Footie Season 12/13

[CryBaby]

Originally Posted by Smoo

Yes, but if they didn't charge him and find him guilty, then they would have lost Fabio Capello over a not guilty verdict. Now the FA can point to their own conviction and say they were right all along.

Or, and I'm just throwing this out there, they actually were right all along.

Dear oh dear.....

[Smoo]

The point I was making is the FA are going out of their way, ignoring their own rules, to find him guilty. Since I have to spell it out, here's the exact wording:

Paragraph 6.8: ‘Where the subject matter of a complaint or matter before the Regulatory Commission has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that this is not the case.'

It's very possible that JT called him a fucking black cunt. But they ignored their own laws, and show no acceptance that they've done so. Nor do they think there's anything wrong with their 99.5% conviction rate.

[Xivo]

Originally Posted by Smoo

The point I was making is the FA are going out of their way, ignoring their own rules, to find him guilty. Since I have to spell it out, here's the exact wording:



It's very possible that JT called him a fucking black cunt. But they ignored their own laws, and show no acceptance that they've done so. Nor do they think there's anything wrong with their 99.5% conviction rate.

I think he's a huge cunt, but I have to agree with this tbh.

[Chef_uk]

No need to talk about Smoo like that.

[Inertiaman]

Originally Posted by Smoo

It's beyond reasonable doubt and the obvious conclusion to anyone with eyes and a brain that JT called him a fucking black cunt.

cft.

[jimbobaggies]

As much as I dislike JT, I am in the camp that a) he was found innocent in the court of law, and b) the FA have gone against their own rules as Smoo has stated.

However reading the BBC Football webpage;

using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Queens Park Rangers' Anton Ferdinand and which included a reference to colour and/or race contrary to FA Rule E3 [2] in relation to the Queens Park Rangers FC versus Chelsea FC fixture at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011.

The panel stated at that time that simply using racist language was enough to constitute a breach of FA rules.

So the fact that he allegedly repeated words that AF had accused him of saying could technically constitute a breach of that rule...

[[n00b]Zippy]

Hasn't he admitted saying the words, though, thus automatically making himself guilty? His laughable excuse that he was merely inquiring as to whether Ferdinand thought he'd said them is neither here nor there, isn't it?

[stepper]

Words without context doesn't constitute racism.

[Inertiaman]

Greek Cunt.

[[n00b]Zippy]

Originally Posted by stepper

Words without context doesn't constitute racism.

Isn't that the point with the FA ruling, though? He's guilty of using language with a racist connotation, not of being a racist. Fine distinction, I'll give you.

[Inertiaman]

Fucking context. You're televised in front of 100 million people on Saturday afternoon and being paid a king's ransom for the privilege. Whatever the intention how about you keep your foul ignorant shit to yourself? How's that for context?

[Eja Cool8]

Originally Posted by Inertiaman

Fucking context. You're televised in front of 100 million people on Saturday afternoon and being paid a king's ransom for the privilege. Whatever the intention how about you keep your foul ignorant shit to yourself? How's that for context?

He deserves the fine just for being a stupid bastard, never mind anything else.

[Rhadix]

Much as I dislike the slimey cunt he should tell the FA to go fuck themselves rather than pay the fine. Arseholes are making the rules up as they go along. He was found not guilty in court and shouldn't have been charged by the FA

[Orange]

He was found not guilty of a different charge.

[Inertiaman]

Originally Posted by Rhadix

Arseholes are making the rules up as they go along.

https://www.thefa.com/Leagues/Respec...ctAdultPlayers

No they're not. You are.

[Lungboy]

As Orange and Nersh have said, the legal trial and the FA investigation are for the same incident but are different offences. Plus there's the part of the FA rule that says "unless it is shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that this is not the case." I'd say that tv footage of him using the language is pretty clear evidence that he broke the FA's rules, and some could argue is evidence that the court ruling was a load of bollocks.

[Rhadix]

The FA charged Terry with using abusive or insulting words/behaviour, which included reference to ethnicity/colour/race whereas the criminal charge was using abusive or insulting words/behaviour likely to be cause alarm/distress with the offence being racially aggravated.

I don't see any real major difference to those 2 charges. Its splitting hairs to say they are different and as such he can be found guilty and they therefore are not in violation of section 6.8 of their own regs.

[Orange]

There was a moderately high profile court case which hinged on this very distinction a couple of months ago, probably best to check that out first.

[Inertiaman]

Originally Posted by Rhadix

Its splitting hairs to say they are different and as such he can be found guilty and they therefore are not in violation of section 6.8 of their own regs.

Precedent notwithstanding, it's certainly splitting hairs to claim that there's any difference between looking a man in the eye, calling him a black cunt and being racist and looking a man in the eye and calling him a black cunt and claiming not to have intended racism.

It really speaks volumes of the blind idolatry that people place on premiership footballers that they cannot see that incident as being absolutely beyond the pale. Under what other work or social context would anyone else be expected to tolerate it?

[Rhadix]

I don't tolerate it, I find it odious and I think Terry and racism in general is disgusting.

That does not stop me thinking he was found not guilty of the offence in a court of law, which should be working to a much higher standard than the FA, and therefore he should not, under the FA's rules, have been charged again with what, in my admittedly non expert view, is the same offence.

The court case should have found him guilty and this would be moot

[Fulmineus]

In other news, Steve Kean has resigned!

[Inertiaman]

Originally Posted by Rhadix

I don't tolerate it, I find it odious and I think Terry and racism in general is disgusting.

That does not stop me thinking he was found not guilty of the offence in a court of law, which should be working to a much higher standard than the FA, and therefore he should not, under the FA's rules, have been charged again with what, in my admittedly non expert view, is the same offence.

The court case should have found him guilty and this would be moot

Fair points - but shouldn't your ire be levelled at the courts inability to prosecute a totally blatent case rather than the FA for doing a proper job of it?

[Rhadix]

It was/is however the FA just get right up my arse because even doing something right they still get it completely wrong. They should have either followed their rules and not charged him or went the whole hog and punished him properly. They just kinda fudged it up and slapped his wrist with a miniscule fine and a 4 game ban

Also bout time Kean went, he was bloody terrible. If neil lennon could be the next one gone then that'd be grand.....

[Orange]

I think the court case was fairly cut and dry (with the benefit of hindsight) for the simple reason the beyond reasonable doubt is such a high standard and his explanation of repeating the words back, while implausible, wasn't beyond the realm of reasonable doubt.

[Orange]

It's straightforward.

(1) Court couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Terry had directed the words at Ferdinand rather than merely repeating them back

(2) The FA charge was that the words had been used on a football field at all

If you have a problem with the distinction then you'll have to take issue with jurisprudence in Britain.

[stepper]

[Brocken]

Originally Posted by Orange

It's straightforward.

(1) Court couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Terry had directed the words at Ferdinand rather than merely repeating them back

(2) The FA charge was that the words had been used on a football field at all

If you have a problem with the distinction then you'll have to take issue with jurisprudence in Britain.

If point 2 is correct then why isn't Ferdinand banned? O_o

[stepper]

Great results this weekend for Chelsea

[aird]

Why can no-one say Kagawa properly they all say Kawaga.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by aird

Why can no-one say Kagawa properly they all say Kawaga.

That was Hodgson talking about Jamie Carragher you insensitive bastard.