It's the end of the matter re. ths trial, but whether you like it or not, I, and hopefully many others, will still detest the man and make clear how we feel.
you go for it fella
I take it you like John Terry then?
what he did to Bridge and the way he disregarded his wife and kids to get a bit of arse makes him out to be a dog, so no, from what i can tell of him i dont particularly like him.
but im talking about this incident. found not guilty. leave it.
It's the end of the matter re. ths trial, but whether you like it or not, I, and hopefully many others, will still detest the man and make clear how we feel.
you go for it fella
I take it you like John Terry then?
what he did to Bridge and the way he disregarded his wife and kids to get a bit of arse makes him out to be a dog, so no, from what i can tell of him i dont particularly like him.
but im talking about this incident. found not guilty. leave it.
So why then, if people aren't calling him a racist and ignoring what has happened in the Anton saga, can people not express their opinions about him based on other things he has done in his life?
Am in agreement with everyone else. I generally think ge has done some odious things in his life, but in this case the justice system says not guilty, so that is what he is. Wonder if (and should he) will press charges against Anton Ferdinand for wrongful claims of racism. Can that be done?
I think we can debate the meaning of the term 'not guilty' but it basically means what it says. The prosecution in their summing up accused Terry of making up a plausible explanation. Well as plausible means believable, and the prosecution used that terminology you have to wonder how these legal people get their money! It worries me that some of the people in high positions in this country may have degrees and seem clever but on certain levels are pretty stupid!
I hate racism but have adopted that - it can't be proven line from the beginning of this sorry affair. I was worried that may mean people may assume I have sympathy for racists when I don't. But we can't have witch hunts and if we are going to accuse somebody of something we need to be very careful. I don't think th eright level of care and thought went into this.
Even now people are arguing that Terry said those words so must be a racist. But Terry has never denied saying them but explained why and in what context. To say what Terry said you have to either be a racist or abhor racism. Terry suggested it was the latter and if you can't get into his mind you can only take his word for it, no matter whether you like teh man or not.
Well your first comment sums it up ''found not guilty but he'll continue to get picked apart by the 'im so perfect' on here.''
So what if he was found not guilty by the magistrate for this case. Does it absolve him of everything else he has done wrong? I would like to think most people would say no. So going back to your question, why shouldn't people pick him apart just because he was found not guilty in this case?
I was talking about him being picked apart IN THIS INCIDENT!...look at the end of Muttleys post above. JT has been found not guilty but people are still accusing him, even though a judge has heard all evidence provided.
Really pleased about this verdict. I was disappointed the judge did not dismiss the case early in the week. Shocking abuse has always been exchanged between players during football matches and always will be. If you are called a F~cking (lanky, fat, ginger, pasty, black, bald, ugly etc ) c*nt in the street you should have recourse to the law. If you are so sensitive you can’t handle the abuse on the pitch (as John Terry has for most of his career) then don’t play the game.
I am pretty sure he used those words. Not sure if he used them in a sarcastic way as he claims. But, for him to have a case to answer there should have been some evidence that the words were meant in a racist way or that he had a history of racist behaviour.
The whole episode has been a terrible waste of public money and resources. All because the police are over-sensitive about being accused of not taking racism seriously.
The saddest thing is that Nick Griffin and his knuckle dragging followers on Charlton Loyal see this as some kind of victory that justifies their vile racist attitudes.
Not a fan but a weak case and if he was found guilty on this flimsy evidence than that would have been a disgrace . All this and rio didn't even go to the euros
It's terrible how ignorant people are of our own criminal justice system.
In Scotland there are three verdicts - guilty, not proven and innocent. Here there are only two - guilty or not guilty.
Terry has not been "found" innocent and could not have been. The jury were asked whether he was guilty beyone reasonable doubt. If there was reasonable doubt then he is found "not guilty".
The jury were not asked whether he was innocent or not and they gave no indication either way. The only think we know is that after hearing evidence and argument, the jury believed that there was reasonable doubt.
How ironic that you criticise others understandings but appear to have no clue of the difference between a magistrates court and a crown court.
It's a fair criticism that I hadn't paid enough attention to the case to note that it was in the Magistrates' court. It make no difference to the question of whether he was found "innocent" or not.
But if you are innocent until proven guilty, and are subsequently found not guilty then it stands to reason that you are innocent.
Any other interpretation means I could accuse you of any crime I fancy and you'd have no way of demonstrating your innocence.
