John Terry Racism Trial

Status
Not open for further replies.
'John Terry doesn't celebrate the vedict. It's the only thing he won't ****ing celebrate.' Hahaha!

'Chelsea fans, new chant for you next season: He says what he wants, he says what he wants, the courts will let him. He says what he wants.' Hahaha
 
Dunno which is worse, that John Terry's very, very expensive lawyers could only come up with that flimsy and totally unbelievable excuse for calling somebody a '****ing black ****' or the fact that the court actually believed it!
 
It was so obviously a lie it would be genuinely funny in another context. Dunno how he had the cheek to use it as his defence. He must know that nobody believes that's what happened.
 
Nexus said:
Somebody who refers to somebody's race in an argument is doing it in a derogative manner, there is no other reason why you would do this.
Click to expand...

Yes there is, like I explained before it's the easiest way to push a black persons button and that's really all there is to it, in most cases there will be absolutely no feeling of superiority or animosity towards blacks as a whole when a white person says it, that's just how the black person perceives it due to their own insecurities, a white person will say it simply because they know that most black people will go into emotional meltdown upon hearing it.

There will be cases where an actual racist is going around racially abusing black people unrpovoked but in the majority of cases you'll find that it stemmed from a heated exchange and the white person took the easy option... it's like blaming Lex Luthor for using Kryptonite against his enemy Superman. There is a big difference between wanting to hurt a black individual through cheap means (pointing out that they're black) and being a racist.

It's generally used in a highly vindictive way rather than stemming from racist beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Nexus said:
Sorry, but I disagree with you.
If somebody can be fined under Section 5 of the Public Order Act for swearing in the street in front of a handful of people, I think a Footballer player with a stadium full of people and thousands watching on television is more than deserving of it.
It doesn't matter whether swearing is part of language or not, it's not something that is actively promoted, infact its the opposite given the stance taken on people who swear in stadiums.
Click to expand...

people in the street almost never, ever get fined for swearing in public, its HOW, WHERE and the INTENT with which its done. Likewise I have no idea what you're refering to in the later, at every single game I've been too, huge portions of the ground swear constantly, every single game I've seen played on TV, players swear constantly throughout, I've seen zero action about either of these things, no plans to stop it and no one being done for it.

Did you read my posts before making that statement?
I have already said that 'Black' is the correct term for describing somebody of that ethnic origin, there is nothing wrong with that. However the second you bring somebody's skin colour or race into an argument, you are making it a race issue.
Click to expand...

Again, no, just because you say something in an argument doesn't make it negative, this is completely farcical logic like everything you've spouted. Is the word "you're" negative because you used it in an argument, is a swear word not negative when used outside of an argument?

Yes I did read your quote, you said how can the word black NOT be negative when used in an offensive statement, why, because it doesn't have to be, only the person saying it can know one way or the other. We know which way you've decided to interpret it in this specific case, that's fine, but to say it has to be in all cases and can't be otherwise is completely wrong.


Somebody who refers to somebody's race in an argument is doing it in a derogative manner, there is no other reason why you would do this. It's also silly to say that somebody isn't racist because they aren't a racist, that doesn't make any sense. Are you saying you can only call somebody racist if they fit the stereotype? Neo-Nazi tattoos and a skin head?
Click to expand...

Both again, you're wrong, and secondly, the last part of what you said has zero bearing on anything I said, reading through the quote you were refering to I absolutely have no possible idea how you even came up with whatever exactly your point was.

It's also silly to say that somebody isn't racist because they aren't a racist, that doesn't make any sense.
Firstly it isn't even slightly silly to say someone isn't racist because they aren't a racist. I'm not a racist so I'll say I'm not a racist, see how that works, however that isn't what I said, I have no idea why you said it, I have no idea what your point was?


John Terry is somebody who has held the honour of serving his country as Captain of England's most watched sport. If you can't fail to see why his comments are not only inappropriate as somebody in his position, but also the message it sends out to young people then I really don't know what else to say.
Click to expand...

Rubbish, what he said wasn't racist and if YOU teach YOUR kids to look up to John Terry, that is YOUR fault. If/when I have kids, I'll damn well teach them that John Terry is not very far removed from a caveman and that other than being good at football and looking up to his ability to train and play, transfering that to looking up to his personality is retarded.

But again, you quoted what I said, responded to a large chunk of text and it had entirely nothing to do with what I said, however you did stick to form and post something ludicrous.

Here's a hint, just because stupid people teach stupid kids that anyone famous should be looked up to, isn't the fault of said "famous" person, its the parents fault. They are footballers, respect the ability to train, to play through pain, to play football very well, but if your kids think this makes them good people, or people they should look up to..... you've taught your kids how to be stupid.
 
Last edited:
Reading through the judgment the decision seems the correct one.
He might've meant it as a racial insult, he might not.
What I don't understand is why some people wanted him to be convicted of racial abuse and seem disappointed that he wasn't, freaks.
 
People cry about Racism too much.

If he really did say what he did then it shouldn't have warranted court proceedings, it should have been dealt with by whoever was above him.
 
Should never have got this far from a public order point of view, but imo he should have got a ban similar to Saurez

(ie it shouldnt matter who its heard by, this kind of thing should be stamped out on and off the field immediately by the FA).
 
FrankJH said:
Should never have got this far from a public order point of view, but imo he should have got a ban similar to Saurez

(ie it shouldnt matter who its heard by, this kind of thing should be stamped out on and off the field immediately by the FA).
Click to expand...

A ban? What for? What kind of thing?
 
drunkenmaster said:
people in the street almost never, ever get fined for swearing in public, its HOW, WHERE and the INTENT with which its done. Likewise I have no idea what you're refering to in the later, at every single game I've been too, huge portions of the ground swear constantly, every single game I've seen played on TV, players swear constantly throughout, I've seen zero action about either of these things, no plans to stop it and no one being done for it.
Click to expand...

If there are Police around or you have been swearing long enough for the Police to be called you are likely to get a ticket.

The second point I was making is that if you do nothing but throw abuse using swear words at games, its highly likely you will get a talking to by stewards or thrown out, I have seen this happen. I've also seen other fans tell others to pipe down when swearing as well.


Again, no, just because you say something in an argument doesn't make it negative, this is completely farcical logic like everything you've spouted. Is the word "you're" negative because you used it in an argument, is a swear word not negative when used outside of an argument?
Click to expand...

So if it's not a negative, why bring the colour of skin into it at all? Why even mention it?

Yes I did read your quote, you said how can the word black NOT be negative when used in an offensive statement, why, because it doesn't have to be, only the person saying it can know one way or the other. We know which way you've decided to interpret it in this specific case, that's fine, but to say it has to be in all cases and can't be otherwise is completely wrong.
Click to expand...

Didn't read my quote from earlier in the thread where I said that 'Black' is the correct term for a black person though did you, you instead kicked off at me and are now talking about another quote.


It's also silly to say that somebody isn't racist because they aren't a racist, that doesn't make any sense.
Firstly it isn't even slightly silly to say someone isn't racist because they aren't a racist. I'm not a racist so I'll say I'm not a racist, see how that works, however that isn't what I said, I have no idea why you said it, I have no idea what your point was?
Click to expand...

My point was that you seem to be suggesting that somebody isn't a racist by using racist terms, instead they have to openly demonstrate that they are racist by other means. I'm saying that if you are going to use racist terms in an argument, you are being racist, it doesn't matter whether you think it's racist-lite and they aren't down the local Neo-Nazi meeting.


Rubbish, what he said wasn't racist and if YOU teach YOUR kids to look up to John Terry, that is YOUR fault. If/when I have kids, I'll damn well teach them that John Terry is not very far removed from a caveman and that other than being good at football and looking up to his ability to train and play, transfering that to looking up to his personality is retarded.
Click to expand...

Captain of the English Football Team is likely the job that young boys want more than any other dream in this country. While you might choose to better educate your children, the fact remains that somebody in that position is a very important role model to a lot of people and should be setting a much better example.

But again, you quoted what I said, responded to a large chunk of text and it had entirely nothing to do with what I said, however you did stick to form and post something ludicrous.
Click to expand...

No personal attacks yeah. :rolleyes:

Here's a hint, just because stupid people teach stupid kids that anyone famous should be looked up to, isn't the fault of said "famous" person, its the parents fault. They are footballers, respect the ability to train, to play through pain, to play football very well, but if your kids think this makes them good people, or people they should look up to..... you've taught your kids how to be stupid.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point... a person of responsibility representing their country should know better.
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
Nexus, using the word black isn't automatically negative, that is the completely ridiculous, overly PC, insane understanding of racism AND its incorrect and not racist by any definition of racism.

Someone who isn't racist, and uses the word black doesn't automatically make it racist. Someone who is racist CAN use it negatively, that in no way at all makes every single usage of the word negative. The WORST thing we can do to get rid of racism, is make its something its not, make any usage of a whole bunch of words automatically racist in the quest to stamp out racism, because its completely stupid.

Let racism be racism, when John Terry won't talk, won't pass, will kick and try to injur a player on the field, or maybe as a manager refuses to buy black players, that would be racist, that needs to be gotten rid of.

What you want, is a usage of a term, where by Terry treats Rio differently to everyone else, that is not racism, its not getting rid or racism, its nothing, its PC **** where people make up a problem that never existed.

When you arbitrarily give extra meaning to new words, and force your random views on everyone else, you CREATE problems, not fix them.

Do you not see a problem with, 22 guys on the pitch, with anyone not black, you can get angry, or joke around with, with no censorship, no problem, but if that person is black there is a list of things you can't say, a list of things you can't do a way to behave TO APPEAR NOT TO BE RACIST, rather than to just not be racist and treat that player normally?

Society falls down more often than not when it becomes so freaking scared of accidentally APPEARING to be something that they go to the other extreme and start acting completely differently just to not APPEAR whatever that is, in this cast racist.

You can't have a racism free, completely equal society..... when you are being actively told to treat black people differently.



I'd be happy for the league to look into it, there is a rule in football(rightly or wrongly) that a racist statement is worse than others and deserves a ban, though in Terry's case I can't remotely see how what he said qualifies as racist by looking at the definition or racism. A court case in yet another situation where some PC nutter felt obliged to be offended FOR Rio, who didn't hear it and wasn't offended by it himself is INSANE.
Click to expand...

You don't half spout some garbage. Wake up.
 
JohnnyG said:
What I don't understand is why some people wanted him to be convicted of racial abuse and seem disappointed that he wasn't, freaks.
Click to expand...

The people who appear to have wanted that are the PC brigade and the subjective JT haters. The former are high and mighty and will accuse you of racism at the slightest opportunity and the former as so blinded by their lack of objectivity that they just come across as small time bigots.

As you said, freaks. I find them mildly amusing and can't be bothered to waste any time on them.
 
We all know who you're talking about with the PC brigade stuff but I'm not sure I've seen anybody else claim or show that they want Terry to be found guilty simply because they don't like him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom