|
Post by Lonegunmen on Jul 13, 2012 15:08:00 GMT
Well I hope the QPR fans show some form and give him what ho for the entire game.
|
|
|
Post by Zamoraaaah on Jul 13, 2012 15:55:30 GMT
From the Beeb:
BREAKING NEWS:
The FA says it will 'seek to conclude its own inquiry' into John Terry racism allegations after today's court case
|
|
|
Post by eusebio13 on Jul 13, 2012 17:15:03 GMT
Found not guilty just like OJ
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Jul 13, 2012 17:19:16 GMT
The Sky reporter, getting loads wrong about the case, has just finished what he was saying with "The FA will now investigate the complaint made by Queen's Park Rangers". Anyone know anything about a complaint from us? News to me!!!
|
|
|
Post by FloridaR on Jul 13, 2012 17:33:24 GMT
So what happens now after this utterly pathetic embarrassment of a week ?
We know that Terry is proven to be short on intelligence and football's all he knows but he has friends, even black ones that say he's not racist.
Anyway..... Court awards Costs back to Terry. Terry sues the off-duty officer ?
Anton looks a tool even with the help of the most intelligent player in the league. Court awards Costs back to Anton. Anton Sues the off-duty officer ?
In the future the circus continues starring people that care in the football league, pundits can now lay into both players and provide their valued insight about the saga.
Meanwhile the FA look stupid by holding a time wasting expansive investigation and still employ Terry to be an England player and most likely the Captain next season.
Meanwhile Anton will continue to play for QPR.
Just another day at QPR........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2012 17:37:34 GMT
I still think what Terry said was far worse than what Luis Suarez said whatever the outcome Suarez got banned for 8 games I think so Terry should be banned for a minimum of 8 games by the F.A
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Jul 13, 2012 17:56:50 GMT
I will be amazed if the FA take any further action.
I know trhat the FA gives judgement on the basis of probability rather than proof but having been found not guilty in court it would be a very strong body that took further action.
If a complaint had not been made to the police then I would have expected a similar outcome as Suarez. Therefore I believe that the off duty officer has delivered a free pass to Terry & may have handed a defence to any future defendants.
Once Terry put forward that he thought Ferdinand had accused him of making those comments proving his intentions was an impossibility.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2012 18:01:48 GMT
I will be amazed if the FA take any further action. I know trhat the FA gives judgement on the basis of probability rather than proof but having been found not guilty in court it would be a very strong body that took further action. If a complaint had not been made to the police then I would have expected a similar outcome as Suarez. Therefore I believe that the off duty officer has delivered a free pass to Terry & may have handed a defence to any future defendants. Once Terry put forward that he thought Ferdinand had accused him of making those comments proving his intentions was an impossibility. Unfortunately you are right of course Terry It just feels an injustice
|
|
|
Post by Zamoraaaah on Jul 13, 2012 18:21:55 GMT
I will be amazed if the FA take any further action. I know trhat the FA gives judgement on the basis of probability rather than proof but having been found not guilty in court it would be a very strong body that took further action. If a complaint had not been made to the police then I would have expected a similar outcome as Suarez. Therefore I believe that the off duty officer has delivered a free pass to Terry & may have handed a defence to any future defendants. Once Terry put forward that he thought Ferdinand had accused him of making those comments proving his intentions was an impossibility. You're probably right but if they don't at the very least charge him with bringing the game into disrepute then they are in effect condoning that type of language on the pitch. Also it shouldn't be forgottern that type of language would see a person ejected and maybe even banned if used in the stands.
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Jul 13, 2012 18:28:39 GMT
Speaking of that type of language.
Foy should be asked some serious questions as to why he didn't send both of them off.
Referee spokesman always say that they have to follow the laws of the game & do not have the authority to disregard in the name of common sense.
This of course is normally ignored when it comes to the law on foul or abusive language.
