But he did get ruined in a civil case against the relatives of his "victims"
John Terry
- Thread starter Spurlock
- Start date
-
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
-
But he did get ruined in a civil case against the relatives of his "victims"
He hasn't been 'tried twice for the same offence' - the fact that he hasn't committed a criminal act is completely irrelevant to whether he has broken an FA rule - for example no-one would suggest that Shelvey should get off his red card ban because he hasn't been convicted of assault
Doubtless the next time England concede a goal, at least one football journalist will try to say that John Terry wouldn't have been left flat on his arse by a pacy attacking midfielder with superb ball control...
Didn't he still manage to dodge that by moving, or something? I believe the family never got a cent from the scumbag.
Yes, I know. But that was for waving a loaded gun in somebody's face, threatening behaviour, etc. I still think that he dodged paying one cent of the judgement against him.
He did, but only cause he's skint. Will have to give everything he ever earns to the court in the future (less living expenses) until debt is paid. Is up for parole in 5 years. I think the sentence he got was partly due to escaping one for the double murder.
H
Hoddle is a god
Guest
I do hope that the FA inquiry don't make the mistake of inviting John "iron my hood, bitch!" Terry to try on a leather glove, because he'll milk that for all its worth (making his hand bigger so that it looks like the glove doesn't fit), and he'll undoubtedly get off the rap a second time.
H
Hoddle is a god
Guest
I see your reasoning.
What he doesn't realise, of course, is that the FA inquiry intends to call the "bitch" who irons his hood (I believe its Ashley Cole), and to get him to identify the hood.
It's fool-proof.
I thought he was accused of racially assaulting somebody - both by the FA and by the Courts - isn't that being charged twice for the same offense. Were there 2 different offenses. Just because we do not like someone does not make it right to make them go through two "trials" Criminal and civil offenses are different which I guess is why you can have both there. A sI said earlier I do not support JT but have a nervousness of people being able to be charged twice. Perhaps it's just me.
Guilty conscience, S61? 
I don't see it as being tried twice, personally.
You don't have to commit a crime to get a ban from football.
I don't see it as being tried twice, personally.
You don't have to commit a crime to get a ban from football.
Guilty conscience, S61?
Eh?
Of course you don't have to commit a crime to get a football ban - I am wasting my time on this thread. I took the Criminal Justice system to be slightly higher than the FA and if he was not found guilty there then that iIMHO should be that. If the FA had wnated to punish him it's a shame they did not get in there first. Hey ho - there must be other threads
what is so hard to understand here?
he was tried for aggravated racial abuse and they could not prove the context so it was dropped.
The f.a. have a duty to manage the behaviour of their role-model employees, espy with this kick it out ethos. he is is being investigated for racial slur, which he has admitted.
The yobbo used the words, admitted it and you simply cannot have your employees going around in front of millions of kids etc calling people bl-ck c-nts on tv. You could not say it in another job or company and not get in trouble internally within your company. This moron, with a history of injudicious attitudes and ethics , has admitted saying it. That is why the FA have to investigate. It is not the same crime and is nothing to do with the courts.
I dare most of us to use those words to a colleague in the workplace and keep their jobs. It would be unthinkable for our bosses not to act.
So , of course the FA have to act.
it is very simple.
And, anyway, they set a precedent. Suarez got done for the same on perceived information. Not easily seen words spouted by some thug on tv in front of the cameras.He may have been a good player but he is a cowardly ****e who wrongly blames his bosses for doing what any other bosses would do ..and he deserves everything he gets. Quitting before is the signature of his ignorant, bigoted and blinkered views. He is like all bullies. A yellow streak of piss when confronted.
best off without him. But the Chelsea lot will still employ him whatever , so he is beyond punishment.
the problem here is that the useless FA let him get on with it instead of doing him immediately and then he probably would never have gone to court. This ahs taken a year . bent system, so he could play at 2012. One law for the rich..etc
he was tried for aggravated racial abuse and they could not prove the context so it was dropped.
The f.a. have a duty to manage the behaviour of their role-model employees, espy with this kick it out ethos. he is is being investigated for racial slur, which he has admitted.
The yobbo used the words, admitted it and you simply cannot have your employees going around in front of millions of kids etc calling people bl-ck c-nts on tv. You could not say it in another job or company and not get in trouble internally within your company. This moron, with a history of injudicious attitudes and ethics , has admitted saying it. That is why the FA have to investigate. It is not the same crime and is nothing to do with the courts.
I dare most of us to use those words to a colleague in the workplace and keep their jobs. It would be unthinkable for our bosses not to act.
So , of course the FA have to act.
it is very simple.
And, anyway, they set a precedent. Suarez got done for the same on perceived information. Not easily seen words spouted by some thug on tv in front of the cameras.He may have been a good player but he is a cowardly ****e who wrongly blames his bosses for doing what any other bosses would do ..and he deserves everything he gets. Quitting before is the signature of his ignorant, bigoted and blinkered views. He is like all bullies. A yellow streak of piss when confronted.
best off without him. But the Chelsea lot will still employ him whatever , so he is beyond punishment.
the problem here is that the useless FA let him get on with it instead of doing him immediately and then he probably would never have gone to court. This ahs taken a year . bent system, so he could play at 2012. One law for the rich..etc
Guilty conscience, S61?
Eh?
Of course you don't have to commit a crime to get a football ban - I am wasting my time on this thread. I took the Criminal Justice system to be slightly higher than the FA and if he was not found guilty there then that iIMHO should be that. If the FA had wnated to punish him it's a shame they did not get in there first. Hey ho - there must be other threads
If the law was the end all and be all then they would deal with the umpteen attempts of assault that take place on a football pitch in the name of football. The Law does not deal with this though, but the FA does.
Likewise the FA can deal with this matter also which occured during a game.
I don't think it is a question of understanding
Basically however you split it into component parts his "crime" is racial abuse. I would have felt more comfortable if the FA had got straight in there and charged him. I doubt it would then have gone to a criminal court. As the burden of proof is lower he would probably have been found guilty - still probably will. Fair enough and a punishment would follow.
That though is not how it happened and the fact that the FA let the criminal system get in there first to me makes me uneasy about them then deciding to have a go since he got off once.
I don't think it helps here as some people seem not only to have found him guilty before trial but are also so offensive about someone they clearly hate that I am not sure if left to them a fair trial would even be possible.
Basically however you split it into component parts his "crime" is racial abuse. I would have felt more comfortable if the FA had got straight in there and charged him. I doubt it would then have gone to a criminal court. As the burden of proof is lower he would probably have been found guilty - still probably will. Fair enough and a punishment would follow.
That though is not how it happened and the fact that the FA let the criminal system get in there first to me makes me uneasy about them then deciding to have a go since he got off once.
I don't think it helps here as some people seem not only to have found him guilty before trial but are also so offensive about someone they clearly hate that I am not sure if left to them a fair trial would even be possible.
Or maybe they felt like the fat wigs in court behaved incompetently and handed out nothing to someone who seems to be a habitual scumbag.
The FA must believe there was something there and him getting off was the straw that broke the camels back and they took advantage of their authority and pulled him up after.
It won't be the first time the fat wigs have made a pigs ear of something.
The FA must believe there was something there and him getting off was the straw that broke the camels back and they took advantage of their authority and pulled him up after.
It won't be the first time the fat wigs have made a pigs ear of something.
H
Hoddle is a god
Guest
Can we please put to bed this red-herring about Terry being charged twice for the same offence! This is a lame argument being bandied about by the Chavs in order to try to defend Terry's behaviour.
Regardless of what happened in court, the FA is empowered to keep its own house in order, and it must act in order to do so when players, managers and clubs fall out of line. If the FA could only act when ever a criminal offence has been committed, it would discipline very few players. None of the abuses regulated by the FA would amount to a criminal charge, any way. Just because Terry was not found guilty of a racially aggravated offence in the eyes of the criminal law does not mean that he has not fallen foul of the FA's own rules, and that is the very thing they are investigating; they are not looking to re-try Terry for a criminal offence, and nor do they have the jurisdiction to do so.
Furthermore, there are many instances in every-day life where a member of a professional body will be disciplined by his professional body regardless as to whether or not (a) criminal charges are brought, or (b) the person is found guilty of a criminal offence. A solicitor, for example, might not commit a criminal offence by insulting a client, but the Solicitors Regulation authority will carry out its own enquiry as to whether or not that solicitor has breached its codes of conduct. Same with the Bar Council and barristers, the Police Complaints Authority and coppers, etc.
So, can people please stop with this "Terry shouldn't be tried twice for the same crime" bollocks?
Regardless of what happened in court, the FA is empowered to keep its own house in order, and it must act in order to do so when players, managers and clubs fall out of line. If the FA could only act when ever a criminal offence has been committed, it would discipline very few players. None of the abuses regulated by the FA would amount to a criminal charge, any way. Just because Terry was not found guilty of a racially aggravated offence in the eyes of the criminal law does not mean that he has not fallen foul of the FA's own rules, and that is the very thing they are investigating; they are not looking to re-try Terry for a criminal offence, and nor do they have the jurisdiction to do so.
Furthermore, there are many instances in every-day life where a member of a professional body will be disciplined by his professional body regardless as to whether or not (a) criminal charges are brought, or (b) the person is found guilty of a criminal offence. A solicitor, for example, might not commit a criminal offence by insulting a client, but the Solicitors Regulation authority will carry out its own enquiry as to whether or not that solicitor has breached its codes of conduct. Same with the Bar Council and barristers, the Police Complaints Authority and coppers, etc.
So, can people please stop with this "Terry shouldn't be tried twice for the same crime" bollocks?
I was joking. Your stance against double jeopardy is understandable, but it makes me wonder what you got away with.
I assume that the FA feel that his criminal charge may not have met the burden of proof in court, but that theirs has a lower burden to meet.
Beyond reasonable doubt v the balance of probabilities, apparently.
If he gets off entirely then it doesn't look good for the FA or the Premier League, so perhaps that's factored into their decision, too?
Probably shouldn't, but these things can get quite political.