"You'll Never Walk Alone" - de Official Liverpool thread

[JDB]

I've asked my close friend about the use of the term "negrito"  and he says it is used affectionately in many Spanish countries.

Good read...not sure what was the intent of Suarez's statement

The tribunal was very clear that Suarez was insulting Evra AND used the term referring to his colour. It kinda hard to believe that he was insulting him on one hand and then using a racial reference affectionately.

Suarez was needling Evra. His intent was to wind him up. The only cultural difference bligh that I would give Suarez was that he didn't realize it would be received this badly. I don't know if he is a racist and wouldn't label him as such, even Evra said he doesn't think he is a racist, but he was resorting to racial taunting to get one over on Evra.

[Mango Chow!]

I've asked my close friend about the use of the term "negrito"  and he says it is used affectionately in many Spanish countries.

Good read...not sure what was the intent of Suarez's statement

The tribunal was very clear that Suarez was insulting Evra AND used the term referring to his colour. It kinda hard to believe that he was insulting him on one hand and then using a racial reference affectionately.

Suarez was needling Evra. His intent was to wind him up. The only cultural difference bligh that I would give Suarez was that he didn't realize it would be received this badly. I don't know if he is a racist and wouldn't label him as such, even Evra said he doesn't think he is a racist, but he was resorting to racial taunting to get one over on Evra.

Suarez might have been better off not having said what he said after the incident but it's better for the game and this whole racism issue that he did.  He pinned himself to a target with his comments of admission.  The FA will probably reduce the ban upon his appeal.    The issue between John Terry and ferdinand is a seperate issue with different circumstances and people shouldn't be expecting the same result.

[Observer]

and what exactly is taking the FA so long to release Mr.Evra's fine???

fine for what? being racially abused?

Wait how you know this? Racism is a serious issue & has no place. But I am surprised that the FA banned Suarez on no Audio, or Video evidence, unless they know something that was not published. Judging from media reports Evira admitted that Suarez called him something that his ManU team mates also call him (which I do not understand, but guessing its the South Americans team mates).

Just on a side note Evira admitted saying "your South American" to Suarez and  Suarez saying to Evira "your a black man" (in Spanish), is it not the same. Could that not be interprited as racist by Mr Suarez?

Racism, ie an attack or insult directed towards someone's race, or a reference to someone's race in derogatory terms, can therefore apply to having your skin colour or ethnic origin referenced.   

Now I only throwing all this out to stimulate discussion, because I know some people from the far East are insulted when called Oriental and many people from the Americas do not like to be called South American etc etc.

[Bakes]

Wait how you know this? Racism is a serious issue & has no place. But I am surprised that the FA banned Suarez on no Audio, or Video evidence, unless they know something that was not published. Judging from media reports Evira admitted that Suarez called him something that his ManU team mates also call him (which I do not understand, but guessing its the South Americans team mates).

I think they made the ruling on no visual/audio evidence because both players confirmed what was said.  Remember, the issue isn't a dispute as to what was said, but rather whether it was "racist"... or just "familiar" talk by Suarez.  The FA decide that familiar or not, it has no place in the English game.

As for Evra's supposed admission that his teammates also call him that, I don't think he ever admitted that... Suarez claimed that Evra's ManU teammates call him that... Evra never confirmed nor denied.  Even if they did... that still wouldn't make what Suarez said right.  JDB said it best... I too don't think Suarez racist, but he definitely was trying to rile Evra up, and chose the wrong words, racist intent or not.

[elan]

I've asked my close friend about the use of the term "negrito"  and he says it is used affectionately in many Spanish countries.

Good read...not sure what was the intent of Suarez's statement

The tribunal was very clear that Suarez was insulting Evra AND used the term referring to his colour. It kinda hard to believe that he was insulting him on one hand and then using a racial reference affectionately.