|
|
|
Post by Zamoraaaah on Jul 13, 2012 18:35:07 GMT
Speaking of that type of language. Foy should be asked some serious questions as to why he didn't send both of them off. Referee spokesman always say that they have to follow the laws of the game & do not have the authority to disregard in the name of common sense. This of course is normally ignored when it comes to the law on foul or abusive language. Foy is a legend and I won't have a word said against him... ...at least until the next time he comes back to Loftus Rd!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2012 18:36:49 GMT
Speaking of that type of language. Foy should be asked some serious questions as to why he didn't send both of them off. Referee spokesman always say that they have to follow the laws of the game & do not have the authority to disregard in the name of common sense. This of course is normally ignored when it comes to the law on foul or abusive language. Foy is a legend and I won't have a word said against him... ...at least until the next time he comes back to Loftus Rd! # He sent two of them off but it should of been three
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jul 13, 2012 20:35:10 GMT
Interesting - and will be interesting to read comments by others in the game. Not just ex-QPR people like Andy Impey who's outraged
|
|
|
Post by eusebio13 on Jul 13, 2012 20:48:50 GMT
Anton Ferdinand's ordeal may stop victims of racism coming forward The QPR defender was a reluctant witness rather than John Terry's accuser, but that did not stop the death threats Share Tweet this
Email David Hytner guardian.co.uk, Friday 13 July 2012 18.31 BST
Anton Ferdinand, right, was commended for being 'brave' for standing as a witness in the case against John Terry. Photograph: Glyn Kirk/AFP/Getty Images Put yourself in Anton Ferdinand's boots for a moment. Since long before Friday's not-guilty verdict, indeed since the flashpoint on 23 October at Loftus Road which set in motion the explosive chain of events, the Queens Park Rangers defender has found himself the subject of death threats and terrace bile.
His mother, Janice, has suffered terribly, receiving threatening correspondence at her home. She has had to involve the police and seek extra security. The Ferdinand family may choose one day to shed a little light on their collective experience. And all this from a case that her son did not drive and did not want to be a part of.
The common misconception regarding the trial was that it was somehow Ferdinand versus Terry, that the former was the prosecution rather than a reluctant witness for the Crown.
Ferdinand did not make the official complaint that set the wheels of the legal machinery clunking into action; it came from an off-duty police officer who had been offended by the footage of Terry mouthing the notorious obscenity. Even the Crown admitted Ferdinand was difficult to get hold of.
It was merely the QPR player's sense of obligation that led him to agree to give a statement to the police. He was told that he would have to do only this, that he would not have to go to court, which he did not want to do. Until the decision to prosecute Terry was taken Ferdinand had hoped for a show of contrition from the Chelsea captain that might have averted the prolonging of the saga, which reached its conclusion in court this week, when the senseless insults were forensically dissected.
No one emerged with credit, including Ferdinand, even if the chief magistrate Howard Riddle called him "brave" in his summing-up. Terry passionately felt that he had nothing to apologise for.
This is where the system and Ferdinand's part in it has got him, the apparent victim who has been vilified and, ultimately, left bewildered under a burning hot spotlight. And the fear has to be that if and when black players do feel that they have a racism complaint to make, they will stop, consider the eight months or so that Ferdinand has lived through and ask themselves whether it is truly worth it.
Football is the most tribal of pursuits, and even after the police and the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts have become involved in this instance, old habits have died hard. Sides were picked and positions entrenched long before the evidence was heard at Westminster.
There have been echoes of the Luis Suárez-Patrice Evra case, when the then Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish gave Suárez such unqualified support and the players wore those T-shirts. Chelsea gave the impression all along that they backed Terry regardless, even if the stance was vindicated in the end. On the eve of the trial, the manager Roberto Di Matteo was quoted as saying that "John Terry is our captain and leader … and hopefully, he will be the same for us next season".
At Liverpool last season there was a conspiratorial feeling that their rivals Manchester United were trying to destroy their best player and, by extension, the team, while Ferdinand has heard the criticism that he has developed a grudge and is taking it out on Terry and Chelsea. At times, the tribalism has overtaken the bigger picture.
Chelsea's support for Terry extended to 17 first-team players signing identical statements to say he was no racist. It might have taken a brave player to refuse to sign when he was effectively asked: "Are you with us or not? Pick your side."
Relations have been strained across the divide. Ashley Cole, for example, despite being a reluctant defence witness and his attempts not to say too much, will no longer be a friend of Anton Ferdinand.
The process has been fraught and deeper conversations must begin if, in future, those who feel they have been racially abused are to speak out.
