John Terry charged by the FA

John Terry charged by the FA over Anton Ferdinand incident

Chelsea captain John Terry has been charged by the Football Association for his part in last season's incident with QPR defender Anton Ferdinand.

Terry, 31, is alleged to have used "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour" in the 23 October match.

The FA statement added: "It is further alleged that this included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Ferdinand."

England defender Terry denies the charge and wants a personal hearing.

Earlier this month Terry was cleared at Westminster Magistrates' Court of racially abusing Ferdinand during the Premier League game between the west London sides.

It was alleged Terry had insulted Ferdinand, describing him as "black" and using extreme sexual swear words.

But in reaching a not guilty verdict, chief magistrate Howard Riddle stated it was "possible that what was said was not intended as an insult but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him".

The prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Terry had used the words in an insulting manner, which it could not.

But the FA only has to prove its case "on the balance of probabilities".

A statement on the FA website said
Terry remained available to play for England pending the outcome of the case.

The governing body went on: "This charge is the result of the FA's long-standing enquiries into this matter, which were placed on hold pending the outcome of the criminal trial, and relates to rules governing football only."

Chelsea released a statement of their own on the club website.

"John Terry has denied an FA charge announced today and will be requesting the opportunity for a personal hearing," it read.

Ferdinand, 27, will not face any FA charge relating to the case.

Fabio Capello resigned as England manager in February after Terry was stripped of the captaincy because of the allegations.

Capello's successor Roy Hodgson included Terry in the squad that played in Euro 2012 last month.

Is Anton Ferdinand being charged for his language too?

Wait silly me, racism only works one way.

What did Anton Ferdinand say that was racist??

In the Court is was concluded that it was very unlikely Anton said the words: 'black c***.'

This is the PDF file of the magistrate:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_07_12_r_v_john_terry.pdf

This is the last paragraph, if you skip to page 15:

Weighing all the evidence together, I think it is highly unlikely that Mr
Ferdinand accused Mr Terry on the pitch of calling him a black c***.
However I accept that it is possible that Mr Terry believed at the time, and
believes now, that such an accusation was made. The prosecution evidence
as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong. Mr Cole
gives corroborating (although far from compelling corroborating) evidence
14 on this point. It is therefore possible that what he said was not intended as
an insult, but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to
him.
In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can
record is one of not guilty.

Howard Riddle
Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate)
13 July 2012

I don't think we can portray Howard Riddle's decision in the court as proving John Terry as 'innocent' at all; more like he cannot prove it beyond doubt that John Terry was guilty.
Here is another extract from the case file, on page 6:

To summarize:
 There is no doubt the words “F**king black c**t” were directed at Mr
Ferdinand.
 Overall I found Anton Ferdinand to be a believable witness on the
central issue.
 It is inherently unlikely that he should firstly accuse John Terry of calling him a black c**t, then shortly after the match completely deny that he had made such a comment, and then maintain that false
account throughout the police investigation and throughout this trial.
There is no history of animosity between the two men. The supposed
motivation is slight.
 Mr Terry’s explanation is, certainly under the cold light of forensic
examination, unlikely. It is not the most obvious response. It is
sandwiched between other undoubted insults.
 I believe that he is an unwilling witness, and would have preferred that
this matter not come to court.

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:Is Anton Ferdinand being charged for his language too?

He is the "victim" of course............him in Rio in counselling for the stress of it all.....poor things

A 3 game ban for both players for their foul language and vile insults to each other would be proper, but of course the spineless FA MUST stand behind their original finding of JT's guilt for fear of losing face............

Legally, when he is banned, Terry could take them to the cleaners, and despite JT not being a very nice man, i hope he goes all the way with them.............

John, I think Anton should be punished for what he said. That's only fair.

However two wrongs don't make a right, and it doesn't excuse John Terry. As the court said it was very unlikely that Ferdinand accused Terry of saying those words in the first place (why would he suddenly change his mind and claim he never heard Terry say those words?) but they couldn't prove it beyond doubt.

To me Terry's case has always seemed very very unlikely to be true. As was said in page 6 of the court file, it was 'sandwiched between other insults.' It was reported around 10-15 seconds before the incident he called AF a 'f*cking knobhead.' Then the camera does not follow him, but when it does 15 seconds later he says the words 'f*cking black c*nt.' FA have made the right decision with JT imho, but can't understand why AF isn't being charged.

IMBL,

You make some good points. Agree 100% that AF should be charged, but we both know why he isin't..............

While JT's defence is unlikely. it is POSSIBLE that JT believed AF accused him.........and there are ZERO witnesses who came forward and said the heard JT say "B....C...." and that it wasn't a question but a straight insult................Ferdinand himself didn't hear it so he couldn't tertify as to whether JT's words were an insult or a question put to him.......................

The FA have their minds made up long ago though...............

John Cregan wrote:IMBL,

You make some good points. Agree 100% that AF should be charged, but we both know why he isin't..............

While JT's defence is unlikely. it is POSSIBLE that JT believed AF accused him.........and there are ZERO witnesses who came forward and said the heard JT say "B....C...."

Spot on John Cregan, that's why they couldn't charge him in the Court. However the FA have less restrictions and can base it more on probability.
The more we look on to JT's story the more unlikely it seems. The Court did rule that around 10-15 seconds earlier he called AF a 'f*cking knobhead'. Hence the magistrate ruled on page 6 that it was 'sandwiched between other insults.' And after 10 seconds JT says the words 'f*cking black c*nt' how strange.

Also if AF had accused JT of saying the words (which JT just responded too) then AF could have said so in court, and it would change the whole case, in all probability with the video evidence JT would have been charged as guilty. As, if AF asked John Terry did you call me a 'black c*nt'; he would have thought JT had done so. It's not a normal question to ask unless you have reason. JT could still say he didn't and was only responding to AF's claim but it would make his case seem much weaker.
So why would AF suddenly lie and essentially save John Terry? That's why the magistrate said:
Weighing all the evidence together, I think it is highly unlikely that Mr Ferdinand accused Mr Terry on the pitch of calling him a black c***.

And finally I do agree that the FA should charge AF too for provocative language towards JT beforehand. Nevertheless two wrongs don't make a right and JT should not be excused

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:Wait silly me, racism only works one way.

What a stupid comment. If Anton had responded with "eff off you white ****" then yes, he most likely would be being charged, however that's totally irrelevant as he said nothing. Football fans really can be the biggest morons. Chelsea ones in particular.

John Cregan wrote:

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:Is Anton Ferdinand being charged for his language too?

He is the "victim" of course............him in Rio in counselling for the stress of it all.....poor things

A 3 game ban for both players for their foul language and vile insults to each other would be proper, but of course the spineless FA MUST stand behind their original finding of JT's guilt for fear of losing face............

Legally, when he is banned, Terry could take them to the cleaners, and despite JT not being a very nice man, i hope he goes all the way with them.............

Alright keyboard-QC, explain the law behind this assertion?

Thinks I'm a Chelsea fan

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:Thinks I'm a Chelsea fan

Did I? Or was I making a reference to football fans in general with an emphasis on Chelsea ones? Don't care who you support, it was a bloody moronic comment.

well toppy, we may disagree on boxing, but I agree with what you're saying here.

Swann and Cregan, why do you want to be 'victims'?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

John Cregan wrote:

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:Is Anton Ferdinand being charged for his language too?

He is the "victim" of course............him in Rio in counselling for the stress of it all.....poor things

A 3 game ban for both players for their foul language and vile insults to each other would be proper, but of course the spineless FA MUST stand behind their original finding of JT's guilt for fear of losing face............

Legally, when he is banned, Terry could take them to the cleaners, and despite JT not being a very nice man, i hope he goes all the way with them.............

Alright keyboard-QC, explain the law behind this assertion?

Because he's been found "not guilty" in a Criminal Trial. Is it not clear what i meant ?
Im sure the FA will make up something about a criminal trial being "beyond reasonable doubt" and "lesser burden of proof" etc etc .This is only to save losing face seeing as the had already decided on his guilt prior to the trial by stripping him of the England Captaincy showing the world how "strong" they were on racism, which lets face it, is almost entirely gone from the game now.......................

The Golf authorities handling of Steve Williams comments re Tiger Woods shows how a PROPOR organisation deal with an issue such as this...............

Criminal and civil prosecutions happen all the time.

The G20 PC was found not guilty at Criminal trial and the family are now persuing it in the Civil courts. You still don't seem to understand the difference and relevance.

As as for JT, he'd already been stripped of the Captaincy before for being such a despicable scum-bag with a very chequered history therefore there was no way he could be England's Captain and national representative with a race abuse trial hanging over him.

To say his 'guilt' has already been decided is, to quote Jennifer, a fallacious statement.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Criminal and civil prosecutions happen all the time.

The G20 PC was found not guilty at Criminal trial and the family are now persuing it in the Civil courts. You still don't seem to understand the difference and relevance.

As as for JT, he'd already been stripped of the Captaincy before for being such a despicable scum-bag with a very chequered history therefore there was no way he could be England's Captain and national representative with a race abuse trial hanging over him.

To say his 'guilt' has already been decided is, to quote Jennifer, a fallacious statement.

Of course they have decided he is guilty, THEY are bringing the case................

The foul language/disgusting behaviour of players that goes on in the game is clearly condoned by the FA by their inaction...........eg Evras disgusting comments to Suarez and Suarez's response............8 match ban for Suarez, nothing for Evra...........JT and AF trade disgusting comments/actions and JT charged. Then AF charged for race related comments.............Frimpong makes an innocent enough remark to a Spurs fan after being provoked, charged for racist comment.................

Whatever you think of them as men, neither Rio, JT, Suarez or Frimpong are racists and as such, the FA making a big deal of these things only shows clearly that they are only pursuing this to be seen as "cracking racism".........except in these cases no racism exists..............

Rooney for one would disagree with your comments about FA inaction......

And I think there is a substantial Jewish population of this country and others that'd disagree with your Frimpong 'innocent' comment.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Rooney for one would disagree with your comments about FA inaction......

And I think there is a substantial Jewish population of this country and others that'd disagree with your Frimpong 'innocent' comment.

Ive clearly seen Rooney tell a referee to "F*** off" many times.........he was done once, and rightly so, for doing it straight into a camera.............why not zero tolerance for all players who tell a referee to F*** off........................FA only react when something gets media attention...........like the JT thing and the Suarez think and they go around and pertend they are banishing a racvism problem(that doesn't really exist) from the game......................

It is a shame that neither of the players are big enough to shake hands and even apologise for their comments. Would've prevented such ongoing saga.

Racism doesn't exist?

Wow, many a stupid comment has been posted on a sports forum but that has got to be about the most ignorant!

John Cregan wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Rooney for one would disagree with your comments about FA inaction......

And I think there is a substantial Jewish population of this country and others that'd disagree with your Frimpong 'innocent' comment.

Ive clearly seen Rooney tell a referee to "F*** off" many times.........he was done once, and rightly so, for doing it straight into a camera.............why not zero tolerance for all players who tell a referee to F*** off........................FA only react when something gets media attention...........like the JT thing and the Suarez think and they go around and pertend they are banishing a racvism problem(that doesn't really exist) from the game......................

It's the same that the law punishes racism more harshly than just average abuse.

Crimey,

Therin lies the serious issue though.........Suarez found by the FA panel not to be a racist. Yet he got 8 matches, for, IMO, above all else, the fact that a lot of peolple thought he WAS a racist and the FA wanted to be seen to act on that...........

As i said previously, the PGA & European Tours handled the Steve Williams Comments about Tiger Woods..........."shove it up his b***k as***le perfectly.............they KNEW Williams is not a racist, they KNEW he HATED Tiger Woods, they made sure he unreservedly apologised to Woods and all golf fans and that was that...move on.............