Suárez vs Terry.
- Thread starter goodspam
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
He won't get banned for it because he will not admit to insulting Anton. Suarez was fucked over because of their arbitrary and makes-no-sense-in-any-country-on-earth interpretation of his words. So they decided themselves that it was an insult backed up by the opinion of their special needs translator.
In Terry's case, all of the words are in English. So if he only admits to repeating back sarcastically what he was accused of, then it's plain and simple English and in no way can an FA cunt hearing panel pretend that it constitutes abuse or is an insult. And by the FA's dumb fuck definition of racism, you have to first insult someone, and then secondly make reference to their colour. If you do the latter without having done the former, it's within their rules.
So you can walk up to Evra, say to him in plain English with the ref as a witness "Hey, I'm not going to call you a fucking black cunt in this match, so let's clear the air now. Whether you are one or not is irrelevant. I'm here to play football, and you won't hear me tell you that you're a fucking black cunt. Ok. Thanks. Let's play". And that isn't racist. The fucking retards.
In Terry's case, all of the words are in English. So if he only admits to repeating back sarcastically what he was accused of, then it's plain and simple English and in no way can an FA cunt hearing panel pretend that it constitutes abuse or is an insult. And by the FA's dumb fuck definition of racism, you have to first insult someone, and then secondly make reference to their colour. If you do the latter without having done the former, it's within their rules.
So you can walk up to Evra, say to him in plain English with the ref as a witness "Hey, I'm not going to call you a fucking black cunt in this match, so let's clear the air now. Whether you are one or not is irrelevant. I'm here to play football, and you won't hear me tell you that you're a fucking black cunt. Ok. Thanks. Let's play". And that isn't racist. The fucking retards.
Not sure if this has been posted.......
http://soccerlens.com/the-john-terry-controversies-a-complete-list/86817/
http://soccerlens.com/the-john-terry-controversies-a-complete-list/86817/
I posted this, yesterday, on page one but nobody seemed to notice, least of all the guy who asked the question
Wrong. By he FA ruling in the Suarez case, just using the words makes you guilty. Doesnt matter what the intent was. Objective, subjective, doesnt matter. You said it then you're guilty.
OK then, here goes: Thanks to you , Portly and Ross for clearing this up for me
You don't get it. Yes, the FA use the objective sense even though it is against the Public Order Act to do so. They were able to do this by accepting the peverse reading comprehension of their barrister, whilst our stupid solictor stood there nodding like a useless cunt. So no intent, but, it must still be objectively insulting words.
They obviously did this to get around the fact Suarez claimed his intent was not to insult. Then they used special needs translators to show that negro is objectively an insult even though the world knows it wasn't.
Terry. He has again claimed his intent was not to insult. And now the FA have no way to prove it objectively was. It's all in English and none of his words are insulting. Objectively insulting words does not allow you to ignore the context, only the intent. For example, if you use the words when reporting it to the ref, that's not objectively insulting. Terry's example is in that type of context.
No, they didn't. The FA applies a lower standard of proof, namely "on the balance of probabilities" instead of the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard applied in criminal courts. There's not a snowflake in Hell's chance that Suarez would have been found guilty of the charge which was brought against Terry.
Well there is, given his admission.
It was arguably a stronger case against Suarez, since Ferdinand was such a poor witness. Lay people constantly overstate the importance of video evidence, the court always has had and will continue to have a strong preference for evidence given under oath in the witness box. Evra would have been a stronger witness than Ferdinand proved to be.
Though Evra was taken through the evidence several times, and changed his story on at least 3 occasions. I'm not sure how well that would have stood up in court.
A merely competent advocate, let alone a QC such as Suarez was up against, would have shredded Evra and his credibility.
Maybe.
But he'd have had to do the same with Kuyt and Comolli too, both who corroborated Evra's testimony. (and Suarez's initial comments) Suarez changing his story so many times would have given Suarez zero credibility.
Suarez was charged with a strict liability disciplinary offence of using a particular word. Intent didn't come into it. Terry was charged with a criminal offence, for which the prosecution would have had to prove intent, and they wouldn't even have tried with Suarez. It would never have got near court.
In your uneducated opinion.
The same evidence was on the table in both cases, it's entirely possible that Suarez would have been in court if anyone had complained to the police.
Kuyt and Comolli's so-called corroboration was well open to attack. Neither was an exact corroboration of Evra's testimony and Comolli's "recollection" turned out to be hopelessly unidiomatic Spanish, which no Spanish speaker would say. Suarez' testimony was certainly changed a number of times, but so was Evra's. The outcome would have been the same as in the Terry case.
If the Chelsea players contradicted it, they'd be playing in the championship this season.
Ferdinand could not contradict it, because it was pretty much a fact that he did no hear it. So his only way to contradict it would be to recall exactly what he said to Terry in the moments before, so that it was clear he did not accuse him of saying fucking black cunt. However, if he did go on record with that, then he would be making an admission of using insulting/abusive language himself (since he was obviously taking the piss out of that fucking chav cunt) and ended up with a four match ban from the FA. So Ferdinand had to keep his mouth shut, and hope the judge would put 2 and 2 together. A mathematician has no problem adding 2 and 2. Judges and magistrates are not blessed with an equivalent level of intelligence. Who knew?
And so, indirectly through the FA's very own dumb fuck definition and stance on racism using "Rule E3", a genuine victim has feared for the consequences of giving testimony, and this has allowed a racist thug to walk away feeling like a boss. Nice work.
Yes, the pains the judge went to in pointing out how "brave" Ferdinand was in giving evidence is a pretty good indication that he secretly felt he was a coward too. But in reality why should he take a four match ban in order to see Terry get a £2500 fine. Even forget the ban, Ferdinand would have fine too of about ten times that amount. It would have been hilarious if it happened like that.
Cost of doing business.
People who testify against drug dealers face execution. They still do it sometimes. Other offenders testify against co-conspirators regularly too.
If he wasn't willing to follow through he should have never brought it up
Lol at in "in your uneducated opinion" stuff....... Excellent trolling...
You know how far standards have slipped when it's the mods trolling.
Tbf as far as I know Ross is the only one who is educated within the law.
Though of course his exact phraseology was more blunt than that.
Though of course his exact phraseology was more blunt than that.
- Status
