# John Terry charged with racist abuse.



## Balbi (Dec 21, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/21/john-terry-racism-case-cps

Oh dear, he just can't help making a mockery of the England captaincy can he?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

He's been found guilty is he then?


----------



## Ponyutd (Dec 21, 2011)

He won't if he's found not guilty will he?


----------



## marty21 (Dec 21, 2011)

> I have never aimed a racist remark at anyone and count people from all races and creeds among my closest friends



Some of my best friends are black men
.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 21, 2011)

His inability to keep his trap shut on the pitch, which has got him charged - demonstrates a singular lack of intelligence. If he'd shut up and got on with the game - rather than engaging in a typically petty spat of handbags, he wouldnt be up in court. Behaviour unbecoming of a captain, despite how chest thumpingly brave the poor dear is.


----------



## Gingerman (Dec 21, 2011)

Terry has so much baggage these days when he travels abroad it's a genuine fear that the airline might lose him.


----------



## agricola (Dec 21, 2011)

I like the way he is going to "fight tooth and nail" to clear his name.  Unless he can destroy all recordings of him saying what he said, this is going to be very difficult to achieve.


----------



## chieftain (Dec 21, 2011)

Do we really need further proof that he's a knob end?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

Hang on, if his defence is true then it demonstrates an abhorrence of racism and a desire not to be linked to it. Has he been found guilty yet? Knob end or otherwise.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 21, 2011)

It'd be nic to have it confirmed legally that he's a plank.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

He is a fucking plank - doesn't mean he's a racist plank. He might be but a CPS charge doesn't mean it.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 21, 2011)

I haven't said he's racist, but getting into a situation where you're hurling abuse at an opposing player in front of very well focused cameras certainly doesn't inspire confidence in him as a captain. Plank for sure, racist plank - well, that's up to the court.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

Balbi said:


> I haven't said he's racist, but getting into a situation where you're hurling abuse at an opposing player in front of very well focused cameras certainly doesn't inspire confidence in him as a captain. Plank for sure, racist plank - well, that's up to the court.


Abuse? Not if his case holds up.


----------



## RaverDrew (Dec 21, 2011)

chieftain said:


> Do we really need further proof that he's a knob end?



He frequently parks in disabled bays


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

Balbi said:


> I haven't said he's racist, but getting into a situation where you're hurling abuse at an opposing player in front of very well focused cameras certainly doesn't inspire confidence in him as a captain. Plank for sure, racist plank - well, that's up to the court.



Which team  do you support? It was quite fashionable at one time to dislike Chelsea, perhaps you haven't got off the bandwagon yet.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Abuse? Not if his case holds up.



Abuse, not in the legal term concerning racism but the very obvious barney he was having with Anton Ferdinand when the racism is alleged to have happened.


----------



## Gingerman (Dec 21, 2011)

Anton Ferdinand's silence has been deafening,notice he hasn't been exactly rushing to exonerate Terry.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

agricola said:


> I like the way he is going to "fight tooth and nail" to clear his name. Unless he can destroy all recordings of him saying what he said, this is going to be very difficult to achieve.



Take it that you have an amateur interest in law?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Abuse, not in the legal term concerning racism but the very obvious barney he was having with Anton Ferdinand when the racism is alleged to have happened.


There wasn't any if his defence holds. Abuse - racial or otherwise.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 21, 2011)

I just don't like john terry as a player or a human being. I think he's made the most of what he's got, but has very fortunately played alongside a series of really top class defenders for the majority of his senior career.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 21, 2011)

RaverDrew said:


> He frequently parks in disabled bays



His mum steals from Tesco too. Cads the lot of 'em.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 21, 2011)

Balbi said:


> demonstrates a singular lack of intelligence.



He's a footballer, not an Erasmus professor or owt.


----------



## agricola (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Take it that you have an amateur interest in law?



No interest in it out of work, I just thought what he said was absurd given that what he will probably be doing to get off.


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

Why is JT being investigated by the CPS and not suarez (who's admitted to making racist comments)?


----------



## Balbi (Dec 21, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He's a footballer, not an Erasmus professor or owt.



Sorry, should have put 'even for a footballer' as they don't require the intelligence levels of other people do they?


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

Balbi said:


> I just don't like john terry as a player or a human being. I think he's made the most of what he's got, but has very fortunately played alongside a series of really top class defenders for the majority of his senior career.



The latter sentence is a reasonable ( if mistaken) matter for discussion . Great pity you just didn't disclose your real thoughts in the op.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 21, 2011)

I'm typing on an iPad, it encourages brevity.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> Why is JT being investigated by the CPS and not suarez (who's admitted to making racist comments)?



member of the public reported the incident to the Police who have a duty to investigate


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> Why is JT being investigated by the CPS and not suarez (who's admitted to making racist comments)?


No he hasn't - you admitted that you got this embarrassingly wrong on the other thread only to turn around and re-state it here.


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No he hasn't - you admitted that you got this embarrassingly wrong on the other thread only to turn around and re-state it here.



He's admitted he called Patrice Evra a 'negrito' several times during a match. Which in this country is considered racist. Now kindly fuck off


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> member of the public reported the incident to the Police who have a duty to investigate



So could I call the cops now and report Suarez? That's pretty absurd.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No he hasn't - you admitted that you got this embarrassingly wrong on the other thread only to turn around and re-state it here.



also thinks Wayne Ronney is back to his best!( one match against QPR)


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> So could I call the cops now and report Suarez? That's pretty absurd.


You could do but Pickman will be on to you for fraternising with the occupied forces of capitalism


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> He's admitted he called Patrice Evra a 'negrito' several times during a match. Which in this country is considered racist. Now kindly fuck off


No he hasn't. As you had to backtrack on the other thread over. After first making wildly libelous claims.


----------



## agricola (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> He's admitted he called Patrice Evra a 'negrito' several times during a match. Which in this country is considered racist. Now kindly fuck off



Except that he did *not* admit to saying that deliberately, as an insult.  As I said on the Suarez thread, in that case his argument ended up condemning him because it was absurd (how on earth can they claim it was a term of indearment and about context when he was clearly rowing with Evra?), but he never admitted that those words were used either in a racist manner or a racist context.

The same question (ie: whether it was deliberately said or not) doesnt appear to have come up in the EBJT case because of what Terry was seen by many, many people to have apparently said.


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> also thinks Wayne Ronney is back to his best!( one match against QPR)



Let's see later tonight shall we?


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No he hasn't. As you had to backtrack on the other thread over. After first making wildly libelous claims.



I didn't backtrack you fucking idiot. He freely admitted to Uruguayan radio that he used the term 'negrito' but didnt consider it to be racist. thats his defence.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 21, 2011)

What's the chances of Terry getting a guilty? CPS lawyers vs. Chelsea FC's lawyers.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> I didn't backtrack you fucking idiot. He freely admitted to Uruguayan radio that he used the term 'negrito' but didnt consider it to be racist. thats his defence.


Yes you did - you claimed that he admitted to repeatedly calling Evra a nigger. Are you taking back your apology for saying that now? You Should say on that other thread if you are.


----------



## ericjarvis (Dec 21, 2011)

What pisses me off is that JT can be prosecuted for racist abuse, but when my (then) downstairs neighbour went after the black lass who lived upstairs with a hammer whilst yelling racist abuse, they couldn't get it together to call it anything but a neighbour's dispute. One law for the rich and one for the poor, innit. Or possibly the fact that the downstairs neighbour was the daughter of a policeman might be relevant.


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes you did - you claimed that he admitted to repeatedly calling Evra a nigger. Are you taking back your apology for saying that now? You Should say on that other thread if you are.



Yep, I got that wrong over on that thread and corrected it to negrito. Which is exactly what I said on this thread. You fucking idiot.



> Luis Suarez admitted using the words, and explained he never meant them in an insulting way, he never realised they could be deemed to be racist - but they were, and maybe that is where the line should have been drawn. An explanation, an apology and acceptance the words were inadvisable, as well as an appreciation that any form of racism, whether unwitting or not, is still abhorrent.



http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opi...at-he-said-is-unacceptable-article845198.html


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> Yep, I got that wrong over on that thread and corrected it to negrito. Which is exactly what I said on this thread. You fucking idiot.



It's not though is it gabi?



> Why is JT being investigated by the CPS and not suarez (who's admitted to making racist comments)?


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's not though is it gabi?



Eh? He's admitted to making racist comments.. read the post above. You fucking idiot


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> Eh? He's admitted to making racist comments.. read the post above. You fucking idiot


No, he hasn't.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> Eh? He's admitted to making racist comments.. read the post above. You fucking idiot



Fucking numpty, he has denied over and over again that he made a racist comment.


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on, if his defence is true then it demonstrates an abhorrence of racism and a desire not to be linked to it. Has he been found guilty yet? Knob end or otherwise.


Has Suarez?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Has Suarez?



Yes he has, by the FA.


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 21, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Yes he has, by the FA.


And does being charged by the FA make him guilty, not guilty or innocent until proven guilty?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> And does being charged by the FA make him guilty, not guilty or innocent until proven guilty?



It makes him guilty, for now, in the context in which he was charged. Does it make him guilty in the abstract? That we don't know.


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 21, 2011)

Suppose Terry's lucky to be going to a real court where he can pay for an expensive lawyer to get him off all charges...


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 21, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Suppose Terry's lucky to be going to a real court where he can pay for an expensive lawyer to get him off all charges...



It is possible he doen't need anyone to 'get him off'. If his defence is true then that's a pretty solid case for the defence. If not then well a certain bar has been set.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 21, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> It is possible he doen't need anyone to 'get him off'.


it's better to be guilty with an expensive lawyer than innocent and without one.


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 21, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> It is possible he doen't need anyone to 'get him off'. If his defence is true then that's a pretty solid case for the defence. If not then well a certain bar has been set.


You could say that about every single person who goes to court saying they're not guilty! But the rich are a lot more likely to be successful...


----------



## DRINK? (Dec 21, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> You could say that about every single person who goes to court saying they're not guilty! But the rich are a lot more likely to be successful...



What with his salary, his fathers coke dealing income and mothers earnings from shop lifting , I'm pretty sure he will have it covered!


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, he hasn't.



Depends whether you consider calling a black player 'negrito' more than 10 times during a feisty football match racist or not. Coz that's what he's admitted to.

Personally I consider it racist. You don't, Suarez doesn't. Differing opinions. that's all.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> Depends whether you consider calling a black player 'negrito' more than 10 times during a feisty football match racist or not. Coz that's what he's admitted to.
> 
> Personally I consider it racist. You don't, Suarez doesn't. Differing opinions. that's all.


No he hasn't. You have even fucked this up.


----------



## binka (Dec 21, 2011)

ill never forgive him for what he did to wayne bridge. lock him up and throw away the key


----------



## manny-p (Dec 21, 2011)

binka said:


> ill never forgive him for what he did to wayne bridge. lock him up and throw away the key


His brother is a fucking cunt as well.


----------



## stavros (Dec 21, 2011)

This could be a decent excuse for Capello to ignore Terry and bed in a younger set of CBs, Lescott, Jones, Cahill, Jagielka, Dawson even.


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No he hasn't. You have even fucked this up.



How thick are you? Jesus Christ. the cunt's admitted it himself.

the mind boggles. fucking idiot.


----------



## gabi (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> also thinks Wayne Ronney is back to his best!( one match against QPR)



Shocking performance from Wayne Ronney this evening. A disgrace to the badge.


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 21, 2011)

discokermit said:


> it's better to be guilty with an expensive lawyer than innocent and without one.



Yeah, very true.

I used the same the solicitors as JT does / did (last time he was in trouble) and yes, expensive legal representation ftw. Shit but true.


----------



## deadringer (Dec 21, 2011)

binka said:


> ill never forgive him for what he did to wayne bridge. lock him up and throw away the key



life imprisonment with no chance of parole for having an affair? for everyone or just him?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2011)

gabi said:


> How thick are you? Jesus Christ. the cunt's admitted it himself.
> 
> the mind boggles. fucking idiot.


No he hasn't


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 22, 2011)

binka said:


> ill never forgive him for what he did to wayne bridge. lock him up and throw away the key


I know he shagged Wayne Bridges' EX-girlfriend, do I really want to know what he did to Wayne Bridge.....


----------



## sumimasen (Dec 22, 2011)

Terry says he's never been racist in his life. Wasn't there an incident with a (Spurs?) player a few years ago, or am I making that up?


----------



## strung out (Dec 22, 2011)

he spoke at an anti-bnp meeting in barking last year. i'm no fan of his, but i don't believe he's an ideological racist and i don't see any particular reason to disbelieve his defence, unless there's any large piece of evidence i'm obviously missing.


----------



## gabi (Dec 22, 2011)

i think there's another camera angle that's been handed in by Sky to the cops. the original clip was fatally flawed by (ironically) ashley cole walking into frame at the crucial moment, concealing half of what JT said.

presumably the second angle caught the whole thing or i doubt the CPS would be pressing ahead.


----------



## iROBOT (Dec 22, 2011)

strung out said:


> he spoke at an anti-bnp meeting in barking last year. i'm no fan of his, but i don't believe he's an ideological racist and i don't see any particular reason to disbelieve his defence, unless there's any large piece of evidence i'm obviously missing.


He also fucked his mates bird.

I dont think he worries to-much about double standards.


----------



## gabi (Dec 22, 2011)

iROBOT said:


> He also fucked his mates bird.
> 
> I dont think he worries to-much about double standards.



that's not entirely true. he fucked his mate's ex. the media blew that one totally out of proportion.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 22, 2011)

arsenal fans last night

_away in a police cell, no wag in his bed,_
_the little john terry, regrets what he said...._


----------



## strung out (Dec 22, 2011)

iROBOT said:


> He also fucked his mates bird.
> 
> I dont think he worries to-much about double standards.



not really comparable.

not being able to keep your dick in your pants doesn't make you more likely to be a racist.


----------



## iROBOT (Dec 22, 2011)

strung out said:


> not really comparable.
> 
> not being able to keep your dick in your pants doesn't make you more likely to be a racist.


It's WHO the dick's been sunk into that's the point, yamming your mates GF is wrong.

The mans a fucking chancer, dont think he has a principled bone in his body.


----------



## strung out (Dec 22, 2011)

so people who shag their mate's ex girlfriend are more likely to be racists now?


----------



## gabi (Dec 22, 2011)

iROBOT said:


> It's WHO the dick's been sunk into that's the point, fucking your mates GF is wrong.
> 
> The mans a fucking chancer, dont think he has a principled bone in his body.



it was his mate's ex. big difference.


----------



## iROBOT (Dec 22, 2011)

gabi said:


> it was his mate's ex. big difference.


Yeah really big, wonder if his wife and children saw that nuance?

I think not.

I dont trust him or his motivations.


----------



## iROBOT (Dec 22, 2011)

strung out said:


> so people who shag their mate's ex girlfriend are more likely to be racists now?


It shows he's willing to backstab and lie. Why should we belive he meant what he said at the BNP rally?

Bullshite, the man's a full on cunt.


----------



## gabi (Dec 22, 2011)

iROBOT said:


> Yeah really big, wonder if his wife and children saw that nuance?
> 
> I think not.
> 
> I dont trust him or his motivations.



JT's wife had a big reason to be pissed off, yes. he was a cunt to her.

the media focused on wayne bridge tho which was kinda stupid. the lady in question was a single woman.


----------



## iROBOT (Dec 22, 2011)

gabi said:


> JT's wife had a big reason to be pissed off, yes. he was a cunt to her.
> 
> the media focused on wayne bridge tho which was kinda stupid. the lady in question was a single woman.


I dont really care about the details (really I dont)

Judge a mans character in what he does and not what he says.


----------



## gabi (Dec 22, 2011)

iROBOT said:


> I dont really care about the details (really I dont)
> 
> Judge a mans character in what he does and not what he says.



fucking a man's current girlfriend and fucking his ex-girlfriend are massively different in my book, but who cares about the details.


----------



## iROBOT (Dec 22, 2011)

gabi said:


> fucking a man's current girlfriend and fucking his ex-girlfriend are massively different in my book, but who cares about the details.



It's not in my world if you happen to be married at the time.
A quote from Terry from 2009
He said: "It's a great honour to be voted Dad of the Year. I have won many trophies in my career but I'm proud to say that this is up there with all of them. "Georgie and Summer are great kids and I love them both dearly. *My family mean the world to me* and receiving this award has made me feel extremely proud.Being with the kids and watching them grow up and learning new things every day is a privilege and I'm honoured to receive this award.

Hypocritical cunt.


----------



## strung out (Dec 22, 2011)

what was he supposed to say when he got given that award?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

It is possible to love your kids and still cheat on their mother.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is possible to love your kids and still cheat on their mother.


Yes


----------



## iROBOT (Dec 22, 2011)

So when he said he loved his family, he only meant his kids?

ok, that's allright then, I stand corrected.


----------



## iROBOT (Dec 22, 2011)

strung out said:


> what was he supposed to say when he got given that award?


Act on his words.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

I'm no fan of Terry. I think he's a tosser. But what was he supposed to do, refuse the award? What would his kids have thought of that?


----------



## iROBOT (Dec 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm no fan of Terry. I think he's a tosser. But what was he supposed to do, refuse the award? What would his kids have thought of that?


said "thank you" and left it at that.

what a bullshiter.


----------



## gabi (Dec 22, 2011)

terry winning that award is up there with beckham winning black man of the year a few years back 

i bet both of them were a bit 'wtf?'


----------



## iROBOT (Dec 22, 2011)

gabi said:


> terry winning that award is up there with beckham winning black man of the year a few years back
> 
> i bet both of them were a bit 'wtf?'


LOL...Yeah.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 22, 2011)

iROBOT said:


> I dont really care about the details (really I dont)
> 
> Judge a mans character in what he does and not what he says.



next please


----------



## iROBOT (Dec 22, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> next please



That makes sense.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 22, 2011)

strung out said:


> so people who shag their mate's ex girlfriend are more likely to be racists now?


EX girlfriend yes, but they were never 'mates', just in the same team sometimes.


----------



## strung out (Dec 22, 2011)

even better. ever shagged a workmate's ex? well you're probably a racist then.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 22, 2011)

Can someone not rupture his nuts? Would do us all a favour.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 22, 2011)

As long as I don't lose the England captaincy over shagging a non-mates non-girlfriend.


----------



## gabi (Dec 22, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> EX girlfriend yes, but they were never 'mates', just in the same team sometimes.



thats not actually true either. they were close friends afaik.

anyway this is a massive derail.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 22, 2011)

Or not. afairc.


----------



## gabi (Dec 22, 2011)

well.. who knows. but the media definitely portrayed them as buddies.



> Bridge became one of England skipper Terry’s closest colleagues after signing for Chelsea in 2003. The two men lived within a few miles of each other in Surrey. They shared a love of dog and horse racing and Bridge was invited to Terry’s stag night.



http://www.mirror.co.uk/most-popula...-bits-at-john-terry-betrayal-115875-22005310/


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2011)

I couldn't give a toss who John Terry shags. None of my business, and I couldn't care less.


----------



## gabi (Dec 22, 2011)

no, i agree with you. it's a derail.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 22, 2011)

gabi said:


> it was his mate's ex. big difference.


colleague does not necessarily = mate. by and large, you don't choose who you get to work with


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 22, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is possible to love your kids and still cheat on their mother.


it's possible to love the mum too - and still cheat on her - in fact, it happens all the time!


----------



## soulfish (Dec 22, 2011)

JT will probaly skate on this one money talks and Chelsea are big enough to make it go away through longing it out. if the CPS are charging him means they got a case against him. he should get banged up just for saying i got friends of all races and creeds. I'm suprised he didnt say i got a mate from Brixton called Winston....


----------



## gabi (Dec 22, 2011)

Suarez deployed the line that his grandfather was half-black and so therefore he couldnt possibly be racist, it's a good defence...


----------



## agricola (Dec 22, 2011)

soulfish said:


> JT will probaly skate on this one money talks and Chelsea are big enough to make it go away through longing it out. if the CPS are charging him means they got a case against him. he should get banged up just for saying i got friends of all races and creeds. I'm suprised he didnt say i got a mate from Brixton called Winston....



I am not so sure, tbh.  The problem for the CPS (and FA) is that if Terry has the charges dropped (or to a lesser extent gets off) it will affect a lot of other cases where fans have been recorded on camera saying / chanting things that they shouldnt have.


----------



## flutterbye (Dec 22, 2011)

gabi said:


> Suarez deployed the line that his grandfather was half-black and so therefore he couldnt possibly be racist, it's a good defence...



Its a fairly meaningless argument to be fair, if he made racist comments to a black man then having a mixed-race grandfather doesnt excuse it.


----------



## gabi (Dec 22, 2011)

this is slightly mental

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/22/liverpool-players-luis-suarez-shirts


----------



## ignatious (Dec 22, 2011)

agricola said:


> I am not so sure, tbh. The problem for the CPS (and FA) is that if Terry has the charges dropped (or to a lesser extent gets off) it will affect a lot of other cases where fans have been recorded on camera saying / chanting things that they shouldnt have.


How come? It's Terry who's on trial, not CCTV/TV camera evidence per se.


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 22, 2011)

gabi said:


> this is slightly mental
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/22/liverpool-players-luis-suarez-shirts



Wrong thread surely but it's definitely mental. Something really wrong with the DNA of that club or at least their PR department. That huge long statement they made dug many holes as well.
They should have issued a one-liner saying the club believe the player and will be appealing the decision. All this yapping just makes things worse.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 22, 2011)

gabi said:


> well.. who knows. but the media definitely portrayed them as buddies.
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/most-popula...-bits-at-john-terry-betrayal-115875-22005310/


What should Terry have done, invite the whole team and not Bridge? Fwiw, I also share "a love of dog and horse racing" with them. I don't live near their training ground as pretty well all the Cherlsea players do.

You know how the media works up a story, right?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 22, 2011)

gabi said:


> well.. who knows. but the media definitely portrayed them as buddies.
> 
> Bridge became one of England skipper Terry’s closest colleagues after signing for Chelsea in 2003. The two men lived within a few miles of each other in Surrey. They shared a love of dog and horse racing and Bridge was invited to Terry’s stag night.
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/most-popula...-bits-at-john-terry-betrayal-115875-22005310/



Lived within a few miles of each other = Cobham, posh area where the Chelsea training ground is. Also living within a few miles Ashley Cole, Cliff Richard, Max Clifford, that brainy bird who cheated on University Challenge, Theo Paphitius, Milly Dowler's mum & dad, me AND my dog...does that mean we're all buddies?

2 working class lads with too much time and money on their hands and they both like a flutter on the horses & dogs, well fuck me sideways.

Footballer invites team mate to stag do shocker.

None of which makes them 'mates'.

Besides, it was his EX that Terry shagged. What the fuck has who his EX shags got to do with Bridge?


----------



## ddraig (Dec 22, 2011)

another cunt outed by his own petard
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/22/alan-hansen-black-footballers-coloured
ffs


----------



## Deareg (Dec 22, 2011)

ddraig said:


> another cunt outed by his own petard
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/22/alan-hansen-black-footballers-coloured
> ffs


I think this may be one instance where simply pointing out that the word is inappropriate rather than starting a shitstorm is the best course of action.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 22, 2011)

he's on national tv ffs
if he wants to be a dinasour he should fuck off and drawl in a cave


----------



## Deareg (Dec 22, 2011)

ddraig said:


> he's on national tv ffs
> if he wants to be a dinasour he should fuck off and drawl in a cave


I doubt very much that he wanted to be a dinosaur or to cause offence.


----------



## strung out (Dec 22, 2011)

ddraig said:


> another cunt outed by his own petard
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/22/alan-hansen-black-footballers-coloured
> ffs


hoist.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 22, 2011)

ddraig said:


> outed by his own petard


This doesn't so much strangle the English language as put a bag over its head, throw it in a car boot, take it to the woods in the dead of night, and shove a Christmas Tree so far up its arse the angel on top comes out its mouth.

What Hansen said was a generational/cultural unfortunate slip of the tongue. Move on.


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 22, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> This doesn't so much strangle the English language as put a bag over its head, throw it in a car boot, take it to the woods in the dead of night, and shove a Christmas Tree so far up its arse the angel on top comes out its mouth.
> 
> What Hansen said was a generational/cultural unfortunate slip of the tongue. Move on.



No. The BBC should sack him. On the money that he's on he should be clued up. he does;t even clue up on footballers outside of the major teams. He's having a laugh. Time to move him out to pasture.

Footnote: i believed all that anyway before he made the remark.


----------



## gabi (Dec 22, 2011)

political correctness gone mad


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 22, 2011)

He's just a dufus. Time to go.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 22, 2011)

strung out said:


> hoist.





London_Calling said:


> This doesn't so much strangle the English language as put a bag over its head, throw it in a car boot, take it to the woods in the dead of night, and shove a Christmas Tree so far up its arse the angel on top comes out its mouth.
> 
> What Hansen said was a generational/cultural unfortunate slip of the tongue. Move on.


i knew you pendants would like that one!


----------



## Chuff (Dec 23, 2011)

sometime though racist language doesn't equal racism, sometimes you just want to cause as much pain as you can in an argument and the most offensive terms are what works, I know i have said hateful things I didn't mean in arguments with my wife, dosen't mean I hate her, just I was angry and wanted to hurt her.
I see this often @ work, where people I know don't give a fuck where you are from etc say racist, homophobic, baldist, sizeist, heightist etc things because they are angry and want to piss you off.
I think intent is important was racism intended or just hurt?


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 23, 2011)

Chuff said:


> sometime though racist language doesn't equal racism, sometimes you just want to cause as much pain as you can in an argument and the most offensive terms are what works, I know i have said hateful things I didn't mean in arguments with my wife, dosen't mean I hate her, just I was angry and wanted to hurt her.
> I see this often @ work, where people I know don't give a fuck where you are from etc say racist, homophobic, baldist, sizeist, heightist etc things because they are angry and want to piss you off.
> I think intent is important was racism intended or just hurt?


There is not a face nor palm big enough for how fuckeded up that post is.
Racists aren't racist really just hurting inside.
Powells rivers of blood, just an early draft of REM everybody hurts?


----------



## trampie (Dec 23, 2011)

If Suarez had not been found guilty by the football authorities i wonder if Terry would have been charged by the CPS ?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Dec 23, 2011)

barney_pig said:


> Powells rivers of blood, just an early draft of REM everybody hurts?



I knew that song reminded me of something.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 23, 2011)

I can't help thinking this; would everybody be baying so loudly for terry's blood, were he not sucha generally dislikeable character.
Because this really doesn't feel like justice


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Dec 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I can't help thinking this; would everybody be baying so loudly for terry's blood, were he not sucha generally dislikeable character.
> Because this really doesn't feel like justice



You mean if he was just a racist, instead of being a racist and a bastard?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 23, 2011)

Nanker Phelge said:


> You mean if he was just a racist, instead of being a racist and a bastard?


surely the whole point is that he hasn't been proved to be a racist yet. innocent until proven guilty and all that


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Dec 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> surely the whole point is that he hasn't been proved to be a racist yet. innocent until proven guilty and all that



I've not said he was guilty or called him a racist. I was asking you to clarify the your thoughts for me.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 23, 2011)

trampie said:


> If Suarez had not been found guilty by the football authorities i wonder if Terry would have been charged by the CPS ?


why do you - you think there is a conspiracy between the CPS and an ad-hoc committee employed by the FA?


----------



## trampie (Dec 23, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> why do you - you think there is a conspiracy between the CPS and an ad-hoc committee employed by the FA?


The football authorities would have done their investigation into Suarez and the CPS into Terry independantly of each other ?, i would have thought anyway, but there again i dont know, the football authorities find Suarez guilty and lo and behold the CPS a few hours later decide to take Terry on, is that coincidence or what ?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Dec 23, 2011)

trampie said:


> The football authorities would have done their investigation into Suarez and the CPS into Terry independantly of each other ?, i would have thought anyway, but there again i dont know, the football authorities find Suarez guilty and low and behold the CPS a few hours later decide to take Terry on, is that coincidence or what ?



J Edgar Hoover?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2011)

Aprt from the fa


trampie said:


> The football authorities would have done their investigation into Suarez and the CPS into Terry independantly of each other ?, i would have thought anyway, but there again i dont know, the football authorities find Suarez guilty and lo and behold the CPS a few hours later decide to take Terry on, is that coincidence or what ?


  Apart from the fact that the CPS had announced they'd be making public their decision on whether to charge him afew days before the Suarez verdict came through. Do you really think the CPS were sitting there not having come to a decision and were just prompted to pull their finger put by the FA? Rather than the extra video evidence they'd been passed on well before the Suarez verdict. Loon.


----------



## trampie (Dec 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Aprt from the fa
> 
> Apart from the fact that the CPS had announced they'd be making public their decision on whether to charge him afew days before the Suarez verdict came through. Do you really think the CPS were sitting there not having come to a decision and were just prompted to pull their finger put by the FA? Rather than the extra video evidence they'd been passed on well before the Suarez verdict. Loon.


You are saying that the CPS made the announcement of the upcoming announcement by saying the announcement would be made at some point in the future at an undisclosed time and date ?, [is that code for lets see how the FA Suarez case plays out ? before we decide what we are going to do with the captain of England], were they going to leave Terry off but new video evidence suddenly came to light ? [where was this new evidence found i wonder in a locked draw perhaps lol].

Why did the CPS let an England footie international off involving a betting scandel 'not in the public interest' yet they charged Pakistani cricketers with a similar offence ?

A cynic might observe that an English sportsman was involved in betting scandel and was let go, then foreigners involved in a similar betting scandel get taken on.
A foreign footie player gets done for racial abuse, then after that it is announced an English footie play will be charged with a similar offence, would Terry have been taken on if it was not for Suarez being done first, i wonder.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2011)

trampie said:


> You are saying that the CPS made the announcement of the upcoming announcement by saying the announcement would be made at some point in the future at an undisclosed time and date ?, [is that code for lets see how the FA Suarez case plays out ? before we decide what we are going to do with the captain of England], were they going to leave Terry off but new video evidence suddenly came to light ? [where was this new evidence found i wonder in a locked draw perhaps lol].
> 
> Why did the CPS let an England footie international off involving a betting scandel 'not in the public interest' yet they charged Pakistani cricketers with a similar offence ?
> 
> ...


No, they said an announcement would be made the afternoon of the 20th. It was. Do you believe that they had decided not to charge Terry but suddenly changed their mind and the whole basis of their case in the hour after the Suarez verdict was announced?


----------



## trampie (Dec 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, they said an announcement would be made the afternoon of the 20th. It was. Do you believe that they had decided not to charge Terry but suddenly changed their mind and the whole basis of their case in the hour after the Suarez verdict was announced?


Why make an announcement to make an announcement ?
The announcement was conviently after they knew what the outcome of the Suarez case verdict would be.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 23, 2011)

trampie said:


> Why make an announcement to make an announcement ?
> The announcement was conviently after they knew what the outcome of the Suarez case verdict would be.


I hope for your own sake that you are trolling.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2011)

trampie said:


> Why make an announcement to make an announcement ?
> The announcement was conviently after they knew the Suarez case verdict.


How was it convenient? I'll ask again, maybe you could answer this time - do you think the CPS had decided not to charge Terry but changed their mind in the hour or so after the Suarez verdict?

Your conspiracy claim also falls down because CPS statement was happening on the 20th no matter what, whilst the FA verdict was due to come on the 20th at the very earliest. Of course, if the FA had announced it after the 20th your loon brain would argue that this is further evidence of collusion.


----------



## trampie (Dec 23, 2011)

Is it normal to make an announcement, to make an announcement ?, if the CPS had made their decision why not announce it, why say we will announce our decision at a later date, whats with all the secrecy.


