Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:08 pm  

flipper wrote: predictable scouse petition http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/show ... ign=button They are pricless at times.

flipper wrote: predictable scouse petition http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/show ... ign=button They are pricless at times.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:14 pm  

Wire_85 wrote:

Massivo

You could of guessed what each poster of other teams was going to say about this and got it spot.

I am shocked.

Honest.

It is predictable, but also right. You've got the Liverpool fans blindly ignoring the issue and searching in vain for an excuse that rationalises everything and proves Suarez's innocence.

Then you've got the fans of other teams who think he should be punished if the review/trial/hearing finds him guilty.

I will say as well Kenny Dalgleish's comments yesterday were pretty stupid. Denying racism exists at all in English football when there are two instances under investigation is just daft.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:21 pm  

I still can't see how Suarez could use the banter defence, he and Evra were having a right battle, to be fair Suarez had the better of him. I can only see it being said with aggression. I hope it doesn't lead to him leaving the league though. Too many top players leave as it is.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:21 pm  

Dan_FC wrote: But just because it isn't used as a racist term in one country doesn't mean he can come to a country where it could be deemed racist and use it. That's ignorance at its best. You can't go to other countries use abusive/racist language and say 'oh well it's ok where I come from!' it's no defence. Thing is, Dan, there's no reason it should be deemed racist over here. It's not in our language, it isn't even in our slang, but because it sounds like negro and its literal translation is 'little black man', we immediately stick our chests out and take a stance against it. Have a read of this, a piece that is completely neutral and has no form of agenda: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/17/sport ... index.html Read what Fernando Espuelas has to say about it. This is delving deeper into defining the word and what kind of context it can be used in. Our nation may well deem it racist, but the majority of our nation isn't qualified to interpret Spanish or even Uruguayan native speak. People are instantly tagging it in a similar light to the derogatory term 'negro', but without any witnesses or visual/audio evidence, it'll be pretty tough to prove the malice and intent, which is what I keep on saying.

Dan_FC wrote: But just because it isn't used as a racist term in one country doesn't mean he can come to a country where it could be deemed racist and use it. That's ignorance at its best. You can't go to other countries use abusive/racist language and say 'oh well it's ok where I come from!' it's no defence. Thing is, Dan, there's no reason it should be deemed racist over here. It's not in our language, it isn't even in our slang, but because it sounds like negro and its literal translation is 'little black man', we immediately stick our chests out and take a stance against it. Have a read of this, a piece that is completely neutral and has no form of agenda: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/17/sport ... index.html Read what Fernando Espuelas has to say about it. This is delving deeper into defining the word and what kind of context it can be used in. Our nation may well deem it racist, but the majority of our nation isn't qualified to interpret Spanish or even Uruguayan native speak. People are instantly tagging it in a similar light to the derogatory term 'negro', but without any witnesses or visual/audio evidence, it'll be pretty tough to prove the malice and intent, which is what I keep on saying.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:55 pm  

Roddy B wrote: Thing is, Dan, there's no reason it should be deemed racist over here. It's not in our language, it isn't even in our slang, but because it sounds like negro and its literal translation is 'little black man', we immediately stick our chests out and take a stance against it. Have a read of this, a piece that is completely neutral and has no form of agenda: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/17/sport ... index.html Read what Fernando Espuelas has to say about it. This is delving deeper into defining the word and what kind of context it can be used in. Our nation may well deem it racist, but the majority of our nation isn't qualified to interpret Spanish or even Uruguayan native speak. People are instantly tagging it in a similar light to the derogatory term 'negro', but without any witnesses or visual/audio evidence, it'll be pretty tough to prove the malice and intent, which is what I keep on saying. If Suarez had come onto the pitch wearing a KKK suit you would suggest a defense for it. You don't know if he's innocent any more than anyone else and the reasoning behind your argument on this is completely flawed.

Roddy B wrote: Thing is, Dan, there's no reason it should be deemed racist over here. It's not in our language, it isn't even in our slang, but because it sounds like negro and its literal translation is 'little black man', we immediately stick our chests out and take a stance against it. Have a read of this, a piece that is completely neutral and has no form of agenda: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/17/sport ... index.html Read what Fernando Espuelas has to say about it. This is delving deeper into defining the word and what kind of context it can be used in. Our nation may well deem it racist, but the majority of our nation isn't qualified to interpret Spanish or even Uruguayan native speak. People are instantly tagging it in a similar light to the derogatory term 'negro', but without any witnesses or visual/audio evidence, it'll be pretty tough to prove the malice and intent, which is what I keep on saying. If Suarez had come onto the pitch wearing a KKK suit you would suggest a defense for it. You don't know if he's innocent any more than anyone else and the reasoning behind your argument on this is completely flawed.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:07 pm  

