And yet Evra changed his evidence three times, lied on oath about his distaste of

I have to disagree there UIR, a simple Google search shows you're wrong.

please log in to view this image

Etc Etc

 

Don't be ****ing ridiculous. if you give evidence to a workplace tribunal, or even a workplace disciplinary hearing, you do so under oath, you sign to approve its veracity and are subject to disciplinary action/prosecution if you lie. But at least the discussion has moved on now from arguing about whether Evra did provably lie as to what the circumstances are.

 

Whereas the language experts employed by the FA stated that the term is usually spoken inoffensively. Who are these Uruguayan people you refer to anyway?

And it is also accepted that the word used is inoffensive by many people from that region of the world, Hernandez being one. Are you saying that when he uses the term he is being racially offensive? Or maybe he is just using language that is seen as culturally acceptable!

 

This is absolute bollocks, even you must see that...it is used in South America without the offensive slant that we have put on it, you know this!

 

Seems strange that you have the time to peruse Uruguayan cultural comments. Care to give us a source and define just how many your "many black people" is?

 

Hes saying that when a Mexican Utd player uses the word it's acceptable.

But in reality it's either offensive or not, and in the central and south America's(including Uruguay) it's not.

 

"Taken from Repofmanc"

And THAT'S your evidence that Suarez lied under oath? Shall I reply with articles from KopTalk and suchlike?

 

You might as well donga, UIR likes to use LFC forums for his quotes.

 

Let's see what redcafe has to say! If they say it was racially abusive then let's close the thread after all admitting we were wrong and Evra DID NOT lie, Fergie DID NOT lie and Evra was 100% credible when he decided to change his story after realising his initial comments were wrong, could not be corroborated and his use of the word '******' was 100% correct!

 

It appears that the mancs would love us all to just accept what happened in the Suarez case and "move on". Perhaps that salves them. But just stop and think for a moment. Had we and the families of the 96 done just that (as many demanded of us and castigated us for ignoring) then we would not have the evidence that we have today of cover up and criminal wrongdoing.

For me, it is the injustice and incompetence of the procedure that needs to be exposed.

 

"- Kenny Dalglish trying to sway Marriner and Dowd from the start by saying “hasn’t he done this before?”. Patrice Evra has never made claims of racism against someone, unfounded or otherwise."

That's not a 'lie' by Dalglish. As said previously, Evra stood by when Phelan made a bogus claim about racism against Chelsea groundstaff that Evra knew was false.

-" To add further weight to Dalglish’s point, Dirk Kuyt falsely claimed that Evra was telling people he had only been booked by the referee because he was black. The commission found this to be entirely untrue."

At worst kuyt was mistaken, not lying. Evra did say about him being called black whilst he was being booked. Of this Giggs was a witness and was the basis of evra's famous LIE about why he said he was called two different things.

"- Dalglish claimed that Suarez had been “taunted” by Evra, suggesting that Suarez’s response of “you are black” was following Evra saying “you are South American.” If this was true, Suarez wasn’t using the word “negro” in a friendly way at all, rather as an insult. Regardless, Suarez confirmed that being called “South American” was not an insult."

Which doesn't mean dalglish was lying at all, rather that evra was the first to raise the issue of race. Suarez's contention was that his use of the word black was not (meant to be) insulting either.


-" Comoli stressed he knew how serious the allegations were so being fluent in Spanish wanted to make sure they had their story straight on what Suarez had said. After speaking to Suarez, he then went to tell Marriner and Dowd Suarez’s version. There was no mention of Suarez calling Evra “negro” in response to Evra telling him not to touch him though, which is what his defence later hinged on. They initially claimed Suarez said “you are black” then in the next set of interviews, Suarez claimed he said “why not, black?” after Evra told him not to touch him."

First of all, you and republic contradict yourself woefully there. Negro is black in Spanish, dickhead. Suarez NEVER changed his story at all, but Commolli admitted later he made the same mistake as others in translating "por que" and addding his own 'restaurant' Spanish to it.

-" Suarez claimed that he did not call Evra a negro when they were in the goal mouth, rather after the referee had called them over to speak to them and he then touched Evra. However, his version of events contradicts the testimony of Evra and referee. Evra says that as soon as the referee called them over, Evra reported the racial abuse he had just received, and the referee confirmed this.
"
WRONG. Marriner said in the dresing room when Evra and SAF were reporting the second version of what Evra claimed he was called that "I thought i heard you say something about being called black". that was when he was being booked...

"- Suarez initially claimed that he pinched Evra on the arm to “defuse the situation”. When he was cross examined, he admitted this was not true."

When cross-examined he admitted that evra may not has seen it as 'concilatory'. Again, that doesn't mean that he lied as evra provably did.

"- The first time Suarez claimed that his use of the word “negro” was “conciliatory” was after the reports from the language experts were made available, where they claimed if the word “negro” was used in a “conciliatory” way, it wouldn’t be regarded as racist in Uruguay."

Probably true as english is/was Suarez's third language and the guy was struggling to communicate what he meant by the action and the use of the word negro. How the hell this was turnd against him when it should have been used in his favour is one of the biggest examples of the FA's racist prejudice against him.


