Terry quits England !!!

[Bradywasking]

John Terry found guilty and banned for four games. I see the Scousers taking this one well....

Just what I was thinking !!! Vindicated Victims again...

[northbank123]

John Terry found guilty and banned for four games. I see the Scousers taking this one well....

Twitter undoubtedly going to be filled with him being treated twice as leniently as Victim Suarez. When does the ban start?

[augie]

John Terry found guilty and banned for four games. I see the Scousers taking this one well....

Fcuking disgrace that he only got a 4 game ban after giving suarez a 9 game ban It seems that knobbing the odd royalty isnt the only "privilege" afforded to english captains

Thought that the writing was on the wall once he announced his retirement - he got wind of what was coming and it was only reason he left

[Skooner]

I'd be livid if I was a Liverpool fan. Terry is caught on camera saying whereas the Suarez case was basically one persons word against another with a language issue to muddy the water, it just doesn't add up. No sympathy with Suarez at all, he's almost as much of a scum bag as Terry but it's exactly this sort of thing that will lead to the FA being seen as favouring teams/players over others.

[Skooner]

John Terry found guilty and banned for four games. I see the Scousers taking this one well....

Twitter undoubtedly going to be filled with him being treated twice as leniently as Victim Suarez. When does the ban start?

He'll play against us unless he accepts the charge before the game. He's got 14 days to appeal, even if he isn't going to appeal it wouldn't make sense for him to accept it and rule himself out of a big match.

[Perryashburtongroves]

About time this *word censored* was hit with some shit that will hopefully stick. I don't actually think that there has been a bigger *word censored* ever in English football or one that is so less respected. I have never met anyone who has actually said anything redeemable about the scumbag. How this thug has managed to have a career as long as he has and managed to captain Ing-er-land despite all the chavvy, nasty, vile things he has done, amazes me. I hope he appeals and gets the ban extended, just for being a fucking racist *word censored*.

[Top Londoner]

GUILTY


But we already knew that.

[Deise Gooner]

I fail to see how the FA can come to this conclusion when he was aquitted in a court of law. Im no lawyer but if you are found not quilty in the eyes of the law, how can another who have no power come along and offer a different outcome. Regardless of what you think of John Terry and i believe he is a grade A *word censored*, todays ruling is totally out of order from the FA. It would be like the FA finding Santos guilty of dangerous driving in a hearing if he had been found not guilty by a magistrate.

[Skooner]

I fail to see how the FA can come to this conclusion when he was aquitted in a court of law. Im no lawyer but if you are found not quilty in the eyes of the law, how can another who have no power come along and offer a different outcome. Regardless of what you think of John Terry and i believe he is a grade A *word censored*, todays ruling is totally out of order from the FA. It would be like the FA finding Santos guilty of dangerous driving in a hearing if he had been found not guilty by a magistrate.

It's the same difference as criminal and civil cases. When you a criminally charged it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty. The judge decided he could not be absolutely sure that Terry wasn't just repeating what he though Ferdinand said. The FA (like a civil case) only need to believe the charge to be more likely than not, I guess statistically 51% sure.

If the FA applied the same rules as a criminal case there would basically never be any guilty verdicts and no suspensions or fines.

For me Terry is more likely to be guilty than Suarez as he can be seen on camera saying it, Suarez would never have been found guilty in a court of law either.

[Deise Gooner]

I fail to see how the FA can come to this conclusion when he was aquitted in a court of law. Im no lawyer but if you are found not quilty in the eyes of the law, how can another who have no power come along and offer a different outcome. Regardless of what you think of John Terry and i believe he is a grade A *word censored*, todays ruling is totally out of order from the FA. It would be like the FA finding Santos guilty of dangerous driving in a hearing if he had been found not guilty by a magistrate.

It's the same difference as criminal and civil cases. When you a criminally charged it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty. The judge decided he could not be absolutely sure that Terry wasn't just repeating what he though Ferdinand said. The FA (like a civil case) only need to believe the charge to be more likely than not, I guess statistically 51% sure.

If the FA applied the same rules as a criminal case there would basically never be any guilty verdicts and no suspensions or fines.

For me Terry is more likely to be guilty than Suarez as he can be seen on camera saying it, Suarez would never have been found guilty in a court of law either.

Surely the FA case isnt a civil case as the FA arent actually looking sue Terry for any damages that they incurred which is what a civil case is all about (as far as i believed im open to correction). From where i am standing the FA case is essentially a disciplinary hearing like you would have with your employer and surely in that situation they cannot go against a verdict in a court of law?

[SteveO 35]

No doubt the wanker will be thumping his chest and kissing his badge in front of the 200 travelling Neanderthals on Saturday

Is there a more odious fuckwit currently playing football anywhere ?

[LDB]

I fail to see how the FA can come to this conclusion when he was aquitted in a court of law. Im no lawyer but if you are found not quilty in the eyes of the law, how can another who have no power come along and offer a different outcome. Regardless of what you think of John Terry and i believe he is a grade A *word censored*, todays ruling is totally out of order from the FA. It would be like the FA finding Santos guilty of dangerous driving in a hearing if he had been found not guilty by a magistrate.

