Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Sept 24, 2012 15:35:44 GMT
You may have heard that John Terry announced his retirement from international football on Sunday night a matter of hours before facing Football Association charges of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand, a prosecution that he claims has made his position with the national side “untenable”.
Terry was cleared by Westminster Magistrates Court in July of a racially aggravated public order offence after he used the words “f------ black c---” in an angry exchange directed at Ferdinand. His defense at the hearing was that he claimed he used the phrase as part of a question, to ascertain whether Ferdinand believed he had used the words earlier in the game in an abusive context.
I personally was expecting him to be found guilty at his hearing as he did admit he had used those words, but at the end of the day the court found him not guilty and should that have been the end of it.
Are the FA simply saying they do not agree with the verdict? Or is there something else going on here. So my question to you all is, are the FA doing the right thing bringing these charges against him?
We would all like to think that racism had been kicked out of football, while things have improved greatly over the years, I do not think we will ever see the day, when its gone completely.
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Sept 24, 2012 16:21:54 GMT
One of the issues is a different standard of proof being applied by the criminal courts as opposed to the FA (and indeed other none criminal hearings and tribunals).
The criminal law standard is 'beyond reasonable doubt' whilst the FA use 'on the balance of probabilities'.
Whilst I can not remember the exact wording used by the chief magistrate and have not looked it up, Terry had admitted using the offensive words and the magistrate concluded in his summing up that whilst the explanation given by Terry did not sound plausible, it was 'possible', therefore the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
I can remember thinking at the time that, by what he said in summing up, as far as he was concerned the magistrate believed Terry to be guilty on the balance of probabilities, but that the case had not been proved to the criminal standard.
The FA are almost certain to make a c*ck up of the proceedings in any case!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2012 17:05:45 GMT
The criminal law standard is 'beyond reasonable doubt' whilst the FA use 'on the balance of probabilities'. Not only is that an extremely useful technical explanation but it also highlights that we talking about two different frameworks and processes. In other words the simple distinction between the laws of the game and the law of the land. I would expect the FA – or any football authority with the power – to charge players who had been involved in a particularly nasty brawl on the pitch. I would expect the FA to charge anyone in the game who displays gross disrespect to be charged. I would expect a player who has committed an act of unusually violent play to be charged by the FA. But, unless these acts had crossed a line of criminality, I wouldn’t expect charges through the criminal justice system. However, if an act is deemed to be of a criminal nature, I think it's fair to bring charges through the legal system. Later, just because an action isn’t found to be criminal, it doesn’t mean that it should escape censure within the game. At that point you are merely returning to the beginning and judging the action in question within the confines of football. That’s not being specific to Terry, it just seems an obvious distinction to make.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Sept 24, 2012 17:19:00 GMT
Many thanks for the great explanations as to why the FA has decided to charge Terry with the offence. I do think in this instance, we will see a guilty as charged verdict, with John Terry being banned for a number of matches, plus receive a fine of some description.
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,910
|
Post by Jon on Sept 24, 2012 21:43:03 GMT
So Terry thinks that the FA have made his position as England captain untenable by charging him over his calling a player a "f***ing black c***", does he?
Some might argue that Terry has made his position as England captain untenable by calling a player a "f***ing black c***".
|
|
|
Post by stuartB on Sept 24, 2012 22:25:19 GMT
So Terry thinks that the FA have made his position as England captain untenable by charging him over his calling a player a "f***ing black c***", does he? Some might argue that Terry has made his position as England captain untenable by calling a player a "f***ing black c***". ALLEGEDLY
|
|
Rags
TFF member
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by Rags on Sept 25, 2012 9:10:09 GMT
So Terry thinks that the FA have made his position as England captain untenable by charging him over his calling a player a "f***ing black c***", does he?
Some might argue that Terry has made his position as England captain untenable by calling a player a "f***ing black c***". ALLEGEDLYThere's nothing alleged about it. Terry has never denied using those words, his defence was always the context in which he used them. And "allegedly" is no defence against libel.
|
|
|
Post by loyalgull on Sept 25, 2012 12:02:06 GMT
Many thanks for the great explanations as to why the FA has decided to charge Terry with the offence. I do think in this instance, we will see a guilty as charged verdict, with John Terry being banned for a number of matches, plus receive a fine of some description. probably,still he can pop round to wayne bridges ex and see if she needs servicing he really is an unsavoury character,who has got away with too much up to now,but saying that,why oh why has this all dragged on so long,it could of been sorted out long ago
|
|
|
Post by stuartB on Sept 25, 2012 12:05:16 GMT
There's nothing alleged about it. Terry has never denied using those words, his defence was always the context in which he used them. And "allegedly" is no defence against libel. I'm sure he meant it in the best possible taste, like our friend Rio and his malteser jibe
|
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Sept 25, 2012 15:39:40 GMT
Says a lot that the only people found to be defending him publicly are the BNP, though that's 0not especially surprising considering this is Chelsea we're talking about
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Sept 27, 2012 16:09:14 GMT
It comes as no real surprise that the FA has found John Terry guilty of racially abusing QPR defender Anton Ferdinand. They have given him a four match ban and given him a massive £220.000 fine.
