Not really. The witness saw Terry saying those words - Terry has admitted to saying them. If Terry did say them in a way that was innocent, you can't expect the witness to know that.
------------------------------------------------------------
The whole country saw him using those words, what's your point? An internal investigation could have cleared this up but it would not have satisfied those with a blinkered view of JT. If found not guilty there will be no end to the accusations toward JT that he is a racist. The damage is done, mob mentality rules, we are still living in the dar ages despite all this technology.
People will believe what they want to.
Complant which triggered investigation into Terry made by off-duty police officer watching game on TV. There was just one complaint
----------------------------------------------------
what a joke..........basically if he wasñ't a policemañ this complaiñt would have goñe ñowhere
The FA can still ban him even if found not guilty, he has admitted to saying it remember.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's admitted to saying the words but that doesn't mean he's guilty of the offence.
And if he's not convicted in a court of law, how can you expect him to accept a punishment from those amateurs at the FA?
GCS: cos the expression `a black' is not intended as an insult - the expression `you black' c*** could be
GCS: if the word `a' were in place instead of the word `you' it does in fact alter potentially the whole tenor of what is being said
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
He's admitted to saying the words but that doesn't mean he's guilty of the offence.
And if he's not convicted in a court of law, how can you expect him to accept a punishment from those amateurs at the FA?
=========================
I'm not saying its right.
Just pointing out saying the fact that even if not guilty verdict in court the FA will have there own possible hearing and of course have clear rules about what language isn't acceptable on the pitch, not sure 'intent' or reason for saying the words is relevant for the FA with fans of other clubs wanting a ban for JT.
The FA will have to investigate and a lot of what goes on in court will be used.
John Terry's lawyer says Anton Ferdinand "clearly not a reliable witness"
Terry's defence team for a 2nd day maintain footage of alleged racist abuse is incomplete & lipreading can be misinterpreted
This ia a crucial point in the proceedings
Defence will argue that the prosecution case is too weak to continue and ask Judge to dismiss the case
Interesting
Prosecution case is very weak.. I expected them to hammer JT.
It will be a brave judge that throws it out, but there really doesn't seem much pint in carrying on.
& the Liverpool fans amonst others would be clamouring for an 8 match ban regardless of the magistrates decision.
This is what is so disgusting. If innocent then why are people still clammoring for Terry to be banned.
This is a QPR fan (out of uiniform he should be considered only as a member of the public) who has decided to make as much of this as possible.
This will open a can of worms as i am sure there will be people waiting to catch a player saying something offensive and try to get tem done because they play for X or Y.
This is a member of the public who has a agenda against Terry.
I really dislike Evra so if i even suspect him of uttering the ord "white" or "cracker" or anything that could be remotly linked to a white person i will press charges!
Is this fair?!
with fans of other clubs wanting a ban for JT
lamenates my point above!
if he is innocent then why do people want him banned? is it because he plays for Chelsea? is it just because the public dont like Terry? There has to be a reason that people will want to see him banned guilty or not!
This is what is so disgusting. If innocent then why are people still clammoring for Terry to be banned.
This is a QPR fan (out of uiniform he should be considered only as a member of the public) who has decided to make as much of this as possible.
This will open a can of worms as i am sure there will be people waiting to catch a player saying something offensive and try to get tem done because they play for X or Y.
This is a member of the public who has a agenda against Terry.
I really dislike Evra so if i even suspect him of uttering the ord "white" or "cracker" or anything that could be remotly linked to a white person i will press charges!
Is this fair?!
======================
The FA have already shown with Suarez that saying certain words which can be deemed offensive will not be tolerated, the court case is in effect irrelevant in this sense as he has admitted saying it which could be good enough for the FA to charge him.
if he is innocent then why do people want him banned? is it because he plays for Chelsea? is it just because the public dont like Terry? There has to be a reason that people will want to see him banned guilty or not!
========================
Depends on what happens in court - him being proven innocent is totally different to the trial collapsing due to lack of evidence.
Maybe they want to see him banned because we have all seen him say it!!!!
His excuse is a pretty poor one, atleast Suarez offered a half believable story
Defence says evidence against #Terry is "so weak and tenuous" it doesn't warrant the case going any further. Case breaks for lunch.
The FA have already shown with Suarez that saying certain words which can be deemed offensive will not be tolerated, the court case is in effect irrelevant in this sense as he has admitted saying it which could be good enough for the FA to charge him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If that is the case then Anton also used those words so they would have to ban Anton too then right?!
If they ban Terry for saying FBC regardless of context and the court believes Terry version of events to be true(Anton asking did you call me a FBC?) then they will HAVE to ban both! otherwise there will be another race issue on the F.A's hands.
Doubtful...
comment by Bhoy From Brum (U14186)
posted 3 minutes ago
if he is innocent then why do people want him banned? is it because he plays for Chelsea? is it just because the public dont like Terry? There has to be a reason that people will want to see him banned guilty or not!
========================
Depends on what happens in court - him being proven innocent is totally different to the trial collapsing due to lack of evidence.
Maybe they want to see him banned because we have all seen him say it!!!!
His excuse is a pretty poor one, atleast Suarez offered a half believable story
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is consistant, and backed up by Cole, Terry has in no way showed any racist form in the past and has maintained all along that he was merely issued a denial.
Most of us have been accused of something by someone int ehe past surely, and most of us have issued simllar denials. Be it in response to the missus "I did not say your bum looks big in those jeans" or "No mate, this is not your pint"
Take some of the words from either sentance and they can be read differently. The same as a tackle viewed from different angles can be judged differently.
Terry - Captain Leader Legend regardless of what happens
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Further excerpts from the case
The complainant:
◦Lawyer: "Do you drink when you're on duty?"
◦Witness: "I don't drink when I'm on duty, unless I come on duty drunk."
From Anton:
◦Lawyer: "And lastly, Anton, all your responses must be oral. Ok? What school do you go to?"
◦Witness: "Oral."
◦Lawyer: "How old are you?"
◦Witness: "Oral."
From JT
◦Lawyer: "Could you see him from where you were standing?"
◦Witness: "I could see his head."
◦Lawyer: "And where was his head?"
◦Witness: "Just above his shoulders."
Full transcript: http://rinkworks.com/said/courtroom.shtml
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 48 minutes ago
Not really. The witness saw Terry saying those words - Terry has admitted to saying them. If Terry did say them in a way that was innocent, you can't expect the witness to know that.
------------------------------------------------------------
The whole country saw him using those words, what's your point?
------------------------------
My point was that the fact the complaint was by on off duty police officer watching on TV does not make it any more or less farcical. We knew all along that Terry had used the words and admitted to them. It was all about the context in which they were used. So who reported the incident does not have any bearing on the things.
comment by Robbing_Hoody (U6374)
posted 7 minutes ago
Terry - Captain Leader Legend Racist regardless of what happens
================
Has the been found guilty yet????
Sign in if you want to comment
John Terry vs Anton Ferdinand - Day 2
Page 4 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 10/7/12
Not really. The witness saw Terry saying those words - Terry has admitted to saying them. If Terry did say them in a way that was innocent, you can't expect the witness to know that.
------------------------------------------------------------
The whole country saw him using those words, what's your point? An internal investigation could have cleared this up but it would not have satisfied those with a blinkered view of JT. If found not guilty there will be no end to the accusations toward JT that he is a racist. The damage is done, mob mentality rules, we are still living in the dar ages despite all this technology.
People will believe what they want to.
posted on 10/7/12
Complant which triggered investigation into Terry made by off-duty police officer watching game on TV. There was just one complaint
----------------------------------------------------
what a joke..........basically if he wasñ't a policemañ this complaiñt would have goñe ñowhere
posted on 10/7/12
The FA can still ban him even if found not guilty, he has admitted to saying it remember.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's admitted to saying the words but that doesn't mean he's guilty of the offence.
And if he's not convicted in a court of law, how can you expect him to accept a punishment from those amateurs at the FA?
posted on 10/7/12
GCS: cos the expression `a black' is not intended as an insult - the expression `you black' c*** could be
GCS: if the word `a' were in place instead of the word `you' it does in fact alter potentially the whole tenor of what is being said
posted on 10/7/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/7/12
He's admitted to saying the words but that doesn't mean he's guilty of the offence.
And if he's not convicted in a court of law, how can you expect him to accept a punishment from those amateurs at the FA?
=========================
I'm not saying its right.
Just pointing out saying the fact that even if not guilty verdict in court the FA will have there own possible hearing and of course have clear rules about what language isn't acceptable on the pitch, not sure 'intent' or reason for saying the words is relevant for the FA with fans of other clubs wanting a ban for JT.
posted on 10/7/12
The FA will have to investigate and a lot of what goes on in court will be used.
posted on 10/7/12
John Terry's lawyer says Anton Ferdinand "clearly not a reliable witness"
Terry's defence team for a 2nd day maintain footage of alleged racist abuse is incomplete & lipreading can be misinterpreted
posted on 10/7/12
This ia a crucial point in the proceedings
Defence will argue that the prosecution case is too weak to continue and ask Judge to dismiss the case
Interesting
posted on 10/7/12
Prosecution case is very weak.. I expected them to hammer JT.
posted on 10/7/12
It will be a brave judge that throws it out, but there really doesn't seem much pint in carrying on.
posted on 10/7/12
& the Liverpool fans amonst others would be clamouring for an 8 match ban regardless of the magistrates decision.
This is what is so disgusting. If innocent then why are people still clammoring for Terry to be banned.
This is a QPR fan (out of uiniform he should be considered only as a member of the public) who has decided to make as much of this as possible.
This will open a can of worms as i am sure there will be people waiting to catch a player saying something offensive and try to get tem done because they play for X or Y.
This is a member of the public who has a agenda against Terry.
I really dislike Evra so if i even suspect him of uttering the ord "white" or "cracker" or anything that could be remotly linked to a white person i will press charges!
Is this fair?!
posted on 10/7/12
with fans of other clubs wanting a ban for JT
lamenates my point above!
if he is innocent then why do people want him banned? is it because he plays for Chelsea? is it just because the public dont like Terry? There has to be a reason that people will want to see him banned guilty or not!
posted on 10/7/12
This is what is so disgusting. If innocent then why are people still clammoring for Terry to be banned.
This is a QPR fan (out of uiniform he should be considered only as a member of the public) who has decided to make as much of this as possible.
This will open a can of worms as i am sure there will be people waiting to catch a player saying something offensive and try to get tem done because they play for X or Y.
This is a member of the public who has a agenda against Terry.
I really dislike Evra so if i even suspect him of uttering the ord "white" or "cracker" or anything that could be remotly linked to a white person i will press charges!
Is this fair?!
======================
The FA have already shown with Suarez that saying certain words which can be deemed offensive will not be tolerated, the court case is in effect irrelevant in this sense as he has admitted saying it which could be good enough for the FA to charge him.
posted on 10/7/12
if he is innocent then why do people want him banned? is it because he plays for Chelsea? is it just because the public dont like Terry? There has to be a reason that people will want to see him banned guilty or not!
========================
Depends on what happens in court - him being proven innocent is totally different to the trial collapsing due to lack of evidence.
Maybe they want to see him banned because we have all seen him say it!!!!
His excuse is a pretty poor one, atleast Suarez offered a half believable story
posted on 10/7/12
Defence says evidence against #Terry is "so weak and tenuous" it doesn't warrant the case going any further. Case breaks for lunch.
posted on 10/7/12
The FA have already shown with Suarez that saying certain words which can be deemed offensive will not be tolerated, the court case is in effect irrelevant in this sense as he has admitted saying it which could be good enough for the FA to charge him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If that is the case then Anton also used those words so they would have to ban Anton too then right?!
If they ban Terry for saying FBC regardless of context and the court believes Terry version of events to be true(Anton asking did you call me a FBC?) then they will HAVE to ban both! otherwise there will be another race issue on the F.A's hands.
Doubtful...
posted on 10/7/12
comment by Bhoy From Brum (U14186)
posted 3 minutes ago
if he is innocent then why do people want him banned? is it because he plays for Chelsea? is it just because the public dont like Terry? There has to be a reason that people will want to see him banned guilty or not!
========================
Depends on what happens in court - him being proven innocent is totally different to the trial collapsing due to lack of evidence.
Maybe they want to see him banned because we have all seen him say it!!!!
His excuse is a pretty poor one, atleast Suarez offered a half believable story
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is consistant, and backed up by Cole, Terry has in no way showed any racist form in the past and has maintained all along that he was merely issued a denial.
Most of us have been accused of something by someone int ehe past surely, and most of us have issued simllar denials. Be it in response to the missus "I did not say your bum looks big in those jeans" or "No mate, this is not your pint"
Take some of the words from either sentance and they can be read differently. The same as a tackle viewed from different angles can be judged differently.
posted on 10/7/12
Terry - Captain Leader Legend regardless of what happens
posted on 10/7/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/7/12
Further excerpts from the case
The complainant:
◦Lawyer: "Do you drink when you're on duty?"
◦Witness: "I don't drink when I'm on duty, unless I come on duty drunk."
From Anton:
◦Lawyer: "And lastly, Anton, all your responses must be oral. Ok? What school do you go to?"
◦Witness: "Oral."
◦Lawyer: "How old are you?"
◦Witness: "Oral."
From JT
◦Lawyer: "Could you see him from where you were standing?"
◦Witness: "I could see his head."
◦Lawyer: "And where was his head?"
◦Witness: "Just above his shoulders."
Full transcript: http://rinkworks.com/said/courtroom.shtml
posted on 10/7/12
Robbing !
posted on 10/7/12
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 48 minutes ago
Not really. The witness saw Terry saying those words - Terry has admitted to saying them. If Terry did say them in a way that was innocent, you can't expect the witness to know that.
------------------------------------------------------------
The whole country saw him using those words, what's your point?
------------------------------
My point was that the fact the complaint was by on off duty police officer watching on TV does not make it any more or less farcical. We knew all along that Terry had used the words and admitted to them. It was all about the context in which they were used. So who reported the incident does not have any bearing on the things.
posted on 10/7/12
comment by Robbing_Hoody (U6374)
posted 7 minutes ago
Terry - Captain Leader Legend Racist regardless of what happens
================
posted on 10/7/12
Has the been found guilty yet????
Page 4 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10