Suarez found guilty of Racism by FA

First topic message reminder :

The Football Association says it will investigate claims from Manchester United defender Patrice Evra that he was racially abused by Liverpool forward Luis Suarez.

Evra says the incident occurred in Saturday's 1-1 draw between the teams.

A Liverpool spokesman said Suarez "categorically denied" the allegation.

An FA statement read: "Referee Andre Marriner was made aware of an allegation at the end of the fixture and has reported this to the FA."

It added: "The FA will now begin making enquiries into the matter."

Evra was quoted as telling French TV station Canal Plus: "There are cameras, you can see him [Suarez] say a certain word to me at least 10 times."

Source: BBC Sport Football

dondelero wrote:

jro786 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:I will say Suarez is probably guilty of using a word in a racist way but isn't a racist.
If there is tv footage that shows him using that word more than once I will change my mind though and won't want him at Liverpool

How many times would Suraez have had to use racist lanaguage to be deemed as a racist in your view? For eg if he had used it twice should he then be viewed as racist?

i support the club on this matter, he was harshly treated and he is taking the suspension as someone who has done nothing wrong, i respect him and the club on this matter although it was dragged like dirty laundry, i still think he is innocent

Really?

It appears that you along with the other Suarez sympathisers are unwilling to accept that even though he himself admits he used racist language at least ONCE, it is this admission as to why he is guilty and indicates that he has a negative view of people of colour. The main point that you are all making is that if someone uses racist language on a regular basis(Suarez admits referring to Johnson using racist language all the time) it does not mean that they are racist. So the question is how should a person of colour view such a person if not as a racist?

Well?? Braveheart, jro786, etc?

In the report as well it emerged that that he had used the same term last year in a match v Man City to Toure.

Johnson where have you seen a video of Suarez 'pinching' Evra? I looked on youtube and there are only photos of Suarez touching the back of Evra's head. All other clips/images have been deleted because (according to youtube) they were spam

braveheart101 wrote:Johnson where have you seen a video of Suarez 'pinching' Evra? I looked on youtube and there are only photos of Suarez touching the back of Evra's head. All other clips/images have been deleted because (according to youtube) they were spam

On sky sports. Shows it from about 3/4 angles and it is as clear as day.

Surely someone else has sky and has seen it?

I wonder how the Liverpool fans would be reacting if things were the other way round and someone from United - Hernandez for example - had said the same thing to Glen Johnson?

Would they be saying how it's not racist because as someone new to the country he doesn't realise the meaning of what he's saying? Or would they be calling for him to be fined/banned/locked up?

If a fat man went to another fat man and started abusing him about his weight,wouldn't he look a little bit stupid?

Suarez called evra an Negro and evra got upset,which is correct.....but evra has used similar words to this effect against other people.

It's alright to give but not to take it?

Both as bad as each other.

Bit rich from evra though.

HitmanOwl wrote:If a fat man went to another fat man and started abusing him about his weight,wouldn't he look a little bit stupid?

Suarez called evra an Negro and evra got upset,which is correct.....but evra has used similar words to this effect against other people.

It's alright to give but not to take it?

Both as bad as each other.

Bit rich from evra though.

Where did you hear that Evra used racist lanaguage to Suarez?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html

You always knew the media would find something

Interesting that he feels ok to talk like that, too a camera as well. One rule for one and one for another maybe?

Can’t believe LFC fans are still arguing the toss on this.

Whether LFC think that Suarez is innocent or not the lack of class they’ve shown through this whole affair has been mindboggling.
Dalgleash and co have seemed more interested in turning this into an argument with Manchester Utd and taking a paranoid siege mentality in which all are out to get them, than get to the root of the issue.

The wearing of the shirts in support of Suarez before the verdict was announced seemed naïve to say the least for such a global team.

Seems rather odd that Kenny alluded that he wished he could say more on the matter while saying that they won’t appeal. Whatever ground-breaking evidence his got to prove Suarez’s innocence surely can’t be that strong.

