Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[Mostar]

Barnes on racism in football

http://news.sky.com/home/video/health/video/16144726

[sean_lfc]

Barnes talks so much sense and you can see how the Sky knobhead reporter is asking questions somewhat patronisingly (that's my take on it, obviously him being a Murdoch crony it's his job), but Barnes is completely matter of fact. Speaks SO much sense.

[Craig_H]

Barnes on racism in football

http://news.sky.com/home/video/health/video/16144726

Extremely articulate and intelligent from Barnes, too much so for the tabloid media.

[RichC]

excellent from Digge there, I should imagine this will get very little air time as it doesn't suit agendas.

[sean_lfc]

excellent from Digge there, I should imagine this will get very little air time as it doesn't suit agendas.

Exactly. That would actually be sensible, progressive and really deal with tackling racism!

[Tee]

Superb there from John Barnes.

[Nicey]

Has that guy Piara Power said a single word about the John Terry incident or Chelsea,s backing of him ? If not we should really call bull**** on these two prominent racism campaigners

[sean_lfc]

Has that guy Piara Power said a single word about the John Terry incident or Chelsea,s backing of him ? If not we should really call bull**** on these two prominent racism campaigners

Should? LoL, if being on the board of both Chelsea and Manchester United isn't biased enough, I don't know what is. Conveniently nobody has mentioned a potential conflicts of interest. Yet obviously I wouldn't expect that.

[Craig_H]

Has that guy Piara Power said a single word about the John Terry incident or Chelsea,s backing of him ? If not we should really call bull**** on these two prominent racism campaigners

He cant comment on the Terry case because it's an ongoing legal case.

And he knows this. Yet he still idiotically had a go at LFC for not commenting on the fan who was alleged to have absused the Oldham player, despite that too being an ongoing legal case.

[Craig_H]

Should? LoL, if being on the board of both Chelsea and Manchester United isn't biased enough, I don't know what is. Conveniently nobody has mentioned a potential conflicts of interest. Yet obviously I wouldn't expect that.

He's on the board of the 'Chelsea Foundation'. It's that other piece of crap Ouseley who is on the board of the 'Man Utd Foundation'.

It is extraordinarily coincidental that those shouting loudest for LFC to be hung, drawn and quartered, all seem to have a vested interest in one of our rivals.

Astonishingly coincidental....

[Mostar]

Extremely articulate and intelligent from Barnes, too much so for the tabloid media.

I like how he deflected the Suarez question at the end and how he emphasized LFC stand on Luis/Evra situation even though it is not his "own"

[Shaggy]

I think it's clear he thinks Suarez is innocent

Just doesn't want to say for fear of being labelled "tribal"

[Jack D Rips]

Was it 10, was it 7, was it 5? How does it make a fundamental difference in the context of the other evidence?

What is this other evidence you speak of Kenneth?

Evra's story is corroborated by Ferguson and four team mates who wernt even on the pitch at the time of the incident. So lets work that out. Evra tells them a story, they relate it to the ref and the FA. Evra gives it as evidence to the hearing and his story is corroborated. I doubt if even Col Gaddaffi at the height of his power would have used that logic.

As regards the video evidence there is nothing to prove the charge. Evra of course had three interviews and three viewings to formulate his story. Suarez had one interview and no viewing.

Suarez was happy to admit using the negro ( nay-gro) because he genuinely felt it had not racial connotations.

Nobody on or off the pitch heard or saw anything. Evra made claims on French TV of being abused 10 times , he told the ref he was called "n****r" five times. On the pitch he claim he told the ref that he was called "black". Are you seeing a pattern here? At a previous hearing (not on racial abuse) Evra's testimony was described as unreliable and exaggerated, yet the FA refused to allow this to be taken into consideration.

The fact was and remains that there was no evidence. It was one man's word against another. They decided to take the word of a man who is (a) fluent in English, (b) has been in England for 5 years,and (c) had three interviews and three simultanuous viewings of the video, against a defendent with little or no English who has been in England less than a year.

The commission was selected by the FA. i.e. the prosecution selected the judge and jury. We could have objected but then they would just select another committee.

Once they insisted on using objective intent instead of subjective intent, as argued by out solicitor, Suarez's goose was cooked. All they had to do was ascertain that he used a word that they considered abusive. Suarez in his innocence made that easy for them.

[shanks69]

out of those that have been interviewed digger is the only one to speak sense.

[kris90210]

That really was a fantastic interview with John Barnes