Such a shame that hes had to do this due to the pathetic witch hunt against him started by Anton Bullshitter Ferdinand & his bitter dropped by England big bro Rio and carried on by the spineless ****tards at the FA...
Now Englands lost its best centre half by a mile hope they are all very happy ....
Such a shame that hes had to do this due to the pathetic witch hunt against him started by Anton Bullshitter Ferdinand & his bitter dropped by England big bro Rio and carried on by the spineless ****tards at the FA...
Now Englands lost its best centre half by a mile hope they are all very happy ....
Yeah! Why shouldn't he just be allowed to get away with racist comments! He's John 'The Lionheart' Terry!
idiot... he was found not guilty in court... from 12 jurors, 11 of them could have found him guilty but if 1 didn't then the ruling is not guilty... as it is beyond all reasonable doubt... opposed to this is an employment issue which is on the balance of probability... did he say something racist? Well they have it on video that he clearly did so yes, it is "more likely" that he said something racist and is guilty of that. He is not charged with "being a racist"... he never was.
I can't say I'm really bothered to be honest. If he's retired from international football it may prolong his career with Chelsea, so that's a plus.
Even as a Chelsea supporter, John Terry is not one of my favourite human beings. But he will always remain one of the best central defenders we have ever produced, so I admire him for that. We don't have to like every player who represents our club or country, but we can still appreciate their contributions to our success..not that England have had much of that.
I agree with all of that RB. Let's be honest here, as with fans of other teams, just because you support them wholeheartedly whilst wearing your team's shirt, doesn't mean you would have them round for tea. Whatever you may think about him, he always gave 100% for his country and he always gives 100% for his club.
How many times do folk have to repeat how this is different from a court of law ? And just like in any occupation and many organisations there are rules regarding conduct and they have a right to consider whether any person's behavior has breached these rules and act accordingly.
Whether anyone has been found guilty or not in court, even regarding the same matter, doesn't change that at all. They were not considering the FA's specific rules and the burden of proof is quite different from the court. Here they simply have to decide what appears to be the case based on the balance of probabilty.
For instance, Suraez never faced a court, but was charged and found guilty by the FA of breaching their rules. Just because Terry has faced a court ( and been found not guilty ) does not mean he should not be similarly charged if the FA feel there is case to answer.
I am sure most folk in employment can think of actions they could take at work that would land them in quite serious trouble there, but would never even get near a court of law.
Given all this has been explained so many times, one can only assume that anyone else that says something like "ah, but he was found not gulity in court" is a fool.
Anyway, regarding his retiral from international football, Terry was a grear servant for England over the years with great commitment to getting in the right place at the right time. Not quite the player he was, but still arguably deserves his place.
Looks from his statement that he too ( genuinely or not ) doesn't feel the FA have a right to charge him after he was found not guilty in court. If he is being genuine, then he too doesn't "get it".
Taking everything into consideration now, it probably is time for Terry and the international team to go their separate ways.
I shall miss him and am sorry that he has been hounded out by sheer dogma. Our courts of law should have priority over any organisation's internal rules - and often do, in that sometimes people are suspended from their duties pending a prosecution but re-instated if acquitted.
Parthenon - you say that not guilty doesn't mean innocent but it doesn't mean guilty either. It does mean that there is not evidence to convict and we should respect that judgment. Otherwise everyone who is ever charged will have a stain on their character.
How many times do folk have to repeat how this is different from a court of law ? And just like in any occupation and many organisations there are rules regarding conduct and they have a right to consider whether any person's behavior has breached these rules and act accordingly.
Whether anyone has been found guilty or not in court, even regarding the same matter, doesn't change that at all. They were not considering the FA's specific rules and the burden of proof is quite different from the court. Here they simply have to decide what appears to be the case based on the balance of probabilty.
For instance, Suraez never faced a court, but was charged and found guilty by the FA of breaching their rules. Just because Terry has faced a court ( and been found not guilty ) does not mean he should not be similarly charged if the FA feel there is case to answer.
I am sure most folk in employment can think of actions they could take at work that would land them in quite serious trouble there, but would never even get near a court of law.
Given all this has been explained so many times, one can only assume that anyone else that says something like "ah, but he was found not gulity in court" is a fool.
Anyway, regarding his retiral from international football, Terry was a grear servant for England over the years with great commitment to getting in the right place at the right time. Not quite the player he was, but still arguably deserves his place.
Looks from his statement that he too ( genuinely or not ) doesn't feel the FA have a right to charge him after he was found not guilty in court. If he is being genuine, then he too doesn't "get it".
Taking everything into consideration now, it probably is time for Terry and the international team to go their separate ways.
So I land into work this morning smelling of drink and unable to work my employer has a right to sack me. I have done nothing illegal in the eyes of the law and therefore would not be brought up in court.
But if I was accused of doing something illegal like shoplifting and found guilty then my employer could also sack me. However if there was not enought evidence to find me guilty then my employer has no right to take further action against me. There was not enought evidence to convict JT so where have the FA the right to find him guilty or do they have evidence that they didnt show to the police and therefore they are in trouble.
So I land into work this morning smelling of drink and unable to work my employer has a right to sack me. I have done nothing illegal in the eyes of the law and therefore would not be brought up in court.
But if I was accused of doing something illegal like shoplifting and found guilty then my employer could also sack me. However if there was not enought evidence to find me guilty then my employer has no right to take further action against me. There was not enought evidence to convict JT so where have the FA the right to find him guilty or do they have evidence that they didnt show to the police and therefore they are in trouble.
He doesn't have to have done anything illegal, doesn't have to have been near a court let alone be found not guilty. The question is whether the FA are satisfied on the balance of probability that he has breached their rules.
And it is more complicated than your did someone shoplift or not example.
Yet again the incompetent FA have damaged England's chances of success.
He was acquitted in a court but the FA still charge him; do they think that they are better than a court? Imbeciles!
For a criminal trial he has to be charged with a specific criminal offence, and that has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
I dont think he should ever have been taken down that route, because the evidence wasn't there to convict.
However, disciplinary hearings are very different. The charges are not the same, and neither is the burden of proof. This is where it should have been dealt with from the start.
I don't know nor care what Terry said or didn't say but what I
do know is that the FA is a useless organisation run by clueless ******* and has been for decades.
And if what we hear is true they (the FA) have a significant
responsibility for the deaths of 96 fans at Hillsborough by specifying that the match should be played at a ground that had no safety certificate!
We must just hope that some of the geriatric scum that were on the FA at the time are still around and can be hung out to dry for what's left of their useless lives.
idiot... he was found not guilty in court... from 12 jurors, 11 of them could have found him guilty but if 1 didn't then the ruling is not guilty... as it is beyond all reasonable doubt... opposed to this is an employment issue which is on the balance of probability... did he say something racist? Well they have it on video that he clearly did so yes, it is "more likely" that he said something racist and is guilty of that. He is not charged with "being a racist"... he never was.
idiot... he was found not guilty in court... from 12 jurors, 11 of them could have found him guilty but if 1 didn't then the ruling is not guilty... as it is beyond all reasonable doubt... opposed to this is an employment issue which is on the balance of probability... did he say something racist? Well they have it on video that he clearly did so yes, it is "more likely" that he said something racist and is guilty of that. He is not charged with "being a racist"... he never was.
I think you'll find there was no Jury at the criminal trial. It was at a Magistrates Court.
He doesn't have to have done anything illegal, doesn't have to have been near a court let alone be found not guilty. The question is whether the FA are satisfied on the balance of probability that he has breached their rules.
And it is more complicated than your did someone shoplift or not example.
Even in the workplace the employer has to have some proof that there was wrong doing. All the FA have is the lip read words with out having the full conversation so they dont know the context of the word. Not good enough but then they seem to have their own rules and fair play is not one of them.
I'm sure most of the country is loving one of Englands best ever defenders retiring, if we're ever strapped for players and have to resort to Drugtest Ferdinand in an importent game JT will be the one laughing!
Wow, what does that say about the quality of our centre backs, if he is considered one of the best?
I'd actually suggest that Ferdinand is the better of the pair, which is strange for me to say, because I'm not exactly a fan of him either..
He doesn't have to have done anything illegal, doesn't have to have been near a court let alone be found not guilty. The question is whether the FA are satisfied on the balance of probability that he has breached their rules.
Even in the workplace the employer has to have some proof that there was wrong doing. All the FA have is the lip read words with out having the full conversation so they dont know the context of the word. Not good enough but then they seem to have their own rules and fair play is not one of them.
Not entirely correct. Whilst the FA indeed don't know the context in which the words were said, Terry himself has admitted uttering the words.
Hopefully, if we need experience so badly (debatable), then Rio will come back. He's a much better player than Terry.
Ah rio Ferdinand.....not a chance in hell he should ever wear an England shirt again ever as
1 ...Hes really shit
2....He is getting done for being a nob on twitter against Ashley Cole.........
3...I still believe he is the main reason behind this bullshit Terry witch hunt due to him losing the England captaincy to a far superior player in Terry
4 ...hes really shit ...even Reo Coker is better:D
Rio Ferdinand was dropped to allow a man accused of racism to go to the Euro's. Rio should tell them where to shove their England cap if he is asked back.
Comments
Now Englands lost its best centre half by a mile hope they are all very happy ....
Yeah! Why shouldn't he just be allowed to get away with racist comments! He's John 'The Lionheart' Terry!
