The England thread

[Colly]

Hope Rio retires as well, Cahill-Lescott or Cahill-Jagielka with the likes of Smalling,Jones,Shawcross all around will be sufficient

I for one can't wait to see how our new sufficient team does. Who needs good when you have sufficient?

Did I miss the part when we were good?

For me Rio is out of the picture anyway, current centre half partnership is any two of Cahill, Lescott and Jagielka with Smalling, Jones etc coming through (if they ever get fit). Needed doing for a while anyway so hopefully scandal can do the same for the England team as it did for Skys punditry.

[brenchill]

I will never, ever understand why the FA need to do another trial.

He has been proven innocent by a court of law. How can he ever be proven guilty now?

[Summers]

It's a farce. I don't even like Terry - and I think it's ridiculous.

[stokeriño]

I will never, ever understand why the FA need to do another trial.

He has been proven innocent by a court of law. How can he ever be proven guilty now?

Former Football Association executive director David Davies: "The burden of proof that is clearly greater in the magistrates' court than it is with an FA commission."

By which the FA admit to filling in the gaps of proof with assumption and hearsay.

By which the FA admit to operating little more than a show trial.

[brenchill]

I can't even stress how fucking stupid it is.

So if the FA find him guilty they will be saying the court got it wrong, we are right. How is it even legal for them to essentially re-try him for something he has been proven not guilty for?

[stokeriño]

One possibility is that they're not charging him on racism, per se, but rather on "abusive language" (i.e. swearing like a bastard). I mean, they probably ARE going the whole hog and charging him with racism, but I'm just saying.

In which case the immediate question is why Anton Ferdinand isn't in the dock with him, given what was revealed about the exchanges the two shared during the real trial...

How is it even legal for them to essentially re-try him for something he has been proven not guilty for?

'Double jeopardy' doesn't apply because the FA is not a legal body and this is not a proper trial. They can destroy his career on the basis of little or no evidence, sure, but it's not a proper trial.

[brenchill]

[9 to 5]

The whole thing is so stupid. The FA want to feel important. :/

[stokeriño]

Wasn't aware that this was merely 'day one' of the hearing...sigh.

[brenchill]

What would the punishment have been if he would have been found guilty in court?

[Dingle]

Ferdinand and Terry are both great but Rio's back is fucked and he'll be older once 2014 rolls around, Terry and him have never really been that mind-blowingly convincing for England either. Terry's getting on as well and really struggles against pacy strikers. The center backs that England have available are sufficient to qualify and by the time 2014 rolls around you'd expect them to develop even further.

I feel like my eyes have been opened to the world.

[stokeriño]

What would the punishment have been if he would have been found guilty in court?

Just a £2,500 fine. But of course the main consequence would have actually been the taint of 'officially' being a racist and the knock-on effect on his career/sponsorships/reputation. Some talked of him being sacked by Chelsea if found guilty but I'm not sure there was really anything in that.

[brenchill]

What would the punishment have been if he would have been found guilty in court?

Just a £2,500 fine. But of course the main consequence would have actually been the taint of 'officially' being a racist and the knock-on effect on his career/sponsorships/reputation. Some talked of him being sacked by Chelsea if found guilty but I'm not sure there was really anything in that.

Yeah, I realise that, I was just looking to compare the respective punishments.

[Colly]

Staying out of the did he/didn't he argument, but this isn't the unprecedented 'oh my God the FA are mental' thing that a lot of you are making out. Without mentioning names or places (it is public sector though) I'm currently advising on a workplace investigation following a criminal trial that was found not guilty on a technicality (stupidly tenuous, even more so than 'your racist slur may have been sarcastic which is fine'). It's not as rare as you might think.

[stokeriño]

But John Terry wasn't acquitted on a technicality, like when some damning evidence is inadmissible because someone cocked up procedure or whatever. He was acquitted because there was no evidence - not one single person on this planet heard him say these things, not even the supposed 'victim'. And citing other institutions that operate by the same bullshit standards doesn't make it any less bullshit.

[Colly]

Wasn't the issue that they couldn't decide whether he'd said it 'as an insult' rather than saying it at all, which presumably is all the FA would need?

And I fully refute the concept of the standard being bullshit, but well played on guessing the technicality!

Edited September 24, 2012 by Colly

[METALMAN]

I will never, ever understand why the FA need to do another trial.

He has been proven innocent by a court of law. How can he ever be proven guilty now?

Former Football Association executive director David Davies: "The burden of proof that is clearly greater in the magistrates' court than it is with an FA commission."

By which the FA admit to filling in the gaps of proof with assumption and hearsay.

By which the FA admit to operating little more than a show trial.

Not really. Criminal process requires guilt to be proven by being beyond reasonable doubt. An FA hearing, just like any other civil case or tribunal, only requires it to be proven on a balance of probabilities. There's nothing wrong with it. There's a reasonable amount of assumption, but no hearsay.

I think the FA have done the right thing for once. They have a duty to investigate this, just like any other workplace or organisation would.

[stokeriño]

It seemed the most obvious thing that would be described as a technicality.

The issue was that it came down to the evidence on one side being "the word of a lip reader" and the evidence on the other side being "the word of John Terry" (in relation to context and/or sarcasm). You cannot prove anything on that basis - one way or the other - so unless we're reviewing the whole innocent-until-proven-guilty thing, all you can do is throw it out (which is why it should never have made it to court, but you know).

Regarding balance of probabilities: on what basis is this to be achieved? By which I mean, on what basis without someone in the FA going "well he seems like the kind of guy who would(/n't), doesn't he?". Because tribunal or not, that's ridiculous. I can understand some consideration of 'balance of probabilities' cases like "Well, the stuff is missing from the room, locked, no forced entry, you're the only person who has a key...", which is at the very least operating on the basis of narrowing possibilities rather than "he seems the type". Why not just fling accusations at anyone and see what sticks?

I'm sorry if I'm at odds with the rest of society on this, but anyone who gets punished for anything based on a character judgement has been shafted, plain and simple.

[Colly]

I'm not fully up with the case, I read the verdict and a few confusingly contradictory statements (I didn't hear him say it vs I was just asking if he said I'd called him that), but that's by the by. All I'm saying is the FA have every right to investigate it.

[Matt]

He could be charged for bringing the game into disrepute though?

Not that I really give a fuck, I stopped caring about this at least 6 months ago.