As you might expect John Terry is not a happy man and may well appeal the decision. I have always wondered how such bodies as the FA and other bodies such as regulators etc, can set such high fines.
Don't get me wrong here, if he is guilty then the book should have been thrown at him and lets be honest, with the money he earns, he can well afford to pay the fine.
If someone came up to us in the street and racially abused us, I can't see any court in this land, giving out such a big fine. But then I guess a court could send someone to prison.
This may seem a silly question, but how enforceable is the fine from the FA? Lets say he would not pay it, well we know the FA could stop him ever playing football again, but would they then have to go to court to get their money?
Just what would a court then do? he was found not guilty in a courtroom and one would expect any judge might well feel as that was the case, the FA could not find him guilty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2012 17:00:54 GMT
You can only deduce that football hands out fines on the player's ability to pay. Clubs certainly do that as we often hear about so-and-so being fined a week's wages or a fortnight's wages. Consequently we have apparent absurdities such as being fined half-a-million pounds for missing a couple of training sessions or buggering off to Buenos Aires without telling the gaffer.
That's the world of football rather than the real world. That makes it fruitless making comparisons with fines levied through the criminal justice system. It's not comparing like with like.
But, of course, if you were a Torquay player, it wouldn't be £500,000 or whatever payment John Terry will barely notice making. Instead it would be a much smaller amount which, of course, may actually damage the individual. If you're on £500 a week you're certainly going to notice missing a thousand quid. That makes the "week's wages" definition of the ability to pay rather daft.
I suspect the clubs and authorities are at their wits ends about how to punish the really high earners and, just as importantly, carry through meaningful punishment. Remember there's a fair chance that individuals such as Terry can afford better legal advice than the FA. I know it's tempting to ask if somebody could be hired to break Terry's legs. That could be defined as meaningful punishment in some people's eyes. But, on reflection, I guess we need to be more liberally-minded and progressive than that. Personally I wouldn't have fined Terry a penny but I would have suspended him for as long as I had the power. And, ideally, a bit more too. Equally, if it's a club, forget the fine just take the points off them. But it may not be that simple of course.
Compared to other types of work, it's an interesting system whereby footballers get fined either by their employer or by a governing body. How many of us, for example, are liable for being fined at work? Not many I would suggest. Instead we can be fired, suspended, debarred from practising or censured in some other way that might not do us too many favours in the long-run.
By contrast football doesn't really work in that way. Naughty players are rarely sacked, especially if their value to the team is high. Likewise the occasional outbreak of ill-discipline may not affect a player's prospects in the long-run. Some club will always want him if he's any good. Governing bodies can suspend players but clubs are reluctant to do so because it's potentially self-damaging. So it's an almost medieval system of fines whether you racially abuse another player or turn up for training with a bad haircut.
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Sept 27, 2012 17:11:52 GMT
This may seem a silly question, but how enforceable is the fine from the FA? Lets say he would not pay it, well we know the FA could stop him ever playing football again, but would they then have to go to court to get their money? Just what would a court then do? he was found not guilty in a courtroom and one would expect any judge might well feel as that was the case, the FA could not find him guilty. If Terry refused to pay then as you said Dave he would be banned for life from any involvement in football at any level and the fine would be enforceable through the County Court. It would not be for the judge at the County Court to decide if Terry should or should not have been found guilty. As long as the FA have followed all the procedures correctly including an appeal if Terry chooses to do that (which could arguably include a rare 'Judicial Review' if he lost an appeal probably argued on the basis of him being found 'not guilty' in the Criminal Court') the fine would be a lawful debt and the Judge would issue a County Court Judgement in favour of the FA. That's when the bailliffs move in and decide whether to take one of his ten cars or one of his tennis courts to pay off the debt. They can't take his football boots as that is part of his trade, although if he is banned for life what the hell!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2012 17:30:28 GMT
The other issue with John Terry is the length of time it has taken to consider his case and make a decision.
I guess that, had the incident taken place on a Saturday with the verdict and punishment decided on the Monday, any reaction would have been different to what it is now after such a prolonged wait. What may have been seen a swift and fair decision within 48 hours may now be regarded now as both lenient and as a damp squib. That's because we've had time to become pumped up which, of course, is irrelevant and should be disregarded. In fairness to the FA they would have had to put the aftermath out of their minds and issue a punishment that would have been the same irrespective of the timescale. Four matches may seem inconsequential after all the ballyhoo but it may have been seen in a different light had the verdict been made immediately. Yet I remain convinced that this is a far more serious offence than some of the apologists would suggest. I'm just rather sorry that there are those in society who disregard the seriousness of racial abuse and see if as no more than a freedom of speech issue. Shame on them.
|
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,170
|
Post by rjdgull on Sept 27, 2012 17:54:07 GMT
Your namesake Barts was not happy when comparing it to his own ban.
|
|