John Terry defence 'improbable, implausible and contrived' - FA

[stainrodisalegend]

BTW, we should monitor how long Chelsea keep saying "no comment" on Terry. Their argument is he has the right to appeal but the judgement was made a week ago now. Now the full report is also out Terry needs to put up - or better still - shut up. At which point Chelsea have to make some kind of statement. They can't have this judgement stand against their captain and pretend the problem isn't there.

[QPRDave]

Love the line in the report "the evolution of Ashley Cole's evidence." Or put in simpler terms, he changed his story to defend Terry. Or put another way still, he perjured himself. And surely he has to be looking at a ban for showing such lack of respect for the governing body of football with that tweet outburst. Only goes to highlight the arrogance and unpleasantness of Chelsea so-called "stars" that led to this entire case.

Spot on........ horrible little ( insert swearword)

[brightonr]

Page 3 is hilarious. Hard to believe the content of such documents knocking around in the corridors of power. Although I feel it's only right to say : Well said, Anton. Top man.

[QPRDave]

It says that there is no dispute on Terry's part that he used the words fbc but his words were used as a forceful rejection/inquiry to an accusation??????
So am I right in thinking that I can use this language towards a Black person as long as I feel outraged that he had said something to me first?...It doesn't make sense........if any of us used those words in the street during an argument and it was witnessed by someone actually it wouldn't need to be witnessed let's face it, we'd get done for racial.... something.
I don't get why the court found not guilty if the words were used

[Bluehoop]

Page 3 is hilarious. Hard to believe the content of such documents knocking around in the corridors of power. Although I feel it's only right to say : Well said, Anton. Top man.

Indeed Brighton - if I'm honest I didn't realise Anton was such an eloquent lad :pleasantsuprise:

[DeepcutHoop]

It says that there is no dispute on Terry's part that he used the words fbc but his words were used as a forceful rejection/inquiry to an accusation??????
So am I right in thinking that I can use this language towards a Black person as long as I feel outraged that he had said something to me first?...It doesn't make sense........if any of us used those words in the street during an argument and it was witnessed by someone actually it wouldn't need to be witnessed let's face it, we'd get done for racial.... something.
I don't get why the court found not guilty if the words were used

Different burden of proof for criminal courts compared to FA inquiries tbf

[QPRDave]

Evidently....Tell me Deepcut if any of us used that type of language would we get off? Which he no doubt did.

[dsqpr]

This written judgement ensures his reputation will always be stained beyond repair.

From the "Analysis" on the BBC website story:

"Terry can insist he's innocent, he can appeal, he can play on, he can refer to his court acquittal, but, for many, this written judgement ensures his reputation will always be stained beyond repair."

[DeepcutHoop]

Evidently....Tell me Deepcut if any of us used that type of language would we get off? Which he no doubt did.

No idea, would depend on the circumstances I would say.

Although a good rule of thumb is, if you don't want to be in a position to be on trial for racist insults, it's probably best not to call someone an FBC.

[QPRDave]

No idea, would depend on the circumstances I would say.

Although a good rule of thumb is, if you don't want to be in a position to be on trial for racist insults, it's probably best not to call someone an FBC.

Thats what I thought.