martin samuel, matt lipton,dave maddock

[Guest TK-421]

The fans won't get bored of it for a long time, they'll boo him and chant racist every game he plays for us.

 

It won't sell papers for much longer though I agree.

 

I agree with your first point and I feel sorry for Suarez. I think he'll probably leave. Hope he doesn't and he can come out the other side.

[bri5x]

Is that martin Shamuel admitting that there are weaknesses in the report if you look for them? Well,martin, we did look for them and we found em,lots of em! Thanks for backing us up.now if you could just have a word with some of your journalist friends,we might be on to something here...

[Redshadow]

Think that in the Four pages I've read on this so far? I've seen No mention of The biggest tosser of the lot - The One & Only Danny Fullbrook of the Star - You think the others are bad? Then look at This C*nt. Openly Prejudiced against our Club, It's Fans & our city, Calling Suarez And LFC Racist Non fucking stop, getting in dig after dig after dig at Kenny. Mysteriously (in the manner of All rodents who Know they're outgunned) going quiet from getting an LFC fans Counter Barrage on Twitter Until the day of our refusal to appeal when he popped up once more with his Sheer Venom - Basically? You name it & It Harms our club? Then this utter tosser? Has more than likely done it & has certainly tweeted about it - He's like a fucking online incarnation of THAT newspaper - Even though A ) He works for the Star & B )? He doesn't even Bother to hide his hatred for Everything (and I do mean the Lot) to do with Liverpool.

 

Believe me others have made my blood boil before but None like him. I actually think I almost physically Hate him now after reading his utter Poison. It's even reached the point where to say I'd be happy were he Ahem 'accidentally' shot? Is an understatement. In short, This one? Defines the very Word Vile & shows Just what we're up against if you ask me. Oh & Further? Reading back across this thread? Looks like That thing (Fullbrook)? Is just the Tip of the Iceberg re the Anti Anfield Brigade. What a fucking surprise - Not. Either way? You can be sure of One thing? This lot most probably Led by the likes of Fullbrook & if given half a chance? Will stop at Nothing to Keep us from Ever getting back where we were and then some..............

[Iceman]

Don't forget that cunt Richard Williams in the Grauniad. He managed to wipe this all over the screen...

 

Kenny Dalglish's touch deserts him in case of misplaced solidarity | Richard Williams | Football | The Guardian

[Pessimistic]

Apologies if this had already been posted;

 

The day that Evra used the N-word

 

Patrice Evra N-word video youtube | Mail Online

[Anubis]

Evra? Caught lying? Happily using a racist term in a different language? And fully understanding it?

 

Well, who'd have thought....

[Iceman]

Evra is a cunt of truly tremendous proportions. His stupid high pitch voice telling Lampard to suck his pussy. What a fruit.

[zico]

I tried sending the following to Oliver Holt today but guess what, it hasn't been printed :

 

Olly,

 

In what parallel universe does it advance the cause of anti-racism to brand a person as "RACIST" in bold headlines across your back page when he has merely used a word that is so common in his own language that his wife uses it to refer to him?

 

Why not use your powers of investigative journalism to look into the report and instead of towing the PC line to actually see the real story here - that the hearing was a sham to use an innocent abroad as part of the FA's political games with FIFA and Blatter.

 

The report is a disgrace frankly, there are more holes in it than a Swiss Cheese and once you have ended this little crusade against Suarez & Liverpool perhaps you would care to examine a process where the FA act as judge, jury &, prosecutor with no right of appeal against the judgement itself (only the sentence) and then tell us all that this is fair.

 

Xenophobia is as dangerous as racism, yet that is what has happened here - Suarez was the ideal fall guy, sacrificed by the FA on the altar of their stand against racism and all things Blatter.

 

Let's see what you & the Mirror have to say about John Terry shall we? At least he has the comfort of knowing that he will receive a fair trial with the right of appeal rather than the laughingly contrived "balance of probabilities" that was used as the test to take one man's word against another in the Suarez case.

 

Great piece, on the balance of probabilities I think you are 100% correct....

[zico]

Apologies if this had already been posted;

 

The day that Evra used the N-word

 

Patrice Evra N-word video youtube | Mail Online

 

Funny how they waited until they had the case wrapped up, and then release this video that we have all been aware of for months - not an agenda is there....

[ngogswilly]

Funny how they waited until they had the case wrapped up, and then release this video that we have all been aware of for months - not an agenda is there....

 

I personally think anyone who doesn't believe theres an agenda...after all this at least... is off their fucking rocker and I'm sick to death of condascending fuckers saying we're all paranoid. But anyway...

 

I can't remember who but somebody mentioned yesterday that eventually it would all come out because there was simply too much obviously terrible biased shit in that report it would be impossible not to.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if now, that they've had their way and the clubs done what they wanted they'll properly investigate the contents of the report. But nothing will come of it, you'll get a few articles basically saying "Ahhh maybe Liverpool had a point, but too late now, on we go and justice has been done for the fight against Racism bla bla bla fuckity bla..."

 

Shower of absolute cunts the lot of them.

[Guest TK-421]

It's all just posturing now to save face. Nothing will come of it imo.

[PiranhaBill]

Email, Facebook, Twitter the following to all of them......

 

Assuming Evra’s evidence with regard to the conversation between Suarez and himself is correct and true – pertinent points in bold.

 

All text is copied directly from the FA Report – paragraph numbers are quoted for reference-

 

90. Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr

Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro". Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that

comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a n****r". He now says

that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black". We shall consider further below Mr Evra's understanding of the Spanish word "negro".

 

92. Mr Evra said that he followed up Mr Suarez's reply "Because you are black" by saying

"Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada", which means "Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you". Mr Suarez replied by saying "No hablo con los negros". Mr Evra said that at the time, he understood this to mean "I don't speak to n****rs", although he now says it means "I don't speak to blacks".

 

153. Mr Marriner's report was contained in an Extraordinary Incident Report Form which he filed with the FA. His report is in the following terms:

"I have to bring to your attention an unsavoury event which happened today and

was reported to me in my dressing room after the above game.

Sir Alex Ferguson and Patrice Evra entered my dressing room to register an official

complaint about a comment made to Patrice Evra by Liverpool player Luis Suarez.

During a coming together in the penalty area in the second half of play, Luis Suarez

is alleged to have said to Patrice Evra "I don't talk to you because you n****rs".

 

So, let us assume this is correct and Patrice Evra has told the truth in all 3 quotes.

See then, the following evidence again from Patrice Evra but also confirmed by Ryan Giggs:

 

103. Mr Evra's evidence was that while he was walking towards the referee he said "ref, ref, he just called me a fucking black". He said that he did not know whether the referee heard his comment. The referee said something like "Calm down, Patrice, the game has been brilliant, stop the pushing between you and Suarez, the game is going well."

 

114. Mr Giggs gave evidence before us. He said that he was reasonably close to the referee and after he had shown Mr Evra the yellow card, Mr Giggs approached the referee and asked him why he had booked Mr Evra. The referee said to Mr Giggs "just calm Patrice down". Mr Giggs then moved away from the referee and towards Mr Evra. It was obvious to Mr Giggs from looking at Mr Evra that he was upset. He said that Mr Evra did not seem quite with it, you might call it red mist. Mr Giggs said to Mr Evra "what's happened?". Mr Evra replied "he called me black". Mr Giggs assumed that Mr Evra was speaking about Mr Kuyt since he had just been booked for some kind of tussle with Mr Kuyt. Mr Giggs said to Mr Evra "did the ref hear it?", to which Mr Evra replied "I don't think so". Mr Giggs then told Mr Evra to calm down and not get himself sent off.

 

 

The contradiction – Patrice Evra confirms that he understood the words he attributes to Luis Suarez at the time as meaning "Because you are a n****r" and "I don't speak to n****rs". He confirms this in the evidence given along with Sir Alex Ferguson immediately after the game.

 

He accepts at the hearing that his translation is wrong “He now says that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black".” (paragraph 90)

 

If this is the case why does Patrice Evra and Ryan Giggs’ evidence in paragraphs 103 and 114 quote the word “black” prior to both the evidence given in paragraph 153 and confirmed only at the hearing?

 

There are only two possible explanations –

 

1) The evidence in paragraphs 103 and 114 is correct meaning Patrice Evra and Sir Alex Ferguson gave false evidence to the referee as quoted in paragraph 153. If Patrice Evra knew the translation was “black” on the pitch, why is he quoting “n****r” later in the Referee’s room? Why did he repeat the accusation in the interview with canal+ if he knew the correct translation whilst complaining to the referee at the time of the incident?

 

2) The evidence contained in paragraphs 103 and 114 is false as provided by both Patrice Evra and Ryan Giggs. If the evidence given to the Referee after the game in paragraph 153 is true then both pieces of evidence given in paragraphs 103 and 114 has to be false.

 

Conclusion:

 

It is not possible for the evidence from paragraphs 103, 114 and 153 to all be correct simultaneously. The panel accepted as true all three pieces of evidence but it is impossible for them to do so.

 

Either Patrice Evra and Sir Alex Ferguson have provided false evidence in paragraph 153 or Patrice Evra and Ryan Giggs provided false evidence in paragraphs 102 and 114 as the paragraphs are a clear contradiction of the other.

 

If this is the case, on what grounds has the commission found the evidence of Patrice Evra to be true, correct and reliable, it clearly isn’t?

[redsoxs]

You forgot one thing, Fergie didn't give evidence to the hearing, WHY?

[Trumo]

PiranhaBill,

 

Are those your own interpretations or is it a cut and paste job? I've only had a chance to skim through the report so haven't had the opportunity to look for inconsistencies like the ones highlighted.

 

I did notice that explanation 1 above implies that Evra spoke to Canal+ AFTER making the allegations. If that is true, then it answers a question I've had regarding where his Canal+ interview fits into the chronology of events that day. What he said to them should in theory tally pretty much with the referee's report.

 

If not, then it implies Evra went mouthing off to Canal+ immediately after the game. I say this because Liverpool and Kenny have previously stated that they were aware of the issue only around 20-30 minutes after the full-time whistle. The problem with this is that it's possible neither Liverpool nor the ManU management was aware of the allegations until AFTER the Canal+ interview, and once Ferguson found out, he went along the path of taking it up with the referee - along with Evra - to make it an official complaint. That is, make the referee's report tally with the Canal+ interview.

 

If that was indeed the true order of events, then serious questions have to be asked about Evra and Ferguson's role there. If the interview came AFTER speaking to the referee, then I'd want to know why Evra, having reported the issue through the established channels, was then allowed to spout off his serious allegations to the media.

 

After all, the FA were at pains to ask all parties concerned not to drip-feed info to the media lest the case be prejudiced. Ferguson in his post-match press conference made no mention of this issue, instead focussing on Suarez's supposed tendency to dive everywhere. Effectively what he did was portray Suarez as a cheat. From that, it's not hard to infer that if he's prepared to cheat, he's also prepared to lie.

 

Remember, it was Liverpool's team administrator who overheard Ferguson talking to the referee after the game, and it was he who informed the Liverpool management of the issue. And Ferguson was adamant that Marriner write down everything he was saying in his report.

 

I'm certain there is more to come from this.

[piscinin]

If this is the case, on what grounds has the commission found the evidence of Patrice Evra to be true, correct and reliable, it clearly isn’t?

