www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/J ... -terry.pdf

www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/J ... -terry.pdf

He's still guilty of being John Terry

The problem for the FA is that they have had two very high profile cases which have a number of similarities but have followed a different process simply because a member of the public made a complaint in the Terry case but not in the Suarez case..

One case has been dealt with internally and Suarez was found guilty on the balance of probabilities (although the Panel did say they took account the seriousness of the charge and applied a higher than normal threshold).

The other was dealt with by the Court where the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. And Terry was found not guilty on that basis. Two different outcomes from two different systems.

It would have been better from the FA's perspective if the magistrate had completely dismissed the case. But he described the Crown's case as "strong". Which begs the question whether the FA's internal process would have come to a different conclusion.

I dont think there is any satisafactory way of dealing with this. But. if the FA drop the case, I would have more sympathy with the view that Suarez had been hard done by than I did in December.

Where are you getting £12M from? All the reports I've seen say €13M which is equal to £10.2M.

Do you think that's a big price for a young, clincal, capped striker? I don't. Rodgers must really like him to pay the money considering he backed out of the Sigurdsson deal because he wasn't willing to pay the wages Sigurdsson wanted.

EDIT: The Echo, who are normally spot on are saying the fee is £7.9M, which is an absolute bargain if true. You know best though obviously.

Exactly. To make this simpler and easier to understand for those that are going to be exposed to ill-informed fan blogs on this, the difference is akin to breaking the law and breaking house rules. If you break the law you are guilty and face a legal penalty. If you break house rules you are subject to an internal penalty. You can break house rules without breaking the law, but you cannot break the law and not break house rules (politicians and members of the 1% excluded obviously).

It is quite possible that Terry may face action if he is deemed to have broken house rules. That he has admitted in court that he has used racially offensive language suggests that he has and strengthens the FA's case to implement a similar ban as to what Suarez received. Should Terry not receive any action then, as Cibaman has said, Liverpool may well have every right to complain.

What Suarez was accused of still breaks the law.

Suarez's ban was because he was found guilty of multiple counts.

The action was taken against Suarez because the victim complained directly towards the FA and wanted them to pursue the matter.

Action was taken against Terry because one person, an off duty police officer who claims to have watched the clip on TV, complained. Nobody else heard the comments. Not the supposed victim, none of his team mates, none of Terry's team mates, none of the crowd, not the referee.

Scousers will still claim to be the victims in this, like they always do. But no one else should buy into their nonsense.

He wasnt prosecuted for it, no case was brought by the CPS and they do not require a member of the public to complain to do that. In the eyes of the law he is equally as innocent as Terry.

No, the Judge specifically pointed out that it was unlikely that he used it as an insult and that there was insufficient evidence to prove it.

I fail to see how the FA could prove otherwise from the same evidence. I also fail to see why they would try, given the cost and the farcical duration of the controversy.

Wait a minute, apparently using words like that - in any sense - is completely against British culture; it is completely unacceptable and no excuse, be it ignorance, cultural differences or language barriers, can be used as an excuse. If only Suarez turned around and said "I called him a negro once, it was tongue in cheek like", maybe then these uber 'suits' the FA had would have been swayed.

Suarez was found guilty of using racial language numerous times. Video evidence supported Evra's statements, it didn't support Suarez's.

Suarez was found guilty and banned for 9 (?) matches. You had a right of appeal. You choose not to use it. You whined about how you'd been stitched up.

Even when Suarez said he'd shake Evra's hand and then didn't you still came up with excuses for him.

Same old scousers, always the victims. Another minute's silence for you.

Victim?

I'm chuffed. Next time I see a black lad in work, I'm gonna call him a f*cking black c*nt, then, when they try to sack/discipline me, I'll just play the sarcasm card. I can't wait, it's my new secret weapon.

So you're admitting you have racist tendencies, and feel that you'll be able to use that moronic argument as a way of not being sacked when your company send you packing (without any treatment for your broken nose)?

It doesn't surprise me, after seeing what a c*** you are on here.

Let us know how you get on.