The Matt cartoon on today's telegraph front page raises a smile as always. It refers of course to the innocently yobbish ambiance of football, in which players routinely wind each other up in the hope of putting the other side off its game, rather like test cricketers.
I can't help feeling a bit sorry for John Terry who seems to be costing himself a lot of money for no good reason that I can see. He may well be a horrible fellow you wouldn't want in your sitting room or going out with your daughter (I am sure Anton Ferdinand is just as bad), but I believe him when he says he isn't a racist. After delivering an openly racist insult in the heat of the moment, though, a rational man would have withdrawn the remark publicly, or at least let it be known that it had slipped out under stress and he regretted it.
Why didn't he? My guess is that his self-image as a proper man includes the idea that everything he does is deliberate, that he is always in control and does nothing under stress in the heat of the moment. His refusal to abandon this ludicrous delusion is leading to another shysters' bonanza. Looks pathetic to me.
|
...Why didn't he?...
Because he's not very bright?
Despite the most expensive legal advice, Terry still thinks he is charged with 'being a racist'.
Whether he is or not is largely irrelevant to the case, it's more a matter of whether he used the words complained of.
Terry does seem to be one of a number of footballers who are very hard to like on a personal level.
Defoe at Spurs is another one.
To be fair to footballers, I imagine the list of likeable ones would be longer.
|
|
It hasn't yet reached the costs of the superinjunction relating to his away matches!
|
>>
>> To be fair to footballers, I imagine the list of likeable ones would be longer.
Hmmmm. Wouldn't be prepared to stake my entire fortune on that .
|
As a life-long Chelsea fan, I can personally see no wrong in John Terry, in his work he is totally dedicated and puts Chelsea FC. first. Along with "other" team-mates he does quite a lot behind the scenes for charities, and in all things football he speaks the truth.
For some reason, the British Gutter-press seem to dislike all things Chelsea! and waste no time at all trying to pillory either the club or players, take all the hassle "they" cooked up about his off pitch activities, at the end of the day, the "Woman" was a Team-mates EX!, who wasnt interested in her former beau! and was moving on, whats wrong with that! Loads of other teams players have done the same, Rooney and Giggs for example, but after a couple of days these stories are allowed to fade away, not so with JT, years later its still being mentioned. Ferdinand has stated that he was deliberately taunting Terry with this item, and then has the nerve to whinge when he`s called something he doesn't like in retaliation ! wimp and soft scoundrel - it was justified!
And whats this got to do with Sledging?
Last edited by: devonite on Wed 11 Jul 12 at 16:28
|
>> As a life-long Chelsea fan, I can personally see no wrong in John Terry, in
>> his work he is totally dedicated and puts Chelsea FC. first. Along with "other" team-mates
>> he does quite a lot behind the scenes for charities, and in all things football
>> he speaks the truth.
>> For some reason, the British Gutter-press seem to dislike all things Chelsea! and waste no
>> time at all trying to pillory either the club or players, take all the hassle
>> "they" cooked up about his off pitch activities, at the end of the day, the
>> "Woman" was a Team-mates EX!, who wasnt interested in her former beau! and was moving
>> on, whats wrong with that! Loads of other teams players have done the same, Rooney
>> and Giggs for example, but after a couple of days these stories are allowed to
>> fade away, not so with JT, years later its still being mentioned. Ferdinand has stated
>> that he was deliberately taunting Terry with this item, and then has the nerve to
>> whinge when he`s called something he doesn't like in retaliation ! wimp and soft scoundrel
>> - it was justified!
Terry and all his family are pig ignorant thugs, cheats, liars and tea leaves.
|
>> Terry and all his family are pig ignorant thugs, cheats, liars and tea leaves.
>>
wasn't his old man accused of being a drug dealer as well?
Anyways, speaking hypothetically to answer AC's question.
Imagine if you knew that admitting an offence of this nature would get you into trouble with the governing authority of the sport?
Imagine if you knew that said authority would throw a large book at you - probably including stripping you of a chance for a nice holiday to Poland and the Ukraine?
Imagine if the thrown-book also meant that you'd miss about, oooh, three months of sport because you'd been suspended, and hence you'd have a bit of a problem earning the huge amounts of wonga that you normally earn? And any commercial endiorsements you have left after your previous shenanigans would evaporate?
Oh, and imagine if you were into the money-lenders and casinos for a few quid. Try a few mill.
Purely conjecture, on my part, of course.
|
Yes you`ve stated that several times before! - seems to be almost a personal obsessional dislike!
Granted some unsavory occurrences have deemed to have been appropriated to the "Family" but you are not your brothers keeper! - lots of families have "skellys" hidden in closets! but you dont hear of them because they do not have short of "things to do" journo`s rummaging through them.
At the end of the day, this incident he is being tarred with (and Racist is one you dont want!) would not have happened if Ferdinand had shown some respect to a fellow player and kept his mouth shut!
|
|
your all breaking subjudicary law
|
...your all breaking subjudicary law...
No we are not.
Zero's post is a bit near the mark, but Terry's case is not being heard by a weak and feeble-minded jury, it's being heard by a senior magistrate.
Like it or not, people of his legal rank are deemed to be too wise to be prejudiced by any negative comment about a defendant.
|
Oh I have no doubts that Ferdinand is a talentless little scroat, shunted from club to club, living in his Brothers much more talented shadow, and bitter to boot.
>lots of families have "skellys" hidden in closets! but you dont hear of them because they do >not have short of "things to do" journo`s rummaging through them.
Most families with access to the type of money the Terry's have would go shoplifting in Tescos, dealing in drugs, wrecking posh restaurants and punching waiters because they couldn't get a burger and chips, being banned for violent misconduct on a football field, repeatedly being hauled in court for assault in pubs and nightclubs, and screwing your team mates girlfriend.
Apart from that its just your average family values we can all aspire to.
|
Not forgetting the black cab driver, the cab partition and Terry's foot.
|
|
I forgot about the black cab driver, the cab partition and Terry's foot.
|
I dunno Zero, I reckon many sitting MPs have done similar or worse!
|
|
well i suppose Terry hasn't fiddled his expenses.
|
>> well i suppose Terry hasn't fiddled his expenses.
>>
In a manner of speaking, he did.
Getting the Super Injunction to stop the story of his extra-maritals was more to keep his public persona intact - and thus his lucrative 'dad of the year' sponsorships alive - than anything else.
Wasn't he also accused of taking brown envelopes for personal tours of the Bridge?
Odious human being.
|
|
At this rate you`ll have him ousting Joey Barton as footballs No1 best loved!
|
|
To be fair, the one thing you can not accuse Terry of being is Racist. and he was accurate with every word he used about Ferdinand
|
I am impressed by how well people seem to know John Terry and his family. Not that his family has anything to do with the case even if his father was 'accused of being a drug dealer'. Most of the drug dealers I've met are more or less honest retailers providing a necessary, or anyway desired, service to aware adult customers. They are terrified of the gangsters with whom they sometimes have to brush shoulders. They may be on the wrong side of the law, but they often aren't bad at all.
Similarly, whether one would like or despise Terry if one knew him, his random screwings and drunken nightclub brawls are equally irrelevant. What is at stake here is his idiot macho refusal to withdraw a comment he was recorded making, so can't deny convincingly. It's pretty obvious that if he had done that, somehow cobbled together an apparent reconciliation, he wouldn't be in court now. Only if the Ferdinand chap was fishing for just that in order to spring an ambush - conceivable but a bit unlikely - would that line have failed, given the stakes for the teams and football in general.
Terry's behaviour pattern is common in the playground and not nearly rare enough among so-called adults. It's a mistake to think that a rigid posture is 'strong'. In reality it's fragile in the end, it can splinter and shatter. 'You gotta roll with the punches' as any proper boxer will tell you.
|
|
Of course they're decent people AC, tax-payers to the last man. Nothing to do with the end user dependency, pedalling death and misery. Drug dealers are scum AC and yes I've met enough of them in my time to know that. And no I don't suffer from "vertigo" as far as drugs are concerned.
|
>> decent people AC, tax-payers to the last man
Surely you exaggerate?
>> scum and yes I've met enough of them in my time to know that
Look, we are talking about what Lenin would have called 'lumpen elements'. It's clear from what you say you have been unfortunate in your acquaintance. Not all 'lumpen elements' are the same and not all can reasonably be called 'scum' in my experience. But people's moral judgments differ and you are entitled to yours. I imagine the majority would agree with you.
>> pedalling death and misery
Sounds like vertigo to me comrade. Sorry.
|
>> It's clear from what you say you have been unfortunate in your acquaintance.
In fairness to you Rob, and in penitence for my supercilious tone, I have to admit on reflection that I have no experience of heroin and crack dealers on big provincial housing estates. There weren't any of those when I was young. It was all very different then, I admit.
