*** Terry Cam ***

[Chinners]

John Terry banned and fined by FA over Anton Ferdinand incident
Chelsea captain John Terry has been banned for four matches and fined £220,000 for racially abusing QPR defender Anton Ferdinand.
The Football Association found Terry guilty following a four-day hearing.
A statement from Terry's management said he was "disappointed" the FA had reached a "different conclusion" to the "not guilty verdict of a court of law".
In July, the ex-England captain, 31, was cleared by Westminster Magistrates' Court of racially abusing Ferdinand.
The Terry statement continued: "He has asked for the detailed written reasons of the decision and will consider them carefully before deciding whether to lodge an appeal."
Terry will have 14 days from receiving the written reasons to decide whether to lodge an appeal. The ban and fine will not come into effect until after the centre-half has decided what to do.
A statement from his club added: "Chelsea Football Club notes and respects today's decision by the Football Association regarding John Terry.
"We also recognise that John has the right to appeal that decision. It is therefore inappropriate for us to comment further on the matter at this time."
The FA charged Terry in July with using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Ferdinand and which included a reference to colour and/or race contrary to FA Rule E3[2].
Terry admitted using the word "black" and swearing at Ferdinand but insisted he had only been repeating words he thought the Rangers defender had accused him of saying.
The FA's decision to press ahead with their own charges led Terry, on the eve of the hearing, to announce he was retiring from international football with immediate effect, saying his position was "untenable".
Terry's legal team argued the governing body's own rules dictated that his acquittal in court meant the case could not proceed but the FA believed their charge was distinct from the court charge.
Liverpool striker Luis Suarez was given an eight-match ban when an FA disciplinary panel found him guilty of racially abusing Manchester United defender Patrice Evra last season.
The panel stated at that time that simply using racist language was enough to constitute a breach of FA rules.

BBC sports news correspondent Dan Roan's analysis
"One of the first questions many people will ask is why the Terry ban is so much less than that handed to Luis Suarez of Liverpool last year. We await the written judgement, which will no doubt explain the difference.
"This is a significant day - the end of an 11-month saga, a case that was dragged through the courts. The language, insults and abuse laid bare have made this a really uncomfortable episode for the sport.
"Terry must now live with that stigma, the ignominy of a ban. It's not a career-ending ban, but it will be interesting to see what Chelsea do. Will they suspend him, drop him or back him? The club has a zero-tolerance policy towards racism."

[paulmclaren]

What a load of shit.

[getdressedmctavish]

So what ban does that racist coont Wio get?Or is it just feel sorry for black people week?Total bollocks in my view and I deplore racism.

[zuricity]

So let me get this right, the ars*oles at the FA think they are above the law of the land?

a very dangerous precedent, easily extendable to UEFA ...

[Blue Since 76]

So let me get this right, the ars*oles at the FA think they are above the law of the land?

a very dangerous precedent, easily extendable to UEFA ...

If I took soft drugs and was arrested, the police would tell me off and it wouldn't even reach court. If I fail a drugs test at work, I'd get sacked. are they acting above the law or just have a stricter set of rules that I agreed to when I joined?

[zuricity]

So let me get this right, the ars*oles at the FA think they are above the law of the land?

a very dangerous precedent, easily extendable to UEFA ...

If I took soft drugs and was arrested, the police would tell me off and it wouldn't even reach court. If I fail a drugs test at work, I'd get sacked. are they acting above the law or just have a stricter set of rules that I agreed to when I joined?

what's that got to do with the price of butter ?

[BlueMoonAwoken]

Cant they just shake hands?

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

Until the written judgement is published it's difficult to say for certain what the FA are thinking with this one. That said, it strikes me that the difference between their judgment and that of the courts is that the courts looked at the context of Terry's remarks and the FA didn't. If so, then the FA are basically arguing that to say to someone 'You're a twat' or 'I didn't say you're a twat' are basically the same thing, as in each case you're calling someone a twat. If that's the case then it sets a bad precedence, not to say that there is no justice to be found in such a stance. It's understandable that the FA don't want any form of racist language to be used on the pitch but even in the case of a degenerate like John Terry their findings have to be just. It'll be interesting to see how the FA explain this. I hope my speculation turns out to be incorrect.

[Blue Since 76]

what's that got to do with the price of butter ?

It's exactly the same scenario. He broke the rules of his employer (the FA as the ultimate arbiter of English football) and has therefore been sanctioned. Whether or not it was against the law has nothing to do with it.

As with the Suarez case, the FA also deems it a breach if you cause offence, whether or not you intended to cause offence. The law works differently, but there's nothing to stop the FA having different rules, providing they're not illegal.

[Stan]

So let me get this right, the ars*oles at the FA think they are above the law of the land?

a very dangerous precedent, easily extendable to UEFA ...

In the case of Her Maj v JT he was accused of using “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress and the offence was racially aggravated in accordance with section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, contrary to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 31(1)(c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.”

