I would have liked that he is found guilty if he had done the deed. one of the Chelsea fans said earlier he would prefer to ave 1000 guilty found not guilty rather than one innocent found guilty. Thereby acknowledging that in this justice system ( like all he other systems in the world ) the guilty can escape justice...
JT not guilty!
- Thread starter Bucks Blue
- Start date
-
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
-
I would have liked that he is found guilty if he had done the deed. one of the Chelsea fans said earlier he would prefer to ave 1000 guilty found not guilty rather than one innocent found guilty. Thereby acknowledging that in this justice system ( like all he other systems in the world ) the guilty can escape justice...
Well, that's it then eh! Screw the law, **** the justice system, might aswell not have one
Well, that's it then eh! Screw the law, **** the justice system, might aswell not have one
Well that's YOUR spin on my post. Any justice system will ask for 100% proof. That was not produced and Terry got away with it. Thats the Law and we cannot do anything about it.
As you and many saId, guilty people have been found not guilty in court and vice versa. This does not prove that Terry is innocent.
That was a hypothetical scenario that he gave. Have you never heard of the phrase, innocent until proven guilty? It means someone remains innocent until they are proven guilty - if they are not proven guilty then they remain innocent, they don't go into limbo and have to prove that they did not do something. Do you know how hard it is to prove that something did not happen? How would you want Terry to prove his innocence? What course of action would he have to take?
In this case there were no witnesses to what Terry said and no audio evidence which would have been the most important factor of all considering that he was being questioned on what he said and we can only truly know if we hear what that was. He was hence found not guilty by a magistrate who dismissed the call by the defence to have it thrown out and allowed the prosecution to do their absolute best for a conviction. Now you can believe what you like, but after a piss poor amount of evidence (including no one stating to have heard what he said), the initial accuser not even turning up to give evidence and a non guilty verdict being returned by the magistrate, do you really think Chelsea fans are going to appreciate you coming on to the Chelsea board calling us gullible and giving us **** over something we've had over shoulder for nine months?
Please, just read the court transcript, I cannot be arsed to argue with anymore brainless illogical United fans.
Actually, it was me who brought spin in to it, not Drogs.
The point I was making on that is you say the evidence doesn't prove he's innocent but equally I can say it doesn't prove he's guilty either.
So you're saying terry did abuse him ? I see....... was there a racial element to this abuse ?
^^^^
100% agree. It doesn't prove he is guilty or innocent. That s what I have been saying.
How England would be with Christiansmith in charge... No one would get let off and no one would be innocent... talk about a party pooper!
In all seriousness the cour clearly assessed all the claims from both sides of the argument to come to the correct decision. He may not be fully innocent but he isn't guilty either... the conundrum.
That gormless **** Rio has come out of this a lot worse than both Terry or Anton. He is one prize ****er that's for sure. He should keep his massive ugly trap shut after the **** ups he's performed in the past.
What an absolute ****wit! So going by your judgement. Rio probably IS a drugs cheat for missing his test then?
^^^^
100% agree. It doesn't prove he is guilty or innocent. That s what I have been saying.
But he was found not guilty which actually means he's innocent!
Wrong. there was not enough proof or evidence in court to safely convict him. So not guilty. This does not mean he did not commit the crime or that he is innocent. The magistrate made that clear.
God you're a boring ****ing arsehole aren't you.
JT was not guilty,Rio is a drug cheat and those are facts. Now **** off in to a hole and stew in your own sad deluded juices.
The opposite of guilty is innocent you absolute f*****g moron!Wrong! Technically he is not guilty. However this does not mean he is innocent. That verdict only means that there was not enough Evidence to find him guilty. Not guilty...Yes innocent...No
United fans know nothing about football, you can't expect them to be clued up on law or life in general
There's a lad from Manchester I work with, he's usually very grounded regarding other teams (except Liverpool!) so it'll be interesting to hear what he says. I've found the proper mancs don't hate us as much as the glory hunters who believe football was invented in 1999.