|
Post by JoeinOz on Sept 28, 2012 1:04:23 GMT
The FA charged him breaking FA rules. Which he did.
Terry feels hard done by because he's too thick to see the difference.
I remember David O'Leary being furious that when he reprimanded Lee Bowyer after that big court case Bowyer protested his innocence. O'Leary explained that Bowyer had broken loads of club rules. Bowyer just said he was found innocent and got arsey about it. O'Leary realised that Bowyer was simply too thick to understand the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Sept 28, 2012 6:35:36 GMT
When will people learn?Like it or not racism in any shape or form in this day and age is completely unacceptable.Deal with it and accept it if not then deal with the consequences. Then why did Terry, Suarez and Rio Ferdinand get completely different punishments then?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 28, 2012 6:40:24 GMT
When will people learn?Like it or not racism in any shape or form in this day and age is completely unacceptable.Deal with it and accept it if not then deal with the consequences. Then why did Terry, Suarez and Rio Ferdinand get completely different punishments then? For the same reason that people who steal often get different punishments. All theft is wrong but some thefts will get bigger punishments than others. Is that so difficult to understand?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Sept 28, 2012 7:01:12 GMT
Then why did Terry, Suarez and Rio Ferdinand get completely different punishments then? For the same reason that people who steal often get different punishments. All theft is wrong but some thefts will get bigger punishments than others. Is that so difficult to understand? Depends on your agenda
|
|
|
Post by potterglen on Sept 28, 2012 7:30:12 GMT
Sow and reap come to mind regarding Mr T, delighted that he's out of the England squad and I'm thinking jump before the push.
|
|
|
Post by sutekh on Sept 28, 2012 8:00:06 GMT
I also feel the fact that umbro and several other sponsors pulled the plug on terry before the verdict was reached speaks volumes in this case.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 28, 2012 8:08:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 28, 2012 8:16:52 GMT
I don't see how anyone can sensibly comment on the judgement or the sentence until the written decision is published. I think we've already established that a few people on this message board don't really give two hoots about the findings an independent panel delivers Malcolm.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Sept 28, 2012 8:19:03 GMT
I don't see how anyone can sensibly comment on the judgement or the sentence until the written decision is published. I think we've already established that a few people on this message board don't really give two hoots about the findings an independent panel delivers Malcolm. I will not bother even answering your pathetic dig just in case I get banned for 3 days again. Shame not all are treated the same on here eh?
|
|
|
Post by chinesedave on Sept 28, 2012 8:27:05 GMT
As the legendary Boyzone sang..."It's only words". Not nice words and the captain of England should know better, but then he is just a thick, Cockney cuntrag.
Would have been nice to see Anton floor him there and then, it would have been more of a humiliation for Terry than what the FA have given him.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Sept 28, 2012 8:31:45 GMT
I think we've already established that a few people on this message board don't really give two hoots about the findings an independent panel delivers Malcolm. I will not bother even answering your pathetic dig just in case I get banned for 3 days again. Shame not all are treated the same on here eh? Always a big favourite. People bothering to answer with 'I will not bother answering'. The basis of the decision for all the cases you mention are all online for you to read. I know it won't make any difference with your one eye, but you could try.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 28, 2012 8:34:34 GMT
Ah, the age old Greyman v Stafford duel. Some things never change.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Sept 28, 2012 8:37:14 GMT
Ah, the age old Greyman v Stafford duel. Some things never change. I don't even bother with him now mate. He has friends in high places don't ya know. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 28, 2012 8:43:22 GMT
I think we've already established that a few people on this message board don't really give two hoots about the findings an independent panel delivers Malcolm. I will not bother even answering your pathetic dig just in case I get banned for 3 days again. Shame not all are treated the same on here eh? Take that up with the moderator who banned you. I can assure you, it wasn't me. Not that you're interested in truth though.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 28, 2012 8:49:26 GMT
I will not bother even answering your pathetic dig just in case I get banned for 3 days again. Shame not all are treated the same on here eh? Take that up with the moderator who banned you. I can assure you, it wasn't me. Not that you're interested in truth though. Was it you who banned me a couple of months back for nothing? Mick also got banned for the same reason. Seems none of the mods would admit to it when I and him asked the question (two separate occasions), nor provide any feedback as to why either of us were banned.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2012 8:59:09 GMT
i don't get why people are confused at all really
in the court of law he was found not guilty because it could not be proved beyone reasonable doubt that the words used were directed at Ferdinand as an insult
the FA didn't charge him with that however, their charge was the simple fact that he used "Abusive language with an aggravating factor" (this "Aggravating factor can be based on religion, politics, race, gender etc.).
the difference is that the criminal charge was based around Terry using the words directly at Ferdinand in an insulting and derogatory manner; the FA charge was not, it was simply that he used the words at all, full stop (as they said themselves, if Terry WAS right about him saying "Oi Ferdinand did you say you thought i called you a ........?" then if video footage was found of Ferdinand initially saying that to Terry then Ferdinand would have been charged as well)
two completely different charges 1 taking into account the context in which the words were used (not guilty) and 1 where it was simply for using the words (which was always going to be guilty given that Terry himself admitted using them).
i think people may need to look into the facts and what the 2 ENTIRELY SEPERATE charges actually were before going all "Oooh Terry's the victim of a witch hunt" about it!
apparently Terry's ban was less than Suarez's because the two players previous disciplinary records in their career and records of similar offences are also taken into account. the fine was more apparently due to the "Nature of the language" (i.e. Suarez using foreign words which may be contextually different in the native country)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2012 9:00:28 GMT
Take that up with the moderator who banned you. I can assure you, it wasn't me. Not that you're interested in truth though. Was it you who banned me a couple of months back for nothing? Mick also got banned for the same reason. Seems none of the mods would admit to it when I and him asked the question (two separate occasions), nor provide any feedback as to why either of us were banned. true ;D i had 2 seperate mods tell me they didn't ban me and would look into it and let me know...never heard anything back.sod it though, water under the bridge now (although the inconsistencies do grate a bit)
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Sept 28, 2012 9:02:00 GMT
Ah, the age old Greyman v Stafford duel. Some things never change. You must have missed the bit when I was defending him on here the other day.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 28, 2012 9:39:32 GMT
Why don't you all just wear your Oatcake bans like some kind of badge of honour. That way you aren't offended by any ban handed out and can actually take pride in it as opposed to bitching and squealing like little girls! ps...I would rather us be really shit than have the likes of John Terry wearing the red and white stripes (aimed at whoever it was above that said we would love to have him here). Just my opinion and one that I expressed to several Chelsea fans as they taunted me on the way back to the car on Saturday! Club and player deserve each other!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2012 9:57:40 GMT
If I had shouted what Terry said at a game and got caught, I would receive a 12 month ban from all football stadia at the very least.Terry should have received the same punishment in a court of law and on the basis that he didn't, the FA have subsequently not punished him enough in my opinion. Terry's defence would be the same as Staffords...How can I be racist. I have black friends! For what it is worth Terry probably isn't racist in terms of being a BNP member and such like but without doubt he is a vile, thick and disgusting piece of shit who is bigoted to boot. The FA should have thrown the book at him long before now and if Terry had an ounce of decency, he would have apologised immediately and condemned his own comments as being totally out of order and made purely in the "heat of the moment". He is way too dispicable an individual for that though and his defence is laughable. This is the bit I don't get either. If I wander down to the front of the Seddon Stand on Saturday and shout the same thing at Nathan Dyer that John Terry shouted at Anton Ferdinand, then I'll be facing a very length ban from all football stadia in this country. Why am I different to John Terry? I realise I'm obviously missing something here, can somebody explain what it is please?
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 28, 2012 10:04:40 GMT
Why don't you all just wear your Oatcake bans like some kind of badge of honour. That way you aren't offended by any ban handed out and can actually take pride in it as opposed to bitching and squealing like little girls! You'd be squeeling like a little girl too if you got banned right in the middle of the transfer window when it was non stop action for 6 weeks.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 28, 2012 10:16:15 GMT
6 weeks on non-stop transfer window action!
Oh yeah, I forgot about that!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 28, 2012 10:20:57 GMT
If I had shouted what Terry said at a game and got caught, I would receive a 12 month ban from all football stadia at the very least.Terry should have received the same punishment in a court of law and on the basis that he didn't, the FA have subsequently not punished him enough in my opinion. Terry's defence would be the same as Staffords...How can I be racist. I have black friends! For what it is worth Terry probably isn't racist in terms of being a BNP member and such like but without doubt he is a vile, thick and disgusting piece of shit who is bigoted to boot. The FA should have thrown the book at him long before now and if Terry had an ounce of decency, he would have apologised immediately and condemned his own comments as being totally out of order and made purely in the "heat of the moment". He is way too dispicable an individual for that though and his defence is laughable. This is the bit I don't get either. If I wander down to the front of the Seddon Stand on Saturday and shout the same thing at Nathan Dyer that John Terry shouted at Anton Ferdinand, then I'll be facing a very length ban from all football stadia in this country. Why am I different to John Terry? I realise I'm obviously missing something here, can somebody explain what it is please? Possibly employment law comes into it? If I get banned from football stadia for comments I make then all I lose is the chance to spend a bit of my leisure time watching football. If John Terry gets a LONG TERM ban from playing footballand drawing his wages then that should be down to his employer not to a disciplinary tribunal. In the same way that (if I was still employed) it would be up to my employer if, after I received a ban from football grounds, they decided to sack me or suspend me from work for a year or so.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2012 10:23:59 GMT
Why don't you all just wear your Oatcake bans like some kind of badge of honour. That way you aren't offended by any ban handed out and can actually take pride in it as opposed to bitching and squealing like little girls! You'd be squeeling like a little girl too if you got banned right in the middle of the transfer window when it was non stop action for 6 weeks. spot on foster!!! the amount of updates we missed telling us that no-one was imminent and that the apples weren't dropping yet was unbelievable ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2012 10:26:48 GMT
This is the bit I don't get either. If I wander down to the front of the Seddon Stand on Saturday and shout the same thing at Nathan Dyer that John Terry shouted at Anton Ferdinand, then I'll be facing a very length ban from all football stadia in this country. Why am I different to John Terry? I realise I'm obviously missing something here, can somebody explain what it is please? Possibly employment law comes into it? If I get banned from football stadia for comments I make then all I lose is the chance to spend a bit of my leisure time watching football. If John Terry gets a LONG TERM ban from playing footballand drawing his wages then that should be down to his employer not to a disciplinary tribunal. In the same way that (if I was still employed) it would be up to my employer if, after I received a ban from football grounds, they decided to sack me or suspend me from work for a year or so. i think the difference is that if you do it on the terraces then it can be "Incitement to riot" etc. and cause chaos....if you do it on the pitch then the only risk you're running is a few players acting like bitches and slapping each other on the arm before they go down clutching their faces and rolling around like they're spasming in some syphilitic death throes ;D
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2012 10:31:04 GMT
This is the bit I don't get either. If I wander down to the front of the Seddon Stand on Saturday and shout the same thing at Nathan Dyer that John Terry shouted at Anton Ferdinand, then I'll be facing a very length ban from all football stadia in this country. Why am I different to John Terry? I realise I'm obviously missing something here, can somebody explain what it is please? Possibly employment law comes into it? If I get banned from football stadia for comments I make then all I lose is the chance to spend a bit of my leisure time watching football. If John Terry gets a LONG TERM ban from playing footballand drawing his wages then that should be down to his employer not to a disciplinary tribunal. In the same way that (if I was still employed) it would be up to my employer if, after I received a ban from football grounds, they decided to sack me or suspend me from work for a year or so. So a steward or a physio or a programme seller or a caterer or anybody else who works in a football stadium who insn't a footballer would only get a ban of a few matches too because they 'work' there? Chelsea can't afford and wouldn't want to sack Terry but that doesn't mean he should be treated any differently to anybody else. Surely any lawyer defending a football fan for making racists comments inside a football stadium, will now point to the length of John Terry's ban and ask why his client should receive a ban of two years or more for making essentially the same comments?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 28, 2012 10:37:02 GMT
