Patrice Evra

First topic message reminder :

I'm a Norwich fan so I'm completely unbiased in this whole Suarez/Evra case but I think Evra really doesn't help himself sometimes. I think he is an idiot to be honest. (So is Suarez as well)

I will not go as far as to call Suarez racist but I will say he is very, very STUPID. He has come to England the most forward thinking nation in Europe and acted like a thug who thought he would get away with his actions. It was right he was punished.

Evra has done nothing wrong in this whole incident. He may be guilty of previous nonense but he should not be villified for nothing. Lets put this behind us now and move on because this great nation has done great things in terms of tackling the whole racist abuse issue. We should be proud as countries like Spain, Italy, France and Russia are still in the 1970's with regards to this.

Suarez was right not to shake hands. The handshake's are a joke they shake hand's as some sort of good sportmanship gesture and then most of them spend the whole game trying to cheat in whatever way they can, the handshakes are a hypocritical gesture imo. The hanshakes in both rugby codes are the way it should be done, spend the whole game trying to kill your opponent and then shake his hand after the game and forget about it until the next game. I think both Evra and Suarez are typical of footballers today, both horrible people.

liverpool fan by any chance?

dublfcynwa wrote:Suarez was right not to shake hands. The handshake's are a joke they shake hand's as some sort of good sportmanship gesture and then most of them spend the whole game trying to cheat in whatever way they can, the handshakes are a hypocritical gesture imo. The hanshakes in both rugby codes are the way it should be done, spend the whole game trying to kill your opponent and then shake his hand after the game and forget about it until the next game. I think both Evra and Suarez are typical of footballers today, both horrible people.

Teams followed - LFC.

Shock

johnson2 wrote:

dublfcynwa wrote:Suarez was right not to shake hands. The handshake's are a joke they shake hand's as some sort of good sportmanship gesture and then most of them spend the whole game trying to cheat in whatever way they can, the handshakes are a hypocritical gesture imo. The hanshakes in both rugby codes are the way it should be done, spend the whole game trying to kill your opponent and then shake his hand after the game and forget about it until the next game. I think both Evra and Suarez are typical of footballers today, both horrible people.

Teams followed - LFC.

Shock

You can have a go at who he supports, but I think he's correct, making such an occasion of everything prematch is pointless and hypocritical, players should enter the field of play and kick off within a minute or two, once the match has finished we can then see just how sporting the players are, if they do shake all their opponents hands, or give them the respect they really deserve

ReallyReal wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

dublfcynwa wrote:Suarez was right not to shake hands. The handshake's are a joke they shake hand's as some sort of good sportmanship gesture and then most of them spend the whole game trying to cheat in whatever way they can, the handshakes are a hypocritical gesture imo. The hanshakes in both rugby codes are the way it should be done, spend the whole game trying to kill your opponent and then shake his hand after the game and forget about it until the next game. I think both Evra and Suarez are typical of footballers today, both horrible people.

Teams followed - LFC.

Shock

You can have a go at who he supports, but I think he's correct, making such an occasion of everything prematch is pointless and hypocritical, players should enter the field of play and kick off within a minute or two, once the match has finished we can then see just how sporting the players are, if they do shake all their opponents hands, or give them the respect they really deserve

No, Suarez was wrong not to shake hands. He'd agreed to shake hands according to Daglish and Ian Ayre, the managing director at Liverpool and he was also wrong because it's in the rules that the players shake hands before a game starts.

Atila wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

dublfcynwa wrote:Suarez was right not to shake hands. The handshake's are a joke they shake hand's as some sort of good sportmanship gesture and then most of them spend the whole game trying to cheat in whatever way they can, the handshakes are a hypocritical gesture imo. The hanshakes in both rugby codes are the way it should be done, spend the whole game trying to kill your opponent and then shake his hand after the game and forget about it until the next game. I think both Evra and Suarez are typical of footballers today, both horrible people.

Teams followed - LFC.

Shock

You can have a go at who he supports, but I think he's correct, making such an occasion of everything prematch is pointless and hypocritical, players should enter the field of play and kick off within a minute or two, once the match has finished we can then see just how sporting the players are, if they do shake all their opponents hands, or give them the respect they really deserve

No, Suarez was wrong not to shake hands. He'd agreed to shake hands according to Daglish and Ian Ayre, the managing director at Liverpool and he was also wrong because it's in the rules that the players shake hands before a game starts.

Ha, show's what you know about anything. There are no rules that say you have to shake anyone's anybody's before, during, or after the game. A simple bit of research before you post would have shown you this.

