The views below are submitted by registered users of evertonfc.com and do not necessarily reflect the views of Everton Football Club. View the Blueroom acceptable usage policy.

Four match ban... £220k fine...
  • OldGoldenVision
    Posts: 20,144
    John Terry...
  • AllAroundMyHat
    Posts: 807
    big deal ! 2 weeks wages ! fine example to show FA. what a joke
  • koolhandluke8
    Posts: 3,035
    found guilty of an innocent by law charge...

    only in this country FFS
  • koolhandluke8
    Posts: 3,035
    PS. listen tot he kopites moan now....

    suqarez got 8 matches...always the victim....
  • OldGoldenVision
    Posts: 20,144
    koolhandluke8 said:

    found guilty of an innocent by law charge...

    only in this country FFS


    -----------------



    The burden of proof in a criminal case is higher than in a civil matter... ask OJ...
  • himwill
    Posts: 559
    Court of law needs to prove it by beyond reasonable doubt while the FA goes by probability. Either way the scum has finally been done.
  • OldGoldenVision
    Posts: 20,144
    himwill said:

    Court of law needs to prove it by beyond reasonable doubt while the FA goes by probability. Either way the scum has finally been done.


    -----------------



    Civil law - on the balance of probabilities...

    Criminal law - beyond reasonable doubt...

    The FA in their rulings are more likely to be akin to the Civil law...

    (slight over simplification Himwill)

  • koolhandluke8
    Posts: 3,035
    OGV How if the crimianl law says beyond reasonable doubt...which effectively means he's completely innocent (in this case)

    How can civil law- on the balance of probability - prove him guilty ?

    surely the first outweighs the second ?
  • OldGoldenVision
    Posts: 20,144
    Beyond reasonable doubt means it has to be absolute.. no question of him being innocent...

    On the balance of probabilities means... some evidence he might of been guilty... some evidence he might not... but on balance there is more evidence of guilt..
  • sambo applecart
    Posts: 24,739
    he called him a black b. people heard it. so he has been punished.

    The difference for me in this situation is, the FA have disregarded Mr Terry's black mates (cashley etc) giving him a character reference to say he isnt racist where as the courts were happy to listen to them and based their view on the fact he has blakc friends, therefore cannot be racist. 
  • OldGoldenVision
    Posts: 20,144
    the court was trying him for racism...

    the fa tried him for foul and abusive language...
  • OldGoldenVision
    Posts: 20,144
    From the bbc: "the english game has permanently been damaged".

    No it hasnt. I'd expect that kind of sensationalist comnent from the tabloids... but the British Broadcasting Corporation... sack the reporter!
  • CharlieCroker
    Posts: 1,051
    OldGoldenVision said:

    Beyond reasonable doubt means it has to be absolute.. no question of him being innocent...


    On the balance of probabilities means... some evidence he might of been guilty... some evidence he might not... but on balance there is more evidence of guilt..

    -----------------



    I read somewhere that the FA use the "lower threshold of the balance of probabilities." I guess this means that they make a guess on the verdict, then guess a tolerance band around that, then use the lower limit as a verdict. So, for example, if they decide there is a 80% chance that Terry called Ferdinand a FBC, with an uncertainty of +/- 20%, then that gives 60%- guilty. Is this correct, OGV?
  • OldGoldenVision
    Posts: 20,144
    might be...
  • AndyForsyth
    Posts: 2,543
    The weird thing about this is there was no video evidence for Suarez, yet there was for JT. I think the fact he was found innocent in court has got him off the hook, although the FA will say that they've punished him severely in financial terms whereas Suarez was punished by being banned for longer. If there's to be any sort of consistency, they should have both got the same punishment. By the way did anyone see this:

    a rel="nofollow" href="https://
    ">https://
    image

    Apologies for the strong language used, I assumed this would just show up as a link.
  • milky71
    Posts: 9,113
    if he admits saying it then how can he be found innocent
  • AndyForsyth
    Posts: 2,543
    I think they were taken in by the 'not uttered by way of abuse or insult...' argument.
  • OldGoldenVision
    Posts: 20,144
    he was tried in court over allegations of racism...

    the fa have charged him with foul and abusive language which contained reference to race... not the same thing...
  • milky71
    Posts: 9,113
    is that avatar a pic of your kid like.

  • OldGoldenVision
    Posts: 20,144
    milky71 said:

    is that avatar a pic of your kid like.


    -----------------



    yes...
  • milky71
    Posts: 9,113
    good looking kid

    now whats all this about the BR being qouted in papers are the quotes good or bad or both
Add a Comment

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Forum

Poll

No poll attached to this discussion.

In this Discussion