John Terry verdict

LiamoSail

Thrill wrote: »

[

There's no proof that he made any racist remarks. If there were proof it would have been shown in court.

He was found guilty of breaking fa rules, not the law. They don't care whether what he said was illegal or not, just whether on the balance of probabilities, it broke their rules

Why should John terry be tried with breaking fa rules on beyond reasonable doubt when every other player is tried on balance of probabilities?

Him being found not guilty by the court is irrelevant IMO. There's plenty you can get banned for on a pitch that in terms of the law of the land, is not illegal. Rooney swearing into the camera Being a prime example. Comparing the two terry cases is akin to suggesting Rooney shouldn't have been banned as what he did didn't break the law of the land

Sure Suarez would have been not guilty in a court of law as well.

It would have been laughed out of court.

PhlegmyMoses

Thrill wrote: »

There's no proof that he made any racist remarks. If there were proof it would have been shown in court.

They found him guilty, not on proof, but on the balance of probability.

Er, "balance of probability" still requires proof. Just not as much as "beyond reasonable doubt".

The FA have concluded that Terry probably did say what he was accused of.

el dude

rarnes1 wrote: »

Sure Suarez would have been not guilty in a court of law as well.

It would have been laughed out of court.

Indeed, if only someone had made a complaint to the police. But then even Evra wasn't offended with what Luis said, was just looking to stir things.

PhlegmyMoses

el dude wrote: »

Indeed, if only someone had made a complaint to the police. But then even Evra wasn't offended with what Luis said, was just looking to stir things.

Based on?

bucketybuck

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

why, what other question have i ignored?

He should sue for defamation of character as he has already been found not guilty by a court of law, being put under undue stress for having to go through the whole thing again, and just everything conencted with the farce that is the FA

If he wants to continue to play professional football in England then he will have to accept that he is subject to the rules and regulations of the governing body that he supposedly pays membership dues for.

If they wish to use the balance of probability to decide on matters pertaining to their own rules and regulations they have every right to do so. If John Terry has a problem with that he is quite welcome to cease being a member.

He won't do that of course. Can't sleep with your team mates wives if you don't have any teammates.

Pro. F

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

why, what other question have i ignored?

Here you go:

Des wrote: »

What is "the truth" then?

LiamoSail

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

[
He should sue for defamation of character

Did I miss the part in which he was labeled an honest, moral, intelligent, hansom, pacey, non-racist guy, full of regard for his wife, teammates and fellow professionals?

Blue Shamrock

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/the-john-terry-racism-verdict-is-not-1347187

Don't always agree with him but think he sums up reaction to verdict pretty well

NukaCola

The FA are ****ing hilarious.......

Sgt Pepper 64

LiamoSail wrote: »

Did I miss the part in which he was labeled an honest, moral, intelligent, hansom, pacey, non-racist guy, full of regard for his wife, teammates and fellow professionals?

So you believe the papers over these guys?

Or is it alright for Giggs and numerous other internationals

The four-man panel has heard evidence from both Terry and Anton Ferdinand, as well as supportive testimony from Ashley Cole, Ray Wilkins, Fabio Capello and his assistant when he was England manager, Franco Baldini.

Both Italians provided character references for the former England captain.

bucketybuck

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

So you believe the papers over these guys?

Or is it alright for Giggs and numerous other internationals

The four-man panel has heard evidence from both Terry and Anton Ferdinand, as well as supportive testimony from Ashley Cole, Ray Wilkins, Fabio Capello and his assistant when he was England manager, Franco Baldini.

Both Italians provided character references for the former England captain.

Wonder if they asked Wayne Bridge?

Sgt Pepper 64

bucketybuck wrote: »

Wonder if they asked Wayne Bridge?

Again, denied by the lady in question but thats not the answer you or the knockers want to hear!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/vanessa-perroncel-denies-john-terry-240861

"I denied that from the start but people didn't want to hear. I've never said, 'Oh yes, I've had an affair with John Terry,' I said, 'No, he was my friend."'
Asked if Terry's wife Toni Poole believed her, she replied: "Yes, I believe she did, yes."

The_Kew_Tour

Thrill wrote: »

What he is accused of saying.

Listen. What he said was racist remark. No accusation about it when you dont even need black and white instead its on colour.

Terry has nobody to blame but his stupid mouth.

niallo27

I know it's been done before but is calling someone a black **** that bad when your getting dogs abuse about your family, I don't like terry but is what he did that bad compared with calling someone an Irish or south amercian prick or talking about riding your sister or your mother. I'm talking about just the word black here, I mean is it that hurtful to black people who never known any sufferings.

Thrill

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Listen. What he said was racist remark.

He was found not guilty in a court of law.

The_Kew_Tour

Thrill wrote: »

He was found not guilty in a court of law.

so was OJ.

The_Kew_Tour

niallo27 wrote: »

I know it's been done before but is calling someone a black **** that bad when your getting dogs abuse about your family, I don't like terry but is what he did that bad compared with calling someone an Irish or south amercian prick or talking about riding your sister or your mother. I'm talking about just the word black here, I mean is it that hurtful to black people who never known any sufferings.

Good point and I think some players use it to their advantage. But, its still stupid for Terry to do what he did knowing what could(and did) happen.

Pro. F

niallo27 wrote: »

I know it's been done before but is calling someone a black **** that bad when your getting dogs abuse about your family, I don't like terry but is what he did that bad compared with calling someone an Irish or south amercian prick or talking about riding your sister or your mother. I'm talking about just the word black here, I mean is it that hurtful to black people who never known any sufferings.

You have already been furnished with answers to this question before, but since you weren't able to understand them last time you are hardly going to be able to now.

niallo27

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Good point and I think some players use it to their advantage. But, its still stupid for Terry to do what he did knowing what could(and did) happen.

Someone was saying on the radio when it happened that the only word out of Terry's comment they could print was "black", the very word he is been charged for using. I think the fact there is such a stigma around using the word is actually making people think there is a difference between black and white people, if this makes sense to people.

Leiva

Blue Shamrock wrote: »

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/the-john-terry-racism-verdict-is-not-1347187

Don't always agree with him but think he sums up reaction to verdict pretty well

The Mirror can fück right off.

So it's all pampering and facts for JT but a "RACIST" headline for Suarez.
Give me a break.

Suarez should have dragged them through the high court for that headline.

Pro. F

@ Sgt Pepper:

Why are you still not answering the question from Des?

niallo27

Pro. F wrote: »

You have already been furnished with answers to this question before, but since you weren't able to understand them last time you are hardly going to be able to now.

I wasn't satisfied with your words of wisdom back then.

The_Kew_Tour

niallo27 wrote: »

Someone was saying on the radio when it happened that the only word out of Terry's comment they could print was "black", the very word he is been charged for using. I think the fact there is such a stigma around using the word is actually making people think there is a difference between black and white people, if this makes sense to people.

Yes I agree with you on that.

It was good point your last post. It came up in GAA thread too couple months ago about Racial abuse in club game and they were saying why does same not apply to when somebody is called a "Paddy" or "White (something)" and so on.

Pro. F

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Yes I agree with you on that.

It was good point your last post. It came up in GAA thread too couple months ago about Racial abuse in club game and they were saying why does same not apply to when somebody is called a "Paddy" or "White (something)" and so on.

The same thing does apply under the FA rules. Also under UK law.

Thrill

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

so was OJ.

You want to believe Terrys guilty. Me, I wasn't there so I don't know either way.

I'm not going to let my dislike of Terry, and I do dislike him, a lot, cloud the fact that he was found not guilty in court.

While the F.A. may say that on the balance of probabilities he did say it, if there is a chance that he did not, and there is that chance, then that is what I will go by.

Pro. F

niallo27 wrote: »

I wasn't satisfied with your words of wisdom back then.

You also got a yellow for persistently pretending you couldn't understand even the simplest of statements. We all know that you refuse to discuss this topic honestly.

The_Kew_Tour

Thrill wrote: »

You want to believe Terrys guilty. Me, I wasn't there so I don't know either way.

I'm not going to let my dislike of Terry, and I do dislike him, a lot, cloud the fact that he was found not guilty in court.

While the F.A. may say that on the balance of probabilities he did say it, if there is a chance that he did not, and there is that chance, then that is what I will go by.

Its not of a "want" to believe it. It was shown on TV. Dont need major lip reading skills.

niallo27

Pro. F wrote: »

The same thing does apply under the FA rules. Also under UK law.

Why aren't these rules applied so by the F.A.

The_Kew_Tour

Pro. F wrote: »

The same thing does apply under the FA rules. Also under UK law.

Sure does, but its seems more acceptable in UK Society to put up with it.

Pity though.

Pro. F

niallo27 wrote: »

Why aren't these rules applied so by the F.A.

What makes you say that they are not?

niallo27

Pro. F wrote: »

What makes you say that they are not?

Wasn't it in the report that Evra referred to Suarez as a south Amercian prick.

Pro. F

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Sure does, but its seems more acceptable in UK Society to put up with it.

Pity though.

It's down to the choice of individuals how they respond to race/nationality based abuse. It's hardly surprising that minorities would feel more effected by discriminatory language and try to stop it happening.

Sgt Pepper 64

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Its not of a "want" to believe it. It was shown on TV. Dont need major lip reading skills.

Read my lips.....youre a complete ...:p

Pro. F

niallo27 wrote: »

Wasn't it in the report that Evra referred to Suarez as a south Amercian prick.

I think so but Suarez didn't make a complaint.

Sgt Pepper 64

Joey Barton lashes out at laughable ban for Terry!

Brilliant!

niallo27

Pro. F wrote: »

I think so but Suarez didn't make a complaint.

That shouldn't matter though, if he admitted to saying it and it's in the report, he should have been charged IMO.

PhlegmyMoses

LOL at the defamation of character nonsense. OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law under reasonable doubt but was sued for $30m in the civil court (balance of probabilities) and lost. People are regularly found guilty in one court but not guilty in the next one up.

Some people will tie themselves in knots to defend people who wouldn't care if you were being sentenced to death in a banana republic for stealing a potato. Terry is probably not the nicest fellow in real life. It's okay to admit this and still be a Chelsea supporter. Same goes for Suarez, Rooney or any other player who has a tendency to act the bollocks.

Your Airbag

Maybe if Terry gave the FA a bit of a laugh like he did the courtroom he woud have got off.

The moment of misunderstanding in the trial arose when Terry was asked to repeat the evidence that he had been sent off four times in his career, so the court could hear him.

“Can you say, please, four times?” asked his QC, George Carter-Stephenson.

“Please, please, please, please,” Terry responded.

Huge laughter broke out around the courtroom.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/9395243/John-Terry-racism-trial-Chelsea-captain-only-too-pleased-to-follow-orders-in-courtroom-gaffe.html

Thrill

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Its not of a "want" to believe it. It was shown on TV. Dont need major lip reading skills.

In the judges summation he states....

"Even with all the help the court has received from television footage, expert lip readers, witnesses and indeed counsel, it is impossible to be sure exactly what were the words spoken by Mr Terry at the relevant time.

Also

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

So you see, no-one knows what was said. Just what Ferdinand and Terry claim was said.


EDIT: I'm not a Chelsea fan btw.
.

val_jester

niallo27 wrote: »

That shouldn't matter though, if he admitted to saying it and it's in the report, he should have been charged IMO.

But he didn't admit to say it, nor was there anything in the report about Evra calling Suarez a 'prick.'


Just like in the Suarez case, Terry has not been found guilty of being a racist, or racism. The charge Terry faced is to do with abusive language. The FA works on the balance of probabilities which is a much lower standard of proof than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' than the courts work on.

PhlegmyMoses

Thrill wrote: »

In the judges summation he states....




Also



So you see, no-one knows what was said. Just what Rio and Terry claim was said.

Er, we do know what was said. We know that Terry definitely used the words "****ing black ****" because he admitted to it. It's how he used the words that was the sticking point. The FA have decided that his addendum of "I didn't call you a...." didn't seem legit.

Pro. F

niallo27 wrote: »

That shouldn't matter though, if he admitted to saying it and it's in the report, he should have been charged IMO.

Yeah I agree. I thought that they might not have done anything for some technical loop-hole reason like needing a formal complaint before they could prosecute. But if that was the case, it would be an unjust way of doing things. I completely agree with that sentiment.

I went and checked the report. The truth is that the FA did not find that Evra had said anything like that:

364. We found that Mr Evra did not use the words "South American" when speaking to Mr Suarez

link

gary nevillevil

Terry is english,
That is all.

Thrill

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Er, we do know what was said. We know that Terry definitely used the words "****ing black ****" because he admitted to it. It's how he used the words that was the sticking point. The FA have decided that his addendum of ..."I didn't call you a." didn't seem legit.

Er, we do not know what was said, only what the players claim was said.

Terry claims he said "I didn't call you a..."

Ferdinand claims otherwise.

No-one knows for certain.


When it comes to the F.A., it doesn't matter if there's a chance that you're innocent, it's more a chance that you probably did what you're accused of.

Always number 1

Thrill wrote: »

Er, we do not know what was said, only what the players claim was said.

Terry claims he said "I didn't call you a..."

Ferdinand claims otherwise.

No-one knows for certain.


When it comes to the F.A., it doesn't matter if there's a chance that you're innocent, it's more a chance that you probably did what you're accused of.

I thought Ferdinand only became aware of it when his girlfriend pointed it out to him on TV that evening?

PhlegmyMoses

Thrill wrote: »

When it comes to the F.A., it doesn't matter if there's a chance that you're innocent, it's more a chance that you probably did what you're accused of.

Which they are perfectly entitled to do within the course of their investigation. I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you just annoyed that you'll be missing Terry for a while? Or is it that you don't think that "Balance of Probabilities", a legal function that has resulted in people being sued for huge amounts of money, should be used to fine a player a week's wages and suspend him for a few games? If it's the latter then all of your work is ahead of you to provide an argument as to why it shouldn't be used as it is a function that is used without opposition in far more important situations than this.

bucketybuck

niallo27 wrote: »

Why aren't these rules applied so by the F.A.

The FA is a private club, with members and its own regulations. It can apply whatever rules it wishes.

Its strange how this fact seems to escape so many people.

monkey9

I'm assuming tomorrow's back page of The Mirror will have a picture of John Terry with the headline RACIST!!!

Just An Opinion

monkey9 wrote: »

I'm assuming tomorrow's back page of The Mirror will have a picture of John Terry with the headline RACIST!!!

Probably a headline of "Only a bit racist"