John Terry cleared of Racial Abuse

[LFCMarshall]

if you did understand you would not compare the two at all. Two utterly different systems with different penalties. The criminal court is far more severe hence higher burdens. Frankly I think it's sad that people are talking about Suarez when we should be discussing if there was any racism

you are completely missing the point i am trying to say, i understand both.. im saying i dont agree with them, there should be one way of dealing with these cases and not separate ways where the level of proof and evidence needed is completely different

and its not sad at all, discussing whether there is any racism?, its exactly what we are doing in both cases, there is no sufficient proof to prove there was any racism in both cases, my point all along!

 

[LFCMarshall]

And back to the case at hand, this makes the whole clusterfuck over the captaincy and Cappello look even more ridiculous now.

Agreed, although didnt Capello publiclly say he should have remained the captain, the reasons why he stepped down soon after? i may be wrong...

 

[Aannddyy]

I personally don't care whether JT was guilty or not, what I find amusing is that that incident happened 8 days after Suarez's incident.. Took their time with getting this done. I also think the coverage of the whole thing has been pretty ****, very anti-Suarez and pro-Terry.

back to the same point, it is not 100% he's guilty, you cannot or should not charge someone when you are not 100% sure or dont have complete evidence suggesting otherwise

Guilty to me, means you are in no doubt what so ever the person done the act in question.. both trials there was inconclusive parts meaning both should be found not guilty.. not on the balance of probability, rubbish.

It's very, very rare you can prove that somebody is 100% guilty.. Personally, the best way to do this **** is with lie detectors, would also be much more fun.. Maybe they should have just had Terry and Ferdinand on Jeremy Kyle.

 

[Mike.]

you are completely missing the point i am trying to say, i understand both.. im saying i dont agree with them, there should be one way of dealing with these cases and not separate ways where the level of proof and evidence needed is completely different

and its not sad at all, discussing whether there is any racism?, its exactly what we are doing in both cases, there is no sufficient proof to prove there was any racism in both cases, my point all along!

Your point is moot as long as you keep comparing the two. There is never one way of dealing with it. That is the law. If it is reported by a member of a public. IT MUST BE DEALT WITH AS A CRIME. Laws of the land overrule football. If Evra had gone to the police, it would be a court matter.

And again, you ignore the point about the burden of proof, which skewers your point.

 

[Mike.]

I personally don't care whether JT was guilty or not, what I find amusing is that that incident happened 8 days after Suarez's incident.. Took their time with getting this done. I also think the coverage of the whole thing has been pretty ****, very anti-Suarez and pro-Terry.



It's very, very rare you can prove that somebody is 100% guilty.. Personally, the best way to do this **** is with lie detectors, would also be much more fun.. Maybe they should have just had Terry and Ferdinand on Jeremy Kyle.

This isn't true. It was neither pro nor anti terry, because they were not allowed to skew the media bias under threat of prosecution, as it could have resulted in a mistrial. There was no such care for Suarez as it wasnt a criminal proceeding. People really need to learn the difference. Of course they took their time, criminal cases are an entirely different matter.

 

[Mike.]

Also people seem to forget that this does not stop the FA taking any action at all. They have already said they will review the findings.

 

[Mike.]

He wasn't found innocent of using the words.


What the judgement shows is that the prosecution couldn't prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he used the words AND intended them to be offensive. He said he was repeating what Anton had said, and really only those two will know the truth. The bench couldn't take one side's story beyond all reasonable doubt.


The FA can charge him with using the language and punish him accordingly.

 

[Puddz]

So basically, He did say the words, but because there is not enough evidence to suggest that he used the words aggressively, they found him not guilty? Couldn't that be turned around and say that there isn't enough evidence to say that he used the words in a peaceful manner, so he should be found guilty?

 

[19-11-08]

So basically, He did say the words, but because there is not enough evidence to suggest that he used the words aggressively, they found him not guilty? Couldn't that be turned around and say that there isn't enough evidence to say that he used the words in a peaceful manner, so he should be found guilty?

Burden of proof is always on the accuser.

 

[Mike.]

