Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[Vermilion]

Where does any of that really disagree with what I've said? Evans piece had one valid sentiment buried amidst a pile of contrarian flimflam. No balance in the article (nor much regard for the laws of logic), but then it 'reads better' if it's taking a side, doesn't it?

[Jack D Rips]

I think Evans is being pretty accurate in fairness. It really is a bit ridiculous all of us pretending to be linguistic sociologists specialising in slang and colloquialisms in U-are-gay.

Although I agree with JDR's comment too - except that being fluent in Spanish doesn't mean you're fluent in the nuances of Spanish spoken in South America.

I wonder what would happen if Suarez had called, say, Yossi Benayoun "Little Jew"? He wouldn't do that though knowing that Yossi would have rudely pushed him out of the way before hiring Mossad to kill him and make it look like death by sexual misadventure. Luis probably thought he was on safe enough ground with the Frenchman Evra and assumed he would have retreated and pelted him with a few token garlic bulbs before finally collaborating with the Uruguyan army.

Anyway, I'm off to drunkenly rape a few altar boys bejaysus.

But apparently Evra knew enough about the nuances of Spanish to insult Suarez

[Chrono]

What sort of age do we live in where we need to censor a finger?

[Lee]

Yup, thought the same earlier on mate. Quite pathetic of the BBC really to sensor such a picture.

[Buzzo]

What sort of age do we live in where we need to censor a finger?

unbelievable. They are really re-writing the rules for Luis.

[Liverpel]

What sort of age do we live in where we need to censor a finger?

Someone on twitter pointed out that Sky had no problem showing Gadaffi's bloody body being dragged through the street, but found this picture of Suarez too obscene to show in full!

[Mattshark]

Didn't Rooney get a two game ban for swearing at the camera? Whilst the FA are often at fault it seems just as often people criticising them don't consider all the evidence either.

Suarez deserved his ban within the parameters that are usually used in such cases (annoying as they are in many cases).

He did, but I think that would have been harder to ignore.
I don't disagree with the ban, seems fair in this instance, it is the lack of consistancy.

[Nicey]

Someone on twitter pointed out that Sky had no problem showing Gadaffi's bloody body being dragged through the street, but found this picture of Suarez too obscene to show in full!

utter madness

[Nicey]

He did, but I think that would have been harder to ignore.
I don't disagree with the ban, seems fair in this instance, it is the lack of consistancy.

Perhaps from here on in they are cracking down, Suarez could be the first of many. We will see, one things for sure, as soon as any other players even fart in the wrong direction, hordes of Liverpool fans will be calling for a ban.

Even though this is inconsistent, I cannot support him giving the crowd the bird, regardless of what utter morons they might have been, you have to rise above that ****e. The racism case is a whole different matter all together, its cultural ignorance, politics both club, associations and ironically reverse prejudice all rolled into one, we should never let that one go till we clear his name, our name and call the FA/ ManU on there bull****.

Can I just say I ****ing hate United .. Happy Honkia

[TheElephantMan]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/suarez-judgement-to-be-most-detailed-in-the-fas-history-6282427.html

"The high level of scrutiny on the decision made by Goulding, former manager Dennis Smith and FA councillor Brian Jones, means that the commission – and the FA – cannot afford for there to be any flaws or loopholes in their reasoning. The governing body is well aware that every word will be pored over."

Surely there cannot be any flaws or loopholes in their reasoning? They clearly wouldn't deliver a guilty verdict if they weren't absolutely sure. It does seem that they're now trying to manipulate the information to fit the case when they should be just delivering the facts.

[Nicey]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...y-6282427.html

"The high level of scrutiny on the decision made by Goulding, former manager Dennis Smith and FA councillor Brian Jones, means that the commission – and the FA – cannot afford for there to be any flaws or loopholes in their reasoning. The governing body is well aware that every word will be pored over."

Surely there cannot be any flaws or loopholes in their reasoning? They clearly wouldn't deliver a guilty verdict if they weren't absolutely sure. It does seem that they're now trying to manipulate the information to fit the case when they should be just delivering the facts.

They are obviously still drafting there case against him, rather than finding him guilty they decided it and now they are finding his guilt

[Buzzo]

Still only 50 pages though, hardly the most onerous legal document ever created! Can't see the need for such a hold up... This is such a blatant stitch up!

[Neil Young]

What sort of age do we live in where we need to censor a finger?

In an age where a re-run of QI on UK Gold featured censorship of the word 'bottom-feeder', even though it was used quite correctly.

[fah-q]

In an age where a re-run of QI on UK Gold featured censorship of the word 'bottom-feeder', even though it was used quite correctly.

2 girls, 1 cup?

[Neil Young]

Your avatar still makes me laugh.