Redexile

Kenny should give all of our strikers a video of the goal against Bruges in '78- you're bang on about Hart going low. Also I seem to remember Savic saying he turned down a last minute offer from us to join City- thank fuck for that if true.

There's a good article on The Thompkins Times pages written by a lawyer ( yes he is a red) where he gives plenty of strong arguments for the grounds of a successful appeal which really adds to that question.

Very well put, sums up how I feel about this issue. Amazing how the press have completely ignored what Johnny B has had to say whilst giving countenance to anybody with a message that fits the presses agenda.

Anfield: Closing the library and restarting the roar by Joey Burns | Monday, January 9th, 2012 | @JoeyBurnsLFC Share12 It is well known that the grounds of even the biggest football clubs in England can resemble a library at times. Almost anyone who has been to Anfield over the last few seasons will have been privy to the increasingly popular chant “Where’s your famous atmosphere?” This is nothing new, and often served as a red rag to Kopites during a rare lull in singing. The usual responses to this chant have been gone for a long time now. The sad thing is, the lulls have become much more commonplace – to the point where you could even say that singing is now the exception; silence the norm. A flurry of fans still instinctively tell the offending visitors to shove their ‘library chant’ but not many think of striking up a song to remind them that the famous atmosphere is still alive and well. And we can only assume that this is because it isn’t. Our famous atmosphere is dead – and the only ones who can fix it don’t seem to be arsed any more. There’s no point in exploring the possible reasons for the atmosphere dying as I wouldn’t be able to add anything that hasn’t already been said in our forum’s discussion thread, and many others on the internet eg. changes in the type of fan attending, price of games, fans more attuned to watching football on TV in a passive environment (ie. their couch), all seater stadia etc etc. The daytripper theory seems to be the most popular one, but I personally find it hard to believe when I witnessed a gang of lads from abroad being urged to remain quiet while trying to kick a rendition of Fields of Anfield Road. Being split up from your mates is another point that seems quite relevant. The strange thing is, being split up from your mates never used to matter when you were in the Kop as you were constantly surrounded by friends. Like-minded friends who all naturally contributed to the atmosphere. Friends who wouldn’t like to see a mate being made to look like a tit in front of hundreds of people by singing alone. But now there seems to be a spreading mentality of sitting back and letting someone else create the atmosphere – while simultaneously glaring down anyone who dares to stand up and attempt to kick a chant off. It is a vicious cycle that is stagnating progress. But instead of ending it there and reminiscing of better days, I propose we make a stand. The fact is, our atmosphere arguably used to be the greatest in the world. The type of crowd that they would film and describe as a phenomenon, having to explain it to those who do not understand. The Kop innovates and never imitates. And the fact is, we’re now arguably setting the completely opposite standard to the one we used to I propose we publicly pick out a home game to rediscover our famous atmosphere. We need to spread the word that 90 minutes of constant noise – against anyone, not just our big ‘Sky Sports opposition’ – from all sides of the ground is what we need to properly get behind the lads on the pitch. If it ends up inspiring them even more then it will only further prove the reasons for doing this. The 1964 documentary on our world famous Spion Kop worded it perfectly for me, quoting the Duke of Wellington before the Battle of Waterloo saying, “I don’t know what they do to the enemy, but by God they frighten me.” So, I’ll stick my neck out here and say “Stoke City at home, 14th January 2012.” Let’s make noise the norm and abolish the library.

I posted the article in full if anybody is interested. http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/forum/ff-football-forum/105576-racism-serious-issue-4.html

Media on Racism: Part 1 – Churnalism with 20 comments Jan 6, 2012 – 2011 provided some “high-profile” news stories about racism – but even the “quality” press provided little more than churnalism. No doubt it’s safer for reporters to recycle established or “official” views than to delve deeper (or, Editor forbid, to reframe the issue for greater insight). This type of churnalism has its own dangers, as we’ll discover… Two cases, in particular, are worth looking at (and comparing): BBC2′s Top Gear and Luis Suarez (Liverpool FC footballer). Part 1 considers churnalism and misreporting. (Part 2 will address the media framing). Top Gear & “Lazy Mexicans” In January 2011, Jeremy Clarkson and his fellow Top Gear presenters did a routine about “Mexicans”. This led to a trickle of news coverage after a complaint from the Mexican ambassador, but it didn’t become a “proper” story until after Steve Coogan wrote a comment piece (for the Observer) which pointed out that Clarkson & co would never target Africans, Pakistanis or Jews with comparable group-stereotype jokes. When I say it became a “proper” story, I don’t mean penetrating, insightful coverage… I mean: “Celebrity A blasts Celebrity B”. The official officials who officiated in this case were the BBC and Ofcom. First, the BBC: ‘In a letter to Mexico’s ambassador in London, the BBC said it was sorry if it had offended some people, but said jokes based on national stereotyping were part of British national humour.’ Coogan commented: “The BBC’s initial mealy-mouthed apology was pitiful. It cited the more benign rivalry that exists between European nations (ah, those arrogant French, over-organised Germans), and in doing so neatly sidestepped one hugely important fact – ethnicity [...] The Beeb’s hand-wringing suggested tolerance of casual racism, arguably the most sinister kind.” The media regulator, Ofcom, then cleared Top Gear of breaching broadcasting regulations: ‘Ofcom said Top Gear “frequently uses national stereotypes as a comedic trope and that there were few, if any, nationalities that had not at some point been the subject of the presenters’ mockery…”.’ Interestingly, the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) later upheld a complaint about the show: “Although the remarks were humorously intended [...] their tone and cumulative effect seemed to the ECU to give the impression of reinforcing, rather than ridiculing, the stereotype” All of which raises some important questions, none of which (to my knowledge) were addressed by media coverage – certainly not by the BBC. (I’ll attempt to deal with these questions in terms of framing in part 2 of this article): •Is national stereotyping necessarily less serious than racial stereotyping, and if so, why? •Is national stereotyping okay as long as you abuse all nationalities uniformly and humorously? •Does the same logic apply to racial stereotyping, and if not, why not? •Should TV celebrities be punished as severely as, say, footballers? Trial by media – Luis Suarez (Note: references to “para” are to relevant numbered paragraphs in the FA report) This incident started during a football match, after Patrice Evra (Manchester Utd) made the offensive remark, “your sister’s pussy”*, to Luis Suarez. It’s alleged (by Evra) that Suarez used racial insults in the dialogue that followed. (*Evra made the remark in Spanish: “Concha de tu hermana” - para 87). The official officials who officiated in this case were the Football Association (FA) and their “independent commission” (ie three blokes selected by the FA). Suarez denies making racial insults. The case boils down to meanings of “negro” in Spanish (nearest equivalent in English is “black”). Suarez claims he said “negro” once, inoffensively. Language experts consulted by the FA agreed that: “the use of ‘negro’ as described here by Mr Suarez would not be offensive. Indeed, it is possible that the term was intended as an attempt at conciliation and/or to establish rapport”. (Para 190) Suarez claims he said “Por qué, negro?” (“why, black?” – para 205). Evra claims he said “Porque tu eres negro” (“Because you are black” – para 205). The latter could be taken as offensive according to the FA’s language experts, but the phrase struck them as “slightly unusual” (para 182), whereas the phrase claimed by Suarez “sounded right linguistically and culturally”. (Para 191) Initially Evra claimed (in English) that Suarez said, at one point: “I don’t talk to you because you niggers” (para 131). He later withdrew this claim, after realising Suarez had said, in Spanish, “negro”, not “nigger”. (The report quotes Evra admitting that he is “not exactly fluent in Spanish” – para 87). As the FA’s experts pointed out, “the Spanish word ‘negro’ cannot simply be translated as ‘nigger’.” (They also point out that “It may be used affectionately … it may be used as a nickname in everyday speech … several famous people in Uruguay are known as ‘el negro’…” (para 172) These important details (and much else of relevance) somehow went unreported in most media coverage following the FA’s publication of a 115-page report (listing the reasons why the 3-man panel found Suarez “guilty”). Unfortunately, ‘churnalism’ had taken the place of responsible reporting… “Racial abuse” churnalism The report was published by the FA on New Year’s Eve – which probably didn’t help. What journalist wants to spend the last hours of the year reading 115 pages on racial abuse allegations? The Guardian led the way with lazy, irresponsible churnalism. Three Guardian articles (each by Stuart James, plus another from Andy Hunter) stated as fact that the panel ‘found that Suárez used the word “negro” or “negros” seven times’. But no such thing was “found” (even though the panel used that word). There was no evidence or corroborating witness statements confirming the number of times Suarez said “negro”. There was nothing but Patrice Evra’s word. (And Evra had altered his account – he initially told Canal+ TV that Suarez used the racial term “at least ten times” (para 154), but later claimed that this was just “a figure of speech” – para 159 – with the FA report stating that he later claimed Suarez used the word “negro” five times – para 205). In fact, what the report clearly shows is that there was no evidence or supporting witnesses to back up either player’s version of the crucial dialogue between them on the pitch. The entire case came down to one man’s word against another’s. This explains why the panel spent so much time trying to establish a case (again subjective and uncorroborated) that Suarez’s testimony was “unreliable”. Headline churnalism: “unreliable” evidence Following the publication of the report, the Press Association ran with: “FA: Suarez evidence ‘unreliable’,” and virtually all major UK media followed suit with similar headings. In what way was the evidence unreliable? The report cites two things – firstly, a few inconsistencies in Suarez’s accounts of the sequence/timing of events (although the panel concedes this is understandable given that Suarez, unlike Evra, wasn’t permitted to see the video footage while being interviewed, and thus relied on memory more – para 320). Secondly, the panel said it was “unsustainable and simply incredible” for Suarez to describe his behaviour as “conciliatory and friendly” given that “the players were engaged in an acrimonious argument”. (Para 453) If journalists hadn’t been so quick to ‘churnalise’ the report’s key “findings”, they might have noticed the problems with this – its circular, subjective nature. The panel apparently took as given the very premise under dispute (ie the “acrimonious” nature of Suarez’s “behaviour” – which remains uncorroborated by witness statements and video footage). As a result of this churnalism, every major newspaper report covering this “unreliable evidence” story failed to mention one of the most important pieces of “unreliable evidence” – namely Patrice Evra’s withdrawn initial claim that he was repeatedly called “nigger” (he later conceded it was “negro”), and his withdrawn claim that Suarez said the racial ‘N-word’ “at least ten times” (paras 154, 159). These inconsistencies are at the heart of the allegations, unlike the arguably more minor inconsistencies in Suarez’s account. Inconsistencies in the “official” report Another thing that journalists might have highlighted (if they hadn’t been in such a hurry to copy-n-paste summary “findings”) was glaring inconsistency in the report itself. One striking example is the panel’s “rejection” of the claim that Evra was angry throughout the match – that he was “tipped over the edge” by events (para 333), putting him in an agitated/vengeful state of mind. Here’s what the report said: ‘We rejected that submission [...] Mr [Ryan] Giggs described the Liverpool v Manchester United game as the biggest match. He did not consider that Mr Evra was wound up save in so far as everyone was wound up to a certain extent given the fixture. We reject the submission that Mr Evra was unduly wound up such that he was tipped over the edge to pursue vengeance against Mr Suarez.’ [Para 333] But this is inconsistent with the testimony of Giggs (who is a teammate of Evra) cited earlier in the report: ‘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 then told Mr Evra to calm down and not get himself sent off’. (Para 114 – my emphasis) The report also states that Evra was “angry” from the very start of the match, “when he was seen to dispute the outcome of the coin toss with the referee” (para 329). Of course, none of this negates Evra’s own testimony – but it provides a clearly relevant example of the panel’s inconsistent treatment of the evidence. To my knowledge, not a single newspaper commented on inconsistencies of this type, which are evident throughout the report. The reporters had their easy-to-churn, momentum-propelled story: the “unreliability” was all Suarez’s. He was not only a racist, but a liar (although they wouldn’t word it quite so bluntly as that). Case closed. How could it possibly be otherwise? “No Excuse” An apparently widely-held view arising from the Suarez case (including, it seems, among Guardian writers and editors) is that since Suarez admitted using the Spanish term “negro” (once), he is guilty of racial abuse, that all mitigating circumstances boil down to “excuses”, and that those who defend him are effectively harming efforts to eradicate racism. This view has far-reaching implications, of course. Even convicted murderers are granted the right to protest their innocence, citing lack of evidence, mitigating factors (such as self-defence, etc). Their defenders are not usually accused of misguidedly supporting murder – at least not by the “liberal” media. So what explains these “deep” differences in conceptual approach? Was Patrice Evra correct when he claimed that the Spanish for “your sister’s pussy” translates to “fucking hell” in English? (para 87). And are there any meaningful comparisons to be made between the Top Gear and Suarez cases in terms of media treatment? All this will be addressed in Part 2, which concentrates on the media framing aspects… some very strong points amde about lazy journalists- ( maddock , holt et al should read this)

