trending on twitter today, worldwide, have a guess?

Another reason why I will never have a Twatter account and also partially explains why I am binning Faceache.

[Dr Manhattan]

Another reason why I will never have a Twatter account and also partially explains why I am binning Faceache.

But can you actually believe it? I mean, I know it's not strictly completely related, but I just can't quite fathom how anyone thinks it's ok, I really can't, and I'm willing to bet my life that people who have been so outspoken and morally outraged this week have added their own little #ifsantawasblack tweet today "for a laugh".

[The Gulleysucker]

So do you actually mean you think it's racist pending a read of the transcript?

Sorry Timbo, been out.

No, but I can understand how others with different cultural sensitivities and grasp of language might interpret the alleged words exchanged with having racist connotations.

I do trust Kenny though and just hope he's not been put in an impossible situation.

But from the little we know so far and not yet being privy to the evidence that was presented at the inquiry including any admissions by the players concerned and the boards deliberations to come to their conclusion, I reserve the right, as we all should, to then have to accept their findings no matter how unpalatable they might be,  provided they can be shown to have been scrupulously fair and have neither prejudice, undue outside influence or any indication of pursuing another agenda in reaching their conclusion.

It's rather a big if though, and as I said, since on past occasions I feel the FA, for reasons that are open to conjecture and wild conspiracy theories, have perhaps not always been seen to act with suitable transparency leaving them open to accusations of possible hypocrisy, inconsistancy and applying differing standards, we shall have to wait and see.

But until the proceedings are published and we know precisely what evidence was actually presented and if any appeal is then justified and has a good chance of success, I just think it's unwise to hypothesise too much and construct facts out of conjecture and assumptions.

[Red number seven]

I dont think that either the definition in the Equality Act, nor the definition in the FA rules hinge on whether offence is taken or not.

Eg say I was arguing with Evra and called him a bloody fool.  Afterwards, someone pulls out a dictionary and proves that "fool" is actually an old word for French.

Have I now racially abused Evra?  I say no (assuming I meant "fool" as in "idiot" and not "fool" as in "French).  And it makes no difference if Evra knew that "fool" could also mean "French" or not. 

Whereas if I did use the word "fool" as a reference to nationality, then I am guilty of racial abuse, even though Evra might not have realised it at the time (either because he didnt hear me, or he didnt know that I was using a reference to his nationality)

Completely take and agree with your argument. Don't know the race relations act but am aware of the anti-discrimination policy in the public service in which I work, and that is about taking offence, as I had to handle an alleged racial abuse case with one of the lads who worked under me. I had assumed the policy was based on the race relations act but I may be wrong.

Your example of "fool" meaning "French" is a good one, but it has to be a reasonable offence being taken, whihc I think is interpreted as a "reasonable man" might see it as offensive. But I'm not a lawyer so I'm not that sure.

I also think that in any other walk of life the two would've been brought up to explain themselves, written warning at worst and move on, especially if there was clear misunderstanding.

[24/7]

*shrug*

The sad thing is that I can indeed believe it. 'People' in general are c*nts especially when they can hide behind the anonymity of the mob, a phenomenon made all the more insidious when done in the guise of an internet ID.

When you've marched through the streets and had running battles with people either for or against the NF, the ANC, the Anti-Nazi League then you've done something bigger and better than tweeted some twat "having a laugh" about a black santa.

It's gut-wrenchingly nauseating how 'people' are reacting to this Evra thing (I won't even call it a Suarez thing cos I am firmly in the camp of Suarez being the real victim here.)

I am half-dreading, half-relishing bumping into the usual crowd in my local cos they'll start on this and I'll rip them a new one over it.

[Bernard Shakey]

Sorry Timbo, been out.

No, but I can understand how others with different cultural sensitivities and grasp of language might interpret the alleged words exchanged with having racist connotations.

I do trust Kenny though and just hope he's not been put in an impossible situation.

But from the little we know so far and not yet being privy to the evidence that was presented at the inquiry including any admissions by the players concerned and the boards deliberations to come to their conclusion, I reserve the right, as we all should, to then have to accept their findings no matter how unpalatable they might be,  provided they can be shown to have been scrupulously fair and have neither prejudice, undue outside influence or any indication of pursuing another agenda in reaching their conclusion.

It's rather a big if though, and as I said, since on past occasions I feel the FA, for reasons that are open to conjecture and wild conspiracy theories, have perhaps not always been seen to act with suitable transparency leaving them open to accusations of possible hypocrisy, inconsistancy and applying differing standards, we shall have to wait and see.

But until the proceedings are published and we know precisely what evidence was actually presented and if any appeal is then justified and has a good chance of success, I just think it's unwise to hypothesise too much and construct facts out of conjecture and assumptions.

Good post, I agree. I think LFC should keep quiet about the issue until the findings are published and everyone knows exactly what words were or weren't said and whether the 8 game ban really is appropriate. At the moment we're building too much of a seige mentality in the face of a very serious issue.

[Carra23]

I hope Luis and his family can put this aside for the time being and have a fantastic Christmas Day, he deserves it.

Happy Christmas Luis.

[Millie]

One of the major things that irks me about this case is this -

From my understanding, one of the ways we are taught to combat racism is to be educated about all cultures, nationalities, religions etc and as a result be understanding and tolerant of those different from ourselves.  We should respect what others believe even if it is not part of our own culture.  For example my husband is Nepalese and Hindu - therefore I would never dream of serving him beef and he would never dream of telling me not to eat beef.

Now given the above how come the FA have not taken into account the culture and beliefs of Suarez and the fact that he is from Uruguay?

Surely that is racist in itself?  How can you possibly rule on a matter of racism and be intolerant of another person's culture? 

This case has made me so angry - why do the British think that they are better than everyone else - why are they so arrogant to believe that the British way is the only way?  Who are hell are the FA to tell Suarez that he cannot speak his own language.  Do they not realise that they have pissed off a whole country and probably a whole continent?

[Finn Solomon]

Good post, I agree. I think LFC should keep quiet about the issue until the findings are published and everyone knows exactly what words were or weren't said and whether the 8 game ban really is appropriate. At the moment we're building too much of a seige mentality in the face of a very serious issue.

But LFC know exactly what words were used, being privy to all details and evidence used in the hearing. Are you suggesting that if there's even the slightest hint that Suarez is a racist, they would still back him to the hilt the way they have? I'd like to think the club is better than that.

[thejbs]

If the incident had happened with Hernandez and Johnson for example what would our stance be out of interest?

Or between two players from other clubs?

[Millie]

If the incident had happened with Hernandez and Johnson for example what would our stance be out of interest?

Or between two players from other clubs?

Given that Johnson can speak fluent Spanish I would think he would not take offence

[Bernard Shakey]

But LFC know exactly what words were used, being privy to all details and evidence used in the hearing. Are you suggesting that if there's even the slightest hint that Suarez is a racist, they would still back him to the hilt the way they have? I'd like to think the club is better than that.

Its reported that Luis admitted saying certain words so LFC must know that too. You must see that there's an element of backing him cos we dont want our best player missing for 8 matches..at least thats how sections of teh media are seeing it - our league position is more important to us than fighting racism blah blah blah. Its gotten very messy. The t-shirts were a bad idea, it was obvious they would get misconstrued.

[81a]

This case has made me so angry - why do the British think that they are better than everyone else - why are they so arrogant to believe that the British way is the only way?  Who are hell are the FA to tell Suarez that he cannot speak his own language.  Do they not realise that they have pissed off a whole country and probably a whole continent?

They have been letting people piss off whole countries for years.

Everyone sprinted towards the referee -- typical Germans. You cannot dispute that, they are like that"

"When an Italian says it's pasta I check under the sauce to make sure. They are innovators of the smokesceen"

[SportBilly]

The French word for waiter has traditionally been garçon.  The French word for boy is garçon.  But garçon originally meant 'servant'.  If you're talking to a waiter, he doesn't think you're calling him 'boy' and if you're talking to a boy it doesn't mean you think he's your servant although the word can be construed that way if you want to be literal about it. 

That's why language and culture ARE relevant when you're trying to deal with something someone says in a foreign language.

[Finn Solomon]

Its reported that Luis admitted saying certain words so LFC must know that too. You must see that there's an element of backing him cos we dont want our best player missing for 8 matches..at least thats how sections of teh media are seeing it - our league position is more important to us than fighting racism blah blah blah. Its gotten very messy. The t-shirts were a bad idea, it was obvious they would get misconstrued.

Exactly, I wasn't saying that Suarez said nothing at all. But it's quite simple in my mind, if the club knew what words were said and they're still backing Suarez to such an unprecedented degree then he's not guilty of racism or racist abuse.

As for the media view and the t-shirts - to me it's more important to show Suarez that we're backing him to the hilt. Would have done it even if it was Paul Konchesky being accused. The media were always going to fling shit anyway, I'm more concerned with the impact our support made on Suarez. Which, according to Kenny, is deeply appreciated.

