The FA have charged John Terry

The FA does not realise that due to them acting merely on the balance of probability rather than beyond any reasonable doubt is that the run they great risk of ruining a player's reputation both on and off the pitch, when the player may well be innocent. I think for the more serious allegations, such as racism or violence, they need to use a hearing based on the way a court of law would go about it, not the kangaroo court which the FA currently use.

If the FA wish to charge John Terry with using "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour" then fair enough as he done that and admitted it. But then they would also have to charge Anton Ferdinand with the same thing as he also done that and admitted to it. This however opens a new can of worms which is that the FA would have to sanction every player that uses abusive/insulting language or behaviour and the fact that this rule already exists makes you ask why they would use it now and not before. It also questions why officials never seem to do anything about it. In my personal opinion there shouldn't be an issue with petty insults on the pitch (things will be said in the heat of the moment) as long as you do not take it to a personal level or use clearly racist/sexist/homophobic language or are constantly abusing/insulting others.

The issue is though that it can be very hard to prove your innocence. Anyone can make an allegation about you and unless you have clear proof to deny it (which is unlikely in most scenarios), then you will always have that hanging over your head. The tragic thing about this is that fans will always think the worst of a player playing for their opposing team and the same for the tabloid readers who take things they spout as gospel and those people altogether will most likely outnumber those in support of the player. Therefore something which may never have been true in the first place will end up staining someone's name and reputation for the rest of their career or even life and once they are gone it will remain like that in the history books. And then it will be near impossible to prove that it was never true.

 

The FA have yet again nailed their colours to the post and the colour is yellow-****ing cowards-Today of all days,

 

For sure, just look at Suarez.

Agreed, and agreed re Anton.

Definitely true, again... look at Suarez.

Thanks for a proper response, by the way

 

There's a big difference.

Terry was cleared in a court of law, we have every right to be exasperated although some like myself predicted this weeks back.

You were angry because you believed the FA had only taken into account Evras side of the story

 

Well he brought the game into disrepute by being accused of a crime he didn't commit so by FA logic he will get a long ban right.

Shouldn't he sue The FA in return or something? I don't see what right they have to go against a court's decision.

 

I see this thread has brought the Lafferpool filth out.

I wish JT,Lamps and Ash would all quit the England set up. They'll be too old for Brazil and with **** like Gerrard,Downing and Carroll in the team we're not going to get there anyway.

 

"(if you simply refer to a man's ethnicity in anyway on the playing field you are breaking the FAs rules, therefore if they feel there is evidence that proved he said those words he would be guilty whether he ment them as an insult or not - same as Suarez)."

Odd that evra was allowed to specifically use Spanish (not even his second language) to tell suarez to fook his whore-sister (brushed away as an 'exclaimation') and call him a south American immigrant. I think the FA's rules, however they're written, in practicalities terms mean you may not refer to the ethnicity of a black man - unless you are another black man. I think anti-semitism is a no-go, given the Frimpong charge, which is nice for David Bernstein and Martin Samuel, though given the Ferdinand precedent I should imagine it's okay for them to be anti-semetic.

In short, the FA's anti-racism stance confines itself to anti-semetism and anti-negroism. The rhetoric says it's inclusive, but the pragmatism is different. White man's guilt burden and all that: did anyone else read that drivel by Simon Barnes about how he feels guilty when watching Serena Williams due to 500 years of oppression and slavery? Yes, exactly....

 

And this one is just plain cuckoo.

 

He gets banned, he serves the ban, he comes back and life goes on.

 

The thing is, if he has broken FA rules they still have every right to charge him.

Are you serious?

I have never seen you add to a discussion or even post a constructive comment or criticism.

Not saying either is right or wrong, it's natural to defend your team if you can, just pointing out it's interesting.

He was legally cleared of criminal offence, that's a different matter to an FA disciplinary ruling.

Wish Liverpool had taken the Suarez case to court, it wouldn't have lasted a week.

 

The FA only need to be certain of probabilities not facts to pursue him or anyone else, so it is a certainty that he will get the book thrown at him.

Retire from England, as they'll never let him be picked again, and focus on his club career.

 

You can't argue if he's charged with something general like 'abusive language' or something (of course that would raise the question of should Ferdinand/Evra have been charged also).

 

In that case, they'd be busy as **** sorting out everyone on that game alone, never mind every other game every week across every league in the country.

 

That's my argument .

 

I suppose the harsh reality is that guilty or not, the FA have to be seen to do something.

 

Did Ferdinand call Terry a white bastard?

No.

Stop talking nonsense.

 

HIAG, read the comment that was in response to thread before making a tit of yourself.

Terry is not guilty in a court of law, the FA have decided to charge Terry for 'abusive language' towards Ferdinand, who also verbally abused Terry and therefore should also be charged under the same rule.

 

The obvious difference is that the FA don't have the same standards as a court of law.
Someone can boot someone up in the air and not face a criminal charge, yet still face one from the FA.
As a comparison, someone may be dismissed from their job from distasteful comments, yet not face criminal charges.

Does anyone actually believe Terry's account of what happened?

 

Yes, the court.

 

This.

No surprise the Spurs Puritan brigade found their way here.

He was found not guilty in a court of law of the charges laid against him, **** what he FA think.

Ban him and be done with it and move on...