JackLakeland Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Watching the news on Sky this morning Diane Abbott was on talking about the case. I know, kettle? pot? Anyway, she repeatedly said that the use of racist language on the pitch as in the case should have been punished. But Terry was found not guilty of doing this. The same sort of reports are seen everywhere. He was found NOT GUILTY he didn't do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 He was found not guilty of racial abuse. There is no dispute that he used words which constitute racial abuse; he openly admitted that himself. His defence was that he responding to a question, and saying "no I did not call you a ..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLakeland Posted July 14, 2012 Author Share Posted July 14, 2012 He was found not guilty of racial abuse. There is no dispute that he used words which constitute racial abuse; he openly admitted that himself. His defence was that he responding to a question, and saying "no I did not call you a ..." No he didn't the judge agreed that he was parroting what Ferdinand said, so the comments were not aimed at anyone, so couldn't be racial abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 The judge said there wasn't enough evidence to find Terry guilty, adding that Terry's defence was improbable but that the prosecution case wasn't strong enough to prove guilt due to not all the exchange being caught on camera. It's possible that what Terry alleged - that he was repeating Ferdinand's words back to him - is true but it's not very likely. Terry has been found not guilty but he's tarnished himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 No he didn't the judge agreed that he was parroting what Ferdinand said, so the comments were not aimed at anyone, so couldn't be racial abuse. That's what I just said; what did you think you were disagreeing with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLakeland Posted July 14, 2012 Author Share Posted July 14, 2012 The judge said there wasn't enough evidence to find Terry guilty, adding that Terry's defence was improbable but that the prosecution case wasn't strong enough to prove guilt due to not all the exchange being caught on camera. It's possible that what Terry alleged - that he was repeating Ferdinand's words back to him - is true but it's not very likely. Terry has been found not guilty but he's tarnished himself. So he's guilty even though found not guilty, I think its British justice that is tarnished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLakeland Posted July 14, 2012 Author Share Posted July 14, 2012 He was found not guilty of racial abuse. There is no dispute that he used words which constitute racial abuse; he openly admitted that himself. His defence was that he responding to a question, and saying "no I did not call you a ..." That's what I just said; what did you think you were disagreeing with? The highlighted bit, it wasn't racial abuse because the remarks weren't aimed at anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 The highlighted bit, it wasn't racial abuse because the remarks weren't aimed at anyone. Which is what I said. What did you think you were disagreeing with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 No he didn't the judge agreed that he was parroting what Ferdinand said, so the comments were not aimed at anyone, so couldn't be racial abuse. No he didn't. See page 6 http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/interactive/2012/jul/13/john-terry-trial-full-judgment?intcmp=239 where the judge says Terry's explanation is "unlikely". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 So he's guilty even though found not guilty, I think its British justice that is tarnished. A lot of people will consider him guilty, yes, but there wasn't enough evidence for a criminal conviction because of a lack of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.