The court’s verdict (Judge “Jimmy” Riddle) was that “Weighing all the evidence together, I think it is highly unlikely that Mr Ferdinand accused Mr Terry on the pitch of calling him a black cunt. However I accept that it is possible that Mr Terry believed at the time, and believes now, that such an accusation was made. The prosecution evidence as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong. Mr Cole gives corroborating (although far from compelling corroborating) evidence on this point. It is therefore possible that what he 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.”

In the case of the sweet FA v JT he was charged with 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" with the detail of the guilty verdict still to be presented.

FA Rule E3(1) states “A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.”

FA Rule E3(2) states “In the event of any breach of Rule E 3(1) including a reference to any one or more of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability (an “aggravating factor”) . . . . .”

So the different verdicts are not based on the same charge: the court case was about him allegedly using racially aggravated abusive language; and the FA case was about him using abusive or insulting words which included a reference to colour”. One has intent to be abusive the other is mere use of the words.

Given that during the trial, JT did not deny using the words “black cunt” (although his defence was that they had not been used as an insult or abuse, it’s not hard to see why he was found guilty by the FA. The words he admitted using were abusive and insulting in themselves and they included a reference to colour – simples.

Different charges; the FA did not deliver a verdict on the court charge and so there is no conflict between the verdicts. They aren’t different conclusions, and it doesn’t mean that the FA is above the law.

Anyhoo, it also doesn’t mean that JT is a racist, just that he used abusive/insulting words which included a reference to colour – and just like Suarez. So he shouldn't have said what he admitted he said and the real question should be about why the penalties are different.

QED

[pears12]

Well the 4 games does rule him out for the league game against the rags so, they had to make it at least that long.

[paul_oresteia]

In the case of Her Maj v JT he was accused of using “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress and the offence was racially aggravated in accordance with section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, contrary to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 31(1)(c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.”

The court’s verdict (Judge “Jimmy” Riddle) was that “Weighing all the evidence together, I think it is highly unlikely that Mr Ferdinand accused Mr Terry on the pitch of calling him a black cunt. However I accept that it is possible that Mr Terry believed at the time, and believes now, that such an accusation was made. The prosecution evidence as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong. Mr Cole gives corroborating (although far from compelling corroborating) evidence on this point. It is therefore possible that what he 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.”

In the case of the sweet FA v JT he was charged with 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" with the detail of the guilty verdict still to be presented.

FA Rule E3(1) states “A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.”

FA Rule E3(2) states “In the event of any breach of Rule E 3(1) including a reference to any one or more of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability (an “aggravating factor”) . . . . .”

So the different verdicts are not based on the same charge: the court case was about him allegedly using racially aggravated abusive language; and the FA case was about him using abusive or insulting words which included a reference to colour”. One has intent to be abusive the other is mere use of the words.

Given that during the trial, JT did not deny using the words “black cunt” (although his defence was that they had not been used as an insult or abuse, it’s not hard to see why he was found guilty by the FA. The words he admitted using were abusive and insulting in themselves and they included a reference to colour – simples.

Different charges; the FA did not deliver a verdict on the court charge and so there is no conflict between the verdicts. They aren’t different conclusions, and it doesn’t mean that the FA is above the law.

Anyhoo, it also doesn’t mean that JT is a racist, just that he used abusive/insulting words which included a reference to colour – and just like Suarez. So he shouldn't have said what he admitted he said and the real question should be about why the penalties are different.

QED

Spot on. This clears it up I feel! The FA don't want those words being used AT ALL regardless of context which I can understand. The ban's strange. I guess they should have had it in line with Suarez but the FA often make things up as they go along (it seems).

[Ted Hughes]

Until the written judgement is published it's difficult to say for certain what the FA are thinking with this one. That said, it strikes me that the difference between their judgment and that of the courts is that the courts looked at the context of Terry's remarks and the FA didn't. If so, then the FA are basically arguing that to say to someone 'You're a twat' or 'I didn't say you're a twat' are basically the same thing, as in each case you're calling someone a twat. If that's the case then it sets a bad precedence, not to say that there is no justice to be found in such a stance. It's understandable that the FA don't want any form of racist language to be used on the pitch but even in the case of a degenerate like John Terry their findings have to be just. It'll be interesting to see how the FA explain this. I hope my speculation turns out to be incorrect.

Perhaps they've just decided that JT's defence was a tissue of lies & wheras a court has no option but to believe it could contain the smallest grain of truth( & therefore he gets away with it), they are not bound by the same legal chains & have decided just to do the bastard anyway.

At least the lying, racially abusing, dishonourable wankstain won't be wearing an England shirt anymore, so that's a result.

[Blue Since 76]

.

Anyhoo, it also doesn’t mean that JT is a racist, just that he used abusive/insulting words which included a reference to colour – and just like Suarez. So he shouldn't have said what he admitted he said and the real question should be about why the penalties are different.

QED

A good explanation of the differences between the two JT cases. As for the difference in ban for Suarez, he got the standard ban increased due to aggravating factors, mainly that he'd call Evra several times by his own admission.

