ewerk 31195 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Who made the complaint then? If it was someone watching on tv, Ferdinand had the option of not pressing charges. "I didnt hear anything" would suffice. He could have stopped it becoming a police matter iyam. It was an off duty cop watching it on TV. And Ferdinand has stated that he didn't hear the insult but it has still gone to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 we do at large with what we pay to read/view the public are interested in stuff like this, it sells papers, it gets ratings. I heard someone say a while back that they were sick of hearing about the leveson inquiry and hoping that it would "go away" while in the same conversation complaining about the banal celeb focus crap in the news but not realising that the two are connected. true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17643 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 It was an off duty cop watching it on TV. And Ferdinand has stated that he didn't hear the insult but it has still gone to court. Ok. Wonder who the policeman supports Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46020 Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 He's gonna get away with it here. Bloke is saying it's impossible to be sure of what he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4411 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Not guilty - SSN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46020 Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 Confirmed not guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4411 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Not enough proof - judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Fucking bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31195 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46020 Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 I'm not sure how much more proof he wants like, but there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7169 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 You would think getting caught on camera saying the words is more proof than is usually required but his legal team wa obviously money well spent. England captain again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9925 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Great country this, you can assault someone becasue you "thought" they were going to hit you first and you can call people black cunts. Well if you're a fottballer you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7485 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Equality. First OJ, now Terry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 If QPR fans were reprasentative it would go off, Rodney King stylee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonatine 11542 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Teflon Terry strikes again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYD 0 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Laughable decision, it sums up the English justice system entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 20712 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Laughable decision, it sums up the English justice system entirely. It sums up the power footballers have and anyone with authority suddenly gets a jelly back bone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveTheBobby 1 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Some Buster Bloodvessel tribute who is Chelsea fan rep just been on SSN saying how Terry "suffers the most vile abuse when he plays" and went on to assure viewers that Chelsea fans "will pass fair judgement on both John and Anton following this" So, in unison, they'll be reminding AF that "he knows what he is" again then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31195 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Laughable decision, it sums up the English justice system entirely. How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 must admit this is a big surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17643 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 It sums up the power footballers have and anyone with authority suddenly gets a jelly back bone. Difficult to argue with the most senior magistrate in in Great Britain tbh. Not enough eveidence,his full judgement takes 30 mins to read so its quite thorough. Theres more than a fair chance that Terry did racially abuse Ferdinand, but if theres not enough evidence to convict him then he's innocent. Same rules for all in the eyes of the law. The crucial TV footage was inconclusive according to the magistrate. Ive not seen it so I dont know, but was part of the crucial "8 seconds" as the judge put it partially obsucered as they said on the radio? Because if anyone agrees with that then thats why he was found not guilty. The rest of the evidence was one unprovable bunch of staements v another i.e. not really evidence. So he walks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Not entirely surprising. Lip reading not an exact science/no direct witnesses/Character witnesses support Terry not being a racist/faintly plausible explanation. I'm not saying he didn't do it, but there's not exactly the strongest evidence in the world against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7169 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Except a video of him saying it. But yeah, apart from that nee evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17643 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 He admitted to saying it but because part of footage was apparently obscured the context was unprovable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46020 Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 The magistrates report admits that his explanation was "unlikely" from what I can gather. So he definitely said the words and he's (probably) lying about the reasons why, but I suppose that really isn't enough to find him guilty - you can't just disregard his explanation because you find it flimsy, but I think everyone knows what's gone on here. There can't be many intelligent people who think he's actually innocent as opposed to not guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now