cough cough. This is what is wrong with this country...bleeding heart liberals who favour taking an unwinnable case to court at public expense to prove that we are are nation of bleeding heart liberals.... This will cost the public in excess of 1 million pounds-cappello lost his job and all creditbility foir the legal system has disappreaed up its own backside. I dispise spending my money on a farce.
In all seriousness this what the case has costs the tax payer (estimated) Prosecescution QC £200k Defence QC £200k Court experts £75k Court Costs (5 days) £300k Security £50k Compensation to Capello £4 mill? (not sure about what the deal was) Additional security at QPR v Chlesea games £150k and continuing. Some how I do not think proportionality of sentancing Terry at a maximum of £2,500 does this case justice. Is it in the public interest to bring such a case at such an expense?
I normally keep well out of debates like this, but this time typical, I find myself in agreement with your conclusion if not your sentiments. On the reported evidence presented, this case was absolutely unwinnable and why the hell it ever came to court defeats me. However, you could say that about ten fifteen, twenty cases a year brought by the DPP and some other organisations as well - I mean seriously, on the evidence presented, how were Harry and Milan ever going down? IMO, in a time of such austerity, when so many people are being affected by Government cuts, cases like this are an egregious waste of public money.
IMO, in a time of such austerity, when so many people are being affected by Government cuts, cases like this are an egregious waste of public money.[/QUOTE] Absolute agree. Terry is still a @@@@ though!!
Are the FA mostly taxpayer funded ? Maybe that's a stupid question - I don't know the answer Re QC and Court costs, if Terry had lost the case, would he have had to pay these?
THe fa gets revenue from sky tv, the fa cup, England internationals and a massive slice between 50 and 80 milliion from the government via sport England. We as fans pay double or most likely treble through going to watch football or through tv subscription and taxes. I echo the points made above. It was a case that always had that element of doubt. Cemented in English law is proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Nobody heard the words and their context. It was a loser from the start. Has terry lost he would have appealed and won in a appeal court. It may be that the court would order him to pay a percentage of the prosecution cost but never the full amount. What possessed the court to bring this case? How many copycats cases will be before the courts now. Absolute scandal of mismanagement and oversensisitivity.
An amazing result, totally the wrong outcome and hopefully the FA will investigate further. Now you can say something racist, be a racist then when it gets to court it's dismissed as only 'banter' in the heat of the moment (not that Ferdinand's behaviour in taunting Terry with abuse about his relationship was any better) , quite incredible that this sort of behaviour is left unchallenged in society, now up the FA to pursue it further, which of course they will.
When insulting somebody, you take a distinguishing characteristic as your focus. If somebody is fat you insult their weight. If somebody is ginger you insult that. I don't get why skin colour is such a no go. While no insult is particularly pleasant, how is it so much worse than the others listed?
Terry's defence which was claiming he merely repeated back to Ferdinand what he thought ferdinand had accused him of followed by the descriptive term "kn*bhead" was, combined with Ferdinand's admission that he had been inciting Terry, sufficient to throw doubt into the equation. If it is not beyond doubt then magistrate would have found Terry guilty but because of the doubt you remain in this country innocent until proven guilty. I am not a particular fan of Mr Terry nor of the culture that many associate with him, but I am a believer in the basic tenets of the English legal system, which appear to be have been upheld.
In this context, it was a racist insult using offensive language. It doesn't particularly augur well if there are Charlton fans nowdays who try to excuse racism eg singling someone out for abuse because they belong to a different race or culture on the grounds that oh it's just an insult, just banter.
I doubt that any Charlton fan would support the use of a racist insult and I am certain that none of the people on here would. However, the decision of the magistrate was, having viewed the prosecution evidence against and heard the defence from Terry and other players on the field who supported his defence, that there was reasonable doubt that an offence had been committed or that a racist insult was intended. That foul and obusive language was being used on both sides of the arguement is admitted beyond doubt and it was indeed a bad example being set. Terry himself did not deny using the words but in his defence claimed that he was merely responding to an accusation from Ferdinand that he had used them on an earlier occasion. Although I have little sympathy for the man, I do not beleive that were he a racist he would have survived this long in what is now a multicultural and multiracial game at all levels.
There's a difference between insulting somebody BECAUSE of their race and bringing up their race as part of an insult. Insulting somebody because of their race I cannot approve of. That is genuine racism. But I don't see how bringing up somebodies race in an insult is any different than bringing up a persons weight or hair colour. Can you please give one real reason why one is worse than the others? Obviously it's not a pleasant thing to do, no insult is and I wouldn't encourage it. I just don't like the fact that some insults based on appearance are treated as criminal offences, while others are just slightly looked down upon.
100% agree with Ryans point. Race, Gender and Sexuality seem to be such taboo subjects. Calling someone a ginger c*** will get you at most a bit of a telling off, calling someone a black/gay c*** and you'll lose your job and could face strict legal action/fines etc. And yet both are simply references to peoples appearance and/or lifestyle choices.
Any offensive insults are unacceptable, in the normal workplace it would be dealt with by a procedure, football does not appear to have a robust system in place for dealing with inappropriate behaviour in the work place which is the field of play. That is why the FA needs to deal with it and the use of offensive language as an insult by players. In this particular context, a person is being singled out and insulted because of their race or colour (not gender, disability, weight, hair colour etc) which is a racist comment in view of the way the player is being treated. If the player was insulted without their race or colour being attached to the insult then it wouldn't be a racist insult because the offensive remark is not aimed at that person's race, in this case it was and is therefore racist. That doesn't condone Ferdinand's behaviour and taunts but I think most people recognise if you associate race whether it's black or white with an insult then that in itself is racist language. You would have to ask how black people would feel about the words Terry used, I am sure the vast majority would find it racist. Are there any black fans on here who would like to comment as I would be interested to hear your views? In fact I will be talking about it to a black friend of mine tomorrow.
Nonetheless the comments made were racist, he said he made them but thought of them as banter, I do not see it in that light. If he hadn't made them back he could quite easily have called Ferdinand's bluff. It's a bit like any comments made by players which bring in race are now being treated as 'banter' and this judge has undermined progress being made in football on this issue.
