John Terry verdict

Sgt Pepper 64

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.

errr, I really hope that courts of law dont "probably think" that people are guilty but just cant prove it. They are meant ot be impatial you know and weigh up evidence, thats how they work.

I fail to see how the FA can be allowed to work on probabilites. How is that even legal if it is true? No player would sign up to it if that was true.
Can you prove that is true how the FA works?

PhlegmyMoses

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

errr, I really hope that courts of law dont "probably think" that people are guilty but just cant prove it. They are meant ot be impatial you know and weigh up evidence, thats how they work.

I fail to see how the FA can be allowed to work on probabilites. How is that even legal if it is true? No player would sign up to it if that was true.
Can you prove that is true how the FA works?

There are courts that work on this basis. Millions of them, literally millions, Richard.

Red Crow

Sgt Pepper 64 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.

errr, I really hope that courts of law dont "probably think" that people are guilty but just cant prove it. They are meant ot be impatial you know and weigh up evidence, thats how they work.

I fail to see how the FA can be allowed to work on probabilites. How is that even legal if it is true? No player would sign up to it if that was true.
Can you prove that is true how the FA works?

Of course it's true and that's how civil law works as Pro F pointed out.

Thrill

SlickRic wrote: »

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

:D:D

Being found not guilty in a court of law means absolutely nothing?????

Since when?

Pro. F

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

that link isnt right?

My mistake. Here you are:

Des wrote: »

What is "the truth" then?

PhlegmyMoses

Thrill wrote: »

:D:D

Being found not guilty in a court of law means absolutely nothing?????

Since when?

To the FA when they are doing an investigation. Does everything really have to be spelled out or are you being deliberately facetious?

Sgt Pepper 64

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

There are courts that work on this basis. Millions of them, literally millions, Richard.

Richard? Must admit you have me there, I thought all courts and indeed all disciplinary hearings were based purely on factual evidence.

Quite shocked if thats not true.

But then I am sweet and innocent

i'm not dodgning a question just cant be bothered going back to see the reference

Pro. F

Eli Manning wrote: »

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.

Yes, only want to point that out since a few posters have been banging on about Terry being found innocent in a "court of omfg law" as if there is only one type of law court.

donalg1

He is clearly seen on tv using racist language there is no disputing this the whole thing is a joke he should have been banned for longer, if Suarez got 8 games terry should have got at least that if not double that and I'm a utd fan.

If he wasn't English I reckon the punishment would have been much worse. Disgraceful.

PhlegmyMoses

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Richard? Must admit you have me there, I thought all courts and indeed all disciplinary hearings were based purely on factual evidence.

Quite shocked if thats not true.

But then I am sweet and innocent

i'm not dodgning a question just cant be bothered going back to see the reference

Civil courts do require evidence but they work on a balance of probabilities basis. Think of it like this; all evidence is presented, the panel or judge weighs up the options, then makes a decision based on what is most probable.

Actually, **** it, go watch Judge Judy. That's a Civil Court.

copacetic

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

errr, I really hope that courts of law dont "probably think" that people are guilty but just cant prove it. They are meant ot be impatial you know and weigh up evidence, thats how they work.

I fail to see how the FA can be allowed to work on probabilites. How is that even legal if it is true? No player would sign up to it if that was true.
Can you prove that is true how the FA works?

Pg 398

(d) Decisions
The Regulatory Commission will decide whether each denied Charge is proved or not proved in respect of each Participant Charged. The applicable standard of proof shall be the civil standard of the balance of probability.

Sgt Pepper 64

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Civil courts do require evidence but they work on a balance of probabilities basis. Think of it like this; all evidence is presented, the panel or judge weighs up the options, then makes a decision based on what is most probable.

Actually, **** it, go watch Judge Judy. That's a Civil Court.

Wow, thats quite scary, no wonder innonocent people go to jail

Terrys problem was that he got caught using racist words, no matter what the context.
The whole world is pretty much racist, even on a sublimnal level

"foreign" workers first coming to ireland
the british police force

its all double standards

we all weigh up and judge and form an opinion on people based on apparearences within a few mins of meeting them

budgemook

I don't ever think I've seen someone lose an argument so badly on boards before.

- Won't answer certain questions
- Nitpicking at posts ignoring the main point of them
- Having arguments debunked by fact in seconds (courts that weigh up probability, proof that FA work that way)

And this poster was born in 1964 people say? By God :pac:

Sgt Pepper 64

copacetic wrote: »

Pg 398

wow, you learn something new every day

Still Terry is innocent, the white judge just said so

budgemook

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Wow, thats quite scary, no wonder innonocent people go to jail

Terrys problem was that he got caught using racist words, no matter what the context.
The whole world is pretty much racist, even on a sublimnal level

"foreign" workers first coming to ireland
the british police force

its all double standards

we all weigh up and judge and form an opinion on people based on apparearences within a few mins of meeting them

Jesus Christ!

Let Terry / Suarez be as racist as they like because we're all racist anyways! We just don't know it.

Wind up surely?

Super-Rush

Pro. F

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

i'm not dodgning a question just cant be bothered going back to see the reference

Cool. That looks like dodging the question to me. I'm sure it looks like dodging the question to anybody else who has followed the thread too.

But just to show you up I will quote the one post from you that the question referred to:

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Anton Ferdinand is a joke of a player and its only a matter of time before the truth comes out

So now you don't have to "go back to see the reference."

And just to remind you in case you have forgotten again, here's the question that Des asked in response:

Des wrote: »

What is "the truth" then?

Sgt Pepper 64

budgemook wrote: »

I don't ever think I've seen someone lose an argument so badly on boards before.

- Won't answer certain questions
- Nitpicking at posts ignoring the main point of them
- Having arguments debunked by fact in seconds (courts that weigh up probability, proof that FA work that way)

And this poster was born in 1964 people say? By God :pac:

this is funny, thank you

Am i supposed to be infailable? I never said I was perfect but hinestly how can i keep up and answer and respond to every whacky statement and question, I am but one man (or woman)

and every one is an ass

assuming the 64 bit in my name is the year I was born - thats just plain specualtion based on probabilty - but can you prove it?

I love playing with people on boards

Oranage2

I dont get what the problem is?


Evra is black so Suarez gets 8 games.

Anton Ferdinand is half black so Terry gets half the ban...

Sgt Pepper 64

Pro. F wrote: »

Cool. That looks like dodging the question to me. I'm sure it looks like dodging the question to anybody else who has followed the thread too.

But just to show you up I will quote the one post from you that the question referred to:


And just to remind you in case you have forgotten again, here's the question that Des asked in response:

oh, that was me just being silly. The truth is that people will realise is that he is a joke of player!

PhlegmyMoses

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Wow, thats quite scary, no wonder innonocent people go to jail

You can't go to prison because of a ruling from a civil court. It's usually for lawsuits.

I feel like I'm being trolled and I don't like it. :mad:

Terrys problem was that he got caught using racist words, no matter what the context.
The whole world is pretty much racist, even on a sublimnal level

"foreign" workers first coming to ireland
the british police force

its all double standards

we all weigh up and judge and form an opinion on people based on apparearences within a few mins of meeting them

Terry's problem is that his excuse was as believable as him saying the leprechaun riding his unicorn made him say it.

budgemook

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

this is funny, thank you

Am i supposed to be infailable? I never said I was perfect but hinestly how can i keep up and answer and respond to every whacky statement and question, I am but one man (or woman)

and every one is an ass

assuming the 64 bit in my name is the year I was born - thats just plain specualtion based on probabilty - but can you prove it?

I love playing with people on boards

Some other poster said you were born in 64 a few posts back. I have no idea when you were born, just thought it was a known thing as you seemed to go along with it.

I've never seen your posts before. Read about 5 of them tonight and realise you're a wind up merchant for sure.

Best of luck to ya chief. Keep keepin on.

Red Crow

Set. Pepper 64, I assume, is a reference to a Beatles song and the album it came from?

budgemook

Oranage2 wrote: »

I dont get what the problem is?


Evra is black so Suarez gets 8 games.

Anton Ferdinand is half black so Terry gets half the ban...

Pro. F

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

oh, that was me just being silly. The truth is that people will realise is that he is a joke of player!

Yeah I thought so. Classy as usual from you.

Sgt Pepper 64

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

You can't go to prison because of a ruling from a civil court. It's usually for lawsuits.

I feel like I'm being trolled and I don't like it. :mad:



Terry's problem is that his excuse was as believable as him saying the leprechaun riding his unicorn made him say it.

I'm not trolling you. Just genuinly didnt know about the courts thing, but now suitably enlightned although it still kinda wrecks my head
what is sad is that because people dont know stuff they get chastised for it, when thye shouldnt be afraid of saying so or "having their ignorance" exposed.
I've no problem admitting my ignorance on this and many other subjects but dont see why I shoukld be mocked so openly for it

His excuse might have been flimsy but unless it could be proven compeltely etc etc

Thrill

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

To the FA when they are doing an investigation. Does everything really have to be spelled out or are you being deliberately facetious?

Being found guilty of breaking the rules of a sport is far less important than that of being found not guilty in a court of law of a racial slur.

budgemook

Thrill wrote: »

Being found guilty of breaking the rules of a sport is far less important than that of being found not guilty in a court of law of a racial slur.

In other news, Christmas Day falls on the 25th of December.
Your point?

monkey9

Thread is six pages long!! Interesting!

PhlegmyMoses

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

I'm not trolling you. Just genuinly didnt know about the courts thing, but now suitably enlightned although it still kinda wrecks my head
what is sad is that because people dont know stuff they get chastised for it, when thye shouldnt be afraid of saying so or "having their ignorance" exposed.
I've no problem admitting my ignorance on this and many other subjects but dont see why I shoukld be mocked so openly for it

His excuse might have been flimsy but unless it could be proven compeltely etc etc

I feel like I'm being trolled because a cursory glance at Wikipedia before complaining about the injustice of it all would have helped you to understand why Terry has received a ban.

And even with this explanation you are still saying stuff like the part I've bolded. I refuse to believe that you haven't grasped it yet.

Sgt Pepper 64

budgemook wrote: »

Some other poster said you were born in 64 a few posts back. I have no idea when you were born, just thought it was a known thing as you seemed to go along with it.

I've never seen your posts before. Read about 5 of them tonight and realise you're a wind up merchant for sure.

Best of luck to ya chief. Keep keepin on.

Sometimes I am , sometimes not - depends on the mood and the tone of some of the posts. People take things wayyy to serious on here, too many love to mock and live to "expose" peoples mistakes and supposed double standards.
Its a shame as I am sure the agressive nature of some posters puts others off in case they might actually type somethiing that other may not like, disagree with or quick to jump on a "mistake"

and no, i am not winding up in this thread, just disappoitned at the few who jump on the "womaniser" track and the same tired old terry jokes with such glee

Thrill

budgemook wrote: »

In other news, Christmas Day falls on the 25th of December.
Your point?

I was not being deliberately facetious with my previous answer..

Pro. F

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

I'm not trolling you. Just genuinly didnt know about the courts thing, but now suitably enlightned although it still kinda wrecks my head
what is sad is that because people dont know stuff they get chastised for it, when thye shouldnt be afraid of saying so or "having their ignorance" exposed.
I've no problem admitting my ignorance on this and many other subjects but dont see why I shoukld be mocked so openly for it

His excuse might have been flimsy but unless it could be proven compeltely etc etc

The reason you get chastised for it is because you act like a knob and pretend you can't understand anything until it's been explained to you 20 times.

PhlegmyMoses

Thrill wrote: »

Being found guilty of breaking the rules of a sport is far less important than that of being found not guilty in a court of law of a racial slur.

Agreed. Relevance? We're discussing the FA ruling here. The court case thread, if there was one, is probably 50 page back.

Sgt Pepper 64

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I feel like I'm being trolled because a cursory glance at Wikipedia before complaining about the injustice of it all would have helped you to understand why Terry has received a ban.

