I'm not a chav and have no wish to defend Terry. You miss the point. Noone argues that the FA cannot have rules and charge players with breaking them - there need be no criminal offense - just the rules of the game. The FA should have charged Terry a year ago if he broke their rules and they wanted to discipline him. They did not. If Terry had been found guilty in law I doubt he would have then faced an FA charge. He is facing the charge because he got off. That makes the FA pathetic to me - and like it or not he is being charged a second time for the one offense. Enough of this from me I don't like Terry and do not want to defend him but am sad to see so many people blind themselves to natural justice when they want a particular verdict. For me justice is far more important than what an overpaid, spoilt brat says in the heat of a football match. Carry on without me
He was found not guilty. Some pundits are saying that equals innocence, but it doesn't work like that. It's not even a point of contention for us armchair lawyers. Everyone needs to understand that the FA couldn't do FA until the criminal case had ended. They couldn't hold their own court before the magistrate held theirs. It wasn't allowed. Like it or not, we have a system and it has to be followed. Terry is a ****.
So to sum up a failure of of a human being is leaving a continuing failure of a team. Not that exciting really.
Unfortunately, in English law there is no allowable verdict of "not proven" if there were, I'm confident that that is the verdict that would have been given in Terry's case.
Absolutely astonishing that there are STILL Chelsea fans who do not understand or know anything about Law. The Crown Prosecution prevented the FA case being heard first so as not to prejudice the civil case. For thick Chavs, a Civil Case is not something you put your Armani and D&G in to go on holiday with.
Oh it is not just Chelsea fans - I am a Spurs fan and no lawyer either so it is useful to have experts on here who can clarify the English law. Given that the FA have disciplinary procedures and can act in days if not weeks when they choose what part of English law prevented them from taking simple disciplinary action in the two months after the incident and BEFORE the crown prosecution service decided to bring charges. Can the FA now not act if they think someone MIGHT bring an action?
They charged him a couple of weeks after the criminal case ended but the FA are so slow it's taken them this long just to set up there own investigation. All in all the FA have made a right pigs ear of this but I still think Terry has a case to answer so should go through the procedure.
Just a general point about the law. It has to be fair to all, even scumbags. I've done jury service three times and there was a case each time where someone was acquitted who was probably guilty and certainly not a nice person. But you know I'm very comfortable with that because it's more important not to convict innocent people. You can't convict people because you don't like them. Every case must be decided on its merits. It seems to me that whatever you think of JT, it has to be about the evidence of the particular incident, and that evidence does seem a little thin particularly as the person allegedly abused was described as an unreliable witness. Sadly (and I hate saying this) I therefore have some sympathy with JT because the FA have handled this badly. I don't know if there was an opportunity to have raised their charge before the Crown Prosecution Service, but there may have been, and there was a distinct lack of immediate reaction at the time. A bit different from that incident a few years back between JT and Ledley - anyone remember that, did we ever find out more about it?
I have no feelings either way about John Terry, I don't know him. I never base my views on individuals on media reporting and therefore take no side for or against. I am happy to leave such decisions to courts. It does bother me that so many people are prepared to make judgments based on second hand knowledge from sources that they know very well are unreliable, just look at the reporting on football transfers for example. I doubt any of you are in a position to make real assessments of Terry or Suarez or any other footballer unless of course you know them personally. I also doubt that you are all paragons of virtue so spare me the fake anguish.
Spurf - this is excellent. The only reason I am involved in this discussion is because I think the FA process has been right. It would have been dangerous to the court case if they has acted before it was complete and it is correct that they apply their own rules even if no criminal offence has been commited. Indeed they are now at an advantage because they have all the leg-work in collecting evidence done for them. I see no reason, therefore for Terry to take any offence against the FA or to retire from internationals. He may or may not have broken the rules - the FA commission will decide that. Interestingly I think he has admitted using language which would fall into the foul and abusive category which by iteself should have been sanctioned under the laws of the game.
I think that there is more than enough evidence, both anecdotal & documented, to show that Mr. Terry is an allround unsavoury character. You didn't have to be a professional lip reader to catch the words that he spat at Anton Ferdinand, either.
Everybody makes judgements, it's a natural desposition and I don't buy into this keeping what one does on a pitch on it and what one does off it, off it as though to have a Jekyll and Hide personality is fine in the name of football. We passed judgement on Redknapp and we passed judgement on Hossam Ghaly....one lost his job due to his 'other interests' something he himself denied claiming he was interested in Spurs alone and the other was deemed not fit enough to wear the Spurs shirt again, because he threw it on the floor. Of course we make judgements...we don't see every activity of everyone but from a general demeanour we can usually tell if someone is a bit of a twat or not. This is how we choose our friends in life etc etc. Just because something has ended up in court for a fat head to make a decision does not mean the rest of us are absolved from having an opinion all of a sudden and what he decides must be true. I know of people getting off when guilty...fair enough they got off but it does not mean that I'm Going to stop thinking that they are arseholes. My opinion is my voice and my guide when it comes to other people..hope I always have it.
No, the civil action wasn't thought about for a while, it was immediate, with members of the public (crowd) complaining to the police, therefore the FA had to take a back seat. This would apply to any other governing body you were a member of, conducting for all intents, an internal enquiry. The findings of such an enquiry then cannot be made public, for the obvious reason already stated. I'm no expert either...I just paid attention at the time!. Spurs fans can be excused from this for not really having to have any interest, but being a Chelsea player, its weird there's still a few Chavs out there that don't know, despite it being on every available media outlet at the time.
The 2 punishments for one "crime" happens all the time. For example the Policeman who shoved over the protestor who then died. He was cleared of all criminal offences, but was still sacked (after the court case) because what he did was not allowed in his conditions of employment. Terry could easily be guilty of behaving in a way that the FA doesn't allow, even if this could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt in court.
Avram Grant is now standing up for John Terry. Avram Grant, the person with a modus operandi of being hired as a DoF, stabbing the incumbant manager in the back and taking their job even though he is a ****e manager. His opinions are valid, then, given he's as much a sociopath as Terry is...
What was unreliable about Ferdinand's testimony? Terry's lawyer may have claimed that, but I can't see any basis for it. His story made a lot more sense than Terry's, from what I read of it and he didn't appear to have any motive to lie, which clearly isn't the case for both of them.
Terry's using the Amanda Knox defence - rather than prove their innocence, they discredit the prosecution. Something that people who are innocent never seem to do...
As stated, to my mind, the best Terry should have been allowed would be " Not proven" had we such a verdict in English law.
The problem with a Not Proven verdict is that it doesn't allow Terry and his hangers-on to try and pretend that he was found innocent - something that is not the case, and anyone attempting to fudge the issue isn't aware the full summin-up has been available online the whole time and states that he did say those things, and his explanation is a pure fabrication.
Yes, but surely better than innocent. Not proven would usually suggest pretty much what the judge said in his summing up. That the likelihood is that the defendant is guilty of the offence, however in this instance, the available evidence is not conclusive enough to safely bring a guilty verdict.
