If you had read my post properly I said no it is not ok to abuse someone. But what constitute abuse is more difficult to establish. If abuse has happened, then the player should be punished. Does calling somebody a "bastrd" constitute abuse? possibly, depending on context . Replying "f**k you" to taunting from another player? may be not. It is all about context.
Abuse or not, he was found not guilty by a court of law (may that be by insufficient evidence or innocence). If the FA charge him he has that to fall back on. He can also complain about Rio's conveniently disappearing Choc Ice tweet, and if the FA charge him for bringing the game into disrepute then Anton has to go down with him. I hate the FA so hopefully they do get humiliated for not being able to deal with anything properly.
I have no great sympathy for the FA. I have less for Terry. I feel he got away with the BS story about repeating what was said. What nonsense! I hope he gets fined or banned. If Suarez got punished, why shouldn't he? This sort of behaviour should be consigned to the shameful past
We all know the Suarez case was dodgy, it's just there was so much pressure to get him banned the FA collapsed. The FA needs to change and sort everything out, so if Terry should be charged so should Anton, but sadly there is no back bone to that organisation. Oh well, we'll see what happens.
The Suarez incident has been gone over thousands of times so I am particularly keen to do that here. My own take on it is that he got a more severe punishment than he deserved. Having said that, the club , manager and he himself did the player no favours. Had he come out and said " I am sorry. This is something that is said in a non racial way in my country. I wasn't aware that it was specifically offensive here. etc" If the club/manager had encouraged him to do that, I am sure he would have got 2-3 match ban at most. The FA wanted to make an example of him as he appeared non repentant and non conciliatory. As for Terry, if there was a probability that he abused Ferdinand racially (the proof needed would be less than a court of law) then he will get punished. I do accept that different people have different angles on it. so we may never agree on this.
Carl, I only want to 'undermine' the FA anti-racism stance as it's only selectively anti-racist. Absolutely NOTHING was done about Evra, despite the racial nature of his insults, and the squarking chorus that wanted Suarez tried in a real court (if only!) were/are as quiet as fook when Rio X got involved with his own racism. As it happens, i totally support the stance of John Barnes and other black voices of anti-racism in that rather than give one specific race an advantage in 'squaring things up' for 500 years of oppression, it's far less divisive and more productive to educate and evolve ALL peoples' attitude to see that skin colour is just a physical feature like red hair hair or green eyes. My uncle was left-handed. Being brought up in the 30's he was cruelly, and ignorantly, forced to write with his right hand. It's now known to cause stress and effects similar to dyslexia, and often left-handers were thought clumsy and stupid. Boo hoo. Should we now give left-handers special advantages and interpretations of law and rules because of centuries of 'oppression'? Should I, one-quarter Chinese, be complaining that last night's olympic ceremony had bugger-all representation about the Chinese community (the oldest non-European ethnic group in England, and here long before the waves of Irish immigrants in the 19th Century) and focussed practically all of its 'multi-cultural' emphasis on the Afro-Carribean community? Or should everyone in this country accept that when we talk racism in this country we talk exclusively about white on black action, as exemplified by the fact that pracitically all the anti-racist talking heads and rent-a-quotes in the media are black? And finally - Nick Griffith? FFs. That's the problem with you Simon Barnes type of 'White-Man's-Guilt' school of 500 years moral debtors, anyone who opposes your solution is ipso facto a racist, like anyone who has a scintilla of doubt about climate change being 100% man-made is somehow a denier of climate change full stop. I'm a Rio-sceptic, and I'm bl00dy proud of it.
as usual top post on this subject donga, as for rio sceptic, I'm not! I know for a fact that he is a racist.
Really can’t see how the FA can believe they are helping to address problems, never mind something as serious and loathsome as racism, without first ensuring their process and motives are seen to be fair and trusted by anyone who has an interest in fair play. As soon as you are seen to demonstrate a bias, any principals become worthless as people will always suspect an ulterior motive, and any moral ground is lost. Not sure why there are two charges unless you can't have the second without the first. To charge just one player "It is alleged that Terry used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behavior towards Queens Park Rangers’ Anton Ferdinand, contrary to FA rules" when there has been a court case were the dialogue of both players demonstrates that both parties were being abusive to each other to me implies an FA agenda. I am sure that JT said, what he admitted, not to repeat what he thought he had heard but as a blatant and racist insult. He has got away with the criminal case due to being able to introduce reasonable doubt. The FA just need balance of probability but I would argue that any disciplinary hearing that requires a lower burden of proof, needs to be of the highest integrity due to the lack of protection afforded by normal court standards. The FA can never be seen to have that level of integrity because first off they blatantly apply one rule for one person and a different one for another when it suits, and secondly the people they fill the disciplinary panels with seem to be just as selective about what they believe. That and the fact that QC's running the panels don't apply the basic standards of impartiality when choosing members and you can give up on the FA doing anything fairly. Certainly charge JT with the second charge of using reference to ethnic origin etc. but not the first unless both parties are charged. No doubt there will be those who say you can't charge someone for receiving ethnic abuse or no one will ever come forward, but that totally misses the point, in the cases I have seen the abuse usually follows recieving a tirade from the opponant, but in the two cases I have seen the FA are not interested in the provocation even when it falls under the same definition as the charge your imposing on the other player!
