right to take captaincy from terry?

And it doesn't mean he's guilty either. And just what evidentiary benchmark would you like to see by legal standards? Guilty until proven otherwise? We've "seen" no evidence at all yet. Just a clip on YouTube (or wherever). The context for what he says on that clip will be established at the trial.

 

It is flawed because, reading through this thread, the options should be either;

1) Terry should lose the armband because I think, irrespective of minor inconveniences like an actual trial, he's guilty.

Or;

2) Regardless of what an appalling plum and **** centre-half he is, he like everyone, should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Chelsea have a lot to answer for in all of this. This delay in the trial stinks of expediency for the sake of "the project" and has forced the FA's hand to some extent. But where does it end? How can Terry possibly go to Polkraine now, even as "just" a player? I can't disagree with thisismyenglands excellent blog from yesterday. How can a football club/business delay a trial like this?

 

Thiugh I think it highly unlikely, I would like for Mr Terry to lose the Chelscum armband too

 

Completely the correct decision.

He will not be able to lead the England team with this hanging over him. Who will take on what he has said.

Also as an Englishman abroad, he in no way represents anything that i stand for or believe in.

Take away the fact that he has had his day and should probably be replaced by a younger / better CB and the fact that i dont care whether he is guilty or innocent. He still does not stand up as captian material anymore. He has lost the dressing room, and we know what the outcome is when that happens to managers and captains.

Correct decision but for wrong reasons. IMHO

 

Except for being Canadian, I completely agree Queenslander!!

 

I dont care about the legal standard, Ferdinands word over his is enough for me.
Would you presume someone guilty if that happened to your wife or kids? If a court decided they couldnt convict on the available evidence, would you then assume they were innocent and your family were liars?

 

I do care about things like this and so should you, and if you don't then you really are an idiot. You mention my kids. In what sort of world do you see your kids growing up? Trial by YouTube? Virtual lynch mobs? FFS.

Let justice, as imperfect and infuriating as it can sometimes be, run it's course and then we'll see. If Terry is found guilty I'll be first in the queue to condemn him. If you doubt me on this look at some of my back posts.

There's an interesting thread on the Chelsea board atm about this, started by the best Chelsea wummer on our board District Line. He's called it "The FA are corrupt" .
Funny how, in all his posts here, he's never posited that theory to us. Col's right about him.

It's a good read if nothing else; I could have had so much fun there but for self-moderation. Springbok (I'd throw in a "worshippy" smilie, if there were one, too). GWF. And Ninj and Watford throwing in a couple of reasonable posts, just to get lost in the vitriol and toxicity.

Trust me on this Flyer (and anyone else), if this guy is found guilty, self-moderation be damned, I'll have a field day on their board and this thread will be my starting point.

http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/122012-The-FA-are-corrupt

 

Answer me this, you see a man kill someone with your own eyes but the court finds him not guilty, is he innocent?

Of course you never answered the previous question and just resorted to an insult.

If Terry is found not guilty (which doesnt mean he is innocent) then Antons word over his is still enough for me.

Theres also the possibility of the court finding him not guilty and the FA finding him guilty, what will you do then, is he guilty or innocent?

 

Mmmm ok.

Answer me this. I'm Walter Rhodes. I've seen a man kill someone with my own eyes. I testify and the court finds him guilty and Jesse Tafaro is executed. Is he innocent? Why would you take my word for anything?

As, in your own words, "the Fail support racism", maybe The Guardian is more to your liking?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2006/feb/20/theatre.usa

You really can't see the problem with "mob justice"?

I did answer your previous question by querying in what sort of world you see your kids growing up. Of course you never answered that.

Good for you. If I ever do find myself accused of something, thankfully you're about 200 miles away and won't be on the jury. If you ever do get called up, make sure they know you'll take one man's word over another. You won't be missing any time off work.

If it can't be proved in court then he is, to all intents and purposes, innocent and I'll act accordingly.

