John Terry retires from International football
Discussion
Riff Raff said:
Scrambled said:
We keep focusing on Terry's adulterous behaviour whilst avoiding his violence, racism and general underhand behaviour. He is an abhorrent human being. Don't get me wrong, Ferdinand and Gerard are little better.
Found not guilty chief. And the general underhand behaviour? Parking in a disabled space? Just as well we haven't still got capital punishment.You cannot defend his behaviour. One misdemeanour, ok, fine but the guy is a general low life regardless of any talent on a football field.
Trophybloo said:
Nominations for Woy's Angels
As yet the Ox and TH14 wannabe, Theo, have done nothing reprehensible, shame Jack W has had some minor run-ins. What about Sturrige? What is Welbeck's track record?
Contract negotiations and arrogance over their worth could be a factor for all of them. As yet the Ox and TH14 wannabe, Theo, have done nothing reprehensible, shame Jack W has had some minor run-ins. What about Sturrige? What is Welbeck's track record?
Welbeck hasn't done anything wrong as far as I'm aware although he is an arrogant prick if that counts against him?
TheHeretic said:
1/4 million pound fine, almost, and a 4 game ban. Utterly ridiculous. Not-guilty in a court with a stricter line of evidence, and the FA do this. Well, they wanted their man, and they got him. Smells entirely of witch hunt.
So... you don't think he's brought the game into disrepute by his actions?hornetrider said:
So... you don't think he's brought the game into disrepute by his actions?
I think he AND Anton brought the game into disrepute with the language they both used, and the derogatory tones they both used. Why does Terry get half the games banned, and yet gets almost 7 times the fine as Suarez? This is not about bringing the game into disrepute, this is about them getting their man. Not guilty in a court of law, guilty at the FA, (who handily get a nice little payday). I fail to see the connection, to be honest. Will there be another charge for bringing the game into disrepute? Will Anton be getting done as well, (not to mention Rio). It is a farce. TheHeretic said:
Utterly ridiculous. Not-guilty in a court with a stricter line of evidence
Not sure what your point is?Criminal burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt i.e. in effect 99% or better.
Civil (which is in effect what the FA proceedings amount to - breach of his agreement to abide by FA regulations, i.e. breach of contract) burden of proof is on teh balance of probabilities i.e. 51% or better.
It's entirely possible to have a amtter that is more likely than not to be proved (i.e better than 51%) but which isn't proved beyond reasonable doubt.
By way of analogy, the case involving IRA terrorists who detonated a bomb in a crowd (think it might have been the Enniskillen Remembrance Day bomb) where the alleged perpetrators were acquitted in a criminal trial but found to be liable in a civil claim on the same facts, in a wrongful death claim by the relatives of those killed.
The FA haven't handled this especially well, and there IS a whiff of witch hunt about it, but there's nothing unusual per se in a court reaching one verdict and a civil tribunal reaching another on the same facts.
(I find it hard to conjure up much sympathy for him. Even if he's not a racist - and I've yet to be entirely convinced of that - he's still a pretty unpleasant piece of work, by all accounts)
t deserves all he gets, From vague memory of the criminal case, he didn't actually deny making the comments alleged, did he? I thought his defence was that he was merely repeating what he said Ferdinand had said to him, querying whether he had understood properly what Ferdinand claimed he (Terry) had said.
I didn't follow it closely but assumed at the time that he had been advised not to deny saying the words, as he was cauight on camera and could be lip-read saying them, but to try to offer an alternative explanation and so couldn't realistically deny it. It didn't have to be all that plausible - just plausible enough to plant the seed of reasonable doubt.
Good advice, from whichever of his highly-paid legal team came up with it!
I didn't follow it closely but assumed at the time that he had been advised not to deny saying the words, as he was cauight on camera and could be lip-read saying them, but to try to offer an alternative explanation and so couldn't realistically deny it. It didn't have to be all that plausible - just plausible enough to plant the seed of reasonable doubt.
Good advice, from whichever of his highly-paid legal team came up with it!
Lurking Lawyer said:
Not sure what your point is?
Criminal burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt i.e. in effect 99% or better.
Civil (which is in effect what the FA proceedings amount to - breach of his agreement to abide by FA regulations, i.e. breach of contract) burden of proof is on teh balance of probabilities i.e. 51% or better.
It's entirely possible to have a amtter that is more likely than not to be proved (i.e better than 51%) but which isn't proved beyond reasonable doubt.
By way of analogy, the case involving IRA terrorists who detonated a bomb in a crowd (think it might have been the Enniskillen Remembrance Day bomb) where the alleged perpetrators were acquitted in a criminal trial but found to be liable in a civil claim on the same facts, in a wrongful death claim by the relatives of those killed.
The FA haven't handled this especially well, and there IS a whiff of witch hunt about it, but there's nothing unusual per se in a court reaching one verdict and a civil tribunal reaching another on the same facts.
(I find it hard to conjure up much sympathy for him. Even if he's not a racist - and I've yet to be entirely convinced of that - he's still a pretty unpleasant piece of work, by all accounts)
I understand the difference. What I find ridiculous is the seems witch hunt around this. Having 1/4millipn pound fines for "well, it is likely", seems farcical, especially after intense scrutiny, and the court case. Is it a conflict of interest that the governing body gets the fine? Will Anton, and Rio be getting equal treatment? Will there be a separate repute case for all 3? Criminal burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt i.e. in effect 99% or better.
Civil (which is in effect what the FA proceedings amount to - breach of his agreement to abide by FA regulations, i.e. breach of contract) burden of proof is on teh balance of probabilities i.e. 51% or better.
It's entirely possible to have a amtter that is more likely than not to be proved (i.e better than 51%) but which isn't proved beyond reasonable doubt.
By way of analogy, the case involving IRA terrorists who detonated a bomb in a crowd (think it might have been the Enniskillen Remembrance Day bomb) where the alleged perpetrators were acquitted in a criminal trial but found to be liable in a civil claim on the same facts, in a wrongful death claim by the relatives of those killed.
The FA haven't handled this especially well, and there IS a whiff of witch hunt about it, but there's nothing unusual per se in a court reaching one verdict and a civil tribunal reaching another on the same facts.
(I find it hard to conjure up much sympathy for him. Even if he's not a racist - and I've yet to be entirely convinced of that - he's still a pretty unpleasant piece of work, by all accounts)
So John Terry is an FA accredited racist...I'm not sure what to think of that. Banning these players for a few games hardly promotes the Kick Racism Out Of Football campaign. 'Let's just leave racism on the sidelines for a few weeks before letting it come back to play with all of us' doesn't have the same ring to it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Yes he did, but he wasn't charged with that by the FA. He was charged with making racist comments towards another player.
You are quite right. Well, I saw the video, heard his defence and thought it ludicrous, as I've mentioned on the longer thread relating to this. So I'm not surprised they've found him guilty. 4 games as a single incident seems par for the FA course. Fine less than two weeks wages. Not sure why Andy his getting his knickers in a twist tbh.There was an interesting article by Martin Samuel the other day where he pointed out that apparently the FA have a 99 point something percent "conviction" rate, so essentially it was a certainty that Terry was going to be found guilty.
Personally I found his account of things very shaky, but there is also this business of one of the FA's own clauses which basically says that there's no case to answer if the same case has been tried and the defendant found not guilty in a criminal court, or something along those lines.
It has a bit of a whiff about it on both sides.
Personally I found his account of things very shaky, but there is also this business of one of the FA's own clauses which basically says that there's no case to answer if the same case has been tried and the defendant found not guilty in a criminal court, or something along those lines.
It has a bit of a whiff about it on both sides.
hornetrider said:
You are quite right. Well, I saw the video, heard his defence and thought it ludicrous, as I've mentioned on the longer thread relating to this. So I'm not surprised they've found him guilty. 4 games as a single incident seems par for the FA course. Fine less than two weeks wages. Not sure why Andy his getting his knickers in a twist tbh.
AgreedAlthough surprised it wasn't longer, assumed Suarez ban was a precedent
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff