You do stretch facts, dontcha? Selective like the FA. Even says when directed at a person it "...can be understood as [you] son of a bitch." That contravenes Rule E3(1). And if you've using 'European' as a perjorative, then that is a racial insult. Or is that you being white and not seeing that it could be intended as a racial insult? Are you a white bloke that thinks whites can't be racially insulted? Or perhaps you just naturally assume Europeans are superior in some way? Any which way, it contravenes Rule E3(2). ****ing European twat!
you lot are quite the experts now eh? Well i read the thing cover to cover and to me this is all about rival fans interpreting words in spanish the way they feel like interpreting it to one up each other. you grown men goading each other to gain advantage on a football field is what happened. pull out al lthe quotes form said report you guys want but it won't change the actual facts that neither evra nor suarez look particularly good form the report not does anyone involved on the day bar the utd manager who just did his job, giggs who told evra to clam down and get on with it... dalglish ,comolli, kuyt all look like idiots, the marriner and dowd look like amateurs from how they recorded what went on and to be frank the FA don't look too good out of the report either...
You are technically correct, but this was discussed ad infinitum with the Rooney swearing ban last year. The FA established the precedent then that they would only enforce Rule E3(1) when it was a high profile and public display of swearing or abuse. And that was generally accepted as being the right thing to do - otherwise as many Liverpool fans pointed out last year you'd end up with four or five red cards every game, and we could end up in this situation after every game with players complaining to the ref that someone swore at them / insulted their sister / looked at them in an aggressive way... That depends of your interpretation of Rule E3(2). It states "reference to any one or more of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability". Not sure if South American would class as any of those, although it arguably could be considered as nationality. Either way, the South American thing actually was just Evra's word against Suarez, whereas the negro thing was Suarez against Evra, Kuyt and Commoli.
The word 'negro' is not derogatory, the well-used variation - pardon me, ngr - is. The latter was a word borne from the French word negre, and if you've ever read To Kill A Mockingbird, the black population use the ngr word to describe their own race. For example a black character is unhappy about the two white children going to 'ngr church'.
Being called European/South American makes no assumption about race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or any other matter of prejudice. It can't be racist when the word in no way makes any reference at all to skin colour, or even a particular country. Who said im white? did you assume that because im European? are all Europeans white? No because referring to the continent someone was born in has fk all to do with any kind of racial discrimination. As for the other matter, im glad you agree my reasoning is based on facts. At least one of ours should be. Fact, what Evra said, as proven by linguistic experts, is completely different to what you claim he said. Fact, Suarez didn't even hear this fabricated "sisters pussy" comment, go look up the official report if you don't believe me. Fact, the panel found Evra did not refer to Suarez as "South American" anyway. FAKT! South America is not a race, its not even an insult. So basically Evra is a lying piece of **** for referring to Suarez as a South American (Which is not only wrong but not racist anyway) and should be banned for saying the equivalent of "****ing hell" in Spanish when nobody, not Suarez , not the referee actually heard him saying it?
Hi Eric. Happy New Year. Still in Oz for another month - hence the delay in replying. Heading South tomorrow for some cooler weather (approx 25c), but then heading North to Coral Bay for more heat (36c+). The Liverpool statement appears to be very well crafted. It states the position as Liverpool see it. In normal circumstances the FA would challenge Liverpool with bringing the game into disrepute because they both say and imply that the selected FA tribunal was incompetent. However, if the FA do that they would have to answers Liverpool's challenges and could well fail to do so satifactorilly - thereby nullifying the decision. If they leave Liverpool's statement unchallenged they leave themselves open to be challenged in other cases because they could be said to have accepted the challenges. It also means that when dealing with future issues concerning the club, a non-response could be used by the club as supportive evidence of some form of negative attitude towards the club that has become institutionalised within the FA - rather like the Met Police. It has become a power game which the FA are in danger of losing control of.
