Dorset Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 Nothing, it would seem, is black and white anymore in the aftermath of John Terry’s trial and a massive grey area has been seized upon by Media pundits and hacks alike, everyone of them hell bent on making something [anything] racial stick on JT, whatever the shade may be. In effect, painting this new picture without using or encouraging a riot of colour has become more than a mere commission for these accusers - they now crusade onwards and upwards into a new Blue-baiting period where, if racial slur cannot be stirred on the palette, grey will become the new black. Naturally, the mix needs to be spread on the canvas thickly (an easy exercise for these individuals) with broad, bold, brave brushstrokes expressing hope for a future in which burdens, such as proof, can be lain down in favour of the less prosaic ‘balance of probabilities’ - is it a bird, is it plane? Nope, it‘s possibly neither, but probably one or the other, so you decide on the artistic interpretation and, when you’ve reached your verdict, we’ll all go along with it because we know it’s your view, your call and substantiation of viewpoint really isn’t a requirement. For a typical instance of this surrealism at work there is no better current example than Garth Crooks, the former Tottenham Hotspurs player and trustee for the anti-racism in football campaign 'Kick It Out',who has issues and one of them recently went as a warning to JT that he is ‘still under investigation’ by the FA and he is afraid [yeh, right] that ‘This is only halftime. It is not over’. Having initially been asked by his interviewer to comment on the industrial language used by Terry and Ferdinand during the match, Crooks deliberately sidetracked that issue to deliver this warning… or snide threat, as I like to call it. And I can. Because that’s my view. My interpretation of what he said. My picture, if you like, and his limiting of the comment to racial intent only serves to fuel the accusatory flames. Of course, looking at it from a different angle, if this was a backlash-based, bitter, racially-motivated comment by Crooks, there would be nothing for JT himself to get upset about, as I’m sure he’ll think Garth didn’t deliberately forget to mention it was only halftime for Anton Ferdinand too and that he could also be hauled up in front of the FA on a disrepute charge. Indeed, this happened much in the same way as he failed to consider the possibility of Anton kicking off with the racial epithet first when he [Crooks] singled out JT for sole retribution from the FA. With no evidence to the contrary, we’ll have to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one as well, wont we? And in any event, probably JT wouldn’t be interested in anything Garth said, wouldn’t even have heard it, so how can you be offended in those circumstances? Probably not, I’d say, so perhaps it’s time for me to reconsider my own view on Garth’s attitude and be lenient for a change, because I like to think I’m no off duty policeman who is easily offended and itching to take matters further. What does worry me, though, is that the FA will in their infinite wisdom see fit to do the opposite and bearing in mind that they are unburdened of actual proof and living in a world where the balance of probabilities allows such freedom of brushstroke and expression, we could possibly see a different interpretation emerge. Picture, if you will, the FA mulling over this litigious masterpiece and standing back en masse to take in the beauty of the game and the backdrop of bestial language. Was it the word ‘black’ that was said? Was it said once, or twice by way of repetition? Who knows when there is no clear evidence, but, when you’ve no proximities and only probabilities, who needs evidence? They can choose (and they will be doing just that) because, when all is said and done, it’s their ball and it’s in their court at the moment, so the rest of us will have to look on. Probably in bewilderment and disbelief, but look on we must. At least Garth Crooks has to do the same and has no influence......probably.
Backbiter Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 What does worry me, though, is that the FA will in their infinite wisdom see fit to do the opposite and bearing in mind that they are unburdened of actual proof and living in a world where the balance of probabilities allows such freedom of brushstroke and expression, we could possibly see a different interpretation emerge. Picture, if you will, the FA mulling over this litigious masterpiece and standing back en masse to take in the beauty of the game and the backdrop of bestial language. Was it the word ‘black’ that was said? Was it said once, or twice by way of repetition? Who knows when there is no clear evidence, but, when you’ve no proximities and only probabilities, who needs evidence? They can choose (and they will be doing just that) because, when all is said and done, it’s their ball and it’s in their court at the moment, so the rest of us will have to look on. Probably in bewilderment and disbelief, but look on we must. At least Garth Crooks has to do the same and has no influence......probably. Lord Ouseley's quote yesterday was unbelievable: Lord Ouseley, chairman of the anti-racism group Kick It Out, warned that the verdict could dissuade players who had been racially abused from making complaints."We've got to work hard now to try and establish some credibility about the complaints processes to ensure they are dealt with properly. That means that in future, the Football Association will have to carry out its own investigations, conclude its deliberations, irrespective of whether the police get involved. And I am afraid the police involvement in this case has not helped it whatsoever." A thorough 9-month investigation was not helpful because it led to the wrong outcome, so a less searching inquiry must be held in future so these cases "are dealt with properly"i.e. players get done without having to prove they are guilty. That's a pretty scary viewpoint.