Suarez was needling Evra. His intent was to wind him up. The only cultural difference bligh that I would give Suarez was that he didn't realize it would be received this badly. I don't know if he is a racist and wouldn't label him as such, even Evra said he doesn't think he is a racist, but he was resorting to racial taunting to get one over on Evra.

Suarez might have been better off not having said what he said after the incident but it's better for the game and this whole racism issue that he did.  He pinned himself to a target with his comments of admission.  The FA will probably reduce the ban upon his appeal.    The issue between John Terry and ferdinand is a seperate issue with different circumstances and people shouldn't be expecting the same result.

That is  talk. It is the exact same. Racial abuse is racial abuse. It eh have no difference circumstances. If the FA eh ban Terry big time then once again they will show how hypocritical they are. They already appealed Rooney ban on the continent and now this, let's wait and see how they handle JT charges.
 

[Mango Chow!]

I've asked my close friend about the use of the term "negrito"  and he says it is used affectionately in many Spanish countries.

Good read...not sure what was the intent of Suarez's statement

The tribunal was very clear that Suarez was insulting Evra AND used the term referring to his colour. It kinda hard to believe that he was insulting him on one hand and then using a racial reference affectionately.

Suarez was needling Evra. His intent was to wind him up. The only cultural difference bligh that I would give Suarez was that he didn't realize it would be received this badly. I don't know if he is a racist and wouldn't label him as such, even Evra said he doesn't think he is a racist, but he was resorting to racial taunting to get one over on Evra.

Suarez might have been better off not having said what he said after the incident but it's better for the game and this whole racism issue that he did.  He pinned himself to a target with his comments of admission.  The FA will probably reduce the ban upon his appeal.    The issue between John Terry and ferdinand is a seperate issue with different circumstances and people shouldn't be expecting the same result.

That is  talk. It is the exact same. Racial abuse is racial abuse. It eh have no difference circumstances. If the FA eh ban Terry big time then once again they will show how hypocritical they are. They already appealed Rooney ban on the continent and now this, let's wait and see how they handle JT charges.
 

Ah know yuh want to live up to yuh name but calm yuh self.  What I mean when I talk about circumstances being different is that Suarez admitted to saying something and tried to explain it away and incriminated himself in the process.  John Terry has vehemently denied the charges and it makes the FA's burden of proof DIFFERENT from that of suarez. Even with the whole camera-angle, lip reading thing going on, unless they have winessws that confirm that JT said what he is accused of saying, this is still a harder case to prove. and possibly easier to appeal.  THAT is the "difference" I am talking about, elan so so yuh could put away yuh flags.  I really don't get where you think I was trying to imply that the charges against JT wouldn't fall under the "racial abuse" category.

[JDB]

Ah know yuh want to live up to yuh name but calm yuh self.  What I mean when I talk about circumstances being different is that Suarez admitted to saying something and tried to explain it away and incriminated himself in the process.  John Terry has vehemently denied the charges and it makes the FA's burden of proof DIFFERENT from that of suarez. Even with the whole camera-angle, lip reading thing going on, unless they have winessws that confirm that JT said what he is accused of saying, this is still a harder case to prove. and possibly easier to appeal.  THAT is the "difference" I am talking about, elan so so yuh could put away yuh flags.  I really don't get where you think I was trying to imply that the charges against JT wouldn't fall under the "racial abuse" category.

I think the bigger difference is that this one went to the police first as a result of a third party complaint. As a result the FA has decided to sit back and let any criminal proceeding run its course. Basically they will let the authorities do the hard work for them.

Ferdinand has been very reticent and nobody really knows what evidence he has given unlike Evra who was the onle who made the complaint.

However they are similar in that Terry has admitted to using the words in question while claiming that it was not in the context of an insult. Whereas Suarez contextual difference is cultural, Terry's is different.

Terry claims that he was saying to Ferdinand "I DIDN'T call you a black C*nt" after calling him a admitting that he called him a "blind c*nt".

All this was after Ferdinand give him talk about being a lowlife hornerman.

Now I watch a clip with him in profile and it hard to say whether he was saying "blind" or "black" but to me it is kinda incredulous that his retort to Anton was that he has blind.

The police obviously believe that there is enough for a case so we will have to see how this goes.

I find both these situations difficult to talk about. The whole thing so tribal.

Credit to Bakes because I feel he has had a fairly unbiased approach to the situation. I also resist the urge to pile on because this is not about making points for your side. However that has not been the general reaction from Liverpool fans who have been abusing Evra and the FA unfairly and with nonsensical arguments, and also United fans have been jumping on a high horse and pooh poohing the Liverpool reaction.

[Bakes]

Hard not to feel for Suarez... he fack up, no question about it.  He meant offense, just not the type and degree of offense taken.  Fuh all this negative scrutiny to come down on him (he basically have a whole country+ on he case now) can't be easy.  And people fuhget he's still only what... 22?

This is the best take I've read on the situation http://www.theanfieldwrap.com/2011/12/hypocrisy-the-english-disease/

I don't agree absolutely with everything he says... but he is frank and scathing in a way only the English can... when they ready.

[dinho]

For anyone interested in reading 115 pages of the FA's reasons behind Suarez' 8 match ban:

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written%20reasons/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.ashx

[Bitter]

he basically have a whole country+ on he case now) can't be easy.  And people fuhget he's still only what... 22?

A whole continent and a large part of the football viewing African diaspora was on he case last WC. He accustom by now.

[kev]

Basically having skimmed it Evra was upset because he thought Suarez had called him a n****r originally but accepts that this was black or blackie in context. 

Basically came down to who they believed or didn't Suarez changed his story and what Daglish and Comoli said on teh day to teh ref didn't match what he said at the hearing. Suggesting it was changed to suit the expert possible explanations, but also took into account reactions / actions on videos. 

The headline bit is according to Evra which they believed.
In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to
each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the
foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because
you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch
you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr
Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr
Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie".


More can be read here http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16375325.stm

As for the Terry incident well they can't do anything until the police case is done and dusted, but having seen the video and his mouthing and the precedent set here it would be interesting. 

Unfortunately the FA isn't even handed and I dare say if Suarez had of said that to a Wigan player rather than Manu we wouldn't have the ban, Terry is even worse given who he plays for but in addition his position and England Captain.  Shearer got away with kicking someone in the head a few years ago because of his england position.

[Bakes]

A whole continent and a large part of the football viewing African diaspora was on he case last WC. He accustom by now.

He didn't have to play in front of them week in week out, listen to the jeers (and God-knows-what-else) on the pitch, and read/listen to his own vilification in the press on a weekly basis.  Not really comparable in my book.

For anyone interested in reading 115 pages of the FA's reasons behind Suarez' 8 match ban:

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written%20reasons/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.ashx

Thanks for posting... frankly, having spent the past hour and a half digesting the report, it is very damning of Suarez and I repeat my initial disappointment with how LFC has responded to the verdict.  At this point it will do everyone concerned a great deal of good for them to simply accept the penalty as handed down and move on.  Suarez has been diminished a great deal in my mind.

[Bakes]

As for the Terry incident well they can't do anything until the police case is done and dusted, but having seen the video and his mouthing and the precedent set here it would be interesting.

The FA does not HAVE to wait until the criminal inquiry is concluded... they can proceed now if they wanted, it would just be duplicative, and perhaps counter-productive to do so now.

Unfortunately the FA isn't even handed and I dare say if Suarez had of said that to a Wigan player rather than Manu we wouldn't have the ban, Terry is even worse given who he plays for but in addition his position and England Captain.  Shearer got away with kicking someone in the head a few years ago because of his england position.

The FA was extremely even-handed in how they prosecuted the complaint about Suarez in this particular situation.  He has nothing to complain about, frankly the tribalism in English football leaves many supporters incapable of discussing controversies like this in a rational matter.

[kev]

As for the Terry incident well they can't do anything until the police case is done and dusted, but having seen the video and his mouthing and the precedent set here it would be interesting.

