John Terry found guilty

I find it really crazy that we now live in a society where you can basically throw all sorts of hurtful abuse at someone with as many ****'s and *****'s as you like, as long as you don't mention their skin colour or where they are from.

I find that really crazy too.

Probably because its completely not true...

I saw this article written by none other than Jeremy Clarkson, who admittedly is a complete knob, but did show a valid point that was hard to argue against.
He showed copies of posts on Twitter. He'd had a go at some celeb or something which resulted in massive amounts of posts slagging him off in return. Knowing him it was probably deserved. But he listed everything that was said about him and this slagging session was well known about on Twitter. Yet no one at all said anything about the people posting these vile comments about the lanky git. He then compared that to instances of the Twitter police arresting individuals for posting things that were extremely mild in comparison. The only difference being that they mentioned skin colour or where the person they were having a go at was from.
Although I don't like the guy, I found it very difficult to disagree with.

If I call you a dick, it is because you have done something for me to form the opinion that you are a dick.
If you insult someone based on race, something that you cannot help, then that is unfair and you are prejudice.

There is such a huge difference that I feel patronising pointing it out.
Judge people on thier character. It is not fair to insult someone purely based on a background that they did not choose. That goes for real life as well as football.
Ferdinand made fun of John Terry shagging Bridge's missus, because Terry chose to shag Bridge's missus.
Terry mentioned Ferdinand's race and was rightfully punished. Just not harshly enough.

I find it really crazy that we now live in a society where you can basically throw all sorts of hurtful abuse at someone with as many ****'s and *****'s as you like, as long as you don't mention their skin colour or where they are from.

I find that really crazy too.

Probably because its completely not true...

I saw this article written by none other than Jeremy Clarkson, who admittedly is a complete knob, but did show a valid point that was hard to argue against.
He showed copies of posts on Twitter. He'd had a go at some celeb or something which resulted in massive amounts of posts slagging him off in return. Knowing him it was probably deserved. But he listed everything that was said about him and this slagging session was well known about on Twitter. Yet no one at all said anything about the people posting these vile comments about the lanky git. He then compared that to instances of the Twitter police arresting individuals for posting things that were extremely mild in comparison. The only difference being that they mentioned skin colour or where the person they were having a go at was from.
Although I don't like the guy, I found it very difficult to disagree with.

If I call you a dick, it is because you have done something for me to form the opinion that you are a dick.
If you insult someone based on race, something that you cannot help, then that is unfair and you are prejudice.

There is such a huge difference that I feel patronising pointing it out.
Judge people on thier character. It is not fair to insult someone purely based on a background that they did not choose. That goes for real life as well as football.
Ferdinand made fun of John Terry shagging Bridge's missus, because Terry chose to shag Bridge's missus.
Terry mentioned Ferdinand's race and was rightfully punished. Just not harshly enough.

So exactly why has the FA got it right when a court of Law found him innocent

So exactly why has the FA got it right when a court of Law found him innocent

Because in a court of law proof is needed beyond reasonable doubt.

In an FA hearing they can charge you on the balance of probabilities. i.e. the Suarez case.

Therefore, the panel they hire during the hearing believe Terry used racial language when looking at the video so they convicted him on the balance of probabilities.

If you believe it should just go on the trial then all matters should and Suarez should be cleared and taken to court where he would be cleared also due to lack of evidence.

So exactly why has the FA got it right when a court of Law found him innocent

Because in a court of law proof is needed beyond reasonable doubt.

In an FA hearing they can charge you on the balance of probabilities. i.e. the Suarez case.

Therefore, the panel they hire during the hearing believe Terry used racial language when looking at the video so they convicted him on the balance of probabilities.

If you believe it should just go on the trial then all matters should and Suarez should be cleared and taken to court where he would be cleared also due to lack of evidence.

Exactly..... I'm not sure if people are thick as shit or just ignorant for the sake of arguing.

The FA have every right to charge Terry who admitted using racially aggravated language towards a fellow professional. The FA could not charge him before now as there was a legal case brought by a member of the public. The law decided not to prosecute because of lack of evidence only.

FA govern the laws of the game and the justice system govern the laws of the land. Not guilty in one doesn't mean you cannot be found guilty in another. If every punishment (fine, ban etc) handed out by the FA for breaking the rules needed to be proven in a court of law we'd be fecked and that would be stupid. There'd be 1000's court cases every week.... that's why the law allows the governing body, the FA, to deal with them. FFS it's not difficult to understand.

Let's hope he accepts his fine, accepts his ban and then let's all move on, hopefully with everyone learning their lesson.

African bluebird I don't know who you think you are calling thick as shit just because they hold a different view point I was going to reply differently but will hold council. Just very big of you behind your keypad

African bluebird I don't know who you think you are calling thick as shit just because they hold a different view point I was going to reply differently but will hold council. Just very big of you behind your keypad

My comment wasn't aimed solely at you but the general lack of knowledge people have between the authority of the FA versus the judicial system.

Different opinions are fine but you asked a number of times in this thread why the FA can charge Terry when he was not found guilty in a court of law. A number of people have answered that and yet you are still banging on about it.

Whatever the wrongs and rights of the situation the FA have every right to charge a player despite the courts deciding there was not enough evidence to prosecute him through the judicial system.

Sorry if my thick as shit comment upset you, perhaps it was a bit ott - we are both long term users of this and the other board - I thought you'd have thicker skin by now

Pity Ferdinand didn't have a thicker skin like what you are saying. But if there is not enough evidence Terry should not of been charged full stop. But I do find it funny you can be abusive and then say have a thicker skin but one wrong comment from me would have you running to the mods and then the authoroties

Pity Ferdinand didn't have a thicker skin like what you are saying. But if there is not enough evidence Terry should not of been charged full stop. But I do find it funny you can be abusive and then say have a thicker skin but one wrong comment from me would have you running to the mods and then the authoroties

How do you know I would be running to the mods? I've been called a lot worse... probably deservedly so on occasions.

Of course Terry should have been charged but the timing has been stupid.

Think this is a fair reflection on the case...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19778821

I find it really crazy that we now live in a society where you can basically throw all sorts of hurtful abuse at someone with as many ****'s and *****'s as you like, as long as you don't mention their skin colour or where they are from.

I find that really crazy too.

Probably because its completely not true...

I saw this article written by none other than Jeremy Clarkson, who admittedly is a complete knob, but did show a valid point that was hard to argue against.
He showed copies of posts on Twitter. He'd had a go at some celeb or something which resulted in massive amounts of posts slagging him off in return. Knowing him it was probably deserved. But he listed everything that was said about him and this slagging session was well known about on Twitter. Yet no one at all said anything about the people posting these vile comments about the lanky git. He then compared that to instances of the Twitter police arresting individuals for posting things that were extremely mild in comparison. The only difference being that they mentioned skin colour or where the person they were having a go at was from.
Although I don't like the guy, I found it very difficult to disagree with.

If I call you a dick, it is because you have done something for me to form the opinion that you are a dick.
If you insult someone based on race, something that you cannot help, then that is unfair and you are prejudice.

There is such a huge difference that I feel patronising pointing it out.
Judge people on thier character. It is not fair to insult someone purely based on a background that they did not choose. That goes for real life as well as football.
Ferdinand made fun of John Terry shagging Bridge's missus, because Terry chose to shag Bridge's missus.
Terry mentioned Ferdinand's race and was rightfully punished. Just not harshly enough.

So exactly why has the FA got it right when a court of Law found him innocent

f**k me. You haven't been following this have you...