Idiot :mad:....He was our best player at the Euros
Funny I thought he was found not guilty:D
Not guilty isn't the same as innocent.
idiot... he was found not guilty in court... from 12 jurors, 11 of them could have found him guilty but if 1 didn't then the ruling is not guilty... as it is beyond all reasonable doubt... opposed to this is an employment issue which is on the balance of probability... did he say something racist? Well they have it on video that he clearly did so yes, it is "more likely" that he said something racist and is guilty of that. He is not charged with "being a racist"... he never was.
I agree with all of that RB. Let's be honest here, as with fans of other teams, just because you support them wholeheartedly whilst wearing your team's shirt, doesn't mean you would have them round for tea. Whatever you may think about him, he always gave 100% for his country and he always gives 100% for his club.
The FA are a joke.
Whether anyone has been found guilty or not in court, even regarding the same matter, doesn't change that at all. They were not considering the FA's specific rules and the burden of proof is quite different from the court. Here they simply have to decide what appears to be the case based on the balance of probabilty.
For instance, Suraez never faced a court, but was charged and found guilty by the FA of breaching their rules. Just because Terry has faced a court ( and been found not guilty ) does not mean he should not be similarly charged if the FA feel there is case to answer.
I am sure most folk in employment can think of actions they could take at work that would land them in quite serious trouble there, but would never even get near a court of law.
Given all this has been explained so many times, one can only assume that anyone else that says something like "ah, but he was found not gulity in court" is a fool.
Anyway, regarding his retiral from international football, Terry was a grear servant for England over the years with great commitment to getting in the right place at the right time. Not quite the player he was, but still arguably deserves his place.
Looks from his statement that he too ( genuinely or not ) doesn't feel the FA have a right to charge him after he was found not guilty in court. If he is being genuine, then he too doesn't "get it".
Taking everything into consideration now, it probably is time for Terry and the international team to go their separate ways.
Parthenon - you say that not guilty doesn't mean innocent but it doesn't mean guilty either. It does mean that there is not evidence to convict and we should respect that judgment. Otherwise everyone who is ever charged will have a stain on their character.
So I land into work this morning smelling of drink and unable to work my employer has a right to sack me. I have done nothing illegal in the eyes of the law and therefore would not be brought up in court.
But if I was accused of doing something illegal like shoplifting and found guilty then my employer could also sack me. However if there was not enought evidence to find me guilty then my employer has no right to take further action against me. There was not enought evidence to convict JT so where have the FA the right to find him guilty or do they have evidence that they didnt show to the police and therefore they are in trouble.
He doesn't have to have done anything illegal, doesn't have to have been near a court let alone be found not guilty. The question is whether the FA are satisfied on the balance of probability that he has breached their rules.
And it is more complicated than your did someone shoplift or not example.
For a criminal trial he has to be charged with a specific criminal offence, and that has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
I dont think he should ever have been taken down that route, because the evidence wasn't there to convict.
However, disciplinary hearings are very different. The charges are not the same, and neither is the burden of proof. This is where it should have been dealt with from the start.
do know is that the FA is a useless organisation run by clueless ******* and has been for decades.
And if what we hear is true they (the FA) have a significant
responsibility for the deaths of 96 fans at Hillsborough by specifying that the match should be played at a ground that had no safety certificate!
We must just hope that some of the geriatric scum that were on the FA at the time are still around and can be hung out to dry for what's left of their useless lives.
Retarded :yawn:
Newbies always think they are right:o
I think you'll find there was no Jury at the criminal trial. It was at a Magistrates Court.
Hmmm.
While they're away on international duty, he'll have ample time to strike, no?
Even in the workplace the employer has to have some proof that there was wrong doing. All the FA have is the lip read words with out having the full conversation so they dont know the context of the word. Not good enough but then they seem to have their own rules and fair play is not one of them.
Wow, what does that say about the quality of our centre backs, if he is considered one of the best?
I'd actually suggest that Ferdinand is the better of the pair, which is strange for me to say, because I'm not exactly a fan of him either..
This sums it up for me.
Not entirely correct. Whilst the FA indeed don't know the context in which the words were said, Terry himself has admitted uttering the words.
I have enjoyed a good relationship with John during my time as England Manager and I reluctantly accept his decision.
I can also confirm that he had the courtesy to call me prior to announcing his retirement from the England team.
I'd like to thank John for all of his efforts with the national team, he has always given his full commitment.
Ah rio Ferdinand.....not a chance in hell he should ever wear an England shirt again ever as
1 ...Hes really shit
2....He is getting done for being a nob on twitter against Ashley Cole.........
3...I still believe he is the main reason behind this bullshit Terry witch hunt due to him losing the England captaincy to a far superior player in Terry
4 ...hes really shit ...even Reo Coker is better:D