Bottlers

[Drogs]

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.

Yes because the FA are above a court of law

 

[Blueman]

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.

And not guilty means not guilty. What else is there to it? CPS was unable to prove guilt. Guilt may exist in your eyes but your opinion counts for nothing in the eyes of the law. That's how the law works but I don't expect you to understand that concept.

 

[SpursDisciple]

Yes because the FA are above a court of law

Daft point, never said they were above a court of law. They can however act like a civil court and decide on a balance of probabilities. Ask OJ Simpson how you can be not guilty in a criminal court, but "guilty" in a civil court. I don't think a criminal court would have convicted Suarez, but FA have a different role and a different burden of proof.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

That's how the law works...

No, it isn't.

I'm not going to argue the point any further with you. I refer you, instead, to the explanations I have previously given, on several occasions.

 

[Blueman]

No, it isn't.

I'm not going to argue the point any further with you. I refer you, instead, to the explanations I have previously given, on several occasions.

God what a plank! I give up. Bye.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

I give up. Bye.

Good riddance!

 

[Hoddle is a god]

By the way, why is it that thick people hate it when you tell them they are thick?

All my life, I've been a smart-arse, and I have never once complained when that fact has been pointed out to me, as it has many hundreds of times.

 

[Blueman]

By the way, why is it that thick people hate it when you tell them they are thick?

All my life, I've been a smart-arse, and I have never once complained when that fact has been pointed out to me, as it has many hundreds of times.

You got the arse bit right. Smart? Nah not at all. As I said, Plank!

 

[Hoddle is a god]

You got the arse bit right. Smart? Nah not at all. As I said, Plank!

But that's exactly the kind of thing that a thick person would say.

Anyway, I thought you were off?

 

[NSIS]

And not guilty means not guilty. What else is there to it? CPS was unable to prove guilt. Guilt may exist in your eyes but your opinion counts for nothing in the eyes of the law. That's how the law works but I don't expect you to understand that concept.

Come off it, pal. What your wonderful captain said was clear for everybody to see. He escaped merely because, for some unknown reason, nobody seemed to hear the exchange between him and Ferdinand. The vast majority of us, including the magistrate, if you read his comments, are sure of his guilt - I really can't see why else Ferdinand would make such an accusation. We will see if the F.A. who are unconstrained by the same laws, take such a lenient view!

 

[humanbeingincroydon]

The summing-up, verbatim.

To summarize:

* There is no doubt the words "****ing black ****" were directed at Mr Ferdinand.

* Overall I found Anton Ferdinand to be a believable witness on the central issue.

* It is inherently unlikely that he should firstly accuse John Terry of calling him a black ****, then shortly after the match completely deny that he had made such a comment, and then maintain that false account throughout the police investigation and throughout this trial. There is no history of animosity between the two men. The supposed motivation is slight.

* Mr Terry’s explanation is, certainly under the cold light of forensic examination, unlikely. It is not the most obvious response. It is sandwiched between other undoubted insults.

* I believe that he is an unwilling witness, and would have preferred that this matter not come to court.

* There were discrepancies in his evidence. To a large extent this is what you would expect from a truthful witness. Much of what happened; happened in a brief period of time, in circumstances where the result of the game was more important than any individual argument between two players.

I will return later to the discrepancies. Adding these facts together it is clear that the prosecution has built a strong case. I had no hesitation in refusing a submission of no case to answer based on those facts.

So the question for me now is whether there is a doubt that the offence is made out. In all criminal courts in this country a defendant is found guilty only if the court, be it a jury, magistrate, or a judge, is sure of guilt. If there is a reasonable doubt then the defendant is entitled to be acquitted.

If anyone reads that and believes that Terry has been cleared, they're either deluded, a liar, or illiterate.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

The summing-up, verbatim.



If anyone reads that and believes that Terry has been cleared, they're either deluded, a liar, or illiterate.

...and thick

 

[Master Yoda]

Yepp... to sum it up, Terry is guilty, they just can't completely prove it.

 

[CockneySpur]

And not guilty means not guilty. What else is there to it? CPS was unable to prove guilt. Guilt may exist in your eyes but your opinion counts for nothing in the eyes of the law. That's how the law works but I don't expect you to understand that concept.

this is not about what is the law and not the law, it is about whether he is found guilty or not (let us remember the amount of guilty people that walk free with the aid of a good QC and their 'mates'). While the chav racist may have not been proven guilty - just about anyone knows he is far from innocent, and I hope the odious excuse for a human being gets banned for a very long-time, and also gets banned for life from pulling on an England shirt

anyone who has not got jam-jar bottomed glasses can see what was said on video

 

[Chirpy rides again]

Luke mate, if you use those words you are a racist. It may have taken a very expensive lawyer to come up with enough smoke and mirrors to deflect from what, to most of us, seemed a very clear example of the sort of behaviour we have grown to expect from somebody who is clearly a piss poor example of a human being, but Terry said what he said in anger. I know it, you know it, Terry knows it, the Chavs know it (although they will defend the odious scumbag to the hilt.)

Let's hope the FA enquiry actually punishes him. The burden of proof being far less weighty. If we look at the Suarez case there is far less proof and his punishment was severe. We live in hope that Terry gets at least the same punishment.

 

[Spurlock]

Chirpy, I agree with you in part. I've not sought to justify what Terry said- whatever the context in which he used those words. However, the incident has been blown out of proportion, perhaps because of who he is. He shouldn't have been prosecuted because a conviction was unlikely given Ferdinand's stance. The F.A should take action, but they should see it for what it was- a minor spat where angry words were exchanged on both sides. Insults were traded and a few expletives used. I'm not inclined to accept that the use of the word "black" in a short outburst shows Terry to be racist or elevates the seriousness of the matter significantly as many seem to believe it should. It was a lazy, unimaginative comment said in the heat of the moment. It was probably said without any premeditation. Suarez's case was different. He pursued Evra and persistently used the term "negrito" towards him. Despite his protestations to the contrary, it was clear that Suarez intended to show racial hostility towards Evra.

so why not call someone a '****' instead of a 'black ****' or do you know of white people being called 'black ****'?

why say that if there is no racial connotation?

its a simple matter made to look stupid due to the over thinking that is going on here..if your child called someone a 'black ****' wether in jest or not would you not at the very least bat an eyelid with regards to the child making a reference to colour?

the FA have got a chance here to get some much needed respect from football fans by throwing the book at him in order to deter such verbal abuse..even if decorated with a smile and a wink and a jokey pat on the back or whatever!

 

[Spurlock]

It's all a question of degree, Spurlock. Racism is, as others have said, something a lot more repugnant that a few unsophisticated insults.

i agree but it must be nipped in the bid surely..i dont agree that unless it is at a mass level it should be ignored.

 

[Spurlock]

It won't be ignored by the F.A. but it doesn't merit the type of reponse which is being advocated.

yeah going to court etc does seem far fetched considering the harsh realities of the fact that it is unfortunatly a common occurance..however if you are in the limelight then you really must re think your strategy especially when many of your fans could be offended by what you have said(referring to Terry of course).

 

[humanbeingincroydon]

The saga has dragged on for months now and it is still being used by many to decry and condemn football, which is unfair. The point I was making earlier is that players abuse each other in most sports, but it's rare that any instances make the headlines. Football always seem to be a special case. Although you have to draw the line somewhere, administrators should recognise that under pressure and with adrenalin rushing, sportsmen are going to show their emotions in this way. It's human nature. Even in joy, players can let out a tirade of four letter words. Football makes a rod for its own back if it fails to recognise a bit of overexubberance or frustration from genuinely reprehensible behaviour. Don't escalate Terry's conduct from the first to the second category just because he let out the word "black" in his angry outburst (for that's what it was, notwithstanding his defence in court).

Derek Chisora looks to be making a mint out of abusing a fellow professional this evening, for example.

Somehow that nugget of information hasn't come up in the hype...

 

[Chirpy rides again]

Chirpy, I agree with you in part. I've not sought to justify what Terry said- whatever the context in which he used those words. However, the incident has been blown out of proportion, perhaps because of who he is. He shouldn't have been prosecuted because a conviction was unlikely given Ferdinand's stance. The F.A should take action, but they should see it for what it was- a minor spat where angry words were exchanged on both sides. Insults were traded and a few expletives used. I'm not inclined to accept that the use of the word "black" in a short outburst shows Terry to be racist or elevates the seriousness of the matter significantly as many seem to believe it should. It was a lazy, unimaginative comment said in the heat of the moment. It was probably said without any premeditation. Suarez's case was different. He pursued Evra and persistently used the term "negrito" towards him. Despite his protestations to the contrary, it was clear that Suarez intended to show racial hostility towards Evra.

The irony is Luke if you or I said those words in anger we would be banned from the ground for life and rightfully so.