Cestrian Saint Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 :-0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfcuk fan Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 Yea, but phew, it was definately over the line :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 Hmmm. Whoopeee for him. He's managed to keep his nose clean for a few months, laid low, put in some reasonable performances at Euro2012, he's probably thinking his slate is clean now. Problem is, a thug is a thug is a thug, so his next offence, either against football, a spoken-for woman, or on the pitch, is probably in the post. I'm guessing he'll go on the p*ss tonight and it will get lairy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint J 77 Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 Just goes to show if you have enough money you can get away with anything. Why bother to make an example of him and not go through with it? This whole case has been a waste of time and money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 I would like to understand how calling someone a "f**king black c**t" is no longer racist abuse. Did the judge question the credibility of the expert witnesses (lip readers) in the summing up ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 Just goes to show if you have enough money you can get away with anything. Why bother to make an example of him and not go through with it? This whole case has been a waste of time and money! This, unbelieveable !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 same lawyers as saggy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 My dad got me the Alan Partridge radio shows on cd for Christmas and i listen to them sometimes when I'm driving round or whatever. In one of them there was this guy who sued someone for calling him a cvnt, but cos he lost it set legal precendents and now anyone could quite legally call him a cvnt... I'm just wondering, is this the same for Ferdinands now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 It wasn't as clear a case as Gerrard's and look what happen to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 IMO jurors simply struggle to find accused guilty. "Are you 100% sure that terry was racially abusing him?" "Er..." "If you have any doubts at all you must find him not guilty. So are your 100% certain?" "Er, well, I guess I am not 100% sure." "Then it's not guilty". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 Why bother to make an example of him and not go through with it? This whole case has been a waste of time and money! Damned if they do, damned if they dont. One protagonist claimed one thing, the other claimed somrthing else and the witness heard something but he wasnt sure what. Not guilty is the only possible verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andysstuff Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 IMO jurors simply struggle to find accused guilty. "Are you 100% sure that terry was racially abusing him?" "Er..." "If you have any doubts at all you must find him not guilty. So are your 100% certain?" "Er, well, I guess I am not 100% sure." "Then it's not guilty". No jurors involved this time. It was heard in front of the country's top magistrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 a spoken-for woman. Welcome to the 20th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 Damned if they do, damned if they dont. One protagonist claimed one thing, the other claimed somrthing else and the witness heard something but he wasnt sure what. Not guilty is the only possible verdict. Exactly, but being found not guilty isn't the same as not committing the crime. Its about committing the crime with evidence to put the decision beyond reasonable doubt. I agree that the doubt means he's found not guilty in the eyes of the law, but his type is the type who always makes mistakes (Joey Barton et al), so its just a matter of time before it happens again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 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. "It is therefore possible that what he [Mr Terry] 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 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. "It is therefore possible that what he [Mr Terry] 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." Seems fair enough. Or it's a better version than the one Terry gave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 whether he was found guilty or not in a court of law, the whole country still knows he is a fAcking white ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 My dad got me the Alan Partridge radio shows on cd for Christmas and i listen to them sometimes when I'm driving round or whatever. In one of them there was this guy who sued someone for calling him a cvnt, but cos he lost it set legal precendents and now anyone could quite legally call him a cvnt... I'm just wondering, is this the same for Ferdinands now? Only in print. He can hold it up to his face... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 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. "It is therefore possible that what he [Mr Terry] 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." What a joke, Terry obviously called him a black c*nt. I can't believe how a judge can be so thick. The problem is these judges are so out of touch from reality they believe all this nonsense wheeled out by the defence and ignore all common sense (if they have any). It's the same ****-wits who jail people for years for posting something on twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 What a joke, Terry obviously called him a black c*nt. I can't believe how a judge can be so thick. The problem is these judges are so out of touch from reality they believe all this nonsense wheeled out by the defence and ignore all common sense (if they have any). It's the same ****-wits who jail people for years for posting something on twitter. I'm kind of guessing having Ashely Cole as his best mate made the whole Terry is a racist thing hard for the judge to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 I'm kind of guessing having Ashely Cole as his best mate made the whole Terry is a racist thing hard for the judge to take. Exactly, completely clueless. I doubt Terry is racist but he obviously called Ferdinand a black c*nt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 Only in print. He can hold it up to his face... So I can't actually call you a cvnt? No, but you could fax me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPTCount Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 wot I dont get is that this case went to court because they had more evidence than compared to the Suarez/evra sh*tstorm. the fa/met/cps have royally f*cked pickles on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan17 Posted 13 July, 2012 Share Posted 13 July, 2012 So I can't actually call you a cvnt? No, but you could fax me. Classic Partridge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 14 July, 2012 Share Posted 14 July, 2012 I would like to understand how calling someone a "f**king black c**t" is no longer racist abuse. Did the judge question the credibility of the expert witnesses (lip readers) in the summing up ? Because if you are Black a c-unt and still F-uck it is fact and not racial abuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 14 July, 2012 Share Posted 14 July, 2012 I would like to understand how calling someone a "f**king black c**t" is no longer racist abuse. Did the judge question the credibility of the expert witnesses (lip readers) in the summing up ? Not sure but in the testimony the lip reader said that it wasn't an exact science and her translation of what was said could not be 100%. So with that being less than certain and ferdinands evidence being less than certain and the witness (cole) being less than certain, i'm not sure what else the judge could do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 14 July, 2012 Share Posted 14 July, 2012 I would like to understand how calling someone a "f**king black c**t" is no longer racist abuse. Did the judge question the credibility of the expert witnesses (lip readers) in the summing up ? The bit I couldn't understand was this (Apparently) Terry claimed that he was just repeating what Ferdinand said to him ?? If that is the case, WHY would Ferdinad call Terry a "F'king Black Cvnt " .... ie Terry aint Black Still, at least Terry can now concentrate on picking the next England squad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 14 July, 2012 Share Posted 14 July, 2012 So I can't actually call you a cvnt? No, but you could fax me. " If I call you a Black Cvnt, can you take me to court ? " Yes" " But, in this country, you are allowed to think what you like ?? " "Yes" " In that case, I think you are a Black Cvnt " Next case please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 14 July, 2012 Share Posted 14 July, 2012 Take any racist wording out of it. Which he is cleared f being a racist (this time) Can't see a problem in players swearing at each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 14 July, 2012 Share Posted 14 July, 2012 Football rules ban foul and abusive language. It's time for referees to use the rules, shirt tugging, holding and abusive language should be hammered, the game would be a lot better for it. If the FA decide to ban Terry then Ferdinand should get the same ban for his part in winding Terry up. Racism has become an easy charge to make, it is time that the law is looked at. It should need more than a bad tempered throwaway rant in the context of two or more thick idiots chucking out abuse without their brains being involved. I always felt that in the context of a needle match with tempers frayed the FA were best placed to sort it. The evidence was a mess and probably the magistrate came to the only conclusion that wouldn't end up being overturned on appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 14 July, 2012 Share Posted 14 July, 2012 what ever Terry did or did not say. not a lot is being said about ferndinands obscene comments about terry re women and his mother sucking scouse cocks.. maybe it would have easier for terry to have just decked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 14 July, 2012 Share Posted 14 July, 2012 Well the next time I go out on the lash on a Saturday night and start to spout racist hatred, I'm going to make sure I shout the insults as sarcastic exclamation. In fact I wonder if I'll be able to get away with similar insults on here if I simply end them with a question mark? F*** off you bunch of f****** black c****? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonManager Posted 14 July, 2012 Share Posted 14 July, 2012 (edited) Well the next time I go out on the lash on a Saturday night and start to spout racist hatred, I'm going to make sure I shout the insults as sarcastic exclamation. In fact I wonder if I'll be able to get away with similar insults on here if I simply end them with a question mark? F*** off you bunch of f****** black c****? NSFW 'Hello was the worst thing, that's what got me going' Edited 14 July, 2012 by RonManager Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_John Posted 14 July, 2012 Share Posted 14 July, 2012 If you want to read the full 15 page judgment by Howard Riddle, it is here :- http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-john-terry.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 14 July, 2012 Share Posted 14 July, 2012 I've read the official case notes (housemate is a law student and has access to the database) and basically the judge agrees that while there is a very strong case against Terry, unless you're 100% sure of the malicious intent behind those words you cannot pass a guilty verdict. However, if Ferdinand wants to take the case to the crown court they will bring in experts to try and uncover more clear evidence on the incident which could see Terry in lots of trouble indeed. EDIT: Link above contains the case notes I saw, law students aren't so special after all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 15 July, 2012 Share Posted 15 July, 2012 I've read the official case notes (housemate is a law student and has access to the database) and basically the judge agrees that while there is a very strong case against Terry, unless you're 100% sure of the malicious intent behind those words you cannot pass a guilty verdict. However, if Ferdinand wants to take the case to the crown court they will bring in experts to try and uncover more clear evidence on the incident which could see Terry in lots of trouble indeed. EDIT: Link above contains the case notes I saw, law students aren't so special after all! Ferdinand didn't do anything it was an off duty copper that complained about it and started the ball rolling. If left up to Ferdinand it would have all been forgotten by the first pint of the evening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 15 July, 2012 Share Posted 15 July, 2012 I've read the official case notes (housemate is a law student and has access to the database) and basically the judge agrees that while there is a very strong case against Terry, unless you're 100% sure of the malicious intent behind those words you cannot pass a guilty verdict. However, if Ferdinand wants to take the case to the crown court they will bring in experts to try and uncover more clear evidence on the incident which could see Terry in lots of trouble indeed. EDIT: Link above contains the case notes I saw, law students aren't so special after all! I think high-profile cases like this can make the general public jaundiced toward the courts. Watching judge-led enquiries into dodgy dossiers and media standards happily accepting "I cannot recall" as a valid answer from a stream of politicians doesn't help either. I don't know about being an ass, but the law is a puppet of a good lawyer and a trained witness. I don't for a minute believe Terry is a racist. Neither during that same sixty seconds would I believe that he was asking Ferdinand sarcastically if he had called him a black ****. That the law instructs the Magistrate to find Terry not guilty is lamentable but perhaps it's the only way greater injustices might be prevented in other cases. What would have been interesting is a civil prosecution brought by Ferdinand where I believe the burden of proof is less than in a criminal trial. But as others have said on here, Ferdinand didn't start this thing so I doubt he would have an interest in that. Given that I would imagine most of the football-watching public would believe that Terry used the term "****ing black ****" NOT in sarcastic exclamation but as a simple, but not expressly racist insult, I think the FA should take some sort of action. By the way I don't think Ferdinand comes out of this looking like a choir boy either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 15 July, 2012 Share Posted 15 July, 2012 (edited) Rio f is an arse . So it's okay to refer to cole as a choc ice . I know I detest ferdinand as he comes across as an arrogant tw** . But for someone who is a senior player it would have been more sensible for him to say nothing at all but instead the tw** has introduced the words choc ice into society . And his excuse about what it means is pathetic Edited 15 July, 2012 by Viking Warrior Spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Jim Posted 16 July, 2012 Share Posted 16 July, 2012 Can someone explain to me how a footballer such as Rio F can complain about what JT said to his brother, complaining about the racism, yet call another person a choc-ice. Calling someone a choc-ice is racist towards white people as when used in a derogitoray context the meaning that it's not good to be white on the inside (what ever the f** that is meant to mean - I thought we were all f***ing humans and equal!) I have come to the conclusion that there are too many footballers who are simpley cv-nt5! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 16 July, 2012 Share Posted 16 July, 2012 Can someone explain to me how a footballer such as Rio F can complain about what JT said to his brother, complaining about the racism, yet call another person a choc-ice. Calling someone a choc-ice is racist towards white people as when used in a derogitoray context the meaning that it's not good to be white on the inside (what ever the f** that is meant to mean - I thought we were all f***ing humans and equal!) I have come to the conclusion that there are too many footballers who are simpley cv-nt5! Because it is one rule for black / coloured / non white people and another for the Caucasians of this world The PC brigade have gone overboard and need to be reined back in and bring a bit of common sense back to life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 16 July, 2012 Share Posted 16 July, 2012 The use of the term Choc Ice is a derogatory term and racist. I did a cousre a few years back re racial stereo type comments Choc Ice was one such term and refers to somone who is half caste and or an afro carribean making derogatory comments by referring to their asian ethnicity Both ferdinand and cole are both out of order. Ferdinand for saying it and cole for finding it funny Both should stop being Tw**s and set a better example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 16 July, 2012 Share Posted 16 July, 2012 That's not my understanding