Terry NOT Guilty

you have gotta laff!!!

first redknapp got off and now this.

the fact that Terry was seen to use the words 'you fekking black lovely person' obviously means nothing.

If you have the best lawyers...you usually win....end of.

The country is finished ffs

 

What a waste of time and money.

 

wonder how much the magistrate got bunged to come up with that decision ............as it was not a jury i believe.

 

Having seen the BBC overview of the "evidence"....

.....I'm staggered this even made it to court. To echo what Conan has just said, a total waste of time and money.

 

He may have said it, but he was claiming he was replying to what he thought he'd been acused of saying. So if you add the words before like 'i never called you' - '..........' Then then phrase takes on a different meaning'

 

Re: Having seen the BBC overview of the "evidence"....

Easy decision for the jury to make. Should never have gone to court in the first place.

 

Re: Having seen the BBC overview of the "evidence"....

correct

 

Of course he's not guilty. He's rich and he's famous. He was only repeating what he thought Ferdinand had said to him. 'Cos obviously that's exactly what the coloured Ferdinand would say to white Terry.

Whatever his lawyer is paid, it's nowhere near enough. Anyone who manages to get such ******** passed off as a defence and win the case is clearly a genius.

 

I'm surprised it ever went to court after the press had declared him guilty (as well as many on here)

 

Utter rubbish. The cps paid their barrister more than terry did for his, he hasn't bought the verdict, he got off because, as had been blatantly obvious for months, they could prove SOME of what he said - but didn't have a prayer of proving why. Reasonable doubt and all that.

The fact of the matter is that the prosecution could show no evidence that terry wasn't repeating what he'd either heard or thought he'd heard.

No jury in the world could have convicted him - but this wasn't a jury trial, it was a single sitting magistrate who stated 'whilst the prosecution made a strong case ....... Blah ..... I have no choice but to find him not guilty' - roughly translated as 'the case was paper thin, there was no evidence either way so i couldn't possibly find him guilty and this whole process was just going round the houses unnecessarily, the whole affair was a complete waste of time and public money, but if I say the prosecution made a good case we might get away with it'

You'll note that at no point have I said whether or not I think terry did say what he did in a racially prejudiced context. What I or anybody thinks is of no relevance - in a court of law it's what can be proved. They could prove **** all, knew all along they could prove **** all, but because of who he was decided to drag it through the system and make a pantomime of it. There was no way he could ever have been convicted, and even if he was then the most he could have got was £2500 fine - and it's cost the public purse, including the initial investigation, in the region of £1.3million. At a time where soldiers are losing their jobs not long after fighting on the front line and the public purse is emptier than a teenagers knackers ten minutes after babe station starts broadcasting.

Absolute shambles . And the best bit is the FA will no doubt get involved now too. Suarez got 8 games was it? Let's see what happens here.

 

you are right Troff.. didnt hear of anyone in Afghan being hurt by name calling.... kids playground stuff what a load of,,,,,,,,,,,,,,tosh.

 

Re: Having seen the BBC overview of the "evidence"....

Thing is he might not consider himself a racist, still doesn't mean he didn't say it. Thing is Terry has been the big 'I am' for so long he probably thinks he can say what he likes when he likes and might even (in his own small mind) not even think its racist and as long as he's got mates of a different race can't see anything wrong, or maybe again said something to get a rise out of Fertdinand. Then you have a different charge.

 

farcical, them and us!

 

Sorry but very different to Harry. JT claimed to have repeated something which doesnt make him racist. Reasonable doubt = not guilty.

 

This case should never have been brought to court in the first place a complete waste of time and our money.

Ferdinand should have keep his fat gob shut about Terry's private affairs in the first place.

Who Terry has sex with is no bodies business but the three people involved, Terry, his missis, and Bridges Ex, with the emphasis on Ex, girlfriend .

 

I think you have got it bang on. But I don't know for sure. Same as the magistrate, so not guilty to this particular offence.

 

Having heard the evidence I can only assume that this case was brought because it was John Terry and football. Everybody jumping on the celebrity/media bandwagon, including the police and CPS. Embarrassing.

 

Oh come on everybody in footballs been at it for years anything to get under an opponents skin and disrupt their concentration.In Terrys case youve probably got more to go at than most, and if you think Terry isnt up to stuff throughout the game youre deluded