Terry Court Case * Mod Note #51 *

Pro. F

Gbear wrote: »

It's quite clear it's referring to torture and not name calling.

It specifically says "degrading treatment". You said It doesn't mention "degradation" anywhere. It does.

It is quite clear it is referring to more than just torture, or else it would have just said "torture". Exactly what they think degrading treatment is is completely open to interpretation.

Gbear wrote: »

As i've already explained, it would require being incredibly obtuse to see a conflict between these.

It is the exact same conflict as the one you pointed out between the Race Relations Act and the UDHR Article 19.

Gbear wrote: »

I didn't say you said that. I asked you a question. You answered it. Good.

You asked me a ridiculous question based on a wrong-headed leap of anti logic. I take issue with you wasting my time with silly arguments like that.

Gbear wrote: »

You assume too much about my position.
For example - yelling fire in a crowded room and causing a panic. You can potentially cause direct harm to people as a result of that. There needs to be provision for speech that leads to direct harm.
My argument is that racialist or blasphemous or any other form of speech who's only form of harm is one of giving offence should not be covered by this.

Your position is changing every time you are proven wrong about anything.

The harm caused by racist abuse is not only the offence given to whoever is on the receiving end. Racial abuse is obviously a contributing factor to increased racial tensions in society.

Gbear wrote: »

Hang on - society or more importantly in this debate, the government should not recognise different "races". Before the law all people should be equal. The notion of racism shouldn't even exist at a legal level.

You can recognise peoples' differences and still treat them equally.

Gbear wrote: »

It's the logical consistency I'm worried about.
How do you define racialist speech as something which does a particular kind of harm? Can you quantify it? If not, then how can you compare how much harm it does to somebody and how can you decide that racialist speech does more harm than blasphemous speech or simply calling somebody a cu*t?
...
Are they kept in check? Do you have any peer reviewed evidence to suggest that it works?

The link between racial abuse and racial violence is obvious. There have been several race riots in the UK within the last decade or so. So inter racial tension is obviously a serious issue in modern society. If you want to try and pretend there is no link between racial abuse and racial violence go ahead. I'm not going to dig through academic research to try and prove you wrong on such an obvious point.

Gbear wrote: »

And besides, if you stab someone in the face because of racist ideology, you're sent to prison. We already have laws that prevent us from harming one another. Whether it's due to racism, greed or insanity there is a perfectly good framework for protecting society without the need to compromise freedom of expression.

We also have laws that avoid the influence of violence in the first place. Like the laws against threatening language. The freedoms of expression are compromised for threatening language and it serves its purpose. Just like the laws against racial abuse and incitement to violence serve their purpose.

Gbear wrote: »

As you rightly pointed out, if you take the word "equally" to mean to refer to equality across ethnic lines, then it would not be a problem.

If, on the other hand, you take it to mean equality between different things that people take offence from, then you get the meaning of what I was trying to say. It was ambiguous. I apologise.
I skipped a line to set it apart from the paragraph above. That clearly wasn't enough.

You wrote this sentence:
"What the law is doing here is singling out particular people based on their culture/ethnicity/whatever and granting them extra rights." That is not ambiguous.

Gbear wrote: »

This was from 2 posts ago; I got side tracked on the UDHR tangent. Legally speaking, yes, you are correct. I'd still be quite surprised if the law doesn't heavily favour non-white people in practice. By and large getting racially abused for being white doesn't seem to cause as much offence so I can't see a huge number of complaints about it.

You are mixing up lower instances of reports of racial discrimination and abuse against white people with the favour of the law.

Gbear wrote: »

Nevertheless, even if it doesn't favour any one ethnicity, it makes an assumption not based on you as a person but as a member of your "race", that you are offended by certain words and that, very simply put, is racist.

This is a waste of time semantic nonsense argument. It is not racist to recognise different races and recognise that particular terms are commonly viewed as offensive to certain races. If you want to try and pretend that the term ''racism'' encompasses any recognition of race you go ahead. A brief check of the dictionary will show you you are wrong.

Pro. F

IrishAm wrote: »

As I already stated, the barbershop name does not bother me one iota. The double standards do. Now, here is Minister Leo Varadkars reaction to Irish, Nigerian, Chinese and Poles putting green lights on their taxis;

I sent him and the journal.ie journalist who broke the story about "the racist green lights" an email asking them their opinions on the picture I previously posted.

Neither replied. Too busy looking for racist green lights, I presume. :pac:

Tbf you are completely wasting the minister of transport's time by asking him about a shop sign. You should have emailed whichever ministers have control over such matters if you were interested in governmental response. Or contacted the Guards if you think it is breaking a law.

The issue with Taxis was hugely more prominent than a sign for some random hair salon. So it's hardly surprising it got more press coverage. You're just not comparing like with like.

If you think the shop sign is breaking the law then make a legal complaint. Varadkar must have known what laws of directives were being broken when he went after the taxi signs (I don't really know much about the case), you can do the same if you think you have a case of similar validity.

If you think your legal complaint wasn't treated fairly, then come back and point out exactly which law was being broken and what the Guards did or didn't do about it.

Father Damo

amiable wrote: »

Carlton (E)Banks?

There is a certain irony that a bloke who shares a near on same name as Wills "choc ice" cousin in the Fresh Prince should be saying this at all :pac:

Riesen_Meal

Father Damo wrote: »

amiable wrote: »

Carlton (E)Banks?

There is a certain irony that a bloke who shares a near on same name as Wills "choc ice" cousin in the Fresh Prince should be saying this at all :pac:

Wondered that myself...

ricero

Rio Ferdinand truly is a tit of a man. hes a fame hungry man with an ego the size of old trafford who wants to try keep up with the youth of today and be cool with the kids bruv :rolleyes:

G.K.

ricero, leave off Ferdinand. If you warrant a third infraction in this thread for abuse towards him you'll be taking a break from the forum.

Gbear

First of all, you're correct and I made a mistake about the nature of the law with regards to considering people equally.
My way of approaching this isn't "help, white people are being oppressed".
I don't actually believe that black people have more protection under racial speech law, at least not in principle. As I mentioned, it's possible that there's a disproportionately low amount of complaints by white people but that would be more down to culture than a lack of fairness in the system.

I made another point, one which talks about the equality of offence. Essentially, what is it about race that makes it open to being policed above other kinds of offence.
That's my problem with it and that's the basis on which I've argued about it in the past.

Pro. F wrote: »

It specifically says "degrading treatment". You said It doesn't mention "degradation" anywhere. It does.

Either it's referring to it in the context of incarceration, or it's so vague as to be a completely pointless statement.

The UDHR was brought up because it was essentially stated that it is a Human right not to be offended. I argued that isn't the case.

If you want to take "degradation" in the context of that Article to include things that offend people, then yes, the UDHR does contradict itself and I think it can be left aside for the rest of this debate.
There is no point in saying that you have a human right not to be offended in one breath (and I don't think it does state that) and then in the next to advocate free speech.

In article 5 it only states degradation in general and does not refer to race, religion or anything else, therefore, if you take it to mean offence it must mean offence in general, which can be caused by nearly everything, and that is not compatible with Article 19, referring to freedom of speech, at all.

Pro. F wrote: »

It is quite clear it is referring to more than just torture, or else it would have just said "torture". Exactly what they think degrading treatment is is completely open to interpretation.

It is the exact same conflict as the one you pointed out between the Race Relations Act and the UDHR Article 19.

If Article 5 is referring to degradation only in the context of incarceration and torture, then there is no conflict and if it is referring to anything degrading in general, including anything that causes offence, then it doesn't just conflict with article 19, it is completely incompatible with it.

Freedom of speech would completely collapse if there was a law that prevented giving offence to people because you can legitimately claim to be offended by literally anything.

Pro. F wrote: »

You asked me a ridiculous question based on a wrong-headed leap of anti logic. I take issue with you wasting my time with silly arguments like that.

The purpose of the question was to establish that you believe that there is a limit to the law in policing offence. You agreed.
Given that, on what basis does any particular kind of offence trump any other?

Pro. F wrote: »

Your position is changing every time you are proven wrong about anything.

I've made 2 points.
As you've quite rightly pointed out, the first one was badly thought out bollocks. I don't know why I typed it.


The second one is part of a more general concept of how far the government should go in policing matters of taste, whether there is enough of a clear causal link between racist speech and crimes committed against people along ethnic grounds and whether crime being committed because of racism should be considered any different than if it was committed because of another reason.

Pro. F wrote: »

The harm caused by racist abuse is not only the offence given to whoever is on the receiving end. Racial abuse is obviously a contributing factor to increased racial tensions in society.

It being "obvious" isn't evidence.

Pro. F wrote: »

You can recognise peoples' differences and still treat them equally.

Maybe you can. Should you though? Why should the law acknowledge such things? What can it hope to achieve? What business is it what ethnicity you are to the law?

Pro. F wrote: »

The link between racial abuse and racial violence is obvious. There have been several race riots in the UK within the last decade or so. So inter racial tension is obviously a serious issue in modern society. If you want to try and pretend there is no link between racial abuse and racial violence go ahead. I'm not going to dig through academic research to try and prove you wrong on such an obvious point.

I didn't say racism wasn't a problem. One question is whether abuse is simply the direct result of an ignorant belief or a contributory factor. I've never seen any evidence to support the latter.
Does banning people saying racist things in any way make people less racist? I can't see any plausible mechanism for that to be the case.

Another point - you're treating it as self-evident that because there are race riots, the government should be trying to forcibly change people's opinions on race using the law.
By all means, educate people on why racism is bull****, but another key tenet of a free society is the freedom of conscience.
Ultimately, if you give people facts it's up to them how they deal with them.

Pro. F wrote: »

We also have laws that avoid the influence of violence in the first place. Like the laws against threatening language. The freedoms of expression are compromised for threatening language and it serves its purpose. Just like the laws against racial abuse and incitement to violence serve their purpose.

That isn't good enough for me. That such laws exist is irrelevant. It's not unheard of that a law could be unjust.
Threatening language is you making a direct threat against somebody. I think it's easy to make a distinction between essentially forcasting that you're going to commit a crime and other forms of free speech.
I would argue that having a law against incitement to violence is insane, unless it only covers people of diminished mental capacity.
People who are not in a situation of diminished responsibility should be entirely held accountable for their own actions.
It'd be like if you told a person to go jump off a cliff and they did it - are you guilty of a crime?

Pro. F wrote: »

You wrote this sentence:
"What the law is doing here is singling out particular people based on their culture/ethnicity/whatever and granting them extra rights." That is not ambiguous.

That's not the sentence you were referring to.

You were referring to this :

If the prevention of offence were applied equally, then speech would be impossible.

to which you replied:

The prevention of offence is applied equally, read the law. And it does not make speech impossible.

You chose not to believe my explanation so I will clarify again what I meant:
If the prevention of offence were applied equally [to all forms of offence], then speech would be impossible.

Pro. F wrote: »

This is a waste of time semantic nonsense argument. It is not racist to recognise different races and recognise that particular terms are commonly viewed as offensive to certain races. If you want to try and pretend that the term ''racism'' encompasses any recognition of race you go ahead. A brief check of the dictionary will show you you are wrong.

You're right. It's not racist.

It is racialist though. (In case you were wondering it makes a distinction between "races" without applying any hierarchy to them.)
Even so, I do not think that the law should be racialist.

Caveman1

As much as everyone hates John Terry he's actually coming out of this with his head held high, both the ferdinands have made a joke out of themselves throughout this while ordeal

J. Marston

Caveman1 wrote: »

As much as everyone hates John Terry he's actually coming out of this with his head held high, both the ferdinands have made a joke out of themselves throughout this while ordeal

Really? I suppose if you believe his excuse of ''exaggerated sarcasm'' then yeah, he's grand.

Terry, Anton and Rio. A pack of fúcking clowns. Ashley Cole too.

Caveman1

Well not about his "excuse" it's about how he's handled himself throughout all of this. Never once has me mentioned anything about the case, he went to the euros and was arguably England's best players all the while Rio is tweeting crap. Also I had no opinion of Anton until I heard about his carry on during the trial. He just seems like a ****head.

amiable

Caveman1 wrote: »

Well not about his "excuse" it's about how he's handled himself throughout all of this. Never once has me mentioned anything about the case, he went to the euros and was arguably England's best players all the while Rio is tweeting crap. Also I had no opinion of Anton until I heard about his carry on during the trial. He just seems like a ****head.

If he spoke about the case he could have effected the trial so that is a silly argument.

He wasnt England's best player at the Euros but even if he was that is more to do with the fact Terry never seems to think he is wrong.

When he was sent off at Barca he blamed the Barca player initially until he saw the footage and even then he didnt fully accept it was his fault.

Caveman1

Well according to the court he did do nothing wrong.

At the end of the day Terry just stayed quiet and done what he needed to do without making bitchy comments on twitter or not co-operating with the police.

IMO Terry has come out of this looking better than either of the Ferdinands simple as.

greendom

Caveman1 wrote: »

Well according to the court he did do nothing wrong.

At the end of the day Terry just stayed quiet and done what he needed to do without making bitchy comments on twitter or not co-operating with the police.

IMO Terry has come out of this looking better than either of the Ferdinands simple as.

According to the court they couldn't prove that he did anything wrong. There is a pretty big difference.

amiable

Caveman1 wrote: »

Well according to the court he did do nothing wrong.

At the end of the day Terry just stayed quiet and done what he needed to do without making bitchy comments on twitter or not co-operating with the police.

IMO Terry has come out of this looking better than either of the Ferdinands simple as.

Hold on. You said because he didnt comment before or during the Euros about the case. Legally he was not allowed to.

According to the court he was not guilty. That does not mean he didn't do anything wrong. There is a difference.

He is not on twitter so he would find it difficult to comment on twitter.

I agree that what Rio did was extremely stupid and didnt help his brothers cause but John Terry has not come out of this as well as you make out IMO.

Caveman1

greendom wrote: »

According to the court they couldn't prove that he did anything wrong. There is a pretty big difference.

Not really, not guilty means not guilty, with all their so called evidence they couldn't prove him guilty

greendom

Caveman1 wrote: »

Not really, not guilty means not guilty, with all their so called evidence they couldn't prove him guilty

I think you've just agreed with me there.

amiable

greendom wrote: »

Caveman1 wrote: »

Not really, not guilty means not guilty, with all their so called evidence they couldn't prove him guilty

I think you've just agreed with me there.

I concur :-)

Caveman1

amiable wrote: »

Hold on. You said because he didnt comment before or during the Euros about the case. Legally he was not allowed to.

According to the court he was not guilty. That does not mean he didn't do anything wrong. There is a difference.

He is not on twitter so he would find it difficult to comment on twitter.

I agree that what Rio did was extremely stupid and didnt help his brothers cause but John Terry has not come out of this as well as you make out IMO.

I havnt once said Terry has come out of this looking like an angel, all I'm saying is that Terry basically went into this case with everyone believing he was guilty yet he just kept his head down, even when he was found not guilty he just kept quiet and went about his business.

On the other hand you have Rio bitching about everything the last few months with all his tweets and then it came out that Anton isn't the most pleasant person. So does it not seem that Terry has came out of this looking the bigger man?

amiable

Caveman1 wrote: »

amiable wrote: »

Hold on. You said because he didnt comment before or during the Euros about the case. Legally he was not allowed to.

According to the court he was not guilty. That does not mean he didn't do anything wrong. There is a difference.

He is not on twitter so he would find it difficult to comment on twitter.

I agree that what Rio did was extremely stupid and didnt help his brothers cause but John Terry has not come out of this as well as you make out IMO.

I havnt once said Terry has come out of this looking like an angel, all I'm saying is that Terry basically went into this case with everyone believing he was guilty yet he just kept his head down, even when he was found not guilty he just kept quiet and went about his business.

On the other hand you have Rio bitching about everything the last few months with all his tweets and then it came out that Anton isn't the most pleasant person. So does it not seem that Terry has came out of this looking the bigger man?

Again you don't address the points made which proves your posts wrong.

Caveman1

amiable wrote: »

Again you don't address the points made which proves your posts wrong.

Care to elaborate ?

amiable

Caveman1 wrote: »

amiable wrote: »

Again you don't address the points made which proves your posts wrong.

Care to elaborate ?

Read my posts. Its not difficult

Caveman1

amiable wrote: »

Read my posts. Its not difficult

Still havnt a clue what your on about ?

amiable

Caveman1 wrote: »

amiable wrote: »

Read my posts. Its not difficult

Still havnt a clue what your on about ?

You havent read my posts again then. Its really not difficult

LuckyLloyd

Rio Ferdinand isn't bright, news at 11.

Ashbourne hoop

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Rio Ferdinand isn't bright, news at 11.

And sometimes posts ****e on twitter is breaking news on Sky.....most of the stuff on twitter is utter nonsense anyway, hate the way news channels and papers report and comment on it.

Pro. F

Gbear wrote: »

The purpose of the question was to establish that you believe that there is a limit to the law in policing offence. You agreed.
Given that, on what basis does any particular kind of offence trump any other?
...
I've made 2 points.
As you've quite rightly pointed out, the first one was badly thought out bollocks. I don't know why I typed it.

The second one is part of a more general concept of how far the government should go in policing matters of taste, whether there is enough of a clear causal link between racist speech and crimes committed against people along ethnic grounds and whether crime being committed because of racism should be considered any different than if it was committed because of another reason.
...
It being "obvious" isn't evidence.
...
Maybe you can. Should you though? Why should the law acknowledge such things? What can it hope to achieve? What business is it what ethnicity you are to the law?
...
That isn't good enough for me. That such laws exist is irrelevant. It's not unheard of that a law could be unjust.
Threatening language is you making a direct threat against somebody. I think it's easy to make a distinction between essentially forcasting that you're going to commit a crime and other forms of free speech.
I would argue that having a law against incitement to violence is insane, unless it only covers people of diminished mental capacity.
People who are not in a situation of diminished responsibility should be entirely held accountable for their own actions.
It'd be like if you told a person to go jump off a cliff and they did it - are you guilty of a crime?
...
You're right. It's not racist.

It is racialist though. (In case you were wondering it makes a distinction between "races" without applying any hierarchy to them.)
Even so, I do not think that the law should be racialist.

This is ridiculous. I explained my opinion on why I think it is right to prohibit racial, ethnic and national abuse through the law. I have done that several times. Yet you are still asking the same questions, which I have already answered, over and over again.

I think that the fact there are serious inter racial, ethnic and national tensions in society is obvious. I think the fact that inter racial, ethnic and national abuse ratchets up those tensions and leads to bigger problems is obvious too. You disagree. There is no point in us discussing that further now because we will just go around in circles.

Gbear wrote: »

I didn't say racism wasn't a problem. One question is whether abuse is simply the direct result of an ignorant belief or a contributory factor. I've never seen any evidence to support the latter.
Does banning people saying racist things in any way make people less racist? I can't see any plausible mechanism for that to be the case.

Another point - you're treating it as self-evident that because there are race riots, the government should be trying to forcibly change people's opinions on race using the law.
By all means, educate people on why racism is bull****, but another key tenet of a free society is the freedom of conscience.
Ultimately, if you give people facts it's up to them how they deal with them.

I haven't argued that the law should prohibit people from saying all racist things, I have only argued that people should be prohibited from directing racial abuse towards other people and prohibited from inciting violence or racial hatred. I also did not say that banning people from saying racist things may make them less racist.

Further, I am not treating it as self-evident that because there are race riots the government should be trying to forcibly change people's opinions on race using the law. I agree that freedom of conscience is important and if people want to believe that certain races are inferior or whatever, they of course should be allowed to believe that. I am only arguing that when people express those opinions by directing racial abuse at others or by calling for violence, the law should stop them.

Gbear wrote: »

Either it's referring to it in the context of incarceration, or it's so vague as to be a completely pointless statement.

The UDHR was brought up because it was essentially stated that it is a Human right not to be offended. I argued that isn't the case.

If you want to take "degradation" in the context of that Article to include things that offend people, then yes, the UDHR does contradict itself and I think it can be left aside for the rest of this debate.
There is no point in saying that you have a human right not to be offended in one breath (and I don't think it does state that) and then in the next to advocate free speech.

In article 5 it only states degradation in general and does not refer to race, religion or anything else, therefore, if you take it to mean offence it must mean offence in general, which can be caused by nearly everything, and that is not compatible with Article 19, referring to freedom of speech, at all.
...
If Article 5 is referring to degradation only in the context of incarceration and torture, then there is no conflict and if it is referring to anything degrading in general, including anything that causes offence, then it doesn't just conflict with article 19, it is completely incompatible with it.

Freedom of speech would completely collapse if there was a law that prevented giving offence to people because you can legitimately claim to be offended by literally anything.

I don't want to take ''degradation'' as meaning things that would offend people, that would be silly. And I didn't say that it should be taken as that. It is you who introduced that idea. "Degrading treatment" could not be sensibly interpreted as causing offence to somebody. However, "Degrading treatment" could be sensibly interpreted as abusing somebody. Whether you think prohibiting some forms of abuse means that freedom of speech would completely collapse is your call to make.

Gbear wrote: »

First of all, you're correct and I made a mistake about the nature of the law with regards to considering people equally.
My way of approaching this isn't "help, white people are being oppressed".
I don't actually believe that black people have more protection under racial speech law, at least not in principle. As I mentioned, it's possible that there's a disproportionately low amount of complaints by white people but that would be more down to culture than a lack of fairness in the system.

I made another point, one which talks about the equality of offence. Essentially, what is it about race that makes it open to being policed above other kinds of offence.
That's my problem with it and that's the basis on which I've argued about it in the past.
...
That's not the sentence you were referring to.

You were referring to this :
...
to which you replied:
...
You chose not to believe my explanation so I will clarify again what I meant:
If the prevention of offence were applied equally [to all forms of offence], then speech would be impossible.

Yes I see that I have lumped your two separate opinions together - the first one that the law singles out particular people to grant extra rights to based on their ethnicity etc. and the other one about prevention of offence being applied equally for different types of offence. That wouldn't have happened if, instead of arguing yet another similar angle, you had just acknowledged that you were wrong in the first opinion when I pointed that out to you.

geeky

Who'd have imagined that the one person coming out of this fiasco with his reputation even vaguely enhanced is wee Ashley Cole?

greendom

I must have missed that bit

kryogen

geeky wrote: »

Who'd have imagined that the one person coming out of this fiasco with his reputation even vaguely enhanced is wee Ashley Cole?

Na, he still went his usual route of down overall. His rep went down more at the trial then it went up by having a bit of sense regarding Rio's comments

Never up!

Cantona's Collars

Considering we had a couple of racist incidents in the GAA it seems Terry has found his calling.



Thanks to green diesel for the image I borrowed from YLYL.

Leiva

Seems now Anton may find himself in hot water with the police as they are opening an investigation into racist comments against Cole .

This is just one big shít pie !

Skylinehead

Leiva wrote: »

Seems now Anton may find himself in hot water with the police as they are opening an investigation into racist comments against Cole .

This is just one big shít pie !

Rio surely, not Anton?

Giggsy11

Not even Rio.

Derbyshire police said it was investigating the original tweet after receiving complaints from members of the public

A spokeswoman for Greater Manchester police said the force was not investigating the comments made by Ferdinand.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jul/17/police-invetigate-ashley-cole-choc-ice

wonderfullife

Leiva wrote: »

Seems now Anton may find himself in hot water with the police as they are opening an investigation into racist comments against Cole .

This is just one big shít pie !

white pastry, black filling....

reported to the guards

Mr.Crinklewood

The FA have charged Terry.

amiable

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

The FA have charged Terry.

Great timing too. Day of the Olympic Ceremony

mike65

Good day to bury bad news

Still its good the FA are showing some consistency.

Mr.Crinklewood

Rumours are that the Olympic opening ceremony may be cancelled in protest.

Leiva

4 games for Mr Terry then .

amiable

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Rumours are that the Olympic opening ceremony may be cancelled in protest.

I hope his personal hearing isn't on a day when he's due to collect somebody elses gold medal

amiable

John Terry has responded immediately to the FA. He's denied the charge and has requested a personal hearing.

No doubt they will have learned from the mistakes in the Suarez case

_blank_

Leiva wrote: »

4 games for Mr Terry then .

Holy be the devine baby lamb of jaysis, Liverpool fans are insufferable when it comes to this shít.

dahat

And denies it of course........:rolleyes:

Giggsy11

Chelsea confirm "John Terry has denied an FA charge announced today and will be requesting the opportunity for a personal hearing."

Leiva

Des wrote: »

Holy be the devine baby lamb of jaysis, Liverpool fans are insufferable when it comes to this shít.

WOW back up over reaction bus there Des.

What you talking bout Willis ??

Blatter

Leiva wrote: »

4 games for Mr Terry then .

That'd be the correct course of action if he's found guilty.

Leiva

Blatter wrote: »

That'd be the correct course of action if he's found guilty.

My exact point . Thank You.

LuckyLloyd

Surprised. We'll see how it pans out.

amiable

With the FA having a conviction rate of around 99% it does look ominous for Terry.
It's basically guilty until proven innocent with the FA

Yakult

Des wrote: »

Holy be the devine baby lamb of jaysis, Liverpool fans are insufferable when it comes to this shít.

Did Jesus really have a baby lamb?