And even with this explanation you are still saying stuff like the part I've bolded. I refuse to believe that you haven't grasped it yet.

wiki is NOT a true sorce, surely you know that, and as for the other thing, many other, more reputable sources, are debating the merits of how and why he can be charged by the FA and yet found not guilty by the court of law

so I am not the only one not to grasp "your obvious truth"

Thrill

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Agreed. Relevance? We're discussing the FA ruling here. The court case thread, if there was one, is probably 50 page back.

I answered a post and was asked was I being deliberately facetious.

Pro. F

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

wiki is NOT a true sorce, surely you know that, and as for the other thing, many other, more reputable sources, are debating the merits of how and why he can be charged by the FA and yet found not guilty by the court of law

so I am not the only one not to grasp "your obvious truth"

What reputable sources?

budgemook

Thrill wrote: »

I was not being deliberately facetious with my previous answer..

Fair enough but the court ruling really does have nothing to do with the FA ruling. You understand now right?

Sgt Pepper 64

Pro. F wrote: »

What reputable sources?

newspapers like the times etc etc who all debate the FA decision to charge him when it was an "un-provable" offence

Then there is the likes of ex englands managers apearing on his behalf

and yes, he really could appeal and counter claim for defamation of character

"it's deeply strange that Terry's being called a racist and/or dealer of racist abuse by both the FA and the media when it has already been found that it's an un-provable offence. You have to wonder what happens if Terry's lawyers decide those sorts of posts are defamatory, because I'd expect some very interesting things to go on if so..."

night night!

PhlegmyMoses

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

wiki is NOT a true sorce, surely you know that, and as for the other thing, many other, more reputable sources, are debating the merits of how and why he can be charged by the FA and yet found not guilty by the court of law

so I am not the only one not to grasp "your obvious truth"

WTF? I was pointing you towards Wiki to read up on civil court law. I'm not asking you to read the Magna Carta. It is not up for debate. The FA and Civil courts run their hearings using balance of probabilities. This is fact. Using this system, Terry was banned. If you are going to post about this, you really should read into what you are debating. Otherwise, what's the point?

Sgt Pepper 64

budgemook wrote: »

Fair enough but the court ruling really does have nothing to do with the FA ruling. You understand now right?

yes it really does!


the FA decision to charge him when it was an "un-provable" offence as proved by the court ruling!

PhlegmyMoses

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

newspapers like the times etc etc who all debate the FA decision to charge him when it was an "un-provable" offence

Then there is the likes of ex englands managers apearing on his behalf

and yes, he really could appeal and counter claim for defamation of character

"it's deeply strange that Terry's being called a racist and/or dealer of racist abuse by both the FA and the media when it has already been found that it's an un-provable offence. You have to wonder what happens if Terry's lawyers decide those sorts of posts are defamatory, because I'd expect some very interesting things to go on if so..."

night night!

If Terry's lawyers decide to go through with that they will lose. The journalist hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

Sgt Pepper 64

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

WTF? I was pointing you towards Wiki to read up on civil court law. I'm not asking you to read the Magna Carta. It is not up for debate. The FA and Civil courts run their hearings using balance of probabilities. This is fact. Using this system, Terry was banned. If you are going to post about this, you really should read into what you are debating. Otherwise, what's the point?

you dont need knowledge to debate - just an opinion!

(but thanks anyway, i will take a look)

Pro. F

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

newspapers like the times etc etc who all debate the FA decision to charge him when it was an "un-provable" offence

Then there is the likes of ex englands managers apearing on his behalf

and yes, he really could appeal and counter claim for defamation of character

"it's deeply strange that Terry's being called a racist and/or dealer of racist abuse by both the FA and the media when it has already been found that it's an un-provable offence. You have to wonder what happens if Terry's lawyers decide those sorts of posts are defamatory, because I'd expect some very interesting things to go on if so..."

night night!

The Times is not a reputable source. Don't make me laugh.

The fact that Capello gave Terry a character reference during his court case (I assume that is what you are referring to with the ex-England manager bit), does not lend any weight to your claim that the validity of this verdict is being questioned by reputable sources.

He could appeal and counter claim for defamation of character, but he would lose.

Lol at you trying to pass off that unattributed quote as impartial. It comes from here, a Chelsea fan posting on a Chelsea community page.

Did you not realise we could just check where it came from with google?

That is pathetic man.

PhlegmyMoses

That is shocking from Sgt Pepper. Has to have been trolling the whole time.

Thrill

budgemook wrote: »

Fair enough but the court ruling really does have nothing to do with the FA ruling. You understand now right?

It matters because according to the F.A.' s own rules the results of the court case should stand as the final word on the matter.

Paragraph 6.8: ‘Where the subject matter of a complaint or matter before the Regulatory Commission has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that this is not the case.’

retalivity

tomorrows independent

Pro. F

Thrill wrote: »

It matters because according to the F.A.' s own rules the results of the court case should stand as the final word on the matter.

From lawinsport.com:

SPORTS DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS V CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

John Terry appears before the Football Association (FA) today to answer charges of alleged misconduct and racially aggravated comments. The hearing follows a number of weeks of argument on both the make up of the FA panel and, crucially, whether or not the FA in fact has jurisdiction.

In relation to jurisdiction Terry has argued (and will argue again today) that the FA does not have jurisdiction to bring disciplinary proceedings. This argument appears to be supported by paragraph 6.8 of the FA Rules and Regulations, which states:
'Where the subject matter of a complaint or matter before the Regulatory Commission has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that this is not the case.'

Terry has argued that the clause precluded an FA disciplinary investigation on the grounds that Terry had been cleared of racially abusing Ferdinand at a criminal hearing in July this year. This outcome, Terry will argue, should stand, presumed to be correct under paragraph 6.8.

Terry's argument on jurisdiction is unlikely to succeed:

Firstly, 6.8 clearly states that the rule will not apply in circumstances where there is shown to be clear evidence that the facts and matters relied upon were not correct. The FA will have satisfied itself during the investigation process that there is a case to answer by the player and that it is in the interests of the sport to bring the charges;
Secondly, this is an incident that took place during a Premier League match involving two players contracted to member clubs. It is therefore a matter which falls squarely within the FA's jurisdiction;
Thirdly, it is important to remember that the FA always intended to investigate this matter and bring charges if there was sufficient evidence. The reason why the governing body stayed its own investigations was not to pass over jurisdiction to the criminal courts, but so as its own concurrent investigations would not prejudice the criminal case;
Fourthly, the criminal trial and the internal disciplinary investigation and hearing are related only by the incident in question and nothing more. The charges and standard of proof will be different, marking out the sport's own internal process as a very different type of tribunal.
Comment

The FA will hear this case, but with hindsight the governing body could have made life easier for itself by expediting its own internal process notwithstanding the fact that the CPS had commenced investigations.

As previously discussed on these pages, there is no rule of law that provides that private disciplinary proceedings must be stated merely because criminal proceedings are afoot. Indeed, it has been argued with some merit that there is in fact substantial public interest (and certainly sporting interest) in the internal proceedings continuing unhindered. Of course the question of prejudice is fundamental, but as set out above, this is a private, sporting tribunal governed by a different procedure and standard of proof. In cricket, the ICC investigated, charged and sanctioned the Pakistani cricketers long before the criminal trial took place. This step was in the interests of the sport and it did not prejudice the criminal trial, because of the inherent difference in the purpose and make up of the two tribunals.

PhlegmyMoses

Thrill wrote: »

It matters because according to the F.A.' s own rules the results of the court case should stand as the final word on the matter.

This still doesn't negate any of the points made. Once the FA decided to press forward with this case, the ruling from the magistrates became irrelevant.

Why the FA have decided to ignore their own rulebook is another matter. I suspect that they'll explain why soon enough but it will probably be something to do with the fact that they believe the racism topic to be so important that it warranted a hearing. Did they announce the charge before the police did?

Edit: Pro F has the reasons there.

Winston Payne

I wouldn't shout too loudly about Fabio "Italy has a problem with African immigration" Capello lining out as a character witness in support of Terry myself.