Re: Football Chat Thread - Euro 2012 edition : Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:42 pm  

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

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

[John_D]

Re: Football Chat Thread - Euro 2012 edition : Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:55 pm  

He's still guilty of being John Terry

Re: Football Chat Thread - Euro 2012 edition : Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:58 pm  

Goochie wrote:

The thing is, in a court of law to be found guilty it must be beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof for the FA must just be on the balance of probabilities. The reason he was found not guilty was that there was a element of doubt in the decision, not that he probably didn't use it as an insult.

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.

Re: Football Chat Thread - Euro 2012 edition : Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:05 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

I fail to see how anyone can not rate Dempsey? He's a fantastic player, easily one of the best goal threats from midfield in the Premier League.

He is a gamble at that price, Liverpool's overspending for players doens't seem to be stopping now Comolli and KKK have left. He's 22 now and has barely played for anyone during his career as he's been unable to get into the first team. As a replacement for Bellan't, who was hardly a regular it's not a bad move, but I can't see him being first choice at Liverpool. £12m seems a lot.

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.

Re: Football Chat Thread - Euro 2012 edition : Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:08 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

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.

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.

Re: Football Chat Thread - Euro 2012 edition : Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:30 pm  

McClennan wrote:

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.

Re: Football Chat Thread - Euro 2012 edition : Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:44 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

What Suarez was accused of still breaks the law.

.

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.

Re: Football Chat Thread - Euro 2012 edition : Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:35 pm  

Goochie wrote:

The thing is, in a court of law to be found guilty it must be beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof for the FA must just be on the balance of probabilities. The reason he was found not guilty was that there was a element of doubt in the decision, not that he probably didn't use it as an insult.

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.

Re: Football Chat Thread - Euro 2012 edition : Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:20 pm  

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.

Re: Football Chat Thread - Euro 2012 edition : Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:37 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

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.