The problem for a lot of people is the fact that the FA have now named themselves judge and jury. I thought he was found NOT GUILTY in a court of British law. How then, does a body of self obsessed arrogant twats who live in a time warp assume the power to find him guilty?
Who do these people think they are? Does the ruling of a court of British Justice not apply to them? Also the fine is a joke, just a token gesture to top up their coffers so they can carry on swigging champers and going on a few jolly ups! The whole thing needs to blown to pieces and started again from scratch.
You're linking the criminal case of which he was found not guilty to what is in effect an internal disciplinary matter though aren't you. If I had my fingers in the till but the CPS case failed or didn't happen for whatever reason I'd still expect there to be a seperate internal investigation and hearing, wouldn't you?
The problem for a lot of people is the fact that the FA have now named themselves judge and jury. I thought he was found NOT GUILTY in a court of British law. How then, does a body of self obsessed arrogant twats who live in a time warp assume the power to find him guilty?
Who do these people think they are? Does the ruling of a court of British Justice not apply to them? Also the fine is a joke, just a token gesture to top up their coffers so they can carry on swigging champers and going on a few jolly ups! The whole thing needs to blown to pieces and started again from scratch.
You're linking the criminal case of which he was found not guilty to what is in effect an internal disciplinary matter though aren't you. If I had my fingers in the till but the CPS case failed or didn't happen for whatever reason I'd still expect there to be a seperate internal investigation and hearing, wouldn't you?
I'd also expect to be dismissed for making racist comments
With respect to football related matters in this country the FA are the judge and jury and pretty much always have been. Internal disciplinary guidelines are completely separate from any outside legal concerns. Like the difference between civil and criminal trials ("balance of probabilities" versus "beyond reasonable doubt"), they will have their own standards for proving guilt. Also, the laws of the land and the FA rules are a like for like match. It's entirely possible to not break the law and still break FA rules.
As an example, I have pretty much freedom of speech. I can loudly proclaim on the street that "x" companies products are a load of old rubbish in my opinion, and there's nothing the law can do about. However, if I work for company "x" then I'm sure they have HR rules that would mean some form of disciplinary action at the least, and sacking for gross misconduct at the worst. Just because I haven't broken a law of the land doesn't mean I haven't broken company rules.
If the passion of hate some of you had for him translated into a more positive form of passion at The Valley we might generate an atmosphere occasionally.
He's my cousin.
And the relevance of your relationship to Terry, for the purposes of this thread is........what? If you support him, for whatever reason, fine. Others are entitled to take a fundamentally different view. Your reference to translating this view to 'a more positive form of passion at the Valley' is utterly bizarre. In the light of the Suarez punishment Terry seems to have been dealt with very fairly, once the actual decision went against him.
Hook, line & stinker
Of course he's not my cousin and I couldn't give a rat's for what people think of him
He was found not guilty of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand by a court of law.
The FA's charge removes any accusation of intent from the case.
They're basically saying that John Terry isn't a racist and did not abuse Anton Ferdinand, but did upset him by saying the words 'black c**t' which was probably "I didn't call you a black c**t".
How many of you angels can honestly say you have never uttered a racist comment in the heat of the moment?
Er, me! Have never made a racist comment in my life. Was brought up in a family who despised and in some case fought on the streets against racist scumbags. You may choose to disbelieve but I don't give a rat's arse tbh.
He was found not guilty of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand by a court of law.
The FA's charge removes any accusation of intent from the case.
They're basically saying that John Terry isn't a racist and did not abuse Anton Ferdinand, but did upset him by saying the words 'black c**t' which was probably "I didn't call you a black c**t".
Why would yau say to someone "I didn't call you a black cnut"' you wouldn't repeat the actual words would you? Personally I think Terry is a liar as it fits with his personna.
How many of you angels can honestly say you have never uttered a racist comment in the heat of the moment?
I cant remember doing so but that is not to say I haven't. As I'm approaching 50 its hard to think of all the times I've lost my temper but hand on heart, I dont think I have ever used such vile language.
Comments
As an example, I have pretty much freedom of speech. I can loudly proclaim on the street that "x" companies products are a load of old rubbish in my opinion, and there's nothing the law can do about. However, if I work for company "x" then I'm sure they have HR rules that would mean some form of disciplinary action at the least, and sacking for gross misconduct at the worst. Just because I haven't broken a law of the land doesn't mean I haven't broken company rules.
Of course he's not my cousin and I couldn't give a rat's for what people think of him
The FA's charge removes any accusation of intent from the case.
They're basically saying that John Terry isn't a racist and did not abuse Anton Ferdinand, but did upset him by saying the words 'black c**t' which was probably "I didn't call you a black c**t".
You may choose to disbelieve but I don't give a rat's arse tbh.