Except that you have assumed that Louis was upset at the time. Yet in all the clips I,ve seen he looked remarkably calm.

I am so in agreement with this. Would it have anything to do with the growing army of jobsworths who attach themselves to various NGO's to avoid having to find a worthwhile job? Piara Power has had a lot to say lately but as a member of the Chelsea foundation hasn't said much , if anything, in the media about JT or the "we know what you are chants" yet remarkably one idiots action is the fault of LFC and everybody connected to the club. BTW my predictive text changed Piara to liars-says it all.

Yep and yet somehow the uk media seem to think many of us are supporting a racist act. Even here in SA (which certainly has many reasons to be sensitive about race) a lot of guys I work with are saying it's a stitch up. I await the actions against Terry but honestly wouldn't be surprised to see nothing happen from an FA point of view.

Excellent Piece from "The Anfield Wrap" sums it all up for me. WITHOUT PREJUDICE – THE CURIOUS CASE OF THE RACIST NON-RACIST by Rob Gutmann // 6 January 2012 // 7 Comments The pitiful ballad of Suarez- Evra was prefaced by prejudice from the outset. Not, ironically, in the (allegedly) racially charged cauldron of Anfield , back in October of last year but in that the Football Association were minded to, and perhaps were duty bound to, consider the wider impact of the outcome of such a high-profile case for their admirable and correct ‘kick racism out’ campaign. It is obvious, that unless Luis Suarez’s accuser, Patrice Evra, could be shown unequivocally to have bare-faced lied, that there would be far worse repercussions for the sport and the FA if justice was miscarried against Evra rather than Suarez. Had the FA exonerated the Liverpool man, by implication humiliated Evra and then found that final position challenged and criticised, the outcome would be a public relations debacle for Lancaster Gate and something of a hammer blow to the credibility of the anti-racism campaign. Headline writers and commentators would have wondered aloud if an old-school white English FA had again swept another example of football’s dysfunctionality under their very conservative carpet. Simply put, the three ‘wise men’ at the FA’s hearing, could not afford to get it wrong where Evra was concerned, but doing Luis Suarez a disservice would be far less likely to provoke as much of a backlash from any quarter, bar Liverpool 4. And so it has transpired. In a case where there is simply no evidence for the plaintiff, save for his own testimony, one would have thought it reasonable that the press and various experts at least contemplate, after the denouement, that this one could’ve ‘gone either way’. No one man or woman is in a position to say with certainty what truly happened between Suarez and Evra. Let’s be reminded, for the umpteenth time – nobody saw or heard Luis Suarez racially abuse Patrice Evra. Though the FA found for Evra, on the balance of ‘probability‘, an alternative scenario is entirely possible and arguably at least as probable. Yet the world outside of Anfield’s besieged perimeter now sees this as a shut case, the Liverpool player clearly a guilty man and the club complicit fools, who should abandon any notion that the FA may have mishandled this situation and urge their charge to apologise. Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised. There is a long tradition in this country of accepting adjudications at face value in favour of the establishment, given by serious looking white men in formal attire. Dissent often only ever comes from the shadows and criticisms in an immediate aftermath of a verdict are largely suppressed by our mainstream media. For the purposes of unravelling the Suarez-Evra entanglement the FA have effectively assumed the role of prosecutor, judge and jury, all in one neat(ish) package. Their media-acclaimed 115-page opus is in reality a document written by an FA-appointed panel congratulating itself on a job well done. It is akin to the prosecution in a trial chronicling how its arguments were, in fact, the better ones. A prophesy truly self-fulfilled. The FA brought this case before their very own quasi-judicial panel. In no sense would it ever have been in their interests to deem the prosecution fallacious and ill judged once they had set this train in motion. The whole process was clearly self serving and loaded regardless of what one makes of the rights and wrongs of the actual case. Indeed, unless one views the FA as a bastion of fairness and rectitude this can only be seen as an extremely flawed way of attaining justice. Hot on the heels of clashes with FIFA in a variety of arenas, the Football Association would not have allowed themselves to be portrayed in any way as being ‘soft’ on racism. Better there be an unfair flogging of an innocent ‘non-racist’, than risk being seen to be being lightweight on the ‘kick it (racism) out’ platform. On a world-wide stage there is a kind of morality in that reasoning, albeit in something of a crude ‘ends justify the means’ sort of way. Undoubtedly in ‘hanging’ Suarez the FA has sent out a clear message of intolerance towards racism. That in the long term may prove to the best outcome, when all have finally skulked back to their respective corners. In one outpost of the globe, though, they have affected an entirely opposite outcome. For many red Liverpudlians (and the football club’s wider constituency of many races and creeds) what the FA have demonstrated is not that they actually take accusations of racism seriously, but that claiming to be ‘not a racist’ is a political stance, rather than the moral one it should be. They have shown that the issue of ‘stamping out racism’ is there to be used and manipulated to suit agendas rather than to further the actual cause. Of course, despite it being clear that the FA would always be minded to find in favour of the plaintiff, Patrice Evra, for this political expediency, it is now possible to marvel at just how the Football Association set about achieving their ultimate grandstanding goal. Their 115 pages of ‘written reasons’ is something of a masterpiece of contrivance and contradictions. It would take, though, at least a further 115 pages to do analysis of the report complete justice. Let’s suffice here with a focus on two of the prime considerations that the FA’s panel afforded themselves in reaching their chosen verdict. In a case where there simply were no witnesses to the actual alleged events, bar the protagonists themselves, the adjudicators were left with the need to demonstrate that one man’s word was worth more than another’s. Witness credibility, then, became the order of the day. In parallel with this assessment, they also chose to assess the probability of one perceived narrative versus an alternative. Pages of discourse are expended on subtle denigration of Luis Suarez. He is viewed, entirely subjectively, as unreliable. They simply didn’t like the cut of his jib in his testimony given in Spanish and broken English, as opposed to Evra’s upright and composed evidence delivered in the FA panel’s native tongue. Small inconsistencies in Suarez’s statements are magnified and served up as evidence of a shifty deceitful character. Evra by contrast is forgiven several examples of hyperbole, exaggeration, outright lie and offensive behaviour – all written off as ‘figures of speech’, as consequences of duress or natural and forgivable human errors. The following from the report, as commentary on Liverpool Football Club’s assertion that Evra had contrived the charges, is choice: It (LFC’s lawyer’s conclusion) did not accord with our assessment of Mr Evra, as a clear, calm, and consistent witness. We considered it improbable that Mr Evra would act in such a dishonest way in order to damage the reputation of a fellow professional whose footballing skills he admires, with who he had had no previous run-ins, and who he does not think is a racist. This is the calm Mr Evra who disputes the outcome of the toss of coin with the referee at the game’s outset, the same man who on about 56 minutes reacts to the faintest of contacts with Luis Suarez by crumpling to the turf and writhing as if mortally wounded; the same honest chap who enhances Dirk Kuyt’s angry request for him to ‘stand up’ into a claim that he said ‘stand up you fucking prick’. The sensitive and righteous Mr Evra, then minutes later, when awaiting the delivery of a corner into the penalty area he is defending, still ‘in shock’ (according to his credible testimony) at the contact with Suarez five minutes prior, decides to further an enquiry as to why he had been so allegedly wronged at that fateful moment of earlier contact, by referencing Suarez’s ‘sister’s pussy’. The FA present an interesting paradox whereby on the one hand the said reference to Suarez’s sister’s vagina could actually just be interpreted as a figure speech as tame as exclaiming ‘fucking hell!’ This sentence “Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste in golpe” is translated by the panel as ‘fucking hell, why did you kick me ?’ Maybe They should have gone for ‘oh blimey !’ or ‘oh crikey!’ instead of the less charitable translation of words that literally translate as ‘your sister’s pussy/cunt’ . The paradox is that on the one hand this exclamation by Evra is presented as a near harmless enquiry , and an example of how noble and honest (and crucially, credible) Evra is by actually fessin’ up to using naughty words, but on the other hand we are expected to view the force and anger of his question as providing the motive for the mixed race, ‘non racist’ (according to the report) Suarez to suddenly abandon all his egalitarian principles and launch into a tirade of racist invective that would put a passing Klansman to shame. This is the contradictory scenario that the FA’s panel expect all to agree was the most ‘probable’ turn of events. Evra in his testimony re-houses goal posts at every turn, yet the report tries to demonstrate alleged inconsistencies in third party’s testimonies to demonstrate that Suarez was actually the serial story changer. Evra claims at different stages, that he was called ‘black’, ‘a fucking black’, ‘a nigger’, ‘a fucking prick’, and loses count of how many times he does so, with varying statements totting the racist epithet count up at five, seven or 10, depending on Evra’s mood. Rather than noting that Evra’s eyebrow-raising and later retracted claim, that he was racistly abused ’10 times’ was actually a deliberate distortion and a significant mark against his credibility, the panel accept a spurious assertion that ‘dix fois’ (10 times) is just a figure of speech in French. Scurrilously the panel claim that LFC’s Damien Comolli backs that assertion, as native Frenchman, in his own testimony. Flipping back a few dozen pages to Comolli’s testimony it’s apparent that he said nothing of the sort. Comolli quite categorically states that while one might say to a child something akin to ‘I’ve told you ten times already’ as an exaggeration to make a point, in anything more adult the relevant degree of accuracy would be applied, and the Evra-Suarez affair, was just such an occasion. As the report and its repetitive narrative unfold throughout the 115 pages, a clear picture is painted of Patrice Evra as a man losing control of himself throughout the course of a testing and high-octane sporting encounter. His increasing petulance is finally marked by the referee, who on about 68 minutes books Evra for a minor act of violence against Liverpool’s Dirk Kuyt. At this juncture Evra (to any degree of corroborated certainty at any rate) first raises the issue of racism with the referee. Such is Evra’s lack of composure that his own team mate, Ryan Giggs, offers uncontested testimony that he warned Evra that if he didn’t calm down that he faced being sent off altogether. A distinctly plausible (probable ?) picture emerges, for