what did john terry say?

mike65 · 01-11-2011 12:14PM

I wouldn't mind betting that when the Terry incident came up that took precedence with the FA as the law was called.

JimsAlterEgo · 01-11-2011 12:32PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

This is developing into something very serious. It will be interesting how it plays out for Terry.

Good to see the enquiry seems to be moving ahead quickly.

But still no word on the Evra/Suarez "incident"

Strange when it happened before the Terry episode...

Evra has spoken to the FA but Suarez hasn't so either
The FA have enough to charge Suarez and don't need his side
or
Theres not evidence and are not proceeding
or
They are just slow

Thanx 4 The Fish · 01-11-2011 12:34PM

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I'm sure Cole, Drogba, Malouda ,Anelka etc have made their minds up already and are not waiting for a frivolous inquiry

Not sure cole will care, he married a woman who was accused of racially aggravated assault, if racism was an issue for him do you think he would have married her?

Is taking too long now though, FA need to get a handle on it and sort out who said what to whom. All of this finger pointing and the like is just silliness, get the two lads in, interview them all and come to a conclusion then sanction or not depending on their findings.

amiable · 01-11-2011 12:40PM

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Not sure cole will care, he married a woman who was accused of racially aggravated assault, if racism was an issue for him do you think he would have married her?

Is taking too long now though, FA need to get a handle on it and sort out who said what to whom. All of this finger pointing and the like is just silliness, get the two lads in, interview them all and come to a conclusion then sanction or not depending on their findings.

Was she convicted of a racist attack?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3598357/Youre-not-a-racist-but-a-simple-thug-How-groovy-Cheryl.html

amiable · 01-11-2011 12:41PM

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

Evra has spoken to the FA but Suarez hasn't so either
The FA have enough to charge Suarez and don't need his side
or
Theres not evidence and are not proceeding
or
They are just slow

So any evidence Suarez may have to offer is irrelevant?

_blank_ · 01-11-2011 12:43PM

amiable wrote: »

So any evidence Suarez may have to offer is irrelevant?

If they FA don't think Evra has enough evidence to mount a case against Suarez, why would they bother calling him in?

01-11-2011 12:43PM

amiable wrote: »

So any evidence Suarez may have to offer is irrelevant?

It's equally relevent. It has to be for a fair hearing tbf.

Same as the Terry incident. Both players will have to put their case forward.

01-11-2011 12:46PM

Des wrote: »

If they FA don't think Evra has enough evidence to mount a case against Suarez, why would they bother calling him in?

He made an official complaint so it has to be acted upon.

mike65 · 01-11-2011 12:48PM

Des wrote: »

If they FA don't think Evra has enough evidence to mount a case against Suarez, why would they bother calling him in?

They would call him and he would want to speak to them, having been possibly falsely accused.

_blank_ · 01-11-2011 12:48PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

He made an official complaint so it has to be acted upon.

oh right, I didn't know that bit.

Seems to me the Terry one is a bit more open and shut though.

pistolpetes11 · 01-11-2011 12:50PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

He made an official complaint so it has to be acted upon.

Didnt make an official complaint , asked for the incident to be investigated .

He did not hear what was said himself .

amiable · 01-11-2011 01:01PM

pistolpetes11 wrote: »

Didnt make an official complaint , asked for the incident to be investigated .

He did not hear what was said himself .

AFAIK QPR have made a complaint

amiable · 01-11-2011 01:03PM

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

Evra has spoken to the FA but Suarez hasn't so either
The FA have enough to charge Suarez and don't need his side
or
Theres not evidence and are not proceeding
or
They are just slow

amiable wrote: »

So any evidence Suarez may have to offer is irrelevant?

Des wrote: »

If they FA don't think Evra has enough evidence to mount a case against Suarez, why would they bother calling him in?

My post was aimed towards the part i've put in bold. I should have been more specific

amiable · 01-11-2011 01:04PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

It's equally relevent. It has to be for a fair hearing tbf.

Same as the Terry incident. Both players will have to put their case forward.

My question was rhetorical

JimsAlterEgo · 01-11-2011 01:05PM

Des wrote: »

If they FA don't think Evra has enough evidence to mount a case against Suarez, why would they bother calling him in?

Or If Evra has produced a witness or a video tape (i.e. irrevutable evidence) the next step would be to charge Suarez. (Am not saying this is the case but a reason as to why Suarez wouldn't need to be talked to)

amiable · 01-11-2011 01:07PM

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

Or If Evra has produced a witness or a video tape (i.e. irrevutable evidence) the next step would be to charge him. (Am not saying this is the case but a reason as to why Suarez wouldn't need to ber talked to)

An accused person is entitled to a fair hearing and to give their account.

Usually with the FA it's a personal hearing.

mike65 · 01-11-2011 01:08PM

Beware amateur solicitors

amiable · 01-11-2011 01:09PM

mike65 wrote: »

Beware amateur solicitors

I'll have you for that:p

clubberlang12 · 01-11-2011 01:11PM

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

Or If Evra has produced a witness or a video tape (i.e. irrevutable evidence) the next step would be to charge Suarez. (Am not saying this is the case but a reason as to why Suarez wouldn't need to be talked to)

The next step will be for the FA to interview Suarez and hear his side regardless of the evidence Evra may have brought forth. Upon that, they will then decide whether there is enough valid evidence that a charge against Suarez will hold up.

01-11-2011 01:16PM

amiable wrote: »

My question was rhetorical

I knew that. My reply was for the sake of others tbh.

amiable · 01-11-2011 01:16PM

I've heard John Terry should know by thursday if he is to be charged or not

JimsAlterEgo · 01-11-2011 01:17PM

amiable wrote: »

An accused person is entitled to a fair hearing and to give their account.

Usually with the FA it's a personal hearing.

clubberlang12 wrote: »

The next step will be for the FA to interview Suarez and hear his side regardless of the evidence Evra may have brought forth. Upon that, they will then decide whether there is enough valid evidence that a charge against Suarez will hold up.

They would give their account at the hearing. I am talking about charging not finding guilty. There would then be a hearing. If a player punches a player off the ball and is caught on camera, they are not asked to give their side of the story before being charged.

01-11-2011 01:18PM

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

Or If Evra has produced a witness or a video tape (i.e. irrevutable evidence) the next step would be to charge Suarez. (Am not saying this is the case but a reason as to why Suarez wouldn't need to be talked to)

Of couse Suarez would have to be talked too.

It's not a Lionel hutz case.

amiable · 01-11-2011 01:19PM

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

They would give their account at the hearing. I am talking about charging not finding guilty. There would then be a hearing. If a player punches a player off the ball and is caught on camera, they are not asked to give their side of the story before being charged.

Well seeing as he hasn't been charged weeks later it would seem that the FA has no evidence(to prove guilt on Suarez or Evra) and the hold up is on how to deal with the incident.

clubberlang12 · 01-11-2011 01:28PM

If a player punches a player off the ball and is caught on camera, they are not asked to give their side of the story before being charged

Well if it is caught on camera i don't think the accused has much of a case! This is a completely different case altogether. It is not public knowledge what evidence has been brought forth. It is essentially one man's word against another mans word.

Sgt Pepper 64 · 01-11-2011 01:33PM

Pretty obvious that JT refered to Anton by the colour of his skin.

The arguement seems to be that it was in heat of the moment and that it doesnt make him a racist and that there were no witness's either real or willing to come forward

So one word against another - I expect the matter to be dropped to lack of proof

01-11-2011 02:18PM

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Pretty obvious that JT refered to Anton by the colour of his skin.

The arguement seems to be that it was in heat of the moment and that it doesnt make him a racist and that there were no witness's either real or willing to come forward

Sure, couldn't every racist comment be classed as "heat of the moment" in that case?

He either racially abused him or he didn't.

Paully D · 01-11-2011 02:29PM

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Pretty obvious that JT refered to Anton by the colour of his skin.

The arguement seems to be that it was in heat of the moment and that it doesnt make him a racist and that there were no witness's either real or willing to come forward

So one word against another - I expect the matter to be dropped to lack of proof

Ah well, I'll just go and assault someone and claim that it was in the heat of the moment and didn't mean it :rolleyes:

mike65 · 01-11-2011 02:30PM

Racism is the new black it seems

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/01/sammy-ameobi-racist-abuse-twitter

JimsAlterEgo · 01-11-2011 02:31PM

clubberlang12 wrote: »

Well if it is caught on camera i don't think the accused has much of a case! This is a completely different case altogether. It is not public knowledge what evidence has been brought forth. It is essentially one man's word against another mans word.

Read what I said, what I am rerferring to, its a possible scenario as to why Suarez may not be interviewed. (i.e. that there is evidence). I am not saying there is BTW.

what did john terry say?

Comments