John Terry verdict

PhlegmyMoses

Just An Opinion wrote: »

Probably a headline of "Only a bit racist"

RACIST*

*but not as racist as Suarez

Thrill

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

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.

I've stated in earlier posts that I'm not a Chelsea fan and also about my dislike of Terry.

My point was in relation to an earlier post about actual proof of what was said. There is none.

Just An Opinion

Obviously the English tabloids won't go to town on Terry, like when Henry was splashed across the front page of the Herald here with 'CHEAT' the headline. Had it been Robbie Keane with that 'goal' would the same damning headline have surfaced? Bias exists everywhere none of us are free of it so pointless going on what the tabloids come out with.

PhlegmyMoses

Thrill wrote: »

I've stated in earlier posts that I'm not a Chelsea fan and also about my dislike of Terry.

My point was in relation to an earlier post about actual proof of what was said. There is none.

There is enough proof for an independent body of people who hold no ill-will towards John Terry or Chelsea football club to find him guilty, on balance of probabilities, of making a racist remark towards Anton Ferdinand. We have video evidence of Terry clearly saying what he was accused of. Terry admitted to saying it but added a few things that made it sound better. If there is no proof, why have they banned him? Conspiracy?

mags1962

More than a 99% successful conviction rate for the FA so on the balance of probabilities they are always right, what is the point of any hearing.
What a complete joke they are, oh and Suarez is not a racist even the FA say it in their report. I wonder if all the media will be so quick to condemn Terry as they were Suarez, but maybe not as he is English and white, bloody racists.

Thrill

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

There is enough proof for an independent body of people who hold no ill-will towards John Terry or Chelsea football club to find him guilty, on balance of probabilities, of making a racist remark towards Anton Ferdinand. We have video evidence of Terry clearly saying what he was accused of. Terry admitted to saying it but added a few things that made it sound better. If there is no proof, why have they banned him? Conspiracy?

There is no proof, none whatsoever, that Terry said what Ferdinand claims he said. If such proof existed it would have been presented in court.

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

There is enough proof for an independent body

Given that there is no sound recording or anyone who actually heard the alleged racial slur, I'd like to know what that proof is.

Chucky the tree

Terry admitted he said the words, that's the proof.

willowthewisp

Thrill wrote: »

There is no proof, none whatsoever, that Terry said what Ferdinand claims he said. If such proof existed it would have been presented in court.



Given that there is no sound recording or anyone who actually heard the alleged racial slur, I'd like to know what that proof is.

Ferdinand never said he said anything, complaint was from a member of the public.
And terry admitted using the words because it was clear as day on tv evidence, but came up with a schoolboy reasoning for saying it.

Thrill

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Terry admitted he said the words, that's the proof.

Terry claims he said "I did not call you a f**king black c**t"

willowthewisp

Thrill wrote: »

Terry claims he said "I did not call you a f**king black c**t"

Because he was bang to rights. And it's an unbelievable story for anyone who lives in the real world and not in Narnia.

UglyBolloxFace

In fairness if you watch this video closely, you can clearly make out him saying "yeah yeah..I never called you a black cúnt. Faacking knobhead".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfoaoQImtaI

The FA are a joke - if I can make that out in the video, why can't the FA and their investigators?

(not a Chelsea fan. And definitely not a fan of this serial-wife shagger).

Thrill

willowthewisp wrote: »

Ferdinand never said he said anything, complaint was from a member of the public.
And terry admitted using the words because it was clear as day on tv evidence, but came up with a schoolboy reasoning for saying it.

There is no T.V. evidence to prove what he said. The footage was presented in court and despite using expert lip readers it was not possible to be sure what Terry said.

Chucky the tree

Thrill wrote: »

Terry claims he said "I did not call you a f**king black c**t"

And? There is no proof of the first part though. The FA have a video recording of him saying what looks like the words "****ing black ****" they have Terry admitting he said those words. They have no proof Anton said those words, no proof Terry even said the first few words about "I did not call you.." because as we all know no-one else heard anything.

monkey9

Thrill wrote: »

Terry claims he said "I did not call you a f**king black c**t"

Terry said that they both shook hands in the dressing room after the match and that it was sorted.

Ferdinand has since come out and said at that stage he wasn't aware of any racial accusation. It was only later that night that he first heard of it.

If that's that case, what's Terry mouthing about during the match?

willowthewisp

Thrill wrote: »

There is no T.V. evidence to prove what he said. The footage was presented in court and despite using expert lip readers it was not possible to be sure what Terry said.

Yet Terry felt necessary to admit to his "fairy story"

Thrill

willowthewisp wrote: »

Yet Terry felt necessary to admit to his "fairy story"

How do you know it's a fairy story?

willowthewisp

Thrill wrote: »

How do you know it's a fairy story?

How do you know it's not, on the balance of probability it has been proved that 9 times out of ten when something smells like horse ****, then it probably is horse ****.
In the court of law it couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he said it, but neither would it have been possible to prove he wasn't a racist.
Any sensible person can see that Terry's version of events is ridiculous.

Thanx 4 The Fish

niallo27 wrote: »

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

They are. I was playing in a Sunday league game over here and a guy was sent off for calling me an F***ing Irish tw*t. Ref called racism, and wrote the report as such in to the FA who banned him. He then stopped playing for that team. Did not pay his fine (£100) and went off to play for someone else the next season.

willowthewisp wrote: »

How do you know it's not, on the balance of probability it has been proved that 9 times out of ten when something smells like horse ****, then it probably is horse ****.
In the court of law it couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he said it, but neither would it have been possible to prove he wasn't a racist.
Any sensible person can see that Terry's version of events is ridiculous.

It was not proven in a court of law that he did not say it. It was proven in a court of law that they could not prove that he said it with the intent of being offensive to Anton Ferdinand. He has himself admitted to saying it FFS.

Thrill wrote: »

There is no T.V. evidence to prove what he said. The footage was presented in court and despite using expert lip readers it was not possible to be sure what Terry said.

Perhaps we will just accept that he said it because he said that he did???

That seems like a reasonable place to start from.

willowthewisp

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

It was not proven in a court of law that he did not say it. It was proven in a court of law that they could not prove that he said it with the intent of being offensive to Anton Ferdinand. He has himself admitted to saying it FFS.

Eh.....that's what I said.

Thanx 4 The Fish

I was agreeing with you, just annoyed that people do not get it.

willowthewisp

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

I was agreeing with you, just annoyed that people do not get it.

Soz

Red Crow

The media wanted Suarez's head on a plate. Captain, leader, hero Terry isn't receiving the same attention because he's not one of those pesky foreigners ruining the English game. Only if he done this in an England shirt would he receive criticism near the same level of Suarez.

I don't think his punishment should of been worse than what Luis Suarez got but it shouldn't of been less.

monkey9

Eli Manning wrote: »

The media wanted Suarez's head on a plate. Captain, leader, hero Terry isn't receiving the same attention because he's not one of those pesky foreigners ruining the English game. Only if he done this in an England shirt would he receive criticism near the same level of Suarez.

I don't think his punishment should of been worse than what Luis Suarez got but it shouldn't of been less.

I agree. They should be the same!

Thrill

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Perhaps we will just accept that he said it because he said that he did???

That seems like a reasonable place to start from.

He claims to have said something different to what he is accused of. Theres a big difference between "I didnt call you a f**king black c**t" and "f**king black c**t"

Ones a denial of something and the other is a racial slur.

Sgt Pepper 64

Regardless of personal feelings, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty

For the FA and some members of boards, it seems to be the opposite, and with regards to boards, if you are a member of an opposing team, then that counts double, plus the obligatory juvenile snide comments and cheap cracks completely without foundation

monkey9

Thrill wrote: »

He claims to have said something different to what he is accused of. Theres a big difference between "I didnt call you a f**king black c**t" and "f**king black c**t"

Ones a denial of something and the other is a racial slur.

But Ferdinand wasn't aware of any racial overtures until later that night. So, in that case, what was Terry responding to?

MD1990

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Regardless of personal feelings, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty

For the FA and some members of boards, it seems to be the opposite, and with regards to boards, if you are a member of an opposing team, then that counts double, plus the obligatory juvenile snide comments and cheap cracks completely without foundation

well maybe because he called Anton Ferdinand a black **** is why ppl think he is guilty lol

Thanx 4 The Fish

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Regardless of personal feelings, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty

For the FA and some members of boards, it seems to be the opposite, and with regards to boards, if you are a member of an opposing team, then that counts double, plus the obligatory juvenile snide comments and cheap cracks completely without foundation

But he has been found guilty and you are still defending him. So in this case he is innocent until found guilty when you will still protest his innocence...

Thrill

monkey9 wrote: »

But Ferdinand wasn't aware of any racial overtures until later that night. So, in that case, what was Terry responding to?

He claims he was accused by Ferdinand of calling him that on the pitch.

monkey9

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Regardless of personal feelings, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty

For the FA and some members of boards, it seems to be the opposite, and with regards to boards, if you are a member of an opposing team, then that counts double, plus the obligatory juvenile snide comments and cheap cracks completely without foundation

You're defending Terry because he plays for the club you support. That is the one and only reason you defend Terry. So shut up with the juvenile remarks. Debate by all means, but you using the word juvenile seems be because you were born in 64. That fact makes your posts more ridiculous!