|
|
|
Post by mfnc on Jul 13, 2012 20:52:55 GMT
Anton Ferdinand's ordeal may stop victims of racism coming forward The QPR defender was a reluctant witness rather than John Terry's accuser, but that did not stop the death threats Share Tweet this Email David Hytner guardian.co.uk, Friday 13 July 2012 18.31 BST Anton Ferdinand, right, was commended for being 'brave' for standing as a witness in the case against John Terry. Photograph: Glyn Kirk/AFP/Getty Images Put yourself in Anton Ferdinand's boots for a moment. Since long before Friday's not-guilty verdict, indeed since the flashpoint on 23 October at Loftus Road which set in motion the explosive chain of events, the Queens Park Rangers defender has found himself the subject of death threats and terrace bile. His mother, Janice, has suffered terribly, receiving threatening correspondence at her home. She has had to involve the police and seek extra security. The Ferdinand family may choose one day to shed a little light on their collective experience. And all this from a case that her son did not drive and did not want to be a part of. The common misconception regarding the trial was that it was somehow Ferdinand versus Terry, that the former was the prosecution rather than a reluctant witness for the Crown. Ferdinand did not make the official complaint that set the wheels of the legal machinery clunking into action; it came from an off-duty police officer who had been offended by the footage of Terry mouthing the notorious obscenity. Even the Crown admitted Ferdinand was difficult to get hold of. It was merely the QPR player's sense of obligation that led him to agree to give a statement to the police. He was told that he would have to do only this, that he would not have to go to court, which he did not want to do. Until the decision to prosecute Terry was taken Ferdinand had hoped for a show of contrition from the Chelsea captain that might have averted the prolonging of the saga, which reached its conclusion in court this week, when the senseless insults were forensically dissected. No one emerged with credit, including Ferdinand, even if the chief magistrate Howard Riddle called him "brave" in his summing-up. Terry passionately felt that he had nothing to apologise for. This is where the system and Ferdinand's part in it has got him, the apparent victim who has been vilified and, ultimately, left bewildered under a burning hot spotlight. And the fear has to be that if and when black players do feel that they have a racism complaint to make, they will stop, consider the eight months or so that Ferdinand has lived through and ask themselves whether it is truly worth it. Football is the most tribal of pursuits, and even after the police and the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts have become involved in this instance, old habits have died hard. Sides were picked and positions entrenched long before the evidence was heard at Westminster. There have been echoes of the Luis Suárez-Patrice Evra case, when the then Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish gave Suárez such unqualified support and the players wore those T-shirts. Chelsea gave the impression all along that they backed Terry regardless, even if the stance was vindicated in the end. On the eve of the trial, the manager Roberto Di Matteo was quoted as saying that "John Terry is our captain and leader … and hopefully, he will be the same for us next season". At Liverpool last season there was a conspiratorial feeling that their rivals Manchester United were trying to destroy their best player and, by extension, the team, while Ferdinand has heard the criticism that he has developed a grudge and is taking it out on Terry and Chelsea. At times, the tribalism has overtaken the bigger picture. Chelsea's support for Terry extended to 17 first-team players signing identical statements to say he was no racist. It might have taken a brave player to refuse to sign when he was effectively asked: "Are you with us or not? Pick your side." Relations have been strained across the divide. Ashley Cole, for example, despite being a reluctant defence witness and his attempts not to say too much, will no longer be a friend of Anton Ferdinand. The process has been fraught and deeper conversations must begin if, in future, those who feel they have been racially abused are to speak out. quality writing
|
|
|
Post by eusebio13 on Jul 13, 2012 20:55:04 GMT
indeed Maude I thought so
|
|
|
Post by eusebio13 on Jul 13, 2012 21:32:25 GMT
Element of doubt enough to save John Terry as Chelsea captain is cleared of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand The central fact of the John Terry trial at Westminster magistrates’ court this week was that he shouted “f------ black c---“ at Anton Ferdinand. It was never in dispute.
Cleared: Chelsea captain John Terry found not guilty of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand Photo: GETTY IMAGES
By Matt Scott 9:46PM BST 13 Jul 2012 The offending words were caught on camera and broadcast live to millions of viewers across the world from Loftus Road, where Chelsea were losing a Premier League game 1-0 to Queens Park Rangers. John Terry not guilty: latest news and reaction But almost the instant the phrase left his mouth, Terry claimed to his team-mate Ashley Cole that Ferdinand had said it first, falsely accusing the Chelsea captain of racially abusing him. In his judgment Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle seemed to reject Terry’s explanation. “It is inherently unlikely that [Ferdinand] should firstly accuse Terry of calling him [those words], then shortly after the match completely deny that he had made such a comment, and then maintain that false account throughout the police investigation and throughout this trial”, wrote Riddle. “There is no history of animosity between the two men. The supposed motivation is slight.”
But even though he did not find Terry’s explanation of events persuasive, other misgivings nagged at Riddle. “However I accept that it is possible that Mr Terry believed at the time, and believes now, that such an accusation was made,” he said. “It is therefore possible that what he 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.” And that is the nub of it. Reasonable doubt. If it had been proved incontrovertibly that he said that despicable phrase as an insult to Ferdinand, Terry would now have a criminal record. John Terry clashed with Anton Ferdinand at loftus Road last October But, as Riddle helpfully spelt out in his judgment: “In all criminal courts in this country a defendant is found guilty only if the court is sure of guilt. If there is reasonable doubt then the defendant is entitled to be acquitted.” Terry’s legal team, led by George Carter-Stephenson QC, successfully argued in their submission that the evidence presented to the court did not meet the “criminal standard” demanded by a court of law to prove the charges against him. The Football Association’s tribunal system requires a very different standard of proof.