I don't like Terry, but I think some people wanted him to be guilty of this so badly so they had another stick to beat him with that they are willing to ignore (or as in the above quote) mis-represent the nature of the English legal system so they can do so despite the findings of a court of law.
Why is the Steven Lawrance case brought up in this discussion, feck me, and also a question ? How many of you would have had sex with Bridges wife if she put it on a plate? Terry is many things but he ain't no racist.
Surely the Stephen Lawrence case has shown that a verdict of not guilty does not mean you are actually innocent.
Why bring that up as a specific example.......it happens up and down the country on a daily basis. I don't know the statistics but I'm guessing more defendants are found guilty when they are innocent than innocent when they are guilty, particularly in Magistrates courts..
Why is the Steven Lawrance case brought up in this discussion, feck me, and also a question ? How many of you would have had sex with Bridges wife if she put it on a plate? Terry is many things but he ain't no racist.
I would have gave her a serious motting but I'd say sex is bang out of order with your mates bird.
But if you are innocent until proven guilty, and are subsequently found not guilty then it stands to reason that you are innocent.
Any other interpretation means I could accuse you of any crime I fancy and you'd have no way of demonstrating your innocence.
I don't like Terry, but I think some people wanted him to be guilty of this so badly so they had another stick to beat him with that they are willing to ignore (or as in the above quote) mis-represent the nature of the English legal system so they can do so despite the findings of a court of law.
Innocent until proven guilty simply means that it is for the state (ie the prosecution) to prove that you are guilty - it is not for the accused to prove he is innocent. The judge sums it up in his case
"It is therefore possible that what he [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."
There is no finding of innocence here.
Words used in law do not always mean what they do in real life.
You can accuse me of any crime you like. I can sue you for libel or slander
I don't like Terry either. But I don't think he should have been prosecuted.
But if you are innocent until proven guilty, and are subsequently found not guilty then it stands to reason that you are innocent.
Any other interpretation means I could accuse you of any crime I fancy and you'd have no way of demonstrating your innocence.
I don't like Terry, but I think some people wanted him to be guilty of this so badly so they had another stick to beat him with that they are willing to ignore (or as in the above quote) mis-represent the nature of the English legal system so they can do so despite the findings of a court of law.
Innocent until proven guilty simply means that it is for the state (ie the prosecution) to prove that you are guilty - it is not for the accused to prove he is innocent. The judge sums it up in his case
"It is therefore possible that what he [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."
There is no finding of innocence here.
Words used in law do not always mean what they do in real life.
You can accuse me of any crime you like. I can sue you for libel or slander
I don't like Terry either. But I don't think he should have been prosecuted.
I think it's insane that he could be found not guilty after the evidence. But what I found even more rediculous about the whole thing is that it went to court at all. We already no he's a absolute bell what a waste of taxpayers time and money. And 2 and a half g's??? Bollocks
Racism and other serious stuff aside, the personal lives of footballers really doesn't bother me. Terry can shag who he likes, the fact he's been a quality footballer and has given it all for England makes him popular with me.
Why is the Steven Lawrance case brought up in this discussion, feck me, and also a question ? How many of you would have had sex with Bridges wife if she put it on a plate? Terry is many things but he ain't no racist.
So are you calling him a racist? If not then your double negative is a bit misleading
I think the reason the Stephen Lawrence case was mentioned is because in that case two men that were originally found not guilty were later found guilty. It was used to illustrate the point that 'not guilty' doesn't necessarily mean 'innocent', it means that there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt.
I agree with the view that this should never have been brought to court. This sort of case would, in a magistrates' court, normally be a two hour trial - not three days with QCs in front of the Senior District Judge. And the evidence looks pretty flimsy, although we are all going on what has been reported, which may not be accurate. The FA should have taken a case against him as they have a lower burden of proof and can impose a higher penalty.
To the question 'why was he prosecuted' the answer is that the CPS test (endorsed by Parliament) is whether there is 'a realistic prospect of conviction.' The test applied by any criminal court (the civil courts are different) is whether the magistrates (or District Judge sitting alone as in this case) or jury for a Crown Court trial (see R v Redknapp) are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. If the CPS only prosecuted cases where they could be certain a court would be 'sure beyond a reasonable doubt' then they would only prosecute 'stone bonkers.' The defence made a submission to the District Judge to throw the case out but he declined and so Terry gave evidence. Once past the half-way point in a prosecution when the defence has a case to meet, as here, the general view in criminal cases is that the CPS has justified a prosecution.