The FA does not HAVE to wait until the criminal inquiry is concluded... they can proceed now if they wanted, it would just be duplicative, and perhaps counter-productive to do so now.

Unfortunately the FA isn't even handed and I dare say if Suarez had of said that to a Wigan player rather than Manu we wouldn't have the ban, Terry is even worse given who he plays for but in addition his position and England Captain.  Shearer got away with kicking someone in the head a few years ago because of his england position.

The FA was extremely even-handed in how they prosecuted the complaint about Suarez in this particular situation.  He has nothing to complain about, frankly the tribalism in English football leaves many supporters incapable of discussing controversies like this in a rational matter.

They have been but thats not the point I was making, the FA favour certain clubs without doubt and given this was 2 of them then it was going to be the case, but I believe my point is valid if this had of been against Wigan, Bolton or someone down the pecking order I doubt the result would of been the same.  Of course there is nothing to suggest that but history tells us that is the way it has been for some time and will continue to be. 

The FA could do something but have nothing to gain by it, if they find for Terry and he is convicted they haven't got a leg to stand on, or if they convict him and he is found not guilty they have lost their excuse to find him not guilty so the FA won't do anything until the court case has been sorted.  As I said it will be interesting.

Tribalism does exist all over some fans are worse than others even on here, but I must admit I found the Liverpool support for him a little over the top if bordering on the distasteful.

[Bakes]

They have been but thats not the point I was making, the FA favour certain clubs without doubt and given this was 2 of them then it was going to be the case, but I believe my point is valid if this had of been against Wigan, Bolton or someone down the pecking order I doubt the result would of been the same.  Of course there is nothing to suggest that but history tells us that is the way it has been for some time and will continue to be.

I understood just fine the point you were making... your bias against the "big clubs" leads you to think that the outcome would have been different had this been an incident between two less decorated teams.  As you yourself concede, you have nothing with which to support the claim, and it even flies in the face of history, given Mackie's punishment as noted earlier.  Everything about the way this incident has been precedent-setting, so with all due respect, you can't point to past actions in reliance of your point that things would have been swept under the rug.  They pain-stakingly made a case as to why they arrived at the result, and I have no doubt that the international focus and sheer timing of the incident played a greater role than the profiles of the clubs.

The FA could do something but have nothing to gain by it, if they find for Terry and he is convicted they haven't got a leg to stand on, or if they convict him and he is found not guilty they have lost their excuse to find him not guilty so the FA won't do anything until the court case has been sorted.  As I said it will be interesting.

Your statements betray a lack of appreciation for how the law functions, particularly with respect to the different approaches (and different burdens of proof) required for civil vs. criminal prosecutions.  Each can be pursued independently and the FA would have everything to gain by it.  If they found him innocent and he later vindicated in the criminal inquiry that could simply be due to the fact that he's being punished under different rules... FA regulations vs. criminal laws. Both target similar behavior but the FA's is more flexible in how the can be applied.  E.g.  Case in point, there was a discussion in the report as to whether the subjective or objective approach should be taken by the IRC in addressing Suarez' comments. Subjective means they take the circumstances of the individual into consideration (did he intend to racially abuse Evra?).  The objective approach says that intent is immaterial, judge the conduct on it's own merit without making allowances for what was intended... aka strict liability.  Every criminal statute requires some degree of intentional behavior by the actor, and yes, I'm speaking here of England as well.  The only crime of strict liability that I know of is statutory rape. 

If the opposite were to happen, the police inquiry exonerates him, the FA could still independently charge him and find him guilty under their rules.  Different rules, different standards of proof.  Criminal proof must be beyond any reasonable doubt; the  FA would only have to show a preponderance of the evidence more likely than not (as opposed to beyond any reasonable doubt) that Terry did it.  So again, inconsistent findings by both inquiries (FA and police) does not invalidate either one.[/quote]

Tribalism does exist all over some fans are worse than others even on here, but I must admit I found the Liverpool support for him a little over the top if bordering on the distasteful.

