The John Terry case,just a point.

[Leekbrookgull]

The J/T case came up in the pub today and forget for one moment whether you agree with the verdict,but this point was made. How can the F/A act now after the case went to a court of law and Terry found not guilty ? Surely if the F/A try to punish Terry now he will go to the PFA and ask 'whats going on i have been found not guilty' in a court of law and does that not overide anything the F/A may wish to do ?

 

[Triggaaar]

The J/T case came up in the pub today and forget for one moment whether you agree with the verdict,but this point was made. How can the F/A act now after the case went to a court of law and Terry found not guilty ? Surely if the F/A try to punish Terry now he will go to the PFA and ask 'whats going on i have been found not guilty' in a court of law and does that not overide anything the F/A may wish to do ?

No, different laws and different burden of proof. Eg, in the US, Wacko Jacko not guilty of being a pedo (I know), but could still be sued by the families, as a civil court wouldn't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Weststander]

Because criminal proof had to be beyond all reasonable doubt, a high level.

Football rules or bye laws are at a much lower level of proof, as judged by a small panel ... and looks like they might face 'charges' of bringing the game into disrepute from feuding on the pitch.

 

[Diego Napier]

The J/T case came up in the pub today and forget for one moment whether you agree with the verdict,but this point was made. How can the F/A act now after the case went to a court of law and Terry found not guilty ? Surely if the F/A try to punish Terry now he will go to the PFA and ask 'whats going on i have been found not guilty' in a court of law and does that not overide anything the F/A may wish to do ?

From the BBC website -

"The Football Association could charge John Terry despite the Chelsea captain being cleared of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand.

Terry, 31, said in court he was repeating what he thought Ferdinand had said to him as they traded insults.

But the lower burden of proof in FA cases means that both Terry and Ferdinand could be sanctioned.

The FA said it "notes the decision in the John Terry case and will now seek to conclude its own enquiries".

Ferdinand also admitted in court that he had used insulting words towards Terry during the altercation at Loftus Road last October.

The governing body suspended its investigation surrounding the incident in November, when it became apparent that the case would go to court.

Garth Crooks, of anti-racism in football campaign Kick It Out, says it is only half-time for John Terry

"Terry has not been charged under law but it doesn't mean he will not be charged under FA rules," said Kick it Out ambassador Garth Crooks.

"So for John Terry I'm afraid that this is only half-time."

 

[SussexHoop]

I believe that in a criminal case you have to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. They couldnt prove Terry wasnt repeating what he claims he thought Ferdinand said to him so there was doubt and hence the 'Not guilty' verdict. For the FA hearing the level of proof is lower ... I think along the lines of probability.

 

[amexee]

No. Criminal and civil law are totally different.

Criminal law requires proof of guilt, whilst civil law just require probability.

So, no proof that Terry was being racist, however do 51 people out of a hundred think his story was implausible?

edit. as stated above covers it

 

[Mutts Nuts]

The J/T case came up in the pub today and forget for one moment whether you agree with the verdict,but this point was made. How can the F/A act now after the case went to a court of law and Terry found not guilty ? Surely if the F/A try to punish Terry now he will go to the PFA and ask 'whats going on i have been found not guilty' in a court of law and does that not overide anything the F/A may wish to do ?

The magistrate bottled it

 

[ferring seagull]

The J/T case came up in the pub today and forget for one moment whether you agree with the verdict,but this point was made. How can the F/A act now after the case went to a court of law and Terry found not guilty ? Surely if the F/A try to punish Terry now he will go to the PFA and ask 'whats going on i have been found not guilty' in a court of law and does that not overide anything the F/A may wish to do ?

Does not get away from the fact that there was/never was any possibility of a guilty verdict given the circumstances, however, there was evidence that 'something' happened.

It is a shortcoming of the judicial system, the verdict, which is not available here as it is in Scotland, should have been 'Not Proven'

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Because criminal proof had to be beyond all reasonable doubt, a high level.

Football rules or bye laws are at a much lower level of proof, as judged by a small panel ... and looks like they might face 'charges' of bringing the game into disrepute from feuding on the pitch.

Disrepute is alot different from a racist charge,so any idea of what type of wording the F/A would or could use.

 

[sharpey38]

What would of the outcome been if Suarez went to court? also the Suarez case was on word of mouth, terry clearly said the words as he admitted and seen on video footage where as Suarez was inconclusive

The way I see it is the fa should ban both terry and Ferdinand for bringing the game into disrepute.

 

[beorhthelm]

The magistrate bottled it

bottled what? as contrived as the defence was, there was nothing to refute it and no witnesses.

The FA can and probably will bring disrepute charges into it. it will be very difficult how they do this for only Terry, so expect some sort of suspended punishment.

 

[beorhthelm]

What would of the outcome been if Suarez went to court? also the Suarez case was on word of mouth, terry clearly said the words as he admitted and seen on video footage where as Suarez was inconclusive

we'll never know because Evra didnt report the incident to the police. i'm of the opinion that he was advised to not as Suarez would be dealt with quicker by the FA process, damaging Liverpool, and move on.

 

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

It is all bollox. Jeez if I went to court each time in the last 30 years that someone called me a f*****g English b******d either
1)Out of mirth
2)Out of sarcasm
3)Out of hatred


I would have been on court for over 12 years.

Terry and Ferdinand are footballers who state things in the heat of the moment, which by dint of their probable below average command of English language, come across as stupid.

Just stop this nonsense and get on with life. Sticks and stones and all that.

Am I fed up with all this rubbish?

Yes.

TNBA

TTF

 

[severnside gull]

Listening to Garth Crooks on the radio saying the FA have to act quickly to prosecute (or was it persecute) Terry in order to be taken seriously when it comes to kicking racism out of sport- Guilty despite having been proved innocent came to mind. It rather makes a mockery of the court process but as others have said there is a lower level of "proof" needed in a kangaroo court.

Had the matter not gone through the courts the FA would surely have hammered Terry in the same way and to at least the same degree, as Suarez. Can they do that now without risking Terry taking them to the civil courts for potential restraint of trade? In my view they will have no choice but to be relatively lenient and very very careful indeed with their choice of words when it comes to charging and sentencing (and let's face it, for all the transparency involved, they may as well do the two things at the same time).

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Listening to Garth Crooks on the radio saying the FA have to act quickly to prosecute (or was it persecute) Terry in order to be taken seriously when it comes to kicking racism out of sport- Guilty despite having been proved innocent came to mind. It rather makes a mockery of the court process but as others have said there is a lower level of "proof" needed in a kangaroo court.

Had the matter not gone through the courts the FA would surely have hammered Terry in the same way and to at least the same degree, as Suarez. Can they do that now without risking Terry taking them to the civil courts for potential restraint of trade? In my view they will have no choice but to be relatively lenient and very very careful indeed with their choice of words when it comes to charging and sentencing (and let's face it, for all the transparency involved, they may as well do the two things at the same time).

Severnside,maybe i am wrong (?) but thats how i read it.

 

[Mr Burns]

Listening to Garth Crooks on the radio saying the FA have to act quickly to prosecute (or was it persecute) Terry in order to be taken seriously when it comes to kicking racism out of sport- Guilty despite having been proved innocent came to mind. It rather makes a mockery of the court process but as others have said there is a lower level of "proof" needed in a kangaroo court.

Had the matter not gone through the courts the FA would surely have hammered Terry in the same way and to at least the same degree, as Suarez. Can they do that now without risking Terry taking them to the civil courts for potential restraint of trade? In my view they will have no choice but to be relatively lenient and very very careful indeed with their choice of words when it comes to charging and sentencing (and let's face it, for all the transparency involved, they may as well do the two things at the same time).

The FA will be lenient. They are cowards and will not risk John Terry taking action against them. Except him and Ferniand to get a three game ban for using absive langugae. By the letter of the football law, the FA can ban a player for saying "f*** it" to himself on a pitch, so they will probably use that type to law to ban them for a few games. Anything more than that, expect Terry to go after them in the courts, so the FA will save face and not risk any more publicity.

 

[Mr Burns]

Listening to Garth Crooks on the radio saying the FA have to act quickly to prosecute (or was it persecute) Terry in order to be taken seriously when it comes to kicking racism out of sport- Guilty despite having been proved innocent came to mind. It rather makes a mockery of the court process but as others have said there is a lower level of "proof" needed in a kangaroo court.

On the first point Garth Crooks, like Rio Ferdinand, is a complete and utter f***ing bellend. Whatever you think of John Terry, the court of the land found him not guilty. They accepted his side of the story. For Crooks to now say that is outrageous, but then being the complete and utter prick the man is, not unexpected.

 

[Mr Burns]

Because criminal proof had to be beyond all reasonable doubt, a high level.

Football rules or bye laws are at a much lower level of proof, as judged by a small panel ... and looks like they might face 'charges' of bringing the game into disrepute from feuding on the pitch.

I think that will be the case. The FA will ban the pair of them for 2 or 3 games, and make no reference to racism at all.

 

[clapham_gull]

They accepted his side of the story.

They accepted both sides of the story, it wasn't Ferdinand who made the complaint.

But yes idiots - both of them.

As for Garth Crooks - I met him briefly and he said very nice things about Brighton, especially Peter Ward. Describing him a "unplayable" and was interested in what he was up to.

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

No, different laws and different burden of proof. Eg, in the US, Wacko Jacko not guilty of being a pedo (I know), but could still be sued by the families, as a civil court wouldn't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

OJ Simpson is another example. Found not guilty of murder in criminal court, but found to be responsible for the deaths and sued by the families of the victims in civil court.