PREDICTION LEAGUE: The league tables for Game 03 (Arsenal) are now available! Click here to see where you stand.
REMINDER: 20 AUG 2015 - The comment policy prohibits personal insults, and that includes calling BR 'Bodgers'. Critique all you like, but *any* comment personally ridiculing/insulting Rodgers (or indeed anyone else) will be deleted.

15 December 2011

EXCLUSIVE: Suarez-Evra hearing: Potential bias and the Man United connection...

Luis Suarez's disciplinary hearing is currently being heard by a three-man FA panel, which must decide whether he is guilty of making a negative reference to Patrice Evra's "ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race". Clearly, when hearing such a sensitive case, absolute impartiality and lack of bias are essential, but I submit there is persuasive evidence to suggest that one particular member of the FA panel could conceivably harbour latent bias towards Manchester United.

In 1924, Lord Chief Justice Hewart articulated a fundamental principal of justice that applies in all spheres of conflict, including the conduct of disciplinary hearings:

"It is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done"

Please bear that concept in mind as you read the rest of the article.

On Wednesday 14th December, both The Guardian and The Telegraph reported that the Suarez-Evra disciplinary panel was composed of the following three people:

Paul Goulding QC - Specialist member of the FA's judicial panel since 2008.
Brian Jones - Chairman of the Sheffield and Hallamshire FA
Denis Smith - The former Sunderland manager.

Some interesting facts about Denis Smith:

- He managed Wrexham for six years between 2001 and 2007, during which time a key member of his squad was a certain Darren Ferguson, son of Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson.

- Smith held Ferguson in such high regard that he made him club captain, and regularly heaped glowing praise on the player. For example:

"Darren was always chatting before games, telling the players what to do, he took on responsibility and was good at relaying my orders onto the pitch.

"Darren always wanted to know why and there is nothing wrong with that. I wanted my players to question my decisions, as managers are not always right and that's what he did.

"There are people who you know have a chance to become a good manager and he was one of them. He is a leader and a strong character."

"They are getting someone who is organised, hard-working, dedicated and who can spot a good player"


- Smith was fired from the Wrexham job in 2007, and Ferguson Jr. left the club soon after, something that upset Smith:

"Okay, they got rid of me, but...to lose Ferguson as a player was a major blow – but people make decisions which they think are right at the time"

- In 2009, Smith published his autobiography: 'Just One of Seven'. The back cover states:

"Tough-talking, candid and in places brutally honest, Smith's autobiography reveals his tough upbringing amidst the gangs of Stoke-on-Trent, and...how he helped save Sir Alex Ferguson's job.

Photobucket

Clearly, the fact that Smith 'helped save Sir Alex Ferguson's job' is something of which he is immensely proud. Indeed, the promotional campaign for the book was based around that particular quote.

My question is this: is it really possible for someone with such close ties and (obvious) affection for the Ferguson family to remain truly impartial in a highly sensitive case involving Liverpool and...Manchester United?

I contacted the FA earlier, and a Spokesperson confirmed that it's standard practice to include on disciplinary panels someone who has some 'experience in the game', usually a former player or manager.

Of all the thousands of former players and managers, why did the FA choose someone with close ties to - and obvious affection for - the Ferguson family?

Looking at the situation objectively, I would argue there is a clear conflict of interest here. I do not doubt Smith's ability to be remain unbiased, but as the Lord Hewart quote goes: 'Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done'.

I would argue that there is serious potential for subconscious, inadvertent bias towards Manchester United here.

I further submit that in a case as serious and sensitive as this, the disciplinary panel must be unimpeachably impartial.

Looking at the facts *objectively*, is that really the case here?

Jaimie Kanwar

139 comments:

  1. Well done if the worse comes to the worst Liverpool can use this defense in any appeal

    ReplyDelete
  2. some sensible writing at last

    ReplyDelete
  3. brillant journillism jamie at last which is more than i can say for my spelling....

    ReplyDelete
  4. They ar esome straws you are clutching at - Suarez admitted saying the offensive words which is why the FA charged him. Paranoid much ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. You really done your homework!!!! Well written.

    Still I believe that Man U has always been favored in these situations (Off and On the Pitch).

    We just can't lose Suarez, specially during this crowded period.

    YNWA from Iraq

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's not the point.  Suarez's innocence or guilt is irrelevant to the point that the deciding panel must be completely impartial.  Clearly, it is not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. glad to see something positive and correct but the FA don't ever do the right thing

    ReplyDelete
  8. In the last 20 years the evil one, AF has manipulated the FA, The Referees and the whole system. When Is it Going To stop. When The Horse Racing stops Is my guess

    ReplyDelete
  9. i read that the FA always favour Man United just like they did in the Rio Ferdinand and Eric Cantona cases, a Man City player got 2 week suspension for failing to attend a drugs check where as Rio got an 9 month ban for the same offence. Very biased indeed

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think that is the best thing you've written Jaime. Well done and keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Haven't often said this here; but this is great work. It will now be very interesting to see what the outcome will be. 

    Of course, some might argue that if a man does not 'love' Alex Ferguson or Man Utd, there's a good chance that they really don't like them. & isn't it hilarious that Evra actually said to Marriner that 'you're only booking me because I'm black' - but that wasn't in the referee's report, was it?!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I hope this isn't the best thing you have written. The facts are that Suarez has admitted guilty of using the word negro. Any unbiased views can't be circulated until the FA have come to a decision. Manchester United do not get favourtism in these cases as was highlighted above. This is a Liverpool propaganda article designed to attempt to influence peoples perception. You have already slandered Dennis Smith's impartiality and ethical view. Granted you don't want to lose Suarez - an undoubtedly brilliant footballer any longer than necessary but just accept he is wrong no matter what technicality Liverpool try. 

    ReplyDelete
  13. What a disrespectful and tactless attempt at journalism. Disappoints me this trash is allowed to reach public viewing. 

    ReplyDelete
  14. the words suarez used are not offensive, they are friendly nickmames used in Uraguay where he is from, you f@cktard!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Disappoints me you have lungs to breath

    ReplyDelete
  16. Some journalism alright:
    http://www.lfconline.com/news/tmnw/dennis_smith_thanks_liverpool_football_club_288424/index.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  17. Perhaps you should comprehend what I've written before responding? I have not argued that United 'get favouritism in these cases' - I haven't mentioned any previous FA case; I refer only to the current case, and the irrefutable facts about Smith's association with the Ferguson family. These are legitimate points to make.

    Suarez's innocence or guilt have nothing to do with story; the impartial and unbiased composition of the FA disciplinary panel is the key issue here, and taking an objective view, it is not possible to state with certainty that the panel is completely impartial.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The word he used was "Negrito" that is what he admitted to saying, get your facts right first! "Sources in France have now reportedly suggested that the word allegedly
    used by Suarez to Evra was 'negrito' - a word that is said to literally
    translate as 'little black fella' but is argued to be generally an
    affectionate term in Suarez's native Uruguay and other parts of South
    America." BOOM! dumbass

    ReplyDelete
  19. The fact that Evra said that just goes to show how twisted his idea of racism is. Apparently the referee is a racist too. 

    ReplyDelete
  20. This took me one minute to find - so yeah great journalism:Tuesday, 18th July 2006 from LFCOnline Dennis Smith, Wrexham manager, has released a statement publicly praising Liverpool for helping the club ease their financial troublesWrexham hope to come out of administration on the 18th July and Smith has stated that Liverpool have been "absolutely magnificent" for helping the stricken Welsh club. "Liverpool have been absolutely magnificent to this football club since we've been in trouble""We could not have asked for any more or better from a Premier League club to show that they care about football in general and not just about themselves. They have kept us afloat."

    ReplyDelete
  21. Man Utd players nickname for Evra was Negrito,given to him by south american hernendez.In other words this nickname had been getting under Evras skin long before Suarez joined in.Surely the man utd players who were calling Evra this should be charged as well.Suarez 100% did not think he was causing any offence to Evra,and Evra knows this hes just using this as a way to get his own man utd team mates to stop calling him negrito.99% of right thinking people know Suarez has done nothing wrong or why would he admit to saying he was calling him the same nickname as Evras man utd team mates,there was no proof so why not do what Man Utd do in all cases were there is no proof and deny it,ill tell you why because Suarez has got nothing to hide,yet this laughing stock of an excuse for a country will always find a way to stick up for the foreigner.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Absolutely, but it's only Suarez' 'alleged' statements that come under scrutiny. But the FA & PL want to see a '1 game, 1 community, fair game of respect' - what a joke!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Not really the same as 'saving Alex Ferguson's job' though, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  24. typical bin dipper drivel. boris johnson isn't right about much but he certainly knew the dippers when he said they have a victim mentality. I find it laughable how you cnuts think you know a person simply by the shirt that he wears. I'm sure you'd defend the cnut if you're mother (if you knew her) accused him of rape - but then again who'd believe a whore

    ReplyDelete
  25. What is your point, exactly?  How does this have anything to do with the article? That is a standard comment any manager would make.  It doesn't change the fact that he managed ferguson's son for 6 years; made him his captain, and saved ferguson's job.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'm not condemning racism in anyway but I read an article on the Telegraph stating that when Suarez apologised to Evra and pat him on his head ... Evra said," don't touch me you South American", which then prompted Suarez to reply, "Porque, Negro"? 

    Well if this is the case then referring to someone as "you south american" is an offensive gesture and can also be deemed as racism - Evra should be banned just as long as Suarez!

    ...and before anyone comes out backing up Evra ... yes being called black may have offended him and most probably a lot of people in the world but some South Americans may have also been offended by the remark made towards Suarez.

    It's a different form of racism that can't be swept under the carpet just because one player is black and it might have appeared more offensive to the MAJORITY. 

    ReplyDelete
  27. Wow....just wow. 

    Clutching' and 'straws sums up this angle of attack by the story as well as the unproven allegations made by jnhaydon on here about what Evra said to the ref. Wouldn't be surprised if there were a few posters who take jnhaydon's word as factual, as such is the tribal nonsense that football fans come out/side with, regardless of common sense. What is it about football that makes people lose all sense of logic and common sense? 'Whatever my club or anyone associated to my club is right, end of' mentality.

    Getting pathetic really from both sides. But this takes the biscuit.

    ReplyDelete
  28. instead of blustering about nothing, why don't you address the points raised in the article? Why don't you explain how Denis Smith can *objectively* be seen to be impartial?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Excellent bit of journalism..well.done! 

    ReplyDelete
  30. You don't believe that D'.. er!.. ick.
    The aggressive, facebiting, cheating Suarez was most certainly not being friendly to Evra, Rather he was being abusive, as behind your misjudged blinkered loyalty, you know only too well .

    ReplyDelete
  31. The aggressive, facebiting, cheating Suarez was most certainly not being friendly to Evra, Rather he was being abusive, unfortunately for him he used a racial slur, and behind your misjudged blinkered loyalty, you guys know only too well .

