Fergie Yet more Hypocrisy From most hated man in football

And when Evra said 'filth South American' - that's different from French - how?

 

The evidence in the Ian Wright case came from himself,or is he a liar?,just because he never took it any further does'nt mean it never happened

Those words have been the basis of the condemnation of Suarez.

So your a racist then Tucker?

And the personal life of Tommy Doc got him the sack from United.

 

Tucker - so why do you think Evra was involved in a fight with Chelsea ground staff?

I'd just like to hear your explanation.

And Adidas haven't dropped Suarez - although Umbro have dropped Terry!!

 

JB - Technically, under the UN definition, abuse of nationality can constitute racist abuse. It is not recognised as such under UK law currently, but some believe that should be changed.

TuckersLaw - being told to "**** off back home, garlic breath!" is no excuse for Kung Fu kicks to the chest with a studded football boot, something I'm pretty certain Eric has since admitted publicly. No matter how bad the verbals, once you launch such a potentally lethal attack, you lose the position of victim.

As for Wright vs Schmeichel, there was no evidence beyond a witness statement and Ian Wright's public statement that he "...wasn't in the business of getting his fellow professionals into trouble." If you're one-eyed, you might read that to be Ian Wright was making it all up, or you might conclude that Peter was lucky that Ian takes the view of 'What goes on on the pitch, stays on the pitch..."

Luis Saurez was found guilty of racist abuse during a football game, whilst wearing a Liverpool shirt. It is highly debatable as to whether the panel was unbiased, given that its remit was to find out if there was evidence to support the accusation. What is not debatable is that despite the panel's report, we are no closer to really knowing what was said on that day in October. The panel dismissed, in an arbitrary fashion, any evidence which did not support the prosecution's version of events. It even selectively chose to accept evidence from its linguistic experts, rather than using the whole body they supplied. Having pronounced the verdict, they looked how to make the sentence as strong as possible.

This FA ability of acting as Prosecutor, Judge and Jury rankles, moreso when they have acted in a political manner to make a point.

Regarding the media, they've been complicit in running with the FA's version of events, and have lacked the integrity to even bother reading and critiquing the report into the investigation. Scandal sells papers and condemnation of racism sells to the middle classes everywhere.

As for using past event for justification; its not the way I read it, looks more to me like a justifiable reaction to hypocracy...

 

"JB - Technically, under the UN definition, abuse of nationality can constitute racist abuse. It is not recognised as such under UK law currently, but some believe that should be changed."


The point I was making was for Tucker. He claimed Cantona was a victim of racist abuse (the implication suggests it was to do with colour). French is not a race now and wasn't then - ergo he wasn't the victim of 'racist' abuse.

My following point was that South American equates with French - if Tucker thinks Cantona was racially abused because of 'French' then Suarez was racially abused because of 'South American'.

 

JB - understood. Just a clarification for all on the point.

 

The evidence in the Ian Wright case came from himself,or is he a liar?,just because he never took it any further does'nt mean it never happened


Erm no, of course not. It is much like the situation Evra found himself in with Sam Bethnell. He had a 4-game ban and a £15k fine for being unable to substantiate his claim. The very incident that Dalglish said - well hasn't he done this before? The burden of proof was on Wright as much as it was Evra. You cannot point and say that "just because he never took it any further does'nt mean it never happened" when it was infact investigated and dropped, and then cite Evra's inability to substantiate his claim against Chelsea, as proof that he 'has done it before' or is crying wolf.


St_John

I think if you are provoked, and you are not the instigator, then you cannot lose your position as the victim but this does not condone your actions thereafter.

And I still don't feel that hypocrisy has been proved. Previous incidents are being mis-represented to make half a point.

 

St. in footballing terms the FA makes no distinction between race/nationality - so 'filthy South American' is as punishable as ' * black'.

Except when faced with it - they choose to punish one and not the other!!

 

"He had a 4-game ban and a £15k fine for being unable to substantiate his claim."


What claim would that be? He said he didn't hear anybody racially abuse him - so why was he fighting?

And you didn't answer how was Cantona 'racially abused'?

