Bottlers

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Quite simply, proof would be enough witnesses that would be willing to swear under oath that he said those words. That would have meant his own team-mates who were in earshot at the time aswell....never going to happen.
 
notsosmartspur said:
Quite simply, proof would be enough witnesses that would be willing to swear under oath that he said those words. That would have meant his own team-mates who were in earshot at the time aswell....never going to happen.
Click to expand...

Not so (ahem) he admitted saying the words, so no corroboration was needed. Guilty as ****.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
I don't think this incident makes out a case that Terry is a racist. As I've said on another thread, sportsmen (in all sports) tend to shout, swear and trade insults as a means of dealing with the stress or pressure they are put under or as simply a way of releasing emotions, even joy! Sometimes it is genuinely banter where no offence is intended or taken. What's said on the playing field isn't what most would say off it- or expect to be allowed to say, but different rules should govern their conduct during a game. Many sportsmen are civil and courteous at all times, but many are prone to few choice insults or profanities- or both. In cricket, for example, where players are often seen as better behaved than footballers because they are generally better educated and the etiquette of the game is presumed to demand higher standards, sledging is commonplace. A batsman will be subjected to a barrage of abuse, possibly for hours on end- and lets be realistic, he's likely to be called a lot worse than Terry is supposed to have called Ferdinand. That rather unimaginative three word outburst wouldn't have made Merv Hughes best 1,000 sledges to a West Indian tailender, would it? And don't forget that in almost every instance, whatever is said on the pitch is forgotten as soon as the players leave it. In cricket, they socialise afterwards and clearly show a healthy repect for each other, whatever names have been called.
Click to expand...

What a load codswallop - the biggest amount of rubbish you have spouted since you metamorphesised from a twat on 606 to stalker on here. Racist abuse is never tolerated on any field these days (Hughes played in the 80s when we weren't so enlightened). Do you think Andrew Strauss would get away with calling Chris Gayle what Terry admitted saying to Ferdinand. Of course not. Not even even if he pretended to have heard Gayle accuse him of it.
 
Not much to add, really. Just to say that Terry is one of the most thoroughly unsavoury, slimy, disreputable scumbags, in the game. A totally miserable excuse for a human being.
 
SpursDisciple said:
Not so (ahem) he admitted saying the words, so no corroboration was needed. Guilty as ****.
Click to expand...

Not so, what I meant! :) I meant that he said it in the first instance, Ferdinand was already advancing toward Terry before the later exchange seen on You Tube, the later repeat of the words as a question as he claims. I believe he said it twice, only admitting to the latter explanation., of which yes, he is guilty. <ok>
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
Cricketers tend to be a bit smarter and wittier than the likes of Terry.

The uttering of a taboo word doesn't make you racist. I don't know whether Terry is or isn't, but I won't judge him though from the few expletives he said in the heat of the moment.

Would you like me to judge you from your outburst? "Twat" could amount to an insulting word likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, couldn't it? Is that how you intended I should feel or did you think I'd have enough sense to realise that you were just showing your emotions about this issue?
Click to expand...

Are you saying SD called you a 'twat'
 
The only thing that disturbs me in all of this is the fact that John "I buy only white goods" Terry and all the Chavs now believe that JT has been "cleared" of racism, as is being reported by some of the thicker hack journos.

That isn't true of course. JT has been "cleared" of nothing.

It's merely the case that the magistrate was only 98% certain that JT had uttered racial abuse and not the 99% that is required by our criminal legal system to convict idiots like Terry.
 
At the end of the day, the cornerstone of our judicial system as part of a liberal, Western society is that you are innocent until proven guilty.

Despite everything, unless there is empirical evidence to adjudge you as guilty, you are, in the eyes of the law, innocent.

Sometimes it looks a little... debatable, like with Terry, but it is a system that must remain.
 
I wouldn't want our system to operate in any other way.

I am merely making the point that JT has been "cleared" of nothing. The system did not require him to prove his innocence; the CPS had to prove his guilt. The thicker among posters seem unable to grasp this very simple point.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
Cricketers tend to be a bit smarter and wittier than the likes of Terry.

The uttering of a taboo word doesn't make you racist. I don't know whether Terry is or isn't, but I won't judge him though from the few expletives he said in the heat of the moment.

Would you like me to judge you from your outburst? "Twat" could amount to an insulting word likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, couldn't it? Is that how you intended I should feel or did you think I'd have enough sense to realise that you were just showing your emotions about this issue?
Click to expand...

Luke, wasn't really calling you that in an aggressive way, but I apologise if it was taken that way (although I can see the point you are making). By twat, I meant wum - which you were in those days (if indeed you are the same person). My main point was that Terry said those words, admitted he said the words and from that point he has to prove his defence, and it was ludicrous. If there was no evidence that he said the words, then the onus is the other way. Then for you to defend it as banter and what happens on a sports field is plain wrong. There is a line for these things (Ferdinand's were just the right side - but nothing to be proud of - Terry's were way past the line.
 
Hoddle Is A God said:
The only thing that disturbs me in all of this is the fact that John "I buy only white goods" Terry and all the Chavs now believe that JT has been "cleared" of racism, as is being reported by some of the thicker hack journos.

That isn't true of course. JT has been "cleared" of nothing.
It's merely the case that the magistrate was only 98% certain that JT had uttered racial abuse and not the 99% that is required by our criminal legal system to convict idiots like Terry.
Click to expand...
Not guilty does actually mean that he has been cleared. 98% certain? Where did you hear that?
 
Blueman said:
Not guilty does actually mean that he has been cleared. 98% certain? Where did you hear that?
Click to expand...

His comments weren't supposed to be taken literally. A lot of what the magistrate said suggests that the prosecution hadn't quite proved their case. From there legally he is 100% cleared. I suspect the FA (with their different burden of proof) will conclude - on balance - that he was guilty of racist behaviour.
 
Blueman said:
Not guilty does actually mean that he has been cleared.
Click to expand...




As I said in an earlier post, the thicker posters have a difficult time understanding that the "not guilty" verdict does not mean that John "iron my hood, bitch" Terry has "cleared" his name. Clearly, he has not, since he has not proven himself innocent, rather the CPS has failed to prove him guilty.

I don't expect you to understand that concept, for the reasons I have made clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back