of the term. Isn't it an insult from one black man to another whereby one believes the other is less 'black' than him. Hence black on the outside, white on the inside. Which is how it was applied to Cole - he stood up for 'white' John Terry. Also it is my understanding that Ferdinand Retweeted someone else's choc ice comment. He didn't initiate it. Small point, but an important one I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 16 July, 2012 Share Posted 16 July, 2012 That's not my understanding of the term. Isn't it an insult from one black man to another whereby one believes the other is less 'black' than him. Hence black on the outside, white on the inside. My interpretation too. I am struggling to work out in which direction the term is racist. How can you tell unless you know the ethnic background of the person who tweeted it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 16 July, 2012 Share Posted 16 July, 2012 what is wrong with a bit of banter. everything these days borders on the edge of racism or something similar and you have people ready and waiting to immediately show their disgust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 16 July, 2012 Share Posted 16 July, 2012 Anyway, John Terry’s acquittal was not new to him, he has a history of missing major penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Jim Posted 16 July, 2012 Share Posted 16 July, 2012 That's not my understanding of the term. Isn't it an insult from one black man to another whereby one believes the other is less 'black' than him. Hence black on the outside, white on the inside. . Which is in turn racist towards white people because, as you say, it is regarded as insult to suggest that one black person is less black (i.e. more white) than another. What is wrong with being white? To be honest I actually couldn't give a to55 about it it's just that if a white person made a similar comment all hell would break loose. In addition I find it very hypocritical for Ferdinand to make/retweet (it doesn't matter either way) the comments which I believe can be construed as racist, yet in the same breath he's complaining about John Terry. If a choc-ice is meant to be black on the outside white on the inside, what would Michael Jackson be called? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpbury Posted 16 July, 2012 Share Posted 16 July, 2012 Which is in turn racist towards white people because, as you say, it is regarded as insult to suggest that one black person is less black (i.e. more white) than another. What is wrong with being white? To be honest I actually couldn't give a to55 about it it's just that if a white person made a similar comment all hell would break loose. In addition I find it very hypocritical for Ferdinand to make/retweet (it doesn't matter either way) the comments which I believe can be construed as racist, yet in the same breath he's complaining about John Terry. If a choc-ice is meant to be black on the outside white on the inside, what would Michael Jackson be called? Vanilla fudge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 16 July, 2012 Share Posted 16 July, 2012 "What does 'choc ice' mean?John Amaechi Former NBA basketball player, psychologist and educator "It is the idea that a black person is black only in skin colour but inside they are really white. It's a highly derogatory term. It's a dangerous term because it allows black boys especially but black people in general, to believe that there is a way of being black that is somehow distinct from being white. There are people that think if you don't wear a certain type of clothing or listen to a certain type of music you're not really black. It's a really dangerous thing. There are black boys who do less well in school because they believe by doing well there, they are acting white. To me, this is devastating for black boys and black people everywhere. It's a deeply offensive term with racial connotations." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 16 July, 2012 Share Posted 16 July, 2012 "What does 'choc ice' mean?John Amaechi Former NBA basketball player, psychologist and educator "It is the idea that a black person is black only in skin colour but inside they are really white. It's a highly derogatory term. It's a dangerous term because it allows black boys especially but black people in general, to believe that there is a way of being black that is somehow distinct from being white. There are people that think if you don't wear a certain type of clothing or listen to a certain type of music you're not really black. It's a really dangerous thing. There are black boys who do less well in school because they believe by doing well there, they are acting white. To me, this is devastating for black boys and black people everywhere. It's a deeply offensive term with racial connotations." My guess is it's a pop re-working of Franz Fanon's 'Black Skin, White Mask'. In other words, a piece of identity politics; not racist as such but not helpful. There is, as you say, some evidence that some black boys in particular perform less well educationally because of this identity guff, and there are now quite a few black commentators out there trying to combat it (notably Bill Cosby). It is, in any case, a huge category mistake. It is not 'acting white' to perform well at school; succeeding in school means not simply allowing a white middle class to maintain a near-monopoly over the privileges and benefits that flow from good school education. (Many Asian families worked this out ages ago, and no one accuses them of 'acting white.') Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 17 July, 2012 Share Posted 17 July, 2012 NEWSFLASH: Bear found not guilty of ****ting in the woods after hiring John Terrys lawyer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now