Ethan
Money List Winner
Don't be silly.
Racial abuse is a version of abuse. The base term therefore has to be abusive in the first place before the racial element adds to it.
John Terry - Guilty
- Thread starter One Planer
- Start date
Don't be silly.
Racial abuse is a version of abuse. The base term therefore has to be abusive in the first place before the racial element adds to it.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Depends which is thee adjective and which is the 'noun' to me.
I don't think calling someone a blue ignoramus (adjective, 'noun') is as bad as calling the same guy an ignoramus blue (adjective, 'noun')!
The FA certainly charged him - I seem to remember before the police did - then deferred the case until after the police one. There's certainly a lower burden of proof required for the FA case than a 'court of law' one. I think it's reasonable certainty versus beyond reasonable doubt.
BTatHome
Tour Winner
Maybe my brain works different to Mr Terry, but why would he think that Anton Ferdinand would of used the term "black c***" to him? Seems a strange turn of phrase to use against him ... well half of it is strange to be directed at him.
MadAdey
Money List Winner
Another great example of the FA and their Kangaroo court. Regarding the difference between a court of law and the FA. A court of law has to find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the FA just have to think you are guilty. Ashley Cole walking across Terry as he said the alleged comment, has either saved his skin or prevented the cameras from picking up Terry saying what he claims he actually said.
Being a Liverpool fan his punishment has angered me though. Suarez got twice as long for allegedly making a racist comment, I say allegedly as the CPS did not follow it up into court as there was no evidence that they could use. Terry on the other hand was caught by the SKY cameras, clear as day. The FA will never change though, players will be punished, but it depends on who they are as to the level of punishment.
Being a Liverpool fan his punishment has angered me though. Suarez got twice as long for allegedly making a racist comment, I say allegedly as the CPS did not follow it up into court as there was no evidence that they could use. Terry on the other hand was caught by the SKY cameras, clear as day. The FA will never change though, players will be punished, but it depends on who they are as to the level of punishment.
G1BB0
Money List Winner
220k fine, 2 weeks money, thats 7 years graft for me 
if I called someone that at work I would get suspended then probably dismissed!
if I called someone that at work I would get suspended then probably dismissed!
MadAdey
Money List Winner
220k fine, 2 weeks money, thats 7 years graft for me
if I called someone that at work I would get suspended then probably dismissed!
That is bang on the point GIbbo. Yet another over paid footballer getting away with what he wants. Is Terry not on £150K a week? So that is actually only 1 1/2 weeks wages and still gets to keep his job.
G1BB0
Money List Winner
I bet he hasnt got a spiffingly nice GG rainhat though Adey 
MadAdey
Money List Winner
I bet he hasnt got a spiffingly nice GG rainhat though Adey
It takes a certain type of person to wear a hat of such style.....LOL. Do not worry Gibbo I will wear it down to Blackmoor just to humour you...:thup:
Andy808
Tour Winner
He was guilty from the time he uttered the words and it was seen by 10s of Chelsea fans and 1000s of QPR fans. I'm pretty sure from his facial expression that he wasn't querying what Ferdinand had said to him. It was a farce that he didn't get done in the magistrates court with the evidence they had against him just with the video footage. But they decided he wasn't guilty enough!
To compare the Suarez case and Terry case is laughable. Suarez was "convicted" by the FA on one mans word and recieves an 8 match ban. Terry has it all on show for the world to see and the FA decide that a far more lenient punishment is in order.
I hope Terry appeals on the wafer thin grounds that a court of law found him not guilty, as seems to be the case even though they work on different levels, and the "independent" panel give him the punishment the crime deserves.
I think his layers did an amazing job translating what Terry says to what will sound better in the press.
To compare the Suarez case and Terry case is laughable. Suarez was "convicted" by the FA on one mans word and recieves an 8 match ban. Terry has it all on show for the world to see and the FA decide that a far more lenient punishment is in order.
I hope Terry appeals on the wafer thin grounds that a court of law found him not guilty, as seems to be the case even though they work on different levels, and the "independent" panel give him the punishment the crime deserves.
I think his layers did an amazing job translating what Terry says to what will sound better in the press.
