Terry Court Case * Mod Note #51 *

ceegee

aidan24326 wrote: »

kryogen wrote: »

You may also be missing the point though? The complaint made to the police was by a member of the public, so its not really Anton taking Terry to court?

Sorry I didn't know that. But for me that makes the whole thing even more of a farce. Member of the public sending a guy to court for something that's nothing to do with him and that won't affect him in any way.

Its not a member of public sending him to court, its a witness reporting a crime to police, who then decided to press charges. If you saw someone breaking into your neighbours house while they were away would you not report it on the basis its nothing to do with you and wont affect you?

Predalien

aidan24326 wrote: »

Sorry I didn't know that. But for me that makes the whole thing even more of a farce. Member of the public sending a guy to court for something that's nothing to do with him and that won't affect him in any way.

He reported a possible crime! That happens all the time and is needed for crime detection. Granted the reporting of this kind of crime is rare, but no reason why someone shouldn't report it when they believe a law has been broken.

ceegee

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

ceegee wrote: »

Bowyer/Woodgate (incl quote from Peter Taylor saying hed pick them if allowed,so def not a coaching decision):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/1235604.stm

Ferdinand dropped prior to being found guilty of missing test:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-198758/Ferdinand-axed-drugs-uproar.html

Smith dropped after arrest and questioning:

http://m.brne.ws/sport/smith-dropped-from-england-squad-after-bottle-throwing-arrest-121343.html

Thanks for those (and the links provided by others). Hmm, one could argue the nature of the offenses were more serious in the above cases, but there would be some weight to the assertion that a precedent had been set...

Bowyer and Woodgate was definitly more serious, Ferdinand was a different type of case as he hadnt broken the law and as such I think he shouldnt have been dropped until found guilty.

The Smith case was IMO less serious than Terrys case, he threw a plastic bottle, the woman he hit refused to press charges (although she was his friends sister) and he ended up with a 3 match ban for improper conduct and replaced in the England squad by a convicted drink driver.

aidan24326

ceegee wrote: »

Its not a member of public sending him to court, its a witness reporting a crime to police, who then decided to press charges. If you saw someone breaking into your neighbours house while they were away would you not report it on the basis its nothing to do with you and wont affect you?

If I saw someone breaking into my neighbour's house then yes I'd report it. But if I saw some guy calling another guy a black c**t? Or a gay c**t or a French c**t or any other kind of c**t? No. Because it's a victimless crime. Nobody got hurt. Call me a thick Paddy fcuk? I may feel a bit hurt but I wouldn't suggest that it should be a criminal offence. Beat the **** out of me for being Irish that's another matter.

For me, what John Terry said was wrong and he should have been reprimanded by Chelsea first and foremost, but I don't see how it can be a criminal offence. He did nothing other than utter one stupid remark to one individual, it's not like he incited hatred against all black people.

LuckyLloyd

ceegee wrote: »

Bowyer and Woodgate was definitly more serious, Ferdinand was a different type of case as he hadnt broken the law and as such I think he shouldnt have been dropped until found guilty.

The Smith case was IMO less serious than Terrys case, he threw a plastic bottle, the woman he hit refused to press charges (although she was his friends sister) and he ended up with a 3 match ban for improper conduct and replaced in the England squad by a convicted drink driver.

The Ferdinand situation was a mess though, and many other sports / federations would have dealt with it the same way imo.

I'd agree with you on the Smith one though, yes. As I said earlier in this thread, the FA should be opening their own enquiry as per the Suarez case immediately following conclusion of these current proceedings irrespective of the verdict.

kryogen

Racist abuse is a criminal offence though

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/rrpbcrpol.html

RayCon

aidan24326 wrote: »

The Ferdinands are not even black ffs!!! .

?

ceegee

aidan24326 wrote: »

ceegee wrote: »

Its not a member of public sending him to court, its a witness reporting a crime to police, who then decided to press charges. If you saw someone breaking into your neighbours house while they were away would you not report it on the basis its nothing to do with you and wont affect you?

If I saw someone breaking into my neighbour's house then yes I'd report it. But if I saw some guy calling another guy a black c**t? Or a gay c**t or a French c**t or any other kind of c**t? No. Because it's a victimless crime. Nobody got hurt. Call me a thick Paddy fcuk? I may feel a bit hurt but I wouldn't suggest that it should be a criminal offence. Beat the **** out of me for being Irish that's another matter.

For me, what John Terry said was wrong and he should have been reprimanded by Chelsea first and foremost, but I don't see how it can be a criminal offence. He did nothing other than utter one stupid remark to one individual, it's not like he incited hatred against all black people.

The fact that you see homophobic and racist abuse as a "victimless crime" is deeply worrying. The number of teen suicides directly resulting from this sort of verbal abuse would suggest otherwise

machiavellianme

aidan24326 wrote: »

If I saw someone breaking into my neighbour's house then yes I'd report it. But if I saw some guy calling another guy a black c**t? Or a gay c**t or a French c**t or any other kind of c**t? No. Because it's a victimless crime. Nobody got hurt. Call me a thick Paddy fcuk? I may feel a bit hurt but I wouldn't suggest that it should be a criminal offence. Beat the **** out of me for being Irish that's another matter.

For me, what John Terry said was wrong and he should have been reprimanded by Chelsea first and foremost, but I don't see how it can be a criminal offence. He did nothing other than utter one stupid remark to one individual, it's not like he incited hatred against all black people.

The law is not an a la carte menu. You don't get to pick and choose what you think is right. Its there to protect as many people as possible and if someone breaks a law, they are liable to suffer any consequences. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Also, just because some people have thicker skins than others doesn't make racial slurs any more tolerable. As mentioned on the old Suarez thread, there is no sliding scale of racism. What one finds offensive may be only a minor slag to another. Doesn't make it any less wrong.

aidan24326

ceegee wrote: »

The fact that you see homophobic and racist abuse as a "victimless crime" is deeply worrying. The number of teen suicides directly resulting from this sort of verbal abuse would suggest otherwise

That you should use terms like 'deeply worrying' is part of the problem. People are just a little too easily offended these days.

I've said repeatedly that I don't condone outright racism at all and it isn't something I would take lightly. But this thread is about John Terry making one stupid remark to a player who had goaded him, not about the wider issue of racism in general. And yes a direct insult to one individual, racist or not, is a victimless crime. If poor Anton had his feelings hurt then maybe he needs thicker skin.

The issue you raised with teen suicide is going off into territory that's outiside of this thread.

I reiterate that I think what John Terry did is wrong and he should have been reprimanded but he shouldn't be in court charged with a criminal offence.

That_Guy

Question...

If Terry only gets a fine for racial abuse then why do people on Twitter go to jail for the same thing?

One rule for some.....

eagle eye

ceegee wrote: »

The fact that you see homophobic and racist abuse as a "victimless crime" is deeply worrying. The number of teen suicides directly resulting from this sort of verbal abuse would suggest otherwise

Is there is a high suicide rate attached to racial slurs?

Beefy78

That_Guy wrote: »

Question...

If Terry only gets a fine for racial abuse then why do people on Twitter go to jail for the same thing?

One rule for some.....

Actually it's many different rules for all, and two very different laws which have been broken in the two different cases you're talking about.

That_Guy

Beefy78 wrote: »

Actually it's many different rules for all, and two very different laws which have been broken in the two different cases you're talking about.

Aye. I asked the question and I've been told that that Liam Stacey case was because he was inciting racial hatred and not racial abuse. Fine lines.

Beefy78

That_Guy wrote: »

Aye. I asked the question and I've been told that that Liam Stacey case was because he was inciting racial hatred and not racial abuse. Fine lines.

Very fine lines. This is a real Mickey Mouse charge which Terry has been brought up on but realistically if he was a bloke in a High Street somewhere committing this crime I doubt it would have gone this far.

niallo27

ceegee wrote: »

The fact that you see homophobic and racist abuse as a "victimless crime" is deeply worrying. The number of teen suicides directly resulting from this sort of verbal abuse would suggest otherwise

You can't go bringing teen suicides into this, that is caused by constant unprovoked attacks on people, Terry reacted to a situation in a stupid way but this is being blown way out of proportion. There are far more disturbing and malicious things happening in this world that get no press and are just glossed over.

elefant

Out of curiosity, am I the only one who wouldn't find being called a 'Paddy' offensive?

