 | Forum
Reply | John Terry goes on trial this Monday
at 15:23 13 Jul 2012
He is paid a hundred grand a week to play football, plus he has countless commercial endorsements and is an England international. On what planet is that f***ing retard ever going to get what he deserves? He could get struck down with aids tomorrow and I would still think it wasn't enough. It's not just about the trial result it's everything about him as listed above. I've heard some horrendous things about him and a female England international but he just gets away with it! |
| Forum
Reply | John Terry goes on trial this Monday
at 14:34 13 Jul 2012
On the basis of a misunderstanding. You could see that line coming a mile away. Said yesterday this would be the fall back position of the court. What is the most galling thing of all is the defendants cost order that will pay for his £90,000 worth of legal fees. All those hours watching the unused sky footage at £200 + an hour! Absolute disgrace. |
| Forum
Reply | John Terry goes on trial this Monday
at 12:39 13 Jul 2012
Don't get me wrong, I think Terry is guilty in principle, I just don't think you can prove it in law. We will always know what he said and provided the media see it the same way then this will hurt him in the long run. Although as said yesterday if the magistrate sees it the same way as us, legal burden of proof or not he will find a way to convict (this will be the first time I will be pleased about it though). |
| Forum
Reply | John Terry goes on trial this Monday
at 12:31 13 Jul 2012
But if the context of the response is to be denying a quote being attributable to you then the conduct must be reasonable. Terry is arguing AF said it first or at least that's what he thought AF said. To make repeating the words an absolute offence would make both the prosecutor and defence lawyer guilty also as they have repeated the words during the proceedings. I know that seems an extreme example but that is precisely why that part of the legislation is there.
Further example:
Policeman: "did you just call me a f***ing pig?"
Civilian: "no I didn't just call you a f***ing pig!"
Policeman then arrests him for S.5 on basis of that response. |
| Forum
Reply | John Terry goes on trial this Monday
at 22:50 12 Jul 2012
Sorry for delayed reply, I'm a solicitor generally dealing with crime. I do not remember what I posted about the Faurlin saga but I was confident we wouldn't get docked points due to right of appeal causing mayhem.
My principle concern regarding the press is that they won't fillify him at all and we will see a "John Terry - my ordeal" story in the sun with pictures of his recent charity drive in Africa!
Although at court today many solicitors expressed surprise about the delay announcing verdict, general consensus is that there may be a case of trying to find a way to find him guilty irregardless of the clear reasonable doubt. Anyone who thinks that this doesn't happen in law would be very mistaken. Experience tells me that the longer they need to think the worse it is for a defendant. the exact opposite to how juries work at the crown court. There may be some hope afterall then! |
| Forum
Reply | John Terry goes on trial this Monday
at 15:08 12 Jul 2012
The mistake element would always be the fall back for Terry just in case the Court sided with AF's account of what he said. By stating so categorically that AF said it to him only reinforces his initial 'mistake' being a genuine one. Why run one defence when you can run two. I still can't believe there is QC dealing with a non imprisonable offence! |
| Forum
Reply | John Terry goes on trial this Monday
at 13:38 12 Jul 2012
I thought I'd wait to hear all the evidence before passing any judgement on the trial and having considered it all I would say I think Terry will be aquitted.
His QC has played it very well in closing on the point of Terry's perception. The QC is stating that effectively it's a two stage consideration to the case. Number one, did AF accuse Terry of saying the words in the first place. If he did then Terry is not guilty. Based on the evidence I think he is in trouble on this point, especially without the ref or obi MIkel giving any evidence to suggest it was said. The lip readers will only work as corroborative evidence but certainly undermines Terry's position. With this argument failing the QC has a fall back position....
Terry made a mistake! He 'thought' he said BC and responded accordingly. The reason this is so effective as a defence is that it can't really be rebutted by the crown. It all comes down to Terry's credibility and whether it has been undermined to such an extent as to mean the court can be sure beyond reasonable doubt. the court can't get into Terry's head so how can they be sure? This is where the prosecution's case will fall. Sad but true. |
| Forum
Reply | Thread deleted?
at 16:12 28 Feb 2012
I retrieved the actual song lyrics from a newspaper article written on the subject of anti-semitism so therefore presumed (albeit wrongly) that the contents would be permitted. I won't post the link as obviously it would create the same problem.
In relation to court cases sufficient things have been omitted and amended to avoid interference. Plus it's not a jury case so no prejudice could be possible.
I accept the decision but refute the recklessness implication. |
| Forum
Thread | Thread deleted?
at 15:49 28 Feb 2012
Has my thread on the spurs chant been deleted? If so apologies if offence caused. I think it answers my query in any event. |
| Forum
Reply | (No subject)
at 15:43 28 Feb 2012
I have to say from a purely legal point of view it's a bit of a nightmare. |
| Forum
Reply | If Terry is found guilty in the week...
at 13:36 30 Jan 2012
I genuinely do not think he has a prayer unless he can produce someone in court who states they heard the obscured "Anton I never called you a....". Without a corroborating witness, all the CPS need is a denial from Anton that he accused him of it or anything resembling it. Pre trial review will take place at the first hearing so all witness will be known at that point. Trial will be fixed for around about May if their anything like the courts I go to. |
| Forum
Reply | bullet
at 18:49 27 Jan 2012
It baffles me that some f***ing retard went to all that trouble because Anton allowed himself to be abused by Terry.
That total spacker Terry is so perfectly apt as their representative! AKUTRs summed it up perfectly a few years back when they asked 'if c**ts could fly, would Stamford Bridge be an airport?' |
| Forum
Reply | bullet
at 18:16 27 Jan 2012
I know what you mean, I'm starting to get the feeling that things are going to get way out of hand tomorrow. I just hope the lads can keep their heads on the pitch. |
| Forum
Reply | bullet
at 18:03 27 Jan 2012
Interesting move this by the club, why release a statement asking for calm and then tell the media about this. If this had in any way affected Anton I don't think they would have made this public. |
| Forum
Reply | John Terry - witness intimidation
at 14:52 27 Jan 2012
Absolutely spot on. Plus if they find themselves marking one another at a corner and Terry leaves an elbow in then the fit will hit the shan for Terry as he could be nicked. Now common sense dictates he should not risk such behaviour but this is JT we're talking about and he is a retard. |
| Forum
Reply | John Terry - witness intimidation
at 14:47 27 Jan 2012
I thought that was why he didn't play Cahill at Norwich as he would want him to step in for Terry for Saturday. It has the potential to bite them on the arse and I would have thought the very expensive legal team he's hired would point out the risk. I figured with how lazy journalism is nowadays, some hack trawling through the message boards might seize upon this and put further pressure on Terry. |
| Forum
Reply | John Terry - witness intimidation
at 14:17 27 Jan 2012
But any statement however non-contentious means that the crown have scope to call that witness to court. Therefore any act of hostility demonstrated towards said witnesses could allow for possible complaint and him be nicked. Will his brief really want him in that position. All you would need is Terry to be filmed saying the word grass and there would be uproar, even if he was talking about the pitch. |
| Forum
Reply | John Terry - witness intimidation
at 13:44 27 Jan 2012
It doesn't just apply to Anton it applies to all witnesses and JT will know who they are as a result of the interview. I genuinely do not think he will play. |
| Forum
Thread | John Terry - witness intimidation
at 13:06 27 Jan 2012
Just a thought but if JT goes into a tackle heavy handed or there are further words exchanged, do you think He could be done for this. It's relatively easy to assert under the circumstances and carries up to five years prison. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
| | MarkPerryMason
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 0 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 0 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.