Fighting Weight Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 If he was an average guy from uruguay in UK and he called a brown person negro in his work place it wouldnt be accepted, if he was an average guy from uruguay in UK and he addressed brown folk on road as negro it wouldnt be accepted and he'd likely take a lick, dont care if its a term of endearment in uruguay, ur not in uruguay and ur not talking to uruguayans. Just smh @ flojo defending "hey, black" etc, If Evra had spoke to him in English I'd agree but he didn't, he came up to Suarez and initiated a conversation in Spanish. This incident has really brought out the Daily Mail mentality in so many ethnics, you couldn't make this sh*t up really. On the contrary, ur coming off more as a daily mail reader with this whole talk of being part of his culture etc basically like brits who go abroad and moan cos chips arent on the menu and refuse to say a word in their language, if ur in a next country u adopt their customs, in this country we dont accept the term negro as endearment so just stick to using it in uruguay or with uruguayans who find it acceptable. Ahaha I assume if someone initiates a conversation with you in Arabic you reply in English seen as you're in England? He didn't start the conversation, Evra came up to him and said '"Concha de tu hermana' which translates as 'your sister's c*nt' was he adopting the English culture then? After his sister was called a c*nt, did Soowarez refer to Evra as a negro in a friendly, or an offensive manner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojo Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 If he was an average guy from uruguay in UK and he called a brown person negro in his work place it wouldnt be accepted, if he was an average guy from uruguay in UK and he addressed brown folk on road as negro it wouldnt be accepted and he'd likely take a lick, dont care if its a term of endearment in uruguay, ur not in uruguay and ur not talking to uruguayans. Just smh @ flojo defending "hey, black" etc, If Evra had spoke to him in English I'd agree but he didn't, he came up to Suarez and initiated a conversation in Spanish. This incident has really brought out the Daily Mail mentality in so many ethnics, you couldn't make this sh*t up really. On the contrary, ur coming off more as a daily mail reader with this whole talk of being part of his culture etc basically like brits who go abroad and moan cos chips arent on the menu and refuse to say a word in their language, if ur in a next country u adopt their customs, in this country we dont accept the term negro as endearment so just stick to using it in uruguay or with uruguayans who find it acceptable. Ahaha I assume if someone initiates a conversation with you in Arabic you reply in English seen as you're in England? He didn't start the conversation, Evra came up to him and said '"Concha de tu hermana' which translates as 'your sister's c*nt' was he adopting the English culture then? After his sister was called a c*nt, did Soowarez refer to Evra as a negro in a friendly, or an offensive manner Suarez didn't hear it, Evra admitted to it in the report though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black. Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black. Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Why are people going back and forth with fojo, we can clearly see the guy is confused. Fojo reminds me of carlton in that episode of fresh prince where they get stopped by the feds, leave him let him live in his bubble. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TF S4DK Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 I think if it was Murks, nobody would care, but Flojo had previously seemed a sensible guy, but love is blind. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojo Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 What have I said that isn't sensible? I aren't lying, I actually read the report rather than listening to the opinions of some 2 bit journalists and taking their word for gospel. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TF S4DK Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Your argument has been unbalanced throughout and I dont think you have ever even criticised either Suarez, your manager, or your club, and thats laughable tbh, very. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANTA Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Fojo reminds me of carlton in that episode of fresh prince where they get stopped by the feds, leave him let him live in his bubble. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojo Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 I've criticised the club repeatedly and I think the people who've been arguing with me bar Kompressor have been unbalanced in their opinions. When it first came out I heard on another forum what was said, I said I thought it was a misunderstanding and that the term wasn't necessarily offensive. People on here said I was chatting sh*t. I said there was no video evidence. People said I was chatting sh*t. People said the FA wouldn't have found him guilty without hard evidence. They did. I said they'd use it to push their agenda on how racism in football should be dealt with by FIFA. I think Peter Taylor making a comparison between this and the Stephen Lawrence case is proof of that. The fact is that most of you had made up your mind as soon as Evra reported it and had no interest in actually hearing what happened, people were calling him a racist before the investigation and haven't even bothered to read the report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANTA Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin King Louie Jr Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Look at this c*nt thinking he is Marcus Garvey, i bet he has a white wife that calls him nigger everyday. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin King Louie Jr Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 suarez is a new player to your club not a life long member i am really not getting your loyalty to him over someone the same colour as you the black man has suffered for centuries because of his skin colour flojo you are a coon you probably live in liverpool with your white mates just drop it you have shown what kind of man you are in the thread How is he a coon for talking the truth? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin King Louie Jr Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Why are people going back and forth with fojo, we can clearly see the guy is confused. Fojo reminds me of carlton in that episode of fresh prince where they get stopped by the feds, leave him let him live in his bubble. Man ain't a coon for trying to be objective, what he said was right, it was Suarez word against Evras and based on the little evidence they had he shouldn't have been charged simple as, but i don't expect these FA cunts to care, Britain is a country that thrives on trying to prove to everyone they are not racist when in realty they are but just more cunning with it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benicio del Toney Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 I think it's fair to say your mind has been made up and regardless of what the evidence does or doesn't reveal you feel Suarez is guilty. Yes, but the same could be said for you aswell though. Either way I am still approaching this rationally. My argument was how could Suarez have known about the video evidence before the FA looked into the case? How would he have access to that type of info, he didn't go to the control room after the game and examine all the cctv footage did he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greens Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Maybe because he knew he only said it once so video evidence could not prove Evra's claims of saying it 10 times (or was it 5, no wait 7). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benicio del Toney Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 If the video had caught him the one time it could have been proved what exactly was said, shame it didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TF S4DK Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Q Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Flo, you're still arguing in this? Brah, it's done - let it go. Nobody in here read the 115 pages and hardly anyone in the country will care about it in 3 months. I mean look at Ollie Holt BRITISH MAN here for 30 odd years, crusader against Suarez asking whether calling someone a 'black c*nt' is actually racist. The hypocrisy is beyond belief. He's taken his ban and everyone has had their kick, he was wrong to whatever extent he was wrong. The phoney outrage is laughable, but that's the society we live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojo Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 I know you're right Q but the more I read the more it pisses me off, it was a bait stitch up by the FA and they were determined to use Suarez as a scapegoat at all costs. Imagine this is what the FA deem a fair investigation, absolutely laughable. Dalglish, speaking in the aftermath of the defeat at the Etihad Stadium to Manchester City on Tuesday, claimed: "There's a lot of things we'd like to say and a lot we could say but we would only get ourselves in trouble." He also referred to evidence submitted at the four-day hearing in December that was "not in the report and that's important for us". That is believed to refer to Liverpool's contention that Evra was guided through his witness statements by the FA while being allowed to watch footage of his confrontation with Suárez. The United defender did not, for example, recall being pinched by Suárez until after a review of the incident and that action formed a large part of the case against the Uruguayan. The Liverpool striker's request to study the same footage while submitting his statement, his club alleges, was refused. Suárez was subsequently described as giving "unreliable" and "inconsistent" evidence by the commission while Evra changed his initial allegation of being labelled a "nigger" by Suárez 10 times, and was deemed a credible witness. And this you couldn't even make up if you tried The FA boss who sent a racist email to his friends is still working for English football's governing body. Peter Brown forwarded the offensive gag from his business account in September, just hours before Bulgarian fans hurled racist abuse at black England players. He was due to retire at the end of last month, but he is still at the Bedfordshire FA to ensure a “smooth handover” to his successor, Keith Stroud. Mr Brown, 65, had made a public apology and offered to quit during an investigation. But FA bosses, who recently banned Liverpool’s Luis Suarez for eight games following racist comments, took no action against the chief executive. A source said: “It’s as though grassroots football has little appetite to confront racism, which is shameful.” Bedfordshire FA chairman Richard Robinson said: “Peter will commence his delayed retirement later in 2012.” 