 

Yeah, we were talking about that a couple of days ago. The fundamental problem is the cases put forward by all parties had holes in them. The guy we had pointing out the holes in Evra's stuff was crap. The guy pointing out the holes in Suarez's wasn't and he had the full resources of the FA and Manure backing him up.

 

The approach they took was "with a subset of this evidence can we prove suarez 50%+1 guilty". They didn't ask "can we prove him 50%+1 innocent". "Can we prove that evra's evidence is inconsistent".

 

The answer to all 3 questions is yes you could, but they only considered the first.

[piscinin]

I read that from the transcript to canal plus Evra states that they are going to see the arbitrater. Now that was translated into english and what i am alleging is that arbitrater could mean referee. My belief is that evra has told his teammates that Suarez has called him black' date=' Ferguson has heard this and then concocted this whole nigger scenario.[/quote']

 

Of course Ferguson has added the Nigger interpretation. That's exactly what he does; make things as incendiary as possible and stand back and watch the FA fluster it's way to an incompetent response.

[piscinin]

You forgot one thing, Fergie didn't give evidence to the hearing, WHY?

 

Because our "lawyer" accepted his testimony as fact waiving the right to cross-examination.

[Philbert]

My brain's hurting now, so I'm just going to wait until Oliver Stone makes a film of it all in 30 years time.

[William_Ulsterman]

It will all be over in 6 months when Terry is exposed. The papers will love that and he'll be the next boo boy. Suarez will be forgotten about when that shit kicks off.

[PiranhaBill]

PiranhaBill,

 

Are those your own interpretations or is it a cut and paste job? I've only had a chance to skim through the report so haven't had the opportunity to look for inconsistencies like the ones highlighted.

 

I did notice that explanation 1 above implies that Evra spoke to Canal+ AFTER making the allegations. If that is true, then it answers a question I've had regarding where his Canal+ interview fits into the chronology of events that day. What he said to them should in theory tally pretty much with the referee's report.

 

If not, then it implies Evra went mouthing off to Canal+ immediately after the game. I say this because Liverpool and Kenny have previously stated that they were aware of the issue only around 20-30 minutes after the full-time whistle. The problem with this is that it's possible neither Liverpool nor the ManU management was aware of the allegations until AFTER the Canal+ interview, and once Ferguson found out, he went along the path of taking it up with the referee - along with Evra - to make it an official complaint. That is, make the referee's report tally with the Canal+ interview.

 

If that was indeed the true order of events, then serious questions have to be asked about Evra and Ferguson's role there. If the interview came AFTER speaking to the referee, then I'd want to know why Evra, having reported the issue through the established channels, was then allowed to spout off his serious allegations to the media.

 

After all, the FA were at pains to ask all parties concerned not to drip-feed info to the media lest the case be prejudiced. Ferguson in his post-match press conference made no mention of this issue, instead focussing on Suarez's supposed tendency to dive everywhere. Effectively what he did was portray Suarez as a cheat. From that, it's not hard to infer that if he's prepared to cheat, he's also prepared to lie.

 

Remember, it was Liverpool's team administrator who overheard Ferguson talking to the referee after the game, and it was he who informed the Liverpool management of the issue. And Ferguson was adamant that Marriner write down everything he was saying in his report.

 

I'm certain there is more to come from this.

 

I copy and pasted direct from the report - from where it says "The contradiction" is my own.

 

The chronology is there for all to see and exposes the lies.

 

At the time of the "argument" he says the word means "n****r".

In the referee's room, the referee states Ferguson & Evra say "n****r".

In Canal+ later that night he confirms again.

Paragraphs 90&92 state as fact that only during evidence does Evra agree the Spanish word "negro" translates as "black".

 

Yet the other paragraphs quote both Evra & Giggs as saying "He called me black".

 

To re-word the question - If Evra is telling the truth about events on the pitch, confirmed by Giggs, saying "he called me black", why is he with his Manager after the game saying "he called me a n****r"???

