Big brave racist lionheart John Terry

[RobbieOR]

I don't think that it puts the FA in a dificult position at all. It makes it easy for them.

 

Not guilty. No case. Move on.

 

My view is that Terry was guilty, but that is by the by.

 

There is no chance that Terry's lawyers will allow a "re-trial" - nor should they.

 

How is this easy for the FA? Terry admitted to using a term relating to someones skin colour. That is exactly what they banned Luis for. They made their bed now they have to lie in it.

 

Most people are asking questions of them now and rightly so.

[Phoenix]

It is impossible for the FA not to find Terry in breach of that rule.

[Carvalho Diablo]

[xerxes]

How is this easy for the FA? Terry admitted to using a term relating to someones skin colour. That is exactly what they banned Luis for. They made their bed now they have to lie in it.Most people are asking questions of them now and rightly so.

 

Terry's lawyers, and Chelsea, will argue that you cannot be tried twice for the same offence. I think they will win.

 

Should the FA attempt the charge of using a term relating to someone's skill colour Terry will rely on the same defence - he was repeating it.

 

The chances of the FA not accepting a defence accepted in a court of law are pretty much zero.

[magicrat]

How is this easy for the FA? Terry admitted to using a term relating to someones skin colour. That is exactly what they banned Luis for. They made their bed now they have to lie in it.

 

Most people are asking questions of them now and rightly so.

 

Exactly

[Anubis]

It is impossible for the FA not to find Terry in breach of that rule.

 

 

 

[Guest davelfc]

Terry's lawyers, and Chelsea, will argue that you cannot be tried twice for the same offence. I think they will win.

 

Should the FA attempt the charge of using a term relating to someone's skill colour Terry will rely on the same defence - he was repeating it.

 

The chances of the FA not accepting a defence accepted in a court of law are pretty much zero.

 

What? The FA are a court of law now? He is guilty of breaking their rules, of that he can be charged, you seem to be confusing our legal system with the rules of the FA.

 

He is guilty of referring to the colour of a players skin on the field of play. Context didn't seem to bother the FA when it came to Luis and the FA are not a court of law. They're a bunch of twats.

 

So they probably won't do a thing.

[Anubis]

How is this easy for the FA? Terry admitted to using a term relating to someones skin colour. That is exactly what they banned Luis for. They made their bed now they have to lie in it.

 

Most people are asking questions of them now and rightly so.

 

Ah, but you're not accounting for the fact that Luis was a dirty, shifty little foreigner, whereas Terry is a fine, upstanding Englishman.

[RobbieOR]

Terry's lawyers, and Chelsea, will argue that you cannot be tried twice for the same offence. I think they will win.

 

Should the FA attempt the charge of using a term relating to someone's skill colour Terry will rely on the same defence - he was repeating it.

 

The chances of the FA not accepting a defence accepted in a court of law are pretty much zero.

 

First of all, he can be tried for the same crime twice, because the FA arent a court of law. Second of all, the FA wouldnt be banning him for the same crime the court let him off with. They let him off with racially abusing him. The FA law states that you are not allowed to use any racial term on a football pitch. That is what he done. It's totally different to what he was tried for.

[RobbieOR]

Ah, but you're not accounting for the fact that Luis was a dirty, shifty little foreigner, whereas Terry is a fine, upstanding Englishman.

 

So you're saying that the body that invented this beautiful game are xenophobic twats? That is impossible.

[Lario]

Compare Suarez to Terry.

 

Both players having an argument on the pitch? Check.

Both players mention the word black? Check.

Both players say it wasn't meant in a racially abusive way? Check.

Based on "the balance of probability", both players get banned for 8 games? We'll see!

 

BTW, I'm comparing the situations in their simplest terms. There's no way what Suarez did/said is anywhere near as bad as what Terry did.

[ChicagoRed]

The "unsaid" inference, one avoided by the magistrate, was that Ferdinand was trying to "entrap" Terry and put him into a situation similar to what Evra (with the support of Man U) did to Suarez. It looks like Terry sensed it and met it head on.

 

What the FA did in Suarez' case was give carte blanche to anyone to play the race card and put the burden of proof on the accused ( which the FA did with Suarez)

 

What this judgment has done is to state that the burden of proof should on the accuser and that simply using the word "black" is not significant. The context, the intent, the motive are important.

 

Liverpool Police - not the softest of institutions - deemed Suarez had no case to answer. Rightly so. Their decision is so much wiser than the idiots in London who decided to prosecute Terry.

 

Pity that they did not.

 

Suarez would have been found not guilty and it would not have taken four days.

