Redexile

I do believe that the Pakistani Cricketers where charged and suspended by the ICC before their criminal case was heard. Also think the Jockey club did something similar. The precedence is there.

Liverpool apologise for website video 'mistake' after posting fan's apparent racist gesture Liverpool have apologised after uploading video footage of one of their supporters apparently making a racist gesture during their FA Cup tie with Manchester United onto their official website. Centre stage: Liverpool fans watch Patrice Evra take a throw in during FA Cup tie at Anfield against Manchester United Photo: REUTERS By Chris Bascombe 7:51AM GMT 31 Jan 2012 The footage, which appeared as part of a highlights package from the club’s 2-1 win under the headline ‘LFC TV: Must Watch Video’, showed the fan impersonating a monkey, in a gesture apparently aimed at Patrice Evra, the United defender whose complaint led to Liverpool’s Luis Suarez receiving an eight-match ban for making a racist comment. A 59 year-old from north Wales was arrested by Merseyside Police on Saturday following circulation of a photograph showing the monkey gesture on Twitter. He was bailed on Sunday. A Liverpool spokesman said: “Footage featuring an alleged incident during the match was included in the highlights package that appeared on the club’s website. This was a mistake, it should not have been included and we are sorry it happened. It was removed immediately.” The Anfield crowd’s hostile raction to Evra on Saturday, which saw him continually booed, could deter players from reporting racist abuse in the future, according to Professional Footballers’ Association chief executive Gordon Taylor. “The booing of Evra was unwelcome,” Taylor said. “For someone to be booed for reporting racist comments is not something we want. Black players may be worried about reporting things if there is going to be a backlash like this.” Players may be deterred from reporting racist abuse in the future after witnessing Evra’s treatment by Liverpool fans, according to Professional Footballers’ Association chief executive Gordon Taylor. Meanwhile, manager Kenny Dalglish is concerned about overplaying his captain, Steven Gerrard, as the midfielder continues his successful return from injury. Dalglish is wary of putting too much stress on the 31 year-old *following his succession of recent setbacks. Gerrard was substituted as a precaution 20 minutes before the end of Saturday’s win over Manchester United, and a decision will be taken today whether to rest him for tonight’s meeting with Wolves. “He was just tired on Saturday. He should be tired. We have pushed him further than probably we should have,” said Dalglish. “It’s not his problem that he’s felt tired. We probably put him into overload. We’ll see how he recovers and take it from there.” Is Taylor really that stupid. Share: inShare.0 Liverpool Sport » Football » Premier League » Chris Bascombe » Related Partners Liverpool Tickets In Liverpool FA Cup fourth round Liverpool to return to Wembley Lucas back at Liverpool Liverpool's new stadium? Dalglish defiant over Suarez ban Share: inShare.0 More from The Telegraph Liverpool 2 Manchester United 1: match report28 Jan 2012 Frank Skinner to become father at 5528 Jan 2012 US Navy Seals rescued American hostages from Somalia - why won't Britain do the same?26 Jan 2012 Liverpool v Manchester United: Patrice Evra unlikely to be fazed27 Jan 2012 Agent Provocateur sales boosted by US First Lady Michelle Obama29 Jan 2012 Liverpool's Dirk Kuyt seizes baton as Paul Scholes conducts classic performance for Manchester United29 Jan 2012 More from the web Owl Mascot Kicked to Death by Soccer PlayerPetside.com Honda Civic Type R is backAuto Express Africa Cup of Nations: Ghana opens

You are wrong they do report it. BTW I put on sly sports at 6.00 a.m. SA time and the headlines went. Lpool knock united out Evra was booed for the whole game. That strikes me as kind of loaded. Kenny was even asked if he condemned the booing by some shitebag in the press room after the game. Wonder if the same prick asked bacon face about the singing ???

You probably said the same about Lucas. You haven't got a clue what being a Liverpool supporter is about.

There's a whole fuckin squad of them on here.

Can I ask you not to quote that shitebag or the rag he writes for mate?

Self serving is pretty much an accurate description. Why have no journalists picked up on him and fuckin Ouseley (sp?)?

Let's not forget the other twat Piara Power he's been very quiet on the Chelsea Ferdinand chants (two instances). I asked him about it on twitter, needless to say no reply was forthcoming. They won't be jumping off that gravy train.

No it's not but I think you catch my drift. IMO Kenny has made a couple of bad signings ( haven't all managers?) but success aint gonna happen overnight it will take time.

Some valid points there but you know how it is today with the internet superfan we want success and big money signings and we want it now. Incredibly it takes a fan of another club to add perspective. I'm old enough to remember poor performances under Shankly (Red Star Belgrade anybody) and the rest. If this place was around when we lost at home to the Arsenal , to be pipped for the title,it would've probably gone into meltdown.