All the same, 'peddling death and misery' is a wee bit tabloid. People have a right to fuddle and poison themselves. No one makes them do it.
|
|
And I'm sure that weed dealing cheese cloth wearing N London retired hippies are OK as well..!
|
>> I'm sure that weed dealing cheese cloth wearing N London retired hippies are OK as well..!
Shudder... not all of them Rob.
Poor Mrs Rausing's fate is an example of why I advise people to approach all drugs with extreme caution if at all, and only after doing the necessary research. There but for the grace of God goes anyone not terribly bright, with Lud's sort of money, who is curious and adventurous and who likes the hard stuff. Oh deary me... but you wouldn't be blaming the dealers would you, however well they did out of it.
|
>> my supercilious tone >>
Nah, not you. No one has ever accused of grandiosity, have they?
|
>>> No one has ever accused of grandiosity, have they?
Ah shaddap, mo'fo'... Ya mama...
|
>> but I believe
>> him when he says he isn't a racist.
You are quite probably correct.
After delivering an openly racist insult in
>> the heat of the moment, though, a rational man would have withdrawn the remark publicly,
>> or at least let it be known that it had slipped out under stress and
>> he regretted it.
>>
>> Why didn't he?
I think there is a huge degree of hypocrisy in this arena and the common practice of the sledging means those involved don't take the actual phrase used all that seriously.
So a black ****, is no real different to a fat **** or a northern **** or Welsh, Scottish, short, ginger, ugly, etc.
Trouble is, it's an offence to put the race in. That allows someone to be offended and report it (whether they are or not) and thereby win the argument.
It also takes something away from those people who are genuinely abused simply because of their race (as opposed to being abused because you are on the other team and you want a reaction that will affect their performance).
JT is guilty of the offence, but not necessarily guilty of being racist. I agree that he isn't an overly nice human being.
To actually answer your question, I think he's been badly advised or as is more likely, has declined to heed the advice and the lawyer is doing his/her best in the trying circumstances they find themselves in.
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 11 Jul 12 at 22:53
|
>> Trouble is, it's an offence to put the race in. That allows someone to be offended and report it (whether they are or not) and thereby win the argument.
That does seem to be about the size of it. Perhaps a few people really had it in for this Terry and now they've got him.
The judgement should be interesting. I look forward to it.
|
Not sure I ever though I'd say this but I almost agree with Westpig. In the narrow context of on field, inter player, verbal handbagging black is probably interchangeable with many other words.
Not always so, there was a darker side to the Suares (sp?) incident. And Liverpool mad a horlix of handling that.
Suspect the Yerry case is a settling of old scores.
|
...Not sure I ever though I'd say this but I almost agree with Westpig...
Not sure I ever thought I'd say this but I almost agree with Bromptonaut on a racism/political correctness matter.
When I used to go to White Hart Lane, some fans would abuse our players if one made a mistake.
If that player was black, the abuse might include the word 'black', or the fan might pick on some other feature such as the player's weight, country of origin, or physical stature.
In that narrow context, I don't think the abusing fan was being racist, or any other ist, he was simply being abusive.
|
I know nothing about the man apart from the fact that his brains appear to be in his boots . He does not give the impression of being a cultured individual but in court apparently Terry said he made the comment 'ironically' ........ sounds to me like someone told him to say that as a defence.
I doubt he knows the meaning of the word.........
He probably thinks irony is something his mum presses his shirtys with.....
|
>> In that narrow context, I don't think the abusing fan was being racist, or any
>> other ist, he was simply being abusive.
Exactly. It was good old fashioned personal abuse. Race had nothing to do with it.
|
Guilty - perhaps, maybe even probably.
Beyond reasonable doubt?
Don't think so.
|
And there was me thinking that sledging was something you did down a snow-covered slope!
:-)
|
|
You must often be thinking about gliding along on something slippery Gastropod...
|
>> And there was me thinking that sledging was something you did down a snow-covered slope!
That would make the particiapant a tobogganist.
Ask for 20 silk cuts.
|
|
Behind the closed cabinet doors these days.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18827915
Interesting.
Right decision IMO (because of the previous comments above), but will be controversial, because strictly speaking he WAS guilty as the law is written.
|
Apparently neither of the main protagonists wanted the case to come to court. All that time, anxiety, money and bad publicity... pure idiocy.
