i'm not offended at all and my whole point is that just because he made a racist comment does not make him a racist and if Ferdinand hadn't opened his gob in the first place it wouldn't have happened. Most people seem to think that what Ferdinand did is OK but now because of Terry's over-reaction he may have a criminal record yet the **** that instigated the matter walks away laughing. BTW, I stated twat because of the manner of the post nothing else.
Fair enough, and sorry to paint you as something you are not, not that that was the intention. What Ferdinand said is normal on a football pitch at any level- not pleasant, but acceptable and certainly no different to what Terry would have heard most weeks since the Bridge affair. There's a quite clear line which Ferdinand was on one side of and Terry, allegedly, the other. It's probably not the best comparison, but if person A spent the evening mouthing off to person B in a pub, calling him and his family all sorts, and B went over and decked A, the guy who instigated it wouldn't be punished and the other would be done for assault, GBH or whatever.
If you recall this game set a record for the number of cards dished out by a ref. If I remember correctly there were 2 reds and about 10 yellows. There were a number of incidents on the pitch , that if they'd happened on the street charges of GBH would have been brought. As it turned out we have a court case over an offensive remark! This is what I cant get my head round! The laws an ass as they say!
I have to say I find the whole case (and to a certain degree the suarez case earlier in the year) fairly perplexing: 1st things 1st - I dont condone racism. There, had to get that one out of the way. However - What is racism? Prejudging somebody or abusing somebody on account of their skin colour, ethnic background or religion. However in my opinion, the bit that always gets forgotten about or disregarded is that this definition and application of racism laws assumes a civilised, respectful society where people treat each other decently. Frankly, given the way every single footballer addresses their opponents in every single match they play, I find anybody anywhere getting on their high horse because one of the millions of disgusting insults fired round a football pitch included a reference to skin colour absolutely laughable. Why is it ok to call somebody every name under the sun, including reference to hysical appearance *ugly c***', place of birth 'welsh b******', paternity of children, extra marital affairs, whos got the most attractive wife, anything and everything you can think of. They wind each other up here, there and everywhere. IM not saying racism isnt a big issue. What im saying is for football to retain any sense of credibility in imosing sanctions on racism (which it should) it should clean its act up altogether. To draw a comparison, imagine getting a letter from your school because your child had hit a teacher. Youd be disgusted. If you found out that on a daily basis teachers were shouted at, sworn at, abused and had books thrown at them you might start to think that whilst your child had behaved appalingly it was a bit rich of the school to come down hard on them.... just a thought..
I suppose the point is that none of this is ok, racism is a big issue in football at the moment and it just should not be tolerated.
True - but to me the points go arm in arm. If you allow people to push the 'line that must not be crossed' further and further away from the reasonable by putting up with all of the above abusive behaviour, then sooner or later somebody will cross the absolute line that must not be crossed. Im not saying John Terry did that, obviously that has yet to be established by a court of law. What I am saying is even if he did, football has as much to answer for as Terry does, and stuff like this will continue to happen as long as players are allowed to behave in a manner not fit for public viewing to authority and to themselves?
There was an interesting commentary about this by Matt Dickinson a Times sports journalist, this morning. Having a tongue in cheek, swipe at the case saying that journalists attending the hearing were "running out of asterisks" for all the c****s ,k***s and f***s" they were hearing, he made it clear that the language was routine stuff on the PL football pitch. He then went on to compare it with the way two cricketers (Robin Smith and Merv Hughes) who weren't well disposed to each other in a particular match and I quote :- Robin Smith showed that he could respond after Merv Hughes beat him repeatedly with the ball and snarled "Mate, you cant bat".Smith promptly smashed the next ball for 4 and responded: "Hey Merv, we'd make a fine pair, I cant bat and you cant bowl"
I suppose it comes down to where you draw the line, at the moment (and I'm not saying it's right) swearing at someone is on one side of the line and a racist comment is on the other side. Some may say that neither is acceptable and when the people using this language are supposed to be role models who are paid huge sums of money maybe they have a responsibility act in an appropriate manner.
Look, I do get what you're saying up to a point, but I still can't agree with it. So, if JT said what is claimed then he's maybe a little bit racist but not as bad as Nick Griffin? What does that matter exactly? He either racially abused someone or he didn't - let's not talk degrees of racism here. You say he "would have used it (black) to add weight to his insult" but "it doesn't mean he has any genuine dislike for black people". How can that possibly be the case? The very fact that the word black was used as part of the insult means it has some sort of negative connotation in his mind. If it didn't, he wouldn't have used it - it would have been as pointless as saying "you ****ing blue-eyed ****". I'm not saying that makes JT a BNP activist or some kind of neo-Nazi zealot, but - if he actually said it - it's clear he has some issues with race. If he didn't, then it would never have occurred to him to use that word as part of an insult. Listen, I hope as much as any Chelsea fan that JT's version of events is true and, as a result, he's found not guilty. However, if that turns out not to be the case, then I won't defend him or seek to make excuses for him simply because he's a Chelsea legend.
Ok - playing devils advocate here - not a chelsea fan and still fairly undecided on the case. Think of the aspect of your personality/past you feel most personally ashamed/angered by. Imagine you had done something (or been accused of doing something) completely deplorable that has tarnished your reputation in the most horrible way. Its been dragged through the media, your reputation has been dragged through the mud. Now imagine you are losing a game in an emotionally charged atmosphere and somebody has brought up this aspect of your past in an aggressive way. Does responding in the lowest, most unpleasant and antagonising way that you know will upset that person more than anything else you could say necessarily make you a racist? What he said was wrong, but does not necessarily imply a hatred of people from other ethnic origins. I am aware that that argument is extremely controversial ( I have made my opinion on the matter fairly clear, I think football has as much to answer for as Terry (if he is found guilty) ), but just making the point. I grew up in wales. I have played football in the past against english friends who have called me a welsh b****** in an exchange on a pitch. Im pretty sure these friends dont have a preconceived, in built hatred of all things welsh - they are just trying to offend me in the most vicious way they can. As I alluded to earlier, it is the fact that as a sport football does nothing to combat all the low level antagonism which leads to higher level antagonism later on. Once football has cut out the swearing at ref's, intimidating each other, insulting and degrading character traits of opponents and other acts of blatant and calculated misbehaviour, there will be no controversy when it correctly throws the book at all forms of racist language.
Just to play devil's advocate back, isn't it equally likely (possibly even more likely) that in that scenario you would lose your self control and perhaps let slip something that you would normally never dare say (even though you may think it from time to time)? If you're so upset and angry by what has been said, isn't it more likely that your response will be a brutally honest, emotional one, rather than a carefully calculated insult? Well, I don't know your friends, but I'm guessing that would be more along the lines of banter between mates, which is a totally different scenario. If they really were just trying to hurt you in the most vicious way possible, then that's a pretty weird way for friends to behave to be honest.
True - usually banter but just trying to loosely make a point. I guess what Im saying (pretty badly) is that I would hazard a strong guess that Terry isnt actually racist. Isnt Ashley Cole one of his best mates? I dunno - probably all academic as 'proven beyond all reasonable doubt' and all that...
What do you think he said then?? http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/video/2011/oct/24/john-terry-anton-ferdinand-video
good luck to jt from a shrew. this case imo should never have gone to court and jt is no racist. i hope the case against jt will collapse either this afternoon or tomorrow. surely both players were only using colourful "football" language and this should have been sorted on the pitch . i never like to agree with syph bladder but on this occasion he was right the very best of luck to jt and chelsea for the coming season. i suppose it is too much to hope we meet in the carling? it took the shrews to kick start arsene's season last season!! floreat salopia, floreat john terry
I am a Spurs fan, and thus with little time for JT ! I am also Deaf and have spent 60 years lipreading. I have also been involved in anti-racist activities for the past 35 years. Based on what I have seen, I would be very concerned if JT were convicted on the 'evidence' of the film that we have access to. For one thing I simply do not know how the prosecution can possibly think that a hearing person can be an expert witness on lipreading !! But more importantly, lipreading is NOT just the mouth but the facial expressions, and the minutest parts of the face, the angle of the head etc etc. That gives a sense of the flow and intonation of the words, and also of the ways in which those words are meant to be taken, ie. with irony or not etc. It is a very subtle business and very tiring, and very stressful to have to live one's life this way (because hearing people do not know British Sign Language). But it does mean that we know certain things from very deep inside⦠From the film we have access to, with the crucial interruption by that other player's head, my own analysis after repeated viewings back when this happened, and again now, is that... Terry is on balance of probability saying âYeah ? I never called you a {F..B..C..}" â then makes a face which looks to me like ("As if !") and then says " You F..K.." {for thinking or insinuating that he would have said such a thing.} If you insert the phrase âI never called youâ into the part where the player walks past him, one is (some of us are) able to see both the beginning of that utterance and the end of it. There is no way in the world that âFâ¦Bâ¦.Câ¦.â is a stand-alone utterance. That much I can tell you !
Reading about the case so far one thing that stands out is the difference between the lip readers rendition and john terrys. `Yeah I **** (obsturction).. you fu**ing black c**t, slight pause, then you ****ing knobhead.' Now if John Terry was not lying then surely there would be an 'a' between 'you ****ing'. `Yeah I **** (obsturction).. you a fu**ing black c**t, slight pause, then you ****ing knobhead.' --------------------------- Still, looks like he might get away with it.
Also, he has admitted saying it yeh? its the context which it was said thats the issue now? Yeh his explanation makes no sense, who actually says they didnt call someone a b***k c**t by actually saying 'I didnt call you a b***k c**t'. Normal people with sense and brain power say...'no I didnt' or 'I never called you that' or if they are dim 'did I **** you cock block' Perhaps I am holding mass human intelligence in too high regard. Perhaps most people would do the stupid thing?
Footballers aren't normal people and many of them don't have that intelligence. JT is a moron but he isn't a racist