And for the people saying I follow Liverpool, well I did say Suarez was horrible too and I was simply saying that the hanshake's are a joke because most of the players are cheats and they shake hand's before the game in a gesture of sportmanship and then they spend the whole game trying to cheat against the bloke they just shook hand's with in a gesture of sportsmanship.

dublfcynwa wrote:

Atila wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

dublfcynwa wrote:Suarez was right not to shake hands. The handshake's are a joke they shake hand's as some sort of good sportmanship gesture and then most of them spend the whole game trying to cheat in whatever way they can, the handshakes are a hypocritical gesture imo. The hanshakes in both rugby codes are the way it should be done, spend the whole game trying to kill your opponent and then shake his hand after the game and forget about it until the next game. I think both Evra and Suarez are typical of footballers today, both horrible people.

Teams followed - LFC.

Shock

You can have a go at who he supports, but I think he's correct, making such an occasion of everything prematch is pointless and hypocritical, players should enter the field of play and kick off within a minute or two, once the match has finished we can then see just how sporting the players are, if they do shake all their opponents hands, or give them the respect they really deserve

No, Suarez was wrong not to shake hands. He'd agreed to shake hands according to Daglish and Ian Ayre, the managing director at Liverpool and he was also wrong because it's in the rules that the players shake hands before a game starts.

Ha, show's what you know about anything. There are no rules that say you have to shake anyone's anybody's before, during, or after the game. A simple bit of research before you post would have shown you this.

And for the people saying I follow Liverpool, well I did say Suarez was horrible too and I was simply saying that the hanshake's are a joke because most of the players are cheats and they shake hand's before the game in a gesture of sportmanship and then they spend the whole game trying to cheat against the bloke they just shook hand's with in a gesture of sportsmanship.

The shaking of hands before a game is part of the Premier Leagues "Respect Campaign", it's a Premier League rule. Or do you think that they line them up and then players just decide at that moment whether to shake hands or not?

Atila wrote:

dublfcynwa wrote:

Atila wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

dublfcynwa wrote:Suarez was right not to shake hands. The handshake's are a joke they shake hand's as some sort of good sportmanship gesture and then most of them spend the whole game trying to cheat in whatever way they can, the handshakes are a hypocritical gesture imo. The hanshakes in both rugby codes are the way it should be done, spend the whole game trying to kill your opponent and then shake his hand after the game and forget about it until the next game. I think both Evra and Suarez are typical of footballers today, both horrible people.

Teams followed - LFC.

Shock

You can have a go at who he supports, but I think he's correct, making such an occasion of everything prematch is pointless and hypocritical, players should enter the field of play and kick off within a minute or two, once the match has finished we can then see just how sporting the players are, if they do shake all their opponents hands, or give them the respect they really deserve

No, Suarez was wrong not to shake hands. He'd agreed to shake hands according to Daglish and Ian Ayre, the managing director at Liverpool and he was also wrong because it's in the rules that the players shake hands before a game starts.

Ha, show's what you know about anything. There are no rules that say you have to shake anyone's anybody's before, during, or after the game. A simple bit of research before you post would have shown you this.

And for the people saying I follow Liverpool, well I did say Suarez was horrible too and I was simply saying that the hanshake's are a joke because most of the players are cheats and they shake hand's before the game in a gesture of sportmanship and then they spend the whole game trying to cheat against the bloke they just shook hand's with in a gesture of sportsmanship.

The shaking of hands before a game is part of the Premier Leagues "Respect Campaign", it's a Premier League rule. Or do you think that they line them up and then players just decide at that moment whether to shake hands or not?

There is no rule to say you have to shake hand's with anyone. There is no ban in place for anyone that refuse's a handshake if you don't believe me then I will provide a link for you http://www.iol.co.za/sport/soccer/premier-league/fa-must-enforce-handshake-or-drop-it-1.1233165

I love/hate how we have all these brand new things going on in sport that are somehow regarded as historic rituals, well they are regarded as such by kids who aren't old enough and those who are blinkered anyway.

Handshakes before kickoff, even all the hullabaloo surrounding the poppies on shirts to commemorate Armistice Day last year, these sort of things didn't exist even a decade or so ago and if you can remember the 80s, players entered the field and played the game, there was sometimes only 10 minutes between halves and at the end, some players shook each others hands, some just walked off, nobody whinged about 'fair play' and people acted like adults.