John Terry is a nasty piece of work, can't stand the guy never have, smug git. However, he was found not-guilty so it should be the end of it until next misdemeneor.
To the question 'why was he prosecuted' the answer is that the CPS test (endorsed by Parliament) is whether there is 'a realistic prospect of conviction.' The test applied by any criminal court (the civil courts are different) is whether the magistrates (or District Judge sitting alone as in this case) or jury for a Crown Court trial (see R v Redknapp) are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. If the CPS only prosecuted cases where they could be certain a court would be 'sure beyond a reasonable doubt' then they would only prosecute 'stone bonkers.' The defence made a submission to the District Judge to throw the case out but he declined and so Terry gave evidence. Once past the half-way point in a prosecution when the defence has a case to meet, as here, the general view in criminal cases is that the CPS has justified a prosecution.
Intersting stuff and thanks....what a bloody interesting career/proffesion to be involved in I find it absolutely intriguing.
Comments
but im talking about this incident. found not guilty. leave it.
Wonder if (and should he) will press charges against Anton Ferdinand for wrongful claims of racism. Can that be done?
''so those with a better 'moral compass' should agree that being found not guilty should mean the end of the matter.''
''you go for it fella''
my three comments on this thread. Nowhere have I said I like him or others cant like him, so not sure what your going on about?
I think we can debate the meaning of the term 'not guilty' but it basically means what it says. The prosecution in their summing up accused Terry of making up a plausible explanation. Well as plausible means believable, and the prosecution used that terminology you have to wonder how these legal people get their money! It worries me that some of the people in high positions in this country may have degrees and seem clever but on certain levels are pretty stupid!
I hate racism but have adopted that - it can't be proven line from the beginning of this sorry affair. I was worried that may mean people may assume I have sympathy for racists when I don't. But we can't have witch hunts and if we are going to accuse somebody of something we need to be very careful. I don't think th eright level of care and thought went into this.
Even now people are arguing that Terry said those words so must be a racist. But Terry has never denied saying them but explained why and in what context. To say what Terry said you have to either be a racist or abhor racism. Terry suggested it was the latter and if you can't get into his mind you can only take his word for it, no matter whether you like teh man or not.
So what if he was found not guilty by the magistrate for this case. Does it absolve him of everything else he has done wrong? I would like to think most people would say no. So going back to your question, why shouldn't people pick him apart just because he was found not guilty in this case?
I accept there would hardly be any players left to play if they banned everyone who used such language though!
I was talking about him being picked apart IN THIS INCIDENT!...look at the end of Muttleys post above. JT has been found not guilty but people are still accusing him, even though a judge has heard all evidence provided.
I am pretty sure he used those words. Not sure if he used them in a sarcastic way as he claims. But, for him to have a case to answer there should have been some evidence that the words were meant in a racist way or that he had a history of racist behaviour.
The whole episode has been a terrible waste of public money and resources. All because the police are over-sensitive about being accused of not taking racism seriously.
The saddest thing is that Nick Griffin and his knuckle dragging followers on Charlton Loyal see this as some kind of victory that justifies their vile racist attitudes.
Any other interpretation means I could accuse you of any crime I fancy and you'd have no way of demonstrating your innocence.
I don't like Terry, but I think some people wanted him to be guilty of this so badly so they had another stick to beat him with that they are willing to ignore (or as in the above quote) mis-represent the nature of the English legal system so they can do so despite the findings of a court of law.
I don't know the statistics but I'm guessing more defendants are found guilty when they are innocent than innocent when they are guilty, particularly in Magistrates courts..
Unless it's in her Neil arris
"It is therefore possible that what he [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."
There is no finding of innocence here.
Words used in law do not always mean what they do in real life.
You can accuse me of any crime you like. I can sue you for libel or slander
I don't like Terry either. But I don't think he should have been prosecuted.
Terry can shag who he likes, the fact he's been a quality footballer and has given it all for England makes him popular with me.
I agree with the view that this should never have been brought to court. This sort of case would, in a magistrates' court, normally be a two hour trial - not three days with QCs in front of the Senior District Judge. And the evidence looks pretty flimsy, although we are all going on what has been reported, which may not be accurate. The FA should have taken a case against him as they have a lower burden of proof and can impose a higher penalty.
I find it absolutely intriguing.