"So Kuyt and Commoli are liars then? Both of them said Suarez said 'Because you are black' or whatever." That's the spirit feller. You started off unequivically stating that Kuyt and Commoli had said that Surez had siad "I don't speak to blacks". It's pointed out and referencing to you that they said no such thing, and how the phrase por que has two different meanings, depending on how you (and what variation of Spanish) you use. Now you say "whatever". Oh, and somehow i said Kuyt and commolli were lying... Stick around feller: whith such a forensic eye for detail you'll soon be invited to sit on the next United/FA commission that Martin Luther Ferguson decides to instigate.
Where did I mention anything about English people? I said Spanish speakers have never come across calling somebody a South American to be offensive. Once again it wasn't proved that he said that anyway so you are clutching at straws there mate. The second paragraph where did I say I was happy about the filth spewing from fans mouths? I said this is what is said in front of children on the terraces yet when Rooney did it in front of a camera Liverpool fans were the most vocal to condemn him for doing it. Irrespective of the fact worse is said in front of children at stadiums around the country.
I'm supposed to remember 115 pages word for word. The fact of the matter is Comolli and Kuyt made a statement each in two different languages saying the same thing how in God's name can you not see you don't get any clearer than that? They then changed what they said when Suarez said they had misunderstood. Not only are they condoning racism but they are liars as well!
That's an embarrassing reply mate. Don't avoid the question, do you think Suarez greets Johnson before training like this.. "Good morning Negro!"
Coming close to locking this thread; it's not a communal area for WUMs to gather, it's a place of discussion.
"Irrespective of the fact worse is said in front of children at stadiums around the country." Very true - the whole family sings "96 wasn't enough" and "You killed your own fans" at Old trafford, so by that logic there's absolutely no reason to be offended by Rooney swearing and using aggressive language directly at a camera during an afternoon when the said families are probably cheering and effing along to.
I'm supposed to remember 115 pages word for word. The fact of the matter is Comolli and Kuyt made a statement each in two different languages saying the same thing how in God's name can you not see you don't get any clearer than that? They then changed what they said when Suarez said they had misunderstood. Not only are they condoning racism but they are liars as well! No need to go into too much detail, but just point out where I'm condoning racism. By equal measure, I could also accuse you of condoning the use of kangaroo courts and show trials that dispense upon the basic principle of English Common Law - the pressumption of innocence rather than, as in this case, guilt. But again I'm impressed with willingness to airily dismiss the full contents of the report when it contradicts your precluded assertions - you are indeed eminently qualfied to sit on the next FA/United panel. Just watch the trial of Blackadder in Blackadder Goes Fourth for further instructions of how Ferguson will expect you to earn your stuffed brown envelope.
It's called a discussion mate. Just because you might not like the truth doesn't mean you should lock it.
And long before that came the inventors of the ****'s trick - mocking innocent men who died playing for a football club that you didn't particularly like.. But that's not for here is it?
Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert Divert I said your club condones racism. Something the whole country can see. But then again the whole country is against Liverpool isn't it so we would say that, what because you are so threatening to everything our corrupt civilisation is trying to achieve, we have to knock you down a peg or two.. Or you could be the biggest set of deluded, self pitying, disgraceful bunch of people to ever set foot on this earth. But lets continue to discuss Suarez and Evra eh?
Donga can you not just accept Suarez has been found guilty and LFC have found no grounds to appeal against their judgement. Yes some moronic Man Utd fans do sing about LFC tradgedies as do some LFC fans about Munich. WE as football supporters should not judge all our rival supporters with the same brush. Rio Ferdinand got banned for misssing a drug test, he took a test the following day (that he passsed) and even though most drugs are in your system for weeks after, he got years of songs about him being a junkie. Where were you then about getting an your moral high horse to shout idiots down for singing such songs? Oh thats right you were one of them because it was a player from a rival team. Dude just grow a pair and as Suarez has done just accept " guilty as charged m`lord".
