Again, I think the most salient point is that neither Terry nor his slapper took legal action against the press. If it was all lies and they were just friends, WHY DID THEY NOT SUE?
Oh My! I have never come across anybody so thick Swarbs mate but you certainly take the biscuit a) All supposition, yes clear and damaging accusations were made Terry at NO TIME admitted to any sexual relationship. Perroncel from the outset has denied point blank that no sexual relationship took place. Yes Terry tried to suppress those allegations from becoming public to try to limit collateral damage from the scandal mongers and brainless such as yourself. There is more than one definition for the word 'relationship' and you have jumped on the one which drives your vehicle of hate towards this Terry for whatever twisted reasons you have? b) Ferdinand has cheated on his wife and so has Shrek in fact it would be quicker to make a list of those who haven't! but does that make them guilty because they have done it before? **** me mate your logic is so Neanderthal c) Having failed in gaining an injunction Terry was probably advised that any protracted run-in with the gutter press would be more damaging. As he has now rightfully regained his England captaincy I would say the advise given was correct. d) The Balance of probabilities that's a good one 'The probabilities according to Swarb' i) You are guilty because you have been unfaithful before. ii) You haven't made a statement so you must be guilty. iii) You must be guilty because I don't like you and the newspapers say so anyway. At the end of the day the injunction failed not because the adjudicator was convinced there was an affair but in the way the injunction was placed. Unfortunately this has left the case open to speculation but noteworthy establishments like the BBC and alike still write about the case as ALLEGED which means unproven. To be honest even a piece of 4X2 would be insulted to be placed wood yard full of planks.
Ginger Marks Let's say you're right then and JT kept his pecker in his pants for a change. Why didn't he sue? The man would do anything for a bit of cash, whether it's guided tours round the Chelsea training ground or selling his captain's box at Wembley. So why didn't he take legal action?
I just can't believe what I'm reading here. Ginge my respect for you is falling by the day. You haven't a single coherent argument Untrue. As I stated above, 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. Why do you think he'd go to court to try and suppress the reporting of the relationship, if it wasn't the relationship that was then reported? You think he wanted the court to ban the NOTY from reporting that Perroncel and he were "just friends"? As for Perroncel, she did not deny the allegations from the outset - it took her four months to finally deny the allegations. What, you think she enjoyed effectively being called a whore in the press for four months? 30th January 2010 - it is reported that Perroncel slept with Terry 3rd February 2010 - it is reported that Perroncel also slept with Mutu and Gudjohsen 4th February 2010 - Perroncel denies sleeping with Mutu and Gudjohsen 19th May 2010 - Perroncel denies sleeping with Terry It took her one day to deny sleeping with Mutu and Gudjohsen and four months to deny sleeping with Terry? Seriously mate, check your facts before making bs claims. Are you really that thick? If Ferdinand or Rooney were accused, by a major newspaper, of having an affair and did not deny it or make any attept to sue for defamation then yes, I would assume that they were guilty. Cos if they weren't, there would be a hell of a lawsuit. Even Shrek would be intelligent enough to deny rumours that are both untrue and malicious. You are ****ing kidding me, right? So rather than simply get his highly paid lawyers to kick the **** out of the tabloids, get millions of pounds worth of damages, and get a full apology and retraction he decided it was less humiliating to: 1) Lose the England captaincy, which at the time was made out to be permanent 2) Suffer the humiliation of his wife kicking him out of the family home and threatening to divorce him 3) Fly to Dubai to beg his wife to forgive him 4) Lose out on millions of pounds in potential sponsorship deals 5) Be humiliated in an interview by Craig Bellamy 6) Be humiliated before the City match by Wayne Bridge 7) Be booed and jeered by half the England fans in his next England match All it would have taken to stop this from happening was a call to his lawyers and three words: "it's not true". All your talk about a "protracted run in" with the tabloids is bollocks. As soon as he started legal action against them they would not have dared print another word. But he'd rather suffer public humiliation that make that phone call. Yeah, right. I think you'll find the balance of probability according to Swarbs is: i) You are publically accused of having an affair ii) You do not deny it iii) You do not deny it when your wife threatens to divorce you iv) You fly to Dubai to beg your wife for forgiveness v) You do not deny it when you are stripped of the England captaincy vi) You do not deny it when other players humiliate you in interviews and on the pitch vii) You do not sue, when if the allegations were false you could win millions and a full apology viii) You do not do anything at all that is consistent with the behaviour of an innocent person Finally, and perhaps most damningly, prior to the information being made public, you try to take out an injunction to prevent the information being published. When you fail, you don't get your lawyers to call up the newspaper and threaten to sue them if they publish. Having some experience of the media business, I know that a threat to sue is taken very seriously, and if this threat was made the paper would not publish unless it was 100% certain of the truth of the allegations. When all of that occurs then yes, the balance of probabilities is overwhelmingly that you did have an affair, failed to suppress it, and are now resigned to everyone knowing about it and only your most deluded fans believing that you are still innocent. Like I said, the BBC refers to everything as "alleged". It even continues to refer to Wayne Rooney's "alleged" affairs and the "alleged" corruption of those FIFA officials who accepted bribes in Panorama recordings. Ultimately, I have no personal problem with Terry. If he wants to cheat on his wife that's his business. Provided the England team are willing to accept him back as captain, and follow his leadership, that's fine with me. The only who seems to have twisted reasons for believing that Terry is innocent is you.
Swarbs are you being deliberately as thick as **** to wind me up? John Terry admitted to 'certain aspects' within a relationship as nobody here can say which aspects then the whole thing is just conjecture. But as so many times before are assuming as there is at no point throughout these proceedings where either party have admitted to anything whatsoever and if you can show these admissions saying point blank that there was without a scrap of doubt there was then shut the **** up banging on about things that are conjecture because your starting to make yourself look a complete prick. Again you surmise greatly in assuming that he fly to Dubai to beg forgiveness? read that in the Sun? Yes he went to Dubai but you or the press just guessed as much. Have you considered that she may have gone to Dubai to escape the circus the scumbag press were putting the family through? Nah your a Sun geezer Quite frankly I don'y give a **** if he knobbed her or not I just hate ignorant twats like you jumping to conclusion without any cast iron proof. All you have done is read between the lines and believe what your tabloid has fed you like a good little boy. Your quite entitled to have your opinion however misguided it may be. I have tried to enlighten you that one should not judge without all the facts and the failed injunction paper is just that a reason for failure based on technical grounds that the judge found to be out of order nothing more. Make of that what you will however all the respected newspapers and decent media such as the BBC still mention it as alleged because they are educated and you are not.
I honestly don't know and I honestly don't care He's the right man for the job and the jobs football not his private life. But just hate people with a fill in the blanks sense of justice attitude, these fools will drag us back to burning witches and hanging monkey's as spies
You really don't have a clue do you? John Terry admitted the fact that a relationship occured at the same time as attempting to have that relationship covered up. The media then reported that relationship. Once again, why would he apply for an injunction to cover up some other unspecified relationship that wasn't even reported? Answer the ****ing question this time instead of talking more bullshit. And talking about a "scrap of doubt" shows how ignorant you are. All a jury needs to convict someone of murder is to be convinced "beyond reasonable doubt". But you think we should have evidence to believe Terry had an affair than to convict someone of murder?!?! Give it a rest. The Sun, the Times, the Telegraph, the Independent and the Guardian all reported it. Did you read what they said to the press in Dubai? John Terry: "I've realised what a big mistake I've made. It has made me sit down and realise what's important in my life. My wife and kids are all that matters and I can't believe I was stupid enough to risk losing them." Toni Terry: "John looked me in the eye and said he's changed. We have drawn a line under this episode. It's all about our future as a family from now." What do you think they were talking about? You are the one who has jumped to conclusions like an arrogant and ignorant little twat, and you don't even know the facts. You have shown no ability to weigh the evidence and make a considered decision. You even claimed Perroncel denied it straight away, which is clearly false. Ultimately, in a case like this, you either believe that the person accused is guilty or innocent. Everyone makes a conclusion. I have weighed up the evidence based on the actions of the media, the courts, Terry himself, his wife, Perroncel, Wayne Bridge, and Fabio Capello. The actions of all those parties are consistent with Terry having had an affair, and being caught. Perroncel's denial was too late and too forced to be genuine, particularly given how fast she denied the other allegations made at the time. So, what do you base your conclusions on? Some vain hope that JT still is your little hero? Don't dodge the question again - on what facts and what evidencedo you believe that he is innocent?
I agree that his football life and his private life should be kept separate. But stop insulting me for making a reasoned conclusion based on the available evidence. I have not and never will jump to conclusions. Terry's behaviour is consistent with the behaviour of a guilty man, and I am convinced he had the affair. I'm not saying he should be punished for it, that's up to his wife to decide, but I am entitled to draw my own conclusion based on the evidence.
On a lighter (I think?) note, how would you hang a monkey? Would it not just grab the rope with all 4 legs/arms/appendages and keep itself suspended? Unless you stunned the monkey first I suppose.
I'd like to see him spying with a large piece of metal attached to his genitals. Apparently it really did happen though, during the Napoleonic Wars in Hartlepool.
Well, neither really, but a monkey was indeed arrested, tried and executed as a French spy: "During the Napoleonic wars, a French ship of the type chasse marée was wrecked off the coast of Hartlepool. The only survivor was a monkey, wearing a French uniform (presumably to provide amusement for those on board the ship). On finding the monkey, some locals decided to hold an impromptu trial on the beach; since the monkey was unable to answer their questions, and many locals were unaware of what a Frenchman may look like, they concluded that the monkey was in fact a French spy. Just to make sure, the animal was thus sentenced to death and hanged from the mast of a fishing boat on the Headland."
Its a great story isn't it? The people of Hartlepool are still embarrassed and stigmatised over the incident. Amazing what some people can accuse others with when they don't have a danny.
It is indeed a great story, and ironic that you assume it's true without a shred of proof, given your comments above. After all, it is widely known that during that period the young boys who were employed on ships to carry powder bags for the guns (as they were the only ones small enough to easily get into the powder stores and avoid enemy fire) were known as "powder monkeys". So this could actually be the tragic tale of a child being hung by a bunch of angry fishermen. Which would explain why the people of Hartlepool became so proud of the monkey story - their rugby team is known as the Monkeyhangers, and Hartlepool United's mascot is H'Angus the Monkey. Much better to be known as the town that hung a monkey, than one that murdered an innocent child... Of course if they did actually hang a monkey that is funny as ****
