Racism in Football

[G]

From the judgment about Terry

There were discrepancies in his evidence. To a large extent this is what
you would expect from a truthful witness. Much of what happened;
happened in a brief period of time, in circumstances where the result of
the game was more important than any individual argument between
two players. I will return later to the discrepancies

Discrepancies are what the FA used to discredit Suarez's version of events.

If judged the same way as the Suarez case there is no way the FA can not now find him guilty and ban him for at least 8 games

[Jack D Rips]

Basically the judge seems to have to told Anton Ferdinand that he was a credible witness but he didnt believe him.

For me the crucial part of the whole thing was the fact that AF maintained he only heard about the "abuse" after the game. If this was believed then there could have been no question of him accusing Terry of calling him a "black cunt" during the game.

Terry's defence that he might have misheard "Bridge" as "black" is unbelieveable to say the least

[G]

No he did believe him. There was doubt about the context in which Terry said what he did.

Because there was doubt there cannot be a conviction beyond all reasonable doubt.

that wont be an issue for the FA though.

[Shaggy]

Aye I've read the judgement - it essentially says he found Terry's explanation unlikely and dubious, he thinks Terry is probably guilty but due to there being a doubt then he could not convict.

[Jack D Rips]

Shaggy do you have an actual extract where it says that, because I would like to show it to somebody. I really would.

[Vermilion]

From the bbc.

Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle said he had heard a great deal of evidence to show Mr Terry was not a racist.

In his written judgement, he said that after weighing the evidence it was "highly unlikely" that Mr Terry abused Mr Ferdinand in the manner he was accused of.

Mr Riddle went on: "The prosecution evidence as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18827915

[Shaggy]

Shaggy do you have an actual extract where it says that, because I would like to show it to somebody. I really would.

Well, I did say "it essentially says..."

Here's a couple of bits:

"Mr Terry’s explanation is, certainly under the cold light of forensic examination, unlikely. It is not the most obvious response."

"Weighing all the evidence together, I think it is highly unlikely that Mr Ferdinand accused Mr Terry on the pitch of calling him a black cunt. However I accept that it is possible that Mr Terry believed at the time, and believes now, that such an accusation was made. The prosecution evidence as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong. Mr Cole gives corroborating evidence (although not compelling corroborating evidence) on this point.

In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty."

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-john-terry.pdf

[Jack D Rips]

Cheers

[Jack D Rips]

Garth Crooks
guardian.co.uk, Fri 13 Jul 2012 15.04 BST

Comment

When I first saw the incident of John Terry "mouthing off" on YouTube early on the Sunday evening. I knew Terry was in big trouble and immediately rang Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the PFA, and told him so. The way the hits were gathering pace on YouTube it was obvious a storm was brewing. By the end of the evening Sky News was showing the incident round the clock, and within 24 hours of YouTube's first broadcast, complete with subtitles, the Premier League had pulled it.
Now the court has spoken and the Chelsea captain has been acquitted of racially abusing QPR player Anton Ferdinand. The ordeal for Terry, though, is not over yet. The FA still has to consider one very important matter.
By Terry's own admission he accepts the words "****ing black cunt" were said. His lawyers successfully argued that the manner in which this was said was misunderstood. But I believe it was wrong of him to say these words under any circumstances – and though Terry has been found not to have committed a criminal offence, the FA must now decide whether the former England captain should be charged for contravening its own rules.
Players have been ringing me over the last 48 hours with major concerns over what a not guilty verdict might mean for the wider campaign against racism in football. Will the institutions push the anti-racism campaign further down the priority list? Many fear it will take us back to the dark days of the 1980s, when racial abuse was rife. In those days I was abused every other week on the pitch by fellow professionals – many of them household names who represented their country.
If the FA don't act on the undisputed facts, and find Terry guilty of bringing the game into disrepute, a lot of good people are saying to me that there's no point in getting involved in the game at a senior level.
Among the game's administrators black professionals are almost non-existent; and things are barely any better at the managerial and coaching level.
Some players have told me that a failure to act would only endorse what they have always felt: that black people have no place in this game other than as minstrels performing on a stage.
What would be the point, for example, of ever raising a racial complaint again? The "just get on with it" brigade would continue to duck the issue.
The real problem in the Terry case began once the FA failed to take immediate action. This lack of fibre by the governing body to act instantly when Terry gave them a statement after the verbal clash with Ferdinand, threw the entire procedure into chaos – forcing everyone associated with the game to either dive for cover or sit on the fence.
It may have appeared expedient to delay matters at the time but once the police appeared on the scene the FA lost control of the process and the dynamic dramatically changed. The football fraternity suddenly became polarised: the dinosaurs who felt it was no more than two players engaged in a slanging match; and the others convinced Terry had gone too far.
Anton Ferdinand refused to back down even though he came under intense pressure, with accusations that he was causing the national team unnecessary embarrassment. And his brother, Rio, who would have been a selection certainty for England at last month's European Championships, found himself dropped.
What football fails to realise is that there is an entire generation of black players who feel the game has failed them. They will not stand for abuse, from either players or fans, any longer. If the Football Association does nothing, on the evidence it already has, then the impact on the game will reverberate for years to come

[Shanks]

Everything you need to know about the case..

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yquB52r0g4&feature"]John Terry Court Case: The Musical - "Please please please please don't call me racist" - YouTube[/ame]

[Shaggy]

Cheers

I retweeted a fella earlier who is a legal expert, and he had also said on his timeline that in Scottish law it would almost certainly have returned a "not proven" verdict.

[Pablo]

robbie fowler @Robbie9Fowler
That lawyer is good.... First OJ then JT.... #magicman

[G]

From the bbc.

Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle said he had heard a great deal of evidence to show Mr Terry was not a racist.

In his written judgement, he said that after weighing the evidence it was "highly unlikely" that Mr Terry abused Mr Ferdinand in the manner he was accused of.

Mr Riddle went on: "The prosecution evidence as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18827915

Well, I did say "it essentially says..."

Here's a couple of bits:

"Mr Terry’s explanation is, certainly under the cold light of forensic examination, unlikely. It is not the most obvious response."

"Weighing all the evidence together, I think it is highly unlikely that Mr Ferdinand accused Mr Terry on the pitch of calling him a black cunt. However I accept that it is possible that Mr Terry believed at the time, and believes now, that such an accusation was made. The prosecution evidence as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong. Mr Cole gives corroborating evidence (although not compelling corroborating evidence) on this point.

In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty."

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...john-terry.pdf

An example of how news outlets frame the news.

The first bold bit is what was reported and the second bold bit is what he actually said

[Red_Polo]

Yeah that piece is a pretty gross misrepresentation frankly.

[Vermilion]

An example of how news outlets frame the news.

The first bold bit is what was reported and the second bold bit is what he actually said

If that's correct, and what i posted from the bbc's site wasn't said in that way, then it's more than just framing the news imo, it's down right false from the bbc, and totally misleading.

Thought it was off at the time, and why i posted it after Shaggy's, as it was totally at odds with what Shaggy had posted.

Bit sad from the bbc that really.