Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Pollen

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NUT

John Terry Retires From International Football

Recommended Posts

Since he was cleared in court shouldn't have a case to answer. Interesting with the recent refusal to shake hands nothing much was said unlike a certain other case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are differences between what constitutes a crime and what amounts to a breech of professional standards...Terry's apologists are merely trying to confuse the situation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remain uneasy about the FA's charge, because of their large weight placed on his use of the term "black". By analogy, if someone got exasperated at a bespectacled person, and said, "you four-eyed numpty", would this warrant being punished on the basis that it was saying that all people who wear glasses are numpties? The traditional argument is that we justify this with black people because they are targeted by bigots a lot, but the more we go down this route, the greater the risk of ordinary people being treated as racists. I had this stance on the legal case and I also feel that it applies to the FA's decisions.

The irony is, if their charges were more focused on his overall use of foul and abusive language, rather than accusing him of being racist, I wouldn't have any objections, as I know I, for one, usually feel somewhat threatened when lads come up to me with that kind of language and attitude. It's not the sort of thing we need to be seeing in professional football.

About the retirement from international football, I think it's a shame, but Terry has had a long history of mess-ups and doesn't come across as a very good ambassador for English football, so him being in the England squad would always generate controversy- that was true even before the Ferdinand incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite a good article in the Times by Matt Dickenson IMO on the Terry affair.

Martyr defence the last resort of accused

We can call it the Lance Armstrong defence. Attack the process, say it is a witch-hunt, denigrate the organisation laying the charges.

That way a guilty verdict can be met with an instant response of ‘see, I told you it was a stitch-up’ and your loyal supporters can rally around you as the poor victim.

John Terry went for that approach when he retired from England duty on Sunday night with an attack on the FA, getting his retaliation in before he had even set foot in a disciplinary hearing.

As tactics go, it was the move of someone who reckoned he had nothing to lose. If it is the worst outcome for Terry this week, he has jumped before he can be damned. And if it goes well, he can always reverse his decision to retire.

Availability for England is now a strategic decision, worked out with PRs and lawyers and agents. That’s where boyhood dreams end up, being tossed around in planning meetings to try to salvage a reputation from the bonfire.

It makes the heart sing, doesn’t it, to think of Terry and his hapless representatives sat around drafting a statement in which the man of many misdemeanours accuses the FA of making his position untenable. As a grab for martyrdom, it comes from the least likely person imaginable.

Look at the decision from all angles and it is hard to see how else to explain Terry’s decision to retire from England before the outcome of the FA’s disciplinary commission this week.

This way, Terry hopes he is portrayed as a man facing not justice but a firing squad — an FA system with a 99.5 per cent conviction rate, a rigged process. What chance does a man have, his team leaks, even before the panel convenes.

The rest of us would prefer to wait until the FA panel has reported and set out its full judgment as it did, exhaustively, in a 115-page document when it dealt with Luis Suárez.

That was by no means a flawless document — the panel made a dangerous leap in concluding that Suárez repeatedly offended simply because Patrice Evra said so — but only among the most partisan of Anfield was the verdict dismissed as the finding of a kangaroo court.

The Terry findings will be picked over with even more scrutiny given that the Chelsea defender has already been cleared by a criminal court of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand.

This case will have to make clear, more than any before, exactly how the FA rules work when it comes to on-pitch behaviour, how the burden of proof measures against a criminal court and why it was necessary to re-test the evidence from Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

There is a lot of legal argument to be picked over even before we hear the judgment and, finally, the conclusion from the FA as to whether that finding makes Terry a suitable England player.

Would a sanction for insulting language “including a reference to colour†trigger an indefinite ban from playing for his country if it only warrants a four-match ban from club games?

The FA and its processes are on trial, too; the oft-repeated claims by the FA that it can effectively work as prosecutor while also overseeing the disciplinary process, the reliance on Chinese walls, the conflicts of interest which see Roy Hodgson, the England manager, publicly state that he hopes Terry will be cleared while his employers talk of zero tolerance to racism.

There will be much to digest and, no doubt, a finding that ensures the arguments continue. The panel may find Terry guilty of using insulting language while stating clearly, as it did with Suárez, that this is a long way from concluding that he is racist. Where would that leave the FA, Hodgson and Terry given the England manager believes the defender could probably still walk into his XI for Brazil in 2014?

So much still to emerge, then, but the Chelsea captain could not wait if he was going to get out his martyr defence.

Conveniently forgetting months of support from the FA hierarchy, he had to go first, to proclaim how that body let him down and how he has supposedly been driven out of the England team.

Yes, Terry the victim. We’ve heard it all now.

http://www.thetimes....icle3548694.ece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting comments in that article. If the decision from the FA is lighter than expected, I wonder if he will reverse his decision with regards to England?

Especially if say, the captaincy is offered to him again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Riddance! Great Footballer, but some of the older players need to go.. Lampard, Terry etc... Plus he causes aot of trouble behind the scenes and is a first class idiot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Riddance! Great Footballer, but some of the older players need to go.. Lampard, Terry etc... Plus he causes aot of trouble behind the scenes and is a first class idiot!

Do you actually know John Terry or ever met him??..you dont actually know what goes on behind the scenes, granted he may not be the sharpest tool in the box..but he has been the best centre back England have had in the last 20-30 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A close friend lives nearby and he is a complete tool. But to be fair he was one of the best defenders we have had for a while. Just causes a lot of trouble with other footballers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see him go. Not happy with him representing our country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see him go. Not happy with him representing our country.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found guilty... Four game ban...... Suarez got 8..........Need i say more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FA gave the following as its reasons for the Suarez eight-game ban:

It reads: "Our findings of fact which are directly relevant to the charge are as follows: (1) In response to Mr Evra's question '***** hell, why did you kick me,' Mr Suarez said 'Because you are black'.

"(2) In response to Mr Evra's comment 'Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you,' Mr Suarez said 'I don't speak to blacks'.

"(3) In response to Mr Evra's comment: 'Okay, now I think I'm going to punch you,' Mr Suarez said 'Okay, blackie, blackie, blackie'."

In my previous post in this thread I suggested that Terry's use of the term "black" has been overblown, but for various reasons, it is much harder to make a similar defence for Suarez's comments (above). Hence, on this basis, I would certainly support the larger ban for Suarez.

I'll refrain from forming a strong opinion on Terry's punishment until I see the written judgement from the FA, as I recall thinking that Suarez's ban was harsh initially but then changing my mind when seeing the FA's specific evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is though TWS there was no evidence as such for those "findings" against Suarez. He admitted to a later use of the word "negro" in a non-offensive way and the FA accepted his defence based on cultural misunderstanding (it's how they talk in South America), but nailed him for the above which he completely denied and for which there was no evidence at all. The FA simply chose to believe Evra based on "balance of probability".

Terry on the other hand was caught on camera and others actually heard him (which is why he was reported to the police in the first place). Whatever you think about that case, there was at least evidence involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry on the other hand was caught on camera and others actually heard him (which is why he was reported to the police in the first place). Whatever you think about that case, there was at least evidence involved.

so if that was the case why was he found not guilty in public court?..also the FA supposedly have a zero tolerance for foul and abusive language..so why was wasn't Anton Ferdinand up in front of them too?..and as i said before Anton Ferdinand isn't black he's mixed race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe John Terry used the word 'black' becuase he is a racist but more to the point he wanted to use a word that he knew would get at AF the most.

The language used by both is disgusting and they should both be up in front of the FA as CM says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if that was the case why was he found not guilty in public court?..also the FA supposedly have a zero tolerance for foul and abusive language..so why was wasn't Anton Ferdinand up in front of them too?..and as i said before Anton Ferdinand isn't black he's mixed race.

so it was ok.... as he was mixed race... So to call someone who looks black... a black laminate floor is ok... as there mixed race... Oh dear,,,JT new what he was saying, He new it was racist, but its ok he was English... Where Suarez, what he was saying is perfectly fine in Latin america, Even Messi says it to his barca team mates... but in the eyes of the fa it was racist... Then because he was not English 8 game ban..... Fa seem a bit racist to me. How ironic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so it was ok.... as he was mixed race... So to call someone who looks black... a black laminate floor is ok... as there mixed race... Oh dear,,,JT new what he was saying, He new it was racist, but its ok he was English... Where Suarez, what he was saying is perfectly fine in Latin america, Even Messi says it to his barca team mates... but in the eyes of the fa it was racist... Then because he was not English 8 game ban..... Fa seem a bit racist to me. How ironic

im trying to highlight the fact that the language used by both players was disgraceful and has been completely overlooked by the race issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if that was the case why was he found not guilty in public court?..also the FA supposedly have a zero tolerance for foul and abusive language..so why was wasn't Anton Ferdinand up in front of them too?..and as i said before Anton Ferdinand isn't black he's mixed race.

Try telling that to your average BNP prat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re. the Suarez incident, Suarez did deny some of the accusations regarding what he was supposed to have said, but it seems somewhat unlikely that most or all of them were wide of the mark:

http://www.guardian....ort-luis-suarez

That said, there were certainly question marks over whether some of the terms he used had a weaker meaning from the culture that he comes from.

Meanwhile, some players are complaining that Terry's punishment was lenient:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/19761706

Again there is the dodgy implication that a one-off comment relating to skin colour constitutes "racial abuse", but that a succession of foul-mouthed insults is somehow relatively okay. I am in agreement with the general sentiments expressed by Cheeky_Monkey and Chinomaniac to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me John Terry has got off very lightly and should have been penalised last year, but that would have meant he couldn't go to the Euros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me John Terry has got off very lightly and should have been penalised last year, but that would have meant he couldn't go to the Euros.

Agreed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it amusing that Barton has stuck his oar in and called it a farce, like butter wouldn't melt in his mouth!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×