Maybe we should remember things honestly and maybe we can learn a few things from the past too, but most importantly, people shouldn't get overexcited about a handshake, or lack thereof, in reality it means bugger all.

ollyrules wrote:I'm a Norwich fan so I'm completely unbiased in this whole Suarez/Evra case but I think Evra really doesn't help himself sometimes. I think he is an idiot to be honest. (So is Suarez as well)

Well he doesn't help himself in the sense that he gets offended when racist language is used towards him. If he was more like Glen Johnson who apparently doesn't mind, Evra would make it much easier for himself but correctly he does not tolerate it.

Suarez along with the Liverpool camp including their fans do not actually view racism or the use of racist language as a problem which is why they will always back Suarez. This is why initially they felt that Evra was making a big deal about nothing and probably still do. In relation to shaking hands, it was good that Suarez could be true to himself, he hates Evra as a person and does not view Evra's race in a positive way.

Dondelero your statement about Liverpool as a whole (players, club, fans) not seeing racism as a problem is borderline hillarious. I'm a Liverpool fan and can't stand racism and have had a fall outs with friends over using racist terms.

As for this whole issue about the hand shake and the celebration after the game, Phil Dowd and The FA have spoken to both players about their future conduct.

When did you speak to Suarez about how he feels about Evra by the way?

dondelero wrote:
Suarez along with the Liverpool camp including their fans do not actually view racism or the use of racist language as a problem which is why they will always back Suarez. This is why initially they felt that Evra was making a big deal about nothing and probably still do. In relation to shaking hands, it was good that Suarez could be true to himself, he hates Evra as a person and does not view Evra's race in a positive way.

Every Liverpool fan I know (quite a lot) says that Suarez probably did deserve a ban, they all also say that the FA are the biggest culprits here, they banned a player on one mans say-so and yet didn't punish the other man simply because one man used a colour when being racist, the other didn't, so IMO they do view racism as a serious issue, they just hate the way the FA have used the Evra/Suarez situation for publicity while ignoring most other cases, the word 'hypocites' tends to be used a lot.
They do agree that Suarez should have shaken Evras hand though, but only because he said he would, most agree the whole handshaking thing before kickoff is pointless and if given a choice, there are a plenty of players who they'd never shake hands with as they simply don't like them and they themselves would be hypocrites for doing so.

hampo171 wrote:Dondelero your statement about Liverpool as a whole (players, club, fans) not seeing racism as a problem is borderline hillarious. I'm a Liverpool fan and can't stand racism and have had a fall outs with friends over using racist terms.

As for this whole issue about the hand shake and the celebration after the game, Phil Dowd and The FA have spoken to both players about their future conduct.

When did you speak to Suarez about how he feels about Evra by the way?

Hampo be fair, as you know from the very start of this whole episode Liverpool along with their fans have maintained that Suarez has done NOTHING wrong, which is why the fans went as far as getting tshirts to show how they felt. Suarez interstingly said that he uses racist language towards Glen Johnson ALL THE TIME and apparently he accepts it so it is obvious that the use of racist language is NOT an issue for him and btw it is not necessary to speak to Suarez about Evra as his actions confirmed what he thinks. Maybe you personally feel diffrently but in general from manager to fans it is evident that they do not view the use of racist language as a problem, if they did they would NOT back Suarez.

ReallyReal wrote:

dondelero wrote:
Suarez along with the Liverpool camp including their fans do not actually view racism or the use of racist language as a problem which is why they will always back Suarez. This is why initially they felt that Evra was making a big deal about nothing and probably still do. In relation to shaking hands, it was good that Suarez could be true to himself, he hates Evra as a person and does not view Evra's race in a positive way.

Every Liverpool fan I know (quite a lot) says that Suarez probably did deserve a ban, they all also say that the FA are the biggest culprits here, they banned a player on one mans say-so and yet didn't punish the other man simply because one man used a colour when being racist, the other didn't, so IMO they do view racism as a serious issue, they just hate the way the FA have used the Evra/Suarez situation for publicity while ignoring most other cases, the word 'hypocites' tends to be used a lot.
They do agree that Suarez should have shaken Evras hand though, but only because he said he would, most agree the whole handshaking thing before kickoff is pointless and if given a choice, there are a plenty of players who they'd never shake hands with as they simply don't like them and they themselves would be hypocrites for doing so.

Liverpool fans saying Suarez DESERVED the ban? Are you sure they were Livepool fans? You have hit the nail on the head however, in relation why the fans aren't that bothered about the language, because they don't think the fact that Suarez alluded to Evra's colour is significant, but it is obvious that Suarez would only have alluded to Evra's colour in abusive terms, which is why the FA found him guilty.