 

Interesting debate guys, but I'm sure both of you will agree that plenty of guilty people get found not guilty..and..plenty of innocent people go to jail..

I'm sure we could all cite a case of each......

So whilst i would love to agree with you Telford (thats where my cousins are by the way); the fact that someone is not found guilty in court, really doesnt have much relationship to whether they are innocent or not...IMHO

I'm not taking anyones word over the other, just saying that maybe the law is an ass ?!!!

All the facts are going to be distorted especially considering the amount of money involved and the possible career defining effects of any judgement.

Personally, I dont think he will be found guilty but I also think the trial is far to public to be un-biassed....Sadly JT may never get whats coming to him !

 

In my view there are a number of issues here
Until proven guilty....he is innocent....He must not be stripped of the captaincy on that count

However he has lost the respect of the whole country but more importantly he has lost the respect of many of the England team

Another point, currently he is injured and is also not playing particularly well when fit....partizan-ness aside, I truely do not think he is currently good enough to play for England.

He is extremely egocentric, and would have never stood aside, for the sake of team spirit (which would have caused some healing of the rift)

I have no idea why Capello has joined in (well I do have an idea, which is that he wants out and he sees this storm as a way of getting out and then blaming Terry and the FA for the problems)...


So in answer to the poll, no Terry should keep the arm band, but any person with half decency would have stepped down

 

i voted yes
but think capello should have done it not the fa

 

Your posts literally make no sense at all Telford. You see a man kill another man with your own eyes yet hes innocent because the court hasnt got enough evidence.

So in your little world, everyone is innocent so the man couldnt have been murdered.

 

Suspension pending investigation and formal judgement is standard practice in most organisations for people facing serious charges. Doesn't matter what either Terry or Capello says or does, the onus is on the organisation to act to protect its good reputation.

In this sense, the FA is on the right track (albeit a bit late in the day) whilst Chelsea have mismanaged their position. Had Chelsea done the right thing and suspended JT, the debacle surrounding the match with us and the question of handshakes would have been avoided.

It might also have added weight towards an earlier trial date.

 

Can we,please just stop going on about John ****ing Terry, open this forum John Terry, the radio and TV John Terry, papers John ****ing Terry, we are turning the no good slag into a martyr. He has lost the captains job, it is done, right or wrong live with it. Good riddance I say. It will give him more time to spend his millions

 

This situation is completely analogous to Chris Huhne, stepping down....."to fight his good name" in the courts. He stood down, lib dems did not suspend him....for once some sensible action from a politician (mind you he's a ******* too. An honorable person (not a statement that can go on the same line as the words John Terry tho), would have not embarrased the FA by hanging on, he would have stepped down.

 

GoMadgeGo that will be Terry's defence.

 

How do my posts make "no sense at all"? If you actually read my last post and the links therein you'll have seen how Walter Rhodes testified he "saw" a man being murdered.Following your argument through, because he saw it Jesse Tafaro must have been guilty right? Your standards not mine. Justice, in your eyes anyway, is about taking one man's word over anther. Walter Rhodes later admitted he'd lied on the stand. Too late for Jesse Tafaro. He died a horrible, state-sponsored death:

In my "little world" everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial. I was trying to illustrate what can happen when the law sets out to "get a result", backed up by crass stupidity/indifference. But hey you're right. Let's forget hard evidence and just convict on prejudice eh?

After all what's the worst that could happen? Ask Jesse Taffarel. Oh hang on you can't he's dead.

You talk of my little world; frankly people like you scare the almighty bejesus out of me. Go back a few hundred years you'd have been there with your flaming brand at the stake ready to burn the witch.

**** me! Sometimes I absolutely despair.

Anyway my despair is mine to own and deal with I guess.

I'll leave you with these things.

Something I've been saying here and elsewhere for a while.

800-years ago. They obviously shared my little world.

 

Consider yourself well and truly told Flyer.

 

Well i'm John Terrys equal (re Magna Carta) at least....so i say "hang him"...Lawfully of course !!! hee hee