John Terry Racism Trial

Bloodshot · 29 Jul 2012 at 13:22

Moses said:
He was not found innocent.

And they had a lower standard of proof for Suarez.

He was found not guilty, ala they didn't have enough proof to convict him. How the FA can now say that actually, they think they do have more proof is beyond a joke. What a bunch of fools the FA are.

Edit: Realise now that an FA trial is slightly different in that they can find him guilty based on the probability. Still find it stupid that they would continue to pursue him.

Purdy · 29 Jul 2012 at 14:08

Moses said:
He was not found innocent.

And they had a lower standard of proof for Suarez.

As in, no proof

cm1179 · 29 Jul 2012 at 14:36

JohnnyG said:
Good lord, are you Garth Crooks?
You got embarrassed last time you spewed that **** and still have the stupidity to do it again.
Bet you'd love to be an FA executive.

you truely are bizarre.

AGD · 29 Jul 2012 at 14:46

Moses said:
He was not found innocent.

And they had a lower standard of proof for Suarez.

Racism is a criminal matter and in the uk it is innocent until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty, therefore he is innocent.

Racism is a serious, criminal offence, so I don't understand why the FA are involved - all racism matters should go through the police and the courts (this should have applied for Suarez too).

MrMoonX · 29 Jul 2012 at 19:28

Bloodshot said:
He was found not guilty, ala they didn't have enough proof to convict him. How the FA can now say that actually, they think they do have more proof is beyond a joke. What a bunch of fools the FA are.

Edit: Realise now that an FA trial is slightly different in that they can find him guilty based on the probability. Still find it stupid that they would continue to pursue him.

its still bringing the game into disrepute or unprofessional behaviour, even if it wasnt racist

JohnnyG · 29 Jul 2012 at 19:57

BaZ87 said:
As I'm sure you know already, the FA only need to find the case against Terry as probable rather than proved beyond reasonable doubt in order for them to find him guilty.

Terry's court case only found that the case against him couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt not that he was unquestionably not guilty.

They do as it's their game & their rules but finding someone guilty of and punishing them (& their employers) for something they've been found not guilty of in court is going to take the case in a whole new direction.
It basically means that they're choosing to utterly disregard the Magistrate's basic reasoning for his decision

"The prosecution evidence as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong.

"It is therefore possible that what he [Mr Terry] said was not intended as an insult, but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him.

"In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty."

Everyone knows he might've insulted AF on the basis of his skin colour, everyone also knows that might not have, except the FA.

Why have they chosen not to charge AF by the way?
He's guilty of the first charge, just as Terry is & at least 1 player in every game up & down the country.
They've also said that Terry can play for England whilst this is ongoing yet they took the captaincy off him when it first came out, they're just a bunch of ****** really.

cm1179 said:
you truely are bizarre.

Totally, but at least I don't go around making disgusting allegations about people with no evidence to back it up.

Purdy · 29 Jul 2012 at 20:01

Jonny what were your views on the Suarez case ;D?

BaZ87 · 29 Jul 2012 at 20:18

JohnnyG said:
They do as it's their game & their rules but finding someone guilty of and punishing them (& their employers) for something they've been found not guilty of in court is going to take the case in a whole new direction.

The only question here is whether the FA should work on the balance of probabilities in their disciplinary hearings. While they do, if the FA believe there is a case against Terry, taking into account burden of proof that is needed then Terry has to be charged whether he's been cleared in court or not.

The magistrates reasoning isn't being disregarded it just isn't completely relevant because of the different burdens of proof.; he says that Terry's defense was possible, therefore the case against him couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the FA do not need to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt though.

JohnnyG · 29 Jul 2012 at 20:20

Purdy said:
Jonny what were your views on the Suarez case ;D?

I thought it was great fun.
I've no idea whether he knew he was racially insulting Evra though.

omnomnom · 30 Jul 2012 at 08:13

I cant believe people actually need it explaining to them why Terry has been charged.

Do these same people really believe Suarez would have been found guiilty in a court of law ? With next to no evidence and one mans word against anothers ?

wow.

Icm76 · 30 Jul 2012 at 10:03

The Suarez vs Evra case was different, Evra made a direct accusation and gave a consistent account of what was said, Suarez account was inconsistent and on the basis of what is more likely the FA panel chose to believe Evra.

With Terry, Ferdinand nor any other player is making any accusation or making any claims as to what Terry said. The video as posted on Youtube is incomplete and out of context. Terry may or may not be a lying toe-rag, but where is the rest of the video or witness account to give the whole context and contradict Terry's account?

Without a counter claim to contradict Terry, how can the case be decided by the FA panel according to what is more likely? As the evidence stands, it's just a pure guess. How can that be right?

We're assuming he will be found guilty of course, but it is possible that the FA are going to go through the motions and reach the conclusion that there is nothing to contradict Terry and therefore not punish him, and publish the result of their enquiry as they did with the Suarez case. However if the FA do nothing then they will probably be crucified for showing bias and ignoring possible racist behaviour.

cm1179 · 30 Jul 2012 at 11:28

omnomnom said:
I cant believe people actually need it explaining to them why Terry has been charged.

you'll find they're called ''chelsea fans''. everyone else knows what john terry is.

maby66 · 30 Jul 2012 at 11:44

And we know exactly what you are.

Revelling in this, and pursuing a smearing agenda, without bothering to back up your claims.

Just a quick refresh: on 11th July in this thread you stated that it was true that John Terry paid Veronica Perroncel to abort his unborn child. It's quite a nasty accusation to both parties.

You've had 19 days to produce one piece of evidence to back up your statement, but haven't been able to. I can point to retractions by newspapers and corroborating interviews with the person involved and other reporters. But you still say "I don't have to back anything up".

Would you like to back up your claim that "everyone else knows what John Terry is"?

Or are you actually just using words you don't know the meaning of again?

It does seem to be that you have confused the meaning of the words "opinion" and "fact", and really believe that anything you say is a universally accepted truth, because you say it is. With an attitude like that, you should start your own religion....

cm1179 · 30 Jul 2012 at 11:50

eh up. he's back.

maby66 · 30 Jul 2012 at 11:53

Yep = here to fight for truth, justice and the american way.
Or possibly to show up small minded bigots. Know any?

cm1179 · 30 Jul 2012 at 11:54

i admire your loyalty to terry, maby66.

it must be hard for you to admit the scams he ran, the affair(s!) he had, the father of the year he was stripped of, the national captaincy he was stripped of, the denying ferdinand a tournament and now the racist he is.

but i admire your loyalty.

Robbo · 30 Jul 2012 at 11:56

The question is, does one comment make someone a racist?

cm1179 · 30 Jul 2012 at 12:01

Robbo said:
The question is, does one comment make someone a racist?

i don't think that's the question. the question should be, is this the behaviour one should expect from a club and country captain?

maby66 · 30 Jul 2012 at 12:01

Unfortunately, you're wrong on many accounts. I'm not defending him on any of those things. I've said nothing about them. You can try to obscure the point I'm making as much as you like.

I'm calling you out on one thing - that you made a nasty accusation about two people, and don't have any proof to back it up.

Once again - you make a statement (the racist he is) and seem to think this makes it a fact. It's an opinion - It's your opinion (and you know what they say about opinions - everyone has one) but that's all it is.

BaZ87 · 30 Jul 2012 at 12:01

cm1179 said:
i admire your loyalty to terry, maby66.

it must be hard for you to admit the scams he ran, the affair(s!) he had, the father of the year he was stripped of, the national captaincy he was stripped of, the denying ferdinand a tournament and now the racist he is.

but i admire your loyalty.

You're fast becoming the most ridiculous poster on these forums. Every post you write, no matter what the topic is, your views are based on nothing other that newspaper speculation and rumour which you claim as fact

Robbo said:
The question is, does one comment make someone a racist?

Haven't we been over this already? He could make 1000 comments and still not be racist. If he believes that one race is superior or inferior then he's a racist. Make racially offensive remarks don't necessarily make you racist though.