    ReplyDelete
  32. Really enjoyed that, obviously certain people have completely failed to see your point which wasn't 'is Suarez guilty or not guilty', but can Mr Smith be SEEN to be unbiased even if he wasn't. In other words the FA could have saved this question from being asked by bringing someone with no previous connections to either club. As for someone saying that Evra said 'are you booking me because I am black' I have read that somewhere too, maybe the Independent online. I agree too that calling somebody black is the same as calling somebody a south american. Which is the same as calling somebody English or White. None can be changed. What defines the racist act is if it is said I certain why.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Deary me!
    Is the concept of intention too difficult for you. A blackman will call another blackman n....* without offence. A non black man with the intent of causing offence will do exactly that, cause offence if he abusively refers to a black man as a n....* 

    ReplyDelete
  34. Nivster
    "I'm not condemning racism in any way."

    So you agree with Liverpool football clubs stance. But think about it, does not condemning racism mean you are a racist? Many would think so. If Liverpool do not join the rest of the football world in condemning racism then they will lose all respectability and the club should be permanently banned from all competition.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This could be seen as more biased than having managed man udt's managers son - who he didn't buy but inherited.
    Liverpool saved the club he managed.

    I'm sure if we go through all the players he's played with or managed there shall be a number of links with Liverpool and every other premiership team.

    As for saving his job - it's funny how there is no details regarding this point. Well I went and read the section of the book (on Amazon) and Smith words are that after a game where united beat then in 1991 that Fergie said "he might have lost if job if united had got beaten" - this hardly counts as saving his job - and was more sensationalism for book sales.

    ReplyDelete
  36. you sound like a spokesman for the pc brigade.Suarez has done nothing wrong.You are failing to grasp what Suarez said,i think you have your n words mixed up.Negrito is a common term in south america which is accepted and means little black man,in fact its a term of endearment.So much so I have started to use this word in my everyday language to express myself.The other n word your on about is unacceptable except for blacks to call each other .

    ReplyDelete
  37. What's funny about it? It's plastered all over the over his book. Smith expands upon that Ferguson quote later on in the book, and goes into greater detail.

    In any event, it doesn't change anything: it still casts doubt on his ability to be seen to be impartial, and the FA should've ensured that someone with no close connection to united was chosen.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Come off it, Suarez has admitted using the racial slur referncing Evras
    skin colour. "negro". Blatantly racist and blatantly offensive from the
    antagonist that is Suarez. 

    ReplyDelete
  39. Come off it, Suarez has admitted using the racial slur referncing Evras
    skin colour. "negro". Blatantly racist and blatantly offensive from the
    antagonist that is Suarez. 

    ReplyDelete
  40. i think, it all boils down to comedian Chris Rocks assertion " a white  man say nigger? NOT Really"

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ha ha wiseup. love it!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Come off it, Suarez has admitted using the racial slur referncing Evras
    skin colour. "negro". Blatantly racist and blatantly offensive from the
    antagonist that is Suarez. 

    ReplyDelete
  43. Come off it d..ick, Suarez has admitted using the racial slur referncing Evras
    skin colour. "negro". Blatantly racist and blatantly offensive from the
    antagonist that is Suarez. 

    ReplyDelete
  44.  Come off it DerICK, Suarez has admitted using the racial slur referncing Evras
    skin colour. "negro". Blatantly racist and blatantly offensive from the
    antagonist that is Suarez.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Funny how black people call each other n*g*e*s and make a big joke about it and they even do it out of anger and violence towards each other but let another race call them the same thing and they go off their heads???

    ReplyDelete
  46. No he didn't. He never admitted guilt of any sort, only that he did say 'negro.' This isn't a strict liability offence where  the act is enough to make him guilty. The moot point is whether or not he used the word abusively. If you mistakenly took something of mine and acknowledged it, you admit to taking it, but not that you were guilty of taking it - which would imply theft. The facts would be that you took it without my consent, but it has to be proved you intended to wrongfully take something of mine for you to be guilty of anything.

    ReplyDelete
  47. http://www.lfconline.com/news/tmnw/dennis_smith_thanks_liverpool_football_club_288424/index.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  48. Well, it now seems like he has links with both clubs, being indirectly indebted to one and being personally linked with the other. Perhaps that is why he is there, to act in the interest of both clubs. That both players could be punished is a possibility as Evra made a reference to Suarez's ethnic origins in the same manner.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The word negro was not used but NEGRITO which translates as little black man and in Spanish speaking countries is not considered a racial slur is it really racial in English terms?

    ReplyDelete
  50. then why didnt he stop calling him after evra expressed his displeasure?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Everyone within or associated with the FA would be excluded if it was a criminal case.

    ***This is not a criminal case.

    Though that might happen after the outcome of this hearng.

    ReplyDelete
  52. You are the one who is misguided...

    Firstly, even if Suarez had admitted it, which there is no proof of, the only one whose behaviour is 'blatantly offensive & racist' would be Evra; who on the day was at all kinds of divisive maneuverings...

    'Repressed...' you seem to have a habit of repeating yourself, dimwit; is that because if you repeat meaningless pap enough times, people might believe it? But looking at your child-loving, vacant avatar; & references to masturbation, perverts & dildos - it's fairly obvious who the repressed one is! 

    Why not take your pseudo-psychology/psychiatry to prevent the Glazers from robbing manure of any decent players?

    ReplyDelete
  53. So if you're a blond and i call u "hey blond" am i being a racist?? Am quite a stupid kind of person, please clear my doubt professor...

    ReplyDelete
  54. He is not indepted to Liverpool, Wrexham are.. Do you think hodgson would ever care if liverpool fell into administration??

    ReplyDelete
  55. Think you are a retard man, go back to primary school.. How many times it has been stated in all the comments that negrito is not an offensive word, then why are you so desperate and repeating the same thing??? Think you're chinese and don't understand english... Who wrote the comments for you negrito??

    ReplyDelete
  56. I don't agree to: "FA never do the "right" thing."
    Here your perception of right is different and obviously biased.

    Note: Not saying that you are wrong but your "right" may be "wrong" to majority of the people.

    ReplyDelete
  57. sorry ,jnhaydm ,I didn't mean to offend you.
    but surely you can see that you are on very thin ground, defending racism. The fact hat you take offence rather easily perhaps reveals that you actually do realise that you are somewhat misguided (blind loyalty?) in defending what is universally considered a racial slur in the UK.
    Anyway merry christmas to you.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Suarez did not actually use the n*g*r word. 
    And if he had, the context and his intent would have rendered it racist abuse as the word negro does.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Sorry luis
    No offence meant I was just being friendly.

    ReplyDelete
  60. South America does not refer to an ethnic background.
    Education ,education,education!

    ReplyDelete
  61. is it really racist in english terms?
    Yes it is.

    ReplyDelete
  62. The problem is not that Suarez didn't mean it. Problem is that he persisted with using the word despite constant agitation from Evra's side. You can't blame Suarez and Evra for misunderstanding though.
    It all boils down to this, "Why did Suarez persist using the word 10 to 12 times in spite of the irritaion being caused to Evra? Was he always going to use the excuse of "cultural shock" to come clean?

    Racism is a sensitive issue, and I am sure Suarez, who has been living in Europe for so long would have also heard of the "offensive word". So, Why did he risk using a variant which obviously would have caused a problem? (That to more than 10 times)

    ReplyDelete
  63. language is made up of  socio-culturally and historically and politically loaded signifiers. Blond does not have any connotations of ideological or de-humanising racial abuse. Blondes certainly don't get a great press when it comes to being respected for brainpower but that is more of a passive, childlike, seductive, gender attractiveness thingy.

    ReplyDelete
  64. The word should be banned in all areas of life seeing that it is so offensive instead of  rappers and black musicians making a mint out of using the word!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Describing someone as a little person black,white,yellow or brown can that be judged to be racist ?
    We will have to get all the Spanish speaking countries to drop the word negro and start using some other word may be noir for their language.Young black people need to stop using the word and educate themselves on the hypocrisy and the confusing it's causing in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Exactly my point jj, how can the word be racist if black people use it towards each other?

    I bet if another black player called Evra a negro then he would have laughed it off.

    ReplyDelete
  67. ok fenshui

    Then why is the word n*g*e* not deemed racist when black rappers as jj pointed out use it in their music. To go even further, people from around the globe no matter what the colour of their skin listen to the music these rappers make. If it such a big issue then these black rappers are the biggest racists in the world towards their own skin colour.

    Now please explain that.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I'll accept your apology, though I'm not in the least offended; which makes your pathetic jibe about my 'sensitivity' ridiculous.

    If any of the alleged comments regarding Evra & Suarez are true, then Evra himself is racist, which only portrays just what a childish, lying, hypocritical, loud mouth he really is. He should be banned

    ReplyDelete
  69. Can anyone in football be impartial with SAF when he has been manager for over 25 years and must know every single FA offical going, lets hope Kenny being manager can have the same effect as the SAF, like it has over the last few weeks with managers supporting Kenny in Suarez and FA challenging Rooneys sending off.

    ReplyDelete
  70. It could still be taken as offensive though Fenshui especially in the way Evra said it. Just because it doesn't fall into your offensive category doesn't mean it won't upset some else.

    "You South American"... how about "you Pakistani" or "you Indian" or "you African" - these would certainly offend me!

    As a Liverpool supporter I was really disappointed when this news 1st came out and when Suarez was accused of saying something 10 times which is a lie. 

    He should be punished and if so - so should Evra the fucking little prick!

    ReplyDelete
  71. I agree with you totally on this one but it is funny how comebackrafa has referred to his team mates calling him that name - I didn't realise Man U had 11 black 1st team players and Hernandez name was mentioned above - what colour is he again?

     

    ReplyDelete
  72. Yea .. suarez was using 'friendly nicknames' to summon his good mate Evra. Is 'Fucktard' too a friendly term in your native shithouse ??

    ReplyDelete
  73. Explain the Rio drugs ban. I dare you. 

    Plus Rooney's ban for swearing. 

    ReplyDelete
  74. Whilst reading what you call an article there are many things to point out for correction. But to spend time highlighting them all only adds attention to a poor piece of writing. So if Dennis Smith leans one way he is in favour of United and if he goes the other way it's to avoid a media storm. That is all your tat has achieved. Until this Dennis Smith's character was beyond reproach yet you felt the need to tarnish his image in an attempt to get your man off. 

    ReplyDelete
  75. The real Suarez I doubt. He isn't a stupid man. He spent 3 years in Holland where they are continually involved in racial disputes. The BBC has stated the reference to negro so how are the rest of supposed to know what he said. All we want is justice for what any other player would get punished for. 

    ReplyDelete
  76. Suarez hasn't come directly from south america though has he. Liverpool FC wrong. Rest of world losing respect. Point is that this article is bad journalism attempting to slur an innocent mans name in an attempt to sway a decision in Liverpool's favour

    ReplyDelete
  77. So if Suarez had called Evra "a European" that's the same thats what your saying. Do you not think as Evra was angry he stopped himself saying something and you south american came out. I didn't realise there were so many racists standing amongst the famous kop. Evra is an easy target Suarez and Dalgleish knew this. Liverpool are not innocent no matter how they corrupt the investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  78. It's extremely sickening to know how many Liverpool so called fans actually defend Suarez and worse still actually like this terrible article. Slurring an innocent mans integrity is one way to get your man off but it won't gain respect from any quarter. No matter what it's South American origin, Suarez has been in Europe for long enough to know it's significance racially. He is not a silly player. The opposite he is a brilliant footballer. He knew that whatever word he has admitted using was annoying Evra and continued to use it. How that is defendable by accusing Mr Smith of wrong doing defies me. Now he is pressured with siding with United and accusations of favourtism or siding with Liverpool and accusations of avoiding a media storm. All this article, this utter piece of straw clutching, United hate fuelled garbage has done is make an innocent man a walking target while attempting to get a guilty man off free. I feel pity for the author of this work if this is his best. Don't quit the day job Jamie because you clearly have no place in the world of journalism. What kind of joker and idiot would publish this rubbish. Really.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I did not address your sensitivity as a jibe, I think this is a sensitive issue and I think that you are extremely sensitive as deep down you know racism is not defensible. In a sense that is a kind of compliment I am giving you.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Wesley - I've just deleted two of your other comments. If you can't debate without hurling insults then don't bother posting at all.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Funny how you allow all the swearing and insulting posts to remain but delete the ones slamming your article. Just because people think your article is rubbish and tell you that slurring an innocent mans name is wrong you delete them. What a joke. You put your opinion in public view and just because people don't praise you or agree you silence them. Facts. Suarez used language knowingly insulting to Europeans. D.Smith never actually saved Fergie from the sack. What difference does who his captain make. What difference does the length of time he managed Ferguson jr matter. It's how the evidence of this case is handled. If you don't like people having an opinion different to yours then don't right such interesting but controversial material.

    ReplyDelete
  82. And for your record Jamie I write for 2 websites where all comments are welcome and criticism is taken onboard without deleting it. Opinion is a god given right and I wouldn't dream of taking that away from someone.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Nonsense. I'm not interested in whether you think the article is 'rubbish' - that is not a credible counter-argument. Make your points in the right way (i.e. civil and without derogatory comments), or don't bother at all.

    As for posts with swearing/insults - the profanity filter catches most of those; I am not online 24/7 so i can't catch those that slip through immediately, but when I get to them, they're deleted/edited.

    I don't silence anyone; you have no clue what your're taking about. The comment policy on this site has been clear for years: disagree all you like, but if you can't do it without resorting to derogatory comments/insults etc, your comment will be deleted.

    If you or anyone else can't handle that, then tough luck.

    ReplyDelete
  84. That's where we disagree. Why should I allow insults and derogatory comments on the site? If someone came up to you in the street and started slagging you off, I guess you would just stand there are take it, right? Wrong. The same applies online. Attack the ARGUMENT, not the PERSON. It's a god-given right to slag someone off, but it is not a god give right to just take it.

    If people can't debate on this site without resorting to insults etc then their comments will be deleted. End of story.

    For those that don't like that policy, there are thousands of other websites to visit.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Fair enough. I'll simplify then. Your concerns for impartiality should of been raised after a decision was made. Do you not see how you article can be used to create media gossip whichever way Denis Smith rests his opinion. For United and people will claim it must be his apparent ties to the Ferguson's or for Liverpool and he is avoiding the accusations mentioned. You cannot question the ethics of the panel until they have judged this case. Regardless of the outcome the 3 man panel will judge it on it's own merit which answers you question. Yes a panel can be trusted to be seen to be impartial as countless men in football have come into contact with Fergie sr at some point. The claim about saving Fergie's career is actually more a ploy to sell copies and his relationship with Darren Ferguson bears no relevance to this enquiry. I see you may have concerns but in your heart of hearts you know the score. Whatever word was used Suarez knew what he was doing and the reaction he was seeking. Nobody is denying Suarez's brilliance on the pitch and we all want to see him there but he should b punished for racism and surely that if we are all honest should be the real point. If he is guilty he should be charged and if he is to get away with it so be it. But we must let those 3 men judge for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Well we will see how quick you delete my comment without insult but disagreeing entirely with the principal of the article. Which is my argument. Surely if someone came out and questioned your impartiality over the internet but you wasn't aware of it wouldn't that offend you. By your own rules your are technically insulting Denis Smith and I doubt you have ever met him or heard of him until this week.

    ReplyDelete
  87. No, it would not offend me at all. I haven't cast aspersions against Smith's character; in fact, I specifically state that I believe he can be impartial. You still don't understand the point of my article: it is not about Smith, or Suarez - it is about the FA and the *appearance* of impartiality.

    Ultimately, I am criticising the FA for choosing Smith to sit on the panel.

    Why can you not see this? I preface the article with a quote that very clearly sets out my point of view.

    Smith is not at fault here - the FA is at fault for creating a situation where it could *appear* that one of its panel members could potentially be biased.

    It is undoubtedly in the public interest to raise this issue, and timing has nothing to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
  88. It's undoubtedly in Liverpool's interest to raise this issue but not the public's. The FA chose 3 random men with no connections to Manchester United or Liverpool.  Did you slam the FA for their feeble bowing to FIFA over the poppy row. The issue is justice and if Justice is done nothing matters. 

    ReplyDelete
  89. And for the record I bet my life that Denis Smith is more impartial than you have been. You have proved quite clearly that your opinion is biased on this issue. You must be right

    ReplyDelete
  90. Please explain how you know the FA chose 'three random men' - were you privy to the selection process?

    ReplyDelete
  91. apologies random incorrect word. the FA chose 3 men who had no ties with United or Liverpool. Admittedly I had as much choice as you did in the selection but all I see the FA of being guilty of is not being as paranoid as you seem to be. I understand your paranoia. Losing Suarez for any amount of time will damage your Champions League asperations and could affect Europa League. I hope personally the FA only give him a 2 month ban and a fine as I'd rather see him play and I'm not a Liverpool fan. What would we write about with him out for extended period.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Please post the sections from my article that prove I am 'biased'. You are obviously a Man United fans who is incapable of being objective.

    ReplyDelete
  93. No I am a football fan. I care about the best interests of football.

    ReplyDelete
  94. For the hundredth time: this has nothing to do with Suarez, or 'paranoia' over losing him. That's what you fail to see. if Suarez is guilty, I welcome a ban for him. I've posted articles before slamming Suarez for cheating, so the idea that I have some personal allegiance to him is a million miles from the truth.

    The FA should've made sure that the people picked for the panel had no personal ties to Man United, and they failed to do that, which is incompetence.

    If one of the panel members had close ties to Liverpool, I would've highlighted that too in the same way, and people who visit this site regularly definitely know that to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  95. So you deny that you are a Man United fan?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Nobody on the panel has direct ties to Manchester United. Dig enough you find some faint links to Darren Ferguson which by your facts ended in 2007. The book reference was an attempt to boost ratings and sales and the actual incident in question can never be proved correct or otherwise. 

    ReplyDelete
  97. I fail to see why my allegiance has any bearing on this discussion but for the record my team lie somewhere in League 2. 

    ReplyDelete
  98. I have to add my point of view here as some of the arguements that Negrito is not a racist comment to make.... go and say it it Brixham, Peckham et al. and see the response that you get... Saurez knew he was gettin a negative reaction from Evra with his comments but still continued to use the word (allegedly!). I live in Adelaide South Australia and over here the word WOG is used to describe people of Greek or Itlaian origin ans is an acceptable term, however, I would not dream of using it else where due to cultural norms elsewhere. Suarez should follow the same dictum.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Managing the son of Sir Alex Ferguson for 6 years - and making him your captain - is not a 'faint link' at all. The incident referenced in Smith's book doesn't have to be proved - he made a massive deal about how he 'saved Alex Ferguson's job' - it's about appearances, and the appearance of impartiality. What is so hard to understand about that?

    ReplyDelete
  100. lol we are not allowed to comment on Suarez or Liverpool or Denis Smith here. Apparently we have to focus on the FA for failing to cross reference every footballing man to see if and when they may or not have met Alex or Darren Ferguson who to my knowledge are not directly involved with this case. We can not comment about Smith's impartiality just that if Suarez is guilty that it must be due to vague references to apparent United favourtism. That alleged favourtism is a book extract over exaggerating Smith's role in saving Fergie's career and the fact he managed Darren at Wrexham, made him captain and spoke highly of him. We are allowed to comment that these connections the FA should of seen but we are not allowed to state that Denis Smith will judge this case in its own merit on facts

    ReplyDelete
  101. He bigged himself up and made himself sound moreimportant thanhe really was.Yes he managedDarren thatdoesn't mean favourtism to United

    ReplyDelete
  102. Jeez, you *still* don't get it, do you? Once again: it's not about Smith having favouritism towards United; it's about justice being done AND BEING SEEN TO BE DONE.

    Any panel investigating any player *must* be unimpeachably impartial, especially in such a sensitive case. In this situation, given Smith's history with both Ferguson's, there's no way that he can avoid the appearance of bias, and this is the fault of the FA for choosing him to be on the panel.

    By having Smith there, it leaves the FA open to accusations of bias, something they could've avoided if they chose someone with no close ties to Alex Ferguson or his son.

    ReplyDelete
  103. What are these ties to Sir Alex you keep going on about. Except some vague book reference. There is nothing to suggest a friendship between them. If Suarez is guilty justice will be done. Simple. It's Justice you seek and hopefully you will slam the FA should Suarez escape. One man's potential impartiality may not matter. But if all the panel come to the conclusion then your doubts will give internet Liverpool fans ammunition to launch attacks against Denis Smith. You are right to raise the FA's failure in this procedure but this article would of been better served being posted tomorrow after the verdict is announced. It's rumours like this that led to Gary Speed's suicide

    ReplyDelete
  104. Wesley - your Gary Speed comment (now deleted) was completely out of order. If you persist with those kind of comments, I will have no option but to ban you.

    ReplyDelete
  105. that doesn't matter, both situations logically require impartial views to determine the outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  106. I see what you are trying to say but your argument is flawed. When you are in another country you are bound by the culture of that country and you have to abide by it. If he didn't know that and used the aforementioned word by mistake, he should have stopped and apologised for an honest error, not repeat it a dozen times and in the end claim innocence on account of "cultural shock". So even though the first act is not punishable, the further repetition of the act is.
    And come on dude, can you really use the word "n****' a dozen times lovingly and not abusively? It's like shooting a gun sayin 'I love you' and smiling.... 

    ReplyDelete
  107. Well, that is the whole point of it, right?  If the other person/community does not like it, then why use it? You see, if the word were used, say 500 years ago, then alright. But after 500 years of slavery and pain caused to the black community by us whites, I guess they deserve atleast one kind gesture of abolishment of the word which offends them. How hard can that be?

    ReplyDelete
  108. You sully the reputations of websites like givemeFootball and all (and rightly so) while you yourself are guilty of doing the same - stirring up a controversy about nothing. How can the FA start digging into people's pasts trying to find the best fit. What do you know about the other two judges which makes you think they would be impartial. Maybe they are closet Liverpool fans. To what lengths will you go to ensure justice. And My God the hypocrisy - Suarez is innocent until PROVEN guilty even though he has a shit track record of being a biter and a blatant cheater. But you still want him to get a fair trial. What about Denis Smith. how can accuse him off bias when you haven't even given him a chance to prove himself.

    ReplyDelete
  109. O really, so if a black man call u a blond then he's a racist!!! Go and look at the meaning of racism.. Racism does not mean calling a black, black!!! Its the way that some words are said in some circumstances thats called racism!!!! Like for example evra calling suarez you south american??? What does that mean?? And if suarez will not call a black man black then will he be using this word negrito with kuyt??!!!! Use your brain a little

    ReplyDelete
  110. I think you should be proud of where you are. If you are from Antarctica
    and somebody calls you "you antarctican", then what is so wrong.
    However, calling somebody a word taboo in many countries has to count
    for an offence. If Suarez had called Evra, You French, and Evra had
    complained, then fair enough, Evara should be reprimanded, but using a
    word that is so hotly debated in the 21st century just isn't right.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Circumstantial evidence is hence important in such situations. The circumstances in which Hernandez "maybe" uses the word is miles different to that in which Suarez was using it. Obviously Evra was incensed, then why did Suarez persist? Obviously he was trying to get on his nerve. Maybe he always had in mind that he could get away with it by saying that "In my country it is deemed good". This, in my view is very serious and a mockery of the sentiments of European people and their culture where rules are being implemented to ban the word. 

    ReplyDelete
  112. Jaimie K , with all due respect, your article is based on a hypothesis extracted from stuff that is "published" by third party sources. Keane was Uniteds captain and one of its legends, but I guess that didn't make Keano an apple in Sir Alex's eye even though he constantly praised him. And I don't think you were in ferguson jr's team to have the credibility to judge a captain-coach relationship.

    So, while I understand your concerns, I guess it is fair to say that neither you or I are friends/family/close associates to any of the aforementioned people. Hence, we obviously are very far from knowing their intentions and it is more likely that the FA will know better.

    So, let us all just wait for the results.

    ReplyDelete
  113. wesley, fenshui, firstly, both off yous fall foul off twisting and manipulating jamies points, proven by avoiding answering simply questions on how is he being biased, a link between two parties in any positive way (even negative) should be avoided for legal reasons, whether the link is strong or weak.  Wesley the way you write and express views shows your clearly opinionated and one sided, signs of a bad writer.  Fenshui, are you not bored off going onto all of the sights regarding this matter expressing your biased one sided views, you fail to back anything up in any off the sites with facts, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2074811/Luis-Suarez-v-Patrice-Evra-Everything-need-know-race-row.html?ITO=1490  this site is unbiased and clearly disproves all your points, firstly you accuse suarez off being racist in more than 10 occassions, like evra said it will be on cameras, it should be, but it appears its not, and no evidence that it was heard once by officials or players, anyway players cant stand as witnesses.  Also, you've accused suarez of saying negro then negrito, depending on who your arguing with, surely with all the facts you apparently have you wouldnt get this confused, it appears suarez used the term in a none abbusive way (whatever he is supposed to have said) when he was trying to appologise to evra b4 being shoved away by evra, apparently with VIDEO evidence proving this, also you keep saying surez firstly said he said nothing, he actually stated he said nothing racist to evra and was clearly baffled, you biased bigotry views make you look pathertic fenshui, you've brought no hard evidence or facts to the table only accusations, whats your obsession with trolling all of suarez related sights recently, your name appears everywhere, i feel concerned and sorry for you my friend.  As for you jamie your article is good, when it comes to the law everything has to be beyond all doubt, clearly the FA and abidding to simple regulations and their bringing themselves into disrespute (probably spelt wrong)

    ReplyDelete
  114. My word, only a Liverpool journo could make this utter bullshit up. Denis Smith is one of the most highly respected figures in football. His reputation is cleaner than the windows on the side of your house (if they aren't boarded up). To accuse of him bias, all because he has dealt with Alex Ferguson is an absolute disgrace. This is journalism at it's worse... false accusations based on no evidence. Smarmy, disgusting and potentially libelous. 

    Hey, let me give you a better court case. The one where clear CCTV evidence showed that Steven Gerrard violently attacked a music DJ in a nightclub without provocation. You didn't say anything about the biased jury then, did you? The fact half the jury were residents of the local area, did you? No, you're an amateur. I don't know whether Luis Suarez is guilty, but if he is, he deserves to be punished. He doesn't deserve to be let off, just because he plays for Liverpool and people think it's a travesty that a club with such an illustrious history... blah blah blah, fuck off. I don't give a shit. If the guy is innocent, he will be found innocent. If the guy is racist, he will be found racist and hopefully hung out to dry just like John Terry. Denis Smith's integrity will remain completely in tact and he will sleep easy tonight. You on the other hand, you're small time. You're nothing. You're a typical lying Liverpool fan, manipulating evidence and facts just like most of your cronies from Merseyside.

    Oh and by the way, just because you're about 15, doesn't mean the stuff you've included in this article isn't wrong, disgusting and potentially libelous. I also hope Denis Smith's attorney scours this article for anything he can get you for. If so, you better lawyer up good dickweed. I'd really love for Denis Smith to take you and your jack for shit hairy stomached mum to court over this disgusting rubbish. I really mummys lubed up and ready for a good fucking, because if they do take you to court, you haven't got a leg to stand on you shoe lace stealing little pecker.

    ReplyDelete
  115. United fan...This really isnt a United vs. Liverpool issue though.  What would United or Ferguson have to gain from the outcome, regardless of what that may be?  

    ReplyDelete
  116. @89a0b6cfca122eb8331ee393d104acfd Now come on, it is bad to have a good debate if you start calling people "bad writer" or "opinionated". Everybody thinks that way for the opposing debater but never says it!
    Also, I will not go too deep into the "facts" put on the website link you provide. As you will notice, the only people to have spoken on the matter multiple times are Suarez and Dalgish, while Evra gave some "facts" right after the match after which he has been quiet and I don't think SAF is even interested. 
    So, obviously, all facts are yet to come out and the credibility of the existing facts are also under question as if they were so clear, as you put it to be, FA would have reached its verdict by now. 

    As far as the article is concerned , it is a nice bit of research and obviously something to be looked into. However, do remember that our mind has the inherent tendency to manipulate existing data to come up with conclusions which suit our needs. Hence, the "obvious" affection being quoted above might not actually be true. Who knows if his wife/son/daughter is/is'nt a Liverpool supporter?

    Cheers :)

    ReplyDelete
  117. Liverpool and United have the power to object and eject a person from the panel in the build up to the hearing but neither have decided to do so.

    So if Dalglish & co don't have a issue with Denis Smith's presence, that is fine by me.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Liverpool and United have the power to object and eject a person from the panel in the build up to the hearing

    Please provide a source for that please. Sounds like unfounded assertion to me.

    ReplyDelete
  119. So we have the outcome, an 8-match ban plus £40,000 fine - not prejudiced? Where is the evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  120. He didn't admit to using the word 'Negro'.  He used the word 'Negrito' which is a term of affection in Uruguay.

    ReplyDelete
  121. hahaha straws clutching , hope he plays against citeh

    ReplyDelete
  122. Please copy and paste the line in the article where I directly accuse Denis Smith of bias. You clearly haven't grasped the thrust of my argument.

    ReplyDelete
  123. There is not one single case of any player from either side saying they heard any word starting with "neg."  If it was said more than 10 times was the game between two teams of deaf players that happened to include EVRA. Evra is someone who has a record of playing the racist card. Clearly he had no respect for the ref' when he made his "you are only booking me because I am black" Is that a racist sentence? If not, it is certainly playing yet again the race card by him. Jamie you are correct there should not even be the remotest connection on any panel with either LFC or UTD. There is adifference between the Terry and Suarez. Just look at the expression on Terry's face when the lip readers gave their opinion as to what he said.  The black lawyers well thats a surprise isn't it. Do not forget lawyers defend guilty people as well as innocent. They can be biased.

    ReplyDelete
  124. I dont hear UTD condeming yet another reference to racism by Evra or his insult to Suarez by making a reference to his country of birth. I believe Evra made the first remark which was followed by a friendly South American remark.

    ReplyDelete
  125. I do not stand on the famous KOP but think you are spouting rubbish. Unlike you, I was not on the field so do not have the provable facts like you. Nor do I know what Suarez and Dalglish think. How many times did you personally hear the remarks made as the amount quoted seems to vary.    Yours unbiased, acting on provable facts only.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Wesleyhillier you must have a lot of time to waste on spouting non facts. There should have been no way any panel member could remotely be conected to either club. Certainly not in print.

    ReplyDelete
  127. No proof any word was said more than once. The only person who said it was used more than 10 times is the person who has a reputation for playing the race card. We all know who that is! Even Evra's team mates or Ref have not backed him. Only Fergie who knows what happened. Not one player heard the so called abuse.  Evra you should be ashamed and Fergie for supporting the decision without knowing the transcript of the hearing.

    ReplyDelete
  128. More rubbish from Foregamesalive. Clearly a biased UTD supporter.  Get a life

    ReplyDelete
  129. I am glad Jj you pointed that out to Wesley. He clearly is confused by what was said perhaps he is even silly enough to believe Evra's more than ten times statement, never made once to the ref. Players are always arguing with the ref so why did Evra not mention it ONCE. Becuase it wasn't said more than ten times

    ReplyDelete
  130. It seems Evra tells porky pies. I base that on his previous history

    ReplyDelete
  131. If it does not refer to where Suarez was born, which is ethnic what does it refer to?  Examine your own school education before you introduce the word "education" Based on some of your spelling you can not comment on education as you very well know.  I think this site has had enough of your rubbish.  Please go and watch your Utd videos

    ReplyDelete
  132. The trouble is that because no other player heard comments. Evra could not complain or show displeasure. Why not?  Nothing said to complain about. Do not forget Evra has also said he pointed out to the Ref  he was being booked for being black. No mention though in the Ref's report of that lie. I think Evra has caused all this trouble over one friendly comment. Why no pressure by the FA on Evra.

    ReplyDelete
  133. I can not believe Wesleyhillier writes for two sites based on the rubbish he churns out. Perhaps he should confine his rubbish to the two sites HE SAYS he writes for. Wesley, I hope for your sake you get more support in the like vote than on this site. If I was you I would be concerned with the lack of support you get on this site.
    Frankly Wes you have no idea in my opinion. You write thins without any proof. Hearsay and lies are not admissable in law.

    ReplyDelete
  134. and by saying Suarez is racist is like saying the countries like uruguay and mexico are to,as hernandez once used that word also

    ReplyDelete
  135. ok the drug ban should of been a life ban as should eric cantona's drop kick to a fan who he actually mostly hit a innocent woman

    ReplyDelete
  136. God yes! Brilliant. If we can find anything that doesn't reveal King Ken conned by Suarez, or hides the unpalatable truth that Suarez chose the wrong words to wind up an opponent, we're off the hook.

    Or why not think this is part of the reason we got Suarez cheap? He's already soiling your reputation, and like Tevez he is probably going to get worse. Really, guys, just how badly do you want your perch back? At the cost of all your values?

    ReplyDelete