-" Suarez’s defence claim that Evra made up Suarez saying he kicked him because he was black and that he didn’t talk to blacks. They claim that because Suarez had kicked Evra in the knee, Evra wanted revenge, so fabricated the whole story. This means they are suggesting that Evra feigned outrage after his exchange with Suarez and lied to the referee, that he lied to Giggs on the pitch when he asked him what was the matter, and that he lied to Valencia, Chichartio, Nani, Anderson and Sir Alex Ferguson in the dressing room immediately after the game. The commission rejected the defence’s suggestion that the accusations were just an elaborate plot for Evra to get revenge on Suarez for being kicked."

That's not evidence, just the Commission finding in Evra's favour. Not one fact in there.

- "Comolli claimed that after the game Evra went to Canal+ and demanded that he was allowed to report the racial abuse he had just received. The journalist who interviewed Evra confirmed this opposite of this was true, and that Evra knew the journalist well and he could tell that he was upset. Evra told the journalist off the record what had happened, but the journalist confirmed he asked the question when Evra was being filmed regardless. "

How is that a lie on par with saying you changed vital evidence because you can't bear to repeat the word ******'. You also completely ignore that Commolli completely denied that evra's use of the phrase "at least ten times" was just a figure of speech, as did the panel who favoured evra at every turn and twisted corner, with not one distinguishable fact or corrobarative bit of evidence to back any of their opinions, as you've just amply demonstrated with this farago of opinions and judgements.

 

I am glad that you said this. I was wary of saying such a thing in response to comments such as 'flogging a dead horse', 'you should just drop it' etc etc. as it invites negative comments such as the 'always the victims' comment on the top of the last page!

But, as you say, it is the injustice and clear incompetence of the FA that is the crux of the matter! United fans clearly will defend their man and the verdict gives them the moral high ground, yet they fail to see the clear ambiguities in the case and the clear imo agenda that was being driven by the FA with regards to this case.

Did Suarez racially abuse Evra? Who knows, all I know is that the credibility of Evra should be rightfully questioned with regards to his initial statement, a lie! To then view him as credible fundamentally flaws the whole procedure imo, and seeing as they based their verdict on his credibility leaves the whole hearing as a farce. The most recent case they had to go on was the Emre case, a case that was thrown out because the witnesses for the prosecution could not decide what was actually said, what is the difference? The only witness the prosecution had in the Suarez case was Evra and he himself could not decide what was said, how many times it was said and in what language it was actually spoken!

 

"105. Mr Marriner, the referee, was shown the footage of this incident at the hearing. He had not
seen the footage before. He agreed that Mr Evra appeared to be saying something to the
referee as he walks in the referee's direction. Mr Marriner said that he could not recall
what was being said to him."

There were NO witnesses to evra saying he'd been called a '****ing black' in the goalmouth, including the ref.

 

Never mind quoting the report, we want to know what redcafe has to say on the matter.

 

They obviously went to UIR and asked his opinion.

 

UIR is far too highbrow for most posters on redcafe.

 

I am sure that Oliie Holt heard Suarez call Evra a '******', the same as he heard that the Oldham player was racially abused at Anfield a few days after Suarezgate! He was so adamant that the Oldham lad was racially abused that he tweeted his affirmation of this within minutes........ from his hotel room in Dubai!

Given the frenzy at the time, people believed him, such is the power of the media! That power said that Liverpool were racists, their fans were racists and as a consequence the Uruguayan anthem was booed at the Olympics. All because Evra and Fergie lied about what was heard, so to say there was no witnesses is untrue, the whole of the media witnessed what happened at Anfield that day, they all have the video evidence of racial abuse, they all have enough cultural expertise to determine the intent of Suarez and as such.....yeah, what a load of shit!

 

Sorry...I can't let it lie...This comment is plain laughable!!
To compare the 2 is disrespectful.
Comparing a police cover up where people died to the bungling FA where your boy got an 8 match ban...Really??!!Some things are worth fighting for..This one's gone..It's trivial!!
Honestly don't know what you're trying to prove with this thread? You got ****ed over by the FA.We know they're incompetent.It's happened before an will happen again.Believe it or not it's happened to us.

 

It's a charge of misconduct by the way, for lying to or misleading the FA panel. And that is provably what Evra did. Will they charge him?

 

It's not comparing a cover up to a bungling FA though is it? It is about perceived injustice and the incompetence of the authorities involved.

I know that Foredeckdave doesn't need me to comment on his behalf but I believe that is what his intentions were. And anyway, yes LFC were ****ed over by the FA, slowly but surely people are realising this, which brings us to the question of whether or not they should be allowed to do stuff like this!

Is it okay to just say, 'yeah it happened to us too' before people realise that the FA are acting without authority and are administering their own justice on stuff that they are ill-equipped to deal with! Should the FA have the authority to deal with matters that lead to players having their lives wrecked (possibly) and lead to thousands of people ignorantly booing an anthem because they 'probably' find that an injustice has occurred? Should 3 men sat in a hotel room without the appropriate qualifications really have the power to influence a whole nation of football fans? I think not, I think there should be a more substantial burden of proof required when the stakes are so high!

Given what has happened to Suarez, would you be happy if it was a player from your own club was placed in such a situation on a probability, or a guess for want of a better word?