Mr John Terry

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Lux wrote:

It's a good principle, unless you have some powers beyond our ability that can prove innocence or guilt.

It's a dreadful principle which results in hundreds of criminals getting away with no punishment.

True, but it's better than anything else we've managed to come up with

Laurencio wrote:Then that is something we totally disagree on. I do not see the captaincy as sacred as to only be broken by being found guilty of a crime.

I've said otherwise lots of times. He can lose his captaincy for a number of reasons and I wouldn't mind e.g. if he wasn't playing enough or if he wasn't playing well. He doesn't have to be guilty of a crime...but if he's removed because of a crime then he has to be proven guilty for sure...

Although every player represents the country, the captain is the one that would in most cases be considered "the main man". There will be calls for him being axed, but not nearly as much as it would be if he was captain. Axing him would be wrong given the current status of the case, and the FA have acknowledged that, but removing his captaincy reduces tensions and speculation considerably.

I don't think it's right but, I don't think it's the end of the world removing his captaincy if he can still play in the team, and with everyone abusing Terry and pre-judging his guilt and no justice for him...it's the only way for this to work. Still, I think people will still go on about Terry, maybe not so much but they still will. So it's not like this has removed him from the public eye.

Please tell me what I have exaggerated.

I'm not saying the captaincy doesn't entail more, but I personally can not disregard those factors. Even without the captaincy he can still be a leader in defence, he just doens't have to be the one who speaks for the team and thus England in my opinion.

Well I think you have exaggerated the worth of these "political and marketing powers". If the FA didn't strip Terry of his captaincy I couldn't see any meaningful backlash. Would sponsors such as Vauxhall back out? I doubt it...but maybe it is these kinds of people who are making the decision, and not the FA. Maybe the FA is just a puppet who are trumped in influence even by "Kick it out" and Jason Roberts . Some of these groups don't even care about racism....just about protecting themselves. They don't care if Terry is innocent or guilty, and that is why I don't think that FA, the ones who are probably going to give Terry a massive penalty whether he is guilty or not in the criminal court, should be making any kind of decision.

You could also argue that keeping Terry as captain sends out a positive message. The FA and England will not be bullied into making premature decisions, and will up hold the principles and ideals that we believe in. We may be against racism....but we're for justice too surely? Which is the more pressing matter ultimately? By stripping Terry of his captaincy, you are contributing to his denial of justice. By not doing so....he can still be punished for his crime once he is found guilty (if he is).

Capello would have had to make a decision eventually. This way the pressure on him is significantly reduced.

It does benefit John Terry in the sense that media pressure will be considerablly less, and his involvement with the team will be less scrutinized. A new captain reduces the chances of a press-conference being derailed by the "John Terry issue", and reduces his exposure to the media in high-pressure situations.

I think that Capello would have fought against it....he isn't the kind of guy to really care much for the media. The only way would be if he was forced into it by the FA....something which I have already said shouldn't happen.

This is the English media....they will do whatever they can to derail things.....John Terry will continue to be in the press for a long long time, as captain or not.

Do you think they won't be effected? Do you honestly think that after the umpteenth question about Terry's "mentality" they won't be effected at all? How about the rest of the team? Are they as strong minded as Terry? When everyone bombards Terry, when his position gets questioned time and time again, do you really think every player has the mind-set to ignore it?

His influence isn't removed because the captaincy is removed. They didn't kick him out of the team, so he can be just as much of an influence on the pitch as he could before. Capello has said it many times, you need more than one leader on the pitch. If Terry can't be a leader without the captaincy then something is terribly wrong with his mentality.

I dunno....but whether or not Terry is captain isn't really going to bother most players unless they have a problem with Terry. I can't see the media adversely affecting them if Terry was still captain. Terry, of course....but he can get over it easily.

Terry is a leader captain or not....I noticed it when he was stripped of his captaincy....the way that he was still obviously leading the team on the field just made me think "Why is this guy not wearing the armband?". He will still lead the defence, but then so will everyone else play.....

No one has gone out and said that Terry is guilty. He's not being removed for being pressumed guilty, he's being removed because there's too much controversy surrounding the position.

I can't see how he loses anyhting at all. If he is found innocent then he gets vindication over the media, and those who thought he was guilty. His position was not removed because he is definitely a "racist", it was removed because that is what is best for the team, for England and for the FA.

Maybe, maybe...and like I said, whilst I don't think it's right....the media in our country are terrible and the England team in general have enough to deal with normally with the expectations. So in that respect....it's more understandable, but not the ideal way to deal with it based on our countries principles.

Diagree completely. He can not seek damages from any group as none of them have said he is guilty. No one has gone out and pressumed his guilt. Nor can he sue the FA as all they have done is remove a controversial captain from his position and even specified that they do not pressume guilt. He can sue a few papers, but that's about it.

