What is going on at Liverpool?

[Hungry Joe]

I'm in no way defending the scum convicted in the Stephen Lawrence case, but how do other murder victims families feel to see a dedicated police unit investigating a crime committed 19 years ago.

You mean the case they f***ed-up in the first place because they assumed Lawrence and his mate, being black, must have been partially responsible for the incident - leading to an independant commission finding that the Met were inherantly racist in their dealings with crimes involving black people? I'm sure most victim's families would see the reasonableness of that.

 

[arfer guinness]

You mean the case they f***ed-up in the first place because they assumed Lawrence and his mate, being black, must have been partially responsible for the incident - leading to an independant commission finding that the Met were inherantly racist in their dealings with crimes involving black people? I'm sure most victim's families would see the reasonableness of that.

History is full of police cock ups. All I am saying is the crime of racism is being treated as the worst offence around. The person arrested for the abuse of the Oldham player was held in custody, not just charged and released simply because it's alleged the word black preceeded abusive words. I believe abuse is abuse the same as assault is assault and murder is murder, but if the motive is race it is deemed to be worse, why?

 

[Hungry Joe]

All I am saying is the crime of racism is being treated as the worst offence around.

No it isn't, that's just some people's skewed perception. And the Lawrence case was a bit more than just a "cock up".

 

[Triggaaar]

People may want to hold their horses on this one. A Beeb journalist in the crowd where it happened is adamant they were shouting "manc bastard" and not "black bastard".

You must be new here

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

http://newsframes.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/media-on-racism-churnalism/

I have not read the whole of this thread but here is an interesting article.

Maybe the reason Kenny and the club have take their particular stance is that they believe Suarez and wish to stand by their player. Commendable I say.

Commendable?
Even if you believe Suarez's version of events (which changed several times during the course of the investigation...a point conveniently glossed over in the article)...say you were in another country and referred to someone by a term which was culturally acceptable to you. You then get told that the particular term you used is not culturally acceptable in the country where you are, and the person you addressed in that manner has been offended by your comment.
Would you:
a) Explain that you did not mean any offence and aplogise to the person you offended, albeit unintentionally
or
b) Deny that you said anything to the person that could possibly be construed as offensive, and make defamatory lies about the person you offended, saying that they lied about being offended before?

 

[BadFish]

Commendable?
Even if you believe Suarez's version of events (which changed several times during the course of the investigation...a point conveniently glossed over in the article)...say you were in another country and referred to someone by a term which was culturally acceptable to you. You then get told that the particular term you used is not culturally acceptable in the country where you are, and the person you addressed in that manner has been offended by your comment.
Would you:
a) Explain that you did not mean any offence and aplogise to the person you offended, albeit unintentionally
or
b) Deny that you said anything to the person that could possibly be construed as offensive, and make defamatory lies about the person you offended, saying that they lied about being offended before?

I don't think that point was glossed over in the article I think the point was addressed by making the point that Evra's version of events also changed throughout the course of the investigation.

Of course I would apologise and explain that i did not mean any offence, but the whole media hyperbole and independent investigation would not be present in my case to distort reason.

I would also hope that if i genuinely did not mean to cause offence and genuinely felt that i had done nothing wrong my employers and team mates would stand by me.

To be honest with you this should have been dealt with by a phone call from Suarez apologising for any offence caused and a return apology from Evra for referring to Suarez's sisters Pussy (something which was undeniably meant to cause offence). We don't rellay know if a phone call or any communication was attempted after the game, what we do know was that Giggs had suggested that Evra was in a difficult and angry mood during that game.

See the thing that has not rung true in my mind about this whole thing was that a club, any club let along one the size of Liverpool, would risk all the criticism and backlash that their reaction (or lack of it) has casued. Why would a club allow itself to be branded racist? why would it allow the world to think that it is defending a racist player? Why would it allow it's players and manager to openly support a recist player? it is surely PR madness and can only be explained by the fact that it (or at least Kenny)truly believes Suarez' version of events and has made an informed (as only Suarez really know's what he meant, (there were no witnesses other tham Evra who changed his story many times too)) decision to stand by their player.

 

[Weststander]

I don't think that point was glossed over in the article I think the point was addressed by making the point that Evra's version of events also changed throughout the course of the investigation.

Of course I would apologise and explain that i did not mean any offence, but the whole media hyperbole and independent investigation would not be present in my case to distort reason.

I would also hope that if i genuinely did not mean to cause offence and genuinely felt that i had done nothing wrong my employers and team mates would stand by me.

To be honest with you this should have been dealt with by a phone call from Suarez apologising for any offence caused and a return apology from Evra for referring to Suarez's sisters Pussy (something which was undeniably meant to cause offence). We don't rellay know if a phone call or any communication was attempted after the game, what we do know was that Giggs had suggested that Evra was in a difficult and angry mood during that game.

See the thing that has not rung true in my mind about this whole thing was that a club, any club let along one the size of Liverpool, would risk all the criticism and backlash that their reaction (or lack of it) has casued. Why would a club allow itself to be branded racist? why would it allow the world to think that it is defending a racist player? Why would it allow it's players and manager to openly support a recist player? it is surely PR madness and can only be explained by the fact that it (or at least Kenny)truly believes Suarez' version of events and has made an informed (as only Suarez really know's what he meant, (there were no witnesses other tham Evra who changed his story many times too)) decision to stand by their player.

You talk sense. It was indicated that there is more to the story.

The stirring media (football hacks) love it, and some have automatically linked it to the alleged single fan abuse against Oldham.

And Downing allegedly assaulting his ex-wife.


Tomorrow's chip paper, when the Terry case next stages centre stage.

 

[Acker79]

I don't think that point was glossed over in the article I think the point was addressed by making the point that Evra's version of events also changed throughout the course of the investigation.

It was also stated in the article that Evra was allowed to watch a video of the event as he gave his statement, whereas Suarez had to give his entirely by memory.

 

[NMH]

It occurs to me that some people are defending Suarez for baffling reasons - why defend him at all? A court has judged him guilty, Evra surely wouldn't be that offended unless it was rather obvious that Suarez wasn't being kindly in his repeated references to Evra's SKIN COLOUR (ffs! why would anyone need to keed banging on at a black person that they are black? He knows the lads name!! Come the f*** ON you utter morons!!).

Football is a sport and a profession.
If you worked in an office shared with a person with dark pigmented skin, do you feel it's perfectly reasonable to call them by a generalism for black people? Let's also get this straight, it doesn't make an ATOM of difference if he's from Uruguay because that is NOT any excuse what-so-ever.

Now who are some of you lot trying to kid??
Yourselves, maybe.

 

[Weststander]

It occurs to me that some people are defending Suarez for baffling reasons - why defend him at all? A court has judged him guilty, Evra surely wouldn't be that offended unless it was rather obvious that Suarez wasn't being kindly in his repeated references to Evra's SKIN COLOUR (ffs! why would anyone need to keed banging on at a black person that they are black? He knows the lads name!! Come the f*** ON you utter morons!!).

Football is a sport and a profession.
If you worked in an office shared with a person with dark pigmented skin, do you feel it's perfectly reasonable to call them by a generalism for black people? Let's also get this straight, it doesn't make an ATOM of difference if he's from Uruguay because that is NOT any excuse what-so-ever.

Now who are some of you lot trying to kid??
Yourselves, maybe.

Is that the office with players doing anything to gain an advantage, hatred from masses in the crowd, cheating, objects thrown from the crowd, violent challenges, managers trying to stir in mind games?

Football is no normal office environment.

 

[pauli cee]

I agree with B.G's comments. You cannot ignore racist abuse any more than you can ignore any abuse. But we are in danger of inciting more racism by inflicting heavier punishment if the word black preceeds any assault. I'm in no way defending the scum convicted in the Stephen Lawrence case, but how do other murder victims families feel to see a dedicated police unit investigating a crime committed 19 years ago.

see your point, but then again, they have just made a major 'breakthrough' in the case, so i guess now is the time to push on with it, and put it to bed

 

[NMH]

Is that the office with players doing anything to gain an advantage, hatred from masses in the crowd, cheating, objects thrown from the crowd, violent challenges, managers trying to stir in mind games?

Football is no normal office environment.

Is that a good, or a DUMB-ARSE excuse?
Yes, I knew someone would have to raise that.
Howabout a building site - no place for shrinking violets - okay for a bloke to keep referring to another as 'negro'? Is it??

You don't hear it in wrestling or boxing even, do you?
Only football, where it's okay - especially if you are from South America (where I have been, and it's not acceptable there either).

The ONLY time it's accepted, is when one rapper or street buddy calls his fellow same-pigmented friend by the word - and that's also only because they have both mutually consented to do it.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Is that the office with players doing anything to gain an advantage, hatred from masses in the crowd, cheating, objects thrown from the crowd, violent challenges, managers trying to stir in mind games?

Football is no normal office environment.

I don't work in a "normal" office environment. I, as no doubt do various posters on here in all sorts of professions, end up dealing with people who are drunk, drugged, abusive, physically aggressive, mentally ill, suicidal, or just about anything else negative you can think of. Never once has it occurred to me to address a person using terminology based on the colour of their skin. If I was heard saying "Hey, Negro" to a member of the public, I wouldn't get a temporary suspension and a fine, I'd lose my job.

I don't expect Suarez to be fired, but he can have no complaints about the ban IMHO.

 

[Acker79]

It occurs to me that some people are defending Suarez for baffling reasons - why defend him at all? A court has judged him guilty, Evra surely wouldn't be that offended unless it was rather obvious that Suarez wasn't being kindly in his repeated references to Evra's SKIN COLOUR (ffs! why would anyone need to keed banging on at a black person that they are black? He knows the lads name!! Come the f*** ON you utter morons!!).

1) Not a court. A court needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a 3 man panel selected by the FA decided to take one man's word over another.
2) The article linked by badfish that cites the FA's report certainly highlights some questions
3) According to the article Language experts acknowledge that in Suarez's culture referring to people as negro (and remember that is a spanish word, not the english version of the word that has racial connotations) it can be a friendly gesture and according to badfish's link the same experts suggested while it can be offensive, the offensive version of it didn't scan as well in the circumstances
4) Whether the term was repeated has not been proven, these three men from the FA believe Evra, (who, according to the article citing the decision, initially claimed Suarez used the N-word, but then changed it to negro, initially said he used it 10 times, then said it was less) because they say his statements (made with the advantage of watching video evidence) was more consistent than Suarez's (which was entirely from memory and so wouldn't be as consistent as someone who watches a video while testifying).

Despite that, I'm not necessarily defending Suarez, I'm just a little sceptical of the outcome, and in particular the idea that Evra's claim have been proven to happen. Nothing has been proven, three men have decided to believe Evra over Suarez.


*I have not read the full statement from he FA yet, but having read the article from badfish, and the suggestion that most sports journalists aren't really delving too deeply (which kinda follows with what I've experienced reading the coverage) I do plan to read it myself. I would have dismiss that article as paranoid ranting giving it's attacks on the guardian, but the fact it contains citations relating to the statement made me a little less sceptical, so I'm going to have to read it.

 

[sten_super]

[MENTION=12595]Acker79[/MENTION], I agree, the article does raise some valid issues, but it's pretty clear that the author is far from impartial, which makes it difficult to take what he writes at face value. He also raises some complete non-issues (and tries to make them into issues) which gives the impression that he's grasping at straws.

The three man panel (I don't like the aspersions cast about how they were selected, that's a cheap point and only serves to demean the authors message, IMHO) were told that the 'proof' required was only on the balance of probability, and acted accordingly. I agree with Liverpool that this seems a rather unsatisfactory requirement given the severity of the charges. However, on this balance of probabilities they believed he was guilty.

I think that Liverpool have handled this completely wrongly. Regardless of their views (which they've made perfectly clear) they should have kept absolutely silent before the verdict or judgements. That they didn't is to their enormous discredit. They should then have issued a statement detailing their (procedural) concerns and announcing whether to appeal or not. Suarez should also have issued an unreserved apology. The club has acted without any class, regardless of the guilt or otherwise of their player.

To be honest, I do wonder whether an unreserved apology from Suarez to Evra as soon as the issue came to light, alongside a significant donation to an anti-racism charity, wouldn't have seen the whole thing put to bed without the FA getting involved.

 

[Hungry Joe]

It occurs to me that some people are defending Suarez for baffling reasons - why defend him at all? A court has judged him guilty, Evra surely wouldn't be that offended unless it was rather obvious that Suarez wasn't being kindly in his repeated references to Evra's SKIN COLOUR (ffs! why would anyone need to keed banging on at a black person that they are black? He knows the lads name!! Come the f*** ON you utter morons!!).

Football is a sport and a profession.
If you worked in an office shared with a person with dark pigmented skin, do you feel it's perfectly reasonable to call them by a generalism for black people? Let's also get this straight, it doesn't make an ATOM of difference if he's from Uruguay because that is NOT any excuse what-so-ever.

Now who are some of you lot trying to kid??
Yourselves, maybe.

Absolute twaddle, and your office/building site analogy is one of the worst I've ever seen, especially coming from someone who claims superior intelligence to us utter morons. Come the f*** ON indeed.

 

[Hungry Joe]

An interesting question (for me anyway) is what you would be more offended by - someone referring to "your sister's pussy" or the colour of your skin? I'm sure public apologies would have been the best way to deal with this situation, but they would have had to come from Evra too.

 

[ROSM]

[MENTION=12595]
To be honest, I do wonder whether an unreserved apology from Suarez to Evra as soon as the issue came to light, alongside a significant donation to an anti-racism charity, wouldn't have seen the whole thing put to bed without the FA getting involved.

I agree with your post, however on this last point I don't think that would have happened once the manchester united machine got involved. I think 'most' lawyers would have advised Suarez to make no contact with Evra in order to not prejudice his defence.

 

[Acker79]

[MENTION=12595]Acker79[/MENTION], I agree, the article does raise some valid issues, but it's pretty clear that the author is far from impartial, which makes it difficult to take what he writes at face value. He also raises some complete non-issues (and tries to make them into issues) which gives the impression that he's grasping at straws.

The three man panel (I don't like the aspersions cast about how they were selected, that's a cheap point and only serves to demean the authors message, IMHO) were told that the 'proof' required was only on the balance of probability, and acted accordingly. I agree with Liverpool that this seems a rather unsatisfactory requirement given the severity of the charges. However, on this balance of probabilities they believed he was guilty.

I think that Liverpool have handled this completely wrongly. Regardless of their views (which they've made perfectly clear) they should have kept absolutely silent before the verdict or judgements. That they didn't is to their enormous discredit. They should then have issued a statement detailing their (procedural) concerns and announcing whether to appeal or not. Suarez should also have issued an unreserved apology. The club has acted without any class, regardless of the guilt or otherwise of their player.

To be honest, I do wonder whether an unreserved apology from Suarez to Evra as soon as the issue came to light, alongside a significant donation to an anti-racism charity, wouldn't have seen the whole thing put to bed without the FA getting involved.

I agree. I'm still a little sceptical of the article and it's intents, which is why I do plan to read the findings (probably either in bits, or at the weekend).

I don't have a problem with the 3 man panel per se, I have a problem with the attitude that them believe one man over another is taken as "proof" of the accuracy of Evra's testimony. His may have been a little more reliable and they're acting on the balance of probability, not of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I absolutely feel liverpool have taken the wrong actions all the way along, and feel the apology would have made the whole incident easier to deal with.

 

[BensGrandad]

Having sat on many FA panels and hearings at county level I can say without any fear of contradiction that it is most obvious and apparent that in the eyes of most panel members the player is guilty and it is up to them to prove their innocense rather than the way of our justice system of innocent untill proven guilty.