Football justice is considered on the balance of probabilities, a fact that will weigh heavily on the former England captain. Indeed, Carter-Stephenson’s “criminal standard” defence and Riddle’s judgment together invite the case to be reconsidered under football’s disciplinary processes. “It is clear that the prosecution has built a strong case,” wrote Riddle. “I had no hesitation in refusing [the defence’s] submission of no-case-to-answer based on those facts.” So for all the reasonable doubt that saved him there was reasonable suspicion to try Terry and that is the balance that football must now consider. It was not for a lack of evidence that the prosecution failed yesterday. But mitigating against it was how in crucial points in the footage Terry’s face is obscured, either by Ashley Cole’s or John Obi Mikel’s. As Terry himself pointed out from the witness box on Wednesday: “No one in this room can say. There’s no video on Anton and that’s the unfortunate thing.” This is where the criminal case falls down. “It is impossible to be sure exactly what were the words spoken by Mr Terry at the relevant time,” wrote Riddle. “It is impossible to be sure exactly what was said to him at the relevant time by Mr Ferdinand. “Nobody has been able to show that he is lying. Lip readers do not provide evidence that categorically contradicts his account. What at first may have seemed clear to the non-expert is less clear now.” Riddle described Terry as “a credible witness”, adding that Ferdinand can reasonably be considered “brave” for having taken to the witness box. But the Chief Magistrate did speculate about why Terry sought out a steward to fetch Ferdinand in the away dressing room after the match.
“One explanation is that Mr Terry realised that what happened on the pitch could cause him serious difficulties,” wrote Riddle. “He wanted to head that off by a conversation with Mr Ferdinand. Mr Ferdinand either was or wasn’t aware of the comment, either from him or from Mr Terry. “Either way he did not want to make anything of it and wanted to put the incident behind him. This seems to be the most plausible account of what happened.” The FA process will be a rehearsal of the same arguments, which contain terms that will have caused all but the most “industrial” Chelsea fan present to blench. Nineteen times “f---” or “f------” appear in Riddle’s judgment; 24 times the word “c---“. Even “knobhead” makes six appearances. That is infantile, offensive, “playground abuse”, certainly. But in the eyes of the courts it is not a crime.
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Jul 13, 2012 21:45:29 GMT
Henry Aaron who broke Babe Ruths lifetime home run record 30 yrs ago is still getting hate-mail. Aaron is African American. Ruth, Caucasian.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jul 13, 2012 21:51:51 GMT
We all knew this was a possibility, regardless of what might have happened: The system is (or should be) that in every case the person is found not guilty unless beyond all reasonable doubt...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2012 22:01:36 GMT
If the police had left it to the F.A, then he would of been suspended for a minimum of 8 games months ago
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Jul 13, 2012 23:15:01 GMT
As a minimum, the FA will charge Terry, sadly being the tossers they are, they will charge Ferdinand as well.
Terry will receive a ban and fine slightly larger than Ferdinand.
Conversely, the FA will do squat diddly, which will be bang out of order.
The legal outcome has no relevance to FA rules, they only had to wait for the judicial system to take it's course.
|
|
|
Post by mfnc on Jul 13, 2012 23:17:22 GMT
correct result wrong outcome
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Jul 13, 2012 23:18:52 GMT
Why would Anton be charged with though??
|
|
|
Post by mfnc on Jul 13, 2012 23:23:25 GMT
Why would Anton be charged with though?? disrepute....same as terry
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Jul 13, 2012 23:28:04 GMT
Did I miss that word out?
|
|
|
Post by mfnc on Jul 13, 2012 23:35:01 GMT
Did I miss that word out? dont know i have been mostly quaffing a nice red from Bordeaux. apologies if i missed it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2012 23:37:50 GMT
Did I miss that word out? dont know i have been mostly quaffing a nice red from Bordeaux. apologies if i missed it I don't know what quaffing means but are you talking about wine or a nice red head
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Jul 13, 2012 23:38:28 GMT
Did I miss that word out? dont know i have been mostly quaffing a nice red from Bordeaux. apologies if i missed it Good man, fair play. I was mostly enjoying ans Indian meal in stage 1 of my port's birthday celebrations. Typing is not easy. Enjoying port though.... Wibble Oh watching Foyle's War by gthe way... ;D
|
|
|
Post by mfnc on Jul 13, 2012 23:44:05 GMT
dont know i have been mostly quaffing a nice red from Bordeaux. apologies if i missed it I don't know what quaffing means but are you talking about wine or a nice red head
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Jul 13, 2012 23:59:40 GMT
I don't know what quaffing means but are you talking about wine or a nice red head That's what Stevenage does to people maudley!!!!
|
|