The John Terry affair has finally come to a verdict in court. A sensible verdict, I believe (given that it should never have come to court in the first place). After all, words are just words and while he may have used the words “fucking black cunt” no one was actually harmed and it does not automatically follow that the utterer is a racist. And even if he is, it shouldn’t be illegal. That it is, is reprehensible – thought-crime writ large.
The court, though, accepts that the context means that it was not racial abuse. So, that’s dandy. It is also worth remembering that the alleged victim didn’t complain – an off duty police officer with nothing better to do, did that. Also Ferdinand was an unwilling prosecution witness, believing that the FA should deal with the matter. In this, he was right. Terry may well have committed that heinous offence; bringing the game into disrepute. And, fair enough, an internal disciplinary may well have been the best way of dealing with it. However, now that it has gone to court, that really should be the end of the matter.
You would think.
Garth Brooks writing over at the Groan (where else?) wants more. And, he was apparently in the thick of stirring it all up by his own admission:
I first saw the incident of John Terry “mouthing off” on YouTube early on the Sunday evening. I knew Terry was in big trouble and immediately rang Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers’ Association, and told him so.
“Witch! Witch! Kill the witch!” Oh, sorry, for a moment there I was in the wrong century…
Ahem, back to the case in point. Garth Brooks is a nasty, snivelling, stirring little tittle-tattle creep with nothing better to do than report a minor incident that was not worthy of note, determined to make it more than it actually was. And, now that the court has made a decision, this little shit wants blood anyway.
Now that the court has spoken and the Chelsea captain has been acquitted of racially abusing the QPR player Anton Ferdinand. The ordeal for Terry, though, is not over yet. The Football Association still has to consider one very important matter.
Whereas, in fact, there is nothing to consider – he is not guilty. End of. And, it isn’t important. No, really it isn’t. It never was. Terry uttered some unpleasant words that the supposed victim didn’t feel sufficiently strongly about to make a complaint himself, so why should anyone else?
Unless you are one of those nasty offence mongers of course.
Or, in real life, Terry’s employers and the professional body whose rules he has contracted to obey are fully entitled to discipline him if they can show on a balance of probabilities that he’s broken the rules that he is subject to.
A finding of not guilty, since it’s on a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ basis, can’t be used to show ‘balance of probabilities’ under civil law. That’s why OJ lost the civil case brought by his wife’s family.
That still leaves the nasty taste in the mouth, though, that this odious little creep is expecting the FA to do a job that the state has decided shouldn’t be done.
Have to disagree with Julia here. For a start, he’s not little – he’s quite tall. I hold no brief for him but when we start jailing people for what they say, it’s a slippery slope.
I believe Julia is referring to the Guardian author?
I am!
Had it not gone to court – which it shouldn’t have – I would agree with you entirely. However, it did. To now put a man acquitted by a court through a disciplinary is nothing short of a witch hunt. The time for that is now past. There comes a point when an incident should be laid to rest. This one has reached that point.
Duwayne “My best was Stephen Lawrence” Brooks is also off on one in the Times. Luckily, it’s behind a paywall but I was doing some research in a coffee shop.
Funnily enough, Duwayne Brooks fails to mention that he himself was the beneficiary of a stopped trial – none of this letting it run business – when he was accused of attempted rape, downgraded to indecent assault, but the mediator for the victim became so concerned about the unreliability of the account that she was obliged to disclose this as evidence.
link to guardian.co.uk
Ironically, the Macpherson report had insisted that supporters be used for black complainants, which the Met duly supplied, but the supporter turned out not to be doing what the prosecution hoped. The defence said that it was all got-up to harass their innocent client. But they didn’t complain that an alleged victim had their story chucked out of court.
Mr Brooks described the judge’s decision as a victory for justice. “I have never done anything wrong. If we had gone to trial I would have stated that in my evidence,” he said. “The judge agreed with defence counsel that the failings of the police and prosecution would not have allowed me to have a fair trial. All this public money wasted. All these taxpayers’ money wasted.”
Apparently this only applies if the accused is black.
His lawyers said they were considering suing over the arrest for indecent assault.
I don’t think there was ever enough evidence – despite what the Chief Magistrate said – to arrest, let alone for the CPS to bring a case against John Terry.
Obviously I’m not expecting the police to be sued as it will only waste more public money.
Question: that bit about an ‘off duty policeman making a complaint’ – did anybody else’s Bullshitometer blow up at that point after the needle snapped at the top of the “likely story” red zone?
Ironic then isn’t it when you consider Capello was fired for suggesting that a man who had not been found guilty by a court, should be treated as not guilty just in case he was in fact, not guilty.
(Disclosure; Not being English, my interest in the English FA is to put it mildly, limited).
Mine is non-existent. However, the issue of thought crime is relevant.
Note: Emma West, who is to face trial for a racially aggravated public order offence, does not play for Chelsea and cannot lay her hands on £300k for a defence, so she has had a period in custody.
Her trial, after psychiatric reports, is supposed to be on Monday 16 July at Croydon Crown Court. She denies the offence.
Ahead of the trial a campaign has been launched which ought to indicate that people feel strongly that just holding views which others disagree with, and expressing them strongly, may become a serious fracture line across society.
link to thisiscroydontoday.co.uk
Indeed the contract between celebrity access to ‘justice’ and proletarian justice is stark and shameful.
I recall reading a claim that Emma West was jailed “for her own safety” at some point. Quite amazing really.
On watching the video again I can only describe this – and the Terry case – as political show trials.
West was muttering to herself as a typical train loony, the same as hundreds of others. She was particularly unlikely to go beyond mutttering as she had a small child with her.
When people started arguing with her – instead of ignoring her which is the time-honoured procedure – she argued back, exercising her right to freedom of expression.
If they didn’t want her to argue with them, they should not have engaged with her. Since they did, it’s their look-out if they don’t like what they hear.
Emma West has been arrested not for a public order offence but for saying things her inquisitors goaded her in to saying, then got all huffy about.
This is another misuse of the public order offences. Another reason why Kier Starmer has got to go for failing to control his attack dogs.
More worryingly, this sort of thing seems to happen from time to time with Teachers.
They get taken to court for “abusing” children, ie, raising their voice, or are wrongly accused of smacking a naughty child, (what the bloody hell is wrong with smacking a naughty child FFS) and are cleared by the court after a long drawn out process which sees them go through far more suffering than their alleged “victim”.
But is that the end of the matter? Nope.
They then have to go through the same process with local education authorities and boards of govenors so that they can keep their job.
Can someone explain just what is going on here?
It’s a sad sad day when I find myself feeling sympathy towards a foul mouthed premiership footballer.