Evra

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 58 minutes ago
Also note Evra's previous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah yes.

The classy Dalglish's first thought, when informed of the allegation, was to ask 'he's done this before'. The immediate assumption it's made up, because it's a Man Utd player vs a Liverpool player.

What a lovely man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Evra has done it before though

... but that's only partly the reason he is viewed by some as a cvnt, it's because does at lot of cvntish things. Does it have a baring on the Suarez incident? Well think it certainly merits scrutiny, especially in light of the points spelled out by toor. More so when you factor in how Ferguson would have reacted to the FA's decision and following criticism of some of his players and backroom staff.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 16 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

Can you elaborate a little on how he helped to save his job? Genuine question, don't actually know.

Answer me this - if there is such a conflict of interest, why was the panel not challenged by Suarez and his legal team?

They were told a long time in advance and have the opportunity to complain. They didn't.

Could it be that you're talking nonsense?


As for your other points, where to start?

"lip reading experts are brought in and can't see any racial abuse occurring" - because most of the time what Suarez is saying is obscured.

" The person claiming racial abuse claims firstly that the n word was used and secondly it was used over ten times." - Incorrect, he did not make this claim.

"He later changes his story to the word 'black' was used and only a handful of times." - Incorrect - he uses the word 'black' as part of his initial complaint to the referee.

"He claims that the alleged abuser said because you are black but the language experts say it doesn't make sense for a native to speak in that way." The experts did not say 'it makes no sense'.

"The experts say that what the alleged abuser claims he said makes sense." - This is misleading. They say that it makes sense IF Suarez used the term in a conciliatory manner.

You'll find it was Suarez who had inconsistencies in what he claimed. What Comolli and Kuyt were on record as being told by Suarez was later changed - in effect, Suarez is saying that both individuals must have misheard him.

He also changed his mind about when he said what he said, in terms of the incident and where they were.

Evra's version of events remains consistent throughout.

You have obviously convinced yourself of the points you note. The question is, are you delusional or intentionally deceitful?

Either way, you're wrong and I will continue to pull apart your points.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute nonsense.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Baz tromo (U19119)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yet still this article continues.. ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Have decided to take apart TOOR's lies once and for all. For too long he has been speaking about the expert's comments in a downright deceitful way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The more he comments on the matter, the more it seems like he hasn’t even read the report.

Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)

The points made by TOOR are inaccurate and so should be disregarded.

"More so when you factor in how Ferguson would have reacted to the FA's decision"

This would, of course, be complete conjecture.

Ruiney (U1005)

Agreed.

He is now probably scouring the Internet in search of things to back up what he has said.

His comments smack of someone who has read a post about this on a Liverpool site and therefore taking much of the panel's comments out of context.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
"More so when you factor in how Ferguson would have reacted to the FA's decision"

This would, of course, be complete conjecture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You doubt Fergus was incensed?

Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)

'would have reacted to the decision'

What do you mean? Maybe I have misunderstood.

Ahhh... the meaning of words. Mr Semantic strikes again.

Fergie would have been p***ed off. It's quite straightforward stuff mate.

Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)

Feck me, grow up. I asked you a question, politely.

What has Ferguson being annoyed got to do with it?