John Terry verdict

Rekop dog

If this happened in another league it would pass off without comment, so much of the indignity is due percieved unfairness of the length of the ban compared to Suarez's ratter than the actual subject matter even though the circumstances are not even comparable. Regardless of that though peoples motives for commenting in these threads are so ridic disingenuos it's laughable.

J. Marston

What Terry's sympathisers have never explained is why, inside football, it was known well before the trial began that Didier Drogba, Nicolas Anelka, Mikel John Obi and Chelsea's Kick It Out ambassador, Florent Malouda, were not among those from Stamford Bridge who had signed statements supporting their colleague.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/sep/27/john-terry-racism-fa-ban

That's interesting.

Leiva

Leiva wrote: »

Lets see if tomorrows back pages get anywhere near this little beauty...



<image of the "RACIST" headline from The Mirror removed for some reason??? >

like my hole they will !!!

Told ya !

It's so predictable at this stage that it's beyond a joke .

Giggsy11

Leiva wrote: »

Told ya !

It's so predictable at this stage that it's beyond a joke .

But yesterday you posted Guardian pic (Comparing Suarez's and Terry's headline) saying they included word "Racism" for Suarez and didn't for Terry.

John Terry verdict: FA finds Chelsea captain guilty over racism charge
• Terry banned for four games, fined £220,000
• Player's representatives considering an appeal

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/27/john-terry-verdict-chelsea-guilty

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80978023&postcount=60

JimsAlterEgo

J. Marston wrote: »

That's interesting.

Damning if true

iregk

J. Marston wrote: »

That's interesting.

Was that not explained at the time during the trial. I recall something on the line of the team itself being on a tour somewhere when that statement was been taken and all said players were a couple of thousand km's away or something along those lines.

iregk

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...

That's actually the best post of this entire thread

Leiva

Giggsy11 wrote: »

But yesterday you posted Guardian pic (Comparing Suarez's and Terry's headline) saying they included word "Racism" for Suarez and didn't for Terry.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/27/john-terry-verdict-chelsea-guilty

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80978023&postcount=60

That was a different post ... I quoted the post and referenced it back but for some reason the image was removed or edited yesterday ( see notes in brackets)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80978165&postcount=66

LiamoSail

iregk wrote: »

[

Was that not explained at the time during the trial. I recall something on the line of the team itself being on a tour somewhere when that statement was been taken and all said players were a couple of thousand km's away or something along those lines.

I know email doesn't exist in the world of football, but surely Chelsea could have fired up the aul fax machine and got a few statements through?

Also, surely said players weren't a few thousand miles away in the time between the incident occurring and the trial?

I know footballers have hectic daily schedueles, but surely had they wanted to, the above could have taken time out to jot down a few words in support of their likeable captain?

Giggsy11

Leiva wrote: »

That was a different post ... I quoted the post and referenced it back but for some reason the image was removed or edited yesterday ( see notes in brackets)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80978165&postcount=66

I was not talking about the mirror site, just about Guardian.

Checked Guardian and Independent sites they have used the word "Racism" in their headline.

So it looks like the same crap Mirror, daily mail are showing the bias(or what ever it is).

Davidth88

I think if JT was found not guilty by a court of law then that should have overruled the kangaroo court that the FA decided to have ( I think they have a 98-99% ' conviction ' rate or something ).

The post that says that the black players at Chelsea didn't support JT is interesting if true .

Its all a bit weird , Rio/Anton and JT would have known each other since they were kids , the footballing circle in London is pretty small .

To me ( a Chelsea fan ) it's obvious JT is a pretty repulsive man , if you take all the incidents into account ( The 9-11 Heathrow thing , the sh*ging your teammates missus thing etc etc etc ) , however you can't deny he has been a great captain for both England and Chelsea.

It's a shame he will be remembered for all the wrong reasons.

blatantrereg

Des wrote: »

They are not the same processes. If people can't understand this, then they are silly people.

court of law = not guilty because of reasonable doubt

FA = guilty on balance of probability

Yes, this. Also you are never found innocent in a court of law. You are [supposedly] presumed innocent until proven guilty. Being found not guilty isn't actually an assertion of innocence at all.

Davidth88

Des wrote: »

They are not the same processes. If people can't understand this, then they are silly people.

court of law = not guilty because of reasonable doubt

FA = guilty on balance of probability

I know , I know .......... I do understand this , it just comes across weird .

Court of Law ..... Not Guilty
Made e Uppy Court from a sport authority ..... Guilty

Smacks of double jeopardy doesn't it ?

Perhaps the Scottish system of ' not proven ' would be better .

iregk

LiamoSail wrote: »

I know email doesn't exist in the world of football, but surely Chelsea could have fired up the aul fax machine and got a few statements through?

Also, surely said players weren't a few thousand miles away in the time between the incident occurring and the trial?

I know footballers have hectic daily schedueles, but surely had they wanted to, the above could have taken time out to jot down a few words in support of their likeable captain?

Players were not away between the incident but I do recall when they were taking the statement the team had already shipped out. It also wasn't a case of players giving personal statements, some of the players listed did, Drogba and Malouda being two. The point in question was the generic statement of support signed by the players that were present at the time.

I honestly can't answer for the fax machine as to be honest, I didn't even know they were still in use. Are they? If anything I'd assume they could email the letter over, print it off onsite, players sign it, scan and pdf it and return the email. All standard sign off stuff in the IT industry

To be honest, this whole thing is one big cluster of fcuk and I genuinely don't know what's right or wrong anymore with it all.

_blank_

Davidth88 wrote: »

I know , I know .......... I do understand this , it just comes across weird .

Court of Law ..... Not Guilty
Made e Uppy Court from a sport authority ..... Guilty

Smacks of double jeopardy doesn't it ?

Perhaps the Scottish system of ' not proven ' would be better .

you do realise that there are ACTUAL courts that use the same system of "balance of probability" don't you? As has been extensively shown in this thread.

People really need to start knowing their facts before commenting on something they very obviously know sweet fúck all about.

Leiva

Des wrote: »

you do realise that there are ACTUAL courts that use the same system of "balance of probability" don't you? As has been extensively shown in this thread.

People really need to start knowing their facts before commenting on something they very obviously know sweet fúck all about.

Interested. Des you seem to have all the legal knowledge around these woods..

Suarez case; how would that have stood up in a civil case (balance of probability) known the serious lack of video, 3rd party evidence?

Terry case;how would that have stood up in a civil case (balance of probability) known the evidence at hand video, 3rd party statements etc

GavRedKing

J. Marston wrote: »

That's interesting.

I thought that was known?

Josh MacEchran was another who didnt sign it, the team were away on tour in America at the time.

Davidth88

Des wrote: »

you do realise that there are ACTUAL courts that use the same system of "balance of probability" don't you? As has been extensively shown in this thread.

People really need to start knowing their facts before commenting on something they very obviously know sweet fúck all about.

Blimey... bit touchy , am I not allowed to express an opinion of how I feel ?

If you read my post , you will see I do actually understand the difference , it just FEELS wrong.

_blank_

Leiva wrote: »

Interested. Des you seem to have all the legal knowledge around these woods..

That's probably because I'm a lawyer.

Leiva

Des wrote: »

That's probably because I'm a lawyer.

Great.

So I'm really interested to get your expert views on the two questions

Oranage2

Leiva wrote: »

Interested. Des you seem to have all the legal knowledge around these woods..

Suarez case; how would that have stood up in a civil case (balance of probability) known the serious lack of video, 3rd party evidence?

Terry case;how would that have stood up in a civil case (balance of probability) known the evidence at hand video, 3rd party statements etc

The most common consensus is that it wouldn't even make a court (which it didnt) as there isnt an ounce of evidence. JT is caught on camera saying something.

iregk

Did the Terry one not go to court because someone actually lodged a complaint with the Met's? I thought that was the difference here.

Tigerbaby

Ah yes.. Racism .. the crime that dare not speak its name.

Twaddle and PO-faced expressions of the white man's burden. Why do we feel so guilty for something we never committed?

Orwell's '84 is alive and well. Group think memes slither like devouring sharks. Best to stay out of the sea and just nod in desperate agreement with the mob. Echo the chant; "White is Evil, White is Evil" . Keep safe in the flock of sheep. Keep your head below the parapet. Say nothing, be thought of as a fellow traveler.

The man was cleared in a Court of Law.

budgemook

This thread is either full of people who can't read or who just like going around in circles.

Yes, he was cleared in a court of law because there was a reasonable doubt. He was punished by the FA because of the balance of probability. READ THE THREAD.

Also, the rest of this post is nonsense but thanks for posting.

recyclebin

Just heard the Terry verdict.

Brought back memories of the square in Poznan where all the Irish fans were chanting:

iregk

budgemook wrote: »

This thread is either full of people who can't read or who just like going around in circles.

Yes, he was cleared in a court of law because there was a reasonable doubt. He was punished by the FA because of the balance of probability. READ THE THREAD.

Also, the rest of this post is nonsense but thanks for posting.

Pro. F

Oranage2 wrote: »

The most common consensus is that it wouldn't even make a court (which it didnt) as there isnt an ounce of evidence. JT is caught on camera saying something.

That might be the consensus amongst Liverpool fans, but it is not the consensus amongst people who paid the slightest bit of attention to what actually went on in the case and who understand how the legal system works.

There was evidence against Suarez. There was his own statement where he admitted to using the Spanish word ''negro''. There was Evra's statement where he claimed that Suarez used the word in a derogatory and confrontational way multiple times. There was video evidence from which the tone and sequence of their conversation could be seen and which contradicted some important claims made by Suarez. There were the second hand statements from Kenny, Camolli and Kuyt, which were inconsistent and contradictory. There were the additional examples, partly based on Suarez's own evidence, of where he had used the Spanish word ''negro'' repeatedly towards a black player in England before (Yaya or Kolo Toure I think it was).

Maybe you don't agree that the evidence was enough, but to say there wasn't an ounce of evidence just shows that either you haven't a clue about what actually happened in the case or you don't understand what is considered evidence in legal proceedings.

It didn't make it to a public court, criminal or civil - did anybody press civil or criminal charges? The only person who would have been in a position to do so would have been Evra.

Thrill

Des wrote: »

you do realise that there are ACTUAL courts that use the same system of "balance of probability" don't you? As has been extensively shown in this thread.

People really need to start knowing their facts before commenting on something they very obviously know sweet fúck all about.

Those courts "balance of probability" are based on the law, not a sporting bodies rule book, which is what Terry was judged against by the F.A.

The stigma that comes with being accused of racism in my view is too great to be allowed to be pronounced by anyone other than a criminal court, using actual law, not some sports rule book.

Then the sport can met out punishment based on the findings of the court.

Leiva

Thrill wrote: »

Those courts "balance of probability" are based on the law, not a sporting bodies rule book, which is what Terry was judged against by the F.A.

The stigma that comes with being accused of racism in my view is too great to be allowed to be pronounced by anyone other than a criminal court, using actual law, not some sports rule book.

Then the sport can met out punishment based on the findings of the court.

This x 10000000

JimsAlterEgo

Summed up here, interesting the FA can also appeal the sentence

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/27/john-terry-racism-ban?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Ffootball%2Frss+%28Football%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

John Terry racism verdict Q&A

Five questions raised in light of the independent panel's ban and fine of John Terry

Of what has John Terry been found guilty?

Breach of the FA's Rule E3(2): "Using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Anton Ferdinand and which included a reference to colour and/or race." The charge followed the pair's exchange during Chelsea's match against QPR last October during which Terry admitted he used the words "****ing black ****".

Why did the FA charge him after Terry was acquitted of committing a criminal offence?

The FA's charges are decided like civil legal cases, on the balance of probabilities, a lesser standard of proof than beyond reasonable doubt, required for criminal offences. Terry claimed he said "****ing black ****" only because he was repeating it back to Ferdinand, to deny Ferdinand's accusation that Terry had used those words as an insult. Howard Riddle, the chief magistrate at Westminster magistrates court, found there was "a doubt" about whether Terry had meant it as an insult.

Why has Terry been banned for four matches when Luis Suárez was given eight?

