Terry Court Case * Mod Note #51 *

GavRedKing

eagle eye wrote: »

Its never as simplistic as that. It is different for every person.

You can say pretty much anyting to one guy about his gf/wife and he will just laugh it off but say it to another guy and he will lose the plot completely.

You could say something racist to the first guy and he could lose the plot and the second guy might laugh it off.

I agree with ya, its never as clear cut and people react differently, but society in general would look at the racism remark as a more serious offence, in comparison to bringing up an affair.

What about Ashley Cole? :eek:

After the match, Chelsea left-back Ashley Cole told him: “You can’t talk to JT like that.”

Why not?

Terry then met Ferdinand to ask what had happened.

“Mr Terry said: ’Do you think I racially abused you?’ I was like: ’No’,” Ferdinand told the court.

“I said: ’No, that never came out of my mouth’. Then Ashley Cole popped his head round and said: ’Yeah, didn’t you say that to me?’

I said: ’I didn’t say that at all’.”

That was sinister from Cole, implying that Terry shouted the racist comment at him instead of Ferdinand.

Funnily enough, he seems ok with that

eagle eye

gavredking wrote: »

I agree with ya, its never as clear cut and people react differently, but society in general would look at the racism remark as a more serious offence, in comparison to bringing up an affair.

Yeah I understand that.

This case and pretty much any case on a football field for me though is heat of the moment stuff.

I wouldn't necessarily think that a person is racist in anyway based on something they said in a heated exchange during a game of football. The blood is pumping around the body and people are not in a relaxed state of mind and are very liable to say something stupid or offensive. They are trying to react quickly in a oneupmanship/trying to save face state of mind.

I honestly think its ridiculous that this has ended up in court. I don't think its right that people can be held accountable for things they say during a game of football. An act of violence is a different thing and you rarely see anybody up in court if that happens which makes you wonder what planet these people, who decide whats worthy of a criminal charge, live on.

After the game if the guy still believes what he said is true then thats a whole different situation.

GavRedKing

Cole backing up JT it looks like but why he'd be ok with someone calling him that would be perplexing.

But this is just confusing, I can presume this was part of JT's defence questioning?

“Mr Terry said: ’Do you think I racially abused you?’ I was like: ’No’,” Ferdinand told the court.

GavRedKing

eagle eye wrote: »

Yeah I understand that.

This case and pretty much any case on a football field for me though is heat of the moment stuff.

I wouldn't necessarily think that a person is racist in anyway based on something they said in a heated exchange during a game of football. The blood is pumping around the body and people are not in a relaxed state of mind and are very liable to say something stupid or offensive. They are trying to react quickly in a oneupmanship/trying to save face state of mind.

I honestly think its ridiculous that this has ended up in court. I don't think its right that people can be held accountable for things they say during a game of football. An act of violence is a different thing and you rarely see anybody up in court if that happens which makes you wonder what planet these people live on.

After the game if the guy still believes what he said is true then thats a whole different situation.

For what its worth, if the FA had dealt with it swiftly at the time this wouldnt have got thsi far but they bottled making a decision and its got this far.

I agree, one incident of racism doesnt make a racist, especially when its in the middle of a heated London Derby when Chelsea were down to 9 men and playing against a hostile back drop.

It could have and should have been resolved in the days after it, not 8,9 months after it.

Good post EE.

gavredking

gavredking wrote: »

Cole backing up JT it looks like but why he'd be ok with someone calling him that would be perplexing.

But this is just confusing, I can presume this was part of JT's defence questioning?

It's not perplexing at all.

Ferdinand didn't hear the racist comment from Terry during the game. It was only afterwards when he seen it on TV.

However, when he later viewed film footage of the incident, he believed a racist term had been used

All here..

http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/ferdinand-terry-abuse-very-hurtful-558435.html

maximoose

gavredking wrote: »

For what its worth, if the FA had dealt with it swiftly at the time this wouldnt have got thsi far but they bottled making a decision and its got this far.

