Lucas

John Terry

Recommended Posts

Has anyone else been noticing the ongoing row bewteen Martin Samuels of the Guardian and Jason Roberts over Terry.

..

Those of us with memories a year or so shorter will remember that JT was banned form England u21s when he was charged over an incident (and found innocent with the direct suggestion that the accuser had lied).

The JT case will be decided by a magistrate, not a jury, so we can exactly compare Roberts' twitter with comments on the Bowyer/Woodgate case.

I really can't see how even the most junior of magistrates can treat this as a serious event though. It should never have got this far - OR millions of cases also caught on CTV should be brought to court every week. Ferdinand elbowing JT for a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously have to be a bit careful here, but from what I have seen and read, there doesn't appear to be anybody that actually heard what was said. Just what people saw was said. JT has (I think) admitted using the alleged 3 words in a line next to each other, but not in the context that has been suggested. However, it surely will be extremely difficult to bring a guilty judgement based on context in a situation where no-one heard anything.

IMO, the Ferdinands might not have made the complaint, but they have made this sorry mess so much worse than it needed to be, regardless of the outcome.

And all the time, the press, media and even Jason Roberts are DESPERATE for racism to have taken place. He needs to have a good look in the mirror, because it would be very easy to suggest that he is using this issue for his own gain. That is truly messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely not! Anton Ferdinand did not bring this case - a member of the public did. That person is, and should be, anonymous. It is an important principle of our legal system that a person reporting a crime has the right to remain anonymous. I doubt very much that person will even give evidence at court. We can make guesses as to their motivation, but there is nothing we can do about it. The police investigated the report as they are required to do by law. They submitted the evidence to the CPS and the CPS made the decision to prosecute. Given the case occurred while the courts were dealing Stephen Lawrence, it was unlikely that the CPS would do anything else.

You're absolutely correct.

I had forgotten it was driven by someone else, the fuss has centered around Anton and Rio so much I had thought they had stuck their oars in and testified as well.

In which case if Terry IS innocent whoever this unknown person is should be looked at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand how he can be conclusively found guilty (or not guilty either) from the YouTube clip? Someone on there in the comments left a perfectly plausible offensive, but not racial, comment which he could quite easily have been saying too.

If he is actually found guilty of it, what would happen to him from a club/playing point of view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone else been noticing the ongoing row bewteen Martin Samuels of the Guardian and Jason Roberts over Terry.

Essentially, Samuels position is that the presumption of innocence is the overriding rule in all things. Roberts starting tweeting comments about the case right from the outset. Samuels had a go at him in February pointing out that Roberts had no evidence for his comments.

http://www.dailymail...incy-issue.html

http://www.dailymail...hit-target.html

Last week Roberts had another go on Twitter with this "Hodgson's.."Football Decisions" may be about results to him..but what this says to Society, and Kids watching is something VERY different!"

and then:

"Innocent until proven Guilty.... For those with long memories...did those principles apply to Bowyer...Woodgate?"

Personally, I'd argue that there is no inconsistency. The FA was at fault then for banning the players before a verdict at the trial had been given just as they are at fault for stripping Terry of the captaincy before the trial took place. It's kind of interesting, but a side note, that Rio Ferdinand had no problem sharing a dressing room with Woodgate and Bowyer while they were on trial for GBH despite the family's contention that the crime was motivated by racism.

It also seems that Roberts memory is poor here in another respect. One key thing I remember about the Woodgate/Bowyer case was that the trial had to be restarted because people were making public comments (in a newspaper) about a case that was sub judice. Roberts needs to understand the same point applies to his twitter account. Its about time that people on twitter and elsewhere were made to understand that the right to gossip only comes when they take their responsibilities seriously. I wonder how/if Leveson is going to approach this kind of issue?

Interesting too that Ferdinand had no problem playing under Pearce who it transpired had screamed the exact same phrase into the face of Paul Ince during his playing career.

Ferdinand might argue that it was because on this occasion it was directed (allegedly) at his brother. In other words racism is ignored as long as its not directed at a member of your own family. Nice one Rio. The black community will be proud of you.

With regard to the twitter thing, a few of us on here emailed the CPS about Bartons twitter comments and how this was outrageously prejudicing Terry's trial. Got an email back basically saying "tough".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone else been noticing the ongoing row bewteen Martin Samuels of the Guardian and Jason Roberts over Terry...

It seems to me that Roberts seems very quick to remind everyone of his and his family's 'ethic background'. It's clearly something he's passionate about but he seems too eager to make this point than look at anything objectively.

He seems to be getting a bump from 5live but I can't stand the bloke. He is far too quick to label Terry and incoorporate him into his agenda, I don't know if there's good reason, but he seems to have a chip on his shoulder regarding the whole subject and shouts down anyone who tries to objectively put their point across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   

The JT case will be decided by a magistrate, not a jury, so we can exactly compare Roberts' twitter with comments on the Bowyer/Woodgate case.

Personally, I think the rules should be the same irrespective of whether it is a jury or magistrate. I don't think that we can assume that a magistrate is unaffected by what is said in public. In some ways, you could argue that the risk is greater because we are relying on a single individual rather than a jury to make the judgement. However, I am aware that was an excuse used by the Attorney General when it was pointed out to him that some of the comments might constitute contempt of court. Presumably, he was mindful that the prime minister, had also chosen to make comment on the case presumably pandering to elements of his electorate. And the only last week:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146954/Cameron-makes-John-Terry-gaffe-gate-summit--Labour-tells-iPad.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see the reaction of the country if Terry happened to score the winning goal in the final of the Euro's this year.

Not sure what would happen there, but I can imagine what will happen if he has a poor tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now