John Terry

[Gritt23]

I think its quite telling how he is pals with ashley cole, shaun wright phillips and I'm quite sure that the black chelsea players would have said something or shown in their body language if he was the racist monster he's been depicted as.

Ha ha, the old "I'm not a racist, I have BLACK friends" defence - even JTs lawyers haven't resorted that one, yet! The case is not about whether he is a "racist monster", it may have just been a one-off slip, that happened as a result of provocation.

 

[wallyback]

Nonsense. John Terry may have lost his legs but he was never about pace anyway. He's still England's best centre half and would get into any team in the country. Just because he's a prick you can't slate him as a footballer.

This is so true.

If you picked a team purely on personality, you would be struggling to win anything.

Football doesn't attached the most eloquent of people, why should it. We expect too much of our pro footballers.

Having said that Terry does seem remarkable stupid. I still can't believe his excuse for getting sent off of in the Champions League Semi.

If I was Terry's barrister I'd stick some electrodes in his underpants to set off every time he comes out with a ridiculous lie.

Terry would get in my team every time though.

 

[User removed 4]

Ha ha, the old "I'm not a racist, I have BLACK friends" defence - even JTs lawyers haven't resorted that one, yet! The case is not about whether he is a "racist monster", it may have just been a one-off slip, that happened as a result of provocation.

For a start, it's a viable defence because he has got black friends , calling the "old blah blah" defence is becoming some sort of stock reply, which is worthless because on this occasion certainly , its true, and if its a one off slip then it shouldnt be anywhere near a courtroom, in fact it shouldnt be anywhere near a courtroom fullstop.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

it shouldnt be anywhere near a courtroom fullstop.

Unless you have forgotten the he has been charged with a crime...and you run the risk of being taken to court if you commit a crime. Whilst I concede it would not be practical to drag everyone with similar cases through the courts a few high profile cases every so often never do any harm and inform people what is right and what is wrong and what might happen if you commit the same offence. For the greater good is the phrase I will use.

 

[kalinski]

I see the maximum fine is £2500 if found guilty. How on earth will he afford that...?

Worrying financial times for him.

If one of us was arrested at football ground, charged and convicted of racist abuse, we would be banned from football grounds. Surely the same should apply? I get the difference between playing and watching, but he could simply be banned from sitting in the stands when he is not playing.

 

[timco]

For a start, it's a viable defence because he has got black friends , calling the "old blah blah" defence is becoming some sort of stock reply, which is worthless because on this occasion certainly , its true, and if its a one off slip then it shouldnt be anywhere near a courtroom, in fact it shouldnt be anywhere near a courtroom fullstop.

I have sat on a jury with such a charge to consider and we were told, by the judge, it matters only what was said at the time to the person the words were used.

So no, "I have plenty of black friends" is not a defence in relation to how this particular offence is framed. It will simply come down to if they can prove that the words were said to the person they were said. In this case the word is black is the illegal bit, f***ing and **** are ok but try saying that to your GF without the black and see what you get!

 

[Nathan]

They are now calling Paddy Kenny fat in court. Great twitter account by Dan Roan from the BBC. Dan Roan (danroan) on Twitter

 

[User removed 4]

I have sat on a jury with such a charge to consider and we were told, by the judge, it matters only what was said at the time to the person the words were used.

So no, "I have plenty of black friends" is not a defence in relation to how this particular offence is framed. It will simply come down to if they can prove that the words were said to the person they were said. In this case the word is black is the illegal bit, f***ing and **** are ok but try saying that to your GF without the black and see what you get!

I agree with you, what i posted was just a comment on john terry and how i perceive him, not on the actual case itself.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

in relation to hearing two grown mean using the c word someone in the media today asked if Ferdinand and Terry are the new Derek and Clive. Made me chuckle.

 

[Gritt23]

For a start, it's a viable defence because he has got black friends , calling the "old blah blah" defence is becoming some sort of stock reply, which is worthless because on this occasion certainly , its true, and if its a one off slip then it shouldnt be anywhere near a courtroom, in fact it shouldnt be anywhere near a courtroom fullstop.

We find common ground, this shouldn't be anywhere near a courtroom! The FA should have had the balls to just dish out a ban and we move on. Instead the police case has enabled the ball-less in Soho Sq. to merely hide behind the impending case rather than have a row with Chelsea.

I can't stand the police getting involved in actions that take place on the pitch. I understand the dilemma they face, as it can't be a little pocket of society that is outside the law, but it should always remain sensible, and balanced. A bad tackle should not really be an assault case, and reacting (to whatever) with foul, abusive, even racist language, should not be in court.

Apart from anything else, as I've said earlier, all the court can do (£2.5k fine) is the equivalent of you or I putting a quid in a swear box, to a professional footballer. Any punishment dealt out by the FA in terms of a ban would be FAR more punishing.

 

[Acker79]

For a start, it's a viable defence because he has got black friends , calling the "old blah blah" defence is becoming some sort of stock reply, which is worthless because on this occasion certainly , its true, and if its a one off slip then it shouldnt be anywhere near a courtroom, in fact it shouldnt be anywhere near a courtroom fullstop.

It depends on the charge.

Looking back at the suarez charge, it wasn't about whether suarez was racist, in fact lengths were taken to ensure it was abundantly clear they weren't accusing him of being racist. Evra said Suarez isn't racist, Suarez's mixed race background was stressed, the work he does with his charity that involves helping various races was highlighted. As much as Gus gets criticised, he only said that Suarez wasn't racist, not that he said something referring to Evra's race.

That was Surez's charge - that he "used abusive
and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards an opponent Mr Patrice Evra
contrary to Rule E3(1) ("particular one").
It is further alleged that your breach of Rule E3(1) included a reference to the ethnic
origin and/or colour and/or race of Mr Patrice Evra within the meaning of Rule
E3(2) ("particular two")."

If a similar charge is levied at Terry, "I've got black friends" is not a defence.

If the prosecution is trying to prove Terry is racist and they don't, the FA investigation may still find him guilty simply for referring to Anton's "ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race" while insulting him, regardless of the colour of his team-mates.

 

[Nathan]

Apart from anything else, as I've said earlier, all the court can do (£2.5k fine) is the equivalent of you or I putting a quid in a swear box, to a professional footballer. Any punishment dealt out by the FA in terms of a ban would be FAR more punishing.

Must be about 1 or 2% of his weekly wage. Really is a waste of time and tax payers money.

 

[Simster]

The more I read about this, the more I feel John Terry is actually not guilty and is in danger of being stitched up.

Yes, he's an overrated soccerist, yes he's a complete twunt who shags his mates birds, but is he racist? I'm REALLY not convinced on the evidence being tweeted by Dan Roan.

 

[Falkor]

The FA and Anton did not send this to the Police a member of the public contacted the police the day after the game, if the police recieve a complaint of racist language then they have to investigate and if they believe the chap did say it and he says he didnt then there is no choice sadly but to go the route it has, if he is found guilty i would think Terry will have to pay the costs.

Also If Terry is guilty what a dark cloud over him, sponsors will walk away there is no doubt, Chelsea will strip him of the arm band i would think, and now he will also have a criminal record of racism and might find it hard to go to certain countries.

 

[User removed 4]

The more I read about this, the more I feel John Terry is actually not guilty and is in danger of being stitched up.

Yes, he's an overrated soccerist, yes he's a complete twunt who shags his mates birds, but is he racist? I'm REALLY not convinced on the evidence being tweeted by Dan Roan.

Seriously, what the f*** is Doreen Lawrence doing there ?

 

[Simster]

Seriously, what the f*** is Doreen Lawrence doing there ?

 

[Kumquat]

Seriously, what the f*** is Doreen Lawrence doing there ?

She's patron of an organisation that provides advice in incidences of hate crime including racism, so she has a general interest in how such cases are prosecuted.

 

[Falkor]

she is also good friends of the Ferdinand's they grew up in the same area.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Must be about 1 or 2% of his weekly wage. Really is a waste of time and tax payers money.

As sickapeadia said.

its like putting Hitler on the naughty step

 

[User removed 4]

She's patron of an organisation that provides advice in incidences of hate crime including racism, so she has a general interest in how such cases are prosecuted.

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.