JT's day in the dock!

  • 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!
Quite a lot of bollocks on this thread from both sides, though the way certain people have defended him is slightly cringeworthy.

I'd be flabbergasted if he's found guilty given this is a real court rather than the FA's 'make the rules up as we go' version.
 
Let me just say, before this trial is over, I deep down do not believe JT is a racist and this occurence is a spat that occurred during an emotionally charged match! The jury will decide! The prosecution thus far has not, in my opinion,put anything forward that has changed my view so far! I hope it remains that way!
 
bluemoon2 said:
Let me just say, before this trial is over, I deep down do not believe JT is a racist and this occurence is a spat that occurred during an emotionally charged match! The jury will decide! The prosecution thus far has not, in my opinion,put anything forward that has changed my view so far! I hope it remains that way!
Click to expand...

No jury in this one bluemoon, its a public order offence.
And frankly, without getting into whether he's guilty or not, its a bit overblown. This is expected to last five days. This should not take five days. Two at most. They can question Ferdinand and Terry all they want, mess around with lip-readers but there is only two things that can actually convict. Do they have credible direct witnesses and do they have clear audio?
I reckon the lawyers on the CPS are stretching things out, looking to build their careers as the people who took down John Terry.
 
Watford_R said:
Quite a lot of bollocks on this thread from both sides, though the way certain people have defended him is slightly cringeworthy.

I'd be flabbergasted if he's found guilty given this is a real court rather than the FA's 'make the rules up as we go' version.
Click to expand...

your the voice of reason?
 
Watford_R said:
Quite a lot of bollocks on this thread from both sides, though the way certain people have defended him is slightly cringeworthy.

I'd be flabbergasted if he's found guilty given this is a real court rather than the FA's 'make the rules up as we go' version.
Click to expand...

How is defending someone you think is innocent cringeworthy then?
 
Spurlock said:
your the voice of reason?
Click to expand...

I don't intend to be. However, for all the bickering on both sides, it's really quite irrelevant what he said as it will essentially come down to one man's word against another's which is enough for the FA but not for a real court of law.
 
blueboy83 said:
No jury in this one bluemoon, its a public order offence.
And frankly, without getting into whether he's guilty or not, its a bit overblown. This is expected to last five days. This should not take five days. Two at most. They can question Ferdinand and Terry all they want, mess around with lip-readers but there is only two things that can actually convict. Do they have credible direct witnesses and do they have clear audio?
I reckon the lawyers on the CPS are stretching things out, looking to build their careers as the people who took down John Terry.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected Blueboy! I think you understand though, my point that we have taxpayers money being wasted in a matter that is primarily a spat between two individuals that could have been settled out of public view and behind closed doors!
 
His defence admitted he used the word black but said it was exaggerated sarcasm.

They questioned the authority of lip reading to a deaf lip reader who then responded to them having understood everything they said.

<doh>
 
Taramosalata said:
His defence admitted he used the word black but said it was exaggerated sarcasm.

They questioned the authority of lip reading to a deaf lip reader who then responded to them having understood everything they said.

<doh>
Click to expand...

But she agreed with them that it wasn't exact :1980_boogie_down:
 
Watford_R said:
The way some people defend him is. Defending him per se is not.
Click to expand...

It might help if you gave an example rather than just saying it. maybe then we'd all be able to agree with you because at this point it's nothing more than your opinion with no backup. Cheers.
 
Taramosalata said:
His defence admitted he used the word black but said it was exaggerated sarcasm.

They questioned the authority of lip reading to a deaf lip reader who then responded to them having understood everything they said.

<doh>
Click to expand...

Do you know how deaf she was? She might have been using a hearing aid.

But most importantly what she said was lip-reading wasn't 100% reliable and she couldn't be completely definite on what was said.
 
CPofL said:
It might help if you gave an example rather than just saying it. maybe then we'd all be able to agree with you because at this point it's nothing more than your opinion with no backup. Cheers.
Click to expand...

If you insist. Some people, notably District but others too, can look at this, and indeed other matters, objectively, and may still choose to defend Terry, which is fair enough. Others, and I'm sure they're good blokes, but Tel and Blueboy83, purely to give you the examples you seek, seem to be personally offended by someone not being on Terry's side and instantly leap to his defence and call someone that has a pretty mainstream opinion a twat or offer the same old convoluted argument as to why what he said wasn't really that bad that has been heard a thousand times before.
 
Disregarding my views on whether I believe verbal racial abuse should be dealt with by a court of law, I think that the context is very important here. The pivotal factor is whether or not John Terry used the phrase as a clearly intentional insult or not. If the latter then I do not see a case. If it is the former and there is strong enough evidence beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, then he shall be found guilty. If Terry is found guilty, then my view remains the same as it always has been which is that he should be sacked by the club and banned from the ground just like any fan or staff member would and just like fans already have been in the past. We cannot have one rule for one and another rule for others simply because of who they are and what position they hold as that just appears like a corrupt system to me. With that said, I hope and truly believe that Terry will be found not guilty.