Evra, Suarez and Racism on the Football Pitch: If racist insults are punished then so must other insults - argues Theodore Dalrymple Posted by Theodore Dalrymple Theodore Dalrymple argues that the English football authorities are in danger of introducing a system of racialised justice. George Orwell was interested in pulp fiction as a window on the soul of society, and the football pages of our newspapers are interesting for the same reason. They will no doubt prove invaluable to social historians of the future. For myself, I cannot recapture the interest in the game that I had as a child, though it is so much better-played now (as well as paid) than it was then. Perhaps it is the excessive, indeed grotesque, importance with which so many people invest it, and their endless talk about it, that has put me off; and I cannot help but wonder whether the game exerts a corrupting, or at least a highly distorting, effect upon the ambitions of many young males. It is to the uneducated of this country what the City and the media are to the educated. I scan the football pages, then, for what they tell us about our society and country, and most of what they tell us is not very encouraging. The clubs are neither British-owned nor are their players British; on the whole they do not train up British players, and such British players as they have are often undisciplined; the clubs are seldom among the best in Europe, despite their players being the best-paid; and they are not even profitable. British professional football therefore seems like a metaphor for the British economy as a whole: fragile, ill-founded and a playground for spivs. A football story caught my eye in The Guardian of 2 January. The Headline was Damning judgment makes uncomfortable reading for Liverpool: Report reveals in forensic detail why independent tribunal found Suarez guilty of racially abusing Evra. A player for Liverpool called Suarez, a Uruguayan, had apparently used the word negro (black in Spanish) several times during a match to insult a player for Manchester United called Evra. Suarez had fouled Evra by kicking him; five minutes later, Evra called Suarez Concha de tu hermana. Suarez did not hear this; but Evra then went on to ask Suarez why he had kicked him. Suarez claimed that he said "It was a normal foul", while Evra claimed that he said, "Because you are black". According to Evra, the edifying exchange continued as follows: EVRA: Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you. SUAREZ: I don't speak to blacks. EVRA: OK, now I think I'm going to punch you. SUAREZ: Go on, black, black, black. The independent tribunal believed Evra's accusatory account of the affair rather than the self-exculpatory account of Suarez. I have no reason to suppose that it was wrong to do so. But The Guardian's report is clearly biased, in order to stimulate the moral outrage of its readers. For example, it says with regard to Evra having called Suarez Concha de tu hermano, that it was: ... literally an obscene term referring to Suarez's sister but one which is commonly used in Spanish as an exclamation. Not only is the Spanish not here fully translated, so that its full obscenity should not create a bad impression of Evra's conduct, but it confounds exclamation with name-calling. To call out "Shit!" when you have stubbed your toe is distinctly different from going up to someone against whom you have a grudge and saying "Shit!" to him, even if he does not hear it. This is important, because it is likely that Evra's subsequent question, "Why did you kick me?" was not uttered in the tone of a disinterested enquiry after truth. More likely it was uttered in an aggrieved, aggressive or menacing manner, and this in part accounted for Suarez's manner of reply. After all, the independent tribunal found, as a mitigating circumstance, that Suarez had never been accused of using such language before, though (I am told by someone who follows these things more closely than I) he has not always behaved on the field in a gentlemanly fashion. In other words, he was provoked; and indeed the tribunal found that Evra had started the exchange as another mitigating circumstance, though this was perhaps a little unfair to Evra, since the original foul was committed on and not by him. The newspaper's claim that "the report reveals in forensic detail" and that it "has brought a new meaning to the word transparency" is belied by its summary of the key findings. Here are the first two: The question is simply whether the words or behaviour are abusive or insulting. It is not necessary that the alleged offender intends his words or behaviour to be abusive or insulting. Mr Suarez's use [of the word negro] was not intended as an attempt at conciliation or to establish rapport; neither was it meant in a conciliatory or friendly way. It was not explained by any feeling that a linguistic or cultural relationship had been established between them. These two findings are contradictory. If the question is "simply" one of whether certain words were used, it does not matter what the motive, thoughts or sentiments behind them were; if the latter do matter, then the question is not "simply" one of whether certain words were used. This is less than forensic exactitude. Whether it is the independent tribunal at fault, or the newspaper, I cannot say. Quite a lot may ride on a word: for example, one of the reasons the report into the Lawrence case found that the police were institutionally racist was that they did not completely accept that the murder was "purely" racist in motivation. The police argued that the suspects were criminals who were thought to have committed non-racist violent crimes, and therefore their full motives could not be known, at least not without further investigation. In this, surely, they were right; but the damage done by the investigation's accusation has been severe. In fact, it is perfectly obvious that the motive behind insulting words is important in assessing the seriousness of a case. It is one thing to insult someone through lack of knowledge of social conventions and quite another to do so with the full intention to offend. Unfortunately, there is a trend to make the perception of insult (or bullying) the test of whether insult (or bullying) has actually taken place. You are insulted or bullied if you think you have been insulted or bullied, and the only proof required that you have been insulted or bullied is your belief that you have been. No evidence that your belief is reasonable or justified is required; and so bureaucrats, acting in a pseudo-judicial way, have an ever-expanding locus standi to interfere in everyday life. While in this case the deliberately insulting nature of the words used seems little in doubt, I find it alarming that people are now prepared to go running to the authorities, like children to teacher, over what was, after all, a minor incident that, moreover, was soon over. The very fact that we can run to authorities to ask them to take action over such trivia renders us psychologically fragile and more, not less, liable to insult. The forensic inexactitude or incompetence of the tribunal, at least as reported in The Guardian, is again shown by a circumstance that is taken to mitigate Suarez's offence: his vow never to use the word negro on an English football pitch again. This, surely, implies that he has not recognised the wrongdoing in itself; for if he had done so, he would have vowed not to use the word anywhere. There is nothing sacred, after all, about English football pitches; and I am reminded of the notices that appeared in the hospital in which I worked to the effect that henceforth anybody who assaulted a member of the staff in the hospital would be prosecuted. I was pleased, of course; but the corollary, psychologically-speaking if not in strict logic, was that assault in the hospital on people other than the staff, or on the staff other than in the hospital, or indeed in any other circumstances, would not be prosecuted. There is one final point about the punishment of Suarez, a fine of £40,000 fine and a suspension for eight matches. Once the commission established that the FA [Football Association] charge against Suarez was proved, the automatic two-match suspension for using insulting words was increased to four because of the racial element. And it was doubled again because the insult was directed at a particular person and not as a general one. Now it seems to me a questionable proposition that a racial insult is automatically twice as offensive as, or worthy of twice the punishment of, any other. But there is another question: is Evra now to receive an automatic two-match suspension because he used insulting words to Suarez? That Suarez didn't hear them does not matter: Evra used them, and the circumstances in which he used them suggested that he intended them to insult. It seems preposterous to me that footballers of all people should be expected to speak like choirboys; but unless Evra is sentenced, it is clear that we live under a regime of racial justice. It does not matter that this racial justice is intended to protect, not harm, minorities; the point is that it is not race- or colour-blind. Moreover, unpleasant gestalt switches have been known to happen. The over-zealous rooters-out of racism and the BNP have more in common than they probably would like to admit, among it a highly racialised view of the world. Theodore Dalrymple is a writer and worked for many years as an inner city and prison doctor. Most recently, he is the author of Mr Clarke's Modest Proposal: Supportive Evidence from Yeovil, also available as a Kindle download from amazon.co.uk and from amazon.com. Makes some interesting points particularly around the fact that no charge is amde against Evra for the initial insult in spite of it contravening FA rules.