Lofty. Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 Lord Ouseley's quote yesterday was unbelievable: A thorough 9-month investigation was not helpful because it led to the wrong outcome, so a less searching inquiry must be held in future so these cases "are dealt with properly"i.e. players get done without having to prove they are guilty. That's a pretty scary viewpoint. Indeed. Ousley's comments can all too easily be interpreted as "any complaint made by a black player against a white player must be upheld in order not to discourage more black players from making complaints", which indicates a far greater level of real racism than any amount of name calling within the confines of a football pitch. In fact Ousley shows himself to be no better than the likes of Rio Ferdinand and Carlton Ebanks with their condemnation of Ashley Cole based on their own warped ideas of "black solidarity". For with Crooks et al, the validity of such complaints would appear to have no bearing whatsoever on the desired outcome. My wish was that the outcome of the court case might discourage similarly frivolous complaints from off duty policemen, journalists, rival fans, or anyone else with an axe to grind. But apparently this is not to be. The British legal system may not be perfect, but for all it's flaws, it's immeasurably more reliable, more trustworthy, more credible, than an FA tribunal. And so in showing a preference for the FA over the Law, the Race Relations Industry as exemplified by Crooks and Ousley reveal themselves to be interested, not in justice, but in getting the verdict they want, the verdict that suits their own ends.
Fearnley Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 I fear JT is to get a ban on the grounds of inappropriate language similar to that Wayne Rooney has received just out of spite of the fact he has been cleared of all charges by the courts! This would most probably making the signing of a new RB a must...to lose our captain to the opening league and champions league games would be a massive blow for any team
Mike Carefree Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 Itll be a blow, but remember what we did win while he was absent..The players should and will play for him..That is, if they do ban him.
Backbiter Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 Here's a superb quote I came across in response to a Guardian article saying "Terry's sarcasm defence leaves society in a dangerous position": http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/jul/14/john-terry-sarcasm-defence?commentpage=10#start-of-comments Society is in an infinitely more dangerous position if "guilt" is decided based on whether or not the judgement will further X cause.
Fearnley Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 What a load of utter rubbish that article is...John Terry was charged with racial abuse not using racist language so if it cannot be deemed that the language was used in an insulting manner then how can he be punished? I think that this has now become an overly inflated issue where people are not paying attention to the facts and jumping the gun! The magistrate said there was not enough evidence which is no reflection on the racism issue but the legal system itself
bluedrake55 Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 certain people should just accept the decision of the court. they are the 'creditable professionals' who are appointed to judge what is right or wrong. because this was about 'race' certain people are blinded to that fact.
evissy Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Hard to say how it all really went in the court, what the 'feel' was in the room but they decided Terry is not guilty. That should be it. FA will fine him I'm sure. What I hate about this case is that Ferdinand took it so far. Lot of fax payers money go into these cases and there certainly are lot more serious crimes and criminals out there than who are involved in this. Rape, child abuse and so on... Why can't the two guys go into a room and talk it over and get on with their lives. I bet Ferdinand was advised by someone, agent or an advisor to make this a case. Shame on JT shouting what he did and shame on Ferdinand for being too serious and making this circus reality
evissy Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Hard to say how it all really went in the court, what the 'feel' was in the room but they decided Terry is not guilty. That should be it. FA will fine him I'm sure. What I hate about this case is that Ferdinand took it so far. Lot of fax payers money go into these cases and there certainly are lot more serious crimes and criminals out there than who are involved in this. Rape, child abuse and so on... Why can't the two guys go into a room and talk it over and get on with their lives. I bet Ferdinand was advised by someone, agent or an advisor to make this a case. Shame on JT shouting what he did and shame on Ferdinand for being too serious and making this circus reality.
That Boy Brandinho Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Indeed. Ousley's comments can all too easily be interpreted as "any complaint made by a black player against a white player must be upheld in order not to discourage more black players from making complaints", which indicates a far greater level of real racism than any amount of name calling within the confines of a football pitch. In fact Ousley shows himself to be no better than the likes of Rio Ferdinand and Carlton Ebanks with their condemnation of Ashley Cole based on their own warped ideas of "black solidarity". Well said. The notion that Terry should be punished, irrespective of his actual guilt, so that black players aren't discouraged from making complaints in the future is an utterly diabolical sentiment. I'm genuinely disturbed by its implications. First, that the person making such an illogical and idiotic statement is in charge of an anti-racism campaign is scary. Second, that similar logic would never be deemed valid for any issue other than racism. Imagine if a man were accused of rape, tried and acquitted, then a public figure who chaired an anti-rape campaign came out and demanded he be punished so that women who are victims of sexual violence in the future wouldn't be dissuaded from accusing their tormentors. He'd be ridiculed. However, with racism, it seems that people are too afraid of being accused of being racist themselves to speak up about how stupid this all is. It's very sad that a man as ignorant as Herman Ouseley is allowed to hold the position that he is, as someone without their head up their arse could use it to help alleviate what is a very real problem. Edited July 17, 2012 by That Boy Brandinho
Recommended Posts