John Terry case
- Thread starter jon545660
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
No, I don't think so. It's abuse. But I still don't think that should be a crime by itself. Actual physically threatening behaviour should be, and I suppose you then get into problems of where to draw the line, but what Terry did wouldn't cross it, imo.
Sack-able offence though surely?
Well, I suppose that depends. If it was my company, then definitely.
But we're talking about Chelsea FC here.
You mean it's a kind of breach of the peace? Tbh I'm very unsure what properly does (or should) constitute a breach of the peace.
And what is your opinion of someone who performs GBH due to an insult? Not necessarily a racist one?
I personally don't react to insults, especially not with violence. The only time I resort to violence is if someone physically threatens me.
I in no way condone the use of violence, other then to defend yourself .
Is the right answer.
Takes a bigger person to walk away, but I get why people might resort to violence. Just shows that some people cannot control their reactions
R
RedZeppelin III
Guest
yeah but this isn't ferdinand suing Terry , he's just a witness so what does he need to prepare for . he just turns up and answers questions truthfully. But yeah he was always going to struggle to do that properly . "Name?" ......."Rio....wait sorry I mean Anton " .
Its easier to say than to do, waIking away just gives them an opportunity to repeat the behaviour anyway - take 'em out, black players need to stand up for their rights.
That's one of the best posts you've ever written.
The comparison with gay marriage doesn't stand up for a variety of reasons, but you make a good point at the end.
Can't get a rise out of Jules. Are you really a judge?
Obviously not. We can see he is not literally a cunt therefore it can not be an opinion, and so is now a slur and prefaced by 'black' meant as a racist slur.
There's more than one definition of the word, though. I'm not sure... I think the meaning of the insult is probably well enough understood that you can hold a considered opinion of whether someone is one or not. But in this context, just dished out thoughtlessly as abuse, it's clearly not an opinion, whether combined with black or not.
I don't get why bringing colour in it not only elevates the status of the offence amongst moral arbiters, but also gets the law involved. It's kinda pathetic. I think it demeans black people more that the state feels the need to protect them from name calling, over and above name calling for any other physical attribute or cultural heritage anyone might have, than the likes of Terry calling them those names.
I agree.
I totally agree mate. The worst thing is you hardly see any dissent about it anywhere. People just seem to accept it.
Haha. No, and I can in fact be provoked. I do however like dantes and respect his views even when (which isn't always the case) I don't agree.
Plenty do but I'll bet there are also plenty who wouldn't, for the reasons Woland sets out, were it not for their being unwilling to risk being called racists in their turn.
This would be my view if I moved to South America for example. But not here not anymore. Great Britain, well the FA and the media at least, had ample opportunity to develop a more intelligent way to think about racism. But they missed that chance either through stupidity or else a disgusting and vindictive desire to place themselves above the backward stone-age foreigners. This childish definition of racism is all they understand, so they can now live with it. And an ex-cop with a couple of brain cells sitting in the football stands is more than welcome to manipulate that idiotic definition to ruin someones career. Fantastic. What's not to like?
Someone said it a couple of pages back, think it was Fabio. One of two things will happen:
Either he will be found guilty and forced to pay a paltry fine. At which point the FA will turn around and say "The court dealt with it, it wasn't our enquiry. He's already been punished" and he will start the season without reprimand from the FA.
Or he will be found innocent and the FA will say "The law found him innocent. Who are we to question its decision?"
I know nothing about law, and very little about FA disciplinary procedures. No doubt one of the more clued up posters will give reasons how this will be wrong, but that is all trumped when it comes to the incompetence of the FA. I have no doubt at all that Terry will be in Chelsea's starting line up at the start of the season, without being fined or banned.
Either he will be found guilty and forced to pay a paltry fine. At which point the FA will turn around and say "The court dealt with it, it wasn't our enquiry. He's already been punished" and he will start the season without reprimand from the FA.
Or he will be found innocent and the FA will say "The law found him innocent. Who are we to question its decision?"
I know nothing about law, and very little about FA disciplinary procedures. No doubt one of the more clued up posters will give reasons how this will be wrong, but that is all trumped when it comes to the incompetence of the FA. I have no doubt at all that Terry will be in Chelsea's starting line up at the start of the season, without being fined or banned.
No chance Blood Nut.
That one's new to me.
Oh fuck right off. Its words. And its not just black players who have rights. What about Zidane? A joke about his sister? Boom!
Your willingness to "take 'em out" means you've allowed yourself to be dragged down to their level. Congratulations.
Listen to this man. I've met Spion in real life and can confirm he's a model of almost Buddha-like calm.
- Status