Dean's from the Wirral so he doesn't,t get our games.

That made me laugh.

except there was very strong air of outrage in your post , kind of like " u know better" and " how very dare you " let this man go to Turkey next.

So quick question , how many times have you watched him and do you know how many times have our scouts watched him ? Can you confirm that we have or have not enquired about him given that we have now gone back to the days when we did our business a quietly as possible?

If it is him ( and I agree there's a strong possibility) we're fucked

No we aren't I guess because whilst Comolli admits to looking at stats I would also expect the club to scout players as well and not purchase based on stats alone.

No I consider myself to be like many other supporters, an average fan , have been for a long time I don't profess a higher understanding but IMO slagging players off after half a season is not how it should be.Given were the club was 14 months ago we are making progress it won't happen overnight but at least now we are moving forward.

yep my mistake but we can't all be an internet smartarse can we softshite

Quite correct my error. Perhaps what I should have said : Based on his season at Inter (where it's clear he was playing out of position)He would not have been bought. However the real point I'm wanting to make is that Henderson has played half a season, is young, has played several games out of position and deserves our backing right now and that post smacks of Sky sports instant success supporters.

That's pure speculation on your part and I would suggest highly unlikely.

I hope that this doesn't reflect the thinking of the average LFC fan today because all it indicates to me is that you're fucking clueless. Based on your thinking Henry would have been sold after his first season at Arsenal.

I believe that they had already found against Luis before they even interviewed him based on their interaction with Evra and the fact that they couldn't be seen to fail in making a stand against racism. I also think that the MUFC witnesses had been coached and we , believing that Luis was innocent felt, no need to coach him ( perhaps our mistake?) I would also like to know why we did not use any of our S. American players as witnesses here with regards to linguistic nuances? I think that Evra ,based on his previous appearance with the Chelsea issue, knew what to say and how to say it and what not to say. I have to question the "Independancy" of this panel and how they only found Luis statements to be questionable when Evra's statements also changed. I would also question their views that Luis' was in a more agressive mode at the time of the incident when anybody with half a brain can clearly see Evra was wound up right from the start of the game. I could go on and on but it won't change anything. To me it was a clear stitch up

Nail on the head buy that man a beer