[Lenin.]

If the incident had happened with Hernandez and Johnson for example what would our stance be out of interest?

Or between two players from other clubs?

Has anyone ever before complained about being called Negrito/Negrita ever in the world?

[No666]

Johnson is learning Spanish, he's not fluent. As a beginner, one of the first things you're taught is that there are many 'false friends' between Spanish and English: ie words that sound the same but have different meanings. You are instructed as an English speaker not to make assumptions. So he'd probably check his dictionary before going to Canal+ to give an interview accusing Hernadez of racism.

[thejbs]

Has anyone ever before complained about being called Negrito/Negrita ever in the world?

And yet again we come back to assumption.  And I love the idea that we'd all be standing up for Hernandez

[Bernard Shakey]

The reports saif that he "admitted" saying "Porque Negro" in response to Evra saying : 'Don't touch me, you South American,' (Evra's words were in Spanish apparently, but we dont seem to have the exact words he used, only the translation).


However the official club statement says that Suarez did not hear Evra's alleged racial slur.  So that seems to me to imply that he did not admit saying "Porque Negro" in response to Evra saying : 'Don't touch me, you South American'


But if he did "admit" it, then that is not the same as "admitting" that he used the English word pronounced "knee-grow"

"porque negro" thats a new one on me. I thought it was "negrito" See this is why this has gotten out of hand..we're supporting him even though we dont really know what was said and the media are condemning him despite not really knowing either! I've just read a lot of speculative stuff about contexts and whatnot ...we haven't even established was language was being spoken! Its not credible to me that Evra would be speaking Spanish but we just dont know.

This is why we should wait for the official reports and find out what was said exactly.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Given that Johnson can speak fluent Spanish I would think he would not take offence

just like evra

[Andy @ Allerton!]

And yet again we come back to assumption.  And I love the idea that we'd all be standing up for Hernandez

I doubt we would be because we wouldn't care enough to find out the reality or the facts of the alleged words or phrases.

In the same way that Manchester United fans come on here in their droves to wind people up and try and score petty points because they aren't interested in finding out anything from the information currently in the public domain.

You can (transparently) object to what you like, but given the number of unrelated journalists and given the mass hysteria outside LFC then you are hardly in a position to come up with your smug shite. Read what you've posted - have you done any research or information gathering on the background of what could have been said (Given several media sources)? Have you added anything?

Or have you just come on here to be smug, condescending and basically worthless?

If you are against 'assumption' and waiting unless all the facts be known then why even bother coming into the thread?

What have you added? What are your aims? What are your goals? Or are you just here to be petty and obtuse?

[G1 Jockey 4(betfair)]

Dont want to get off topic, but you're probably talking about your grievance policy or anti bullying policy.

Certainly if someone is being treated in a particular way at work, then they can ask others to stop.  The others might not have intended it badly/racially, but now they've been put on notice that they're causing offence, then they should stop.

However, your disciplinary policy will be different.  ie no-one will get sacked for doing saying something non-racist just because it was perceived as racist by a colleague.  ie to be sacked, it would have to be the decision maker (and not the "victim") who decided it was racist. 

Same if it was in court, either civil or criminal.  The fact that the victim might say something is racist (even though that might be their genuine opinion) does not make it racist.

As of October last year, the old Race Relations Act has now been replaced by the Equality Act.  But it makes no difference to this particular point.

talking of which
the procedure which the fa have taken here probably wouldnt stand up in a tribunal because the person has been found guilty without a reason why...so far.

you can argue that the panle found him guilty and then made up the reasons.

i think this is gonna run for a while

[Andy @ Allerton!]

"porque negro" thats a new one on me. I thought it was "negrito" See this is why this has gotten out of hand..we're supporting him even though we dont really know what was said and the media are condemning him despite not really knowing either! I've just read a lot of speculative stuff about contexts and whatnot ...we haven't even established was language was being spoken! Its not credible to me that Evra would be speaking Spanish but we just dont know.

This is why we should wait for the official reports and find out what was said exactly.

On the contrary it was known a week ago that the phrase could be 'negro' or 'negrito' - both racially neutral in Uruguay. If you'd bothered to read the thread then you'd have seen this - I've personally posted it about 20 fucking times.

[Mad Max]

Demento on SSN saying the matter is over, it's not over you senile twat.

[Lenin.]

And yet again we come back to assumption.  And I love the idea that we'd all be standing up for Hernandez

What is the assumption? It was a question. And I am quite sure that  Man U supporters, media pundits, press & Mexican Embassy would all be standing up for Chicarito, no?