FA should have either adopted an 'innocent until proven guilty' stance and kept him as captain or just take him out of the squad entirely. They totally messed things up.. as usual

Quite. There was no middle road. "Innocent till proven guilty", or "we cannot tolerate any notion of percieved racism".

 

[muki1992]

I thought there was a video of John Terry insulting Anton, saying "you f*cking black c*nt", pff, Luis Suarez got that suspension just because Evra said he racially insulted him, no shread of evidence, bullcrap -.-

 

[Mike.]

I thought there was a video of John Terry insulting Anton, saying "you f*cking black c*nt", pff, Luis Suarez got that suspension just because Evra said he racially insulted him, no shread of evidence, bullcrap -.-

Neither is quite true. Read back the last few pages to see why, specifcially my posts on the difference between the two courts and the points about burden of proof.

 

[Anthony]

Maybe I'm insane but all I can see here is "Oiiiii... Heeyyyyy...Heyyyyy..ANNTON... You f***ing Black C**t". In an aggressive manner.
I don't see a grown man ask the question "Anton, do you think I called you a black c**t??".

The FA need to act on this.

[video=youtube;z0z_Y2dk-aQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0z_Y2dk-aQ[/video]

 

[Mike.]

Maybe I'm insane but all I can see here is "Oiiiii... Heeyyyyy...Heyyyyy..ANNTON... You f***ing Black C**t". In an aggressive manner.
I don't see a grown man ask the question "Anton, do you think I called you a black c**t??".

The FA need to act on this.

[video=youtube;z0z_Y2dk-aQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0z_Y2dk-aQ[/video]

Given what has come of out the trial there is nothing to stop the FA turning round and saying, "at no point can you say this on the pitch, 10 game ban". This shouldn't be on our pitches, regardless of anything.

 

[Alcaraz]

Maybe I'm insane but all I can see here is "Oiiiii... Heeyyyyy...Heyyyyy..ANNTON... You f***ing Black C**t". In an aggressive manner.
I don't see a grown man ask the question "Anton, do you think I called you a black c**t??".

The FA need to act on this.

[video=youtube;z0z_Y2dk-aQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0z_Y2dk-aQ[/video]

What may at first sight have seemed clear to the non-expert, is less clear now.

Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle in his report

 

[Aannddyy]

This isn't true. It was neither pro nor anti terry, because they were not allowed to skew the media bias under threat of prosecution, as it could have resulted in a mistrial. There was no such care for Suarez as it wasnt a criminal proceeding. People really need to learn the difference. Of course they took their time, criminal cases are an entirely different matter.

That's my opinion, your opinion is obviously different.

....Yeah. I know the difference, Mike. It was very easy for Suarez to be found guilty, and very easy for Terry to be found not guilty.. I'm not bitter, Terry being banned makes no difference to me. In fact, he may even still be banned, for the use of racist language.. The same charge Suarez received.. Which, in all honesty would make this trial pointless.

Also, they took their time because it was delayed due to Terry playing at the Euro's.. I wonder if I went into work and called someone a black ****, they'd let me delay the trial by 4 months because I had to go away. I highly doubt it. Although, it was only at a magistrates court so it's not exactly like it was a huge deal. Maybe I'm just being petty.

TBH, you have to say well done to the Terry defence team. They turned an indefensible position into one that actually saw him cleared, with what was an incredibly terrible excuse. If only we had used his lawyers! Darn it.

 

[LFCMarshall]

I thought there was a video of John Terry insulting Anton, saying "you f*cking black c*nt", pff, Luis Suarez got that suspension just because Evra said he racially insulted him, no shread of evidence, bullcrap -.-

John Terry Innocent?? Let's have a closer look! - YouTube

I never said you ******* black ****

this apparently was said, this video also proves this slightly, although Cole walking through the picture didnt help, meant the evidence was not concrete

 

[Mike.]

That's my opinion, your opinion is obviously different.

....Yeah. I know the difference, Mike. It was very easy for Suarez to be found guilty, and very easy for Terry to be found not guilty.. I'm not bitter, Terry being banned makes no difference to me. In fact, he may even still be banned, for the use of racist language.. The same charge Suarez received.. Which, in all honesty would make this trial pointless.

