Diego_Sideburns Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Verdict: Terry not guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Can't we just send him down for being a kanute anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 The Magistrate said It was becoming clear that Terry might be found not guilty. The noise, confusion and lack of lip-reading evidence the crux. No proof beyond reasonable doubt that Terry was lying. Magistrate called Terry a "credible witness". Crown Prosecution Service respect the verdict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 It was clear as day from the outset that this would be the verdict. It should never have got to court, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Only sensible verdict. Poor bloke's had his name dragged further through the mud than before. Sure he's a :censored:ter for having an affair but the tag 'racist' will never be dropped by many. No doubt someone will say he's not a 'poor bloke' because he's earned a fortune in his life. Not his fault that he's good at a job that pays millions and millions. The accusations will have hurt him as much as the next man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 The Chief Magistrate's findings in full: http://www.telegraph...ct-in-full.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Only sensible verdict. Poor bloke's had his name dragged further through the mud than before. Sure he's a :censored:ter for having an affair but the tag 'racist' will never be dropped by many. No doubt someone will say he's not a 'poor bloke' because he's earned a fortune in his life. Not his fault that he's good at a job that pays millions and millions. The accusations will have hurt him as much as the next man. I'd say he's not a poor bloke because I think he did it. However, one has to respect the law of the land and that says he's an innocent little flower. For my money - he's a :censored:ing :censored:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Can still see the FA finding him guilty; they stepped aside for criminal prosecution, but with a lower burden of proof they limited their options after Suarez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I'd say he's not a poor bloke because I think he did it. Did what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 It was clear as day from the outset that this would be the verdict. It should never have got to court, really. I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Did what? Used a racially derogatory term to insult an opponent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Oh, that! Yeah, he probably did. However... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 ... You said you'd never use them!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I dislike unnecessary usage of them. There's a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 A defence as plausible as something a 6 year old kid would come up with does not prove the prosecution's case. My favourite part of the case was his use of Cashley to prove that he is not a racist. As if Cheryl didn't already have copyright on that one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Look on the bright side. The stupid decision to prosecute got rid of Capello. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosa Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 International carnival day in Toxteth today, think i'll stand at the side of it shouting "I'm not calling any of you black c**ts, just in case you were wondering", see what happens. Well worth bringing it to court just for this. And for making him repeat that chant about his mum under oath. I suspect the prosecution knew they weren't getting a guilty verdict at that point and just decided to take the piss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I'd say he's not a poor bloke because I think he did it. Based on nothing at all? Yeah me too, should have been sent to the gallows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 The fact that even got to court is an absolute joke. A complete waste of tax payers money and it makes a mockery of our legal system. In the 21st century, in a supposed civilised country, a person can be put to a trial or worse because he may have said something 'offensive' to someone else. This is childishness personified, and it needs to stop soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 The fact that even got to court is an absolute joke. A complete waste of tax payers money and it makes a mockery of our legal system. In the 21st century, in a supposed civilised country, a person can be put to a trial or worse because he may have said something 'offensive' to someone else. This is childishness personified, and it needs to stop soon. To clarify, what would your view be regarding someone loudly calling a person a :censored:ing black :censored: if said person was serving you in a shop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) To clarify, what would your view be regarding someone loudly calling a person a :censored:ing black :censored: if said person was serving you in a shop? My view would be that the person is themself a cnut. I fail to see why this should end up in court though. Edited July 15, 2012 by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 My view would be that the person is themself a cnut. I fail to see why this should end up in court though. Many of my colleagues receive at least as bad in the course of their daily job. I've been there when it happen, it fits every definition of assault that I understand in Common Law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Meanwhile, Rio's gotten himself into a row for calling Ashley Cole a Choc-ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Many of my colleagues receive at least as bad in the course of their daily job. I've been there when it happen, it fits every definition of assault that I understand in Common Law. Not sure about that. Assault is defined primarily by statute and involves the apprehension of immediate unlawful force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.