PDA

View Full Version : John Terry, (not a) racist (but still) an idiot...



easty
12-07-2012, 01:29 PM
Dunno if this has already been posted, brilliant though.


http://www.thefootballramble.com/latest/entry/please-please-please-please-let-me-get-what-i-want


Apparently, the judge didn’t hear clearly what John Terry said in reference to being sent off four times in his career so said ‘Can you say, please, four times?’ to which England’s Brave Lion responded with:

‘Please, please, please, please.’



Oh dear. :greengrin

R'Albin
12-07-2012, 01:40 PM
:faf: :faf:

Hibernia&Alba
12-07-2012, 02:02 PM
No way :thumbsup:

HibbyAndy
12-07-2012, 02:42 PM
The laddie is no the ripest banana in the bunch.

Pete
12-07-2012, 03:55 PM
There must be something wrong as the link to the guilty verdict isn't showing on my phone.

Maybe this is John Terrys fault as well. I blame him for all this o2 carry on.

hibeelin
12-07-2012, 04:51 PM
Was sitting down in asdas not feeling too great when I read this on my phone. Laughed out loud so hard my husband thought I was having some sort of fit!

What a numpty, and who says footballers are stupid :greengrin:greengrin

ps made me feel much better :aok:

frazeHFC
12-07-2012, 05:33 PM
:hilarious

nonshinyfinish
12-07-2012, 06:06 PM
Utter, utter moron.

Finbar
12-07-2012, 06:17 PM
Sphincter says what?

IWasThere2016
13-07-2012, 01:23 PM
!!

Aldo
13-07-2012, 01:31 PM
!!

G that's unbelievable. If that was you or me we would if been found guilty. JT gets away with what appears to be blatant racist abuse if a fellow player ( o no he didnt)

O to be rich and famous and get into trouble.

Andy74
13-07-2012, 01:33 PM
!!

Reading the various summings up yesterday I thought that would be the case.

The perception when i read the details was that Ferdinand had repeatedly been abusing Terry and had chased him half way round the park repeating it. The prosecution were trying to suggest Terry had lost in when in fact it looked as though Ferdinand was the one out of control at that stage.

If you think that's the case it's hard to give much credence to whatever Ferdinand claims was said following it.

More to it than that but yes, thought this was likely.

Hibercelona
13-07-2012, 01:38 PM
They couldn't possibly put their English knight behind bars. :rolleyes:

LancashireHibby
13-07-2012, 01:40 PM
They couldn't possibly put their English knight behind bars. :rolleyes:
That wasn't possible anyway as the maximum punishment for the offence was a £2,500 fine.

Just seen this on Twitter though which sums it up pretty well;
"A day of integrity for Scottish football and a day of shame for the game in England."

IWasThere2016
13-07-2012, 01:41 PM
G that's unbelievable. If that was you or me we would if been found guilty. JT gets away with what appears to be blatant racist abuse if a fellow player ( o no he didnt)

O to be rich and famous and get into trouble.

Yup - there would be no benefit of the doubt for you, me or anyother Joe Soap (regardless of colour)!


Reading the various summings up yesterday I thought that would be the case.

The perception when i read the details was that Ferdinand had repeatedly been abusing Terry and had chased him half way round the park repeating it. The prosecution were trying to suggest Terry had lost in when in fact it looked as though Ferdinand was the one out of control at that stage.

If you think that's the case it's hard to give much credence to whatever Ferdinand claims was said following it.

More to it than that but yes, thought this was likely.

Yup - you're probably correct Andy. Ferdinand certainly didn't help himself. But I thought on balance the shout(s) would be viewed as racist and not 'banter'.

Andy74
13-07-2012, 01:41 PM
G that's unbelievable. If that was you or me we would if been found guilty. JT gets away with what appears to be blatant racist abuse if a fellow player ( o no he didnt)

O to be rich and famous and get into trouble.

Fortunately we'd also get a proper trial with some evidence and not just media reporting.

I hate the guy by the way but this looks like it might be the right legal verdict from what has been presented.

Shrekko
13-07-2012, 01:57 PM
Fortunately we'd also get a proper trial with some evidence and not just media reporting.

I hate the guy by the way but this looks like it might be the right legal verdict from what has been presented.

Sounds the right verdict to me too. People are getting carried away with wanting him to be guilty.

The case sounded like a joke to me, a waste of money, and in actual fact wouldn't have been in court if 'Joe Soap' had been the accused.

No time for Terry or for racism but Anton Ferdinand... not sure about him at all- very arrogant.

neilmartinrocks
13-07-2012, 02:06 PM
would appear to be just an IDIOT now.

Wilson
13-07-2012, 02:17 PM
Sphincter says what?

What?

jacomo
13-07-2012, 02:22 PM
The case seemed pretty weak - I would think in most circumstances involving a member of the public, it wouldn't have got to court.

Terry is a total ned but this verdict seems just.

J-C
13-07-2012, 02:27 PM
You have to remember here, Ferdinand never accused Terry of anything, it was a fan who reported it to the police, hence why he got off with it.

Aldo
13-07-2012, 02:53 PM
You have to remember here, Ferdinand never accused Terry of anything, it was a fan who reported it to the police, hence why he got off with it.

That's english law for you. Scots law albeit you require 2 witnesses or 1 plus enough circumstantial evidence to prove the the case.

Fwiw it doesn't matter if the person who is the subject of the abuse complains with racially aggravated conduct it's any person who deems it to be (words to that effect in scots law)

Trial by media. O and regardless if what AF has said Terry cannot and should not use that sort of derogatory remark ENDOF.

Andy74
13-07-2012, 02:56 PM
That's english law for you. Scots law albeit you require 2 witnesses or 1 plus enough circumstantial evidence to prove the the case.

Fwiw it doesn't matter if the person who is the subject of the abuse complains with racially aggravated conduct it's any person who deems it to be (words to that effect in scots law)

Trial by media. O and regardless if what AF has said Terry cannot and should not use that sort of derogatory remark ENDOF.

Though was the defence not that he was repeating the words in the style of a question?

Nobody seems to have been able to prove otherwise, hence the verdict.

So, he's not just got off with it, it's unclear whether he has done anyhting to get off with in the first place.

J-C
13-07-2012, 03:01 PM
That's english law for you. Scots law albeit you require 2 witnesses or 1 plus enough circumstantial evidence to prove the the case.

Fwiw it doesn't matter if the person who is the subject of the abuse complains with racially aggravated conduct it's any person who deems it to be (words to that effect in scots law)

Trial by media. O and regardless if what AF has said Terry cannot and should not use that sort of derogatory remark ENDOF.

This is where the law is grey, using that type of language but generally in life never being racist, certain things can be said in the heat of the moment but doesn't mean that person is a racist. Hands up all here who regularly say, going down to the ****** ( local shop ) or going for a ****** ( local takeaway ) but are we racist or ignorant.

Beefster
13-07-2012, 03:06 PM
This is where the law is grey, using that type of language but generally in life never being racist, certain things can be said in the heat of the moment but doesn't mean that person is a racist. Hands up all here who regularly say, going down to the ****** ( local shop ) or going for a ****** ( local takeaway ) but are we racist or ignorant.

There's a argument for the older generation being ignorant because these words were always used in the 70s and 80s. Dismissing it as ignorance doesn't wash with anyone under the age of 40 though IMHO.

Hibercelona
13-07-2012, 03:11 PM
Not guilty doesn't mean not racist.

JT is very much a racist ****bag.

Treadstone
13-07-2012, 03:13 PM
In Scotland this would have been a 'Not Proven'

Aldo
13-07-2012, 03:17 PM
This is where the law is grey, using that type of language but generally in life never being racist, certain things can be said in the heat of the moment but doesn't mean that person is a racist. Hands up all here who regularly say, going down to the ****** ( local shop ) or going for a ****** ( local takeaway ) but are we racist or ignorant.

Generations including family members still say I'm going to get a paper and the P... And getting a Ch.... Fur T. I for one don't use those terms however I would say they are ignorant and will never change their ways. I repeatedly tell am in laws to watch what they are saying in front on my kids. It's wrong but no malice is intendeded

Many years ago I had a season ticket in the old main stand and sat just behind Tommy Preston when this guy in front of his kid was giving wee Russell some abuse calling him a spear chucked and telling him to chase after coconuts as it would make him quicker.

I could only stomach that for 2 games and asked a steward to intervene. Got blank looks and the guy kept at it. I finally, against my better judgement got up and told the guy to shut up and to stop making those comments.... 4 guys, all older stood up told me to mind my own business and said we could sort it outside.... Where I would get stabbed.

The guy ended up getting down with a breach with a racist aggravation attached.

Funny when we got outside after the match and I was standing next to ma 6ft 4 nutter of s brother that nobody said anything o apart from the cops who lifted the guy.

Point being regardless of what is said there is no excuse to make those sort of comments.

If I had been AF I wouldn't if said anything just popped him one on the fly in the tunnel.

Sorry fur rant

Aldo
13-07-2012, 03:19 PM
In Scotland this would have been a 'Not Proven'

This sort of case would only of went ahead in Scotland if the PF thought it was water tight a d therefore would of gotten nowhere near the court

Andy74
13-07-2012, 03:21 PM
Generations including family members still say I'm going to get a paper and the P... And getting a Ch.... Fur T. I for one don't use those terms however I would say they are ignorant and will never change their ways. I repeatedly tell am in laws to watch what they are saying in front on my kids. It's wrong but no malice is intendeded

Many years ago I had a season ticket in the old main stand and sat just behind Tommy Preston when this guy in front of his kid was giving wee Russell some abuse calling him a spear chucked and telling him to chase after coconuts as it would make him quicker.

I could only stomach that for 2 games and asked a steward to intervene. Got blank looks and the guy kept at it. I finally, against my better judgement got up and told the guy to shut up and to stop making those comments.... 4 guys, all older stood up told me to mind my own business and said we could sort it outside.... Where I would get stabbed.

The guy ended up getting down with a breach with a racist aggravation attached.

Funny when we got outside after the match and I was standing next to ma 6ft 4 nutter of s brother that nobody said anything o apart from the cops who lifted the guy.

Point being regardless of what is said there is no excuse to make those sort of comments.

If I had been AF I wouldn't if said anything just popped him one on the fly in the tunnel.

Sorry fur rant

That's a bit of a side topic though when the defence was that he was repeating the words as a question, not that he didn't think the words were racist or had racist intent.

Aldo
13-07-2012, 03:26 PM
That's a bit of a side topic though when the defence was that he was repeating the words as a question, not that he didn't think the words were racist or had racist intent.

Having watched the game and then clearly seeing what JT said to AG it was more than clear what he said. Question or not why would he say that sort of thing on a football pitch.

I believe the preverbial can of worms has been opened. Will everyone now use that defence I wonder??

Pretty Boy
13-07-2012, 03:30 PM
So basically the jury has either decided that its ok to call someone a ****ing black **** if said person winds you up or with very little evidence they've decided to believe John Terrys word over Ferdinands re the 'just repeating what he said to me' claim.

Andy74
13-07-2012, 03:33 PM
So basically the jury has either decided that its ok to call someone a ****ing black **** if said person winds you up or with very little evidence they've decided to believe John Terrys word over Ferdinands re the 'just repeating what he said to me' claim.

No, the court decided no-one can prove that he used the words in a way that was racist. From the other way round there was very little evidence that he had used any words in a racist way.

Beefster
13-07-2012, 03:35 PM
So basically the jury has either decided that its ok to call someone a ****ing black **** if said person winds you up or with very little evidence they've decided to believe John Terrys word over Ferdinands re the 'just repeating what he said to me' claim.

Cue the "I just said what I thought he had thought I said to him" defence being used in every racial abuse case for years.

Andy74
13-07-2012, 03:35 PM
Having watched the game and then clearly seeing what JT said to AG it was more than clear what he said. Question or not why would he say that sort of thing on a football pitch.

I believe the preverbial can of worms has been opened. Will everyone now use that defence I wonder??

I used the defence in Primary 5 when I was caught saying 'sex makes you deaf' quickly to someone who then said ...what?

Being at a Catholic school I got a letter home to my parents and used said defence of just repeating it. Worked for me.

weecounty hibby
13-07-2012, 03:48 PM
When you hear the summation given by the magistrate or judge or whatever he was, my take on it is " Due to legal technicalities you are not guilty" IMO that means he did it, the law knows he did it, every one else knows he did it but he got off on a matter of legal argument.

Total lowlife of a man.

hibsbollah
13-07-2012, 03:53 PM
A completely ludicrous verdict that is right up there with Stevie Gerrards assault as evidence that young multimillionaire footballers are judged more leniently than the general public. Whether this is because of starstruck juries or the skill of the superbarrister is a moot point.

Andy74
13-07-2012, 04:03 PM
A completely ludicrous verdict that is right up there with Stevie Gerrards assault as evidence that young multimillionaire footballers are judged more leniently than the general public. Whether this is because of starstruck juries or the skill of the superbarrister is a moot point.

To know that the verdict was wrong I'm presuming you have followed the evidence and proceedings?

You might have noted then that there wasn't a jury.

What the magistrate said doesn't really tie with the interpretation in the post above you either:

Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle said he had heard a great deal of evidence to show Mr Terry was not a racist.

In his written judgement, he said that after weighing the evidence it was "highly unlikely" that Mr Terry abused Mr Ferdinand in the manner he was accused of.

Mr Riddle went on: "The prosecution evidence as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong.

"It is therefore possible that what he [Mr Terry] said was not intended as an insult, but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him.

"In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty."

Holmesdale Hibs
13-07-2012, 05:05 PM
Just because he's a prick, doesn't make him a racist. I think some people have assumed he is guilty for that reason.

I've seen the clip and it's difficult to tell 'beyond a reasonable doubt', everything that was said and how it was intended.

There is also something a bit funny about Ferdinand not realising it at the time although I'm not that up to date so maybe there is a rational reason for this.

Edit: forgot to mention, yes he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer and the please 4x thing was very funny. However, I'd happily be swap a few of my IQ points for his footballing ability.

J-C
13-07-2012, 06:20 PM
He said he was asking Ferdinand if he thought he'd called him a black ******* , not that he was calling him that, that doesn't make him a racist, still a prick though.

Hibernia Na Eir
13-07-2012, 09:20 PM
what was the chances of England's capt EVER getting found guilty? !!!

was never gonna happen.

Scouse Hibee
13-07-2012, 09:46 PM
what was the chances of England's capt EVER getting found guilty? !!!

was never gonna happen.

Stevie Gerrard can do what he likes then :wink: