Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:17 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

My comment about Evra's ten times being accepted as a 'figure of speech', was simply highlighting what I felt was a flaw. How can somebody's lie just be accepted as a figure of speech in an argument where every single thing matters, let alone a clear lie?

you've mentioned the 10 times thing millions of times robbie, figure of speech

'The impression created by these inconsistencies was that Mr Suarez's evidence was not, on the whole, reliable. He had put forward an interpretation of events which was inconsistent with the contemporaneous video evidence. He had changed his account in a number of important respects without satisfactory explanation. As a result, we were hesitant about accepting Mr Suarez's account of events where it was disputed by other credible witnesses unless there was solid evidence to support it.'

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:25 pm  

flipper wrote:

you've mentioned the 10 times thing millions of times robbie, figure of speech

'The impression created by these inconsistencies was that Mr Suarez's evidence was not, on the whole, reliable. He had put forward an interpretation of events which was inconsistent with the contemporaneous video evidence. He had changed his account in a number of important respects without satisfactory explanation. As a result, we were hesitant about accepting Mr Suarez's account of events where it was disputed by other credible witnesses unless there was solid evidence to support it.'

I mention it now because it seems to be accepted as a figure of speech, despite somebody French saying something so serious can't be dismissed as a figure of speech. Surely you get why a lie, in a case where they're arguing how 'truthful' somebody is being, is so important?

It's not my job to argue the pros and cons of each side's argument, but I find it odd that somebody lying or 'exaggerating' can happily use the 'figure of speech excuse'. I just find it odd that it didn't effect his credibility.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:28 pm  

What I don't get is the fact that we were told that 'negrito' was a term of endearment and that it was all jokey and matey unlike 'negro', which was highly offensive.

The report added: "After the referee Andre Marriner separated them, Mr Suarez said that he turned to Mr Evra and said, 'Por que, negro?'

So Suarez has admitted calling Evra a 'negro', which is a highly offensive term.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:41 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

I mention it now because it seems to be accepted as a figure of speech, despite somebody French saying something so serious can't be dismissed as a figure of speech. Surely you get why a lie, in a case where they're arguing how 'truthful' somebody is being, is so important?

It's not my job to argue the pros and cons of each side's argument, but I find it odd that somebody lying or 'exaggerating' can happily use the 'figure of speech excuse'. I just find it odd that it didn't effect his credibility.

have you heard the transcripts being read 'bl&ckie, bl&ckie , bl&ckie'? its not negrito, its not once, i am struggling to see where on earth you are finding his guilt doubtful

apparently the owners are less than thrilled about kkken's stance, and the subsequent findings

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:47 pm  

flipper wrote:

you've mentioned the 10 times thing millions of times robbie, figure of speech

'The impression created by these inconsistencies was that Mr Suarez's evidence was not, on the whole, reliable. He had put forward an interpretation of events which was inconsistent with the contemporaneous video evidence. He had changed his account in a number of important respects without satisfactory explanation. As a result, we were hesitant about accepting Mr Suarez's account of events where it was disputed by other credible witnesses unless there was solid evidence to support it.'

Aparently there was a couple thousand sweds in the Kop said he didn't do it FACT

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:22 pm  

The gist of it appears to be that the commission concluded that he used the term negro in circumstances when it would be very unlikely to have been affectionate or neutral.

But I'll have to read it again when sober.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:43 pm  

flipper wrote:

have you heard the transcripts being read 'bl&ckie, bl&ckie , bl&ckie'? its not negrito, its not once, i am struggling to see where on earth you are finding his guilt doubtful

apparently the owners are less than thrilled about kkken's stance, and the subsequent findings

I really don't know what you're on about. The 'negrito' stuff, as I said at the time, was based on the media reports that, as I said at the time, were allegedly accurate. It turns out it isn't negrito and it's negro, OK, I will read the full thing to find out exactly what's gone on.

However, quoting the "lovely, lovely, lovely" stuff is you just driving Evra's version of events home, something I've already read. The case has been a case of opinion against opinion, one man's word against another. With there being no audio or video evidence showing either player saying what's been alleged, it's come down to which 'side' has proven their 'opinion' better. The FA have decided that Evra did, we'll see what Liverpool do about it. If they accept it then I'll happily accept Suarez's ban and wouldn't complain if the club punished him as well. However, if you want me to say I'm wrong for debating and defending someone based on media reports that, IMO, didn't paint things to be so black and white, you'll be waiting a long time as I won't apologise for arguing for 'fairness'.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:00 am  

Roddy B wrote:

I really don't know what you're on about. The 'negrito' stuff, as I said at the time, was based on the media reports that, as I said at the time, were allegedly accurate. It turns out it isn't negrito and it's negro, OK, I will read the full thing to find out exactly what's gone on.

However, quoting the "lovely, lovely, lovely" stuff is you just driving Evra's version of events home, something I've already read. The case has been a case of opinion against opinion, one man's word against another. With there being no audio or video evidence showing either player saying what's been alleged, it's come down to which 'side' has proven their 'opinion' better. The FA have decided that Evra did, we'll see what Liverpool do about it. If they accept it then I'll happily accept Suarez's ban and wouldn't complain if the club punished him as well. However, if you want me to say I'm wrong for debating and defending someone based on media reports that, IMO, didn't paint things to be so black and white, you'll be waiting a long time as I won't apologise for arguing for 'fairness'.

from what i can gather the footage that wasn't broadcast doesn't corroborate suarez's version of events, which he also changed along the way, which doesn't enhance his credibility ,and kuyt is largely to blame for some of the allegations levelled at Evra

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:14 am  

flipper wrote:

from what i can gather the footage that wasn't broadcast doesn't corroborate suarez's version of events, which he also changed along the way, which doesn't enhance his credibility ,and kuyt is largely to blame for some of the allegations levelled at Evra

Yes, they are quite clear on those two points:-

1 - Suaraez changed his story.
2 - His witness evidence contradicted the video evidence.

Those are two quite large reasons why they preferred Evras evidence and found him more believable. They also found Suarez's claim that it was all in jest 'incredible'. I would think that even Dalglish will be able to get his head round that.

I predict Liverpool will issue a statement defending Suarez but saying that they don't want to appeal because they want to 'move on'. Let's be honest, their stance has been about keeping Suarez a Liverpool player, no more, no less. Certainly it has not been about Justice (c).

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:18 am  

Ian 77 Redux wrote:

Yes, they are quite clear on those two points:-

1 - Suaraez changed his story.
2 - His witness evidence contradicted the video evidence.

Those are two quite large reasons why they preferred Evras evidence and found him more believable. They also found Suarez's claim that it was all in jest 'incredible'. I would think that even Dalglish will be able to get his head round that.

I predict Liverpool will issue a statement defending Suarez but saying that they don't want to appeal because they want to 'move on'. Let's be honest, their stance has been about keeping Suarez a Liverpool player, no more, no less. Certainly it has not been about Justice (c).

you'd have thunk so, but spoke to someone in the week who is closer to it than most, and he insisted kkken would take it to the highest court in the universe