DRF said: Its only going to a magistrates court and the offical line is that mgistrates (the same as judges) can not be biased and therefore can not be called into question.
British justice at its best!
As about 98% of all criminal cases are heard in the magistrates' court I don't follow what point DRF is seeking to make. Does he want ALL criminal cases tried in the Crown Court before a jury? Or maybe only when the defendant is well-known? The charge is a purely summary offence and whether the defendant is John Terry or anyone else, they would be tried in the magistrates' court. We shall have to wait and see whether the tribunal consists of 3 lay justices (not legally qualified) or a district judge (who is legally qualified.)
I very much doubt that this case will be heard before April so that would mean he would remain elegible for Euro 2012.
Nothing to do with this case, but I think it's because of the likes of Terry, Ashley Cole, Rooney, Rio Ferdinand, Defoe, Gerrard that some supporters have lost the passion for supporting England. All of them have been guilty of bad behaviour & in most cases on more than one occasion.
You are so right.
It was refreshing to watch those young England players give there all against Spain and Sweden recently.
They looked good, gave it everything and were proud to wear the shirt of their country.
These overpaid misfits you mention are not interested in pride. It's bank balance and prick of the year awards that seems to get their interest.
Stanley Matthews and others of his kind must be rolling in their graves
DRF said: Its only going to a magistrates court and the offical line is that mgistrates (the same as judges) can not be biased and therefore can not be called into question.
British justice at its best!
As about 98% of all criminal cases are heard in the magistrates' court I don't follow what point DRF is seeking to make. Does he want ALL criminal cases tried in the Crown Court before a jury? Or maybe only when the defendant is well-known? The charge is a purely summary offence and whether the defendant is John Terry or anyone else, they would be tried in the magistrates' court. We shall have to wait and see whether the tribunal consists of 3 lay justices (not legally qualified) or a district judge (who is legally qualified.)
I very much doubt that this case will be heard before April so that would mean he would remain elegible for Euro 2012.
It's a high profile case so will almost certainly be heard by a District Judge.
It all seems a bit ridiculas for what is really "Name calling" ..........why dont these children "tell the teacher " ?....lmfao
so - let's say that later in life, youry daughter/son is married to a black man/woman and the have children. Would you be pleased if someone happened to, just casually, call one of them a 'black c**t' and not have any recriminations? Some very odd views being expressed here - racism isn't 'banter' - its pathetic, infantile and derogatory.
It all seems a bit ridiculas for what is really "Name calling" ..........why dont these children "tell the teacher " ?....lmfao
so - let's say that later in life, youry daughter/son is married to a black man/woman and the have children. Would you be pleased if someone happened to, just casually, call one of them a 'black c**t' and not have any recriminations? Some very odd views being expressed here - racism isn't 'banter' - its pathetic, infantile and derogatory.
Yup and sadly this sort of thing won't be stamped out until people realise how offensive and wrong its use is.
Apologies if this has already been touched on in this thread or the Suarez one but in any walk of life, racism in the work place is classed as gross misconduct and immediate dismissal. So presumably, both Terry and Suarez are going to be sacked and then both Chelsea and Liverpool will sue them for breach of contract and bringing their clubs into disrepute? No chance. One rule for footballers, one rule for everyone else.
He is innocent until proven guilty...however I feel this case should not be heard by a jury...its too high profile and jurors are unlikely to be impartial
"I've seen that there's a lot of comments on the internet with regards to some video footage of me during the game.
I'm disappointed that people have leapt to the wrong conclusions about the context of what I was seen to be saying to Anton Ferdinand. I would never say such a thing, and I'm saddened that people would think so."
Is this bloke for real? I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that he's not denying what he is alledged to have said, simply that the context has been misunderstood?
If that's the case then "I would never say such a thing" doesn't really hold much water does it, not if he's admitting saying it (albeit in a different context)
"I've seen that there's a lot of comments on the internet with regards to some video footage of me during the game.
I'm disappointed that people have leapt to the wrong conclusions about the context of what I was seen to be saying to Anton Ferdinand. I would never say such a thing, and I'm saddened that people would think so."
He must be even more ''saddened'' that the CPS don't believe his saintly protestation that he ''would never say such a thing''. If he is found guilty, he will stand convicted both as a racist and a liar.
So he's guilty then?
Please read it propery : ''if he is found guilty, he will stand convicted both as a racist and a liar.''
It's not hard; nothing to do with Uruguayan slang terms or anything like that; just basic English!
I most certainly did read it properly......I am guided by your tone when you said "his saintly protestations"....I'd say from that (A) You don't like him and (B) You either think he is or at the very least hope he is guilty.
I think you make inferences far too glibly. I don't ''hope'' for anything other than justice.
The CPS says there is sufficient evidence to prosecute and that there is a case to answer. The law will now take its course and my only ''hope'' is that Terry gets his just deserts. That means exoneration if he is innocent and zero tolerance if found guilty.
Sorry incorruptable, but you made your position and attitude perfectly clear in your original post, too late to back track I'm afraid.
I don't particularly like or dislike Terry, unlike some I don't profess to know enough about him, yes there have been some up's and down's in the media but nothing to paint him as the devil incarnate as some seem to. I do know that he has been chosen (and for many a day), to be captain of both one of Europes top clubs (yuk!) and his country. So there simply 'has' to be something about the fella that the general members of the public don't see, you simply cannot achieve those goals by being an on-going nasty and unpleasant individual.
I hope he's innocent as indeed should everyone (though there seem to be one or two on here positively revelling at the prospect of him being found guilty...........I just don't get it) ........ if he is subsequently found guilty, then as you NOW say incorruptable, he'll get his just desserts.
I hate racism in all it's forms but I must admit I have always thought Terry's explanantion to be entirely plausible. It wouldn't be the first time the CPS made a stupid decision and the court case will be interesting. Do I like Terry - no, do I think he is a racist - I still have to be convinced. I refuse to allow my dislike for somebody I don't really know to cloud my views on this important matter - If he is guilty -yes throw the book at him but if it turns out that he isn't - the result would suggest a witch hunt which won't progress the fight against racism. Let's wait and see.
I hate racism in all it's forms but I must admit I have always thought Terry's explanantion to be entirely plausible. It wouldn't be the first time the CPS made a stupid decision and the court case will be interesting. Do I like Terry - no, do I think he is a racist - I still have to be convinced. I refuse to allow my dislike for somebody I don't really know to cloud my views on this important matter - If he is guilty -yes throw the book at him but if it turns out that he isn't - the result would suggest a witch hunt which won't progress the fight against racism. Let's wait and see.
Sorry incorruptable, but you made your position and attitude perfectly clear in your original post, too late to back track I'm afraid.
Soundas, you are all gloss and no undercoat. It's a serious subject , not one for silly game playing. I don't know what is your first language, but get someone to translate this for you:
I wrote : ''If he is found guilty, he will stand convicted both as a racist and a liar''.
You responded : ''So he's guilty then?''
Total lack of understanding of tenses and the conditional, if you think that is saying he is guilty.
Now stop clowning around over such a serious subject..
Fxxk him! Didn't he have to apologise for offending a group of Americans after 9/11? He's an arrogant twat whose best days are so far behind him. If he's found guilty and vilified as a racist so be it. Just makes him an even bigger cxxt!
DRF said: Its only going to a magistrates court and the offical line is that mgistrates (the same as judges) can not be biased and therefore can not be called into question.
British justice at its best!
As about 98% of all criminal cases are heard in the magistrates' court I don't follow what point DRF is seeking to make. Does he want ALL criminal cases tried in the Crown Court before a jury? Or maybe only when the defendant is well-known? The charge is a purely summary offence and whether the defendant is John Terry or anyone else, they would be tried in the magistrates' court. We shall have to wait and see whether the tribunal consists of 3 lay justices (not legally qualified) or a district judge (who is legally qualified.)
I very much doubt that this case will be heard before April so that would mean he would remain elegible for Euro 2012.
This is in response to people claiming their can't be a fair trial. I'm pointing out it will be as it will be heard by a judge not a jury.
Every criminal case is heard by a magistrate as nothing goes to the crown court before being refered their by a magistrate. This case will remain in the magistrates as the maximum conviction is within the limit of a magistrates court.
I am therefore agreeing with you. But mearly stating that this idea that someone can not be corrupted simply because they are a JP is, in itself a bit laughable.
Sorry incorruptable, but you made your position and attitude perfectly clear in your original post, too late to back track I'm afraid.
Soundas, you are all gloss and no undercoat. It's a serious subject , not one for silly game playing. I don't know what is your first language, but get someone to translate this for you:
I wrote : ''If he is found guilty, he will stand convicted both as a racist and a liar''.
You responded : ''So he's guilty then?''
Total lack of understanding of tenses and the conditional, if you think that is saying he is guilty.
Now stop clowning around over such a serious subject..
incorruptable.......you said......"his saintly protestations".....it's clear where you're coming from and try as you might try to gloss over it you are clearly and I do mean clearly pre-empting the opinon that he's guilty, he may well be as a matter of fact but it's not at this stage for you or anyone else to pre judge is it?
As for you accusing me of clowning about a serious subject well I'm flabbergasted and that comment is simply not worthy of you. It's because it's a serious matter that I'm given to airing my views.....does anyone who disagrees with you immediately get accused of clowning, well that's splendid I have to say!
We could go round in circles here possibly boring everyone to death, so I'll stick to my view and for the last time express the point I am trying to make which is that I personaly don't much like people to pre-judge someone who's about to go before the courts, no matter how much we may dislike that person or the offence for which they are being accused.
I've always felt that way and always will and I make no excuses for that and I have nothing further to say.
If you feel the need to have the last word then be my guest.
People will alway pre-judge......that's in our nature. Terry is a twat, most people will agree. If he's found guilty,m then he is........if he's found innocent then he is innocent. Either way, he's still a twat. I believe most people hope he's guilty so he gets a 'comeuppance'.
People on forums always pre-judge, make statements as fact which are based on little more than rumour and rarely change this opinions based on other's contributions. Why would this post be any different?
As a public figure, why doesn't he tell the public what he said and the context in what he said it, then lip readers can confirm or deny, and we can judge him on the facts. It will all come out in the trial anyway (unless he chooses not to testify). If he want to stay schtumn then he can hardly complain about people judging him on rumours of what was said.
People on forums always pre-judge, make statements as fact which are based on little more than rumour and rarely change this opinions based on other's contributions. Why would this post be any different?
True........a bit silly of me to try to point it out I suppose.
I have looked at the video of this incident on U-Tube and I have to say it is very unclear what was said other than he definitely called somebody a c**t whic in itself is bad enough I guess. What does puzzle me is why this is being painted by some as a disaster for England? I mean Terry has been leggy at international level for a couple of years now how is he is vital to England? Whatever the outcome his time with England is over lets move on and get the youngsters playing. By the way he doesn't seem to be a particularly nice bloke but that doesn't make him a racist just a dick.
How does this all work? It would seem that the maximum punishment that the court can hand out is a fraction of that given to Suarez. Financially, obviously, but more importantly in terms of the footballing ban. Do the FA have to wait in line until the criminal prosecution is done before weighing in or is it one or the other?
I would be absolutely amazed if he has said it. I think he's saying 'No, i didn't call you a b**** c***' . I wouldn't imagine he's racist and even if he was, can't imagine he would say it. Isn't that his explanation? I've never bothered looking on u tube etc but isn't that what he means when he says taken out of context. I dislike the chelsea / prem / money boys as much as any but can't help thinking that John Terry has simply been passed the baton from Ashley cole in becoming the latest press plaything.
His explanation was that he called the ref or lino a blind c***t and Anton Ferdinand thought he had called him a black c***t. Then Terry told Ferdinand that he didn't call him a black c***t. That is why Terry doesn't deny using the words in question but he says he used them to deny Ferdinand's accusation. How the CPS are going to prove otherwise astounds me to be honest. As England captain I think whatever Terry's personality, he wouldn't be so stupid and if challenged - it would be highly likely he defended himself against such an accusation
Muttley said: "How the CPS are going to prove otherwise astounds me to be honest."
Well as I suspect that Muttley hasn't read the witness statements that the police obtained and supplied to the CPS or what Terry may have said when interviewed, Muttley's reaction is based on a Youtube video and comments allegedly made by Terry subsequent to the incident. The CPS will certainly not be relying just on the clip but on witness evidence. Unless I have missed something, I don't recall any public comments made by any player (such as Anton Ferdinand) or official (eg the ref.) They will have been interviewed by police. Let's wait until the trial and when the evidence is given, everyone will then be in a far better position to comment.
The fact the CPS have given the go ahead tells us a lot. Muttley's explanation above is certainly plausible, but the CPS must think they have proof that the events didn't occur that way. Now the video footage, especially with a lack of sound, is never going to be enough, and I would hope the CPS wouldn't waste tax payer money on that scant evidence. So I can only assume either an official or player is going to appear as a witness, otherwise the whole case is built on shakey foundations, and the CPS wouldn't bother trying to take it to court.
On 23 October 2011 at Loftus Road Stadium, London W12, you used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress which was racially aggravated in accordance with section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Contrary to section 31 (1) (c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
So, next time Wayne Rooney is subjected to the chants of 10,000 opposing fans singing 'you fat bastard' at Loftus Road Stadium, London W12 (or at any other ground for that matter), is he not entitled to expect the CPS to prosecute 10,000 fans for '....abusive or insulting words or behaviour...within the hearing of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress..'?
Comments
DRF said: Its only going to a magistrates court and the offical line is that
mgistrates (the same as judges) can not be biased and therefore can not
be called into question.
British justice at its best!
As about 98% of all criminal cases are heard in the magistrates' court I don't follow what point DRF is seeking to make. Does he want ALL criminal cases tried in the Crown Court before a jury? Or maybe only when the defendant is well-known? The charge is a purely summary offence and whether the defendant is John Terry or anyone else, they would be tried in the magistrates' court. We shall have to wait and see whether the tribunal consists of 3 lay justices (not legally qualified) or a district judge (who is legally qualified.)
I very much doubt that this case will be heard before April so that would mean he would remain elegible for Euro 2012.
It was refreshing to watch those young England players give there all against Spain and Sweden recently.
They looked good, gave it everything and were proud to wear the shirt of their country.
These overpaid misfits you mention are not interested in pride. It's bank balance and prick of the year awards that seems to get their interest.
Stanley Matthews and others of his kind must be rolling in their graves
It's a high profile case so will almost certainly be heard by a District Judge.
So presumably, both Terry and Suarez are going to be sacked and then both Chelsea and Liverpool will sue them for breach of contract and bringing their clubs into disrepute? No chance. One rule for footballers, one rule for everyone else.
I'm disappointed that people have leapt to the wrong conclusions about the
context of what I was seen to be saying to Anton Ferdinand. I would
never say such a thing, and I'm saddened that people would think so."
Sorry incorruptable, but you made your position and attitude perfectly clear in your original post, too late to back track I'm afraid.
I don't particularly like or dislike Terry, unlike some I don't profess to know enough about him, yes there have been some up's and down's in the media but nothing to paint him as the devil incarnate as some seem to. I do know that he has been chosen (and for many a day), to be captain of both one of Europes top clubs (yuk!) and his country. So there simply 'has' to be something about the fella that the general members of the public don't see, you simply cannot achieve those goals by being an on-going nasty and unpleasant individual.
I hope he's innocent as indeed should everyone (though there seem to be one or two on here positively revelling at the prospect of him being found guilty...........I just don't get it) ........ if he is subsequently found guilty, then as you NOW say incorruptable, he'll get his just desserts.
I wrote : ''If he is found guilty, he will stand convicted both as a racist and a liar''.
You responded : ''So he's guilty then?''
Total lack of understanding of tenses and the conditional, if you think that is saying he is guilty.
Now stop clowning around over such a serious subject..
This is in response to people claiming their can't be a fair trial. I'm pointing out it will be as it will be heard by a judge not a jury.
Every criminal case is heard by a magistrate as nothing goes to the crown court before being refered their by a magistrate. This case will remain in the magistrates as the maximum conviction is within the limit of a magistrates court.
I am therefore agreeing with you. But mearly stating that this idea that someone can not be corrupted simply because they are a JP is, in itself a bit laughable.
incorruptable.......you said......"his saintly protestations".....it's clear where you're coming from and try as you might try to gloss over it you are clearly and I do mean clearly pre-empting the opinon that he's guilty, he may well be as a matter of fact but it's not at this stage for you or anyone else to pre judge is it?
As for you accusing me of clowning about a serious subject well I'm flabbergasted and that comment is simply not worthy of you. It's because it's a serious matter that I'm given to airing my views.....does anyone who disagrees with you immediately get accused of clowning, well that's splendid I have to say!
We could go round in circles here possibly boring everyone to death, so I'll stick to my view and for the last time express the point I am trying to make which is that I personaly don't much like people to pre-judge someone who's about to go before the courts, no matter how much we may dislike that person or the offence for which they are being accused.
I've always felt that way and always will and I make no excuses for that and I have nothing further to say.
If you feel the need to have the last word then be my guest.
Well as I suspect that Muttley hasn't read the witness statements that the police obtained and supplied to the CPS or what Terry may have said when interviewed, Muttley's reaction is based on a Youtube video and comments allegedly made by Terry subsequent to the incident. The CPS will certainly not be relying just on the clip but on witness evidence. Unless I have missed something, I don't recall any public comments made by any player (such as Anton Ferdinand) or official (eg the ref.) They will have been interviewed by police.
Let's wait until the trial and when the evidence is given, everyone will then be in a far better position to comment.
This is the charge.
On 23 October 2011 at Loftus Road Stadium, London W12, you used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress which was racially aggravated in accordance with section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Contrary to section 31 (1) (c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
So, next time Wayne Rooney is subjected to the chants of 10,000 opposing fans singing 'you fat bastard' at Loftus Road Stadium, London W12 (or at any other ground for that matter), is he not entitled to expect the CPS to prosecute 10,000 fans for '....abusive or insulting words or behaviour...within the hearing of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress..'?