 

Once you acknowledge there is a lie in his evidence - his entire evidence is called into question.

 

Is it not reasonable to ask - If he has lied about the words used, did he lie about the number of times too?

 

Add in his previous appearance before an FA commission when they judged him among other things as "prone to exaggeration", the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[J-V]

It will all be over in 6 months when Terry is exposed. The papers will love that and he'll be the next boo boy. Suarez will be forgotten about when that shit kicks off.

You don't actually believe that do you.

[piscinin]

I copy and pasted direct from the report - from where it says "The contradiction" is my own.

 

The chronology is there for all to see and exposes the lies.

 

At the time of the "argument" he says the word means "n****r".

In the referee's room, the referee states Ferguson & Evra say "n****r".

In Canal+ later that night he confirms again.

Paragraphs 90&92 state as fact that only during evidence does Evra agree the Spanish word "negro" translates as "black".

 

Yes the other paragraphs quote both Evra & Giggs as saying "He called me black".

 

To re-word the question - If Evra is telling the truth about events on the pitch, confirmed by Giggs, saying "he called me black", why is he with his Manager after the game saying "he called me a n****r"???

 

Once you acknowledge there is a lie in his evidence - his entire evidence is called into question.

 

Is it not reasonable to ask - If he has lied about the words used, did he lie about the number of times too?

 

Add in his previous appearance before an FA commission when they judged him among other things as "prone to exaggeration", the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

 

It's even funnier than that. Because of the logical hopscotch of accepting contradictory statements as true. If you follow the report closely you can see at times that the FA have found that Suarez guilty of using the N word even more often than Evra claimed. And this in a case of he said - she said.

[fowler9]

I personally think anyone who doesn't believe theres an agenda...after all this at least... is off their fucking rocker and I'm sick to death of condascending fuckers saying we're all paranoid.

 

 

people actually seem to genuineley believe that every single one of us is paranoid, no we're the only ones who have bothered looking at the case in any detail to see how flawed it is instead of believing what some cunt from the daily star tells us

[stmichael]

Oh look Maddock's at it again :whatever:

 

Why Liverpool owners' silence during racism row suggests they might not be here for the long haul

 

By David Maddock

 

Published 15:24 05/01/12

 

 

So many questions, so few answers. The Suarez affair - or debacle, to apply a more appropriate description - has raised such serious issues, yet few people seem prepared to address them.

 

Chief amongst those avoiding their responsibilities during the months of raging controversy, have been the owners of Liverpool Football Club, and in particular, their chairman Tom Werner and principle owner, John Henry.

 

Between them, the pair have ultimate management responsibility for one of the highest profile, biggest reaching multi-national corporate businesses across the globe. Let us get this straight, Liverpool FC is not a corner shop. It is no longer a business restricted to customers who live within walking distance of L4, as much as I would personally still love to subscribe to that romantic notion.

 

Liverpool are up there alongside Coca Cola, Apple Inc and the BBC when it comes to their name, brand awareness and global reach, and I can guarantee the executives of not one of those corporations would have allowed a situation to have developed over several agonising months that can have so damaged the integrity of their business.

 

Lord Ouseley, the highly respected former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, perhaps put it most succinctly this week when he suggested Liverpool as a global business have failed spectacularly in their duty to their worldwide stakeholders.

 

"In any other sector, if someone makes a claim of racially motivated or abusive behaviour (against an employee of your organisation), an employer has to investigate if they are competent because this may be damaging to the business," he wrote.

 

Quite clearly, the owners of Liverpool have failed in their duty to properly investigate such a serious claim against their organisation, and more pertinently, have failed to offer the moral leadership the position of their company as a world renowned leader demands. As Lord Ouseley added:

 

Surely the new owners, with their experiences of equality and inclusion in the US, can see how their brand is being devalued, and if they sanction this sort of lack of professionalism and moral leadership, we may as well pack up and go home and forget about anti-racism.

 

Would Apple Inc have left themselves open to such claims, or the BBC? Of course not. And let me add this question: would the Boston Red Sox? I don't believe they would. Yet the owners of that American sports franchise Werner and Henry have hidden behind a ridiculous notion of team spirit and closing ranks that seems only to apply to football, to justify their appalling lack of judgement in this case.

 

And let us get this straight, it is an appalling lack of judgement. Liverpool defended Suarez vehemently - and repeatedly, aggressively, almost dementedly, attacked Patrice Evra and the FA to the extent of entering slanderous territory because they believed his use of the word "negro" was not offensive in any way. The repeated incendiary statements released in the name of their owners were appalling, but justified apparently, because their man was innocent.

 

Their explanation was that in South America, it can be used as a term of endearment, which is in fact true. South Americans can use the term in a friendly way when referring to people with black hair and dark skin, as the entire Argentina squad did when they sent a message of support to their team-mate Fernando Cacero, when they were pictured in front of a banner reading 'Vamos Negro'�.

 

However, it is also true that in South America to refer to a person of African descent using the same term can still be considered racist. Very racist. South Americans with any sensitivity are aware that to use the phrase towards a person of African descent can be highly inadvisable, and should be avoided.

 

And Werner and Henry, being liberal Americans in touch with the subtleties of racial issues within sport - as their positions at the Red Sox demand - will be aware of that.

 

Werner works in the TV and film industries and is based in California, where there are sizable South American and African-American communities. I would ask him this question: in California, if a South American referred to an African-American as 'negro' during a heated exchange, would he consider it offensive?

 

And I would ask him a further question: if one of his American companies had an employee accused of a serious offence that involved alleged racist taunts, would he allow his company to pursue the individual who made the accusation - and who has potentially been gravely insulted with a vehemence bordering on the slanderous?

 

As I said at the start of this column, many questions have been raised, and so few answers have been given, due in part to the refusal of Liverpool Football Club's American owners to open any sort of dialogue with their stakeholders through the media.

 

Liverpool have been damaged globally. Two of the most senior figures at the club in England dismissed this suggestion when I made it this week, but it is true. In Europe outside the Spanish-speaking companies, and in the rest of the world outside the Spanish-speaking countries, there is a newly-formed suspicion of the football club.

 

In Asia, in Africa, where allegiances are not so tribal as they are in the north of England, many fans are openly questioning their support of the club, and that is damaging to the core business.

 

Which leads us to one final question of Messers Henry and Werner. How serious is their stewardship of Liverpool Football Club?

 

When they arrived as the saviours of Anfield, following the disastrous regime of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, they made no bones about their intentions. They switched continents, and sports, they admitted, not because of their allegiance to Liverpool or football, but because they saw the bigger picture of a global franchise, with a name that is one of the biggest and most respected within its field or any other. They wanted to maintain that name and image, and develop it sensitively and carefully to put the club in the position its history and gravitas deserved.

 

Yet their conduct over the past few months, in preaching to the converted and playing to the gallery of insular fans (and in employing people with a similar approach), does not speak of a commitment to developing the Liverpool brand in a wider context, and making the club a truly great global business.

 

In allowing this mess to develop, in putting back the cause of anti-racism so violently and in firmly anchoring Liverpool Football Club in prehistoric practices that have no place in 21st century business, are they really committed to developing the club as they suggested in the long term, to rival the likes of Coca Cola or Apple Inc?

 

Or did they spot a short term business opportunity to buy cheaply and sell swiftly, making a quick buck? It may seem a harsh judgement, but their behaviour and subsequent silence only lends credence to such a theory.

[piscinin]

Chief amongst those avoiding their responsibilities during the months of raging controversy, have been the owners of Liverpool Football Club, and in particular, their chairman Tom Werner and principle owner, John Henry.

 

Professional wordsmith with decades of experience can't work out the difference between principal and principle.