Following on from the article some way below, I've managed to read a few articles that really got me thinking. Why was Suarez blamed for the shake when there was a clear cut prima facie case that the whole hand shake saga was engineered by Evra?
I mean look at the photo on the right of this page!!!!!!
http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/02/video-evra-refuses-suarez-handshake/
If I can get a good explanation why that photo appears the way it does (with Suarez's hand out for the shake while Evra's is withdrawn) and how comes it is still believed it was Suarez who snubbed Evra, I'll be glad to hear and accept it but as it stands now am just perplexed at this mass delusion where people follow what the media tells them. That photo shows clearly who snubbed who. How can anyone miss it?!?!? Also Evra is looking straight at Suarez's face while Suarez is looking around the hands where the hand shake should have taken place.
Go ahead now to look at the video. Try pausing at 0.15. Not very visible but OMG its so clear to me that it was not Suarez who caused the lack of a handshake!!! WTF???
Well, in the process I noted that not everyone missed it.
http://scouse.forum-gratuiti.com/t6268-evra-refused-to-shake-suarez-hand
http://www.koptalk.co.uk/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=189927
I am amazed that such a clear thing can go unnoticed especially by main stream media who crucified Suarez what with us having all the modern technology like cameras that take photos of the mole on your face all the way from outer space!! Also, I can't understand, in the circumstances why Evra would react the way he did following the 'snub' unless its to make it look real.
Why would Suarez later on say this anyway?
http://article.wn.com/view/2012/07/18/Luis_Suarez_reignites_Patrice_Evra_handshake_row/
Maybe Evra was under pressure himself and doubted Suarez would shake his hand and therefore didn't present it fully?
http://flair.wittysparks.com/article/0fd40Om3HI2Fj/evra-admits-he-was-under-pressure-over-suarez-handshake
I don't know what happened. What i know is that its not so clear cut that Suarez was the guilty party in this one. I also think the subsequent apology by Suarez was more for PR and brand/image protecting than a true apology. He made no direct apology to Evra anyway!
I've seen arguments that both were at fault which could also be the case really.
And to top it off, most convincing to me is this.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/9130778/Liverpool-reignite-Luis-Suarez-row-as-Glen-Johnson-accuses-Patrice-Evra-of-manufacturing-handshake.html
Glen is black himself and if he doesn't believe a word Evra says i don't see why I should! I think on a balance of probabilities, at least on the hand shake thing Suarez was probably innocent after reading what Glen had to say.
After that Fergie came out saying Liverpool should get rid of Suarez. Hmmmmm......
I've noticed its the trend to laugh at such articles now a days (same as when you bring up Manchester United and the dodgy referee decisions) and calling the OP deluded when it happens but I like to dig up things from the past and bust myths so am sorry if anyone feels that this is exhausting. You can kindly avoid the thread. Am trying to be as unbiased as i can. Hopefully someone can tell me if it is the angle of the cameras that deceives the eye or does anyone agree with me?
Suarez/ Evra.... The handshake
posted on 17/9/12
you would be stupid to think that over 60s populated this forum or any forum like this
===========================================
Wouldn't have a clue. I saw a few on the old 606...
posted on 17/9/12
comment by Red Mamba _ Kop in Kenya _ User 1282 (U13041)
posted 4 hours, 31 minutes ago
Some one explain why United issued a statement condemning the chants if it wasn't about Hillsborough. Have they issued similar statements every other time the chants have occurred? If not then there's your answer.
----------------
You mean like how Suarez, Kenny and Ayres issued an apology over Suarez not shaking hands? I've been as polite as I can be to you in this thread but so are somewhat of a hypocrit it must be said.
posted on 17/9/12
There have been breaks when it wasnt sung. However, we were not in a period before last week where it was not being sung and it was being sung because of the Evra/Suarez affair.
================================================
That's the kind of bizarre contortion of logic I was looking for, Elvis. Thanks for that.
The truth is that you have nohing other than this bit of logical gymnastics to fall back on. In the week after the Hillsborough events, even non-Liverpool fans will draw their own conclusions, and that's why MUFC issued an apology.
I don't think you're the kind of poster who'd justify it, Elvis, and I believe most United fans would comdemn it.....but you are trying to mitigate it, and at the very least, you can't possibly know that it didn't refer to Hillsborough..
------------------
You clearly have read my earlier posts properly and I cant be bothered going back over it.
posted on 18/9/12
I've read some seriously sick comments from Manchester United fans (from Manchester) regarding plans for the Anfield game next week.
Some suggesting that they'll burn the JFT96 flag to signing more songs about Hillsborough.
I condemn anyone who sings songs like these about ANY club and these people should be banned and ARRESTED for public order offences.
posted on 18/9/12
You mean like how Suarez, Kenny and Ayres issued an apology over Suarez not shaking hands? I've been as polite as I can be to you in this thread but so are somewhat of a hypocrite it must be said.
-----------------------------
No one cried out for United to issue an apology on this one like they did with Pool. For us it was an apology or bust. You guys just volunteered your apology??? You can't really compare the two situations IMO.
Also I've been polite to you too. I think its daft that you are defending the chants same way you think I am daft for suggesting Suarez did not instigate the shake thing. You talk like you think you are doing me a favour. Clearly you are not.
posted on 18/9/12
Javier
God forbid it!!!!!! Should be a rather small minority of the Man U nation doing it though.
posted on 18/9/12
How did this get 350 comments?
posted on 18/9/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 18/9/12
comment by Red Mamba _ Kop in Kenya _ User 1282 (U13041)
Also I've been polite to you too. I think its daft that you are defending the chants
---------------------------------
I haven't defended the chants so please don't say that I have. Numerous times I have said that they should not have been sung last weekend and also stated that I never take part in any anti-LFC chants.
I have merely questioned as to whether the one heard last weekend was a direct reference to Hillsborough. My impression was that the specific chant heard last weekend has never been about Hillsborough. I have heard other United fans say the same. Some LFC fans on here, including TOOR, have disagreed with that.
But either way, the chant should not have been heard last weekend in light of recent events regarding Hillsborough. Not should it be sung this coming weekend. I hope the game goes off without a hitch, and if something is planned to honour the 96, I hope that all United fans do the club proud.
posted on 18/9/12
The ‘victim menatiltiy’ stereotype originated in the late 80’s, when Thatcher and her party had a particular problem with the city of Liverpool, and took root particularly after Hillsborough. It was politically motivated, and iI’s been perpetuated iever since by the likes of Boris Johnson.
Whenever it was brought up, Hillsborough was referenced. It was the central plank of the accusation, the innuendo being that Liverpool fans caused the disaster. Part of the reason it was so easy to perpetuate it is because of the yobbish, tabloid mentailty of being only too happy to believe it, and only too happy to sing the tunes of political ‘masters’. Many will continute to believe it about Hillsborough in spite of this week’s findings, because it suits them to do so.
Predictably, it was also used in the Suarez/Evra affair, the implication being that Liverpool are not entitled to plead ‘Not Guilty’ to anything, since it provides more evidence of ‘victim mentality’. (Note: MORE evidence to feed a stereotype that already existed).
It was used by Boris over Ken Bigley’s plight, and explicity referenced back to Hillsborough. Because obviously somebody about to be beheaded in public is not in any sense a victim, so showing support for his family is politically incorrect. The fears expressed by Boris in his apology, about anti-war sympathies (when in fact nobody other than Bigley's brother had expressed any) were just incidental, and didn’t indicate any kind of agenda at all, oh no .
It is a stereotype that has been EXPLICITLY referenced back to Hisllsborough many times. To suggest that any chants sung this week refer only to the Suarez/Evra affair, and nothing else, in a week in which Hillsborough has dominated the headlines, is disingenuous, if not cynical, and nobody is going to believe it.
It’s like a kid saying to his teacher “I DID say ‘Look at the t!ts on that’, but I meant those blue t!ts on the tree. How can you possibly think I meant anything else?” <smirk>.