Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:57 pm  

SimonBarrett wrote:

All l did was answer your question!

But lets play along!......What is the diffeance, both Woodgate and Bowyer could not be picked by the then England manager because of the soon to be court case(both would have been a shoe in for at least the squad)?

Does innocent until proven gulity not work in that instance?.....

11 years ago two players weren't picked because they were involved in a serious court case. A court case that ended up with their friend getting a six year sentence.

Since then, there have been numerous players being involved with court cases and not been dropped. Steven Gerrard for one.

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:01 pm  

When there is 'evidence' showing Terry's offence, I really do struggle to understand how the FA have taken the 'innocent til guilty' approach.

If there was video evidence of Luis Suarez going "youfuckingblackcuntnobhead", I'd never shut up wanting him to be sacked, but Suarez got stitched up whilst Terry gets the preferential treatment. The fact they've removed the captaincy shows some kind of recognition for Terry's actions, but why did they stop there? They can't say "you're not captaining us because of it, but you can still play", that's defying the point.

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:03 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

11 years ago two players weren't picked because they were involved in a serious court case. A court case that ended up with their friend getting a six year sentence.

Since then, there have been numerous players being involved with court cases and not been dropped. Steven Gerrard for one.

So you have just ignored my question then?......should they not be given the same rights.....inoccent until proven otherwise? Dont really have a massive issue with Terry, more so the FA.......who have chopped and changed there own rules because it suits them at the time!......

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:05 pm  

If that "evidence" was given against Suarez there's no way that you'd accept it.

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:05 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

When there is 'evidence' showing Terry's offence, I really do struggle to understand how the FA have taken the 'innocent til guilty' approach.

If there was video evidence of Luis Suarez going "youfuckingblackcuntnobhead", I'd never shut up wanting him to be sacked, but Suarez got stitched up whilst Terry gets the preferential treatment. The fact they've removed the captaincy shows some kind of recognition for Terry's actions, but why did they stop there? They can't say "you're not captaining us because of it, but you can still play", that's defying the point.

Please remind me what Suarez admitted calling Evra again?

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:09 pm  

SimonBarrett wrote:

So you have just ignored my question then?......should they not be given the same rights.....inoccent until proven otherwise? Dont really have a massive issue with Terry, more so the FA.......who have chopped and changed there own rules because it suits them at the time!......

Is someone who is suspected of murder, rape, terroristic plotting, etc treated the same as someone who is suspected of the theft of a chocolate bar?

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:10 pm  

SimonBarrett wrote:

Please remind me what Suarez admitted calling Evra again?

I'm not gonna bother going over the Suarez thing again, but the two are worlds apart. Suarez never once admitted to calling anybody a blackcuntnobhead, nor did Suarez have his pals in the media saying things like "is calling somebody a blackcunt racist? I've spoken to footballers who say it isn't", failing to mention the player he'd spoken to was Terry...

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:12 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Is someone who is suspected of murder, rape, terroristic plotting, etc treated the same as someone who is suspected of the theft of a chocolate bar?

Remind me what they were changed with in the end?........is the law not always the law?

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:14 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

I'm not gonna bother going over the Suarez thing again, but the two are worlds apart.

One is a Liverpool player found guilty of racial abuse. The other is a Chelsea player alleged by a youtube viewer to have racially abused someone.

Of course, it's really difficult to think of which one you've snapped your back in half to defend.

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:18 pm  

SimonBarrett wrote:

Remind me what they were changed with in the end?........is the law not always the law?

Clearly the law isn't just the law.

If you're accused of killing someone, you're going to jail on remand, because it's a serious charge. If you are accused of stealing a chocolate bar, the cop might let you go with a warning and a ban from the shopkeeper. That's if a cop can even be bothered to turn up.