John Terry retires from International football

John Terry retires from International football

Author
Discussion

RWD cossie wil

4,295 posts

172 months

Thursday 27th September 2012
quotequote all
Lurking Lawyer said:
Nonsense. Go back and read what I posted at 15.41.

Suarez got an 8 match ban rather than 4 seemingly because he repeated the offending comments more than once during the game.
I understand the process, but it reeks of if you don't get the result you want, try the next set of courts?

If the court couldn't prove what was said/happened, to a 99% margin ,how on earth can the same "offence" be tried in a kangaroo court and decide , actually, to suit their agenda the offender who was cleared by a higher authority can be basically told "you are guilty" with the same evidence?

I'm not really bothered by the outcome, but some consistency would be nice?

mikemc88

302 posts

153 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
RWD cossie wil said:
I understand the process, but it reeks of if you don't get the result you want, try the next set of courts?

If the court couldn't prove what was said/happened, to a 99% margin ,how on earth can the same "offence" be tried in a kangaroo court and decide , actually, to suit their agenda the offender who was cleared by a higher authority can be basically told "you are guilty" with the same evidence?

I'm not really bothered by the outcome, but some consistency would be nice?
The way I kind of see it is this. When you watch road wars, or traffic cops, it amazes me how often someone could be pulled over and have a £100 worth of drugs on them. When it gets to the end of the program and it's telling you what happened to all of the people, it usually comes out with "so and so was released without charge as there was not enough evidence". To everyone else it is clear what happened. But in the court they have to prove it was theres.

Agree on the consistency though.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
mikemc88 said:
The way I kind of see it is this. When you watch road wars, or traffic cops, it amazes me how often someone could be pulled over and have a £100 worth of drugs on them. When it gets to the end of the program and it's telling you what happened to all of the people, it usually comes out with "so and so was released without charge as there was not enough evidence". To everyone else it is clear what happened. But in the court they have to prove it was theres.

Agree on the consistency though.
But Terry was prosecuted by the courts.

To make your analogy work, it's like the guy on road wars, who say is a builder, going to court charged with carrying £100 of drugs, and being found not guilty, and then being charged with the same offence by the Federation of Master Builders, getting found guilty, and fined and banned from building sites for a month.

mikemc88

302 posts

153 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mikemc88 said:
The way I kind of see it is this. When you watch road wars, or traffic cops, it amazes me how often someone could be pulled over and have a £100 worth of drugs on them. When it gets to the end of the program and it's telling you what happened to all of the people, it usually comes out with "so and so was released without charge as there was not enough evidence". To everyone else it is clear what happened. But in the court they have to prove it was theres.

Agree on the consistency though.
But Terry was prosecuted by the courts.

To make your analogy work, it's like the guy on road wars, who say is a builder, going to court charged with carrying £100 of drugs, and being found not guilty, and then being charged with the same offence by the Federation of Master Builders, getting found guilty, and fined and banned from building sites for a month.
Found not guilty in court...

The point being made was that even though sometimes it is obvious what the offence is and the charge that should go with it, they getaway with it because they need to prove something which they can't. In the case I was using it is usually something along the lines of "they couldn't prove the drugs belonged to them". In the Terry case it is that he claimed he was repeating what Anton said but with "I didn't call you a...". When you watch the video it gets blocked so you can't see if he says or not, but to me I don't think he would have got those words out in the short time his mouth is out of view. But if the courts can't prove otherwise then they can't charge. Not the case with the FA.

I see Joey Barton's had his input on the matter. It's a "farce" that he got a longer ban, apparently.

Traveller

4,161 posts

216 months

y2blade

56,029 posts

214 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
Just listening to this on Radio2 ....What a silly little man.

RWD cossie wil

4,295 posts

172 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
John Terry has announced his retirement from international football. However he remains confident of picking up a winners medal in the 2014 World Cup.

smile

Scrambled

589 posts

165 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
RWD cossie wil said:
John Terry has announced his retirement from international football. However he remains confident of picking up a winners medal in the 2014 World Cup.

smile
Funny, but not as funny as the first fifty times it's been posted on PH.

Cheib

23,113 posts

174 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
RWD cossie wil said:
Lurking Lawyer said:
Nonsense. Go back and read what I posted at 15.41.

Suarez got an 8 match ban rather than 4 seemingly because he repeated the offending comments more than once during the game.
I understand the process, but it reeks of if you don't get the result you want, try the next set of courts?

If the court couldn't prove what was said/happened, to a 99% margin ,how on earth can the same "offence" be tried in a kangaroo court and decide , actually, to suit their agenda the offender who was cleared by a higher authority can be basically told "you are guilty" with the same evidence?

I'm not really bothered by the outcome, but some consistency would be nice?
It was a different offence....it's worth pointing out that the judge said when a aquitting Terry that his version of events "wan't credible" but they couldn't prove otherwise. i.e. he's got good lawyers.

Think about it like this if someone works for a company and called the employee of another company a Black the employer could quite easily terminate employment.....it's a clear breach of contract for 99.9% of employment contracts. They'd have broken company rules rather than break the law.

The difference is here that Terry broke the FA's rules...it's pretty simple there should be no complaints.

What is bad is that an employee of Chelsea Football Club has admitted calling someone else a Black whilst representing Chelsea Football Club i.e he was "at work" Chelsea have so far chosen not to take any action. What kind of message does that send ? Indeed Bruce Buck's been at Terry's side throughout the court case and FA hearings

Can anyone honestly say that is they called someone a Black during the course of their work they wouldn't be disciplined by their employer if there was an official complaint?

It doesn't matter whether Terry meant what he said or whether he's a racist...the fact is he said it.

It's also worth noting that Drogba, Malouda, Mikel and Anelka all declined to sign a statement supporting Terry so not everyone supports him at Chelsea..........


anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
Cheib said:
It was a different offence....it's worth pointing out that the judge said when a aquitting Terry that his version of events "wan't credible" but they couldn't prove otherwise. i.e. he's got good lawyers.

Think about it like this if someone works for a company and called the employee of another company a Black the employer could quite easily terminate employment.....it's a clear breach of contract for 99.9% of employment contracts. They'd have broken company rules rather than break the law.

The difference is here that Terry broke the FA's rules...it's pretty simple there should be no complaints.

What is bad is that an employee of Chelsea Football Club has admitted calling someone else a Black whilst representing Chelsea Football Club i.e he was "at work" Chelsea have so far chosen not to take any action. What kind of message does that send ? Indeed Bruce Buck's been at Terry's side throughout the court case and FA hearings

Can anyone honestly say that is they called someone a Black during the course of their work they wouldn't be disciplined by their employer if there was an official complaint?

It doesn't matter whether Terry meant what he said or whether he's a racist...the fact is he said it.

It's also worth noting that Drogba, Malouda, Mikel and Anelka all declined to sign a statement supporting Terry so not everyone supports him at Chelsea..........
clap

Very well said

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
Cheib said:
What is bad is that an employee of Chelsea Football Club has admitted calling someone else a Black whilst representing Chelsea Football Club i.e he was "at work"
That's not true. Not true that he admitted calling anyone a f****** black C***. He's admitted asking Anton if he was being accused of calling him a f****** black c***.

Now Terry may be lying thru his teeth, I accept that. But he has never admitted what you say he has admitted.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's not true. Not true that he admitted calling anyone a f****** black C***. He's admitted asking Anton if he was being accused of calling him a f****** black c***.

Now Terry may be lying thru his teeth, I accept that. But he has never admitted what you say he has admitted.
He has admitted saying the words

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That is true, he has. But he hasn't admitted what Cheib said he had. A million people have used those words whilst discussing the case. I've used them at work when discussing this case. Should I be sacked?

Cheib

23,113 posts

174 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Cheib said:
What is bad is that an employee of Chelsea Football Club has admitted calling someone else a Black whilst representing Chelsea Football Club i.e he was "at work"
That's not true. Not true that he admitted calling anyone a f****** black C***. He's admitted asking Anton if he was being accused of calling him a f****** black c***.

Now Terry may be lying thru his teeth, I accept that. But he has never admitted what you say he has admitted.
Semantics. You and I both know that story was invented in a Barrister's office.

Direct quotes from the magistrate's summing up....full article here http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/13/joh...

There is no doubt that John Terry uttered the words 'fking black ' at Anton Ferdinand.

"When he did so he was angry. Mr Ferdinand says that he did not precipitate this comment by himself, accusing Mr Terry of calling him a black .

"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.

So basically the magistrate doesn't believe Terry's story but there was not enough conclusive proof, that's a pretty strong statement from the magistrate.....nobody rational believes Terry's story. The only people that do seem to be those that are blinded by the fact they are Chelsea fans..........







TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
Cheib said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Cheib said:
What is bad is that an employee of Chelsea Football Club has admitted calling someone else a Black whilst representing Chelsea Football Club i.e he was "at work"
That's not true. Not true that he admitted calling anyone a f****** black C***. He's admitted asking Anton if he was being accused of calling him a f****** black c***.

Now Terry may be lying thru his teeth, I accept that. But he has never admitted what you say he has admitted.
Semantics. You and I both know that story was invented in a Barrister's office.
I don't know that. Neither do you. I fully accept it's a possibility.

But you really should get your facts straight. You shouldn't say he's admitted something that he hasn't. You're making stuff up.

Of course you can say that you don't believe him, that's a fair comment.

Smart Mart

11,773 posts

214 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
To me, it smells like Terry's lawyer saw the video evidence and realising that his client was bang to rights, invented the story of Terry questioning Ferdinand as to what he said, ie "Are you saying I called you a fking black ?". That would explain Terry mouthing those words and might have acted as a defence against the FA charges.

What no one seems to have mentioned is Mikel. In the video, he is near Terry and he looks round in Terry's direction while Terry is abusing Ferdinand. Why? Is he turning round to merely see what's going on or has he heard something more sinister? Might also explain why Mikel refused to sign a letter of support for Terry.

The whole thing stinks and I doubt that many rational people honestly, really, believe what Terry is saying happened. Unlikely, far-fetched and invented? Yes, to me it is. I make no secret of the fact that I don't like him; I have had semi-personal dealings with him through work and he let down a lot of people at the last minute by not showing at an event he had promised to attend. That much, I can get over, but the rest of this farce shows him up to be at best, a nasty piece of work.




Cheib

23,113 posts

174 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Cheib said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Cheib said:
What is bad is that an employee of Chelsea Football Club has admitted calling someone else a Black whilst representing Chelsea Football Club i.e he was "at work"
That's not true. Not true that he admitted calling anyone a f****** black C***. He's admitted asking Anton if he was being accused of calling him a f****** black c***.

Now Terry may be lying thru his teeth, I accept that. But he has never admitted what you say he has admitted.
Semantics. You and I both know that story was invented in a Barrister's office.
I don't know that. Neither do you. I fully accept it's a possibility.

But you really should get your facts straight. You shouldn't say he's admitted something that he hasn't. You're making stuff up.

Of course you can say that you don't believe him, that's a fair comment.
Funny how his story straight after the game was that that he hadn't made any racist comments and then it turned into the current version a couple of days later.

Here's a test for you...here is the video http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/video/2011/oct/...

As I am sure you remember Terry's head is obscured by Ashely Cole for a couple of seconds. So why don't you try fitting the words "did you think I was calling you" or "I never called you a" in the time that we can't see Terry . Here's a clue....you can't unless you talk like Donald Duck.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
This is also interesting

http://bit.ly/TKqLbj Black players set to snub Kick It Out campaign in protest at Terry ban ... #MailOnline

As you'll no doubt be aware people working in certain industries, showbiz, football etc often know more than Joe Public of course they can't come out and say it due to libel etc if they don't have proof but they just know

Think that article is quite telling

Black can man

31,816 posts

167 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
What an embarrassment he is to England & Chelsea

First time i've seen it, What a prick hehe

Hackney

6,811 posts

207 months

Friday 28th September 2012
quotequote all
Cheib said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Cheib said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Cheib said:
What is bad is that an employee of Chelsea Football Club has admitted calling someone else a Black whilst representing Chelsea Football Club i.e he was "at work"
That's not true. Not true that he admitted calling anyone a f****** black C***. He's admitted asking Anton if he was being accused of calling him a f****** black c***.

Now Terry may be lying thru his teeth, I accept that. But he has never admitted what you say he has admitted.
Semantics. You and I both know that story was invented in a Barrister's office.
I don't know that. Neither do you. I fully accept it's a possibility.

But you really should get your facts straight. You shouldn't say he's admitted something that he hasn't. You're making stuff up.

Of course you can say that you don't believe him, that's a fair comment.
(1) Funny how his story straight after the game was that that he hadn't made any racist comments and then it turned into the current version a couple of days later.

(2) Here's a test for you...here is the video http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/video/2011/oct/...

As I am sure you remember Terry's head is obscured by Ashely Cole for a couple of seconds. So why don't you try fitting the words "did you think I was calling you" or "I never called you a" in the time that we can't see Terry . Here's a clue....you can't unless you talk like Donald Duck.
(1) But this comes back to, "I didn't call you a f*****g black c**t" isn't racist.
(2) I think there's time for Terry to have said, "I didn't call you..." Have I passed the test?

Has Terry admitted calling Ferdinand "a f*****g black c**t"? or admitted he used those words in a certain context.

And, at the end of the day, Ferdinand and Terry are both c**ts. One's white, one's black. A right pair of c**ts.