Oy Vey!
>> Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Yesterday I posted the latest press release from the LFCNY concerning their ongoing campaign against Steven Cohen.
This morning I now find myself in the middle of a shit storm.
Here is the short version, or at least as short as I can make this.
If you read the LFNCY statement, you probably noticed the name Mark Sawyer, an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at UCLA, who attempted to mediate and negotiate an end to the LFCNY boycott of Steven Cohen.
For some context, Mark Sawyer apparently first involved himself in this situation by commenting on a post on EPL Talk entitled, Steven Cohen Offers Liverpool Fans No Hillsborough Apology.
Mr. Sawyer apparently is none to pleased with how he was represented by the LFCNY statement and is none to pleased I posted it. Little did I know that it was another statement released by an individual named Mel Abshier that was the real source of his anger...or one of them at least.
I received an email from Mr. Sawyer this morning that contained a series of emails that were exchanged between him and Mel Abshier. Now, I had not heard Mel's name until this morning but as you would expect in a situation of this nature, Mr. Sawyer isn't buying that and thinks I'm unethical. I don't really care, because I'm not, but I'm fine with him having whatever opinion of me he wants. What confused me was the accusations that Mr. Sawyer made against me in his email:
"You should be ashamed of yourself. Since you are taking parts of supposedly confidential emails and publishing them"
My first thought...WTF? Confidential emails? My attempt to explain to Mr. Sawyer that I was lost as to what he was referring got me called unethical. Not a big deal really, I've been called worse. My reaction was simple, what do you do when someone accuses you of corresponding with someone you've never heard of? You contact that person! Mr. Abshier's response, which I will detail in full after the fold, cleared up very quickly for me where Mr. Sawyers accusations came from.
In addition, Mr. Sawyer, based on his post in the comment section of the LFCNY press release post, wants the emails that he and Mel Abshier exchanged published here on my blog.
Mr. Ginge: please post the full set of emails I have sent to you so my comments can be placed in context. You owe that to your readers. Also you should mention that the communication that Abshier gave you to publish was confidential by his own claim. So who here has been lying?
Thank You,
Mark Sawyer
I'm not going to lie, I seriously doubt a lot of you will care about this story. So you can ignore what will likely be one hell of a long post.
UPDATE: The 2nd of the emails given to me by Mr. Sawyer was incorrectly marked from Abshier to Sawyer. I've fixed the notation in the post to reflect it was an email sent by Sawyer.
We will start with what is clearly the real origin of Mark Sawyer's angst. I had not seen this document until Mr. Abshier provided me with a copy in response to my email query to him. What Mr. Sawyer is upset about is that he feels information contained in the statement below was taken from emails that he believed were to be confidential. Problem is, I've seen the email in which Mark Sawyer explicitly states that Mel Abshier is free to share any of their correspondence and/or post it on message boards.
The following was sent out by Mr. Abshier and was posted on various independent Liverpool message boards.
Mr. Steven Cohen enlisted Mr. Mark Sawyer, associate professor at UCLA, to mediate and negotiate the end to the Boycott. The branches required two issues be cleared up before negotiations to end the boycott could be entertained. Those two issues being the ones Mr. Cohen had very public went on record with: Threats to himself and family and an Anti-Semitic email. We informed Mr. Sawyer we required the information that Mr. Cohen had in fact turned over information to the FBI and that the Branches were willing to work with the FBI should any threat be deemed actionable. Further, we also wanted the information as to which North American Branch Eoin Alex Martin belonged to as that information was not part of the actual email document sent to Mr. Cohen. We wanted to name and shame Eoin and kick him out of that Branch.
Mr. Sawyer as part of a proposal to end the Boycott offered this: “WSD will provide all problematic correspondence to Liverpool FC so that those elements in and around the club can be sanctioned.”
The Branches required this information before any negotiations could begin as “good faith” on behalf of Mr. Cohen based on his failure to honor his two previous apologies.
Issue number one: Threats.
Background:
Per an email from Steven to Mel dated May 4th stating he was already in contact with the FBI:
"This past week i have ignored everyone from your world and have been in contact with the FBI, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and i am going to take action against every single death threat, threat against my property and threat against my wife to be and my step children to be."
From the blog on BNET June 24th:
BNET: What portion of the email were death threats or anti-Semitic?
SC: The ones who are against us I would say about 30 to 35 percent of emails I’m getting courtesy of the Liverpool supporters’ groups have some sort of racist, anti-Semitic overtones to them and by the way were handed over to the FBI on Sunday.
( edited for updated link)
http://industry.bnet.com/advertising/10002746/qa-foxs-steven-cohen-on-the-advertiser-boycott-over-remarks-on-soccer-stadium-deaths/?tag=content;col1
Responses from Mr. Sawyer:
June 20th: “ That being said, law enforcement agencies have limited resources. They do not investigate these things routinely.”
June 21st: “ Mel since you want to know how the FBI works and you might not believe me. Read the 9-11 commision report. 9-11 happened because FBI agents were contacted about suspicious activities and never investigated. They took notes, that was the only record. “
July 6th: “ What he has represented to me is he has recently spoken to the LAPD and the FBI.”
Later email July 6th: “ As I understand it, I now have report numbers for Cohen's contacts with the FBI and LAPD. Also, he did not contact them until quite recently. I could provide them to you, but there's no point.”
So over the history of the Branches requesting proof that Mr. Cohen had in fact actually had gone to the FBI with documents related to “Threats”, we went from the FBI does not investigate these type of complaints to Steven had called them and there were report numbers but they won't be provided. These actions speak for themselves.
Issue number two: Anti-Semitic branch member.
Background:
From my email to you dated July 21st and you ( Mr Sawyer) also have sent this to me July 27th: http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/2534/picture40y.png
Steven read that out on air. You will hear it at about 3:10 seconds in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2KUzZ-fX34
Steven claims this email is from an official branch member of Liverpool football club. Steven also read out more than what is one the email screenshot as sent out by his message board administrator.
Can you have Steven provide the rest of the documentation of what Steven read out on air concerning the Branch the supporter claims to belong to as that is not indicated on the email itself. Also can you have Steven provide the rest of the information Steven said this "supporter" wrote.
There seem to be some major discrepancies in the audio and the email itself.
Response from Mr Sawyer:
“ Of course he can't prove the guy is a member of the club.”
“ I think whether that guys is actually or card carrying member or not is really not material to this question. Unless you want to catch Cohen in a "lie". But this point is Sophistry, pure and simple. Get over it. Like I said, we can all stipulate.”
The net result is that Mr. Sawyer stipulated Steven could not prove Eoin Alex Martin was a Liverpool supporter or was even actually a North American Branch member. That he would not turn over the relevant documents so that we may investigate which North American Branch, if any, Eoin belonged to. We have been unable to ascertain within the North American Branches that email address as a Branch member. Apparently even though Steven Cohen on air made a dramatic point over the email our questions were “really not material”.
Mr Cohen in his own words from his show July 19th:
“And before I read this, OK, I want you to understand, and I’m gonna let go, I want you to understand one thing about this, OK? This guy who wrote this email is an official member of an official supporters group which is sanctioned and an official supporters group of Liverpool Football Club. Liverpool Football Club have post, have post (sic) articles about us and this boycott, sanctioning this boycott on their website. Which means that it goes to Hicks and Gillett who sit on the board at Liverpool and who are two Americans, who are in my opinion, and you can say I’m connecting the dots or whatever, in my opinion they are in charge of this.”
The North American Branches feel that Mr. Cohen's on air statement is very “material”.
On July 6th, 2009 Mr. Sawyer concluded all negotiations: “ I think we're done here. “
In the end Mr. Cohen and Mr. Sawyer would not provide the information on the two serious issues that we offered our help on. Even though the information would have been handed over as part of Mr. Sawyers proposal to end the Boycott. Instead they ended the negotiations rather than hand the information over. These two issues would have benefited society as a whole, benefited Mr. Cohen, and helped the North American Branches to eliminate unwanted individuals.
We will let the record of what has transpired speak for itself.
Got tired head yet?
As Mark Sawyer has requested both in comments on my blog and in emails to me, here are the emails exchanged between the two, or at least the ones Mark Sawyer wants released. I'm posting them unedited and unchanged, exactly as there were sent to me this morning.
From Sawyer to Abshier-
Mel-
I've learned a lot.
1. That some people still don't know the difference between a lie and a difference of opinion. I should have known better some people also still don't believe in evolution.
2. Liverpool fans along with people in the mountains above pakistan are intolerant of opinions other than their own.
3. A friend in England (psychology professor) uses football supporters to study negative concepts of identity politics and formation. I thought you could not compare football fans to other kinds of loony tribalism. I was wrong. He is completely right. This episode has demonstrated the worst of identity politics.
4. I learned that some people like yourself are willing to compare minor tragedies to the holocaust in a cavalier fashion.
5. I have learned that folks like yourself are at best tolerant of casual anti-semitism and at worst guilty of it yourself.
6. I have also learned that Liverpool fans are so defensive that any criticism of themselves of the club by not one of their own is met with ridiculous defensiveness.
7. People can be stunning in their myopia. On one hand talk about recognizing tragedy and on the other ignoring serious and bigger wrong.
8. That the tribal instinct in the game is still there just beneath the surface and could erupt in violence at any time.
From Sawyer to Abshier-
On reports. There are as yet no reports as my understanding is the investigation is ongoing. I perfectly well understand the branches are a loose confederation including the idea there are some non-offical sites etc. Have you said anything publicly about racism or anti-semitism? I also know while you have said don't email Steven have you specifically referenced problematic behavior and called it by name and stated it is unacceptable. I ask in earnest. Because it is the responsible thing to do if you are going to continue to pursue your action. Lots of people are hurt by this. I have a friend who's parents are holocaust survivors and when they saw that email they gasped. Just like you feel Steven opened a wound for Hillsborough survivors, perhaps since you are not a minority or don't have that kind of trauma in your past you feel the "hit delete" etc. is good enough. It isn't. At least not for me. If the families of Hillsborough are traumatized think of holocaust survivors and their families when they hear some of that garbage. Even if it is one person!?!?!
As I understand it, I now have report numbers for Cohen's contacts with the FBI and LAPD. Also, he did not contact them until quite recently. I could provide them to you, but there's no point. You would just come up with some new demand or concern or bit of chicanery. It is exhausting and just silly.
What degree of responsibility Liverpool FC or your movement has for supporters or people inspired by you is a matter for debate, not facts? Would you be anymore responsible if EOIN (or whatever) is a card carrying member or not? Even if he was your argument still applies as does Cohen's if he is not. The actions of the club and the branches have created an atmosphere in which the email was sent. I listened to his comments and it is clear one could judge for oneself how much one can connect the dots. It is not an exaggeration but a logic.
I also am really stunned. I have reviewed Cohen's comments and as bad as they were, and as horrible the tone, he never said Liverpool fans killed or murdered their own. To use your terms you are lying when you say that or it is at best an exaggeration.
From Sawyer to Abshier-
Mel,
You are acting like a teen age girl. Perhaps you never went on a date at that age but I keenly remember girls being angry and when asked what they were angry about the response was, "you should know". That's been your response to me. As I am not Steven I have never said anything to offend the victims of Hillsborough. I enter that discussion with clean hands. In as much as a crafted an apology based upon my best understanding of what has been said in events, even if this goes nowhere, it is only respectful since I have asked to explain to me where I am "in error". I also spent hours arguing with Steven about said events and making him understand where he was in error. I did this because it was right. And I of course believe he was wrong. Now if I am in error, I may have been guilty of misinforming Steven. Are you saying I have done this on purpose and with malice? See we are right back to the teen age girl- she wants you to divine what has offended her and she assumes whatever happened that your intentions were bad.
What he has represented to me is he has recently spoken to the LAPD and the FBI. I can request he provide a copy of a receipt for a report from the LAPD, they always collect one and as I have not dealt with the FBI (my calls have when I have contacted them been taken by an agent on the phone and nothing ever came of it- one case was a threat of this kind), I can ask him if he has anything. I will put in this request today.
On the "member" non-member issue. Cohen posted the email or read it. Everyone knows that the email could not even be from the person it claims to be from. People judge these things for themselves. The person represents themselves as a Liverpool supporter.
What disturbs me about your response is you are first of non-responsive about dealing with things published on public LIverpool fan club message boards. It seems you are hung up on this one email because you want to try to catch Cohen in a lie. If I am correct I am saddened by this. It seems you are more interested in scoring technical points against Cohen than seriously dealing with the issue. Of course he can't prove the guy is a member of the club. Even if the email said, "As a member of the Liverpool supporters club of ......" that still would not be proof unless he had access to your member rolls. Obviously you and I both know he does not.
in fairness, Steven is arguing not that you or Hicks told people to send anti-semitic emails to him, but that it is a forseeable outcome of the actions and there needs to be more responsibility for it. Of course your counter is that you have discouraged this type of communication or at least emailing Cohen. You have not to my knowledge said anything about racist stuff but if you have I don't know. In general your attitude about it has been pretty cavalier and that he can hit delete or that you are not responsible for those people. That is a fair argument and some might be convinced that what you have said is not enough, other might agree with Cohen. I think whether that guys is actually or card carrying member or not is really not material to this question. Unless you want to catch Cohen in a "lie". But this point is Sophistry, pure and simple. Get over it. Like I said, we can all stipulate. If you can't say if or if not the guys is a member who can? Further why has there been no effort to clean up what you are responsible for, your own message boards?
On the final point. I cannot suggest that Cohen take such a ban. It is overly broad or undefined and has real economic consequences. For example if Cohen were to step down from WSD. WSD were to overtime go out of business and he were to start a show up entitled say "Global Soccer Daily". Would that be in violation of the letter or spirit of what you are proposing? I am raising these questions because it involves serious business and serious consequences as you have delineated and the terms need to be clear. Further, honestly you have committed to nothing. In the plan I presented there were clear steps to be taken by the WSD in nothing you have said is it clear the boycott will end or that you will do anything. I have asked you to propose some workable language and take some time to think about it. Cohen would be wrong to agree to resign if only days later some innocent action were perceived to be in violation of the terms because what that meant was unclear. Mel says "I don't care about x or y" is not good enough for me to take to him. I need a very specific proposal of what such a ban would look like. There are real practical concerns on all sides about that. Don't you agree?
I have to ask a question Mel. Man to man. Are you really acting in good faith here? The bar keeps moving you keep raising side issues and I can be sure obviously Steve has said some nasty things about you and the boycotters. That is the nature of the conflict. It is part of the pettiness that got us here in the first place. But are you serious.
Also given the proposal I put on the table and how comprehensive it is. It puts the "truth" out over the WSD airwaves etc. and has concrete steps, I am not sure it does not better serve your objectives. Folks who like the show and want to listen will be satisfied. The topic will not be covered again etc. In this email and passed emails it seems that one there is a substantial personal vendetta against Cohen. Also, that you and the branches are getting something out of the boycott that is not apparent and transcends setting the things right for victims and their familiies to the degree Cohen can do that.
I am trying to do my best here, but there is a huge (warranted) lack of trust on both sides. Both sides have hurt feelings and both have huge egos.
You've also like Steven been willing to offer more bluster than thought.
I will obtain documentation from Cohen other than that, the ball is in your court. Please respond about the "error" and offer some specific language on a ban. Be a man.
Thank You,
Mark
From Abshier to Sawyer-
Mark:
We have asked for proof he has sent or registered the "threatening" emails with the FBI as he has claimed. You seem to come up with a different excuse every time we have asked. Originally the FBI wouldn't accept these types of claims using the 911 commission report as a reason why. Then when confronted with a direct quote from an article you acquiesce into we should go to FOIS. Now it is you'll ask about his FBI agent.
Either you go find out for yourself that he has done as he has claimed or quit wasting yours and my time.
As for the Eoin escapade. It was Steven who claimed he was a Branch member. Why does it matter? Surely you are not asking that question!! Steven very specifically from the show link provided brought that up. It was Steven who also said in the same link--connect the dots--Branch member ...to the club because of their "support" for our boycott... to the owners themselves. He did it with malice to beat the Branches over the head with and link anti-semitism to the Branches, the club and the owners. His listeners took the bait. Even the WSD forums discussed this. I suggest you do listen to the link I have given you. Listen to Steven in his own words. Listen to him as he has a purpose in mind. He was very deliberate in what he was doing.
So now you are saying it was because Steven "believed" he was a branch member and has gone on record with his connect the dots crusade that ultimately led on another show to Steven posting my and Mr. Hicks email address on his website after giving them out on air and telling his show listeners to go directly to myself and Mr. Hicks. So all this and this is now being explained away as it was because Steven "believed" he was a Branch member but may not be able to prove it and you'll so stipulate.
Very curious that, don't you think? What do you think the club and Mr. Hicks will think, never mind what we may think.
What would you propose to rectify this?
If World Soccer Daily goes off the air for reasons beyond the boycott or Steven steps down from behind the microphone with very firm negotiated assurances he will not come back to the WSD show, that will end our boycott. What he does in the future after that is up to him. I would think the lesson will have been learned.
It seems to me there is only one person acting as an angry teen age girl and that is Steven Cohen as he seemingly continues to "exaggerate" at every turn. I may be pigheaded but at least I have been honest throughout all of this. Something apparently Steven may not have been with you.
Mel
From Sawyer to Abshier-
Okay- let's be clear. What proof would confirm to you he has gone to the FBI. I know the LAPD gives a receipt for a report. The FBI does not but I ask him to list the name of his agent.
You have the email. I am sure Steven believes him to be a member. But obviously he can't "PROVE" he is a member. Why does it matter? I am willing to stipulate that from his email address if you can't prove he is a member neither can Steven. So, we are wiling to stipulate that there is no "proof" he is a member of your organization. Hell I mean without advanced techniques and investigation we could never prove there is such a person or that he is a Liverpool fan or whatever. I don't understand how this is material and I also find it a bit folly when there are plenty of things I have provided you on your own message boards. What are you doing about that? Those are members no doubt.
So, you are stating clearly that the branches would accept a "Liftetime" ban from Steven appearing on the radio and nothing short of that? Would that be sufficient or would some hold out for divestment.
I also am not sure just as a practical matter how such a lifetime ban would work. What if Steven were offered a post or opportunity to operate a football blog or do another podcast or appear as a guest? Would this violate such a ban? Can you provide me with some language such that I can propose it? What about appearing in a forum unrelated to football? Or would apperance or non appearance be limited to WSD? As you can see such a sweeping demand raises real practical difficulties.
Finally, Mel- I am just sorry I can't read your mind. If you can't tell me what you think is wrong. Stop acting like an angry teen age girl and state your business."
So just to put some of the communication in context.
Thanks,
Mark Sawyer
So there it is. I'm sure no doubt many will ask why I posted all this. I don't blame you asking, I really don't know myself other than to try to show that I guess I only like being called unethical if I am actually acting unethically.
Take all this for what you will.
95 comments:
These two are both muppets of the highest order.
Ginge, this is what happens when you hire Mr. Wilco as your fact checker, he spends his time sleeping in a cool, dark place instead of doing his job ;-)
Thanks Zygo.
Okay,why don't the two of these guys pick up a phone and hash it out? Seriously.
Didn't the LFCNY press release say that it was their opinion that Sawyer was acting on behalf of Cohen?
Smart guys. Looks like they were right.
Y'know since the time of Plato it's been the mantra to decry the youth of today. Lawdy, lawdy, lawdy, the associate professors of today aren't too good, now are they?
What did I just read, and why did I read it?
The only thing I can definitively conclude is that the ability to write coherently is obviously not a prerequisite to becoming an associate professor at UCLA.
Jason, did you or anyone not think it strange that a UCLA professor and a person who put himself forward as a neutral mediator calls one of the persons in the dialogue a teenage girl? Way to engage, Mr. Neutral mediator!
Dear Mr. Sawyer,
Please stop raping me.
Sincerely,
Rational Thought
is this the same mark sawyer who called liverpool fans 'scum' 'idiots' 'hysterical nuts'?
is this the same mark sawyer who, with regard to the epl blogger, who's made a similar assesment of the situation as it stands in line with your own views, accused him of doing so purely for 'finacial reasons' while you've been accused of being unethical?
I guess everybody else is in the wrong bar steve cohen and his not so neutral pal mark.
Thanks for being very open Ginge with the disclosure of the emails.
So mark sawyer thinks that 96 fans that died at a football match is a minor tragedy ? even though he is only an associate professor, surely he knows that One death in any tragedy is one death too many and doesnt deserve the label of "minor"
Mark sawyer has no real intent to mediate anything. It is very evident from his corrospondence that he is not neutral and he is resentful of a legitimate boycott from Liverpool fans towards the repeat offender of hate steve cohen.
His mocking and behaviour towards Mel reveal his true agenda, which is not one of fairness and balance. He is attempting to move the goalposts by diverting the attention away from steve cohen.
Mark Sawyer said:
"It seems you are hung up on this one email because you want to try to catch Cohen in a lie. If I am correct I am saddened by this."
Wasn't it Mr. Cohen himself who brought up, and is hung up on, one email? It's all he has to go on, and it's virtually all he has left to talk about. It's very obvious that Mr Cohen thought poorly enough of Liverpool fans to think that they would sit idly by and take such defamatory remarks in stride.
Sun Tzu said 'Know thy self, know thy enemy'. Mr Cohen didn't have any enemies until he chose to belittle the 96 lives lost and kick dirt in the faces of the families still seeking justice for those lives. Then, because his world was crashing down upon him he tried to play the Freedom of Speech card to save face with the American people. Unfortunately for Mr Cohen, that card can, and will be, used against you, and you don't have to live in America for it to be played.
In my opinion Mr Sawyer was employed by Mr Cohen to 'mediate' this issue not because he 's an Associate Professor at UCLA, but because his background is ripe with racial overtones, and that is what Mr Cohen wants this story spun into; a racial debate.
It never was, nor will it be a racial matter Mr Sawyer, yet one email produced by Mr Cohen gives you something to cling to that you feel will draw the heat away from the true original issue. The issue caused by Mr Cohen and his repeated spewing of ignorant remarks over the years on the Hillsborough matter, for the sole purpose of self promotion through 'shock' press.
Mr Cohen and Mr Sawyer, if I am correct I am saddened by this.
Ginge- For a blue to have this on their site, it speaks volumes.
Mel- We're all behind you.
Thank you.
Loco
Canada.
Got to wonder how UCLA would feel about Sawyer using it's name to give himself 'status' in order to attempt to publicly brow beat all before him. His approach his hardly in line with UCLA's stated primary purpose:
UCLA is committed to academic freedom in its fullest terms: we value open access to information, free and lively debate conducted with mutual respect for individuals
If Mr Cohen does indeed wish this to be viewed as a racial debate, I feel it should be welcomed.
In modern society no forms of racism should be tolerated.
Mr Cohen quite rightly condemns the despicable anti-semitic email sent to him, but can it in any way justify his clearly racist view of Liverpool supporters? Surely the core of racism is the narrow minded approach of painting all people with the same brush? All Jews are greedy! All Muslims are terrorists! All scousers are thugs!
Being Jewish myself, I feel an overwhelming responsibility to oppose and condemn all forms of racism wherever they may arise, not just where they relate to me personally.
Mr Cohen seems to believe one rule should apply to him and one to everybody else. He is free to make whatever vile comments he chooses and declares his right to freedom of speech, yet when another directs despicable vile towards him, this is unacceptable.
Furthermore, him and Mr Sawyer seem to feel Liverpool should bear some kind of collective responsibility for the actions of one idiotic individual. I find this collective responsibility argument strange from a dedicated Chelsea supporter who has at no time condemned the club for their fans issuing death threats against two UEFA appointed referees. Nor has he ever condemned the club for the evil and disgusting hissing sounds their supporters make whenever they play against Tottenham (the so called Jewish club of the English Premier League) to signify the gassing of Jews during the Holocaust.
The fact is, it is all unacceptable. Mr Cohen is attempting to use freedom of speech as a means to continue his false tirade against Liverpool and the 96 innocents who died because they went to watch a game of football. He is not the victim here, his is the instigator and the sooner he is off the air the better.
friedk
Mark Sawyer was not "employed" by Steven Cohen to negotiate. He volunteered his time to try and mediate between Cohen and Mel Abshier, in an effort to try and implement a solution put forward by a totally neutral third party.
Before this whole debacle, I believe Mark was merely a casual acquaintance of Steven Cohen, being a fellow patron of the Fox and Hounds in LA on match days. He isn’t some kind of stalking-horse spy, as some of you imply. He has been quite clear, after doing his own research, that he completely disagrees with Steven about Hillsborough.
Mark’s effort included a four hour telephone conversation with Steven, in an effort to make him see sense. I’m sure he would also speak to Mel, if Mel was open to it.
How do I know this? I have also been involved in these discussions with Mark, Mel and Steven. I am also privy to private email discussions involving these people, that I won’t share in a public forum without their permission. I will make one exception below.
None of us are professional crisis mediators. It was all just an honest effort to bring this whole ugly mess to a conclusion.
This effort to mediate an end to the boycott, was born out of a third-party proposal that first appeared on the comments page of the WSD fundraising site. It was a draft proposal that needed work, but was used by Mark as a starting point for negotiations. A draft new apology was written and a set of proposed actions suggested.
This draft proposal was sent to Mel Abshier, but was immediately rejected out of hand because it contained an “error”, apparently. Mel refuses to this day to say what the “error” is and refuses to share the new apology with the branches he represents. As far as I know, they still haven’t seen it. There may well be a material error in this apology, but I can’t spot it and I’ve been a Liverpool fan for over 30 years. I’ve read the Taylor Report and Professor Scraton’s book, but I’m still not sure what’s actually wrong in this.
In any case, that is what Mark is referring to when he describes Mel as like a teenage girl, who expects you just to know what’s wrong and refuses to elaborate.
Mark initially asked me to refrain from unilaterally releasing the details of this new apology, but as it is now redundant due to both sides digging their heels in, I’m going to post it here for your consideration. It’s not perfect, but it is a million times better than the abortion that Steven read out and then crumpled up on air previously.
I will post the proposed new apology below…
The proposed new apology, pt 1.
(Please note that Steven had not yet agreed to this version. It was to be negotiated)
“In recent months there has been a cloud surrounding the show. That cloud was generated first by comments by me and later by the response largely by supporters of Liverpool FC. I apologized for those comments but I recognize that my anger at the time due to attacks on my family and I, may have made others think my apology was insincere. I want to say that I am concerned about the cloud around the WSD community and the broader football community in the US.
To put this in context I have frequently criticized negative elements among the fans of Liverpool FC. I wind up the members of many clubs around the world, but I want to be clear about something in particular. At times, my jokes etc. about Liverpool FC have crossed a line and been inappropriate. The best example of this is when I connected those critiques to the events that occurred at Hillsborough where 96 innocent football fans died in an incident.
For that I most of all apologize to the families of those involved. There grief is unimaginable to me. If my comments opened a wound for them in any way I am deeply sorry and I want to clarify my stance on the issue.
I did not see my statement that there was shared responsibility for the incident as in contradiction with the basic claims of the Taylor Report (link) included. However, on further examination I made a series of claims that were incorrect. I claimed there were 6 to 8 thousand ticketless fans who caused the incident and I also claimed they were the cause of the tragedy.
Those claims were incorrect. There is no direct evidence of how many ticketless fans there were that fateful day and even if there were ticketless fans the Taylor report definitively confirms that the incident could have occurred regardless of their presence. Thus, my claim that Liverpool fans share responsibility was both incorrect and against the available evidence. I concur with the conclusions and analysis of the Taylor report that even the presence of Ticketless fans could not have prevented the tragedy on that day.
Pt2...
As I said, what “I am referring to could have happened to any club, in any sport, in any country at any public gathering. This is proved by events in the Ivory Coast recently as well as in South America, Ghana, the old Soviet Union etc…”
The central issue is the question of crowd control and systems in place that protect fans who show up to support their club or national team and we all agree should return home to their loved ones. Authorities and not fans are responsible for crowd control as our friend Tim Vickery has suggested, and they should be held responsible when they fail.
I apologize if my incorrect statements have caused pain for the families and friends of those who lost their lives. I struggle to understand your grief. And deeply believe as a football community we must strive for a day when no fan who attends a match risks death or bodily harm.
Thus, I apologize to families of the victims, sponsors of the show, and listeners for opening old wounds and doing it in a completely inappropriate way. In response to the it I am taking the following actions:
I will post this apology on my website where it will remain in perpetuity. I will never mention Hillsborough again on the show and in fact on the day of the anniversary in respect for the dead, I I will not present on the show and will indicate this on the prior day.
I will donate 5% of the funds donated to sustain WSD to the HJC campaign. If they refuse to accept it as is their right and they are more than likely to do, then that amount is donated to soccer related charities in Africa.
WSD is the central hub of the football community in America. That community must be free of hate and must represent the best values we have to offer. That stands for me and that stands for fans of Liverpool FC. Hate has no place in that community and we must all work to insure the safety of supporters. I hope that we can all work together from here and put these issue behind us. I want to hear from sober minded Liverpool fans who enjoy the show and support our sponsors and who reject hate. I myself will work to be more temperate in my assessments, though the show will always be a space for free speech and argument in our hopefully growing community here in America and for the world audience.
With that I say I am sorry, and hope we can move on together from here.”
I believe that a working solution could have been forged from this starting point, but that it was rejected out of hand because further action is planned against Steven Cohen and certain people are rather looking forward to implementing those actions. Something is brewing, and the major players in the boycott do not want a reasonable settlement to get in the way of their amusement at humiliating Steven Cohen.
This recent effort to discredit Mark Sawyer is part of that effort to rationalize the intransigence and stubborn refusal to accept anything less that the utter destruction of Steven Cohen’s career.
This is no longer a campaign to right a terrible wrong, but rather a revenge campaign to humiliate Cohen.
What happened at Hillsborough that day is not up for discussion in my opinion. The facts are there for all to see in the exhaustive findings of Lord Justice Taylor’s report. However, the conduct of this boycott is fair game. I do not believe that it is necessary to utterly destroy Steven Cohen, in order to assure that his lies about Hillsborough stop. I understand that he has cried wolf too many times before, but never before has the reaction reached this level of outrage. If Steven released the apology above and signed on to the actions agreed in a negotiated settlement, I do not believe he would ever dare repeat the offence again.
Having been involved in this attempt to bring the two sides together, I don’t believe this debacle is ever going to end. NEITHER side is willing to negotiate in good faith.
Jerry McMahon
Cohen had an opportunity to apologise and read out the facts on Hillsborough before action was taken but he ridiculed everyone Jerry,so why should we now listen to anything he has to say especially now we know that anything he has to say (to make good) would not be his own words but those of his minnions.
We do not need to humiliate Cohen we just let his words and actions speak for themselves,nothing we could say,do or fabricate could possibly outstrip the good work Cohen has allready done for the boycott.
Speaking for myself i can honestly say that what you have put into the public domain only makes my resolve stronger.
SallyCinnamon
You can't be serious Jerry?? You write up an apology for Steven that he has'nt read or even agreed to read yet!! Even if he does read it he wont mean it.
This boycott will not end until steven no longer has his platform.
Charles,
Your post epitomizes the blinkered intransigence of some people involved with this boycott.
Where does it indicate ANYWHERE in my comments above that I wrote the apology?
As I said, it was drafted by Mark Sawyer and was to be the first draft of an apology that would eventually be crafted and agreed upon by EVERYONE involved.
There is nothing unreasonable about that. It would have been pointless for Steven to write another apology that would just be dismissed by the boycotters. The wording had to be agreed in advance by all concerned, but Mel shot it down at the first opportunity.
I just knew I would get flak for this. It's one thing to close your ears to discussion about Hillsborough, which I agree is not up for discussion, but the total and complete intransigence on display with regards to the stance of the boycott is ridiculous.
A total bloody minded stubbornness and refusal to compromise? Sound familiar? It describes both Cohen AND some of the boycotters.
One factual error that leaps out is that Cohen wasn't joking. He meant every word, and said so a lot.
Putting in self-promotion is crass, and a vague promise to donate to a charity he had previously called the most corrupt on earth also rings false.
"I concur with the conclusions and analysis of the Taylor report that even the presence of Ticketless fans could not have prevented the tragedy on that day" - that's just stupid. Was someone saying "If only there had been more ticketless fans, all this could have been prevented"?
Also, there's a lot of superfluous verbiage about clouds and community and hate and stuff.
There's of course the larger issue of whether it's possible to negotiate a sincere apology (hint: no).
Cohen believes Liverpool and its fans are terrorists, so it's completely understandable that Liverpool fans have a vested interest in identifying and shunning sponsors who help give that message a wide audience.
Between that, and Cohen's oft-stated claim that the boycott has had minimal, if any, financial effect, yours and Sawyer's urgency in negotiating a settlement is utterly baffling. Hilarious, but baffling.
don't you guys mean mark TWAIN or Tom SAWYER?
Shocking, first of all that anyone thought that someone from LA might be a good mediator. Not surprising that LFCNY didn't ask a "acquaintance" from NYU to enter the fray because automatically doubts would be had to their credibility. I'm sure Mr. Sawyer is doing this out of the kindness of his heart, and that his intentions are, more or less, good, but his communications with Mr. Abshier have belied his bias. Obviously we are the "loony tribalists" and he is the informed Ivory Tower dweller, and, to be honest, I'm fine with it.
Is this the Mark Q Sawyer that came out with the racist comment
'Liverpool fans along with people in the mountains above Pakistan are intollerant to opinions other than their own'
The most blatant piece of racial profiling ive seen in a while.And this has come from an Associate Professor of Political Sciences at UCLA ?
Jeremy, hold on one second whilst i take my shoes and socks off. Im down to using toes for counting all Cohens apologies, what number is this one?
It's interesting to see that there certainly are a lot of egos operating on both sides. In the beginning, it's safe to say that Cohen certainly was stupid to make his comments and nobody should have been surprised that there'd be some pissed off LFC fans.
But as with most things, the original wrong can get lost in the mix by an overreaction. If it's getting to the point that Mel won't be satisfied by anything short of Cohen's permanent ban from radio, as that email implies, then quite frankly, they've lost the plot.
Nothing Steven has done warrants shutting down WSD or replacing him as a host; nor should Steven agree to such a ludicrous "compromise." Does his behavior warrant being pissed as a LFC fan? Yep. Ruining a guys career? No.
Insofar as LFC North America is interested in its standing in North America, it's not particularily smart to be the head force driving to have the biggest football community in the US broken up.
Also, continual fanning of the flames with such dramatic self-victimization will invariably bring about the uglier sides of fandom (ie, death threats, et al). Furthermore, the more this "boycott" is focusing on contact with advertisers, it actually is beginning to border on tortious interference with contracts.
To anyone in the football community in the US, LFC North America has made its point very loud and clear. I'm sure that that any North American soccer pundit will certainly think twice before ever challenging LFC publicly. The extent to which LFC can organize and stubbornly rally behind being upset victims has been well-etablished.
I think all parties need to get laid, get over themselves and move on with their lives. This is just comical now like Keystone Cops. I really just don't care anymore because you all sound like the 13 year olds I teach.
Dear Mr Cockfest,
Very funny. I already said that I appreciate Cohen has cried wolf many many times. The difference this time, in my opinion, is that the furore has reached a totally unprecedented fever pitch, to the point that if Steven reneges on his promise not to bring this crap up again, even his listeners and fans would abandon him.
He's apologised, retracted his factually incorrect statements (about Hillsborough) and promised not to address the subject again. Short of flagelating himself in public and giving up his entire career, which is completely unreasonable, I don't see what else he can do.
I notice that nobody here has challenged my contention that this is now at least as much about enjoying the punishment of Cohen as it is about correcting facts in the public arena.
I got into this because of the latter, not the former. I feel that the Hillsborough lies have been addressed and in fact Steven has actually learned a lot and not merely made a token apology. He actually seems to have changed his opinions on Hillsborough. This is more than we could have expected to happen.
Initially an apology, a retraction and assurances that the subject would be forever dropped was all that was asked. Cohen has done that and more in my opinion, but some people will now stop short of nothing less than the destruction of his career.
Over at RAWK, Shanklyboy has made a few statements and asked a few questions of Mel that broadly articulate my feelings on this. He immediately gets jumped on by the zealots and told to "give it a rest". Shanklyboy, unlike Mel and most of the North American supporters involved here was actually at Hillsborough, yet he is treated like some kind of pariah for not blindly towing the party line?
That's how f-cked up and misled this boycott has become.
Jerry,
by my understanding, because cohen has had enough now, you have decided we call the boycott off. Well mate thankfully you dont have that right, even though you are making out here you are privy to private emails and so forth,you have had no imput whatsoever from the boycott side. Now what you have been getting up to on the Cohen side with mr Sawyer is anyones guess.
For someone who claims to have been a Liverpool supporter for 30 years, to suddenly decide that Cohen and his bile deserves the medium of a radio show, beggars belief.
And by the way, some of these people who you claim were not at hillsborough, well im really glad they were not. I would hate for them to have to live with the horrors of that day like myself. Being at Hillsborough that day isnt a badge of honour. Now fuck off and go save the whale with Sawyer.
LIVERPOOL FC AND ITS SUPPORTERS ARE ANTI-SEMITIC.
SAY'S WHO ?
STEVEN COHEN.
BUT ISNT HE THE PRICK WHO ALSO CLAIMED 6000 - 8000 TICKETLESS FANS WERE TO BLAME
FOR THE 96 DEATHS AT HILLSBOROUGH ?
YES, THATS THE ONE.
So judging him on his past performances it appears he is still talking out of his arse. But why would he make such claims about the anti - semitic slurs then? Well maybe because of a well organized campaign which has only dealt in the above board pursuit of his sponsors, resulting in over 60% of the original ones leaving him. And fear. Yes Cohen now knows he isn't dealing with a couple of angry Liverpool supporters. He thought he could take us on. He wasn't banking on the worldwide solidarity of the greatest club on earth.
So now he just throws whatever shit he can at us and hopes that some of it will stick. In regards to the anti semitic claims, here are a few facts that might be of interest
In 1980, a player called Avi Cohen, who happened to be Jewish, scored an own goal at the kop end in the last game of the season against Aston Villa, a must win fixture that would have guaranteed us the championship. Did the 26,000 on the kop bay for his blood? Did they make hissing gas chamber noises? Was he called a Jewish c*nt? NO HE WAS NOT
In January 1981, an F.A cup game at Goodison Park, Cohen loses the ball on the edge of our box and Imre Varadi nips in and knocks us out of the cup. Was he subject to anti semitic abuse from the hordes of reds in the park end ? NO HE WAS NOT
Infact , when Yossi Benayoun was thinking of leaving West Ham, he sought advice from Avi to which he was quoted as saying " Even if Liverpool offer less money, jump at it"
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2007/07/13/avi-cohen-s-advice-convinces-yossi-benayoun-over-liverpool-move-100252-19449855/
Ronny Rosenthal, another crowd favorite who happened to be Jewish. A good mate of mine from Halewood,John Garner , started the now famous chant
RONNY, OH RONNY RONNY,OH RONNY RONNY, OH RONNY ROSENTHAL HEY! in the kop and everyone to man joined in .Any anti semitic comments? Nah. When Ronny came back for a cup game with his new club Spurs, he was given a standing ovation.
And then there is Yossi. I don't recall any of the 3000 travelling army in Madrid saying "His goal does not count , he's a Jew" like the Chelsea supporters said about their first black player Paul Cannoville when he scored for his team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Canoville
So you see, its all a smokescreen by Cohen to get us away from our objective here. And our objective is to fight his lies and spiteful comments like these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhoo8T2n1Bg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRGC-zL5m9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DZGJ3xBd5s
As King Kenny once said " Don't take your eye off the ball and you wont go far wrong"
TRUER WORDS HAVE NEVER BEEN SPOKEN MY FRIENDS
Dear Mr Cockfest,
So, basically, anyone who doesn't 100% agree with the conduct of the boycott can "fuck off"?
Is that about right?
This is why you're going to fail, and I didn't want you to fail. I wanted the boycotters to walk away from this victorious with their heads held high at having exposed Cohen's lies and corrected the facts in the public arena.
You're going to fail because you've set yourselves a completely unrealistic and unreasonable target. You’re going to fail because you are so bloody minded and inflexible. You’re going to fail because you lash out at anyone, even those who broadly support you, because they slightly disagree with you.
I'm sure you'll point to the S*n newspaper and it's circulation figures in Liverpool as evidence of the success of this strategy, but quite frankly, the last time I checked, The S*n is still the most popular paper in the UK outside of Liverpool and Steven Cohen probably isn't going to be looking for work with Radio City 96.7 anytime soon.
Steven has barely mentioned this debacle for about a month now, so before long, your ammunition is going to get VERY OLD. Your campaign relies entirely on being able to point to current or recent transgressions by Cohen.
Basically Mr Cockfest, my attitude is “quit while you’re ahead”. In my view, the probable sacking of Cohen by Fox and his humiliating and contrite climb-down in his recent press release, are about as good as it’s ever going to get for the boycotters. You don’t seem to be able to see a HUGE victory when it’s handed to you on a plate.
You can question my motives all you like and tell me to “fuck off and go save the whale”, but my reason for latching on to this proposal was to save you jackasses from yourselves.
Your heart is in the right place, but your head is up your ass.
Basically Mr Cockfest, my attitude is “quit while you’re ahead”. In my view, the probable sacking of Cohen by Fox and his humiliating and contrite climb-down in his recent press release, are about as good as it’s ever going to get for the boycotters. You don’t seem to be able to see a HUGE victory when it’s handed to you on a plate.
See, there you go again. Giving out advice like john wayne. Ok Duke, maybe Cohen has given you the impression its as good as its going to get, but rest assured it isnt. As good as it gets is the day Cohen switches off the light for the last time in his studio.
How does it feel to have Cohen pulling your strings? You wanting cheap AD space on his show or somthing?
And lastly, at least my head might be up my own ass, yours is quite clearly stuck up Cohen's
Ha-ha!
Nothing could be further from the truth Cockfest. I'm just not a blind zealot that can't see the wood for the trees.
"As good as it gets is the day Cohen switches off the light for the last time in his studio."
Maybe, but that isn't going to happen is it? That's what you can't comprehend. You've maxed out Cockfest, but your drunk on power and can't stop yourself. The adulation and self-congratualatory back slapping on RAWK is intoxicating, isn't it?
You are more like Cohen than you'd ever admit.
RAWK is the toy shop at christmas and you Jerry are the child kept outside with your nose pressed firmly against the glass
Jeremy reading this entire post, you have mentioned the word power FIVE times.
Are you like 5ft or somthing?
Alone among Liverpool fans does Jerry McMahon speak the truth. He and he alone.
Jerry, has it ever occurred to you why you are alone? Why the vast majority of Liverpool fans do not particularly support your position or opinions? Why the only people with whom you seem to resonate are those who support Cohen?
I understand going against the flow and such, but the Liverpool fans are united on this and if you're not in a minority of one, you're certainly in a minority of single digits.
I'm sure you're going to dismiss this as not being a sheep being able to think for yourself and other crap like that such as you and you alone having the ability to see the TRUTH. But the fact remains that through thick and thin, through ups and downs, the Liverpool fans in this campaign have supported the guys leading it, have supported the aims and are still a pretty cohesive bunch.
You, on the other hand, strike me as someone looking for significance. I'm going to hazard a guess - you approached the guys running the campaign with your ideas and opinions, perhaps didn't listen too well to their strategies and ideas and were told where to go. And hooking up with Mark Sawyer was a piss-poor place to end up. But when looking for meaning, for significance, on fait son devoir, I suppose.
You take your comfort when you find it. You happened to find yours not with Liverpool fans.
RDH,
Think what you like, but I was NEVER comfortable with the boycott strategy of trying to get Cohen entirely off the air. I only supported it because the alternative was to let Cohen get away with his lies and continue to spread them very loudly and publicly, which was unacceptable. When an opportunity was presented that resolved this without ruining a mans life over his views (idiotic, damaging and baseless views, but still just views), I jumped at it.
The idea that somebody involved with this boycott would accuse someone else of "looking for significance", is absolutely hilarious! I approached Mel privately to try and persuade him to compromise and he rejected the proposal out of hand. As far as I'm concerned, that was the end of my support for this which hunt, because the reasons he gave me were retarded. I don't need to be validated by you or anyone else.
I had no desire to play any other part in the ongoing saga, because it's a pointless exercise trying to reason with some people, and certain people are clearly just enjoying it too much. The only reason I came on this forum to comment, is because you're all talking shit about Mark Sawyer, who doesn't deserve it. You may not agree with him, but it's typical of the RAWK faction to lash out at, and ridicule anyone that doesn't lick their balls.
That's the bottom line. You say that the vast majority of Liverpool fans are with you, but the fact is that this is a fringe movement that got a brief hard-on because, at the height of the furor, they got support from the club and some prominent people. It's YOU and the boycott leaders that are getting off on your significance and power.
The fact that you can't see, that while Cohen ignores you and shuts up about this whole thing, you will become increasingly impotent, is truly sad.
The truth is that the vast majority of Liverpool fans either don't know anything about this crap or no longer give a shit.
Some, like me, think you've taken it too far and are moved to comment, but now I'm going to go back to simply supporting the club and ignoring bellends like Cohen, which, in hindsight is what we should all have done in the first place.
Good luck arguing in an empty room with people that agree with you. Sounds like fun.
Liverpool supporters might be on the same page, but as a neutral, I can only suggest that I think McMahon is 100% correct.
Knowing when to quit is actually an incredibly important skill for any movement. The LFC boycotters are going from a position of strength to a position of vindictiveness.
Invariably, they will lose mainly b/c this is becoming a vindictive, English-driven campaign. While LFC boycotts are like God in England, they have significantly less power in the US. Obviously, the general sports landscape in the US couldn't give a damn about LFC. In fact, whereas most of the big four have attempted to gain a foothold in the states where theres actually a very healthy football market, LFC has been very absent.
As to the US football community, it is remarkably independent and protective of itself, particularly against snobbish European attitudes. While there are some sympathetic US voices and some initial victories in this boycott, there is nowhere near enough sway to sustain a vitriolic boycott that the English are insisting upon. You should have quit while you were ahead b/c now a backlash is formulating.
LFC North America, to the extent that it also seeks to break up WSD, also is putting itself in direct conflict with the US football community, and thereby a wedge between LFC and the US football landscape. I'm sure most LFC English supporters couldn't care less, but wiser minds ought to.
Your only option is to continually harass Cohen's advertisers directly b/c a bunch of English LFC fans merely refusing to purchase their products will never have much of an effect in the US. Thus, you're left with committing torts as your only recourse.
Overall, quit while you're ahead or end up looking to idiots. If Cohen continues to ignore this and move on with his show, then LFC boycotters will only end up looking like petulant children.
Overall, quit while you're ahead or end up looking to idiots. If Cohen continues to ignore this and move on with his show, then LFC boycotters will only end up looking like petulant children.
Isnt that what you would just love to believe.
Its not going that way is it. You seemed to be worried about our position more than we are
Jerry McMahon, I was right! You were rejected. You approached Mel privately and he rejected your advice.
Did it ever occur to you that Mel, who had been in the campaign from the start, just might know more than you? Just might have understood the situation better? Yet you, because you are jerry McMahon swoop in with *the solution*. Also, how did you go about establishing your bona fides? How was Mel to know that you weren't working for Cohen? (In retrospect, that's still not a bad question).
Here's something I only learned this morning on another blog - Mark Sawyer and Steven Cohen are old buddies, both Chelsea fans, having met at The Fox & Hounds in Santa Monica(?). Yet Mark Sawyer presented himself as a neutral mediator without a dog in the fight. That's the type of untrustworthy person to whom your hitching your wagon? It looks like Mel's instincts were correct and yours? Well they led to a liar called Steven Cohen and his buddy Mark Sawyer. In the above emails, no where does Sawyer give any indication of his affiliations or friendships. AKA as a lie by omission.
And yet you think that because Mel didn't satisfy you with his reasons that you should throw in with Sawyer and Cohen? From where I stand, it looks like Mel's instincts and reasons were spot on. Yours? Not so much. They led you to believing in the disingenuous, unctuous, arrogant and deceitful Mark Sawyer. That's who he is, that's what he does. And he continues to do all he can to muddy the waters. They're your running buddies.
This campaign is about the Steven Cohen's lies about Hillsborough and Liverpool fans. Sawyer is only a distraction, a poor one at that and ultimately a mere nothing.
RDS,
Nope. This isn't about me, and your's and Cockfests (Tony Ananis? - pretty sure it's you) paranoia is pathetic. Anyone who breaks ranks is working for Cohen? I've never met the guy and have probably listened to his radio show less than most people involved in the boycott. I've merely exchanged some emails with him and quite a few others. I don't have a dog in the fight, I just think, as far as the current situation is concerned, you're dead wrong.
This isn't about Mel knowing more than anyone else - I'm sure he does - he acts like it, it's about entrenched positions and completely unreasonable demands. His reasons for rejecting the proposal were ridiculous. Why can't he (and you), just be goddam honest and say - "We think we have Cohen on the ropes and we're rather enjoying it, so kindly fuck off".
That's the bloody truth and you know it.
Allegiances to footcall clubs is, or should be, completely effing irrelevant. I couldn't give a rats ass if Mark supports Chelsea and is buddies with Steven. That doesn't make him wrong about this. I disagree with a ton of what Mark has said, including all these ridiculous broad brush accusations about anti-semitism, but on the subject of the boycott being all about enjoying your power and getting revenge on Cohen, he's absolutely spot on.
I don't have any "running buddies" in this. I just briefly got involved with the niaive notion that as a Liverpool fan who supported the principles behind the boycott, I could act as a bridge between Cohen, Sawyer and Mel.
Now I realise that the extremes on BOTH sides of this dispute are thick-skinned muppets and the boycott no longer has any principles.
"This campaign is about the Steven Cohen's lies about Hillsborough and Liverpool fans."
No it isn't. It used to be, but if that was the case, his almost total about turn on Hillsborough in his press release ( http://www.worldsoccerdaily.com/assets/releases/wsd_7-16-09.pdf ), should have more than satisfied you.
This is about throwing your weight around and showing Steven who's boss.
Enjoy it while it lasts.
On second thoughts.... just drink the beers napoleon.
I have no idea why you think I have anything to do with this campaign. I'm a Liverpool fan true and true and think Cohen is a scumbag.
I have been following this from about mid-May and have been pretty impressed with what Mel and Co. have managed to do. I have emailed Mel a few times (4?) with some info I thought might be helpful and asked a question or two. And that's the full extent of my involvement.
But never in my wildest dreams would I presume myself so arrogant as to try to get involved in the middle of the campaign without 1st being up to speed. I would never presume off the back of a half assed proposal when I didn't know all the players, never would I presume to have all the answers.
And you're smoking some really heavy shit if you think that Sawyer as Cohen's mate could or would have been a neutral, unbiased mediator. Mark Sawyer has proven himself in this whole escapade to be untrustworthy. As a mediator, he would have been working for Cohen. Hats off to Mel on that one for smoking Sawyer out.
You want to throw your lot in with Sawyer and Cohen? Go ahead. You want to call the boycott unprincipled? Go ahead. You want to point to apology number 602 from Steven Cohen to show that this time he really means it? Go ahead.
I have no doubt that come next April in the run up to Hillsborough's 21st anniversary that if Cohen is still on the air, he'll still be referring to Liverpool fans as murderers and you will still be sitting on the sidelines trying to tell us that Cohen's just conflicted, misunderstood but basically a decent human being who doesn't deserve to have to answer for his words. But, go ahead.
jerry
I am the poster that asked shanklyboy to give it a rest over at rawk. I was at hillsborough so does that qualify me ? listen mate, your a fuckin nob jockey. It disgusts me when you smarmy intellectual types get all high and mighty and just cant see it for what it is. Theres nothing to negotiate and Ive told mel as much. You dont negotiate apologies with repeat offenders. Its like a dog that bites someone for the second time. you dont wait, you know what you have to do. So go ahead and defend this merchant of hate. Its a shame you cant take the same position as cohens beloved club chelsea and distance yourself instead of making a mockery of yourself to about 99.9% of Liverpool fans.
Btw My comment to shanklyboy on rawk was not an attack nor am I any zealot as you stereotyped.
Jerry,
Chelsea FC have denounced Cohen. I think they're throwing their weight around trying to show Steven (see, I can refer to him as Steven also) who is boss.
I'm up for boycotting Chelsea for this blatant show of bullyboy power if you are. Whaddya say? Let's you and me boycott Chelsea and you know what? You can be in the cool gang from the start and weed out all ridiculous petulant children and guys called Mel.
So whaddya say, we'll give it a go? You can even wear your special Exalted Lord High Protector, Ruler Of The Universe short pants.
And the secret decoder ring.
Jeremy
You surprise me.
"Short of flagelating himself in public and giving up his entire career, which is completely unreasonable, I don't see what else he can do."
How about not calling the boycott antisemitic? How about not calling LiverpoolFC, Heineken, me, George Gillet, Tom Hicks or anyone else who disagrees with him antisemitic? Presumably those in charge at Chelsea FC are now also Jew hating, racist, terrorists? How about both he and Mark Sawyer explain the logical pathway by which anyone involved with the boycott is somehow responsible for death threats, or racial slurs? You know as well as I do that such a view is dramatically, profoundly, earth shatteringly misguided.
I joined you in arguing this very point to Sawyer and Cohen supporters on another forum months ago. I know you shared my disbelief at the lack of rational thought from those who sought to blame anyone and everyone for the actions of the few.
Let it also be said that this was before the request to hand over details of the antisemitic e-mailer. The correspondence as detailed on this site makes for highly embarrassing reading on the part of Cohen and Sawyer. Why not hand over the details of the person in question? Accusing a group of people of orchestrating and/or condoning hate crime is a pretty serious accusation. A bit like, oh I don't know, accusing a group of people of manslaughter without evidence.
Sawyer has written another blog somewhere else, invoking the murder of a security guard at a holocaust museum, as an analogy to condemn the boycott. I honestly don't think I have ever encountered a more confused individual in my life. To blame the boycott because an unconnected individual sends hate mail shows someone to be either completely blinkered or deeply stupid.
It is also rather sad to have to explicitly state the following, since it does not seem to have registered in some quarters, but here goes anyway.
Even if one completely disregards any comments to do with Hillsborough, to label as "antisemitic" those people who are nothing of the sort, is about as depraved and low as it gets. I ask you Jeremy to consider what kind of person uses that as a weapon against people who are demonstrably not antisemitic?
On the one hand, it is so self evidently ridiculous that it can be laughed off. But on the other, it can be seen as terribly sinister and harmful. Using something so emotive, when it is false (as in the case of the legitimate boycott), UNDERMINES those cases where it is genuine. It is an affront to any kind of decency. If you'll forgive my language, it pisses on the memory of the victims of the very worst kinds of antisemitic brutality. It chills me to the bone.
Anyone who throws that kind of accusation around indiscriminately cannot be reasoned with. That's worth repeating. An individual who makes up accusations of antisemitism against others in order to save face - can not be reasoned with! Much like the depraved individual(s) who allegedly sent the hate mail cannot, or any pseudo intellectual mediators who are mediocre enough to fall for it. To suggest intransigence on the part of anyone in the boycott is ludicrous. The request for details of the e-mailer was made in good faith. They were not forthcoming.
Why is this so hard to understand?
When Cohen inferred, actually asserted, on his radio show that anyone in agreement with the boycott was antisemitic, he stooped lower than anything he said on Hillsborough. And that my friends is darn well saying something!! If I was Mel Abshier, or Heineken, or LiverpoolFC, or anyone else thrown in to the accusation, I would sue him. I really hope they do. Oh - and I also hope that the FBI prosecute the people whose details they have in connection with the threats.
...in addition...
If the apology drafted by Jeremy were to also include the following
"I made incorrect and false accusations of antisemtism at various groups and individuals which I now realise were completely without foundation. The individuals who either threatened me or sent hateful, racist email are solely responsible for their actions. It was wrong of me to deflect blame for the actions of individuals onto those who were innocent and unconnected to such actions. I also have zero evidence that the individuals who have committed such crimes are connected with any organized boycott, any official supporters clubs or the club itself".
That is assuming he doesn't have any evidence that it is from an official source. If he does have evidence he needs to provide it so that anyone connected with the club or boycott can do something about it, which is how a free democracy works. Wow - Groundhog day anyone?
Put something like that in the apology and I'll support it. I think you're wasting your time, but I would love to be proved wrong. We live in hope.
Your options for achieving your "compromise" goal of Cohen's removal from radio are quite limited since he is a part owner of the business from which he operates his show.
English football fans refusing to buy products of his sponsors are irrelevant as English football fans are not a relevant market player in the US. LFC North America had some initial success with some particularly sympathetic sponsors (particularily those with European and even UK connections), but that amounted to direct interference with the sponsor.
Cohen's moves since have been to pick up sponsors who if anything, only stand to benefit from any sort of attention an obscure English boycott would have. His focus seems to be on sponsors that would be particularly immune to any negative treatment by LFC. Furthermore, such sponsors are numerous in the US, given that there really are only a few that would actually blink an eye towards anything having to do with Liverpool. Even in the niche US Football market, Liverpool hasn't done shit to tap into it.
If anything, LFC fans' most notable behavior towards Americans as it relates to football would be their xenophobic treatment of its Americans owners.
Anyways, all that's left at this point is harassing his sponsors which in the states, as has already been mentioned, can amount to interference with contracts. That's a recognized tort in California, which, mind you, would have jurisdiction over even English citizens who commit torts in regards to contracts of a California company like WSD (overseas communications are sufficient acts to reel you in).
As a result, such tactics have limited reach and could eventually result in legal action; especially as this boycott dies into irrelevance in the US. English LFC fans can flail around in a fit of rage ad infinity, but the you've already peaked...downhill from here.
A recognized tort in California? If only WSD was a legitimate company with a legitimate business license.
Their status or lackthereof as a business, whatever that may be, is irrelevant. Interefence with contracts applies to parties to the contract. Parties include individuals or businesses.
WSD, whatever its form, is based out of California. To the extent that it has existing contracts with sponsors, you cannot interfere with them without being subect to potential liability.
Seeing as nobody in the US cares if some scouse' in England aren't going to be buying wine from WSD's wine sponsor, practically speaking, your only weapon at this point is to interefere with their contracts...that's like playing with fire and will continue to have diminishing returns.
WSD signed contracts as WSD when it had no right to do so as it didn't exist, legally. That makes the contract null and void. Contract is void, one of the parties is a company without a legitimate business license and that party - the one that legally doesn't exist is going to sue whom?
A lawyer who represents a company with no (or a defunct) business license is committing a misdemeanor every time he or she responds to or initiates even a letter.
So good luck on finding one to represent you with that track record. And assuming you do, good luck on finding a judge who will even consider it.
WSD has no legal standing and assuming his sponsors and Sirius/Xm signed the contracts post the time WSD became defunct, those parties can walk away from those illegitimate contracts pretty much unscathed.
"English football fans refusing to buy products of his sponsors are irrelevant as English football fans are not a relevant market player in the US."
Then why all the English/British based advertisers? World Soccer Daily is not broadcasting on NBC at 8pm on a Saturday, otherwise your point would be relevant.
English football fans are not a relevant market player in the US in a broad sense, but they are a very strong force in the kind of niche market in which world soccer daily operates. Look at the list of contributors to his show. To put it mildly there are quite a lot of British based contributors. Similarly, look at both the sponsors of the show, and the media on which the show itself advertises. The UK influence is everywhere. What teams do the hosts support? What nationality is the most famous soccer player in North America? What major league is sending the most number of tams to tour the US? What language is the show broadcast in? I could go on.
"nobody in the US cares if some scouse' in England aren't going to be buying wine from WSD's wine sponsor"
Right - and how many soccer nuts are particularly interested in the difference between a Zinfandel and a Chardonnay? The answer is probably not a significantly higher proportion than any random sampling of the population. It works both ways see? Go get advertisers who are less affected by the boycott by all means, but those advertisers will necessarily be the same advertisers who have less of a pull on WSD's demographic.
Your point about Tort is ridiculous. Firstly, in no cases have any contracts been breached by sponsors, regardless of justification or otherwise. As far as can be deduced, sponsors who wished to cease their relationship with WSD have done so after the run of any pre-existing agreement. Secondly, such an allegation requires proof of false claims against the business involved. You would have a hard time arguing that circulated youtube clips of Cohen's rants amount to some kind of false accusation. By your own rationale, any movement that highlighted... the dangers of smoking, unhealthy eating, animal cruelty, environmental damage, unsubstantiated claims etc etc would by default be guilty of tortious interference. Heck, if Pepsi say Pepsi is the best cola drink, then by your rationale they are tortiously interfering with a contract between a Coke drinker and Coca Cola.
"your only weapon at this point is to interefere with their contracts"
I think you miss the point about the boycott. Ultimately, the point is for the truth to be known about Hillsborough, and to counter as much as possible any misinformation about it. The boycott as much as anything serves as a way of putting the record straight. If someone with a skeptical mind listens to what Cohen says and does their own research, they can find many helpful sources of information from both the boycott and sites like this one. Futher more, his sponsors are entitled to know just exactly what it is they are sponsoring. Ultimately, what matters is what is true.
"English football fans are not a relevant market player in the US in a broad sense, but they are a very strong force in the kind of niche market in which world soccer daily operates. Look at the list of contributors to his show. To put it mildly there are quite a lot of British based contributors. Similarly, look at both the sponsors of the show, and the media on which the show itself advertises. The UK influence is everywhere."
You misunderstand. The niche US football community certainly has UK influence all over the place. But, it's not English citizens spending all of their time propping up the US football community. The English are quite content with their tribalistic football community and are well-satisfied with it.
It's US citizens doing the cash injection/support into the US football niche market. As such, Liverpool's sway is exceedingly less pervasive such that you're not going to get much on an impact by trying to convince them not to contribute to the already limited US football niche, of which WSD is a big player. Particularly when you consider that LFC at best ignores the US market and at worst is hostile towards it. As a neutral US football fan myself, after seeing this boycott, I know I will never support LFC.
As to WSD's sponsors, as I already said, there was some initial success with the more sympathetic sponsors, mainly those with euro connections. But those are limited at this point.
Cohen's obvious response is to solidly Americanize his sponsors. That severely limits the English reach of the boycott going forward and limits your options to those I laid out.
"Right - and how many soccer nuts are particularly interested in the difference between a Zinfandel and a Chardonnay? The answer is probably not a significantly higher proportion than any random sampling of the population. It works both ways see? Go get advertisers who are less affected by the boycott by all means, but those advertisers will necessarily be the same advertisers who have less of a pull on WSD's demographic."
That's a business decision for WSD to work out. Regardless, it shouldn't be hard to develop a working business model perhaps using more numerous localized sponsorship given, again, that it's small market to begin with. I should suspect that WSD can achieve that and as such, liverpool fans will merely have to scream at a wall.
As to torts...people are free to engage in public relations campaigns all that they want about a particular company. What you can't do is directly interfere with their contracts. That occurs when you start directly communicating with the other parties to the contracts and convince them to breach. Fraud, falsity, etc. is not necessary.
I have not accused anyone of breaching their contract. What I've suggested, however, is that at this point, practically speaking, that is your only option given that the traditional boycott methodology is not going to be particularly effective for you. It's primarily English-driven and it pertains to a "grievance" which has little to no sway in the states.
As to your ultimate goal here, the interesting point is that your goal seems intangible. Certainly you must realize that information is what it is. You can scream all day long about Hillsborough (and you have), but it's not like there's anything authoritative occurring when you scream insofar as people think what they think.
Suffice to say that you've certainly made your case known to any party who potentially heard Cohen's remarks and well beyond that. As to anything beyond that, I don't know what else you want..."thanks" maybe?
Frankly, and its no disrespect, Hillsborough just isn't relevant in the states. This is not to downplay the tragedy of it at all.
US football audiences are just as likely to read your "truth" and yawn as they are to become outraged and stop listening to Cohen. Obviously, if Cohen were in England or he was playing on the sensibilities of a particularly American tragedy, it would be different. But neither would apply here.
I just want to be clear. I turned over everything related to the offending email to Mel. Everything anyone had. He rejected it. He asked me to authenticate the email. I can't do that. I don't have the equipment etc. This has always been a red herring. Do you seriously believe that someone motivated by the campaign would not send an anti-semitic email? Really?
That's why I got angry at Mel. It is just silly to make claims like that.
Also I am disgusted by the treatment of Jeremy. He is a good guy. He has seen tons of private correspondence as he is trustworthy unlike others.
Neither he nor I are employed by WSD.
Folks like Jeremy and I have been most concerned with seeing the victims get the apology they deserve. I spent a lot of time talking with Steven about Hillsborough and made more headway about why he needed to be more specific and why he was wrong than any of you.
I am proud of the current statement as reflecting good work convincing him about the substance. Hey getting slagged off for doing something the boycott could not-par for the course.
http://socceruniverse.ning.com/profiles/blogs/liverpool-supporters
Yeah, doing tireless work, no doubt.
Referring to Liverpool fans as being the same as "people in the mountains above pakistan" and being "intolerant of opinions other than their own."
That's all about showing Liverpool fans that you are neutral and can be trusted, right?
Since the email was not made for public consumption. I did not mean all Liverpool fans but the way Mel was portraying them.
Our argument was if there were any ticketless fans on the grounds that day (already understanding they did not cause the incident).
Mel accused me of lying for stating that fans like your own Shanklyboy were there without tickets.
For him any mention of ticketless fans sets him off. Is that not close minded?
I also have said repeatedly I don't support boycotts. I was entering the fray to "end" the boycott in a way that could be beneficial to both sides. But in fact this thread demonstrates the intolerance to me. Anyway who largely agrees with your broader issue but questions anything is attacked. Why is that?
So, in private for private consumption, Liverpool fans are the same as people in the mountains above Pakistan (aka the Taliban). But for public consumption, they love puppies? Way to go Mr. Neutral Mediator.
Hypocrite much? Bigot much? Rabble-rouser much?
Idiot - a lot.
EDIT: How did you think that repeating Cohen's claim that Liverpool fans were the Taliban would establish you as someone to be trusted by Liverpool fans? Could you please confirm that you can walk and fart at the same time?
Since the email was not made for public consumption. I did not mean all Liverpool fans but the way Mel was portraying them.
Oh so its ok to racially profile someone or be racist in private then?
I wonder what they would make of that at the Martin Luther King Jr. Institute.
Fly your social justice flag when it suits hey!
Can't leave this alone - can you confirm if your Ph.D was $39.95 or $49.95?
Because I thought you had to show a modicum of common sense before they gave you a $49.95 Ph.D.
I forwarded Sawyer's message to a friend of mine at World Learning Headquarters, better known as S.I.T in Brattlebro, Vermont and what they came back with surprised me somewhat.
"It sounds as though Mr Sawyer has an agenda other than mediation"
"It sounds as though Mr Sawyer has an agenda other than mediation."
Sure he does - he wants Steven Cohen to buy him the platinum $59.95 Ph.D with the replica light saber for Christmas
From Mark Sawyer's above post........
'To be honest, I also am generally negatively pre-disposed to boycotts. My training at the Martin Luther King Jr. Institute for Non-Violent Social change and my study of social movements, has consistently held that boycotts are aggressive tactics that are divisive, hurt innocents and only should be engaged when targeted at the source of the injustice.'
I wonder what his stance on the Montgomery bus boycott would have been, or the call for sanctions against apartheid South Africa.
Taken from RAWK
It sounds as though Mr Sawyer has an agenda other than mediation."
Sure he does - he wants Steven Cohen to buy him the platinum $59.95 Ph.D with the replica light saber for Christmas
I was wondering who was paying for the suits from Saville Row.
Hey what a coincidence! Mark Sawyer issues this statement and WSD is off the air today.
Hmmm im beginning to wonder why Sawyer is playing the part of Cohen's flop.
Mark
Good grief, this is absolutely ludicrous!
Why would anyone just want the email address given that it had already been read out live on air, more than once - even spelled out for people to write it down?
The whole point of requesting the information was because Cohen alleged it was from an official supporters club member. That was the whole point of the request in the first place. To get whatever information it was that led Cohen to somehow know that the sender was from an official supporter's club, in order that the person in question could be exposed and kicked out of whatever official organisation he belonged to.
Why on earth would anyone request information that had already been read out live on air?
You deserve credit for acting in good faith, but one half of the mediation completely hung you out to dry, leaving you nothing to go on. Specifically that there was zero evidence or information that the e-mailer was a supporters club member, which was the whole point of the correspondence in the first place.
You've been banging on for weeks about how the boycott is somehow complicit in threats/racism (which is intellectual high treason, downright offensive, and very possibly libelous) and yet when people request the information which would enable them to do something about it, there isn't any. And you're response - that it is sad that people are trying to "catch Steven in a lie". That's right, the guy who has made a mug out of you, letting you act on his behalf, and has been BS'ing you, gets no blame in this - yet still you blame the Liverpool fans, who were acting in good faith to try and expose and root out whoever was sending these vile messages. Those same vile messages you wrote a blog about, and for which you blamed those who agree with the boycott. If you didn't think that the issue of the e-mailer in question being from an official branch was important, what did you think the correspondence was for?
Liverpool, like many other teams, has many millions of fans all over the globe with access to the internet. What kind of mental logic leads you to blame others for what some fringe loonies have done via email?
Stop, take a step back, and think about what you are saying. You are saying that if an individual behaves irresponsibly like Cohen did, that peaceful protest (eg a boycott) is necessarily wrong because there also exists some non peaceful threatening protest somewhere else in the world, that happens to be targeted at the same thing. Was MLK worse than the Klan because fringe aspects of the civil rights movement were militant and threatened violence? (And before you start screaming about how this is not comparable to the civil rights movement, it is an analogy, showing the parallel logic behind blaming one peaceful protest for the actions of a militant minority).
Sawyer has taken a huge hand in complicating this further by adding his 'academic' weight, however insubstantial that might be, to the notion that this has anything to do with anti-Semitism or attacking holocaust victims or any of the other red-herrings he has focussed on.
Whether or not some individual(s) choose(s) to use certain words in an email they allegedly sent Cohen (but which has never been proven to exist) is irrelevant to the aims and activity of the boycott. Presuming Sawyer, unlike, Cohen doesn't believe in shared responsibility (which I believe is against UN rules on human rights: you can't blame everyone for the actions of the one or the few) then why is he even bringing it up?
What kind of world do you live in Mr Sawyer, where you don't understand that cranks and kooks will always exist and will try an attach themselves to passing causes like briars and thorns and that sensible people who see things in perspective ignore them instead of trying to make them the focus of the issue, as you are Mr Sawyer. .
From Liverpool FC and Liverpool fans side we have nothing to apologise for; we are not the keepers of every crank who might ally himself (however momentarily) to the boycott.
From Mr Cohen's side, on the other hand things are a little different: when he was ranting about his alleged anti-Semitic email he very clearly implied that said missive was from an 'official high up Liverpool fan' and that the contents demonstrated the views of Liverpool FC, the owners and the body of Liverpool fans. He also implied that the club, the owners, and the fans were behind threats of kidnapping and threats aimed at children. He, in short, slandered the club and its fans in totality.
Is it any surprise, therefore, that Mel and the others asked for proof to back up these allegations; that they asked him to put up or shut up?
I have my issues with Gillet and Hicks over ownership but I'm damned if I'm going to sit here and have some ignorant, jumped-up little squirt accuse them of anti-Semitism and conspiracy to kidnap small children. And that goes double for the club and the fans.
Why do you feel it's right, Mr Sawyer, to defend Cohen's actions instead of joining in the call for him to either provide proof of his accusations or admit he was engaging in unwarranted slander?
Sorry Mr Sawyer; you obviously think you are a person of some importance and that you could swan in and 'sort us out'. In fact all you've done is stir up some irrelevant complications which are nothing to do with the principal issue; in getting on your high horse you have also allied yourself, however tangentially, with a nasty, bitter, vindictive man.
It seems that few people are hung uip about the English LFC fans so i'll just make this short and easy to digest.
It's American LFC fans who started and control the boycott.
The uk fans along with all those around the world support them.
LFC has triple digit millions of Fans.
Sponsors are running for the hill because the thousands of WSD supporters are insignificant compared to the hundreds of millions they risk losing..
I am Legion, for we are many
Mr Sawyer i guess you argue against Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955-1956) in Alabama; "sit-ins" such as the influential Greensboro sit-in (1960) in North Carolina; marches, such as the Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) in Alabama; and a wide range of other nonviolent activities.
Do you consider Rosa and her brave supporters terrorists ?
For such a learned man you Sir are one hell of a flip flopper
RH and Cock man-
I know I can't sort you out. You are an angry hateful bunch. Who take no responsibility. I have been involved in a lot of stuff and I always take responsibility for the actions of those involved in the movement even the kooks. You have to weigh what its worth to you.
King responded that he engaged in the bus boycott reluctantly. He only supported boycotts when they had the direct possibility of changing the very source of injustice. He also did not believe in targeting people but injustice.
So the bus boycott was a difficult call. King knew innocent bus drivers etc. would be harmed and the company might even go out of business. He saw that outcome as "immoral" if the campaign could not bring about justice itself which was integrating the buses.
So is Cohen or WSD the source of the injustice? I actually think not. The real injustice is the lack of action toward the authorities. WSD and Cohen could disappear from the face of the earth and that situation would not change.
Please don't lecture me about the Civil Rights movement. You don't know what you are talking about.
I have never been neutral.
1. I thought Cohen's statements about Hillsborough were mean spirited and wrong.
2. I thought threats and racism are wrong.
The point was to try to resolve both of these two wrongs in a sensible way.
http://socceruniverse.ning.com/profiles/blogs/hate-loathing-antisemitism-and-1
Ok, il come clean.
Steven Cohen offered me a substantial amount of money.
Mark Sawyer UCLA
"1. I thought Cohen's statements about Hillsborough were mean spirited and wrong.
2. I thought threats and racism are wrong."
3. I think your persistent blaming of innocent people for racism and threats of violence is wrong.
Not cool posting in my name. Plus I probably make more than Cohen, thank you.
Mark Sawyer says the email he sent to Mel Abshier comparing Liverpool fans to the Taliban was not for public consumption. Interesting given that he would have a public face and a private face. What else does he say behind closed doors?
Anyway, private email? Hmmm. Mel Abshier has had something ot say about that on RAWK.
From: msawyer
To: mel
Subject: Re: an example
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Mel please feel free to share any of our correspondence with anyone you deem appropriate. For that matter you can post on message boards. I enjoy freedom to express my opinions as an academic and do so with frequency. I appear on television I write op-eds etc. I don't say much about an issue privately I won't say publicly, unless it will damage some third party. I don't see in harm coming to an innocent by what I have said.
So is Mel the liar here? I think not.........
This whole ordeal has become disgusting. This isn't about justice for anyone anymore. I am sure it is driving scousers mad that this week he has announced more sponsers and had two former Liverpool players on his show. I guess that means that you don't have EVERYONE behind you now does it.
"Rinnnnnnnngggggggggg! Rinnnnnnnngggggggggg!"
"Hello? Who's there?"
"Mark Sawyer's credibility. Tell him I'm never coming back."
This whole ordeal has become disgusting. This isn't about justice for anyone anymore. I am sure it is driving scousers mad that this week he has announced more sponsers and had two former Liverpool players on his show. I guess that means that you don't have EVERYONE behind you now does it.
Ive heard today that Tony New Mexico is standing in for him next week too
Mark Sawyer wrote this on his blog
"So it seems what this all boils down to, is neither I nor Cohen can authenticate an email. You can't authenticate this post. Do you have good reason to believe its me? Of course. Why not email the guy and ask him if he is a Liverpool supporter? It is easy enough you have his email address! The point was is that Mel wanted to do exactly what he did. I made an honest statement that I could not "prove" the guy is a Liverpool supporter. Even if I had a picture of him in a kit at Anfield you could still claim it was doctored or that the guy is not a 'real supporter' the argument is silly."
Mark, you still don't get it.
There is little doubt that said person is probably a Liverpool fan. The point was that he was supposed to be an official member of an "official supporter's club", in Cohen's words. You don't seem to have grasped why this matters. If he was indeed a member of an official club, his details could have been handed over to the police, since the organisation in question would have been able to identify him. That is why the information pertaining to proof of his membership was requested - in order that active steps could be taken in order to prevent and prosecute someone sending hateful, threatening email.
Jesus H Christ on a freeking bike!
RH- but the context of my email was to Mel and his "speaking for" Liverpool fans. The aim of the email was to attack Mel on his own brinksmanship and close mindedness ad the official spokesman.
If you look at my email, I said, "unless it harms a third party." I would say that email does.
Prof. Phil Scraton contacted me today to understand my POV and involvement. We had a really nice exchange and moved on with hopes of meeting in the future. His last bit of advice was don't debate anonymous jerks in these forums. They are never responsible.
Also on the "proof of membership" that is the evidence we have. So there is no proof. Was Cohen assuming that of course since your clubs are launching the boycott.Perhaps it is not a safe assumption. But claims have oscillated between the email is fake to Cohen had no reason to believe he was a fan. If the only issue is that, the FBI will find him don't worry. But if that is all you wanted it for, then why publish it could not be given. That had been stipulated to...
"Jesus H Christ on a freeking bike!"
On the person who draws an analogy between the civil rights movement and the Klan- the civil rights movement trained people to accept blows without retaliation. They did not just start protesting with the idea, let the chips fall where they may or we can't be responsible for "crazies". they understood those types would undermine the cause.
Have you ever read, "Where do we go from here chaos or community" King wrote several essays about extremism and hate in response. He was clear and unequivocal about it. He never denied his existence and he saw himself as a moral agent responsible for it.
He also always said, Love the enemy. He even sat down with Bull Connor with the same idea. Has Cohen set dogs upon you or attacked you with billy clubs or fire hoses? Hell no.
King was responsible for the sake of his movement, the greater cause but also because he was a moral actor. You folks oscillate between, not my responsibility and it did not happen. Which is it?
I also agree that reasonable people could say, not our problem. But that's why the Times and NPR stories were written the way they were. Your message gets lost with the BS. Sadly.. but it is a product of your tactics and the lack of responsibility.
I am going to follow the advice of my colleague Phil Scanton. He said I should not debate these issues with anonymous folks online.
If you'd like to email me you can reach me at msawyer@polisci.ucla.edu. I would be happy to explain my position with a real person not initials. I am also happy to offer you my number if you want to talk as close to face to face as you'd like.
I am happy to engage anytime. I feel strongly about this. I most of all feel strongly about justice for the 96 people who died that day. I know folks are passionate about it, but it prevents misunderstandings if we use our name and instead of yelling at each other anonymously in public we speak to one another like civilized human beings.
"If you look at my email, I said, "unless it harms a third party." I would say that email does. "
The only person that email harms is you, because it shows you up. You compared Liverpool fans to the Taliban while in the guise of a neutral mediator. You should have completed the circle and told Mel that Cohen was a superior human being and quite probably the second coming.
"If the only issue is that, the FBI will find him don't worry. But if that is all you wanted it for, then why publish it could not be given. That had been stipulated to..."
Make your mind up Mark. First you slate the boycott for "tacitly endorsing" threats and racism, but then when they try to do something about it, your response is "the FBI will find him don't worry". What do you want Liverpool fans to do? As far as I can tell, the only option open to Liverpool fans that you're cool with is for them to bend over, take their pants down, take it quietly from Cohen and then say thank you.
FYI - I'm staying anonymous on this forum for good reason, so won't give my full name, but it's Joe- I posted on epltalk at the same time you did.
Email between Cohen and Sawyer
"Steven don't post the apology, but I think that is dead wrong. But you need to say something and have something there for folks who find your youtube comments etc. and find them offensive. Honestly Steven when you said some of it given your tone I cringed. The families of these people deserve to know where you are now.
You have nothing out there period that explains in detail and who cares if the boycott goes away. It is a point of honor and dignity and the right thing to do. Trust me. I think your new statement clarifies the substance of what you said, but your tone was tragic. It is really poor taste to talk about the people who died in the way you did. When you put the series of statements together and out of context you sound like a bigot.
Don't let that be the legacy of you and WSD. Even if folks still attack you etc. you will have done the right thing by them.
In fact, the principle argument now is you did not mean the apology which was aided by your tone when making that, but also in the way that you put your fists up more often than really recognizing that you came off really horribly.
At the end of the day, we keep coming back to it is more demeaning to be candid about what you thought and a little contrite than to continue to allow yourself be portrayed as a bigot and a hater."
seeing as how somone has gotten a hold of more of my private correspondence, I will just answer Joe.
Bend over and take what from Cohen? My sense is that folks on all sides need to turn down the temperature a few degrees take a deep breath and act like adults. Assess the goals. Are they realistic? Can you work towards some kind of reconciliation. I have always believed that was possible. But it seems both sides see it as "bending over"...sad. Even when they know there's a better way.
"Bend over and take what from Cohen?"
er... being called antisemitic and being called responsible for violent threats. Oh and being told I'm partly responsible for the deaths of 96 people. (Which isn't wrong in and of itself, just a little evidence/explanation/specifics would be nice.)
sigh...
Mark these people never listen. Give up.The fact Cohen has published a retraction means nothing to them. They will keep arguing it with themselves if need be.
Friday, July 24th 2009 - "No, seriously, tell Mark Sawyer I'm never coming home again. He can't make me"
- Mark Sawyer's Credibility in an unnamed cantina just over the Mexican border, hanging his head in shame, wearing big ass sunglasses, with bleached blonde hair and an earring.
Unbiased mediator?
Dont make me laugh!!!
search WSD on Facebook to see how many Cohen support groups Sawyer belongs to.
A question for Mark Sawyer
Does it now mean the Fox network
supports anti - semitic activities?
The best part of this will be when liverpool gets bumped out of the top 4 at the end of the season. Then Benitez will be the new Steven Cohen.
Can't we all just get along?
Post a Comment