----------



## trampie (Dec 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> the FA verdict was due to come on the 20th at the very earliest.


No it wasnt it was originally due by Friday the 16th.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2011)

trampie said:


> Is it normal to make an announcement, to make an announcement ?, if the CPS had made their decision why not announce it, why say we will announce our decision at a later date, whats with all the secrecy.


 The jews i expect.


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 23, 2011)

trampie said:


> Is it normal to make an announcement, to make an announcement ?, if the CPS had made their decision why not announce it, why say we will announce our decision at a later date, whats with all the secrecy.



Think. Just think.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2011)

trampie said:


> No it wasnt it was originally due by Friday the 16th.



And when they were unable to come up with a verdict by that date they announced that they hadn't and would now be reporting at a later date with the 20th named as the earliest possible date.


----------



## trampie (Dec 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And when they were unable to come up with a verdict by that date they announced that they hadn't and would now be reporting at a later date with the 20th named as the earliest possible date.


Another announcement to announce an announcement .


----------



## trampie (Dec 23, 2011)

What will the FA do about Terry:-
[1] If Terry is found guilty.
[2] If Terry is found innocent.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 23, 2011)

make an announcement?


----------



## trampie (Dec 23, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> make an announcement?


Saying what ?, that they will be making another announcement in due course i shouldnt wonder.


----------



## Chuff (Dec 23, 2011)

barney_pig said:


> There is not a face nor palm big enough for how fuckeded up that post is.
> Racists aren't racist really just hurting inside.
> Powells rivers of blood, just an early draft of REM everybody hurts?


I didn't say that at all can you actually understand language?
I said intent is important. I didn't say there is no such thing as racism, I just said not all language with racist meaning is used with that intent, I guess its quite a complex idea if you are used to living in a polarized binary emotional world. One where people and their posts are good or bad. Actually people with this sort of outlook are the most likely to do the behavior I am describing

lets try an example, say i was angry at your post and made a pun on your username and called you a porky wanker, would it mean I hated pigs? the point is was I trying to hurt you as an individual or your species in general, that's what I mean by intent, an insult could be either or both (or neither).


----------



## Bonfirelight (Dec 23, 2011)

but what does it say about someone who thinks using a racial insult should be hurtful in the same way as being called stupid or fat or bald.
if you call someone stupid then you've insulted them because being stupid is undesirable and highlights their inadequacies, if you think calling someone a racial slur is the same..?

ime the reason racial insults are hurtful is not because the person is upset by the word, but because the implicarn is that the race is also being dismissed as undesirable and inadequate.


----------



## Termite Man (Dec 23, 2011)

I'm going to comment on this thread on 26th december.


----------



## mack (Dec 23, 2011)

Not a racist.


----------



## Gingerman (Dec 23, 2011)

Cant believe it when people label JT as 'the racist Chelsea defender' - I mean ffs he hasn't been able to defend properly for at least 2 years!


----------



## Termite Man (Dec 23, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Ashley Cole. Bosingwa. Malouda. Obe Mikel. Sturridge. Anelka. Essien. Ramires. Drogba. Kalou. Now affectionately known as “Terry's Chocolates'


is that a joke?


----------



## Gingerman (Dec 23, 2011)

Termite Man said:


> is that a joke?


Yes and not a very good one hence the edit


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 23, 2011)

Chuff said:


> I didn't say that at all can you actually understand language?
> I said intent is important. I didn't say there is no such thing as racism, I just said not all language with racist meaning is used with that intent, I guess its quite a complex idea if you are used to living in a polarized binary emotional world. One where people and their posts are good or bad. Actually people with this sort of outlook are the most likely to do the behavior I am describing
> 
> lets try an example, say i was angry at your post and made a pun on your username and called you a porky wanker, would it mean I hated pigs? the point is was I trying to hurt you as an individual or your species in general, that's what I mean by intent, an insult could be either or both (or neither).


if you use racist insults when you are angry: then you are a racist, there is no squirming on this one, if you think otherwise you are a dick, and one who covers for racists.


----------



## Termite Man (Dec 24, 2011)

barney_pig said:


> if you use racist insults when you are angry: then you are a racist, there is no squirming on this one, if you think otherwise you are a dick, and one who covers for racists.



No if you think that you are a dick , there is such a thing as CONTEXT


----------



## manny-p (Dec 24, 2011)

mack said:


> Not a racist.


He is crushing it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 24, 2011)

mack said:


> Not a racist.


 


> The picture that shows the caring side of John Terry as he poses in Hamleys with a black baby



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ring-John-Terry-poses-Hamleys-black-baby.html

His PR people must think we are mugs


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ring-John-Terry-poses-Hamleys-black-baby.html
> 
> His PR people must think we are mugs


No comment on this then?








> Lawyer Alejandro Balbi holds a picture of Liverpool striker Luis Suarez posing with a black child...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No comment on this then?


 
As opposed to a photo that just happened to happen in Hamleys after he had been charged?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2011)

How do you know the background to Suarez's photo? Either way the motivation for it being produced on Thursday appears to be exactly the same as Terry's - and given that the lawyer is working hand in glove with Liverpool they must think people are mugs at least as much as terry's lot. It wouldn't surprise me if it gave his lot the idea actually.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 24, 2011)

The motivation is the same, I just find it funny that Terry went out and posed for it as opposed to a Lawyer holding up an old photo. Do you honestly think Liverpool told him to have a root around for it?. Hand in glove?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2011)

Maybe Suarez refused to pose next to black child a second time?

You don't think that Suarez's lawyer and his club are working together?


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 24, 2011)

You can't feel confortable exchanging this nonsense, why not just stop.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 24, 2011)

Maybe he wouldn't do it now because it would seem a bit silly?

I'll try again - Do you honestly think Liverpool told him to have a root around for it?. Hand in glove?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Maybe he wouldn't do it now because it would seem a bit silly?
> 
> I'll try again - Do you honestly think Liverpool told him to have a root around for it?. Hand in glove?


Irrelevant whether they told him too go find it - he went and found and given the common front they've presented they also must bear some responsibility. I'll ask you again - you don't think that Suarez's lawyer and his club are working together?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Irrelevant whether they told him too go find it


It's not irrelevant - you're trying to suggest the club had some part in him holding up that photo. Did they?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's not irrelevant - you're trying to suggest the club had some part in him holding up that photo. Did they?


I've suggested that their blanket defence of him and his actions implicates them in that equally crass defence from his lawyer/agent who they have been working with over the last few weeks on his defence - working hand in glove you might say. Which they have been haven't they?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I've suggested that their blanket defence of him and his actions implicates them in that equally crass defence from his lawyer/agent


Well it doesn't - except in your imagination perhaps.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2011)

Oh right, a crass defence of certain actions by one part of a defence team has no bearing on an equally crass defence by the other part of that defence team. They are,in fact, entirely unconnected in any way whatsoever. They don't open the gate for mutually reinforcing crassness at all.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Oh right, a crass defence of certain actions by one part of a defence team has no bearing on an equally crass defence by the other part of that defence team. They are,in fact, entirely unconnected in any way whatsoever. They don't open the gate for mutually reinforcing crassness at all.



We've gone from "Hand in Glove" to "Common front" now to "Mutually reinforcing crassness" - you'll be going on about 9/11 next.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> We've gone from "Hand in Glove" to "Common front" now to "Mutually reinforcing crassness" - you'll be going on about 9/11 next.


Sorry, i'll ask again you failed to answer twice earlier - you don't think that Suarez's lawyer/agent and his club are working together (on his defence)?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry, i'll ask again you failed to answer twice earlier - you don't think that Suarez's lawyer/agent and his club are working together (on his defence)?


I have no idea how involved he is on the case. I would have expected him to come over from Montevideo if he was deeply involved.

Do you know different?


----------



## twistedAM (Dec 24, 2011)

At least Chelsea FC had the common sense to put a stop to the T-shirt solidarity fiasco that the smalltown club thought was a good idea.


----------



## Deareg (Dec 24, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> At least Chelsea FC had the common sense to put a stop to the T-shirt solidarity fiasco that the smalltown club thought was a good idea.


What is the saying that Liverpool fans are so fond of?

You can't buy class?


----------



## IC3D (Dec 24, 2011)

JT should go further and adopt


----------



## Balbi (Dec 24, 2011)

Suarez's lawyer's got a shit name.


----------



## Gingerman (Dec 24, 2011)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16325815.stm
After the shit Liverpool got for doing it I cant believe they even considered it in the first place


----------



## gabi (Feb 1, 2012)

England's Brave John Terry pleads not guilty this morning. Or rather his lawyer does in his absence. Will stand trial in July..

A load of bullshit imo. He's a cunt, but never a racist.


----------



## twistedAM (Feb 1, 2012)

gabi said:


> England's Brave John Terry pleads not guilty this morning. Or rather his lawyer does in his absence. Will stand trial in July..
> 
> A load of bullshit imo. He's a cunt, but never a racist.



When is Euro 2012?


----------



## OneStrike (Feb 1, 2012)

It ends on 1st July


----------



## twistedAM (Feb 1, 2012)

OneStrike said:


> It ends on 1st July



Well, they could have had it late June, after the group stages are over


----------



## Ted Striker (Feb 1, 2012)

gabi said:


> England's Brave John Terry pleads not guilty this morning. Or rather his lawyer does in his absence. Will stand trial in July..
> 
> A load of bullshit imo. He's a cunt, but never a racist.



Which is my gut reaction, but it doesn't explain the 'drama/fuss' from Ferdinand?


----------



## gabi (Feb 1, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> Which is my gut reaction, but it doesn't explain the 'drama/fuss' from Ferdinand?



He didnt hear anything racist himself. He's basing his accusations on what a team-mate 'heard'.

I really hope they've got more evidence than that otherwise it's a waste of fucking time.


----------



## Big Gunz (Feb 1, 2012)

Er why haven't the FA banned him for a few games then?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2012)

Big Gunz said:


> Er why haven't the FA banned him for a few games then?


What?


----------



## Ted Striker (Feb 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What?


(He's comparing him to Suarez, I assume)


----------



## Big Gunz (Feb 1, 2012)

Just saying why is it taking fricking ages to resolve?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2012)

I know- what's the major difference though (to this idiot, not you)?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2012)

Big Gunz said:


> Just saying why is it taking fricking ages to resolve?


That's not what you said at all.


----------



## Deareg (Feb 1, 2012)

gabi said:


> He didnt hear anything racist himself. He's basing his accusations on what a team-mate 'heard'.
> 
> I really hope they've got more evidence than that otherwise it's a waste of fucking time.


Lip readers.


----------



## Deareg (Feb 1, 2012)

Big Gunz said:


> Just saying why is it taking fricking ages to resolve?


Because it is a criminal case as well.


----------



## gabi (Feb 1, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Lip readers.



cashley's head was in the way. i spose they must have another angle.


----------



## Deareg (Feb 1, 2012)

gabi said:


> cashley's head was in the way. i spose they must have another angle.


It is on youtube.


----------



## gabi (Feb 1, 2012)

Deareg said:


> It is on youtube.



the crucial bit was obscured. JT's on camera saying 'anton, anton.. i didnt call you a black cunt' (according to JT)..

the camera only picked up the last bit tho. afaik.

edit. here. is there more footage?


----------



## Deareg (Feb 1, 2012)

gabi said:


> the crucial bit was obscured. JT's on camera saying 'anton, anton.. i didnt call you a black cunt' (according to JT)..
> 
> the camera only picked up the last bit tho. afaik.
> 
> edit. here. is there more footage?



Not sure, if there is non the the whole case sounds like bollox.


----------



## DRINK? (Feb 1, 2012)

So is he free to lead his country into Poland......just like his hero did


----------



## twistedAM (Feb 2, 2012)

DRINK? said:


> So is he free to lead his country into Poland......just like his hero did



Yeah, but he was a bit pissed off when someone told him Uruguay isn't in Europe.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 9, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18760180

Underway then. All sounds a bit vague.


----------



## Big Gunz (Jul 9, 2012)

£2,500 is the maximum penalty, hardly seems worth it.  Small change to him.


----------



## belboid (Jul 9, 2012)

cos that'd be the only consequence if he were found guilty


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 9, 2012)

Big Gunz said:


> £2,500 is the maximum penalty, hardly seems worth it. Small change to him.


 
I know, if only the legal system was as rigorous as Liverpool when dealing with.... Oh yeah wait.....


----------



## Big Gunz (Jul 9, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> I know, if only the legal system was as rigorous as Liverpool when dealing with.... Oh yeah wait.....


 
8 game ban for Suarez cost us a champions league spot that was punishment enough!


----------



## belboid (Jul 9, 2012)

You really are a thick cunt


----------



## revol68 (Jul 9, 2012)

I think Terry got lucky this is a criminal investigation with a higher evidence threshold, he'll get off on the fact it's not beyond all reasonable doubt and the FA will not impose any punishment either.

Lucky racist cunt.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 9, 2012)

It really annoyed me the way the news tonight kept saying that Terry had received comments from ferdinand about an affair, clearly implying this was an excuse for what he said.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 9, 2012)

The legal team will aim to discredit Ferdinand and place doubt on the accuracy of lip reading. They don't have a lot else to work with do they?


----------



## belboid (Jul 9, 2012)

Well, they are meant to accurately portray what happens in court, which includes the defence's comments (and the insinuations that go with them)


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 9, 2012)

According to ITV, the defence accepts the lip reading and what was said, what they are arguing is the context. They are arguing that Ferdinand said it first and that Terry just responded 'in a sarcastic tone'.  As in he copy-catted it.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 9, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/09/john-terry-anton-ferdinand-court

As Terry sat in the glass-panelled dock, Ferdinand stood in the witness box opposite. He told the court: "He called me a cunt, and I called him a cunt back. And he gave me a gesture as if to say my breath smelled.
"I said to him: 'How can you call me a cunt? You shagged your team-mate's missus, you're a cunt'."
This was a reference to Terry's alleged affair with his then team-mate Wayne Bridge's ex-girlfriend Vanessa Perroncel.
As Ferdinand jogged down the pitch, he made a "slow fist pump" gesture with his right hand, indicating sex. After the match, the Chelsea left-back Ashley Cole told him: "You can't talk to JT like that."
Ferdinand was asked to meet Terry in the away team's dressing room. He said Terry asked him: "Do you think I racially abused you?"
Ferdinand told the court: "I was like: 'No.'...

But at around 7pm, one hour after the game ended, Ferdinand went to the QPR players' lounge. "My girlfriend at the time said to me, did John Terry racially abuse me. I looked at her like she was crazy and said no."


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 9, 2012)

So there's no victim?


----------



## Big Gunz (Jul 9, 2012)

belboid said:


> You really are a thick cunt


 
I was being sacastic tosser!


----------



## xes (Jul 9, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> So there's no victim?


why did you leave the next line out, which completly contradicts the "point" you are trying to make?

I'll pop it in for you.


> She then showed him footage sent to her BlackBerry from YouTube, Ferdinand said, and he believed a racist term had been used.


 
And a few quotes from above what you quoted, which is only half the story.


> Ferdinand said he was not aware of the alleged remarks until after the game, when his then girlfriend showed him YouTube footage on her BlackBerry in the QPR players' lounge.


and...


> The court heard of "industrial language" used by players. Ferdinand told the court being called a "cunt" was fine. "But when someone brings your colour into it, it takes it to another level and it's very hurtful."


----------



## Corax (Jul 9, 2012)

It seems highly unlikely that Terry'll be found guilty of anything.


----------



## belboid (Jul 9, 2012)

Big Gunz said:


> I was being sacastic tosser!


You really are a thick cunt


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 9, 2012)

xes said:


> why did you leave the next line out, which completly contradicts the "point" you are trying to make?
> 
> I'll pop it in for you.
> 
> ...


Apologies, normally when you put quotes (copy and pastes) in this new xenforo forum it is obvious they are quotes, no discolouration (  ) of the article was intended.

I was quoting Ferdinand's testimony of when it happened.

As to your point of Ferdinand being mistaken about what happened as he saw it in real life as to when he was shown a youtube clip, a footballer will be more aware than most that a particular camera angle never shows the full story.

His testimony that he was not racially offended until his girlfriend got angry....that's between him and her.


----------



## belboid (Jul 9, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> His testimony that he was not racially offended until his girlfriend got angry.....


that wasn't his testimony


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 9, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> His testimony that he was not racially offended until his girlfriend got angry....that's between him and her.


 
That is neither what he said or what he said happened. But carry on...


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 9, 2012)




----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 9, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> That is neither what he said or what he said happened. But carry on...


If it's incorrect, don't blame me, blame the guardian. The words in the guardian's posts are in quotes, that would make it testimony.

I didn't purport to give the entire evidence given today, just to point out some stuff that was interesting to me, it isn't required that it has to be confirmed by you. If you have anything to say yourself about it instead of your normal sarcasm...carry on.


----------



## belboid (Jul 9, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> If it's incorrect, don't blame me, blame the guardian. The words in the guardian's posts are in quotes, that would make it testimony.


which you then misunderstood/re-interpretted.  He never said anything like "His testimony that he was not racially offended until his girlfriend got angry"


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 9, 2012)

JT's defence was that he was responding to Ferdinand's accusations when he said it right? Which I suppose is the point of the prosecution's line of questioning


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 10, 2012)

belboid said:


> which you then misunderstood/re-interpretted. He never said anything like "His testimony that he was not racially offended until his girlfriend got angry"


No belboid...I said that.  

As to my interpretation of what happened, I'll leave that up to me, thanks.   So far I've only quoted parts of the testimony...I'll leave the judgementalism to the usuals.


----------



## belboid (Jul 10, 2012)

Fine, you agree your statement is a complete misrepresentation.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 10, 2012)

My statement that he was not racially offended until later is a fact.


----------



## twistedAM (Jul 10, 2012)

From The Mirror:



> Terry, who spoke only to confirm his name, address and date of birth, denies a racially aggravated public order offence which carries a maximum fine of £2,500.


 
Is that all they can impose? OK, if he's found guilty he'll never be England captain again and probably not Chelsea's either, but that's a  lightweight punishment compared to what Suarez got via the FA.
Could never quite understand by one case was dealt with by the FA and the other by the OB.


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> My statement that he was not racially offended until later is a fact.


 
It would have been. Had that been what you said.


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> From The Mirror:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
One case had enough evidence to prosecute. One was one man's word against the other. The CPS got involved on the Terry case as the evidence is clear. 

The FA ought to step in and come down hard if he's found guilty (and if he isn't it's a fucking disgrace) but they probably won't. After all he should never have gone to Euro 2012 either but he did.


----------



## Big Gunz (Jul 10, 2012)

belboid said:


> You really are a thick cunt


 
Just fuck off tosser!


----------



## xes (Jul 10, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> His testimony that he was not racially offended until his girlfriend got angry....that's between him and her.


 No, you're missing out vital bits of information, deliberatly. (IMO) You've picked at the story, and plucked out something which represents your view on it, and not what is actually being said. You are deliberatly miss representing the entire article, and turning it around to say something which it is not saying. Yes, Rio wasn't aware of any racial abuse until he was shown the video, but saw that there was racial abuse when he watched the video. He didn't get offended because his girlfriend got offended, ho got offended because he was racially abused. It's loud in a football stadium, it's easy to miss something being said by someone close by. Not so easy to deny it happened when you can lip read it quite clearly.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> if he's found guilty (and if he isn't it's a fucking disgrace)


 
wut?


----------



## tommers (Jul 10, 2012)

xes said:


> No, you're missing out vital bits of information, deliberatly. (IMO) You've picked at the story, and plucked out something which represents your view on it, and not what is actually being said. You are deliberatly miss representing the entire article, and turning it around to say something which it is not saying. Yes, Rio wasn't aware of any racial abuse until he was shown the video, but saw that there was racial abuse when he watched the video. He didn't get offended because his girlfriend got offended, ho got offended because he was racially abused. It's loud in a football stadium, it's easy to miss something being said by someone close by. Not so easy to deny it happened when you can lip read it quite clearly.


 
Anton.  Not Rio.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> One case had enough evidence to prosecute. One was one man's word against the other. The CPS got involved on the Terry case as the evidence is clear.
> 
> The FA ought to step in and come down hard if he's found guilty (and if he isn't it's a fucking disgrace) but they probably won't. After all he should never have gone to Euro 2012 either but he did.


 
No the CPS got involved because someone reported it to the police, which didn't happen in the Suarez case.


----------



## xes (Jul 10, 2012)

tommers said:


> Anton. Not Rio.






My bad.


----------



## belboid (Jul 10, 2012)

Big Gunz said:


> Just fuck off tosser!


You really are a thick cunt


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 10, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> No the CPS got involved because someone reported it to the police, which didn't happen in the Suarez case.


 
Not enough Spanish speakers in the crowd.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 10, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> If it's incorrect, don't blame me, blame the guardian. The words in the guardian's posts are in quotes, that would make it testimony.
> 
> I didn't purport to give the entire evidence given today, just to point out some stuff that was interesting to me, it isn't required that it has to be confirmed by you. If you have anything to say yourself about it instead of your normal sarcasm...carry on.


 
Any chance you might stop missing the point at some time in this thread, that would help a bit. Ferdinand didn't say what you repeated, it's rather easy to find out what actually happened instead of continuing to get it wrong. Have a try....


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> wut?



Was I not clear?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> Was I not clear?


 
Not unless you think he should be found guilty before he's had his trial, no.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 10, 2012)

Correct me if I've misread this too, but so far Ferdinand's testimony states that he saw the youtube video later, and saw that racist abuse had been used, but not necessarily directed at him (hence Terry's defence of "Oi Anton, I wasn't calling you a black cunt" that is visible on the footage), is that right?

I think Terry's lawyer might find enough wiggle room there.

The cunt.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jul 10, 2012)

A lot of misreading and misunderstanding going on in here


----------



## Balbi (Jul 10, 2012)

I like that Terry sent Ashley Cole to see Ferdinand post-match and tell him "you can't speak to JT like that". As if telling Terry that he's a disgrace for tupping his team mates girl is like lese-majesty. The cunt.


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Not unless you think he should be found guilty before he's had his trial, no.



I think he should be found guilty at his trial. Which was what I said.


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

The Octagon said:


> Correct me if I've misread this too, but so far Ferdinand's testimony states that he saw the youtube video later, and saw that racist abuse had been used, but not necessarily directed at him (hence Terry's defence of "Oi Anton, I wasn't calling you a black cunt" that is visible on the footage), is that right?
> 
> I think Terry's lawyer might find enough wiggle room there.
> 
> The cunt.



If Anton didn't hear or challenge it at the time why would Terry even feel the need to say that?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> I think he should be found guilty at his trial. Which was what I said.


 
Why do you think that then?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 10, 2012)

Balbi said:


> I like that Terry sent Ashley Cole to see Ferdinand post-match and tell him "you can't speak to JT like that". As if telling Terry that he's a disgrace for tupping his team mates girl is like lese-majesty. The cunt.


 
FFS, please stop this misogynistic shite.

Terry did not 'tup' his team mate's girl. Terry and a woman who used to go out with a team mate of Terry's had sex. She was not Bridge's girl, she was a free and independent woman. It's proper nasty how some cunts think that she should bound to Bridge, like we live under the fucking Taliban or some such shite.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 10, 2012)

You're right. And unusually for me, I forgot the disgraceful thing wasn't that it was a betrayal of trust with a team mate, or the mother of that team mates child. It's that John Terry, husband and father, decided to cheat on his wife. It's lazy language in the post above, it's the trust betrayal that's disgraceful not a 'you stole my woman, ug ug' argument at all.

Although every player in the league now knows how to wind Terry up perfectly. Loser.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 10, 2012)

Which is a matter between Mr & Mrs Terry, a situation Mrs Terry seems, as many spouses do, OK to accept. Seriously dislike fuckers moralising on behalf of others when it really is not their place to do so.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 10, 2012)

Don't give a shit. I've made it clear on this thread I fucking hate John Terry for his on the pitch attitude and his off the pitch antics. I'm not even going to try and be even handed, I think he's a massive self-regarding glowing vibrating fucknut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Terry#Controversies

Basically, look at that - it's the hallmarks of a classless fuck, even before you get to the trial.


----------



## Corax (Jul 10, 2012)

This is a criminal trial innit?  So the burden of proof is _'beyond all reasonable doubt'_.  Given that, I can't see there being a gnat's chance of conviction, and the whole thing seems a counter-productive waste of time.

I expect he *is* a nasty racist cunt, but when putting aside my antipathy towards the nasty racist cunt I can't see enough objective evidence of him being a nasty racist cunt in this case.  Which is an undeniable shame, as seeing him properly caught out for being a nasty racist cunt would be a delight.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 10, 2012)

I'm very uneasy about this being a police matter at all, tbh. A club/FA disciplinary matter, sure, but a criminal offence?


----------



## twistedAM (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> One case had enough evidence to prosecute. One was one man's word against the other. The CPS got involved on the Terry case as the evidence is clear.
> 
> The FA ought to step in and come down hard if he's found guilty (and if he isn't it's a fucking disgrace) but they probably won't. After all he should never have gone to Euro 2012 either but he did.


 
Thanks for that.

There is the thing though about presumed innocent until found guilty HOWEVER, didn't Chelsea FC intervene when the hearing date was being held and asked for it to be postponed til after the Prem season was over? 

Would have been much better if this had been dealt with swiftly.

Sorry for asking questions but it's gone on so long I've forgotten some of those kind of details.


----------



## belboid (Jul 10, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> FFS, please stop this misogynistic shite.
> 
> Terry did not 'tup' his team mate's girl. Terry and a woman who used to go out with a team mate of Terry's had sex. She was not Bridge's girl, she was a free and independent woman. It's proper nasty how some cunts think that she should bound to Bridge, like we live under the fucking Taliban or some such shite.


it's not mysoginistic.  Fucking a colleagues wife is never gonna be a good idea, is it?  And its fully shitty behaviour.  That someone else took part in that behaviour doesnt stop it being shitty.  It's not about her being 'bound' to him, it's about not treating your colleagues like shit.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 10, 2012)

TBF Belboid, I went for the cheap slangy approach and in doing so did relegate Veronica Perroncel to something to be tupped rather than an actual person. So Banhoff's right there.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 10, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Don't give a shit. I've made it clear on this thread I fucking hate John Terry for his on the pitch attitude and his off the pitch antics. I'm not even going to try and be even handed, I think he's a massive self-regarding glowing vibrating fucknut.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Terry#Controversies
> 
> Basically, look at that - it's the hallmarks of a classless fuck, even before you get to the trial.


 
Jeepers, look at that list!

1: Fight in a bar at Heathrow. Cleared of all charges.
2: Parking in a disabled bay (in Esher High Street I think).
3: Took money for tours of Chelsea's training ground. The club responded that it was "confident that at no time did Terry ask for or accept money in relation to visits to the training ground."
4: An alledged four month affair with a single woman. _The News of the World_ and the _Mail on Sunday_ subsequently printed apologies to Perroncel for breaching her privacy and stated that the story was "untrue in any case".[84] Perroncel maintains that the alleged affair never took place.
5: The current waste of time and money going down at Westminster Magistrates Court.

So there you have it, he parked in a disabled bay. The hallmark of a classless fuck.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 10, 2012)

belboid said:


> it's not mysoginistic. Fucking a colleagues wife is never gonna be a good idea, is it? And its fully shitty behaviour. That someone else took part in that behaviour doesnt stop it being shitty. It's not about her being 'bound' to him, it's about not treating your colleagues like shit.


 
He did not fuck a colleague's wife. He, allegedly, had sex with a single woman, one who just so happened to have previously had a relationship with a colleague of his. That the story was denied by the woman involved and the papers who broke the story accepted that it never happened is irrelevant here. What is so fucking relevant is that some people seem to think that a single woman should have restrictions on who she spends time with on account of whom she has previously spent time with.

It's a shite attitude.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 10, 2012)

It's grand that the cleared of fight charges is one thing, mocking American tourists just after the 9/11 attacks is the cause. Classless? Yeah a bit.


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Thanks for that.
> 
> There is the thing though about presumed innocent until found guilty HOWEVER, didn't Chelsea FC intervene when the hearing date was being held and asked for it to be postponed til after the Prem season was over?
> 
> ...



No idea about the Chelsea thing but he shouldn't have been playing full stop. He ought to have been suspended until it was resolved just as any of us would in our workplaces


----------



## Corax (Jul 10, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She was not Bridge's girl, she was a free and independent woman.


Hold on a sec - wasn't she Bridge's partner at the time of the affair? That means (unless they were in an open relationship) they'd both chosen to give up a degree of that freedom and independence in exchange for that same commitment from the other. I agree that she wasn't some sort of possession of his, but I don't agree that lying and cheating are somehow the hallmarks of empowerment.

ETA:



> He, allegedly, had sex with a single woman, one who just so happened to have previously had a relationship with a colleague of his.


 
See, I'm genuinely not clear on this part. That was the impression I got at the time, but having just looked back at a couple of news stories it seems the affair happened whilst Bridge and Peroncel were still together...?


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Why do you think that then?



Because I don't think it's ok to go around racially abusing people.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 10, 2012)

Corax said:


> Hold on a sec - wasn't she Bridge's partner at the time of the affair?


 
No, she wasn't. Which kind of invalidates the rest of your post.


----------



## belboid (Jul 10, 2012)

oh yeah, it was just after she'd split from him, wasnt it.  Still rather wanky behaviour


----------



## Balbi (Jul 10, 2012)

He's a role model of restraint, good decision making & integrity 

Or basically, Captain material


----------



## Corax (Jul 10, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> No, she wasn't. Which kind of invalidates the rest of your post.


See edit above. My reaction was the same as yours at the time, but re-reading the news stories they give the impression that it was while they were still together. Deliberately mischievous journalism maybe...?

If they were split, then I agree entirely. I can understand Bridge feeling fairly sick at the thought, but essentially it's none of his business.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 10, 2012)

Corax said:


> See, I'm genuinely not clear on this part. That was the impression I got at the time, but having just looked back at a couple of news stories it seems the affair happened whilst Bridge and Peroncel were still together...?


 
That's the impression the papers tried to portray, to whip up some hate. The very same papers which have since said emphatically that no affair took place.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 10, 2012)

Corax said:


> Hold on a sec - wasn't she Bridge's partner at the time of the affair? That means (unless they were in an open relationship) they'd both chosen to give up a degree of that freedom and independence in exchange for that same commitment from the other. I agree that she wasn't some sort of possession of his, but I don't agree that lying and cheating are somehow the hallmarks of empowerment.
> 
> ETA:
> 
> ...


 
Does it matter? She's still an independent human being capable of making her own decisions. Laying all the blame and righteous indignation at John Terry's feet is classic misogynistic crap. It seems to me that Terry was vilified not so much for a breach of trust and good form as for taking without permission.


----------



## poului (Jul 10, 2012)

Doesn't anyone here genuinely think JT stands alone among Premiership footballers in committing such "dalliance"?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 10, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Does it matter? She's still an independent human being capable of making her own decisions. Laying all the blame and righteous indignation at John Terry's feet is classic misogynistic crap. It seems to me that Terry was vilified not so much for a breach of trust and good form as for taking without permission.


 
Spot on, it was pretty bleak and Bridge refusing to shake Terry's hand just showed what a cunt he was, like he still had some sort of ownership over an ex girfriend.


----------



## belboid (Jul 10, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Spot on, it was pretty bleak and Bridge refusing to shake Terry's hand just showed what a cunt he was, like he still had some sort of ownership over an ex girfriend.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 10, 2012)

Hands up who'd be chuffed to bits if their team leader at work cheated on his husband/wife with your ex-who you had a child with, and then effectively made you change jobs to avoid damaging workplace morale?


----------



## Corax (Jul 10, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Does it matter? She's still an independent human being capable of making her own decisions. Laying all the blame and righteous indignation at John Terry's feet is classic misogynistic crap. It seems to me that Terry was vilified not so much for a breach of trust and good form as for taking without permission.


I don't disagree with that, it was the idea that cheating on a bloke is some sort of feminist empowerment that I had issue with.  Turns out that wasn't what was meant anyway due to journos being dicks, so a redundant point now really.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 10, 2012)

And yes, im being a trolly troll


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 10, 2012)

I would think that premiership footballers and their wives/girlfriends are mostly pretty dreadful people. Terry just gets more attention because of his status, his club, his ability etc. Luis Suarez, already found guilty of racist behaviour during a football match, gets less attention because he's only a second-rate player at a third-rate club.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 10, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Hands up who'd be chuffed to bits if their team leader at work cheated on his husband/wife with your ex-who you had a child with, and then effectively made you change jobs to avoid damaging workplace morale?


 
What if Ashley Cole was much better at your job than you were?


----------



## tommers (Jul 10, 2012)

It didn't happen.  Newspapers printed apologies and everything.

But he IS still a cunt (or prick if you want to be non-sexist about it.)


----------



## peterkro (Jul 10, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I would think that premiership footballers and their wives/girlfriends are mostly pretty dreadful people. Terry just gets more attention because of his status, his club, his ability etc. Luis Suarez, already found guilty of racist behaviour during a football match, gets less attention because he's only a second-rate player at a third-rate club.


I always liked the Cantona approach,brought a house with stone cladding and drove around in a Cortina.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 10, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> What if Ashley Cole was much better at your job than you were?


 
 I'd certainly take his wages for my job.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

peterkro said:


> I always liked the Cantona approach,brought a house with stone cladding and drove around in a Cortina.


Ah, millionaires modesty.


----------



## Corax (Jul 10, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I would think that premiership footballers and their wives/girlfriends are mostly pretty dreadful people. Terry just gets more attention because of his status, his club, _*his ability*_ etc.


lol


----------



## peterkro (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Ah, millionaires modesty.


I'd be more inclined to think he just didn't give a shit.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 10, 2012)

peterkro said:


> I always liked the Cantona approach,brought a house with stone cladding and drove around in a Cortina.


 
And also apparently rode his team-mates wife..


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

peterkro said:


> I'd be more inclined to think he just didn't give a shit.


Great, millionaires not giving a shit - even better.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Ah, millionaires modesty.


 
Now now, let it go....


----------



## peterkro (Jul 10, 2012)

paulhackett said:


> And also apparently rode his team-mates wife..


This may well fall into the "wife as property" thread.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 10, 2012)

peterkro said:


> This may well fall into the "wife as property" thread.


 
Unless you're Trevor Morley


----------



## discokermit (Jul 10, 2012)

i like cantona.


----------



## bromley (Jul 10, 2012)

discokermit said:


> i like cantona.


Should've hit the palace fan harder.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 10, 2012)

bromley said:


> Should've hit the palace fan harder.


my favourite moment in football.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 10, 2012)

belboid said:


>


 
You and all it would seem.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 10, 2012)

bromley said:


> Should've hit the palace fan harder.


he did it for us,


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

paulhackett said:


> And also apparently rode his team-mates wife..



Which is how he arrived at Old Trafford for almost fuck all!

Allez!


----------



## peterkro (Jul 10, 2012)

I think Cantona is one of the sand people,going forward and leaving no tracks in the past.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 10, 2012)

Maybe im not paying close enough attention but the artilces on who said what are really confusing. Ferdinand said the first he knew about it was after the game when his missus showed him the youtube footage, but Terry says he spoke to him after the game.


----------



## belboid (Jul 10, 2012)

'after the game' isnt one fixed point in time. Terry spoke to him, and _then_ Ferdinands gf showed him the footage


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 10, 2012)

If Terry shags Ferdinand's girlfriend....what then?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 10, 2012)

Corax said:


> This is a criminal trial innit? So the burden of proof is _'beyond all reasonable doubt'_. Given that, I can't see there being a gnat's chance of conviction, and the whole thing seems a counter-productive waste of time.
> 
> I expect he *is* a nasty racist cunt, but when putting aside my antipathy towards the nasty racist cunt I can't see enough objective evidence of him being a nasty racist cunt in this case. Which is an undeniable shame, as seeing him properly caught out for being a nasty racist cunt would be a delight.


 
In a nutshell.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jul 10, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If Terry shags Ferdinand's girlfriend....what then?


 
You'll get all white knight about the coverage, that's what.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 10, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If Terry shags Ferdinand's girlfriend....what then?


 
I think a tree falls in the forest.


----------



## tommers (Jul 10, 2012)

Plane takes off.


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

Corax said:


> This is a criminal trial innit? So the burden of proof is _'beyond all reasonable doubt'_. Given that, I can't see there being a gnat's chance of conviction, and the whole thing seems a counter-productive waste of time.
> 
> I expect he *is* a nasty racist cunt, but when putting aside my antipathy towards the nasty racist cunt I can't see enough objective evidence of him being a nasty racist cunt in this case. Which is an undeniable shame, as seeing him properly caught out for being a nasty racist cunt would be a delight.


 
Other than the clear video footage of him shouting 'you facking black cant' at an opponent you mean?


----------



## Maltin (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> Other than the clear video footage of him shouting 'you facking black cant' at an opponent you mean?


Are you an expert lip reader? 

According to the BBC, John Terry's QC said the lip reading experts agreed it was impossible to clarify what was said. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18781322


----------



## belboid (Jul 10, 2012)

whose lip reading experts?

There's.  The prosecutors disagrees.


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

Maltin said:


> Are you an expert lip reader?
> 
> According to the BBC, John Terry's QC said the lip reading experts agreed it was impossible to clarify what was said.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18781322


 
Have you seen the footage?

And the fact Terry admitted saying those words?

You don't have to be any sort of lip reader to see it - it's clear as a fucking bell.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 10, 2012)

belboid said:


> whose lip reading experts?
> 
> There's.  The prosecutors disagrees.


It suggests both agree that it's impossible to clarify not that they agreed to disagree, although it is strange that this is reported as what Terry's QC said rather than what the experts said so it could be a biased view. 

Terry's police interview shows that the police lip reader could only distinguish part of what was said and he disagrees with what she interpreted it as. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/interactive/2012/jul/10/john-terry-police-interview-text


----------



## Maltin (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> Have you seen the footage?
> 
> And the fact Terry admitted saying those words?
> 
> You don't have to be any sort of lip reader to see it - it's clear as a fucking bell.


I've seen the footage posted on this thread. There is apparently more footage though that they've shown in court that I've not seen. 

As per the police statement linked above, it appears that Terry doesn't admit to saying what the police's lip reader claimed he said.


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

Maltin said:


> I've seen the footage posted on this thread. There is apparently more footage though that they've shown in court that I've not seen.
> 
> As per the police statement linked above, it appears that Terry doesn't admit to saying what the police's lip reader claimed he said.


 
I haven't looked at what's on this thread. I've seen a few where he clearly says 'you fucking black cunt' It's clear as owt.

I'm trying to get the link to work. Tried it from two other forums as well but the arrow thing on the right of the screen disappears so I can't scroll down. 

ETA - Got it working now. 'Yeah, yeah, a black cunt? you knobhead' 

Whoever did the transcripts wants fucking shooting an' all. The spelling is atrocious.


----------



## belboid (Jul 10, 2012)

Maltin said:


> It suggests both agree that it's impossible to clarify not that they agreed to disagree, although it is strange that this is reported as what Terry's QC said rather than what the experts said so it could be a biased view.


It's not strange - because it was specifically the view of Terry's experts.

The prosecution's witness (or, at least, who I assume is the prosecution's witness) disagreed:
"Lip reader and sign language interpreter Susan Whitewood concurred the bad language had been employed."


----------



## Maltin (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> Whoever did the transcripts wants fucking shooting an' all. The spelling is atrocious.


I like the bit where the policeman says he wasn't being "faceaus". At least they didn't spell it "faecesus".


----------



## Maltin (Jul 10, 2012)

belboid said:


> The prosecution's witness (or, at least, who I assume is the prosecution's witness) disagreed:
> "Lip reader and sign language interpreter Susan Whitewood concurred the bad language had been employed."


She's not much of a fucking expert if that's all she concurred judging by the amount of times fuck and cunt have been used in court the last 2 days.


----------



## Corax (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> Other than the clear video footage of him shouting 'you facking black cant' at an opponent you mean?


Which is pretty obviously not enough on its own to convict him.

If speaking or writing the words alone was enough, then we could all merrily condemn you for the above.  But it's not, because I doubt this is a strict liability offence so Mens Rea has to be shown as well.

If it were a civil case then there might be a reasonable chance of him being done for it, but highly unlikely in criminal court IMO.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 10, 2012)

belboid said:


> It's not strange - because it was specifically the view of Terry's experts.
> 
> The prosecution's witness (or, at least, who I assume is the prosecution's witness) disagreed:
> "Lip reader and sign language interpreter Susan Whitewood concurred the bad language had been employed."


unsurprisingly, she admitted in court that lip reading is guesswork to a degree. 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/john-terry-racism-trial-chelsea-1138087

And that it couldn't always be accurate. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ice-racial-insult-was-sarcastic-response.html


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

Corax said:


> Which is pretty obviously not enough on its own to convict him.
> 
> If speaking or writing the words alone was enough, then we could all merrily condemn you for the above. But it's not, because I doubt this is a strict liability offence so Mens Rea has to be shown as well.
> 
> If it were a civil case then there might be a reasonable chance of him being done for it, but highly unlikely in criminal court IMO.


 
There is a big difference between me writing the above as quotes whilst discussing what he said and shouting it at an opponent on a football field. Clearly. 

To even suggest otherwise id ridiculous Corax. The evidence is clear as anything.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 10, 2012)

Corax said:


> If it were a civil case then there might be a reasonable chance of him being done for it, but highly unlikely in criminal court IMO.


 
I'd be surprised even in a civil court tbh. They operate on balance of probability, and give Terry's record of working closely with black players over the years with no issues, his supporting of African charities etc., I'd imagine that this is a total non-case.


----------



## belboid (Jul 10, 2012)

Maltin said:


> She's not much of a fucking expert if that's all she concurred judging by the amount of times fuck and cunt have been used in court the last 2 days.


It was a specific answer to a specific question - she agreed that _the_ bad language had been employed.  ie the specific bad language she had been asked about, the racist 'strong sexual swear words' language.  She said he said it.

That it is an imprecise art is true of 99.957% of all such testimony.  It doesn't make it irrelevant


----------



## Maltin (Jul 10, 2012)

Corax said:


> If it were a civil case then there might be a reasonable chance of him being done for it, but highly unlikely in criminal court IMO.


it was mentioned yesterday that Ferdinand's PR agent told the police that if the CPS didn't charge Terry that they would make a civil claim. I suppose that they still might after the court case.


----------



## belboid (Jul 10, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I'd be surprised even in a civil court tbh. They operate on balance of probability, and give Terry's record of working closely with black players over the years with no issues, his supporting of African charities etc., I'd imagine that this is a total non-case.


So you think he'd have to be guilty of hating all black people all the time before he could possibly be convicted of throwing racist abuse around.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

Maltin said:


> it was mentioned yesterday that Ferdinand's PR agent told the police that if the CPS didn't charge Terry that they would make a civil claim. I suppose that they still might after the court case.


By who and where?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 10, 2012)

belboid said:


> So you think he'd have to be guilty of hating all black people all the time before he could possibly be convicted of throwing racist abuse around.


 
No, I said that given a racist free past, and plenty of evidence to show he works with and supports others of all hues, on the balance of probability he didn't viciously call Ferdinand a black cunt and the incident was pretty much as terry describes.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> The evidence is clear as anything.


 
It's not clear at all. Terry is arguing context.


----------



## Corax (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> To even suggest otherwise id ridiculous Corax.


It's not at all.  I think your're being clouded by your opinion of Terry tbh.  'Knowing' something and proving it are not the same thing.  However much you, me, or anyone else here may want him to be exiled on the moon, it's unlikely to happen on the evidence presented.


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> It's not clear at all. Terry is arguing context.


 
Yeah, I've seen.

The context being that he was accused of saying those words by someone who didn't even know about it until after the game.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> Yeah, I've seen.
> 
> The context being that he was accused of saying those words by someone who didn't even know about it until after the game.


I expect he'll get asked if he said those words as soon as the defence get a chance.  

You've confused saying those words with knowing about something else


----------



## belboid (Jul 10, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> No, I said that given a racist free past, and plenty of evidence to show he works with and supports others of all hues, on the balance of probability he didn't viciously call Ferdinand a black cunt and the incident was pretty much as terry describes.


 
I've never found the argument 'but he gives to charidee' to be convincing of anything, tbh. And lots of racists dont have problems with the black people they get to know.

You'd have to be the worlds biggest moron to reply 'oi, do you think I just called you a black cunt?' when (supposedly) accused of doing so. Which is obviously his best defense (that he _is_ a moron).


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

Corax said:


> It's not at all. I think your're being clouded by your opinion of Terry tbh. 'Knowing' something and proving it are not the same thing. However much you, me, or anyone else here may want him to be exiled on the moon, it's unlikely to happen on the evidence presented.


 
My opinion of Terry is immaterial here. He's a gobshite regardless.

The footage which clearly shows him saying those words are the only thing influencing my feelings on this one - it's why I didn't comment on the Suarez/Evra thing (despite having much stronger opinions about those two players, being a red). The Suarez/Evra thing wasn't crystal clear. I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. (Well, I had, I was at the game but I've no idea what the evil buck toothed racist Suarez said to the innocent victim Evra).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> My opinion of Terry is immaterial here. He's a gobshite regardless.
> 
> The footage which clearly shows him saying those words are the only thing influencing my feelings on this one - it's why I didn't comment on the Suarez/Evra thing (despite having much stronger opinions about those two players, being a red). The Suarez/Evra thing wasn't crystal clear. I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. (Well, I had, I was at the game but I've no idea what the evil buck toothed racist Suarez said to the innocent victim Evra).


Oh dear.


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I expect he'll get asked if he said those words as soon as the defence get a chance.
> 
> You've confused saying those words with knowing about something else


 
No I haven't.


----------



## Corax (Jul 10, 2012)

Again, saying the words is not enough on its own.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

> the innocent victim Evra


 
Let's play.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> No I haven't.


Yes, you have. All your posts seem confused and a bit random to be honest.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 10, 2012)

belboid said:


> You'd have to be the worlds biggest moron to reply 'oi, do you think I just called you a black cunt?' when (supposedly) accused of doing so. Which is obviously his best defense (that he _is_ a moron).


 
I think we can all agree that he ain't no brain of Britain.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

wtf do you even think this means:



> The context being that he was accused of saying those words by someone who didn't even know about it until after the game.


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, you have. All your posts seem confused and a bit random to be honest.


 
I haven't at all. 

And my posts are quite clear.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 10, 2012)

belboid said:


> It was a specific answer to a specific question - she agreed that _the_ bad language had been employed.  ie the specific bad language she had been asked about, the racist 'strong sexual swear words' language.  She said he said it.
> 
> That it is an imprecise art is true of 99.957% of all such testimony.  It doesn't make it irrelevant


The fact that she can't decipher all of what was said does make her evidence largely irrelevant to me, especially if all she could confirm is that the words fuck, black and cunt were said.


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> wtf do you even think this means:


 
Terry's defence is that on the field Ferdinand said 'called me a black cunt' to which he responded 'yeah, yeah, black cunt? You fucking knobhead'

Ferdinand didn't even know Terry had said those words after the game.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> By who and where?


Police notes according to this report. 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...inand-accused-me-of-being-racist-7932033.html


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> I haven't at all.
> 
> And my posts are quite clear.


_The context being that he was accused of saying those words by someone who didn't even know about it until after the game. That's why he's guilty._


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> Terry's defence is that on the field Ferdinand said 'called me a black cunt' to which he responded 'yeah, yeah, black cunt? You fucking knobhead'
> 
> Ferdinand didn't even know Terry had said those words after the game.


Think it through then...come on...


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> _The context being that he was accused of saying those words by someone who didn't even know about it until after the game. That's why he's guilty._


 
Glad you agree.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> Glad you agree.


I rest my case.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 10, 2012)

Maltin said:


> Police notes according to this report.
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...inand-accused-me-of-being-racist-7932033.html


I like this quote from that report




			
				Standard said:
			
		

> DC David Doherty said that Mr Rigby was used as a go-between because Ferdinand “lives a very different lifestyle to a normal person - all he does is play football and outside that he is very unstructured in his lifestyle and is very difficult to get hold of.”



Sounds a bit like his brother Rio.


----------



## Corax (Jul 10, 2012)

Maltin said:


> I like this quote from that report
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
IIRC the anti-doping people found that as well.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 10, 2012)

That was Rio.


----------



## Corax (Jul 10, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> That was Rio.


So it was.  Doh.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 10, 2012)

Close enough.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 10, 2012)

I'm impressed by how many trained lipreaders there are on these boards tbh. Many also appear to be qualified judges and/or entire 12-person juries in their own right. Like I say, impressive.

Terry will get let off. You should probably all make your peace with that now. Whether he actually did it or not is not really relevant, particularly as the whole thing has been hyped up, overanalysed and prejudged by everyone and his mum for months now. Justice isn't really an option at this point, no matter what the facts of the matter may be.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 10, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm impressed by how many trained lipreaders there are on these boards tbh. Many also appear to be qualified judges and/or entire 12-person juries in their own right. Like I say, impressive.
> 
> Terry will get let off.


Are you a qualified magistrate as well then?


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Terry will get let off.


 
Yep. No doubt about it. Then I reckon the FA will bottle it as well. Which given the precedent they set with the Suarez case is ridiculous.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> Yep. No doubt about it. Then I reckon the FA will bottle it as well. Which given the precedent they set with the Suarez case is ridiculous.


What precedent did they set with the Suarez case?


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

Maltin said:


> What precedent did they set with the Suarez case?


 
Suarez said he said those words and his defence was context. The FA deemed that unacceptable and banned him for eight games.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:
			
		

> Suarez said he said those words and his defence was context. The FA deemed that unacceptable and banned him for eight games.



they write law now?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

This is worse than the drugs forum.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> Suarez said he said those words and his defence was context. The FA deemed that unacceptable and banned him for eight games.


 
Different.

Suarez' defence was that the term "negrito" wasn't necessarily racist in his native land (Uruguay). Thing is, he didn't say it Uruguay, he said it here.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> Suarez said he said those words and his defence was context. The FA deemed that unacceptable and banned him for eight games.


I don't think the FA concluded that context as a defence was unacceptable. They concluded that Suarez used those words and they were directed at Evra to wind him up and he should have known those words were, in their opinion, unacceptable. 

The cases are different. One does not form a precedent for the other.

If Terry is found guilty, I expect the FA to take action against Terry. If he is found not guilty, I wouldn't be surprised if they took action against both players, perhaps for bringing the game into disrepute.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

And the fa do not write common law. Their stuff is bollocks to with precedents. They can't be cited


----------



## newbie (Jul 10, 2012)

Man City fans appear to have someone in the court reporting blow by blow

http://www.mancityfans.net/mcfnet/viewtopic.php?f=119&t=43443&p=444695


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 10, 2012)

Maltin said:


> If Terry is found guilty, I expect the FA to take action against Terry. If he is found not guilty, I wouldn't be surprised if they took action against both players, perhaps for bringing the game into disrepute.


 
If they start disciplining players for cunting each other off on the pitch they'll be hardly any left playing.


----------



## josef1878 (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> banned him for eight games.



He deserved that ban for knocking us out of the FA Cup. Distin deserved 16 games though for his back pass


----------



## 1927 (Jul 10, 2012)

peterkro said:


> I always liked the Cantona approach,brought a house with stone cladding and drove around in a Cortina.


 
Where did he bring the house to?


----------



## 1927 (Jul 10, 2012)

Maltin said:


> Are you an expert lip reader?
> 
> According to the BBC, John Terry's QC said the lip reading experts agreed it was impossible to clarify what was said.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18781322


 
the reports I read this morning said that the lip reading experts could not agree on what was said BEFORE the f'ing black Cunt bit, not on the use of those 3 words.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 10, 2012)

> The reports I read this morning said that the lip reading experts could not agree on what was said BEFORE the f'ing black Cunt bit, not on the use of those 3 words.


 
Terry doesn't dispute that he used the words "fucking black cunt".


----------



## 1927 (Jul 10, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I'd be surprised even in a civil court tbh. They operate on balance of probability, and give Terry's record of working closely with black players over the years with no issues, his supporting of African charities etc., I'd imagine that this is a total non-case.


 
Thats like saying Ron Atkinson isnt a racist cos he emplyed several black players!


----------



## Glitter (Jul 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> they write law now?



No. The FA charges will be disciplinary after the court case. 

Obviously.


----------



## 1927 (Jul 11, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Terry doesn't dispute that he used the words "fucking black cunt".


 
I know, he used it to respond to an allegation of making a racist comment, 4 hours before he was actually accused!


----------



## peterkro (Jul 11, 2012)

1927 said:


> Where did he bring the house to?


Bought.


----------



## baffled (Jul 11, 2012)

1927 said:
			
		

> I know, he used it to respond to an allegation of making a racist comment, 4 hours before he was actually accused!



Could be he misheard, could be he's lying or it could be that Ferdinand is lying.

Given that Ferdinand was throwing a few cunts around himself it's quite possible he misheard and equally it's quite possible he's just lying.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

1927 said:


> I know, he used it to respond to an allegation of making a racist comment, 4 hours before he was actually accused!


This isn't quite the legal killer that you seem to think it is - as noted, someone (cole) could testify that he though that he heard AF say those words/then then told terry.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 11, 2012)

1927 said:


> I know, he used it to respond to an allegation of making a racist comment, 4 hours before he was actually accused!


 
And?


----------



## Maltin (Jul 11, 2012)

Apparently Terry had to repeat a song in court that Liverpool fans sing about his mum loving Scouse cock. 

Anyone here who can enlighten us with the words to the song?

Ashley Cole currently giving evidence. As Butchers notes above, could be quite key.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 11, 2012)

"she loves the scouse cock 
she loves the scouse cock 
John Terry's maaaaa .... ooohhh she loves the scouse cock"


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

Maltin said:
			
		

> Apparently Terry had to repeat a song in court that Liverpool fans sing about his mum loving Scouse cock.
> 
> Anyone here who can enlighten us with the words to the song?
> 
> Ashley Cole currently giving evidence. As Butchers notes above, could be quite key.


Cole says he heard af use the words black and cunt to jt.


----------



## baffled (Jul 11, 2012)

Some reporting that he heard Bridgey, black and cunt and others reporting it as Bridgey or black and cunt.

He more or less corroborates Terry's on pitch testimony.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 11, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> "she loves the scouse cock
> she loves the scouse cock
> John Terry's maaaaa .... ooohhh she loves the scouse cock"


Seems a bit strange to ask him to sing/explain that in court!


----------



## belboid (Jul 11, 2012)

baffled said:


> Some reporting that he heard Bridgey, black and cunt and others reporting it as Bridgey or black and cunt.
> 
> He more or less corroborates Terry's arse covering testimony.


Corrected for you


----------



## peterkro (Jul 11, 2012)

Fuck he's a slimy bastard (Terry that is).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

When AF is asked if he used those words that's when we will know whose doing what here. If he denies it then either he or cole and terry are lying.


----------



## tommers (Jul 11, 2012)

I believe Terry. And it effing well pains me to say it.

I don't think anybody's lying. It's just a misunderstanding.

Oh, except Cole I suppose.


----------



## baffled (Jul 11, 2012)

He's supposedly denied saying anything to Terry until video evidence emerged showing him using cunt liberally along with the Bridge stuff, he then allegedly amended his statement to match what was on the video.

It was on these grounds that Terry's QC tried to have the case thrown out yesterday.

Edit;not just on those grounds I should add.


----------



## baffled (Jul 11, 2012)

What I posted above isn't strictly correct as I was recalling it from memory of tweets, found the following which is what the QC actually said.

*Terry defence: 'Anton's evidence is unreliable'*

by Juliet Bremner: ITV News Correspondent
Mr Carter-Stephenson argues the lip readers could not agree if John Terry said 'YOU black c###' or 'a black c###' and if they cannot do this there is a range of interpretation which makes it impossible to be sure what was said.
He says that Anton Ferdinand is unreliable and was called to prove a negative. His evidence showed only that he said nothing to provoke what John Terry is alleged to have said.
He was someone who's evidence cannot be relied upon, he argues, because he told the police he had not barged into Terry and the footage clearly shows he did just that.
In his police statement he said only he made an obscene gesture, there was no mention of the repeated taunts about Terry's alleged affair with a friend's girlfriend.
According to Mr Carter-Stephenson, Anton Ferdinand may have been saying something that was misconstrued by Mr Terry. He concedes that he used the word 'c###' but cannot precisely recall what he said.
He also refers to the confusion about what was said to whom in the dressing room and exactly what they meant.

from here http://www.itv.com/news/story/2012-...-accused-of-racially-abusing-anton-ferdinand/

he did also say that Ferdinand's evidence had expanded _to what we now know is on video, edited that last part since posting._


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Cole says he heard af use the words black and cunt to jt.


 



			
				baffled said:
			
		

> Some reporting that he heard Bridgey, black and cunt and others reporting it as Bridgey or black and cunt.


 
That'll be that then. 

Will Anton be done for perjury?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 11, 2012)

tommers said:


> I don't think anybody's lying. It's just a misunderstanding.


 
It's not a misunderstanding. Someone's lying.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

To add more to the pot - Cole reckons he's a long standing family friend of the Ferdinand's as well. Not any more you ain't mate.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2012)

I can't bear John Terry but this trial is a fucking farce.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 11, 2012)

My word


----------



## tommers (Jul 11, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> It's not a misunderstanding. Someone's lying.


 
I hadn't seen the stuff about Ferdinand's statement. But it's conceivable that both sides have just misheard each other.  Both of them seem to not be able to hear somebody shouting at them from 3 feet away, so getting the odd word wrong is believable.

Cole saying he heard what AF said could just be him protecting his team mate. I can picture the 2 stupid idiots plotting it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 11, 2012)

tommers said:


> But it's conceivable that both sides have just misheard each other.


 
I can't see how. Ferdinand has categorically denied saying those words, hasn't he? JT and AC have said he did.



> Cole saying he heard what AF said could just be him protecting his team mate. I can picture the 2 stupid idiots plotting it.


 
To be honest I can't. Perjury is an extremely serious offence and as fucking thick as he is, I really doubt that AC would be prepared to risk ending a highly successful career and doing some _proper_ time, just to save JT £2500 and a bit of reputation. Even if he were it's hard to imagine that a lawyer somewhere wouldn't strongly advise him not to.


----------



## baffled (Jul 11, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> I can't see how. Ferdinand has categorically denied saying those words, hasn't he? JT and AC have said he did.


 
Ferdinand now admits using cunt which does open up the possibility of mishearing.


----------



## tommers (Jul 11, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> I can't see how. Ferdinand has categorically denied saying those words, hasn't he? JT and AC have said he did.


 
Neither of them seem to hear anything that the other said to them.  AF said he didn't hear the offending terms, which Terry admits saying.  They were shouting insults at each other, liberal use of the C-word, why can't they mishear?





> To be honest I can't. Perjury is an extremely serious offence and as fucking thick as he is, I really doubt that AC would be prepared to risk ending a highly successful career and doing some _proper_ time, just to save JT £2500 and a bit of reputation. Even if he were it's hard to imagine that a lawyer somewhere wouldn't strongly advise him not to.


 
We'll have to agree to differ on exactly how stupid Ashley Cole is.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 11, 2012)

tommers said:


> Neither of them seem to hear anything that the other said to them. AF said he didn't hear the offending terms, which Terry admits saying. They were shouting insults at each other, liberal use of the C-word, why can't they mishear?


 
But Anton's not just saying he didn't hear something, he's also saying that he didn't SAY something that at least two other people are saying he did. 



> We'll have to agree to differ on exactly how stupid Ashley Cole is.


 
Fair enough!


----------



## tommers (Jul 11, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> But Anton's not just saying he didn't hear something, he's also saying that he didn't SAY something that at least two other people are saying he did.


 
Yeah sure, but he could have not said it, but called Terry some other kind of cunt. Terry mishears that and responds by asking Ferdinand if he's accusing him of calling him a black cunt (which Ferdinand also doesn't hear). Nobody's lying, it's just that Terry's got the wrong end of the stick. (This is his defence, isn't it?)

TBH, I once thought that a girl chatting me up in a club wanted to sell me T-Shirts, so I can sympathise.


----------



## tommers (Jul 11, 2012)

God, I'm arguing for John Terry.  Kill me now.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2012)

This trial is like a load of argumentative pissheads trying to trying to remember exactly what they were arguing about six months ago.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 11, 2012)

That man city fans website that Is giving a running commentary of the case that someone linked to earlier has some strange extracts from Cole's evidence. 

Apparently Cole didn't hear Ferdinand say anything, he just lip read it!



> Cole says he didn't hear Terry say anything. Concedes he didn't hear Ferdinand say anything either just read his lips.
> 
> Pros: but you were able to hear what Anton said 20 yards away?
> 
> ...



Also the magistrate told Cole to stand up when giving evidence but Cole said he wanted to remain seated.

And then this bizarre exchange:



> Prosecutor: "You used to play for Arsenal, nobody makes any noise at the Emirates do they?" Cole: "Am I supposed to laugh at that?" [LAUGHTER in court]
> 
> Cole:'I would say Loftus Road is not as loud as the Emirates'
> 
> ...


----------



## tommers (Jul 11, 2012)

Maltin said:


> Apparently Cole didn't hear Ferdinand say anything, he just lip read it!


 
 

See spymaster?  See!!!


----------



## Maltin (Jul 11, 2012)

Another couple of points from his commentary:

Drogba whose charity Terry has quoted as helping during the trial didn't sign a statement in support of him

Jon Obi Mikel who was next [to] Terry when he shouted words that brought him to trial also didn't sign a statement in support of Chelsea captain


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 11, 2012)

Maltin said:


> And then this bizarre exchange:


 
The prosecution just got outsmarted by Ashley Cole. Surely this trial couldn't get any worse?!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 11, 2012)

tommers said:


> See spymaster? See!!!


 
Curiouser and curiouser.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 11, 2012)

It's childishly amusing to read this uncensored on the BBC website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18771554


----------



## Corax (Jul 11, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> I can't see how. Ferdinand has categorically denied saying those words, hasn't he? JT and AC have said he did.
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest I can't. Perjury is an extremely serious offence and as fucking thick as he is, I really doubt that AC would be prepared to risk ending a highly successful career and doing some _proper_ time, just to save JT £2500 and a bit of reputation. Even if he were it's hard to imagine that a lawyer somewhere wouldn't strongly advise him not to.





tommers said:


> Neither of them seem to hear anything that the other said to them. AF said he didn't hear the offending terms, which Terry admits saying. They were shouting insults at each other, liberal use of the C-word, why can't they mishear?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not just about stupidity, it's also about a macho football culture with cliched and possibly misguided concepts of 'loyalty' to your mates.


----------



## Corax (Jul 11, 2012)

Maltin said:


> And then this bizarre exchange:


Unless the prosecutor had some amazing trick up his sleeve, that's a fucking pathetic line/style of questioning.


----------



## alsoknownas (Jul 11, 2012)

Corax said:


> Unless the prosecutor had some amazing trick up his sleeve, that's a fucking pathetic line/style of questioning.