Thanx 4 The Fish

Thrill wrote: »

He claims to have said something different to what he is accused of. Theres a big difference between "I didnt call you a f**king black c**t" and "f**king black c**t"

Ones a denial of something and the other is a racial slur.

So on the balance of probabilities, someone who did not know that he was supposed to have said something until later that night. Who maintained that he had no idea what was said and so should really have had trouble eliciting a response to something it was claimed he said (there is no evidence that Ferdinand said anything of the sort) and nobody heard him say. There is evidence of what Terry said. Strangely there is no evidence of what he did not say or at least what he claims he said but also nobody heard him say.

His defence worked in court because there was reasonable doubt. He was walked across at the point in the coverage that may show him saying "I did not". Handy lie or not on the balance of probabilities bearing in mind that Ferdinand had no clue that Terry even said that, he has been found guilty. Not the same as beyond reasonable doubt, where he only had to introduce doubt and he is free and clear.

monkey9

Thrill wrote: »

He claims he was accused by Ferdinand of calling him that on the pitch.

But this is what i'm saying. Ferdinand had no idea (or so he says) about any of those words being used on the pitch until later that night. As far as he (Ferdinand) was concerned, they had verbals and Terry and himself shook hands in the dressing room afterwards

It was only later that night that Ferdinand heard that Terry was accused of using racial language and that's when he really got p!ssed off with Terry. So that negates Terry's defence of him responding to Ferdinand's accusations on the pitch of racial abuse.

Sgt Pepper 64

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

But he has been found guilty and you are still defending him. So in this case he is innocent until found guilty when you will still protest his innocence...

He was found NOT guilty by a court of law.
He was found guilty of a different offence by a sporting organisation

chalk and cheese

MuPpItJoCkEy

I feel that if he'd have even have apologised about the whole saga without saying that he did or didn't do it, it still would have been something. He's certainly one for getting himself into the headlines.

Something along the lines of:

"I'm sorry if you think I directed whatever at you and I can see it appeared that way. It was a mistake and I'm sorry it has come to this. Accept my apology and lets get on with football."

I feel that would have done some good. In the Suarez case, he could have done something similar but that's a different story and one that should be put to bed now but still hasn't because of this story.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

He was found NOT guilty by a court of law.
He was found guilty of a different offence by a sporting organisation

chalk and cheese

So he has been found guilty then?

Was Suarez guilty in your view?

Sgt Pepper 64

monkey9 wrote: »

You're defending Terry because he plays for the club you support. That is the one and only reason you defend Terry. So shut up with the juvenile remarks. Debate by all means, but you using the word juvenile seems be because you were born in 64. That fact makes your posts more ridiculous!

really, cop on to yerself, look back at this thread and indeed any match day threads and see the no of juvenile remarks, my age has nothing to do with it.
I'm defending Terry because he hasnt been proven guilty of anything within a court of law, a courtsey that would extended to you and many others thank god its a free country (it isnt - that is mere illusion and another debate)

Sgt Pepper 64

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

So he has been found guilty then?

Was Suarez guilty in your view?

my view matters not - only the elected members of the public court

The court of law

Terry was found not guilty in Westminster Magistrates Court in July of a racially-aggravated public order


The FA

An FA statement said: "An independent regulatory commission has today found a charge of misconduct against John Terry proven and has issued a suspension for a period of four matches and a fine of £220,000, pending appeal."

Thanx 4 The Fish

But you said that it was obvious what he said... Why have you changed your tune?

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Pretty obvious that JT refered to Anton by the colour of his skin.

The arguement seems to be that it was in heat of the moment and that it doesnt make him a racist and that there were no witness's either real or willing to come forward

So one word against another - I expect the matter to be dropped to lack of proof

Pro. F

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

really, cop on to yerself, look back at this thread and indeed any match day threads and see the no of juvenile remarks, my age has nothing to do with it.
I'm defending Terry because he hasnt been proven guilty of anything within a court of law, a courtsey that would extended to you and many others thank god its a free country (it isnt - that is mere illusion and another debate)

The most juvenile remark was from you about Anton Ferdinand. And when you were asked about the remark you ignored the question, on several occasions, even going as far as to pretend that you weren't ignoring any question. That is juvenile behaviour.

monkey9

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

really, cop on to yerself, look back at this thread and indeed any match day threads and see the no of juvenile remarks, my age has nothing to do with it.
I'm defending Terry because he hasnt been proven guilty of anything within a court of law, a courtsey that would extended to you and many others thank god its a free country (it isnt - that is mere illusion and another debate)

This is not a court of law. Suarez's case would have been thrown out from a court of law as well. In fact, there's more chance of Terry being found guilty in a court of law than Suarez because Terry is caught on camera saying the words 'you black c*nt" whereas there is no proof of Suarez saying such towards Evra apart from Evra's words.

