Racism in Football

[McDermotX]

[RichC]

Nicking that!

[Vermilion]

Both......that when he said "****ing black cunt" it came, as it were, with inverted commas.....so he reckons he was accused by AF of calling him a "black cunt" and responds by saying "fack off, fack off, fackin 'black cunt'?, fackin knobhead"

At least that's how I understand it.

Terry is saying his use of the words 'Black cunt' came in the form of a question really then, in amongst the other stuff he was saying when he realised what AF had said.

[Red_Polo]

You might, but preceding it with yeah yeah wouldn't fit quite well.

Surely that would lend weight to the defence? 'Yeah, yeah' being part of mocking what someone else has said.

The whole thing reminds me of the Suarez case. It is completely dependent on context and tone, things there is **** all evidence of. I'll be amazed if Terry is found guilty unless the twitter timelines of the journos in there are not quite telling the full story. On a different burden of proof, maybe.

[Buzzo]

I don't understand this at all.

Is Terry saying that he said.

"It's not like I called you a black ****" or "no i didn't call you a black ****"

So surely he is admitting saying the words, and his argument is then context or that he was paraphrasing?

And I also don't see the point in all the character witnesses. Short of Hitler, KKK members and Mugabe, pretty much everyone on the planet could find a good stream of witnesses confirming they are in no way racist. The point is that he has been caught using racist langusge. As we know from the Suarez case, context is not mitigating at all. If anything the character witnesses are almost too much protestation.

Also that please x4 thing

At the end of the day I think Terry is basically confirming that he is a moron, and sadly he can't get punished for that.

[Kenneth]

Surely that would lend weight to the defence? 'Yeah, yeah' being part of mocking what someone else has said.
The whole thing reminds me of the Suarez case. It is completely dependent on context and tone, things there is **** all evidence of. I'll be amazed if Terry is found guilty unless the twitter timelines of the journos in there are not quite telling the full story. On a different burden of proof, maybe.

I disagree. The only way I can see '****ing black cunt' being understandable is with a ?. Ie, surprised/questioning. I can't imagine a natural way of saying it as such and saying yeah yeah first. Just me maybe.

Still, with a good lawyer im sure enough seeds of doubt can be sown.

[Kenneth]

I would add, the defence of 'i thought the other guy said something, which there is no evidence of, so repeated it and it just happened to sound like a serious racial insult' would probably not fly with a magistrate if argued in a low key trial with a cheap barrister and a poor and anonymous defendant, IMHO. Can anyone imagine their local magistrate entertaining such a line of argument?

[Liverpel]

Still laughing at the please four times thing.

"Please, Please, Please" is an R&B song written by James Brown and Johnny Terry and recorded by The Famous Flames initially in Macon, Georgia in 1955

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Please,_Please,_Please

[ChesterDave]

If he said anything remotely like "and yours" then he knows what he was replying to and will be convicted. If he can't be shown to say that then he will be found not guilty (IMO)

[Red_Polo]

I disagree. The only way I can see '****ing black cunt' being understandable is with a ?. Ie, surprised/questioning. I can't imagine a natural way of saying it as such and saying yeah yeah first. Just me maybe.

Still, with a good lawyer im sure enough seeds of doubt can be sown.

I'm reading it as ****ing 'black cunt' rather than '****ing black cunt' if you get me.

Example: I tell a friend I fancy getting into an extreme sport of some kind. He suggests chess. I say "****ing 'chess'...nobhead", because I think he's talking ****.

So Terry is saying he was accused of calling Anton a black cunt and disagrees ending with "****ing 'black cunt'... ****ing nobhead" or similar.

To find him guilty I think you would need to prove this could not have been the case.

[Kenneth]

I'm reading it as ****ing 'black cunt' rather than '****ing black cunt' if you get me.

Example: I tell a friend I fancy getting into an extreme sport of some kind. He suggests chess. I say "****ing 'chess'...nobhead", because I think he's talking ****.

So Terry is saying he was accused of calling Anton a black cunt and disagrees ending with "****ing 'black cunt'... ****ing nobhead" or similar.

To find him guilty I think you would need to prove this could not have been the case.

Now add yeah yeah to the front, it doesn't really work imo. Maybe if it was done in an ultra sarcastic tone with accompanying tone and facial expressions. Maybe. But they aren't there. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it would be an unnatural way of talking/shouting.

[Vermilion]

Either way, it sounds like they've muddied the waters enough to get a not guilty, whether he is or not.

[Red_Polo]

Now add yeah yeah to the front, it doesn't really work imo. Maybe if it was done in an ultra sarcastic tone with accompanying tone and facial expressions. Maybe. But they aren't there. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it would be an unnatural way of talking/shouting.

Sounds more clearly mocking what he heard, to me. If the yeah yeah is not mocking what he has heard then what is it? I just can't see how else it would be used. So it lends some weight to the defence, IF it was said.

Personally I'm not sure I buy his story, but I do think it's plausible in isolation.

[baitman]

this context thing...
the yeah, yeah, local cockney thing...

if terry if found to be innocent [even though he wont be innocent, and its just the fact that his QC has sufficiently blurred the evidence and muddied the waters so they cannot convict beyond all reasonable doubt, etc] then will the FA look again at this...

to the FA, the context and the way people might speak using a certain term that is locally different to common dialect, bears no significance, as the suarez case has proved.

will they even discuss whether JT has a case to answer

[Red_Polo]

On the FA burden of proof Terry would be toast. Or ought be.