Agreed the court of law argument is nonsense. The judge was fairly damning in his assessment. He said that Terry's story (he was repeating it back) was unlikely but that it couldn't be discounted beyond reasonable doubt. There was a clear implication that a different standard might lead to a different conclusion. I'm sure the FA took note of this when charging him.
But if he is to be found guilty, this is a good tactic. Many people (mainly Chelsea fans) will believe him.
Yep..! In Scotland there is a third option, not proven, which fits perfectly here. Instead Terry gets to word the statement to say he was cleared, sure, he was but not guilty is not the same as innocent. If you look at what the judge says it is clear he didn't buy it but the evidence wasn't quite enough. The whole thing turned into a he said/she said.
Terry is guilty of saying the words, he admits that, but it was the context that was disputed. Under the FA's rulebook of foul and abusive language he is banned and fined. Nothing to do with a court of law when there are different rules.
... in summarizing the Ferdinand evidence:
• There is no doubt the words “fudging black ****” were directed at Mr Ferdinand.
• Overall I found Anton Ferdinand to be a believable witness on the central issue.
• It is inherently unlikely that he should firstly accuse John Terry of calling him a black ****, then shortly after the match completely deny that he had made such a comment, and then maintain that false account throughout the police investigation and throughout this trial. There is no history of animosity between the two men. The supposed motivation is slight.
• Mr Terry’s explanation is, certainly under the cold light of forensic examination, unlikely. It is not the most obvious response. It is sandwiched between other undoubted insults.
... in the conclusion:
Weighing all the evidence together, I think it is highly unlikely that Mr Ferdinand accused Mr Terry on the pitch of calling him a black ****. However I accept that it is possible that Mr Terry believed at the time, and believes now, that such an accusation was made. The prosecution evidence as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong. Mr Cole gives corroborating (although far from compelling corroborating) evidence on this point. It is therefore possible that what he said was not intended as an insult, but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him.
In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty.
The FA go on about how they hate corruption, but they must be corrupt themselves. Terry gets charged just a few days after retiring from England duty. Wow.
The FA go on about how they hate corruption, but they must be corrupt themselves. Terry gets charged just a few days after retiring from England duty. Wow.
I'm sure he retired as a kind of pre-emptive strike against the FA as he and his representatives must have had a reasonable idea what the FA were going to do.
He'll appeal this and get it reduced of even overturned
i'm astounded, to find him guilty then only give him a 4 match ban, lets compare that to some other FA decisions
Eric Cantona got an 8 month ban for kicking a cnut, compare to that 4 games for being one
Paolo Di Canio got twice the Terry ban for shoving a ref
the FA is incompetent and not fit for purpose
the FA is incompetent and not fit for purpose
Why would you say "I never called you a black ****"? Any normal person would just say "I didn't say that".
AVB saying it's a massive loss for England - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19748131
MK sits back to see if the same posters who were hyper critical of a certain previous manager for saying similar things are hyper critical of the new man too. Consistancy in judgement or double standards? We shall see.....
DubaiSpur sits back and shouts 'Terry is a ****, why bring Harry vs. Avb into it?'.
DS likes referring to himself in the third person. DS doesn't think it makes him sound like a **** at all.