He is slightly overrated, but still a top player, and definitely a first choice for the England team given the options. After all, name a current England international who isn't overrated? Should he be captain? Probably not, but then who are the choices? Neither Rio or Gerrard have unblemished records, and neither of them are at the level they were, Rio due to injuries, Gerrard possibly just due to natural decline. Even Wilshire, who's a possible future captain, has managed to get a police caution for spitting at a taxi driver before his 20th birthday. Ultimately, all the England team is full of players whose egos are writing cheques their bodies can't cash. Until we start developing more players like Scholes, who would rather spend time with their families than doing drugs, sleeping around and getting into fights, we as a country are ****ed in footballing terms.
No Swarbs, They are not true! Your seeing things that aren't there mate! to quote your paste; "certain information" which certain information are you referring too? I've read this many times and it is as clear as smoked glass. Anybody in Terry's position would seek to protect damage to their financial arrangements and reputation from such nefarious allegations. The whole document of JT v Persons unknown is just a refusal of injunction not an indication of guilt. Nowhere within said document does Terry admit to having had sex with the other party but these damaging allegations were brought about by the media and the mindless have followed. Interestingly as I pointed out earlier the ultra careful liberal BBC have quoted 'Alleged' because they have a brain.
Pretty much spot on. This is kind of my point in that on the pitch, terry is clearly a starter and the most natural leader so should be captain in my eyes in the immediate future. No one else stands out. Attacking Terry the man is somewhat irrelevant to the captains debate given the history of the gerralds, rios, rooneys, coles. They all have things against them off the field so we can really only pick based on the field.
The England captain should be universally respected by the England squad and staff, and I don't think Terry is. He can't be. Not all footballers have no morals.[/QUOTE] True, but you'd be hard pushed to find any of the senior england players with a clean record.
As much as I hate to bring this up because I agree that everybody is entitled to privacy, and privacy and football should be separated. I remember that Rio Ferdinand had an alleged affair with a Israeli glamour model during his stag week in Tel Aviv last June? also there was lurid rumours that Rio, 26, has been having a fling with Nadine Ferguson, wife of Fergie's son Darren, who plays for Wrexham AFC. Also the Holly Maguire affair where he admitted to an affair while his missus was pregnant. So lets cut all the **** and admire the players for what they do best.............Football
I think the difference between the misdemeanours of Ferdinand/Gerrard and Terry is that the latter did something that divided the England camp. He ****ed over a teammate, he even bought Bridge's kid presents to cosy up to Perroncel. Unforgiveable in my opinion. It's just a shame that we really don't have many outstanding candidates for the role.
I'm sorry mate, but it is as clear as day to anyone with any experience of UK law. 1. "The draft order seeks a prohibition on publishing...the fact of a specified personal relationship" and "The applicant accepts the truth of certain information which is sought to be protected by the draft order". In other words, the injunction was designed to prevent the reporting of the relationship, and Terry accepts that information. That is as clear a legal acceptance as you can have, without involving a jury. 2. If Terry was seeking an injunction to prevent false allegations, this would have been made clear in his injunction application. He would have been much more likely to obtain an injunction preventing the release of information if he claimed it to be false. In that case, the judge would most likely have requested proof from the tabloids before lifting the injunction. The injunction application does not imply that any of the information is false. 3. Terry has lost millions of pounds of potential sponsorship deals from being stripped of the England captaincy, has been publically humiliated and his wife threatened to leave him at one point. That is sufficient financial and emotional distress to allow him to sue for millions under the tort of defamaton, if there was even a hint of the accusations being false. Yet Terry has not made a single attempt to sue. Not one. Why wouldn't he try to clear his name if he is innocent? The only threat to sue came from Perroncel, and that was based on accusations of invasion of privacy and not related to the affair. Why can't you just accept what everyone knows is true? Terry has never denied it, his lawyers have never denied it and I guarantee you that no newspaper has printed anything even close to a retraction. The BBC's reference to allegations is just their default policy - they still refer to Rooney's "alleged" visits to prostitutes whilst his wife was pregnant, even though everyone knows that is true as well. Not necessarily. The critical factor in all this is whether Terry has the support of the dressing room. If he does, then fine he should be captain again, and to hell with his off field character. But if his England team mates don't trust him after sleeping with a team mate's wife, then he definitely should not be captain as he won't have the full support of the team and thus won't be able to lead. This is the one thing it's very difficult to prove, as no player will come out in public and say they don't support the captain.
