*Official* English Football Season 2011-12

[Ikki]

Paul Goulding, a QC and the man who drafted the report would presumably disagree.

&, with all due respect, I've no doubt his legal acumen would knock yours into a corked hat.

There are legal experts all over critiquing it. There was a nice article by lawyer in the Irish FA who did a nice overview of it.

Moreover, chief justices make mistakes or rule incorrectly or what have you. Why should that stop Paul Goulding doing as such? Maybe you would like to make an argument apart from appealing to authority.

The evidence was based on hearsay and interpreting - what they admitted - was limited video evidence. If that is not correct, point out where it isn't. Thanks.

Crap, frankly.

Even if one accepts "negrito" isn't always used in an overtly racist way, it stretches credulity way past breaking point to attempt to suggest calling an opponent by a racial epithet (which at no point anyone has attempted to suggest it isn't, contrary to your assertion) isn't offensive. He has no history of friendship with Evra which clearly fatally undermines any attempt to suggest he was attempting ingratiation. He was using it to belittle Evra.

If I called an opponent a "little black man", I'd frankly expect a smack in the chops for it.

You need to actually read the report. The word that was used was 'negro'. It was also corroborated by experts that in spanish speaking countries, especially southern america, that it has a very matey/colloquial use. Suarez calls Johnson negro, for instance. His wife calls him Negro for instance. You need to lose your Englander goggles for a moment and understand the discussion was in spanish. IIRC they even chose to interpret the conversation in how it would be interpreted with that reference in mind.

You keep repeating a fallacy, there is no proof he called him a 'little black man'. In Suarez's version of events, Evra got mad at Suarez for kicking him in his previously injured knee. Suarez then made a comment saying that's football. Evra continued angrily and Suarez asked "Why black?" - like saying "Why mate?". What you're talking about, I don't know. If you are going to state what Suarez proffered, then actually stick to that.

 

[BoyBrumby]

What the language experts really said (link):

"As part of its investigation, the FA instructed two experts to prepare a written report on the linguistic and cultural interpretations of the words "negro" and "negros" in Rioplatense Spanish.

Evra also said in his evidence to the commission that Suarez went to touch him and was gesturing at his skin. The report said it looked like Suarez pinched Evra, which the Liverpool player admitted to in his original witness statement to "diffuse the situation".

The language experts concluded that, after analysing Evra's account of the incident, Suarez's use of the words "negro" and "negros" would be understood as offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America. The physical gesture of touching Mr Evra's arm would also, in the context of the phrases used, be interpreted as racist, said the report."

 

[grecian]

Well, Suarez has apologised, I'm thouruoghly bored of this now.

How lucky are Wolves here?

 

[sledger]

You need to actually read the report. The word that was used was 'negro'. It was also corroborated by experts that in spanish speaking countries, especially southern america, that it has a very matey/colloquial use. Suarez calls Johnson negro, for instance. His wife calls him Negro for instance. You need to lose your Englander goggles for a moment and understand the discussion was in spanish. IIRC they even chose to interpret the conversation in how it would be interpreted with that reference in mind.

You keep repeating a fallacy, there is no proof he called him a 'little black man'. In Suarez's version of events, Evra got mad at Suarez for kicking him in his previously injured knee. Suarez then made a comment saying that's football. Evra continued angrily and Suarez asked "Why black?" - like saying "Why mate?". What you're talking about, I don't know. If you are going to what Suarez proffered, then actually stick to that.

Dear god no.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, but we all know his testimony was not accepted, with good reason by the sounds of things. Besides, I don't know what the FA was working on, but in the criminal law here you don't have to "mean it" to be convicted of said offence.

By the sounds of things? Did you read the report? Evra had enough inconsistencies to doubt what he was saying too. Moreover, Suarez didn't have to say anything. Evra's evidence was all hearsay. IIRC you study law, you should know how flimsy that kind of evidence is. It was Evra saying he said it, with his teammates/Ferguson saying Evra said that is what Suarez said - 2nd hand hearsay.

Even further, this wasn't criminal law. If it was, Suarez wouldn't have been convicted. The standard of proof would have been beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Pothas]

Well, Suarez has apologised, I'm thouruoghly bored of this now.

How lucky are Wolves here?

I know, where the hell did a goal of that quality come from?

Been making unlikely comebacks after being thoroughly outplayed all season though.

 

[sledger]

By the sounds of things? Did you read the report? Evra had enough inconsistencies to doubt what he was saying too. Moreover, Suarez didn't have to say anything. Evra's evidence was all hearsay. IIRC you study law, you should know how flimsy that kind of evidence is. It was Evra saying he said it, with his teammates/Ferguson saying Evra said that is what Suarez said - 2nd hand hearsay.

Even further, this wasn't criminal law. If it was, Suarez wouldn't have been convicted. The standard of proof would have been beyond a reasonable doubt.

I read the report, and granted there were inconsistencies on both sides, what transpired is that a certain word was used, there can be no doubt over this whatsoever. It's then a case of deciding what the intent was behind the use of the word, and I'm perfectly satisfied with the FA's findings that it was used in a way that was other than friendly, shall we say.

Additionally, if this was criminal law, if Suarez admitted to using the word at all he'd be effectively pleading guilty anyway. All that would remain to be seen is whether Evra was offended by what he said, and I doubt that would have been particularly difficult to ascertain. He'd almost certainly have been convicted.

 

[BoyBrumby]

There are legal experts all over critiquing it. There was a nice article by lawyer in the Irish FA who did a nice overview of it.

Moreover, chief justices make mistakes or rule incorrectly or what have you. Why should that stop Paul Goulding doing as such? Maybe you would like to make an argument apart from appealing to authority.

The evidence was based on hearsay and interpreting - what they admitted - was limited video evidence. If that is not correct, point out where it isn't. Thanks.





You need to actually read the report. The word that was used was 'negro'. It was also corroborated by experts that in spanish speaking countries, especially southern america, that it has a very matey/colloquial use. Suarez calls Johnson negro, for instance. His wife calls him Negro for instance. You need to lose your Englander goggles for a moment and understand the discussion was in spanish. IIRC they even chose to interpret the conversation in how it would be interpreted with that reference in mind.

You keep repeating a fallacy, there is no proof he called him a 'little black man'. In Suarez's version of events, Evra got mad at Suarez for kicking him in his previously injured knee. Suarez then made a comment saying that's football. Evra continued angrily and Suarez asked "Why black?" - like saying "Why mate?". What you're talking about, I don't know. If you are going to state what Suarez proffered, then actually stick to that.

"Englander goggles"? We're talking about a discussion between a Frenchman and a Uruguayan that took place in Spanish. That's an interesting reading of it.

Moreover, there's is no way on earth that saying "why, black?" to an opponent isn't offensive and you're attempting to defend the indensible there.

 

[Woodster]

Yes fantastic equaliser from Fletcher, not in-keeping with the football Wolves have shown in that first half. WBA will rightly feel aggrieved to be level, but the boost that should give Wolves may mean a revitalised home side in the second half.

 

[Ikki]

What the language experts really said (link):

"As part of its investigation, the FA instructed two experts to prepare a written report on the linguistic and cultural interpretations of the words "negro" and "negros" in Rioplatense Spanish.

Evra also said in his evidence to the commission that Suarez went to touch him and was gesturing at his skin. The report said it looked like Suarez pinched Evra, which the Liverpool player admitted to in his original witness statement to "diffuse the situation".

The language experts concluded that, after analysing Evra's account of the incident, Suarez's use of the words "negro" and "negros" would be understood as offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America. The physical gesture of touching Mr Evra's arm would also, in the context of the phrases used, be interpreted as racist, said the report."

The skin pinching incident was at odds. Suarez said he was trying to defuse the argument that was going on. Evra's side tried to argue that it was a reference to his skin. Evra himself didn't even know that he was pinched. Again, they made two interpretations on whose story was to be believed.

This is what they said for Suarez:

Experts' observations on Mr Suarez's account
187. The experts reviewed the interview of Mr Suarez (transcribed in both Spanish and English), together with video clips of the referee's intervention. They proceeded, for the purpose of this part of their report, on the basis that the substance of Mr Suarez's account was accurate. They made the following observations on Mr Suarez's account.
188. To analyse the word "negro" in Mr Suarez's interview it was important to remember that the word was used during a football match, which establishes the context as one of informal social relations.
189. Although there was clearly already bad feeling between Mr Suarez and Mr Evra at the time of their second exchange (by which we understand the experts to refer to when the referee blew his whistle to stop the corner), the fact that Mr Suarez indicates that Mr Evra had already spoken to him in Spanish in the earlier exchange means that he could well have felt that a linguistic and/or cultural relationship had been established between them (even though Mr Evra subsequently spoke to him in English).
49

190. Given paragraphs 188 and 189, Mr Suarez would not have needed any further sense of familiarity to use the word "negro", which is to say how well Mr Suarez knew Mr Evra is not of particular importance; in Rioplatense Spanish the use of "negro" as described here by Mr Suarez would not be offensive. Indeed, it is possible that the term was intended as an attempt at conciliation and/or to establish rapport (see 175 above).
191. The question "Por qué, negro?" as transcribed in Mr Suarez's interview sounded right linguistically and culturally and is in line with the use set out by Mr Suarez when referring to Glen Johnson; Mr Suarez was also correct in highlighting that "negro de mierda" would be a clear racial slur.
192. The term "sudamericano" [South American] might be offensive for a South American if taken as an implied slight against a regional identity; a more derogatory insult along these lines would be the term "sudaca", a term most frequently used in Spain to label South American immigrants. Though the experts are not familiar with either "sudamericano" or "South American" being used as an insult, if they were said with a sneer then they might well be understood as such.
193. As stated above, Mr Suarez's gesture towards Mr Evra's arm is difficult to interpret. In the context of the events as set out by Mr Suarez then there is nothing to indicate that the gesture was racially offensive.
194. The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez's account as follows. If Mr Suarez used the word "negro" as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally; it is being used along the lines of paragraphs 172, 173 and 175 above.

 

[Ikki]

"Englander goggles"? We're talking about a discussion between a Frenchman and a Uruguayan that took place in Spanish. That's an interesting reading of it.

Moreover, there's is no way on earth that saying "why, black?" to an opponent isn't offensive and you're attempting to defend the indensible there.

True, it is interesting. But they saw it in respect with how latin/spanish speaking people would interpret it.

Moreoever, your second comment is at odds with the experts. As I quoted in the above re Suarez's account. They agreed, on his account "Why Black? wouldn't be seen as racially offensive. Yet you continue to talk in absolutes. Why? I can only assume you are having difficulty reading things with respect to different cultures.

 

[Ikki]

I read the report, and granted there were inconsistencies on both sides, what transpired is that a certain word was used, there can be no doubt over this whatsoever. It's then a case of deciding what the intent was behind the use of the word, and I'm perfectly satisfied with the FA's findings that it was used in a way that was other than friendly, shall we say.

Additionally, if this was criminal law, if Suarez admitted to using the word at all he'd be effectively pleading guilty anyway. All that would remain to be seen is whether Evra was offended by what he said, and I doubt that would have been particularly difficult to ascertain. He'd almost certainly have been convicted.

Well, you can be satisfied, as I can question it. Still, it is a matter of evidence. And Evra had no evidence bar some of the flimsiest. As I said, it was hearsay and a concoction of what the commission believed some of the video evidence meant - their interpretation, not even experts involved in this either.

I do not know of english criminal law with regards to this - I am not knowledgable enough to say outright. But I find it hard to believe they wouldn't take into account the cultural differences - I mean, the commission did this FFS - so based on that, then no I don't think he would have been convicted. The evidence was weak as far as I know and was asked. It just so happened that the commission's standard of proof was so low that they accepted it. In other respects, it just seems there was a lot of naivety of the part of the commission. For example, when Evra admits to liking Suarez as a player and admitting he was wrong about Suarez saying '******', they actually use that to enhance the reliability of his information, instead of using that to take away from the reliability of his information.

 

[sledger]

I do not know of english criminal law with regards to this - I am not knowledgable enough to say outright. But I find it hard to believe they wouldn't take into account the cultural differences - I mean, the commission did this FFS - so based on that, then no I don't think he would have been convicted. The evidence was weak as far as I know and was asked. It just so happened that the commission's standard of proof was so low that they accepted it. In other respects, it just seems there was a lot of naivety of the part of the commission. For example, when Evra admits to liking Suarez as a player and admitting he was wrong about Suarez saying '******', they actually use that to enhance the reliability of his information, instead of using that to take away from the reliability of his information.

In criminal law here, if you use language which causes offence in a way which is specific to someone's race, the only thing that needs to be shown is that a word of this sort was used, and that someone (not necessarily the victim) took offence to it. Given the public interest in this sort of event, I doubt had it reached court the cultural differences would have been given a great deal of consideration to be honest. Such language may not be offensive elsewhere in the world, but it is here, and making a defence out of your alleged ignorance of this wouldn't hold any water.

 

[BoyBrumby]

True, it is interesting. But they saw it in respect with how latin/spanish speaking people would interpret it.

Moreoever, your second comment is at odds with the experts. As I quoted in the above re Suarez's account. They agreed, on his account "Why Black? wouldn't be seen as racially offensive. Yet you continue to talk in absolutes. Why? I can only assume you are having difficulty reading things with respect to different cultures.

Yeah, patronising and ****ish is the way to go. Bravo.

Even in the passage you post in Suarez's defense there's an equivocation which you've ignored "the fact that Mr Suarez indicates that Mr Evra had already spoken to him in Spanish in the earlier exchange means that he could well have felt that a linguistic and/or cultural relationship had been established between them".

It's patently obvious, in spite of your frantic dissembling, that no such relationship existed between the players.

It is, one assumes, because of such glaring inconsistencies that Suarez's account was rejected.

 

[Ikki]

In criminal law here, if you use language which causes offence in a way which is specific to someone's race, the only thing that needs to be shown is that a word of this sort was used, and that someone (not necessarily the victim) took offence to it. Given the public interest in this sort of event, I doubt had it reached court the cultural differences would have been given a great deal of consideration to be honest. Such language may not be offensive elsewhere in the world, but it is here, and making a defence out of your alleged ignorance of this wouldn't hold any water.

I can't really make an argument due to my ignorance of the criminal law there, but it sounds a bit too simplistic when read like that. Are you saying there is no interpretative element and there is like a designated list of terms you can't use? If two people are using a different language, and hence culture, are they going to be criminally convicted even though the term used, where that word comes from, is not offensive? I'd actually be interested in seeing the Act or some site explaining this. Seems unfair to me.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah, patronising and ****ish is the way to go. Bravo.

I stated a legal problem I had with the case. And you came back with "Nah, you're wrong, because this guy is a QC and you can't be right...even though I am not sure what you're arguing". P-lease.

Even in the passage you post in Suarez's defense there's an equivocation which you've ignored "the fact that Mr Suarez indicates that Mr Evra had already spoken to him in Spanish in the earlier exchange means that he could well have felt that a linguistic and/or cultural relationship had been established between them".
It's patently obvious, in spite of your frantic dissembling, that no such relationship existed between the players.

It is, one assumes, because of such glaring inconsistencies that Suarez's account was rejected.

I am not sure, what your argument here is? The experts are saying that because Suarez and Evra had talked to each other in Spanish, Suarez could be believed to have assumed that they are talking in the plane of that culture - i.e. not the English culture which would find certain terms offensive.

There is no inconsistency there as far as I can see. They are using facts to back up the reliability of his belief.

 

[sledger]

I can't really make an argument due to my ignorance of the criminal law there, but it sounds a bit too simplistic when read like that. Are you saying there is no interpretative element and there is like a designated list of terms you can't use? If two people are using a different language, and hence culture, are they going to be criminally convicted even though the term used, where that word comes from, is not offensive? I'd actually be interested in seeing the Act or some site explaining this. Seems unfair to me.

The intent is likely to be considered when sentencing, but not when determining guilt. I don't believe there is a "bad words list" or anything like that, I think common sense largely determines whether or not what someone said could have caused offence in this way (usually insults of this type are not particularly imaginative, so it's not often hard to do).

You repeatedly go on about how people shouldn't be prosecuted for doing something that isn't offensive in their culture, but most certainly is in their current location, and I don't understand it. Perhaps we should all go across to the UAE and start opening cans of beer in the street and try that line of reasoning as well?

I can't recall the specific Act or whatever which defines this rule, but my Mother who worked these sorts of cases on a regular basis assures me that the present legal situation is as I have described it.

 

[Ikki]

I can see what you're saying. I just think it can leave glaring holes where some words which could not possibly be seen as racist in one culture, could be construed as such in the place you're living. And there is no intent behind that at all. I find you are in effect legislating words people can use, not really to do with racism. Fair enough, I guess.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I stated a legal problem I had with the case. And you came back with "Nah, you're wrong, because this guy is a QC and you can't be right...even though I am not sure what you're arguing". P-lease.



I am not sure, what your argument here is? The experts are saying that because Suarez and Evra had talked to each other in Spanish, Suarez could be believed to have assumed that they are talking in the plane of that culture - i.e. not the English culture which would find certain terms offensive.

There is no inconsistency there as far as I can see. They are using facts to back up the reliability of his belief.

You are just a troll, aren't you? I don't believe you're really that simple.

Ok, I'll play the game and assume you are,

1) Suarez and Evra are in the midst of what might best be called a heated discsussion.

2) The former uses what is, when used towards an opponent without whom one has a prior understandng or intimacy with, a racial slur.

3) The latter, being cogniscent of the situation, hears and takes umbrage

4) The former claims that, by having spoken to him in Spanish, the latter has tacitly accepted they have some familiarity. A reading of the siutation that bears no basis to reality and is, rightly, rejected by the FA panel.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Pothas]

West Brom don't score 5 goals in a game.