Racism in English football?

[sussexpob]

So hes been banned for insensitive language, thats a slippery slope.

No, he was banned for using racist language.... I think if you are inferring that calling someone a "******" is no worse than "black ******", then you need your head checking.

But it cant be proved he said it with racist intent.

Powelly, if you want to discuss the legal capacity of the ruling and the FA jurisdicition to apply punishments like this, then we can talk for hours about it. The fact is, the FA case against Terry felt that the FA's own rules against abuses of racial langauge was a strict liability offence, ie, it doesnt matter if you meant to insult, merely the presence of words coming out the mouth are enough for them to charge him under the rules of the game.

I agree it is an uncomfortable situation whereby the court have ruled on the issue, yet look at it in more simple terms.... if you called your boss a prat and told him a blind penguin with learning difficulties and a drinking problem could do his job better, you would no doubt have grounds to be punished at work, but a court wouldnt throw you in prison or fine you.

Sometime there is a distinction between work related behaviour and criminal justice....

[SaintPowelly]

So hes been banned for insensitive language, thats a slippery slope.

No, he was banned for using racist language.... I think if you are inferring that calling someone a "******" is no worse than "black ******", then you need your head checking.

But it cant be proved he said it with racist intent.

the FA doesn't have to prove he did

they just have to think that its probable he did

that is the difference you dont seem to understand

I understand whats being said, doesnt mean its not the stupidest rule going.

[rich1uk]

as sussex said above there are differing standards between what constitutes a crime and what is seen as a disciplinary offence in a "work" environment

[SaintPowelly]

Thats fair enough, but how does it work JT gets a 4 game ban, Suarez 7 game and Danny Hylton of Aldershot 8 games for racist language, surely should be same for all

[Gingerfinch]

To be fair, a football pitch and work are so so different.

[rich1uk]

To be fair, a football pitch and work are so so different.

its still unreasonable to expect that the same standards should apply to an FA disciplinary issue as those that do to a criminal case

[Gingerfinch]

To be fair, a football pitch and work are so so different.

its still unreasonable to expect that the same standards should apply to an FA disciplinary issue as those that do to a criminal case

Yes, definitely.

[yuppie]

Can someone explain why Terry got less than Saurez?

[The Waugh Twins]

Thats fair enough, but how does it work JT gets a 4 game ban, Suarez 7 game and Danny Hylton of Aldershot 8 games for racist language, surely should be same for all

Now that I can agree with. Personally if I had it my way He would be banned for 20 games. If this happened in the workplace you can bet your sweet ass (of some colour} would be fired.

As far as courts versus other jurisdictions you only need to look back at the OJ Simpson trial to see how different verdicts can be given in one court and another in another court.

[hopeforthebest]

What does his penalty amount to, 6 days holiday and a fine of 3 days pay?

[yorker_129-7]

Terry should be happy then. The games missed will be a bigger punishment.

Personally I still find it odd how he can be found guilty of something that the courts found him not guilty of, doubt hes happy at all.

The criminal case focussed on the intent of what was said.
The FA investigation focussed on whether he said it.

As during the trial he basically admitted saying it, and was only quibbling with the intent of the remarks, this was a foregone conclusion. I suspect the reason Terry has got less of a ban is because his attack wasn't as seemingly unprovoked as Suarez' was.

[mikesiva]

So hes been banned for insensitive language, thats a slippery slope.

No, he was banned for using racist language.... I think if you are inferring that calling someone a "******" is no worse than "black ******", then you need your head checking.

But it cant be proved he said it with racist intent.

Powelly, if you want to discuss the legal capacity of the ruling and the FA jurisdicition to apply punishments like this, then we can talk for hours about it. The fact is, the FA case against Terry felt that the FA's own rules against abuses of racial langauge was a strict liability offence, ie, it doesnt matter if you meant to insult, merely the presence of words coming out the mouth are enough for them to charge him under the rules of the game.

I agree it is an uncomfortable situation whereby the court have ruled on the issue, yet look at it in more simple terms.... if you called your boss a prat and told him a blind penguin with learning difficulties and a drinking problem could do his job better, you would no doubt have grounds to be punished at work, but a court wouldnt throw you in prison or fine you.

Sometime there is a distinction between work related behaviour and criminal justice....

Well said....

And I for one applaud the FA to their ruling....

[Chris de Burgh]

I'd agree with Mike here. He must have known this was coming after admitting to saying the words in the court case. A ban had to come if the FA were to keep face especially after the precedent set in the Suarez ruling. The length of the ban caught me as a bit lenient however hopefully football can finally move on from this fiasco.

[shankycricket]

Only 4 games? Seriously?

[SaintPowelly]

Suarez used a racist term 7 times and only admitted to saying once, Terrys offence wasnt as bad as that, so it makes sense.