Essex_Stu
Tour Rookie
Love the Terry hate in here today. Massive Chelsea fan here and I thoroughly believe he is guilty of racism. He knew what he was saying. But the difference between the two cases is Suarez used a racist remark at least 8 times which he admitted to. JT used it once(once too many). The reason JT's case went to court was that a member of public made the complaint against JT. Nobody made a complaint to the police about Suarez. Personally I think JT should of got a 8-10 game ban and a 500k fine as there is no place for Racism anywhere in this world.
anotherdouble
Journeyman Pro
As far as I understand it Suarez was found guilty by the FA of using language in a direct racist manner hence the 8 game ban. Terry has been found guilty by his own admission in the magistrates court of using racist words or phrases without direct conatations. I may not have explained it well but there is a difference between the two.
GB72
Money List Winner
From what I understand, the difference between the rulings in the magistrates court and the FA ruling is one of intent. The court was asked to rule if JT said what he said with intent of racial abusing AF. The FA do not take intent into account as they believe that it could lead to players saying what they like and then litigating everything on the basis of their not intending to abuse. The FA simply had to rule on whether Terry used racist language irrespective of whether he intended to use it in an abusive way. The video and his own admission meant that there was no doubt that the words were said and so he was guilty.
Personally I smell some sort of deal, no appeal, retire from international football and the punishment will be kept to a minimum but be just enough to give the impression that some sort of justice has been done.
Personally I smell some sort of deal, no appeal, retire from international football and the punishment will be kept to a minimum but be just enough to give the impression that some sort of justice has been done.
Andy808
Tour Winner
I take my hat off to you sir. You are the ONLY chelsea fan that hasn't defended Terry to the hilt. One of my neighbours is a fan and I said at the start of this he would be found guilty by the FA and that he would quit the England team the day before the FA trial began. What I didn't expect is for the FA to give out such a small ban considering how intent they make out they are about stopping racism in football. This verdict doesn't send out a good message from them.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
JTs explanation for what he admitted he said had to be believed by the court because no one can dispute his claim that he thought he heard RF say the damning words - so he may have misheard.
But really? Now concentrate.
1. So RF thinks he hears JT call him an XYZ and says to JT 'did you call be an XYZ' and JT says to RF 'Did you just accuse me of calling you an XYZ'. This is most confusing.
2. If JT did not call RF an XYZ then RF misheard JT before accusing JT (now go to 1. above from 'So RF thinks'...above)
3. If RF did not accuse JT of calling him an XYZ then JT misheard RF (now go to 1. above from '...and JT says to RF...')
Oh dear - this doesn't get any easier.
So whether the exchange was started by RF or JT and whether RF misheard in the first instance - or JT misheard during the exchange we come to the point that '...and JT says to RF'
And so nothing can be proven. And so JT is innocent of the charge.
But look at the video. Is JT saying 'Did you just accuse me of calling you an XYZ' in a quizzical, querying 'eh - did I hear you right - surely some mistake Rio - you couldn't have said that - I must have been mistaken, defensive' sort of way. I don't think so - JT is quite clearly on the offensive and speaking to RF in an aggressive way. But to a court that is circumstantial conjectural evidence and will have had little or no standing as evidence.
And also think of the actual dynamics of the conversation as JT claims the conversation went and him saying the words in point 1 above.
Nope - that doesn't really stand up to much examination in terms of how people speak. But again for the court that is neither here nor there as JT could have said what he says he said - odd though it might seem.
And so there we are. JT not guilty of racial abuse in the eyes of the court, but incontrovertibly guilty in the eyes of the FA of using a three words Z, Y and X which when put together in the order X,Y,Z have racist overtones. The FA rules are that the utterance of any phrase with racist overtones, in any context and in any tone of voice, is against the rules. And since JT admitted that he said XYZ then he is guilty of the FA charge.
And that is, as they say, that (I think)
But really? Now concentrate.
1. So RF thinks he hears JT call him an XYZ and says to JT 'did you call be an XYZ' and JT says to RF 'Did you just accuse me of calling you an XYZ'. This is most confusing.
