terry

Mapperley, darling wrote:

i have to mention that it is not some judge that makes a decision on guilt, it is the twelve on the jury that decide that, normal people from everyday life. they make mistakes, like everyone else.

then theres the matter of jumping before being pushed, an example is the ian tomlinson case where the killer resigns, so cannot be charged.

legal bollox

Without wanting to go off the Terry subject, that's very true, Mappers ... some of the time. But fear not, the Bullingdon boys are on the case .. they want to roll back the centuries and regain control over many sorts of trials without a jury of our peers. And of course, in reality, jurys are very often directed by judges and their own opinion as to what verdict they can bring in. And that's before we get into such matters as jurys being intimidated by the establishment as happened with some cases during the Irish troubles. A good friend of mine was unfortunate enough to be on the jury for a very high profile national case and her stories of jury intimidation by law enforcement agencies in and around the Old Bailey are quite extraordinary.

And one other pertinent thing springs to mind from my now long distant law studies ... even the judiciary themselves have dispensed their very own form of judgement on their own peers 'outside of the law'. If one of them stepped out of the party line, they sent them to Coventry... very Bullingdon.

As for John Terry, I would imagine there are other compelling matters that we are not aware of for the FA to be pursuing this above and beyond... and for once, good on them. I'm a big fan of Clark Carlisle... a credit to his football profession

Penzance wrote:

Mapperley, darling wrote:

i have to mention that it is not some judge that makes a decision on guilt, it is the twelve on the jury that decide that, normal people from everyday life. they make mistakes, like everyone else.

then theres the matter of jumping before being pushed, an example is the ian tomlinson case where the killer resigns, so cannot be charged.

legal bollox

Without wanting to go off the Terry subject, that's very true, Mappers ... some of the time. But fear not, the Bullingdon boys are on the case .. they want to roll back the centuries and regain control over many sorts of trials without a jury of our peers. And of course, in reality, jurys are very often directed by judges and their own opinion as to what verdict they can bring in. And that's before we get into such matters as jurys being intimidated by the establishment as happened with some cases during the Irish troubles. A good friend of mine was unfortunate enough to be on the jury for a very high profile national case and her stories of jury intimidation by law enforcement agencies in and around the Old Bailey are quite extraordinary.

And one other pertinent thing springs to mind from my now long distant law studies ... even the judiciary themselves have dispensed their very own form of judgement on their own peers 'outside of the law'. If one of them stepped out of the party line, they sent them to Coventry... very Bullingdon.

As for John Terry, I would imagine there are other compelling matters that we are not aware of for the FA to be pursuing this above and beyond... and for once, good on them. I'm a big fan of Clark Carlisle... a credit to his football profession

BS utter and total BS Clark Carlisle has done nothing in football to be a credit other than cash in on the rascim row not to mention he is a convicted drink driver,

He's a brave man. He knows what he's up against.

Head says Oh no

Heart says WOOPIE

Can't decide which to go with, hes a knob but a brilliant player.

I still think it's strange that the FA disregarded the court verdict and charged Terry with the racist abuse to Anton Ferdinand, but they have and he's been found guilty and banned for 4 games. Oh and fined a weeks wages!

What happens next will be interesting. Will Chelsea stand by their skipper? Will they also punish him? Has this been a case of the FA trying to make a statement on racism, but being too afraid to match the ban received by Suarez?

If Chelsea do nothing further, what does that tell the black players and supporters at the club? That JT is too important to the team to punish him further?

This article in The Guardian addresses some points that were not hadn't been widely reported before the hearing or court case.

John Terry used Fitz Hall as an example of a black player he had known for years within football, and who was a QPR player at the time of the incident, as though he were some kind of character reference, yet on the day of the court verdict Fitz Hall tweeted "feckin Joke". Hardly endorsing JT as some kind of lifelong friend who couldn't possibly be racist.

No character witnesses from black Chelsea players, Drogba, Anelka, John Obi Mikel and perhaps more tellingly Chelsea's Kick it Out ambassador Florent Malouda.

The article also points out that Chelsea suspended a reserve team player for setting off a smoke bomb at their training ground and the security staff who accidently damaged the Champions League trophy, yet with Terry no action at all. They were happy to go with the court verdict.

Following this precedent will they now go along with the FA's verdict and take internal action? I very much doubt it. He's the club captain after all.

Just like they didn't suspend Ashley Cole when he accidently shot someone messing around with an air rifle at the training ground. To Chelsea it depends who you are it seems.

And how must Luis Suarez feel now? Same charge but he received twice the ban Terry has. He may have said "Negro" more times, but he claimed that this was not an insult in Uruguay. Terry claims he only repeated what he thought Anton Ferdinand had said to him first. The FA clearly didn't believe Terry, just as they didn't believe Suarez.

Terry won't be fazed by the opposing fans reaction now. He's used to having songs sung about him. Water off a ducks back.

If Chelsea fans stick by Terry, will they be perceived as being racist as well? What does that say to their black players? To their black fans?

What about when Chelsea face Man Utd next and Rio Ferdinand refuses to shake Terry's hand? And will Patrice Evra want to shake his hand?

What if by some miracle we make it to the 3rd round of the FA Cup and some of our black players refuse to shake his hand out of principle? Will the authorities punish black players who refuse to shake his hand from now on?