PhlegmyMoses

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

really, cop on to yerself, look back at this thread and indeed any match day threads and see the no of juvenile remarks, my age has nothing to do with it.
I'm defending Terry because he hasnt been proven guilty of anything within a court of law, a courtsey that would extended to you and many others thank god its a free country (it isnt - that is mere illusion and another debate)

Please do not try to say that you are defending Terry because you are appalled that people don't respect the fact that he was found innocent in a court. It is 100% because you're a Chelsea fan. Your beliefs and arguments are coloured by this. Everything else is secondary.

For the record, I don't mind Terry at all. Great player a couple of years back and still capable of brilliance. I just don't buy the flimsy excuse and find it a bit galling that people are trying to paint him as some kind of real-life Richard Kimble. It was the one-armed man I tells ya.

Sgt Pepper 64

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

But you said that it was obvious what he said... Why have you changed your tune?

I havent changed my tune - he did refer to him by his colour, but he did it in the way he said - as an exclaimation

wow - you are working hard on this and the old search button!
I'm almost blushing

Sgt Pepper 64

Pro. F wrote: »

The most juvenile remark was from you about Anton Ferdinand. And when you were asked about the remark you ignored the question, on several occasions, even going as far as to pretend that you weren't ignoring any question. That is juvenile behaviour.

youve compeltely lost me

SlickRic

for the love of Christ, this isn't difficult Sgt, at all.

he was found not guilty in a court of law. very true. because in a court of law you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offence occurred. they couldn't prove beyond doubt that he was being racist towards Ferdinand when he said the words "black ********".

with the FA, it's different. they work on probabilities. they believe the evidence points to him probably meaning to be racist.

the Court of Law probably thought Terry was being racist, you do know that don't you? but if there isn't enough evidence to prove that he definitely meant to be racist, then he would never be convicted.

the fact he was found innocent in a court of law means absolutely nothing.

Pro. F

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

youve compeltely lost me

Oh you've gotten confused about this again. For the third time.

Here, again, is the question from Des that you have been avoiding:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=80979615

Sgt Pepper 64

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Please do not try to say that you are defending Terry because you are appalled that people don't respect the fact that he was found innocent in a court. It is 100% because you're a Chelsea fan. Your beliefs and arguments are coloured by this. Everything else is secondary.

For the record, I don't mind Terry at all. Great player a couple of years back and still capable of brilliance. I just don't buy the flimsy excuse and find it a bit galling that people are trying to paint him as some kind of real-life Richard Kimble. It was the one-armed man I tells ya.

Youve no idea what I really think. You can only interpret the words I select to type and indeed, the words I dangle out there.
That is the real internet my friend. Nothing is real and nothing can be taken at face value.
The pretty girl you plan on meeting is really a 200lb hairy gorilla

Pro. F

SlickRic wrote: »

for the love of Christ, this isn't difficult Sgt, at all.

he was found not guilty in a court of law. very true. because in a court of law you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offence occurred. they couldn't prove beyond doubt that he was being racist towards Ferdinand when he said the words "black ********".

with the FA, it's different. they work on probabilities. they believe the evidence points to him probably meaning to be racist.

the Court of Law probably thought Terry was being racist, you do know that don't you? but if there isn't enough evidence to prove that he definitely meant to be racist, then he would never be convicted.

the fact he was found innocent in a court of law means absolutely nothing.

There are courts of law that work on the balance of probabilities too - the civil courts. Just think that needs to be pointed out.

Sgt Pepper 64

Pro. F wrote: »

Oh you've gotten confused about this again. For the third time.

Here, again, is the question from Des that you have been avoiding:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=80979615

that link isnt right?

Paul Tergat

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

that link isnt right?

still dodging eh. the truth has been found i think you will find. not banned for long enough imo

Red Crow

Pro. F wrote: »

SlickRic wrote: »

for the love of Christ, this isn't difficult Sgt, at all.

he was found not guilty in a court of law. very true. because in a court of law you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offence occurred. they couldn't prove beyond doubt that he was being racist towards Ferdinand when he said the words "black ********".

with the FA, it's different. they work on probabilities. they believe the evidence points to him probably meaning to be racist.

the Court of Law probably thought Terry was being racist, you do know that don't you? but if there isn't enough evidence to prove that he definitely meant to be racist, then he would never be convicted.

the fact he was found innocent in a court of law means absolutely nothing.

There are courts of law that work on the balance of probabilities too - the civil courts. Just think that needs to be pointed out.

I don't understand the relevance of that considering it was a criminal case.

Or are you trying to point out that there exists courts of law that work on the balance of probabilities? If so then fair enough.