He's just trying to wind-up the witness and knock him off-balance emotionally. He was basically doing the same thing to Anton F. earlier in the trial - and it worked .


----------



## belboid (Jul 11, 2012)

The prosecutor tried to wind up his own key witness??!!


----------



## Hollis (Jul 11, 2012)

tommers said:


> God, I'm arguing for John Terry. Kill me now.


 Its certainly bizarre - will there be a DVD of proceedings released afterwards..


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2012)

I love the final line from the Guardian report



> A complaint of racism was made by an off-duty police officer watching the game on television.


----------



## tommers (Jul 11, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> I love the final line from the Guardian report



That lot are never off duty.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 11, 2012)

You're entitled to face your accuser in court, aren't you?  That plod should be brought in to testify.   And if the case fails, charged with wasting police time.

Do the police _honestly_ investigate every allegation of verbal abuse during a football game?


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 11, 2012)

Have to agree with Ashley Cole that this should never be in court, complete waste of public money.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 11, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> You're entitled to face your accuser in court, aren't you?  That plod should be brought in to testify.   And if the case fails, charged with wasting police time.
> 
> Do the police _honestly_ investigate every allegation of verbal abuse during a football game?


According to the earlier reports, Ferdinand and his PR agent wanted the charges pressed so it's not just that officer's complaint that led to this going to court.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 11, 2012)

We've had a lot of written presentations from footballers saying he has never displayed racism, where are the presentations saying he has?   Chelsea alone has had many who could have picked up on such, let alone the rest of the PL.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 12, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> We've had a lot of written presentations from footballers saying he has never displayed racism, where are the presentations saying he has? Chelsea alone has had many who could have picked up on such, let alone the rest of the PL.


 
don't quite understand the point you are trying to make? if there are not any why should there be any?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 12, 2012)

Well...if he's a known racist, footballers or others could present a statement to the judge in the same way that others have presented statements saying he is not.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2012)

You haven't followed the prosecution case.  They accept he is not generallt a racist, but contend that he knowingly used racist language in order to wind up an opponent.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 12, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Have to agree with Ashley Cole


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 12, 2012)

belboid said:


> You haven't followed the prosecution case. They accept he is not generallt a racist, but contend that he knowingly used racist language in order to wind up an opponent.


A professional of many years used racist language to wind someone up but they couldn't hear it?   Not very professional.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2012)

So?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 12, 2012)

JT is one of the best centre-half's this country has ever produced. He plays with, has captained, and mentored, some of the best black players in football.

He's a thick fucker, but I don't believe he's a racist.

If someone accused me of calling him a "black cunt" on the pitch, I'd say ....

"black cunt?"  "ya fucking knobhead!     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





"


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2012)

I wouldn't want to see people getting away with racist abusr, and i do think JT is a twat of the highest order, but this sounds like a playground argument where no one can prove anything.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 12, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Well...if he's a known racist, footballers or others could present a statement to the judge in the same way that others have presented statements saying he is not.


 
Who has  said that he is a known racist?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 12, 2012)

more genius words from Terry 
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...ase-please-could-you-repeat-that-7936075.html



			
				standard said:
			
		

> In a hilarious misunderstanding, John Terry was asked to repeat evidence that he had been sent off four times in his career.
> “Can you say, please, four times?” asked his QC, George Carter-Stephenson.
> “Please, please, please, please,” Terry responded.
> Guffaws of laughter broke out around the courtroom at the misunderstanding, which was a result of the judge asking Terry to speak up.
> The footballer appeared confused by response from the courtroom.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 12, 2012)

I've changed my mind, bringing the case to court and the associated expense is worth it for that


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2012)

What a shambles, total waste of time and money.  Thing is if it had just been left to the FA they may have found him guilty but this is never going to wash in court and therefore the FA will obliged to clear him as well.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2012)

They wont be obliged at all.  As a criminal case its won/lost based upon beyond all reasonable doubt.  FA goes on the balance of probabilities.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jul 12, 2012)

I actually felt a little sorry for him with that. I think I probably would have responded in the same way.....


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 12, 2012)

belboid said:


> They wont be obliged at all.


 
They will though. And rightly so.


----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> What a shambles, total waste of time and money. Thing is if it had just been left to the FA they may have found him guilty but this is never going to wash in court and therefore the FA will obliged to clear him as well.


 
So can Terry then press charges against anton for slander?

it's been clear from the very get-go there's no case here and altho he's undoubtedly a cunt, so is anton ferdinand for going through with this bullshit.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 12, 2012)

Is it being driven by Anton though? He seems a pretty reluctant witness from what I've read of his questioning / testimony.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 12, 2012)

Thought the complaint was made by some off duty plod.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2012)

gabi said:


> So can Terry then press charges against anton for slander?


 
No, I very much doubt you can prosecute someone for slander for what is said in court.  Anyway what has Ferdinand actually said, 'I didnt hear it but that video looks a bit dodge'?. 

Isnt that what everyone is saying?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2012)

belboid said:


> They wont be obliged at all. As a criminal case its won/lost based upon beyond all reasonable doubt. FA goes on the balance of probabilities.


 
I know what you are saying but what do you think the FA will do?

For me I find it highly unlikely (as in no chance at all) that the FA will ping him if he is cleared in court.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2012)

gabi said:


> So can Terry then press charges against anton for slander?
> 
> it's been clear from the very get-go there's no case here and altho he's undoubtedly a cunt, so is anton ferdinand for going through with this bullshit.


Is slander a crime?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 12, 2012)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Thought the complaint was made by some off duty plod.


If Ferdinand had said 'no, I don't want to press charges', there would have been no case, though.

tbh there still is no case. This is a total joke - I called him a cunt, and he called me a black cunt. Sorry, it is wrong to bring race into any argument, but criminal?


----------



## Dandred (Jul 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If Ferdinand had said 'no, I don't want to press charges', there would have been no case, though.
> 
> tbh there still is no case. This is a total joke - I called him a cunt, and he called me a black cunt. Sorry, it is wrong to bring race into any argument, but criminal?


 
The police can still charge some even if the offended person doesn't want to press charges afaik.....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If Ferdinand had said 'no, I don't want to press charges', there would have been no case, though.
> 
> tbh there still is no case. This is a total joke - I called him a cunt, and he called me a black cunt. Sorry, it is wrong to bring race into any argument, but criminal?


Have you even been following this? That is not Terry's defence at all. He doesn't admit calling AF a black cunt - that he brought race into it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Have you even been following this?


Yes. And I think the case is a complete joke. This should be a work disciplinary matter, not a criminal one.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes. And I think the case is a complete joke. This should be a work disciplinary matter, not a criminal one.


My point was that you appear to think Tery has admitted calling AF a black cunt and has offered the excuse that he was called a cunt by AF. He hasn't admitted it at all though.


----------



## twistedAM (Jul 12, 2012)

Dandred said:


> The police can still charge some even if the offended person doesn't want to press charges afaik.....


 
Same here. I thought it was the off duty cop and all the youtube vids that made the CPS feel like they had a case.

Have a feeling that Anton could have been advised a little better on this but on the other hand don't know if there is much he could have done when the media were stirring up the Rio-Terry story prior to EURO 2012.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 12, 2012)

This basically lost us EURO 2012


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 12, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> This basically lost us EURO 2012


 
You think Rio could have taken a better penalty than Cashley?


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 12, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> You think Rio could have taken a better penalty than Cashley?


 
He'd have merked it


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> This basically lost us EURO 2012


Waheey! A fresh excuse for England!


----------



## twistedAM (Jul 12, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> This basically lost us EURO 2012


 

Jagielka-Lescott > Ferdinand, R-Terry


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2012)

> In a hilarious misunderstanding, John Terry was asked to repeat evidence that he had been sent off four times in his career.
> 
> “Can you say, please, four times?” asked his QC, George Carter-Stephenson.
> “Please, please, please, please,” Terry responded.
> ...


 
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...ase-please-could-you-repeat-that-7936075.html


----------



## ddraig (Jul 12, 2012)

oi guv! eat my post!  #419


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 12, 2012)

John Terry's going to wear his full chelsea kit tomorrow to court, just in case he wins.


----------



## deadringer (Jul 13, 2012)

If it's a UEFA edict that he does, he better had I suppose, as well as any other substitutes.


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> John Terry's going to wear his full chelsea kit tomorrow to court, just in case he wins.


With shinpads.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 13, 2012)

Verdict due in 10 mins.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 13, 2012)

Magistrate's verdict:
Issue is not whether Terry is a racist - lots of character witnesses to say he is not. Issue is whether he uttered the words as an insult.
Ferdinand had no reason to lie. No doubts about his integrity. I find Ferdinand to be a believable witness. Ferdinand was brave to give evidence.


----------



## Yelkcub (Jul 13, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> John Terry's going to wear his full chelsea kit tomorrow to court, just in case he wins.


 
I dread to think how he might dress if he loses....


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 13, 2012)

Impossible to be sure what words were spoken.

Looks like not guilty.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2012)

More's the fucking pity


----------



## gabi (Jul 13, 2012)

What a stupid fucking trial


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 13, 2012)

Nobody has been able to show he was lying. He is credible and has been consistent throughout.


----------



## peterkro (Jul 13, 2012)

May I say before the verdict Terry is a racist cunt whatever the verdict.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 13, 2012)

still a cunt though, if not a proven racist cunt


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 13, 2012)

Not guilty.


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2012)

All witnesses 'credible' - he's got off


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 13, 2012)

Not guilty


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 13, 2012)

An utter waste of taxpayers' money.


----------



## Utopia (Jul 13, 2012)

Aquitted.
Justice.
Unreliable witness/s.


----------



## gabi (Jul 13, 2012)

I assumed they must have had a second camera angle in order to bring the case. But. no. they only had the one we all saw, which was very very unclear due to ashley cole walking in front of it just as he said 'i didnt call you...'

fucking useless.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 13, 2012)

the nway this was handled, there should have been no way he could have been found guilty based on reasonable doubt.


----------



## Utopia (Jul 13, 2012)

gabi said:


> I assumed they must have had a second camera angle in order to bring the case. But. no. they only had the one we all saw, which was very very unclear due to ashley cole walking in front of it just as he said 'i didnt call you...'
> 
> fucking useless.


 

Well the fact they could see him saying "i didnt call you.." shows the context to which he was saying/repeating the racist term.


----------



## gabi (Jul 13, 2012)

no, they couldn't see him saying those crucial words, that's the point. all you can see on the clip is him saying 'fucking black cunt'


----------



## Utopia (Jul 13, 2012)

Alison Saunders, Chief Crown Prosecutor for London, 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. The Chief Magistrate agreed that Mr Terry had a case to answer, but having heard all of the evidence he acquitted Mr Terry of a racially aggravated offence. That is justice being done and we respect the Chief Magistrate’s decision.”_​


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2012)

Utopia said:


> Unreliable witness/s.


the judge said explicitly they were all reliable witnesses


Utopia said:


> Well the fact they could see him saying "i didnt call you.." shows the context to which he was saying/repeating the racist term.


and he also said there was no clarity about what words were used


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2012)

peterkro said:


> May I say before the verdict Terry is a racist cunt whatever the verdict.


 

I bet he's not, I bet he's many things but not a racist.


----------



## Utopia (Jul 13, 2012)

gabi said:


> no, they couldn't see him saying those crucial words, that's the point. all you can see on the clip is him saying 'fucking black cunt'


 
I'm pretty sure i've seen footage that was knocking about straight after the incident where he appears to be saying "Anton, oy Anton.....do you think a called you a B**** *B******?"


----------



## gabi (Jul 13, 2012)

Utopia said:


> I'm pretty sure i've seen footage that was knocking about straight after the incident where he appears to be saying "Anton, oy Anton.....do you think a called you a B**** *B******?"


 
This is the clip i was referring to, slowed down. clearly says black cunt but the crucial bit's obscured.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

peterkro said:


> May I say before the verdict Terry is a racist cunt whatever the verdict.


 
Ignorant post quoted.

Just in case Mr Terry decides to sue you.


----------



## peterkro (Jul 13, 2012)

Fuck Mr Terry and his grasping Lawyers.I spent a lifetime learning how to clock wrongun's and I'd bet the farm on him being one.(plus you can't get blood out of a stone)


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 13, 2012)

So, a white English player calling someone a 'fucking black cunt' is not racist, but a South American saying 'Porque negro' is racist. If you're going to racially abuse someone, do it in the Queen's English.


----------



## mattie (Jul 13, 2012)

First bungpuss, now this.

Where's a police stitch-up when you need it?


----------



## Utopia (Jul 13, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> So, a white English player calling someone a 'fucking black cunt'


 
Um but thats NOT how he said it, is it?, you're missing out the 'Do you think I called you a....' bit from that sentence. Numpty.


----------



## Utopia (Jul 13, 2012)

peterkro said:


> May I say before the verdict Terry is a racist cunt whatever the verdict.


 
He's not a racist my friend, he's a Dicksplash but definately not a racist.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

peterkro said:


> I spent a lifetime learning how to clock wrongun's ....


 




> .... and I'd bet the farm on him being one.


 
I'd bet the farm on him not being one. Most of the people that know him seem to agree that he's not a racist too.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> So, a white English player calling someone a 'fucking black cunt' is not racist ....


 
What bit of "not guilty" don't you understand?


----------



## gabi (Jul 13, 2012)

peterkro said:


> Fuck Mr Terry and his grasping Lawyers


 
How are JT's lawyers 'grasping'? The stupid fucking Crown lawyers are the grasping ones here.


----------



## peterkro (Jul 13, 2012)

Utopia said:


> Um but thats NOT how he said it, is it?, you're missing out the 'Do you think I called you a....' bit from that sentence. Numpty.


Anybody that believes that cobbled together defence is a numpty (including the Judge).Look at his facial expression.


----------



## mattie (Jul 13, 2012)

peterkro said:


> Look at his facial expression.


 
No thanks.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

peterkro said:


> Anybody that believes that cobbled together defence is a numpty (including the Judge).Look at his facial expression.


 

Peterkro, "spotting wrongun's all his life".


----------



## peterkro (Jul 13, 2012)

gabi said:


> How are JT's lawyers 'grasping'? The stupid fucking Crown lawyers are the grasping ones here.


Sorry,it was wrong to pick on Mr Terry's lawyers they are all grasping cunts.


----------



## Utopia (Jul 13, 2012)

peterkro said:


> Anybody that believes that cobbled together defence is a numpty (including the Judge).Look at his facial expression.


 


If only you and your 'wrongun' spotting skills had been the Judge on this case, true justice would have prevailed!!!!!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

Do away with expensive court cases entirely. 

Get Peterkro on the case!


----------



## gabi (Jul 13, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Terry


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2012)

Do magistrates courts even have a judge?  Last time I was _ahem_ attending one there were just 3 sat there listening to the case before having a chat to make up their mind.


----------



## gabi (Jul 13, 2012)

Well. At least we got the 'please. please. please. please' moment out of this


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 13, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> So, a white English player calling someone a 'fucking black cunt' is not racist, but a South American saying 'Porque negro' is racist. If you're going to racially abuse someone, do it in the Queen's English.


 


I know you're not dumb enough not to be fishing with that. I bet RAWK is going mental though.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Do magistrates courts even have a judge? Last time I was _ahem_ attending one there were just 3 sat there listening to the case before having a chat to make up their mind.


 
It can be either. When there are 3 magistrates (JP's) they're usually not legally trained. If there's just one (stipendiary) he's going to be a trained barrister.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> It can be either. When there are 3 magistrates (JP's) they're usually not legally trained. If there's just one (stipendiary) he's going to be a trained barrister.


 
Oh right, but is he actually a judge?  Or is that just a county / high court thing?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

He's a district judge, as opposed to a high court judge.


----------



## T & P (Jul 13, 2012)




----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2012)

Another triumph by defence lawyers against reality, though its still not as good as Stevie G's self-defence case.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2012)

agricola said:


> Another triumph by defence lawyers against reality, though its still not as good as Stevie G's self-defence case.


 
Come off it, even I could have successfuly defended Terry whilst on k.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 13, 2012)

Christ you'd never work again if you couldnt have got Terry off with that.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Christ you'd never work again if you couldnt have got Terry off with that.


 
tbf the being on k thing probably wouldnt help me to get many future jobs, but thats not the point, I think.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2012)

agricola said:


> Another triumph by defence lawyers against reality, though its still not as good as Stevie G's self-defence case.


Admittedly I've seen hardly any of it this week, but it seemed like a weak prosecution case rather than a stronng defence. Terry's version looked like complete bollocks, particularly the sequence. For it to have been anything like he said it would have started with him calling Ferdinand a cunt, with something like, but not, the word _black_ in there. Ferdinand would have to have repeated his mishearing back - for Terry to throw back the 'I'm not calling you...' line (which itself didn't appear in the youtube). Feredinand said stages 1 and 2 didn't exist. Also, as mentioned, his expression didn't look like someone horrified that he had been misheared making a racist comment. Same time, in the absence of continuous footage or Ferdinand having actually heard the racist bit of the insults, magistrate couldn't do anything other than not guilty.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2012)

Wonder if he turned up in his prison kit?


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

The English FA have to treat John Terry an English player the same as Luis Suarez a Uruguayan player surely.......???


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> The English FA have to treat John Terry an English player the same as Luis Suarez a Uruguayan player surely.......???


What's your point, caller?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> The English FA have to treat John Terry an English player the same as Luis Suarez a Uruguayan player surely.......???



So he's been cleared by a court and you think the FA should ban him.

Genius.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> So he's been cleared by a court and you think the FA should ban him.
> 
> Genius.


 In theory they could go for a disciplinay - on the lower level of proof needed (most unlikely as they could end up accusing him of something he had already been legally cleared off) or, more likely, on the words he admitted using.  Doubt the latter is that likely either - once it was taken over by the law there was very little a future FA hearing could do.  The FA have been pathetic on racism historically and they should have suspended Terry as soon as the accusations were made on this one (before the police came in).  However at this point, it's pointlesss for them to try and pick it back up (however much, to me, it looks like he's got away with it).


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2012)

Wilf said:


> (most unlikely as they could end up accusing him of something he had already been legally cleared off)


that happens frequently.  Maybe not with high profile footballers, but with plenty of people in 'normal' occupations


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2012)

belboid said:


> that happens frequently. Maybe not with high profile footballers, but with plenty of people in 'normal' occupations


Sure, yes, when they've done something that's either 'very bad' but not illegal, or offends against the thing they do in their job. It seemed to me that if the court was going with the 'I didn't say you were...' defence, they were ruling most of that out. Only thing left would be the no doubt numerous FA codes of conduct he would have broken by effing and cunting away. That _*would*_ be a road the FA could go down. However, if you take it that the court had ruled the racist bit of the allegation out, both Terry and Ferdinad would have been egually guilty as they were both going at it. Don't think they would have wanted to faced the publicity flak they would have received for disciplining _Ferdinand_ - just as much as they wouldn't have wanted to face the flak they would have got from 'Teram Terry' if they'd still had a go at accusing him of racism.


----------



## Glitter (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> So he's been cleared by a court and you think the FA should ban him.
> 
> Genius.


 
Completely different burden of proof. The court is beyond reasonable doubt, the FA balance of probabilities.


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2012)

The judges comments make it fairly clear there is room for a further case with a lower burden of proof:

"In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty." is what he said. A doubt, not many doubts, or overwhelming evidence.  A doubt.  Game isn't over yet.


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> So he's been cleared by a court and you think the FA should ban him.
> 
> Genius.


You think the English FA won't ban him ?, oh dear, how would they justify that ?


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> What's your point, caller?


Suarez wasn't taken on by the law of the land, John Terry was taken on by the law of the land, Suarez was found guilty by an FA court that apparently finds 99.5% of all people that come before it as guilty, the FA should have tried the Suarez case to a higher standard than the standard they use for 'was it or wasn't it a dangerous tackle ?', due to the nature of the accusation.
Lots of people observed that Suarez would not have been found guilty by a court of law, lots of people think that there is at least as much evidence against Terry as there was against Suarez if not more, if that is the case will the English FA not only charge Terry but give him at least as stiff a sentence as they gave Suarez ?, the English FA will themselves be open to accusations if they treat an Englishman different to a Uruguayan.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

Glitter said:


> Completely different burden of proof. The court is beyond reasonable doubt, the FA balance of probabilities.


 
I'm not sure if this is true, although it's been bandied about on internet forums. But even if it is, so fucking what?

If anyone seriously thinks the FA will bring a racism charge against Terry after he's been cleared by a court they need to change their medication.

They _might _charge both JT and Ferdinand with something along the lines of "bringing the game into disrepute" on the basis of what both players have admitted to saying, but I very much doubt it.

As far as JT and racism is concerned, this is done and dusted.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> You think the English FA won't ban him ?, oh dear, how would they justify that ?


 
They won't and they can't.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 13, 2012)

If the FA wants to show any kind of consistency then it must fine Terry and give him an eight match ban.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> If the FA wants to show any kind of consistency then it must fine Terry and give him an eight match ban.


 
For what?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> For what?


 
For saying 'fucking black cunt' to Anton Ferdinand.


----------



## Glitter (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> I'm not sure if this is true, although it's been bandied about on internet forums. But even if it is, so fucking what?
> 
> If anyone seriously thinks the FA will bring a racism charge against Terry after he's been cleared by a court they need to change their medication.
> 
> ...


 
I don't think they'll actually do anything - I said I thought they'd bottle it the other night -  but he now faces FA investigation.

The burden of proof is different - look at the Suarez case - there's no way that could have even gone to court.


----------



## Corax (Jul 13, 2012)

The main conclusion this case has made is that the CPS are a bunch of pointless fuckwits with as much objectivity as a US shock jock.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> For saying 'fucking black cunt' to Anton Ferdinand.


 
You think they have some evidence that the court didn't hear?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

belboid said:


> The judges comments make it fairly clear there is room for a further case with a lower burden of proof:
> 
> "In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty." is what he said. A doubt, not many doubts, or overwhelming evidence. A doubt. Game isn't over yet.


 
Talk about clutching at straws.


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> They won't and they can't.


I think the FA will charge Terry and will find him guilty, but will they give him the same ban [or longer] than Suarez ?
If the FA do charge him and do find him guilty, they will have to dish out at least as stiff a sentence as they gave Suarez otherwise the FA will not be seen as impartial, in fact the English FA will be open to accusations of treating English players differently to foreign players, at this stage i hope and expect that the English FA will do the right thing, a lot of people will be watching with interest.


----------



## Corax (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Talk about clutching at straws.


I think he may be right actually.  The civil case burden id 'on the balance of probabilities'.  That may as well be a legalistic way of saying 'What d'ya reckon?'


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> I think the FA will charge Terry and will find him guilty, but will they give him the same ban [or longer] than Suarez ?
> If the FA do charge him and do find him guilty, they will have to dish out at least as stiff a sentence as they gave Suarez otherwise the FA will not be seen as impartial, in fact the English FA will be open to accusations of treating English players differently to foreign players, at this stage i hope and expect that the English FA will do the right thing, a lot of people will be watching with interest.


Maybe, but the difference is there's already been a court case in which he has been found not guilty. It's _logically_ possible for the FA to go for him on racism again, but most unlikely. The problem with pursuing him just over sweary ranting (minus racism) is that they'd have to do Ferdinad too. Do you think they will do that?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2012)

Corax said:


> I think he may be right actually. The civil case burden id 'on the balance of probabilities'. That may as well be a legalistic way of saying 'What d'ya reckon?'


and/or 'I don't like the cunt getting off as much as you do'. Like I said, not seen the coverage, but I doubt either he or his witness, Cashley, were introduced to the court as men of unblemished character.

Edit: the real comparison with the Suarez case is that in each, a man without any obvious prior racism, came out with racist statements in the heat of battle. 'Racism in the heat of battle' - can be more usefuly shortened to 'racism'.  Well, on the balance of probabilities...


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> I think the FA will charge Terry and will find him guilty, but will they give him the same ban [or longer] than Suarez ?


 
They won't. If they charge him it'll be "bringing the game into disrepute", without the racial element, because a court has cleared him of that. Both players gave evidence that they were cunting each other off so Ferdinand is equally guilty of that, and the FA aren't about to do him too.

Carpet, brush, under.


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Maybe, but the difference is there's already been a court case in which he has been found guilty. It's _logically_ possible for the FA to go for him on racism again, but most unlikely. The problem with pursuing him just over sweary ranting (minus racism) is that they'd have to do Ferdinad too. Do you think they will do that?


 The FA accepted that Suarez was not racist, the FA found Suarez guilty of misconduct, eg what you called sweary ranting, therefore do you think that the Englishman [Terry] should be treated the same as the Uruguayan [Suarez] and get at least the same ban and fine ?


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> They won't. If they charge him it'll be "bringing the game into disrepute", without the racial element, because a court has cleared him of that. Both players gave evidence that they were cunting each other off so Ferdinand is equally guilty of that, and the FA aren't about to do him too.
> 
> Carpet, brush, under.


The FA accepted that Suarez was not racist, the FA found Suarez guilty of misconduct.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> The FA accepted that Suarez was not racist, the FA found Suarez guilty of misconduct.


Wrong. As ever.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> The FA accepted that Suarez was not racist, the FA found Suarez guilty of misconduct.


 
Wrong. He was found guilty of misconduct _because_ he racially abused him.



> The Independent Regulatory Commission announced its decision on 20 December 2011, which is as follows:
> 
> Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);
> *the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);*
> ...


 
http://nav.thefa.com/sitecore/conte...ary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/luis-suarez-20-12-11


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Wrong. As ever.


Explain ?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Explain ?


You can read the post above yours. You could also have double checked before twice repeating this rubbish. 10 seconds googling would have stopped you looking so sloppy.


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You can read the post above yours. You could also have double checked before twice repeating this rubbish. 10 seconds googling would have stopped you looking so sloppy.


Suarez was not found guilty by the FA of being a racist he was found guilty of using a word relating to colour, it will be interesting to see what the FA does to John Terry [if anything] ?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Suarez was not found guilty by the FA of being a racist he was found guilty of using a word relating to race, it will be interesting to see what the FA does to John Terry [if anything] ?


They do not have the power to find him guilty of being a racist - they found him guilty of using racially insulting abuse. Your claim really means that they didn't find him guilty of any racially abusive behavior. They did. You are wrong.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Suarez was not found guilty by the FA of being a racist he was found guilty of using a word relating to colour ....


 
Don't be a tit. He wasn't charged with "being a racist" was he?


----------



## big eejit (Jul 13, 2012)

Terry gets off on the day that Rangers get sent down. The Bigot Balance is restored.


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They do not have the power to find him guilty of being a racist - they found him guilty of using racially insulting abuse. Your claim really means that they didn't find him guilty of any racially abusive behavior. They did. You are wrong.


Claim, i'm not claiming anything, i want to know if the English FA will treat Terry the same as Suarez, i'm not saying they won't but it will be interesting to see if the English FA will be seen to be impartial or not ?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

Glitter said:


> - look at the Suarez case - there's no way that could have even gone to court.


 
Why not?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Claim, i'm not claiming anything, i want to know if the English FA will treat Terry the same as Suarez, i'm not saying they won't but it will be interesting to see if the English FA will be seen to be impartial or not ?


Yes you are. You're claiming that the FA did not find Suarez guilty of anything  racial - just simple abuse (presumably in order to demonstrate this case is the same as Terry's). You're fucked though because the FA _did_ find him guilty of racially insulting abuse. Your claim - or non-claim as you prefer to call it - falls.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2012)

big eejit said:


> Terry gets off on the day that Rangers get sent down. The Bigot Balance is restored.


 Aye, either Rangers were going to get it or de Canio would get a verruca.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> ... i want to know if the English FA will treat Terry the same as Suarez ....


 
Why should they?

The FA effectively found Suarez *guilty* of racially abusing Evra. A court of law has found JT *not guilty* of racially abusing Ferdinand.


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be a tit. He wasn't charged with "being a racist" was he?


Will Terry be charged by the FA like Suarez was ?, will Terry be found guilty by the FA just like Suarez was ?, if not, why not ?


----------



## Glitter (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Why not?



The reason it didn't. Not enough evidence.

But on balance of probability he was found guilty.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Will Terry be charged by the FA like Suarez was ?, will Terry be found guilty by the FA just like Suarez was ?, if not, why not ?


 
Because of a lack of evidence that he racially abused him.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Will Terry be charged by the FA like Suarez was ?, will Terry be found guilty by the FA just like Suarez was ?, if not, why not ?


 This keeps being explained to you.  Repetition of an already demolished argument doesn't really strengthening your case.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Will Terry be charged by the FA like Suarez was ?, will Terry be found guilty by the FA just like Suarez was ?, if not, why not ?


Charged with what? What was it Suarez was charged with? Tell us, in your own words or in the words of the FA - either is fine.


----------



## Corax (Jul 13, 2012)

Wilf said:


> the real comparison with the Suarez case is that in each, a man without any obvious prior racism, came out with racist statements in the heat of battle.


It's really not.

The obvious and relevant distinction is the difference between saying something, and quoting someone else saying something.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

Glitter said:


> The reason it didn't. Not enough evidence.


 
Really? Or was it because no complaint was made to the police?



> (1) Mr Suarez used insulting words in telling Mr Evra that he kicked him because he
> was black. We do not believe this requires any elaboration. The Spanish language
> experts, whose evidence was accepted by Mr Suarez, said that this comment 99
> would be interpreted in Uruguay and other regions of Latin America as racially
> ...


 
http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written reasons/FA v Suarez Written Reasons of Regulatory Commission.ashx

Do you know what you're talking about?

"Balance of probabilities" my arse.


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Charged with what? What was it Suarez was charged with? Tell us, in your own words or the in the words of the FA - either is fine.


Use a search engine and find out yourself.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Use a search engine and find out yourself.


 
You should do the same. You haven't a clue.


----------



## tommers (Jul 13, 2012)

Glitter said:


> The reason it didn't. Not enough evidence.
> 
> But on balance of probability he was found guilty.


 
eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Use a search engine and find out yourself.


Presumably you know as you were confidently and repeatedly making statements about their verdict on the charges a few minutes ago - do you?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

tommers said:


> eh?


 
She's talking nonsense.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2012)

Corax said:


> It's really not.
> 
> The obvious and relevant distinction is the difference between saying something, and quoting someone else saying something.


 Yes, it would be if he actually was quoting Ferdinand.  The court accepted that, presumably on reasonable doubt grounds - and it's the court's view that matters.  I just don't accept it.


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Wilf said:


> This keeps being explained to you. Repetition of an already demolished argument doesn't really strengthening your case.


What has been explained ?, do you think that in the eyes of the football authorities that both Terry and Suarez have done the same thing ?, will they be treated the same by the football authorities ?, if not why not ?


----------



## tommers (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> What has been explained ?, do you think that in the eyes of the football authorities that both Terry and Suarez have done the same thing ?, will they be treated the same by the football authorities ?, if not why not ?


 
Because they said that Suarez was being racist.

A court has said that Terry wasn't.  

That's it.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2012)

tommers said:


> Because they said that Suarez was being racist.
> 
> A court has said that Terry wasn't.
> 
> That's it.


 Trampie - does this not cover it?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> What has been explained ?, do you think that in the eyes of the football authorities that both Terry and Suarez have done the same thing ?, will they be treated the same by the football authorities ?, if not why not ?


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> They won't and they can't.


Why do you think the English FA won't ban Terry ?, and why do you think they can't ban Terry ?, isn't Terry guilty of breaking FA rules E3[1&2] just like Suarez was ?


----------



## tommers (Jul 13, 2012)

Sweet Lord.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2012)

At least, Trampie, you've done an _*excellent*_ job of reminding us of the Englishness of the English FA.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> ... isn't Terry guilty of breaking FA rules E3[1&2] just like Suarez was ?


 
E3(1), -abusive language-, definitely. But so was Ferdinand.

E3(2), - racial abuse-, no. Not according to the court.


----------



## Corax (Jul 13, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Yes, it would be if he actually was quoting Ferdinand. The court accepted that, presumably on reasonable doubt grounds - and it's the court's view that matters. I just don't accept it.


Which is fine, and which I don't disagree with* - but it invalidates the comparison with the Suarez case and the punishment meted out there.

*I don't *agree* with it either. I can't stand Terry, I think he's a nasty piece of work, a horrible arrogant cunt of a man. But I have no idea if he's racist or not. I'd kinda _like_ him to be, because it would validate my opinion of him. But clearly, it's not something I can trust myself to give an objective judgement on.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Why do you think the English FA won't ban Terry ?, and why do you think they can't ban Terry ?, isn't Terry guilty of breaking FA rules E3[1&2] just like Suarez was ?


E3(1) yes (as is Ferdinand). 

E3(2) no, according to the court ruling (which isn't binding on the FA, but I can't see them being able to come to a different conclusion based on the evidence presented in court)


----------



## Corax (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> do you think that in the eyes of the football authorities that both Terry and Suarez have done the same thing ?


No.

Next.


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> E3(1), definitely. But so was Ferdinand.
> 
> E3(2), No. Not according to the court.


Not according to the court you say ?, the court was not judging John Terry against the FA rule book to see if he broke the FA's E3[2] rule was they ?, if the FA was to charge Terry they might well find him guilty of breaking the same rules that they found Suarez guilty of breaking, and if they don't a lot of people will want to know what's the difference.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Not according to the court you say ?, the court was not judging John Terry against the FA rule book to see if he broke the FA's E3[2] rule was they ?.


no, but it's easy to read the rules and understand that the court case covered the same issues that E3(2) deals with.

Well, to most people anyway...


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Not according to the court you say ?, the court was not judging John Terry against the FA rule book to see if he broke the FA's E3[2] rule was they ?, if the FA was to charge Terry they might well find him guilty of breaking the same rules that they found Suarez guilty of breaking, and if they don't a lot of people will want to know what's the difference.


 
Fuck me, this is like pulling teeth.

The court judged Terry according to the evidence presented. That evidence was not strong enough to support a racial abuse charge. The FA will see the same evidence. For them to then uphold a charge of racial abuse they'd be saying a) the court was wrong, because b) he did call him a "black cunt" in a context that he denies. It doesn't matter that you don't like JT, this is a legal issue and there's simply not enough evidence to censure Terry for racist insults, even with a reduced burden of proof.

Suarez admitted saying all that shit to Evra. His mitigation was that those terms weren't necessarily racist in Uruguay (even though Spanish language experts said they were). The FA found against Suarez because the game was being played in England, not Uruguay (and because Suarez was quite clearly being a racist cock. He just didn't seem to realise that).

I've linked-up all the FA statements on the Suarez incident. Why not read them?


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Maltin said:


> no, but it's easy to read the rules and understand that the court case covered the same issues that E3(2) deals with.
> 
> Well, to most people anyway...


Was abusive and or insulting words and or behaviour used ?, rule E3[1] covers this, if so did it include a reference to ethnic origin and or colour and or race ?, rule E3[2] covers this.

Under the English FA rules what's the difference between what Suarez and Terry both did ?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Was abusive and or insulting words and or behaviour used ?, rule E3[1] covers this, if so did it include a reference to ethnic origin and or colour and or race ?, rule E3[2] covers this.
> 
> Under the English FA rules what's the difference between what Suarez and Terry both did ?


 
Oh shut up.

I'm not sure if you're on a wind-up or just really fucking stupid.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2012)

Trampie - he's been found not guilty of racial abuse in a court.  The FA (the _English_ FA) then feel they have to do _something_, but become highly constrained:

1. Go for him on the issues explicitly of racism - via lower burden of proof.  Risk of looking foolish given that is exactly the same _issue_ as was facing the court (regardless of rule books and laws).  Team Terry in the media and his lawyers will have a field day.  FA highly unlikely to do this.
2. Go for him on non-racial sweary cunting (ungentlemanly conduct, disrepute - doesn't matter which formulation they use).  Fairly easy to prove, but politically impossible to do as they have to then do Ferdinand for the same. Can you imagine the (rightful) indignation and protests there will be if the victim of (what I would see as) racist abuse gets an equal charge to Terry?  They won't do this.

Outcome is likely to be 'on careful consideration'... 'absolute commitment to removing racism from football/supporting victims' ... 'reminding everyone of their responsibilities'  - maybe even writing to Terry alone, with a warning on the grounds of the words he 'repeated'.  Might even be a yet stronger version of the this 'do nothing strategy'. Yea, nay?


----------



## Corax (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Was abusive and or insulting words and or behaviour used ?, rule E3[1] covers this, if so did it include a reference to ethnic origin and or colour and or race ?, rule E3[2] covers this.
> 
> Under the English FA rules what's the difference between what Suarez and Terry both did ?


Fuck me.  Seriously?  Are you really not getting this, or are you just on a wind up?


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Fuck me, this is like pulling teeth.
> 
> The court judged Terry according to the evidence presented. That evidence was not strong enough to support a racial abuse charge. The FA will see the same evidence. For them to then uphold a charge of racial abuse they'd be saying a) the court was wrong, because b) he did call him a "black cunt" in a context that he denies. It doesn't matter that you don't like JT, this is a legal issue and there's simply not enough evidence to censure Terry for racist insults, even with a reduced burden of proof.
> 
> ...


Some questions for you to answer:-
Was abusive and or insulting words and or behaviour used by Terry ? 'rule E3[1]'
If you think the answer is yes {and i believe you have already answered yes}, did it include a reference to ethnic origin/colour/race ?, 'rule E3[2]'

Do you think that Terry should be treated differently by the English FA to Suarez ?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Team Terry in the media and his lawyers will have a field day.


 
They'd tear them to fucking bits!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Some questions for you to answer:-
> Was abusive and or insulting words and or behaviour used by Terry ? 'rule E3[1]'
> If you think the answer is yes {and i believe you have already answered yes}, did it include a reference to ethnic origin/colour/race ?, 'rule E3[2]'


 
This has been answered by several posters, several times.

E3(1) - Yes, but they'd have to charge Anton too.

E3(2) - No. There is not enough evidence to support this.


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Trampie - he's been found not guilty of racial abuse in a court. The FA (the _English_ FA) then feel they have to do _something_, but become highly constrained:
> 
> 1. Go for him on the issues explicitly of racism - via lower burden of proof. Risk of looking foolish given that is exactly the same _issue_ as was facing the court (regardless of rule books and laws). Team Terry in the media and his lawyers will have a field day. FA highly unlikely to do this.
> 2. Go for him on non-racial sweary cunting (ungentlemanly conduct, disrepute - doesn't matter which formulation they use). Fairly easy to prove, but politically impossible to do as they have to then do Ferdinand for the same. Can you imagine the (rightful) indignation and protests there will be if the victim of (what I would see as) racist abuse gets an equal charge to Terry? They won't do this.
> ...


What are you saying Wilf, the English FA will let an Englishman off, yet find a Uruguayan guilty ?, surely not.


----------



## Corax (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Some questions for you to answer:-
> Was abusive and or insulting words and or behaviour used by Terry ? 'rule E3[1]'


If they were a quote repeated back to someone, then no, they weren't.

The specific words used to not automatically make them insulting.  Querying what someone said is not levelling an insult at them, not matter what the language used within the marks.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 13, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> So, a white English player calling someone a 'fucking black cunt' is not racist, but a South American saying 'Porque negro' is racist. If you're going to racially abuse someone, do it in the Queen's English.


----------



## Corax (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> What are you saying Wilf, the English FA will let an Englishman off, yet find a Uruguayan guilty ?, surely not.


Nice line in xenophobia you have there. 

Oh, the irony.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> What are you saying Wilf, the English FA will let an Englishman off, yet find a Uruguayan guilty ?, surely not.


 



			
				Spymaster said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if you're on a wind-up or just really fucking stupid.


 
It's the latter.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

Corax said:


> Nice line in xenophobia you have there.


 
He has form.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2012)

Corax said:


> Nice line in xenophobia you have there.
> 
> Oh, the irony.


All the time we've been dealing with the quasi-judicial ethics of the sports arena, Trampie has been pushing his ethnocentric...  Actually hold on - 'Trampie, I didn't fucking call you an ethnocentric trolling...'.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 13, 2012)

Jesus suffering fuck.

I know it's de rigueur amongst the hipsters to hate Terry, but why?

Earlier in this thread a wikishit link was posted listing Terry's 'controversies'. The only, single one that is fact is that he parked in a disabled bay in Esher High Street.

Shit player - No
Shagged team mate's girlfriend - No
Racist - No
Iffy parking - Yes

Oooh


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> This has been answered by several posters, several times.
> 
> E3(1) - Yes, but they'd have to charge Anton too.
> 
> E3(2) - No. There is not enough evidence to support this.


You said earlier that the FA wont and cant ban Terry, yet you say Terry is guilty of breaking FA rule 'E3[1]', so if Terry is guilty of breaking an FA rule, surely he should be charged ?, the English FA charged a Uruguayan and found him guilty yet you think they wont charge an English player for the same thing, oh dear.

As regards FA rule 'E3[2], Terry according to media reports admitted to using a word referring to colour, which would break the FA rule 'E3[2]', would it not.

As regards Ferdinand, from what i can remember Evra was not charged over the Suarez incident.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> You said earlier that the FA wont and cant ban Terry, yet you say Terry is guilty of breaking FA rule 'E3[1]', so if Terry is guilty of breaking an FA rule, surely he should be charged ?, the English FA charged a Uruguayan and found him guilty yet you think they wont charge an English player for the same thing, oh dear.
> 
> As regards FA rule 'E3[2], Terry according to media reports admitted to using a word referring to colour, which would break the FA rule 'E3[2]', would it not.


 
See Wilf's post #568, mine #565, and Corax's #560 and #574.



> As regards Ferdinand, from what i can remember Evra was not charged over the Suarez incident.


 
Pat Evra didn't admit to "trading insults" with Suarez.


----------



## Corax (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> He has form.


Oh I know - but in the context of his implied accusation... well -  doesn't even start to do it justice.

It would be  if it wasn't so


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> This has been answered by several posters, several times.
> 
> E3(1) - Yes, but they'd have to charge Anton too.
> 
> E3(2) - No. There is not enough evidence to support this.


_You said earlier that the FA wont and can't ban Terry, yet you say Terry is guilty of breaking FA rule 'E3[1]', oh aye. _


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> _You said earlier that the FA wont and can't ban Terry, yet you say Terry is guilty of breaking FA rule 'E3[1]', oh aye. _


 
See Wilf's post #568, mine #565, and Corax's #560 and #574.


----------



## Corax (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> _yet you say Terry is guilty of breaking FA rule 'E3[1]', oh aye. _


According to the verdict, he's not.

Just as* people at Crufts don't get told off for saying 'bitch'.

*Not  quite the same I admit - but it's still to do with context.  And fuck it, I liked the analogy.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

Corax said:


> According to the verdict, he's not.


 
According to the evidence he's definitely breached E3(1) -abusive language- but so has Anton.

According to the verdict he has not breached E3(2) - racial abuse-.


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Corax said:


> According to the verdict, he's not.
> 
> Just as* people at Crufts don't get told off for saying 'bitch'.
> 
> *Not quite the same I admit - but it's still to do with context. And fuck it, I liked the analogy.


Spymaster thinks Terry is guilty of breaking FA rule 'E3[1], but he thinks the English FA will leave the English player off, personally i hope they treat all players the same, surely they will, won't they, yes surely.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Spymaster thinks Terry is guilty of breaking FA rule 'E3[1], but he thinks the English FA will leave the English player off, personally i hope they treat all players the same, surely they will, won't they, yes surely.


 
You really are a fucking idiot.

E3(1) is broken by just about every player in just about every game. Ferdinand (by his own evidence) was equally guilty of that.

E3(2) is what fucked Suarez, and JT has been acquitted of that.

Have you even considered that you xenophobic goggles might be clouding your judgement here?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> Spymaster thinks Terry is guilty of breaking FA rule 'E3[1], but he thinks the English FA will leave the English player off, personally i hope they treat all players the same, surely they will, won't they, yes surely.


 I'm just, y'know, reading between the lines but, do you think the _English_ FA are likely to be lenient to _England's_ Brave John Terry, purely because he's _English_? Is that it?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

Wilf said:


> I'm just, y'know, reading between the lines but, do you think the _English_ FA are likely to be lenient to _England's_ Brave John Terry, purely because he's _English_? Is that it?


 
That's about the length and breadth of it, yes!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2012)

Darn it Trampie! I just thought you were being _specific_, just making sure we didn't think some other footballing body had jurisdiction over the sad and inconsistent events. And all the time...

Well, Mr Terry, if you've been offended by anything at all I've said in this thread, I'll give you a lend of my Blue Badge.  _But in the name of all that's decent get your mate Cashley to stop sending me pictures of his winky_.


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> You really are a fucking idiot.
> 
> E3(1) is broken by just about every player in just about every game. Ferdinand (by his own evidence) was equally guilty of that.
> 
> E3(2) is what fucked Suarez, and JT has been acquitted of that.


If a player is guilty of breaking the FA's E3(1) rule by using insulting words and as well as using insulting words also makes a reference to colour when using those insulting words then that player is also guilty of breaking the FA's E3(2) rule, is he not ?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> If a player is guilty of breaking the FA's E3(1) rule by using insulting words and as well as using insulting words also makes a reference to colour when using those insulting words then that player is guilty of breaking the FA's E3(2) rule is he not ?


 
Yes. If the reference to colour is insulting.

What's your point?


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. If the reference to colour is insulting.
> 
> What's your point?


The point is, was there a reference to colour in the Terry case made by John Terry ?, if so and you think that Terry has broken FA rule E3(1) then wouldn't he have also broken FA rule E3(2) as well ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2012)

Trampie

Why not acquaint the president of the fa with your feelings instead of simply venting here? After all, there's sweet fa we can do to translate your sentiments into an fa tribunal


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2012)

trampie said:


> The point is, was there a reference to colour in the Terry case made by John Terry ?


 
The (successful) defence was that JT was interrogating Anton about something he thought he'd heard. 

"Do you think I called you a black cunt?"

That is not a racially abusive statement.


----------



## trampie (Jul 13, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Trampie
> 
> Why not acquaint the president of the fa with your feelings instead of simply venting here? After all, there's sweet fa we can do to translate your sentiments into an fa tribunal


I just hope the FA treat everybody the same that is all, there is no reason to think at this stage that they wont, we shall see.


----------



## tommers (Jul 13, 2012)

I fully expect you to still be having exactly the same conversation when I wake up in 6 hours.

Don't disappoint.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Pat Evra didn't admit to "trading insults" with Suarez.


He did.




			
				FA said:
			
		

> 178 Mr Evra stated that the goalmouth incident started when he addressed Mr Suarez, beginning with the phrase "Concha de tu hermana". According to the experts, the literal translation is "your sister's cunt" and it can be taken as a general swear word expressing anger, although the word "concha" is not as taboo as the English word "cunt". It is thus equivalent to "fucking hell" or "fuck me". If directed at someone in particular, it can also be understood as "[you] son of a bitch".


----------



## Corax (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> According to the evidence he's definitely breached E3(1) -abusive language- but so has Anton.
> 
> According to the verdict he has not breached E3(2) - racial abuse-.





trampie said:


> Spymaster thinks Terry is guilty of breaking FA rule 'E3[1], but he thinks the English FA will leave the English player off, personally i hope they treat all players the same, surely they will, won't they, yes surely.


If that's the case then I disagree with Spymaster.  If you call me a cunt and I then ask you if you've called be a cunt, I haven't used abusive language against you.

Fuck me.  I'm sure I've put that point a couple of times already, and so have others - I'm slightly mystified as to where there's any possibility for confusion.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

Corax said:


> If that's the case then I disagree with Spymaster. If you call me a cunt and I then ask you if you've called be a cunt, I haven't used abusive language against you.


 
We don't disagree at all.

Trampie just doesn't get it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

Maltin said:


> He did.


 
Fair play, I missed that. 

The fact still remains that Trampie is calling for "equal" treatment for unequal offences.


----------



## Corax (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> We don't disagree at all.
> 
> Trampie just doesn't get it.


I expect I've probably read a couple of your posts out of context of the overarching dialogue tbf.


----------



## trampie (Jul 14, 2012)

Missed it did you Spymaster, oh well, as regards equal treatment, I want equal treatment for the same offences.


----------



## Corax (Jul 14, 2012)

trampie said:


> Missed it did you Spymaster, oh well, as regards equal treatment, I want equal treatment for the same offences.


Forget your spat with Si - What is it exactly that you don't understand?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

trampie said:


> Missed it did you Spymaster, oh well, as regards equal treatment, I want equal treatment for the same offences.


 
The offences aren't the same.

One guy repeatedly calls Patrice a "negroe", says he kicked him because he's black, and is generally a horrible fucker.

The other bloke is involved in a misunderstanding with Anton and asks him "do you think I called you a black cunt?"

This is not the same or even similar.


----------



## trampie (Jul 14, 2012)

There is nothing I don't understand Corax on this thread, you are the one that said you have taken some peoples posts out of context.


----------



## Corax (Jul 14, 2012)

trampie said:


> There is nothing I don't understand Corax on this thread, you are the one that said you have taken some peoples posts out of context.


What are you, 12?  

Respond intelligently to my posts #574, #586 & #601 you fucking cocksock.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

Corax said:


> Forget your spat with Si


 
"Cunty" to my friends.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

Go to bed, Trampie.


----------



## Corax (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> "Cunty" to my friends.


I remember reading the story related at some point but buggered if I can remember it.  Was never clear if it was affectionate or not tbh!


----------



## trampie (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> The offences aren't the same.
> 
> One guy repeatedly calls Patrice a "negroe", says he kicked him because he's black, and is generally a horrible fucker.
> 
> ...


If the same offence to the same degree has been broken then the same punishment should be dealt out, some people say the offences are the same because they break the same rules. Don't try and compare a court case with an FA case, if Terry finds himself up against the FA, he will be tried against FA rules and regulations.


----------



## Corax (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Go to bed, Trampie.


Yeah.  Flossie needs a cuddle.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

Corax said:


> I remember reading the story related at some point but buggered if I can remember it. Was never clear if it was affectionate or not tbh!


 
Kris is an (occasionally) intolerable, bleeding-heart, uber-leftie, who calls me "Cunty" for supporting capital punishment.

We've put up with each other for 16 years!


----------



## Maltin (Jul 14, 2012)

trampie said:


> If the same offence to the same degree has been broken then the same punishment should be dealt out, some people say the offences are the same because they break the same rules.


Have you got any examples that you can share with us of anyone with any credibility saying the offences (based on the court's verdict) are the same?


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 14, 2012)

Had the misfortune to read the Independent this morning where some journalist called Sam Wallace goes on a one man mission to effectively say this was a miscarriage of justice.Also a hysterical piece in by someone from Show Racism the Red Card arguing for a civil rights movement in football.

Within the documents shown to the court was a statement from the Ferdinand's PR advisers calling for Terry's prosecution on a point of principal.That I find more worrying.

What ever people feel about Terry, which is either mainly a series of character assassinations about him and his family by the Murdoch empire or his record as a footballer, the magistrates summation is quite clear ie that nobody heard what he said and more importantly how he said it. That included the alleged victim, the players on the pitch and the referee.


----------



## trampie (Jul 14, 2012)

Apparently the FA are carrying out their own inquiries.....hmm


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 14, 2012)

The Chelsea fixtures against United and QPR are going to be slightly awkward,going to be a case of who's going to shake hands with Terry before the games.


----------



## trampie (Jul 14, 2012)

Garth Crooks says 'This is half-time, not over for John Terry'.....oh aye.​​'The FA need to decide if he has broken any of their rules'.....oh aye.​


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 14, 2012)

> The not guilty verdict in the trial of John Terry was greeting with anger and bemusement by the black community within British sport.


 


> There was also an incredulous reaction from beyond the world of sport. Duwayne Brooks, a close friend of the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, tweeted: "Fucking bullshit. How can John Terry be found not guilty? You fucking black cunt is now free to be used by everyone."


The John Terry defence. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/13/john-terry-verdict-angers-black-players


----------



## trampie (Jul 14, 2012)

The English FA need to treat an English player the same as an Uruguayan player, for some people an enquiry wont be good enough, an FA case finding a not guilty verdict wont be good enough and even a guilty verdict with a lesser sentence wont be good enough, a lot of people will be watching how things develop from here and judging the English FA accordingly.

I'm hopeful the FA will do the right thing but am not convinced that it wont be some kind of compromise which of course will leave the FA open to accusations from some quarters, if that was the case, but i hope not.

All this kick racism out of football.......hmm, we will see.


----------



## tommers (Jul 14, 2012)

Yep. Didn't disappoint.


----------



## trampie (Jul 14, 2012)

A very forthright article by the Guardian, pulling no punches.


----------



## T & P (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> The offences aren't the same.
> 
> One guy repeatedly calls Patrice a "negroe", says he kicked him because he's black, *and is generally a horrible fucker*.
> 
> ...


 Regardless of this incident, Terry is a pretty horrible fucker himself as it is tbf.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 14, 2012)

trampie said:


> A very forthright article by the Guardian, pulling no punches.


 
Reads like a load of emotive liberal hand-wringing bollocks to me. It doesn't even pretend to consider the fact that Terry may not have done anything wrong, they're just looking for an excuse to go and find black people to bitch about how one possible remark from one noted idiot has set them all back thirty years and how it's now pretty much a certainty that Stephen Laurence is going to be murdered again, possibly twice.

None of these people would be criticising the same legal process if it had delivered the verdict they wanted, so they haven't really got a leg to stand on now.



> There was also an incredulous reaction from beyond the world of sport. Duwayne Brooks, a close friend of the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, tweeted: "Fucking bullshit. How can John Terry be found not guilty? You fucking black cunt is now free to be used by everyone."


 
If my mate gets murdered can I please also be quoted in news articles about stuff that has nothing to do with me? I'm pretty sure the verdict didn't at any point state that it's OK to call someone a black cunt, nor was Terry's defence based on his god-given right to use that expression.

Perhaps what we should take away from this whole fiasco is that even being suspected of using racist abuse against someone is enough to have the perpetrator hauled across hot coals in the media, fired from their job and generally villified by a massive extrajudicial witch hunt. Maybe I should write an article in the guardian with lots of quotes from white people expressing their concern at the number of black people who apparently want the right to get them thrown in jail without a trial...


----------



## trampie (Jul 14, 2012)

The elephant in the room is not one of colour but potentially one of nationality [hope not].


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 14, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Reads like a load of emotive liberal hand-wringing bollocks to me. It doesn't even pretend to consider the fact that Terry may not have done anything wrong, they're just looking for an excuse to go and find black people to bitch about how one possible remark from one noted idiot has set them all back thirty years and how it's now pretty much a certainty that Stephen Laurence is going to be murdered again, possibly twice.
> 
> None of these people would be criticising the same legal process if it had delivered the verdict they wanted, so they haven't really got a leg to stand on now.
> 
> ...


 
Quite.

This notion that a few self appointed quotes are us merchants represent the 'black community' in sport is a joke. So what is their position on the black players at Chelsea are they now coconuts? Is Ashley Cole not black enough or Ryan Bertrand who certainly described himself as a black sportsman in his statement, or Dessailly who was Terry's mentor?


----------



## trampie (Jul 14, 2012)

Double post.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 14, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Quite.
> 
> This notion that a few self appointed quotes are us merchants represent the 'black community' in sport is a joke. So what is their position on the black players at Chelsea are they now coconuts? Is Ashley Cole not black enough or Ryan Bertrand who certainly described himself as a black sportsman in his statement, or Dessailly who was Terry's mentor?


 
Well yeah. The article has very clearly been constructed to tell white people that all black people hate John Terry. I can't imagine any other subject matter where they'd be able to print such a one-sided article. Piss poor journalism, classic daily mail stuff.

And when has anyone ever given a fuck what Garth Crooks thought about anything?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

T & P said:


> Regardless of this incident, Terry is a pretty horrible fucker himself as it is tbf.



People dislike him because he plays for the "hate club du jour", but other than that I don't see the justification, tbh.

What's he actually done to warrant the opprobrium? Shagged about a bit? Him and just about every other footballer! 

What has he done that (name any other footballer here) hasn't?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> And when has anyone ever given a fuck what Garth Crooks thought about anything?



Garth is friend of mine and a thoroughly decent bloke. He's got this wrong though. 

I fully agree with the rest of your post.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

trampie said:


> The elephant in the room is not one of colour but potentially one of nationality [hope not].



You really are a bitter fuckwit.

Did an English lad steal your dinner money?


----------



## T & P (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> People dislike him because he plays for the "hate club du jour", but other than that I don't see the justification, tbh.
> 
> What's he actually done to warrant the opprobrium? Shagged about a bit? Him and just about every other footballer!
> 
> What has he done that (name any other footballer here) hasn't?


Most other footballers don't shag around with their own team-mates' wives though do they?


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 14, 2012)

T & P said:


> Most other footballers don't shag around with their own team-mates' wives though do they?


 
most posters would try and get their facts right


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> People dislike him because he plays for the "hate club du jour", but other than that I don't see the justification, tbh.
> 
> What's he actually done to warrant the opprobrium? Shagged about a bit? Him and just about every other footballer!
> 
> What has he done that (name any other footballer here) hasn't?


 
Up here the only hate club de jour is either City or United depending on who you support. The anti Chelsea thing is mainly a media based obsession due to most sports journalists being Man Utd, Spurs, Arsenal or Liverpool fans. I think Henry Winter is just about the only name writer who is a Chelsea supporter.

City are getting a bit of this now and if they win the league twice on the bounce just watch the full vindictiveness come out.


----------



## trampie (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Garth is friend of mine and a thoroughly decent bloke. He's got this wrong though.


What has Garth got wrong ?


----------



## T & P (Jul 14, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> most posters would try and get their facts right


 Ex-girlfriend. Whatever. Still an utter cunt's trick, don't you think?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

T & P said:


> Most other footballers don't shag around with their own team-mates' wives though do they?


 
 Neither did Terry.


----------



## tommers (Jul 14, 2012)

T & P said:


> Ex-girlfriend. Whatever. Still an utter cunt's trick, don't you think?



Papers printed apologies.

Didn't happen.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 14, 2012)

T & P said:


> Ex-girlfriend. Whatever. Still an utter cunt's trick, don't you think?


 
This was alleged but there was no proof and as I recall the press had to stop the witchunt after the alleged ex girlfriend  applied to court.

But to answer your hypothetical question.
Why? because they are already married :yes but he won't be the first or the last footballer. Because it was a work colleague ex ? Couldn't give a toss tbh and again her won't be the first or the last.

If you want to get hung up on affairs try Ryan Giggs.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

T & P said:


> Ex-girlfriend. Whatever. Still an utter cunt's trick, don't you think?


 
So your problem with him is that he cheated on his partner?

Do you also hate Steven Gerrad, Wayne Rooney, Sven Goran-Erikson, Peter Crouch, David Beckham, David Seaman, Jermaine Defoe, Ryan Giggs, Rio Ferdinand, Dwight Yorke, George Best, Ally McCoist, Alan Shearer, Peter Shilton ...... the list is endless.


----------



## T & P (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> So your problem with him is that he cheated on his partner?
> 
> Do you also hate Steven Gerrad, Wayne Rooney, Sven Goran-Erikson, Peter Crouch, David Beckham, David Seaman, Jermaine Defoe, Ryan Giggs, Rio Ferdinand, Dwight Yorke, George Best, Ally McCoist, Alan Shearer, Peter Shilton ...... the list is endless.


My problem is more about who he played away with tbh.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

T & P said:


> My problem is more about who he played away with tbh.


 
A single woman who once dated a team mate of his (if it happened)?  Don't be daft.

Do you also hate Vanessa Peroncel? After all she was (allegedly) shagging a married man.

Be honest, you hate him because he's Chelsea. He hasn't actually done anything worse than many people you probably admire!


----------



## Corax (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> People dislike him because he plays for the "hate club du jour", but other than that I don't see the justification, tbh.
> 
> What's he actually done to warrant the opprobrium? Shagged about a bit? Him and just about every other footballer!
> 
> What has he done that (name any other footballer here) hasn't?


Nothing to do with the alleged and then retracted shagging for me. It's simply that the man oozes a particularly unpleasant brand of arrogant aggression. I can picture him in the schoolyard as that really fucking nasty bully that no one challenges because they're the school football captain.

I'm not claiming that as a reasonable or particularly rational judgement, I just get an overwhelming gut feeling that he's a cunt.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 14, 2012)

Corax said:


> Nothing to do with the alleged and then retracted shagging for me. It's simply that the man oozes a particularly unpleasant brand of arrogant aggression. I can picture him in the schoolyard as that really fucking nasty bully that no one challenges because they're the school football captain.
> 
> I'm not claiming that as a reasonable or particularly rational judgement, I just get an overwhelming gut feeling that he's a cunt.


 
Ever thought of seeing someone about these feelings that you get?


----------



## Corax (Jul 14, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Ever thought of seeing someone about these feelings that you get?


So there's no public figure, sportsman, celebrity or otherwise, that you have a dislike of without it being based on a specific action? I'm afraid I don't believe you.

It's not even _necessarily_ that irrational. The majority of communication is through body language, tone etc rather than words used - so it's quite possible that my reaction to him is due to the unconsciousness signals he sends out.


----------



## T & P (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> A single woman who once dated a team mate of his (if it happened)?
> 
> Do you also hate Vanessa Peroncel? After all she was (allegedly) shagging a married man.
> 
> Be honest, you hate him because he's Chelsea. He hasn't done anything worse than many people you probably admire!


I wouldn't go as far as saying I hate Terry. I simply think he is a complete twat based on his own actions.

And it's not just the fooling around with teammates' ex-partners. Take his dressing room antics and behind-the-scenes constant shit-stirring. For all the shortcomings AVB might have had, it's too bad he didn't give Terry a good slap and put him in his place. The sight late last season of him de facto overruling Di Matteo and giving tactical orders to the players from the dugout like if he was the fucking manager was rather sickening tbh.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 14, 2012)

T & P said:


> I wouldn't go as far as saying I hate Terry. I simply think he is a complete twat based on his own actions.
> 
> And it's not just the fooling around with teammates' ex-partners. Take his dressing room antics and behind-the-scenes constant shit-stirring. For all the shortcomings AVB might have had, it's too bad he didn't give Terry a good slap and put him in his place. The sight late last season of him de facto overruling Di Matteo and giving tactical orders to the players from the dugout like if he was the fucking manager was rather sickening tbh.


 
AVB's sacking wasn't just down to Terry at all. And this sight of him over ruling Di Matteo is a figment of your imagination.

I seem to get the impression that you actually believe the tittle tattle of sports journalists who have column inches to fill


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 14, 2012)

Corax said:


> So there's no public figure, sportsman, celebrity or otherwise, that you have a dislike of without it being based on a specific action? I'm afraid I don't believe you.
> 
> It's not even _necessarily_ that irrational. The majority of communication is through body language, tone etc rather than words used - so it's quite possible that my reaction to him is due to the unconsciousness signals he sends out.


 
I sill think you should see someone.And don't try and rationalise/justify these feelings just accept them as being a part of you that needs help.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 14, 2012)

T & P said:


> My problem is more about who he played away with tbh.


 
What have you got against her?


----------



## Corax (Jul 14, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> I sill think you should see someone.And don't try and rationalise/justify these feelings just accept them as being a part of you that needs help.


Yes dear.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 14, 2012)




----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

T & P said:


> I wouldn't go as far as saying I hate Terry. I simply think he is a complete twat based on his own actions.
> 
> And it's not just the fooling around with teammates' ex-partners. Take his dressing room antics and behind-the-scenes constant shit-stirring. For all the shortcomings AVB might have had, it's too bad he didn't give Terry a good slap and put him in his place. The sight late last season of him de facto overruling Di Matteo and giving tactical orders to the players from the dugout like if he was the fucking manager was rather sickening tbh.


 
 So one minute you dislike him because of "who he's shagging", when that's pointed out as unreasonable you cite another equally spurious reason!

If you don't like him, fine, at least Corax is honest enough to admit his dislike could be unfounded.


----------



## T & P (Jul 14, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> AVB's sacking wasn't just down to Terry at all. And this sight of him over ruling Di Matteo is a figment of your imagination.


 Yeah that's right. I dreamt up the TV footage.

Call it what you will. It's not a player's role to give tactical orders during a game. That's the manager's job.


----------



## T & P (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> So one minute you dislike him because of "who he's shagging", when that's pointed out as unreasonable you cite another equally spurious reason!
> 
> If you don't like him, fine, at least Corax is honest enough to admit his dislike could be unfounded.


 I never said that was the _only_ reason. And that it is unreasonable to dislike someone because of that is a matter of opinion, not a fact. In my book playing way with a co-worker's ex-partner is a cunt's trick. And judging by what I've heard and seen, it seems is an opinion shared by many, many others.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

T & P said:


> In my book playing way with a co-worker's ex-partner is a cunt's trick.


 
If you slagged him off for cheating on his wife you'd have a slightly better point, but this is just nonsense. She was single, and it didn't happen. Get over it.



> And judging by what I've heard and seen, it seems is an opinion shared by many, many others.


 
Because many others have bought the same media bullshit that you did; that he was shagging Bridge's girlfriend.

Load of bollocks.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 14, 2012)

T & P said:


> Yeah that's right. I dreamt up the TV footage.
> 
> Call it what you will. It's not a player's role to give tactical orders during a game. That's the manager's job.


 
 Don't you tell the manager what his job is


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 14, 2012)

paulhackett said:


>


 

as I said obviously Ashley Cole isn't really black enough


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 14, 2012)

T & P said:


> In my book playing way with a co-worker's ex-partner is a cunt's trick. And judging by what I've heard and seen, it seems is an opinion shared by many, many others.


 


The Taleban for starters.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Because many others have bought the same media bullshit that you did; that he was shagging Bridge's girlfriend.
> 
> Load of bollocks.


 
Sadly not, he acknowledges that she was a single woman, yet still feels that she was somehow Bridge's property.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

trampie said:


> What has Garth got wrong ?


 
The same as you. Which is strange because you're an ignorant racist cock and he's not.


----------



## trampie (Jul 14, 2012)

I think all people are equal Spymaster and all people should be treated equally.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

trampie said:


> I think all people are equal Spymaster and all people should be treated equally.


 
You quite clearly don't.


----------



## trampie (Jul 14, 2012)

Oh i do think that all people are equal Spymaster and that all people should be treated equally, that is why i think Terry should be treated the same by the English FA as Suarez was, you on the other hand say Terry should not be banned although you say that Terry has broken FA rules, you are happy for a Uruguayan to be done for breaking FA rules but not for an Englishman who you say has also broken FA rules.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

trampie said:


> Oh i do think that all people are equal Spymaster and that all people should be treated equally, that is why i think Terry should be treated the same by the English FA as Suarez was, you on the other hand say Terry should not be banned although you say that Terry has broken FA rules, you are happy for a Uruguayan to be done for breaking FA rules but not for an Englishman who you say has also broken FA rules.


 

See Wilf's post #568, mine #565, and Corax's #560 and #574.


----------



## trampie (Jul 14, 2012)

I have seen those posts Spymaster, i have also seen Corax saying he disagrees with you, when neither of you understood what each other was talking about  , i have seen you telling Maltin, _''__Fair play, I missed that''_, when you was saying untruths and he pulled you up on it ,i have seen Wilf saying about the Terry case, _''__and it's the court's view that matters. I just don't accept it''_.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

trampie said:


> I have seen those posts Spymaster, i have also seen Corax saying he disagrees with you, when neither of you understood what each other was talking about  , i have seen you telling Maltin, _''__Fair play, I missed that''_, when you was saying untruths and he pulled you up on it ,i have seen Wilf saying about the Terry case, _''__and it's the court's view that matters. I just don't accept it''_.


 
  See Wilf's post #568, mine #565, and Corax's #560 and #574.


----------



## trampie (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> See Wilf's post #568, mine #565, and Corax's #560 and #574.


I've seen them, i laughed at them when i first read them and i'm laughing at them now, i prefer Garth Crooks take.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

trampie said:


> I've seen them, i laughed at them when i first read them and i'm laughing at them now, i prefer Garth Crooks take.


 
 See Wilf's post #568, mine #565, and Corax's #560 and #574.


----------



## trampie (Jul 14, 2012)

Oh i get it Spymaster its some kind of game where you reply to every post with the same post over and over again, about sums you up really doesn't it, sad but there you go.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 14, 2012)

Ferdinand tweet now deleted but its already on the Mirrors site and been reported to Met Police and FA


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Ferdinand tweet now deleted but its already on the Mirrors site and been reported to Met Police and FA


 
He's a very silly boy.


----------



## miktheword (Jul 14, 2012)

Maltin said:


> Another couple of points from his commentary:
> 
> Drogba whose charity Terry has quoted as helping during the trial didn't sign a statement in support of him
> 
> Jon Obi Mikel who was next [to] Terry when he shouted words that brought him to trial also didn't sign a statement in support of Chelsea captain


 

just had a quick scoot thru this thread and it was the lack of support from Chelsea's black players that struck me when Tottenham beat Chelsea for the first time in ages in the league around 2006/7 season.
Corner came over, overhit, no contact, pushing or anything. The usually totally calm Ledley King chases after Terry after the latter said something to him (as did Tottenhams's black players who had to be held back from Terry in the melee on the half way line where Terry had ran back from the corner). Drogba et al just stood back when normally they seem to be only too willing to get in on the row.

only one youtube I can find and you have to go to 22.20 0f a 25 min clip.for the tug and for the replay of him mouthing at Chimbonda



King is not seen in the chase in this clip (incidentally, he was a team mate of Terry's at SENRAB as youth players)
Mourinho says he doesn't know why Terry was sent off; Graham Poll says for a tug after a free-kick (but it took quite a while after the tug for a yellow to be produced) after the free kick, Poll just seems to blow for a free kick for the physical challenge.

Then, Terry is clearly mouthing something to Chimbonda that incences both him and Zakora; Drogba and Essien just try to calm down THFC's black players but not in the manner that players normally stick up for team mates i.e. pushing others away in a more agressive manner. A lot of this is my opinion of course, but it's always stuck with me that...and how little was made of it. People can watch the link and maybe get a different impression?...

it's also perhaps relevant as Terry's defence team made an issue of only 4 sending offs in god knows how many appearances...would've liked them to ask him exactly what he did say to them, to make them all of a sudden lose it after an innocuous falling over at a free kick.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2012)

Many things could have happened.


----------



## miktheword (Jul 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Many things could have happened.


 


something was said though..do you agree?..it wasn't the challenge that made them lose it...it could have been about their mums...their missus he's shagged ....but it was that it was THFC's black players who were incensed that stayed with me.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 14, 2012)

Why not report your findings to the CPS?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 15, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Ferdinand tweet now deleted but its already on the Mirrors site and been reported to Met Police and FA


 
Was that really Ferdinand? The actual Rio Ferdinand applauding a piece of racist abuse?

The one thing you've always been able to say in John Terry's defence is that at least he's less of a twat than Rio Ferdinand. I see nothing has changed on that front.

e2a: It seems Ferdinand has gone for the 'it was sarcasm' defence. And to think, some PR man somewhere got paid to come up with that. The mind boggles.


----------



## Corax (Jul 15, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Ferdinand tweet now deleted but its already on the Mirrors site and been reported to Met Police and FA


Don't see what the big deal is.  So Cole is sweet on the outside but has a cold heart - so what?


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 15, 2012)

Corax said:


> Don't see what the big deal is. So Cole is sweet on the outside but has a cold heart - so what?


 
Its abusive and you know it. It is also politic all reactionary as its core message is that their is a 'black' view  and that those who are black should only stick to this view. Its a racist and backward as any other nationalist stereotyping.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2012)

I think Corax was having a laugh.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 15, 2012)

trampie said:


> Oh i do think that all people are equal Spymaster and that all people should be treated equally, that is why i think Terry should be treated the same by the English FA as Suarez was, you on the other hand say Terry should not be banned although you say that Terry has broken ENGLISH FA rules, you are happy for a Uruguayan to be done for breaking ENGLISH FA rules but not for an Englishman who you say has also broken ENGLISH FA rules.


I have corrected your post for you as you appear to have forgotten to clarify for us that the FA is English as you have helpfully done in your other enlightening posts. 

Are you suggesting that the FA hasn't punished English players in the past and that it only punishes those dastardly foreigners?


----------



## Maltin (Jul 15, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> e2a: It seems Ferdinand has gone for the 'it was sarcasm' defence. And to think, some PR man somewhere got paid to come up with that. The mind boggles.


He's now claiming it just means someone who is fake. What a fucking idiot.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 15, 2012)

Maltin said:


> He's now claiming it just means someone who is fake. What a fucking idiot.


 
I'd never heard the expression before but it took me about half a second to get the insinuation, and what a vile insinuation it is too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Its abusive and you know it. It is also politic all reactionary as its core message is that their is a 'black' view and that those who are black should only stick to this view. Its a racist and backward as any other nationalist stereotyping.


..._and_ that white people are shit as well.


----------



## Corax (Jul 15, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> I think Corax was having a laugh.


----------



## 1927 (Jul 15, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Ferdinand tweet now deleted but its already on the Mirrors site and been reported to Met Police and FA


 
What the fuck was there in that tweet for the police to be involved? and who reported it?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 15, 2012)

I did - brining the name of choc ices into disrepute


----------



## Corax (Jul 15, 2012)

1927 said:


> What the fuck was there in that tweet for the police to be involved? and who reported it?


By "reported to police", it turns out someone just tweeted the Met's twitter account to complain.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 15, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> I think Corax was having a laugh.


 
I know but I thought I would take the opportunity to explain why its is such a backward and reactionary comment. In the 80s the term coconut was very very often used by black activists against black members or supporters of socialist organisations. A particularly vile group of nats used to pillory people for having 'slave' names.

Cole was a witness in a court and either affirmed or took the oath,the fact that he told the truth as he saw it shouldn't be cause him to be dismissed as a 'choc ice' just because it didn't support the prosecution case.Nor should the views of other black and white footballers be somehow called into question just because they didn't support some others view of what the conclusion of the trial should be..


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 15, 2012)

miktheword said:


> just had a quick scoot thru this thread and it was the lack of support from Chelsea's black players that struck me when Tottenham beat Chelsea for the first time in ages in the league around 2006/7 season.
> Corner came over, overhit, no contact, pushing or anything. The usually totally calm Ledley King chases after Terry after the latter said something to him (as did Tottenhams's black players who had to be held back from Terry in the melee on the half way line where Terry had ran back from the corner). Drogba et al just stood back when normally they seem to be only too willing to get in on the row.
> 
> only one youtube I can find and you have to go to 22.20 0f a 25 min clip.for the tug and for the replay of him mouthing at Chimbonda
> ...




Dredging the depths there mate. Perhaps we could discuss Ian Wrights allegations against Schmeichel


----------



## Wilf (Jul 15, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Quite.
> 
> This notion that a few self appointed quotes are us merchants represent the 'black community' in sport is a joke. So what is their position on the black players at Chelsea are they now coconuts? Is Ashley Cole not black enough or Ryan Bertrand who certainly described himself as a black sportsman in his statement, or Dessailly who was Terry's mentor?


suspect I differ from you considerably on the original issue. For what it's worth, my view is that Terry's defence was absurd as it relied on him saying something Ferdinand misheard as 'fucking black cunt', then repeated back to him, for Terry to repeat it back with the crucial 'I didn't call you ' bit obscured by Mikel. It's _possible_, that happened, but extremely unlikely as Ferdinand didn't even remember the _original insult_, which he would need to have done to feed Terry the line that lead to the youtubed bit. Following on from my own take - and if I am right - I'm entitled to feel _justice_ [in a common sense rather than legal way] would have been served with a 'guilty', even though the magistrate quite rightly threw it out on grounds of reasonable doubt (seemingly making his own doubts about the Terry defence clear in his comments). Taking that even further, there's a case for the FA having a go at the racism bit, with the lower level of proof they go with. Unlikely to succeed as I've said in previous posts, but there is a case for it.

With all that, I'm probably a mile away from you and a few others on this thread. However I think you are spot on with regard to the guardian/black community 'spokesmen' and others who seem to want to see this go to an 'FA Trial' regardless of evidence, what black footballers such as Cole have said - pretty much regardless of anything but the desire for a 'victory'. I've also found the various tweets and articles that this 'will set back anti racism by decades', 'black players won't bother making complaints' utterly hysterical. There's significant racism still in and around fotball, particularly in the fuckwit-o-sphere of twitter but also real life, but this case getting to trial (whether that was right or wrong) is something that couldn't have happened 20 years ago. Real progress though will be when fans and players push on racism and other forms of discrimination, taking it over from the professional 'commentators' and the dead hand of the FA.

Edit: oh, and Trampie, I've found your silly and transparent game of spinning this as an 'English' issue both tedious and, to say the least, unprincipled. I haven't heard anything in this whole thread that suggests you are even slightly motivated by anti-racism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2012)

Wilf said:


> suspect I differ from you considerably on the original issue. For what it's worth, my view is that Terry's defence was absurd as it relied on him saying something Ferdinand misheard as 'fucking black cunt', then repeated back to him, for Terry to repeat it back with the crucial 'I didn't call you ' bit obscured by Mikel. It's _possible_, that happened, but extremely unlikely as Ferdinand didn't even remember the _original insult_, which he would need to have done to feed Terry the line that lead to the youtubed bit. Following on from my own take - and if I am right - I'm entitled to feel justice would have been served with a 'guilty', even though the magistrate quite rightly threw it out on grounds of reasonable doubt (seemingly making his own doubts about the Terry defence clear in his comments). Taking that even further, there's a case for the FA having a go at the racism bit, with the lower level of proof they go with. Unlikely to succeed as I've said in previous posts, but there is a case for it.


 
If someone - ashely cole for example - had told terry that _he_ thought AF accused him of calling him a black cunt then it doesn't matter what af heard or didn't hear. There is no need for him to feed the line in that case.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 15, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> If someone - ashely cole for example - had told terry that _he_ thought AF accused him of calling him a black cunt then it doesn't matter what af heard or didn't hear. There is no need for him to feed the line in that case.


Was that part of the actual defence (genuine question - i was away all week)? Even that would still require Ferdinand to have heard it on the pitch - to relay it to Cole and on to Terry - something he denied hearing at all. Like I said, I do think the judge was right to go with not guilty, just _highly_ sceptical of the Terry defence.


----------



## tommers (Jul 15, 2012)

Or if Ferdinand called Terry something ending in 'cunt' which Terry misheard.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 15, 2012)

tommers said:


> Or if Ferdinand called Terry something ending in 'cunt' which Terry misheard.


 The chances of somebody calling Terry something ending in 'cunt' are quite high.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Was that part of the actual defence (genuine question - i was away all week)? Even that would still require Ferdinand to have heard it on the pitch - to relay it to Cole and on to Terry - something he denied hearing at all. Like I said, I do think the judge was right to go with not guilty, just _highly_ sceptical of the Terry defence.


Well cole said that he heard (through his eyes oddly enough) af shouting at terry about fucking cunts and 'bridge' and so on. There's the gap. bridge as black and so on.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2012)

tommers said:


> Or if Ferdinand called Terry something ending in 'cunt' which Terry misheard.


Yep, and ferdinand forgot calling terry a cunt in his statement but remembered at the mags.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 15, 2012)

Maltin said:


> He's now claiming it just means someone who is fake. What a fucking idiot.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2012)

The same one quoted in above in the guardian article? Note the missing of the white people are shit component.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2012)

Wilf said:


> suspect I differ from you considerably on the original issue. For what it's worth, my view is that Terry's defence was absurd as it relied on him saying something Ferdinand misheard as 'fucking black cunt', then repeated back to him, for Terry to repeat it back with the crucial 'I didn't call you ' bit obscured by Mikel. It's _possible_, that happened, but extremely unlikely as Ferdinand didn't even remember the _original insult_, which he would need to have done to feed Terry the line that lead to the youtubed bit. Following on from my own take - and if I am right - I'm entitled to feel _justice_ [in a common sense rather than legal way] would have been served with a 'guilty', even though the magistrate quite rightly threw it out on grounds of reasonable doubt (seemingly making his own doubts about the Terry defence clear in his comments). Taking that even further, there's a case for the FA having a go at the racism bit, with the lower level of proof they go with. Unlikely to succeed as I've said in previous posts, but there is a case for it.
> 
> With all that, I'm probably a mile away from you and a few others on this thread. However I think you are spot on with regard to the guardian/black community 'spokesmen' and others who seem to want to see this go to an 'FA Trial' regardless of evidence, what black footballers such as Cole have said - pretty much regardless of anything but the desire for a 'victory'. I've also found the various tweets and articles that this 'will set back anti racism by decades', 'black players won't bother making complaints' utterly hysterical. There's significant racism still in and around fotball, particularly in the fuckwit-o-sphere of twitter but also real life, but this case getting to trial (whether that was right or wrong) is something that couldn't have happened 20 years ago. Real progress though will be when fans and players push on racism and other forms of discrimination, taking it over from the professional 'commentators' and the dead hand of the FA.
> 
> Edit: oh, and Trampie, I've found your silly and transparent game of spinning this as an 'English' issue both tedious and, to say the least, unprincipled. I haven't heard anything in this whole thread that suggests you are even slightly motivated by anti-racism.


 
A reasonably balanced post.

Especially the bit about Trampie being a fucking racist penis.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 15, 2012)

> I've also found the various tweets and articles that this 'will set back anti racism by decades', 'black players won't bother making complaints' utterly hysterical.


 
Well yes. For one thing the alternative which many of these rentaquotes seem to want, ie not bothering to give Terry a trial at all, would set us back several centuries. And anyone who would not bother making a complaint about a racist incident because of this one case is a fucking idiot.

Then again, Anton Ferdinand must be wondering if it was worth making the complaint. Partly because it wasn't upheld by the court, but mostly because it has resulted in his brother exposing himself as both a racist and an abject cretin.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2012)

The Guardian on ChocIceGate:


> The fallout from John Terry's court case rumbled on this morning when Rio Ferdinand provided what is believed to be a defence of Saturday's controversial tweet, in which he reacted laughingly to the description of Ashley Cole as a "choc ice" on Twitter, prompting the Chelsea's left-back's lawyers to issue a statement on their client's behalf.
> 
> Cole acted as a defence witness for his club-mate Terry, who was on Friday cleared of racially abusing Ferdinand's brother, Anton. The term "choc ice", commonly understood to mean "black on the outside, white on the inside", was used in reference to Cole in a tweet sent to Rio Ferdinand.
> 
> ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/15/twitter-rio-ferdinand-john-terry-ashley-cole


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 16, 2012)

How is a choc ice something fake? It's ice cream covered in chocolate, pretty much exactly what the name suggests...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2012)

White people are genetically fake says Professor Ferdinand.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> How is a choc ice something fake?


 
It's exactly the same as "coconut" isn't it?

There's a "black position" and a "white position" which are necessarily opposed, the "white position" is necessarily wrong, and any black person not taking the anti-white position is a traitor.

It's racist, though I doubt that Silly Rio's ever considered this.


----------



## gabi (Jul 16, 2012)

Seriously. who cares. it was a throwaway tweet.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 16, 2012)

More shite from the guardian:




> Surreal. That is probably the best way to describe my week in court for the John Terry trial. As a football fan and a sports journalist for Britain's biggest black newspaper I had a vested interest in the proceedings.


 
You don't really have a vested interest though do you? At best you've got a chance to get paid for your opinion on the subject. Some might say you had a vested interest in seeing Terry acquitted, as it gives you an excuse to write more articles on the subject.



> What has disappointed, though, is the negative reception Anton Ferdinand has received. He didn't hear anything; he didn't make the complaint nor decide to bring charges against Terry. He was merely the unfortunate soul in relation to whom the words "fucking black cunt" arose on the football pitch. But the treatment the Queens Park Rangers defender has received sadly shows a dark side to some football supporters. This inherent belief that you should support your club; regardless of the reality or the circumstances. Some fans appear to ignore all notion of what is right, as they take their tribal obsession to extremes and with no consideration for those they hurt in the process.


 
Is there any chance we're exaggerating here? Ignoring all notion of what is right? Come off it.

As a Chelsea fan I find it hard to believe that John Terry is a racist, but I have to concede that in light of everything that's happened it's a possibility that he used racist abuse on a football pitch. If that were the case I would make no excuses for him whatsoever, but it is not a defence of racism to suggest that, like everyone else, Terry's case should be dealt with by a trial and not a witch hunt.

It is tribal obsession as much as anything that has blown this whole thing out of all proportion. Specifically the rabid hatred of Chelsea (and by extension John Terry) by all those (jealous) people who feel that loyalty to their own clubs requires it of them. It is not the Chelsea fans that are the problem here. We just don't want to think that our club captain could have done something so disgraceful, and with so many people salivating at the prospect of tasting John Terry's blood I really don't feel like it's me who has abandoned my ideas of right and wrong.



> How do I explain to my 10-year-old cousin that racially charged language is not OK, when now perhaps it is?


 
How do I explain to my 10-year-old cousin, who wants to be a journalist some day, that crap like this is acceptable provided you invoke the image of a small child? Does anyone _really _think that this one verdict will make racist abuse more common, or that anyone will decide that racist abuse is now acceptable? It seems to me that if even an accusation of racism can turn the whole country against you then if anything closet racists will be more inclined to keep their mouths shut than they were before.

People are convicted of racist crimes all the time. It's only the fact that this one case has been turned into national news that means it will have more of an effect on people's ideas about racism than any of those other cases. Perhaps the people who have spent the last six months publically sharpening their knives should consider that. The idea that Britain's attitude to racism hinges on this one trial is an idea that has been created by people who see an opportunity to get attention, and more importantly money, for their opinions on the subject.



> We can expect more drama and further repercussions as more questions are asked and more opinions are given. It has already been going on for nine months and I would not be surprised if I am still writing about it this time next year.


 
Yeah, that pretty much confirms what I just said. Despite the fact that there will mostly likely be no more information about the actual incident in question a year from now, you'll still be ranting on about it. Because you've found yourself a bandwagon and you're gonna ride it until the wheels fall off. The cause of anti-racism owes you a great debt of gratitude.


> ...But, regardless of the magistrate's decision and regardless of what others say, I will never think it acceptable to use those words in any context.


 
What about when you used them yourself a couple of paragraphs ago?

Original article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/jul/14/john-terry-sarcasm-defence


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> What about when you used them yourself a couple of paragraphs ago?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 16, 2012)

gabi said:


> Seriously. who cares. it was a throwaway tweet.


 
This entire furore has been caused by something which was, at worst, a throwaway remark. That defence wouldn't hold water for Terry (and it shouldn't) so there's no reason Ferdinand should get away with it either.


----------



## gabi (Jul 16, 2012)

Can't we all just get along?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 16, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> It's racist, though I doubt that Silly Rio's ever considered this.


 
Again, that defence wouldn't work for a white person who had made a racist remark. Let's face it, if simply being a moron was a good enough excuse for being a racist then nobody would ever be found guilty of racism.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> This entire furore has been caused by something which was, at worst, a throwaway remark.


 
At worst it was racial abuse. 



SpookyFrank said:


> That defence wouldn't hold water for Terry (and it shouldn't) so there's no reason Ferdinand should get away with it either.


 
I agree. Life bans for the pair of them.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 16, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> At worst it was racial abuse.


 
Well yes. And therefore whether or not it was 'throwaway' is irrelevant. Just as it should be in Ferdinand's case.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 16, 2012)

I think it's pushing it to see the 2 as equivalent. What Terry was alleged to have said (and found not guilty of) was unabiguously racial abuse. Ferdinand responded (approvingly) to what someone else had said*. The term itself is an accusation of being a 'race traitor' - _extremely_ nasty, based on race, but... _different_. That's a long way from being a defence of Ferdinad, he might well be upset about the verdict, but he's still an idiot to go anywhere near that kind of comment.

SF - I think it is possible to look at this outside of club loyalties. I'm a Man U fan and _*do*_ dislike Chelsea, going back to the Ken Bates days, going into a lull then reignited by the Abramovich millions and a fari bit of recent player behaviour. However I detest my own club for pretty much the same reasons - vile owners and the ongoing idiocies of some players, *esp*. Ferdinand. Certainly not accusing you of it, but some Chelsea fans have been equally one eyed in their _defence_ of Terry, particularly the idiots who were outside the court.

* I am aware of the irony of this i.e. that Terry too claimed to have been responding to what someone else had said.  I'm just not sure he _was_.


----------



## poului (Jul 16, 2012)

Wilf said:


> SF - I think it is possible to look at this outside of club loyalties. I'm a Man U fan and _*do*_ dislike Chelsea, going back to the Ken Bates days, going into a lull then reignited by the Abramovich millions and a fari bit of recent player behaviour. However I detest my own club for pretty much the same reasons - vile owners and the ongoing idiocies of some players, *esp*. Ferdinand. Certainly not accusing you of it, but some Chelsea fans have been equally one eyed in their _defence_ of Terry, particularly the idiots who were outside the court.


 
A Premiership club has some dickhead fans in their ranks. Shocker.


----------



## Corax (Jul 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Then again, Anton Ferdinand must be wondering if it was worth making the complaint.


He didn't.  It was an off-duty pig apparently.


----------



## Corax (Jul 16, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> I agree. Life bans for the pair of them.


You bleeding heart liberals make me sick.



Wilf said:


> I think it's pushing it to see the 2 as equivalent. What Terry was alleged to have said (and found not guilty of) was unabiguously racial abuse.


Not quite.  IIUC, he didn't deny saying the words - it was the claimed context that resulting in the not guilty verdict.  Mens Rea, rather than Actus.


----------



## deadringer (Jul 16, 2012)

So to take Ferdinand at his word he is calling Ashley Cole a fake for what reason, giving evidence against his brother and for Terry? Does that even make sense?

I love the



> so there


 
at the end of his tweet. The Lord of Twitter has spoken.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2012)

deadringer said:


> So to take Ferdinand at his word he is calling Ashley Cole a fake for what reason ...


 
For not lying to support a black man over a white man.


----------



## poului (Jul 16, 2012)

Staggering, transparent bias in this Scum article:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...d-showered-with-abuse-on-Chelsea-website.html


----------



## Corax (Jul 16, 2012)

poului said:


> Staggering, transparent bias in this Scum article:
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...d-showered-with-abuse-on-Chelsea-website.html


Angry Blues fans are getting away with uncensored attacks on The Shed’s message board, calling the Manchester United ace a ‘cretin’, ‘dim t**t’ and a ‘disgrace’ on the official Blues site.​ 
'Cretin', 'Dim twat' and 'disgrace' - and they got a fucking news story out of it?   ​


----------



## trampie (Jul 16, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> A reasonably balanced post.
> 
> Especially the bit about Trampie.


All players should be treated the same by the FA, lots of people thought at the time of the Suarez/Evra case that Suarez would not have been found guilty in a criminal court, yet the FA used their low level of proof, apparently 99.5% of all cases before the FA are found guilty to convict Suarez.

Now there is a similar case involving an Englishman i hope for fairness sake the English FA investigate to the same standard that they investigated Suarez a Uruguayan, a lot of people would expect Terry to get a similar sentence to Suarez and if he doesn't a lot of people i would imagine would want to know why ?

For some reason although you admit Terry has broken FA rules, you don't want the English player done yet you seemed to be happy that the Uruguayan player was done and you call me names  , you clearly have a bias issue.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2012)

Shut up you translucent fuckwit.

Everyone's got your number and no one's interested. 

And you should have quoted my post in full. It was accurate.


----------



## Corax (Jul 16, 2012)

Racist dick.


----------



## trampie (Jul 16, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Shut up you translucent fuckwit.


Immature people like you are unable to debate they are very quick to resort to swearing and abuse, its quite sad and pathetic.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2012)

You've been debated with, shown your idiocy, and once again exposed your racism. Every thread you get involved with goes the same way.

You don't like the English. We get it. It's boring.

Fuck off.


----------



## trampie (Jul 16, 2012)

I have no problem with anybody Spymaster, but note that certain people like yourself are very delicate and precious and easily upset.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2012)

trampie said:


> I have no problem with anybody Spymaster, but note that certain people like yourself are very delicate and precious and easily upset.


 
Fuck off, racist.


----------



## trampie (Jul 16, 2012)

See what i mean Spymaster your upset yet again, how immature.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2012)

Fuck off, racist.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 16, 2012)

trampie said:


> All players should be treated the same by the FA, lots of people thought at the time of the Suarez/Evra case that Suarez would not have been found guilty in a criminal court, yet the FA used their low level of proof, apparently 99.5% of all cases before the FA are found guilty to convict Suarez.
> 
> Now there is a similar case involving an Englishman i hope for fairness sake the English FA investigate to the same standard that they investigated Suarez a Uruguayan, a lot of people would expect Terry to get a similar sentence to Suarez and if he doesn't a lot of people i would imagine would want to know why ?
> 
> For some reason although you admit Terry has broken FA rules, you don't want the English player done yet you seemed to be happy that the Uruguayan player was done and you call me names  , you clearly have a bias issue.


 

We heard you the first time.

You were wrong and sounded like a dick.

Repeating yourself ad nauseam changes nothing.


----------



## trampie (Jul 16, 2012)

I know what is coming next Spymaster, _''See Wilf's post #568, mine #565, and Corax's #560 and #574.'' _Over and over i shouldn't wonder.


----------



## trampie (Jul 16, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> We heard you the first time.
> 
> You were wrong and sounded like a dick.
> 
> Repeating yourself ad nauseam changes nothing.


Wrong, wrong about what Station Street ?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 16, 2012)

trampie said:


> Wrong, wrong about what Station Street ?


 
All your shite you keep repeating about Terry & Suarez.

You're wrong.

You just repeating it makes you look a right prat.

And some of your shit you post is well dodge, marking you out as a racist arsehole.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2012)

trampie said:


> I know what is coming next Spymaster, _''See Wilf's post #568, mine #565, and Corax's #560 and #574.'' _Over and over i shouldn't wonder.


 
Fuck off, racist.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And some of your shit you post is well dodge, marking you out as a racist arsehole.


 
Don't bother with him. He's being told to fuck off on several threads.

Just join in.


----------



## trampie (Jul 16, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> All your shite you keep repeating about Terry & Suarez.
> 
> You're wrong.
> 
> ...


Wrong you say station street, what do you mean wrong ?, what is wrong ?, i'm all ears, lets have it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2012)

?,


----------



## Wilf (Jul 16, 2012)

What surpises me Trampie is that you don't think this should be left to the Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales - or the Courts of England and Wales.  Quite brave wasn't it for them to prosecute an England football captain, without fear of favour - something they didn't do for the South American, Louis Suarez.  England and Wales must be a great place to live eh?


