has retired from international football

Isn't it the case that the courts tried him for abusing Ferdinand and the FA tried him solely for using the language? The FA and CPS were trying him for two different offences, so why shouldn't differing verdicts be arrived at?

Isn't it the case that the courts tried him for abusing Ferdinand and the FA tried him solely for using the language? The FA and CPS were trying him for two different offences, so why shouldn't differing verdicts be arrived at?

 

That's how I read it.

Isn't it the case that the courts tried him for abusing Ferdinand and the FA tried him solely for using the language? The FA and CPS were trying him for two different offences, so why shouldn't differing verdicts be arrived at?

 

That's exactly it, I don't know why people are struggling to understand it

That's exactly it, I don't know why people are struggling to understand it

 

I think it's pretty clear why people are struggling to understand it. I'm sure some people are struggling to understand it because of the following scenario which I mentioned in an earlier post.

 

If an opposing player had called Ashley Cole a "black cunt" and Terry went up to the offender and said, "Did you just call him a black cunt?" Would Terry be up for another 4 game ban and a fine for simply uttering those words, despite the fact they are in no way being said in an insulting manner?

 

Terry's defence was based on him repeating, questioningly, what he heard Ferdinand accusing him of saying. Whether we believe that excuse or not, the courts believed it, hence him being found not guilty. Now, if the FA are charging him for merely repeating those words back to Ferdinand despite there being absolutely no intent to offend, then according to my scenario above he would again face another charge... and that is frankly ridiculous.

 

 

What I'm saying is, the FA should either charge him for using them in an abusive manner (thereby ignoring the courts' ruling) or not charge him at all. To refuse to take into account what context they were used in smacks of them simply wanting to punish him IMO.

 

If Ferdinand asked the question, "Did you call me a black cunt?" then if we're going to punish players simply for sayings those words, regardless of intent or context, then he too should be punished shouldn't he?

 

Of course, that's a ridiculous question isn't it ... isn't it?

.

Edited September 28, 201213 yr by DazBobParr

That's exactly it, I don't know why people are struggling to understand it

 

 

 

Because...

 

"I didnt call you a black cunt" is different to "you black cunt" and isn't worthy of a fining a bloke almost a quarter of a million pounds.

 

If he did call him 'a black cunt' then give him 20 matches, 30, whatever. No problem.

 

So he either said it or he didnt.

 

But doing someone because they think he did it....fuck off thats bollocks.

Edited September 28, 201213 yr by Smiffs

I think it's pretty clear why people are struggling to understand it. I'm sure some people are struggling to understand it because of the following scenario which I mentioned in an earlier post.

 

If an opposing player had called Ashley Cole a "black cunt" and Terry went up to the offender and said, "Did you just call him a black cunt?" Would Terry be up for another 4 game ban and a fine for simply uttering those words, despite the fact they are in no way being said in an insulting manner?

 

Terry's defence was based on him repeating, questioningly, what he heard Ferdinand accusing him of saying. Whether we believe that excuse or not, the courts believed it, hence him being found not guilty. Now, if the FA are charging him for merely repeating those words back to Ferdinand despite there being absolutely no intent to offend, then according to my scenario above he would again face another charge... and that is frankly ridiculous.

 

 

What I'm saying is, the FA should either charge him for using them in an abusive manner (thereby ignoring the courts' ruling) or not charge him at all. To refuse to take into account what context they were used in smacks of them simply wanting to punish him IMO.

 

If Ferdinand asked the question, "Did you call me a black cunt?" then if we're going to punish players simply for sayings those words, regardless of intent or context, then he too should be punished shouldn't he?

 

Of course, that's a ridiculous question isn't it ... isn't it?

.

 

The magistrate made it very clear that the explanation was plausible and therefore couldn't be discounted, and hadn't been disproved. He never said he actually believed a word of Terry's defence, but the prosecution didn't focus on the chain of events immediately after the match, when Chelsea were able to see the video and got him to go into the changing room and square matters with Ferdinand (who didn't know what he was on about at the time). That it why AF was so annoyed when he found out what had gone on.

So he either said it or he didnt.

 

But doing someone because they think he did it....fuck off thats bollocks.

 

He did it alright, even he does not dispute that. That's what the FA have done him for. The courts found him not guilty of a different offence because it could could not be proved that his intention was to abuse Ferdinand. It is a point of fact that he shouted 'fucking black cunt' at Ferdinand. There is only his claim - no lip-reading, no TV coverage, just his claim - that he prefixed it with 'are you saying I'm calling you a...'

 

It shouldn't be a shock that a claim by Terry, who has been in previous trouble for mocking Americans over 9/11, wrapping a bottle round a bouncer's face, pissing in a pint pot and slinging it all over a nightclub floor, was accused of racially abusing Ledley King, investigated for taking 10 grand to show people round Stamford Bridge and famously shags his mates' wimmin, is not taken seriously when there is no evidence to support him.

The magistrate made it very clear that the explanation was plausible and therefore couldn't be discounted, and hadn't been disproved. He never said he actually believed a word of Terry's defence, but the prosecution didn't focus on the chain of events immediately after the match, when Chelsea were able to see the video and got him to go into the changing room and square matters with Ferdinand (who didn't know what he was on about at the time). That it why AF was so annoyed when he found out what had gone on.

