SOme fundamental misinterpretations floating around here - at no point has John Terry been declared 'innocent' - such a verdict, as far as im aware, does not exist in this country. He was found 'not [proven] guilty. This doesnt mean he didnt do it, it means a court of law could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the charges against him. This in my opinion is right, as finding him guilty would give him a criminal record that would stick. This should not happen to somebody who has not been proven guilty. That said, the FA charging him would in no way make a mockery of them as an organisation. The court did not find him innocent. They couldnt prove him guilty of criminal charges. The FA act under an entirely different agenda. Think of the FA as your bosses at work. If the FA deem John Terry (and/or Anton Ferdinand) to have behaved in a manner that brings themselves and the organistion into disrepute they are fully entitled to charge them. They arent branding them criminals they are imposing sanctions as a a governing body. If the FA were forced to provide the same burden of proof as courts of law to sanction players for offenses then they might aswell give players carte blanche to do what the hell they want. You can find 'elements of doubt' in just about anything that happens on a football pitch. And if there isnt one, a £1500 an hour lawyer will find one.
There is no such verdict as 'not(proven) guilty'. There is in Scotland though. What there is absolutely no doubt in any court (or 'independent' panel with its own chaotic interpretation of what is the 'balance of probabilities') is that Rio X has just racially abused ashley Cole by calling him a 'choc ice'. As it is a not a 'white on black' racial slur we can safely assume the FA and the ridiculous Clark Carlisle will simply ignore it.
Thread re-opened with a slight change in the title so we dont need a new thread when the FA give their verdict. The reason why i didn't just close it is that the Terry affair is the biggest story in football at the moment and potentially not over. As for discussing Suarez, we cant pretend there are no links between the cases since they are they are the two most high profile footballers to face racism charges, but this is not the place to discuss that case in detail or to debate his innocence. Nobody enjoyed that discussion first time round.
The " anti PC" bandwagon still rolling on here, or just to scared to tell the truth ? If you believe someone has abused another person and in that abuse has made reference to their race, why do you say " I don't think he's a racist ". Surley the definition of a racist is a person commiting a racist act ? If you believe he did the act, of course you're saying he's a racist. It's just as cowardly as those on the other side of the fence saying " I'm not a racist, but ................ " It's just a real shame thes discussions ( head banging sessions ) even have to take place in this day and age
Bloody hell Billyboy , bit thick ain't ya I 'spose you take it literally, because you erm...er ... . . . .
Not really. Racism is discrimination against the entire race, whereas abuse made with reference to the race can be done purely to target an individual, as Suarez admitted doing to Evra. As Suarez said in his case, and Evra agreed with him, he isn't racist in that he doesn't believe black people are in any way inferior or deserving of different treatment to any other race. But he recognised that by calling Evra negro, whilst patting his head and pinching his arm, he was able to wind him up and get a reaction, and he succeeded as Evra ended up getting booked. It was being racially offensive, which in my opinion is different from being out and out racist. On that basis, I never expected Terry to be convicted. To convict him, the court would have had to prove that he deliberately set out to abuse Anton purely because of his race. This was obviously not the case - any abuse given was because Anton was playing for a different team, and was winding Terry up about his affair etc. The worst Terry can be accused of is the same as Suarez - bringing race into an argument in an effort to wind up his opponent and get him to react. Not a particularly nice or decent thing to do (if he actually did it), but nowhere near as bad, imo, as the out and out racists who attack or abuse people purely because they are of a different race. He still has the potential to be punished by the FA, but I think having already prepared for the court case, and having seen what a poorly prepared defence did to Suarez, I think he'll manage to get off much more lightly.
^^^ This intervention was expected. Fair enough to discuss Terry but unacceptable for some obsessed and totally doolally scouse muppet (Barko something) to hijack the thread and go on about some agenda from the FA and the media. Talk about paranoia these people have even been discouraged to post on the scousers board now they have come here. Keep your eyes peeled.
"Racism is discrimination against the entire race, whereas abuse made with reference to the race can be done purely to target an individual, as Suarez admitted doing to Evra" He admitted no such thing. Infact, his argument was precisely the same as Rio's : he'd used the word ONCE as it was a cultural slang word as far as he intended. And talking of intent, before he even uttered a word, Evra had, in Spanish (his third language) told him to fook his sister and called him a 'Sudaca'. There were no 'innocents' in this exchange, but for political purposes one was vilified while St Evra of Your Sister's Pussy was deified by a compliant media and a strategically one-eyed FA. Thanks for re-opening the thread.
mate, they are both racist . The element of racism is the same, you have merely differentiated by the number of victims. I see that scouse numpty is revisiting every one of the excuses trotted out for Goofy during the heat of the debate. let it lie old man, even if you are now an expert on linguistics, body language, colloquialisms, and have the resources to canvass the entire Spanish speaking World ! What a clown. [video=youtube;7gBXPUSXGWs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gBXPUSXGWs[/video]
I don't agree with you there. Racism by its very definition is directed at an entire race. You can by racially offensive, i.e. calling someone a f***ing black c**t without believing that black people are in any way inferior, and hence not being fully racist. Both of them are wrong, but proper racism is much worse imo. That's the difference between the legal offence and the FA offence. In law, you have to be proven to be racist, i.e. be targeting an individual for abuse because they are a member of a particular race. Whereas to be punished by the FA you just have to be shown to be racially offensive e.g. calling someone a negro or a black c**t. That's my interpretation of it anyway. Personally I think the actual offence of racism, i.e. seeing an entire race as being inferior and actively targeting them for negative treatment, is cheapened by the view that you are racist if you use a certain word in the heat of an argument, or in a moment of stupidity a la Rio.
It is a minefield and that is why IMO Suarez is really moronic (isn't he always) to go against the wishes of the scousers and reopen that wound. He just cannot win either in the eyes of the media, the FA and more importantly the fans and the public. The more he tries to justify his actions the more he appears guilty. He should leave well alone. But then he has the IQ of a worm as well as its other caracteristics. I see your point about targetting the whole race or one single individual. The argument can be made however that one's views about a race can come out when dealing with an individual of that race. We all have our views on it and who knows whether there is a correct one ?
He cannot win in the eyes of people who believe he was guilty! However, he obviously thinks he was innocent (or at least that is what he is suggesting), and therefore I applaud his speaking out against it, especially when you have rightly said that he 'cannot win', I mean, how much more guilty can he possibly look to you? As far as you and many others are concerned he is guilty anyway, so it doesn't really make much difference what he says does it...he's either innocent or guilty, there are not increasing levels of guilt here, so to suggest that the more he says the more he appears guilty is nonsensical, unless you are saying that there is doubt as to his guilt, are you saying that? Whether that is what LFC need or want is a different matter, would you just accept something that you were accused of, if you thought it was a stitch-up? I wouldn't, but every one is different I suppose!
That's assuming hehas got a brain. He is just a selfish stupid sh*t. That is why he dumped KKK the scousers club in it. He doesn't seem to realise the consequences of his actions. What has the club, the players, the management and the fans got to gain by reopening this wound?.
Yes, he is being selfish. However, as I said earlier, would you like to be branded a racist and be subject to abuse for the rest of your career if you thought you were innocent? I wouldn't, I would do what Suarez is doing and keep pleading my innocence! It is no good just saying that he should shut up and get on with it, he is already guilty, he cannot get any more guilty...but he can possibly make people think, 'hold on a minute, I would do the same thing, maybe he wasn't guilty after all'! I imagine you would have told the Birmingham 6 to just do their time and stop banging on about their innocence, after all they were guilty as well, weren't they?!!
That is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Are you seriously saying, that had I gone out and committed a crime, but pleaded my innocence throughout people would eventually warm to me? Despite the fact I am the only possible suspect, and my motives are without question? I'm off to rob a bank. (This message will obviously be edited after the deed is done to corroborate my story.)
So, let's take the Birmingham 6 as an example. They were found guilty, they were sent down. Their families and friends mounted a campaign to clear their names as they believed that they were innocent! They were eventually freed! Now, if nobody had uttered a word about their possible innocence then they would have not be freed, and they would remain guilty to this day...yet they were innocent! So by speaking out against the possible injustice, people's viewpoints changed and they were released! My point is, if you believe you are innocent, then what is the problem with saying so? It may not be in the interests of LFC, but so be it. Would you keep quiet if you felt wronged? I wouldn't!