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

Until the written judgement is published it's difficult to say for certain what the FA are thinking with this one. That said, it strikes me that the difference between their judgment and that of the courts is that the courts looked at the context of Terry's remarks and the FA didn't. If so, then the FA are basically arguing that to say to someone 'You're a twat' or 'I didn't say you're a twat' are basically the same thing, as in each case you're calling someone a twat. If that's the case then it sets a bad precedence, not to say that there is no justice to be found in such a stance. It's understandable that the FA don't want any form of racist language to be used on the pitch but even in the case of a degenerate like John Terry their findings have to be just. It'll be interesting to see how the FA explain this. I hope my speculation turns out to be incorrect.

Perhaps they've just decided that JT's defence was a tissue of lies & wheras a court has no option but to believe it could contain the smallest grain of truth( & therefore he gets away with it), they are not bound by the same legal chains & have decided just to do the bastard anyway.

At least the lying, racially abusing, dishonourable wankstain won't be wearing an England shirt anymore, so that's a result.

Good point about the levels of proof required in both cases. Hopefully that explains it.

[zuricity]

In the case of Her Maj v JT he was accused of using “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress and the offence was racially aggravated in accordance with section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, contrary to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 31(1)(c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.”

The court’s verdict (Judge “Jimmy” Riddle) was that “Weighing all the evidence together, I think it is highly unlikely that Mr Ferdinand accused Mr Terry on the pitch of calling him a black cunt. However I accept that it is possible that Mr Terry believed at the time, and believes now, that such an accusation was made. The prosecution evidence as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong. Mr Cole gives corroborating (although far from compelling corroborating) evidence on this point. It is therefore possible that what he 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.”

In the case of the sweet FA v JT he was charged with 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" with the detail of the guilty verdict still to be presented.

FA Rule E3(1) states “A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.”

FA Rule E3(2) states “In the event of any breach of Rule E 3(1) including a reference to any one or more of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability (an “aggravating factor”) . . . . .”

So the different verdicts are not based on the same charge: the court case was about him allegedly using racially aggravated abusive language; and the FA case was about him using abusive or insulting words which included a reference to colour”. One has intent to be abusive the other is mere use of the words.

Given that during the trial, JT did not deny using the words “black cunt” (although his defence was that they had not been used as an insult or abuse, it’s not hard to see why he was found guilty by the FA. The words he admitted using were abusive and insulting in themselves and they included a reference to colour – simples.

Different charges; the FA did not deliver a verdict on the court charge and so there is no conflict between the verdicts. They aren’t different conclusions, and it doesn’t mean that the FA is above the law.

Anyhoo, it also doesn’t mean that JT is a racist, just that he used abusive/insulting words which included a reference to colour – and just like Suarez. So he shouldn't have said what he admitted he said and the real question should be about why the penalties are different.

QED

So my point still stands then

[Blue Since 76]

So my point still stands then

No, they still have different rules that fall within the laws of the land. There is nothing to stop them or any other organisation having its own rules and punishments. There is no precedent and the rules were in place at the start of last season so if Terry, Suarez, Liverpool or Chelsea didn't like them, all they had to do was convince others to change the rules or withdraw from the FA.

[Stan]

So let me get this right, the ars*oles at the FA think they are above the law of the land?

a very dangerous precedent, easily extendable to UEFA ...

So my point still stands then

I don’t wish to oppose someone who is a much more regular poster than I am so, in line with the subject matter, I’m going to say No [the FA aren’t above the law of the land, probably] and Yes [they probably think they are though] and Yes again [they probably are ars*oles].

Two out of three ain’t bad so you’d probably be found right on the balance of probabilities but wrong in fact – just like JT, probably ;-)

Obrigado

[Beefymcfc]

So let me get this right, the ars*oles at the FA think they are above the law of the land?

a very dangerous precedent, easily extendable to UEFA ...

So my point still stands then

I don’t wish to oppose someone who is a much more regular poster than I am so, in line with the subject matter, I’m going to say No [the FA aren’t above the law of the land, probably] and Yes [they probably think they are though] and Yes again [they probably are ars*oles].

Two out of three ain’t bad so you’d probably be found right on the balance of probabilities but wrong in fact – just like JT, probably ;-)

Obrigado

In the context of the Law of the Lands, if I was charged with an offence I would have to tell my employer prior to attending court. The outcome of that court case would have to be notified to my employer who would then take any relevant action and if needed, hold their own inquiry. Double jeopardy, as they say, but part of the terms I signed up to.

The question I ask in a case like this is 'Was he found innocent?'. The answer is 'No' so therefore the FA, the holding membership of his employers, can carry out their own enquiry.

They found him guilty, so would I. The evidence stated that Ferdinand knew nothing of the allegation until after the match, which the beek considered to be truthful, yet Terry claimed he was asking why Ferdinand had claimed it whilst mid-game?

Just doesn't add up.

Both are scum, but one of them came out to be the worse type of scum in my eyes.

I'm so glad we don't seem to have players like these and seem to have adopted a system of recruiting morally strong players. Colourful language can be put down to passion, abusive language and behaviour is just an intrinsic trait that is not warranted anywhere, never-mind on the public stage.