That may well be the case but what amazes me is that none of them appear capable of reading the ruling properly.
Not supporters, not LFC, not Kenny Dalglish.
RAWK Goes Into Meltdown (2011/2012)
- Thread starter Plan M
- Start date
That may well be the case but what amazes me is that none of them appear capable of reading the ruling properly.
Not supporters, not LFC, not Kenny Dalglish.
I'm withdrawing my vote for Olly as Best WUM.
I'm outraged, lets contact OFCOM!
The normal response of people who cannot see their own fault.
If something goes wrong blame someone else.
I have seen this type of behaviour....in little children.
simply put...a lack of maturity.
The RAWK Sky Sports Poll Saga - as told with Gifs.
RAWK
RedCafe
RAWK
Olly
RAWK
Olly
RedCafe
RAWK
Sky Sports
RAWK
RAWK
RedCafe
RAWK
Olly
RAWK
Olly
RedCafe
RAWK
Sky Sports
RAWK
Sky blatantly just thought, look if we don't give this award to Suarez there's going to be letters to sponsors, radio phone-ins, candle-lit vigils, boycotts, smears and if the last 48 hours are anything to go by, lots of racism.
Or we can give it to Suarez and United fans won't care because it's a meaningless online poll.
Or we can give it to Suarez and United fans won't care because it's a meaningless online poll.
RAWK
RedCafe
RAWK
Olly
RAWK
Olly
RedCafe
RAWK
Sky Sports
RAWK
I concur
Suarez shouldn't have won it anyway, good player but greatly over-rated by the British media imo and can't finish.
Their response to all of this (and by their, I mean the whole club) is baffling. And their invading Collymore's twitter page (I have no idea what he said, probably nothing) is pretty disgusting.
Their response to all of this (and by their, I mean the whole club) is baffling. And their invading Collymore's twitter page (I have no idea what he said, probably nothing) is pretty disgusting.
....
I reckon he's definitely on a wind up with that one.
Oh it has to be surely? No one could be that delusional ?
Oh come on, folks, it's obvious that a terrible injustice has taken place - even Captain Cook is turning in his grave. See this heartfelt plea for justice:
https://www.redcafe.net/f7/rawk-goes-into-meltdown-2011-2012-a-333736/index68.html#post10913092
https://www.redcafe.net/f7/rawk-goes-into-meltdown-2011-2012-a-333736/index68.html#post10913092
The irony of what they are doing and how they are running that place is laughable. Do Himmler and Goebbels moderate on there?
What is even more amusing is no one had called Suarez a racist.
And they wonder why we are fascinated with them
They do know that cancelling 5 sky subsriptions won't exactly bankrupt BSkyB.
Banned from RAWK.
alas twiggthemanc, we knew him well
My sleeper account is still active there, although I'm not really sure what to do with it
My sleeper account is still active there, although I'm not really sure what to do with it
They're ripping the piss out of RAWK & pool over on the Spurs boards too.
Glory Glory Spurs - Suarez Charged.
They're a laughing stock. I'm amazed that none of them can see it. Someone on RAWK said "all my non-Liverpool mates agree with me" when Twig was banned....I haven't met one that does. Where are they?
Glory Glory Spurs - Suarez Charged.
They're a laughing stock. I'm amazed that none of them can see it. Someone on RAWK said "all my non-Liverpool mates agree with me" when Twig was banned....I haven't met one that does. Where are they?
Haha John Barnes has claimed United fans should be banned from games for calling Scousers thieves.
Some other hilarious highlights from his interview were that 'ignorance is a good excuse'. He like many liverpool fans is still oblivious to the fact its the context of what Suarez said and not the actual word by claiming the 'word' isn't offensive.
Why are people so feckING THICK. Why are they still not getting this shit ffs.
There's this liverpool fan at my workplace.
Hes black incidentally, and hes so badly misinformed about this whole case its embarrassing. I've tried so hard to explain but he just doesnt get it. Maybe we just have to accept that the majority of those associated with Liverpool will just never get it.
Some other hilarious highlights from his interview were that 'ignorance is a good excuse'. He like many liverpool fans is still oblivious to the fact its the context of what Suarez said and not the actual word by claiming the 'word' isn't offensive.
Why are people so feckING THICK. Why are they still not getting this shit ffs.
There's this liverpool fan at my workplace.
Hes black incidentally, and hes so badly misinformed about this whole case its embarrassing. I've tried so hard to explain but he just doesnt get it. Maybe we just have to accept that the majority of those associated with Liverpool will just never get it.
Collymore's become my favourite ex liverpool player during this case
Or want to get it.
I've just posted this on RAWK
This will either go one of two ways:
1) someone attempts to argue and will fall down on their lack of logic and then I get banned
2) I get banned straight away
I fully expect to get banned for this despite the fact this is a genuine attempt to engage you all rather than WUM.
"Negrito" does not neccesarily carry the same reputation as "negro" or the other n words in our culture as it does in South America. That is understandable. It can be used as an objective and descriptive word akin to saying "Patrice Evra is black" and would carry no offence. Similarly, it can be used as affectionately like how the n word is used between some members of the black community in urban culture in the US. Using the word "negrito" is not neccesarily a racist word, but it certainly is a reference to skin colour. And any reference to skin colour can be used to racially abuse someone regardless depending on what context it is used in.
In the context of two opposition players arguing midway through a derby match, to competely rule out any intended offence is naive. If I tell someone to shut up for instance, and then turn around and say "why, black?" I would think that they are trying to annoy me through a completely unneccessary mention of skin colour, even with a term that is not offensive. If repeated I would be certain that offence is meant. Have any of you here had an argument with someone of a different race and then for clarification pointed out the colour of their skin? Why would you unless you wanted to rile them?
This is what Suarez has been found guilty of:
* Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);
* The insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2)
Using the colour of someone else's skin to provoke a rise out of someone is racial abuse. That is not to say that Suarez is a racist, who has a phobia of black people and is a card carrying member of the BNP. Racial abuse can be used to gain an advantage on the pitch rather than reflecting underlying views. However, it is still wholly unacceptable and should be punished if proven, as is the case.
If you have any criticisms of what I have said, highlight it clearly. Hopefully I won't be banned on posting of any sort of non-consensus view
"Negrito" does not neccesarily carry the same reputation as "negro" or the other n words in our culture as it does in South America. That is understandable. It can be used as an objective and descriptive word akin to saying "Patrice Evra is black" and would carry no offence. Similarly, it can be used as affectionately like how the n word is used between some members of the black community in urban culture in the US. Using the word "negrito" is not neccesarily a racist word, but it certainly is a reference to skin colour. And any reference to skin colour can be used to racially abuse someone regardless depending on what context it is used in.
In the context of two opposition players arguing midway through a derby match, to competely rule out any intended offence is naive. If I tell someone to shut up for instance, and then turn around and say "why, black?" I would think that they are trying to annoy me through a completely unneccessary mention of skin colour, even with a term that is not offensive. If repeated I would be certain that offence is meant. Have any of you here had an argument with someone of a different race and then for clarification pointed out the colour of their skin? Why would you unless you wanted to rile them?
This is what Suarez has been found guilty of:
* Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);
* The insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2)
Using the colour of someone else's skin to provoke a rise out of someone is racial abuse. That is not to say that Suarez is a racist, who has a phobia of black people and is a card carrying member of the BNP. Racial abuse can be used to gain an advantage on the pitch rather than reflecting underlying views. However, it is still wholly unacceptable and should be punished if proven, as is the case.
If you have any criticisms of what I have said, highlight it clearly. Hopefully I won't be banned on posting of any sort of non-consensus view
This will either go one of two ways:
1) someone attempts to argue and will fall down on their lack of logic and then I get banned
2) I get banned straight away
Link to it?
It's been widely reported that the word used was in fact 'Negro'.
I'm probably being really slow on the up-take here, but why are there loads of hideous comments directed to Evra on Collymore's Twitter page?
Poyet has said "negrito" and there's really no point in distinguishing since either can be used in a racially abusive context.
You cnut. - simply talking shit
You negrito cnut. - using skin color to insult another person
You negrito cnut. - using skin color to insult another person
Basically what Collymore has done is searched for instances where "Evra" and "nigger" appear together using the Twitter search engine and favourited (basically bookmarked) the ones he found to basically illustrate how pathetic and disgusting people some fans are being.
You cnut. - Two friends in Liverpool saying good morning
You negrito cnut. - A term used to declare someone wants everyone to wear t-shirts with themselves on the front
You negrito cnut. - A term used to declare someone wants everyone to wear t-shirts with themselves on the front
Banned. Well since our friends at RAWK are reading this thread, I'd like to point out that "the most objectionable of terms" is not implying racist/bigoted/etc.
Carry on in the fantasy world where negr(it)o has no reference to skin colour and refusing to read what I'd posted contrary.
Well since our friends at RAWK are reading this thread, I'd like to point out that "the most objectionable of terms" is not implying racist/bigoted/etc.
Carry on in the fantasy world where negr(it)o has no reference to skin colour and refusing to read what I'd posted contrary.
They really are living in a fecking dream world.
There would be a certain amount anyway, so many morons these days, but I think there's no question that the character assassination by Liverpool has convinced a lot of people that Evra made false charges. And since Liverpool say Suarez is innocent, and that if he is Evra should be punished, racist fans seem to feel like going the extra mile.
Suarez – A Reaction
Posted on December 21, 2011 by admin
Well, well, well – a guilty verdict and a whopping 8 match ban. I really didn’t see that coming on the 15th October when, after I thought Liverpool slightly shaded a 1-1 draw with Man United, the Sky coverage post-match started to pick and run with a story claiming Suarez racially abused Patrice Evra.
“As a Liverpool FC fan this is a devastating outcome but ultimately some things are more important than club loyalty.”
On first hearing this story I dismissed it pretty quickly because Patrice Evra is a) a bit of nutter and b) in the confrontational Neviller-mould c) has past form for unfounded allegations and finally d) with no physical evidence and one man’s word against another the claim would fizzle out as un-provable. Consequently, I was genuinely amazed when on the 17th November, Luis Suarez was officially charged by the FA with, “(making) an abusive….reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Patrice Evra.”
My first reaction was that there had to be a smoking gun – some damning piece of evidence that wasn’t yet in the public domain. Was there an incriminating John Terry-esque video clip? Had the referee actually heard something? I hadn’t heard anything from the Liverpool end so I was straight onto @Us_Monster for a Man Utd perspective but there was nothing that end as well. The conclusion that I came to was that the FA had made a huge mistake and opened a gargantuan can of worms. It seemed that they had started a policy of charging people based on hearsay and allegation alone. A policy that would encourage petty rivalries and recriminations, produce countless official charges but never any convictions.
From a selfish, Liverpool FC point of view I had absolutely no worries. There was no smoking gun evidence so the only way a charge would be coming Suarez’s way would be if he broke down Colonel Nathan R. Jessop style from A Few Good Men while some FA punk shouted ‘I want the truth’ at him!
Then my confidence was shattered last week when reports started to appear that Suarez had admitted to using the word ‘negro’ or some close derivation of it! Knights of Columbus, that hurt! The next 3 paragraphs are based on these reports being accurate obviously if they are materially not I reserve the right to change my conclusion!
‘I only said it once’
One pillar of Suarez’s reported defence and reason for entering a guilty plea was that he only said it once. To the first part of the defence and the amount of usage of the word is only relevant in determining the severity of the sanction not in the determination of guilt. If he used it hundred, ten or once – then he’s guilty. However, the frequency of usage should be taken into account in the punishment of this guilt. A ubiquitous use should attract a greater punishment than a one off usage.
‘It’s not offensive in Montevideo’
To the second part of the reported defence – the ‘cultural difference’ i.e. what’s inoffensive in Uruguay is offensive in England. My major rebuttal of this is, is that ignorance of the law is no defence. Imagine a moron bombs down your local high street at 40 m.p.h. and knocks down a kills a child crossing the road who he’d have missed if he was going at 30 m.p.h. Said moron tells the police that he thought that as there was no lamp posts it meant it was a 40 m.p.h. limit. The moron thought he was doing nothing illegal – does this make him innocent? No, however it potentially makes him ‘less’ guilty and the level of intent / awareness should be taken into account when determining the penalty for the crime. In the same way that if you kill somebody it can be classed as ‘Involuntary manslaughter’ i.e. you didn’t mean to do it and you would expect to serve less time if it was classed as ‘Murder’ i.e. you meant to do it.
‘I’m not a racist’
Liverpool FC’s fierce response to the verdict mentions Suarez mixed race heritage and quotes Evra’s assertion that he doesn’t believe Suarez is a racist. Again, this is not a defence of the crime because Suarez hasn’t been charged with being a racist but only with using a racist term. In the immediate aftermath of the alleged incident John Barnes intelligently and pertinently mentioned that racists don’t necessarily say racist things, and people who say racist things aren’t necessarily racists. Again I would take this into account in deciding the punishment. A racist using racist terms should be punished more heavily than a person using it ignorant of its meaning.
To conclude (again based on the confirmed use of the racist word) then
Patrice Evra was absolutely right and, I would go as far to say, duty bound to report to the FA
Based on Evra’s allegation the FA was absolutely right to start an investigation
If Suarez’s written submission contained an admission of using a close derivation of a recognised racist term then the FA were absolutely right to charge him and find him guilty
After determining guilt we then have to approach the more problematic issue of ‘valuing’ the crime, the appropriate method and level of punishment.
Crime ‘value’
You will no doubt have read and heard many people giving their opinion of racism so apologies for again repeating the obvious but racism (and racist terms) is odious, totally repugnant and has no place in any society. In terms of things to say I don’t think there would be anything spoken that could be more disgusting (there are, of course, things of equal despicability) and attracting the harshest of punishments.
Punishment Method
Fining millionaire footballers, for any discretion, is pointless so I am totally supportive that if a footballer is found guilty then you need to hit them where it hurts i.e. game suspension.
Punishment Level
I have taken the above alleged and confirmed defences into account but the abhorrent nature of the alleged term used and its underlying message I have to agree with the severity that the FA has chosen. I do think there is a bit of ‘shock and awe’ involved in the scale of the penalty but I think that is befitting the crime and wholly appropriate and necessary.
As a Liverpool FC fan this is a devastating outcome but ultimately some things are more important than club loyalty.
@forcefrewgood
Suarez
Posted on December 21, 2011 by admin
Well, well, well – a guilty verdict and a whopping 8 match ban. I really didn’t see that coming on the 15th October when, after I thought Liverpool slightly shaded a 1-1 draw with Man United, the Sky coverage post-match started to pick and run with a story claiming Suarez racially abused Patrice Evra.
“As a Liverpool FC fan this is a devastating outcome but ultimately some things are more important than club loyalty.”
On first hearing this story I dismissed it pretty quickly because Patrice Evra is a) a bit of nutter and b) in the confrontational Neviller-mould c) has past form for unfounded allegations and finally d) with no physical evidence and one man’s word against another the claim would fizzle out as un-provable. Consequently, I was genuinely amazed when on the 17th November, Luis Suarez was officially charged by the FA with, “(making) an abusive….reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Patrice Evra.”
My first reaction was that there had to be a smoking gun – some damning piece of evidence that wasn’t yet in the public domain. Was there an incriminating John Terry-esque video clip? Had the referee actually heard something? I hadn’t heard anything from the Liverpool end so I was straight onto @Us_Monster for a Man Utd perspective but there was nothing that end as well. The conclusion that I came to was that the FA had made a huge mistake and opened a gargantuan can of worms. It seemed that they had started a policy of charging people based on hearsay and allegation alone. A policy that would encourage petty rivalries and recriminations, produce countless official charges but never any convictions.
From a selfish, Liverpool FC point of view I had absolutely no worries. There was no smoking gun evidence so the only way a charge would be coming Suarez’s way would be if he broke down Colonel Nathan R. Jessop style from A Few Good Men while some FA punk shouted ‘I want the truth’ at him!
Then my confidence was shattered last week when reports started to appear that Suarez had admitted to using the word ‘negro’ or some close derivation of it! Knights of Columbus, that hurt! The next 3 paragraphs are based on these reports being accurate obviously if they are materially not I reserve the right to change my conclusion!
‘I only said it once’
One pillar of Suarez’s reported defence and reason for entering a guilty plea was that he only said it once. To the first part of the defence and the amount of usage of the word is only relevant in determining the severity of the sanction not in the determination of guilt. If he used it hundred, ten or once – then he’s guilty. However, the frequency of usage should be taken into account in the punishment of this guilt. A ubiquitous use should attract a greater punishment than a one off usage.
‘It’s not offensive in Montevideo’
To the second part of the reported defence – the ‘cultural difference’ i.e. what’s inoffensive in Uruguay is offensive in England. My major rebuttal of this is, is that ignorance of the law is no defence. Imagine a moron bombs down your local high street at 40 m.p.h. and knocks down a kills a child crossing the road who he’d have missed if he was going at 30 m.p.h. Said moron tells the police that he thought that as there was no lamp posts it meant it was a 40 m.p.h. limit. The moron thought he was doing nothing illegal – does this make him innocent? No, however it potentially makes him ‘less’ guilty and the level of intent / awareness should be taken into account when determining the penalty for the crime. In the same way that if you kill somebody it can be classed as ‘Involuntary manslaughter’ i.e. you didn’t mean to do it and you would expect to serve less time if it was classed as ‘Murder’ i.e. you meant to do it.
‘I’m not a racist’
Liverpool FC’s fierce response to the verdict mentions Suarez mixed race heritage and quotes Evra’s assertion that he doesn’t believe Suarez is a racist. Again, this is not a defence of the crime because Suarez hasn’t been charged with being a racist but only with using a racist term. In the immediate aftermath of the alleged incident John Barnes intelligently and pertinently mentioned that racists don’t necessarily say racist things, and people who say racist things aren’t necessarily racists. Again I would take this into account in deciding the punishment. A racist using racist terms should be punished more heavily than a person using it ignorant of its meaning.
To conclude (again based on the confirmed use of the racist word) then
Patrice Evra was absolutely right and, I would go as far to say, duty bound to report to the FA
Based on Evra’s allegation the FA was absolutely right to start an investigation
If Suarez’s written submission contained an admission of using a close derivation of a recognised racist term then the FA were absolutely right to charge him and find him guilty
After determining guilt we then have to approach the more problematic issue of ‘valuing’ the crime, the appropriate method and level of punishment.
Crime ‘value’
You will no doubt have read and heard many people giving their opinion of racism so apologies for again repeating the obvious but racism (and racist terms) is odious, totally repugnant and has no place in any society. In terms of things to say I don’t think there would be anything spoken that could be more disgusting (there are, of course, things of equal despicability) and attracting the harshest of punishments.
Punishment Method
Fining millionaire footballers, for any discretion, is pointless so I am totally supportive that if a footballer is found guilty then you need to hit them where it hurts i.e. game suspension.
Punishment Level
I have taken the above alleged and confirmed defences into account but the abhorrent nature of the alleged term used and its underlying message I have to agree with the severity that the FA has chosen. I do think there is a bit of ‘shock and awe’ involved in the scale of the penalty but I think that is befitting the crime and wholly appropriate and necessary.
As a Liverpool FC fan this is a devastating outcome but ultimately some things are more important than club loyalty.
@forcefrewgood
Suarez
just read them now, thats a complete disgrace. I hope every single post was reported
excellent post, sense at last
Someone quoted something from RAWK and I almost fell off my chair laughing
"Look at his face"