So you automatically assume Anton Ferdinand is guilty of false accusation if he's found innocent then? He couldn't simply have missheard it, or missunderstood it?

....umm....... .........

They all think he is guilty. Not saying that he is guilty doesn't take away from the fact that they think he is, and they have been abusive to him. You can sue people without being called guilty you know....Terry has been completely slaughtered in the media. I remember even in the first few days of the controversy dozens of journalists were saying that Terry is guilty, that he is racist and all other kinds of slander.

If Terry says publicly "I was not racist to Anton Ferdinand". Does that automatically mean that he wasn't racist and the case should be dropped?

If Anton Ferdinand had any doubt about what Terry said, then it's his responsibility to disclose that. What do you think are the chances of that? None....he hasn't said anything at all, and if he did would he say that he wasn't sure if Terry was guilty or not? If that was the case there would be no criminal case here. He has obviously told the police that Terry was racist to him 100%. So...if Terry is found innocent then yes, Anton Ferdinand should be at fault.

It doesn't work the other way around with Terry if he is found guilty. How can someone be punished if they're guilty, but the person who lies get away with it when it's so obvious that it's either one way or the other?

If he's found innocent, it's simply not enough to do all this to Terry and just say "ok no punishment for you..on your way now, pretend nothing happened".......that's bollocks.

So in your eyes if he is found guilty the legal system should face the same abuse as Terry has? They should be fined 2.5k for doing their job? Anton Ferdinand is not on the side of the prosection, he's a witness. He's not the accuser. It's not "John Terry vs Anton Ferdiand".

Anton Ferdinand is the one and only person who is accusing John Terry of being racist. How can it be any different? If Ferdinand is a witness, then so is Terry....and that's ridiculous, so obviously Ferdinand being a witness is complete bollocks too. Did anyone else hear Terry? No. Only Anton Ferdinand? Yes. So it can't be any other way. Removing all responsibility from Ferdinand is rubbish.

Please stop making it one man vs another when every document filed shows that Anton Ferdinand is just a witness in this case. He can sue the papers if he wants to, but anyone else is entirely without guilt in that regard.

Which is stupid. You can't make accusations and not take responsibility for it. If I go to court and lose, I would in most cases pay the legal fees.....so it shouldn't be any different for a footballer.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:It's a dreadful principle which results in hundreds of criminals getting away with no punishment.

Like I said, got a better suggestion? Far better that someone goes free due to lack of evidence than them being convicted of a crime they didn't commit.

Laurencio wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

It's a dreadful principle which results in hundreds of criminals getting away with no punishment.

True, but it's better than anything else we've managed to come up with

I prefer the balance of probabilities method.

Actually Laurencio.....just had another thought.

Anton Ferdinand being "just a witness" doesn't matter.

If Terry is found not guilty...he can still try and get Anton Ferdinand charged in a new case in which Terry would be the witness, and Ferdinand the defendant.

Lux wrote:

Laurencio wrote:Then that is something we totally disagree on. I do not see the captaincy as sacred as to only be broken by being found guilty of a crime.

I've said otherwise lots of times. He can lose his captaincy for a number of reasons and I wouldn't mind e.g. if he wasn't playing enough or if he wasn't playing well. He doesn't have to be guilty of a crime...but if he's removed because of a crime then he has to be proven guilty for sure...

He's not removed for racially abusing anyone. He's removed because he's accused of it, and as a result of that the pressure on him and the team is overwhelmingingly negative. Him being captain causes more problem for the FA and the team than good at the moment.

I don't think it's right but, I don't think it's the end of the world removing his captaincy if he can still play in the team, and with everyone abusing Terry and pre-judging his guilt and no justice for him...it's the only way for this to work. Still, I think people will still go on about Terry, maybe not so much but they still will. So it's not like this has removed him from the public eye.

No, but instead of having him sit next to Capello on every press conference, and thus making it more likely the subject of the "Jon Terry case" being brough up, another man takes on that role which will mean that focus won't be so one sided towards John Terry.

Well I think you have exaggerated the worth of these "political and marketing powers". If the FA didn't strip Terry of his captaincy I couldn't see any meaningful backlash. Would sponsors such as Vauxhall back out? I doubt it...but maybe it is these kinds of people who are making the decision, and not the FA.

You missunderstand my entire arguement if you think that's what I'm saying.

Maybe the FA is just a puppet who are trumped in influence even by "Kick it out" and Jason Roberts . Some of these groups don't even care about racism....just about protecting themselves. They don't care if Terry is innocent or guilty, and that is why I don't think that FA, the ones who are probably going to give Terry a massive penalty whether he is guilty or not in the criminal court, should be making any kind of decision.

Ignoring everything the "Kick it out" organization says while at the same time promoting the "respect" campaign and the "kick it out" campaign would be absurd. They have geniuine political concerns, which despite your dismissal of them, are valid. You can not have a man accused and charged with racial abuse stand as the spoke-person of "kick it out" for England, it's simply not possible.

You could also argue that keeping Terry as captain sends out a positive message. The FA and England will not be bullied into making premature decisions, and will up hold the principles and ideals that we believe in. We may be against racism....but we're for justice too surely? Which is the more pressing matter ultimately? By stripping Terry of his captaincy, you are contributing to his denial of justice. By not doing so....he can still be punished for his crime once he is found guilty (if he is).

Where does justice come into it? Removing his captaincy does not constitute presumption of guilt, in no way shape or form. If the press reports that, if people believe that, then that's on them. Stripping him of the captaincy plays no role in the ultimate verdict handed down by the judge later this year, it has no influence what so ever on justice. The FA should have removed his captaincy on the day he was charged. In my opinion their weakness has been to wait until they were forced into a decision.

This is the English media....they will do whatever they can to derail things.....John Terry will continue to be in the press for a long long time, as captain or not.

Of course he will, but the pressure from influential organiztions are reduced heavily, the pressure from the media will also reduce given the lessened exposure Terry will have to the Media has he is no longer England captain.

I dunno....but whether or not Terry is captain isn't really going to bother most players unless they have a problem with Terry. I can't see the media adversely affecting them if Terry was still captain. Terry, of course....but he can get over it easily.

Terry is a leader captain or not....I noticed it when he was stripped of his captaincy....the way that he was still obviously leading the team on the field just made me think "Why is this guy not wearing the armband?". He will still lead the defence, but then so will everyone else play.....

All the negative press surrounding the team, questions about Terry's every move, his every action and his every performance. Pages on how he stands there as the captain of England giving the pledge of respect while being on trial for racial abuse. It would obviously have an effect.

So let him be a leader without the armband then. What is wrong with that?

maybe...and like I said, whilst I don't think it's right....the media in our country are terrible and the England team in general have enough to deal with normally with the expectations. So in that respect....it's more understandable, but not the ideal way to deal with it based on our countries principles.

Yet no principle is broken. The FA specifies they do not presume guilt, they specify that he is available for selection. Nothing about what they have done says "he's guilty".

They all think he is guilty. Not saying that he is guilty doesn't take away from the fact that they think he is, and they have been abusive to him. You can sue people without being called guilty you know....Terry has been completely slaughtered in the media. I remember even in the first few days of the controversy dozens of journalists were saying that Terry is guilty, that he is racist and all other kinds of slander.

Then he can sue the press. Can't sue any of these organizations you dislike. None of them have said he's guilty.

If Terry says publicly "I was not racist to Anton Ferdinand". Does that automatically mean that he wasn't racist and the case should be dropped?

Why would it possibly mean that?

If Anton Ferdinand had any doubt about what Terry said, then it's his responsibility to disclose that. What do you think are the chances of that? None....he hasn't said anything at all, and if he did would he say that he wasn't sure if Terry was guilty or not? If that was the case there would be no criminal case here. He has obviously told the police that Terry was racist to him 100%. So...if Terry is found innocent then yes, Anton Ferdinand should be at fault.

So you can't be convinced of something and still mistaken? You demand evidence that Terry racially abused Anton, but you are ready to judge Anton simply based on assumptions?

It doesn't work the other way around with Terry if he is found guilty. How can someone be punished if they're guilty, but the person who lies get away with it when it's so obvious that it's either one way or the other?

Because it's not obvious.

If he's found innocent, it's simply not enough to do all this to Terry and just say "ok no punishment for you..on your way now, pretend nothing happened".......that's bollocks.

So instead of assuming both parties are innocent, we assume that Anton must be guilty because you couldn't prove that Terry was? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? That's hypocritical.

Anton Ferdinand is the one and only person who is accusing John Terry of being racist. How can it be any different? If Ferdinand is a witness, then so is Terry....and that's ridiculous, so obviously Ferdinand being a witness is complete bollocks too. Did anyone else hear Terry? No. Only Anton Ferdinand? Yes. So it can't be any other way. Removing all responsibility from Ferdinand is rubbish.

Read the reports, look at the case, pay attention to the trial. Anton Ferdinand is a witness, nothing more. He has no baring on the case other than telling the judge what he experienced, the accusal came from the prosecution. By no definition is John Terry just a witness. The prosecution has accused him of a crime, making him the defendant.

Which is stupid. You can't make accusations and not take responsibility for it. If I go to court and lose, I would in most cases pay the legal fees.....so it shouldn't be any different for a footballer.

Anton Ferdinand hasn't gone to court. The prosecution does not work for, aren't paid by, or under the influence of Anton Ferdinand.

Lux wrote:Actually Laurencio.....just had another thought.

Anton Ferdinand being "just a witness" doesn't matter.

If Terry is found not guilty...he can still try and get Anton Ferdinand charged in a new case in which Terry would be the witness, and Ferdinand the defendant.

Based on what? What could he possibly be accused of?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

True, but it's better than anything else we've managed to come up with

I prefer the balance of probabilities method.

With a jury made out of people of their peers? Are you serious?

Why is there people calling Anton the accuser?

I thought a member of public made the complaint, not Ferdinand So Ferdinand hasn't actually done anything.

COYS wrote:Why is there people calling Anton the accuser?

I thought a member of public made the complaint, not Ferdinand So Ferdinand hasn't actually done anything.

Exactly...

Not like the Evra thing where Evra made the complaint personally.

People seem to forget that point, or just don't know

Laurencio wrote:

Lux wrote:

I've said otherwise lots of times. He can lose his captaincy for a number of reasons and I wouldn't mind e.g. if he wasn't playing enough or if he wasn't playing well. He doesn't have to be guilty of a crime...but if he's removed because of a crime then he has to be proven guilty for sure...

He's not removed for racially abusing anyone. He's removed because he's accused of it, and as a result of that the pressure on him and the team is overwhelmingingly negative. Him being captain causes more problem for the FA and the team than good at the moment.

I don't think it's right but, I don't think it's the end of the world removing his captaincy if he can still play in the team, and with everyone abusing Terry and pre-judging his guilt and no justice for him...it's the only way for this to work. Still, I think people will still go on about Terry, maybe not so much but they still will. So it's not like this has removed him from the public eye.

No, but instead of having him sit next to Capello on every press conference, and thus making it more likely the subject of the "Jon Terry case" being brough up, another man takes on that role which will mean that focus won't be so one sided towards John Terry.

Well I think you have exaggerated the worth of these "political and marketing powers". If the FA didn't strip Terry of his captaincy I couldn't see any meaningful backlash. Would sponsors such as Vauxhall back out? I doubt it...but maybe it is these kinds of people who are making the decision, and not the FA.

You missunderstand my entire arguement if you think that's what I'm saying.

Maybe the FA is just a puppet who are trumped in influence even by "Kick it out" and Jason Roberts . Some of these groups don't even care about racism....just about protecting themselves. They don't care if Terry is innocent or guilty, and that is why I don't think that FA, the ones who are probably going to give Terry a massive penalty whether he is guilty or not in the criminal court, should be making any kind of decision.

Ignoring everything the "Kick it out" organization says while at the same time promoting the "respect" campaign and the "kick it out" campaign would be absurd. They have geniuine political concerns, which despite your dismissal of them, are valid. You can not have a man accused and charged with racial abuse stand as the spoke-person of "kick it out" for England, it's simply not possible.

You could also argue that keeping Terry as captain sends out a positive message. The FA and England will not be bullied into making premature decisions, and will up hold the principles and ideals that we believe in. We may be against racism....but we're for justice too surely? Which is the more pressing matter ultimately? By stripping Terry of his captaincy, you are contributing to his denial of justice. By not doing so....he can still be punished for his crime once he is found guilty (if he is).

Where does justice come into it? Removing his captaincy does not constitute presumption of guilt, in no way shape or form. If the press reports that, if people believe that, then that's on them. Stripping him of the captaincy plays no role in the ultimate verdict handed down by the judge later this year, it has no influence what so ever on justice. The FA should have removed his captaincy on the day he was charged. In my opinion their weakness has been to wait until they were forced into a decision.

This is the English media....they will do whatever they can to derail things.....John Terry will continue to be in the press for a long long time, as captain or not.

Of course he will, but the pressure from influential organiztions are reduced heavily, the pressure from the media will also reduce given the lessened exposure Terry will have to the Media has he is no longer England captain.

I dunno....but whether or not Terry is captain isn't really going to bother most players unless they have a problem with Terry. I can't see the media adversely affecting them if Terry was still captain. Terry, of course....but he can get over it easily.

Terry is a leader captain or not....I noticed it when he was stripped of his captaincy....the way that he was still obviously leading the team on the field just made me think "Why is this guy not wearing the armband?". He will still lead the defence, but then so will everyone else play.....

All the negative press surrounding the team, questions about Terry's every move, his every action and his every performance. Pages on how he stands there as the captain of England giving the pledge of respect while being on trial for racial abuse. It would obviously have an effect.