This will not be clarified until the panel produces its full written reasons. The rule states that reference to a person's "ethnic origin, colour or race" should guide a panel into considering double the minimum four-match ban. Terry's four-match ban leaves open the possibility that the panel accepted, at least in part, Terry's defence. Suárez was given an eight-week ban for his remarks to Patrice Evra.

Is Terry likely to appeal?

Terry has 14 days to appeal after he receives the written reasons. The FA can also appeal against the sanction if it believes it has grounds to do so.

Pro. F

Thrill wrote: »

Those courts "balance of probability" are based on the law, not a sporting bodies rule book, which is what Terry was judged against by the F.A.

The stigma that comes with being accused of racism in my view is too great to be allowed to be pronounced by anyone other than a criminal court, using actual law, not some sports rule book.

Then the sport can met out punishment based on the findings of the court.

The FA's rule book clearly follows the law of the land in this regard. The rules they have prohibiting racial abuse are no different from the nation's laws which prohibit it.

Oranage2

Pro. F wrote: »

That might be the consensus amongst Liverpool fans, but it is not the consensus amongst people who paid the slightest bit of attention to what actually went on in the case and who understand how the legal system works.

There was evidence against Suarez. There was his own statement where he admitted to using the Spanish word ''negro''. There was Evra's statement where he claimed that Suarez used the word in a derogatory and confrontational way multiple times. There was video evidence from which the tone and sequence of their conversation could be seen and which contradicted some important claims made by Suarez. There were the second hand statements from Kenny, Camolli and Kuyt, which were inconsistent and contradictory. There were the additional examples, partly based on Suarez's own evidence, of where he had used the Spanish word ''negro'' repeatedly towards a black player in England before (Yaya or Kolo Toure I think it was).

Maybe you don't agree that the evidence was enough, but to say there wasn't an ounce of evidence just shows that either you haven't a clue about what actually happened in the case or you don't understand what is considered evidence in legal proceedings.

It didn't make it to a public court, criminal or civil - did anybody press civil or criminal charges? The only person who would have been in a position to do so would have been Evra.

You're right, I didnt actually care one bit about the evidence in the Suarez case (just the outcome), just like I dont give 2 damns about the evidence in the Terry one.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not a Liverpool supporter and in my opinion Suarez got exactly what he deserved, he truly is everything thing that is wrong with football. And as for JT, another hateful player, glad he's banned too.

SlickRic

Ferguson today...

"the fact he got a four game ban, he may consider that's quite lenient considering Luis Suarez got eight"

ever the stirrer...

Tigerbaby

budgemook wrote: »

This thread is either full of people who can't read or who just like going around in circles.

Yes, he was cleared in a court of law because there was a reasonable doubt. He was punished by the FA because of the balance of probability. READ THE THREAD.

Also, the rest of this post is nonsense but thanks for posting.

I assume you are referring to my post. Would you care to enlighten us as to what part of my post is nonsense? As regards the thread, well it just seems like a thinly veiled anti-Chelsea or anti-John Terry stream.

I chose to open up the thread to include the psychological and societal forces behind this irrational hatred. Have you a difficulty with intelligent and mature debate, or do you just stick to the HEADLINES and the pictures?

Pro. F

Tigerbaby wrote: »

I assume you are referring to my post. Would you care to enlighten us as to what part of my post is nonsense? As regards the thread, well it just seems like a thinly veiled anti-Chelsea or anti-John Terry stream.

I chose to open up the thread to include the psychological and societal forces behind this irrational hatred. Have you a difficulty with intelligent and mature debate, or do you just stick to the HEADLINES and the pictures?

Rambling conspiracy theories are not intelligent and mature debate. If you want people to take you seriously you would be better off framing your argument in a clear and simple manner. You also need to acknowledge the fact that there are two different types of law court, one of which requires the same burden of proof as the FA process. By failing to acknowledge that you portray yourself as uninformed.

budgemook

I can't quote posts.

That we live in an Orwellian society is nonsense.
That racism is the crime which we don't speak of.
That we feel ashamed for crimes we haven't commited.

budgemook

Also how is Suarez everything that is wrong with football?

Maybe the media shows him in that light but it's far from the truth IMO. His diving is exagerated by the press, he's no worse than many other player. The handball anyone would have done. The biting, fair enough but still harsh saying he is everthing that is wrong with football. He is a generous man, gives to the poor etc, he's loyal, great with the fans, just made some very respectable comments about the refs and is an excellent player for club and country.

Anyways, this is a John Terry thread.

PhlegmyMoses

Tigerbaby wrote: »

I assume you are referring to my post. Would you care to enlighten us as to what part of my post is nonsense? As regards the thread, well it just seems like a thinly veiled anti-Chelsea or anti-John Terry stream.

I chose to open up the thread to include the psychological and societal forces behind this irrational hatred. Have you a difficulty with intelligent and mature debate, or do you just stick to the HEADLINES and the pictures?

No matter what you think, racism is an incredibly important topic to the FA. English football had a terrible reputation up until the 90s and they have fought hard to eradicate it. When it is the captain of their flagship team who stands accused, there is no way that they are going to decide "Nah, racism is a bit passé, shur we haven't had much of it in years. No need for an investigation. We won't be cowed by the liberal left, pinko media. Rivers of blood, rivers of blood!"

There was always going to be an investigation. And anyone with any knowledge of civil cases will know that Terry was always going to receive some sort of ban. His argument was too unlikely to be true. He may have had a chance if he said he never said what he was accused of. Once he admitted that, it was only going one way. Same goes for Suarez. Their "mistake" was admitting they said it at all.

Tigerbaby

surely he said that he "didn't" say that? and the LAW agreed with him.

My point is that there are far more issues around than the colour of one's skin, hair etc etc. We should be chary of supporting perceived positions of innocence or guilt based simply on how we may perceive a person to be "good" or "bad".

Not all white men are evil. Not all black men are good. It is "racist" in the extreme to start a debate from this flimsy tenet.

LiamoSail

Thrill wrote: »

[
The stigma that comes with being accused of racism in my view is too great to be allowed to be pronounced by anyone other than a criminal court, using actual law, not some sports rule book.

.

So the fa should allow racism in football? There's no point in them having a rule against it if they can't act on the rule

PhlegmyMoses

Tigerbaby wrote: »

surely he said that he "didn't" say that? and the LAW agreed with him.

Terry admitted to using the words "****ing black ****". This part is caught on camera. His argument is that he put "I didn't call you a..." in front of it. This part is not caught on camera. The first question everybody thinks of is; Why didn't he say "I didn't call you that?" Why use the other term at all?

Had he challenged the lip readings and claimed he had actually said something else, he may have actually got off. Admitting you said it or did it in a civil court, where the proof needed is less extensive, is setting yourself up for a fall.

My point is that there are far more issues around than the colour of one's skin, hair etc etc. We should be chary of supporting perceived positions of innocence or guilt based simply on how we may perceive a person to be "good" or "bad".

Not all white men are evil. Not all black men are good. It is "racist" in the extreme to start a debate from this flimsy tenet.

That is not what the tenet is. At all. The tenet is, we dealt with racism pretty badly back in the day, let's not let that happen again. If that means having to come down hard on it for a while until it gets into people's skulls that skin colour is irrelevant, so be it.

Nobody is saying white people are evil and black people are lovely. They are saying that we are equally bad and equally good. White people are just accepting that they acted a bit ****ty back in the day because they happened to be the guys with all the power. They don't want that to happen again. Well, most of us.

niallo27

I'm just looking forward to the reasons why Suarez got double the ban terry did, surely they are more or less the same charges and should be punished equally.

Thrill

Pro. F wrote: »

The FA's rule book clearly follows the law of the land in this regard. The rules they have prohibiting racial abuse are no different from the nation's laws which prohibit it.

Their interpretation and application differ. Whats worrying is that once someone is charged by the F.A. for any offense, the chances of them being found not guilty is almost zero. While this might not be of any major concern regarding run of the mill footballing infringements, I think it is of great concern when it comes to charging someone with committing racial act.

The idea that once you have been charged by any body, be it state or private, with an almost zero chance of being found not guilty before any hearing has even begun, is not one I would have any confidence in at all or would like to face.


.

Bacchus

LiamoSail wrote: »

So the fa should allow racism in football? There's no point in them having a rule against it if they can't act on the rule

Noone's suggesting that. The problem is that the FA's process for "proving" someone has broken that rule does not appear very conclusive or forensic. If you are going to charge someone with racist abuse you'd want to be 100% sure of the charge. Otherwise you're potentially destroying an innocent persons life. Racism needs to be stamped out but the FA should not be allowed to make examples of high profile players based on little evidence. I'm not making direct reference about either the Suarez or Terry cases but looking at both, there does seem to be inconsistencies and that is unacceptable.

Chucky the tree

The Terry case seems pretty nailed on. He admitted saying it, doesn't get any more conclusive than that.

PhlegmyMoses

Thrill wrote: »

Their interpretation and application differ. Whats worrying is that once someone is charged by the F.A. for any offense, the chances of them being found not guilty is almost zero. While this might not be of any major concern regarding run of the mill footballing infringements, I think it is of great concern when it comes to charging someone with committing racial act.

The idea that once you have been charged by any body, be it state or private, with an almost zero chance of being found not guilty before any hearing has even begun, is not one I would have any confidence in at all or would like to face.


.

I would like to see an explanation as to why the FA's conviction rate is so high. I suspect that it is because they usually have to deal with football cases, where clear evidence shows an elbow to the face or studs to the knee or a ref's report saying that the player definitely did what he was accused of. Ref's word is taken as gospel pretty much.

This still doesn't negate the fact that Terry admitted to saying those words. If Anton Ferdinand were to take him to a civil court to sue for hurt caused etc and Terry used that defence, he would be far more likely to be found guilty than in a criminal court.

Also, the FA should be allowed to rule on whatever happens on a football pitch. Leaving it to the courts every time, where footballers have **** hot QCs on huge retainers, would ensure that justice is never done and players could do what they like.

LiamoSail

Bacchus wrote: »

[

Noone's suggesting that. The problem is that the FA's process for "proving" someone has broken that rule does not appear very conclusive or forensic. If you are going to charge someone with racist abuse you'd want to be 100% sure of the charge. Otherwise you're potentially destroying an innocent persons life. Racism needs to be stamped out but the FA should not be allowed to make examples of high profile players based on little evidence. I'm not making direct reference about either the Suarez or Terry cases but looking at both, there does seem to be inconsistencies and that is unacceptable.

Theres merit in your point, however I disagree. There has to be consistency, and you can't have a situation where every charge the fa decide over is judged on all reasonable doubt. If you did, everyone would get off

Why should one player face a different burdon of proof then another? All charges have to have the same burden

Secondly, the fa are only allowed officiate such cases as the likes of terry and Suarez have allowed them too. If they want to be beyond the remit of the fa, there's a very simple way of achieving that

LiamoSail

Bacchus wrote: »

[

Noone's suggesting that. The problem is that the FA's process for "proving" someone has broken that rule does not appear very conclusive or forensic. If you are going to charge someone with racist abuse you'd want to be 100% sure of the charge. Otherwise you're potentially destroying an innocent persons life. Racism needs to be stamped out but the FA should not be allowed to make examples of high profile players based on little evidence. I'm not making direct reference about either the Suarez or Terry cases but looking at both, there does seem to be inconsistencies and that is unacceptable.

Theres merit in your point, however I disagree. There has to be consistency, and you can't have a situation where every charge the fa decide over is judged on all reasonable doubt. If you did, everyone would get off

Why should one player face a different burdon of proof then another? All charges have to have the same burden

Secondly, the fa are only allowed officiate such cases as the likes of terry and Suarez have allowed them too. If they want to be beyond the remit of the fa, there's a very simple way of achieving that

Oranage2

niallo27 wrote: »

I'm just looking forward to the reasons why Suarez got double the ban terry did, surely they are more or less the same charges and should be punished equally.

Because Terry said black **** once and Suarez

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCGG2_hNB4A

niallo27

Oranage2 wrote: »

Because Terry said black **** once and Suarez

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCGG2_hNB4A

Is that the reason or are you presuming that's the reason.