"But lets continue to discuss Suarez and Evra eh?" Yep, as long as you want. It's you who wants to jump around from accusation to slur that is not even remotely proved, by any standard, in the 115 pages (but then again, the panel were obviously hoping that ****wits like Lawton, Samuel and yourself would just skim read the summary and not spend a moment scrutinising the staggering amount of contradictions and blatant falsifications in Evra's evidence, or the coaching, preparation and favourable hearing that he received from the FA and the United Commission). But to do that is 'nitpicking' according to Lawton today: how dare anyone point out that the basic tenet of pressumption of innocence was trampled over in order to give the FA the head-on-a-stick that the FA wanted urgently wanted when they realised they couldn't touch Terry as he was going to a PROPER court, eh? And for th record, for the FIFTH time, I DO appreciate that though Suarez may have used the word negro in an innappropriate manner, and he and the club should have immeadiately THEN apologised for the misunderstanding created and ensured that it was never uttered again (and still should, for that matter) this issue became far, far bigger than that when Ferguson and Evra started upping the ante over the words that were said (how on earth can YOU deny that Evra changed his story again and again over what he was actually called, but was indulged and coached by the FA in several meeting before the actual 'trial' to get his story right) and the number of times he was called it. In a hearing about a man's reputation WHERE THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PARAMOUNT these are not events that will simply go away in the crusade to look like the FA is doing something about an issue that will get up Blatter's nose. But it's a good cause, isn't it? Who can argue against motherhood, apple-pie and the evils of racism? Certainly not me, a quarter-Chinese Scouser, and whover stands up for the basic principles of English law, such as a pressumption of innocence when an accused is up in any hearing, quasi-court or not, can only be motivated by backing racism, just as anyone who tries to insist upon evidence when someone claims to be raped must themselves be a rapist. I'm reminded of this quote: "In order to further the needs of our cause and the greater good it is sometimes necessary that 99 innocent people are convicted to get to the one guilty man". That was Heinrich Himmler in 1937. The anti-racim zealots, and those who are just opportunistic chisselers using it as a flag of convenience to further their ends, have some strange ideological bedfellows, when all is said and done. Oh, and the showtrial has also establihed one other thing - in the eyes of the FA 'racial abuse' can only be committed against a black man by someone who is not black (or indeed is only a quarter black, as the case would be). But, that is now the precedent, and be well aware that as that standard of unstubstantiated evidence and the simple word of any black person claiming a non-black person has abused them is now established we will indeed ensure that the same justice is meted out to all those accused. Even those where the evidence may be unearthed retrospectively. Enjoy your brave new world, for the Matthew Hopkins's of anti-racism will now embrace it with a gusto that even you may come to regret.
Suarez admitted he called Evra 'Negro' If that's not proof I don't know what is. Thank you for succinct summary of your thinking Mr Goulding, QC. Rather the same as someone in a rape a trial admitting that they did have sex with the accuser must ergo be a rapist. You're on Ferguson's next firing squad too.
Got this off twitter of a guy called Brian Kettle directed at the print media EXCELLENT AND VERY TRUE ATTENTION NEWLY-AWAKE JOURNALISTS: Here are your next four stories. Now that you've discovered that Suarez-Evra has no hard evidence, no corroborating witnesses, two weeks extra time for prepping his story and money from a TV company for shouting the word he daren't say when someone else's livelihood was on the line -- try these for size: (1) Riled up from the start of the game, and madder over the coin toss than the "insult" (2) In "shock" from the gentlest of fouls and enraged by the fact that his faking injury didn't get Suarez a card (3) The ever-changing word he was "insulted" with, the "seven" occasions that no one can account for, and the problems with translating between multiple languages and dialects (4) History as an unreliable witness in another case where a race claim was used to hide his volatility And there's more, all of them found by people not paid to uncover information as you are. The question is -- is that you were too lazy to follow up on the leads that were handed to you, too cowardly to chance appearing to condone racism, or too cynical to resist advancing the narrative that would sell your newpapers? It scarcely matters. Any and all discredit you more than you have tried to discredit Suarez, Liverpool FC or the people who didn't accept the jaundiced story you willingly tried to sell.
Theres also rumours that someone has leeked to journalist Chris Bascombe that the FA "coached" Evra through his interview and cherry-picked the panel
Suarez has at last admitted that he was wrong and he has apologised. Better late than never. It was like pulling out teeth. That should be the end of the matter.
1. FA is not a court, never will be a court and is not meant to be a court. It is a ruling body all parties agree to abide by. they can and have the power to decide they way they way to. 2. it is quite clear that claiming evra was coached by the FA is unsupportable as there is no evidence to point to there. It is clear his evidence was prepared well by the utd side though. 3. the report is quite clear as day that no less than 3 liverpool personnel, kuyt, dalglish and comolli all contradict suarez in the hearing due to the hamfisted way they dealt with the issue on the day. 4. it is also clear to me at least that the complaint was in the refs report on the day and had to be dealt with by the FA. Evra made sure of that by going on canal + 5. it is also quite clear that the proper sanction was 4 matches but the fa then broke procedure and counted up unsupportable numbers to make 7... if they'd said they bleeived 5 form the refs report ok but they came up with 7 from nowhere and the report is totally unclear as to how this was made up. they then used this as a premise to again double the sanction which is not in the rule they applied at all. 6. Therefore in my view it is pointless to debate what went on on said goal line but we must all see that as LFC handled the opportunity to clarify things on the day with the ref so badly and as suarez admitted saying something in front of the ref as well that 4 matches is quite fair. To say it was not meant or somehow excusable is moot as you can see that suarez was doing his best to wind evra up just as evra was trying to wind suarez up.
Not clutching at straws - you said that Yet Sudaca, literally "South American" in English, it is a known insult. So now you say it can't be an insult if the speaker is not Spanish? Go figure. That means, for example, you think that using a German insult to a German with a reasonable knowledge of English is okay if I first translate the insult into English, where it sounds innocuous? That seems to me like condoning sly, intentional racism. Well you said - - looks to me like you're saying its perfectly fine for footballers to hurl abuse at each other, since fans take their kids along and say worse in front of them. Either way, once you start hurling insults at each other, then you are breaking Rule E3(1). It should be a booking and it should be rigorously applied. I don't know what your workplace is like, but I don't tend to hurl abuse about the place, so you can stuff your 'its in the workplace' bollocks.
