rss twitter facebook mobile

Guardian Journo Lies About United Fans’ Response To Silence

Self confessed Liverpool fan and Guardian journo, Sachin Nakrani, posted a six year old picture on Twitter of a Chelsea fan doing a Nazi salute, suggesting it was taken ahead of today’s FA Cup semi-final.

After several people pointed out to him that the picture was old he acknowledged his mistake. However, the strange thing about this was not the outdated picture, but that Nakrani would claim to take such offence after writing lies in The Guardian to defend Luis Suarez after he was found guilty of racially abusing Patrice Evra.

What the report shows is that in deciding to ban Suárez for eight matches and fine the player £40,000 for racially abusing Evra, the panel judged that in a row which that boiled down to one man’s word against another, it was Evra who was telling the truth.

This article was published several hours after the FA published their report but directly contradicted what was actually written in the report. Luis Suarez’s chosen representative, Peter McCormick OBE, acknowledged that this case wasn’t “one man’s word against another”, as Nakrani claimed.

“215. It was accepted by both Mr Greaney and Mr McCormick in closing submissions that this is not simply a case of one person’s word against another.”

When on Twitter it was pointed out that him that is was fairly hypocritical for him to slam a random Chelsea fan for being racist six years ago, having written lies in defence of Suarez who was deemed guilty of racially abusing Evra, Nakrani went on to tell more lies.

Yes, this journalist claimed that he was receiving abuse from “Man Utd fans” because he had criticised Chelsea fans jeering during the minute’s silence for Hillsborough.

Of course, for those of you that aren’t familiar with Twitter, a simple search for someone’s username shows all the things that have been said to them, and not a single United fan had criticised him for the reason he claimed. All the criticism came because he is a lying hypocrite, slamming a racist fan at Chelsea whilst lying to defend Suarez in his article.

When asked to name and shame the people who had abused him, he obviously failed to do so, as there hadn’t been any United fans “abusing” him for the reason he claimed. Fancy lying again when it’s so easy to be found out.

Always the victim, it’s never your fault.

About Scott

Scott is the editor of Red Matters - 50 Years of Supporting Manchester United and an author of Play Like Fergie's Boys and Not Nineteen Forever. He writes for ESPN, The Metro and Bleacher Report. Follow @R_o_M on Twitter.

View all posts by Scott »



  1. Costas says:

    Some of Martin Atkinson’s glory moments:

    Didn’t know he started out as a linesman. That explains those 2 offside goals that Henry scored against us in that title decider.

  2. mancdub says:

    Isn’t Fabio our only cover for left back?
    I always liked the look of him and this time last year he was the preferred twin.
    I think he has a big future at united. He just needs to stay fit.

  3. samuel - united WE stand says:

    i think NBI would agree with me on this post. the day berbatov leaves will be the day he’ll feel free and can be Ass-licked elsewhere, united can get on with what united do which is to battle out there for results.

  4. gaz says:

    Mike summerbee you are a fucking bitter Moony faced prick, the fucking cheek of the prick on saturday “the only difference between United and Shitty is Decisions” fuck me that twisted old fossil is off his fucking rocking chair!! he is a fucking blue weasel fat little cunt his verbal diarrhea reached a new high with me on sunday. why the fuck do sky always put this retard on the telly he clearly has nothing constructive to say! and this shit talk “if tevez played the season the title would be wraped up” what the fuck !!would shitty have fucking 95 points already? horseshit fucking cretenis cockend. Cunt fucking chief wiggum looking dickhead.

  5. Costas says:

    And that will be the day some bashers won’t have a life.

  6. Costas says:

    *have a life anymore*

  7. Albert Ross says:


    Sniff sniff!

    Oooooh, wots goin on ‘ere? Sniff sniff!

    Something fishy? Who’s ‘giving the bird’?

    Aaaaaak! Aaaaaak!

    Been following this trawler for 35 years. Feed me again, ye Reds! Aaaaaak!

  8. mancdub says:

    Raphael’s the man now though. 
    I posted last night that he’s the best right back in the prem and in the sober light of day I’m standing by that.
    After his indiscretion against Bilbao a friend of mine said he wouldn’t play for us again this season if at all. I thought that was very harsh. He should of got a shout from someone. De Gea maybe.
    It was careless but certainly not unforgivable. 
    The way he’s come back from that has been very impressive. Definately  our best right back.
    IMO he will be a regular in the Brazil squad very soon also.

  9. Red Van Nistelrooy says:

    Yeah the cover for Evra will be of concern. Fabio out on loan, Fryers with his supposed contract negotiations. How will Fergie manage that?
    Evans has played at LB before, so he may be used there after Nemanja comes back, or he might simply put Smalling/Jones at that position when required.

  10. Jeet says:

    @mancdub: Don’t need to get drunk to arrive at that conclusion. LOVE the twins. Actually, a bit gutted for Fabio. Hope he comes back in 2013 to make the LB position his own for the next decade or so.

  11. T. says:

    Good win yesterday, poor opposition but we finally used that to our advantage and filled some of the gap in the goal difference column against City.

    On the other hand. Hope someone fuckin tell Young to stop his antics or get the hell out of our club. Let´s win with grace, not like Barelona! We can do better than that, we are better than that.

  12. NBI Red Onion says:

    @ samuel – afternoon mate, yes it does not sound good to say it now the guy is on his way out, but it will be nice to get rid of all the Berbatov hysteria and have people focus on the players who actually play instead of slating SAF every game for not starting with him and slating the Club” treating him badly” by only paying him 100k a week and giving him a chance to play for United. Like the Club have it in for him.

    Also it is a waste to be benched at his age in his career. I have a feeling however, he may retire after this season. He has retired from international footie, made his money, a big offer may lure him in but I would not be surprised it he retired. He will get a nice reception if he comes back provided we don’t hear Hargreaves /Tevaz like comments from him post departures. You never know. I never thought Hargreaves would slate United that was a shame.

    Also, as I said earlier -Phill Jones seems to be the new Berbatov in terms of diving fans and extreme opinions though he has only played a handful of games overall, so the drama may continue next season.

  13. Joe says:

    Where’s the lie?

    It doesn’t matter who agreed with what or why.

    When nobody saw or heard any racial abuse and none was recorded, how could the case ever be anything other than one man’s word against another’s?

    You’re barking up the wrong tree with this one.

  14. Albert Ross says:


    Could you yap that in a different dialect? Woof, it went straight over my head.

    Why doesn’t what was agreed where with who matter?

    What is the matter?

  15. WillieRedNut says:

    Red smarties are the nicest.

  16. Joe says:

    Sorry Albert – I’ll clarify.

    The thrust of the piece is that the journalist lied because, according to the report, the Liverpool defence “agreed” that the case was more than just one man’s word against another’s.

    It’s a non-sequitur. It does not follow that the journalist is a liar because of what the Liverpool defence is claimed to have “agreed” to.

  17. Albert Ross says:


    No. A thrust of the piece is that the journalist lied when he stated that:

    “What the report shows is that … the panel judged that in a row which boiled down to one man’s word against another …”

    Yet the report actually stated and showed “that this is NOT simply a case of one person’s word against another”

    Sachin Nakrani lied.

  18. Joe says:

    The report stated “that this is NOT simply a case of one person’s word against another” but it certainly didn’t show it.

    Like I said, when nobody saw or heard any racial abuse and none was recorded, how could the case ever be anything other than one man’s word against another’s?

  19. Albert Ross says:


    The debate echoed vigorously for months, and I wish not to return there in depth.

    However, I can truthfully state that I studiously read every word in the report, and read every view broadcast on the matter. It is absolutely true to state that the findings are NOT simply a case of one person’s word against another.

    It is not true that nobody saw or heard any racial abuse.
    Evra and Suarez both state that reference to colour occurred repeatedly during the abuse.
    LFC staff including Suarez, were deceitful and reactionary in their testimonies.
    As lies were exposed, their accounts were emended, always in remarkable alignment with their cronies newest message. These new lies were then debunked again, producing yet more scurrilous scurrying of scousers scraping the barrel.

    I rest from this matter now. Patrice Evra is vindicated, and his unhappy torturer is on a new road that will lead him to another place. Italy, no doubt.

  20. Joe says:

    Albert, every bit of contemporaneous evidence submitted in the report is based on either what Evra and Suarez claim they said to each other during the incident or what others claim Evra and Suarez said to them afterwards.

    What that amounts to is one man’s word versus another’s. Try as you might, you cannot escape this simple, logical truth.

    That isn’t to say Suarez was guilty or not – we don’t need to debate that again.

  21. Albert Ross says:


    Is it your contention that all testimony in legal matters is one man’s word versus another’s?

    If that applies, then the only recourse for the law would be to consider the word’s uttered, and assess their veracity. This was done in this instance, and Suarez was not forthright, or even plain old right.

    Suarez racially incited Evra, while planning to claim that Uruguayan’s speak words of fellowship during angry verbal jousts. They do not. He was not cheerily chatting to a comrade-in-arms. He was racially abusing Evra, smug in the belief that his coward’s card would save him from standing up to those who address racial abuse.

    Truth will out.

    Soon, Suarez will be out of options. Eventually, he will publicly address his own racist past.
    Too little too late, but better late than never.

  22. Joe says:

    Try as you might Albert…

    To apply the law, a crime would have to have been reported and Suarez would have been charged of a racially aggravated offence under the public order act. The standard of proof would have been beyond reasonable doubt and the case would never have made it to court due to a lack of evidence.

    The case in which a supporter accused of racially abusing Tom Adeyemi never made it to court due to a lack of evidence despite several witnesses and an audio recording.

    In the Suarez/Evra case, there were NO witnesses and nothing was recorded to corroborate Evra’s allegation.

    That doesn’t mean Suarez wasn’t guilty, it just means a quasi-judicial body found him guilty based on Evra’s word and Evra’s word alone.

  23. Albert Ross says:


    Suarez racially abused Evra.

    If you want to look for loopholes, carry on without me.

    Speak to you again on another day and another matter, perhaps.

    Until then, I expect you will appreciate my responses to your initial gambit, as I have yours, and will allow our discussion to end. Cheers.

  24. Joe says:

    Albert, I’m not trying to prove Suarez’s innocence here.

    I’m just arguing that he was found guilty based on nothing but the word of Patrice Evra.

    We can leave it there if you like.

    I’ve enjoyed the debate – thanks. :)

  25. Albert Ross says:

    Cheers Joe, thanks for the chat, be well!

  26. TonyBee Watson says:

    Joe … your continued arguments vis a vie the Suarez comments have been proved wrong and your obvious ignorance or one sidedness has blinded you to the truth….

    but then again….. it doesn’t matter what anyone else has to do say on the matter…. you will always be right…but only in your own small mind.

    So please do us all a favour and…. well….. how can I put it…. just fuck off you narrow minded fool

  27. ZuluUtd-Malta says:

    Scott. What did you expect from a waste of space like him and his Liverpool club ????

  28. Joe says:

    Can we not be civilised about this?

    I challenge anybody here to prove me wrong by showing me recorded footage of Suarez racially abusing Evra as alleged or informing me of anybody who witnessed the exchange and corroborated Evra’s allegation.

  29. Matt says:


    ” In the Suarez/Evra case, there were NO
    witnesses and nothing was recorded to
    corroborate Evra’s allegation.”

    Apart from Suarez himself admitting he brought someone’s skin colour into an argument. He pretty much dropped himself in it.

  30. TheCANTONA says:

    just read the independent panel’s report, I’m tired to explain this to daft dippers fans.
    BTW, He posted a photo of Chelsea’s fan doing Nazi salutes & claimed it was happened yesterday during a minute silence, while in fact that was 7 years old photo. He accused some United fan abused him during a minute silence yesterday, yet couldnt named one or two United fans who did that. Once a LYING cunt, always a LYING Cunt..

  31. Joe says:

    I’ve read the report umpteen times. It’s without substance.

    It’s Suarez’s word v Evra’s. That’s it.

  32. Albert Ross says:


    Rule E3, with the sub-heading “General Behaviour”, provides as follows:
    “(1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
    (2) In the event of any breach of Rule E3(1) including a reference to any one or more of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability (an “aggravating factor”), a Regulatory Commission shall consider the imposition of an increased sanction.

    The test for breach of Rule E3(1) is objective. The question is simply whether the words or behaviour are abusive or insulting. This is a matter for the Commission to decide, and having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, they found that Suarez words and behaviour WAS abusive and insulting.

    Which words? The words that Suarez admitted saying. ‘Blackie! Blackie! Blackie! Blackie!’

    Suarez is the witness whom you seek.
    He admits saying the words found to be abusive, with reference to race.
    He corroborates Evra, with his admissions, and his lies.

  33. Joe says:

    Suarez admitted to saying “por que, negro?”.

    That is not what he was accused of nor what he was found guilty of.

  34. TheCANTONA says:

    Ok Nakrani i got it. Its never your fault, always the victim eh?

  35. Joe says:

    That’s ad hominem, TheCANTONA.

  36. TheCANTONA says:

    It’s not 1 man against 1 man. Bcoz The panel did Interview with Kuyt & several LFC’s players right? And They find that their testimony were different each other so the panel decided that their testimony were invalied. Simple as that. Well, its CONSPIRACY right?

  37. Joe says:

    The testimonies submitted to the panel by those other than Evra and Suarez were based on discussions WITH Evra and Suarez AFTER the incident. Therefore, the case is still based on the word of two men.

    I’m not alleging any conspiracy. I’m not even arguing that Suarez is innocent. I’m just arguing that he was found guilty of an unrecorded offence that nobody heard and nobody saw.

  38. Norm187 says:

    @joe your a soft cunt just fuck off – commelli was the 1 who shafted you, you thick twat

  39. Joe says:

    Norm187 has missed the point.

  40. Dave says:

    You’re some bellend. Sachin was correct in what he said about the report and the Suarez case, guess you’re too thick to read it.


You must be logged in to post a comment.