To add one more thing, I do not believe one who is guilty of racial abuse is also a racist. In order to be a racist, one has to hold a view that a race is superior or should have certain discrepancies to any other race. Even if Terry did racially abuse Anton Ferdinand, that would not by itself make him a racist. He may be or he may not be, but we cannot from that one instance draw that conclusion. I personally do not believe him to be one. I am sure there must (unfortunately) be racist footballers out there who make sure not to make their views clear in the public eye. However football clubs and grounds are private property and as such the owners can enforce whatever rules (within reason) they like on their employees and their possessions and if racial abuse is enough to sack or ban someone, then that is their choice and it is fair enough.
 
Watford_R said:
If you insist. Some people, notably District but others too, can look at this, and indeed other matters, objectively, and may still choose to defend Terry, which is fair enough. Others, and I'm sure they're good blokes, but Tel and Blueboy83, purely to give you the examples you seek, seem to be personally offended by someone not being on Terry's side and instantly leap to his defence and call someone that has a pretty mainstream opinion a twat or offer the same old convoluted argument as to why what he said wasn't really that bad that has been heard a thousand times before.
Click to expand...

Since my good name has been dragged into this, allow me to clarify my position.
My comments have been to question what it means if Terry were to be found guilty. If he is guilty he deserves everything he gets from the court and the FA.
My point has been that if he is guilty, he's guilty of using a racial slur but not necessarily of being a racist. Far from being convoluted, its a logical argument to make.
 
Agree with Yurilly and have the same stance myself.

My concern is not whether or not Terry is found guilty it's about his public image and the opportunism from the media and rival fans to stick the knife in. I get that rival fans hate Terry and I get that at times he behaves like an absolute moron but the guy isnt a racist and I'm 100% sure of this as I also have friends that have met him. I could not care less what people want to call Terry but it does annoy me when people jump on the bandwagon and start saying he is racist. Having been exposed to racism in the past it's a topic quite close to my heart.

The tribalism amongst fans has been awful. I say fans because it's not just QPR and Chelsea fans that seem to have an opinion on this I've seen fans of Stoke, Swansea etc chip in too.

The sad thing is the root issue has been overlooked. I have no doubt that if Terry is found guilty the media and social networking sites will be full of people baying for his blood. The issue of racism will actually be overlooked. All of a sudden nobody will care about how Anton Ferdinand (the victim) has felt or how other black footballers feel given the kick it out campaigns etc. it will just be all about slandering Terry.

If found not guilty, the stigma will still not go away. Suarez is a different case as the media has no real vendetta against him. It for Terry it's different. If the guy scored the winning goal to win England the 2014 World Cup the press would still hate him and that's all it really takes to convince people.

No matter what the outcome this has no happy ending for anyone in my view
 
blueboy83 said:
Since my good name has been dragged into this, allow me to clarify my position.
My comments have been to question what it means if Terry were to be found guilty. If he is guilty he deserves everything he gets from the court and the FA.
My point has been that if he is guilty, he's guilty of using a racial slur but not necessarily of being a racist. Far from being convoluted, its a logical argument to make.
Click to expand...

I agree. The laughable thing is I would be willing to bet 95% of the population in this country have made at least one racial slur in their lives. 50 years ago or so there were signs outside almost every bar/lounge/pub saying "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish" 30 years ago we had Race Riots and had Skinheads running riot. Now these people haven't just gone away they are still here. So if you say that a person is a racist due to one racial slur which may or may not have been said out of context you open the door to saying almost everyone is a racist.

I want justice and if JT is found guilty a fine and subsequent FA ban/sacking by the club would suffice in my book but what I dont want him being labelled as is a racist. Because when people start doing that you nullify the term and then the real racists can be excused for doing whatever they like. Anyone that thinks JT (regardless of verdict) is in the same category as Dobson, Norris or Michael Barton seriously needs a reality check.

These days if you are branded a racist you are near enough unemployable.
 
blueboy83 said:
No jury in this one bluemoon, its a public order offence.
And frankly, without getting into whether he's guilty or not, its a bit overblown. This is expected to last five days. This should not take five days. Two at most. They can question Ferdinand and Terry all they want, mess around with lip-readers but there is only two things that can actually convict. Do they have credible direct witnesses and do they have clear audio?
I reckon the lawyers on the CPS are stretching things out, looking to build their careers as the people who took down John Terry.
Click to expand...
This would take 2 hours if it was a member of the public!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back