 

Alas, LFC underestimated the FA's zeal to make an example (with no foundation) of Suarez and the feeding frenzy unleashed by the media.

 

The FA is now in a really difficult position.

 

Can they impose a sanction on Terry? In my opinion, No. How could the FA assume to punish Terry when a greater did not?

 

If the FA does not punish Terry, how can its actions in the Suarez case be "safe" to use a legal term?

 

Answer, the FA overreacted in the Suarez case to justify its own "racism" programme and to appease the lobbyists with their own causes.

 

In my opinion, the FA will NOT take this matter further, but will issue a statement supporting the magistrates decision and condemning racism.

 

If LFC were interested in justice, they should ask for the Suarez case to be reviewed. But they won't.

 

It makes commercial and football sense to move on.

 

If I were Luis, I'd want my £40,000 back!

 

But thankfully I'm just a passionate Red fan, and a passionate believer in justice.

 

If only Suarez had been heard by the British Justice System, his reputation would be intact.

 

But the contemptible FA intervened and sullied him but more so themselves.

 

Their campaign to impose PC policies on a national institution has failed its test. Whatever you think of Terry, he has paid a huge price. And so has Capello who had the balls to stand up to the FA pricks.

 

The big winner here is British justice.

 

The list of losers is long. Terry, Capello, the two Ferdinands, Suarez, LFC, a posse of gutter journalists ( most of whom had ready made articles to crucify Terry when he was found guilty)

 

Probably more!

 

But I feel good about this verdict. I wont tolerate racism. But I'm pleased that this court has emphasized that a high level of proof is needed before the stigma of "racist" is applied to anyone.

[Sebastien Haff]

I've heard that John Terry is so innocent he's been chosen to host the MOBO's next year.

[Sebastien Haff]

According to my balance of probability meter' date=' the probability that John Terry racially abused Anton Ferdinand is in the 100% region, in other words, John Terry is guilty according to the FA's tiny miniscule measurements of a persons racial tendencies.

 

Someone mentioned that Paul Elliot interview earlier. Was that not among the top 17 most bizzare things you have ever seen? what was going on there? It was almost as if he was drifting in and out of planes of reality all the while sounding like someone who hadn't a fucking clue what he was talking about.[/quote']

 

The Paul Elliot interview was one of the most embarassing interviews I've ever seen. If he had nothing to do with Chelsea he would have said thr complete opposite of what he said. Just watch it, it's as if the pause button was pressed after everything he said, at one point I though he was going to cry.

[Sebastien Haff]

Who was in Paul's ear? Do you know? Was it Piara' date=' or was it John himself?[/quote']

 

Who ever it was, they were employing or paying Mr Elliot a lot of money. It was cringe worthy, he obviously needed the money (or was a total sell out). I ask everyone to watch it, then tell me it was his honest opinion, if they tell me it was then they can fuck right off!

[moof]

Xerxes in *not having a clue what he's talking about* shocker

[Robinson]

The "unsaid" inference, one avoided by the magistrate, was that Ferdinand was trying to "entrap" Terry and put him into a situation similar to what Evra (with the support of Man U) did to Suarez. It looks like Terry sensed it and met it head on.

 

What the FA did in Suarez' case was give carte blanche to anyone to play the race card and put the burden of proof on the accused ( which the FA did with Suarez)

 

What this judgment has done is to state that the burden of proof should on the accuser and that simply using the word "black" is not significant. The context, the intent, the motive are important.

 

Liverpool Police - not the softest of institutions - deemed Suarez had no case to answer. Rightly so. Their decision is so much wiser than the idiots in London who decided to prosecute Terry.

 

Pity that they did not.

 

Suarez would have been found not guilty and it would not have taken four days.

 

Alas, LFC underestimated the FA's zeal to make an example (with no foundation) of Suarez and the feeding frenzy unleashed by the media.

 

The FA is now in a really difficult position.

 

Can they impose a sanction on Terry? In my opinion, No. How could the FA assume to punish Terry when a greater did not?

 

If the FA does not punish Terry, how can its actions in the Suarez case be "safe" to use a legal term?

 

Answer, the FA overreacted in the Suarez case to justify its own "racism" programme and to appease the lobbyists with their own causes.

 

In my opinion, the FA will NOT take this matter further, but will issue a statement supporting the magistrates decision and condemning racism.

 

If LFC were interested in justice, they should ask for the Suarez case to be reviewed. But they won't.

 

It makes commercial and football sense to move on.

 

If I were Luis, I'd want my £40,000 back!

