[Closed] John Terry.

+1 confused

Regardless of anything else, are we not innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

Regardless of anything else, are we not innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

If I did what he did, i'd be sacked. should have stepped down. And calling someone a black c... Isn't "only".

Fair enough, he's guilty then. Why is money being wasted on a trial?

He should step down because he's been shite for about 5 years.

I think it's a great shame the trial has to take 5 months to start. If it had been before the Euro champs different decisions might have been taken I guess.

He should have [u][b]temporarily[/b][/u] stood down himself for the greater good of the team not because of his guilt or otherwise but because of the wrong sort of attention it brings to the roll.

One thing I've not heard mentioned is what happens if* Rio Ferdinand gets back into the England team - that would be a tricky relationship both within the squad and on the field.

*Maybe there is little chance of that happening now....

Fair enough, he's guilty then. Why is money being wasted on a trial?

The trial is for prosecuting him for being racial abusive not for his job. Of course if the court was to find him innocent and he'd been sacked could this then be a case of unfair dismissal?

Damn I shouldn't comment as don't like football.

innocent until proven guilty

It's an instruction to the jury, nothing more.

Oh, and he has to be the biggest bell end ever to grace a football pitch too, racist or not. I doubt even his own mother likes him.

His own mother, the shop lifting woman. Quality family.

Wouldn't be surprised if Capello walks.

Damn I shouldn't comment as don't like football.

Except he's not a leader, he captains a footy team.

Yes, but if you base the FA's case on the Suarez verdict, then they "probably" think he said it, and in that case he will be banned for 8 matches.

But, add into this his previous racist incident in 2006 and he should be banned for longer, or is the fact a court is dealing with it mean that the FA can bottle it?

are we not innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

I think in most workplaces, under such serious allegations, the accused would be suspended until a full investigation had taken place.

if* Rio Ferdinand gets back into the England

I do wonder if more players than Rio have expressed their views on him to the FA.

If Terry had even one single ounce of decency in his entire body he would have stepped down from the role to protect the position of Captain of England from the attention and distraction of a criminal trial.

The man is a ****er of the highest order. Bobby Moore would be turning in his grave.

Except he's not a leader, he captains a footy team.

This is true - the England captain roll is in many ways a symbol roll bestowed upon a member of the squad by the manager. He'll give a bit of a rallying cry in the changing room and do a bit of shouting on the pitch but so will all the other senior players. Capello makes the strategic decisions, the captain is just a show pony to roll out at press conferences etc when his current issues would be most inconvenient.

The fact that some of his sponsorship deals had a financial benefit to him being in the roll last time he lost it, and I'm sure this time too, can't possibly have had any influence on his reluctance to fall on his sword 😉

He shouldn't be in the team based on his form this season, let alone captain.

GlitterGary is bang on. In a sea of utter ****s, he manages to stand out as the most utterly obnoxious human being amongst the lot of them.

Anyway... It should be a mute point as he should never have had the captaincy given back to him, if he ever should have had it in the first place. But then he thought and acted like he was captain even when he wasn't. And obviously, in his own mind, he'd done nothing wrong. As he thinks he hasn't now. The video evidence suggests otherwise.

And anyway... as has been pointed out, the way he's playing this season, he shouldn't be getting anywhere near an England shirt. He's absolutely shite!

I think the FA have no choice but to do this. They must presume his guilt not his innocence as should he play in the euro's and captain the team to glory (very unlikely I know) then soon after be found guilty in court, with the FA's supposed hard line stance on racism and the fact we have been looking down our noses at the rest of the world would make us a laughing stock and the damage it would do to the kick it out campaign would be irrep.... irrepai.... Errr beyond repair.

Anyway... It should be a mute point

If only......................

As said. He shouldn't be anywhere near the side on current form. Well, perhaps as a sub, but that's it.

So the FA could have saved themselves the bother by just waiting to see if Fabio dropped him.

It was suggested that he might clash with Rio Ferdinand - but he shouldn't be in the squad either.

He's thick as shit. It is obvious he is guilty so he should just admit it and step down/be sacked. He has always been a smug, beady eyed little tosser anyway.

We would have done a lot better in the last World Cup if he wasn't there, that's for sure. He caused no end of bother off the pitch, through his own wrongdoing and was rubbish on the pitch. Just watch the 'highlights' of the Germany game for all the evidence you need that he's not an international centre half.

If Terry had even one single ounce of decency in his entire body he would have stepped down from the role to protect the position of Captain of England from the attention and distraction of a criminal trial.

The man is a **** of the highest order. Bobby Moore would be turning in his grave.

the issue is not whether he is innocent or guilty it is whether the charge bring shames on the "OFFICE"

He may well be found innocent but there is enough evidence to charge him so doubts have to be raised as to the suitability of him to captain the national side and be the symbolic leader of this fine nation of mixed heritage and races.

Overall though [ and I think DS will agree, I think he should stay as he is rubbish, he will cause friction in the squad, they may need him for the penalty shoot outs and I am looking forward to the interviews and schadenfreude of the likes I can barely imagine [ except for pretty much ever other England campaign].

binners raises some good points as well he is certainly the peak of self indulgent arrogance that typifies many of the modern footballers.

Overall though [ and I think DS will agree, I think he should stay as he is rubbish, he will cause friction in the squad, they may need him for the penalty shoot outs and I am looking forward to the interviews and schadenfreude of the likes I can barely imagine [ except for pretty much ever other England campaign].

the issue is not whether he is innocent or guilty it is whether the charge bring shames on the "OFFICE"

I can see him getting away with this whole sorry saga. If he had not been charged by the police then the FA would have been forced to deal with it, a la Suarez, and he would have gotten a long ban and in all liklihood stripped of the captaincy.
This going to a criminal charge, which is of course more serious but the standard of proof required is much higher, it gives the FA the chance to go all sloping shoulders on it.
My prediction, he will be stripped of the captaincy because the media is now pushing it (much like Fred the Shred), but he will be found not guilty in court, and get no fine and no ban at all.

If he had any decency he would have stepped down as captain until the criminal proceedings were resolved, and not waited to be stripped of it.

Surely the video evidence is proof enough? You dont need to be a lip reader to see what he is saying.

his defence is that he says Anton i never said you were {racist comment]
so he is innocent apparently.
the fact he has been charged would suggest otherwise

Surely the video evidence is proof enough? You dont need to be a lip reader to see what he is saying.

I hope that if he is guilty, and it certainly looks as if he is, then he be punished for it. Absolutely no place for it in the game (or anywhere), no excuses.

It would be a travesty if he was to get away with it, whilst Suarez was hauled over the coals for a similar offence.

(I'm not a Liverpool fan)

im still reeling from the fact that the trial can be pushed back because of his work commitments.

so if i go and rape someone, but then tell the court ive got a nine month contract i need to fulfill, the courts will listen to that?

he said what he said and i dont want to see him in an england shirt ever again - those two thoughts are not necessarily linked.

previous England players have been dropped because they were under investigation for "alleged offences". Namely Bowyer and Alan Smith. Wonder how they feel about this, especially Bowyer who was found not guilty in the alleged incident.

Soobalias, you probably could if you could afford the lawyers he can. Different world, different rules.

Until the outcome of the trial he should be suspended from his role as captain. If he is 'not guilty' he can then be reconsidered for the captaincy by the manager - Simples.

It's getting a bit like the England RU side at the World Cup where the exploits of individuals are making unwelcome distractions from the main issue which is putting together a team that might actually win something.

If I were in the England squad I'd want Terry on the pitch, and not sleeping with my missus while I was busy.

yossarian - Member
If Terry had even one single ounce of decency in his entire body he would have stepped down from the role to protect the position of Captain of England from the attention and distraction of a criminal trial.
The man is a **** of the highest order. Bobby Moore would be turning in his grave.

This^^^
But also, the FA have acted discracefully in pandering to him so far in this case. By not charging him, they have effectively encouraged him to do nothing himself too. Nobody in this whole institution seems to have the balls to stand up and say that what he did is wrong.
They should have charged him by now if they have seen the same video the rest of the country has. They hide behind "not prejudicing the case" but that does not add up. They could easily look at the video and apply a punishment for what is clearly visible, "on the balance of probabilities".
In comparison to the "other" case, there is nothing to stop the FA or Evra pressing charges against Suarez [u]IF[/u] they believe he committed the same offence. In fact, it is their duty to. However, any case would be heard against the backdrop of his recent FA punishment, as they have chosen to act here.
What happened was on a football pitch , during a match, and against FA laws. He should have been charged immediately and duly punished.
The seriousness of the cime, and overwhelming evidence deserve criminal prosecution on top of that.

Sadly the beautiful games isn't looking too beautiful right now.
Money - racism - violence
Redknapp - Terry - Egypt.

Well said loum. FA have been totally spineless on this. They went in hard on the foreigner (Suarez) and didn't have the balls to deal with their own "brave" John Terry.

****s the lot of them.

i know obi wan was talking about mos eisley but i think its more applicable to the FA myself
[img] [/img]

Wouldn't be surprised if Capello walks

If only. He is as inept as Terry is a shit.

I thought maybe Chris Huhne would make a good replacement for Terry but he's a bit more left of centre and he doesn't like taking penalties.

innocent until proven guilty in my eyes - i can bet you a million dollars that if the shoe was on the other boot (footy lolzz) a black person would not have his captaincy taken until proven guilty...

i think its shocking, terry may well be a dick, cock, **** etc but by a court of law he is innocent until proven guilty...

if anyone has actually bothered to view the footage before going along with the grain he clearly says 'and anton i didnt call you a f'in n***a, prick' or something very similar along those lines

so at what point they have evidence of him actually calling it him i have no idea, if thats the footage the allegation is being based on.

they are removing a captain who may well be an absolute bell end in real life, but when he has that captains armband on for england he gives 1200000%, you can tell it means alot to him and he is a good captain/leader..

if i was him i'd personally retire from england now, id refuse to play again given the treatment of being stripped until ive been been proven to actually have done something wrong...

It would be a travesty if he was to get away with it, whilst Suarez was hauled over the coals for a similar offence.

You can't even compare the two cases: Terry was caught on camera saying what he is accused of saying, whereas Suarez was accused by a player with a known history of making up false racism allegations, with not a single piece of corroborating evidence to back him up.

Also, if you compare what the two parties are supposed to have said, Evra agreed that Suarez is not a racist, but used language that could be seen as being racist, even though it wasn't meant in that way and was probably more to do with a clash of cultures, whereas what Terry is accused of saying is clearly aggressive, racist language.

Terry, along with Ashley Cole, represent everything that is wrong with football these days.

i can bet you a million dollars that if the shoe was on the other boot (footy lolzz) a black person would not have his captaincy taken until proven guilty..

i think its shocking, terry may well be a dick, cock, * etc but by a court of law he is innocent until proven guilty...

yes but they thing is the captain of england should be beyond reproach and terry falls someway short of that high standard.....,many on here have contracts of employment that prevent them working if they are charged with an offence - I am one

if anyone has actually bothered to view the footage before going along with the grain he clearly says 'and anton i didnt call you a f'in na, prick' or something very similar along those lines

so at what point they have evidence of him actually calling it him i have no idea, if thats the footage the allegation is being based on.

they are removing a captain who may well be an absolute bell end in real life,

I think you may be the only person to put the word may in that sentence

but when he has that captains armband on for england he gives 1200000%, you can tell it means alot to him and he is a good captain/leader..

Suarez was accused by a player with a known history of making up false racism allegations, with not a single piece of corroborating evidence to back him up.

bobbyg81 - Member
Surely the video evidence is proof enough? You dont need to be a lip reader to see what he is saying.

Well you sort of do really don't you, because there is no sound, so you would be lip reading surely ?

My neighbour, who is pretty much deaf and reads lips as a back up to what hearing he has, said that he could just as easily have said "blind" based purely on the video evidence he's seen.

So that would not be enough to convict in Law ?

(that's not my opinion of what he actually said, or my neighbours. But ignoring what we both think of John Terry, and basing it purely on the Video Evidence, it's not "beyond all reasonable doubt" )

Junkyard - Member

i can bet you a million dollars that if the shoe was on the other boot (footy lolzz) a black person would not have his captaincy taken until proven guilty..

you can bet anything you want but that is just BS what are you saying now he FA is racist and pro black people- stupid stupid comment

i think its shocking, terry may well be a dick, cock, * etc but by a court of law he is innocent until proven guilty...

yes but they thing is the captain of england should be beyond reproach and terry falls someway short of that high standard.....,many on here have contracts of employment that prevent them working if they are charged with an offence - I am one

if anyone has actually bothered to view the footage before going along with the grain he clearly says 'and anton i didnt call you a f'in na, prick' or something very similar along those lines

so he clearly says that or something like that ....it seems then it is not clear even for an apologist

so at what point they have evidence of him actually calling it him i have no idea, if thats the footage the allegation is being based on.

well thet cps has enough to charge believing they have a reasonable chance of getting a conviction...it is possible the defence will call you as an expert witness with your interpretation of his words "or something like that

they are removing a captain who may well be an absolute bell end in real life,

I think you may be the only person to put the word may in that sentence

but when he has that captains armband on for england he gives 1200000%, you can tell it means alot to him and he is a good captain/leader..

so we should overliook the charge for racism as it means a lot to him and he tries...how good a leader will he be to Rio ferdinand the man he replaced as cpt and the brither of the person he is accused of being racist too....I am sure he will indeed find him inspirational as he gives his all as will all the black players.

he's innocent until proven guilty junkyard regardless of what you spout out...ok you dont like the guy, he earns a ridiculous wage, is an arrogant shit, general smug guy...does that not mean hes not to be treated as a normal person in the eyes of the law? hes innocent until proven guilty....

i am no expert on lip reading as you so funnily and cleverly point out, its clear that hes not just calling him a 'n***a' though is it? hes clearly strung that word in with a sentence, and that sentence should be the proof of if hes found guilty or not and based on nothing else at all if thats the only concrete proof they are using against him, hearsay and otherwise wont stand in court, you get somebody in to prove he called him the name and convict him and find him guilty, strip him of the captaincy, but until so why on earth should he be treated like hes guilty?

you cant have one rule for joe public and then another just becuase you simply cant stand the guy....

prick or not hes innocent until proven guilty.

anyways listen im all for him being stripped of it if hes found guilty, if it turns out hes a racist thug then he has no place in modern football nor should he be an example to kids, however until its proven what the truth is morons like you or me and the media should let the courts decide instead of turning this into another media hyped saga....

he shouldnt have been stripped of it until after the court case, as i said if it was me id step down as an england player if the FA have that little faith in me if i knew myself i was innocent

String him up, useless shite.

he shouldnt have been stripped of it until after the court case

A valid opinion, but not one that most would agree with.

If I were facing a criminal charge - ANY criminal charge - then I would be suspended from my job. Why? Because it raises a (legitimate) question-mark over my honesty and integrity.

I may well assert my innocence, but the fact that the CPS feel that they have sufficient evidence to bring me to trial makes people wonder, and my job would then be impossible as my personal life would be taking precedence over my personal life.

In Terry's case, how can he possibly captain black players when there's a legitimate question as to how he feels about them? Answer: he can't.

This is a decision the FA should have taken a long time ago.

well put nick and i agree that its a real tricky situation on whats right and wrong thing to do, law states he should be proved guilty first, yet realistically how can he lead the team in the eyes of the FA...well they have decided now, and if terry is convinced and knows himself he didnt say anything racist then of course as i said he should feel hard done by and remove himself from representing a country or assoication that doesnt believe him?

the thing i find most bizarre is things like his friends - hes really good friends with ashley cole, and numerous amounts of his current chelsea squad, obviously all black.....im not sure i honestly believe that he has 'hatred' of black people and is a racist....maybe a moron who has spouted out something in the heat of the moment sure, but hes been involved with black men (that sounds wrong) since a young young young lad at chelsea, im not so sure given hes been around a while that other players wouldnt have come forward and claimed the same of him?

i can see both sides, as you said the cps obviously think they can do him for it, but its gonna have to be pretty solid to get a conviction against him if all they have is some mumbled words from sky tv....does make me wonder if they have more on him somehow?

i cant see him getting convicted based on that evidence, if its put to a jury they have got to be 100% sure hes said what hes said and all the skysports footage shows is he used the n word but it doesnt show in what context completely, to me when i first saw it ( i dislike terry so i firstly thought it was probably true) i honestly thought it did read like he said ' and i didnt call you a f'in na, prick ' to me it was something like that as i said before, im no lip reader obviously and hence the 'somert like that' but it clearly in my mind didnt say 'YOU NA' or 'you are a n***a'

its a tough one really, its just making a mockery of football again and im getting sick of it to be honest, football over hte last 5 five years has just become awful for everything other than the actual 90 minutes on the pitch 🙁

Suarez admits he said it ...I am not sure why you think that is not corroborating evidence - much if his defence was what the term meant in South america...incredibly ignorant statement.
you can debate whether it is racist but not whether it was said

That only came out when it went before the hearing. As it was, at the time, no one else heard anything, none of the thousands of fans heard anything, nothing was picked up on camera, none of the pitch-side microphones picked up anything. Plus, Evra only reported it AFTER the game; a game in which he was completely schooled by Suarez.

What this does is allow anyone to bring charges against another player based purely on their word against his: Not a particularly fair way to conduct things is it?

With regard to the Terry case, Terry was caught on camera.

he's innocent until proven guilty junkyard regardless of what you spout out

you cant have one rule for joe public and then another just becuase you simply cant stand the guy.

As i have said i would not be able to do my job whilst charged with this [any]offence...what about a nursery worker accused of sexually abusing folk at the place of work...i assume they carry on until the trial as they are inncent and we should not assume anything or treat them differently form anyone else?
He is also the captain of England a symbol of the game and the nation...if you think this does not affect his ability to fullfil this role then fine but personally I think it does.

he shouldnt have been stripped of it until after the court case,

I think the captain should be stripped if charged with any criminal offence as it impaires their ability to be the public face of the team and a nation. There are loads of jobs where charges would prevent you carrying on your job

Nick is not really saying anything that I am not so i am not sure why you agree with him and attack me tbh

Nick is not really saying anything that I am not so i am not sure why you agree with him and attack me tbh

'Cos I'm really nice?

[Edit: I'm not, so it can't be that]

Junkyard - Member

he's innocent until proven guilty junkyard regardless of what you spout out

Have i said he is guilty ? Have I questioned this principle?

you cant have one rule for joe public and then another just becuase you simply cant stand the guy.

As i have said i would not be able to do my job whilst charged with this [any]offence...what about a nursery worker accused of sexually abusing folk at the place of work...i assume they carry on until the trial as they are inncent and we should not assume anything or treat them differently form anyone else?
He is also the captain of England a symbol of the game and the nation...if you think this does not affect his ability to fullfil this role then fine but personally I think it does.

he shouldnt have been stripped of it until after the court case,

I think the captain should be stripped if charged with any criminal offence as it impaires their ability to be the public face of the team and a nation. There are loads of jobs where charges would prevent you carrying on your job

Nick is not really saying anything that I am not so i am not sure why you agree with him and attack me tbh

well the attack came from the sarcy comment about me not being a lip reader really.....no need, i know im not 100% right and not a lip reader, but thats how it came across as to what he said in my opinion thats all and as the jury will be general public like me some will indeed see the same thing, some may not its an opinion...

its definitely a 'tricky' situation, if hes proven innocent im not sure what implications that will have on the FA - i mean by removing his captaincy they have removed IMO any faith they had in him being innocent, if this is proven in a court of law does he have the right to sue? its a tough one as hes the leader of other black players too, which as above will they lose respect for him?

its a tricky one also, as yes you say it would affect your job and being able to do it if this was you, but also if you knew you were innocent in your situation would you not want to be treated like the rest of society and have to be proven before getting any decisions made against you, surely feel hard done by? (presuming he is innocent of course)?

i think 9/10 of the english public want him to be guilty tbh, nobody likes him, or many footballers in general and seem to think they deserve what they get...fair enough alot of them think they cannot be touched, but at least be proven first of the crime in question....

plus i dont think we'd have a starting eleven if we actually knew what some of the footballers got upto in real life as most of them would be banged up in jail, but loop holes and expensive lawyers and all that stop anything like that ever coming to light it appears

Mikey74... did you read my post?
Firstly, I can compare the two offences. They were both accused of racial abuse of another player whilst on the football field. It is the same offence. What you're saying is different is the evidence.

The evidence in the Terry case seems to be greater, yet to date he has served no ban and only now, months later has been stripped of the England captaincy.
Suarez, in contrast, has served an 8 match ban.
I'm saying it is a double standard and unfair that Terry has not recieved the same treatment. I think you agree with me on this?
It would be wrong if Terry was to get away with it.

That said, I am in no way defending Suarez. Suarez deserved his ban in my view. He was accused of saying what he did, he admitted it, he was guilty and banned accordingly.

The only issue I have here is that Terry also should have been hauled over the coals by the FA and banned, stripped of the England captaincy etc, months ago. It is a shocking double standard.

I'm assuming you are a Liverpool fan from the way you are defending Suarez. I think you need to take off your liverpool fan blinkers on that one because it makes you look like you have double standards as bad as the FA.

The maximum punishment for the criminal offence Terry is being charged with is a £2500 fine, by the way. Lots less impact to him than the sanctions the FA could have and should have imposed.

......all the skysports footage shows is he used the n word

Which footage is that, either I'm watching different footage, or your lipreading skills are worse than you say they are.

i honestly thought it did read like he said ' and i didnt call you a f'in na, prick ' to me it was something like that as i said before, im no lip reader obviously and hence the 'somert like that' but it clearly in my mind didnt say 'YOU NA' or 'you are a n***a'

Again, which footage are you watching ?

It can't be the same as I have seen ? unless the "n word" begins with a "b" (which wouldn't make any sense)

......all the skysports footage shows is he used the n word

Which footage is that, either I'm watching different footage, or your lipreading skills are worse than you say they are.

i honestly thought it did read like he said ' and i didnt call you a f'in na, prick ' to me it was something like that as i said before, im no lip reader obviously and hence the 'somert like that' but it clearly in my mind didnt say 'YOU NA' or 'you are a n***a'

Again, which footage are you watching ?

It can't be the same as I have seen ? unless the "n word" begins with a "b" (which wouldn't make any sense)

apologies yeah it is the b word, dont know why i thought it was the n word

something like 'and i didnt call you a 'b' ****, f'in nobhead' it doesnt help his case the fact hes smirking and smiling when he says it, plus a a persons head gets in front of the footage, its pretty impossible id say to be 100% sure on that, given the jury will see it time and time again, yes he cleary says b ****, but to me i just think it reads like 'i didnt call you' first.....

yeah as above i read the max sentence was 2500 pounds fine

http://watchhighlightsonline.blogspot.com/2011/10/video-anton-ferdinand-has-accused-terry.html

that is the footage wait for it to load

I'm assuming you are a Liverpool fan from the way you are defending Suarez. I think you need to take off your liverpool fan blinkers on that one because it makes you look like you have double standards as bad as the FA.

Yes, I am a Liverpool fan, but as friends will atest: I am by no means a fanboi. If I don't agree with what the club, or the club's players have done, I will say so.

I am not defending Suarez, and I certainly think he deserved A ban, but not the lengthy ban he was given. That was the FA flexing their muscles and trying to make an example of someone, but IMO only ended up making a rod for their own back.

The reason you can't compare the two cases is that the FA chose to deal with the Suarez case in-house, whereas the Terry case has been handled by the CPS. Once the Terry case was taken on by the CPS, the FA's hands were tied as they couldn't do anything that would prejudice the investigation and subsequent hearing.

The fact is that the Suarez case would have been thrown out of court immediately if it had gone the same way as the Terry case. Whereas the latter has rather damning video evidence backing it up.

except of course that suarez admitted it so it may not have been thrown out

All this evra's word against Suarez is a smokescreen he said it

As for cases...many cases involve one person word against another and you decide who seems to be telling the truth
Suarez story lacked consistency, defied believe - he claimed he nipped someone to calm then down in a an argument FFS is that credible to anyone/- and suarez was censured as witness and for his reliability as he changed his story.

I have only met Liverpool fans who have an issue with the decision tbh but I am sure that is just coincidence and they are all objective.

Oh do stop arguing Junky. 😉

John Terry has funny eyes ...

If the FA had charged JT and found him guilty(where the burden of proof is much less than in a court of law) he would have got a lengthy ban and would probably have been out of contention for the Euros.
"Someone" complains to the police about the alleged incident and so legal action is instigated and any FA action is suspended.JT's expensive legal team can delay the court case till after the Euros so he is still eligible for selection as he is "innocent till proven guilty".Conspiracy theory?
Tell that to Capello....

does that not mean hes not to be treated as a normal person in the eyes of the law? hes innocent until proven guilty....

The trial is to determine his guilt of the criminal offence and, if convicted, his punishment.

His employment is something different entirely.

A normal person in a normal job can probably expect not to be made, say, project leader on a big upcoming project if they got in a very public screaming match with a colleague. And, in fact, if there were a fairly plausible suggestion they'd been screaming racial abuse, it wouldn't be a huge surprise if they were suspended or even sacked.

"He is disappointed, but John is a person of good mental strength and great personal convictions," said the Blues manager.

Which word is worst?
****,****,Chink, Wop, Spik?

****- Negro/black
****- ****stani

I reckon these 2 are the only ones that would land you in real trouble and etymologically the words aren't offensive so it's the context or tone they're used in, but in the same vein as expletives such as F&ck and Cvn£ it is considered bad form to say them at all.
Would it have been a different story if Anton had called him a white cvnt? I'd say probably yes, in fact it probably wouldn't have been reported. Does that make it right? Absolutely not, but a lot of people are getting a lot more wound up about this that Anton Ferdinand I'll wager.
I don't like John Terry based on what I've read about him in the news (which I try not to do due to complete disinterest) but I reckon this has been blown out of proportion now and it's starting to miss the point. Is the guy actually a racist or did he say something to provoke a reaction (as Suarez claims to have done) or did he just say it without brain engaged?

So if he had just called him a **** that would be ok?

I've explained it before, and don't really want to repeat myself, but the FA have no [u]decent[/u] reason not to charge him. An investigation into whether , on balance of probabilities, he acted outside of FA rules during a match does NOT prejudice a criminal case. This is a smokescreen they are hiding behind.
Their [u]actual[/u] reasons for not charging him are strategic and economic.

By allowing this to go to court first, they are hoping to see him found not guilty, a strong possibility as it is very difficult to prove guilt in racially aggravated public order offences.
They hope this would avoid them having to investigate themselves where, under the precedents they have already set, he would have to prove his innocence- almost impossible given the video evidence.

It is imperative for the FA to avoid the England Captain being shown to be racist. Their sponsorship deals would collapse, their income would be decimated. Money coming into English football could dry up.
This would have knock on effects for everyone in the football business, including the football media, and therfore is not in their interest to publicise this. That's why they cling to their smokescreen.

I reckon these 2 are the only ones that would land you in real trouble

Having said that, I doubt John Terry and I are likely to be colleagues any time soon.

If a black player had called JT a white **** would they be charged with racism ? or are there double standards?

If a black player had called JT a white **** would they be charged with racism ? or are there double standards?

I don't have insight into the FA or the CPS, I am afraid.

Have there been any occasions on which white FA players have been abused for being white? Is that a major problem in English football? I don't follow the sport myself.

Would it be informative if I said that around half of the victims in prosecutions for racially-aggravated murder were white? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/22/ukcrime.race

konabunny - Member

I reckon these 2 are the only ones that would land you in real trouble

You and I must have worked in remarkably dissimilar professional and social circles. Someone tossing those words around at everywhere I've worked can expect a cardboard box containing the personal possessions that used to be in their desk to be couriered over to their home. And away from work...you're inviting fisticuffs.

Having said that, I doubt John Terry and I are likely to be colleagues any time soon.

Konabunny, you know I didn't say I use those words. I wanted to acknowledge that in our society they carry varying degrees of severity, espescially the 2 I pointed out. Even my writing them provokes anger as it has done in you and you want to call me a racist, but since you can't you'll imply that I'm of a lower professional or social status without even knowing who I am.

I'm not angry and I don't think you're a racist. I do think you're woefully mistaken if you think only two of those words "would land you in real trouble". All of them are fairly likely to get one who uses them the sack or a smack in the chops.

As for

Etymologically the words aren't offensive.

..err...well, I suppose you could argue that it's not etymologically offensive to go around calling men w!nkers because it's statistically probable that they do, indeed, masturbate. But that would just go to show that judging an epithet's offensiveness on its etymology would be pretty silly.

Etymologically the words aren't offensive. One means black and the other means ****stani

Pak·i (pk)
n. pl. Pak·is Chiefly British Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a person of ****stani or South Asian birth or descent.

nig·ger (ngr)
n. Offensive Slang
1.
a. Used as a disparaging term for a Black person: "You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a ****" (James Baldwin).
b. Used as a disparaging term for a member of any dark-skinned people.
2. Used as a disparaging term for a member of any socially, economically, or politically deprived group of people.

I dont know what dictionary you are using to say "etymologically" they are not offensive- the n word may have started of as a description of colour but it is not used as such now

You are taking utter driverl - they are derogatory racist terms

as for the white argument - often rolled out to suggest "they" cannot be racist to us but we can be racist to them - do you have any evidence of this ever happening on a football pitch or elsewhere.

Its another specious argument rolled out by racist apologists
I doubt they would be charged. Terry would be not charged if he called him a mixed heritage **** it is the derogatory racial word [ of which white is generally not considered derogatory [ perhaps in Zimbabwe?? that is the issue

Junkyard, right on cue you've appeared to imply I'm a racist as soon as you could figure out a plausible arguement.
Which you haven't.
Read what I said. The words intrinsically and by their origin were not created to cause offence. They do now. I know why it offends you and as I said in my post they have become, arguably the 2 most offensive words in our language in the UK at this time.
By contrast, how offended would you be if a Mexican called you a Gringo? (you wouldn't care would you)Is it in the same league as the other 2? No.
I knew you would be along shortly to fling shit at me but it won't stick because I'm not racist and well you know it, and FWIW I think John Terry is a dick.
Even seeing those words infuriates certain people (you) but probably not so many Africans/Asians unless its meant to offend.
I really thought twice about sending my original post but I suppose I wanted to guage reaction (although I'd already guessed this would be yours).
Consider this then- why is it considered fair game to take the piss out of the French or the Japanese say as many folks do but these other words are unutterable?
If someone called me a Scottish cvnt or Jock w@nker I honestly wouldn't care (be honest, would you?) I'd be much more offended if someone said something nasty about my loved ones, particularly if it was said with malice.
Same as you.

right on cue you've appeared to imply I'm a racist as soon as you could figure out a plausible arguement.

I am not really interested in the personal or emotive stuff you posted above. Your argument is poor and I never said nor implied you were racist.

The words intrinsically and by their origin were not created to cause offence. They do now.

Is there not some damp (Stamford) bridge that you ought to be under?

+1 for funny eyes. And that haircut. What's that all about? It looks like a dying pineapple.