I am not suggesting that tribalism is only inherent to England, rather that the intensity of tribal emotions in England (as it is throughout Europe in particular) makes it difficult for many, including you (in my honest opinion) to objectively say whether the FA acted fairly in this instance, or whether nothing would have been done had it been Wigan or Bolton.

[kev]

Bakes I do appreciate how the law works, I know that there is a big difference in the burden of proof in a criminal case rather than the "probability" that it happened in a civil court. 

However I also know how the FA works and is controlled and past experience shows you how that effects decisions and punishments and the inconsistencies in their approach dependant on the culprit.  As an example football fans in England of the mid / lesser teams are as cynical of the FA as many on here are of Jack Warner and thats not because of their even handedness I can assure you.

I try not to be tribal and can understand how you can see that I may be coming from that perspective, but its more to do with the average "old time" fans falling out of love with football, I like many others are fed up with the way the game has gone, plastic players, plastic fans and above all players and some clubs just thinking they are above the law.  What did Liverpool have to gain by the T Shirt Stunt, I have no qualms about supporting their player, statement appeal etc., but that was just sticking the finger up to everyone and again showing "We don't give a stuff attitude".  Lets not kid ourselves here this is all about not losing him for 8 matches, possibility of Champions League and the money involved, the rights and wrongs of what he did don't really come into it, its business, but football isn't a normal business.  Football clubs are in an unique position and on some rare occasions need to do and be seen to do the right things rather than just what suits them, because of it.

Happy New Year anyway Bakes

[Bakes]

Bakes I do appreciate how the law works, I know that there is a big difference in the burden of proof in a criminal case rather than the "probability" that it happened in a civil court. 

However I also know how the FA works and is controlled and past experience shows you how that effects decisions and punishments and the inconsistencies in their approach dependant on the culprit.  As an example football fans in England of the mid / lesser teams are as cynical of the FA as many on here are of Jack Warner and thats not because of their even handedness I can assure you.

I try not to be tribal and can understand how you can see that I may be coming from that perspective, but its more to do with the average "old time" fans falling out of love with football, I like many others are fed up with the way the game has gone, plastic players, plastic fans and above all players and some clubs just thinking they are above the law.  What did Liverpool have to gain by the T Shirt Stunt, I have no qualms about supporting their player, statement appeal etc., but that was just sticking the finger up to everyone and again showing "We don't give a stuff attitude".  Lets not kid ourselves here this is all about not losing him for 8 matches, possibility of Champions League and the money involved, the rights and wrongs of what he did don't really come into it, its business, but football isn't a normal business.  Football clubs are in an unique position and on some rare occasions need to do and be seen to do the right things rather than just what suits them, because of it.

Happy New Year anyway Bakes

Kevin it's that cynicism of the the mid-level clubs that I see reflected in many of your comments (with respect to the higher profile clubs) that I refer to as the "tribalism."  But all that said, I do understand and agree with the inconsistency of the FA.  I also agree with your criticism of LFC with regards to the T shirts... and I'll throw in the club's statement as well.

Happy New Year... great start for SFC today!

[kev]

Gary Ablett passed away today aged only 46 RIP

[boss]

Gary Ablett passed away today aged only 46 RIP

RIP  A massive loss to Liverpool, Everton and football in general.

[Bakes]

Liverpool won't appeal the Suarez ban...

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/statement-from-liverpool-fc

[elan]

wow    Reina

[DeSoWa]

 

Big Up!

[elan]

tsk tsk tsk...................I giving Reina that one too.

[dinho]

 

Big Up!

Exhibit F in the great Reina vs Cech debate..

Over to you guys.

[Bakes]

Exhibit F in the great Reina vs Cech debate..

Over to you guys.

Exhibit F as in "fail"?

The ball deflected off Agger and dipped at the last second.  I suppose Reina was suppose to adjust mid-dive and get lower.

