Bottlers

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
"‘It is impossible to be sure what were the words spoken by Mr Terry at the time." - Chief Magistrate

Very true, apart from them being on film and Terry admitting saying them.
Also admitted that Ferdinand had no reason to lie and was being truthful. <doh>

Absolutely ludicrous verdict.
 
Still could face FA charge, given the beyond reasonable doubt is not needed, only a balance of probabilities. I think the OP is right, the Magistrate has bottled this, as his defence is ludicrous.
 
Joke of a verdict but if you have loads of money in this country, you can get away with it.
 
SpursDisciple said:
Still could face FA charge, given the beyond reasonable doubt is not needed, only a balance of probabilities. I think the OP is right, the Magistrate has bottled this, as his defence is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

The FA could and should, charge him for bringing the game into disrepute, because that is what he has done.
 
no wonder this country is bringing up a bunch of losers and chavs..pathetic..and he will always be a racist basterd in my eyes..i dont need a bunch of idiots in wigs telling me what is morally correct or not.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
"&#8216;It is impossible to be sure what were the words spoken by Mr Terry at the time." - Chief Magistrate

Very true, apart from them being on film and Terry admitting saying them.
Also admitted that Ferdinand had no reason to lie and was being truthful. <doh>

Absolutely ludicrous verdict.
Click to expand...

As well as Ferdinand being deemed a reliable witness in the summing-up.
 
I didn't read as much into this one as I did with the FA and Suarez but it was the verdict I expected. It was up to the prosecution to provide evidence to disprove Terry's argument that he wasn't calling Anton those words rather repeating what he thought he was being accused of which they couldn't do.
 
It's all about proof... and thank goodness it is. Sure scumbags get away with things from time to time, but it's really important that verdicts can only be based on proof of evidence, not what is "quite likely". I've done jury service three times and acquit a couple of scumbags who were surely guilty of something if not the exact charges they were brought up on. But that's the point, you can only convict on the particular charge with the right evidence and I'm very glad we live in that sort of country. I think many of you would not like to live in a country where this is not important. Unfortunately we only ever focus on the drawbacks of such a system, where unsavoury people appear to be getting away with things, but that is very much preferable to the alternative.
 
vimhawk said:
It's all about proof... and thank goodness it is. Sure scumbags get away with things from time to time, but it's really important that verdicts can only be based on proof of evidence, not what is "quite likely". I've done jury service three times and acquit a couple of scumbags who were surely guilty of something if not the exact charges they were brought up on. But that's the point, you can only convict on the particular charge with the right evidence and I'm very glad we live in that sort of country. I think many of you would not like to live in a country where this is not important. Unfortunately we only ever focus on the drawbacks of such a system, where unsavoury people appear to be getting away with things, but that is very much preferable to the alternative.
Click to expand...

but what constitutes proof is almost ridiculous at times...im sure everyone is glad like you said...but at times it is like unless you get shot dead or battered black and blue and was filmed whilst it happened then....your attacker may still walk free or do community service at the local graveyard...how you get people with multiple convictions still walking amongst normal law abiding citizens is a slap to the honest man...and crime does pay in this country...many many many examples.
 
It's about proof...which is why people with the means to assemble the best defence team they can look to have evidence removed for spurious reasons.

One issue with trials is that the defence team is allowed to see the prosecution before going to trial, which gives them time to find any loophole to have evidence stricken off, as well as construct any cock and bull story to try and explain away the evidence that makes it to court.

John Terry got away with racially abusing somebody because of it, Amanda Knox got away with murder because of it - even when it's open and shut cases, such as the Sally Anne Bowman or Milly Dowler, the defence lawyers can be outright offensive with their attempts to explain away the most damning evidence, yet they never get brought to account for it.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
Courts can't make up the evidence. They can only make a decision on the basis of the evidence presented. In Terry's case, it was apparent that Ferdinand didn't support a prosecution and was a reluctant witness. What's more, he may have coincidentally developed amnesia about what was said. So the court had no choice to accept Terry's explanation about the context in which he used those words he was seen to use (which was supported by Cole's evidence). As Terry purported to just be repeating quizzically what he perceived Ferdinand to be accusing him of saying, he could not have had the necessary intent for the offence he was charged with from the evidence presented (which the prosecution were unable to undermine). So the District Judge didn't bottle anything, he was left with a fait accompli. Maybe the CPS should have had the bottle to drop the case when they became aware that their only witness couldn't provide evidence sufficient to obtain a conviction instead of wasting taxpayers' money!
Click to expand...

Well said Luke.
 
Absolute disgrace of an outcome. And I bet the FA are going to state that they're not going to carry out their own investigation now 'in line with the findings of the Magistrates Court'.

I think its time for a complete overhaul of the FA's disciplinary panel, whereby the FA who picks the England manager/football structure/etc is completely separate from this new board of discipline. Then this board could say Terry banned for 2 months, and the ordinary FA could say, Well sorry, but we've no say in their decisions. All appeals could go through them too, and from there they could go up to CAS.

Its the only way, 100% independence from the political motivations of the members of the FA. If Separation of Powers is a fundamental cornerstone of the UK's constitution, why can't it be transferred to football too?
 
It may be time for such a review of FA procedures, but this situation in the main was the outcome of a court case. If anyone needs their procedures reviewing here its the CPS because they should have realised they didn't have the evidence to get a conviction. It was, as has been said, a waste of taxpayers money. And again, I'm not defending JT, I am hardly a fan of his, I'm defending the law and trying to address the bad press it generally gets because we tend to only discuss the times when it appears not to be working in the public interest. I would argue that generally however it is in the public interest that the prosecution has to prove its case with suitable evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back