Felexicon

niallo27 wrote: »

You can't go bringing teen suicides into this, that is caused by constant unprovoked attacks on people, Terry reacted to a situation in a stupid way but this is being blown way out of proportion. There are far more disturbing and malicious things happening in this world that get no press and are just glossed over.

Not always. There are a huge number of circumstances that can lead to teen suicide, not just consistant bullying.

ceegee

niallo27 wrote: »

ceegee wrote: »

The fact that you see homophobic and racist abuse as a "victimless crime" is deeply worrying. The number of teen suicides directly resulting from this sort of verbal abuse would suggest otherwise

You can't go bringing teen suicides into
this, that is caused by constant unprovoked attacks on people, Terry reacted to a situation in a stupid way but this is being blown way out of proportion. There are far more disturbing and malicious things happening in this world that get no press and are just glossed over.

He is a high profile person caught on camera racially abusing someone. If the police didnt follow up on this it would provide justification for every stormfront scrote around the country who abuses people for being different. The police need to have a zero tolerance approach to these issues and while there are other far worse cases every week, this case had both eye witnesses and tv footage, which most cases dont

elefant

elefant wrote: »

Out of curiosity, am I the only one who wouldn't find being called a 'Paddy' offensive?

All about context.

"You're not getting this job you stupid Paddy bástard" - Offensive


"Bend me over and take me from behind you dirty little Paddy" - not so much.

K-9

aidan24326 wrote: »

If I saw someone breaking into my neighbour's house then yes I'd report it. But if I saw some guy calling another guy a black c**t? Or a gay c**t or a French c**t or any other kind of c**t? No. Because it's a victimless crime. Nobody got hurt. Call me a thick Paddy fcuk? I may feel a bit hurt but I wouldn't suggest that it should be a criminal offence. Beat the **** out of me for being Irish that's another matter.

For me, what John Terry said was wrong and he should have been reprimanded by Chelsea first and foremost, but I don't see how it can be a criminal offence. He did nothing other than utter one stupid remark to one individual, it's not like he incited hatred against all black people.

And you are free not to take a case if you feel that way, the law doesn't force you to, it is there for people who do feel they were racially abused.

Knex*

Do people think it would be much worse for JT to call Anton Ferdinand a black cnut in the heat of an argument than for him, to say, call Paul Scholes a ginger cnut?

I do not believe JT is racist, yes he's not a likeable fella, but I don't think he's a racist. Unfortunately, for both players, he said something racist in the heat of the moment. However, I do not feel its something that he should be up in court for as in all fairness, in the wider perpsective of racism, or any crime really, its an almost trivial matter.

I know people are going to jump down my throat and say that I am not taking racism seriously, but that's not true at all. JT didn't act out racial prejudice IMO. Calling someone a ginger cnut is as bad as calling someone a black cnut in my eyes and it all boils down to context. In this regard, I don't think Terry was saying it out of racial hatred and so should not be in a criminal court because of it.

Ashbourne hoop

Knex. wrote: »

Do people think it would be much worse for JT to call Anton Ferdinand a black cnut in the heat of an argument than for him, to say, call Paul Scholes a ginger cnut?

I do not believe JT is racist, yes he's not a likeable fella, but I don't think he's a racist. Unfortunately, for both players, he said something racist in the heat of the moment. However, I do not feel its something that he should be up in court for as in all fairness, in the wider perpsective of racism, or any crime really, its an almost trivial matter.

I know people are going to jump down my throat and say that I am not taking racism seriously, but that's not true at all. JT didn't act out racial prejudice IMO. Calling someone a ginger cnut is as bad as calling someone a black cnut in my eyes and it all boils down to context. In this regard, I don't think Terry was saying it out of racial hatred and so should not be in a criminal court because of it.

How in the name of jaysus did you come up with that? There is no race of ginger people. John Terry is charged with a racially aggravated public order offence not being a racist, which he may or may not be, and this case will neither prove or disprove that. He will either be found guilty or not guilty of racial abuse. As I've said in other posts the heat of the moment excuse is a poor one.

That_Guy

rarnes1 wrote: »

"Bend me over and take me from behind you dirty little Paddy" - not so much.

Who the fook said that to you? :pac:

niallo27

ceegee wrote: »

He is a high profile person caught on camera racially abusing someone. If the police didnt follow up on this it would provide justification for every stormfront scrote around the country who abuses people for being different. The police need to have a zero tolerance approach to these issues and while there are other far worse cases every week, this case had both eye witnesses and tv footage, which most cases dont

I just think there more important things that I wish police had zero tolerance before this, i see what Terry did as very far down the list of serious offences but it's not been portrayed this way.

aidan24326

I don't think anyone has suggested that 'heat of the moment' is an excuse, but any guy that's played football (or hurling, rugby etc) knows that emotions do run high and occasionally things do happen and lads say and do things that perhaps they wouldn't in a different context.

That_Guy

That_Guy wrote: »

Who the fook said that to you? :pac:

Figure of speech

hadepsx

so if found guilty, all he'll get is a fine of e2500. wtf

LuckyLloyd

hadepsx wrote: »

so if found guilty, all he'll get is a fine of e2500. wtf

What would you consider an appropriate punishment for an offence of this magnitude?

hadepsx

well considering he's such a public figure, alot more of a fine than e2500, then the FA to make an example of him,fine +/or long ban, to stop this type of abuse.

aidan24326

hadepsx wrote: »

so if found guilty, all he'll get is a fine of e2500. wtf

The real punishment comes in the form of being branded a racist and having that splashed all over the tabloids and all the crap that goes with that. The fine will be of no consequence to someone of his wealth. Nothing the judge can do about that though, he can't fine him extra just because he's rich and famous.

Pro. F

aidan24326 wrote: »

The Ferdinands are not even black ffs!!! I don't condone racism, but what Terry allegedly said is the type of stupid thing that can easily come out in the heat of the moment. It doesn't make him an outright racist.

You don't understand how racism works. If somebody is in any way visibly black then they will be open to racial abuse from racists. It's illogical bollocks yes, but that is because racism is illogical bollocks.

Why is there such a desperate need from people like you to state that Terry isn't a racist? He acted in a racist way. Proving whether he is a racist or not would be next to impossible. And as far as I know it's not even a crime to be racist, only to act in a racist way, which he did. Punishing him for that won't lesson the condemnation or punishment of worse race crimes, like physically violent race crimes.

aidan24326 wrote: »

The point you're all missing is that the fact he said 'black' **** is clouding the whole thing. Wrong to bring a person's colour into of course and Terry deserves whatver punishment he gets (once he's not scapegoated). But if someone called me an Irish c*nt? a thick Paddy? An arse-bandit? (were I gay) would I be taking them to court? Surely not. I wouldn't like it but I'd have little access to court protection.

You would have complete access to court protection. All those forms of abuse are against the law for the same reason that calling someone a ''black cúnt'' is against the law.

The fact is if you are born a male, white heterosexual in this part of the world you are far less likely to be discriminated against or abused based on your race, colour or sexual orientation. So of course it's natural that cases of racial abuse against black people come into the public eye more often and cause more of a stir than cases of racial abuse against white people.

Obviously there is still a lot of discrimination and abuse against black people in England and an incredible history of it. So when a footballer decides to call somebody a black cúnt the law is used to punish him, because if it is seen that nothing is done about it then the chances of removing racial discrimination and abuse from society wouldn't be very good.

aidan24326 wrote: »

And like I said in a previous post this cheapens the real issue of racial hatred by making a big deal out of nothing. Real racial hatred does exist and is far removed from this.

No it does not cheapen the real issue. You are just looking for an excuse to dismiss racial abuse because you don't see it as a big deal.

If somebody takes somebody to court for verbal threats does that cheapen physical violence? If somebody takes somebody to court for murder does that cheapen genocide? The fact is, unlike what you are trying to portray, the vast majority of society are perfectly able to appreciate variation and degrees of harm. So if somebody is convicted of racial abuse and gets a £2,500 fine it will not cause any lessoning in the slightest of societies condemnation and punishment of racial violence. You are trying to portray a problem that isn't there.

aidan24326 wrote: »

And yes a direct insult to one individual, racist or not, is a victimless crime. If poor Anton had his feelings hurt then maybe he needs thicker skin.

Your views are truly disgusting. Have you ever been in a racial minority where you lived?

hadepsx

hadepsx wrote: »

so if found guilty, all he'll get is a fine of e2500. wtf

It's the FA punishment, if any, that will be interesting

hadepsx

should be indeed. hope they act, they need to stamp this sh-t out

LuckyLloyd

hadepsx wrote: »

well considering he's such a public figure, alot more of a fine than e2500, then the FA to make an example of him,fine +/or long ban, to stop this type of abuse.

So harsher sentencing if a person can be deemed a public figure?

No - one seems brave enough to admit the pointlessness of a case like this; no law or criminal conviction can defeat racism. It's a problem far, far more complex than that.

Pro. F

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

No - one seems brave enough to admit the pointlessness of a case like this; no law or criminal conviction can defeat racism. It's a problem far, far more complex than that.

Has the outlawing and punishment of racist abuse in football grounds not led to less racial abuse in football grounds? And the same applies to the workplace, public areas and the wider society. The law will never defeat racism, but at least it prevents us having to tolerate it in the environments we all have to share.

I'm the last person to say that laws solve all problems, but the argument that racial abuse should be accepted has nothing to support it and is based on nothing other than right wing scaremongering.

Knex*

Pro. F wrote: »

Has the outlawing and punishment of racist abuse in football grounds not led to less racial abuse in football grounds? And the same applies to the workplace, public areas and the wider society. The law will never defeat racism, but at least it prevents us having to tolerate it in the environments we all have to share.

I'm the last person to say that laws solve all problems, but the argument that racial abuse should be accepted has nothing to support it and is based on nothing other than right wing scaremongering.

That's not what he said at all. The issue is bringing it to the courts, for a case such as this its almost pointless. Should have been dealt with by Chelsea/The FA or whatever, and shown to not be accepted in that medium.

smileyj1987

aidan24326 wrote: »

The real punishment comes in the form of being branded a racist and having that splashed all over the tabloids and all the crap that goes with that. The fine will be of no consequence to someone of his wealth. Nothing the judge can do about that though, he can't fine him extra just because he's rich and famous.

Also the FA come into play here too they will have to give him a fairly lengthy if he is found guilty . I would say it has to be a 12 or more game ban and also UEFA might also decided to act and ban him from European football . But I can't see UEFA having the power to ban him but I could be wrong .

Caveman1

Everyone seems to think he'll be found guilty but was just wondering if he is found not guilty how much of an affect will it have on his commercial value and that, I can't really see him being chosen to endorse any products because of this case. Not that he needs the money but this has totally discredited him now (even though he's already hated by most)

Owen_S

Pro. F wrote: »

The fact is if you are born a male, white heterosexual in this part of the world you are far less likely to be discriminated against or abused based on your race, colour or sexual orientation. So of course it's natural that cases of racial abuse against black people come into the public eye more often and cause more of a stir than cases of racial abuse against white people.

Actually I think you will find it's almost the complete opposite these days in the media, as white heterosexual males are basically the only group that is regularly discriminated against in society and media without any repercussions.

Red Crow

The way the media report crimes against white people from different races particularly in the USA and the UK is wrong. It's very hard to brand a black person a racist but calling a white person a racist is easy.

I don't like John Terry one bit. I think he is a terrible person, a bad professional, a cheat and past it as a top level professional. However, he is being made an example of here. Had this crime happened anywhere else, to anybody else, it would be deemed as nothing and would be likely to be struck out of court or settled with a small fine etc. But, becuase he is a well paid, white male and a professional footballer he is likely to be made an example of. Of course, two wrongs don't make a right. Just becuase racist crimes against white people aren't a 'problem of society'; they don't exist in the eyes of the media. But that doesn't mean Mr. Terry shouldn't be prosecuted. He should.

I imagine 'JT - Captain, leader, hero' has gotten away with far worse on a football field. I think he finely encompasses everything wrong with a 'traditional' center half who kick legs before the football.

willowthewisp

Eli Manning wrote: »

The way the media report crimes against white people from different races particularly in the USA and the UK is wrong. It's very hard to brand a black person a racist but calling a white person a racist is easy.

I don't like John Terry one bit. I think he is a terrible person, a bad professional, a cheat and past it as a top level professional. However, he is being made an example of here. Had this crime happened anywhere else, to anybody else, it would be deemed as nothing and would be likely to be struck out of court or settled with a small fine etc. But, becuase he is a well paid, white male and a professional footballer he is likely to be made an example of. Of course, two wrongs don't make a right. Just becuase racist crimes against white people aren't a 'problem of society'; they don't exist in the eyes of the media. But that doesn't mean Mr. Terry shouldn't be prosecuted. He should.

I imagine 'JT - Captain, leader, hero' has gotten away with far worse on a football field. I think he finely encompasses everything wrong with a 'traditional' center half who kick legs before the football.

I disagree , Luis Suarez got hung drawn and quartered for arguably a less obvious offence offence (due to the language ambiguity).

Sir Gallagher

Owen_S wrote: »

Actually I think you will find it's almost the complete opposite these days in the media, as white heterosexual males are basically the only group that is regularly discriminated against in society and media without any repercussions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE

Pro. F

Knex. wrote: »

That's not what he said at all.

He said that the law and a possible criminal conviction was pointless in a case like this. So the implication is that, in the legal context, racial abuse should be just accepted and not punished.

There have been variations on the theme of acceptance of racial abuse throughout this thread. From people like Lloyd who say it's pointless having laws against racist abuse for cases like this, to people like you who say that it is an ''almost trivial matter'' and on to people like aidan24326 who say Ferdinand just needs thicker skin and Eagle Eye who says there shouldn't be any repercussions for racial abuse on the pitch.

It's all getting at the same thing. Ye are expressing the opinion that the wider society aren't accepting enough of racial abuse.

Knex. wrote: »

The issue is bringing it to the courts, for a case such as this its almost pointless. Should have been dealt with by Chelsea/The FA or whatever, and shown to not be accepted in that medium.

And what if Chelsea and the FA did nothing about it? The reason the law against racial, sexual, gender and religious discrimination was brought in in the first place was because private organisations never did enough, and so discrimination and abuse were rife, especially in places like football grounds.

RGDATA!

Owen_S wrote: »

Actually I think you will find it's almost the complete opposite these days in the media, as white heterosexual males are basically the only group that is regularly discriminated against in society and media without any repercussions.

Yet, as a white heterosexual male, I have never felt discriminated against by society/media for my whiteness or heterosexualness. Just lucky I guess.
How have you been discriminated against?

Caveman1

Caveman1 wrote: »

Everyone seems to think he'll be found guilty but was just wondering if he is found not guilty how much of an affect will it have on his commercial value and that, I can't really see him being chosen to endorse any products because of this case. Not that he needs the money but this has totally discredited him now (even though he's already hated by most)

More the opposite I'd have thought?

niallo27

RGDATA! wrote: »

Yet, as a white heterosexual male, I have never felt discriminated against by society/media for my whiteness or heterosexualness. Just lucky I guess.
How have you been discriminated against?

What part of society or the media discriminates against black or homosexual people, people are afraid to say boo to them in case they are pulled for it, you can't even call a black man black on tv these days.

K-9

It's the turn of "the poor, oppressed, white working class, you can't call a blackman black" part of the debate.

Owen_S

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE

Opinion on political correctness from a man who makes fun of people with brain injuries :rolleyes:

The media are swarming over Ferdinand's comments on Twitter
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/john-terry-rio-ferdinand-tweets-1137602

Should he be found guilty, apart from the maximum fine of £2500, what is the most severe punishment that the FA could sanction on Terry?

niallo27

It is comical the way the media are portraying Terry their hero in comparison to the dirty foreigner Suarez.