John Terry is due to stand trial later accused of racially abusing QPR's Anton Ferdinand. The case relates to a comment allegedly made to Queens Park Rangers defender Anton Ferdinand when the teams played last October. The 31-year-old is charged with a racially-aggravated public order offence, for which the maximum sentence is a £2,500 fine. What do we all think? He must have said something for the CPS to have pressed charges. If he's found guilty will the FA throw the book at him with a lengthy ban?
Can't see that Ferdinand would make this up. Terry claimed he was misheard. This should have been heard earlier...lot of water under the bridge now...as time passes witnesses become less certain of everything.
This must be difficult to prove, as in my view there are only two forms of evidence: 1. Reliable witnesses (fellow professionals) willing to testify that they heard him say it and I would imagine that for every QPR player willing to testify, there will be a Chelsea player willing to counter that testimonial. 2. They have video evidence where it is clear from lip reading, what he allegedly said. If he is guilty, then throw the whole book at him, this is the 21st century. If he is innocent, then they should apologise for wasting everyone's time. I am concerned thought that this maybe swept away as I am sure the FA don't want to admit this is a problem in the game, if indeed it is.
Agree FLT trouble is the FA are in a tricky position. Racism is everywhere and football is no exception. If Terry is guilty they will have to make an example of him and my guess is similar cases will come flooding out.
I disagree entirely and think you are looking at this with blinkers on. Yes, the fine is ridiculously small for someone of his wealth, however if he is found guilty this case could rock football to its roots. I'll re-phrase that. If he is found guilty, this case SHOULD rock football to its roots. The FA will have to to take serious action against Terry. If they don't it will completely undermine their RESPECT and football for all and "Let's Kick Racism out of Football" campaigns. If he is found guilty, then this will be massive. Forget the financials, think about the effect on the game.
Absolutely. IF guilty, they must take hefty action. Two "guilty" racism cases in the same Premier League season? My 11 year olds that I coach copy everything the stars do as it is, I don't need that thanks.
I actually think this could finish his career. If guilty it has to be a very lengthy ban. Difficult to come-back and if he did the abuse he will receive will be massive.
You are assuming that people are happy to perjure themselves. Some may keep their head down and pretend nothing happened, but may tell the truth (whatever that is) under oath. I could never lie if asked directly. Terry at the time claimed that Ferdinand misheard him and then he said something like: So you think I called you a ****** (number of stars not relevant as I have no idea). That will be his defence to lipreaders.
Personally I think the video evidence is pretty incontrovertible. The CPS obviously agree as they wouldn't have brought the case without feeling that it is likely to lead to a conviction and Terry's excuses about what he said are laughably flimsy. The fine is indeed small but remember that is the fine that would be given to anyone found guilty of this offence, his wealth doesn't come into it (maybe that's another debate), but if he is found guilty then the FA should throw the book at him. He should be given a more severe ban than Suarez, at least there was some doubt in that case with the language/culture differences, Terry can have no excuses. Will be an awkward situation for Chelsea and indeed the FA, let's hope they don't embarrass themselves like Liverpool did.
Problem is we can't rely on the FA not to screw this up as they have on virtually any other big decision they have had to make. England manager etc etc Trial is expected to last all week that's lots of time for them to get their act together!
The laws in this country are pretty difficult to understand in my opinion. They tend to deal with political correctness rather than actually getting to the real route of the problem be it racism, homophobia, religious intolerance or whatever else. You quite rightly can't go round calling people a 'black *******' but you can call them a '*******"! So it would have been fine if he'd called him the latter? Where's the sense in that? Australians are allowed to call us 'Pommy *******' with impunity. I doubt Terry is a racist. If he was it would manifest itself in his day-to-day dealings with his colleagues at Chelsea. He got involved in a bit of sledging before his brain engaged. Stupid, naive but I doubt, genuinely racist. I hate racism in all its manifestations and I am not a great fan of John Terry the man. However, this is a show trial that is meaningless really apart from satisfying one ego and possibly ending the career of another. I am prepared to be shot down!
i think Terrys excuse is a bit weak. if it is ok to go up to someone and say " do you think I called you a ......(insert any racist remark)" it would open up the flood gates to all kind of abuse prefaced with those magic words "did you think i said...." and then using the John Terry defence
The difference between calling someone a Pommy ******* and calling them a Black ******* is intent and effect on recipient. Calling us Pommies is said with an edge to it, but also with a touch of humour. I doubt that calling anyone a 'black whatever' has any humour in it, unless said between friends very familiar with each other. To be offensive someone has to be offended by it...if no one complains, nothing happens.
They are not equivalent. White people have been oppressing black people for centuries, so the inclusion of 'black' before an insult immediately evokes that superiority and oppression. The inclusion of 'pommy' does not have this effect and you'd have to be extremely sensitive to be particularly offended by that. He probably isn't a racist, but the crime he is accused of is not 'being a racist' (indeed that is not a crime) it is that he committed a racist act, which you can of course do without being one.
I won't shoot you down, but will raise a point or two here. Maybe John Terry isn't racist in his beliefs, maybe he is. What is important here for me, isn't the law, but the social implication of his alleged actions. It is not acceptable in today's society to use racially derogatory remarks in a "sledging" manner. I can't accept lack of intelligence or maybe even in Terry's case the possibility that he thinks he is above any social acceptance or even the law, as any level of tolerance to this. Banter, sledging, goading, whatever we refer it as, can be done without any racial inference at all.
I actually agree with all the comments above, it is about power, it is about how the recipient receives it and, of course, sledging can be done without any racist element to it. As long as we are agreed that this trial isn't about Terry being a racist. Take the case of Ron Atkinson when he used the 'N' word. That to me is a word that only someone with racist views would use despite his protestations that he was one of the first to use black players etc. I genuinely think that Terry is more an idiot than a racist. The whole Respect campaign is about PR not actually changing people's behaviour. It makes me laugh to see players with their little badge on standing toe to toe with a referee, or the manager berating the 4th official. Maybe this trial is a good thing in that it will give the campaign some proper meaning.
I don't necessarily agree that Ron Atkinson is a racist either. Do you think Jay-Z is a racist too? Because he has certainly been known to use the n-word. I hope this is a wake-up call to others in the Terry mould that you can't say these things without fear of reprisal. When people see celebrities like him getting away with this stuff it legitimises it, so I hope he doesn't get away with it.