And to think that a simple apology would have saved all those blushes and all that money. 'Awright, he's not black, no way, he's just a faaah kin caaaan'... Something graceful along those lines. Tchah!
|
|
Why should Terry have apologised? That would be admitting guilt! something he has just been cleared of! He was right to stand his ground, the truth is out!
|
>> Why should Terry have apologised? That would be admitting guilt! something he has just been
>> cleared of! He was right to stand his ground, the truth is out!
I wonder how often a court's verdict actually matches the truth.
Whether or not Terry did it, the fact that they seemed to be relying heavily upon lip reading (which I understand is far from an exact science) the chance of anything other than a not guilty verdict seemed highly unlikely.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 13 Jul 12 at 15:54
|
So will this now open up the 'Terry defence'. I know Magistrates Courts don't set legal precedence...but....it has opened up a can of worms.
It just goes to show how heavy handed the law can be....and how there can be an enormous lack of common sense when it comes to charging decisions.
I've long thought the some elements of the race laws to be too much and this case has just shown why. It seems a senior Magistrate has had difficulty convicting someone and afflicting the drastic consequences that would go with it...purely because two people had a pop at each other and one had the temerity to use the word 'black' in his abuse (and with no one really believing the user was racist or intended a racist insult).
Complicated isn't it.
|
>> Complicated isn't it.
It's often an ass Wp, and it's often a very blunt instrument as you must know only too well from your years at the business end of it. Yet the law manages to get it right quite a lot of the time, as in this case.
Respect! (up to a point anyway).
|
>> and it's often a very blunt instrument as you must
>> know only too well .......... Yet the
>> law manages to get it right quite a lot of the time, as in this
>> case.
Maybe it will do everyone a favour, so that the two kids slagging each other off in mutual unpleasantness, both trying their best to irk the other one, don't end up in court....but the true racist who indulges in obnoxious language does.
You can hope.
|
If Terry had made some sort of apology or withdrawal or explanation the case might not have come to court and he would have saved himself a small fortune.
Lip reading didn't come into the court case. He admitted uttering the words complained of but denied that they were intended as a racial insult. And the court sensibly gave him the benefit of the doubt.
|
>> Why should Terry have apologised? That would be admitting guilt! something he has just been
>> cleared of! He was right to stand his ground, the truth is out!
>>
Because it would have been the sane and sensible thing to do. All the macho posturing has not done either of the players any good and the game of football either for what it's worth. As usual only the lawyers win.
|
Lip reading seems to have come into it up to a point. Both Crown and defence had experts
For those with patience to read it the judgment is here:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-john-terry.pdf
I keep getting half way and losing the will to live.
|
>> Lip reading seems to have come into it up to a point. Both Crown and defence had experts
But were they actually needed to give evidence? Perhaps the defence wanted to highlight the rest of Terry's remarks on the field, the context that showed the remark he admitted making was a quotation delivered in an ironic spirit.
I bet their fees were pretty healthy.
|
>> I keep getting half way and losing the will to live.
I thought it rather a good brisk read Bromptonaut, but then I am used to having to devour enormous quantities of boring carp while 'making a living'.
One has to admire the precision of language with which these magistrates and judges fillet and analyse events, and - anyway in this case - the broad human understanding displayed in the process.
Nevertheless the legal mind is to me a strange and alien thing that usually leaves me none the wiser. It can be really annoying too if you are involved in the case in any way.
|
This thread shouldn't exist really, because I was quite wrong in the OP: Terry had tried immediately to save the situation, but had failed.
Is the FA responsible for bringing the case to court? It was a bad mistake whoever did it. Instead of showing how down on racism football is, it has underlined the apparent fact that racist abuse isn't the half of it, that the behaviour of football players on and off the field, er, leaves a lot to be desired.
It didn't really need underlining but why rub everyone's nose in it? Does the term 'own goal' ring a bell?
|
...I keep getting half way and losing the will to live...
He must be being paid by the word.
No excuse for verbosity, particularly when you know the prose is of interest to the public.
|
>> No excuse for verbosity
You haven't read it then Iffy? No excuse for that in your case I would say.
|
Of course I haven't read it, but I'll give you a two word precis:
Not guilty.
|
>> Of course I haven't read it
I could tell Iffy. It's a bit over 5,000 words according to my rough calculation.
But I wouldn't call it 'verbose' because that means there were more words than necessary. A judge would look rather American if he just strutted into court and said Not Guilty, wouldn't he?
I'm surprised really that this stuff isn't grist to your mill. Perhaps you have become idle in your old age, or perhaps you are just sick of all that legal stuff. No one could blame you for that.
But to call something 'verbose' when it isn't is a bit sloppy for one of your pedigree.
|
...But I wouldn't call it 'verbose' because that means there were more words than necessary...
I think the judgement meets your definition of verbose exactly.
It's only a scratty summary only mags court case - if it was me and you in the street, the district judge wouldn't waste more than a few hundred words on it.
|
>> I think the judgement meets your definition of verbose exactly.
No, it doesn't. It is exhaustive rather than verbose. I am surprised, as I say, that you don't seem to recognise the difference.
>> if it was me and you in the street, the district judge wouldn't waste
Come come Iffsky. I'd never call you black in the street. Not black as such.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 13 Jul 12 at 19:51
|
...It is exhaustive...
More like exhausting rather than exhaustive.
Bromp - above - lost the will to live while reading it, and he works in an environment where thousands of words are routinely used when a hundred or two would do.
|
|
You're being deliberately obtuse and trying to play to the gallery. A bit pathetic in my book.
|
|
From the red corner weighing in at...
|
|
Bit wordy - but he's a professional delivering a judgement on a very high profile case and not writing for headlines in a tabloid. It explains the reasoning very well.
|
|
I have followed the Terry case with some interest. I am still not clear what happened. As I read the reports JT claims that he was repeating offensive words directed at him. Why would anybody have called him black (among other things?)
Last edited by: Meldrew on Sat 14 Jul 12 at 08:33
|
>> Bromp - above - lost the will to live while reading it, and he works
>> in an environment where thousands of words are routinely used when a hundred or two
>> would do.
Cheeky g*t :-)
Part of the day job is checking for new judgements relative to our field of interest and distributing/disecting them for a wider audience. I guess I'm comparing with civil or adminstrative law cases written by more senior judges.
Re-reading this I wonder if the judge hankered for the Scottish verdict of not proven.
|
Sentencing remarks by Crown Court judges have become longer and longer in recent years.
It has reached the point now where many judges tell the defendant to remain seated.
Judges used to be give a blue book called, I think, the Crown Court Index.
There was a paragraph in it which read something like: "Keep your sentencing remarks short and to the point, studies have shown defendants stop listening after a minute or two."
And it's not just defendants, if you are speaking to someone, you will do well to hold their attention for long periods at a time.
A written judgment is a different beast to sentencing remarks, but similar principles apply.
As I mentioned earlier, the Terry case is something and nothing, so I wonder how many words that district judge could come up with if he was given something complicated.
Last edited by: Iffy on Sat 14 Jul 12 at 09:17
|
The more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I am with this verdict.
Do I think that JT should have been prosecuted for this, in the circs known?... No
Do I think others that are not famous and in differing circs would have been prosecuted and would have been found Guilty and would not have had a senior Magistrate hear it...Yes
Do I really think that this hearing for a famous person will filter down and have some common sense apply for the rest of us?...No
Does anyone really believe that JT was merely repeating back language he thought he had heard from AF? No
So...my conclusion is a senior Magistrate thinks, like I do, that this was verbal handbags between two protagonists in a setting that did not suggest true racism...and that the use of the legislation was unfortunately heavy handed....albeit the offence WAS committed.
Would the rest of us receive the same leniency if we were to end up in a similar position i.e. verbally lashed out to intentionally irritate someone and used language that included race in it, but had no general racist thoughts/intent?..No, probably not.
|
|
The Police Sometimes make things worse in these sort of scenario`s, They include the "Racist" element almost by default. There was an incident that I witnessed a few years ago in the local night-club. Two Chaps had a handbag slapping incident over a girl, One of the chaps was white British, the other a Turk (ran the kebab shop in the square). The Turk threw the first punch, and the police were called, the British chap was arrested, and charged with "aggravated Racial violence"(or words to that effect) He ended up being jailed but was released on tag after a couple of months.
|
>> The Police Sometimes make things worse in these sort of scenario`s, They include the "Racist"
>> element almost by default.
Hands are fairly closely tied...and have been for many years.
If you don't 'act' and are found lacking...then you are open for 'neglect of duty' or worse...and the complaints system is so robust you really cannot expect to hide.
Common sense has been wiped off the agenda, sadly. It's a brave man/woman that ignores all the carp and follows common sense.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18847477
...and so it goes on.
Double standards methinks.
|
|
Soccer players are really not safe to be let out alone on a computer.
|
|
Soccer? Soccer! - Thats a "Yank" game! - Tis the Gentlemanly game of Football we plays!!
|
Sledging - Iffy
