Magistrate says Terry said the words "f****** black c***" but can't be sure it was an insult. Unbelievable. You know what you are....
"‘It is impossible to be sure what were the words spoken by Mr Terry at the time." - Chief Magistrate Very true, apart from them being on film and Terry admitting saying them. Also admitted that Ferdinand had no reason to lie and was being truthful. Absolutely ludicrous verdict.
Still could face FA charge, given the beyond reasonable doubt is not needed, only a balance of probabilities. I think the OP is right, the Magistrate has bottled this, as his defence is ludicrous.
The FA could and should, charge him for bringing the game into disrepute, because that is what he has done.
Terry/Gerrard/Bramble/Redknapp all found not guilty recently. How many of these verdicts, do we, honestly, imagine were correct ? Money, money, money !
^^^^^^^ For the record, I don't believe they could all be guilty (surely?), but it just seems odd that each got away with it when so much evidence was stacked against each
no wonder this country is bringing up a bunch of losers and chavs..pathetic..and he will always be a racist basterd in my eyes..i dont need a bunch of idiots in wigs telling me what is morally correct or not.
I didn't read as much into this one as I did with the FA and Suarez but it was the verdict I expected. It was up to the prosecution to provide evidence to disprove Terry's argument that he wasn't calling Anton those words rather repeating what he thought he was being accused of which they couldn't do.
It's all about proof... and thank goodness it is. Sure scumbags get away with things from time to time, but it's really important that verdicts can only be based on proof of evidence, not what is "quite likely". I've done jury service three times and acquit a couple of scumbags who were surely guilty of something if not the exact charges they were brought up on. But that's the point, you can only convict on the particular charge with the right evidence and I'm very glad we live in that sort of country. I think many of you would not like to live in a country where this is not important. Unfortunately we only ever focus on the drawbacks of such a system, where unsavoury people appear to be getting away with things, but that is very much preferable to the alternative.
but what constitutes proof is almost ridiculous at times...im sure everyone is glad like you said...but at times it is like unless you get shot dead or battered black and blue and was filmed whilst it happened then....your attacker may still walk free or do community service at the local graveyard...how you get people with multiple convictions still walking amongst normal law abiding citizens is a slap to the honest man...and crime does pay in this country...many many many examples.
It's about proof...which is why people with the means to assemble the best defence team they can look to have evidence removed for spurious reasons. One issue with trials is that the defence team is allowed to see the prosecution before going to trial, which gives them time to find any loophole to have evidence stricken off, as well as construct any cock and bull story to try and explain away the evidence that makes it to court. John Terry got away with racially abusing somebody because of it, Amanda Knox got away with murder because of it - even when it's open and shut cases, such as the Sally Anne Bowman or Milly Dowler, the defence lawyers can be outright offensive with their attempts to explain away the most damning evidence, yet they never get brought to account for it.
How much more proof was required, then? Did he need to be wearing a KKK conical hat ? I see what you're saying, but sometimes a bit of common sense wouldn't go a miss !!
Absolute disgrace of an outcome. And I bet the FA are going to state that they're not going to carry out their own investigation now 'in line with the findings of the Magistrates Court'. I think its time for a complete overhaul of the FA's disciplinary panel, whereby the FA who picks the England manager/football structure/etc is completely separate from this new board of discipline. Then this board could say Terry banned for 2 months, and the ordinary FA could say, Well sorry, but we've no say in their decisions. All appeals could go through them too, and from there they could go up to CAS. Its the only way, 100% independence from the political motivations of the members of the FA. If Separation of Powers is a fundamental cornerstone of the UK's constitution, why can't it be transferred to football too?
It may be time for such a review of FA procedures, but this situation in the main was the outcome of a court case. If anyone needs their procedures reviewing here its the CPS because they should have realised they didn't have the evidence to get a conviction. It was, as has been said, a waste of taxpayers money. And again, I'm not defending JT, I am hardly a fan of his, I'm defending the law and trying to address the bad press it generally gets because we tend to only discuss the times when it appears not to be working in the public interest. I would argue that generally however it is in the public interest that the prosecution has to prove its case with suitable evidence.