It's nothing against Chelsea, I'd be more than happy to give Lampard the armband. He's a quality player, age seems to be having less of an effect on him than it is on Gerrard (probably due to his game being a bit more intelligent, a bit less physical) and he's a leader.
Terry accepts that information. That is as clear a legal acceptance as you can have, without involving a jury? poppycock Your whole case is wrapped around 'certain information' but don't state what that certain information might be? The fact someone does not speak doesn't make them guilty. Perroncel's statement was that neither of them have had sexual relations, If we are now to take the two offending newspapers’ apologies at face value, they now accept that there was no affair between Terry and Perroncel. The document is a refusal of injunction only and not a vehicle to determine guilt or innocence. Of course you can make your own mind up on this as you have but your coming from supposition as you or nobody else has proof to accuse otherwise. Thankfully our legal system doesn't allow public belief based on media revelations and the mindless minions to determine someones guilt
When you stand up, in court, and say "this is true" it generally means it is true. Now you are tying your own argument in knots. The two offending newspapers apologised for receiving private information and stated that Perroncel claimed it wasn't true. They didn't specify what that private information is. If we are to take their apologies at face value, then we can only conclude that something they published about Perroncel wasn't true. But given the amount they have published about Perroncel, how vicious and unspecific some of it was, and how long it took for this apology to appear it is only reasonable to assume that they are apologising for the later information they dug up. In addition, the fact that their apology excludes Terry indicates that the allegations they apologised for did not concern him, and hence did not relate to the affair. My view on this is based on the fact that two newspapers made allegations that are incredibly damaging to Terry's reputation and his earning ability, and cost him the England captaincy that he was very proud of. And he did not deny the allegations, whatsoever. So apparently he had an army of lawyers that were clued up enough to try and obtain an injunction under European Human Rights law, but unaware of the fact that he could sue the papers if the accusations turned out to be false and obtain a full apology and public retraction of the allegations. Heck, even Beckham managed to work out he could sue newspapers if they printed false allegations. So either: a) The allegations are true b) Terry is an absolute idiot with a team of incompetent lawyers, who would rather risk his England career, his public profile and his marriage rather than stand up and say "This is not true". Heck, he could even have appointed a spokesperson to do it for him. So yes, on the basis that it is almost impossible for the accusations to be false, I conclude that they are true. On the tiny chance that they may be true, and that Terry may actually be a moron with highly paid yet incompetent lawyers, you can conclude that they are false if you want. Are you one of the people who believes the Moon landings didn't happen and aliens shot JFK by any chance?
"this is true" At which part did he say this? your being very vague for someone who likes to give the impression they know something of the legal system but in reality knows little Deal with facts not supposition No I'm not a conspiracy theorist
"The applicant accepts the truth of certain information which is sought to be protected by the draft order." The court decision clearly states that the draft order is only looking to protect four things: "(1) the fact of a specified personal relationship ("the Relationship") between LNS and another person who is named ("the other person"); (2) details of that relationship including certain specific consequences of it; (3) information leading to the identification of LNS or the other person and (4) any photographs evidencing or relating to the fact or details of these matters." So either Terry admitted that a relationship existed, that there were certain specific consequences of it, that Terry and another person were involved, or that there are photographs relating to the relationship. The order doesn't refer to any other information, so Terry must have admitted one of those four. And if we are only dealing with facts, not supposition, why are you so adamant Terry didn't have an affair? Cos there are no facts to suggest that he didn't.
I think the very fact that Terry hasn't sued, when he is such a money-grabbing bastard, is proof that he's guilty. Terry would sell his own mother for a couple of grand.
Here we go again a 'specified relationship' even more misleading than 'certain information' did anybody at this injunction decision bother to find out what that 'specified relationship' was or the 'certain information'? without this one can only do as you have and that is surmise. As Perroncel denied flat out that any sexual affair took place then JT must have shagged himself because no legal mind in existence could come to your strange decision based on the evidence in that document which at no time mentions that a sexual relationship took place. And you call those facts?? Are you related to judge Jeffery's perchance?
Are you wumming or just being dense? The "specified relationship" was the one Terry was trying to stop the papers from reporting in the injunction, like the court papers state. When his bid to stop the papers from reporting it failed, what happened? Oh yes, the papers reported his affair with Perroncel. Unless he was having a "specified personal relationship" with someone else at the same time, and failed to get an injunction to stop the media reporting that relationship, and then the media decided not to report it out of the goodness of their hearts, there is only one relationship they can be referring to. It ain't rocket science chief. I mean seriously, this is beginning to resemble a debate with a Liverpool fan
Stop being deliberately dense, it's plainly obvious what the"specified relationship" was. And Perroncel didn't flat out deny that an affair took place, she denied some of the personal information printed was false, something that she did and not Terry. Since Terry didn't deny or sue over any of the reports, you can only conclude that the personal details Perroncel said were false was not the report that the two of them had an affair. Why is it so important for you to believe Terry had an affair anyway? Do you feel that you owe him something to believe in him that he's the perfect family man or something? He's not, neither a re lot of players. Beyond wumming and rival fan banter the only real issue about Terry's affair was that it screwed an internation team mate, well screwed his team mates wife anyway. His actions directly resulted in an international team mate retring from England duty. It was just convinient that that player (Bridge) wasn't all that great anyway, so the FA had no problem letting the victim lose out and the guilty party keep playing for his country. You could almose guarentee that if it was the other way round and Brigde had an affair with Terry's wife and Terry threatended to quite International football that Bridge would have been kicked out of the Englad squad so Terry wouldn't retire.
What we have here is two thick twats who thrive on supposition, Perroncel has and did from the outset deny all allegations of sexual a affair Fact the terminology used with said document "specified relationship" could mean anything from plutonic to friendship etc. As the document fails exactly to specify which then one must err on the side of caution as no admittance by either party was made pertaining to a relationship of a sexual nature. Terry was trying to apply an injunction to protect himself from unproved allegations that could have and probably did damage his financial wherewithal and reputation. So in your ****ed up mind the fact that Terry's injunction failed makes him guilty? And you have the temerity to call me dense? ****ing Twat!
Jesus H you really are thick as two short planks aren't you? To repeat again: a) There is no supposition. Clear and damaging accusations have been made that Terry and Perroncel had an affair. Terry admitted "the facts of the relationship" in court and asked for the reporting of the relationship to be suppressed. The fact that the relationship was then reported as an affair indicates that this is the information Terry was asking to be suppressed. Do you really believe Terry wanted to stop the press reporting he was friends with her?!? If so, why is that not what they reported? b) Why should we "err on the side of caution" when Terry has admitted cheating on his wife in the past? c) If "Terry was trying to apply an injunction to protect himself from unproved allegations that could have and probably did damage his financial wherewithal and reputation" why did he not then sue to protect the same reputation? d) As an affair is not illegal, there is no need to have overwhelming proof to believe it is true. Civil law rests on "the balance of probabilities". And the balance of probabilities overwhelmingly indicate that Terry cheated on his wife with Perroncel. You can talk about Perroncel's denial all you want, but she's hardly the first person to lie about an affair on national TV. And do you not remember in the interview when she denied the allegations that she had a publicity agent, employed by Max Clifford, to remind her of "the official position"? Based on that, I think the two short planks will be quite insulted to be compared with you. Can you actually provide a reasoned answer to any of those questions? Or are you just going to whinge about "erring on the side of caution" or giving the benefit of the doubt to a habitual cheater?
