- This topic has 37 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Can’t blame him, he’s been punished for something that he has been found not guilty of in a court of law. The point of an internal disciplinary hearing by the FA is crazy in my opinion. I don’t see how they can punish him in any way if he has been legally cleared of all charges. In any normal world of employment, his treatment by the FA would be considered unlawful. Fair enough he had to be kept out of the England squad until the trial was concluded, but once found not guilty of an accusation, it’s your employers responsibilty to ensure that your reputation is not affected by an accusation that has been determined unfounded.
He is a horrible person and I suspect that the FA will find him guilty and his England career will be over anyway by the end of tomorrow. This is simply a case of him jumping before being pushed, I think.
Horrible person or not, it shouldn’t mean that the FA should make a popularist example of him and not treat him in any other way they would with anybody else. Am I the only one who thinks it would be bizzare if the FA find him guilty when an English court has found him not guilty? This is nothing more than a show trial.
Horrible person or not, it shouldn’t mean that the FA should make a popularist example of him and not treat him in any other way they would with anybody else. Am I the only one who thinks it would be bizzare if the FA find him guilty when an English court has found him not guilty? This is nothing more than a show trial.I might be wrong, but didn’t the judge find him not guilty due mainly to a failure to provide hard evidence to prove he did/say what was alleged? Maybe the FA don’t have that same burden. But you’re probably right, there does seem to be an element of a show trial about this.
I think you’re right there Griff. With the criminal legal system we all know the burden of proof is ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. With a who said what type case, they’d probably have to have a recording of what Terry was alleged to have said or reliable witnesses. Remember, courts do not find accused people innocent, just not to have been found guilty. I’d hate to think where the FA are setting their level of proof…
P.S. Where’s your bloody opinion filmoss?!
We all know he said it ( Racist comment ) and I feel there is unrest in the England squad because of it. It’s ok his own team mates forgiving him but lads from other teams probably wont give him the same leniency !
I think you’re right there Griff. With the criminal legal system we all know the burden of proof is ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. With a who said what type case, they’d probably have to have a recording of what Terry was alleged to have said or reliable witnesses. Remember, courts do not find accused people innocent, just not to have been found guilty. I’d hate to think where the FA are setting their level of proof…From David Davies, ex-FA executive director
“I understand John [Terry]’s frustration with this [FA hearing]. The truth is there are subtle differences between the charge in the magistrates court and the charge he faces in front of the FA disciplinary commission.
“And that’s before you start talking about the burden of proof that is clearly greater in the magistrates’ court than it is with an FA commission.”
A multi millionaire thug is terry,scum of the highest order,perhaps the England camp will be a happier place now this low life as departed the scene :woohoo:
In court he admitted to using those words, but argued that it wasn’t in the context of being racist, he was asking anton a question “do you think I called you a black c*nt”, it’s clear for all the world that he said those last two words, but it couldn’t be proved beyond doubt in what context.
The FA however will no doubt say that those words have no place during a football match, regardless of context, there are cameras and millions watching, including kids, and that language does the game as a whole no good.
I think he’ll be found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute, they won’t dare label him a racist after the court cleared him, they’d be leaving themselves open to a law suit.For what it’s worth, I think he is an ignorant,self important prick, racist? Probably not, but ignorant and stupid, definately.
I for one have no faith whatsoever in the British judicial system anyway so the fact that he was deemed to have been innocent means nothing to me !
For what it’s worth, I think he is an ignorant,self important prick, racist? Probably not, but ignorant and stupid, definately.I’d probably agree with that, but you can probably all see that I am quite a strong advocate of a fair trial.
I for one have no faith whatsoever in the British judicial system anyway so the fact that he was deemed to have been innocent means nothing to me !Filmoss, he was found not guilt, not innocent. I have been unfortunate enough to have quite a few dealings with the English judicial system, and I honestly believe that it is probably the best one in the world. Perfect? Absolutely not. I think the major flaw is the leniency of sentences, but that’s probably more of an issue with the Government and their [lack of] clear guidance.
I feel that the reason why so many people have such an issue with our judicial system is because of the scale of sheer lies that are dished out by the national media. I was unfortunate enough to be a key witness in a very serious criminal case a few years back. What was reported in the national papers was, quite frankly, a total fabrication of the events that actually took place. They merely got the story and created a version of events that would cause public outcry. When the courts found the accused guilty, there was outcry in the papers that justice had not been done. This was even debated in Parliament about how such an injustice had appeared to have been carried out. Having seen exactly what took place, it was absolutely the correct decision.
The moral of the story: don’t believe a single thing you read in the papers or see on the news.
*I obviously can’t mention what happened, possibly for legal reasons, also for my own safety.
It wasn’t when Pablo Escobar was found guilty was it? I remember the public outcry, because they loved him, but also it was fairly obvious that he’d done some very bad things. Sorry for letting the cat out of the bag, but he’s dead now, and his brother, there’s nothing to be afraid of, and if you are attacked, the brilliant British judicial system will make it right for you.
For what it’s worth, I think he is an ignorant,self important prick, racist? Probably not, but ignorant and stupid, definately.
I’d probably agree with that, but you can probably all see that I am quite a strong advocate of a fair trial.
I for one have no faith whatsoever in the British judicial system anyway so the fact that he was deemed to have been innocent means nothing to me !Filmoss, he was found not guilt, not innocent. I have been unfortunate enough to have quite a few dealings with the English judicial system, and I honestly believe that it is probably the best one in the world. Perfect? Absolutely not. I think the major flaw is the leniency of sentences, but that’s probably more of an issue with the Government and their [lack of] clear guidance.
I feel that the reason why so many people have such an issue with our judicial system is because of the scale of sheer lies that are dished out by the national media. I was unfortunate enough to be a key witness in a very serious criminal case a few years back. What was reported in the national papers was, quite frankly, a total fabrication of the events that actually took place. They merely got the story and created a version of events that would cause public outcry. When the courts found the accused guilty, there was outcry in the papers that justice had not been done. This was even debated in Parliament about how such an injustice had appeared to have been carried out. Having seen exactly what took place, it was absolutely the correct decision.
The moral of the story: don’t believe a single thing you read in the papers or see on the news.
*I obviously can’t mention what happened, possibly for legal reasons, also for my own safety.[/quote]
I am going off personal experience of which is too personal to go into on here if you get my drift ! Lets just say that a bloke got away with something that usually has the general public baying for blood ! Couldn’t be proved beyond reasonable doubt was our decision !
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