Why is it that everyone on here who think/believe Suarez is guilty have yet to comment on the video which shows Evra using a worse word?

braveheart101 wrote:Why is it that everyone on here who think/believe Suarez is guilty have yet to comment on the video which shows Evra using a worse word?

Can't see the video at work.

Who is he saying that word to?

Because if his not saying it to Suarez it has naff all to do with the current issue.

It may not be something to do with the current issue but the fact he uses the word in reference to Hasslebank is an issue and can't just be dismissed.

hampo171 wrote:It may not be something to do with the current issue but the fact he uses the word in reference to Hasslebank is an issue and can't just be dismissed.

As I said can't see the video at work.

If Evra is saying it to Jimmy Floyd then it's not good.

Doesn't make Suarez any less guilty though or LFC's handling of the situation any less hamfisted.

fernando wrote:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html

You always knew the media would find something

Oh dear the Suarez sympathisers clutching at straws with this. An 8 year old Video??. In any case who can it be said he was being racist towards?

dondelero wrote:

fernando wrote:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html

You always knew the media would find something

Oh dear the Suarez sympathisers clutching at straws with this. An 8 year old Video??. In any case who can it be said he was being racist towards?

1) I have no sympathy for Suarez at all no place for racism in any place so you need think what you say next time before spouting rubbish about me.
2) He called Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink a Motherf***ing N**** it's says in the article which is unacceptable however old it is.

dondelero wrote:

fernando wrote:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html

You always knew the media would find something

Oh dear the Suarez sympathisers clutching at straws with this. An 8 year old Video??. In any case who can it be said he was being racist towards?

I take it you haven't watched the video or you would know who he was being racist towards. Evra uses Hasselbank's name so it is obvious.
As for it being 8 years old does not make the slightest difference, he still used a racist word.

fernando wrote:

dondelero wrote:

fernando wrote:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html

You always knew the media would find something

Oh dear the Suarez sympathisers clutching at straws with this. An 8 year old Video??. In any case who can it be said he was being racist towards?

1) I have no sympathy for Suarez at all no place for racism in any place so you need think what you say next time before spouting rubbish about me.
2) He called Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink a Motherf***ing N**** it's says in the article which is unacceptable however old it is.

Not in the least bit relevant to this case.

This is about Liverpools' shambolic handling of a racism case where they are outwardly being supportive.

braveheart101 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

fernando wrote:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html

You always knew the media would find something

Oh dear the Suarez sympathisers clutching at straws with this. An 8 year old Video??. In any case who can it be said he was being racist towards?

I take it you haven't watched the video or you would know who he was being racist towards. Evra uses Hasselbank's name so it is obvious.
As for it being 8 years old does not make the slightest difference, he still used a racist word.

And therefore Suarez is innocent and King (K) Kenny has acted in an impeccable manner through this whole issue m'lud!!

johnson2 wrote:

fernando wrote:

dondelero wrote:

fernando wrote:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html

You always knew the media would find something

Oh dear the Suarez sympathisers clutching at straws with this. An 8 year old Video??. In any case who can it be said he was being racist towards?

1) I have no sympathy for Suarez at all no place for racism in any place so you need think what you say next time before spouting rubbish about me.
2) He called Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink a Motherf***ing N**** it's says in the article which is unacceptable however old it is.

Not in the least bit relevant to this case.

This is about Liverpools' shambolic handling of a racism case where they are outwardly being supportive.

At what point did i say it was relevant to this case?

I put it up as a reply to this

evra has used similar words to this effect against other people.

to highlight he's point

I think it is relevant seeing as Evra is connected to both incidents.

I never said because Evra used a racist word that makes Suarez innocent. I have said before I accept Suarez used 'negro' once.

I have never said I agree with Kenny Dalglish's actions. The only time I mentioned Kenny was in a quote when he said 'there is evidence that hasn't been included in the report and made public'

braveheart101 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

fernando wrote:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4040822/Patrice-Evra-in-N-word-video-outburst.html

You always knew the media would find something

Oh dear the Suarez sympathisers clutching at straws with this. An 8 year old Video??. In any case who can it be said he was being racist towards?

I take it you haven't watched the video or you would know who he was being racist towards. Evra uses Hasselbank's name so it is obvious.
As for it being 8 years old does not make the slightest difference, he still used a racist word.

Not quite. You will find it is not possible to be racist towards someone of your own race. Deary me. In any case even the SUN explains the context it was used in.

braveheart101 wrote:I think it is relevant seeing as Evra is connected to both incidents.

I never said because Evra used a racist word that makes Suarez innocent. I have said before I accept Suarez used 'negro' once.

I have never said I agree with Kenny Dalglish's actions. The only time I mentioned Kenny was in a quote when he said 'there is evidence that hasn't been included in the report and made public'

Right if you accept this. You also except that Suarez maybe a racist right?

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:I think it is relevant seeing as Evra is connected to both incidents.

I never said because Evra used a racist word that makes Suarez innocent. I have said before I accept Suarez used 'negro' once.

I have never said I agree with Kenny Dalglish's actions. The only time I mentioned Kenny was in a quote when he said 'there is evidence that hasn't been included in the report and made public'

Right if you accept this. You also except that Suarez maybe a racist right?

no i don't agree that suarez is a racist and stand by my word whether you like it or not

jro786 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:I think it is relevant seeing as Evra is connected to both incidents.

I never said because Evra used a racist word that makes Suarez innocent. I have said before I accept Suarez used 'negro' once.

I have never said I agree with Kenny Dalglish's actions. The only time I mentioned Kenny was in a quote when he said 'there is evidence that hasn't been included in the report and made public'

Right if you accept this. You also except that Suarez maybe a racist right?

no i don't agree that suarez is a racist and stand by my word whether you like it or not

So what would make him a racist in your view? You must have a basis for your opinion surely.

If Suarez is then surely evra is!!!!!!!!!!

Both as bad as each other.

dondelero wrote:

jro786 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:I think it is relevant seeing as Evra is connected to both incidents.

I never said because Evra used a racist word that makes Suarez innocent. I have said before I accept Suarez used 'negro' once.

I have never said I agree with Kenny Dalglish's actions. The only time I mentioned Kenny was in a quote when he said 'there is evidence that hasn't been included in the report and made public'

Right if you accept this. You also except that Suarez maybe a racist right?

no i don't agree that suarez is a racist and stand by my word whether you like it or not

So what would make him a racist in your view? You must have a basis for your opinion surely.

that's bias btw

i don't have a bias for any opinion but to judge someone who you don't know is unfair and unjust

no-one is a racist unless he/she commits it daily

understood

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:I think it is relevant seeing as Evra is connected to both incidents.

I never said because Evra used a racist word that makes Suarez innocent. I have said before I accept Suarez used 'negro' once.

I have never said I agree with Kenny Dalglish's actions. The only time I mentioned Kenny was in a quote when he said 'there is evidence that hasn't been included in the report and made public'

Right if you accept this. You also except that Suarez maybe a racist right?

The important word you used is 'maybe' and I'd rather go on facts than ifs buts and maybes so until there is evidence that proves Suarez IS a racist then no I don't accept it.

jro786 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

jro786 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:I think it is relevant seeing as Evra is connected to both incidents.

I never said because Evra used a racist word that makes Suarez innocent. I have said before I accept Suarez used 'negro' once.

I have never said I agree with Kenny Dalglish's actions. The only time I mentioned Kenny was in a quote when he said 'there is evidence that hasn't been included in the report and made public'

Right if you accept this. You also except that Suarez maybe a racist right?

no i don't agree that suarez is a racist and stand by my word whether you like it or not

So what would make him a racist in your view? You must have a basis for your opinion surely.

that's bias btw

i don't have a bias for any opinion but to judge someone who you don't know is unfair and unjust

no-one is a racist unless he/she commits it daily

understood

The point is that your opinion must be based on something and you are confirming that your viewpoint is that for someone to be viewed as racist they would have to be commting "it" daily. So following this reasoning, one could not be racist if they commited "it" every other day then. Right?

braveheart101 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:I think it is relevant seeing as Evra is connected to both incidents.

I never said because Evra used a racist word that makes Suarez innocent. I have said before I accept Suarez used 'negro' once.

I have never said I agree with Kenny Dalglish's actions. The only time I mentioned Kenny was in a quote when he said 'there is evidence that hasn't been included in the report and made public'

Right if you accept this. You also except that Suarez maybe a racist right?

The important word you used is 'maybe' and I'd rather go on facts than ifs buts and maybes so until there is evidence that proves Suarez IS a racist then no I don't accept it.

Yes so same question to you. What evidence would you need to convince you that Suarez IS a racist? And what would your conclusion be based on?

dondelero wrote:

jro786 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

jro786 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:I think it is relevant seeing as Evra is connected to both incidents.

I never said because Evra used a racist word that makes Suarez innocent. I have said before I accept Suarez used 'negro' once.

I have never said I agree with Kenny Dalglish's actions. The only time I mentioned Kenny was in a quote when he said 'there is evidence that hasn't been included in the report and made public'

Right if you accept this. You also except that Suarez maybe a racist right?

no i don't agree that suarez is a racist and stand by my word whether you like it or not

So what would make him a racist in your view? You must have a basis for your opinion surely.

that's bias btw

i don't have a bias for any opinion but to judge someone who you don't know is unfair and unjust

no-one is a racist unless he/she commits it daily

understood

The point is that your opinion must be based on something and you are confirming that your viewpoint is that for someone to be viewed as racist they would have to be commting "it" daily. So following this reasoning, one could not be racist if they commited "it" every other day then. Right?

this is the first time suarez has been charged with racial discrimination and you guys are calling him a racist

and that is the point i'm making

are you going to call 'hitler' a racist?

jro786 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

jro786 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:I think it is relevant seeing as Evra is connected to both incidents.

I never said because Evra used a racist word that makes Suarez innocent. I have said before I accept Suarez used 'negro' once.

I have never said I agree with Kenny Dalglish's actions. The only time I mentioned Kenny was in a quote when he said 'there is evidence that hasn't been included in the report and made public'

Right if you accept this. You also except that Suarez maybe a racist right?

no i don't agree that suarez is a racist and stand by my word whether you like it or not

So what would make him a racist in your view? You must have a basis for your opinion surely.

that's bias btw

i don't have a bias for any opinion but to judge someone who you don't know is unfair and unjust

no-one is a racist unless he/she commits it daily

understood

Sorry jumping in on this to pick up on the "daily" comment. Is a murderer only a murderer if they commit the act daily? Is a theif only a theif if they commit the act daily? Is a naughty person only a naughty person if they commit the act daily? (and I'm sorry for using this example mods/admins...but I think it is a justifiable example)

No. So even if you direct a racist slur at someone only once...then you are racist. There has to be an underlying reason that you went with that option over everything else you could possibly say. Why not pick up on the fact that Evra is over-rated and gash? Why go instantly for the skin colour option?

"are you going to call 'hitler' a racist?"

Well there maybe some that may feel he was.

In fairness it's not solely Suarez's fault, it is to do with his upbringing. Being racist is just part of life, like it is in places like Spain and Eastern Eurpope. Liverpool should have educated him though, then maybe he wouldn't be in this mess.

jro786 wrote:this is the first time suarez has been charged with racial discrimination and you guys are calling him a racist

and that is the point i'm making

are you going to call 'hitler' a racist?

Exactly. It's the first time he's been charged with it. That doesn't mean it is the first time he's done it. Just the first time he has been caught.

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:I think it is relevant seeing as Evra is connected to both incidents.

I never said because Evra used a racist word that makes Suarez innocent. I have said before I accept Suarez used 'negro' once.

I have never said I agree with Kenny Dalglish's actions. The only time I mentioned Kenny was in a quote when he said 'there is evidence that hasn't been included in the report and made public'

Right if you accept this. You also except that Suarez maybe a racist right?

The important word you used is 'maybe' and I'd rather go on facts than ifs buts and maybes so until there is evidence that proves Suarez IS a racist then no I don't accept it.

Yes so same question to you. What evidence would you need to convince you that Suarez IS a racist? And what would your conclusion be based on?

As racism is a criminal offence I'd base my decision on information given by the CPS and the evidence I'd need to determine such decision is either (a) an admission from Suarez that he used the word 'negro' as a racist slur and/or (b) video evidence that proves Suarez used said word multiple times in a hostile way and/or (c) witness statements that collaborate the accuser's allegations.
What I would not do is make a decision solely based on the accuser's word over the accused's word

Celtic Warrior wrote:
No. So even if you direct a racist slur at someone only once...then you are racist. There has to be an underlying reason that you went with that option over everything else you could possibly say. Why not pick up on the fact that Evra is over-rated and gash? Why go instantly for the skin colour option?

According to the CPS that isn't correct. According to them to be a racist you have to (a) admit you dislike someone based on their racial group (which includes Jews and Sikhs) and/or (b) commit a racially aggravated offence such as assault or wounding, criminal damage, harassment or a public order offence such as causing people to fear violence and/or harassment based solely on their racial group.

As Suarez has only admitted using a word once and not admitted disliking people of Evra's race he can't be found guilty of being a racist on his evidence and as the incident only lasted between 1 and 5 minutes he cannot be found guilty of harassment, he did not assualt Evra and did not threaten Evra with violence and did not cause criminal damage to any of Evra's property so cannot be found guilty in those cases either.

An example the CPS use is: If someone jumps out of a taxi driven by an Asian and runs off without paying that person commits the offence of 'making off without payment' If that person at the same time makes remarks about Asians that suggests there was a racial motive for not paying the fare, the offence CANNOT be charged as a racially aggravated offence because 'making off without payment' is not one of the 'basic' offences that the law allows us(the CPS) to charge as a specific racially aggravated offence as listed above.

jro786 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

jro786 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:I think it is relevant seeing as Evra is connected to both incidents.

I never said because Evra used a racist word that makes Suarez innocent. I have said before I accept Suarez used 'negro' once.

I have never said I agree with Kenny Dalglish's actions. The only time I mentioned Kenny was in a quote when he said 'there is evidence that hasn't been included in the report and made public'

Right if you accept this. You also except that Suarez maybe a racist right?

no i don't agree that suarez is a racist and stand by my word whether you like it or not

So what would make him a racist in your view? You must have a basis for your opinion surely.

that's bias btw

i don't have a bias for any opinion but to judge someone who you don't know is unfair and unjust

no-one is a racist unless he/she commits it daily

understood

So it has to be daily. Absolute guff.

braveheart101 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:I think it is relevant seeing as Evra is connected to both incidents.

I never said because Evra used a racist word that makes Suarez innocent. I have said before I accept Suarez used 'negro' once.

I have never said I agree with Kenny Dalglish's actions. The only time I mentioned Kenny was in a quote when he said 'there is evidence that hasn't been included in the report and made public'

Right if you accept this. You also except that Suarez maybe a racist right?

The important word you used is 'maybe' and I'd rather go on facts than ifs buts and maybes so until there is evidence that proves Suarez IS a racist then no I don't accept it.

Yes so same question to you. What evidence would you need to convince you that Suarez IS a racist? And what would your conclusion be based on?

As racism is a criminal offence I'd base my decision on information given by the CPS and the evidence I'd need to determine such decision is either (a) an admission from Suarez that he used the word 'negro' as a racist slur and/or (b) video evidence that proves Suarez used said word multiple times in a hostile way and/or (c) witness statements that collaborate the accuser's allegations.
What I would not do is make a decision solely based on the accuser's word over the accused's word

Not a CPS case as you have already been told, several times.

braveheart101 wrote:

Celtic Warrior wrote:
No. So even if you direct a racist slur at someone only once...then you are racist. There has to be an underlying reason that you went with that option over everything else you could possibly say. Why not pick up on the fact that Evra is over-rated and gash? Why go instantly for the skin colour option?

According to the CPS that isn't correct. According to them to be a racist you have to (a) admit you dislike someone based on their racial group (which includes Jews and Sikhs) and/or (b) commit a racially aggravated offence such as assault or wounding, criminal damage, harassment or a public order offence such as causing people to fear violence and/or harassment based solely on their racial group.

As Suarez has only admitted using a word once and not admitted disliking people of Evra's race he can't be found guilty of being a racist on his evidence and as the incident only lasted between 1 and 5 minutes he cannot be found guilty of harassment, he did not assualt Evra and did not threaten Evra with violence and did not cause criminal damage to any of Evra's property so cannot be found guilty in those cases either.

An example the CPS use is: If someone jumps out of a taxi driven by an Asian and runs off without paying that person commits the offence of 'making off without payment' If that person at the same time makes remarks about Asians that suggests there was a racial motive for not paying the fare, the offence CANNOT be charged as a racially aggravated offence because 'making off without payment' is not one of the 'basic' offences that the law allows us(the CPS) to charge as a specific racially aggravated offence as listed above.

You really dont get the point do you. This is not a CPS case, so your paragragh was a complete waste of time (as well as being totally incorrect but I'll not go into that).

The FA use the balance of probability. As Suarez lied to them, admitting being racist and can be seen pinching Evra's skin it is not hard to see why he was charged.

Do you find it odd that only a very small number of Liverpool fans agree with you on this one. Virtually all the football world can see through Dalglish and his blatant lies about unknown evidence etc... pity you cant.

I know it isn't a CPS case but I unlike you won't make a decision on whether Suarez is a racist on ONE incident which hasn't been proven. The question I was answering was 'What would make convince you Suarez IS a racist' not 'Is Suarez guilty of using racist language towards Evra' which is what the FA case was.

johnson2 wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

Celtic Warrior wrote:
No. So even if you direct a racist slur at someone only once...then you are racist. There has to be an underlying reason that you went with that option over everything else you could possibly say. Why not pick up on the fact that Evra is over-rated and gash? Why go instantly for the skin colour option?

According to the CPS that isn't correct. According to them to be a racist you have to (a) admit you dislike someone based on their racial group (which includes Jews and Sikhs) and/or (b) commit a racially aggravated offence such as assault or wounding, criminal damage, harassment or a public order offence such as causing people to fear violence and/or harassment based solely on their racial group.

As Suarez has only admitted using a word once and not admitted disliking people of Evra's race he can't be found guilty of being a racist on his evidence and as the incident only lasted between 1 and 5 minutes he cannot be found guilty of harassment, he did not assualt Evra and did not threaten Evra with violence and did not cause criminal damage to any of Evra's property so cannot be found guilty in those cases either.

An example the CPS use is: If someone jumps out of a taxi driven by an Asian and runs off without paying that person commits the offence of 'making off without payment' If that person at the same time makes remarks about Asians that suggests there was a racial motive for not paying the fare, the offence CANNOT be charged as a racially aggravated offence because 'making off without payment' is not one of the 'basic' offences that the law allows us(the CPS) to charge as a specific racially aggravated offence as listed above.

You really dont get the point do you. This is not a CPS case, so your paragragh was a complete waste of time (as well as being totally incorrect but I'll not go into that).

The FA use the balance of probability. As Suarez lied to them, admitting being racist and can be seen pinching Evra's skin it is not hard to see why he was charged.

Do you find it odd that only a very small number of Liverpool fans agree with you on this one. Virtually all the football world can see through Dalglish and his blatant lies about unknown evidence etc... pity you cant.

Johnson that was taken directly from the CPS website so how is it all wrong.

You believe The FA are wrong by saying 'Suarez is not a racist' and now the CPS are wrong as well

braveheart101 wrote:I know it isn't a CPS case but I unlike you won't make a decision on whether Suarez is a racist on ONE incident which hasn't been proven. The question I was answering was 'What would make convince you Suarez IS a racist' not 'Is Suarez guilty of using racist language towards Evra' which is what the FA case was.

So what you are saying is:

You can be racist to someone, without just cause but...
This does not make you a racist.

If this does not make you a racist, what does it mean.

By the way read the whole post before making stupid statements. That was in reply to someone's point that 'saying a racist word even just once makes you a racist' when according to the CPS that is NOT TRUE

braveheart101 wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

Celtic Warrior wrote:
No. So even if you direct a racist slur at someone only once...then you are racist. There has to be an underlying reason that you went with that option over everything else you could possibly say. Why not pick up on the fact that Evra is over-rated and gash? Why go instantly for the skin colour option?

According to the CPS that isn't correct. According to them to be a racist you have to (a) admit you dislike someone based on their racial group (which includes Jews and Sikhs) and/or (b) commit a racially aggravated offence such as assault or wounding, criminal damage, harassment or a public order offence such as causing people to fear violence and/or harassment based solely on their racial group.

As Suarez has only admitted using a word once and not admitted disliking people of Evra's race he can't be found guilty of being a racist on his evidence and as the incident only lasted between 1 and 5 minutes he cannot be found guilty of harassment, he did not assualt Evra and did not threaten Evra with violence and did not cause criminal damage to any of Evra's property so cannot be found guilty in those cases either.

An example the CPS use is: If someone jumps out of a taxi driven by an Asian and runs off without paying that person commits the offence of 'making off without payment' If that person at the same time makes remarks about Asians that suggests there was a racial motive for not paying the fare, the offence CANNOT be charged as a racially aggravated offence because 'making off without payment' is not one of the 'basic' offences that the law allows us(the CPS) to charge as a specific racially aggravated offence as listed above.

You really dont get the point do you. This is not a CPS case, so your paragragh was a complete waste of time (as well as being totally incorrect but I'll not go into that).

The FA use the balance of probability. As Suarez lied to them, admitting being racist and can be seen pinching Evra's skin it is not hard to see why he was charged.

Do you find it odd that only a very small number of Liverpool fans agree with you on this one. Virtually all the football world can see through Dalglish and his blatant lies about unknown evidence etc... pity you cant.

Johnson that was taken directly from the CPS website so how is it all wrong.

You believe The FA are wrong by saying 'Suarez is not a racist' and now the CPS are wrong as well

I believe the FA are almost spot on actually. The only thing I think they have wrong is that they say Suarez is not a racist. If you make racist comments then that is exactly what you are, especially when done numerous times.

The CPS point you make is ridiculous. Comparing running away from a taxi to be racially insulted is just crazy. There was no initial crime.

Fair play to sticking by him though, sticking to your guns.

braveheart101 wrote:By the way read the whole post before making stupid statements. That was in reply to someone's point that 'saying a racist word even just once makes you a racist' when according to the CPS that is NOT TRUE

You keep bringing the CPS into this. Why. What exactly does this have to do with them.

Why not refer to the American justice system, or South Africa's, or perhaps Russia. The have as much to do with this as the CPS. Nothing.

johnson2 wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:I know it isn't a CPS case but I unlike you won't make a decision on whether Suarez is a racist on ONE incident which hasn't been proven. The question I was answering was 'What would make convince you Suarez IS a racist' not 'Is Suarez guilty of using racist language towards Evra' which is what the FA case was.

So what you are saying is:

You can be racist to someone, without just cause but...
This does not make you a racist.

If this does not make you a racist, what does it mean.

I am just taking what the CPS website says. According to them only certain crimes can be classed as racially aggravated.

braveheart101 wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:I know it isn't a CPS case but I unlike you won't make a decision on whether Suarez is a racist on ONE incident which hasn't been proven. The question I was answering was 'What would make convince you Suarez IS a racist' not 'Is Suarez guilty of using racist language towards Evra' which is what the FA case was.

So what you are saying is:

You can be racist to someone, without just cause but...
This does not make you a racist.

If this does not make you a racist, what does it mean.

I am just taking what the CPS website says. According to them only certain crimes can be classed as racially aggravated.

And running away from a taxi isnt one of them, I get it.

braveheart101 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

dondelero wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:I think it is relevant seeing as Evra is connected to both incidents.

I never said because Evra used a racist word that makes Suarez innocent. I have said before I accept Suarez used 'negro' once.

I have never said I agree with Kenny Dalglish's actions. The only time I mentioned Kenny was in a quote when he said 'there is evidence that hasn't been included in the report and made public'

Right if you accept this. You also except that Suarez maybe a racist right?

The important word you used is 'maybe' and I'd rather go on facts than ifs buts and maybes so until there is evidence that proves Suarez IS a racist then no I don't accept it.

Yes so same question to you. What evidence would you need to convince you that Suarez IS a racist? And what would your conclusion be based on?

As racism is a criminal offence I'd base my decision on information given by the CPS and the evidence I'd need to determine such decision is either (a) an admission from Suarez that he used the word 'negro' as a racist slur and/or (b) video evidence that proves Suarez used said word multiple times in a hostile way and/or (c) witness statements that collaborate the accuser's allegations.
What I would not do is make a decision solely based on the accuser's word over the accused's word

A Is it realistic that Suarez would admit that when he used the word he meant it as a racist slur?
B Why does someone have to use the word multiple times to be viewed as a racist?
C A Witness statement may confirm what someone has said but will not be able to determine why it was said.

So really in this instance none of those options could help you to have an informed opinion in THIS case. You appear to be of the opinion that if someone uses racist language towards another of a different race once, then this probably indicates that they are trying to be friendly or conciliatary which Suarez states unless they admit otherwise. However maybe if they use racist language more than once then this MAY indicate that they are racist. It is also more than likely that you believe that one can only be racist if they are verbal with it.
Is that a fair summary of your views?

Suarez speaks Spanish and the Spanish word for "black" is "negra" and the word "negro" refers to "a black (person)", Suarez's grasp of the English language is minimal as his his understanding of white culture therefore I believe his understanding of the negative connoctations surrounding the word "negro" in this country would be fairly limited. However, there's a world of difference between using the Spanish "Negra/negro" and Evra's assertion that he was called a "ni**er" by Suarez. In no uncertain terms and in reference to that incident, Evra is a liar.

I understand they conversed in Spanish and yet it appears the phraseology and meaning have been corrupted and usurped by the powers that be to make a case with which to prove a point.

I agree racism should not be tolerated in the modern game but when we have players like Joey Barton and Jonathan Woodgate walking free, it tends to make a mockery of the F.A.'s anti racism campaign. Suarez has been used by the F.A. as an example and yet we haven't seen anyone disciplined for their continued verbal abuse of referees and officials under the F.A.'s "Respect" campaign

Suarez and Liverpool have every right to feel hard done by, but I feel it's right that they draw a line under it now.

Johnson I suggest you read THE WHOLE POST not just the bits you want to.

It says 'If someone runs away from a taxi without paying and MAKES REMARKS TO THE DRIVER ABOUT ASIANS' which can suggest that there was a racial motive for not paying they CANNOT be charged with A RACIALLY AGGRAVATED OFFENCE