John Terrys Court Case

[Bruce Rioja]

The FA are bound to find Terry guilty, because the FA do not need for intent to have been demonstrated, only that offence could be caused by the words used... and Terry admits he used them.

In which case should Anton Ferdinand not be up in the dock also as he used the same words?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The FA are bound to find Terry guilty, because the FA do not need for intent to have been demonstrated, only that offence could be caused by the words used... and Terry admits he used them.

In which case should Anton Ferdinand not be up in the dock also as he used the same words?

But did he though. There's some doubt there allegedly.

[bobo the clown]

The FA are bound to find Terry guilty, because the FA do not need for intent to have been demonstrated, only that offence could be caused by the words used... and Terry admits he used them.

In which case should Anton Ferdinand not be up in the dock also as he used the same words?

But did he though. There's some doubt there allegedly.

Well, Terry's claim ... which has to be listened to .... is that Ferdinand accused him of saying it & Terry repeated it along the lines of "I never said ..."

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Allegedly. I mean I don't want to accuse John George Terry of being a lying shitbag or anything remotely similar, but even the judge expressed doubt that his version of events was probable.

[bobo the clown]

Allegedly. I mean I don't want to accuse John George Terry of being a lying shitbag or anything remotely similar, but even the judge expressed doubt that his version of events was probable.

Yet he still has the right to use that defence.

I'm unsure why AF would not be required to submit his own version.

[BWFC_Insane]

Is it just me though, that is slightly uncomfortable that someone who has been found "not guilty" in a court of law can STILL be "convicted" of the same offence by the Football Association?

And why should the burden of proof be different?

Its like saying "ok the court decided X, but the FA, don't think the court of law sufficient to decide, so we'll still charge him anyway".

Its a bit dodgy for me. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs and likelihoods.

[Gary the Enfield]

Is it just me though, that is slightly uncomfortable that someone who has been found "not guilty" in a court of law can STILL be "convicted" of the same offence by the Football Association?

And why should the burden of proof be different?

Its like saying "ok the court decided X, but the FA, don't think the court of law sufficient to decide, so we'll still charge him anyway".

Its a bit dodgy for me. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs and likelihoods.

Sure I read somewhere it's not the same charge......

[bobo the clown]

Is it just me though, that is slightly uncomfortable that someone who has been found "not guilty" in a court of law can STILL be "convicted" of the same offence by the Football Association?

And why should the burden of proof be different?
Its like saying "ok the court decided X, but the FA, don't think the court of law sufficient to decide, so we'll still charge him anyway".

Its a bit dodgy for me. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs and likelihoods.

If that's a serious "employment law" question .... then the answer is that it's absolutely appropriate.

The big error they made was allowing the Court case to delay their own investigation. It's understandable & many people would do it ..... & many people would be wrong, but it's to mix the two matters up & yes, it does sort of imply that one supercedes the other.

However, they are different accusations, in different jurisdictions, requiring different levels of evidence and seeking different levels of proof.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Allegedly. I mean I don't want to accuse John George Terry of being a lying shitbag or anything remotely similar, but even the judge expressed doubt that his version of events was probable.

Yet he still has the right to use that defence.

I'm unsure why AF would not be required to submit his own version.

Because Ferdinand has not accussed Terry, and Terry has not accused Ferdinand of anything.
The only one accusing anyone of anything was some off duty copper who reported it to the police. The police reviewed video footage in which it is quite clear that Terry said fu*king bla*k *unt. When confronted he admitted using those very words but denied intent. Hence the trial. The FA are having a hearing because it's in the public domain, and they'd look like pricks if they did nothing. But they are having a hearing into whether Terry used words that could be deemed harmful or abusive - (pretty fuc*ing obvious he did), not whether he meant anything by them or not.

[bobo the clown]

they are having a hearing into whether Terry used words that could be deemed harmful or abusive - (pretty fuc*ing obvious he did), not whether he meant anything by them or not.

In which case, they don't need to bother their ass, coz he did.

If context is irrelevant then that's crackers &, along with Terry, AF is the only person who can refer to any context.