This whole case has baffled me because the FA have made a rod for their own back. They now have to contend with potential fall out every single week and at the end of the day there have been hearings and he's been found not guilty by one jury and guilty by another.

Of course the FA are right to stamp out racism, and homophobia and religious bigotry, but they have to be consistent. A four game ban is one more than for a mis-timed tackle. One more than the ban Rooney received playing for England, that they were so quick to want reducing because it affected England's chance in the Euro's. They threw everything behind the Rooney ban appeal which if it went wrong would have meant a four game ban!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Joey Barton on Twitter;

Quote :

4 games? A years worth of investigation, a four day FA hearing and only a 4 game ban? Suarez got 8 didn't he? WTF's going on...

Well I think that proves a lot. What an absolute farce. 12 games for violent conduct and only 4 for that. FA should be embarrassed #shambles

Ah well at least it's over and the people involved can move on with their careers. I was expecting at least a public execution after a year

Had a vivid dream last night involving Terry, a roaring crowd and a firing squad. Ah, not the turnout I expected

12 games!!! By the FA's perverse reckoning, I'd of got less of a ban for racially abusing the Man City players than tickling them as I did.

In what circumstance can that be right?

I do love some of Barton's rants, tin hat firmly on.

Greenjock wrote:

I still think it's strange that the FA disregarded the court verdict and charged Terry with the racist abuse to Anton Ferdinand, but they have and he's been found guilty and banned for 4 games. Oh and fined a weeks wages!

...

This whole case has baffled me because the FA have made a rod for their own back. They now have to contend with potential fall out every single week and at the end of the day there have been hearings and he's been found not guilty by one jury and guilty by another.

But it's two different things. In the criminal case, the judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that Terry used the words - in fact he admitted it. Given that, the panel (effectively a civil trial) had to find him 'guilty'.

It's the same as what happens to people at work every day. You can be charged with a criminal offence outside of work and found not guilty, but still face disciplinary action at work, up to and including the sack, because of that charge. Professional drivers, for instance, get this all the time.

The main thing this affair proves is that law, justice and fairness can be three entirely different things.

Peggy wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

I still think it's strange that the FA disregarded the court verdict and charged Terry with the racist abuse to Anton Ferdinand, but they have and he's been found guilty and banned for 4 games. Oh and fined a weeks wages!

...

This whole case has baffled me because the FA have made a rod for their own back. They now have to contend with potential fall out every single week and at the end of the day there have been hearings and he's been found not guilty by one jury and guilty by another.

But it's two different things. In the criminal case, the judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that Terry used the words - in fact he admitted it. Given that, the panel (effectively a civil trial) had to find him 'guilty'.

It's the same as what happens to people at work every day. You can be charged with a criminal offence outside of work and found not guilty, but still face disciplinary action at work, up to and including the sack, because of that charge. Professional drivers, for instance, get this all the time.

The main thing this affair proves is that law, justice and fairness can be three entirely different things.

I know but it was never disputed what Terry had said, only the context in which he had said it.

He claims it was repeating what he thought Ferdinand had said to him, however weak that may be, so the FA have accused him of lying basically. I also think it brings Ashley Cole's court statement into question, which is exactly what Rio Ferdinand did via his "choc-ice" tweet which went unpunished. That's another side issue to this whole thing that was ducked by the FA.

If the FA panel believe John Terry has lied about the whole thing, then the 4 game ban is ludicrous when compared to the 8 match ban Suarez got, or the 6 game ban the woman player received for her Twitter comments about someone's sexuality.

The fine is neither here nor there to John Terry. It's pocket change to him. The only thing that really hurts top footballers is stopping them playing and 4 games isn't enough if the FA really believe he said the words in the manner he has been found guilty of.

The Kick it Out team were firmly on Anton Ferdinand's side over this and I also think that they will be disappointed with the punishment, unless there has been some kind of behind the scenes deal thrashed out between them, the FA and Terrys team.

It smacks of the FA wanting to make a stance against racism in football, but being afraid to go after such a big English name as John Terry too hard. Possibly because they knew Terry and his legal team would have made mincemeat of them if they had slapped him with a huge ban, and the fall-out would go on for another year if not longer.

If Terry doesn't appeal, which I don't think he will for one moment, then Chelsea have a duty to take action as well, or they will be seen to be going against the FA, and would leave themselves open to be accused of being a racist club. Chelsea the reigning Champions League winners advocating racism? What if black players from their opponents all start refusing to shake Terry's hand?

I would say that there have been too many issues left unresolved and the FA panel's verdict is by no means the end of the subject.

The FA are a joke.

The Courts handle the administration of Justice, society provides the law.

Society, by way of the ballot box and therefore the government, has not provided the law for the court to administer justice in this case, as decided by the jury. Society has however provided other avenues other than law for justice to take effect, that can be by way of the County Court, Employment Law, Civil Law etc. and as in this case, the FA.

As in most cases the offences committed are seldom the same and will be judged differently and retain inconsistency, it has to be that way or you we would receive a 12 month prison sentence for doing 35mph in a 30 mph speed zone the same as someone that is driving at 170mph in a 70mph speed zone. It gives the rule book flexibility with understanding.

It's a pity though that the Court didn't handle a thug like Terry a Community Service Order in Brixton, it would have been interesting!

If Ashley Cole isn't also charged now then this whole thing has been as big a feck-up as the PASB.