Suarez a racist

[wykikitoon 19807]

You can't ban a club's right to protest just because you don't agree with it.

 

Of course not, no one would suggest otherwise and they should of course be allowed to get to the bottom of things. The way they went about it though is what is being criticised. They're the ones who made a mockery of the whole thing.

 

If everything that has come from them (t shirts and all) since the 8 game ban was mentioned isn't "bringing the game into disrepute" then I don't know what is.

 

There is no doubt that the way Liverpool have handled this will be a case study in how not to do PR for many years to come but I don't think they have done anything that the FA could actually get them on. They're a laughing stock and that's good enough for me.

 

What does piss me off is their blatant misrepresentation of the facts such as Dalglish coming out with "If you get into asking a linguistic expert, which certainly I am not, they will tell you that the part of the country in Uruguay where he [suarez] comes from, it is perfectly acceptable", despite the fact that a linguistic expert already dismissed this claim during the hearing.

 

Anyway, I'm just happy that the whole world can now see them for what they are.

 

Thats the biggest thing there.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

Has there actually been much criticism in the press about this?

 

A decent amount, to be fair. Some of it extremely scathing.

 

James Lawton of The Independent has done at least 2 columns on them, and he's a miserable old man who tells it how it is even at the best of times.

 

http://www.independe...wn-6283931.html

 

Now that the Suarez decision has been explained with a force and a logic that should convince anyone inhabiting a set of values that owe more to decent grown-up behaviour than half-baked tribal loyalty, it can only be hoped that Liverpool Football Club and their iconic manager, Kenny Dalglish, have the wit to stop embarrassing themselves.

 

This will require a few qualities that have not exactly been flying out of the Anfield woodwork in recent weeks.

 

An intelligent understanding of the world we live in, including the prejudice that stills stalks the streets of our cities with sometimes appalling consequences, would be one starting point.

 

Another is the acceptance that from time to time you need to reflect upon your actions through something more than the prism of self-interest.

 

In this case it would have required Liverpool FC to understand that if Luis Suarez is not a racist – a belief accepted by his accuser, Patrice Evra – the crime he was charged with is the first ugly resort of those who are.

 

The independent panel, led by a QC and containing an ex-player and manager with a reputation for a hard-nosed understanding of the trade he pursued with notably rugged distinction, was never likely to expose itself to the charge of a serious miscarriage of justice.

 

Certainly, the 115-page account of the hearing, and the basis of their decision, provides more than enough reassurance that this was indeed the case. It also answered, simply but witheringly, the question Dalglish asked – with offensive disingenuousness – around about the time he was approving the wearing of Suarez T-shirts before the match that followed the player's eight-match sentence for racially abusing Evra.

 

"It would be helpful to everyone," said Dalglish, "if someone gave us guidelines about what you can and cannot say."

 

The verdict and report of an independent regulatory panel has at least provided half the answer to Daglish's threshing in an apparently unformed moral landscape.

 

You cannot make seven references to the colour of an opponent's skin in a situation which the panel – and any casual TV viewer – inevitably concluded was "acrimonious" and escape the sure-fire belief that you are indulging in racial abuse and provocation.

 

You cannot do what Suarez did – as proved by video evidence and confirmed by linguistic expertise, including a knowledge of the nuances of references to race in the player's native Uruguay – and get away with some implausible argument that you were innocent of the charges against you. Not when you have been found, irrefutably, to have said, without the interruption of any other word, "black, black, black..."

 

We do not yet know whether Liverpool will go ahead with an appeal after their initially emphatic reaction to the verdict – and risk further punishment of the player, surely a certainty given the ruling that two further offences of this nature could lead to Suarez's permanent banning from English football.

 

What we should be able to believe is that all of English football, or at least those parts of it which shared Dalglish's confusion about the difference between right and wrong, are now utterly clear about what is unacceptable.

 

Not the least disturbing aspect of the Suarez affair – and the one that now hangs over the future of Chelsea and England captain John Terry – has been the volume and the nature of much of the reaction. Much of it, you had to conclude, was fuelled by thinking implicit in Dalglish's question. Could someone explain to adult professionals quite how they conform to the rules of the society in which they find themselves? How pathetic that would sound on the lips of the parent of an errant child, one oblivious to the feelings of anyone but itself and armed with the belief that nothing mattered in life but an individual's own instincts on how to behave.

