John Terry

[vegster]

Having just listened to some of JT's testimony to the FA which is posted on the BBC News web page, it strikes me that the "Respect " campaign ain't working !

 

[Kumquat]

Really, so you knew both of them and can say that 16 year old steven lawrence played football with 12 year old rio ferdinand yeah ? I've also got a mate who went to blackheath bluecoats when anton was there , describes him as horrible bully who lived off his brothers name.

He also played football with Duwayne Brooks the kid stephen Lawrence was with.

 

[BensGrandad]

I think this case is all a load of b......s and a waste of money as the maximum punishment is apparently fine of £2500 which is nothing to JT. He loses more than that in an afternoon in the bookies and the case costs the country lot more than that to put on. It would have been much better and more cost effective if the FA had dealt with it rather than the police and the courts. At least he would get a sizeable fine and possibly a ban.

 

[Kumquat]

I think this case is all a load of b......s and a waste of money as the maximum punishment is apparently fine of £2500 which is nothing to JT. He loses more than that in an afternoon in the bookies and the case costs the country lot more than that to put on. It would have been much better and more cost effective if the FA had dealt with it rather than the police and the courts. At least he would get a sizeable fine and possibly a ban.

I think it was established that that was not possible because a fan complained to the police, not the player to the FA. The police therfore had to counduct a criminal investigation and the evidence has led to him being charged. You may be right in terms of it being a waste of money, but should Terry be found guilty it will set a precedent and open a debate about whether this fine is adequate. I think also it is likely the FA will ban him if he is guilty. I think they have that power and would think carefully about what is appropriate.

 

[leigull]

It was an off duty policeman who saw it on telly that made the complaint about Terry.

The FA will no doubt give him a fine and lengthy ban as well if he's found guilty.

 

[Gritt23]

I think also it is likely the FA will ban him if he is guilty. I think they have that power and would think carefully about what is appropriate.

Surely they will ban him if he's found guilty. The interesting one is whether they are brave enough to ban him if he's NOT found guilty. In court they have a greater burden of proof required than the FA would require. For example, there is NO WAY Evra would have made a court case stick against Suarez, but it was still sufficient "evidence" for the FA to dish out a hefty ban. I assume the FA work on "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt."

 

[Kumquat]

Surely they will ban him if he's found guilty. The interesting one is whether they are brave enough to ban him if he's NOT found guilty. In court they have a greater burden of proof required than the FA would require. For example, there is NO WAY Evra would have made a court case stick against Suarez, but it was still sufficient "evidence" for the FA to dish out a hefty ban. I assume the FA work on "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt."

My assumption is that the FA would have to do their own inquiry if he was found not guilty and that Ferdinand would have to request that. But that is an assumption.

 

[beorhthelm]

...For example, there is NO WAY Evra would have made a court case stick against Suarez, but it was still sufficient "evidence" for the FA to dish out a hefty ban. "

people keep on with this evidence issue. it misses the more important point that Evra never reported the incident to the police, so they couldnt pursue it.

 

[Gritt23]

people keep on with this evidence issue. it misses the more important point that Evra never reported the incident to the police, so they couldnt pursue it.

That's not the point I'm making at all. What I'm saying is that the FA would appear to make decisions on bans based on less evidence than a court would require. So in teh same way as someone can be released from criminal charges, but then lose a civil case on the same incident (where there is a lower burden of proof) .... could JT get off in court, and yet STILL get banned by the FA?

 

[Kumquat]

That's not the point I'm making at all. What I'm saying is that the FA would appear to make decisions on bans based on less evidence than a court would require. So in teh same way as someone can be released from criminal charges, but then lose a civil case on the same incident (where there is a lower burden of proof) .... could JT get off in court, and yet STILL get banned by the FA?

And my point is no, I don't think they can, unless they investigate it themselves and they would have to be asked by Ferdinand. I don't see how they can ban someone who is not found guilty of something by them. As you point out if they lose a criminal case they can pursue a civil case and that is what Ferdinand would have to do first.

 

[Acker79]

And my point is no, I don't think they can, unless they investigate it themselves and they would have to be asked by Ferdinand. I don't see how they can ban someone who is not found guilty of something by them. As you point out if they lose a criminal case they can pursue a civil case and that is what Ferdinand would have to do first.

But Ferdinand wouldn't pursue it in civil court. He didn't bring this charge to court, it was an off duty police officer who made the complaint. Ferdinand has said in court under oath that he thinks this should have been an issue for the FA.

The FA have previously said they would carry out their investigation after the court trial because they don't want to influence the court. Which would suggest either someone has made a complaint (Ferdinand?) or they have already planned to act on it (because the ref didn't see it and the cameras did).

 

[Kumquat]

But Ferdinand wouldn't pursue it in civil court. He didn't bring this charge to court, it was an off duty police officer who made the complaint. Ferdinand has said in court under oath that he thinks this should have been an issue for the FA.

The FA have previously said they would carry out their investigation after the court trial because they don't want to influence the court. Which would suggest either someone has made a complaint (Ferdinand?) or they have already planned to act on it (because the ref didn't see it and the cameras did).

Fair enough. That all makes sense. I didn't realise they were already intending to.

 

[SK1NT]

BREAKING NEWS: John Terry's defence against Anton Ferdinand "I am NOT a racist. Racism is a crime - and crime is for black people"


*coat*

 

[Seagull58]

Yes , because poor little lamb Anton needs advice in this case doesnt he ? She suffered a loss, she is now milking it for all she's worth.

You are well out of order. Whilst I sometimes agree with some of your comments you are totally out of line on this. She has been fighting for 19 years for justice, which has only been partially achieved, and she has campaigned extensively against racism. She has every right to be there and is not personally "milking it" as you claim.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

could JT get off in court, and yet STILL get banned by the FA?

I'd say so. Terry has admitted to using certain words and in my opinion to use such language is ungentlemanly at best, no matter what the context, and must fall foul of FA rules?

 

[Seagull58]

Problem for Terry is that he has done so much in the past, people assume he is guilty.

Out of interest, can the FA ban him if found guilty?

Yes, of course they can. ANy punishment handed out by the FA is completely separate from any criminal case. If the court finds him guilty of racial abuse then the FA most certainly should take action. It's easy for them because they don't have to have an investigation as to what he did since the court will have already decided. All the FA would have to do is decide on the punishment.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I assume the FA work on "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt."

Correct. This was specified right at the top of the Suarez report.

 

[Falkor]

Drogba, Anelka, Malouda & Mikel: Chelsea 1st team players from time that were not listed as having signed statement on behalf of Terry

interesting

 

[Kumquat]

I'd say so. Terry has admitted to using certain words and in my opinion to use such language is ungentlemanly at best, no matter what the context, and must fall foul of FA rules?

Presumably you mean words that could be construed as racist? Just thinking that obvously if you are referring to the wider swearing or specifically of the c word then Ferdinand is as guilty.

 

[User removed 4]

Drogba, Anelka, Malouda & Mikel: Chelsea 1st team players from time that were not listed as having signed statement on behalf of Terry

interesting

i didnt realise there was a statement signed by players , whereabouts did you see that ?