It's the same difference as criminal and civil cases. When you a criminally charged it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty. The judge decided he could not be absolutely sure that Terry wasn't just repeating what he though Ferdinand said. The FA (like a civil case) only need to believe the charge to be more likely than not, I guess statistically 51% sure.

If the FA applied the same rules as a criminal case there would basically never be any guilty verdicts and no suspensions or fines.

For me Terry is more likely to be guilty than Suarez as he can be seen on camera saying it, Suarez would never have been found guilty in a court of law either.

Surely the FA case isnt a civil case as the FA arent actually looking sue Terry for any damages that they incurred which is what a civil case is all about (as far as i believed im open to correction). From where i am standing the FA case is essentially a disciplinary hearing like you would have with your employer and surely in that situation they cannot go against a verdict in a court of law?

It isn't a civil case but the burden of proof is similar to what you would find in a civil case.

The essential facts are that it is blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain that Terry wasn't spitting out the words "you fucking black *word censored*" in some conciliatory manner because he had been misunderstood. The problem with criminal trials is that even though the jurors probably knew deep down he is guilty as sin there simply wasn't the evidence to support a beyond reasonable doubt verdict.

It is also important to point out that Terry didn't prove his innocence, his lawyers merely threw enough doubt in to prevent a guilty verdict. Imo the FA are well within their rights to ensure some form of justice is meted out to this scumbag although they also deserve ridicule for not applying their recently-set precedent to the sanction.

[SteveO 35]

I fail to see how the FA can come to this conclusion when he was aquitted in a court of law. Im no lawyer but if you are found not quilty in the eyes of the law, how can another who have no power come along and offer a different outcome. Regardless of what you think of John Terry and i believe he is a grade A *word censored*, todays ruling is totally out of order from the FA. It would be like the FA finding Santos guilty of dangerous driving in a hearing if he had been found not guilty by a magistrate.

It's the same difference as criminal and civil cases. When you a criminally charged it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty. The judge decided he could not be absolutely sure that Terry wasn't just repeating what he though Ferdinand said. The FA (like a civil case) only need to believe the charge to be more likely than not, I guess statistically 51% sure.

If the FA applied the same rules as a criminal case there would basically never be any guilty verdicts and no suspensions or fines.

For me Terry is more likely to be guilty than Suarez as he can be seen on camera saying it, Suarez would never have been found guilty in a court of law either.

Surely the FA case isnt a civil case as the FA arent actually looking sue Terry for any damages that they incurred which is what a civil case is all about (as far as i believed im open to correction). From where i am standing the FA case is essentially a disciplinary hearing like you would have with your employer and surely in that situation they cannot go against a verdict in a court of law?

It isn't a civil case but the burden of proof is similar to what you would find in a civil case.

The essential facts are that it is blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain that Terry wasn't spitting out the words "you fucking black *word censored*" in some conciliatory manner because he had been misunderstood. The problem with criminal trials is that even though the jurors probably knew deep down he is guilty as sin there simply wasn't the evidence to support a beyond reasonable doubt verdict.

It is also important to point out that Terry didn't prove his innocence, his lawyers merely threw enough doubt in to prevent a guilty verdict. Imo the FA are well within their rights to ensure some form of justice is meted out to this scumbag although they also deserve ridicule for not applying their recently-set precedent to the sanction.

Agree with every word of that. The issue is whether the FA will now stand firmly behind their verdict or whether they will wilt when the Chavs heavy mob threaten to get their lawyers involved

[LDB]

John Terry found guilty and banned for four games. I see the Scousers taking this one well....

Fcuking disgrace that he only got a 4 game ban after giving suarez a 9 game ban It seems that knobbing the odd royalty isnt the only "privilege" afforded to english captains

Thought that the writing was on the wall once he announced his retirement - he got wind of what was coming and it was only reason he left

I too am bemused by why the ban is only 4 games rather then 8 but I think we can safely dismiss English bias from the equation.

a) He had already resigned as an England player at the time of the sanction being set
b) If they were favouring him they wouldn't have charged him in the first place, they had a ready-made excuse not to in the court case and although a few quarters would have grumbled, in the main the FA would have escaped major ridicule and the issue would have been dropped.

[StuartL]

I fail to see how the FA can come to this conclusion when he was aquitted in a court of law. Im no lawyer but if you are found not quilty in the eyes of the law, how can another who have no power come along and offer a different outcome. Regardless of what you think of John Terry and i believe he is a grade A *word censored*, todays ruling is totally out of order from the FA. It would be like the FA finding Santos guilty of dangerous driving in a hearing if he had been found not guilty by a magistrate.

He actually admitted saying the words, but his defence was that he was just repeating them,not saying them directly himself ?

ie you think that I called you a f........ b..... c.... ?