----------



## trampie (Jul 16, 2012)

Wilf said:


> What surpises me Trampie is that you don't think this should be left to the Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales - or the Courts of England and Wales. Quite brave wasn't it for them to prosecute an England football captain, without fear of favour - something they didn't do for the South American, Louis Suarez. England and Wales must be a great place to live eh?


CPS ?, its the FA that is in charge of footie in England.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2012)

?,


----------



## Wilf (Jul 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> CPS ?, its the FA that is in charge of footie in England.


With your nationalist kung fu you destroy my weapons of satire.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2012)




----------



## discokermit (Jul 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> ?,


?,?


----------



## poului (Jul 17, 2012)

?, ?  ,


----------



## Wilf (Jul 17, 2012)

¿ ¿


----------



## poului (Jul 17, 2012)

...........


----------



## poului (Jul 17, 2012)

... ?


----------



## discokermit (Jul 17, 2012)

trampie said:


> ?, ?,


!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2012)

Wilf said:


> ¿ ¿


 
How do you invert text on here ?,

Can you do it with Trampie's posts ?,


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 17, 2012)

Corax said:


> Angry Blues fans are getting away with uncensored attacks on The Shed’s message board, calling the Manchester United ace a ‘cretin’, ‘dim t**t’ and a ‘disgrace’ on the official Blues site.​
> 'Cretin', 'Dim twat' and 'disgrace' - and they got a fucking news story out of it?  ​


 
But he _is _a cretin


----------



## Corax (Jul 17, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> But he _is _a cretin


The term itself is OOO IMO, not much better than 'retard'.  But the sentiment behind it's spot-on!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 17, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> How do you invert text on here ?,
> 
> Can you do it with Trampie's posts ?,


 Just cut and pasted a Spanish upside down thingy.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 18, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> How do you invert text on here ?,
> 
> Can you do it with Trampie's posts ?,


 
uʍop ǝpısdn uǝǝɹɔs ɹnoʎ uɹnʇ ʇsnſ


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 27, 2012)

And now charged by the FA.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19021184



> Terry, 31, is alleged to have used "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour" in the 23 October match.
> The FA statement continues: "It is further alleged that this included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Ferdinand."


----------



## Wilf (Jul 27, 2012)

Slightly surprised the FA have done this (but pleased, given that I did't believe the Terry 'defence' in the legal trial). Suppose, in a way it was innevitable. Enough of a head of steam that they couldn't ignore it + they couldn't easily go with the non-racial aspect and charge them both (you were both cunting away at each other) given the reaction there would be. Only left charging Terry.  Should make Trampie 'happy' at least. 

Terry's 'team' and lawyers will be cranking up the PR initiative given the legal not guilty.  I could even see him going to the next stages if he gets found guilty (court of arbitration in sport (?), judicial review).  FA must be considerably more apprehensive about this than the Suarez case.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 27, 2012)

I'm surprised, I thought they would try and slither out of it. I wonder will their 99.57% conviction rate stay.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 27, 2012)

Think the FA will get egg on their face here. He's proved in a court of law that whilst he used abusive words, every other player was using abusive words too, so if CUNT is to be the abusive word then they'd better charge everyone in the league.

If the point of this is the reference to the ethnic origin of Ferdinand then that has been shown to be a total non-starter.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 27, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Think the FA will get egg on their face here. He's proved in a court of law that whilst he used abusive words, every other player was using abusive words too, so if CUNT is to be the abusive word then they'd better charge everyone in the league.
> 
> If the point of this is the reference to the ethnic origin of Ferdinand then that has been shown to be a total non-starter.


 [Pedantically] Not quite the reference to his ethnic origin - which is in the charge and is anyway admitted - it's the plausibility of the 'I'm not calling you..' bit that the case will turn on. On the lower burden of proof, the FA might make that stick.  As I said earlier in the thread, Ferdinand's lack of memory of any racial aspect seems central and undermines the Tery case.  For Terry to be denying saying something to Ferdinand, Ferdinad would have to have first said it to him (and thus have a memory of it).  Anyway, we'll see..


----------



## Corax (Jul 27, 2012)

So the English FA charged the English player with racial abuse. Does that mean the Welsh poster with a massive Welsh leek up his arse about it is going to shut up about it now?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 27, 2012)

Wilf said:


> [Pedantically] Not quite the reference to his ethnic origin - which is in the charge and is anyway admitted - it's the plausibility of the 'I'm not calling you..' bit that the case will turn on. *On the lower burden of proof, the FA might make that stick.* As I said earlier in the thread, Ferdinand's lack of memory of any racial aspect seems central and undermines the Tery case. For Terry to be denying saying something to Ferdinand, Ferdinad would have to have first said it to him (and thus have a memory of it). Anyway, we'll see..


 
Is there a set standard of proof required for an FA inquiry? A professional body coming to a different conclusion to a court of law sounds like a minefield to me.

I'm sure the BMA and other may well have done so, but I really don't know if the FA has such a solid history of disciplinary action as some other professional bodies?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 27, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Is there a set standard of proof required for an FA inquiry? A professional body coming to a different conclusion to a court of law sounds like a minefield to me.
> 
> I'm sure the BMA and other may well have done so, but I really don't know if the FA has such a solid history of disciplinary action as some other professional bodies?


 I thought there was a civil standard of proof for such hearings, though, to be honest that may just come from the Suarez case and discussions on that (and this) thread.  At the same time, when the Suarez hearing took place I also have a memory of 'it being agreed' to go with a civil case standard, so it may not be fixed.  AKA, I don't know.


----------



## Glitter (Jul 27, 2012)

Lower burden of proof. Balance of probabilities.

The same thing is mentioned on the Ian Tomlinson thread.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 27, 2012)

Glitter said:


> Lower burden of proof. Balance of probabilities.
> 
> The same thing is mentioned on the Ian Tomlinson thread.


 
What?

Ian Tomlinson case is being decided by the Football Association now?


----------



## trampie (Jul 27, 2012)

Charging Terry was a given surely ?, but the FA aren't out of the woods yet, as they have to treat an English player the same as a Uruguayan player, people will be looking very closely at the verdict and any possible sentence, lots of people think Terry should get at least the same sentence and fine as Suarez did, if not, people will want to know why not ?

I think the FA will be governed by their rules and regulations and have no room to do anything other than follow their rules, if they do that, then all will be well in the footie world.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 28, 2012)

Just let it go FFS. It's like hearing Gordon Brown is going to perform a full and thorough investigation.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 28, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm surprised, I thought they would try and slither out of it. I wonder will their 99.57% conviction rate stay.


 
Let's hope so.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2012)

trampie said:


> Charging Terry was a given surely ?, but the FA aren't out of the woods yet, as they have to treat an English player the same as a Uruguayan player, people will be looking very closely at the verdict and any possible sentence, lots of people think Terry should get at least the same sentence and fine as Suarez did, if not, people will want to know why not ?


 
Did you make the same repeated demands for Suarez to be brought up before the courts as Terry has been? You didn't, did you? Why not? Surely you don't have a ..... hidden agenda ...

Why aren't you treating a Uruguayan player the same as an English player? Bit of racism in evidence Trampie eh eh?


----------



## trampie (Jul 28, 2012)

Everybody should be treated the same.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2012)

So you're saying Suarez should have been charged in the courts?


----------



## trampie (Jul 28, 2012)

I'm not saying anybody should have been charged in the courts, i'm saying the FA should treat all players the same, they may well do, we shall see.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2012)

trampie said:


> I'm not saying anybody should have been charged in the courts, i'm saying the FA should treat all players the same, they may well do, we shall see.


 
You believe that racist abuse shouldn't lead to a charge in the courts? People should just be able to get away with it? Or only if they're Uruguayan? I think you have questions to answer.


----------



## trampie (Jul 28, 2012)

two sheds said:


> You believe that racist abuse shouldn't lead to a charge in the courts? People should just be able to get away with it? Or only if they're Uruguayan? I think you have questions to answer.


I never said that racist abuse shouldn't lead to a charge in court.
Do you think 'two sheds' that the FA should treat all players equally ?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2012)

trampie said:


> I never said that racist abuse shouldn't lead to a charge in court.
> Do you think 'two sheds' that the FA should treat all players equally ?


 
Yes I do. I also believe that courts should treat people equally. You've been sounding off that Terry should be brought before the FA, but you were *very* quiet when you could have been demanding that Suarez be brought before the courts. Why is that?????? Because he is Uruguayan and Terry is English I think, we shall see.






Boring and pointless when someone makes the same fucking inane point over and over and over, intit  .


----------



## trampie (Jul 28, 2012)

Do you think that both Terry and Suarez should have been brought before the law courts 'two sheds' ?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2012)

You answer my question first:

You believe that racist abuse shouldn't lead to a charge in the courts?



trampie said:


> Everybody should be treated the same.


 
so why are you not complaining about Suarez not having been brought before a Court of Law? You feel that the FA is more important than British Courts of Justice? I think we should be told.

It's because you're secretly Uruguayan isn't it.


----------



## trampie (Jul 28, 2012)

two sheds said:


> You answer my question first:


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2012)

Bloody Uruguayans coming over here demanding favourable treatment.


----------



## Corax (Jul 29, 2012)

I've got a bit of a soft spot for Swansea and Cardiff, but for some reason I'm developing a little voice in the back of my head that wants the English FA to tell them to bugger off and play against Airbus UK Broughton and Afan Lido.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 30, 2012)

Looks like the FA are doing a yin and yang balance (_Rio_ F now charged):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19052103


----------



## Corax (Jul 30, 2012)

Oh FFS.


----------



## poului (Jul 30, 2012)

FA trying to bury all this nonsense in the news while the Olympics is going on. What a ridiculous organisation.


----------



## deadringer (Jul 30, 2012)

They did say they were going to deal with this swiftly, which is what they are doing.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 30, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Looks like the FA are doing a yin and yang balance (_Rio_ F now charged):
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19052103


 
and quite rightly as well


----------



## Wilf (Aug 11, 2012)

Hodgson says Terry can come back if he avoids an 'enormous ban'. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/aug/10/roy-hodgson-england-john-terry

Obviously difficult to come up with a form of words with the FA case coming up, but he's surely got that miles wrong.  Sounds like if the FA find he's just a 'bit' racist or just give him a few games off for a racial incident he's okay.  Should have stuck with 'we'll assess the situation after the case and not before'.  If nothing else he's made it _look like_ he's not that worried about racism and just wants it to go away (which, at one level, as a manager he obviously does).  Can't imagine this will play out well with Kick it Out etc.


----------



## trampie (Sep 24, 2012)

Jumped before pushed springs to mind.


----------



## trampie (Sep 27, 2012)

Well i told you boys he would have to be found guilty, even after being found innocent by a court of law he still broke FA rules, but imo he has got a lesser sentence than Suarez, therefore the impartiality of the FA will be called into question by some, one rule for an Englishman and one rule for Johnny Foreigner, will a Welsh team like the Swans in the Premier league ever get a fair shake in a dispute ?....hmm


----------



## trampie (Sep 27, 2012)

trampie said:


> I think the FA will charge Terry and will find him guilty, but will they give him the same ban [or longer] than Suarez ?
> If the FA do charge him and do find him guilty, they will have to dish out at least as stiff a sentence as they gave Suarez otherwise the FA will not be seen as impartial, in fact the English FA will be open to accusations of treating English players differently to foreign players, at this stage i hope and expect that the English FA will do the right thing, a lot of people will be watching with interest.


Oh yes.


----------



## twistedAM (Sep 27, 2012)

trampie said:


> Oh yes.


 
I read in one of the papers today that they reckoned the FA could get away with a lesser punishment as Terry made one remark whereas Suarez did it ten or twelve times.


----------



## tommers (Sep 27, 2012)




----------



## trampie (Sep 27, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> They won't and they can't.


They won't and they can't find him guilty you say Spymaster , if you come back from your ban perhaps you would like to continue to quote posts from the likes of Wilf and Corax backing up your view only for them to be proved wrong just like you.


----------



## tommers (Sep 27, 2012)

Somebody put him out!  He's on fire!


----------



## trampie (Sep 27, 2012)

English football back in the mire.


----------



## T & P (Sep 27, 2012)

Couldn't happen to a nicer person.


----------



## Glitter (Sep 27, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> I read in one of the papers today that they reckoned the FA could get away with a lesser punishment as Terry made one remark whereas Suarez did it ten or twelve times.



Aye, Suarez got 2 for abuse, 2 for the racial element of the abuse and 4 for aggravation, which was documented as being repetition.

The FA have acted completely consistently for once. :yay:


----------



## Wilf (Sep 27, 2012)

trampie said:


> They won't and they can't find him guilty you say Spymaster , if you come back from your ban perhaps you would like to continue to quote posts from the likes of Wilf and Corax backing up your view only for them to be proved wrong just like you.


Hold my hand up, absolutely, no problem. I thought the FA wouldn't charge him, largely because of the court case decision. At one level I'm ambiguous about this as a kind of 'retrial', but on the other, delighted because, imo, he did it.

I wouldn't get too triumphal though trampie. However you phrased it, in all of your posts about the 'English' FA  , you also didn't think he would get charged. Your rather transparent game along was to expose the FA as racist. Well actually no, you'd have settled for _anything_, but it was to play silly games. For example:



> What are you saying Wilf, the English FA will let an Englishman off, yet find a Uruguayan guilty ?, surely not.


And there were plenty of others in similar vein.

In fact you are still doing it today (788):

​


> Well i told you boys he would have to be found guilty, even after being found innocent by a court of law he still broke FA rules, but imo he has got a lesser sentence than Suarez, therefore the impartiality of the FA will be called into question by some, one rule for an Englishman and one rule for Johnny Foreigner, will a Welsh team like the Swans in the Premier league ever get a fair shake in a dispute ?....hmm​


​


----------



## Wilf (Sep 27, 2012)

Actually trampie, no that's unfair. Really, I'd like to thank you for coming on here to congratulate the *English* FA for how they dealt with this case. Despite it being a former captain, despite the complications of the not-guilty in the court case, they showed how important the issue of racism was. No fear or favour regardless of the ethnicity and nationality of the accused - and they even managed to calibrate the punishment with Terry getting less for the non-repetition of the phrase.  As a nationalist, it's pretty big of you to come on here and highlight all of that.    With more like you the United Kingdom can finally start to pull together. I'll pass your thanks on to Her Maj.


----------



## trampie (Sep 27, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Hold my hand up, absolutely, no problem. I thought the FA wouldn't charge him, largely because of the court case decision. At one level I'm ambiguous about this as a kind of 'retrial', but on the other, delighted because, imo, he did it.
> 
> I wouldn't get too triumphal though trampie. However you phrased it, in all of your posts about the 'English' FA  , you also didn't think he would get charged. Your rather transparent game along was to expose the FA as racist. Well actually no, you'd have settled for _anything_, but it was to play silly games. For example:
> 
> ...


I thought the FA would charge Terry, and they did, i thought the FA would find Terry guilty [and they did], i was concerned that the FA having found Terry guilty would not give him a similar sentence to Suarez as one is English and one not [i was right to be concerned].


----------



## Wilf (Sep 27, 2012)

trampie said:


> I thought the FA would charge Terry, and they did, i thought the FA would find Terry guilty [and they did], i was concerned that the FA having found Terry guilty would not give him a similar sentence to Suarez as one is English and one not [i was right to be concerned].


 So, what are you accuing them of, racism or nationalism?


----------



## Glitter (Sep 27, 2012)

trampie said:


> I thought the FA would charge Terry, and they did, i thought the FA would find Terry guilty [and they did], i was concerned that the FA having found Terry guilty would not give him a similar sentence to Suarez as one is English and one not [i was right to be concerned].



Terry got exactly the same ban and a much bigger fine than Suarez.


----------



## trampie (Sep 27, 2012)

Not treating people equally hey.


----------



## twistedAM (Sep 27, 2012)

trampie said:


> Not treating people equally hey.


 
See #976. It is equal.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 27, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> See #976. It is equal.


 ... and to be honest trampie, if you weren't playing games, you'd be able to acknowledge that.


----------



## trampie (Sep 27, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> See #976. It is equal.


I was responding to Glitter, you better direct your remark to him or is it her.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 27, 2012)

trampie said:


> They won't and they can't find him guilty you say Spymaster ...


 
Yep, I'll give you that, although I changed my mind and expected him to get fucked last month when Rio got fined by the FA over the Choc Ice thing. After that I thought there was no way that the spineless twats would've found JT not guilty.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 27, 2012)

trampie said:


> Not treating people equally hey.


 
Quite. Terry got the same equivalent match ban but five times the fine.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 28, 2012)

T & P said:


> Couldn't happen to a nicer person.


 
You know him or do you just read the papers? Since when has that been a criteria for justice


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 28, 2012)

Thought this was perhaps the most perceptive piece I have read re this issue

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/27/john-terry-fa-finding-guilty


----------



## Ted Striker (Sep 28, 2012)

Just look at his face
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




What a twat


----------



## trampie (Sep 28, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> *Yep, I'll give you that*, although I changed my mind and expected him to get fucked last month when Rio got fined by the FA over the Choc Ice thing. After that I thought there was no way that the spineless twats would've found JT not guilty.


 


All the name calling and abuse towards me, somebody that read the case right all along and then you claim you changed your mind at the 11th hour .
How pathetic of you, i wonder if you will think twice about abusing somebody for having a different view to you in the future even when they have a reasonable and creditable view and you have a biased stupid thick view ?, which is the norm for you ?, i won't hold my breath on you changing after all a leopard doesn't change its spots so they say.


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 28, 2012)

What's nice is how gracious Trampie is, even when his 'victory' is actually disingenuous as fuck.

Again.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 28, 2012)

So then Trampie, you're keen to congratulate the *English* FA for taking racism seriously?  Even when it's a former *England* captain? Yes?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2012)

The Octagon said:
			
		

> What's nice is how gracious Trampie is, even when his 'victory' is actually disingenuous as fuck.


 
 Well quite.

I'm happy to hold my hands up when I get it wrong.

And most of the opprobrium I directed at Trampie was about his racism towards the English, all of which I wholeheartedly stand by!

As for his claim to have "read the case right all along", that's bollocks since it would've required sight of the evidence which he hasn't had. He just hoped and got lucky. Can't blame him for milking it though.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2012)

Wilf said:


> So then Trampie, you're keen to congratulate the *English* FA for taking racism seriously? Even when it's a former *England* captain? Yes?


 
Don't hold your breath.


----------



## trampie (Sep 28, 2012)

Criticism or perceived criticism isn't racism, denying valid criticism and turning a blind eye is not helpful.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2012)

So congratulations to the English FA then, yes?

Credit where it's due?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 28, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> So congratulations to the English FA then, yes?
> 
> Credit where it's due?


 Trampie's just too upset about the massive fine Terry got. It's the anti-English bias that worries him most.


----------



## mattie (Sep 28, 2012)

Rio would totally kick his arse.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 28, 2012)

*Joseph Barton* ‏@*Joey7Barton*
12 games!!! By the FA's perverse reckoning, I'd of got less of a ban for racially abusing the Man City players than tickling them as I did.
 
*Collapse* 

 *Reply* 
 *Retweet* 
 *Favorite*


----------



## revol68 (Sep 29, 2012)

mattie said:


> Rio would totally kick his arse.


 
I always got the impression Rio would be shit in a fight and I reckon Terry would be vicious, not good, just willing to take it to a higher level, a bit of the Dennis Wise about him.

Wes Brown on the otherhand looks like he wouldn't fuck about.


----------



## Gingerman (Sep 29, 2012)




----------



## The39thStep (Sep 29, 2012)

mattie said:


> Rio would totally kick his arse.


 
make a change from attacking women then

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/217245-ferdinand-facing-ban-over-battle-of-stamford-bridge


----------



## mattie (Sep 29, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> make a change from attacking women then
> 
> http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/217245-ferdinand-facing-ban-over-battle-of-stamford-bridge


 



> Ferdinand reportedly kicked a Chelsea female steward by mistake


 


Excellent.  Professional footballer kicks wrong person.


----------



## cesare (Sep 29, 2012)

mattie said:


> Excellent.  Professional footballer kicks wrong person.


----------



## agricola (Oct 5, 2012)

The FA have released the reasons for the decision:



> In new evidence that was considered by the panel but not by the court, it shows in an interview with FA officials five days after the match Cole said he heard a "b-word" but did not mention the word black. In a later emailed statement, Cole says the word "could have been Bridge". But Barnard later emails the FA after discussing the matter with Cole to add the words "black or Bridge".
> 
> In his witness statement some 10 months later Barnard also claims that Cole heard the word "cunt" being used in close proximity to the "b-word". But the commission found on the balance of probabilities that Cole's original evidence contained neither that word nor "fucking".
> 
> "All of this causes the commission to have very real concerns about the accuracy of Mr Barnard's recollection, and the motivation for the assertions that he makes in his witness statement about what Mr Cole said during the FA interview of him, particularly his alleged use of the word 'black' but also the words 'fucking' and 'cunt'."


----------



## Wilf (Oct 5, 2012)

I had some doubts about the 'retrial' aspect of this, but I think it's the right decision. I'm also glad the FA went to the heart of the matter about the plausibility of the 'I was only responding to what Ferdinand said' line (from Terry himself and Cole, Bernard's contributions).  They could have gone with some mealy mouthed 'you just can't use those words line', but managed to avoid what would have been a cop out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2012)

fuck john terry and fuck all those who sail in him


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2012)

Gingerman said:


>




but it would have been even better if yer man in the background had been proper stamping on him.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 5, 2012)

Minutae of the case aside, there are too many apologists around trying the defend the actions of a rather shitty man


----------



## Kanda (Oct 5, 2012)

*Ashley Cole* ‏@*TheRealAC3*
Hahahahaa, well done #*fa* I lied did I, #*BUNCHOFTWATS*
 Retweeted by *Dan Roan*


----------



## agricola (Oct 5, 2012)

Kanda said:


> *Ashley Cole* ‏@*TheRealAC3*
> Hahahahaa, well done #*fa* I lied did I, #*BUNCHOFTWATS*
> Retweeted by *Dan Roan*


 
From a certain Everton forum:




			
				Deano said:
			
		

> Ashley Cole has just deleted the tweet... lucky that no one actually saw, it only got 18,000 RT's so he's safe.
> 
> How much damage can one man keep on doing to himself with a mobile phone.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 5, 2012)

> How much damage can one man keep on doing to himself with a mobile phone.


Not often you can say that a man who brings a gun into work - _and shoots someone with it_ - does more damage with his phone.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 5, 2012)

Haven't read the report, but this bit quoted in the grauniad pulls no punches. Seems to be implying things might have gone differently in the court case if all the evidence was before the magistrate. Whilst I suspect that's true, I'm slightly surprised (but also impressed) that the report came out with it:


> But according to the independent commission, Cole did not mention the word "black" in the initial interview with the FA on October 28. On 3 November, the Chelsea club secretary, David Barnard, asked the FA for the specific word "black" to be inserted into Cole's witness statement.
> The commission deemed an email exchange between the FA and Barnard should be regarded as "cogent new evidence", saying: "These highly material issues relating to Mr Cole's evidence were not addressed by the chief magistrate – he clearly did not have the interview notes of the FA's interviewers, or Mr Barnard's statement before him – and they do not appear in his judgment.
> "Had it been before him, the commission has no doubt that the chief magistrate would have examined Mr Cole's evidence as to what he claims he heard Mr Ferdinand say to Mr Terry on the pitch very carefully indeed, or scrutinised it even more closely than he may have done."
> It added: "All of this causes the commission to have very real concerns about the accuracy of Mr Barnard's recollections, and the motivation for the assertions that he makes in his witness statement about what Mr Cole said during the FA interview of him, particularly his alleged use of the word 'black'."


----------



## T & P (Oct 5, 2012)

not-bono-ever said:


> Minutae of the case aside, there are too many apologists around trying the defend the actions of a rather shitty man


But haven't you heard? He's not a bad man at all (let alone a cunt as most neutrals tend to refer to him as), and we're all just Chelsea haters for daring to have a bad word to say about him.


----------



## T & P (Oct 5, 2012)

Meanwhile, Ashley Cole is the latest person to make a complete cunt of himself on Twitter




			
				The Fiver newsletter said:
			
		

> The panel's 63-page report also casts doubt on the evidence given by POJT's team-mate Ashley Cole and Chelsea club secretary, David Barnard, suggesting that the left-back's story happened to change over time to suit POJT's version of events.
> Cole today took to Twitter to fire off his reaction to that suggestion with the same sort of tact with which some people might handle an airgun in a dressing room, blasting: "Hahahahaa, well done #fa I lied did I, #BUNCHOFTW@TS." He later apologised, saying in a less bad-word-filled statement via his solicitor that the tweet had been posted "in the heat of the moment".


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 5, 2012)

twitter + footballers = fail


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2012)

Difficult to defend this as a Chelsea supporter.

Sad about that.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 5, 2012)

> in a less bad-word-filled statement via his solicitor


_Ashley Cole's Solicitor_ - now _there's_ someone who earns their money.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 5, 2012)

I wonder if the Norwich fans tomorrow will manage to work 'improbable, implausiable and contrived' into a chant?


----------



## tommers (Oct 6, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Difficult to defend this as a Chelsea supporter.
> 
> Sad about that.



It's noticeable that everybody defending him has been a Chelsea fan.  Then again I do the same with di canio.  It's a weird thing for grown men to do though.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 6, 2012)

tommers said:


> It's noticeable that everybody defending him has been a Chelsea fan. Then again I do the same with di canio. It's a weird thing for grown men to do though.


 
May be on here but I have found that amongst others ( I am the only Chelsea supporter for miles in an area of City and United fans) a very strong  view  has been that if he was cleared by the court that he shouldn't have been tried by some FA hanging court.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 6, 2012)

T & P said:


> Meanwhile, Ashley Cole is the latest person to make a complete cunt of himself on Twitter


 
Cole obviously not black enough for the FA


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 6, 2012)

tommers said:


> It's noticeable that everybody defending him has been a Chelsea fan. Then again I do the same with di canio. It's a weird thing for grown men to do though.


I'm not really a fan but I'll defend him, kind of.

It was a disgrace the FA had him stripped of the England captaincy before his trial, destabilising the team before a major - innocent until proven guilty, end of.   It was a disgrace they had another trial after the criminal one.

(more about the FA then Terry but nm)


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 6, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> It was a disgrace the FA had him stripped of the England captaincy before his trial, destabilising the team before a major - innocent until proven guilty, end of. It was a disgrace they had another trial after the criminal one.


 
The FA tribunal isn't a trial though.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 6, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> The FA tribunal isn't a trial though.


Witch-hunt then?


----------



## T & P (Oct 6, 2012)

Actually the redressing of a miscarriage of justice, by the looks of it. Just because the court couldn't find actual proof that the breathtakingly absurd and improbable-as-fuck cock and bull story conjured up by Terry's defence was bullshit, it doesn't mean Terry's version of events must be the truth. Indeed, even the Court itself was quick to express  its doubts about Terry's version of events, and the decision to find him not guilty would have been given through firmly gritted teeth.

The FA does not have such constrains and can pass judgement on the balance of probability. Which, in this case, is overwhelming against Terry. Or do you actually believe for one second Terry was telling the truth?


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 6, 2012)

T & P said:


> Actually the redressing of a miscarriage of justice, by the looks of it. Just because the court couldn't find actual proof that the breathtakingly absurd and improbable-as-fuck cock and bull story conjured up by Terry's defence was bullshit, it doesn't mean Terry's version of events must be the truth. Indeed, even the Court itself was quick to express its doubts about Terry's version of events, and the decision to find him not guilty would have been given through firmly gritted teeth.
> 
> The FA does not have such constrains and can pass judgement on the balance of probability. Which, in this case, is overwhelming against Terry. Or do you actually believe for one second Terry was telling the truth?


 
Aside from the absurd idea that the FA has a brief to redress 'a miscarriage of justice'  there is no evidence from any of the court reporting that the  stipendiary magistrates decision was given through firmly gritted teeth.

I too am not satisfied with the present ludicrous criminal justice sytem whereby they don't reach the decision that I would want. Do you think that a panel hearing based on balance of probability ( similar to anti social behaviour orders) is the way forward or or trial by journalism?


----------



## T & P (Oct 6, 2012)

Do you believe Terry was telling the truth? _Really?_

And are you always happy to accept a Court of Law ruling as final, and leave it at that, even when you might believe they got it wrong? Nor that I'd be suggesting they're comparable offences, but I can think of a good number of cases in which pressure, from the media and elsewhere, helped correct miscarriages of justice and show the Court had got it wrong.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 6, 2012)

T & P said:


> Do you believe Terry was telling the truth? _Really?_
> 
> And are you always happy to accept a Court of Law ruling as final, and leave it at that, even when you might believe they got it wrong? Nor that I'd be suggesting they're comparable offences, but I can think of a good number of cases in which pressure, from the media and elsewhere, helped correct miscarriages of justice and show the Court had got it wrong.


 
I have no reason to disbelieve Terry, no one heard the any of the words spoken not the referee or his assistants, nor any of the 22 players on the pitch let alone the context.  Terry admitted using the words but within the context that he gave.

I might think that courts have got a lot of things wrong but that isn't sufficient reason to advocate that the case should be re run and re run until someone gets the decision that I want. New evidence yes, failings inn the process yes all require another hearing but I cannot agree with you that it is right or just  that pressure from the media caused the FA hearing to change its role to 'redress a miscarriage of justice'


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 6, 2012)

The FA took the England captaincy from JT _last year_ without any trial, resulting in Capello's resignation. (How much did that cost?)

Then they changed the rules _after_ charging him from:-
'The applicable standard of proof shall be the flexible civil standard of the balance of probability. The more serious the allegation, taking into account the nature of the misconduct alleged and the context of the case, the greater the burden of evidence required to prove the matter'

to
'The applicable standard of proof is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities'

They removed the requirement of proof from themselves in serious cases.

Was Terry guilty? Fuck knows, probably. Probably shouldn't be enough for any court but that's the standard the FA have now set for themselves...a lower standard whilst demanding a higher standard from players who now, it appears, have to prove their innocence?


----------



## cesare (Oct 6, 2012)

Are the FA the employer?

Edit:this isn't a disingenuous question  - I don't know the employment relationship between the players and the FA (as opposed to their individual clubs)


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 6, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> The FA took the England captaincy from JT _last year_ without any trial, resulting in Capello's resignation. (How much did that cost?)
> 
> Then they changed the rules _after_ charging him from:-
> 'The applicable standard of proof shall be the flexible civil standard of the balance of probability. The more serious the allegation, taking into account the nature of the misconduct alleged and the context of the case, the greater the burden of evidence required to prove the matter'
> ...


It's the exact same standard of evidence they've always applied, and publicly applied when they charged Suarez. They haven't removed anything, they have set any standards, they've adhered to the standards they already had.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 6, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> It's the exact same standard of evidence they've always applied, and publicly applied when they charged Suarez. They haven't removed anything, they have set any standards, they've adhered to the standards they already had.


You are misinformed. I have quoted the 2011/12 rule and the changing of it for 2012/13. This was why Terry's counsel were arguing over 'technicalities' before the case went ahead.

Another thing - there's an implication that Cole changed his evidence. That's not true either, afaik.


----------



## Maltin (Oct 6, 2012)

cesare said:


> Are the FA the employer?
> 
> Edit:this isn't a disingenuous question  - I don't know the employment relationship between the players and the FA (as opposed to their individual clubs)


If the player plays for England, then, yes, I believe they do become an employee of the FA.


----------



## Maltin (Oct 6, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> It's the exact same standard of evidence they've always applied, and publicly applied when they charged Suarez. They haven't removed anything, they have set any standards, they've adhered to the standards they already had.


Section 4 of the report shows that the rules did change between the time of the alleged offence and the FA tribunal, and the report shows how they took this into consideration. I dont know the detail of this consideration but i guess they concluded that their findings would be the same under both rules.


----------



## cesare (Oct 6, 2012)

Maltin said:


> If the player plays for England, then, yes, I believe they do become an employee of the FA.


Cheers Maltin. Spymaster/ bahnhoff strasse brought up the point on a different thread (can't remember the name of it now) and I and Spark explained why an employer can fairly take action on an errant employee when there's been a "not guilty" in a criminal court for what *seems to be* similar charges. I'll try and find a link rather than going into more detail.


----------



## Maltin (Oct 6, 2012)

cesare said:


> Cheers Maltin. Spymaster/ bahnhoff strasse brought up the point on a different thread (can't remember the name of it now) and I and Spark explained why an employer can fairly take action on an errant employee when there's been a "not guilty" in a criminal court for what *seems to be* similar charges. I'll try and find a link rather than going into more detail.


Irregardless of employment status, I think as the game's governing body, the FA can do what they want as I imagine a consequence of playing in the FA's competition are that one must abide by the FA's rules. Just because someone might be found not guilty in court, it doesn't mean they haven't breached the FA's rules.


----------



## cesare (Oct 6, 2012)

Maltin said:


> Irregardless of employment status, I think as the game's governing body, the FA can do what they want as I imagine a consequence of playing in the FA's competition are that one must abide by the FA's rules. Just because someone might be found not guilty in court, it doesn't mean they haven't breached the FA's rules.


Aye.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 6, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> I have no reason to disbelieve Terry, no one heard the any of the words spoken not the referee or his assistants, nor any of the 22 players on the pitch let alone the context. Terry admitted using the words but within the context that he gave.


The key person who didn't hear anything was Anton Ferdinand.  He didn't hear _himself_ accusing Terry of calling him a fucking black cunt.  He didn't know there was anything there till after the game and something cropped up on youtube.  If Ferdinand didn't hear or believe he had been abused by Terry - and didn't say anything to Terry - Terry's whold defence about 'reponding' becomes absurd.

In terms of the magistrate, there is clear evidence the judgement _*was*_ given through gritted teeth.  I'm not even going to bother finding the quotes, they were well reported at the time.  When you add in the Cole mutating statement and the role of the Chelsea Secretary in that, Terry's case just falls apart. As I said earlier, in noting this issues might have altered the decision in the court case, I was pleasantly surprised by the Panel.

Finally, I do agree the whole thing has been badly managed around things like the captaincy.  They should have either dropped him completely or left him as captain.  However, I'm happy to take the Panel decision as a bit of belated justice.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 6, 2012)

Wilf said:


> ..*. When you add in the Cole mutating statement ...*
> 
> Finally, I do agree the whole thing has been badly managed around things like the captaincy. They should have either dropped him completely or left him as captain. However, I'm happy to take the Panel decision as a bit of belated justice.


Not getting into a bunfight but as far as I'm aware Cole's evidence did not change.   When the FA bods went to Chelsea's ground for statements, originally, they recorded Terry's but only took hand-written notes on Cole's.   When there was a subsequent word-by-word statement taken from Cole and there were differences they implied he had changed it.   The fault is there's for only taking notes and they gave no reason why it was not recorded originally.

I'm unaware if there were more changes to his statement apart from that.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 6, 2012)

Maltin said:


> Section 4 of the report shows that the rules did change between the time of the alleged offence and the FA tribunal, and the report shows how they took this into consideration. I dont know the detail of this consideration but i guess they concluded that their findings would be the same under both rules.


Must have been a pretty minor tinkering with the rules then, because the burden of proof was already "balance of probability" when they charged Suarez.


----------



## Maltin (Oct 6, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> Must have been a pretty minor tinkering with the rules then, because the burden of proof was already "balance of probability" when they charged Suarez.


Dexter TCN posted the old and the new rules.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 6, 2012)

Wilf said:


> The key person who didn't hear anything was Anton Ferdinand. He didn't hear _himself_ accusing Terry of calling him a fucking black cunt. He didn't know there was anything there till after the game and something cropped up on youtube. If Ferdinand didn't hear or believe he had been abused by Terry - and didn't say anything to Terry - Terry's whold defence about 'reponding' becomes absurd.
> 
> In terms of the magistrate, there is clear evidence the judgement _*was*_ given through gritted teeth. I'm not even going to bother finding the quotes, they were well reported at the time. When you add in the Cole mutating statement and the role of the Chelsea Secretary in that, Terry's case just falls apart. As I said earlier, in noting this issues might have altered the decision in the court case, I was pleasantly surprised by the Panel.
> 
> Finally, I do agree the whole thing has been badly managed around things like the captaincy. They should have either dropped him completely or left him as captain. However, I'm happy to take the Panel decision as a bit of belated justice.


 
First para is absolutely cuckoo land. Ferdinand said lots of things in the game to Terry. There is no evidence that the judgement was given in anyway but due process and I don't know if you have ever given evidence in any form but it is quite natural and accepted that a first statement is amended. The court due no inferences about any of the changes to what any party said in its hearing.

Btw your last sentence just doesn't make any sense in trying to conflate  the issues of whether the England manager chooses who is captain, a disciplinary process and some notion of 'belated' justice .


----------



## Wilf (Oct 6, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> First para is absolutely cuckoo land. Ferdinand said lots of things in the game to Terry. There is no evidence that the judgement was given in anyway but due process and I don't know if you have ever given evidence in any form but it is quite natural and accepted that a first statement is amended. The court due no inferences about any of the changes to what any party said in its hearing.
> 
> Btw your last sentence just doesn't make any sense in trying to conflate the issues of whether the England manager chooses who is captain, a disciplinary process and some notion of 'belated' justice .


 Christ, where to start.. yes, obviously, Ferdinand fired a heap of abuse at Terry, but he didn't remember _hearing_ or _saying_ anything about racial abuse.  That's the (obvious) point.  Next, neither I nor anyone else has said there wasn't due process in the legal trial.  Reasonable doubt meant that there could only be a not guilty verdict. However the idea that the magistrate had clear reservations about Terry and Cole's evidence is clear and, again, obvious - he _said_ so.  The court case produced the right result _legally_, however on the balance of probablities, common sense even, I think the tribunal got it right.  With regard to changing statements, yes of course I know it happens.  The _reasons for that_ are crucial - and that was a point raised by the Panel. The panel also said the Court didn't have the full details on this.  No cuckoos.

In terms of the captaincy, the whole set of FA responses to Terry has been messy from the Bridge thing onwards, but I'm not that fussed about that side of it really.  Yes, I'll grant you the last one.  It did look I meant the tribunal result was somehow linked to the captaincy.  Just the way I wrote it: what I meant was I believed Terry 'did it' and his defence was absurd. In those circumstances, the tribunal result _was_ a bit of belated justice.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 6, 2012)

Actually, startling new evidence has emerged of the Terry/Ferdinand misunderstanding:


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 7, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Christ, where to start.. yes, obviously, Ferdinand fired a heap of abuse at Terry, but he didn't remember _hearing_ or _saying_ anything about racial abuse. That's the (obvious) point. Next, neither I nor anyone else has said there wasn't due process in the legal trial. Reasonable doubt meant that there could only be a not guilty verdict. However the idea that the magistrate had clear reservations about Terry and Cole's evidence is clear and, again, obvious - he _said_ so. The court case produced the right result _legally_, however on the balance of probablities, common sense even, I think the tribunal got it right. With regard to changing statements, yes of course I know it happens. The _reasons for that_ are crucial - and that was a point raised by the Panel. The panel also said the Court didn't have the full details on this. No cuckoos.
> 
> In terms of the captaincy, the whole set of FA responses to Terry has been messy from the Bridge thing onwards, but I'm not that fussed about that side of it really. Yes, I'll grant you the last one. It did look I meant the tribunal result was somehow linked to the captaincy. Just the way I wrote it: *what I meant was I believed Terry 'did it*' and his defence was absurd. In those circumstances, the tribunal result _was_ a bit of belated justice.


 
That is the underlying difference


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Oct 7, 2012)

So are you saying Ferdinand is a liar? He has said he didn't say that to Terry. The only other possibility is that he didn't say it but Terry thought he did, and to claim that is laughable.

Also just because a court says not guilty doesn't mean an employer can't take action? For example that police officer who got sacked after the Tomlinson case, should he have kept his job?

Will be interesting to see how Chelsea react.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/oct/06/editorial-john-terry-ashley-cole-chelsea-england



> We defy anyone to watch John Terry on YouTube very clearly mouthing the words "You fucking black cunt … fucking knobhead" at Anton Ferdinand and not agree with the independent commission set up by the FA to investigate the October 2011 incident. They concluded that Terry's defence (that he was repeating words which Ferdinand had alleged he had used) was "improbable, implausible and contrived". They said there was "no credible evidence" for Terry's defence.
> 
> "We are quite satisfied that the offending words were said by way of insult," the commission concluded. The independent commission alleges that John Terry's defence – which he advanced in court – was untrue.
> 
> He was acquitted in a criminal trial at Westminster magistrates court in July, although the chief magistrate, Howard Riddle, had said Terry's defence was "unlikely" even if there were insufficient grounds for a conviction.



Of course I'm sure people on here know more than a commission that has seen all the evidence.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Oct 7, 2012)

Still I'm sure Terry can make himself feel better by going out and trying to sleep with his mates wife and humiliate his wife again. No doubt he is a great bloke.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Oct 7, 2012)

As for it being an FA court, this commission from what I understand wasn't done by the FA and actually criticised the FA as well.


----------



## Maltin (Oct 7, 2012)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> As for it being an FA court, this commission from what I understand wasn't done by the FA and actually criticised the FA as well.


It features an independent panel that the FA presents to but it is an FA hearing.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Oct 7, 2012)

So the findings quoted were from an independent panel, not an FA court.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 7, 2012)

Call it what you want, tribunal, hearing... call it what you want, balance of probabliities, common sense, I'd find it difficult to line the neurons up in such a way that I end up believing Terry's argument.  Can understand the argument that it should have been left after the court case, though the magistrates comments ensured it would (rightly) carry on. However the twists and turns, the things said, not said and misheard that you have to take on board to believe he didn't actively abuse Ferdinand, well, not _remotely_ credible.


----------



## baffled (Oct 7, 2012)

Maltin said:
			
		

> It features an independent panel that the FA presents to but it is an FA hearing.



From the Indy.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...a-disciplinary-process-is-a-joke-8200705.html

"Maurice Armstrong from the Huntingdonshire FA is on the disciplinary committee [and an FA vice-president]. Stuart Ripley is from an independent panel but on the payroll of the FA for his duties, so he's not independent. The barristers are independent but they're using a firm called Sporting Resolutions in London and the more they use them, the less independent they become."


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 7, 2012)

Is Brave John terry a racist ? Probably Not

Did Brave JT act in a professional manner ?  no

Did brave JTs actions bring the game into disrepute ? yes

Did Brave JTs £5K an hour defence team impact the verdict and fine/ ban ? likely

So Brave JT, you are probabaly not a racist, but you are a cunt for the way you behaved. Swallow the fine & ban( small change to you anyway ) or fuck off.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 8, 2012)

Cole's been charged by the FA.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-to-punish-defender-for-Twitter-outburst.html


----------



## T & P (Oct 8, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Call it what you want, tribunal, hearing... call it what you want, balance of probabliities, common sense, I'd find it difficult to line the neurons up in such a way that I end up believing Terry's argument. Can understand the argument that it should have been left after the court case, though the magistrates comments ensured it would (rightly) carry on. However the twists and turns, the things said, not said and misheard that you have to take on board to believe he didn't actively abuse Ferdinand, well, not _remotely_ credible.


To me it is as credible and likely as Matthew Simmons's claims that he had just said "It's an early shower for you, Cantona!" before the Frenchman kicked him in the chest.


----------



## deadringer (Oct 8, 2012)

What keeps coming back to me though is i still struggle to believe that someone would be so stupid to shout FBC across half a football pitch with potentially 20+ witnesses, in a televised game. I could see how someone could be so stupid to shout 'do you think i called you a FBC'
Racism tends to hide in a big group, or be snidey comments. Nobody except Terry knows exactly what was said and meant, and we'll definitely never know the full truth.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 8, 2012)

deadringer said:


> What keeps coming back to me though is i still struggle to believe that someone would be so stupid to shout FBC across half a football pitch with potentially 20+ witnesses, in a televised game. I could see how someone could be so stupid to shout 'do you think i called you a FBC'
> Racism tends to hide in a big group, or be snidey comments. Nobody except Terry knows exactly what was said and meant, and we'll definitely never know the full truth.


 
Yep, this does keep coming back.

Terry's a tossbag, but the number of cunts him & Ferdinand were slinging at each other that day, it doers make Terry's story credible.

And YET AGAIN, One_Stop_Shop, Terry did not sleep with a team mate's wife. Women are not a man's property. Terry slept with a single lady, one who happened to have previously gone out with Bridge. The vilifying of Terry over this is just pure misogynist bullshit and in 2012 we should have left this sort of shit well behind us.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 8, 2012)

T & P said:


> To me it is as credible and likely as Matthew Simmons's claims that he had just said "It's an early shower for you, Cantona!" before the Frenchman kicked him in the chest.


 
which of course the court rejected and found him guilty


----------



## Arlarse (Oct 8, 2012)

Can I just say John Terry should be banned from football because of that stupid look on his stupid southern face. There I said it


----------



## Ponyutd (Oct 8, 2012)

What's a 'southern' face then?


----------



## Arlarse (Oct 8, 2012)

Ponyutd said:


> What's a 'southern' face then?


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 8, 2012)

deadringer said:


> What keeps coming back to me though is i still struggle to believe that someone would be so stupid to shout FBC across half a football pitch with potentially 20+ witnesses, in a televised game. I could see how someone could be so stupid to shout 'do you think i called you a FBC'
> Racism tends to hide in a big group, or be snidey comments. Nobody except Terry knows exactly what was said and meant, and we'll definitely never know the full truth.


I think I know what he said and meant, so did the tribunal, and also the magistrate who may have returned a different verdict had he known about the change of Cole's statement.

My question is: how many times does this go on, and get missed by the TV cameras? Because without the TV evidence there would have been nothing to go on here.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Oct 9, 2012)

> And YET AGAIN, One_Stop_Shop, Terry did not sleep with a team mate's wife. Women are not a man's property. Terry slept with a single lady, one who happened to have previously gone out with Bridge. The vilifying of Terry over this is just pure misogynist bullshit and in 2012 we should have left this sort of shit well behind us.


 
Brilliant. So John Terry treating his wife like shit and humiliating her is actually as case of women's liberation!

If Bridge wasn't seeing the woman at the time (my mistake), then fair enough, but that doesn't make him any less of a shit, as the main point is what an arsehole he was to his wife.

People can say they aren't sure what Terry said and it's not provable either way, but for him to claim that he thought he heard Ferdinand say something like that is laughable. I can well believe he would say it and not thing it would be picked up. He is a prick, and his lying about the game where he kneed a bloke and then lied about it until the camera showed what he did was also an example of his bullshit.

More to the point a panel with all the evidence has said Terry's excuse wasn't in any way credible, yet people carry on defending him, even though they haven't seen all the evidence.

The best thing about Terry is that it probably stung even more that Chelsea won the European Cup without him playing, and probably makes the penalty miss against Man U even worse. Hope he still remembers it every night like he said before. Pathetic.


----------



## mattie (Oct 9, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And YET AGAIN, One_Stop_Shop, Terry did not sleep with a team mate's wife. Women are not a man's property. Terry slept with a single lady, one who happened to have previously gone out with Bridge. The vilifying of Terry over this is just pure misogynist bullshit and in 2012 we should have left this sort of shit well behind us.


 
I'm confused as to how this is taken as some form of misogyny.  It's nothing to do with the woman being seen as property, it's purely to do with Terry's relationship with Bridge.  My brother doesn't 'own' his ex-girlfriend, but there's no way on earth I would enter into a relationship with her, at least not if I had any concern for my brother's feelings and my relationship with him.

I realise this is a different scale to the relationship between Terry and Bridge, but the principle is the same.  It's worth also bearing in mind that Bridge had a child with his ex-girlfriend, so emotions are going to be that bit more intense, and my suspicion is that Bridge viewed Terry's affair as simply a bit of a fling rather than anything with any depth.

In fairness to Terry (now that's painful to say) Bridge's reaction was stoked by incessant media intrusion, and the refusal of a handshake pre-game seemed a bit foisted onto Bridge, but his general response and demeanor appeared that of someone who felt betrayed.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 9, 2012)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Brilliant. So John Terry treating his wife like shit and humiliating her is actually as case of women's liberation!
> 
> If Bridge wasn't seeing the woman at the time (my mistake), then fair enough, but that doesn't make him any less of a shit, as the main point is what an arsehole he was to his wife.


 
You have no idea what Terry's wife feels about the situation. You have no idea if their marriage is 'open' or not, do you?


----------



## tommers (Oct 9, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You have no idea what Terry's wife feels about the situation. You have no idea if their marriage is 'open' or not, do you?


 

Brilliant.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 9, 2012)

mattie said:


> I'm confused as to how this is taken as some form of misogyny. It's nothing to do with the woman being seen as property, it's purely to do with Terry's relationship with Bridge. My brother doesn't 'own' his ex-girlfriend, but there's no way on earth I would enter into a relationship with her, at least not if I had any concern for my brother's feelings and my relationship with him.
> 
> I realise this is a different scale to the relationship between Terry and Bridge, but the principle is the same. It's worth also bearing in mind that Bridge had a child with his ex-girlfriend, so emotions are going to be that bit more intense, and my suspicion is that Bridge viewed Terry's affair as simply a bit of a fling rather than anything with any depth.
> 
> In fairness to Terry (now that's painful to say) Bridge's reaction was stoked by incessant media intrusion, and the refusal of a handshake pre-game seemed a bit foisted onto Bridge, but his general response and demeanor appeared that of someone who felt betrayed.


 
Terry and Bridge aren't brothers. Would you go out with a colleague's ex?

Besides, the story of their supposed affair was refuted by her and the News of the World appologised for the story and conceeded that it was false.


----------



## mattie (Oct 9, 2012)

I can only imagine what she feels about being married to John Terry.


----------



## tommers (Oct 9, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Besides, the story of their supposed affair was refuted by her and the News of the World appologised for the story and conceeded that it was false.


 
Ah yes, I was going to say that but I thought I'd better check it out. It seems they apologised for a story saying he got her pregnant and she had an abortion - not the one about the alleged affair.

Actually - scratch that.  Lots of other papers covered the injunction being lifted on the 29th, but the NOTW couldn't report it till the 31st, as that was a Sunday.  Don't know why none of the others had to apologise.


----------



## mattie (Oct 9, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Terry and Bridge aren't brothers. Would you go out with a colleague's ex?
> 
> Besides, the story of their supposed affair was refuted by her and the News of the World appologised for the story and conceeded that it was false.


 
From my post:



> _I realise this is a different scale to the relationship between Terry and Bridge, but the principle is the same._


 
I'd say, given Bridge's reaction, that he considered Terry rather more than a colleague.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Oct 9, 2012)

> You have no idea what Terry's wife feels about the situation. You have no idea if their marriage is 'open' or not, do you?


 
Is this a joke? This is about as good as the PR spin put on him shouting out racist abuse.

As it happens it was all over the media how she felt:



> _I don’t know what to do. This is a very upsetting time for me._


 
If you google there is loads of stuff on how hurt she was. Sadly she took the prick back.

There was an apology from the newspapers but this doesn't mean there wasn't affair (again loads of stuff on google). It would be very strange if Terry had tried to get an injunction to gag the press if nothing had happened!



> I'm confused as to how this is taken as some form of misogyny. It's nothing to do with the woman being seen as property, it's purely to do with Terry's relationship with Bridge. My brother doesn't 'own' his ex-girlfriend, but there's no way on earth I would enter into a relationship with her, at least not if I had any concern for my brother's feelings and my relationship with him.
> 
> I realise this is a different scale to the relationship between Terry and Bridge, but the principle is the same. It's worth also bearing in mind that Bridge had a child with his ex-girlfriend, so emotions are going to be that bit more intense, and my suspicion is that Bridge viewed Terry's affair as simply a bit of a fling rather than anything with any depth.


This is a good point as well, careful you'll be labelled as a misogynist for saying there might be some sensitivities in sleeping with your mates ex.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 9, 2012)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> This is a good point as well, careful you'll be labelled as a misogynist for saying there might be some sensitivities in sleeping with your mates ex.


 
She's not a mate's ex, she's a free woman. What sort of cunt are you?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Oct 9, 2012)

Leaving aside that the main point that he was a total prick to his wife, can you stop being a cunt and coming out with student wank. It's not about ownership but recognising there are sensitivities involved in relationships and when they break down, which you'd hope a mate would take in to account.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 9, 2012)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Leaving aside that the main point that he was a total prick to his wife ...


 
Yeah, him and several million other blokes, and no small amount of other footballers: Giggsy, Best, Rooney, Crouch, Beckham, Wenger, Sven, Ribery, Tevez, Gerrard, Ronaldo, Defoe ... the list is fucking endless!

Peroncel was Bridge's EX, not his wife or girlfriend, and that whole gig was blown up by the tabloids.

What's your view of Vanessa by the way? She shagged her mates husband. Slag?

There's plenty to slag Terry off about, but at least make it something unique to him and not a load of tabloid driven shite that many young men (and almost every footballer) get up to.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah, him and several million other blokes, and no small amount of other footballers: Giggsy, Best, Rooney, Crouch, Beckham, Wenger, Sven, Ribery, Tevez, Gerrard, Ronaldo, Defoe ... the list is fucking endless!
> .


What's Gerrard done?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 9, 2012)

Didn't he shag his bird's sister?

Or is that about as accurate as "Terry shagged Bridge's girlfriend"?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Didn't he shag his bird's sister?
> 
> Or is that about as accurate as "Terry shagged Bridge's girlfriend"?


Accurate up to the point where his bird doesn't actually have a sister


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 9, 2012)

Gotcha!

Kind of illustrates my point though.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 9, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> What's Gerrard done?


Punched fuck out of a guy in a pub.  Which the FA would have found him guilty of.


----------



## Arlarse (Oct 9, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Punched fuck out of a guy in a pub.  Which the FA would have found him guilty of.



Wow that's a whole post based on nothing but conjecture.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2012)

Arlarse said:


> Wow that's a whole post based on nothing but conjecture.


he is a hun after all


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 9, 2012)

Arlarse said:


> Wow that's a whole post based on nothing but conjecture.


Most posts are, hopefully, whole.   It's not conjecture, I saw the camera evidence on tv.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Most posts are, hopefully, whole. It's not conjecture, I saw the camera evidence on tv.


link or stfu


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 9, 2012)

I don't really see that Mr. Terry's private life is any business of ours, racial abuse is though.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Oct 10, 2012)

> Yeah, him and several million other blokes, and no small amount of other footballers: Giggsy, Best, Rooney, Crouch, Beckham, Wenger, Sven, Ribery, Tevez, Gerrard, Ronaldo, Defoe ... the list is fucking endless!
> 
> Peroncel was Bridge's EX, not his wife or girlfriend, and that whole gig was blown up by the tabloids.
> 
> ...


 
Great so loads of blokes are total dicks to women, and a lot of footballers are as well, so that makes it ok? Millions of people are racist as well, so on that basis would you say that what Terry did wasn't out of order. A shit argument.

As said the point is that he treated his wife like crap, but that is conveniently ignored. He has also now been a racist and made up a laughable excuse about why he said it instead of apologising and doing something to make amends.


----------



## deadringer (Oct 10, 2012)

Jesus one stop, like it or not affairs happen all over the world, every day. It's not unknown for affairs to rip apart families when they happen between family members. Not everyones mates have such moral standards as yourself, listening to some of my friends at work talking about their bunch of mates and they have no shame in shagging girls that each other has been with. It's not something I think I could do, but if pissed enough and a tempting situation arose I couldn't swear it couldn't happen. Go into any city office in London and you'll find people shagging each other, cheating on their partners, stuffing money in strippers knickers and fucking prostitutes. I dare say it's the same throughout the country. Unfortunately that's life.

As for Terry's wife? She could have left him if she wanted, been set up for life, wanted for nothing. She chose to stay. You don't know what goes on behind closed doors, and it's not really any of your business, or mine. Certainly not something that I care to read about in a 'newspaper'


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

you don't need to read about it in a newspaper when you can read about it here


----------



## Corax (Oct 10, 2012)

Arlarse said:


> Wow that's a whole post based on nothing but conjecture.





DexterTCN said:


> Most posts are, hopefully, whole. It's not conjecture, I saw the camera evidence on tv.





Pickman's model said:


> link or stfu




Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

Corax said:


> Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


can't you let dextertcn fight his own fights?


----------



## Corax (Oct 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> can't you let dextertcn fight his own fights?


I just don't like Gerrard, so an opportunity to highlight his arseholeness was too good to resist.


----------



## trampie (Oct 10, 2012)

Clarke Carlisle [PFA chairman] is reported as being disappointed with Terry's 4 match ban.

Lord Triesman [former FA chairman] says he cannot understand why John Terry was given a lesser ban than Liverpool's Luis Suarez.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 10, 2012)

trampie said:


> Clarke Carlisle [PFA chairman] is reported as being disappointed with Terry's 4 match ban.
> 
> Lord Triesman [former FA chairman] says he cannot understand why John Terry was given a lesser ban than Liverpool's Luis Suarez.


 
Appetite can't be quenched.

On the other hand anyone else who is black's opinion hasn't been given equal weight


----------



## Corax (Oct 11, 2012)

trampie said:


> Lord Triesman [former FA chairman] says he cannot understand why John Terry was given a lesser ban than Liverpool's Luis Suarez.


He's got a point tbh.  Why hasn't he?  Because he's England's Brave & Loyal John Terry?


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 11, 2012)

Corax said:


> He's got a point tbh. Why hasn't he? Because he's England's Brave & Loyal John Terry?


 
Why do have to ask? Agree with it or not, the reason was given. Terry's offence was a one-off while Suarez's was repeated.


----------



## Corax (Oct 11, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Why do have to ask?


Because I've not been arsed to read the minutia of the decision.  And now I don't have to.  Ta.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 11, 2012)

Corax said:


> Because I've not been arsed to read the minutia of the decision. And now I don't have to. Ta.


 
You're welcome.


----------



## deadringer (Oct 11, 2012)

If I remember correctly they both got 4 games for the racial bit, Suarrez then got 2 more for the repetitive nature, and another 2 for some other element.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 11, 2012)

Yes Suarez got a lot lower punishment per cunt.


----------



## Arlarse (Oct 12, 2012)

Corax said:


> I just don't like Gerrard, so an opportunity to highlight his arseholeness was too good to resist.


 
Any opportunity to have a pop at Liverpool Football Club and scousers methinks. Or am I wrong about that Corax?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 12, 2012)

Arlarse said:


> Any opportunity to have a pop at Liverpool Football Club and scousers methinks.


 
Poor scousers. My heart bleeds.

Try supporting Chelsea round here!!!


----------



## Arlarse (Oct 12, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Poor scousers. My heart bleeds.
> 
> Try supporting Chelsea round here!!!


 
You butchered that quote: "Any opportunity to have a pop at Liverpool Football Club and scousers methinks. Or am I wrong about that Corax?"


----------



## Corax (Oct 12, 2012)

Arlarse said:


> Any opportunity to have a pop at Liverpool Football Club and scousers methinks. Or am I wrong about that Corax?


Fuckin lol.  Plucking victimisation out of thin air.  Is this supposed to be some sort of self parody of the martyr-complex stereotype?


----------



## Arlarse (Oct 12, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Poor scousers. My heart bleeds.
> 
> Try supporting Chelsea round here!!!


 
Being honest I don't really link Terry to Chelsea. I just see a horrible little man who will try to fuck anyone over to get his own way. Family, friends or club/country it doesn't seem to matter to him.


----------



## deadringer (Oct 12, 2012)

The pantomime villain who just keeps on giving. I honestly don't know where people get the energy to go around getting hot and bothered about what Terry, Cole, Barton, et all have been up to that week.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 18, 2012)

Terry is sorry... 



> "Although I'm disappointed with the FA judgment, I accept that the language I used, regardless of the context, is not acceptable on the football field or indeed in any walk of life.
> "As I stated in the criminal case, with the benefit of hindsight my language was clearly not an appropriate reaction to the situation for someone in my position. My response was below the level expected by Chelsea Football Club, and by me, and it will not happen again."


 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19989136


----------



## Wilf (Oct 18, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Terry is sorry...


 Oi, oi...


----------



## Wilf (Oct 18, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/oct/18/ashley-cole-fined-chelsea-terry
Cole fined 90 grand. 
(((((Cashley's Cash))))))
Being rude about the FA is 9/22 as bad as racially abusing a player at work. 
I'm trying to work out the hierarchy of evil here.  Bringing a gun to work and shooting a club employee?  Doesn't even register.


----------



## mattie (Oct 18, 2012)

Wilf said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/oct/18/ashley-cole-fined-chelsea-terry
> Cole fined 90 grand.
> (((((Cashley's Cash))))))
> Being rude about the FA is 9/22 as bad as racially abusing a player at work.
> I'm trying to work out the hierarchy of evil here. Bringing a gun to work and shooting a club employee? Doesn't even register.


 
I think shooting a Chelsea player - even if trainee - is to be actively rewarded.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 18, 2012)

Wilf said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/oct/18/ashley-cole-fined-chelsea-terry
> Cole fined 90 grand.
> (((((Cashley's Cash))))))
> Being rude about the FA is 9/22 as bad as racially abusing a player at work.
> I'm trying to work out the hierarchy of evil here. Bringing a gun to work and shooting a club employee? Doesn't even register.


 
I expect he makes a mere ninety grand a week against Terry's 220. Amazed he hasn't crashed his car tbh.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 18, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I expect he makes a mere ninety grand a week.


 Spends that just on 'texts'.


----------



## nuffsaid (Oct 18, 2012)

Breaking news: John Terry to be made captain of Serbia.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 18, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I expect he makes a mere ninety grand a week against Terry's 220. Amazed he hasn't crashed his car tbh.


 
So am I, saw the cunt (Cole) hurtling out of control the other morning, really having trouble keeping his car in a straight line. Also I couldn't see a numberplate on the front, do you not need one when your Chels now?


----------



## Corax (Oct 18, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So am I, saw the cunt (Cole) hurtling out of control the other morning, really having trouble keeping his car in a straight line. Also I couldn't see a numberplate on the front, do you not need one when your Chels now?


Have your phone's video app ready next time!


----------



## Badgers (Oct 18, 2012)

Wilf said:
			
		

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/oct/18/ashley-cole-fined-chelsea-terry
> Cole fined 90 grand.
> (((((Cashley's Cash))))))
> Being rude about the FA is 9/22 as bad as racially abusing a player at work.
> I'm trying to work out the hierarchy of evil here.  Bringing a gun to work and shooting a club employee?  Doesn't even register.



On the same day that Ashley Cole is fined £90,000 for the tweet. Lazio have been fined £32,500 for racist chanting.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 19, 2012)

Copped the FA rap, but dodged the criminal record. Result for Terry really.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 19, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So am I, saw the cunt (Cole) hurtling out of control the other morning, really having trouble keeping his car in a straight line. Also I couldn't see a numberplate on the front, do you not need one when your Chels now?


 
are you in Neigbourhood Watch?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 19, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> are you in Neigbourhood Watch?


 
No, but live near the Chelsea training ground


----------