I thought they couldn't deal with it as the complaint wasn't made to them, but directly to the police by a member of the public?

kryogen

maximoose wrote: »

I thought they couldn't deal with it as the complaint wasn't made to them, but directly to the police by a member of the public?

This was my understanding of it too?

Ashbourne hoop

eagle eye wrote: »

Its never as simplistic as that. It is different for every person.

You can say pretty much anyting to one guy about his gf/wife and he will just laugh it off but say it to another guy and he will lose the plot completely.

You could say something racist to the first guy and he could lose the plot and the second guy might laugh it off.

But only a complete and utter **** would say it in the first place. Dont buy the heat of the moment crap either, so much more you can say to a person without making reference to their skin colour.

Pro. F

eagle eye wrote: »

Yeah I understand that.

This case and pretty much any case on a football field for me though is heat of the moment stuff.

I wouldn't necessarily think that a person is racist in anyway based on something they said in a heated exchange during a game of football. The blood is pumping around the body and people are not in a relaxed state of mind and are very liable to say something stupid or offensive. They are trying to react quickly in a oneupmanship/trying to save face state of mind.

I honestly think its ridiculous that this has ended up in court. I don't think its right that people can be held accountable for things they say during a game of football. An act of violence is a different thing and you rarely see anybody up in court if that happens which makes you wonder what planet these people, who decide whats worthy of a criminal charge, live on.

After the game if the guy still believes what he said is true then thats a whole different situation.

Good old Eagle Eye still looking to allow racism on the pitch.

The reason racism shouldn't be allowed on the pitch is because as a phenomenon it tends to snowball. Racism is on the periphery of societies thoughts and actions all the time. It only needs a little encouragement and you'll see all sorts of people spouting racist views. Over enthusiastic sliding tackles and sly digs are not like that.

Beefy78

kryogen wrote: »

Don't see anything yet from the reports coming out of the trial that suggest they will be able to clear Terry. The video evidence is pretty solid, and regardless of the context he used the words.

Plenty of claims and counter claims, but what's not in dispute are the words used by Terry towards Ferdinand.

Surely the only thing that matters is context. I don't see how anyone can write the context off as being incidental.

There are no such thing as racist words, only racist behaviour and attitudes. Words are neutral and context is everything.

Kess73

What is laughable is that Terry has gone from saying he never even said those words to saying that he did say them but only in a sarcastic manner.


And there is such a big deal being made now over the context of what he said, but when Suarez admitted to saying what he did once ( he was never proven to have said it more than once), the arguement against him was that he should have known what the word meant in England and how the translation of the word is normally used in an offensive manner in England.


If referring to the colour of a man's skin on the pitch is deemed to be wrong in one case, regardless of context, then surely the same should stand in another case regardless of whether it was shouted in anger or in a sarcastic manner.


I know one case was ruled by civil law and the other by criminal law, but if the FA want to show that their respect campaign actually means something then they have to be consistant once the trial is over.

Even if Terry is found not guilty in court, the FA would still have to act in my eyes because they found Suarez guilty based on probabilities and refused to accept the defence of context for the one thing he admitted to.

Kess73

Beefy78 wrote: »

Surely the only thing that matters is context. I don't see how anyone can write the context off as being incidental.

There are no such thing as racist words, only racist behaviour and attitudes. Words are neutral and context is everything.

I agree that context should be the important thing, but the FA had no problem jumping over that in the Suarez case, and set a precedent for themselves by doing so.

I know that today's trial has nowt to do with the FA, but once it is over they should be reacting with the same standards they applied to the Suarez case.

kryogen

Beefy78 wrote: »

Surely the only thing that matters is context. I don't see how anyone can write the context off as being incidental.

There are no such thing as racist words, only racist behaviour and attitudes. Words are neutral and context is everything.

Whether he called him a black **** because he was provoked or not is irrelevant imo

If he did it just for the sake of it he is stupid, if he did it cause Anton had a go about him riding his friends missus, he is stupid.

What do you mean there are now such thing as racist words?

Of course there is

Kess73

Kess73 wrote: »

Even if Terry is found not guilty in court, the FA would still have to act in my eyes because they found Suarez guilty based on probabilities and refused to accept the defence of context for the one thing he admitted to.

If Terry is found not guilty in court, I'd say the FA will go with that too.

One of their own,former England captain and all that.

kryogen

rarnes1 wrote: »

If Terry is found not guilty in court, I'd say the FA will go with that too.

I think this also, they have the the opportunity then to say, well he was tried in a court of law and found not guilty so what right do we have to punish him

froog

gavredking wrote: »

Cole backing up JT it looks like but why he'd be ok with someone calling him that would be perplexing.

But this is just confusing, I can presume this was part of JT's defence questioning?

i think you're reading it wrong. i read it as cole saying didn't you (ferdinand) say that (that terry called ferdinand a black ****) to me?

kippy

gavredking wrote: »

I agree with ya, its never as clear cut and people react differently, but society in general would look at the racism remark as a more serious offence, in comparison to bringing up an affair.

You don't really get any choice in what skin color you are, but having an affair........
(Doesn't make either comment "OK" but you can see the underlying logic)

Kess73

rarnes1 wrote: »

If Terry is found not guilty in court, I'd say the FA will go with that too.

One of their own,former England captain and all that.

I would agree with you, but then they have pretty much made a joke of what they said during the Suarez case.


They made a point of that regardless of context there were certain words that were unacceptable in England when speaking to a person of colour. So if that standard is to be applied to someone who is not from England, then it should be applied to someone from England.

colly_06

Can someone link me to Terry admitting he did say it

Pro. F

Kess73 wrote: »

What is laughable is that Terry has gone from saying he never even said those words to saying that he did say them but only in a sarcastic manner.


And there is such a big deal being made now over the context of what he said, but when Suarez admitted to saying what he did once ( he was never proven to have said it more than once), the arguement against him was that he should have known what the word meant in England and how the translation of the word is normally used in an offensive manner in England.


If referring to the colour of a man's skin on the pitch is deemed to be wrong in one case, regardless of context, then surely the same should stand in another case regardless of whether it was shouted in anger or in a sarcastic manner.


I know one case was ruled by civil law and the other by criminal law, but if the FA want to show that their respect campaign actually means something then they have to be consistant once the trial is over.

Even if Terry is found not guilty in court, the FA would still have to act in my eyes because they found Suarez guilty based on probabilities and refused to accept the defence of context for the one thing he admitted to.

The FA made a lot of detailed reference to the context of the Suarez case in their report and so did the people arguing against Liverpool fans' defence of him on this forum. So you're wrong there.

Beefy78

kryogen wrote: »

Whether he called him a black **** because he was provoked or not is irrelevant imo

If he did it just for the sake of it he is stupid, if he did it cause Anton had a go about him riding his friends missus, he is stupid.

What do you mean there are now such thing as racist words?

Of course there is

You're mistaking context with provocation. Provocation is not an excuse. Words being taken in the wrong context potentially is.

If we've reached the point where a word is automatically considered to be racist or offensive then that is a fairly damning indictment on 21st Century society in both Ireland and Britain.

If John Terry used racist behaviour towards Anton Ferdinand then I hope he's found guilty and that an FA charge swiftly follows. If he said something which was taken out of context by people watching a half-obscured video on Youtube then I hope he's found not guilty. If the later happens then I wouldn't be surprised if an FA charge were to still follow as the FA seem to have decided that context doesn't matter, which is a very dangerous position to take, IMO.

_blank_

Beefy78 wrote: »

If we've reached the point where a word is automatically considered to be racist or offensive then that is a fairly daing indictment on 21st Century society in both Ireland and Britain.

"Black cúnt" is definitely a racist term.

There is no context where it is not a racist term.

Even "Oi Anton, I neva called you a facking black cant" - the term is racist, even in that context. IF that is the context in which it was used, the person using it isn't racist, but the term is.

Same as Pro F, I'm not surprised to see a certain poster on here coming down on the side of the alleged racist.

But he has plenty of black mates, so he can't be a racist himself.

ThunbergsAreGo

I agree with Eagle Eye to an extent, but a precendent has been set with the Suarez case (rightly or wrongly) and there will surely be uproar if the same occurs here.

Found innocent or guilty he is on camera using a racist term (more evidence than in the Suarez case) and surely should get simialr punishment.

Ridiculous BOTH cases got so far

Kess73

Pro. F wrote: »

The FA made a lot of detailed reference to the context of the Suarez case in their report and so did the people arguing against Liverpool fans' defence of him on this forum. So you're wrong there.

No they made a detailed reference to probability that he said something a number of times and to the probability of the context of what might have been said.

They also refused to entertain that the context of a word not in English should be treated differently to the nearest english version of the word.


To accept that a word can be taken in context, it pretty much has to be accepted that the same word can be used with different meanings or intent, the FA in the Suarez case pretty much went with the view that you cannot use the word black when speaking to a coloured man in England.

They also went on to point out that anyone using the word black to a coloured man during an arguement was probably not doing so in a friendly manner. If we take that same logic to the Terry case, then surely what he said to Ferdinand was said in the middle of an arguement and the same standards that applied to Suarez should apply to Terry.


Also the fact that Ferdinand is alleged to have said something about how Terry slept with a teammates partner should carry no more weight that what Evra said about the sister of Suarez. Being provoked was said to be no excuse for Suarez, so being provoked should mean no more for Terry if they want to be consistant.

Beefy78

Des wrote: »

"Black cúnt" is definitely a racist term.

There is no context where it is not a racist term.

Even "Oi Anton, I neva called you a facking black cant" - the term is racist, even in that context. IF that is the context in which it was used, the person using it isn't racist, but the term is.

Fair enough. I prefer to consider words as neutral and concentrate on trying to remove the attitudes and ignorances behind their use from society. But it's semantics in this case as we're both acknowledging the context as being the most important thing.

Again, if Terry has used that phrase in an offensive, racist way then I hope he gets the book thrown at him.

kryogen

Beefy78 wrote: »

You're mistaking context with provocation. Provocation is not an excuse. Words being taken in the wrong context potentially is.

If we've reached the point where a word is automatically considered to be racist or offensive then that is a fairly damning indictment on 21st Century society in both Ireland and Britain.

If John Terry used racist behaviour towards Anton Ferdinand then I hope he's found guilty and that an FA charge swiftly follows. If he said something which was taken out of context by people watching a half-obscured video on Youtube then I hope he's found not guilty. If the later happens then I wouldn't be surprised if an FA charge were to still follow as the FA seem to have decided that context doesn't matter, which is a very dangerous position to take, IMO.

John Terry has admitted calling him a black ****

His new defence is that it was sarcastic, replacing his old defence of, i never said it.

The words, Chink, Spick, ******, none of these words are racist terms to you?

Its a rhetorical question tbf, they are inherently racist words. They were brought into language for the purpose of labelling someone negatively for their colour/race

Beefy78

kryogen wrote: »

John Terry has admitted calling him a black ****

His new defence is that it was sarcastic, replacing his old defence of, i never said it.

The words, Chink, Spick, ******, none of these words are racist terms to you?

My understanding (and I haven't been following this since the time it first happened) was that Terry claims that he said the words "I didn't call you a black ****". That's certainly what Terry claimed in the days after the QPR vs Chelsea game.

If that happened then the context clearly shows that he wasn't using that phrase in a racist way.

I would never use any of those words as I would never want to even be mistaken as being racist even if I was using a word in a context which wasn't racist. But I've certainly heard two of those three (obviously I'm guessing at the word under the asterixes) words used in a non-racist context.

Snakeblood

kryogen wrote: »

John Terry has admitted calling him a black ****

His new defence is that it was sarcastic, replacing his old defence of, i never said it.

The words, Chink, Spick, ******, none of these words are racist terms to you?

Its a rhetorical question tbf, they are inherently racist words. They were brought into language for the purpose of labelling someone negatively for their colour/race

This does remind me of how he apparently flatly denied kneeing someone in the back in the Champions League until the replay clearly showed him kneeing someone in the back in the Champions League, at which point he said he wasn't that sort of player.

Beefy78

Snakeblood wrote: »

This does remind me of how he apparently flatly denied kneeing someone in the back in the Champions League until the replay clearly showed him kneeing someone in the back in the Champions League, at which point he said he wasn't that sort of player.

Very true.

Pro. F

Kess73 wrote: »

No they made a detailed reference to probability that he said something a number of times and to the probability of the context of what might have been said.

Even by your own admission here the FA made reference to context in their decision. There's all sorts of references to context in the report.

Kess73 wrote: »

They also refused to entertain that the context of a word not in English should be treated differently to the nearest english version of the word.

Lol, no they didn't. They made detailed reference to the use of the Spanish word ''negro'', how it can be either friendly or derogative in Spanish, the specifics of Rioplatense Spanish and the specific circumstance and context of the exchange between Suarez and Evra. You are just lying (Edit: or you haven't read the report).

Kess73 wrote: »

To accept that a word can be taken in context, it pretty much has to be accepted that the same word can be used with different meanings or intent, the FA in the Suarez case pretty much went with the view that you cannot use the word black when speaking to a coloured man in England.

Again, no they didn't.

Kess73 wrote: »

They also went on to point out that anyone using the word black to a coloured man during an arguement was probably not doing so in a friendly manner. If we take that same logic to the Terry case, then surely what he said to Ferdinand was said in the middle of an arguement and the same standards that applied to Suarez should apply to Terry.

Not if the context was that Terry was in fact saying ''I didn't call you a black bastard.'' I'm not arguing that that is the case, but I thought that was what Terry's defence was.

Kess73 wrote: »

Also the fact that Ferdinand is alleged to have said something about how Terry slept with a teammates partner should carry no more weight that what Evra said about the sister of Suarez. Being provoked was said to be no excuse for Suarez, so being provoked should mean no more for Terry if they want to be consistant.

Very true. I doubt anybody even the FA would try and use provocation as an excuse for racism if they wanted to protect Terry.

Fenian Army

Mre rubbish from eagle eye!


Racism(sectarianism etc) just isnt acceptable no matter what the context!

citytillidie

If the FA dont punish Terry with the video evidence they are just opening a huge can of worms in my eyes after setting the example with Suarez

LuckyLloyd

This case is rather pointless:

- Terry will not be banned by the FA either way;
- Terry went to the European Championships, started every game and was brilliant;
- Terry is already toxic as a brand commodity, so this case changes nothing;

Racism will not be solved / worsened in any way by the result.

I don't care. Terry was lucky the DPP picked this up. Suarez not so lucky unfortunately.

doncarlos

Terry should have just have come out admitted his mistake, apologised and said it was in the heat of battle and it probably would have been forgotten by now.

If he had of called him black it would have been acceptable if he called him a **** it would have been acceptable but put the two together and the lad is branded a racist for life. I'll never understand why issues over race are back page headlines whereas sectarian, homophobic and xenophobic are largely ignored. Surely they all deserve merit also.

ush

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

This case is rather pointless:

Not if it leads to a conviction

LuckyLloyd

doncarlos wrote: »

I'll never understand why issues over race are back page headlines whereas sectarian, homophobic and xenophobic are largely ignored. Surely they all deserve merit also.

It's very easy to understand: newspapers don't pick this stuff up because they abhore racism. The merit of this stuff as news is not correalated directly with any ethical or moral standard. I'm sure the rest is clear...

LuckyLloyd

ush wrote: »

Not if it leads to a conviction

He can't do jail time right?

maximoose

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

He can't do jail time right?

Correct. Maximum fine of £2500.

Pro. F

doncarlos wrote: »

I'll never understand why issues over race are back page headlines whereas sectarian, homophobic and xenophobic are largely ignored. Surely they all deserve merit also.

I would say sectarianism and xenophobia are condemned quite a lot as well. Homophobia is the one that is really endemic in the wider society.

citytillidie

doncarlos wrote: »

Terry should have just have come out admitted his mistake, apologised and said it was in the heat of battle and it probably would have been forgotten by now.

If he had of called him black it would have been acceptable if he called him a **** it would have been acceptable but put the two together and the lad is branded a racist for life. I'll never understand why issues over race are back page headlines whereas sectarian, homophobic and xenophobic are largely ignored. Surely they all deserve merit also.

Could not have done that one a member of the public made the complaint to the police.

ThunbergsAreGo

doncarlos wrote: »

Terry should have just have come out admitted his mistake, apologised and said it was in the heat of battle and it probably would have been forgotten by now.

If he had of called him black it would have been acceptable if he called him a **** it would have been acceptable but put the two together and the lad is branded a racist for life. I'll never understand why issues over race are back page headlines whereas sectarian, homophobic and xenophobic are largely ignored. Surely they all deserve merit also.

alot of newspapers openly explot xenophobia and (some) homophobia to boost figures

maximoose

maximoose wrote: »

Correct. Maximum fine of £2500.

and I would say that is all he'll get, if even that.

ThunbergsAreGo

rarnes1 wrote: »

and I would say that is all he'll get, if even that.

I think the stigma of being branded racist is worse than any monetary punishment tbh

LuckyLloyd

naughtb4 wrote: »

rarnes1 wrote: »

and I would say that is all he'll get, if even that.

I think the stigma of being branded racist is worse than any monetary punishment tbh

How will that really affect him though? He's already one of the most despised footballers of his generation. What changes today?

kryogen

maximoose wrote: »

Correct. Maximum fine of £2500.

So about an hours pay?

It actually is a rather pointless case unless the FA intend to act if he is convicted.

LuckyLloyd

kryogen wrote: »

So about an hours pay?

It actually is a rather pointless case unless the FA intend to act if he is convicted.

Why should they need a criminal conviction? They didn't in the case of Suarez, right?

They should be ready to open their own enquiry by their own rules immediately following conclusion of the trial and irrespective of the results, but they won't.

kryogen

naughtb4 wrote: »

I think the stigma of being branded racist is worse than any monetary punishment tbh

It won't really make much difference to him though, he is already widely despised by the general public if not his fellow professionals, and going by what we know there he is not the most popular guy in the sport.

If he has any interest in doing media work or going into management/coaching it won't be much of a problem, Ron Atkinson is ok these days isn't he? Glenn Hoddle? Aragones never had a problem really

The main thing really is, he will never have to do a tap when his playing career finishes unless he wants to, he will never have to worry about what anybody thinks of him or whether he has a criminal record.

kryogen

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Why should they need a criminal conviction? They didn't in the case of Suarez, right?

They should be ready to open their own enquiry by their own rules immediately following conclusion of the trial and irrespective of the results, but they won't.

Like you said, they won't! I can't see them doing a thing unless he gets convicted and a lot of pressure is put on them to act.

I have already given my reasoning for this earlier in the thread

Edit: There was also no complaint made to the police in the Suarez case so how could they have waited until he was convicted or not?

I agree with you, they should act either way, you know they won't though

Predalien

Just read there the case is expected to last 5 days, that must be at least 10 times the average length of a magistrates court case, can't for the life of me figure out how it'll take that long.