It is agreed though that the shaking hands thing should probably be scrapped, but in fairness to Suarez it didn't really matter, he was never gonna shake Evra's hand in any case.

dondelero wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:

dondelero wrote:
Suarez along with the Liverpool camp including their fans do not actually view racism or the use of racist language as a problem which is why they will always back Suarez. This is why initially they felt that Evra was making a big deal about nothing and probably still do. In relation to shaking hands, it was good that Suarez could be true to himself, he hates Evra as a person and does not view Evra's race in a positive way.

Every Liverpool fan I know (quite a lot) says that Suarez probably did deserve a ban, they all also say that the FA are the biggest culprits here, they banned a player on one mans say-so and yet didn't punish the other man simply because one man used a colour when being racist, the other didn't, so IMO they do view racism as a serious issue, they just hate the way the FA have used the Evra/Suarez situation for publicity while ignoring most other cases, the word 'hypocites' tends to be used a lot.
They do agree that Suarez should have shaken Evras hand though, but only because he said he would, most agree the whole handshaking thing before kickoff is pointless and if given a choice, there are a plenty of players who they'd never shake hands with as they simply don't like them and they themselves would be hypocrites for doing so.

Liverpool fans saying Suarez DESERVED the ban? Are you sure they were Livepool fans? You have hit the nail on the head however, in relation why the fans aren't that bothered about the language, because they don't think the fact that Suarez alluded to Evra's colour is significant, but it is obvious that Suarez would only have alluded to Evra's colour in abusive terms, which is why the FA found him guilty.

It is agreed though that the shaking hands thing should probably be scrapped, but in fairness to Suarez it didn't really matter, he was never gonna shake Evra's hand in any case.

There were all Liverpool fans, but you seem to have got the wrong end of what I said, the fans ARE bothered about the language, they just don't see any difference between racism/abusive language that contains any colour and the same sort of abuse when no colour is mentioned, it's just as offensive, even if the FA doesn't see it that way.

ReallyReal wrote:

dondelero wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:

dondelero wrote:
Suarez along with the Liverpool camp including their fans do not actually view racism or the use of racist language as a problem which is why they will always back Suarez. This is why initially they felt that Evra was making a big deal about nothing and probably still do. In relation to shaking hands, it was good that Suarez could be true to himself, he hates Evra as a person and does not view Evra's race in a positive way.

Every Liverpool fan I know (quite a lot) says that Suarez probably did deserve a ban, they all also say that the FA are the biggest culprits here, they banned a player on one mans say-so and yet didn't punish the other man simply because one man used a colour when being racist, the other didn't, so IMO they do view racism as a serious issue, they just hate the way the FA have used the Evra/Suarez situation for publicity while ignoring most other cases, the word 'hypocites' tends to be used a lot.
They do agree that Suarez should have shaken Evras hand though, but only because he said he would, most agree the whole handshaking thing before kickoff is pointless and if given a choice, there are a plenty of players who they'd never shake hands with as they simply don't like them and they themselves would be hypocrites for doing so.

Liverpool fans saying Suarez DESERVED the ban? Are you sure they were Livepool fans? You have hit the nail on the head however, in relation why the fans aren't that bothered about the language, because they don't think the fact that Suarez alluded to Evra's colour is significant, but it is obvious that Suarez would only have alluded to Evra's colour in abusive terms, which is why the FA found him guilty.

It is agreed though that the shaking hands thing should probably be scrapped, but in fairness to Suarez it didn't really matter, he was never gonna shake Evra's hand in any case.

There were all Liverpool fans, but you seem to have got the wrong end of what I said, the fans ARE bothered about the language, they just don't see any difference between racism/abusive language that contains any colour and the same sort of abuse when no colour is mentioned, it's just as offensive, even if the FA doesn't see it that way.

Therein lies the problem. When there is mention of someones colour its a completely different ball game so to speak. In most ground fans can use the most abusive language which they do, but as soon as race is mentioned, they could be thrown out and even arrested. It maybe not the same at Anfield but there is a clear difference (apart from if you are like Glen Johnson) between abusing someone using their colour as a basis, and anything else.

ReallyReal wrote:

dondelero wrote:
Suarez along with the Liverpool camp including their fans do not actually view racism or the use of racist language as a problem which is why they will always back Suarez. This is why initially they felt that Evra was making a big deal about nothing and probably still do. In relation to shaking hands, it was good that Suarez could be true to himself, he hates Evra as a person and does not view Evra's race in a positive way.

