I think there are times that the press and others (including the FA) make a meal of things and blow things out of all proportion. The example you provide about gorilla is fine as most people would not equate calling bouncers/body guards gorillas as racist even though many of those are black. But I think you may lose ground when you imply the FA went over the top with the Suarez incident. Again at the risk of restarting that terrible (and boring) debate, the FA had no choice in dealing with Suarez the way it did. Some like you may think it was unfair but many believe that it got it just right. Every incident has to be assessed on its own merits. This one is so trivial and insignificant that we can all agree that it should be dismissed as titttle tattle and having no racial connotation.
That's how a lot of people saw the Suarez incident - not just Liverpool fans but academics and S American players/managers/cultural experts! And yes I agree, we don't want to get into that again.
I want to know why Hodgson was telling old jokes at half time instead of doing his job. Nothing to do with Suarez so I don't know why he's being brought up again.
We will have to agree to disagree here. Liverpool fans and selected academics and S.American cultural experts and blah di blah were brought in in Suarez support. But then many others had counter evidence etc etc. They the FA (and Liverpool FC too) got criticised for not doing enough. No point re living that boring debate. It is done with but to use it to beat up the FA in this trivial Hodgson incident is nonsense in my view. The FA quite rightly did not do anything (as there was nothing for them to do) and that has nothing to do with protecting its own...
Hmmm, there seems to be some extravagant point-missing going on in this thread. Methinks our visitors are taking the OP a bit too literally.
Nothing to agree or disagree with as you don't know my view on the incident. I was merely pointing out that some people saw the Suarez case in the same way you did this incident with your 'tittle tattle' comment
Dogshit. Many tribalistic opposing fans and swathes of anti-Liverpool media try to pretend the FA got it right, but any expert in employment and/or civil law have said what a ****ing dog's breakfast and appeasement to pressure groups (and political grandstanding) it was. Sorry to bore you, but Suarez got twice the ban that Terry got (and eight games more than Rio) based upon an allegation that he stood there in a crowded penalty box and further racially abused Evra (with intent) WITHOUT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE BEING OFFERED TO SUPPORT THIS. Even the first three/four games of the ban were based upon taking Suarez's admission of the use of the word negro and changing the evidence standards from objective to subjective (ie, was Evra offended whether intended or not) and also dropping the assumption of innocence that anyone charged in a civil court (or even a workplace investigation, that this quasi court was based upon). Add to that the star (only!) witness to this farrago provably perjured himself and was himself comically not charged for his own transgression of rule E3(1) and, whether it ****ing bores you or not, the FA have set the standard that many of us will push for them to destroy themselves with. Look at the Clattenburg case - there was at leat as much evidence that he'd uttered the word 'monkey', or at least had not made any effort to stop Mikel, or anyone else who heard it, from thinking he'd said monkey, whatever his intentions were. Of course, it's ****ing ridiculous that there was even an investigation into it, let alone there being one into Hodgson, and it would undermine the FA's stance and hold it up to ridicule. Good - that's what it deserves. The FA is bent, corrupt and riddled with self-serving procedures and publicity developed morals and standards. You got the result you wanted over Evra. If you were really concerned with equality and anti-discrimination you'd ask the same question I do "Why are you not applying it to everyone, or do you admit that the length of ban on Suarez, and the procedures used to enforce it, were knee-jerk vanity games?".
Yes Bryn. People of Roy's age (and mine!) remember the Space Race, and the saying has absolutely no racial connotations whatsoever. Like saying spam in a can meant that you were just there to appease public opinion, but the real work was all being done by Ground Control. it wasn't meant to be offensive to pigs, Muslims or jews. But ffs, there's just been a dude from Kick It Out saying how this all proves that managers need training in what to say!!!! FFS! Might it not be easier to take the stance of people like John Barnes, David James and Dion Dublin and educate ALL people (not just those with black skin) to stop looking for slurs that aren't there? How, on God's green earth (if that's not racist to Martians) does this cack further the overall cause of anti-racism? When are we going to reach the post-racist world when reference to the colur of skin is taken just the same as a big nose, red hair, buck teeth, broad shoulders, or so forth? And every animal reference isn't automatically seen as the work of the KKK, unless proved otherwise? All that said, I do want to see the FA suffer and drown under their own inconsistencies. Oh yes. ****s.