Possibly employment law comes into it? If I get banned from football stadia for comments I make then all I lose is the chance to spend a bit of my leisure time watching football. If John Terry gets a LONG TERM ban from playing footballand drawing his wages then that should be down to his employer not to a disciplinary tribunal. In the same way that (if I was still employed) it would be up to my employer if, after I received a ban from football grounds, they decided to sack me or suspend me from work for a year or so. So a steward or a physio or a programme seller or a caterer or anybody else who works in a football stadium who insn't a footballer would only get a ban of a few matches too because they 'work' there? Chelsea can't afford and wouldn't want to sack Terry but that doesn't mean he should be treated any differently to anybody else. Surely any lawyer defending a football fan for making racists comments inside a football stadium, will now point to the length of John Terry's ban and ask why his client should receive a ban of two years or more for making essentially the same comments. No I don't see it that way either. If I had racially abused a colleague in my job then I would probably have been disciplined with a loss of pay and possibly demotion. If I had racially abused a member of the public when doing my job, I would have been dismissed - no doubt about it - and the only point of discussion would be whether or not I also lost my pension entitlement. If a footballer or a steward abuses a colleague then they will, in most cases, face a fine and in the case of a player a ban for a few games. If, however, a player or steward abused a member of the public then they'd face a big fine and either a lengthy lay off or even dismissal. Cantona, for example, faced several months out of the game - if he had done what he did to another player it would have been a few weeks.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2012 10:49:07 GMT
So a steward or a physio or a programme seller or a caterer or anybody else who works in a football stadium who insn't a footballer would only get a ban of a few matches too because they 'work' there? Chelsea can't afford and wouldn't want to sack Terry but that doesn't mean he should be treated any differently to anybody else. Surely any lawyer defending a football fan for making racists comments inside a football stadium, will now point to the length of John Terry's ban and ask why his client should receive a ban of two years or more for making essentially the same comments. No I don't see it that way either. If I had racially abused a colleague in my job then I would probably have been disciplined with a loss of pay and possibly demotion. If I had racially abused a member of the public when doing my job, I would have been dismissed - no doubt about it - and the only point of discussion would be whether or not I also lost my pension entitlement. If a footballer or a steward abuses a colleague then they will, in most cases, face a fine and in the case of a player a ban for a few games. If, however, a player or steward abused a member of the public then they'd face a big fine and either a lengthy lay off or even dismissal. Cantona, for example, faced several months out of the game - if he had done what he did to another player it would have been a few weeks. If Cantona had gone over to another player standing on the touch line and kung fu kicked him out of the blue, then he would have got a similar ban to the ban he got for the kung fu kick he did on the lad in the crowd. I just don't see how a person in the crowd can be banned from all football stadia for two years for making exactly the same comments as Terry but Terry gets a ban of four matches - I assume he isn't even banned from the stadium, just from entering the field of play for those games?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 28, 2012 10:57:42 GMT
No point in me arguing about it any more with you Paul - I've given it my best shot - and it seems logical to me. But it needs someone better with words than me to convince you. I accept defeat.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2012 10:57:43 GMT
No I don't see it that way either. If I had racially abused a colleague in my job then I would probably have been disciplined with a loss of pay and possibly demotion. If I had racially abused a member of the public when doing my job, I would have been dismissed - no doubt about it - and the only point of discussion would be whether or not I also lost my pension entitlement. If a footballer or a steward abuses a colleague then they will, in most cases, face a fine and in the case of a player a ban for a few games. If, however, a player or steward abused a member of the public then they'd face a big fine and either a lengthy lay off or even dismissal. Cantona, for example, faced several months out of the game - if he had done what he did to another player it would have been a few weeks. If Cantona had gone over to another player standing on the touch line and kung fu kicked him out of the blue, then he would have got a similar ban to the ban he got for the kung fu kick he did on the lad in the crowd. I just don't see how a person in the crowd can be banned from all football stadia for two years for making exactly the same comments as Terry but Terry gets a ban of four matches - I assume he isn't even banned from the stadium, just from entering the field of play for those games? whilst i completely agree about the lack of parity i do think Lakeland is right about public/player idea. i don't think Cantona would have had a ban as lengthy if it was a player to be honest, plenty of players have "Assaulted" other players in the past (Zidane on Materazzi for example) and the ban is never anything like it would be if it was a member of the public they assualted. apparently the 4 games (rather than 8 that Suarez had) is because they also take into account previous disciplinary record and what was said and the Suarez ban was more lengthy as he allegedly used racist language on 5 seperate occasions that day whereas Terry only did it once. the size of the fine is apparently due to the actual language used
|
|