So let him be a leader without the armband then. What is wrong with that?

maybe...and like I said, whilst I don't think it's right....the media in our country are terrible and the England team in general have enough to deal with normally with the expectations. So in that respect....it's more understandable, but not the ideal way to deal with it based on our countries principles.

Yet no principle is broken. The FA specifies they do not presume guilt, they specify that he is available for selection. Nothing about what they have done says "he's guilty".

They all think he is guilty. Not saying that he is guilty doesn't take away from the fact that they think he is, and they have been abusive to him. You can sue people without being called guilty you know....Terry has been completely slaughtered in the media. I remember even in the first few days of the controversy dozens of journalists were saying that Terry is guilty, that he is racist and all other kinds of slander.

Then he can sue the press. Can't sue any of these organizations you dislike. None of them have said he's guilty.

If Terry says publicly "I was not racist to Anton Ferdinand". Does that automatically mean that he wasn't racist and the case should be dropped?

Why would it possibly mean that?

If Anton Ferdinand had any doubt about what Terry said, then it's his responsibility to disclose that. What do you think are the chances of that? None....he hasn't said anything at all, and if he did would he say that he wasn't sure if Terry was guilty or not? If that was the case there would be no criminal case here. He has obviously told the police that Terry was racist to him 100%. So...if Terry is found innocent then yes, Anton Ferdinand should be at fault.

So you can't be convinced of something and still mistaken? You demand evidence that Terry racially abused Anton, but you are ready to judge Anton simply based on assumptions?

It doesn't work the other way around with Terry if he is found guilty. How can someone be punished if they're guilty, but the person who lies get away with it when it's so obvious that it's either one way or the other?

Because it's not obvious.

If he's found innocent, it's simply not enough to do all this to Terry and just say "ok no punishment for you..on your way now, pretend nothing happened".......that's bollocks.

So instead of assuming both parties are innocent, we assume that Anton must be guilty because you couldn't prove that Terry was? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? That's hypocritical.

Anton Ferdinand is the one and only person who is accusing John Terry of being racist. How can it be any different? If Ferdinand is a witness, then so is Terry....and that's ridiculous, so obviously Ferdinand being a witness is complete bollocks too. Did anyone else hear Terry? No. Only Anton Ferdinand? Yes. So it can't be any other way. Removing all responsibility from Ferdinand is rubbish.

Read the reports, look at the case, pay attention to the trial. Anton Ferdinand is a witness, nothing more. He has no baring on the case other than telling the judge what he experienced, the accusal came from the prosecution. By no definition is John Terry just a witness. The prosecution has accused him of a crime, making him the defendant.

Which is stupid. You can't make accusations and not take responsibility for it. If I go to court and lose, I would in most cases pay the legal fees.....so it shouldn't be any different for a footballer.

Anton Ferdinand hasn't gone to court. The prosecution does not work for, aren't paid by, or under the influence of Anton Ferdinand.

Lux wrote:Actually Laurencio.....just had another thought.

Anton Ferdinand being "just a witness" doesn't matter.

If Terry is found not guilty...he can still try and get Anton Ferdinand charged in a new case in which Terry would be the witness, and Ferdinand the defendant.

Based on what? What could he possibly be accused of?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

I prefer the balance of probabilities method.

With a jury made out of people of their peers? Are you serious?

Longest post ever made on this forum

COYS wrote:Not like the Evra thing where Evra made the complaint personally.

People seem to forget that point, or just don't know

Not actually true. Sir Alex and Patrice Evra made the complaint to the referee. Mariner, asked for details by both sides, then sent the details to the FA. The FA decided to investigate the matter, and after an initial investigatoin they charged and "accused" Suarez. Evra's involvement was telling ManUtd and Mariner he was called a negro.

He never brought the matter of racial abuse to the police.

Longest post ever made on this forum

Without the quotes it's not really all that long

Maybe him being stripped of the captaincy will mean that Capello actually has the guts to drop Terry. I still don't think he will, but he's not in a position where he has to play him now.

Yeah I know he never went to the police. I meant that he actually was part of the accusation

Laurencio wrote:He's not removed for racially abusing anyone. He's removed because he's accused of it, and as a result of that the pressure on him and the team is overwhelmingingly negative. Him being captain causes more problem for the FA and the team than good at the moment.

Forget the negatively part, I'm sure it is a reason but I doubt it was nearly as important as Terry being accused of racism, and so to keep everyone happy (except Terry of course) they just strip him of his captaincy. Easiest thing to do.

Laurencio wrote:next to Capello on every press conference, and thus making it more likely the subject of the "Jon Terry case" being brough up, another man takes on that role which will mean that focus won't be so one sided towards John Terry.

So then the media just start asking other players about Terry because they're not asking him . It could actually lead to being a bigger annoyance, one way or another.

Laurencio wrote:You missunderstand my entire arguement if you think that's what I'm saying.

So if you don't think they'll back out of sponsoring/supporting the FA, then what? What else could they do that anyone would care about, assuming that we actually care about them backing out anyway?

Laurencio wrote:Ignoring everything the "Kick it out" organization says while at the same time promoting the "respect" campaign and the "kick it out" campaign would be absurd. They have geniuine political concerns, which despite your dismissal of them, are valid. You can not have a man accused and charged with racial abuse stand as the spoke-person of "kick it out" for England, it's simply not possible.

Ignoring people who want Terry to be banned from football and made an example of at every given opportunity before he is even proven guilty is no possible? I wouldn't ignore them, I'd just tell them to take a look at themselves and buck their ideas up or stop promoting their organisation. Terry being captain doesn't mean he has to be spokesperson of "kick it out". If they want to unreasonably slander Terry and force the FA's hand.....then the FA should say "Ok...you forced our hands.....goodbye". But of course.....it's a lot harder to support Terry than to deny an anti racism organisation what they want and face all the bad press. "The FA are racists because they don't agree with us"....

Laurencio wrote:Where does justice come into it? Removing his captaincy does not constitute presumption of guilt, in no way shape or form. If the press reports that, if people believe that, then that's on them. Stripping him of the captaincy plays no role in the ultimate verdict handed down by the judge later this year, it has no influence what so ever on justice. The FA should have removed his captaincy on the day he was charged. In my opinion their weakness has been to wait until they were forced into a decision.

Laurencio wrote:Yet no principle is broken. The FA specifies they do not presume guilt, they specify that he is available for selection. Nothing about what they have done says "he's guilty".

Removing his captaincy does constitute presumption of guilt, in every shape and form. It doesn't play a role in the verdict, but so what? There is more to this than a verdict. Terry has a lot more to lose than a court case. I won't agree no matter how "factual" you try to make it, so might as well move on.

Laurencio wrote:Of course he will, but the pressure from influential organiztions are reduced heavily, the pressure from the media will also reduce given the lessened exposure Terry will have to the Media has he is no longer England captain.

You could say that about anyone who resigns. Why doesn't everyone just resign and save themselves some exposure?

Laurencio wrote:All the negative press surrounding the team, questions about Terry's every move, his every action and his every performance. Pages on how he stands there as the captain of England giving the pledge of respect while being on trial for racial abuse. It would obviously have an effect.

So let him be a leader without the armband then. What is wrong with that?

Terry can still give the "pledge of respect" and be on trial. Even if he is found guilty I wouldn't assume that he is racist and that he doesn't have respect for racial equality etc.

Why should Terry have to accept this if he is innocent?

Laurencio wrote:Then he can sue the press. Can't sue any of these organizations you dislike. None of them have said he's guilty.

It's not about me disliking them, but if these people/organisations are defaming him, publicly campaigning against him and ultimately influencing decisions against him then ultimately if he's not guilty they are liable.

Laurencio wrote:Why would it possibly mean that?

It doesn't, but likewise the FA saying that their decision doesn't presume guilt doesn't necessarily mean that either. You can't take these people's words at face value and assume that it's the truth. Despite all the media, what really happens and what is really said behind the scenes is rarely disclosed.

Laurencio wrote:So you can't be convinced of something and still mistaken? You demand evidence that Terry racially abused Anton, but you are ready to judge Anton simply based on assumptions?

You can be convinced of something and mistaken, but you'll be liable if it's a serious accusation. Where is the evidence that Terry is racist or that he actually racially abused Ferdinand? A video doesn't prove that, even if they know what he said it probably wouldn't prove that. Talk about assumptions...Suarez was found guilty completely on an assumption. But that's not a criminal case...but nonetheless not right. My point is not that Ferdinand should be found guilty in a criminal court based on assumption......(not that you can't depending on evidence/circumstances)...it's that there is equality. If Terry can be convicted on an assumption, then surely Ferdinand could be? In reality....Terry probably will be, and Ferdinand never would be.

Laurencio wrote:Because it's not obvious.

Har. Like I said above, nothing in this case is obvious, yet Terry is going to court.

Laurencio wrote:So instead of assuming both parties are innocent, we assume that Anton must be guilty because you couldn't prove that Terry was? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? That's hypocritical.

It depends on the input and testimony of Ferdinand. There are no other witnesses' who claim to have heard what Terry said...no? By law.....if the jury say that Terry is guilty...then he is guilty. It is still an assumption. So if Ferdinand was assumed to be guilty, then he would be guilty? You won't get proof either way, so be consistent. As it looks there is probably more "proof" that Terry is guilty then that Ferdinand is guilty.....but then we don't know the whole picture...it's just an assumption that he isn't guilty...whilst it's an assumption that Terry is guilty.

Laurencio wrote:Read the reports, look at the case, pay attention to the trial. Anton Ferdinand is a witness, nothing more. He has no baring on the case other than telling the judge what he experienced, the accusal came from the prosecution. By no definition is John Terry just a witness. The prosecution has accused him of a crime, making him the defendant.

Ferdinand is the only witness. If he didn't want this case to happen, then it wouldn't have done. If he said "I'm not testifying"....then there would be no case. He is the reason that this case is happening, and he is the one accusing Terry of being racist....unless his statement is that Terry was not racist to him?.....but of course if that's the case there would be no case.

Laurencio wrote:Anton Ferdinand hasn't gone to court. The prosecution does not work for, aren't paid by, or under the influence of Anton Ferdinand.

They are under the influence of Ferdinand, because the case rests of what he thinks and says. They don't work for him....because the authorities have taken over as this accusation by Ferdinand makes it their responsibly.

Laurencio wrote:Based on what? What could he possibly be accused of?

Perverting the course of justice? Knowingly not telling the truth under oath? I dunno...I don't assume to know everything that has happened? (something which no one here can do either) An assumption at the moment but......something which could possibly happen? You can't deny that it's a possibility, any more than you can assume that Terry is guilty of racism. (well...maybe you can due to "video evidence"..but you could quite easily come to the conclusion that Terry is not guilty based on what is available to the public, too.)

Stripping him of the captaincy is stupidity of the highest order. Innocent until proven guilty? My fucking arse it is.

Lux wrote:
Forget the negatively part, I'm sure it is a reason but I doubt it was nearly as important as Terry being accused of racism, and so to keep everyone happy (except Terry of course) they just strip him of his captaincy. Easiest thing to do.

Him being accused, thus on trial for a crime, is more than enough to consider the captaincy doubtful. England's captain on trial for criminal charge. It's strange that it wasn't done earlier. It's not like he's being thrown out of England, it's not like he's not allowed to be a leader on the pitch. Right now, the situation simply benefits from someone else having the armband. If he's found innocent the captaincy could be revisisted, although I doubt it will due to his age.

So then the media just start asking other players about Terry because they're not asking him . It could actually lead to being a bigger annoyance, one way or another.

The chances of the topic being brought up if Terry is there, rather than another player, are much higher.

So if you don't think they'll back out of sponsoring/supporting the FA, then what? What else could they do that anyone would care about, assuming that we actually care about them backing out anyway?

The FA's reputation is what is at stake here. The repute of the English game. These supporters and sponsors aren't just about money, they are also highly influential in FIFA, in UEFA and many of them are FIFA and UEFA mandated.

Ignoring people who want Terry to be banned from football and made an example of at every given opportunity before he is even proven guilty is no possible?

No one says he's guilty. No one has said they want him banned from football before the trial and FA investigation has been concluded.

I wouldn't ignore them, I'd just tell them to take a look at themselves and buck their ideas up or stop promoting their organisation. Terry being captain doesn't mean he has to be spokesperson of "kick it out". If they want to unreasonably slander Terry and force the FA's hand.....then the FA should say "Ok...you forced our hands.....goodbye". But of course.....it's a lot harder to support Terry than to deny an anti racism organisation what they want and face all the bad press. "The FA are racists because they don't agree with us"....

You have no idea what "Kick it Out", "Respect", etc are do you? You don't have the foggiest about their direct relationship to FIFA and UEFA. If the English FA were to "cut ties" with Kick it Out, it would have to cut ties with FIFA and UEFA. It can't be done. It's absurd to even entertain the idea.

The English FA, and the English national team, are directly involved in Kick it Out and Respect through FIFA and UEFA. They even established their own "Respect" campaign in the countryh which they lead. Which makes the English captain, and any other captain such as Casillas, Buffon, Van Bommel etc, an ambassador and spokesperson for the campaign.

You could say that about anyone who resigns. Why doesn't everyone just resign and save themselves some exposure?

The captaincy is far more media pressured than anything else. If the black players in England get hazed or racially abused in the Euros the FA would speak up, and the English captain would be the one to go out there and present the view of the players. Let's put John Terry into that very obvious problematic situation shall we?

He is the one who would be on the majority of press conferences, and if you think the English media is the problem, then you are wrong. You see outside England a lot of press assocations have caught wind of the "John Terry case". Although the English FA might eventually back off, and be satisfied, the foreign press will not.

