Darkon84 Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 Correct decision. The guy is a penis, no doubt about that, but this entire case has been farcical and has just made some people look very stupid. Neither Terry, or Ferdinand wanted to be there, it should have been thrown out ages ago.
lavrentis Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 Yes JT. Anton trying to play the race card but getting nothing
Filbert_Ross Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 Yes JT. Anton trying to play the race card but getting nothing as far as im aware Anton didnt play any card or want any of this.
Soar Fox Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 i wanted him to be guilty regardless if he was or not. vermin. So you would have liked a man who was innocent to be found guilty just because you don't like him?
Filbert_Ross Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 So you would have liked a man who was innocent to be found guilty just because you don't like him? You've seem to have grasped what Ive said yes.
Soar Fox Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 You've seem to have grasped what Ive said yes. Idiot.
davieG Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 Ex-England captain John Terry has been cleared of racially abusing fellow footballer Anton Ferdinand. The Chelsea and England defender had denied making the comments to the Queens Park Rangers player during a match at Loftus Road last October. The 31-year-old told Westminster Magistrates' Court he was merely repeating what he thought Mr Ferdinand had said to him as they traded insults. Mr Terry had described himself as "angry and upset" over the claims. It was alleged he had insulted Mr Ferdinand in a Premier League match, describing him as "black" and using extreme sexual swear words. Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle said he had heard a great deal of evidence to show Mr Terry was not a racist. In his written judgement, he said that after weighing the evidence it was "highly unlikely" that Mr Terry abused Anton Ferdinand in the manner he was accused of. Mr Riddle went on: "The prosecution evidence as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong. Continue reading the main story “Start Quote The only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty†Howard RiddleChief Magistrate "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." Mr Terry did not comment to the waiting media as he left court. Alison Saunders, Chief Crown Prosecutor for London, defended the decision to bring the case to trial. She said: "The very serious allegation at the heart of this case was one of racial abuse. "It was our view that this was not banter on the football pitch and that the allegation should be judged by a court." Of the subsequent acquittal, she added: "That is justice being done and we respect the chief magistrate's decision."
whoareyaaa Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 Should have never of gone to court in the first place. ridiclious the only reason it has gone to court is because its JT.
Guest MattP Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 Well it's started already, the courts found him not guilty, so the FA must act...according to Garth Crooks. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/13/john-terry-trial-fa?CMP=twt_gu
whoareyaaa Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 Garth Crooks wants to stop smoking crack before he comments on anything.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 Garth Crooks said "F******* B**** C***"! Racist! Seriously GC grow a brain cell! (You see it's okay for me to say that he's so stupid that his brain is actually non-existant. THAT'S LEGAL!)
Super_horns Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 Will both players have some sort of charge against them for foul and abusive language as the FA want them to all show respect.. I accept there would hardly be any players left to play if they banned everyone who used such language though!
Corky Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 What this case could hopefully bring about is a change in the rules to cut out the level of insults that were being traded on both sides. I appreciate it will be difficult, and swearing is "part of the game", but insults like this will start off in a small way and grow in the heat of the moment, leading to more cases such as the one just gone as passions and tensions rise.
AdamN Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 It does make what happened to suarez seem unfair. It was only a matter of time... The court have ruled that there's not enough evidence to suggest that Terry used racist language in a derogatory manner, whereas there was plenty to suggest that Suarez did, repeatedly. Not to mention the fact that Terry has given clear, consistent evidence throughout the trial, as opposed to Suarez whose testimony was inconsistent and unreliable compared to that of Evra's. It's not difficult to see why the two cases had different outcomes.
breadandcheese Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 Garth Crooks wants to stop smoking crack before he comments on anything. Garth Crooks has a point. The FA have shirked their duty and now we have a strange situation vacated by any sort of leadership. Terry has done exactly the same as Suarez, using a descriptive word of a player's colour on the pitch. The FA stuck to the letter of the law regarding Suarez, banning Suarez for referring to a player's skin colour on the pitch. Terry has admitted doing the same. If I remember the FA report into the Suarez-Evra incident correctly (I read the report but can't remember it word for word), the FA upheld that Suarez was not racist, but found him guilty of using racist language. What is the difference in the the Terry case? The judge in summing up said there was no doubt that Terry used the words "****ing black c*nt", but that there was no definite way to determine what was actually said and in what context. In short, there is the possibility of doubt so it is impossible to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. In that sense, the case should not have gone to court and you have to question the CPS as there was not enough evidence. So in effect, Terry has used racist language. If consistency rules, the same punishment as Suarez, should apply.
Ashley Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 Garth Crooks has a point. The FA have shirked their duty and now we have a strange situation vacated by any sort of leadership. Terry has done exactly the same as Suarez, using a descriptive word of a player's colour on the pitch. The FA stuck to the letter of the law regarding Suarez, banning Suarez for referring to a player's skin colour on the pitch. Terry has admitted doing the same. If I remember the FA report into the Suarez-Evra incident correctly (I read the report but can't remember it word for word), the FA upheld that Suarez was not racist, but found him guilty of using racist language. What is the difference in the the Terry case? The judge in summing up said there was no doubt that Terry used the words "****ing black c*nt", but that there was no definite way to determine what was actually said and in what context. In short, there is the possibility of doubt so it is impossible to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. In that sense, the case should not have gone to court and you have to question the CPS as there was not enough evidence. So in effect, Terry has used racist language. If consistency rules, the same punishment as Suarez, should apply. John Terry repeated what Anton Ferdinand said so no he didn't do exactly the same as Luis Suarez.
Corky Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 John Terry repeated what Anton Ferdinand said so no he didn't do exactly the same as Luis Suarez. The judge continued: "Weighing all the evidence together, I think it is highly unlikely that Mr Ferdinand accused Mr Terry on the pitch of calling him [the racist phrase]. However, I accept that it is possible that Mr Terry believed at the time, and believes now, that such an accusation was made. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18835915
purpleronnie Posted 13 July 2012 Posted 13 July 2012 I can't see given the evidence that terry was ever going to be found guilty....I was surprised it went to court.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.