Terry Court Case * Mod Note #51 *

ush · 13-07-2012 3:14pm

So what happens now? Sweet FA?

cournioni · 13-07-2012 3:15pm

Disgrace. He should have had the book thrown at him, blatantly obvious that he said what he said.

Will the FA do anything about it now?! Probably not.

GavRedKing · 13-07-2012 3:15pm

SlickRic wrote: »

Suarez can feel hard done by if the FA does nothing to Terry.

i'm not sure there's an argument against that, is there?

surely we can all agree on that?

100 % agree Slick,

But I can see the FA backing down here given that its an English international and all that and the FA acting in self preservation instead of coming out and dealing with racism.

Surely the factors that makes Suarez guilty would apply to the Terry case, in the FA's eyes but sadly I dont think they'll have the balls to do anything about it.

_blank_ · 13-07-2012 3:16pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Was invanovic sitting on a pole

another racialist then?

I am pie · 13-07-2012 3:17pm

Had a quick of the court judgement, as linked to by someone a few posts ago.

Seems to hinge on the fact that lip readers could not say whether he said 'yeah and you're ya/you black c' or whether he said 'yeah n i called you a black c?' (sarcastically)....or something like that. Read the judgement. They did agree that he was visibly angry when he said it, i suppose he could have been saying it in an anger that he had been accused, or he could have been angrily insulting him.

Legally speaking, there is some doubt. I would lean towards the scenario that he was being abusive, but correctly, he was let off. That's what the evidence points to, if you read through them. Doubt is established, possibly spuriously, but legally the decision was correct.

Freedom for the West End One.

GavRedKing · 13-07-2012 3:17pm

Gbear wrote: »

Justice done, in the sense that I think it's a complete ****ing farce that you can face criminal charges for name calling.

It shouldnt have went to the courts, but there was complaints from the public which warranted an investigation resulting in the court case. If it could have been dealt with by the FA at the time the ban an event would have been well and truly over and done with but sadly here we are.

I am pie · 13-07-2012 3:19pm

Gbear wrote: »

Justice done, in the sense that I think it's a complete ****ing farce that you can face criminal charges for name calling.

In which case you have completely misunderstood the judgement and skewed it to your own dubious agenda.

The ruling states you correctly can be prosecuted for 'name calling' ..or , in the real world, a racially motivated public order offence. The judge ruled that this could not be proved to have been an intentional insult.

ush · 13-07-2012 3:21pm

Xavi6 wrote: »

The fact that Suarez was the first thing brought up after the verdict was read out is pretty damn sad imo.

Every case on its on merits and all. But the FA's reaction can't be seen to favour one of their own. Neither can they be seen to accept the burden of proof standard used in criminal court cases, when it suits them.

I don't see how the FA can't impose the same punishment upon Terry that Suarez received.

TokenWhite · 13-07-2012 3:22pm

SlickRic wrote: »

Suarez can feel hard done by if the FA does nothing to Terry.

i'm not sure there's an argument against that, is there?

surely we can all agree on that?

He probably could, but it's not quite the same as the Terry case. For a start the burden of proof is probably not the same, I'd imagine the FA could use the balance of probabilities while the courts decision is based on "beyond reasonable doubt. Terry's been proven and admitted to saying it but not necessarily in a racial context, and the fact that he appears to only have said it once makes this an easier position to defend, while Suarez was said to have racially goaded Evra several times (that's assuming of course that what's been said about the case has been true), which is more likely to indicate deliberate racial abuse.

kryogen · 13-07-2012 3:23pm

average_runner wrote: »

Was he picked to play afterwards and then stopped by the FA?

You may have your wires crossed bud

Xavi6 · 13-07-2012 3:23pm

ush wrote: »

Every case on its on merits and all. But the FA's reaction can't be seen to favour one of their own. Neither can they be seen to accept the burden of proof standard used in criminal court cases, when it suits them.

I don't see how the FA can't impose the same punishment upon Terry that Suarez received.

The thread title says 'Terry Court Case' though. Any future action or non action by the FA is absolutely nothing to do with it.

I am pie · 13-07-2012 3:25pm

Xavi6 wrote: »

The fact that Suarez was the first thing brought up after the verdict was read out is pretty damn sad imo.

Is it not more 'sad' that you cannot comprehend why people would draw paralells between the 2 events. It is at very least an interesting comparison.

I think it's a useful comparison, the difference between a legal situation where the judgement is based on establishment of legal doubt that an insult was intended and the complete opposite in an FA judgement scenario where possibility of the an insult being intended is suifficient for a guilty comparison.

You really can't see the validity of the comparison? ....it is stark and self evident.

SharpshooterTom · 13-07-2012 3:26pm

Well he is English and an England international, what do you expect?

ush · 13-07-2012 3:28pm

Xavi6 wrote: »

The thread title says 'Terry Court Case' though. Any future action or non action by the FA is absolutely nothing to do with it.

There are obvious parallels and wider implications. Denying that is pathetic.

Xavi6 · 13-07-2012 3:29pm

I am pie wrote: »

Is it not more 'sad' that you cannot comprehend why people would draw paralells between the 2 events. It is at very least an interesting comparison.

I think it's a useful comparison, the difference between a legal situation where the judgement is based on establishment of legal doubt that an insult was intended and the complete opposite in an FA judgement scenario where possibility of the an insult being intended is suifficient for a guilty comparison.

You really can't see the validity of the comparison? ....it is stark and self evident.

Until the FA make their decision on Terry there is no cause for comparison.

EDIT: Rory Smith of The Times sums up my thoughts -

Liverpool fans: there are no comparisons between Terry+Suarez cases. Different burdens of proof. Parallels depend on what the FA does.

Masked Man · 13-07-2012 3:29pm

Kess,

There is then the fact that on the evening of the match, 23rd October 2011,
Mr Terry made a press statement. I have not been told what was in that
statement, save that it contains the basic defence in this case, namely that
he was responding to something said to him (in the prosecution bundle
there is a copy of a report in The Daily Telegraph the following day). I do
think this is an important point. Mr Terry tells me that he was advised to
wait until all the television footage was available before making a
statement. I am satisfied he is likely to have received that advice. A
cautious adviser would not have wanted a client to be tied to an account
that could later be controverted by other evidence. Mr Penny is right to put
the question that it is important in a PR world to meet a high profile
allegation with an immediate response. However it is a high risk strategy if there is a possibility that contradictory evidence will later appear. We
know, as Mr Terry will have known, that there would be a number of
recordings of the match from different angles. Overall, the fact that he
made an immediate statement, and has maintained that account in detail
and co-operatively throughout this process, without significant contradiction to his evidence, is undoubtedly a factor in favour of the defence.

He has given effectively the
same account throughout. Insofar as there are discrepancies in his
account, they are understandable and natural. He says that he was himself
wrongly accused by Mr Ferdinand on the pitch of calling him a black ****.
He has maintained that from the beginning. Mr Ashley Cole has
corroborated that it was mentioned to him during the game. There is no
doubt that reasonably soon after the game he made the accusation to Mr
Ferdinand. He confirmed that basic account in a statement on the evening
of the match. He gave a very detailed account to the FA and later to the
police. He gave evidence to that effect in this court. There have been minor
discrepancies in the account. It seems likely that his belief that he was
wrongly accused on the pitch has strengthened as time goes by, and I have
discussed that above. However, his account has been subject to the most
searching and thorough questioning on at least three occasions. Nobody
has been able to show that he is lying. The lip readers do not provide
evidence that categorically contradicts his account. What may at first sight
have seemed clear to the non-expert, is less clear now. There are
limitations to lip reading, even by an expert. I have assessed John Terry as
a credible witness.

I am pie · 13-07-2012 3:31pm

Xavi6 wrote: »

Until the FA make their decision on Terry there is no cause for comparison.

The cause for comparison:

1. Player found guilty by FA on basis of probable intention to insult
2. Player found not guilty by court on basis of inability to establish intention to insult.

Come on, even for someone who would appear to have an agenda, that's pretty clear cause for comparison ! It would seem extremely churlish to deny it?

ps...I also disagree with Rory Smith ; )

ush · 13-07-2012 3:32pm

Xavi6 wrote: »

Until the FA make their decision on Terry there is no cause for comparison.

How does that work? Do you get to dictate every conversation comparing the Terry and Suarez cases? Its perfectly reasonable to wonder what the FA's next step will be.

Xavi6 · 13-07-2012 3:34pm

I am pie wrote: »

The cause for comparison:

1. Player found guilty by FA on basis of probably intention to insult
2. Player found not guilty by court on basis of inability to establish intention to insult.

Come on, even for someone who would appear to have an agenda, that's pretty clear cause for comparison ! It would seem extremely churlish to deny it?

ps...I also disagree with Rory Smith ; )

And what do you mean by that?

ush wrote: »

How does that work? Do you get to dictate every conversation comparing the Terry and Suarez cases? Its perfectly reasonable to wonder what the FA's next set will be.

I don't dictate anything, I'm just going by the thread title which is about a court case, not the FA or Suarez which are completely separate things.

Gbear · 13-07-2012 3:34pm

I am pie wrote: »

In which case you have completely misunderstood the judgement and skewed it to your own dubious agenda.

The ruling states you correctly can be prosecuted for 'name calling' ..or , in the real world, a racially motivated public order offence. The judge ruled that this could not be proved to have been an intentional insult.

Oh, I don't dispute that it's legal. It's the law I have a problem with.

13-07-2012 3:37pm

average_runner wrote: »

Bull crap.

An irish player came out two years saying he is called Irish b**tard on pitch all the time

Henry said he was French c**t all the time by other players.

Ginger players are slagged off big time and nothing happens!!

So why arent these in court?

Its all racism.

Eh, no it's not

I am pie · 13-07-2012 3:38pm

Xavi6 wrote: »

And what do you mean by that?

I don't dictate anything, I'm just going by the thread title which is about a court case, not the FA or Suarez which are completely separate things.

And that's the part you chose to respond to ? Really ? I cannot think of any other reason not to draw comparison between the 2 cases, I can only thing that there would need to be an agenda involved in dismissing that comparison.

I don't know you, or your opinions on either case so clearly I can't really comment on what that agenda might be.

Now, can you see the reasoning behind a comparion or not?

ThunbergsAreGo · 13-07-2012 3:40pm

If wasnt everyones least favourite thug being accused and say Messi (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/players/lionel-messi/9257507/Barcelona-defend-Lionel-Messi-over-Royston-Drenthe-racism-accusations.html),Scholes etc. would the outcry be as big?

I think many people think he was guilty becasue he is John Terry

Helix · 13-07-2012 3:40pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

Eh, no it's not

you're right, it's not, but it's the exact same thing for all intents and purposes. you pick something obvious about the player, and add an expletive to the end of it

tall b*stard
lanky pr*ck
black f*cker
irish w*nker

etc

13-07-2012 3:40pm

Xavi6 wrote: »

The fact that Suarez was the first thing brought up after the verdict was read out is pretty damn sad imo.

Or posts moaning about Suarez are sad too.

It's relevant to this subject matter.

Crann na Beatha · 13-07-2012 3:41pm

This post has been deleted.

ush · 13-07-2012 3:41pm

Xavi6 wrote: »

I don't dictate anything, I'm just going by the thread title which is about a court case, not the FA or Suarez which are completely separate things.

And court cases have consequences and implications. People for the most part are aware of the diff btw court cases and internal FA procedures. Bringing up the Suarez case isn't "sad". Its the natural thing to wonder. What are the FA going to do? We had a similiar high profile complaint recently. Shall we draw comparisions?

Xavi6 · 13-07-2012 3:42pm

I am pie wrote: »

And that's the part you chose to respond to ? Really ? I cannot think of any other reason not to draw comparison between the 2 cases, I can only thing that there would need to be an agenda involved in dismissing that comparison.

I don't know you, or your opinions on either case so clearly I can't really comment on what that agenda might be.

Now, can you see the reasoning behind a comparion or not?

I already said I don't see any reasoning for it other than a "yeah well our player got done for it, so should theirs" situation and that doesn't come into it until after the FA make their decision.

All that matters now is that a court of law found Terry not guilty, and bringing up Suarez and an FA case is irrelevant.

13-07-2012 3:44pm

Helix wrote: »

you're right, it's not, but it's the exact same thing for all intents and purposes. you pick something obvious about the player, and add an expletive to the end of it

tall b*stard
lanky pr*ck
black f*cker
irish w*nker

etc

Try it at work.

Call someone a lanky pr*ck and another person a black f*cker and see if the outcome is the same!

Colour shouldn't be brought into it.

Helix · 13-07-2012 3:47pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

Try it at work.

Call someone a lanky pr*ck and another person a black f*cker and see if the outcome is the same!

Colour shouldn't be brought into it.

why should any of the other things be brought into it? why is colour off bounds but the rest are perfectly fine?

13-07-2012 3:47pm

Aquila wrote: »

Did Ferdinand hear what Terry said?

Nope.

He only seen it on youtube when he got home after the match afaik.

ush · 13-07-2012 3:50pm

Xavi6 wrote: »

I already said I don't see any reasoning for it other than a "yeah well our player got done for it, so should theirs" situation and that doesn't come into it until after the FA make their decision.

All that matters now is that a court of law found Terry not guilty, and bringing up Suarez and an FA case is irrelevant.

No. And I don't think the Tony Evan quote was meant in that spirit either.

Making a straight comparison btw the JT court case and LS FA procedure is pointless.

But wondering what the FA's next step is isn't. And wondering what they'll do or how they should handle it means bringing Suarez into it.

I am pie · 13-07-2012 3:58pm

Xavi6 wrote: »

I already said I don't see any reasoning for it other than a "yeah well our player got done for it, so should theirs" situation and that doesn't come into it until after the FA make their decision.

All that matters now is that a court of law found Terry not guilty, and bringing up Suarez and an FA case is irrelevant.

I don't dispute the court ruling. Read my post where i state I agree with it. Let's put the 'yeah well our player' chat aside...that belongs on the playground.

It is, quite clearly, a valid and interesting comparison that 2 different jurisdictions in a case related to the same offence use different criteria for their respective judgements. It is extremely evident that a guilty tag hangs around the neck of one player, and not the other, based on those differing criteria. There are list of contradictions and interesting comparisons which can be made, without taking sides or attempting to justify either players actions.

It's really of no interest to you that a sporting court and legal court use different criteria judging the same offence. No one is seeking to overturn or over rule, merely point out the contradicition of approach in reaching a ruling in 2 closely related cases.

I challenge you to give me an example of two cases, involving sportsmen, ruled on in different jurisdicitions where the opposite ruling was made in both, for the opposite reasons (doubt vs probability) !!

In my mind it's interesting, you seem to want to reduce it to some petty grievance about 'who got done' ..Once again, i think the correct legal judgement was made in the Terry case.

Fight_Night · 13-07-2012 4:06pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

Try it at work.

Call someone a lanky pr*ck and another person a black f*cker and see if the outcome is the same!

Colour shouldn't be brought into it.

Sorry but that's not a good enough reason. Why is colour put on such a pedestal? Obviously we all know the dark history associated with slavery but that is in the past. Either they are all OK or they are all wrong.

Jimmy Iovine · 13-07-2012 4:13pm

Aquila wrote: »

Did Ferdinand hear what Terry said?

No one heard it.

It is a crucial fact that nobody has given evidence that they heard what Mr Terry said or more importantly how he said it.

Taken from the judgement.

ush · 13-07-2012 4:16pm

Xavi6 wrote: »

I already said I don't see any reasoning for it other than a "yeah well our player got done for it, so should theirs" situation and that doesn't come into it until after the FA make their decision.

All that matters now is that a court of law found Terry not guilty, and bringing up Suarez and an FA case is irrelevant.

The FA have an internal decision to make regarding their own disciplinary procedures. Its not some pound of flesh situation.

13-07-2012 4:25pm

Helix wrote: »

why should any of the other things be brought into it? why is colour off bounds but the rest are perfectly fine?

Fight_Night wrote: »

Sorry but that's not a good enough reason. Why is colour put on such a pedestal? Obviously we all know the dark history associated with slavery but that is in the past. Either they are all OK or they are all wrong.

If you abuse someone because of their colour you are making a distincion about them because of their race, which violates one of the human rights.

I don't think height falls into this category.

Kirby · 13-07-2012 4:25pm

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

No one heard it.
.

Mikel heard it.

homerjay2005 · 13-07-2012 4:39pm

i absolutely hate John Terry, but this was a nonsense court case and thankfully the right decision was made.

Racism gets branded about far too much these days but the judge was able to distinguish between saying words in the heat of the moment and being guilty of a racially aggravated which 90% of the population are unable to do. Terry is an ignorent spineless creature but is he a racist? no he is not.

ashely cole was right, it should have been forgotten about with a hand shake and the same goes for Suarez v Evra, that was a farce of a think also and went way further than it should have done.

13-07-2012 4:57pm

Ferdinand couldn't forget it with a handshake as it didn't happen on the pitch for a start.

homerjay2005 · 13-07-2012 5:01pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

Ferdinand couldn't forget it with a handshake as it didn't happen on the pitch for a start.

eh? where did it happen so? it all happened on the pitch and of course a handshake could have solved it, this happened months and months ago.

13-07-2012 5:06pm

Homer, your views on racism are well known on here(and in other forums) and to be honest are slightly disturbing.

Just because it's on the playing field is no excuse ffs.

homerjay2005 · 13-07-2012 5:15pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

Homer, your views on racism are well known on here(and in other forums) and to be honest are slightly disturbing.

Just because it's on the playing field is no excuse ffs.

what in gods name are you talking about? the man was found not guilty, so there was no racism. my thoughts on racism are very clear - not many people actually understand what it is and it gets branded about all the time generally with no foundation.

so lets say i am john terry and your a ginger from cork. if i called you a dirty ginger irish bollix, am i a racist? by the letter of most peoples view on racism, that should be classes as a racist comment, yet to the same people, it is not.

likewise if a black person abuses a white person, is there uproar over it? i had a mate attacked by a gang cos he was white. the cops called it a racially motivated attack, yet nobody else did. other way around and it would be racism scandle all over the papers. where is the equality there?

and as for "other forums", i believe you are mixing me up with somebody else as i dont use any other forum apart from here and redcafe maybe 20 posts a year so your accusations about my views on racism are incorrect and lies.

and it looks like going off what the judge decided today, that in the letter of the law, my opinions on racism have foundation. Terry will be called a racist by millions of people, yet legally he is not.

Fight_Night · 13-07-2012 5:19pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

If you abuse someone because of their colour you are making a distincion about them because of their race, which violates one of the human rights.

I don't think height falls into this category.

Forget about the human rights bill, I mean I take your point don't get me wrong but bring it back to the basics, if you are bullied because of your race, sexual orientation, height or whatever, you are being bullied for something you cannot control. It's not fair at all no matter what way you look at. I just don't see how it's worse to be insulted about one or the other, at the end of the day you'll always be black, gay, small etc. so how would being insulted about your race effect you more than another characteristic that you born with and cannot change?

So they are either all not acceptable or they are all acceptable, in my view. And in football it seems as though slagging off people's sexual orientation is very much accepted...

Gbear · 13-07-2012 5:28pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

which violates one of the human rights.

Which one?
I don't want to have to go trawling through the UD of Human Rights.

eagle eye · 13-07-2012 5:33pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

Homer, your views on racism are well known on here(and in other forums) and to be honest are slightly disturbing.

Just because it's on the playing field is no excuse ffs.

I'm sorry but I have to ask. Have you ever played competitively in any football sport?

homerjay2005 · 13-07-2012 5:45pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

Just because it's on the playing field is no excuse ffs.

Ashley Cole seems to disagree with you and im sure he is well used to being abused.

Caveman1 · 13-07-2012 5:59pm

Poor Luis Suarez ears must be burnt off him :pac:

Pro. F · 13-07-2012 6:05pm

Helix wrote: »

why should any of the other things be brought into it? why is colour off bounds but the rest are perfectly fine?

Fight_Night wrote: »

Sorry but that's not a good enough reason. Why is colour put on such a pedestal? Obviously we all know the dark history associated with slavery but that is in the past. Either they are all OK or they are all wrong.

It's not all in the past. What an idiotic statement to make. Have you heard of the BNP, the National Front, the Klu Klux Klan? The disgusting race psuedo science that is spouted by organisations like these? The unaffiliated people who you can meet in day-to-day life who express a genuine hatred of people of a different race? Of course you have.

People who are fat, tall, ugly etc. do not face any of these types of abuses and discrimination. You could, at a stretch, say that the Irish faced slightly similar discrimination in the past, but it was nowhere near as hate fuelled and dominating in society. Plus it is virtually unheard of these days, whereas the race bollocksology is still going strong.

It is simply not possible that you two are ignorant of these things. But you choose to pretend they don't exist. Why do you do that?

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Ashley Cole seems to disagree with you and im sure he is well used to being abused.

No he doesn't. Pretty much everything you have said in your last few posts about the case is incorrect. It is extremely hard to believe that you have actually read anything to do with the judgement to arrive at the conclusions you have.

Pro. F · 13-07-2012 6:18pm

average_runner wrote: »

Bull crap.

An irish player came out two years saying he is called Irish b**tard on pitch all the time

Henry said he was French c**t all the time by other players.

Ginger players are slagged off big time and nothing happens!!

So why arent these in court?

Its all racism.

Obviously it's not all racism. But did any of these players press charges with their FAs or with the law? Plenty of people who are abused for being white or because of their nationality just don't bother pressing charges because they are not that pushed. Whereas people of colour who come under more constant and hateful abuse and discrimination based on their race are obviously more likely to press charges.

Terry Court Case * Mod Note #51 *

Comments