John terry
- Thread starter Fettis the striker
- Start date
Terry didn't kill anyone so not sure of the point of that comparison. Or are you suggesting that anyone going to court and getting off is always still guilty?
You seem to suffer from the same problem lots of people have with Terry, which is you don't like him, so he must be guilty. Thankfully our legal system, as flawed as it can be, doesn't work that way.
I would have thought it was quite obvious what I was saying, the fact that you get found not guilty in a court of law, doesn't necessarily mean you're innocent.
Personally, I'm completely indifferent, I really couldn't give a **** if he stays or goes.
The FA imo always like to stick there 10p in when its not needed or wanted. JT was found not guilty in a court of law and that should be it. But oh no the clueless FA want to keep this rumbling along. Its not as though we are blessed with better defenders either. Interesting that when asked both Barca and Madrid managers said that only John Terry - Ashley Cole - Frank Lampard - Steven Gerrard and Wayne Rooney are the ONLY England players good enough to not only play for them but would improve them. R.I.P. England imo. My sympathy goes to Joe Hart now.
On this point i 100%^ agree with you.
IMO, Englands best back 4 (when everyone it fit and available) is Walker - Cahill - Terry and Cole.
Shame this will no longer be the case.
Correct. JT had respect as a player at least from everyone. Now i fear that England will leak goals. Sad day for both JT and England. Disgraceful FA.
She was a bitch ? alledgedly.
Also, it might not matter in legal terms but Suarez really is a massive bellend. A scurge on the game of football. Terry is hated for shagging about and all that nonsense but Suarez is a bellend on the pitch.
Terry always gave me the impression that he considered it an honour to play for England. He led by example on the pitch. Shame that his demeanor off it was not always as exemplary. He will be missed.
He was found not guilty by a UK Court of Law.
Now the FA have to decide if he is guilty or not guilty.
The FA must consider themselves to be a superior court then if they don't accept UK law.
Now the FA have to decide if he is guilty or not guilty.
The FA must consider themselves to be a superior court then if they don't accept UK law.
You know that if someone is found not guilty in a criminal court you can still pursue them in a civil case?
He's also facing a different charge from the FA. All the FA charge is for is using insulting and/or abusive language. Racism is not an explicit requirement to be found guilty as it was in the trial.
****ing useless, overrated, unfaithful,disgrace of a husband, father and player. Well rid of the dodgy chav.
But then whats the point of a court of law if the final decision isn't trusted. The fact of the matter is he was found to be not guilty and the FA should respect that. Personally I couldn't care whether he was selected for England or not but its more the fact the FA have no ****ing clue what there doing
For what ? I would tell the FA where to go. In a court of Law JT was found not guilty. That should be it.
It would do his public image more good IF he Paid the fine to some charities and Not that bottomless pit of incompetance which is the FA.
Agreed. FA as clueless as ever. Imo.
Two different organizations investigated him on two different charges both relating to the same incident, it's nothing to do with not trusting the courts verdict.
Imagine if you assaulted someone at work, the case then goes to court, you are found not guilty in court (insufficient evidence for example) but you would the still expect to face a disciplinary hearing at work at which you would probably be found guilty of misconduct and be punished.