You aren't interested in justice though. You want to Terry's reputation tarnished and presumably banned by FA/Chelsea as he is an important player for us thus increasing your own clubs chances. People that have followed the case throughout can see why the verdict was given as it was. There was nothing the Chief Magistrate could do. He never once disbelieved the case the prosecution put forward but just said they couldn't prove it with sufficient evidence nor disbelieve Terry as his story had been consistent throughout
The irony of all this is that it seem people wanted Terry to be guilty rather than be found guilty IF guilty. That's the problem here. They'd rather have a 'racist' player playing for England just to get some brownie points for use on internet forum 'debates'. The fact Terry is innocent is fuking marvellous for English football but some just wont accept it.
Lack of evidence. I admit that I too think that the court thought that the evdience was not strong enough. But on balance of probabilities, we can believe the prosecution. The prosecution said that he lost it in "those few seconds and lashed out in retaliation like you would at the most obvious if you were faced with a fat bloke you would call him a fat c*nt or a short bloke you would call him a dwarf c*nt !" His reputation is tarnished anyway. The guilty court verdict would have finished him but this not guilty did not rescue him IMO. What he did was still pretty cr*p.
In terms of the law, the prosecution were not able to prove to the satisfaction of the judge that Terry was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The defence did not prove that he was innocent. So ends stage 1. The interest now shifts to the FA and the action that they are( or are not) going to take against Terry. If they are consistent then the mere fact (undisputed by Terry) were used on the field of play then he must be handed at least an 8 match ban. If they take no action or ward a lesser penalty then they lay themselves open to claims of prejudice.
Apparently justice is finding someone guilty merely because you don't like him or he plays for a rival team though Drogs!! Some peoples views on here beggar belief. You'd have thought this was a great day for English football given our nation's stance on racism etc.
I know mate, it's unreal. I am positive had this not been JT that people wouldn't be throwing around the bile they currently are.
Oh yes it is. Racial word were used on the field of play. According to the precedent set in the Suarez case and WRITTEN INTO THEIR ADJUDICATION, context does not apply as a defence.
I can't believe you are really unable to see the difference, so I'll assume you're being deliberately facetious. Context doesn't matter when a racial epithet is used towards someone - ie calling them a negrito or a black ****. This fairly obviously does not apply when defending oneself from an accusation - ie "I never called you a negrito/black ****", as it would be ridiculous if it did. You can disbelieve JT's version of events if you want to, but it's plainly clear that the two instances above not the same.
I don't think I saw the QPR game or atleast I don't remember it so I can't comment but a quick Google of chelsea fans interrupt minute's silence shows up the first media results as: "It should be noted that this was a relatively very small number of Chelsea fans and many Blues are as upset with the situation as anyone else" - http://sportwitness.ning.com/forum/...y-as-a-minority-of-chelsea?xg_source=activity "But after sections of Chelsea supporters disrupted the silence" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17723677 "Chelsea have apologised after some of their supporters booed and jeered during the one-minute's silence before their FA Cup semi-final to remember those who died during the Hillsborough tragedy." "the small section of supporters who did not observe the minute's silence" - http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/3...ise-supporters-minute-s-slience-tottenham.htm Infact everything I read refers to a "section", "minority" or something else that makes it clear it was a small amount of your support. You're clearly taking the criticism of those Chelsea fans as an attack on the club and whilst some may well choose to tar all you with the same brush, they too are a minority. Besides, 0.01% of 45,000(being generous) is 4.5 and it was easily in the hundreds.
You had better go and read the laws of the game as established by the FA before you go any further. Suarez was charged specifically with using racial language on the field of play. The report that contained the verdict of The Panel opened up by saying that they did not believe that Suarez was a racist. They did find that he had used racist language. Terry, under those terms is guilty of doing the same thing. It matters not according to the FA rules the context in which those terms were used. It is the FA that have set that precedent not me. We have all used swear words at some time on the field of play (note I did NOT say racist terms). Generally those terms are ignored but according to the FA rules our actions can be met with a sanction - without reference to the context. So no I' am not being facetious.
OK, let me put it like this. Swearing on the pitch CAN be punished in all instances. But, if the player in question is responding to an unfounded accusation by saying "I didn't call you a ****ing ****er", then you'd have to be pretty silly to believe that the player would be punished. Likewise, using racist language on the pitch CAN be punished in all instances. But, if the player in question is responding to an unfounded accusation by saying "I didn't call you a black ****", then you'd have to be pretty silly to believe that the player would be punished. Suarez admitted using the term negrito to address Evra. Terry denied the using the term black **** to address Anton F. See the difference now?
Dave, Suarez's defence was that the word was acceptable in his home country and therefore was misunderstood. He was also accused of saying the word 10 times. Terry stuck to his guns and said he was questioning an accusation of racism and repeated the words back to Ferdinand, so it is pretty different.
But surely calling someone a racist name is different to asking if someone thought they called him a racist name?
But you yourself have already confirmed that the law is exactly the same regarding swearing and we all know full well that it isn't applied across the board. You're obviously on the wind up here if you really can't see how the two cases are very different.
You have to laugh at the Mersey Mafia. When Steven Gerrard is filmed beating the **** out of someone it was self defence and British justice rightly found him not guilty. When a Chelsea player is accused of racism by someone who couldn't possibly have heard it the system's no better than a banana republic. Oh, and nice touch by Anton "I never heard it and don't think he's racist" Ferdinand to get his mum to bring Doreen Lawrence to the court........