Every Liverpool fan I know (quite a lot) says that Suarez probably did deserve a ban, they all also say that the FA are the biggest culprits here, they banned a player on one mans say-so and yet didn't punish the other man simply because one man used a colour when being racist, the other didn't, so IMO they do view racism as a serious issue, they just hate the way the FA have used the Evra/Suarez situation for publicity while ignoring most other cases, the word 'hypocites' tends to be used a lot.
They do agree that Suarez should have shaken Evras hand though, but only because he said he would, most agree the whole handshaking thing before kickoff is pointless and if given a choice, there are a plenty of players who they'd never shake hands with as they simply don't like them and they themselves would be hypocrites for doing so.

Suarez wasnt banned because Evra said he abused him, in the first few pages of their report the FA lay out their decision. They said Evra presented his case in a good and fair manner including stating he didnt believe Suarez was a racist wereas Suarez gave 3 different accounts on what happened and this happened after evidence was presented contradicting his previous testimony. Having not read the full 115 pages I have been told that Suarezs assertion that the word is regularly used in Uraguay or more specifically where he grew up was contradicted by a linguistics expert, this last bit came from a journalist in the last few days so how much of it is true I dont know.

Luis Suarez may have been intended to wind Evra up but he brought his race into it and on more than one occasion, Evra readily admitted to saying something like he was going to kick him home to South America or a dirty South American something which isnt right but not only might it not fall under the anti racism laws it was complained about so the FA annot take action

You keep using the fact Glenn Johnson as the example, if reports are too be believed it is a common term used amoungst the United team mates towards Evra as well.

I do think Suarez was being abusive with the way he used it towards Evra, however the way he uses the world Negrito towards Johnson will be 100% different. The Uruguay national team have a striker who's nickname is Monkey, that would be deemed racist if shouted at someone but not in the case of his team mates.

dondelero wrote:Therein lies the problem. When there is mention of someones colour its a completely different ball game so to speak. In most ground fans can use the most abusive language which they do, but as soon as race is mentioned, they could be thrown out and even arrested. It maybe not the same at Anfield but there is a clear difference (apart from if you are like Glen Johnson) between abusing someone using their colour as a basis, and anything else.

I disagree 100% with this, abusive language is just as bad whether you use a colour in the abuse or not, even if the law says differently.
To use a simple example, I could string together 20 or so bitingly caustic words to deliberately upset someone, yet would be highly unlikely to face any punishment from the police, yet if I just call someone a (insert colour here) idiot, in your eyes and those of the law, I've been racist and deserve severe punishment, where is the balance of justice there?

+ what exactly do you have against Liverpool, Anfield and Johnson, it seems like a bit of a witch hunt to me

This is the problem as mentioned before, if a teamate thinks it is necessary to refer to someone's colour when they are addressing them, this can never be acceptable and is different from being nicknamed Monkey as it is hoped they are not referring to his colour. The fact that people in general view using this word in the same way as a nickname, this is why people like Suarez are backed up as it is believed he has done nothing wrong.

It is unlikely that Evra's teamates would refer to his colour when addressing him, if they did and he accepted it, he would be on very dodgy ground.

According to reports Don they use the word Negrito which is what Suarez said.

ReallyReal wrote:

dondelero wrote:Therein lies the problem. When there is mention of someones colour its a completely different ball game so to speak. In most ground fans can use the most abusive language which they do, but as soon as race is mentioned, they could be thrown out and even arrested. It maybe not the same at Anfield but there is a clear difference (apart from if you are like Glen Johnson) between abusing someone using their colour as a basis, and anything else.

I disagree 100% with this, abusive language is just as bad whether you use a colour in the abuse or not, even if the law says differently.
To use a simple example, I could string together 20 or so bitingly caustic words to deliberately upset someone, yet would be highly unlikely to face any punishment from the police, yet if I just call someone a (insert colour here) idiot, in your eyes and those of the law, I've been racist and deserve severe punishment, where is the balance of justice there?

+ what exactly do you have against Liverpool, Anfield and Johnson, it seems like a bit of a witch hunt to me

Well it is this reasoning as to why it is percieved that Liverpool and their fans condone the usage of racist language. In fact with your reasoning racist language doesn't actually exist, which is why the majority of Liverpool fans appear to be backing up Suarez.

hampo171 wrote:According to reports Don they use the word Negrito which is what Suarez said.

Not seen any report where Evra has confirmed that his team mates use this language towards him and he accepts it.

Why would any of Evras teammates call him it?

If its a S. American thing there is only Valencia who is a Spanish speaking South American so cant see how all his team mates call him it

dondelero wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:

dondelero wrote:Therein lies the problem. When there is mention of someones colour its a completely different ball game so to speak. In most ground fans can use the most abusive language which they do, but as soon as race is mentioned, they could be thrown out and even arrested. It maybe not the same at Anfield but there is a clear difference (apart from if you are like Glen Johnson) between abusing someone using their colour as a basis, and anything else.

I disagree 100% with this, abusive language is just as bad whether you use a colour in the abuse or not, even if the law says differently.
To use a simple example, I could string together 20 or so bitingly caustic words to deliberately upset someone, yet would be highly unlikely to face any punishment from the police, yet if I just call someone a (insert colour here) idiot, in your eyes and those of the law, I've been racist and deserve severe punishment, where is the balance of justice there?

+ what exactly do you have against Liverpool, Anfield and Johnson, it seems like a bit of a witch hunt to me

Well it is this reasoning as to why it is percieved that Liverpool and their fans condone the usage of racist language. In fact with your reasoning racist language doesn't actually exist, which is why the majority of Liverpool fans appear to be backing up Suarez.

That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying (try reading my comments before replying to them ) , I'm saying that racism (or any abuse for that matter) is wrong on all levels, but simply using a colour doesn't make the abuse worse, you are just as abusive without using words like, black, yellow green etc. as you are when you do use them and notice that I added green, because these words aren't the problem, the problem with all words, spoken or written, is NOT the words themselves, it's the context and tone they are used in that makes them abusive.

ReallyReal wrote:

dondelero wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:

dondelero wrote:Therein lies the problem. When there is mention of someones colour its a completely different ball game so to speak. In most ground fans can use the most abusive language which they do, but as soon as race is mentioned, they could be thrown out and even arrested. It maybe not the same at Anfield but there is a clear difference (apart from if you are like Glen Johnson) between abusing someone using their colour as a basis, and anything else.

I disagree 100% with this, abusive language is just as bad whether you use a colour in the abuse or not, even if the law says differently.
To use a simple example, I could string together 20 or so bitingly caustic words to deliberately upset someone, yet would be highly unlikely to face any punishment from the police, yet if I just call someone a (insert colour here) idiot, in your eyes and those of the law, I've been racist and deserve severe punishment, where is the balance of justice there?

+ what exactly do you have against Liverpool, Anfield and Johnson, it seems like a bit of a witch hunt to me

Well it is this reasoning as to why it is percieved that Liverpool and their fans condone the usage of racist language. In fact with your reasoning racist language doesn't actually exist, which is why the majority of Liverpool fans appear to be backing up Suarez.

That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying (try reading my comments before replying to them ) , I'm saying that racism (or any abuse for that matter) is wrong on all levels, but simply using a colour doesn't make the abuse worse, you are just as abusive without using words like, black, yellow green etc. as you are when you do use them and notice that I added green, because these words aren't the problem, the problem with all words, spoken or written, is NOT the words themselves, it's the context and tone they are used in that makes them abusive.

Your bang on there about context but sadly some people will never understand. The bottom line is nobody know's if what Suarez said was meant in a racial manner even the f.a in their disgraceful book of evidence said the Suarez was being banned because in all "probability" what he said was meant in a racial manner.

"
Your bang on there about context but sadly some people will never
understand. The bottom line is nobody know's if what Suarez said was
meant in a racial manner even the f.a in their disgraceful book of
evidence said the Suarez was being banned because in all "probability"
what he said was meant in a racial manner."

not really about context- more about understanding what you can say and what you cant - especially when you are in a PC country in an international league- ignorance isnt an excuse.

however it doesnt mean he is an evil person, just possibly at best put his foot in it, at worst meant it- most footballers are ignorant, however when in rome and all that!

Don't see the need to add colour to abuse and it does make it far worse, there is no excusable reason for doing it.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Don't see the need to add colour to abuse and it does make it far worse, there is no excusable reason for doing it.

But Evra was the first one to bring race into the argument, according to the f.a's evidence he called Suarez a dirty South american and also insulted his family before Suarez even opened his mouth, so why was'nt he done for racism?

because xenobhobia isnt racism, its like a scot on the pitch saying you sissy englishman, or a englishman calling a scot a flithy scot.

i understand it shouldnt make any odds, and it doesnt to me- but colour/racism is the problem seem by the PC police

mystiroakey wrote:"
Your bang on there about context but sadly some people will never
understand. The bottom line is nobody know's if what Suarez said was
meant in a racial manner even the f.a in their disgraceful book of
evidence said the Suarez was being banned because in all "probability"
what he said was meant in a racial manner."

not really about context- more about understanding what you can say and what you cant - especially when you are in a PC country in an international league- ignorance isnt an excuse.

however it doesnt mean he is an evil person, just possibly at best put his foot in it, at worst meant it- most footballers are ignorant, however when in rome and all that!