 

But thankfully I'm just a passionate Red fan, and a passionate believer in justice.

 

If only Suarez had been heard by the British Justice System, his reputation would be intact.

 

But the contemptible FA intervened and sullied him but more so themselves.

 

Their campaign to impose PC policies on a national institution has failed its test. Whatever you think of Terry, he has paid a huge price. And so has Capello who had the balls to stand up to the FA pricks.

 

The big winner here is British justice.

 

The list of losers is long. Terry, Capello, the two Ferdinands, Suarez, LFC, a posse of gutter journalists ( most of whom had ready made articles to crucify Terry when he was found guilty)

 

Probably more!

 

But I feel good about this verdict. I wont tolerate racism. But I'm pleased that this court has emphasized that a high level of proof is needed before the stigma of "racist" is applied to anyone.

 

A milestone in that virtue called common sense!

Nice to see it rear it`s beautiful head in this day and age.

[Dicko]

Terry's lawyers, and Chelsea, will argue that you cannot be tried twice for the same offence. I think they will win.

 

Should the FA attempt the charge of using a term relating to someone's skill colour Terry will rely on the same defence - he was repeating it.

 

The chances of the FA not accepting a defence accepted in a court of law are pretty much zero.

 

First of all the FA is not a court of law.

Secondly double jeopardy was scrapped seven years ago.

[BringbackBiscan]

There's a world of diffence in what terry admitted too and what Suarez did. Terry admitted to repeating something he heard, Suarez admitted to making reference to skin colour for no reason.

 

I don't think the fa will act tbh.

[VladimirIlyich]

A victory for common sense? I doubt it.

A victory for another public figure with a high priced lawyer and multi millionaire? You bet!

[Frankenhooker]

I think the FA will ban him for a couple of games for bringing the game into disrepute, they might even charge Ferdinand with the same offence.

 

I can't see them doing nothing and the above will be a compromise, albeit one that won't appease the public or press. This is going to run and run.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

There's a world of diffence in what terry admitted too and what Suarez did. Terry admitted to repeating something he heard, Suarez admitted to making reference to skin colour for no reason.

 

I don't think the fa will act tbh.

 

They have to at least continue their own investigation, otherwise it appears that a player is better off having his case escalated and heard in a court of law, which should really be the worst case scenario for anyone.

 

I expect the FA to investigate, bottle it and attempt to cover their arses; inconclusive evidence, unable to reach a decision, but in future repetition of anything concerning race will be deemed an offence. Basically what they should have done for Suarez were they not intent on making an example of someone.

 

Both cases just highlight how poorly placed the FA are to investigate racism. When the offence is so grave as to potentially place a stigma on a player for their careers, no judgement should be based on "probably".

[lifetime fan]

A victory for common sense? I doubt it.

A victory for another public figure with a high priced lawyer and multi millionaire? You bet!

 

 

With the FA...no fucking chance.

[Redder Lurtz]

Quite astonishing really, all this.

 

Let's say a black guy walked up to you in the street and said "I heard you called me a black cunt". If you refute what he's saying you reply with "No, I didn't call you *that*" - you'd be embarrassed about repeating it wouldn't you? If, however, you wanted to deny it but stay right on the edge of offensive, you'd say exactly what that anvil headed wanker did to Ferdinand. It was said with the intent to offend and I'm very surprised this context seems to have been overlooked. Gobsmacked really.

[Whelan]

I realise that the FA's rules and the legal requirements are different, as people have said you can be fired from work for something that isn't illegal, but Terry isn't being fired by Chelsea so that isn't really the same thing, the FA are in essence saying you have been found not guilty of an accusation of racism, but we still think you are guilty of racism!

That is a very dangerous position to take as the FA are not consistent, their lesser burden of proof is suspect, and this would all have a financial implication on John Terry.

 

I am not supporting John Terry for one moment, but I struggle to see what justification the FA can have to charge him? Would anybody else be happy to be found not guilty of a crime in a court of law only to find that another organisation says 'thankfully we are not as stringent in what constitutes proof, so we are going to find you guilty of the same charge'!

 

We know that Football Associations tend to live in a bubble as Bosman proved, but if he is inclined to take it further Terry may well force a change. I was thinking of Suarez last night and the 'balance of probability' that essentially led to the charge, yet when Emre was found not guilty because the Everton players were inconsistent in what Emre was alleged to have said, they didn't use balance of probability then!

 

The FA has a near 100% conviction rate which many feel is suspect, and I wonder if they feel confident enough to defend that in court, if Terry was determined to take any decision further they could find their whole system under scrutiny and I am not sure that it would stand up.