Also, they took their time because it was delayed due to Terry playing at the Euro's.. I wonder if I went into work and called someone a black ****, they'd let me delay the trial by 4 months because I had to go away. I highly doubt it. Although, it was only at a magistrates court so it's not exactly like it was a huge deal. Maybe I'm just being petty.

TBH, you have to say well done to the Terry defence team. They turned an indefensible position into one that actually saw him cleared, with what was an incredibly terrible excuse. If only we had used his lawyers! Darn it.

Its not opinion. Its fact that they have to be restrained. Its a standing law, enforced by the CPS, who warned the papers beforehand. If they had done a smear campaign, Terry's lawyers would have argued for a mistrial, and probably successfully. The CPS would have then taken said journos to court. You only have to look at the number of articles springing up now saying the Fa must act, after the trial, because said rule doesnt apply. At no point does the rule apply to Suarez, again, fact. Not a criminal case. Which means papers can write whatever they want about him.

The fact that it went through magistrates, means that the maximum conviction for any crime would be under 6 months. That is all.

Suarez recieved a different charge, in a different system. Its irrelevant until the FA call him up. It doesn't make this trial pointless at all, as it was a criminal case.

In fact, at no point during this case is Suarez relevant at all. Terry would actually more likely be charged under a different, more severe rule by the FA.

 

[Mads2506]

I'll also ask the inevitable question, why did Suarez get done and not Terry?

Because Suarez was tried by the FA, Terry was tried by the court of law. If the FA want to they could start an investigation against Terry like they did against Suarez. The FA doesn't need conclusive evidence to hand out penalties, the court does.

both Terry and Ferdinand have come away from this looking like bellends.

I don't think Anton has done anything wrong. He wasn't the one pressing charges.

 

[CJACKO11]

At last common sense has prevailed here. One man sitting at home in his armchair wanted to make a name for himself, one complaint just one! The fact he took Terry to court over something not only he but no-one heard was just laughable in itself. The funniest thing about this is that big brother Rio has come out looking more of a **** than anyone out of this with his childish Twitter comments earlier in the week. The worst thing which came out of this was that England lost a perfectly good captain and manager over this. And one thing which was never going to change was peoples opinion on JT, only Chelsea fans respected him before and only Chelsea fans will continue to do so now. Even before this trial i said no matter the verdict he will still be labelled a racist and the witch hunt will continue and how correct i was. The day of the verdict Clark Carlise said if guilty Chelsea should sack JT, where was this statement about Suarez then Clark?? And then just minutes after the verdict Paul Elliott and Luther Blissett stated they could not believe the verdict and said they hoped the FA would now step in. Terry will never be innocent it's as simple as that, why??? Because he is simply John Terry.

The scumbag should be banned for the entire next season, hate the arrogant cockney **** >: (

Oh another one who's personal agenda is getting in the way.

I'll also ask the inevitable question, why did Suarez get done and not Terry?

Because Suarez changed his story many times and admitted he used the word in that manner that is why.

both Terry and Ferdinand have come away from this looking like bellends.

I said from day one no matter the verdict JT will come out worse 100%. If anything Rio has come out looking more of a **** than Anton.

And back to the case at hand, this makes the whole clusterfuck over the captaincy and Cappello look even more ridiculous now.

Absolute joke, the FA should publicly apologise to both JT and Capello but will they??? Will the eck.

I personally don't care whether JT was guilty or not, what I find amusing is that that incident happened 8 days after Suarez's incident.. Took their time with getting this done. I also think the coverage of the whole thing has been pretty ****, very anti-Suarez and pro-Terry.

It's very, very rare you can prove that somebody is 100% guilty.. Personally, the best way to do this **** is with lie detectors, would also be much more fun.. Maybe they should have just had Terry and Ferdinand on Jeremy Kyle.

This is public enemy number 1 we are talking about, no way was it pro-Terry at all. The witch hunt had not stopped from the Bridge thing.

Also people seem to forget that this does not stop the FA taking any action at all. They have already said they will review the findings.

This is an absolute joke if they go on to ban him now. They are basically saying that are above the law and whatever the law says really does not matter.