Terry can still give the "pledge of respect" and be on trial. Even if he is found guilty I wouldn't assume that he is racist and that he doesn't have respect for racial equality etc.

And about 10 seconds after, the English and Foreign press will be filled with stories about how a man on trial for breaking the pledge is standing there giving the pledge on behalf of his team. Fantastic. It's pointless to even consider letting that situation happen. All it does is drag his name in the mud.

Why should Terry have to accept this if he is innocent?

Because it's what is best for the team.

It's not about me disliking them, but if these people/organisations are defaming him, publicly campaigning against him and ultimately influencing decisions against him then ultimately if he's not guilty they are liable.

Not true at all. None of them have claimed he is guilty. None of them have demanded anything at all, they have warned the FA about something that they know damn well is true. If they let him remain captain it will cause controversy, needless controversy that is easily avoided. They are not liable in the slightest.

It doesn't, but likewise the FA saying that their decision doesn't presume guilt doesn't necessarily mean that either. You can't take these people's words at face value and assume that it's the truth. Despite all the media, what really happens and what is really said behind the scenes is rarely disclosed.

Of course it does. You can't give out a statement saying "we do not claim he's guilty", with every statement released saying something similar, and actually mean "oh yeah he's guilty as hell". There's no defamation what so ever.

You can be convinced of something and mistaken, but you'll be liable if it's a serious accusation.

That's not how the legal system works.

Where is the evidence that Terry is racist or that he actually racially abused Ferdinand? A video doesn't prove that, even if they know what he said it probably wouldn't prove that.

Not even going to begin with that one...

Talk about assumptions...Suarez was found guilty completely on an assumption. But that's not a criminal case...but nonetheless not right.

No one reads the report do they? Suarez was found guilty of saying a word that can be percieved as racial abuse, which the FA, rightly or wrongly, established as objectively racist. He was not found guilty on assumptions, he was found guilty by admission.

My point is not that Ferdinand should be found guilty in a criminal court based on assumption......(not that you can't depending on evidence/circumstances)...it's that there is equality. If Terry can be convicted on an assumption, then surely Ferdinand could be? In reality....Terry probably will be, and Ferdinand never would be.

And he will never be found guilty on assumptions. No court system will ever do that. If he's found guilty it will be because of video evidence and several witness statements.

It depends on the input and testimony of Ferdinand. There are no other witnesses' who claim to have heard what Terry said...no?

The witness list for the trial includes serveral QPR and Chelsea players, as well as staff and a few members of the public I believe.

By law.....if the jury say that Terry is guilty...then he is guilty. It is still an assumption. So if Ferdinand was assumed to be guilty, then he would be guilty? You won't get proof either way, so be consistent. As it looks there is probably more "proof" that Terry is guilty then that Ferdinand is guilty.....but then we don't know the whole picture...it's just an assumption that he isn't guilty...whilst it's an assumption that Terry is guilty.

So in your opinion every verdict ever handed down is just an assumption then? You have no idea what evidence they have, yet you assume that if he's found guilty it's just an assumption? Yet if he is found guilty then an assumption is more than enough to crucify Anton, even without a shred of evidence?

I'm not saying he is guilty. I'm not saying he's innocent. If there isn't enough evidence to convict then he should be found innocen. I'm saying that the current situation needed to be dealt with, because it isn't viable during the Euros. The FA would much have prefered this to have been cleared out in court before the Euros, but when the courts decided not to do that they had to act.

Ferdinand is the only witness. If he didn't want this case to happen, then it wouldn't have done. If he said "I'm not testifying"....then there would be no case. He is the reason that this case is happening, and he is the one accusing Terry of being racist....unless his statement is that Terry was not racist to him?.....but of course if that's the case there would be no case.

He isn't and he wasn't the one who reported it.

They are under the influence of Ferdinand, because the case rests of what he thinks and says. They don't work for him....because the authorities have taken over as this accusation by Ferdinand makes it their responsibly.

It really doesn't. He didn't even bring the accusatio to the courts. He's a witness, and treating him as anything but is wrong.

Perverting the course of justice?

No, just no.

Knowingly not telling the truth under oath?

Not very likely. You need evidence to support that, and the only evidence I've seen is a video tape with John Terry shouting something at Anton Ferdinand. There's virtually no chance of him being found guilty of perjury.

I dunno...I don't assume to know everything that has happened? (something which no one here can do either) An assumption at the moment but......something which could possibly happen? You can't deny that it's a possibility, any more than you can assume that Terry is guilty of racism. (well...maybe you can due to "video evidence"..but you could quite easily come to the conclusion that Terry is not guilty based on what is available to the public, too.)

I can deny the possibility as there's no grounds for any of the accusations you throw about. I do not presume guilt or innocence, that's up to the courts to decide.