2. If JT did not call RF an XYZ then RF misheard JT before accusing JT (now go to 1. above from 'So RF thinks'...above)
3. If RF did not accuse JT of calling him an XYZ then JT misheard RF (now go to 1. above from '...and JT says to RF...')
Oh dear - this doesn't get any easier.
So whether the exchange was started by RF or JT and whether RF misheard in the first instance - or JT misheard during the exchange we come to the point that '...and JT says to RF'
And so nothing can be proven. And so JT is innocent of the charge.
But look at the video. Is JT saying 'Did you just accuse me of calling you an XYZ' in a quizzical, querying 'eh - did I hear you right - surely some mistake Rio - you couldn't have said that - I must have been mistaken, defensive' sort of way. I don't think so - JT is quite clearly on the offensive and speaking to RF in an aggressive way. But to a court that is circumstantial conjectural evidence and will have had little or no standing as evidence.
And also think of the actual dynamics of the conversation as JT claims the conversation went and him saying the words in point 1 above.
Nope - that doesn't really stand up to much examination in terms of how people speak. But again for the court that is neither here nor there as JT could have said what he says he said - odd though it might seem.
And so there we are. JT not guilty of racial abuse in the eyes of the court, but incontrovertibly guilty in the eyes of the FA of using a three words Z, Y and X which when put together in the order X,Y,Z have racist overtones. The FA rules are that the utterance of any phrase with racist overtones, in any context and in any tone of voice, is against the rules. And since JT admitted that he said XYZ then he is guilty of the FA charge.
And that is, as they say, that (I think)
Last edited:
sweatysock41
Q-School Graduate
Only one thing wrong with your explanation - I don't think RF was there - perhaps AF?
MegaSteve
Tour Winner
As would be the case if you advised someone that his missus took it up the back passage or that his mum liked a bit of scouse... Seemingly acceptable though on a football pitch... FA has got a lot more to do aside from ridding the game of racism...
Master-putter
Assistant Pro
I completelty agree with you on this. how can he be found innocent by the court of law, but guilty by a bunch of money-grabbing ba**ards? absolutely ridiculous!:rant:
DappaDonDave
Journeyman Pro
Probably already been answered but its the burden of proof. Edit, clearly not:
Disciplinaries are on the balance of probabilities and criminal court is beyond reasonable doubt.
On the balance of probabilities terry called him a black something but beyond reasonable doubt can you tell us exactly what it was he called him and whether it was intended in a racist manner?
Last edited:
VinnyRM
Hacker
Of course he was guilty, and in my opinion he dodged one at court , but hey, that's the British justice system for you.....basically, fundamentally wrong.As for the fine by the FA......well they have done what their initials are haven't they....FA... Truthfully...4 games, isn't a straight red 3 or 4 games nowadays? Barton got 12 games for his bit of handbag stuff at the end of last season, and remember Di Canio "touching" that ref when he played for the Owls! 3 months I think!!! And the ref was invited to train for the Olympic diving team!
Joking aside, the FA are, and always have been a monolith, a dinasoaur from a bygone era that have no place in the modern version of a ridiculously over priced game...financial penalties mean NOTHING to players like Terry, and then for Chelsea to play him on Saturday! I could go down the Bridge, scream vile racist slurs and rightly get banned for life.....their "hero" captain misses 4 games and loses a week or so,s wages, how is that a fair balance!,
Joking aside, the FA are, and always have been a monolith, a dinasoaur from a bygone era that have no place in the modern version of a ridiculously over priced game...financial penalties mean NOTHING to players like Terry, and then for Chelsea to play him on Saturday! I could go down the Bridge, scream vile racist slurs and rightly get banned for life.....their "hero" captain misses 4 games and loses a week or so,s wages, how is that a fair balance!,
DappaDonDave
Journeyman Pro
I see what you're saying. But from an employment law prospect what else could they do?
Say you got disciplined at work, do they hit you with a fine of £220,000, or do they call it two weeks salary?
What you're saying is that footballers should be treated disproportionately to normal people just because they earn more. Thats not very legal is it?
With regards to Barton, that ban was proportionate to the crime, taking into account the occasion (last game of a tie breaker season, lots of people watching) and his previous disciplinary record. The only reason most people know bout JT is because its Ben all over the news. With Barton, everyone saw it happen.
Similar threads
