John Terry banned for 4 games by FA

I don't follow football but I fail to see how he can be not guilty in a legal court of this country but some sports body can do this ?

I understand now why he said a week or so that he wouldn't play for England again.

Just confirms what I already knew that sports bodys think they are above English law.

It won't happen but if everyone refused to go to a match or pay to watch them on tv then the fa would soon wake up to who is in charge.
It's cloud coockoo land as this will never happen as the sheep would never do this.
 
bro said:
wasnt suarez banned for 8 for the same thing
Click to expand...
Yeah he was bro but Suarez wasn't found not guilty before hand in an English court of law, this stinks mate
 
there was a feature about this on Radio 4 during the week.

the FA say that standard of proof needed in their procedure is far less than in a court of law.

in other words,

1. in a court- innocent until proven guilty, proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for conviction.

2. FA procedure- we make up our own rules, no standard of proof needed, your guilty if we say you are... lol
 
Can't Say I'm a Terry or Chelsea Fan but how can they say he is guilty when the law courts of the land say he is not, no matter how they dress it up.

Terry's Job is now to stand up to the F.A. for every Footballer from grass routes to Premiership overpaid superstars. He needs to take them to the law courts and claim damages for slurring his good name.

Will he have the bottle to do what is right..... will see
 
buzzer said:
in a court- innocent until proven guilty, proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for conviction.
Click to expand...

Not quite. That's the standard of proof for a criminal court. For a civil court it's "on the balance of probabilities".

This is the standard that the FA would be applying.
 
Last edited:
andys328781 said:
Can't Say I'm a Terry or Chelsea Fan but how can they say he is guilty when the law courts of the land say he is not, no matter how they dress it up.

Terry's Job is now to stand up to the F.A. for every Footballer from grass routes to Premiership overpaid superstars. He needs to take them to the law courts and claim damages for slurring his good name.

Will he have the bottle to do what is right..... will see
Click to expand...

I think this is the real reason he has quit playing for England. I think generally Terry is a tit - but a proud tit. No way would he give up playing for his country unless there was a motive. I reckon he already knew his legal status on this before he stepped into court and was already preparing(with legal team) to make a laughing stock of the suits of the FA. Asking for everything in writing is probably his first step. Cutting his ties with England takes away the awkwardness and doesn't give him a conflict of interests.We shall see
 
nara said:
Not quite. That's the standard of proof for a criminal court. For a civil court it's "on the balance of probabilities".

This is the standard that the FA would be applying.
Click to expand...
The FA are not a civil court so they have no right to attempt to be superior to our criminal courts.
The FA are a football club nothing else.
 
its a fookin disgrace ,, once the courts said no he didnt that should of been the end of it
 
Last edited:
football governing bodies are a shower of f*ckwits.

in scotland they put a 12 month transfer signing embargo on rangers, rangers took them to court and the judge said it was illegal.
but scottish fa said if Rangers did not except it they would not get a licence to play football.
 
Think anyone who saw the real footage of the incident can have no doubt that he was guilty and the amazing thing was ,he was found not guilty in a court of law by saying he was only repeating what he thought anton ferdinand had said to him.(totally un realistic in my opinion).

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
 
goldeneagle1 said:
Think anyone who saw the real footage of the incident can have no doubt that he was guilty and the amazing thing was ,he was found not guilty in a court of law by saying he was only repeating what he thought anton ferdinand had said to him.(totally un realistic in my opinion).

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Unrealistic or not he was found not guilty.
I don't care about football and I never watch it.
For me this is about our legal system saying not guilty (rightly or wrongly) and some jumped up corporate twats from a football association believing they are above the English law system.
If you look in the cctv area you will see that I have grievances with the uk legal system but I have to accept it's failings when they happen, the same system has kept habu hamsa (spelling) in this country for much to long do the FA want to say something about that as well ?
Who the hell do the FA think they are that they can supersede English law like this ffs.
 
Last edited:
I think its just wrong that the law courts say there was not the evidence to prove it but the FA think different. Just wrong.
 
So if a pedo child minder was found not guilty in court because there wasn't enough evidence to prove he was fiddling with the kid even though you saw him rubbing his crutch while saying "you want a cuddle", when his defence was he was having a scratch and just repeating what the child has said to him, you'd let go back to work in your nursery and look after your kid would you? Doh! not the same thing is it and of course it would be the moral thing to do.

The FA is a self regulating body with its own set of rules and standards.
 
VectorZ said:
So if a pedo child minder was found not guilty in court because there wasn't enough evidence to prove he was fiddling with the kid even though you saw him rubbing his crutch while saying "you want a cuddle", when his defence was he was having a scratch and just repeating what the child has said to him, you'd let go back to work in your nursery and look after your kid would you? Doh! not the same thing is it and of course it would be the moral thing to do.

The FA is a self regulating body with its own set of rules and standards.
Click to expand...

If I saw something like that then it wouldn't get to court.
I don't see how you can ban someone who is found not guilty.
A crb check will not fail because you have been accused of something only if a court has ordered you go onto the sex offenders register or have convictions, to get a conviction you need to be found guilty in a court of law.
If you have passed a crb check then you can work with children.

You have drawn the bottom of the barrel going for peado when john terry has not been accused of this or was that just for dramatic effect ?
 
Think back to the OJ Simpson trial folks. He was found 'not-guilty' in criminal court, but he was successfully prosecuted in civil court for "wrongful death" and had to pay out millions in compensation.

A criminal "not-guilty" is not the end. It never has been.
 
John Terry is a storyteller in Hans Christian Andersens league, even bang to rights the courts got it wrong.
Well done to the F.A but it should have been at least 8 matches after the Suarez fiasco.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

trevortron
    • Like
Before you fly on a Boeing aircraft, especially a 737Max
Replies
0
Views
844
trevortron
trevortron
joe516
Joey Barton: Burnley midfielder banned for 18 months over betting
Replies
7
Views
1K
silverdale
silverdale
joe516
Sam Allardyce: England manager allegations investigated by FA
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
bullben
B
rawsy
Old Mo's Almanac 2015
Replies
0
Views
714
rawsy
rawsy
trevortron
Declaration of annexing the british isles as part of the usa
Replies
2
Views
704
sionm2010
S
Back
Top