even a half-interested skimming reader, of a man, in Evra, who is wound up from the get-go about captaining his team in this key match, and who is extremely wary of a dangerous opponent in Luis Suarez. He will have known full well (before the outset) that the Uruguayan was the danger man that he and his fellow defenders had to stop. At all costs, it seems. The process starts in that moment just before the hour when he attempts to get Suarez disciplined by deceitful means (hugely exaggerating injury, as the video evidence clearly shows), and builds and builds from there. At the end of a difficult afternoon, Evra leaves the pitch a frustrated and angry player, aware that his team had finished a key game on the back foot, and that he as captain, had not acquitted himself with the dignity and composure required of his status. He knows that at some point Suarez used the word ‘negro’ to him, and he cares little as to its intent or meaning, but recognises enough ‘n’s’ and ‘g’s’ and vowels to lay an easy (faux) racism charge on Suarez. He suspects that he only needs a camera to have captured Suarez mouth ‘negro’ and he’s got the Liverpool forward bang to rights. If that happens, Evra is a clear victim, and quite possibly his yellow card would be rescinded as a consequence, and his petulant nervy performance put into a better light. Evra then decamps from the fray on 90 minutes and within a short space of time has in frustration presented a picture of himself as the victim of abuse to colleagues and a French TV crew, rather than mentally disintegrating aggressor the match day cameras capture. Once he has set a pernicious train in motion there is little turning back for him or the unfortunate Suarez, who finds himself collateral damage in Evra’s mind game. The above is simply an alternative scenario that the FA’s panel were loath to engage. Perhaps what actually happened was simply that which Suarez credibly (according to the FA’s language experts) outlined in his version of events: The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez’s account as follows. If Mr Suarez used the word “negro” as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more Therefore, he does not deny use of a word that could potentially cast him in a bad light (no credit is given to Suarez for this admission, whereas in Evra’s case he is ennobled by admitting to talking about Suarez’s sister’s pussy), only that he intended its use in any sense other than ‘why, bro?’ or ‘why pal?’ (‘por que negro?). The continuous and wilful translation of ‘negro’ as literally meaning ‘black’ is at minimum disingenuous on the part of the FA and the panel. Aside from assessing credibility and probability, a key tenet upon which the FA chose to damn Suarez, was by his own word. They sought assistance in this execution from their expert witnesses at Manchester University. Interestingly though these experts note that in a ‘sneering’ situation the word ‘negro’ could not be applied benignly, they do not conclude that Suarez has to have actually been sneering in this case. To ascertain this, was not their brief. They conclude that Suarez’s version of events is linguistically entirely plausible, and that it was quite possible for him to use the ‘negro’ term inoffensively. The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez’s account as follows. If Mr Suarez used the word “negro” as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally. The experts go further and conclude that Evra’s version of events in one of the exchanges, in particular, lacked credibility: Mr Evra then asked “Why did you kick me”. According to Mr Evra, Mr Suarez replied “porque tu eres negro” (“because you’re black”). According to Mr Suarez, he replied “It was a normal foul”. They expert testimony goes on to crucially observe : The experts considered it worth noting that the phrase “porque tu eres negro” struck both of them as slightly unusual. In this instance, a direct racial slur would more likely have been something like “porque eres un negro de mierda” [because you are a shitty black]. Credibility should not have been Patrice Evra’s strong suit in the panel’s summation, nor should it have been deemed probable that in a crowded goalmouth, full of players, witnessed by cameras, and within the public’s earshot that one man could issue a volley of racist abuse at another, and it go entirely unheard. It simply defies belief. The panel found it improbable that the non pejorative take on the word ‘negro’ could possibly be used in a confrontational situation and contented themselves with expert evidence that use of the word ‘negro’ in a argumentative context could only be racist. Not possible then in English to angrily ask a man to ‘calm down pal’, or ‘leave it out mate’, or (to a woman) request that she ‘shut up love’ ? The word in each case that evokes rapport or endearment can be used slightly sarcastically but without its use implying that a ‘pal’ or a ‘mate’ is a bad thing in itself. Suarez may have been ironically using an endearing or matey term with Evra, precisely because Evra was so patently not worthy of endearment or friendship, at that moment. Its use, in this context, would naturally have nothing to do with skin colour. Of course, it can’t be ruled out that Suarez did say precisely that which Evra claimed he did (in one of his accounts) and that (the FA deemed) non racist Mr Suarez did just suffer a brain aberration and become a bad racist for one day, and that one day only. It’s quite possible that he has utterly lied through his teeth and fooled all at Liverpool Football Club, and made mugs of supporters who chose to pay him the respect of looking at his situation beyond the mere two dimensions chosen by a last media. It’s possible, but it isn’t a very credible and the scenario isn’t highly probable, unless one approaches the whole affair with eyes only for the literality of the FA’s report and with prejudice firmly aforethought. Categories: Footie | Permalink 7 Comments

IMO I think it does. He thinks the club should just accept the findings of the FA. I beg to differ. You're opinion on my post I couldn't give a fuck about TBH.

Yeah because it!s that easy isn't it? Have you read the whole document? It!s clearly a stitch up every single Manchester player heard nothing during the game and there statements have rehearsed look about them. So just admit you are a racist and move on? Are you fucking serious? GB is probably the worst place on the planet to be right now if u r accused of racism. Murderers and paedo's get better press.

That,s about the fourth player you've punted and the've all been shite. WTF?

Yes because it!s so fuckin obvious he's a racist isn't it? Just fuck off

There is a phrase here in SA "jou ma'se poess" which literally translated means " your mothers cunt" . I learnt very early on here that you can expect a shitstorm if you use it and no there is no way you could translate it into the English equivalent. I would therefore question the translation of the French cunt's insult directed at Louis . Perhaps somebody with a S. American origin or background could advise?

Yep he was. Very frustrating to watch as his positioning is woeful at times.perhaps we can send him to work with Toshie.

Yep backtracking big time . did you see the article by Ian Ladyboy in the Mail sounded like it was written by Colonel who served in the days of the Raj.

FFS I have now Sussed you out . Ur John Henry's trained Amazon Blue. Give it a rest will ya.

Hey Alex fuck off and support city or some other noveau riche club. Having said that I am struggling to see what downing brings to the squad.

Hey Alex fuck off and support city or some other noveau riche club. Having said that I am struggling to see what downing brings to the squad.

Get to fuck. He's been pre-judged here before anything got underway.

it was a reference to his weight.

Luis Suarez racism hearing: reputations at stake as panel attempt to unravel most complicated of cases In a North-Western hotel suite off the M6, three wise men are sitting in judgment on Luis Suárez, attempting to unravel one of the most complicated disciplinary cases ever dealt with by the Football Association. Lost in translation: Patrice Evra (right) and Luis Suárez during controversial clash Photo: AP By Henry Winter, Football Correspondent 11:00PM GMT 14 Dec 2011 155 Comments They must rule on linguistic issues, cultural differences, body language while ensuring that the subtleties of the story are not lost amid FA politicking. The charge facing Suárez is that he “used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour” towards Manchester United’s Patrice Evra at Anfield on Oct 15. It is “alleged that this included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Patrice Evra”, the FA adds. Evra, who is adamant he was racially abused 10 times, has the backing of his manager Sir Alex Ferguson and his club. Suárez, who will admit using the word “negro” once, will argue that it is a descriptive expression, and not deemed offensive in his native Uruguay, and that it is similar to Dirk Kuyt getting called “blondie” by the South American players at Anfield. Suárez categorically denies the racism charges and enjoys the total support of his manager, Kenny Dalglish, and Liverpool’s owners, John W Henry and Tom Werner. Related Articles FA finally begins Suarez-Evra racism hearing 14 Dec 2011 Suarez given extra time 12 Dec 2011 Warnock backs under-fire Suarez 11 Dec 2011 Warnock: 'diver' Suarez deserves a break 09 Dec 2011 Dalglish fumes at FA over discipline 09 Dec 2011 Suárez improper conduct charge 07 Dec 2011 The Americans will submit testimony supporting their player while Dalglish will attend the hearing in person. Liverpool are also expected to use evidence from a linguistic expert. In defending Suárez, Liverpool are expected to mention the incident between Evra and Chelsea’s groundstaff in 2008 which culminated in an FA hearing which concluded that “we find Mr Evra’s account exaggerated and unreliable”. This is a case of deep detail between two well-known footballers and a broad picture of a governing body engaged in a long-running feud with Fifa president Sepp Blatter. The three men on the panel must guard against letting the FA’s desire to be seen to be strong on racism, so highlighting one of Blatter’s many weak points, clouding their judgment. Reputations are at stake. The experienced three-man panel, which gathered on Wednesday afternoon, is chaired by Paul Goulding QC, who comes from the same Blackstones chambers as Adam Lewis, the barrister employed by the FA in Wayne Rooney’s successful Uefa appeal last week. Goulding, a qualified FA coach, appeared for Jean Tigana in his successful claim following his sacking as Fulham manager and has advised Premier League clubs and players in the past. Also involved is Brian Jones, the chairman of Sheffield and Hallamshire FA who wrote to all his county members on June 20, stressing the need to fight discrimination. The third member is Denis Smith, well respected within the game following his time as a defender at Stoke City and managing clubs such as Sunderland and Oxford United. Two representatives from the FA secretariat are present but Goulding, Jones and Smith will rule on Suárez, possibly on Friday. The allegations centre around the second half of the 1-1 draw at Anfield. Events started in the 57th minute when Suárez fouled Evra, tempers really flaring at an ensuing Liverpool corner. Amid some pushing and shoving, Evra demanded to know from Suárez why he had kicked him. Suárez replied that things happen in games and to move on. It is here that Evra claims Suárez first became racially abusive; the Frenchman was subsequently quoted on the French station Canal Plus, saying that “there are cameras, you can see him [suárez] say a certain word to me at least 10 times’’. Suárez categorically denies using that word, negro, in the goalmouth. Watching events from the press box, it was pretty clear that Evra was incensed yet the players around seemed unaware of any dispute. The testimony of those closest, United’s David de Gea and Liverpool’s Dirk Kuyt, will play a part. There is an expectancy that it will be confirmed to the panel that nothing offensive was heard in the goalmouth. Shortly after the corner, referee Andre Marriner called the pair together for a lecture. Suárez apologised and attempted to pat the United full-back on the head. “Don’t touch me, you South American,’’ Evra is alleged to have said. To which, the Uruguayan replied: “Porque, Negro?’’ Suárez’s defence rests on the argument that such expressions are commonplace in South America. It is considered offensive, according to Suárez’s defence, only when used with a pejorative adjective or when the tone is aggressive. Footage of Suárez’s body language will be scrutinised by the panel. This will inevitably form part of Liverpool’s case, that when Suárez did use the word “negro” he was not in aggressive mood, more apologetic towards Evra. Yet Suárez must prove he was unaware of the sensitivity towards the word “negro” in England. The former Ajax player will also have to explain why, having lived for three years in Holland, he had still to grasp northern European intolerance to such a word. Despite Marriner’s intervention, Evra remained furious. When he caught Kuyt two minutes later, Evra responded to Marriner’s caution by allegedly claiming: “You’re only booking me because I’m black.’’ Suárez is bemused by the case. “I called him something his team-mates at Manchester call him, and even they were surprised by his reaction,’’ Suárez claimed in the immediate aftermath of the incident. Much will depend on whether Liverpool can convince the panel that Suárez does not have racist tendencies. They are expected to point out that Suárez made a video in South African townships during the 2010 World Cup called “From the Streets to the Fields”. He hails football’s “tremendous power of joining people, without any skin, religion and social discrimination”. Liverpool’s work in combating racism is sure to be mentioned. As is their owners’. Henry has been instrumental in celebrating the life of Jackie Robinson, the legendary black baseballer, at the Boston Red Sox which he owns. In focusing on increasing diversity at Fenway Park and funding school scholarships for those from disadvantaged parts of Boston, Henry told National Public Radio in October that “we have to make a statement not just in baseball but in our community that diversity is an issue that hasn’t been fully addressed in the past and certainly has to be fully addressed. "I think it’s important what your actions are. That will really define the franchise going forward’’. Liverpool’s reputation would be damaged if Suáarez were found guilty of such a heinous offence. That is why the panel must stay clear-eyed, ignoring FA tensions with Blatter over racism. Goulding, Jones and Smith must focus on one man’s word against another, and whether to accept cultural differences. X Share & bookmarkDelicious Facebook Google Messenger Reddit Twitter Digg Fark LinkedIn Google Buzz StumbleUpon Y! Buzz What are these? Share: Share inShare.2http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8957294/Luis-Suarez-racism-hearing-reputations-at-stake-as-panel-attempt-to-unravel-most-complicated-of-cases.html TelegraphLiverpool Sport »Henry Winter »Football »Premier League »Manchester United »Related Partners Liverpool Tickets In Liverpool Fernando Torres then and now Chelsea's Dalglish hoodoo £85 million in reserve Henry: Dalglish was a gamble Shankly cult still growing X Share & bookmarkDelicious Facebook Google Messenger Reddit Twitter Digg Fark LinkedIn Google Buzz StumbleUpon Y! Buzz What are these? Share: You're only booking me 'cos I'm black WTF

Serious question did you ever play football for a team at any level? Go back and have a look at the Spearing video and then the Stevie video and it may help you. Do you know the difference between two footed and over the ball ?Note that I said video and not still as a video will allow you to see the actual sequence of the tackle. BTW I am not stating that Jay's tackle was over the ball, I still maintain there was nothing wrong with it.

Not only are you a bore you're fuckin stupid with it. Can somebody do me a favor and dig up a pc of a two footed tackle so this bell end can understand?