|
|
Post by knowingeye on Jul 27, 2012 16:56:46 GMT
according to BBC and Sky News
|
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on Jul 27, 2012 16:57:33 GMT
Hopefully he'll get a nice fat ban and miss our game against them.
|
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Jul 27, 2012 17:03:44 GMT
So he's found not guilty but they still charge him  |
|
|
|
Post by stokiedj on Jul 27, 2012 17:04:18 GMT
Dont see how they can charge him when he was found not guilty, could well open a massive can of worms
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Jul 27, 2012 17:05:13 GMT
F.A
Fucking Arseholes.
If that was one of our players we'd be going bloody mad.
|
|
|
|
Post by harrysburrow on Jul 27, 2012 17:05:34 GMT
It has to be a ban, because another slap on the wrist and 35p fine will leave him giving even less of a shit than he did in the first place?
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jul 27, 2012 17:06:43 GMT
Blimey, did not expect that.
|
|
|
|
Post by jbstokie on Jul 27, 2012 17:07:04 GMT
To be found guilty in a court of law the decision must be beyond reasonable doubt. The FA is completely different if they think you did something they can charge you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jul 27, 2012 17:32:30 GMT
jbs is basically right. The standard of proof for an FA regulatory commission is the civil standard not the higher criminal standard. Also, the charge is different. The FA are looking at football's rules, which are not identical to the criminal offence with which he was charged. I believe the FA now handles these matters very professionally. I think, for example, that the Suarez judgement was a model judgement as a forensic examination of the evidence assessed against the rules. It's worth a read if that kind of thing floats your boat (link below). A word of warning - it runs to 115 pages for events on the pitch that lasted just a few minutes ! But that just shows how thorough a piece of work it is tinyurl.com/cp5ho9l |
|
|
|
Post by exiledstokie on Jul 27, 2012 18:09:01 GMT
Maybe he'll join Barton on loan at Fleetwood? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by pombear on Jul 27, 2012 18:16:32 GMT
He's a sack of shit.
There's not much else to it...
|
|
|
|
Post by redwhite on Jul 27, 2012 18:29:33 GMT
To be found guilty in a court of law the decision must be beyond reasonable doubt. The FA is completely different if they think you did something they can charge you. Yes exactly. The FA have a lower burden of proof so they're able to charge him. Terry wasn't proven not guilty, he just wasn't proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In fact the judge found Terry's argument highly unlikely but it couldn't be proven untrue. |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jul 27, 2012 18:46:42 GMT
So he's found not guilty but they still charge him He is guilty, as he admitted it, so it shouldn't be a surprise. Its just that his lawyers were expensive enough to get him off in a court of law If it was me or you it would be a different story The FA should be applauded in standing up to bigots and bullies. Its the only way forward. I hope some of the posters will have that realisation someday. |
|
|
|
Post by droz on Jul 27, 2012 18:57:19 GMT
To be found guilty in a court of law the decision must be beyond reasonable doubt. The FA is completely different if they think you did something they can charge you. Yes exactly. The FA have a lower burden of proof so they're able to charge him. Terry wasn't proven not guilty, he just wasn't proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In fact the judge found Terry's argument highly unlikely but it couldn't be proven untrue. Indeed, it's a bit like a civil case; the burden of proof is 'on the balance of probabilities'. However, it does seem a bit odd that they would go through with it despite the evidence in court. If they do charge Terry, there's a fair case for them charging Ferdinand as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Jul 27, 2012 19:03:25 GMT
So surly the other guilty party in this will be charged aswell?
|
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Jul 27, 2012 19:08:07 GMT
So he's found not guilty but they still charge him He is guilty, as he admitted it, so it shouldn't be a surprise. Its just that his lawyers were expensive enough to get him off in a court of law If it was me or you it would be a different story The FA should be applauded in standing up to bigots and bullies. Its the only way forward. I hope some of the posters will have that realisation someday. I'd be okay, I'd just hire his lawyers  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2012 20:14:20 GMT
He's a sack of shit. There's not much else to it... +1 |
|
slicker
Youth Player
"CHESHIRE STOKIES"
Posts: 312
|
Post by slicker on Jul 28, 2012 10:25:54 GMT
cant stand the little scrotal sack but this is well out of order. if he has been found innocent of the race charges in a Court of law surely all f.a can charge him with now is bringing the game into disrepute,in which case ferdinand should be charged with the very same offence surely?
|
|
|
|
Post by redwhite on Jul 28, 2012 11:00:15 GMT
cant stand the little scrotal sack but this is well out of order. if he has been found innocent of the race charges in a Court of law surely all f.a can charge him with now is bringing the game into disrepute,in which case ferdinand should be charged with the very same offence surely? There is no proof that he's innocent, in fact there is a lot of evidence that he is guilty, it's just the court couldn't prove that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt so couldn't take action. The FA, however, have a lower burden of proof so they can use the fact that John Terry's story was extremely unlikely and take action rather than having to prove him guilty. |
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Jul 28, 2012 11:13:13 GMT
More bullshit to keep the pc brigade happy. If they don't charge AF they are opening a massive can of worms. Also where does it stop? Is all banter on the pitch banned? Players are always trying to wind each other up. It is all part of the game. There will be a lot of bans coming up if every case gets reported to the FA.
|
|
pna1
Youth Player
Posts: 319
|
Post by pna1 on Jul 28, 2012 11:44:15 GMT
Roll on a guilty verdict and a ten match ban. And Hodgson to dump him following the abysmal decision to take him to the Euros (no matter that he did not play badly)
|
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jul 31, 2012 8:14:25 GMT
More bullshit to keep the pc brigade happy. If they don't charge AF they are opening a massive can of worms. Also where does it stop? Is all banter on the pitch banned? Players are always trying to wind each other up. It is all part of the game. There will be a lot of bans coming up if every case gets reported to the FA. Oi SS. The challenge still stands. You can put your money where your mouth is by locking yourself in a room with Abdoulaye Faye while I film, calling him a 'fucking black cunt', then explaining to him it's all perfectly OK and he should just lap it up. Then calling him a 'fucking black cunt' again. As you keep telling us it's not racist and anybody who thinks otherwise is just being overly sensitive. So you have a chance to prove it. Let me know when you're free. |
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Jul 31, 2012 8:16:07 GMT
More bullshit to keep the pc brigade happy. If they don't charge AF they are opening a massive can of worms. Also where does it stop? Is all banter on the pitch banned? Players are always trying to wind each other up. It is all part of the game. There will be a lot of bans coming up if every case gets reported to the FA. Oi SS. The challenge still stands. You can put your money where your mouth is by locking yourself in a room with Abdoulaye Faye while I film, calling him a 'fucking black cunt', then explaining to him it's all perfectly OK and he should just lap it up. Then calling him a 'fucking black cunt' again. As you keep telling us it's not racist and anybody who thinks otherwise is just being overly sensitive. So you have a chance to prove it. Let me know when you're free. Please fuckoff you sad little prick!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jul 31, 2012 8:18:15 GMT
No need for abuse mate. Just giving you the chance to show us all you mean what you say. They're your opinions. Just back them up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Jul 31, 2012 8:20:53 GMT
No need for abuse mate. Just giving you the chance to show us all you mean what you say. They're your opinions. Just back them up. I have no interest in anything you have to say so just jog on eh. Your stalking of my posts is getting just a bit boring. |
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jul 31, 2012 8:25:18 GMT
Not really stalking them though am I?
Just giving you the chance to prove that you're not some cowardly little shitweasel who is happy for black people to be racially abused so long as they don't get a chance to call you out on it.
I don't for one moment think that you are a cowardly little shitweasel by the way. But some people might and that's the unfair viewpoint we have to fight.
I'm probably being unfair using Faye. Could be any black person you can call a fucking black cunt. How about an 8 year old girl? A woman? You choose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Jul 31, 2012 8:29:50 GMT
Not really stalking them though am I? Just giving you the chance to prove that you're not some cowardly little shitweasel who is happy for black people to be racially abused so long as they don't get a chance to call you out on it. I don't for one moment think that you are a cowardly little shitweasel by the way. But some people might and that's the unfair viewpoint we have to fight. I'm probably being unfair using Faye. Could be any black person you can call a fucking black cunt. How about an 8 year old girl? A woman? You choose. I didn't say it was ok though did I. I said to me it matters not what colour you are. I see all as the same. To me racism is about treating someone different or abusing them because of their RACE not the colour of their skin. Stupid remarks to insult someone such as ginger, fat or indeed black, brown, white or yellow are hardly as bad. That is my opinion. If you don't like it then just fuck off!!! |
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Jul 31, 2012 8:36:32 GMT
Fair enough. And as I said, you have the chance to back up that opinion. But for some reason you just wouldn't. And the reason is because you know it's a load of bollocks.
Oh, and yes you have repeatedly said it's OK to racially abuse people. Nice bit of backtracking now that you've been called out on it again. Perhaps the next time there is some thread about racism, you won't be on it like a tramp on chips arguing that it's all just a bit of banter. 1973 was a long time ago now.
|
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jul 31, 2012 8:44:14 GMT
I thought you weren't posting on such threads again Stafford?
To be honest, given the summing up by the judge in the legal case, the FA have very little choice but to bring football related charges to JT.
The judge basically confirmed that he had used racist language, questioned the sincerity and validity of his evidence before concluding that he was a lucky boy due to lip reading not being a 100% conclusive method of finding someone guilty of such a charge.
He basically got off due to a "lack of substantial evidence".
To give you an example of how this can work, I once worked with a solicitor who had to defend a guy charged with sexually abusing his young daughter. He too got off with the crime on similar grounds to Terry. He too was guilty as hell!
The law is an ass, Terry is guilty as hell and he should be subjected to the same ban as Suarez. It has absolutely nothing to do with the PC brigade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2012 8:47:01 GMT
greyman, whilst i frequently disagree with Stafford i do have to say that your failure to miss his point regarding this IS getting a tad boring really.....
i'll be honest and say i haven't actually seen stafford say that racism IS ok at any point, merely that he sees what Terry said as being no worse than someone calling someone a "Ginger C##t" or a "Yellow C##t" etc. in other words if you are going to say it is discrimination because he used the word Black then you have to show some consistency and go through the same proceedings if someone is abused for their size, shape, hair colour etc. otherwise it is seen by many as pandering to a minority and "The PC Brigade"..........now, whilst i disagree and know full well the reasons behind this case being worse (History of the usage of certain racist words, history of the struggles that black people have had to go through to try to earn equality etc.) i still have to say that just because Stafford does not agree with that in principle is in no way the same as him being racist (in fact if anything he is actually calling for equality and that ALL people subjected to abuse are treated in the same way, kind of the opposite of racism!). i have never sdeen him say he has any pronblem with black people, he just says that he doesn't see why if it is a black person then people are up in arms but if a white person with particular physical characterisitcs is abused because of them then suddenly it's not as bad - again, not the same as being racist in any way! i think your constant baiting really doesn't actually help anything in these discussions, all it does is create a teenage argument and tit for tat on an otherwise interesting thread
|
|