[BWFC_Insane]

Is it just me though, that is slightly uncomfortable that someone who has been found "not guilty" in a court of law can STILL be "convicted" of the same offence by the Football Association?

And why should the burden of proof be different?
Its like saying "ok the court decided X, but the FA, don't think the court of law sufficient to decide, so we'll still charge him anyway".

Its a bit dodgy for me. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs and likelihoods.

If that's a serious "employment law" question .... then the answer is that it's absolutely appropriate.

The big error they made was allowing the Court case to delay their own investigation. It's understandable & many people would do it ..... & many people would be wrong, but it's to mix the two matters up & yes, it does sort of imply that one supercedes the other.

However, they are different accusations, in different jurisdictions, requiring different levels of evidence and seeking different levels of proof.

What are the two accusations? If they are different, then I can understand it.

And I can see what you're saying about employment law, and I guess I've thought about it a different way.

[bobo the clown]

Is it just me though, that is slightly uncomfortable that someone who has been found "not guilty" in a court of law can STILL be "convicted" of the same offence by the Football Association?

And why should the burden of proof be different?
Its like saying "ok the court decided X, but the FA, don't think the court of law sufficient to decide, so we'll still charge him anyway".

Its a bit dodgy for me. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs and likelihoods.

If that's a serious "employment law" question .... then the answer is that it's absolutely appropriate.

The big error they made was allowing the Court case to delay their own investigation. It's understandable & many people would do it ..... & many people would be wrong, but it's to mix the two matters up & yes, it does sort of imply that one supercedes the other.

However, they are different accusations, in different jurisdictions, requiring different levels of evidence and seeking different levels of proof.

What are the two accusations? If they are different, then I can understand it.

And I can see what you're saying about employment law, and I guess I've thought about it a different way.

Looked it up now, the FA chare is that he is alleged to have used "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour". The legal charge was one of "Racist Abuse"

At the FA it's similar but along the 'bringing the game into disrepute'.

Hey, I'm of the view that he's an obnoxious git & can well believe the charges, but the Courts and the FA tribunals are quite different matters.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Terry is an obnoxious git. He used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour. 5 match ban, nailed on certainty. (I don't think they'll be much impressed by the flouncy gay way he 'retired' from international football either - makes it 6 match ban).

[BWFC_Insane]

Is it just me though, that is slightly uncomfortable that someone who has been found "not guilty" in a court of law can STILL be "convicted" of the same offence by the Football Association?

And why should the burden of proof be different?
Its like saying "ok the court decided X, but the FA, don't think the court of law sufficient to decide, so we'll still charge him anyway".

Its a bit dodgy for me. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs and likelihoods.

If that's a serious "employment law" question .... then the answer is that it's absolutely appropriate.

The big error they made was allowing the Court case to delay their own investigation. It's understandable & many people would do it ..... & many people would be wrong, but it's to mix the two matters up & yes, it does sort of imply that one supercedes the other.

However, they are different accusations, in different jurisdictions, requiring different levels of evidence and seeking different levels of proof.

What are the two accusations? If they are different, then I can understand it.

And I can see what you're saying about employment law, and I guess I've thought about it a different way.

Looked it up now, the FA chare is that he is alleged to have used "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour". The legal charge was one of "Racist Abuse"

At the FA it's similar but along the 'bringing the game into disrepute'.

Hey, I'm of the view that he's an obnoxious git & can well believe the charges, but the Courts and the FA tribunals are quite different matters.

Fair enough. Cheers.

[as]

Can't Rio 'duckface' Ferdinand be dragged into this? He made a racial slur against that lovely fella Ashley Cole......

I mean, imagine him & that wanker JT both getting a long ban.

Everyone's a winner

[boltonboris]

He was charged by the FA. I imagine there'll be a hearing about that soon. It'll rumble on

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Should be an announcement today (I think), about Terry. Looking forward to it in a schadenfreude kinda way.

[Gary the Enfield]

Why the feck has this taken 3 days?

[CrazyHorse]

Why the feck has this taken 11 months?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Legalities. Lawyers demand things take time so that they can bill more.