PiranhaBill

Get to fuck! Green is THE ONLY sports journalist in the enitire country who EVER says a negative word against that gin soaked champagne socialist. :wallbutt:

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.

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?

Really? They watched John Barnes be abused by England fans and did nothing. Pearce v Ince; Ferguson v Boa Morte; Emre v Yobo; Schmeical v Wright were all brushed under the carpet. The Suarez case couldn't have been handled worse. The England captain is going to court on racism charges. Yep - great job done by the FA

The correct decision for England was made by Dhoni after being pressurised by the England management team in England which had no effect on his decision at all. It was the wrong decision in the end no matter how much you dress it up. You talk about challenging the umpire's authority when we've just seen 3 umpires come to the correct decision but be over-ridden by a deal behind closed doors after the event. Basically, the rules of cricket are now abandoned if you claim to not understand them? or take advantage of the oppositions error of judgement?

Stepping out of your crease before the ball is dead is a rule in cricket too. Or do you own a cricket rule book that has "unless you're stupid" after every rule. Bell was stupid. Tough shit. Strauss has gone against the spirit of the game by appealling within the dressing room.

Just for the record, Indian Red is 100% correct. Strauss going to ask them is one of the most embarressing things I've heard any sportsman do let alone an England Captain. Players take advantages of opposition mistakes to win games - Its frankly the basis of every sport. Ian Bell, if he had the spirit of the game at heart, should have said thanks but no thanks and took his pads off. He messed up and should learn from it. All he actually learnt is that if you whinge you get let off.

Turmeric Chorizo Cava

Take it you can't find any then. Your silence speaks volumes.

I would very much appreciate it if you could furnish us with examples of where cutting a Government budget by 80% has or will create a better outcome. Past, present or future, I really don't mind............please list examples where you think this is so.... Cheers

What quota would that be ? He's Australian !

And the winner of the "I know fuck all about football" award goes to...............

Please sign the petition.... Sign the Petition to Save our NHS!

No, ugly feckers.

Its in the Guardian from unquoted sources... you're 100% correct then. I know two Sky journalists often seen on screen on SSN, both have journalist qualifications having done their training with the BBC, one male one female. Of course like many workplaces, a bloke will appoint a girl if he likes the look of her but thats a million miles away from your previous post which is just an assumption about the entire workforce, and a wrong one at that.