Roddy B wrote: Thing is, Dan, there's no reason it should be deemed racist over here. It's not in our language, it isn't even in our slang, but because it sounds like negro and its literal translation is 'little black man', we immediately stick our chests out and take a stance against it. Have a read of this, a piece that is completely neutral and has no form of agenda: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/17/sport ... index.html Read what Fernando Espuelas has to say about it. This is delving deeper into defining the word and what kind of context it can be used in. Our nation may well deem it racist, but the majority of our nation isn't qualified to interpret Spanish or even Uruguayan native speak. People are instantly tagging it in a similar light to the derogatory term 'negro', but without any witnesses or visual/audio evidence, it'll be pretty tough to prove the malice and intent, which is what I keep on saying. If there was no visual/audio evidence or witnesses to the incident then how can you be so sure of what he said and the context he said it in? Are you qualified to interpret Spanish or Uruguayan? I'd guess not so you yourself do not know either. You're trying to justify what he said, you were laughed at at when you said it was banter and now you are using some fella's article to justify it - why not just accept that maybe, just maybe, Suarez used a derogatary towards Evra that can be deemed racist. Just say you are right and he did call him 'Negrito' or whatever it is, then if he did say it to him ten times you honest believe he wasn't doing it to wind him up or to abuse him? if he said it once possibly but if he has said it ten times I'd find it tough to believe he was calling him 'pal' ten times.

Roddy B wrote: Thing is, Dan, there's no reason it should be deemed racist over here. It's not in our language, it isn't even in our slang, but because it sounds like negro and its literal translation is 'little black man', we immediately stick our chests out and take a stance against it. Have a read of this, a piece that is completely neutral and has no form of agenda: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/17/sport ... index.html Read what Fernando Espuelas has to say about it. This is delving deeper into defining the word and what kind of context it can be used in. Our nation may well deem it racist, but the majority of our nation isn't qualified to interpret Spanish or even Uruguayan native speak. People are instantly tagging it in a similar light to the derogatory term 'negro', but without any witnesses or visual/audio evidence, it'll be pretty tough to prove the malice and intent, which is what I keep on saying. If there was no visual/audio evidence or witnesses to the incident then how can you be so sure of what he said and the context he said it in? Are you qualified to interpret Spanish or Uruguayan? I'd guess not so you yourself do not know either. You're trying to justify what he said, you were laughed at at when you said it was banter and now you are using some fella's article to justify it - why not just accept that maybe, just maybe, Suarez used a derogatary towards Evra that can be deemed racist. Just say you are right and he did call him 'Negrito' or whatever it is, then if he did say it to him ten times you honest believe he wasn't doing it to wind him up or to abuse him? if he said it once possibly but if he has said it ten times I'd find it tough to believe he was calling him 'pal' ten times.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:09 pm  

City have announced the biggest loss in English football history, £194.5m for the most recent financial year. The loss on that huge scale eclipses the previous biggest loss ever made, £141m by Chelsea in 2005.
They need to have a serious rethink if they're going to be able to comply with Uefa's "financial fair play" rules, which come into force in 2014/2015.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:14 pm  

Wire_85 wrote:

Massivo

You could of guessed what each poster of other teams was going to say about this and got it spot.

I am shocked.

Honest.

Still waiting for you to quote these other occasions where Evra has lied about racism...

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:22 pm  

Dan_FC wrote:

:lol:

They are pricless at times.

They were trying to get #justiceforsuarez and #boycottthemirror trending on twitter the other day.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:31 pm  

Dan_FC wrote:

If there was no visual/audio evidence or witnesses to the incident then how can you be so sure of what he said and the context he said it in? Are you qualified to interpret Spanish or Uruguayan? I'd guess not so you yourself do not know either. You're trying to justify what he said, you were laughed at at when you said it was banter and now you are using some fella's article to justify it - why not just accept that maybe, just maybe, Suarez used a derogatary towards Evra that can be deemed racist.

Just say you are right and he did call him 'Negrito' or whatever it is, then if he did say it to him ten times you honest believe he wasn't doing it to wind him up or to abuse him? if he said it once possibly but if he has said it ten times I'd find it tough to believe he was calling him 'pal' ten times.

Why should I accept it, Dan? Because you said so? Because the boys on RLFans said so? Saddened has said some things like 'ban him for life', if you think my defence of him is lunacy, then what on earth do you think of that?

People in England have a tendency to view things in 'black or white' (no pun intended), people either see it as innocent or guilty. If you look through my posts, I've repeatedly said, if Suarez is guilty, throw the book at him, but what I can't stand is people saying "he said negreto, he's guilty, he's racist, he's this, that and the other". You're right, none of us truly know what has been said and what hasn't been said. Daniel Taylor (Guardian) said he was 'just reporting what they believe at United', when he reported the 'negrito' story, so it seems that this 'negrito' stuff has come from the United camp, or at least the journos who write on United. I just don't think it's fair that he's already getting the guilty tag without being able to defend himself, as they say, he's innocent until proven guilty, so I'll try and protest his innocence.

If it's true that he called him a 'negrito', then it would also have to be proven he called it him ten times. It hasn't even been proven he called it him once, there hasn't been any video evidence or witnesses to support Evra's claims so it will result in one word vs. the other. IMO, looking at the way the whole scenario happened, I can't understand why Evra would just stand there and be racially abused by Suarez without making anyone aware of it. He could have shouted to a team-mate, to the linesman, to the ref or even a Liverpool player, I'm sure anybody hearing/seeing it happen would have stepped in and intervened immediately. Maybe I'm wrong to say this, but if you're getting racially abused and it's bothering you, you tell someone so, when you make a claim like he did after the game and try and push for punishment, you have people to support your claims. He never done that, which, IMO, hinders his credibility.