Evra accuses Suarez of racist remarks | Suarez guilty of racial abuse

Doesn't make sense for Suarez to racially abuse someone in a football game where everyone can see what your doing even if they can't hear.
 
gooDevil said:
In spanish speaking countries, the equivalent of 'the n word' is just 'negro', right?

Odd that you can say 'black' or 'negro' in English and it's not slander. Not that anyone says negro [in English] anymore in the states.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with black? Black and white is used. Nothing wrong with that. Evra is not 'African-American' which somehow is the politically correct term over there.

I'm also not familiar with slave talk in Europe so I don't know about negro either. We have the same word in our language which is not considered racist but some people frown upon it. It doesn't matter though. It's not for us white people to say. If black people take offence you don't use it.
 
Feed Me said:
It's not possible to debate this issue sensibly unless we disregard all club loyalties.

In this thread, we have United fans assuming Evra is telling the truth and Liverpool fans assuming Suarez is telling the truth. There is no evidence for either of these stances, just blind partisanship.

Other unsavoury aspects of Suarez's character (diving, biting, WC penalty antics) make him no more likely to be a racist. That's a huge charge. I'm not sure people should be going with the 'he's a dick, so he probably said it' attitude. There's a big leap between being a bit of a prat and being a racist.
Click to expand...

You're assuming he is a racist. I'm not. I'm assuming he was being a dick and trying to do everything he could to gain an advantage over Evra. One can use racist language as a weapon and not be a racist.

So. my point stands. It's within his character to make such a statement.
 
Feed Me said:
Other unsavoury aspects of Suarez's character (diving, biting, WC penalty antics) make him no more likely to be a racist... There's a big leap between being a bit of a prat and being a racist.
Click to expand...

You're logic is flawed here - the second part is certainly true, the fact somebody is a cnut by no means shows they are a racist. But, being a cnut does make you more likely to be a racist, as it's one of the prerequisites.

Ie, racists are a subset of cnuts. Being a mammal does not make you a dog, but a mammal is much more likely to be a dog than a reptile is.
 
This is a lot bigger than you think. Firstly, any form of racism is a vicarious act if conducted in the course of normal business so LFC automatically become liable. That's why they're strongly defending Suarez, the accusation legally is as much against LFC as Suarez. Secondly, if it isn't proved then Evra stands to be accused of slander or liable if written. Normally the onus of proof is on the complainant but in a slander/liable action it falls on the defendant. If Evra can't prove it, he's sunk.

Fortunately slander/liable isn't vicarious so the club is out of it. That's why Fergie is saying so little. Let's hope it's sorted with apologies all round and we can get on with it. Otherwise it can get very messy for either party.
 
Sir A1ex said:
You're logic is flawed here - the second part is certainly true, the fact somebody is a cnut by no means shows they are a racist. But, being a cnut does make you more likely to be a racist, as it's one of the prerequisites.

Ie, racists are a subset of cnuts. Being a mammal does not make you a dog, but a mammal is much more likely to be a dog than a reptile is.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
The frustrating thing with being a victim of slander/racism is that it is so hard to prove. Once a word is spoken, it is gone. Seeing as there are no microphones on the players, the chance of there being a close-up shot of the player in question during time off the ball in the instant that they allegedly say the word is slim to none.

So what choice have you got as a victim? Make the claim knowing you cannot prove it and face repercussions from governing bodies and be called a liar and essentially become a victim twice? The only other option is to let it go, but I'm sure after allegedly hearing it 10 times, that anyone would become fed up. I credit Evra for speaking out about it, but have a strong suspicion that despite whatever has happened, he'll be the one who loses out over it.

I also don't buy a word of what Suarez is saying. Does he respect the referee and his opponents when his cheating brings the game into disrepute? Did he respect Otman Bakkal when he bit him like a savage? How about when he was suspended by Ajax for fighting one of his teammates? How about complaining to the Dutch FA to try and force the club who discovered him to sell him for a lowball offer? He's an absolute cnut of a player and while he may or not have racially abused Evra, he's no saint.
 
Sir A1ex said:
You're logic is flawed here - the second part is certainly true, the fact somebody is a cnut by no means shows they are a racist. But, being a cnut does make you more likely to be a racist, as it's one of the prerequisites.

Ie, racists are a subset of cnuts. Being a mammal does not make you a dog, but a mammal is much more likely to be a dog than a reptile is.
Click to expand...

Very nicely put.
 
What if there is no proof either way? Its one word against the other so surely the FA cannot punish either party.
 
He made the accusation at the appropriate time and to the appropriate person. There was no way of knowing then whether or not there was video evidence.
 
Good article Feeky. I wish someone would post it on RAWK. They are fecking me off with their constant drivel about Evra.

I know I know its just an internet forum, but I hate misinformed nonsense.
 
SteveJ said:
Excellent! :)
Click to expand...

Deserves all the plaudits. However there are still some planks like James Olley of a London newspapers who are still sprouting ignorant crap

He has previous. In April 2008, Evra claimed a Chelsea groundsman had insulted him while warming down following United's 2-1 defeat which sparked a brawl. Evra was banned for four matches, fined £15,000 and allegations of racism were dismissed.
Click to expand...
 
Good on ya, Feeky. You'll be the next Sid Lowe...or someone else who's good at writing about football.

.....or you might end up writing those little blurbs underneath the pictures of Page 3 girls in The Sun:

'Denise, 22, Milton Keynes. When dental receptionist Denise isn't giving us an eyeful, she likes to strut her stuff with friends in Jazz niteclub at the weekends. Also a keen amateur ornithologist, Denise likes to spend an evening watching and studying her favourite feathered friends. Let's just say that Denise is one bird we wouldn't mind staring at with binoculars for hours on end in a local park!!'
 
KM said:
Daniel Taylor just said this about your article



Well done Feeky!
Click to expand...

Aye, well done, Feeks.

I reckon Lewis read it a few days back, because he seemed to be in-the-know when commenting on the allegations during the morning segment of SSN.
 
De Selby said:
Good on ya, Feeky. You'll be the next Sid Lowe...or someone else who's good at writing about football.

.....or you might end up writing those little blurbs underneath the pictures of Page 3 girls in The Sun:

'Denise, 22, Milton Keynes. When dental receptionist Denise isn't giving us an eyeful, she likes to strut her stuff with friends in Jazz niteclub at the weekends. Also a keen amateur ornithologist, Denise likes to spend an evening watching and studying her favourite feathered friends. Let's just say that Denise is one bird we wouldn't mind staring at with binoculars for hours on end in a local park!!'
Click to expand...

:lol:

How long have you been working on Page 3 yourself mate?
 
Well done Feeky. That deserves to be spread around for people to read.
 
Marina Hyde talking sense on this in the Guardian

Snap judgments in the Patrice Evra-Luis Suárez dispute help no one | Marina Hyde | Football | The Guardian


Is there anything less appealing than the absolute moral certainty with which some Liverpool fans automatically dismissed Patrice Evra's claim that he was racially abused, and some Manchester United fans automatically wrote off Luis Suárez as a racist, despite neither faction having any way of knowing for sure what actually happened on the pitch on Saturday? Actually, yes. There is something less appealing. It is Her Majesty's Press larding on the hints of the insta‑judgment to which they have come on the matter.

"Malice" just happened to be the first word of the Telegraph's match report, while the Mail claimed Evra had been "left isolated". Both were fairly typical. This newspaper ran a poll in which the question was termed: "Should Evra be banned if his claim proves false?"

Mm. I'm rather sorry we missed the chance to run something similar a few days into the Dominique Strauss-Kahn business. "If the hotel maid's claim is proved false," it might have read, "should she be deported?" Let's hope that in the future, media organisations seeking new revenue streams will explore the possibility of lucrative, X Factor-style phone polling on these hot-button issues. Text the word MARTYR to 80051, or UPPITY to 80052.

Votes will cost 25p from a mobile, but the cost to society may be considerably more. It should go without saying that fostering a culture in which a player – any player – feels able to raise allegations of racism without fear of an instant backlash is of interest to all right-thinking fans, no matter which team they support. It should go without saying, but it unfortunately doesn't, which is why Kick It Out was launching its latest three-week campaign at Saturday's game. As it turned out, the match will function as a curtain-raiser to an FA investigation into Evra's claims.

Ideally, the FA would have come out with an immediate statement along the lines of: "All accusations of racism are taken seriously, but all players are innocent until proven guilty." Instead they muttered something about "making inquiries", which downgrades the principles at stake. Indeed, it's clear many still regard any such official complaints as breaking ranks, as exemplified by the former United player Paul Parker, who wrote this week that Evra shouldn't have caused "a public fuss", but just mentioned it informally to Kenny Dalglish.

Yet the real required reading on the issues raised by this current storm is a 2007 Mail interview with Manchester City's Joleon Lescott, in which the then Everton player recalled his experience of making an allegation of racism to the FA. Lescott submitted that the Newcastle midfielder Emre Belezoglu had called Joseph Yobo a "fecking negro", while his team-mate Tim Howard submitted that he had heard "fecking nigger". It was this disparity that led to the allegation being deemed unproven. Lescott was furious, as he had been all along. On the match day, he felt both clubs were trying to play down the alleged incident. He bridled that the players were advised not to say anything to the media. But the FA hearing disillusioned Lescott most. "It felt like we were on trial as much as Emre was," he said. "I felt hurt by it, having gone to the trouble of making a complaint, attending the hearing, making a stand." He said he had spoken to many black players who had endured "a lot worse", and that he would think twice before wearing a Kick It Out shirt again.

Lescott gave that interview in 2007. What a long way we haven't come since – and those fixating on what they deem to be Evra's character will ensure any progress remains glacial. In football as in wider society, there are far too many people who claim that the real issue isn't racism, but people making false accusations of racism, just as there are plenty of people who prefer to think that false accusations of rape are more of a problem than rape itself. They aren't.

Deliberately or not, too many miss the big picture, which is that any accusation of racism should be dignified, so that the next person who might have cause to make one sees that a fair hearing is at least a possibility. Naturally, the investigating authorities may find it unproven or malicious. But no incident should be blithely and hastily written off by people not in possession of all the evidence and testimony, but who reckon the accuser may be a wrong 'un. The apparent failure to realise this – even among people who would consider themselves intelligent observers of the game – illustrates how very far football and the society it reflects has to go.
Click to expand...
 
KM said:
Deserves all the plaudits. However there are still some planks like James Olley of a London newspapers who are still sprouting ignorant crap
Click to expand...

I see several people have refered him to the truth on his twitter account, but he will not admit that what he has said is wrong. Journalists are supposed to report facts, not their own version of events. He has the ability to convey all the facts correctly but has chosen not to and to take sides. Totally irresponsible some of these cnuts, giving a totally one-sided version of events based soley on footballing preference and backed up with a complete misrepresentation of the facts. He implies that Evra's ban and fine for the Chelsea incident was punishment for the unfounded accusation of racist abuse made by Mike Phelan against Bethel (although he failed to mention it was Phelan who made the claim). It's dangerous, the power that these people have when they can say whatever they want to a potential readership of millions who have no reason to doubt them.

Thanks for that well-written article Feeky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.