 

All fair enough comments...

 

... but also completely irrelevant when it comes to explaining how or why the FA can justify charging someone without taking context into account IMO.

 

As for Maggie's comments. Disappointing. You've just gone down the predictable and easy route of bringing up previous unrelated accusations/charges. They've got absolutely fuck all to do with the events of Loftus Road.

It is a point of fact that he shouted 'fucking black cunt' at Ferdinand. There is only his claim - no lip-reading, no TV coverage, just his claim - that he prefixed it with 'are you saying I'm calling you a...'

 

 

The Football Association charged Mr Terry on Friday 27 July 2012 with using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Queens Park Rangers’ Anton Ferdinand and which included a reference to colour and/or race contrary to FA Rule E3[2] in relation to the Queens Park Rangers FC versus Chelsea FC fixture at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011.

 

We all know he said it. Thats not really the point.

 

The FA think he did it based upon the evidence. So did the CPS.

 

JT defended it as he did.

 

The Courts found him not guilty.

 

The FA find him guilty.

 

One verdict has to be proven upon reasonable doubt, one is on the basis of 'we just think you did'.

 

So if they think he did it why only tickle him with 4 games? Or were they not quite sure? Or are they actually weak on racism? Or did they accept he said what he said in the full context but still did him (in which case Bob Daz makes a good point).

If Terry's a proven racist, Chelsea should sack him.

If anyone racially abused someone at work, they'd be sacked.

If a fan racially abused a player, from the terraces, he'd be hung, drawn and quartered.

 

Why should footballers be an exception?

your boss can't sell you for £10m

 

 

Money didn't stop Chelsea sacking Adrian Mutu...

Money didn't stop Chelsea sacking Adrian Mutu...

 

Have you forgotten that they dragged him through the courts to get the fee and his wages from him?

Have you forgotten that they dragged him through the courts to get the fee and his wages from him?

 

doesn't he still owe Chelsea about £15m?

 

 

doesn't he still owe Chelsea about £15m?

 

Probably. I seem to remember him losing his appeal though.

 

His form had gone to shit for a while before they sacked him iirc. It would've been interesting to see if they'd done the same if he'd been on fire.

 

 

 

 

Money didn't stop Chelsea sacking Adrian Mutu...

 

Quite the opposite, it was the reason

 

Not sure they'd have got much of a fee for a bloke who just got done for doing loads of coke

 

Plus the legals of it all meant Chelsea could sue mutu to get the money they'd spent on him back, directly from mutu or something, though not sure if it included transfer fees, it def included wages

 

Was that or let him run out of his contract sat on his arse

 

So Fair to say money WAS the reason they sacked him

 

 

doesn't he still owe Chelsea about £15m?

I believe so, I think he keeps appealing and it keeps getting ruined down....probably be dragged out for a few more years yet

Quite the opposite, it was the reason

 

Not sure they'd have got much of a fee for a bloke who just got done for doing loads of coke

Aye, but it was Chelsea who blew the whistle, wasn't it?

 

If they hadn't wanted shut, I'm sure they'd have sat on their in-house test results and waited it out.

 

You know, like Arsenal and Wilshere.

Edited September 28, 201213 yr by enzo gambaro

As for Maggie's comments. Disappointing. You've just gone down the predictable and easy route of bringing up previous unrelated accusations/charges. They've got absolutely fuck all to do with the events of Loftus Road.

 

On the contrary, they have everything to do with it because his only defence for shouting 'fucking black cunt' is his word. The trust you can place in his word can only be measured by past record.

 

Terry claims that he was saying to Ferdinand - I paraphrase - 'did you just say that I'm calling you a fucking black cunt?'. There is no other evidence, other than the word of John Terry himself, that this was the full content of what he said, or that there was a specific context for shouting what he did. His previous history shows him to be a crook, liar and general twat - makes the fact that his word is on trial entirely relevant because that's all his defence for why he shouted what he shouted can be judged against.

 

All he had to defend himself was his word. His previous record rendered it worthless.

 

Gary Lineker would probably have been believed.

 

Aye, but it was Chelsea who blew the whistle, wasn't it?

 

If they hadn't wanted shut, I'm sure they'd have sat on their in-house test results and waited it out

 

Aye, all because of the amounts of money involved, and what players are worth to clubs in fees and wages

 

Which is why it's always pointless to run the old "if I did that in my job I'd be fired" lines when players go bad and that

 

As for wilshere, the way they go on about him, he seems to have got ten times better in his prolonged absence and being set up as arsenal and England's saviour, odd...

fuck the ferdinands

 

 

end of thread

How about fuck the ferdinands and John terry?

Don't like Ferdinand or terry but why has terry got a greater punishment from the fa than ferdinand did for his "choc ice" tweet?

 

 

It'd be a 3 year ban if me or thee said it in the ground.

Don't like Ferdinand or terry but why has terry got a greater punishment from the fa than ferdinand did for his "choc ice" tweet?

 

because they're different offences, committed in different places.

 

 

because they're different offences, committed in different places.

 

 

The point is Ferdinand wrote a racist word thAt is backed by hard evidence where terry supposedly repeated a racist word

didn't he just comment on the tweet rather than write it but as ever don't lt the facts get in the way here