Terry is misunderstood

First topic message reminder :

He's alleged to have called Anton Ferdinand a black ****.

Has anyone considered Terry was wearing black that day? Seems more likely he was addressing himself.

NOT GUILTY

No wonder the rich comes from all over the world to use our poxy justice system.

Not guilty, correct decision now can we please get on with our lives?

We all got on with our lives. This was just in the background, and not guilty is very different to inncocent. It was proved what was said, just not with what intention. Terry basically escaped on a technicality.

Lets hope FA ACTUALLY do something about this.

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:Lets hope FA ACTUALLY do something about this.

Agreed!

They can start by apologising to Fabio Capello after forcing him out of a job for defending an innocent man.

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:Lets hope FA ACTUALLY do something about this.

What can they actually do? He was found not guilty in a Court of Law, the FA don't have a leg to stand on if they had any notion of charging him

the-gaffer wrote:

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:Lets hope FA ACTUALLY do something about this.

What can they actually do? He was found not guilty in a Court of Law, the FA don't have a leg to stand on if they had any notion of charging him

Different offence, plus civil court/hearings don't have a beyond all reasonable doubt restriction but are balance of probability based.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-gaffer wrote:

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:Lets hope FA ACTUALLY do something about this.

What can they actually do? He was found not guilty in a Court of Law, the FA don't have a leg to stand on if they had any notion of charging him

Different offence, plus civil court/hearings don't have a beyond all reasonable doubt restriction but are balance of probability based.

So he is "Probably" not guilty according to the Magistrate. But the FA know better?? Or is it because the FA have egg on their face here - they "probably" forced Ferdinand to "co-operate" with police, they forced Capello to resign because he refused to go along with their PC agenda - Capello had the temerity to say "innocent till proven guilty" and rightly told them where to go....................

So the Fa can (a) Move on and say sorry to Capello and Terry (b) charge Terry and Ferdinand with bringing the game into disrepute

I would go with (a) but i wouldn't be against both players receiving 3 game bans based on the foul language/behaviour

Seeing as the FA have an agenda here, and they believe they know better than the Court, they won't touch Anton......they'll go after JT for spite...........

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-gaffer wrote:

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:Lets hope FA ACTUALLY do something about this.

What can they actually do? He was found not guilty in a Court of Law, the FA don't have a leg to stand on if they had any notion of charging him

Different offence, plus civil court/hearings don't have a beyond all reasonable doubt restriction but are balance of probability based.

That's his point Top Hat...... the CPS couldn't win on a "balance of probability" test.....he was found not guilty "on balance of probability". Has it been a "beyong all reasonable doubt" case, the CPS would have been laughed out of court.

John Cregan wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-gaffer wrote:

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:Lets hope FA ACTUALLY do something about this.

What can they actually do? He was found not guilty in a Court of Law, the FA don't have a leg to stand on if they had any notion of charging him

Different offence, plus civil court/hearings don't have a beyond all reasonable doubt restriction but are balance of probability based.

That's his point Top Hat...... the CPS couldn't win on a "balance of probability" test.....he was found not guilty "on balance of probability". Has it been a "beyong all reasonable doubt" case, the CPS would have been laughed out of court.

Courts can't find somebody not guilty "on balance of probability". They have to find them guilty, or not guilty, "beyond all reasonable doubt".

John Cregan wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-gaffer wrote:

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:Lets hope FA ACTUALLY do something about this.

What can they actually do? He was found not guilty in a Court of Law, the FA don't have a leg to stand on if they had any notion of charging him

Different offence, plus civil court/hearings don't have a beyond all reasonable doubt restriction but are balance of probability based.

That's his point Top Hat...... the CPS couldn't win on a "balance of probability" test.....he was found not guilty "on balance of probability". Has it been a "beyong all reasonable doubt" case, the CPS would have been laughed out of court.

You don't seem to understand the difference between criminal and civil courts, thought I'd explained it fairly clearly.

Top Hat,

Was the Terry case a criminal trial or not??

Criminal = beyond all reasonable doubt, NOT balance of probability.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Criminal = beyond all reasonable doubt, NOT balance of probability.

Cheers..................

super_realist wrote:So you can racially abuse someone but not be a racist?

Why would someone insult someone and throw in their colour if they didn't have some racist tendencies?

Atila wrote:

super_realist wrote:So you can racially abuse someone but not be a racist?

Why would someone insult someone and throw in their colour if they didn't have some racist tendencies?

Exactly, that's what I'm saying, but apparently people seem to think you can.

super_realist wrote:

Atila wrote:

super_realist wrote:So you can racially abuse someone but not be a racist?

Why would someone insult someone and throw in their colour if they didn't have some racist tendencies?

Exactly, that's what I'm saying, but apparently people seem to think you can.

Of course it's not ok but it was name calling. Not very nice but it wasn't racist. He didn't say "Stay out of the bar, no blacks allowed" Now that's racism.

No, that's discrimination based on race.

Name calling involving racial slurs is racial abuse as the name calling is based on singling someone out for their ethnicity.

super

Ever said something in the heat of the moment or are you a robot? He slung out a name that's all. Is calling somebody ginger nut, racism?

There is no such thing as a ginger "race". It's perfectly ok to laugh at gingers and fat people.

I think even in the heat of the moment it probably reveals latent racism in Terry's case.

super_realist wrote:There is no such thing as a ginger "race". It's perfectly ok to laugh at gingers and fat people.

I think even in the heat of the moment it probably reveals latent racism in Terry's case.

Dear dear

Isn't it? You can't be hauled up in front of the beak for it can you? No where near as bad as what Terry did.

It's ok though is it?

Both would be wrong and IMO both are NOT racist comments, just name calling.
It may be law, but the law has it's faults.

What's wrong with having a laugh at fat people?

super_realist wrote:What's wrong with having a laugh at fat people?

Nothing, if they're not offended. If they are then a lot. Many people become depressed because of weight/looks even hair colour and take insults deeply. Be nice is my motto, unless it's good old fashioned banter. In fact I'd say calling somebody a fat ugly .... for no reason other to have a laugh is a damn site worse than what Terry said. Let me reconfirm. Terry was wrong to say what he did but for me it's not racism. This is one of those subjects where there isn't a right answer just a point of view and that's mine.

Well, they can do something about it if they are unhappy. It's all in their own hands.

super_realist wrote:Well, they can do something about it if they are unhappy. It's all in their own hands.

Maybe but that doesn't mean it's right to mock. Like I say a bit of banter is great but not verbal bullying.

John Terry has been charged by the FA.

Crimey wrote:John Terry has been charged by the FA.

2 fingers by the FA to the Magistrate then.....................

For now he is being charged with using "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour". Then it also says "It is further alleged that this included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Ferdinand."

I'm not sure if that means he is being charged with racism in the same way Suarez was.

Terry had denied the charge.

The FA have obviously completely disregarded the Judgement. Perhaps they can say that while JT may have been "responding" to AF saying B**** C**** - that that was wrong in itself....................while that would be Bizzare, the fact that the FA have already decided on Terrys guilt by stripping him of England Captaincy, the Not Guilty Verdict was quite inconvenient for them.......................that won't stop them and their PC ways though.............while i dislike JT, i hope he sues them or takes to to the Court of Arbitration for Sport after he is inevitably found guilty by these people....

Why AF not charged for "abusive and or insulting behaviour"??????