mick cooper
Neil Sullivan
but it is the equivalent of caucasian, isn't it?
Isn't it the Spanish word for black?
I can use black as a descriptive word, can't I - like describing myself as white?
Last edited:
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Victimpool FC - Klopp leaving, grown men crying
- Thread starter southstand1882
- Start date
but it is the equivalent of caucasian, isn't it?
Isn't it the Spanish word for black?
I can use black as a descriptive word, can't I - like describing myself as white?
black in spanish is negro - so a spaniard saying negro (when referring to a person) is no different to an english man saying black man
i guess the crux is - we wouldn't say to a black person 'hello my black friend' whereas in other countries this is commonplace and not meant as an insult. so when someone is using the term like that then eyebrows get raised, whether they intend racial abuse or not
i guess the crux is - we wouldn't say to a black person 'hello my black friend' whereas in other countries this is commonplace and not meant as an insult. so when someone is using the term like that then eyebrows get raised, whether they intend racial abuse or not
Last edited:
If you read the report you'll find that the evidence given by Suarez was considered inconsistent and unreliable, whereas Evra came across as quite the opposite. Suarez also admitted to using the word. It wouldn't stand up in court, but it's more than enough for a disciplinary case.
mick cooper
Neil Sullivan
thats what I thought
I don't particularly like Suarez (as a player) but it seems kind of harsh to not take that into account
linnet_spur
Pascal Chimbonda
But do you stand there going "oi black man"? in that context it would be considered derogatory
in english, no you wouldn't - but in other countries/languages maybe you would. herein lies the problem.
Last edited:
milo
Jack L. Jones
It was taken into account and was discounted. It is cover in some depth in the report that the FA published.
5 minutes after reading that and if Suarez did say what Evra alleged then fair enough i retract everything i argued thus far, but the whole thing seems to be Evra accusing Suarez of racial abuse and Suarez denying the racial abuse - but admitting he used the word Negro when referring to Evra - BUT in a similar vein to how Evra refers to him as a Latino
i stand by what i said earlier though about the guilty verdict being reached before the tribunal etc and there not being evidence to punish him
i stand by what i said earlier though about the guilty verdict being reached before the tribunal etc and there not being evidence to punish him
Last edited:
milo
Jack L. Jones
It was an independent panel made up of Paul Goulding QC, Denis Smith (former manager of Sunderland, Wrexham among others) and Brian Jones (Sheffield and Hallamshire Football Association chairman) why would they decide the verdict before they have heard the evidence and what if the expert evidence contradicted this?
milo
Jack L. Jones
I don't think that it is appreasement. The FA have been pretty rubbish on this issue in the past, the FA finally finding their backbone is the real surprise.
milo
Jack L. Jones
It's not one man's word against another's though, there was video evidence that was not broadcast and Suarez admitted that he used a racial term. Liverpool have tried to muddy the waters and to a large extent, I think that they have succeeded.
sorry, can you point me to where in the document it says exactly what he is supposed to have said using the video evidence / admitting to saying ? all i can find is him saying "por que, negro?"
milo
Jack L. Jones
Page 7 -
15. On 11 November, the FA instructed two experts, Dr Scorer and Professor Wade. The experts were instructed to prepare a written report on the linguistic and cultural interpretations of the words "negro" and "negros" in Rioplatense Spanish. The instructions went into further detail as to the issues which the experts were asked to cover. The FA provided the experts with relevant materials, including 12 video clips of the match, the witness statement of Mr Evra and the transcript of the interview with Mr Suarez. The experts provided a written report to the FA on 15 November.
Pages 6/7
12. During the interview, the FA and Mr Evra watched some video footage of the match. Mr Evra pointed out to the FA, by reference to the video footage, when it was during the match that Mr Suarez made the comments about which Mr Evra had complained. This information enabled the FA to ask broadcasters to provide video footage of what appeared to be the key moments of the game, so far as Mr Evra's complaint was concerned. This video footage was provided in due course. It contained material which was not broadcast, including footage of the exchanges in the penalty area in the 63rd minute taken from a number of different camera angles.
Page 14
33. The Commission read all the witness statements (in their English version) and other documents, and watched video clips with which we were provided, in advance of the hearing. However, given the significant factual disputes which we were asked to resolve, we required Mr Evra and Mr Suarez to give oral evidence in chief on the central factual disputes as to what happened in the penalty area. Essentially, they were asked to describe in their own words what they recalled of the incidents, before being cross-examined. This assisted us in forming our view as to the credibility and reliability of their evidence.
Page 15
35. The hearing commenced just after 3pm on Wednesday 14 December. Although Mr Greaney and Mr McCormick had exchanged opening skeleton arguments, which described their respective cases in outline and which the Commission had read, they made opening statements. In Mr McCormick’s opening statement he showed us some video clips which were taken from an international broadcast of the match, which had not previously been provided to us.
Page 16.
41. Between the afternoon of Friday 16th and the afternoon of Tuesday 20th, the Commission spent very many hours reviewing the evidence and submissions and reaching its decision. We re-read the witness statements and documents that had been placed before us, the parties' opening and closing submissions, we read the transcripts of the hearing, and watched the video clips many times.
Page 30.
102. We examined closely the video footage of this moment which took place in the 64th minute. When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez were standing close to each other, having just run and challenged for the corner. The referee called them over to him. Mr Suarez said something to Mr Evra, then started to walk away. There is a clear reaction by Mr Evra to Mr Suarez's comment. This is apparent in two ways. First, there is a facial reaction by Mr Evra, akin to a look of surprise. Secondly, whilst looking at the referee, Mr Evra points to Mr Suarez, first with his forefinger then with his thumb. Mr Evra walks towards the referee and says something while pointing back at Mr Suarez.
Page 30.
Mr Suarez said that he turned to Mr Evra and said "Por que, negro?". He said that he used the word "negro" at this point in the way that he did when he was growing up in Uruguay, that is as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned or even just black-haired. He said that he used it in the same way that he did when he spoke to Glen Johnson, the black Liverpool player. He said in no way was the use of the word "negro" intended to be offensive or to be racially offensive. It was intended as an attempt at conciliation.
right i read all that whilst reading the first 70 odd pages of the report, was hoping that there was more to it tbh
so what it all comes down to then is Evra saying "don't touch me South American" to which Suarez replies "why is that, Negro?"
im sorry but if that's what this is all about all i can do is laugh at the absurdity of it all - Evra uses "south american" in an offensive manner - and Suarez replies with an equally offensive reply but uses skin colour rather than nationality
WALOB
and note that the video evidence does not back up any of the statements in terms of what was said btw - all the video evidence shows is that there were tussles, words exchanged between the two and how each player reacted. so essentially this is one mans words against the others
so what it all comes down to then is Evra saying "don't touch me South American" to which Suarez replies "why is that, Negro?"
im sorry but if that's what this is all about all i can do is laugh at the absurdity of it all - Evra uses "south american" in an offensive manner - and Suarez replies with an equally offensive reply but uses skin colour rather than nationality
WALOB
and note that the video evidence does not back up any of the statements in terms of what was said btw - all the video evidence shows is that there were tussles, words exchanged between the two and how each player reacted. so essentially this is one mans words against the others
Last edited:
milo
Jack L. Jones
The report says not on page 54
214. The tests described above (except for credit in relation to unconnected matters) all had some part to play in reaching our decision. This case is not simply about one person's word against another. Whilst there were conflicting accounts of what happened which were presented to us by Mr Evra and Mr Suarez, there was other relevant evidence which we were able to take into account in reaching our decision. This other evidence included video footage of the match; the evidence of others as to what happened during or immediately after the match; documentation in the form of the referee's report which was based on conversations he had immediately after the match; transcripts of interviews with the main protagonists and other witnesses conducted in the course of the FA's investigation before witness statements were prepared for the purpose of this hearing; and the evidence given to us by other witnesses quite apart from Mr Evra and Mr Suarez, including expert witnesses on Spanish language. We reached our decision on the basis of a consideration of the totality of the evidence attaching such weight as we considered appropriate to the different elements of it.
The key thing is that Suarez's account was inconsistent with the other evidence and full of contradictions.
but there is no conclusive evidence over what was said - it's all hearsay and reports from people that didn't hear directly what was said
how can a verdict be reached whereby someone is punished for what it was they are alleged to have said, without conclusive evidence ?
ive read all the witness statements from the Manchester United staff, Liverpool staff and the match officials -
the verdict is being based on the exchange - PE "don't touch me sudamericano" LS - "why is that, Negro?"
which is as offensive from Evra as it is from Suarez
how can a verdict be reached whereby someone is punished for what it was they are alleged to have said, without conclusive evidence ?
ive read all the witness statements from the Manchester United staff, Liverpool staff and the match officials -
the verdict is being based on the exchange - PE "don't touch me sudamericano" LS - "why is that, Negro?"
which is as offensive from Evra as it is from Suarez
Last edited:
look, this isn't about what was said or what wasn't said - it's about what can be proved and i haven't seen enough evidence in that report for them to be able to dish out the punishment that they did.
if Suarez was caught saying what Evra alleged him to say, fine - ban away, he deserves it. but the phrase above (which both parties agreed was said) is as much an insult from Evra as it was from Suarez and i find it ludicrous that one sole party is seen as the offender and punished whilst the other, who also made a negative racial comment gets away without anything being said and is seen as a victim.
reading through that report backs up my stance that Suarez was always going to be found guilty and made an example of
if Suarez was caught saying what Evra alleged him to say, fine - ban away, he deserves it. but the phrase above (which both parties agreed was said) is as much an insult from Evra as it was from Suarez and i find it ludicrous that one sole party is seen as the offender and punished whilst the other, who also made a negative racial comment gets away without anything being said and is seen as a victim.
reading through that report backs up my stance that Suarez was always going to be found guilty and made an example of