John Terry

[xerxes]

Well I think it works out perfectly for them.

 

If hes found guilty they have an excuse to do whatever they need to.

 

If hes not found guilty they say its been dealt with.

 

I agree with you.

 

If Terry is found not guilty then the FA have nowhere to go.

 

The question why LFC did not decide to offer no evidence so as not to predjudice a criminal trial, thereby putting maximum pressure on Evra to press charges (and increase Luis chances of a not guilty), or withdraw, has neither been asked of the Club , nor answered.

 

If we had done so, Luis ( and Comolli) would not have incriminated himself, the FA would only have had Evra's word to go on, and would have been in an impossible position to proceed.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

I agree with you.

 

If Terry is found not guilty then the FA have nowhere to go.

 

The question why LFC did not decide to offer no evidence so as not to predjudice a criminal trial, thereby putting maximum pressure on Evra to press charges (and increase Luis chances of a not guilty), or withdraw, has neither been asked of the Club , nor answered.

 

If we had done so, Luis ( and Comolli) would not have incriminated himself, the FA would only have had Evra's word to go on, and would have been in an impossible position to proceed.

 

He is already guilty under FA rules without the need for them to even begin to look at his case.

 

It amazes me how nobody seems to of picked up on this fact already.

 

Simply by the fact the CPS have decided to take it to court,means that on this FA rule of deciding cases he is guilty already under FA rules.

345. Bearing these considerations in mind, whilst we were initially doubtful that Mr Suarez

would make the comments alleged by Mr Evra, we proceeded on the basis that the factors

relied on in relation to Mr Suarez's background and experiences did not mean that he

could not or would not act in this way. We weighed these considerations together with all

the evidence when asking ourselves whose account was more probable.

 

On there own law of probability in finding Suarez guilty,you only have to look at how the CPS decide to take a case to court,to realise the fuck up the FA have made by not already stripping Terry of England captaincy.

 

Below is taken from the CPS explanation on how a decsion is made to take a case to court.

 

The Crown Prosecutor will read the papers in the file and look at the evidence collected by the police. They then consider whether the case passes the two tests laid down in The Code for Crown Prosecutors. 1.The Evidential Test

 

The prosecutor must first decide whether or not there is enough evidence against the defendant for them to be convicted of the crime in a court of law.

This means that the magistrates or jury are more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge. If there is not a realistic prospect of conviction, the case must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be.

 

 

The second test dosent affect this case.

 

So if the CPS have to be practically 100% certain of getting a result on a case before taking the case to court,is a hell of a lot more harder to do than the FA s probabilty guilty verdict.

 

So without them even starting there investigation he is guilty under there rules.

[TheHowieLama]

I agree with you.

 

If Terry is found not guilty then the FA have nowhere to go.

 

The question why LFC did not decide to offer no evidence so as not to predjudice a criminal trial, thereby putting maximum pressure on Evra to press charges (and increase Luis chances of a not guilty), or withdraw, has neither been asked of the Club , nor answered.

 

If we had done so, Luis ( and Comolli) would not have incriminated himself, the FA would only have had Evra's word to go on, and would have been in an impossible position to proceed.

 

Why do you continue with this 20/20 hilltop hindsight drivel - your premise is a dead 180 from the Liverpool Way and has been the entire time - the gentlemen in question is one of morals, as is the club, and does not/did not think he/they did anything wrong and never did so your incessant blathering about a premeditated ultraconscious defense mode is asinine and ultimately pointless. One party acted with integrity, one did not - you continue to suggest he/we should not of as well - it is not an opinion of value or substance - it is the vantage point, and the continued crowing of a Sunday Armchair weasel.

[razor]

I see the media are giving this story a tad more coverage.

 

Has he not been playing well recently or something?

 

Cue loads of great Michael Dawson stories. Or whoever the London press want to play centre half in the summer.

[Major Tom]

I see the media are giving this story a tad more coverage.

 

Has he not been playing well recently or something?

 

Cue loads of great Michael Dawson stories. Or whoever the London press want to play centre half in the summer.

 

I don't get the whole 'London press' thing. Aside from the fact there are plenty of Liverpool and Manchester based national journalists, surely the last thing a London journalist who is an Arsenal fan would do is promote the case of a Spuds player!

[moof]

I don't get the whole 'London press' thing. Aside from the fact there are plenty of Liverpool and Manchester based national journalists, surely the last thing a London journalist who is an Arsenal fan would do is promote the case of a Spuds player!

[Major Tom]

Haha.

 

Obviously still not over my views on Suarez, moof, you big fanny.

[razor]

I don't get the whole 'London press' thing. Aside from the fact there are plenty of Liverpool and Manchester based national journalists, surely the last thing a London journalist who is an Arsenal fan would do is promote the case of a Spuds player!

 

Ah, the ignorant bliss of our overseas cousins...

 

Stay a while longer, Major, and you too will learn the ways of the weighted media.

 

But, actually, I did speak a little too soon. Pork Pie from the Mail has put down his bedtime-treat Happy Meal long enough to get his sausage fingers onto his keyboard and churn out this little gem. Between courses:

 

Martin Samuel: Spare us from Strictly Come Racism | Mail Online

[Major Tom]

Ah, the ignorant bliss of our overseas cousins...

 

Stay a while longer, Major, and you too will learn the ways of the weighted media.

 

But, actually, I did speak a little too soon. Pork Pie from the Mail has put down his bedtime-treat Happy Meal long enough to get his sausage fingers onto his keyboard and churn out this little gem. Between courses:

 

Martin Samuel: Spare us from Strictly Come Racism | Mail Online

 

Well I've lived here long enough to know not to read the Daily Mail, razor! We're quick learners, us immigrants. Not paranoid yet, mind!

[moof]

Haha.

 

Obviously still not over my views on Suarez, moof, you big fanny.

 

Your continuous quest to be seen as the worlds most objective football fan seems a little self important and conceited. You're basically emanating smug.

[Major Tom]

Your continuous quest to be seen as the worlds most objective football fan seems a little self important and conceited. You're basically emanating smug.

 

Dear me, moof, you've got it bad. I'll put it down to a little callowness on your part and I'll leave you to it. Reading your sort of carry on makes me wince and it ruins threads. Apologies all for getting involved!

[KMD7]

Why do you continue with this 20/20 hilltop hindsight drivel - your premise is a dead 180 from the Liverpool Way and has been the entire time - the gentlemen in question is one of morals, as is the club, and does not/did not think he/they did anything wrong and never did so your incessant blathering about a premeditated ultraconscious defense mode is asinine and ultimately pointless. One party acted with integrity, one did not - you continue to suggest he/we should not of as well - it is not an opinion of value or substance - it is the vantage point, and the continued crowing of a Sunday Armchair weasel.

 

Well said. Repped

[moof]

Jesus, you might want to redress your opinions on the integrity of the FA and the xenophobic London based press machine before you accuse others of callowness. The double standards are right in front of your eyes in the Samuel column posted above.

[Whelan]

To be fair. Samuel is right in this case!

 

It is their behaviour over Suarez where the fault lies. It is innocent until proven guilty and cannot be any other way.

[Major Tom]

Jesus, you might want to redress your opinions on the integrity of the FA and the xenophobic London based press machine before you accuse others of callowness. The double standards are right in front of your eyes in the Samuel column posted above.

 

It's just a difference of opinion, moof, it's doesn't represent callowness at all. Callowness is the inability to accept a difference of opinion and resorting to the type of nonsense you now regularly do.

 

Saying all that, there is a jingoistic nature to the press in this country for sure - like there is in all countries in my experience. I have never disputed that and I was not talking about it in this particular thread when I replied to razor.

[xerxes]

He is already guilty under FA rules without the need for them to even begin to look at his case.

 

It amazes me how nobody seems to of picked up on this fact already.

 

Simply by the fact the CPS have decided to take it to court,means that on this FA rule of deciding cases he is guilty already under FA rules.

345. Bearing these considerations in mind, whilst we were initially doubtful that Mr Suarez

would make the comments alleged by Mr Evra, we proceeded on the basis that the factors

relied on in relation to Mr Suarez's background and experiences did not mean that he

could not or would not act in this way. We weighed these considerations together with all

the evidence when asking ourselves whose account was more probable.

 

On there own law of probability in finding Suarez guilty,you only have to look at how the CPS decide to take a case to court,to realise the fuck up the FA have made by not already stripping Terry of England captaincy.

 

Below is taken from the CPS explanation on how a decsion is made to take a case to court.

 

The Crown Prosecutor will read the papers in the file and look at the evidence collected by the police. They then consider whether the case passes the two tests laid down in The Code for Crown Prosecutors. 1.The Evidential Test

 

The prosecutor must first decide whether or not there is enough evidence against the defendant for them to be convicted of the crime in a court of law.

This means that the magistrates or jury are more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge. If there is not a realistic prospect of conviction, the case must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be.

 

 

The second test dosent affect this case.

 

So if the CPS have to be practically 100% certain of getting a result on a case before taking the case to court,is a hell of a lot more harder to do than the FA s probabilty guilty verdict.

 

So without them even starting there investigation he is guilty under there rules.

A few points.

 

Firstly, no-one is guilty under FA rules until disciplinary the process has been followed.

 

There is no doubt that there is a prima facie case against Terry for the FA to hear. Because a criminal case is proceeding the FA have wisely decided to stay any action until the result of that criminal case is known. With one pending, Terry would have declined to participate in an earlier FA Hearing so as not to incriminate himself.

 

Your interpretation of CPS guidelines is a little skewed, the conviction rate in 2010 was 80%.

 

I share your view that the Criminal standard is tougher, and believe we mismanaged handling the Suarez case from start to finish

[xerxes]

Why do you continue with this 20/20 hilltop hindsight drivel - your premise is a dead 180 from the Liverpool Way and has been the entire time - the gentlemen in question is one of morals, as is the club, and does not/did not think he/they did anything wrong and never did so your incessant blathering about a premeditated ultraconscious defense mode is asinine and ultimately pointless. One party acted with integrity, one did not - you continue to suggest he/we should not of as well - it is not an opinion of value or substance - it is the vantage point, and the continued crowing of a Sunday Armchair weasel.

Great rant, The Howielama, but nonsense. I judge not with hindsight.

 

We did not make choices which were later proven to be wrong ( that is bad luck) we made choices which were wrong from the start (that is bad judgement).

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

A few points.

 

Firstly, no-one is guilty under FA rules until disciplinary the process has been followed.

 

There is no doubt that there is a prima facie case against Terry for the FA to hear. Because a criminal case is proceeding the FA have wisely decided to stay any action until the result of that criminal case is known. With one pending, Terry would have declined to participate in an earlier FA Hearing so as not to incriminate himself.

 

Your interpretation of CPS guidelines is a little skewed, the conviction rate in 2010 was 80%.

 

I share your view that the Criminal standard is tougher, and believe we mismanaged handling the Suarez case from start to finish

 

That CPS guidelines cant be skewed simply because thats off there site.

 

How the FA havent stripped terry of his captaincy based on the police taking action makes them out to be as racist as him.

[xerxes]

That CPS guidelines cant be skewed simply because thats off there site.

 

How the FA havent stripped terry of his captaincy based on the police taking action makes them out to be as racist as him.

 

I didn't say that the CPS guidelines were skewed, I said that your interpretation of them was.

 

If they have to be 100 % certain of a conviction, then they are wrong 20% of the time. Anyway that's no big deal, we agree that the Criminal standard is higher than the FA's.

 

I think that JT is an odious, self seeking, individual. If he had any sense of pride in the England Captaincy, he would step down of his own accord. But he hasn't. I agree that the FA should do it for him. I wouldn't take him to the Euro's.

[Jack the Sipper]

I agree with you.

 

If Terry is found not guilty then the FA have nowhere to go.

 

The question why LFC did not decide to offer no evidence so as not to predjudice a criminal trial, thereby putting maximum pressure on Evra to press charges (and increase Luis chances of a not guilty), or withdraw, has neither been asked of the Club , nor answered.

 

If we had done so, Luis ( and Comolli) would not have incriminated himself, the FA would only have had Evra's word to go on, and would have been in an impossible position to proceed.

 

Since when? The FA might argue that, but they'd have no viable reason to, given the diferrent levels of evidence needed to reach a verdict.

[Whelan]

If Terry is found guilty, more than the FA will end up looking like Racist apologists!

 

Notice Piar Power is calling for JT to lose the England captaincy! I am sure he is captain of another team as well.

[VladimirIlyich]

 

I didn't say that the CPS guidelines were skewed, I said that your interpretation of them was.

 

If they have to be 100 % certain of a conviction, then they are wrong 20% of the time. Anyway that's no big deal, we agree that the Criminal standard is higher than the FA's.

 

I think that JT is an odious, self seeking, individual. If he had any sense of pride in the England Captaincy, he would step down of his own accord. But he hasn't. I agree that the FA should do it for him. I wouldn't take him to the Euro's.

 

So wouldnt 80/20 confirm guilt under a balance of probability then?

 

I'd say it would.

[Whelan]

By not stripping Terry of the captaincy the FA are essentally saying 'It is okay to call a player a black cunt, but don't shag your team mates wife'! Because they did strip of the captaincy for that, and that was unproven also.

[ngogswilly]

To be fair. Samuel is right in this case!

 

It is their behaviour over Suarez where the fault lies. It is innocent until proven guilty and cannot be any other way.

 

You're dead right but what rankles most people about the Samuel article is the double standards. He nor most of the other baying pack afforded Suarez such a generous time of it.

 

They are right to call for innocent until proven guilty in Terry's case, but why didn't they do the same for Luis? I know it wasn't a criminal case for him but the point still stands.

[VladimirIlyich]

Reporters are just knee jerk,well jerks if you like.

They seem to fit into whatever costume suits their purpose for a particular story and have no consistency to their views.

So much so that i'm not sure most of them believe what they actually write.

Not that im saying this applies in the Suarez and Terry cases but just reporters,i hesitate to use the word journalists as that seems to indicate a skill and style to articles,but just to modern reporting in general.