Add Murky Milan Madaric too.

Arsenal invented it, didn't they, Red? Exhibit A: I give you George Graham

Evra admits calling Suarez a South American along with other abuse. Given the context, and given that Suarez comes from a mixed race family, that could be seen as being an incident of the same type. And what if anyone refers to Craig Bellamy's welshness.

In their entirely correct drive to stamp out racism I think the FA have imposed a ban that causes a problem - if it was 3 games then people would have got the message and moved on. On the evidence of their enquiry do they now charge Evra? If Terry is found guilty, on what on the face of it is a worse case, then what length ban do they give him? 10? 12? 16?

I suspect Suarez will be the only one made an example of. The FA usually loses its nerve after one "exemplary" case.

Liverpool are right to be shocked by the severity of the punishment, but their defence of Suarez is frankly unbelievable. He used a racist taunt, repeatedly, and to claim he didn't mean any offence by it is not credible. He has played in Europe long enough, including in the Netherlands, so he would know very well what he was saying.

On Terry, it appears he uttered the phrase f'ing black c**t to Anton Ferdinand. Do you think that is the only time he has said those words?

About the reaction to racism, so I'll try to respond.

John Terry's record of playing with black team mates? You can play that one both ways. None of them have pitched in to call him a racist, but then he's been at one club his entire career and pretty much runs the place - it would presumably be a career decision to call him out.

Likewise, if we're going to look at the Chelsea squad, it's notable that, since the Ferdinand incident, two black players have asked to be transfer listed and one has, in fact, left for pastures new. All speculation of course.

What is a fact is that few, if any, of his many black team mates have spoken in his defence.

But anyway, all of that is by the by - he's not being charged for being a racist, he's being charged for racially abusing another player in public in front of an audience of millions. We've all seen the video, we've all heard the (pathetic) excuse. His former character hardly matters taken in that context and, frankly, I'm not sure relying on character is a great defence for Terry anyway.

As for why racism inspires this level of response and not (say) accusations of paedophilia, it's because of social context. We don't have a historical problem in this country of people accusing one another of being paedophiles. We haven't had to take steps to bring into law measures to protect the victims of such slurs.

Racism is, was and probably will always be a cause worth fighting against.

I'm an Arsenal fan who loathes the Wenger song. I disliked Terry before this incident and feel that Suarez has been somewhat harshly treated given what he actually said and what that term means in his homeland. But I'm glad the FA is taking strong action in this area and I hope that (for once) they show some bottle. It sends the right message.

Suarez has openly admitted using the word 'negro/negrito' to Evra. What appears to be at issue is not what he said, but the context in which he said it.

None of us are in full possession of the facts, so this has to be taken with a degree of caution, but the *known* sequence of events, post match, seems to be as follows:

1. Suarez denies calling Evra anything.

2. Suarez then admits to calling Evra something, but 'only something all his team mates call him'

3. Suarez then admits to using the word 'negro' or its derivative, but claims 'cultural context' for its use.

What does this tell us? Firstly that Suarez is a liar. Points 1. and 2. are demonstrably untrue (unless the ManYoo squad have all admitted to routinely referring to Evra's skin colour. I've missed it, if they have). Secondly, if Suarez lied, then he lied for a reason. My guess would be that he knew full well that there was no cultural context (in Europe) for the use of those words in a 'friendly' way. Hence he tried to duck the issue.

Why did he change his story? Again, only guessing, but this might indicate there is evidence (video or otherwise) of him using the word.

What puzzles me is Liverpool's stance here. If, after the match, the club had issued a statement saying that, yes, Luis referred to Evra as a negro, that he meant no offence by it given his Uruguayan background and that if he did cause offence then he apologises to Patrice unreservedly, and he won't do it again now he fully understands the issue...then the whole thing would have blown over very quickly - maybe a small fine, two game ban, the world moves on.

Instead, they very quickly adopted a very entrenched position which may become indefensible (and embarrassing) very quickly.

As to the length of the ban, yes, it appears long and does set down a marker for future incidents, including the Terry incident. Yes, I am sure Suarez is being made an example of - but by changing his story, he's not helped himself. I suspect it will be reduced to four games on appeal, with Suarez's cultural background noted as a mitigating factor and with assurances given about future behaviour.

But it all leaves quite a sour taste in the mouth.

The only consolation for Liverpool fans is that the poor bloke couldn't hit a cow's arse with a bangito at the moment. A couple of months rest might do him good.

In determining what is offensive and discriminatory, and when.

I think, Paolo, you are referring to Evra calling Suarez a 'South American' in a derogatory fashion?

If so, I *think* in strictly legal terms, that would not be considered a racial epithet in the same way as the use of *black* would.

But it gets very grey here, and context and intent are critical.

As an example - 'Paki' is clearly an offensive term. 'Pakistani' is not - but said in a particular way and in a particular context, could be construed as equally offensive.

Semantics aside, I do think Evra has a case to answer - but suspect discrimination would be difficult to prove.

You'd want him sacked just for not knowing the politically phrase of the day to describe black people? Surely an apology is enough.

less.

Edit : and FWIW he bores the bum off me too.

...is he, therefore, part of the generation who were brought up to think that calling someone 'black' was wrong and that 'coloured' was the acceptable word to use. My parents certainly were (they're in their late 60s) and still occasionally slip up. Then again, they've not had extensive media training, whereas I suspect that Hansen has.

What I really meant on my last line (and should have said) was: "I hope he is sacked" rather than "he should be". My irk is with his pay versus his contribution, rather than being offended by what he said. I was just jumping on a bandwagon that didn't really get going, and I apologise for that.

I stand by some things I added, notably that he should have known better and that lesser lights would have got the boot.

I think insulting someone because of their race is different than doing so because of their weight, appearance...etc, and far worse.

Having said that, I think people overreact sometimes, as we've seen in the reaction to Hansen's comments.

Words are a funny thing. It's wrong to be offended by Frankie Boyle or Ricky Gervais's disabled comments, but perfectly acceptable to want a man sacked for saying 'coloured' when he meant black.

"What difference black c*nt or white c*nt?"

A question for the ages.

Context, I belive, is the difference.

White people have little or no history of being racially abused or discriminated against in this country, and most others. Being called a "white c*nt" does not stir up unpleasant cultural memories in 99.9% of cases, it just leaves you slightly confused at an ill-judged insult.

Calling someone a "black c*nt" on the other hand, has resonances of similar, unpleasant insults from the past. Perhaps of your grandfather being unable to drink in certain pubs. Or being abused for no apparent reason in the streets. Or being sacked. Or perhaps even being the son of a slave.

It's applying force to a historic cultural pressure point, and that's where the difference lies. If there had never been any racism then, of course, the insults would be entirely analogous. But there has, and there are sensitivities as a result, and we should accept and respect those.

It's not like being fat, it's not like being ginger (and I say this as someone with a ginger child and father). It's not like having glasses or looking a bit funny. It's a measure above all those things.

Here's an example: if I come up to you in the street and call you a "f*cking orphan" then you'd probably look at me a bit surprised and then carry on. It would be an insult, but it wouldn't make much sense, and it probably wouldn't hurt too much.

If I walk up to a young person who has just lost their mother and father in a car crash and say the same thing, it would be absolutely horrific.

Same insult, different context, wildly different levels of offensiveness.

I'm not saying that black people need to be tip toed around, or should be given some sort of blanket excuse for any kind of behaviour. I'm just pointing out that there are certain terms which are highly offensive to them for cultural reasons. We know what these are, we should be respectful enough to steer clear of them and when, on occasion, we put our foot in it as Terry did (whether through accident, adrenaline or otherwise) we should behave like civilised human beings and apologise.

Because it really isn't just another insult.

OOAA, as ever.

Assuming you're talking about it handball, would you not have done the same thing?

The opposition team is about to score to go 2-1 up in the dying seconds of extra time, and you're the last man. 99.9% of us would've done the same thing. Yes, what he did was cheating (in the rules of the game) but to suggest he must be defined as a cheat is going a bit far, surely? If that were the case we'd have to label everyone on the pitch a cheat because none of them are saints.

... that for many fans, of both clubs, and because of the rivalry, it's impossible to be objective about the case.

I can understand why Liverpool fans are backing Suarez - he's a fantastic player who has a massive influence on the team's performance. If it was Andy Carroll, I'd imagine LFC would be looking at the small print of their insurance policy and seeing if they could sack him and get £35 million pounds back.

United fans are obviously loving every minute of this at the moment - not only are they enjoying that their most-despised rival's star player has got an 8 game ban - but also the way Liverpool are dealing with the matter, which also is receiving much negative media coverage.

But even people from a neutral perspective can't seem to agree on what is right and what is wrong. The saga continues...

And as I said above, I think Suarez should've been punished. I just feel the punishment is too severe.

I don't think the well-documented cultural differences completely absolve Suarez of guilt (when in Rome...etc) but they should be considered in mitigation.

There is a world of difference between what Suarez called Evra and, say, Ron Atkinson's description of Marcel Desailly as a f***ing thick lazy n****r.

Both The FA and Patrice Evra have officially acknowledged that they don't believe Suarez is racist, so why eight games? I'd have given him three and made him do some community work.

"in his defence it was said off-air, and he did not realise it was being picked up by foreign viewers."

So, making racist comments when you think no-one can hear you is OK?

I'm sure you don't mean that geacher but it's how your post reads...

... anyone is saying Hansen's a racist - they're just astounded that someone in his position is so out of touch with terminology.

As I remarked above, there's a lot of cant spoken in this arena, and a lot of regional context is ignored.

My mum's 86, and lives 230 miles from the multicultural epicentre of London. If I say to her, as I know she's housebound and not exactly popping down to Sainsburys every five minutes, "This is a nice piece of fish, Mum, where did you get it?", I'm afraid I won't be accusing her of racism when she answers, "From that nice coloured chap who comes round in the fish van every Tuesday afternoon.".

Mind you, Mum doesn't get 40 grand a week for giving shopping advice.

Why would that be the case Ian?

... there is a massive hypocrisy in football. It seems it's OK as a collective to sing horrendous football songs (often relating to tragedy or family matters) but then the same fans go crazy when players give a bit back. That said, there are some obnoxious people playing football at the highest level. For me, it is beyond a game - it's pure theatre, filled with heroes (not so many) and loads of villains - it isn't really football anymore - but I can't stop watching.

I read an article about this a while back. It may have been in WSC, but I'm not certain. One image stuck in my mind.

The writer visited a under 11s match and during a break in play, one of the young players trotted to the touchline where his mother gave him a bottle of Lucozade. He took a swig, then threw the bottle at her feet.

He's just someone the media are interested in because he uses twitter and likes indie bands. I'd imagine most fans round the country can't stand him.

I was just wondering, in my post, if it may have been a term he grew up with, as it was for my parents. It doesn't excuse his using it, but it may explain it. He was unquestionably wrong to use it and has apologised.

is all a bit Daily Mail isn't it? I mean, yes, it's kind of ludicrous but I presume it's the going rate or whatever. Surely the others get similar amounts? Can't imagine 'Lawro', Glum Alan S. or Lineker being happy with being paid less.
At the same time I agree they're all awful. The football podcast culture contains the kind of intelligent witty voices and opinions that should be on these shows but I suspect it'll be a long time before any changes are made.

Patrick Barclay and Roy Keane.

It's here if anyone's interested.

Is also running an article today about John Terry showing his "caring side" on a visit to some superstore.

Comes complete with a large photo of Terry holding a black child on his knee.

The whitewash has begun, if you'll pardon the pun.

That's astonishing.

...absolutely appalling :-(

I think Twitter should remove the comments. It's not really the use of the word "n****r", it's the clear maleficent intent behind it.

It makes you despair for the future when you realise there are so many people out there ready and willing to take part in this brainless abuse. Just the howling of dogs, really.

Likewise, the YouTube clip of the racist woman on the Croydon tram. Good for those who gave her short shrift, but did you see the race-war of words which followed in the comment thread attached to the clip? The last time I noticed, there were around 250,000 comments, and I'd say 95% of them were straightforward abuse along the lines of "I will chop your head off, you black/white (insert profanity of choice)".

Hence my comment in an earlier post, that casual racism is way too common for the law enforcement authorities to stamp it out. It seems to be inherent in so many people's souls and, frankly, I don't know where that leaves the human race.

Merry Xmas, Everyone.

but are we really surprised? People's despicable views are evident in other online platforms. That's one of the reasons why I think LFC's stance is so dangerously misguided. They are fanning the flames of race hate.

I have just looked at the page in question.

Those comments are vile, loathsome filth.

Truly horrible.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-16455531

Hopefully something will be done.

never is

...obviously had a hand in that FA Cup draw, then.

... who lived on Merseyside for 20 years who has many scouse mates and whose very best mate is an out and out King Kenny obsessed red, can I say that most rational, objective people know that the vast, vast majority of LFC supporters are knowledgeable, fair-minded and, in my experience, the most friendly and supportive people you could wish to meet (although they didn't like me at first!). I genuinely feel sorry for the LFC fans who are ashamed by the actions of a few mindless morons.

It seems a relatively recent thing. Obviously, there was hooliganism back in the day, but that was more to do with using football as an excuse for a fight. Normal fans didn't behave like that, and though there'd be rivalries between clubs it tended to be in a piss-taking vein, with not a little humour. Nowadays, it's become a form of mental illness. 'Passion' is paramount and you must defend your club to the death and insult rivals in the strongest possible terms.

It was a big thing for my Dad to take me to games as a kid. And I'd get fussed over by the old ladies in bobble hats with flasks of soup. The fellas wouldn't swear in my presence either. I don't think I'd want to take my son to football now.

For whatever reason, football is the sport which excites the greatest (or at least most immediately obvious) passion amongst its spectators.

I've been at matches where I've been surrounded by weeping grown men (burly ones at that!), I've seen total strangers hug each other, I've sung and danced at games which didn't even concern my club.

I've also seen people pour their foul abuse on to the pitch, I've heard all manner of racist and homophobic comments and I've seen middle aged men throw punches with their kids sat nearby.

People forget themselves at football matches (the exciting ones at least) and you get a bit of an insight into what's inside. Sometimes that's a beautiful thing. Other times it's about as ugly as can be. Particularly as being part of a crowd renders you anonymous - and we only need to take a look at the internet to see how that affects human behaviour.

I've cried with joy at games and I've come home and punched the metaphorical dog. It's all part of the ride: you commit yourself emotionally in the fullest sense to something which really doesn't matter at all. Then you celebrate the peaks and suffer the troughs - you couldn't have one without the other. Human life in microcosm.

None of the above is intended to excuse any of the bad behaviour cited. The kind of abuse listed above is disgusting and has no place at all in civilised society, let's be clear on that.

But I can understand why people get worked up over the game, in fact I consider it to be one of life's great pleasures to do so because the pay off when the chips fall your way is just immense.

Some people seem to escalate to hysterical levels of reaction over relatively trivial things. Like the bloke who mimed cutting my throat last week when I suggested his refusal to move his car and let people out of the petrol station was unhelpful*. Talking to friends a few days back, everyone had examples of seeing extreme, seemingly hated filled responses to mundane day to day issues - in particular to anyone taking issue with someone parking in a disabled space, littering, queue jumping etc

Football has always been the UK's biggest forum for tribal confrontation and although the hooligan days are (mostly) gone, there's a fetid legacy, where some see no boundaries in the "banter" they extend to the opposition. But I've seen grown men reaching over their kids to punch each other over a dispute about a supermarket parking space. Football just offers opportunity and a chance to mix with a few like minded "souls".

A lot of fans don't like it and don't condone it but responding to it is more difficult. The team I support still have a number amongst them that like to imitate gas ovens when Spurs visit, even whilst having Jewish players and managers on the team they support. Direct complaints to the club told me to inform stewards on the day; when I did I was told "and what the f*ck do you expect me to do about it". Not completely unreasonable as it was coming from the next stand along.

It's not all doom and gloom - after a particularly brainless supporter started aiming loose change at a linesman because he had (wholly correctly) disallowed one of our goals, a collection of fans were able to work with the club identify what seat he had come from, and he now enjoys a life ban from the ground.

* not the actual word I used but I did ask politely to start with.

You're trying to apply reason to what is a fundamentally irrational process.

I don't mean that it's a stupid process, simply that support of a sporting team isn't a rational act. And I write that as someone who supports Scotland to the point of tears.

Why do you support Scotland Simon? Well, I'm Scottish doesn't answer the question. They're my team, equally, doesn't. They're a team representing something that I hold dear to my heart and therefore worthy of my support is about close to it as you can get, and it isn't nearly soundbitey enough.

Where I struggle is the fervent support for a club. I lived in Norwich, and I keep an eye out for their results. Dad was brought up near Dunfermline and watches out for the Pars. But the degree of fervor shown week in, week out is something, like Bob, that I struggle to understand.

I've written, at length, before about the differences between rugby and football and I don't plan to rehash the whole long post. But I don't think it's a class thing, I think it's an attitude thing. The whole supporting ethos of each sport is different at both the player level and the fan level. The day I see a Premier League player apologizing to the referee after he gets sent off (see: Scott Murray's red against Wales) I'll hold out hope for the culture of soccer. Until then, I'll watch the matches and hope that a game of entertaining soccer breaks out.

because they're really into what they do - Microdisney.

I'm with you - passion (and sincerity) don't mean correctness