Peter, Paul and Mo.

[Gamma]

context and how it is received are the determining factors for me.

if i say "chiney" and a person of oriental ancestry takes offfence regardless of the context, i will apologise (this should be someevidence that it was not ill intentioned, context may confirm or repudiate this). i will not say "i said nothing wrong". it is all downhill from there especially when context is thrown in.

[Paul Marin]

context and how it is received are the determining factors for me.

if i say "chiney" and a person of oriental ancestry takes offfence regardless of the context, i will apologise (this should be someevidence that it was not ill intentioned, context may confirm or repudiate this). i will not say "i said nothing wrong". it is all downhill from there especially when context is thrown in.

Suppose in your scenario you find out an hour after that you are going to be charged for being a racist and that you didn't call him "chiney" once, but as many as ten times and that the other team's manager told the officials that you called your accuser a "[far more offensive term]" than the one you used? Before you have a chance to say anything - it's all over the papers, on TV and on the radio. You are getting hate texts on your facebook page and on twitter calling you a racist. In other words, you are being bombarded with false accusations and not even being given the chance to discuss sensibly with the other party?

Clearly, it would appear that the player who you supposedly offended blew it out of proportion and from your perspective, LIED isn't it understandable that you'd say "I didn't do anything wrong" under those circumstances?

Maybe you would say sorry then, but it is human nature to defend oneself when attacked and not to let lies become truths...which appears to be the case in this instance. Suarez was never given a chance to put the record straight nor did the club handle the situation very well.

[Paul Marin]

Respect, Sass!

My good friend Peter has rationalised di ting.

Mo - I have not "rationalised" anything. There is nothing to "rationalise". I have defended what I hope is everyone's right to fairness. You only have to ask yourself - "Why wasn't suarez charged by the police?" The answer is the same no matter what anyone wants to say and how many pages they want to write - "insufficient evidence". Would you like to be condemned on that basis? I didn't think so.

[Gamma]

if i said chiney ONCE and dem seh is offensive, unless i intended it to be offensive i am apologising.

if dem seh mi seh it 10 times, mi seh "i said it once, and i apologise". if dem add sup'm after it i say "i did not say that, i said [ ] and i apologise because it was not intended to be offensive" and move on wid mi life or try to!

suarez did not even try to separate lies from truth he merely said "i said nothing wrong" ... is down hill from there. liverpool let him down tremendously there as they would have been in a better position show up evra. instead by their behaviour and suarez' behaviour they made themselves look bad.

yuh know how much time a genuine and contrite "i am sorry" made for a peaceful life in my own ... erm... circumstances?

[Paul Marin]

if i said chiney ONCE and dem seh is offensive, unless i intended it to be offensive i am apologising.

if dem seh mi seh it 10 times, mi seh "i said it once, and i apologise". if dem add sup'm after it i say "i did not say that, i said [ ] and i apologise because it was not intended to be offensive" and move on wid mi life or try to!

suarez did not even try to separate lies from truth he merely said "i said nothing wrong" ... is down hill from there. liverpool let him down tremendously there as they would have been in a better position show up evra. instead by their behaviour and suarez' behaviour they made themselves look bad.

yuh know how much time a genuine and contrite "i am sorry" made for a peaceful life in my own ... erm... circumstances?

I don't disagree, but I am only saying it is natural to defend yourself. I am not saying it was smart. All that said, the real cockup was by the club, not Suarez as there's nothing that he could have said without their approval and any statement by him (as you know) was a statement written by them that he simply signed. (And by the way - I know that you mussi tyad fi seh "sorry"...but why you cyan seh so to Karl after all di abuse you give him?)

[Gamma]

me? abuse karl? by tellin' di trut'? how when where and why?

yes boss, a nuff "sorry" mi seh inna mi life and i am sure it nuh done yet ....

[Peter R]

context and how it is received are the determining factors for me.

if i say "chiney" and a person of oriental ancestry takes offfence regardless of the context, i will apologise (this should be someevidence that it was not ill intentioned, context may confirm or repudiate this). i will not say "i said nothing wrong". it is all downhill from there especially when context is thrown in.

I can't argue with that and saying "sorry" (genuinely) always helps to heal the "wounds"... if i remember correctly I think Suarez tried to placate or at least simulate what looked like a conciliatory approach to Evra... him only get him han bax whe fi dat. So the flip side is also being able to accept an apology...
At what point should the apology be made?

On another note (I know its not football but...) if we look at what is going on in Windies Cricket with Chris Gayle, we can see that the situation has deteriorated so much that neither side can give an apology... when the powers that be mishandle situations even giving an apology becomes synonymous with losing face... I suspect that with Suare/Evra that something like that might have happened... i also believe that Evra was no choir boy with respect to the altercation and that apologies should have been offered from both sides..

[Paul Marin]

I can't argue with that and saying "sorry" (genuinely) always helps to heal the "wounds"... if i remember correctly I think Suarez tried to placate or at least simulate what looked like a conciliatory approach to Evra... him only get him han bax whe fi dat. So the flip side is also being able to accept an apology...
At what point should the apology be made?

On another note (I know its not football but...) if we look at what is going on in Windies Cricket with Chris Gayle, we can see that the situation has deteriorated so much that neither side can give an apology... when the powers that be mishandle situations even giving an apology becomes synonymous with losing face... I suspect that with Suare/Evra that something like that might have happened... i also believe that Evra was no choir boy with respect to the altercation and that apologies should have been offered from both sides..

Peter - the irony here is that the FA found that gesture to be an attempt to "wind [Evra] up". Try as I may - I just don't see it; I didn't see it when watching the game live and I sure don't see it as they do now. Note that they don't explain why the see it as a wind up...just that they do. Here is the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0cBtuFFqkY (a fuller version here, but give a second for the feed to start after you click the start arrow: http://vodpod.com/watch/15556990-evra-suarez) and here's the quote from the report:

243. The referee spoke to both players. They listened and then walked away. As they did, Mr Suarez put his hand on the back of Mr Evra's head. There are, of course, many ways of touching an opposing player with the hand. Some are obvious attempts at conciliation such as a handshake or sometimes a pat on the back. Others are intended to further aggravate the opposing player whilst, perhaps, being made to appear like an attempt at conciliation. In our judgment, Mr Suarez placing his hand on the back of Mr Evra's head fell into the latter category. It appeared calculated to wind him up and had that effect, which is shown by Mr Evra forcefully pushing Mr Suarez's arm away.