John Terry, the trial and the real losers

Many years ago (around the time of the Southall riots) I was in a pub at the top of hillingdon hill (not known for trouble) drinking with my mates while waiting to get on the pool table.

In the conversation(s) going on one of my mates, who happened to be the smallest said "black eyes" one of the guy's playing pool hit him over the head with the cue. The fight that instantly erupted was between the white group I was in and the group of asian men playing pool.

No offense was meant by my friend who was simply engaged in conversation with his friends and yet the biggest of the asian men decided it was an insult worthy of an assault on my friend.

You can easily twist the meaning of words if you have mind to.
 
Sponsored Links
I can't think of many ways to twist the meaning of the words "You f*****g black c**t " round though. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
 
This has opened massive can of negative worms. Bad outcome for everybody. It can only feed a negative reaction to anyone regardless of race or political position. The only winners are the legal profession
 
Sponsored Links
JAS, The judge seems to think that John Terry was merely repeating the insults hurled at him by Anton Ferdinand. Are you seriously telling me that AF called JT a f****g black c**t?
And that JT was only repeating "parrot fashion" what AF had said?This part is most telling
It wasn't a judge, only a magistrate.
And the Law being what it is, they could not say Terry's comments were racist 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Now, i'm sure most on here would say Terry did mean what he said but rightly or wrongly, the Magistrates weren't sure.

And yes, a whole can of worms opened up now.
It will be interesting to see how the FA deal with their enquiry.
 
A fuss about nothing from start to finish.

More time and money spent on nonsense. :rolleyes:
 
Only a magistrate? Perhaps the cases of everyone convicted or acquitted in the magistrates courts should be re-tried by a"proper" judge.

Terry was acquitted because despite hearing the evidence and watching those giving it he couldn't be as sure as you are.

We've lost or gained nothing by this trial and it's complete *******s to suggest otherwise.
 
Only a magistrate? Perhaps the cases of everyone convicted or acquitted in the magistrates courts should be re-tried by a"proper" judge.

Terry was acquitted because despite hearing the evidence and watching those giving it he couldn't be as sure as you are.

We've lost or gained nothing by this trial and it's complete **** to suggest otherwise.
My reply was in reference to the comment about a precedent being set. I know (i think) the precedent/case Law is set by Judges, albeit in the High Court, so a Magistrates findings don't set a precedent, if that makes sense.
 
If we look at para 10 of the judicial summary kindly supplied, the magistrate seems to think there is a possibility that AF might have called mr Terry a F.....B....C..... and that mr Terry then looked at mr Ferdinand in pain and surprise and potentially repeated the three words back.

Surely mr Ferdinand knows that mr Terry is in fact not 'black', so he was not likely to say that, unless he was mentally deranged, but then if he was, he would not be able to take part in a team activity surely?

So we have to take our hats off to the defence team for their ability to confuse a magistrate and we must question whether this magistrate is capable of forming an opinion using his tools of judgement and 'common sense'.
 
We the taxpayer are the real losers pure and simple!!!

It should never have gone to court when the maximum fine is £2500 against the prosecution losing and having to pick up that tosser Terrys barrister fee (which he is now claiming).

So pure and simple he has mugged us off 250k now what a horrible specimen he is. Is he not paid enough???
 
It should have been settled in the headmaster's study. :rolleyes:
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top