Suarez *Evidence*
- Thread starter Magic Ted
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
The deapths you lot will sink to clearly know no bounds. After reading all this cobblers ( most anyway, seems ignorance is not only a defence on Merseyside, along with " I thought that bloke over there was gonna hit me so me and my 6 mates approached him to give him a hiding first and he had no Boney M ", but an epidemic ) it is clear that K K Kenny's disappearance up his own ringpiece is merely the tip of the iceberg
The deapths you lot will sink to clearly know no bounds. After reading all this cobblers ( most anyway, seems ignorance is not only a defence on Merseyside, along with " I thought that bloke over there was gonna hit me so me and my 6 mates approached him to give him a hiding first and he had no Boney M ", but an epidemic ) it is clear that K K Kenny's disappearance up his own ringpiece is merely the tip of the iceberg
And this has what to do with you, you white rose tosser?
QUOTE=Red Hadron Collider;2007844]And this has what to do with you, you white rose tosser?[/QUOTE]
Ah, dispensed with the feeble attempt at balenced cobblers, and sunk to the far too often visited deapths of straightforward unreasoned abuse.
Was it Boney M, or was it the Pet Shop Boys ?
To answer your question, I'm British and don't like racists, nor their apologists
Ah, dispensed with the feeble attempt at balenced cobblers, and sunk to the far too often visited deapths of straightforward unreasoned abuse.
Was it Boney M, or was it the Pet Shop Boys ?
To answer your question, I'm British and don't like racists, nor their apologists
Where have I libelled Evra? Show me something libellous?
You have repeatedly libelled Kenny Dalglish and Luis Suarez by calling them racists and suggesting that they would support convicted racist murderers.
I presume you're not a South American then? I wouldn't call someone Negro either, but that is because the word here is not common currency.
If the word is not generally considered racist in South America, but of course is here, then a defence of culture is relevant, and while a ban is necessary, I cannot agree that an 8 match ban is deserved. This means that an English player would be able to do exactly the same thing, in full knowledge of how offensive it is and would only get an 8 game ban. I cannot see how that is just or fair.
Please explain how you believe that this would be fair?
Rise above it St. The creature is an utter buffoon
I would normally do so, but I would consider it a poor show if he was not warned about making such statements, since people have been prosecuted in the recent past for typing sectarian hatred and threats on a bulletin board. Much as I think poorly of him, I wouldn't want him prosecuted, as it would potentially affect the way this site is run...
I hear evra was walking along a high street and nearly died when he saw a shop called blacks... he rang the cops and now that chain is put into administration.
SHOCK!!!!
SHOCK!!!!
I work with a Brazilian and Argentine for five years; and we have black people working here too.
They don't go round calling their black co-workers negro
They don't go round calling their black co-workers negro
Racism is the flavour of the month offence, you can do all sorts of things but this PC fury is a joke, who fkn cares as long as someone is not being treated badly because of their origins alone, Evra is black, but he is a complete knob, I think thats what people see, a knob, not a 'black knob' as he thinks
Hi guys why has my post been deleted?
People are posting pictures from of the KKK but my comments get deleted?
I posted nothing but genuine questions and you are too afraid to answer them?
Pathetic
People are posting pictures from of the KKK but my comments get deleted?
I posted nothing but genuine questions and you are too afraid to answer them?
Pathetic
Five years? Bit different to 9 months then eh? Where they here before that? Had they had longer to get used to it?
They don't go round calling their black co-workers negro
And if the did they could apparently not mention it to any of their supervisors, then when their shift was over claim they were called ****** ten times, report it to the boss, he'd say it was five times, you'd only then, on his insistence, report it to the supervisor changing yet again where, when and what you were called.
Then you'd go to a tribunal, watch a cctv of the event which doesn't support any of what you said except that you could see that you were clearly annoyed and irrational even before you spoke to the 'accused', on the basis that you'd failed miserably to get that worker in trouble five minutes earlier when you rolled all over the floor as if you'd been shot by the water cooler in front of the supervisor. Then you'd be coached through what the 'accused' had said and how you must now change your story accordingly (again!) and admit that you'd instigated the argument by insulting your co-workers sister, calling him a Sudaca (known to you, as a Spanish speaker, as being a racial insult) and then threatening to punch him - instant dismissal under employment law.
It so happens that you HR deparment is having yet another Racism Awareness and Zero Tollerence campaign. The MD of your conglomerate has been making farcical comments in Swiss-in-house company magazines that co-workers who abuse each other should just shake hands and make up. Your HR department is furious, as is your own MD of the English arm of your company. Your timing is good.
A tribunal of a local solicitor who knows your boss, a manager of a small, regional branch that knows your bosses son well and has written a glowing reference on your bosses CV about how he helped save his job, and some retired admin clerk from the provinces who've never manged a market stall is then formed. All presumption of innocence of the innocence of the 'accused' is dropped in favour of a 'balance of probabilities' and 'reasonable belief' standard of evidence, as if it was a simple dispute between two conflicting parties such as a marital or property dispute - only you are not charged with anything, because you are black and the accused is not and racism and abusive behaviour in your country can only be done in one direction.
Only when the tribunal hearings are nearly over are the union defending the accused (let's not pretend it's representing in a dispute anymore) allowed to know that you reviewed the cctv with HR, changed your testimony but none have this has been transcribed. If his union can listen and transcribe the hours worth of tapes in half an hour they can oppose them. On top of all this, your opponent barely speaks a word of english and is visibly confused and upset. You are fluent in English, having lived here for years, and have been coached and trained to know exactly what questions will be asked, by whom, and what answers you must give.
After weeks of delays, the 'verdict' is eventually given - your accuser is gulity of not only calling you a negro, but of saying a variety of words you didn't even say he had, for a number of times that you nor boss never even claimed. The paperwork will be produced in a few weeks (contrary to all tenets of Emplyment Law which state you need to have your reasonings available for scrutiny IMMEDIATELY) and all company PR briefings state that anyone who opposes this is themselves a rascist. On New Years Eve, at tea time, the documents is slipped out on the company website: a short, self-justifying summary and 115 pages which do not, at any stage, offer any evidence that supports any other assertion that your co-worker, whilst using a stupid, innapropriate word in his cultural ignorance, has done anything other than he originally honestly (and naively) admitted to. The consequence being that the union now advises anyone accused of racism to not co-operate with any inquiry and reserve the right of silence until all evidence is produced.
As a postscript, after the eight week suspension is reluctantly accepted on the basis that the HR department have told the accused that if his union dare appeal the sanction will double and the company's PR department will hold daily briefings that he, his union, his family and any co-workers are in league with the Ku Klux Klan, does your boss pull you over and say "For Christ's sake Patrice, had we known they'd fall for that we should have said he'd called you something racist thirty six times and got him suspended for a year. Now then, there's some other non-black workers from other departments in the store who are getting fantastic sales figures for their bosses that are affecting my bonuses. I'd like you to meet Mr Silva, Mr Modric, Mr Mata, Mr Van Persie...."
And if the did they could apparently not mention it to any of their supervisors, then when their shift was over claim they were called ****** ten times, report it to the boss, he'd say it was five times, you'd only then, on his insistence, report it to the supervisor changing yet again where, when and what you were called.
Then you'd go to a tribunal, watch a cctv of the event which doesn't support any of what you said except that you could see that you were clearly annoyed and irrational even before you spoke to the 'accused', on the basis that you'd failed miserably to get that worker in trouble five minutes earlier when you rolled all over the floor as if you'd been shot by the water cooler in front of the supervisor. Then you'd be coached through what the 'accused' had said and how you must now change your story accordingly (again!) and admit that you'd instigated the argument by insulting your co-workers sister, calling him a Sudaca (known to you, as a Spanish speaker, as being a racial insult) and then threatening to punch him - instant dismissal under employment law.
It so happens that you HR deparment is having yet another Racism Awareness and Zero Tollerence campaign. The MD of your conglomerate has been making farcical comments in Swiss-in-house company magazines that co-workers who abuse each other should just shake hands and make up. Your HR department is furious, as is your own MD of the English arm of your company. Your timing is good.
A tribunal of a local solicitor who knows your boss, a manager of a small, regional branch that knows your bosses son well and has written a glowing reference on your bosses CV about how he helped save his job, and some retired admin clerk from the provinces who've never manged a market stall is then formed. All presumption of innocence of the innocence of the 'accused' is dropped in favour of a 'balance of probabilities' and 'reasonable belief' standard of evidence, as if it was a simple dispute between two conflicting parties such as a marital or property dispute - only you are not charged with anything, because you are black and the accused is not and racism and abusive behaviour in your country can only be done in one direction.
Only when the tribunal hearings are nearly over are the union defending the accused (let's not pretend it's representing in a dispute anymore) allowed to know that you reviewed the cctv with HR, changed your testimony but none have this has been transcribed. If his union can listen and transcribe the hours worth of tapes in half an hour they can oppose them. On top of all this, your opponent barely speaks a word of english and is visibly confused and upset. You are fluent in English, having lived here for years, and have been coached and trained to know exactly what questions will be asked, by whom, and what answers you must give.
After weeks of delays, the 'verdict' is eventually given - your accuser is gulity of not only calling you a negro, but of saying a variety of words you didn't even say he had, for a number of times that you nor boss never even claimed. The paperwork will be produced in a few weeks (contrary to all tenets of Emplyment Law which state you need to have your reasonings available for scrutiny IMMEDIATELY) and all company PR briefings state that anyone who opposes this is themselves a rascist. On New Years Eve, at tea time, the documents is slipped out on the company website: a short, self-justifying summary and 115 pages which do not, at any stage, offer any evidence that supports any other assertion that your co-worker, whilst using a stupid, innapropriate word in his cultural ignorance, has done anything other than he originally honestly (and naively) admitted to. The consequence being that the union now advises anyone accused of racism to not co-operate with any inquiry and reserve the right of silence until all evidence is produced.
As a postscript, after the eight week suspension is reluctantly accepted on the basis that the HR department have told the accused that if his union dare appeal the sanction will double and the company's PR department will hold daily briefings that he, his union, his family and any co-workers are in league with the Ku Klux Klan, does your boss pull you over and say "For Christ's sake Patrice, had we known they'd fall for that we should have said he'd called you something racist thirty six times and got him suspended for a year. Now then, there's some other non-black workers from other departments in the store who are getting fantastic sales figures for their bosses that are affecting my bonuses. I'd like you to meet Mr Silva, Mr Modric, Mr Mata, Mr Van Persie...."
Eh, no he hasn't. Try again and check your facts. In 2006 he was still playing for Nacional in Uruguary.
