Of course I get it Beth!! BUT......we all know that ****, rightly or wrongly is used to abuse someone, as well as to describe a woman's lady-garden!! If you want to take it literally, then it is detrimental to women to use the c word as an insult. But you know as well as I do that in the Terry case it was the use of black **** that was wrong!! It could have been black bastard.....but then that would be detrimental to people without a Dad!! It could have been black knob....etc etc!! Are you joining forces with Swords to post argumentative bollocks?
You are so right DL, see what it has done here. Going back 3 pages...it was handled wrong from the start and QPR (the club) are not completely blameless. Chelsea (the club) are even more to blame. Some one (TIMK?) said earlier Terry should have been told to come out and apologise staright away "heat of the moment thing...didn't mean, never meant it ...I was a complete prick"(that word is used humourously Flyer). May have taken the heat out of the situation Third parties blew this up!
Agreed - a decent amount of community work with kids of all descriptions would have gone a he'll of a long way to sorting this and would have done more good than this bitter and twisted, acccusatory court case.
How dare you use that, its offensive to me and all other men! Rangercol used it not me officer...I was just repeating it in a sarcastic manner for effect, officer. I am not a sexist officer, I have been misunderstood officer
Ok, Ill let you off if you have known someone with bollocks, then that proves you dont discriminate against persons with dangly bits.
The reason he was called as a witness is rather more mundane. When an act or words are alleged to be insulting or upsetting and the perpetrator is charge with deliberately or recklessly causing that, most good criminal prosecutors will want to call the victim to confirm that he was at the time, or when he heard it later, upset and hurt. The reality is that once the state becomes involved, Police/CPS in this post Stephen Lawrence world, a zero tolerance attitude prevails whenever there is the slightest whiff of race being a factor. Nothing wrong with that provided that an element of judgment comes into it. We'll know at the end whether the Police and CPS were justified in their judgment or were simply being PC. Not having followed this as intensely as some of you can I ask wether the prosecution called any other witnesses who heard what was said at the time? We know that the defence will but we also know already that they all clammed up when initially interviewed and yet amy now all seem to have a perfect recollection that whatever JT did say he did not say it about AF. Incredible how memories can improve over such a length of time. Years ago when I used to do criminal trials, I remember the amazement of the press and public alike that nobody believed police officers when they gave evidence. Neither would I would in the vast majority of cases. The reason why was because they could not resist the temptation to come up with one version of events and all claimed to have seen/heard exactly the same sequence of events without any change at all. A good defence barrister would be able to exploit their collective amnesia of anything different or unexplained such as the black eyes and severe bruising that that defendant had got during the "minor scuffle" while being arrested and which remarkabley none of the police witnesses could account for. Be interesting to see if Terry's witnesses make that same mistake. It wouldn't be the first time that a man has been convicted because of the perceived lack of honesty of his own witnesses.
As I understand it, so far, Anton has given evidence, the defence tried to strike out the case this morning but this was denied by the court so there is a case to answer, and this afternoon Terry has been giving evidence
