Liverpool scored three in the last game, against Wolves, and all three scorers start tonight – Kuyt, Bellamy and Carroll. It’s up to those three to perform well enough to keep Suarez on the bench and in turn keep their own places, to leave Kenny Dalglish with a selection dilemma he’ll not mind having.

Charlie Adam played a big part in those goals last week and also starts, with Steven Gerrard back in the starting line up having been rested for the game at Molyneux.

Jordan Henderson is left out of the 11, something that hasn’t happened too often this season, and he’s keeping Stewart Downing company on the bench.

Jose Enrique has picked up an injury meaning Martin Kelly returns to the side, possibly on the right with Glen Johnson switching to the left.

Liverpool need the points, having seen Arsenal and Newcastle pick up three apiece at the weekend – but Spurs are in the race for the title and need to win this to keep on the tails of the two Manchester sides.

The fog that was floating around before kick-off has cleared and as long as it stays that way the game is on.

Liverpool: Reina, Kelly, Skrtel, Agger, Johnson, Spearing, Gerrard, Adam, Kuyt, Carroll, Bellamy
Subs: Doni, Aurelio, Coates, Carra, Downing, Henderson, Suarez.

Tottenham: Friedel, Walker, Dawson, King, Assou-Ekotto, Parker, Livermore, Kranjcar, Modric, Bale, Adebayor.
Subs: Cudicini, Saha, Rose, Nelsen, Khumalo, Luongo, Lancaster.

Football Aid promises you a unique opportunity to Live the Dream of an authentic match day experience; gaining exclusive access to the pitch and tunnel areas, pulling on your own personalised shirt in the official changing rooms, walking down the tunnel to the sound of a cheering crowd and ultimately to step out onto the hallowed turf and represent Liverpool in a never to be forgotten football match. And it’s all for charity as well!

Getting involved couldn’t be easier, just visit www.footballaid.com, select Liverpool and position, then place your bid – it really is that simple. Bidding’s available throughout the month of February with the last available positions closing on Wed 7th March and there promises to be some hugely exciting auction action in the weeks to come.

Week 1 should appeal to any Midfield Maestros out there, with the 45 min No 6 (CM), 90 min No 7 (RM) and 45 min No 8 (LM) closing on consecutive days between Tue 7th and Thu 9th February.

Week 2 features the always popular 90 min No 9 (CF), No 10 (CM) and No 11 (CF) positions closing Tue 14th, Wed 15th and Thu 16th.

Week 3 gives an opportunity for any defensive stalwarts to claim their place at the back with the 45 min No 2 (RB), 90 min No 4 (CH) and 45 min No 5 (CH) closing Tue 21st, Wed 22nd and Thu 23rd.

Week 4 gives a chance for any super subs to claim their place with the No 14 (CM), No 15 (CH), No 16 (RB) and No 17 (LM) closing between Mon 27th Feb and Thu 1st March.

All that’s left is the last line of the defence, the 90 min No 1 GK position which closes on Fri 2nd. Finally, Wed 7th March sees any remaining positions made available in our always frenetic final day of bidding.

Home Team positions close at 15:00 pm with the Away Team closing at 16:00 pm. If you’re concerned about losing out in injury time, or won’t be available to monitor your bid for any reason, make sure and use the automated Maximum Bid option and remember you can close an auction early by using the Buy Now option on selected positions.

So don’t get left on the bench, visit www.footballaid.com now and make your bid to secure a place on your Field of Dreams!

Football Aid celebrated their 11th anniversary in 2011 and have allowed over 12,225 football fans the chance to ‘Live the Dream’ in more than 460 matches. They are a groundbreaking organisation which generates funds annually by hosting charity football matches at iconic stadiums all over the UK. The unique concept was the brainchild of businessman and Football Aid Chairman Craig Paterson and funds raised from the event will benefit the work of a charitable project nominated by the club, as well as projects nominated by Football Aid’s parent charity Field of Dreams.

Powar heads up the Football Against Racism in Europe organisation, sometimes referred to as the FARE Network, and has been very outspoken about Luis Suárez, Liverpool FC and Liverpool supporters since the incident with Patrice Evra first came to light.

Yesterday an Asian Liverpool supporter received a message on Twitter, from @PiaraPowar, calling him “a coconut”.

@PiaraPowar's 'coconut' jibe to Asian Liverpool supporter

The insult came after the supporter had asked why Powar had not made any comment on news that a Manchester United supporter had been charged for alleged racial abuse at their game against Stoke City earlier in the week. Rather than respond publicly, the private message was sent and contained what can be considered to be an example of racial abuse: Don’t be a “coconut.”

Although Powar is yet to take steps to explain his intended meaning of the term, it is a term used as a way of accusing someone of betraying their own cultural roots and pandering to “white” opinion.  It relates to a coconut being white on the inside and brown on the outside.

In some contexts – between friends for example – it can be seen as harmless and no offence would be taken. In other contexts it would be taken as a deeply offensive insult, and certainly that would seem to be the case where it is used when addressing a stranger.

In 2010 Shirley Brown, a Bristol politician, was found guilty of racial harassment after using the term when talking to Jay Jethwa, a fellow politician who had moved to the UK from India 24 years before. The remark was found to be “purely gratuitous” and it was ruled that “there was a potential for, albeit minor, public disorder and stimulation for racial hatred.”

The victim, Ms Jethwa, explained how upsetting the comment had been: “I was completely shocked and I was numb.  I was very, very upset and distressed.

“The word is doubly insulting as it insults both me and the white population.”

The message Powar responded to was perfectly reasonable:

“@PiaraPowar Interesting how u haven’t given your opinion on the news that a #mufc fan was arrested on Wednesday for alleged racial abuse”

The response was far from it:

“Get lost Singh. Have no false consciousness. Don’t be a coconut.”

After making the comment the Powar locked the Twitter account and blocked a number of others who had asked a similar question.

For clarity, the arrest of the Manchester United fan was on Tuesday night after a Stoke City fan made a complaint that a spectator was shouting abuse at Stoke players. The Press Association reported the incident on Friday:

“Howard Hobson, 57, is accused of a racially aggravated public order offence and using threatening words or behaviour to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

“Hobson, of Weaver Walk, Openshaw, Manchester, was arrested at the Manchester United v Stoke City game on Tuesday.”

Powar had yet to make any comment whatsoever on the incident and the following morning he was asked why not. A reminder of his comments following the incident at Anfield in January, when Tom Adeyemi was the victim of alleged racial abuse, was also sent to Powar.

Those comments from Powar came on January 7^th:

“Are LFC fans going to do this at every game, support the mistakes made by their own man by abusing others? 25% of PL [Premier League] players are black.”

One fan, allegedly, had shouted racial abuse. Powar was now talking like it was part of the fan culture at Anfield.

The comments – made from the same Twitter account that made the “coconut” jibe – were widely reported in the mass media. His mudslinging was once again hitting the headlines and because of his position his comments were not being questioned. Despite there being very little information available about the structure, funding or accountability of FARE his comments were taken as authoritative by the mass media. His past as the spokesman of Kick It Out perhaps plays a part in that, although it is unclear why he left Kick It Out and the organisation are still to fill the role he left vacant.

@PiaraPowar outspoken after incident at Anfield, remained silent on Old Trafford incident

Without going over the reasons many Liverpool supporters (but not all) had for being supportive of Suárez and critical of the process the comments from Powar caused a lot of offence. Fans supportive of Suárez were not supporting racism or racial abuse – they just didn’t believe he was guilty of either.  Fans who commented on the Adeyemi abuse allegations agreed en masse that if the allegations were true they wouldn’t want that supporter inside Anfield again.

@PiaraPowar tells LFC fans they've "no chance" of following him on Twitter

Today, to those who aren’t yet blocked from seeing Powar’s comments on Twitter, he remains defiant in his comments. He was asked if his message was rude:

“The private messge? Yes it’s very rude. Racist? If sent 2 someone of same ethnic origin, religion, heritage? Try harder.”

Also, having blocked a number of Liverpool supporters and making the rest of his comments private to his selected audience, he said there was “no chance” he would allow Liverpool fans to see the rest of what he had to say:

“Wake up to hundreds of LFC fans who want to follow. I wonder why? #nochance”

Again, assuming all Liverpool fans are the same, he decides none of them should be allowed to hear what he has to say about them.

@PiaraPowar with another sweeping generalisation

Powar’s ‘coconut’ comment, sent privately, smacks of bullying. If the Asian fan doesn’t go along with Powar’s way of doing things he’s betraying his roots. Powar seems to be suggesting that non-white LFC fans should forget their true feelings and stick with Powar – purely because of skin colour. If Powar feels he’s done no wrong then he needs to explain; instead he carries on slagging people off through Twitter.

Some will argue that use of the phrase “coconut” is not racist. Indeed Powar has tried to do so himself. But the person he aimed it at, and others who saw it, deem it to be highly offensive. For Powar not to realise that his comment could cause offence – whether any was intended or not – suggests he is in the wrong job. If the offence was intended he certainly shouldn’t be in the job.

Not that it took this comment from the man for many people to reach this conclusion about him. Powar and FARE have shown no interest whatsoever in engaging with Liverpool FC or its supporters at any time since news first broke of Evra’s allegations about Suarez. Emails from Anfield Road to FARE remain unanswered, and have done so for some time.

Powar has restricted his opinions to himself and his 347 followers now. In the absence of some credible explanations and some long overdue apologies it’s best it stays that way. And if Lord Ouseley and Kick It Out are happy to be associated with him then that raises serious questions about their credibility too. They need to distance themselves from him or their campaign will suffer – especially when they preach so much about “zero tolerance”.

Powar has had enough airtime, but if the other anti-discrimination campaigners allow this to be swept under the carpet without explanation then they have also had enough airtime. Time someone else got the cushy jobs.

Maybe it’s time they listened to John Barnes a bit more too.

With Everton also drawn at home for the fifth round the match might have been moved anyway. Everton now get to play their tie, against Blackpool or Sheffield Wednesday, on the Saturday at 3pm.

Liverpool travel to Wembley the following weekend for the final of the Carling Cup against Cardiff.

Revised fixtures for 5th round of the Budweiser-sponsored cup are below:

Saturday 18

12:30 Chelsea v Birmingham City (Live on ESPN)
15:00 Everton v Blackpool or Sheffield Wednesday
15:00 Norwich City v Leicester City
15:00 Millwall or Southampton v Bolton Wanderers
17:15 Sunderland AFC or Middlesbrough v Arsenal (Live on ITV)

Sunday 19

12:00 Crawley Town v Stoke City (Live on ESPN)
14:00 Stevenage v Tottenham Hotspur (Live on ITV)
16:30 Liverpool v Brighton & Hove Albion (Live on ESPN)

The Didi Man will be signing copies of this. (PIC: Propaganda Photo)

Now you can get the chance to meet him because he’s going to be signing copies of his new book, “The Didi Man – My Love Affair with Liverpool” at a number of locations from today onwards.

In his book he talks all about why he chose to move from German giants Bayern Munich to Newcastle, why he chose to move on from Anfield after all those years picking up medals (and a Scouse accent) and why he used to go for a pint in boozers associated with the blue half of the city rather than the Red. He gives his opinions on coaches he worked under, including Sven Goran Eriksson, Gerard Houllier and Rafael Benitez.

Didi’s humour and intelligence pours out of every page of the book and gives him the chance to set the story straight on a number of other points, like Steven Gerrard’s comments after he’d fouled him on international duty in an England-Germany match and why he was hiding in the showers with David Moores one time.

He talks about the reasons why he called it a day at Anfield after speaking to Rafa Benitez but also explains why he holds him such high regard. The next step for Didi is to continue with the process of picking up all his coaching badges and then, one day, making the move into management himself.

Get the book, it’s thoroughly recommended, and you can get it signed by going to one of the following events:

February

Wed 1st – Waterstones, Leadenhall Market, London. 5pm – 6.30pm.
Fri 3rd – Waterstones, Birkenhead. 12pm – 2pm.
Sat 4th – Pritchard’s, Crosby. 11pm – 1pm.
Sat 4th – LFC Club shop, Anfield. 2pm – 4pm.
Mon 6th – Waterstones, Southport. 11am – 1pm.
Mon 6th – Waterstones, Liverpool One. 5pm – 7pm.
Mon 18th – Easons, Dublin. From 12.30.

Available now from Amazon – Didi Hamann – My Love Affair With Liverpool.

To listen again to The Anfield Wrap Episode 25, featuring Didi and also Neil Fitzmaurice, use one of the following links:

Direct link to Episode Twenty-Five podcast download

Podcast RSS feed

iTunes

More quality Footie, Fashion, Music and Culture content at The Anfield Wrap Website.

Kenny Dalglish has made a couple of changes from the side that despatched Manchester United from one cup on Saturday, bringing back one or two from the side that despatched Manchester City from another cup on Wednesday.

Johnson is in for Kelly, Bellamy and Kuyt are back too. The team is a mix of the two from the cups and Dalglish will expect it to perform like those sides did, certainly in terms of effort and commitment. What he won’t stand for is a repeat of how the players approached the game against Bolton and a performance that shows no respect to either the opponent or the shirt.

Andy Carroll starts and isn’t going anywhere despite rumours this transfer window. Steven Gerrard was taken off as a precaution on Saturday and is rested tonight too. There’s no repeat of Carra’s role midfield role and that’s partly because one player missing from recent matches has recovered from injury to fit into the starting line-up, Jay Spearing.

Tonight’s referee is from Wythenshawe in Manchester and has dished out 66 yellows, plus five reds, in his 20 matches this season.

Wolves: Hennessey, Ward, Johnson, Berra, Foley, Edwards, Kightly, Frimpong, Jarvis, Jonsson, Fletcher
Subs: De Vries, Elokobi, Stearman, Hunt, Milijas, Ebanks-Blake, Doyle

Liverpool: Reina, Johnson, Skrtel, Agger, Enrique, Henderson, Spearing, Adam, Kuyt, Bellamy, Carroll
Subs: Doni, Aurelio, Coates, Carragher, Downing, Shelvey, Kelly.

Referee: Anthony Taylor (Manchester)

Kick-off: 7:45pm

TV coverage:
UK: Not being shown live.
US: FoxSoccer.TV (online, sub required *).

* To watch FoxSoccer.TV from outside the US you will need to use a VPN or Proxy Server to give you US IP address. Visit usaproxyserver.com for details.

That last meeting between the two sides was down on the South Coast when the Reds were there for this season’s Carling Cup third round tie and despite winning that one Kenny Dalglish won’t let any complacency creep in. The game ended 2-1 to Liverpool with goals from Bellamy and Kuyt but a late penalty from Brighton after Carragher’s foul caused a few anxious minutes of injury time.

Gus Poyet is Brighton’s manager and will relish the chance to bring his side up to Anfield for a match where his compatriots Luis Suarez and Sebastian Coates could be part of the home side’s squad.

* Matches to be played on the weekend of February 17/18/19.

Everton have also been handed a home draw – against Blackpool or Sheffield Wednesday – so at least one of the two Merseyside clubs will need to have their match switched from the Saturday to either the Friday or the Sunday.

For two and a half of those months the headlines sat above stories that were based on speculation and on anything that might be leaked from those in or around the two clubs and players. Since then, since the written reasons were published, the stories have been based on a mixture of that speculation and little more than a cursory glance at a handful of the 115 pages the FA panel produced to justify their decision.

There is no excuse for anyone who feels strongly about the incident to comment on it without having read the full report. Not now.

It came out on New Year’s Eve and in the urgency to get a reaction out it’s hardly a surprise the reaction was based on the summary spread out over the last few pages of the epic document. Four weeks on, why have those who keep talking in such strong terms about it still not bothered to read it?

Look at the facts before making the accusations

Freddie Kanouté told the BBC’s World Football Focus that it was possible Luis Suárez had a point, that cultural differences could mean the Uruguayan has been unfairly treated, but he made it clear that he was in no position to defend either player, for one simple reason. He hasn’t read the report, he hasn’t studied the case in any detail.

Kanouté, based in Spain with Sevilla since 2005, said: “Here, some people, they have a way to talk to each other. It’s true; when I arrived here I was a bit shocked because that’s their way to express themselves. But I’m not going to defend him, or the other player, because I haven’t studied the case.

“All the time I think we should study the cases more deeply to be sure we don’t accuse someone falsely.”

Kanouté played in England for a number of years for West Ham and Spurs, he was born in France and played for their under-21s before choosing the African nation of Mali as his country for full internationals.

As we waited over the Christmas holidays for the written reasons from that FA appointed panel it’s safe to say that most of us hoped the document would clarify the facts of what had really happened.  Armed with the facts we could all, whichever way our football or personal allegiances swayed our opinion, make our own judgement on the whole mess. We could find out why Liverpool’s defence of their player was so strong, we could find out why the panel were not only sure they had come to the right decision but why they were so strong in their punishment, we could finally air our opinions based on whatever evidence there was and not on the sensationalised hypothetical versions based on the opinions of those looking on from outside.

Facts

Liverpool fans who stood by Suárez as they waited for that written reasons report did so with a fear somewhere between the front and back of their minds that their opinion of the player and of those running their club could take a massive hit when its contents were revealed.

It’s fair to say that those who condemned Suárez from the first airing of Evra’s accusations also awaited the report with a fear that it might be hard to stand by its findings. Deep down they knew that there might be more to Liverpool’s stance than commercial, financial and team selection worries.

Nobody expected 115 pages. Nobody expected it just as they were about to get changed to go out for New Year’s Eve. Nobody, it seems, did anything more with it than they needed to in order to confirm their existing opinions.

Those who wanted to agree with the verdict didn’t need to read the full document. They got all they needed in a convenient summary at the end. But that summary didn’t really explain the assumptions that had been made in order to reach those conclusions. And those who continue to condemn Suárez, his club or his fans based on that summary have quite literally jumped to conclusions.

The Truth

If your interest stops short of wanting to know the truth and revolves around wanting to condemn Suárez, his club or his club’s fans then it’s a surprise you’re still reading this now. If you saw this as an ideal opportunity for some tribal point scoring the chances are you’re licking your wounds today anyway, avoiding football talk at all costs.

If that’s not you, if you do feel strongly about the issue itself, the accusations of racial abuse, it’s time you did read that report. The longer you avoid it the closer you become to those who celebrated the verdict for the harm it might do Liverpool more than the benefits it might bring to the fight against racism.

If you feel strongly about the issue you’ve had four weeks to read the 115 pages front to back a few times. If you haven’t even had the decency to do that then you should hold your hands up now and admit you’re not really in any position to comment either way.

Blagger’s guide

The nature of the report is such that if you haven’t read it, you can’t bluff your way into making it sound like you have. This is worse than watching the last game on Match of the Day and using the four minutes of action to help pretend you were there or that you saw the whole game live. It’s worse than supplementing that with the opinions of someone who only saw the match report on Teletext.

Much of what has been written – before and after the publication of that document – is way off beam in terms of the detail the report contained.

If you go around mentioning the word “negrito” you’ll stand out a mile to those who have bothered to read it all. “Negrito” got into the conversation about the case after “high level sources” at Old Trafford spoke to a sympathetic Manchester journalist. The word only appears in one place in that 115 page report, in a point discussing what Manchester United’s Hernandez had said about the word.

Have you looked at what Evra’s initial allegations were? Do you know the word he originally accused Suárez of using? When did he change his mind about the word? How many times did he change his mind about the word on the day itself? How many times did he claim Suárez had said the word – and how many times did he change his mind about that number?

If you only read the summary you won’t have a clue. Maybe it doesn’t matter how many times he changed his mind – but how can you say that without reading about it?

Amnesty

There are signs that some of those who condemned LFC and its fans without reading the report have actually started to realise that the anger isn’t a defence of racism, or about blindly putting their club ahead of the abhorrent subject of racism. In time they might actually have the guts to stand up and admit they jumped to conclusions and that they now understand the points being made, even if they still disagree with them. In time they might just see what the cause of the anger really is. Those who do this maybe deserve a bit of an amnesty – as long as they hold their hands up about how they reached their earlier conclusions.

The anger is, in many ways, that we still haven’t actually debated what really happened and that the condemnation is based on something other than what really happened.

Is it wrong that the anger should be directed at Patrice Evra? Maybe – but that’s a debate in itself. And debating the rights and wrongs of Liverpool fans calling him a liar is all part of that debate.

Some of those so quick to condemn that anger need to look at themselves before looking down at Liverpool supporters.

Inconsistencies

Time and again we hear condemnation of inconsistencies in football and many of those having a go at Liverpool now bang on repeatedly about introducing technology into football to cut down on the number of contentious decisions. They do this because they know what one person sees at first glance might differ from what someone else sees at first glance. They do this because they know the ability to spend ten seconds looking at something instead of a split second makes a big difference.

They do this, however, knowing full well that no amount of technology is going to bring an end to the controversies that surround the interpretation of the game’s laws.

And they do this whilst having spent the equivalent of a split second looking at the Suárez incident when basic technology, in the form of a PDF document, allows them to spend the equivalent of many minutes looking at it.

Why the reluctance from those who have been so outspoken to look again, properly, at the incident? The decision has now been made and it won’t be changed by those with the power to change it – but why not just look again anyway? Just for your own personal piece of mind, just for your own integrity?

You’d look stupid if you kept banging on about a penalty you thought was stonewall, demanding a belated 3-match ban for the player you think gave the penalty away, if you’d only seen it once, from one angle, at normal speed. Especially if you added weight to your claims based on the opinions of someone from the side that didn’t get the penalty, knowing that side had also not seen it more than once, from more than one angle. Unless you dropped lucky of course and by coincidence your opinion tied with the details the replays showed.

Without that bit of luck and coincidence you’d look stupid if you chose not to look at the replays, offered to you on a plate, yet continued to condemn the referee for getting it wrong. At times like that you’ve got to choose – take the time to check your facts or shut the hell up. If you genuinely cared, the way your constant references to the incident suggested you did, you’d check your facts.

Look again

This isn’t a penalty, this isn’t a sending-off, this is something far more serious. Yet people still won’t look at the replays. Are they scared it might make them look foolish, it might put them in a position where they have to own up to being wrong, even just a little bit wrong?

Are you one of those who wanted to see Liverpool suffer more than you wanted to kick racism out of football?

Someone amongst the Liverpool supporters looks to have made offensive gestures of a racist nature during the game yesterday and was widely condemned by Liverpool supporters for seemingly doing so. An arrest was made later in the day and that means it’s best not to comment on the incident in too much detail – but anyone doing what that man was accused of doing isn’t welcome at Anfield or entitled to call himself a supporter. And that’s putting it nicely.

Meanwhile Manchester United fans sang, more than once, a song they have been singing for a number of years. They sang it in between chants that “the S*n was right” and far worse chants about Hillsborough. They sang it between chants where they compared Liverpool’s anger at this verdict to the anger felt about Hillsborough. They sang it between chants accusing Liverpool FC of being racist. The chant was about their South Korean player, Park Ji-Sung, and “eating dogs”. The song is considered highly offensive by the South Koreans it’s aimed at yet there is never a word heard condemning it by those who profess to care about discrimination and those who remind everyone about the importance of “zero tolerance”.

If you’re still reading this you probably do care about discrimination, you’ll probably realise that the song about Park shouldn’t be sung, you’ll probably see that Liverpool anger isn’t coming from “closet racists” (as one journalist claimed during a number of embarrassing exchanges on Twitter last night). So you’ll want to find out why Liverpool are angry, you’ll want to try and engage Liverpool fans and you’ll want to make sure the future reporting of this incident is not only more accurate but more helpful to the cause it is meant to all be about helping.

Liverpool fans might still be wrong. The player might still be wrong. But you’ll never persuade us that’s the case if you keep condemning us for what we’ve never said or done.

Think about what respect means before accusing others of lacking it.

Read the report; read it from front to back – it won’t be easy but if you care as much as you claim it’s not a lot to ask really. Imagine it’s a movie outline if that helps, see if you can spot any holes in the plot or see if you think it all makes sense. Just don’t judge the movie by its trailer.

In other words, shut up and focus on reading that report!

Sooner or later we’d like to move on.

* If you’ve not got a copy of the report yet, you can download a copy of it from here or here.

Liverpool were outstanding on Wednesday as they sent Manchester City out of the Carling Cup and booked a place at Wembley, more of the same today could see Kenny Dalglish’s side in contention for a second trip to the new version of what used to be known as Anfield south.

Both sides should be up for this, even allowing for the usual motivation this fixture brings. Manchester United in particular might fear this is their main hope for silverware this season if their neighbours continue to keep them off top spot in the league. “Liverpool exist to win trophies,” so the old saying goes, and one man who is likely to have that belief is Mr Dalglish.

Andy Carroll was on the bench on Wednesday with Craig Bellamy keeping him out – and deservedly so given the performance Bellamy put in. Carroll starts today with Bellamy on the bench. Dirk Kuyt put in arguably his best performance of the season on Wednesday but he also drops to the bench, his replacement is Maxi Rodriguez.

At the back Martin Kelly comes in for Glen Johnson and Jamie Carragher also starts. Whether he plays in midfield – he’s in the side at the expense of Charlie Adam – remains to be seen, but it looks like Kenny is planning to use three centre-backs.

For the other lot Wayne Rooney is out of the starting line up, Patrice Evra starts as captain with veterans Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes also in from the off.

Liverpool: Reina, Kelly, Agger, Skrtel, Carragher, Enrique, Henderson, Gerrard, Downing, Maxi, Carroll.
Subs: Doni, Johnson, Coates, Kuyt, Adam, Shelvey, Bellamy.

Manchester United: De Gea, Rafael, Smalling, Evans, Evra, Carrick, Scholes, Giggs, Valencia, Welbeck, Park.
Subs: Lindegaard, Fabio, Ferdinand, M Keane, Pogba, Berbatov, Hernandez.

Kanouté told the BBC’s World Football Focus that he’s seen those cultural differences first-hand, including in Seville where he’s now been based for six years and is fluent in the Spanish language: “It’s different in every country you know.

“Here, some people, they have a way to talk to each other. It’s true; when I arrived here I was a bit shocked because that’s their way to express themselves.”

Suárez was banned for eight matches after an FA-appointed panel decided he wasn’t a credible witness and instead took the word of his accuser, Patrice Evra, finding a charge of insulting behaviour with a reference to race proven. A 115-page report was issued where the panel tried to justify their reasons for making that decision, but few who have commented on the case have taken the time to read it in full, meaning the inconsistencies it is littered with have had very little coverage.

The French-born Mali international stopped short of passing judgement on the case itself, instead pointing out that he’s not looked at the case in enough detail to be able to say who was right. He’s keeping an open mind – false allegations are dangerous and Suárez might have had a point: “But I’m not going to defend him, or the other player, because I haven’t studied the case.

“All the time I think we should study the cases more deeply to be sure we don’t accuse someone falsely.”

Kanouté was caught up in a ‘race row’ himself in October after accusations were made against Barcelona’s former Arsenal player Cesc Fabregas. Kanouté had been sent off after an altercation with Fabregas and local media reported that Kanouté had been provoked by insults which had a racial element to them.  The accusations weren’t made by Kanouté.

Fabregas used Twitter to deny the claims: “I want to categorically deny that I made any kind of racist insult towards any Sevilla player.  I will not tolerate anyone accusing me of things that I’m not. If they are frustrated by a decision that has gone against them on the football pitch then there are others ways to deal with it.

“To cry racism is cowardly and an easy option to excuse your own poor behaviour. My conscience is completely clear. I’ve done nothing wrong.”

Kanouté, whilst reluctant to discuss exactly what Fabregas did say, made it clear in the BBC interview that there was no racial element to the words that were exchanged: “I’m not going to explain now what he said because this is something personal.

“Sometimes there is bad language on the pitch and sometimes some players react and that’s what I did – but I’ve never said he was racist and said racist things. I’ve got to be honest about that. There’s nothing about that and that’s it.”

Kanouté, a Muslim, found himself in a difficult situation at one point when his club got a new shirt sponsor – a betting company. Freddie refused to wear the shirt initially but later came to an agreement with his club that meant he wasn’t expected to take part in any other publicity work for the sponsor: “I felt I shouldn’t wear that shirt but we are in a society where sometimes you have to understand you are not on your own and sometimes you have to do things – as far as I’m concerned I’m not doing those kinds of things myself but it’s like publicity, I felt I shouldn’t make publicity of that kind of company.

“When I play football, when I’m in my personal life, I am still Muslim. It doesn’t change anything, so sometimes when there are some things that are not in agreement with my principles I say, ‘Stop, no,’ but that’s the only thing.

“I think I’ve been understood by the majority, let’s say, even the non-Muslims, because something is like common sense.  Also there’s no problem at all expressing my views on some issues.”

Liverpool face Manchester United at Anfield today with Patrice Evra set to make his first appearance there since making those allegations in October.

It was after the league game between the two sides that Evra reported Luis Suárez to the referee for insulting him using the word “n****r”. Evra then went on French TV, claiming Suárez had used the word “more than ten times”, and the accusations were then aired around the world. Evra had made reference to only one occasion in his statement to the referee and would later change his evidence again to say the word used wasn’t “n****r” but the Spanish word “negro” (meaning “black”, not to be confused with the English word with the same spelling but different pronunciation and meaning).

Although Evra went public to make his “more than ten times” allegations and told reporters the word used was “n****r”, he is yet to clarify publicly that those allegations were false and exaggerated. Whatever the truth of what happened on the pitch at Anfield in October, it is a long way removed from the version Evra told the media.

Evra also told the hearing, but not the media, that before Suárez said anything at all to him he’d insulted the Uruguayan with the words “your sister’s c***.” The FA excused this on the grounds of there being cultural differences between the use of “your sister’s c***” in Spanish and its literal English translation. Despite ruling that Suárez’s use of the word “negro” should be judged based on its direct English translation and in the context of it being said on an English football pitch, with any cultural differences discounted, the panel ruled that Evra’s use of an extremely insulting phrase when directly translated into English should be judged based on the cultural use of the phrase in Spanish and not on its direct English translation.

The FA refuses to answer questions on those any many other inconsistencies. Liverpool, whilst not accepting the findings, have expressed a desire to move on from the incident. Much of the media and certain anti-discrimination campaigners don’t share that desire but also don’t show any desire for the truth, instead continuing to perpetuate a number of myths from the case.

* The full World Football Focus programme is now online on the BBC’s website: World Football Focus. (NB: Geographic restrictions may apply, content may only be available for a limited time.) Thanks to the producer, @SimonEllisJones, for letting us know about the programme.

Evra still had that little tantrum about losing the toss. He still told the ref to book Downing and still got away without being booked himself. He still went down writhing in agony for what looked at least from some angles as an innocuous challenge from Suárez. If he was asked later why he’d writhed around in agony following that type of challenge he’d still say it was more painful for him to be caught there because of existing injury problems.

Five minutes after that challenge Evra still said something (best not repeated) to Suárez, something Suárez still didn’t hear. But in this parallel universe Suárez responded to the rest of Evra’s pestering with a word picked up from one of the local lads at Anfield.

“Why did you kick me?”

“Because you’re a blert?”

“A what?”

“A blert; stop whining.”

To people watching from the stands or on TV nothing looked any different to what (it looked like) went on in this universe. Suárez and Evra were still the only ones who really knew what they’d said and what they thought they’d heard. But in the parallel universe Evra’s team mate Rooney explained what “blert” meant and that was the end of that. The controversy afterwards was about Ferguson being asked if Liverpool’s free kick was soft and replying it was and that “that Suárez dives all over the place”, without anyone pointing out to him that it was Adam who’d been fouled for the free kick. Even in that universe Ferguson won’t stand for having things pointed out to him.

Liverpool fans would talk about how it looked like their opponents had come looking for a draw and that it seemed like their opponents were happier with the score than they were. A quick friendly against Rangers followed for Liverpool and then it was the visit of another side that would be happy to leave Anfield with a point – Norwich this time.  From then on the game against the Mancs would hardly get a mention.

Liverpool played 13 games whilst waiting for a final outcome on Evra’s accusations; they’ve now played six of the eight-game ban that was part of that outcome.  In that parallel universe, where Liverpool’s results weren’t necessarily any better, the only reason the October match would be under discussion now would be if the FA Cup draw was the same.

Chances are, in that parallel universe, Evra would have had a bit of stick from Liverpool fans because of that toin-coss tantrum, the attempt to get Downing booked and his constant narkiness throughout the October fixture (even before that 50-oddth minute). If, as part of the build-up for tomorrow’s game there’d been wall-to-wall coverage of all this there’s a good chance Evra would hear what people thought of him tomorrow. And there’s no doubt at all that if he acted like he did for those first 50 minutes on October he’d get told it again and again. That’s football, after all.

Suárez might be missing from that parallel fixture anyway, after all no player is immune from injury or from racking up unjust or silly bookings. If he was playing, though, he’d almost certainly be the subject of abuse from away supporters thanks to the “diving all over the place” nonsense their manager and others were spreading prior to any mention of more serious allegations. But again, that’s football.

Sometimes the hostility works in the player’s favour anyway. If the crowd react strongly to three or four reasonable challenges from the player they’re aiming their venom at, what happens when it’s the fourth or fifth but this time the ref isn’t so well-sighted? If a player has been clearly fouled a couple of times in plain sight of the referee, only for the ref to hear accusations of diving, what’s that ref going to do the next time when he’s not so well positioned?

It’s not just the referee’s perception of the vitriol that can make a difference of course. Some players thrive on it; they use it to spur them on, all the more if they know there’s no merit to the abuse coming from the stands or if it’s about something that genuinely does not bother them.

Some supporters, at some clubs, have their pantomime boos ready every time a player who used to play for one of their rivals comes to play with his new team. He might only have been on their rival’s books for one season, spent mainly in the reserves, but once a [whatever the neighbours are called] always a [whatever the neighbours are called] and he’ll be booed every time he goes near the ball. Watching other teams on TV people are asking why there’s such anger towards that player, did he end someone’s career? No, he just played for that lot in the next town once.

Wayne Rooney gets it at Anfield, because Wayne Rooney has played for both of the sides that Liverpool supporters like least. He grew up supporting one of them; some would argue his transfer fee meant he supported them in a different way for a couple of years after he’d gone too. The more stick he gets from Liverpool fans the better he usually does.

Gary Neville also always got a bit more attention from Liverpool fans than his team mates did. That was mainly down to him being very publicly full of spite towards Liverpool from early in his career – but the feeling was mutual and on the whole it never did anyone any harm. Nowadays he even gets compliments from Liverpool fans, his punditry for Sky on the whole a welcome surprise.

Manchester United were prepared to lose money on a want away player before they’d let Liverpool buy him, such is their, or their manager’s, dislike (it can’t be fear, can it?) of LFC. But had that player been signed for the side that wear the better shade of Red it doesn’t take much imagination to work out the kind of reception he’d get from his old club’s fans. Something like the reception Paul Ince got when he, via another club, joined Liverpool.

Some of the (internet) abuse aimed at Evra for admitting he considered leaving Old Trafford (for a club overseas) suggests he’d be a long way from popular if he’d gone there and the two sides had met up in a future Champions League (or Europa League) tie.

Whatever the reasons might be for a hostile reception, whether it’s for something that was there before the match or something that happened in the match, chances are it’s not going to mess that player’s head up. If anything it might just make the difference that sees him put that extra 2% effort in to throw himself on the end of a slightly over hit cross or make that last ditch yet well-timed tackle.

A lot of players claim to not even notice what’s being said about them from the stands, to not notice the chanting or insults. Sometimes of course the insults are being hurled at players by their own fans – and chances are they would hurt far more than anything the opposing fans could come up with.

In that parallel universe Evra might have been booed every time he touched the ball in tomorrow’s game and nothing would have been made of it. Evra would probably take it as a compliment, the way many footballers do when they’ve riled the other side’s fans.

Back to reality, what happens if he’s booed tomorrow, or more accurately what happens if he gets shouted at a lot, with some expletives thrown in, by Liverpool supporters tomorrow? We won’t know until it happens – but nothing should be made of it, unless there’s evidence of it being for reasons more sinister than that old club rivalry.

The usual (mainly internet) few who try to make out a chant is worse than it sounds or even make some up that were never sung will no doubt be planning to do more of the same after tomorrow’s match. It helps them fine tune their audience, attracting more of those who can’t think for themselves and won’t ask questions – and repelling those who can and do.

Tomorrow will also be a good test for the cluster of mainstream reporters who have jumped to the wrong conclusions time and again since Evra’s allegations were first heard publicly. Can they report on events at a Liverpool FA cup tie without having to hastily get their reports corrected and the inaccuracies wiped out? Can they report any words Liverpool come out with relating to Evra, if Liverpool do, without putting words into Liverpool’s mouths that were never there?

There is absolutely no reason, other than normal footballing reasons, for Evra to miss tomorrow’s match. As that game goes on any abuse he gets will be because of his actions on the pitch, not his fluid allegations off the pitch.

And, if Evra is 100% certain in his own mind that the decision the FA panel made over the Suárez charge was correct, he’s hardly going to be hurt by a bit of booing tomorrow. He’s not going to play any worse if there seems to be a stronger reaction to a late tackle from him than there is to one from another of his team mates (we don’t even know if Paul Scholes is playing yet).

Will Luis Suárez be there, like he was on Wednesday to see Liverpool knock Manchester City out of the Carling Cup? There’s no reason he shouldn’t be, after all the FA’s punishment didn’t extend to him being prevented from going to see his team’s games, but this is Manchester United we’re playing and it would just be inviting them to stir up trouble about it in some way.

Liverpool will be there to play football, the Liverpool fans will be there to see it played. Liverpool will try to win, not try for a draw, and once that coin has been tossed, tantrum from the visiting captain or not, football will be all that matters.

Manchester United can do what they want.

I didn’t finish it; it was one of those pieces that have no end in sight because there’s so much to say. And this is no shorter, so apologies if you don’t like reading anything too lengthy.

It followed on from comments by Piara Powar, the latest in a number, that had themselves followed on from comments Lord Ouseley and a number of other anti-discrimination campaigners. It was shortly after the incident at Anfield involving Tom Adeyemi.

None of the more prominent anti-discrimination campaigners, along with the members of the press so eager to give them a platform to spout from, seemed to grasp exactly what was at the heart of Liverpool’s stance on the Luis Suárez incident. Those who have spoken out about it and defended the club or the player have been branded as racist and that has been fuelled in a large part by the comments made by Ouseley, Powar and a number of other anti-discrimination campaigners.

What they are all unable – or unwilling – to grasp is that people who were defending Suárez were not condoning racism.

And what the ones doing it are also unwilling to grasp is that by inferring Liverpool and its fans are all racist they are as discriminatory as any of the people they claim to be protecting others from. All anti-discrimination campaigners aren’t the same – but football seems to be blessed with some of the worst.

When the Suárez case first came to light the first reaction was as to be expected from both sets of supporters. There was no proof – so, football being football, supporters stood by their own man until such a time as proof to the contrary was shown. Some would probably stand by him even then, but most decent fans of both sides would at least be open to the possibility that their man could be in the wrong – or that it was all a big misunderstanding. What most people wanted was definitive proof, hopefully in their man’s favour, but proof either way. That way there would be no real arguing to be done and if your man was in the wrong you could see it and react accordingly. Most Liverpool fans I heard comment on that possibility made it clear that they’d want him out if he’d done what Evra had said he’d done.

Neutrals, meanwhile, were either genuinely dismayed at the possibility it had happened or were rubbing their hands together in private at the chance of something to gossip about or write headlines about. If Suárez had done what Evra had accused him of it was dynamite for the headline writers and it would give the writers of what sites underneath the headlines story after story for the foreseeable future.  Those stories would be lapped up by those who care about having something to gossip about far more than they care about the truth.

And of course, whichever “side” “lost” the battle, plenty of those on the “winning” side would be glad to spread that gossip too. It’s what people do. Some people.

So now, with very little indeed to go on, everyone interested in the story decided what they thought about it. It might not be there final decision but it was the one they went with to start with. Had Suárez done what Evra said he’d done?

What had Evra actually said? Well…

Evra had accused Suárez of calling him a “ni****” ten times. He’d told French TV, and through that the world, that the Uruguayan had done something that – if true – no amount of explaining could play down.

Suárez had denied it, saying instead (later) that he’d used a word once, a word that isn’t racist in his own country and that Evra’s own team mates use the same word to him. His club stood behind him and made it clear that they didn’t think he was guilty of the accusations made against him.

The two versions of events are complete polar opposites.

But those two versions of events were all that anyone outside of the process had to go on. Any comments made before New Year’s Eve and the release of the “written reasons” were based on those two completely opposite versions of events. The only other “evidence” the general public had to go on was whatever was leaked to the press, and that had to be taken with a huge pinch of salt because it wasn’t always clear where it had come from and how biased the original storyteller might be.

It turned out that Evra’s story had inconsistencies in it from the beginning. Although we weren’t to find this out until later, the version of events reported by the referee in the ‘Extraordinary Incident Report Form’ was different to what Evra had told Canal+, in that there is only a reference to Suárez making a comment once, not multiple times: “Luis Suárez is alleged to have said to Patrice Evra ‘I don’t talk to you because you ni****s’.”

Neither Ferguson nor Evra made mention of the alleged insult being used more than once, according to their witness statements.

Ferguson’s statement said that “as he was speaking to David De Gea, Mr Evra approached him. He said ‘Boss, Suarez called me a ni****.’” Ferguson’s statement also said: “[Ferguson] told Mr Marriner that they had a complaint to make. [Ferguson] told him ‘Evra has been called a ni**** by one of the Liverpool players.’ [Ferguson] then motioned for Mr Evra to tell the referee what had been said.”

According to Evra’s statement, although this may have been paraphrased by the panel in its written reasons, “[Evra] said that he told the referee that Mr Suarez had called him a ni****.”  Again according to the panel’s description of Evra’s statement: “According to Mr Evra, the referee said to him ‘Oh, that is why you were talking about being called black’, referring back to what Mr Evra had said to the referee on the pitch. Mr Evra said ‘Yes.’”

Also, according to the panel’s retelling of the witness statement from referee Marriner, the referee only mentions the accusation being of one instance: “Mr Evra, speaking in English, then told Mr Marriner that during a coming together in the penalty area in the second half of the match, Mr Suarez said to Mr Evra, ‘I don’t talk to you because you ni****s’.”

None of this was out in the public domain, but according to Evra, Ferguson and Marriner there was no mention of the alleged insult being used more than once.

Evra said “ten times” to French TV. Also, according to the LFC member of staff who stands outside the dressing rooms on match days in case anyone needs anything, Ferguson alleged it happened “five times”. That was what the LFC member of staff, Ray Haughan, said he heard Ferguson say. Haughan said he was outside in the corridor when he heard Ferguson say this inside the referee’s dressing room. The referee’s door was then closed and Haughan went to warn LFC officials about the allegation he’d heard Ferguson make.

In the public domain Suárez had been accused of calling Evra a “ni****” ten times.

Behind the scenes but in an area where his comments would potentially be audible to many different people Ferguson had alleged Suárez had called Evra a “ni****” five times.

Behind the closed door of the referee’s room Ferguson and Evra had together alleged Suárez had called Evra a “ni****” once.

Between them, Ferguson and Evra had accused Suárez of saying “ni****” ten times, five times or once. The panel eventually settled on “probably seven”, as if it was some kind of negotiation.

In fact the panel didn’t settle on seven – they settled on none. At some point after that the day of the alleged incident Evra changed his mind about the actual word that was used. Now it wasn’t “ni****” or “ni****s” it was the Spanish word for black, said in Spanish, i.e. “negro”.

Nobody has said when it was that Evra changed his mind about what he’d heard.

None of this changing of mind on the word used was in the public domain either. The only two accounts in the public domain were Evra’s allegations of “ni****” ten times and Suárez’s claim of “a word his own team mates use for him” once.

What the campaigners fail to see is that these differences are massive.  The closest they come to seeing it is to pipe up with “zero tolerance”, an attitude in itself that flies in the face of their own anti-discrimination policies. Their attitude is that if it’s a bad word in this country, in the language of this country, then it shouldn’t be said in this country, in any language. They’ve got a point, sort of, but they’re so keen to prove it that they actually miss the whole point of what the debate was about.

Suárez was on public trial for saying “ni****” ten times. He didn’t even say that word once – and all parties involved accept this. But nobody from The FA or Manchester United ever sought to clarify this on the record in public prior to the hearing. Would it have hurt anyone for Evra to issue a statement to clarify that the word used wasn’t the one he’d told everybody else it was?

The answer is yes. It might have hurt Evra’s case. It might have hurt The FA’s case. Liverpool were criticised for defending Suárez yet nobody at The FA or Manchester United was criticised for keeping quiet about Evra’s allegations to French TV being false and exaggerated.

Is it any wonder that Liverpool were defensive?

To those who just wanted to get to the truth of the situation, if it was possible to do so, the failure to clarify in some way that the original allegations to French TV had been false and exaggerated is alarming.

If, after having some time to calm down and think about it, Evra realised that what Suárez said wasn’t what he thought he said, why not admit it more openly? What was there to hide?

In some ways it is understandable – but not necessarily acceptable – for Manchester United and their player not to clarify the situation. A statement to the effect that he’d got it wrong but was still going ahead with his complaint would have shown honesty – but could also have made them look foolish. “Manchester United would like to clarify that Patrice Evra’s allegations, made to Canal+, about Luis Suárez, were inaccurate. Mr Evra now understands that Mr Suárez did not use the word that Mr Evra told Canal+ had been used. Mr Evra also wishes to clarify that the word that was used was not used ten times and that prior to Mr Evra speaking to Canal+ both Mr Evra and Mr Ferguson reported to the referee that the word originally alleged was used on one occasion. However Mr Evra still feels that the word used once was offensive and wishes to continue with his complaint.”

It’s not understandable at all, unless the FA had some other agenda in mind, for the FA to allow the allegations to stand despite knowing them to be untrue. They knew what Evra had said to the press and they knew it was false. Yet they said nothing at all about it. Then again, it was The FA who charged Suárez and the FA that decided on five times as the number of occasions the word was used. This figure was arrived at, it seems, during interviews the FA held with Evra in which he was shown video footage of the game.

The FA, whether deliberately or negligently, chose to withhold tapes of their interviews with Evra. It was only by accident, during some other conversations during the hearing, that their existence was made known to the panel and – more importantly – to Liverpool. By the time Liverpool got access to those tapes it had already been made clear by the panel and by The FA that this hearing had to proceed as quickly as possible.

After being charged Suárez’s representative had asked for more time to prepare his reply to the charge and also to supply all documents and witness statements he intended to use in any defence of the charge. The FA refused to grant Suárez the extension he had asked for. He wanted until Thursday 8^th, the FA insisted on Monday the 5^th. The reason the FA were unwilling to allow those three extra days was because of “the importance of concluding the hearing of the Charge as soon as reasonably practicable in the interests of Mr Suarez, Mr Evra and others involved.” They said there may be a need for The FA to “respond to the documents submitted” by Suárez and that an extension to the Thursday would leave them little time to do so “if a hearing was to take place in the week commencing 12 December.”

They wanted the hearing to take place that week because “it was clearly desirable” they said, “otherwise, with Christmas and New Year intervening, the hearing would be unlikely to be concluded until January 2012.”

The panel actually overruled this and allowed Suárez until the Wednesday, the 7^th. They did this by balancing the need for Suárez to have time to prepare his response to such a serious charge with the need to avoid the case hanging over the heads of all involved into the New Year: “The Chairman recognised that a serious charge had been brought against Mr Suarez and that he should have adequate time in which to prepare to meet the Charge with the assistance of his chosen legal representative. It was also important that this matter should not be left hanging over the parties any longer than necessary, and that the hearing should be concluded in December if reasonably and fairly practicable.”

When the existence of previously secret tapes was made known on day one of the hearing perhaps Suárez’s representative should have called foul and demanded the case be put on hold until they’d had more time to listen to them and to learn of anything in the contents that might help their case. Instead Suárez’s representative, “whilst understandably critical of the omission of the tapes” agreed to continue with the hearing. This decision allowed the hearing to continue without any more delay but he was given no credit for doing so. The panel didn’t think to criticise The FA, or question the credibility of The FA, for holding the tapes back.

The club made mistakes in how it handled the situation in that it showed inexperience in dealing with the FA.  The representative the club used to handle the case for Suárez made mistakes too, it would seem. The FA had already shown their attitude is to get rules and regulations to meet their best needs rather than to set appropriate examples. For example, they appealed a decision that saw an international player they wanted to make use of suspended for three games. Under their own rules the suspension would be as lengthy and they would only make it shorter by overruling it completely – in reality a similar appeal to The FA would be more likely to result in an extra one-game ban being tagged on the end.

The FA have also fallen foul of trying to stand up to the governing body above them in football’s mod-style hierarchy. They stood up to FIFA and got slapped back down again. Liverpool got the same treatment for daring to question the problems with The FA’s system. That system has been criticised increasingly but The FA refuse to acknowledge that it is long overdue an overhaul.

By the time it was produced the 115-page report seemed more concerned with refuting Liverpool’s angry statements and comments that were made as the process crawled along than it did with showing how it had got to the truth. In fact it hadn’t got to the truth, it had picked one of the two sides of the story for reasons that seem flimsy at best and had used that version to base its decisions on.

Looking back now it’s easy to say that Liverpool should have kept their opinions to themselves until after the written reasons had been released. Their anger was justified, but should have been kept in-house until after the written reasons had been released. At that point they could have questioned the inconsistencies that litter the report and the report wouldn’t have been largely written as a response to LFC’s public criticisms of the process.

At that point they could have asked how some details had been leaked to the press even before the charge was issued.

For example, Suárez was charged on November 16^th (co-incidentally the day Blatter made his “handshake” comment). It was only then that he received the evidence that The FA would rely on in order to state their case. Included in that evidence was the statement from Hernandez, and that statement is the only one that – from what the written reasons have told us – makes reference to the word “negrito”.

Neither Evra nor Suárez said the word used was “negrito”. Neither manager mentioned it, the referee didn’t. The word isn’t used at all in the 115 pages of the report aside from where it is referring to a statement from that one Manchester United player, Hernandez. “A Mexican footballer, Omar Esparza, is widely known in Mexico as ‘el Negrito’. Hernandez, the Manchester United player, has been a close friend of Omar Esparza for many years and refers to him as ‘el Negrito’ in an affectionate way. Hernandez admitted that terms such as ‘Negrito’ can be used with close friends and in certain situations without it being offensive.” (It isn’t exactly clear why the panel mention it at all, but perhaps it relates to the secret paragraph 8 from the Hernandez statement that was referred to but not revealed in the report.)

So the only mention of “negrito” in the 115 pages of that report comes from a Manchester United player. Suárez was given the witness statements from Hernandez and others on November 16^th. On November 13^th, days before the charges were issued and the witness statements passed to Liverpool, Daniel Taylor of The Guardian seemed to know about “negrito”. He wrote:

“Top-level sources at Old Trafford say the offending word was uttered in Spanish and allegedly was a derivative of ‘negro’, with Evra stating that it was used ‘at least 10 times’.

He goes on to write:

“’Negrito’, for example, could have shocking connotations for someone without full knowledge of the nuances of the language. But the counter-argument is that this is one of several derivations that are used in many countries, with no derogatory meaning – often in the same way someone could be called ‘pal’ or ‘mate’.”

It seems, in all probability, that the word “negrito” was brought into the public discussion of the case after someone at Old Trafford, or someone connected to Old Trafford, tipped some reporters off about it.

None of the evidence presented in the 115 pages of that report suggests Liverpool, or Suárez, even mentioned that variation of the word. Yet that was the word used in numerous arguments about how right or wrong Liverpool were to defend their player.

In fact when the decision was announced, but before the reasons for it were published, it was being used by people to back up their arguments about why the decision – for which they’d not heard the reasons – must have been spot on. For example:

On BBC News, Piara Powar of Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE) says “as I understand it the case [against Suárez] centred around the use of the word “Negrito”, which for Luis Suárez is apparently acceptable but for many of us in the UK racialising an interaction amongst players is not the right thing – it’s wrong, it is racially offensive”. http://adrianhart.com/bring-me-the-head-of-luis-suarez.html

Without knowing the reasons for the decision – and if he thought the word used was “negrito” it would seem likely that he’d not had any kind of tip-off about the reasons – he condemned the player. Perhaps he’d been looking forward to doing that so much that he forgot to keep his own opinions and prejudices in check.

Powar wasn’t the only anti-discrimination “name” to act like this. He was one of the worst though.

Before long he’d forgotten, conveniently, that Liverpool supporters were steadfast behind their player before any written reasons had been released, before even the decision was made to charge him. All along that support was based on trust in their club’s manager and trust that he’d do the right thing had Suárez done the wrong thing.

Not many people have that level of trust from the vast majority of Liverpool supporters. Kenny isn’t infallible but he commands respect, respect he’s earned and never demanded.

At the same time The FA, UEFA and FIFA demand “respect” from participants in the game. They don’t earn it; they threaten punishments for not showing it. They bully the participants into submission and wonder why there is still dissent. The same attitude shown over whether or not a referee got a decision wrong came to the fore in this decision about Suárez. “We are right, don’t you dare question us.”

How can any respect be shown to The FA when they, along with Manchester United and Evra, kept quiet for two-and-a-half months without owning up that they knew Evra’s “more than ten times” and “ni****” accusations were untrue?

For two and a half months we were waiting for something to show us who was telling the truth. Had Evra been called a “nigger” ten times, or had he been called, as Suárez had claimed, “a word his teammates call him” once? It was obvious that the truth could lie somewhere in between, that the disagreement over what was actually said could be down to a misunderstanding or translation issue as much as it could be down to a bare-faced lie.

We supported him for two-and-a-half months because we know that Kenny Dalglish would not have risked his own reputation by backing anyone he knew was racist. We knew the club’s owners would rather see Liverpool’s transfer budget take a hit than be seen to be backing a proven racist. We knew the club’s commercial department would see the potential damage that could be caused by continuing to market an out and out racist as some kind of hero.

We also knew that – even if it turned out our club wasn’t as scrupulous as it looks to our loyal eyes – having to play so many games under this cloud was punishment in itself and that accepting a ban early on would have lessened the slow torture Suárez was under during that two-and-a-half month period. As those who didn’t believe Suárez’s version even before seeing any evidence said – if he’d apologised straight away it would have been much better for him (presumably that applies even if he honestly doesn’t know he’s done wrong).

If we’d found Liverpool’s anger was based on a technicality they thought would get Suárez off we’d have been as indignant as anyone else about it, believe me.

If we’d found Liverpool’s anger was completely misplaced because of overwhelming proof that Suárez was in the wrong we’d have been on our club’s back ourselves, far quicker than any of those trying to make a name for themselves were.

Instead we read 115 pages that tried too hard to prove Suárez wrong. 115 pages that were largely ignored by the reporters who got to see them at the same time as most of us, at tea-time on New Year’s Eve. At least one report for a national newspaper was filed less than an hour after the reasons were released – and I’ve had it on good authority from a long, long, list of national journalists that the reasons weren’t released any earlier to the press under embargo. They got them when we got them. So how anyone could write anything meaningful on their contents in under an hour is beyond me.

They had to get something out, fast, so they skipped straight to page 111, point 452 of 453, where the judgement is summed up with little reference as to the assumptions that had gone into it.

Maybe if the likes of Powar and Ouseley had read all 115 pages, more than once, before making so many ill-advised comments about Liverpool FC, its staff and – the bit that upsets us the most – its supporters, maybe there’d be a reason to show some respect.

How helpful have Powar’s and Ouseley’s words and actions been in helping deal with racism and discrimination in sport? How much time did they spend looking at the obvious flaws in the whole process, flaws that must be addressed as a matter of urgency before the next time an accusation like this is made?

The regulations are wide open to abuse.

But this seems to be of little concern to men like Powar, men who are more interested in sending out a message than in dealing with any real problem.

For example, Mr Powar, speaking to the FA:

“I think the FA should come back now and be very clear that Liverpool could be construed to have brought the game into disrepute by the way in which they have consistently undermined the judgement and by Kenny Dalglish’s comments.”

The FA haven’t done this. Why? Believe it or not we’d like them to, because by doing so it would allow Liverpool to explain their reasons for being so unhappy about the report. The lack of action from The FA, in comparison to what they normally consider grounds for misconduct, suggests a can of worms might then be opened.

But the club can defend itself; this is more about defending the supporters. Defending them from the treatment dished out by the likes of Powar.  “Liverpool have been too keen to support their man and in doing so have whipped up a sense of paranoia amongst their fans.”

Are you suggesting that Liverpool supporters are too blind to make up their own minds on issues of importance? Are we all the same, us Liverpool fans? Stupid ignorant Scousers, is that how you see us?

Are we all a bit thick, Neanderthals waiting to be pointed in the direction of the next thing to complain about. Mates with Boris Johnson by any chance, Mr Powar?

And on he goes, looking down his nose at us:

“For the club to so aggressively militate against what looks to most people is a considered judgement from the FA leads to a potential for anarchy.”

Nice use of the phrase “most people” Mr Powar. So “most people” see it as a “considered judgement”, but that nasty Scouse underclass aren’t as clever as “most people” are they? No, they blindly and dumbly follow what their club tells them to do and anarchy is now on the way.

Your claim your colleagues agree too, so maybe you are all the same, you anti-discrimination people:

“I have emails from colleagues in Africa asking me what the hell is going on. I think people will be watching this and I believe there is no question that their plans for global expansion will have been damaged by this.”

I have correspondence from fellow supporters – and not just Liverpool supporters – who fully understand why we remain supportive of Luis Suárez. I also have correspondence from Liverpool supporters who don’t agree. In fact, funnily enough, I have quite a mix. It’s like we’re all individuals or something. Who’d have thought that then?

It’s not like we’ve a fanbase made up of people from all around the world as well as all around the country is it? I’ve no idea what kind of ratio our supporters made up of in terms of any of the categories referred to in The FA’s rule, E3(2), which makes the punishment of an offence under E3(1) stronger if an “aggravating factor” is present, namely a reference to “ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability.”

What I do know is that there is quite a mix when it comes to each of those categories and that up until recently I’ve never really had to give it any thought.

But it’s that mix of people that people like Powar are talking down to when they come out with stuff like this. Powar, on Twitter, said: “The obvious thing for LFC today must be to come out as a club – owner, manager, captain – and start to undo some of the damage, including addressing their fans. Go onto the LFC website and there is not a single expression of regret about what happened last night.”

And worse of all, making ridiculous assumptions about the backgrounds and views of all Liverpool supporters based on the alleged actions of one supporter: “Are LFC fans going to do this at every game, support the mistakes made by their own man by abusing others? 25% of PL players are black.”

What percentage of The Kop isn’t white? What percentage allegedly hurled racist abuse at one of the Premier League’s non-white players?

Powar went on: “That’s a lot of players to abuse. Top clubs have unprecedented influence and power over millions of people. They should exercise that power responsibly, if they don’t it’s time for the authorities to step in. Those scenes last night, it was clear, this is not just an issue for football but our society as a whole.”

Good grief Powar, do you realise how offensive your comments are? Have you any idea?

He added: “The LFC brand is being tarnished, but so is British football. Where are football’s leaders on this issue today?”

Does he not see the way he tarnishes the reputation of Kick It Out, for whom he was the spokesman for a number of years, and FARE, the organisation we know little about but which he is now head of?

Allegations – two separate sets of allegations – were made against Chelsea fans travelling home from their game against Norwich at the weekend. Not a word, so far as we’ve seen, from Powar. Why’s that?

Meanwhile Lord Ouseley’s been to see Sepp Blatter. He was saying stuff like this a few weeks back: “Liverpool have failed [Suárez]. Because they have not told Suárez what the club’s expectations are; that they have a zero policy towards racism. If he is ignorant of what is required of him, Liverpool should be asking: how come we have got a contract with the player?

“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 Suárez’, seemingly whatever the outcome. This was a dreadful knee-jerk reaction because it stirs things up.

“And, then, this was followed, after the verdict, with a kind of stance that says: ‘Hey, we support anti-racism and Kick It Out. But we’re not sorry. All we are really saying is that we blame someone else, not us.’”

Liverpool weren’t sorry because Liverpool wouldn’t have defended their player in the first place if they thought there was something to be sorry about. How hard is it for such a well-versed observer to see this? Especially when that well-versed observer said himself at the outset of the Suárez case that there should be proof beyond reasonable doubt?

Now that he’s seen Blatter it’s all different. Talking about John Terry, who is involved in a case that can’t really be talked about much, Ouseley said: “There is every reason for players and indeed fans to show civility and respect toward each other and focus on the football. I have nothing against that.

“A handshake now is part of the reconciliation and honesty that needs to take place. There is nothing wrong for someone making a mistake to apologise for it, hold their hands up and then face the consequences and move on.”

It’s difficult to work out who exactly he thinks made the mistake and best not discussed given the fact the case is yet to be heard. All the more reason to wonder why he’s doing so now.

He maybe should have a word with Powar: “It is not about retribution and continued hostility, it is about reconciliation, otherwise the next generation will not understand the need for harmony in sport, which mirrors society. It is about how to take the heat out of the situation of the two clubs meeting again, and problems with fans’ behaviour as a result of what happened between the players previously.”

Is he still talking about Chelsea?

He goes back to that word “respect” again: “There has been a lot of nastiness surfacing in the last few months that should have no part in football. The fans have to respect each other, and they won’t if the players fail to respect each other. There is passion and emotion in sport, and so it should be, but you also have to respect the individual.

“A handshake before the game will not deflect from what went on before and how it will be dealt with.”

So, Lord Ouseley, how about a word with Mr Powar? Is it time he showed some respect to Liverpool supporters and apologised for his comments? Or is that too much to ask? Did his wife ever explain those comments about the BNP and Glasgow Rangers?

Have either of you read that report, in full, to see what went into the pages that made up the summary?

I don’t expect any answers. We might as well talk to Blatter, or someone else in a lofty position that fails to listen to what’s really making people angry.

In the meantime maybe it’s time to look for a new organisation to fight discrimination in football. One that isn’t quite so discriminatory as those running the existing ones.