"Really can’t see how the FA can believe they are helping to address problems, never mind something as serious and loathsome as racism, without first ensuring their process and motives are seen to be fair and trusted by anyone who has an interest in fair play. As soon as you are seen to demonstrate a bias, any principals become worthless as people will always suspect an ulterior motive, and any moral ground is lost." The anti-discrimation process is discrimatory.
why has the OP got a picture of a mass murderer as his avatar? a recent one at that which is fresh for many...no fukin wonder idiots like that crave negative attention...they know they will get it .
you know Terry is guilty when the only people defending him are chelsea fans.....strange how you lower your moral values because some bellend plays for the club you support.
Strange how people spout about morals when it's NOT their player. Seriously; THAT'S your burden of proof you brainless tosser.
Agree with this completely. They isolate the racial insult, which they shouldn't. It's highly likely (almost certain) that neither Terry nor Suarez would have said what they did without provocation. In the Terry case, Ferdinand goaded him about his alleged affairs, and in the Suarez case Evra insulted his sister, in Spanish. The more I think about this 'balance of probability' criteria, the more I realise what a nonsensical idea it is. Surely a simple accusation makes an offence 'probable'? One man claims he did something, the other denies it, but is charged with it, because it is 'probable' (one step up from possible) that he did it. You might argue that Suarez admitted using the term he was charged with, and that was enough to justify his ban. That's true, but he only admitted to using it once, and not as a derogatory term. He was actually charged with using it 7 times, 6 of which were a textbook instance of one man's word against another's.
The Fa has created a rod for its on back here, I believe the term is clusterf**k. Difference in these cases is that Suarez admitted using the terms he was charged on. Regardless I wwould like to see him found guilty if only to show us that the Suarez witchhunt was not in vain. That and to see Chelsea have to start the season with David luiz at C B !
"That's true, but he only admitted to using it once, and not as a derogatory term. He was actually charged with using it 7 times, 6 of which were a textbook instance of one man's word against another's." Think it's important to re-iterate that the one word Suarez admitted using was NOT what Evra originally accused him of saying, but only after the FA/prosecution allowed him to secretly (that WAS their intention) review the cctv tapes and see Suarez's statement did it even become one man's (coached) word against another.
Just one other thing though. Many posters over the Suarez affair (specifically United and Blueshight ones) were quick to point out that in civil courts the balance of probabilities is normally used as the burden of proof between two contesting parties (eg property and child residence disputes). Let's get some things straight:- 1) Can't stand John Terry and wouldn't normally care what happens to him. 2) The FA panel is NOT a civil court. It has the status of a workplace tribunal (and not even a proper Employment Tribunal at that). it's NOT a recognised legal court, and would dipsticks STOP saying Suarez was ever found guilty in a court of law, please. 3) It's not a dispute between two contesting parties - John Terry stands accused and will be prosecuted by the same body that selects the judge and jury,: an abberation that wouldn't be allowed in a proper court. 4) As the accused, and no matter what the slathering racial-equality hounds of the press would LIKE to happen, surely he deserves to be judged by the standard of reasonable doubt. As said, this ISN'T a petty dispute about a garden hedge or planning permission to convert a garage into a granny flat. And, equally importantly, as the 'accused' there should be a presumption of innocence until found guilty, regardless of the burden of proof. I the Suarez case there was no such presumption. In all, be it John Terry or someone else, I sincerely hope, in the interests of natural justice, that eventually someone takes the FA to the CIS, as our own insipid owners were too timid to do. An individual, as opposed to a club, would stand better chance as the FA could only ban that person and not the club for having the temerity to oppose the FA's kangaroo court procedures. Ideally Roman will sponsor Terry's wages whilst he's banned. Hell, millionaire gobshight as Terry is, even I'd pay towards a fighting fund for him to take the FA to the CAS, so much do many of us think that this witchhunt hysteria is totally against the liberty and natural justice traditions of this country, let alone this sport.
