Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:57 am  

richardviking wrote:

Can we hand Alan Hansen a indefinite MOTD ban for his lack of interpretation of what is neutral language in British soccer summarising

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:07 am  

richardviking wrote:

Can we hand Alan Hansen an eight-Saturday MOTD ban for his lack of interpretation of what is acceptable language in British culture?

Why what is acceptable or not nowadays. Is the word coloured to be stricken from our language? This is getting fukcing pathetic.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:50 pm  

It seems to me that Liverpool could have diffused this situation if they had acted sensibly from the start. Once Suarez admitted to them that he had used the term "negrito" they should have immediately made a public statement, explained the cultural background and apologised to Evra, on behalf of Suarez and the club, for any offense that might have unintentionally been caused.

What they should not have done is acted as if Evra were the bad guy in all of this and that Suarez was the wholly innocent party. It may well be that "negrito" is not a racially offensive term in Uruguay but how the hell was Evra supposed to know that? And they certainly shouldnt have issued a statement suggesting that it was simply a case of Suarez's word against Evra (all that guff about a crowded penalty area) when Suarez had already admitted to using the term. And they absolutely shouldnt have allowed the official club website to perpetuate the view that Evra was playing the race card.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:02 pm  

The whole reaction to the Suarez ban has just shown us that deep down, football fans don't care about racism in the game. All we care about is our club. If a player from your club racially abuses another player (whether it's in a jovial context or not) it's ok and much a do about nothing.

Personally, I think the word that Suarez used is vile, and I dont care if it's acceptable in South American culture or not.

If I went to Dubai and copped off with a bird on the beach , started snogging her face off and had a bit of a grope I'd be arrested if caught. If I did that on a street in Manchester on a Saturday night I'd probably get a high five. However, that doesn't mean it's right to do it over there. Its disrespectful to that culture so they take action.

Just because casual racism is accepted in Uraguay doesn't mean that it should be over here. Much the same as my missis can wear a short skirt over here but can't in the UAE.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:07 pm  

The definitive view on Liverpool's approach to Suarez:- http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/spo ... 112214697/

The definitive view on Liverpool's approach to Suarez:- http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/spo ... 112214697/

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:47 pm  

RedTez wrote:

The whole reaction to the Suarez ban has just shown us that deep down, football fans don't care about racism in the game. All we care about is our club. If a player from your club racially abuses another player (whether it's in a jovial context or not) it's ok and much a do about nothing.

Personally, I think the word that Suarez used is vile, and I dont care if it's acceptable in South American culture or not.

If I went to Dubai and copped off with a bird on the beach , started snogging her face off and had a bit of a grope I'd be arrested if caught. If I did that on a street in Manchester on a Saturday night I'd probably get a high five. However, that doesn't mean it's right to do it over there. Its disrespectful to that culture so they take action.

Just because casual racism is accepted in Uraguay doesn't mean that it should be over here. Much the same as my missis can wear a short skirt over here but can't in the UAE.

But the comment Evra is alleged to have made to Suarez is apparently very disrespectful in South America, does that mean Evra can do whatever he wants to Suarez's culture and get away with it, because it isn't offensive over here?

How can we judge an argument in Spanish on English terms, just because it happened on English soil? You see, that's the biggest problem, and so many people are trying to make a situation that is 'grey' seem black or white. The language it was spoken in means it has to be viewed differently, yes, we use our laws, but in terms of understanding, you simply can't base it from the English language.

How can a player that made a disrespectful comment to one player (not referring to the colour of skin, but from the area he's from), accuse a referee of booking him because he's black, and then (according to the findings of video evidence) falsely accuse somebody of calling them the same name ten times over, get away absolutely unblemished when they have clearly made some mistakes on their own part? Is it a crime to give false evidence? Is verbally abusing somebody a crime? Is making false allegations of racism against a referee a crime?

It's not that people don't want to fight racism mate, it's that people want a fair decision. Too many people tip-toe around racism, many people have a high horse they like to mount and claim themselves some sort of purists. Any mention of the word racism and people are straight on the defensive. It can barely be debated, people are feared of using racist words even when quoting. People hear Suarez said 'negrito' and instantly put their fingers in their ears and say it's racism, end of. I've read a lot about the word and it simply can't be compared to the word 'nigga/lovely', nor can the word 'negro' in Spanish.

I said right at the start of this, if it ends up being proven that Suarez has gone 'n****r' ten times to him and he's given him a racial roasting - throw the book at him, but when it's something so acute as this, I'm just not convinced. The reaction from our club and media has spoke volumes of the situation. With something like racism, it's a very touchy thing, but the club have come out furious and instantly defended Suarez, which, for me, speaks volumes about how they viewed the disciplinary. The facts will come out, but Liverpool will know pretty much everything that's gone on and they'd have felt their 'defence' was more than worthy enough, especially in a 'word against word' situation. The media at first were desperate to paint their villain, the Mirror's back page was 'RACIST' in white against black, but today they're now asking if he's actually the victim.

I want the facts to come out (apparently won't be out 'til mid-January?) so we all have a clear picture about what went on. But, for me, from what's been reported, the ban handed out isn't balanced and the entire handling of the case has lacked conviction for me.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:52 pm  

why are you hung up on the 10 times thing? is there a tipping point where it becomes unacceptable?

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:08 pm  

Imagine the farce tonight. Spurs are issuing head cams to their stewards to prevent any sick chanting. Yids will give terry plenty and the right wing fringe of Chelsea fans will remind all about Spurs' jewish roots. I think this could be an interesting night and for hopefully the right reasons football wise. But will not be surprised if there is chaos on the Seven sisters road.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:40 pm  

flipper wrote:

why are you hung up on the 10 times thing? is there a tipping point where it becomes unacceptable?

No, but it definitely adds to the 'malice' and definitely points to 'abuse' more than one comment does. Furthermore, if Evra is saying he felt that Suarez said it with malice, it does question Evra's validity as he has already exaggerated one thing. A one off comment doesn't instantly mean it's racial abuse, for it to be abuse, it has to have been said with the intent of abusing and upsetting him. Judging by the reports on Evra's behavior that day (abusing Suarez, falsely accusing the ref, falsely claiming he was abused ten times), it does raise questions about whether Evra's word alone can be taken to enforce an eight match ban. People say 'Suarez admitted it', Suarez admitted using the word, but he never admitted using it offensively or with the intent to harm. Evra is the one that accused that and they've believed Evra's word over Suarez's.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:03 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

No, but it definitely adds to the 'malice' and definitely points to 'abuse' more than one comment does. Furthermore, if Evra is saying he felt that Suarez said it with malice, it does question Evra's validity as he has already exaggerated one thing. A one off comment doesn't instantly mean it's racial abuse, for it to be abuse, it has to have been said with the intent of abusing and upsetting him. Judging by the reports on Evra's behavior that day (abusing Suarez, falsely accusing the ref, falsely claiming he was abused ten times), it does raise questions about whether Evra's word alone can be taken to enforce an eight match ban. People say 'Suarez admitted it', Suarez admitted using the word, but he never admitted using it offensively or with the intent to harm. Evra is the one that accused that and they've believed Evra's word over Suarez's.

think you're clutching at straws robbie, United v Liverpool games aren't exactly famed for their chuminess (trying to turn over ambulances with injured players in, cups of pi$$, munich , hillsborough, heysel etc ) I can't imagine much friendly banter is exchanged, isn't the crux of the matter as we understand it, that the word can be taken quite reasonably as being racially offensive, he admitting saying it, evra found it racially offensive, therefore it is racially offensive. It's to a huge extent dependent on the dynamic between the people involved.