 

johnsonbaby

My 2p is that insulting someone's sister, has the same intentions as insulting their skin colour (i.e to cause offence). In that respect I don't think that this situation was fair. Still, at least Evra admitted to what he said. Suarez, Liverpool or the fans should not blame Evra for the outcome of the report / FA.

I could be more offended by you making a slur against my family than I would about my skin colour, but that isn't deemed incorrect enough for punishment. Go figure. That's Britain Political Correctness Brigade for you.

 

Yep,Ian Wright lied and was given what punishment?

What Suarez has done he has been punished for and has apologised for,MUFC have accepted the apology so why cant you?

 

To address your points:
Ian Wright did not make a complaint and refused to co-operate with the police enquiry. The complaint was made by a fan who heard the comment.

Patrice Evra was not fined for failing to substantiate his claim, he was fined for physically attacking the groundsman, or at least attempting to. His claim? That he thought Bethnell was going to attack a team mate with a pitchfork - completely incredible!

And you you say if you're provoked, you do not lose your position as victim - that would make Suarez the victim, as Evra, in his own evidence, admitted he started the confrontation.

Tucker could teach you a think or two about PR, with the first being get your message straight and be sure to have your facts covered with responses. You're looking a bit naked here, old son

 

johnsonbaby

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/jul/19/premierleague.chelsea

The Manchester United defender Patrice Evra and Chelsea groundsman Sam Bethell have been charged by the Football Association after an exhaustive inquiry into events at Stamford Bridge immediately after United's defeat by the home side in April.

Chelsea won the game thanks to a disputed late Michael Ballack penalty and Evra and Bethell were involved in a heated exchange during United's warm-down. The pair had to be separated by stewards and United later hinted that Evra reacted after suffering a racist taunt, something Chelsea have strenuously denied.

Evra and Bethell have both been charged with improper conduct and the groundsman has also been accused of using "abusive language aggravated by reference to nationality/race". If found guilty, the punishments for Evra range from a fine to a ban.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2004/oct/31/newsstory.sport

Cantona had just been sent off, Simmons came down 11 rows to tell him to '**** off back to France, you French motherfucker', or 'French bastard' depending on whose version you accept. Cantona crossed a line no player had crossed before in English football: he attacked a fan.

Interestingly, I read an account by the fan, who says 'he can't remember what he said, but it wasn't bad or rude"

And yes - using race or nationality as a negative - is racist behaviour.

 

In any case, the complaint was dropped due to insufficient evidence. Lucky for Schmeichel maybe, or lucky for Wright.

Patrice Evra claimed to have been provoked at Chelsea, for not leaving the pitch during a post match warm down. My mistake for linking his unproven allegations to his actual punishment.

The tilt turns back on Suarez then, who apparently started the incident when he fouled Evra.

 

Page_MIss_

I do accept it. I'm commenting on an article slating Fergie for apparent hypocrisy which was backed-up with misleading examples.

As stated elsewhere; I don't think Suarez, Dalglish or Liverpool are racist. They've just handled a delicate situation badly.

 

Evra got selected amnesia himself a few times in the Suarez case so why the distinction?

 

Boo Hoo!.

Name calling.

 

Tucker, you are grasping at non-existant straws now!

So Suarez started the incident by fouling Evra? That is just preposterous!

 

So, tell me...Is it ok that Cantona 'Crossed the line' because he was abused? No it bloody well isn't and you know it - Whatever is said to you, you DO NOT react with violence, under any circumstance. This was also the case during the opening minutes of the game on Saturday when Evra attempted to foul/injure Suarez only to 'take out' his own man - Has this been mentioned in any article written about this whole story this morning - Once again a resounding NO.

Now, if you were to look at this from outside of the OT guidlines, you would see that the hypocrosy is visible for all to see...Hence we take umbridge to what SAF said during his press conference after the match and what is still being said, not only by Man Utd fans but everyone else who thinks it's damn fine to jump in a give the Pool a mighty good kicking.

Nuff Said!

 

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/s...s-suarez-row-upsets-liverpool-sponsor?cc=5901