 

Hopefully, the water that became so muddied will clear somewhat with the detailed report of the proceedings. Charges that Liverpool where somehow victims of a conspiracy worked by the sinister tentacles of Manchester United will maybe finish up where they started – in the rubbish bin of hysterical victimhood.

 

That one of the most prestigious clubs in English football, which has contributed so much to the idea that a football team might just be the perfect expression of a community's collective pride, should plunge into such a ludicrous reaction was all the more depressing.

 

But then, who knows, a line might well have been drawn. If Suarez has been given severe punishment, who among those who draw such warmth from the deeds of great Liverpool players like Dalglish could countenance the alternative? We should be quite clear about what this would have entailed. Most of all, it would have been the acceptance that each player in the world's most cosmopolitan football league could bring his own moral compass each time he went out on the field.

 

It is to the great credit of the Football Association, which recently has not been consistently applauded for the strength of its resolve to put morality before self-interest, that it has insisted that this just cannot be so.

 

Not if English football – which by and large is streets ahead of so many rivals, including those of large swathes of Europe – is to clear up the last remnants of the kind of racial prejudice once commonly experienced by black footballers like Mark Walters and John Barnes.

 

Luis Suarez has made other marks on English football. He is a player of thrilling skill and invention. He is widely cherished by Liverpool fans, and any others who put a high value on outstanding ability, and this is surely the foundation of his success as long as he stays here. It is something that he and his supporters must place alongside another reality that has been, we can be much more confident now, established beyond reasonable contradiction.

 

It is that through his actions no one need any longer be confused about the whereabouts of one line which in all decency cannot be crossed.

 

 

 

 

http://www.independe...rn-6284635.html

 

It would have been infinitely more honourable if Liverpool had said to hell with the Football Association and their version of justice and appealed the Suarez verdict.

 

Wrong-headed perhaps, more subjective, you have to believe than anything handed-down by the independent regulatory panel obliged to attempt to draw a line against racial abuse on a football pitch, but still a course of action consistent with all that one of the nation's most prestigious football clubs had done and said since the affair erupted last October.

 

Instead, Liverpool continue their resistance to the verdict in all but the resolve to fight it, expose it and emerge, win or lose, with the reputation of an organisation determined to fight for what they believe to be right. As it is, they refuse to join in the widespread desire for some rough agreement that Suarez – without being convicted as a racist – did indeed use references to his opponent's skin colour not affectionately but as the means of provocation in a taut situation.

 

They do not merely express reservations about the FA's process of justice. They say that far from attempting honestly to resolve a difficult situation, the game's ruling authority has set a sickening precedent for the most unscrupulous behaviour between rival clubs in the future.

 

"This case," they charge, "has also provided a template in which a club's rival can bring about a significant ban for a top player without anything beyond an accusation."

 

We could not get much further from the line in the sand with this desert storm of rebuttal of the confirmed fact that Suarez made multiple references to Patrice Evra's race and that his evidence was deemed inconsistent by a panel headed by a Queen's Counsel and including a hugely respected professional football man without connections to any of the opposing parties.

 

Liverpool submitted to the process, marshalled their case and lost.

 

Now they scorn the court, such as it was, and by their action suggest that they believe the governance of the national game is worthy of such little respect that rather than fight against it to the limits of their means, they will retreat even further into their belief that it was not Evra who was the victim but Suarez and the interests of his club.

 

Liverpool's assertion that the FA has "damaged the reputation of one of the Premier League's best players" is undeniable, of course, but then you might say the same of the Dutch FA which gave him a lengthy ban after finding him guilty of biting into the shoulder of one of his opponents while playing for Ajax. The cases are unrelated in all but the possibility that Suarez made another decision to behave in a way that ultimately could not be accepted.

 

Much of Suarez's defence was based on the argument that he was behaving in a way which in his native South America would not have been deemed either hostile or offensive. That aspect of the case was thoroughly debated and investigated and found, when it was placed in the context of an English football match, to be unsupportable. The panel's 115-page report was – outside of something submitted to the Appeal Court or the House of Lords – a document that convinced most unattached observers that both arguments – and a considerable amount of visual evidence – had been scrupulously weighed. Liverpool plainly do not agree and yet they choose not to submit fresh arguments to the appeal procedure. Many will see this is as a statement that hardly resounds with conviction.

 

What seems much more apparent is the reluctance of an organisation to accept that their strongest instincts have been exposed as deeply self-serving. The opportunity was for a little grace and the concession that in a difficult,and often hate-filled world, perfect solutions are not always available. That chance was blown, along with any suggestion of the courage that comes with the truest conviction.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Monroe Transfer

[Monroe Transfer 0]

King Kenny fighting till the bitter end.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jan/04/kenny-dalglish-luis-suarez-transcript?cat=football

 

The following is a transcript from the Liverpool press conference after the Anfield club's 3-0 defeat at Manchester City on Tuesday night:

 

 

Reporter: "Kenny, the wider world is pretty shocked that, if a player can call someone 'negro' and the player who is the victim in this takes offence, that there is no apology or contrition offered from your club."

 

Dalglish: "I would have thought that, if you pronounced the word properly, you maybe understand it better. I think it was Spanish he was speaking and I don't think you were speaking Spanish there."

 

Reporter: "OK, if a player calls someone 'negro' [spanish pronunciation], surely the player who takes offence deserves an apology?"

 

Dalglish: "Ask a linguistic expert, which certainly I am not. They will tell you that the part of the country in Uruguay where he [Luis Suárez] comes from, it is perfectly acceptable. His wife calls him that and I don't think he is offended by her. We have made a statement and I think it is there for everybody to read. Luis has made a brilliant statement and we will stand by him."

 

Reporter: "But the FA verdict said it was 'simply incredible' to suggest it wasn't used in an offensive way when they were clearly arguing and it wasn't friendly."

 

Dalglish: "There's a lot of things we'd like to say and a lot we could say but we would only get ourselves in trouble. We are not trying to be evasive … well, we are being evasive because we don't like getting ourselves in trouble. But we know what has gone on. We know what is not in the report and that's important for us. So without me getting ourselves in trouble, I think that's it finished."

 

Reporter: "Why take the ban now and not play the next three games, including the Carling Cup semi-final against Manchester City?"

 

Dalglish: "He could have played for a fortnight but he has to serve eight games at some stage and this time is as good as any, isn't it? It was better to get the situation over and done with."

 

Reporter: "Mark Lawrenson was saying on the radio that you've got to fear now whether Suárez may feel unsettled playing in England. Is that a concern?"

 

Dalglish: "Because Mark Lawrenson said it? No. I don't see why we have to reply to anybody. If you're asking if I have any concern about Luis playing in England, then no."

 

Reporter: "Is he strong enough?"

 

Dalglish: "I don't have a problem with Luis playing in England."

 

Reporter: "Do you regret wearing the T-shirts?"

 

Dalglish: "You see, if one of you guys were in trouble, would you help him? Would you support him if you knew the truth and you knew it was right? Would you support him?"

 

Reporter: "But not with T-shirts when he has been found guilty …"

 

Dalglish: "Why not? If they want to show their support for their team-mate, what's wrong with that? It was a fabulous statement to make visually of their support for a guy who is endeared in the dressing room, one of their closest friends in the dressing room, and all of his friends in the dressing room can speak up adequately and perfectly well for him. And I think it is very dangerous and unfortunate that you don't actually know the whole content of what went on at the hearing. I'm not prepared, and I can't say it, but I am just saying it is really unfortunate you never got to hear it. That's all I'm saying."

 

Reporter: "Kenny, given how the wider public are so opposed to your view, what do you have to lose by telling us and revealing what you're saying was not included in the FA statement?"

 

Dalglish: "It's up to the club to decide what they want to do."

 

Reporter: "But if you have something to say, surely say it – because the alternative is you are digging a bigger hole for yourself?"

 

Dalglish: "I don't think we are digging a bigger hole but I just think it's unfortunate we can't be more forthcoming. That's the unfortunate thing."

 

Reporter: "In your two statements you basically accused the FA of a conspiracy against your club."

 

Dalglish: "So they have made a statement then …"

 

Liverpool press officer intervenes and asks for no more questions on Suárez.

 

Reporter: "The hearing was to lay out all the evidence, 115 pages of evidence, and you have said they [the FA] have done it subjectively. So why do you think the FA are targeting Liverpool and Suárez?"

 

Dalglish: "Maybe wrong place, wrong time. It could have been anybody. I can't answer for the FA, you ask them."

 

Reporter: "You think there is an agenda against Liverpool?"

 

Dalglish: "No. You said that. I never. You get yourself in trouble, I'm all right."

 

Reporter: "Are you concerned Suárez's first game back could be at Old Trafford?"

 

Dalglish: "I'll just be delighted to get him back."

[Happy Face 29]

Lets Kick Racism Liverpool out of Football

[Gemmill 44113]

Cheers for those links HF. Good articles.

 

Dalglish is a fucking embarrassment. He's such a prick in interviews normally, when he takes his "I'm a football man, what are you?" approach to condescending reporters. In the absence of that fallback, he's resorted to the "I know stuff that you don't know, but I can't tell you what it is" approach. In a way, it's quite nice to see him ruining his own reputation so effectively, it's just a shame he's not self aware enough to realise he's doing it.

[Happy Face 29]

Cheers for those links HF. Good articles.

 

You're welcome, It was nothing

[Sonatine 11278]

I liked this piece from the Early Doors Blog

 

Last night's TV and radio coverage kept throwing up the same words: "Liverpool need to move on."

 

Leave it, it's not worth it. Think of the children.

 

In other words, people have given up trying to make them see sense; they just want to drag them away from a situation that cannot possibly end well.

Liverpool FC are basically football's equivalent of a belligerent drunk in a bar confrontation.

 

Sod reasonable debate, just bundle them in a taxi and get them out of there.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

It wasn't just TV and radio coverage that said that they need to move on - Liverpool's own statement implied it (maybe even said it, I can't remember).

[Park Life 71]

Disgraceful comments from Dalglish there.

[toonotl 2916]

I liked this piece from the Early Doors Blog

 

Last night's TV and radio coverage kept throwing up the same words: "Liverpool need to move on."

 

Leave it, it's not worth it. Think of the children.

 

In other words, people have given up trying to make them see sense; they just want to drag them away from a situation that cannot possibly end well.

Liverpool FC are basically football's equivalent of a belligerent drunk in a bar confrontation.

 

Sod reasonable debate, just bundle them in a taxi and get them out of there.

 

The perfect analogy, almost. Being drunk doesn't come close to impairing one's judgement the way being scouse does.

[Andrew 4713]

Disgraceful comments from Dalglish there.

 

understatement

 

hes really is just being a complete cunt, look at that first answer, setting out his stall to be a massive wanker shame no ones done a reverse JFK and told him to stop being such a twat

[trophyshy 7066]

Evra should be done for taking offence. In Uruguay if you take offence to someone referring to you in a derogatory way solely because of your skin colour, you get sent out into the fields to pick cotton. And if you continue to get offended then you'll be chased out of town by an angry hooded mob and lynched. None of it is racist though, they love it those blacks, it's just a bit of banter to them.

 

 

Liverpool's ongoing refusal to climb down over this is fucking disgusting and Dalglish should be shot with shit. Hopefully their season will collapse but I suspect Kenneth will employ siege mentality and get his good ol' white boys fired up with effervescent tribalism, as the locals demand.

Edited January 4, 2012 by trophyshy

[Park Life 71]

Evra should be done for taking offence. In Uruguay if you take offence to someone referring to you in a derogatory way solely because of your skin colour, you get sent out into the fields to pick cotton. And if you continue to get offended then you'll be chased out of town by an angry hooded mob and lynched. None of it is racist though, they love it those blacks, it's just a bit of banter to them.

 

 

Liverpool's ongoing refusal to climb down over this is fucking disgusting and Kenny Daglish should be shot with shit. Hopefully there season will collapse but I suspect KK will employ siege mentality and get his good ol' white boys fired up with effervescent tribalism as the locals demand.

 

[trophyshy 7066]

Without wanting to get all bleeding heart and namby pamby;

 

Also, is Kenneth aware that the UK's longest running racially motivated murder case reached (some) conclusion yesterday? A 17 year old boy, waiting for a bus, stabbed to death by a gang of whites for no other reason than he was a 'negrito'? Just hours before he came out with yet more absurd defence of his man, of his man's culture, of which he knows fuck all but isn't relevant here anyway?

 

Thin end of the wedge Kenneth. Scrabbling to justify the use of a word in a country thousands of miles away that has literally nothing to do with racism in this country, life in this country. Whilst simultaneously ignoring the very real and tragic outcomes of that kind of thinking in your club's country, our country, on the day the convictions were made!

 

Just to ram it home, IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF IT'S OKAY IN URUGUAY OR NOT, in this country some very bad shit has gone down in the past and is still going down because of judgement and hatred and fear built upon something so spurious as the pigment of a person's skin. That is so incredibly fucked up in itself that all intelligent men, particularly those in privileged positions, should do what they can toward influencing the eradication of this poisonous thinking. And that includes saying sorry for calling someone negro if they were offended by it ffs.

 

You can drive at any speed on the autobahn, could I use that excuse even after banned for driving here at 140mph? In Germany it is no problem, why can't you stupid English deal with it? Okay I accept my ban but I did nothing wrong because in Germany I can do it. Boo-hoo you nasty country with nasty laws different to Germany.

 

Pathetic the lot of them. I'd throw them in jail if I could.

Edited January 4, 2012 by trophyshy

[toonotl 2916]

Should Saurez be paid 100 pesos a week or whatever the fuck since that's what he would get in his country?

 

Pathetic. I can't believe Liverpool's PR people are ok with the manager continuing with this small minded approach to what does or does not constitute racism. It could only be worse If we start hearing random references to the IRA/Pig's Heads etc. from the club. But then no one is that small minded in this day and age.

[Park Life 71]

Without wanting to get all bleeding heart and namby pamby;

 

Also, is Kenneth aware that the UK's longest running racially motivated murder case reached (some) conclusion yesterday? A 17 year old boy, waiting for a bus, stabbed to death by a gang of whites for no other reason than he was a 'negrito'? Just hours before he came out with yet more absurd defence of his man, of his man's culture, of which he knows fuck all but isn't relevant here anyway?

 

Thin end of the wedge Kenneth. Scrabbling to justify the use of a word in a country thousands of miles away that has literally nothing to do with racism in this country, life in this country. Whilst simultaneously ignoring the very real and tragic outcomes of that kind of thinking in your club's country, our country, on the day the convictions were made!

 

Just to ram it home, IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF IT'S OKAY IN URUGUAY OR NOT, in this country some very bad shit has gone down in the past and is still going down because of judgement and hatred and fear built upon something so spurious as the pigment of a person's skin. That is so incredibly fucked up in itself that all intelligent men, particularly those in privileged positions, should do what they can toward influencing the eradication of this poisonous thinking. And that includes saying sorry for calling someone negro if they were offended by it ffs.

 

You can drive at any speed on the autobahn, could I use that excuse even after banned for driving here at 140mph? In Germany it is no problem, why can't you stupid English deal with it? Okay I accept my ban but I did nothing wrong because in Germany I can do it. Boo-hoo you nasty country with nasty laws different to Germany.

 

Pathetic the lot of them. I'd throw them in jail if I could.

 

Top post.

[toonotl 2916]

Without wanting to get all bleeding heart and namby pamby;

 

Also, is Kenneth aware that the UK's longest running racially motivated murder case reached (some) conclusion yesterday? A 17 year old boy, waiting for a bus, stabbed to death by a gang of whites for no other reason than he was a 'negrito'? Just hours before he came out with yet more absurd defence of his man, of his man's culture, of which he knows fuck all but isn't relevant here anyway?

 

Thin end of the wedge Kenneth. Scrabbling to justify the use of a word in a country thousands of miles away that has literally nothing to do with racism in this country, life in this country. Whilst simultaneously ignoring the very real and tragic outcomes of that kind of thinking in your club's country, our country, on the day the convictions were made!

 

Just to ram it home, IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF IT'S OKAY IN URUGUAY OR NOT, in this country some very bad shit has gone down in the past and is still going down because of judgement and hatred and fear built upon something so spurious as the pigment of a person's skin. That is so incredibly fucked up in itself that all intelligent men, particularly those in privileged positions, should do what they can toward influencing the eradication of this poisonous thinking. And that includes saying sorry for calling someone negro if they were offended by it ffs.

 

You can drive at any speed on the autobahn, could I use that excuse even after banned for driving here at 140mph? In Germany it is no problem, why can't you stupid English deal with it? Okay I accept my ban but I did nothing wrong because in Germany I can do it. Boo-hoo you nasty country with nasty laws different to Germany.

 

Pathetic the lot of them. I'd throw them in jail if I could.

 

Very good.

 

I don't understand Dalglish. Surely he is just being deliberately dense at this point as he sees it as an avenue to motivate his side. Very sad that racism is getting used for the purposes of football results, but that has to be the only explanation.

 

By the by, has anyone considered Blatter's approach of handshakes at high noon?

[Happy Face 29]

^{See Stevie's point about Dalglish and his transfer record. He's as ignorant of his own racism as Suarez is. Needs someone at the club to pull him up. Would have happened to Woy...but unfortunately Dalglish is currently the most powerful bloke at the club.}

Edited January 4, 2012 by Happy Face

[toonotl 2916]

He can't be that ignorant. Someone needs to have a word to him. The club's PR must be tearing their hair out. Sure the scouse won't mind (being what they are) but the rest of the world are just laughing at them at this point.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

It would set a dangerous precedent though, it's basically saying that FA decisions are not open to question at all, which would be a ridiculous situation.

 

You can't ban a club's right to protest just because you don't agree with it.

 

I suppose not.

 

It was terrible timing I suppose on Liverpool's side. If they had waited to read what the FA had investigated and then disagreed with it, THEN did what they did.

 

No mention of the Stephen Lawrence case regarding the timing of this. You can see why some people hate football, brings out the worst in people.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Dalglish should really be disciplined/sacked for his behaviour.

[toonotl 2916]

Dalglish should really be disciplined/sacked for his behaviour.

 

Drawn and quartered.

[The Fish 10674]

Liverpool will now forever be followed by phrase

the rubbish bin of hysterical victimhood.

in my head

[Happy Face 29]

Shit got real...

 

 

Luis Suarez case: Ouseley calls Liverpool 'hypocritical'

 

Kick It Out's Lord Ouseley has

labelled Liverpool "hypocritical"

over their handling of Luis Suarez's eight-match ban for racially abusing Patrice Evra.

 

 

 

Liverpool players wore T-shirts in support of Uruguayan Suarez - a move Ouseley has called "dreadful".

 

Lord Ouseley also said Reds striker

Suarez's apology

was "lamentable".

 

The

anti-racism campaign

's chairman said: "Liverpool need to take a hard look at themselves. Suarez's attempt at a belated apology is lamentable."

 

Continue reading the main story

I cannot believe a club of Liverpool's stature, with how it has previously led on matters of social injustice and inequality, can allow its integrity and credibility to be debased by such crass and ill-considered responses

Lord Ouseley Chairman, Kick It Out anti-racism campaign

 

Liverpool are not appealing

against the Football Association suspension and £40,000 fine imposed on Suarez by an independent commission for his comments towards Manchester United defender Evra at Anfield on 15 October.

 

Suarez did not mention Evra by name in his apology and has also stated that he would carry out the suspension "with the resignation of someone who hasn't done anything wrong".

 

Kick It Out had previously commended Liverpool for choosing not to appeal against the ban.

 

A

statement on its website

on Wednesday said: "We commend Liverpool FC in bringing closure to this matter, reaffirming its commitment to an unequivocal, zero-tolerance approach towards discrimination in football."

 

However, Lord Ouseley, who was chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality from 1993 to 2000, wrote in the Guardian: "Liverpool need to take a hard look at themselves and how they have responded to the complaint and the investigations into the allegations of abuse in the Patrice Evra/Luis Suarez case.

 

"Throughout the entirety of the proceedings, over the past three months, all we have heard are denials and denigration of Evra.

 

"Since the publication of the 115-page report of the findings of the FA's independent commission, Liverpool's vitriol has increased.

 

"Suarez's attempt at a belated apology is nothing short of lamentable.

 

"I cannot believe that a club of Liverpool's stature, and with how it has previously led on matters of social injustice and inequality, can allow its integrity and credibility to be debased by such crass and ill-considered responses.

 

"Liverpool have been particularly hypocritical. You can't on the one hand wear a Kick It Out T-shirt in a week of campaigning against racism when this is also happening on the pitch: it's the height of hypocrisy.

 

"Liverpool players wore a T-shirt saying: 'We support Luis Suarez', seemingly whatever the outcome. This was a dreadful knee-jerk reaction because it stirs things up."

 

Piara Powar, executive director of Football Against Racism in Europe, believes the FA would be within its rights to charge Liverpool and its manager Kenny Dalglish over their handling of the situation.

 

"Liverpool have constantly undermined the investigation and its outcome," he told BBC Sport.

 

"They have been disrespectful to the FA and questioned its integrity and neutrality.

 

"If a manager had done that in a post-match interview the FA would have brought disrepute charges."

 

It is understood that the FA has no plans to charge either Liverpool or Dalglish.

[wykikitoon 19807]

Ive been waiting for them to say something.

 

Well said!