John Terry

[Poshgill]

I'm no fan of Terry but I think he has been harshly treated by the fa. I cannot understand how he can be found not guilty in a court of law and yet be found guilty of the same offence by a panel of non professional (in the legal sense) people. I feel that last of the reason we do so badly in International football is because the fa is run by a load of old duffers.

[Kezz]

He also admitted it tot he FA. As we've spoken before, it really doesn't sit well with me either, but after thinking about it, they are the employee in this scenario, and do have to been seen to do something, just because it's no longer a legal case, it is still a moral one and a message has to be sent out.

[Rimshot]

I understand the FA has conducted almost 500 such 'examinations' of player behaviour and only 1 of them has found in favour of the player. I also see that the odious Joey Barton is weighing in bleating about his suspension in relation to Terry's.
Whatever I think of JT, there's no doubt that football would be better off if Barton never set foot on a pitch again.

[steve347]

The thing that concerns me most about these cases is that there is so little to differentiate callous abusive behaviour from 'heat of the moment' episodes.
I once had a girlfriend who did something cruel to an innocent life-form and in the shock, something flashed inside my brain and the words 'stupid fat' were issued before I could think. Oh dear........
I hate racism but during my childhood I was exposed to some hateful and thoughtless individuals.
I may not like to admit it, but if the right buttons are pressed I could come out with something unfortunate.
Not an easy subject but we must not allow injustice to replace injustice.

[Robpthegills]

I have often found that during a particularly heated discussion humans will normally reduce to base form and come out with whatever insult they think the worst at the time. Many a thing is said between husband and wife which is later regretted, or even between friends. The problem is the minute it becomes heated most peoples Limitation bars disappear and they become defensive then offensive.

Anton Ferdinand seemed quite happy to call Terry whatever name he saw fit, slur him in as many ways as he saw fit but couldnt take it back. Typical.

I am not making john tery right, but he is just as guilty as ferdinand.

Suarez's case was different, it was just a tirade of verbal abuse by suarez over a sustained period.

[Poshgill]

But surely the issue is that the courts in this country did not have enough evidence to show that Terry DID say the words in anger. Yes, he admitted saying the words, but only repeating them. That defence was accepted. So why does the fa then think they have the ability to know more about the law of the land? I am subject to a drink and drugs policy for my work. Just suppose I was charged by the police for a drugs often e. I then go to court and after a trial am found not guilty. Then my employer disciplines me for the same offence. It would be reasonable for me to take my employer to court for constructive dismissal. Just because Terry is a footbballer, what is the difference?

[Robpthegills]

Hi Tom

I agree but disagree. Take for example the police officer during the recent london protests whereby a person died. The CPS did not prosecute the police officer as there was not enough evidence, however the Met Police have dismissed the officer.

Any case heard in a criminal court can also be taken to a civil court regardless of the results of the criminal court. This has been succesfull on a number of occassions.

Can I just say that John Terrys defence that he was repeating the words spoken is LAUGHABLE. The reason I say this is based on fact. The police have used that excuse for years, it is there standard excuse should they ever say anything untoward or racist. All you do is state you didnt say it you were just asking who did say it. It has saved many a police officers neck in the past and JT's barrister would have known that. Bear in mind Terry never used that defence untill he had consultation with his barrister.

Its a bit like the ELUSIVE black dog. Whenever someone has a car accident and there is no one else involved to ensure you dont get a careless driving charge people always alledge they swerved to avoid a black dog that came out of nowhere.

Standard defences for standard situations.

Maybe we need to adopt the scottish system in our courts where there are actually 3 verdicts... Guilty.....Not Guilty....Not Proven I think this is far more effective.

[Poshgill]

yes Rob. I agree that the not proven verdict should be in English law. However the fact is Terry was found not guilty and that judgement must stand. I accept that trials can go to a civil court. But that is the point. It is a trial by judge and jury and is totally o objective. The fa farce was a comittee of old duffers passing judgement. It was not fair or objective.

I really cannot believe I am defending Terry but it is a point of principle.