Terry banned

  • 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!
Yurilly said:
There is nothing wrong with repeating it in the context that Terry stated he used it in, it's the intent behind its use which is important. He could have said what you suggested, but he chose otherwise and I could imagine how one would say it in the way that Terry is stating. It's not as improbably as people are making it out to be. And in answer to your last question, yes, Terry probably is a bit thick.

And yeah Anton did do something wrong, I'm glad you agreed with me. But what did Cole lie about? Did he deny that Terry used those words, or denied hearing what he said?
Click to expand...

Cole's evidence directly contradicted Anton's and in some detail so it couldn't have been just a mistake on either part. Assuming Anton didn't lie under oath and therefore told what he believes is the truth, it follows logic that he believes Cole lied to help his mate. If a QPR player had given evidence that contradicted Terry, you could understand Terry not wanting to shake his hand. Assuming Terry also believes he was telling the truth.
 
Yid Vicious said:
Cole's evidence directly contradicted Anton's and in some detail so it couldn't have been just a mistake on either part. Assuming Anton didn't lie under oath and therefore told what he believes is the truth, it follows logic that he believes Cole lied to help his mate. If a QPR player had given evidence that contradicted Terry, you could understand Terry not wanting to shake his hand. Assuming Terry also believes he was telling the truth.
Click to expand...

Well at least one of them have lied under oath and they wouldn't be the first. Unless they were still mishearing things when talking to each other in the dressing room or have a poor recollection of what happened, which I highly doubt. The fact though that Rio came out with comments insinuating that Cole shouldn't be providing a statement for Terry's defence for the mere fact that him and his brother are of the same race casts doubt in my mind, especially as Anton appears to be influenced a lot by Rio. I get the feeling that he didn't shake hands with Cole not because of giving contradictory evidence, but because he didn't side with someone who shared his race, as if that is more important rather than the truth.
 
Yurilly said:
I am quite intrigued as to why you felt that was more appropriate to what was originally said HIAG. You see it is because I believe that it epitomises people's true feelings about this whole affair. People are not actually interested in the fight against racism or justice, they are interested in the fight against John Terry. The whole racism debate has been merely a bi-product for many people against an individual who they hate who plays for a team that they probably hate too. It could have been anything as far as they're concerned, as long as it's damaging enough to make a serious demand for Terry to be removed from the game for good. That is the saddest thing about this very distasteful run of events. If people like yourself and others who have commented in a similar fashion had a choice between whether John Terry made racially abusive comments or not, I have a strong and unfortunate feeling that you would choose the former. And that is because all they are interested in is their agenda to punish Terry and have a much lower will in genuinely kicking racism out of the game, if any.
Click to expand...

<applause> spot on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back