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kompressor Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 To expect the FA to carry out a proper investigation us riddiculous, as they are inept. Olliver Holt the cretinous c*nt will defend His mate John Terry as JT kindly put some money in his pocket by way of letting him Ghost write his autobiography, And let's face it, being called a Black c*nt isn't actually racist is it? Oliver Holt afterall asked another black pro, if being called a black c*nt was racist, and the pro said no, so that's his arguement t in defence of JT, whether he said it or not, there should be no case to answer as another black player said it isn't racist, JT says he's not a racist and whatever he said wasn't meant in a racist way, Hmmm, Strange case if deja vu coming on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kompressor Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Of course there's hypocrisy in the british media and within the FA, and of course Suarez has been made a scapegoat. However I'd argue anyone found guilty of using racist language phrases or those deemed to be racist should be made example of. Would the FA be making such a fuss if it wasn't for Sepp Blatter, probably not, but that just highlights their ineptness, Abd that would've been wrong too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojo Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Of course there's hypocrisy in the british media and within the FA, and of course Suarez has been made a scapegoat. However I'd argue anyone found guilty of using racist language phrases or those deemed to be racist should be made example of. Would the FA be making such a fuss if it wasn't for Sepp Blatter, probably not, but that just highlights their ineptness, Abd that would've been wrong too. You'd argue that someone found guilty in an investigation that was conducted by an 'inept' organisation should be made an example of? At the very least he deserved a fair hearing and he didn't even get that, they were determined to find him guilty to push their agenda and stitched him up accordingly. / Also a little theory I have regarding the emphasis the FA put on Suarez using the word 5, 10, 7 times. They decided that his ban should correlate with how many times they decided he said it which in the event John Terry is found guilty gives them basis for only giving him a 1 game ban because he only screamed 'you black f*ck*ng c*nt' once. Quite clever really. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kompressor Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 I didn't say the ban was fair, as I don't think it was, However your club your player and the reaction of said club and player made things a he'll of a lot worse. The FA would've loved for the two clubs to sort it out with a few words then the FA would only have to issue a ban which would've represented the the shady area of the whole thing. On the making example of someone thing, these sort of cases need to be nipped in the bud, Ferdinand's 8month ban was another case of being made an example of, as once he realised he returned and did the test and was clean, less than 24 hours later. But everyone understood why it was necessary for him to be made a example out off, The FA had to come out if this looking like they have taken the case seriously. If they had given a 2 or 3 game ban, then that wouldn't if really been a detterent to anyone thinking of issuing a bit of racist abuse. Think from the point of view from the FA, I've done my best to be empathetic to all sides, If you really don't understand why the FA had to take a really hardline here then boy, And as I've said before, let's assume Evra's lied from start from to finish by Suarez's own version if events a ban was going to be issued, The only question was going to be how long the ban was, and as it's a high profile thing and with all the Sepp Blatter, FIFA Vs the FA thing, the ban was always going to be exaggerated. And everyone can see why, In short this ban had to set a precedent in how the FA deal with these sort of cases and what the general punishment for this kind of thing is, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojo Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 You keep bringing up the reaction as if that somehow makes what actually happened less significant in whether or not he should have been given a fair hearing and ultimately punished. If I am charged of a crime and act like a c*nt it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not I was guilty of the crime. If it's a fair trial you look at the facts and evidence you have in front of you and make a judgement based on that not whether or not i acted like a c*nt afterwards. This wasn't a hearing to determine whether or not Liverpool FC acted with class in response to the incident, it was a hearing to determine whether or not Suarez racially abused Patrice Evra and the evidence or lack of it should have resulted in a not guilty verdict. The FA rules state that references to colour, heritage, religious belief and nationality are against the rules and that's fair enough. The problem is that the linguistic expert determined that it isn't a term reserved for black people but let's ignore that and say he did refer to his skin colour and even dismiss the context of it. How can Suarez be banned for referring to Evra's skin colour but Evra isn't banned for referring to Suarez' south american heritage when they come under the same rule? I'm unable to be objective and see things from the point of the FA so could you tell me how that makes sense please. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n/a Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts