John Terry verdict

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.

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.