Racism in English football?

[Gingerfinch]

@henrywinter: "John Terry considering appeal over 4-game ban and £220k fine"

Maybe he's not happy

[ddb]

Terry should be happy then. The games missed will be a bigger punishment.

Personally I still find it odd how he can be found guilty of something that the courts found him not guilty of, doubt hes happy at all.

Again he wasn't not guilty, there wasn't enough evidence for the courts. It shouldn't be odd at all, Suarez would have got off in court too.

The court didnt find him guilty, therefore hes NOT guilty.

One day you'll learn, hopefully soon for everyone's sanity that it doesn't mean he is not guilty in FA's eyes. The judge even said as much.

On what Terry said to Ferdinand
The defendant does not deny that he used the words, “f--- off, f--- off”, “f------ black c---” or “f------ knobhead”. His case is that his words were not uttered by way of abuse or insult. The question for me is whether I am sure the words were used as an insult or whether it is possible, as the defence assert, that he was, or believed he was, merely repeating an allegation made to him, and dismissing it. Even with all of the help the court has received from television footage, expert lip readers, witnesses and indeed counsel, it is impossible to be sure exactly what words were spoken by Terry at the relevant time.
On Terry’s claim his outburst was in response to Ferdinand accusing him of racist abuse
Mr Terry’s explanation is, certainly under the cold light of forensic examination, unlikely. It is not the most obvious response. It is sandwiched between other undoubted insults. It is inherently unlikely that Ferdinand should firstly accuse Terry of calling him a black c---, then shortly after the match completely deny that he had made such a comment, and then maintain that false account throughout the police investigation and throughout this trial. Weighing all the evidence together, I think it is highly unlikely that Mr Ferdinand accused Mr Terry on the pitch of calling him a black c---. However, I accept it is possible that Mr Terry believed at the time, and believes now, that such an accusation was made. Mr Cole gives corroborating (although far from compelling corroborating) evidence on this point. It is therefore possible that what he said was not intended as an insult.

On Anton Ferdinand’s evidenceMr Penny [the prosecution QC] describes Ferdinand as “brave” for giving evidence. I think this is a resonable description. I am satisfied he would have preferred not to be involved in this trial at all. I am satisfied there is little or no good reason for him to lie about the central issue in this case. While there are indeed discrepancies in his evidence, I think it is unlikely that on the central point he is lying.

But we've been in this circle argument before, I give up again as you can't seem to grasp a basic point that because the evidence was not conclusive they couldn't find him guilty in court. They need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, FA only need to on the balance of probability. And they did, and that's that, barring an appeal.

[SaintPowelly]

Terry should be happy then. The games missed will be a bigger punishment.

Personally I still find it odd how he can be found guilty of something that the courts found him not guilty of, doubt hes happy at all.

Again he wasn't not guilty, there wasn't enough evidence for the courts. It shouldn't be odd at all, Suarez would have got off in court too.

The court didnt find him guilty, therefore hes NOT guilty.

One day you'll learn, hopefully soon for everyone's sanity that it doesn't mean he is not guilty in FA's eyes. The judge even said as much.

On what Terry said to Ferdinand
The defendant does not deny that he used the words, “f--- off, f--- off”, “f------ black c---” or “f------ knobhead”. His case is that his words were not uttered by way of abuse or insult. The question for me is whether I am sure the words were used as an insult or whether it is possible, as the defence assert, that he was, or believed he was, merely repeating an allegation made to him, and dismissing it. Even with all of the help the court has received from television footage, expert lip readers, witnesses and indeed counsel, it is impossible to be sure exactly what words were spoken by Terry at the relevant time.
On Terry’s claim his outburst was in response to Ferdinand accusing him of racist abuse
Mr Terry’s explanation is, certainly under the cold light of forensic examination, unlikely. It is not the most obvious response. It is sandwiched between other undoubted insults. It is inherently unlikely that Ferdinand should firstly accuse Terry of calling him a black c---, then shortly after the match completely deny that he had made such a comment, and then maintain that false account throughout the police investigation and throughout this trial. Weighing all the evidence together, I think it is highly unlikely that Mr Ferdinand accused Mr Terry on the pitch of calling him a black c---. However, I accept it is possible that Mr Terry believed at the time, and believes now, that such an accusation was made. Mr Cole gives corroborating (although far from compelling corroborating) evidence on this point. It is therefore possible that what he said was not intended as an insult.

On Anton Ferdinand’s evidenceMr Penny [the prosecution QC] describes Ferdinand as “brave” for giving evidence. I think this is a resonable description. I am satisfied he would have preferred not to be involved in this trial at all. I am satisfied there is little or no good reason for him to lie about the central issue in this case. While there are indeed discrepancies in his evidence, I think it is unlikely that on the central point he is lying.

But we've been in this circle argument before, I give up again as you can't seem to grasp a basic point that because the evidence was not conclusive they couldn't find him guilty in court. They need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, FA only need to on the balance of probability. And they did, and that's that, barring an appeal.

Im not saying he didnt say anything, im saying the court didnt have enough evidence to prosecute, and that should be enough for the FA.

The FA are making up rules as they go along.

[Alviro Patterson]

Im not saying he didnt say anything, im saying the court didnt have enough evidence to prosecute, and that should be enough for the FA.

The FA are making up rules as they go along.

Terry has only got a ban because the precedent was already set with Suarez and Ferdinand.

[SaintPowelly]

Im not saying he didnt say anything, im saying the court didnt have enough evidence to prosecute, and that should be enough for the FA.

The FA are making up rules as they go along.

Terry has only got a ban because the precedent was already set with Suarez and Ferdinand.

Suarez was ONLY dealt with by the FA though, the Evra complaint went to the FA and thats fair enough.

This has already been dealt with in court, The FA have just made themselves look more stupid.

[ddb]

Im not saying he didnt say anything, im saying the court didnt have enough evidence to prosecute, and that should be enough for the FA.

The FA are making up rules as they go along.

Terry has only got a ban because the precedent was already set with Suarez and Ferdinand.

Suarez was ONLY dealt with by the FA though, the Evra complaint went to the FA and thats fair enough.

This has already been dealt with in court, The FA have just made themselves look more stupid.

FA are not making up the rules. It's a civil case. And in court it was a criminal case. I don't why I'm bothering actually.

[sussexpob]

The court couldnt find him guilty because they couldnt prove that the words he admitting using where simply him repeating what he thought he had heard from Ferdinand....

The FA needed only to prove he said it, which in opposite to you say, the court actually helped them to prove. He was charged with a criminal offence in court, the FA simply needed to prove he negatively affected the sport by using racial slurs on the football pitch.

Simple

[SaintPowelly]

So hes been banned for insensitive language, thats a slippery slope.

[Alviro Patterson]

So hes been banned for insensitive language, thats a slippery slope.

Very - players getting banned for abusing match officials (although that would be a good thing). If this was widely enforced then the weekly suspensions list will be longer than the number of football clubs Steve Claridge has played for.

[ddb]

They use racist language to match officials regularly? Do you watch different matches to me?

[SaintPowelly]

They use racist language to match officials regularly? Do you watch different matches to me?

It wasnt said with racial intent though, so whats the difference between that and calling a ref a w****r or a c***.

[Alviro Patterson]

They use racist language to match officials regularly? Do you watch different matches to me?

Foul and abusive language is just as disgusting, it's staggering what is heard whether it's Premier League football or Evostik Division One North.

[sussexpob]

So hes been banned for insensitive language, thats a slippery slope.

No, he was banned for using racist language.... I think if you are inferring that calling someone a "******" is no worse than "black ******", then you need your head checking.

[SaintPowelly]

So hes been banned for insensitive language, thats a slippery slope.

No, he was banned for using racist language.... I think if you are inferring that calling someone a "******" is no worse than "black ******", then you need your head checking.

But it cant be proved he said it with racist intent.

[rich1uk]

So hes been banned for insensitive language, thats a slippery slope.

No, he was banned for using racist language.... I think if you are inferring that calling someone a "******" is no worse than "black ******", then you need your head checking.

But it cant be proved he said it with racist intent.

the FA doesn't have to prove he did

they just have to think that its probable he did

that is the difference you dont seem to understand