I agree he was wrong, ignorant or whatever else but not racist. The most famous footballing figure in Urugauys history is known as El Bolo negro which means the black boss so the word is not offensive it's actually a term used among friend's, not excusing him he was stupid to say what he did in another country but the fa were also ignorant for not showing some common sense on the issue and it's funny the way Stuart Pearces case was swept under the carpet at the time because racism was'nt the hot topic at that paticular time.

it sort of winds me up when people excuse forign players of ignorance and in the next breath have a pop at a british player for a different type of wrong behaviour or ignoarnce, and call them a brainless chav!

its how they have been brought up!

but its still ignorance all the same!

when stuart pearce did what he did, all our fathers did as well, and its no different from the way uraguians act today!

they may be the same as us in 20 years time.

however when you come to a country to earn your crust, you must try and respect how they do things!

English people abroad get alot of stick for acting the way they would at home in another country and they deserve the stick, however most of us try to respect the country we are in, players like sureaz should at least respect the league, the country even if they cant respect the player!

basically he did what he did, heat of the moment, ignorance , whatever.

he should have apoligised straight away, not used excuses thats its
normal in his home country, he must have been breifed or explained to
thats its not in this country. and anyone that works or goes on holiday
in another country should try and act in a civilised way in regards to
there culture!

ReallyReal wrote:

dondelero wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:

dondelero wrote:Therein lies the problem. When there is mention of someones colour its a completely different ball game so to speak. In most ground fans can use the most abusive language which they do, but as soon as race is mentioned, they could be thrown out and even arrested. It maybe not the same at Anfield but there is a clear difference (apart from if you are like Glen Johnson) between abusing someone using their colour as a basis, and anything else.

I disagree 100% with this, abusive language is just as bad whether you use a colour in the abuse or not, even if the law says differently.
To use a simple example, I could string together 20 or so bitingly caustic words to deliberately upset someone, yet would be highly unlikely to face any punishment from the police, yet if I just call someone a (insert colour here) idiot, in your eyes and those of the law, I've been racist and deserve severe punishment, where is the balance of justice there?

+ what exactly do you have against Liverpool, Anfield and Johnson, it seems like a bit of a witch hunt to me

Well it is this reasoning as to why it is percieved that Liverpool and their fans condone the usage of racist language. In fact with your reasoning racist language doesn't actually exist, which is why the majority of Liverpool fans appear to be backing up Suarez.

That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying (try reading my comments before replying to them ) , I'm saying that racism (or any abuse for that matter) is wrong on all levels, but simply using a colour doesn't make the abuse worse, you are just as abusive without using words like, black, yellow green etc. as you are when you do use them and notice that I added green, because these words aren't the problem, the problem with all words, spoken or written, is NOT the words themselves, it's the context and tone they are used in that makes them abusive.

Well as much as this is what you may think, thankfully the law is diametrically oposed to your view in terms of racist language. Even though any sort of abuse is wrong it is the racist element of the abuse that makes ALL the difference, as mentioned before for this one can be arrested. So yes simply using a colour when abusing someone DOES make it much much worst. It maybe that you are not aware of the effect that racist abuse has on those it is aimed at, this is why you view racist abuse just the same as any other abuse.

dondelero wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:

dondelero wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:

dondelero wrote:Therein lies the problem. When there is mention of someones colour its a completely different ball game so to speak. In most ground fans can use the most abusive language which they do, but as soon as race is mentioned, they could be thrown out and even arrested. It maybe not the same at Anfield but there is a clear difference (apart from if you are like Glen Johnson) between abusing someone using their colour as a basis, and anything else.

I disagree 100% with this, abusive language is just as bad whether you use a colour in the abuse or not, even if the law says differently.
To use a simple example, I could string together 20 or so bitingly caustic words to deliberately upset someone, yet would be highly unlikely to face any punishment from the police, yet if I just call someone a (insert colour here) idiot, in your eyes and those of the law, I've been racist and deserve severe punishment, where is the balance of justice there?

+ what exactly do you have against Liverpool, Anfield and Johnson, it seems like a bit of a witch hunt to me

Well it is this reasoning as to why it is percieved that Liverpool and their fans condone the usage of racist language. In fact with your reasoning racist language doesn't actually exist, which is why the majority of Liverpool fans appear to be backing up Suarez.