[elan]

Exhibit F in the great Reina vs Cech debate..

Over to you guys.

Exhibit F as in "fail"?

The ball deflected off Agger and dipped at the last second.  I suppose Reina was suppose to adjust mid-dive and get lower.

Bakes you serious?

[Bakes]

Bakes you serious?

Why would I not be?  I DVR'ed the game and just watched it, including watching the play closely over and over again... which is why I held off commenting until now.

[Observer]

Not sure if it was posted already Taken from the Jamaican Gleaner on the Suarez issue

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20111223/cleisure/cleisure4.html

[Bakes]

Not sure if it was posted already Taken from the Jamaican Gleaner on the Suarez issue

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20111223/cleisure/cleisure4.html

Idiotic... at best.

People keep focusing on "negro" and insisting that it's not offensive.  Of course it isn't... not by itself.  Context matters... and in the context of a heated argument any reference to race, creed, color is automatically problematic, using it as Suarez has been found to have used it, is against FA rules.

[dinho]

It might sound like an overly simplistic view, but I find all the debate over whether or not what Suarez said was racist or offensive to be moot.

Perception is reality. If a grown ass man i don't know uses the term "negro" or "negrito" or "negrite" or whatever de fork he say to address me, and I interpret it as racially offensive, then it is totally on him.. No ifs, ands or buts.

I'll give an example of a situation that happened to me a couple years back at my job in NYC.

I managed the IT desk at a small company in Soho. Now I cant speak for the typical corporate work culture in NYC on the whole, but the working culture at this company and in the industry on the whole was one where colleagues were always unnecessarily effusive with the praise and compliments to colleagues, to the point of being very fake and overbearing.

Anyway.. This one evening at work, a staff colleague comes by my desk to ask if I had a blank CD to spare. As i reach below my desk to check, she starts going on about how I'm so great at my job and always on top of things, and hits me the typical "You're the best!" line as is par for the course.. But then she proceeds to say the following.. "No really.. You're a beautiful person. You're a credit to your race."

Well that line make me sit up straight. I responded, "Excuse me??"... Then she repeats it, and proceeds to explain its a line from a movie called Scoop. If I had never heard about it. I responded "No" abruptly, hand her the CD then she left.

Well i don't think anything for as long as i could remember boil my blood like that, and i'm a man slow to anger. I sit down there stewing, i was livid, i couldn't even function after that and it is first time in life i genuinely ever felt insulted about my race. Could not even stay at my desk, had to go outside for a breather, I man studying to blast the woman publicly or take ah run up in the HR office all kinda ting.

I eventually confronted her in the office, took her into a closed room and asked her to explain what her statement was supposed to mean. She explained that the line was from a movie and meant, you're a credit to your race as in the "human race", and not what I thought and wanted to carry me to google it etc. I had to explain to her that it did not matter, she needed to understand how me hearing that, not knowing the point of reference would interpret that. Meh girl nearly break down in tears, "i'm so sorry, i'm not like that, i'm not that kinda person" etc etc... I end up leaving that there.

Anyway, the bottom line is.. I did google it some days after and it is a line from a movie and it does mean what she said. No racial connotation whatsoever. But does that matter?

That whole defence Suarez and Liverpool touting about he used the term in a kinda pardna context (notwithstanding he an Evra was in confrontation and he even pinch Evra skin while saying what he said) is a heap of bullshit. I hear Dalglish in a press conference yesterday talking about Suarez wife does call him that. Oh please. Where is the line to be drawn? Any club fan could say that in his country, monkey chants is a common scene and use that as justification. It shouldn't be taken as racist.

Even if i was to go so far as to believe Suarez was using the term innocently, if as a result of his absolute ignorance someone feels racially abused by his statements then he needs to accept responsibility for that. Imagine we arguing, and part and parcel of your retort is to use the term "negro" and you want people to believe that is pardna vibes. I have Uruguyuan friends and none of them ever venture to call me that in conversation, and if they did I watching them funny. Plain talk.