That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying (try reading my comments before replying to them ) , I'm saying that racism (or any abuse for that matter) is wrong on all levels, but simply using a colour doesn't make the abuse worse, you are just as abusive without using words like, black, yellow green etc. as you are when you do use them and notice that I added green, because these words aren't the problem, the problem with all words, spoken or written, is NOT the words themselves, it's the context and tone they are used in that makes them abusive.

Well as much as this is what you may think, thankfully the law is diametrically oposed to your view in terms of racist language. Even though any sort of abuse is wrong it is the racist element of the abuse that makes ALL the difference, as mentioned before for this one can be arrested. So yes simply using a colour when abusing someone DOES make it much much worst. It maybe that you are not aware of the effect that racist abuse has on those it is aimed at, this is why you view racist abuse just the same as any other abuse.

Colour does NOT equal race and race does NOT equal colour, even if there are different skin tones and it's about time people realised this, the worst racist atrocities over the last 30 or so years were perpetrated by people against people of the same colour, but they were still different races.

These days its simple- its like a religion all this pc stuff- its not about understanding it, its about learning it parrot fashion- dont say black when you refer to a black man, dont say the n word if your not black, dont say you have black mates. dont say that its ok to call someone a whatever were you come from.

if something after comes back on you- just apoligise, and dont make any excuses. just nip it in the bud as soon as possible

There is nothing wrong what so ever in using the word black to describe someone, as long as the context of it is not in any way shape or form of a disparaging nature

describing is very different from addressing someone as black. big difference gaffer.

nothing wrong with saying "the black lad"- if your reffering to him in a group of 4 and he is the only balck fella. nothing wrong with saying "your skin is black", but saying "you black prat" isnt good- now you could argue that you could address someone as being black in a non offensive way- lets try it out. "your a lovely black woman"- its patronizing and you have grouped her away from yourself- its as if your saying- your nice for a 'black' person.

Exactly, disparaging!

As long as you're not being derogatory using the word Black is fine

mystiroakey wrote:nothing wrong with saying "the black lad"- if your reffering to him in a group of 4 and he is the only balck fella. nothing wrong with saying "your skin is black.

Not wrong as such but a slightly odd thing to say to someone who has probably noticed what colour his skin is

yeah it would be strange for sure

ReallyReal wrote:
Colour does NOT equal race and race does NOT equal colour, even if there are different skin tones and it's about time people realised this, the worst racist atrocities over the last 30 or so years were perpetrated by people against people of the same colour, but they were still different races.

Well this an idealogical way of looking at race but unfortunately this does not fit in with the system of things. In general one is viewed as part of a particular racial group on the basis of their COLOUR. Suarez and Evra are NOT from the same racial group and obviously are not the same colour, which is why he referred to Evra's race in the first place and he obviously did this in an abusive way. What other reason would he have to refer to Evra's race/colour? does not Evra know what race/colour he is?

dondelero wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:
Colour does NOT equal race and race does NOT equal colour, even if there are different skin tones and it's about time people realised this, the worst racist atrocities over the last 30 or so years were perpetrated by people against people of the same colour, but they were still different races.

Well this an idealogical way of looking at race but unfortunately this does not fit in with the system of things. In general one is viewed as part of a particular racial group on the basis of their COLOUR. Suarez and Evra are NOT from the same racial group and obviously are not the same colour, which is why he referred to Evra's race in the first place and he obviously did this in an abusive way. What other reason would he have to refer to Evra's race/colour? does not Evra know what race/colour he is?

Well he was born in Senegal but play's for France so you could argue that he does'nt know what race/colour he is

dublfcynwa wrote:

dondelero wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:
Colour does NOT equal race and race does NOT equal colour, even if there are different skin tones and it's about time people realised this, the worst racist atrocities over the last 30 or so years were perpetrated by people against people of the same colour, but they were still different races.

Well this an idealogical way of looking at race but unfortunately this does not fit in with the system of things. In general one is viewed as part of a particular racial group on the basis of their COLOUR. Suarez and Evra are NOT from the same racial group and obviously are not the same colour, which is why he referred to Evra's race in the first place and he obviously did this in an abusive way. What other reason would he have to refer to Evra's race/colour? does not Evra know what race/colour he is?

Well he was born in Senegal but play's for France so you could argue that he does'nt know what race/colour he is

Very drole but it doesn't change his skin colour does it?

Being french or Senegalese isn't a race, he is regardless of nationality african much like Suarez is Caucasian.

much like Suarez is Caucasian.

He's Hispanic. Or mixed.

Hispanic is a sub race of Caucasian.

There are only 3 main races; Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasian.