TrentVilla Posted July 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2013 chief magistrate Howard Riddle, said TV footage did not show the complete exchange, meaning it was impossible to be sure exactly what was said. ‘In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty,’ he said. Which confirms what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 A court of law let OJ off too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 The point is, being guilty beyond reasonable doubt and being guilty on the balance of probabilities are two very different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2013 As are being found not guilty and found to be innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Indeed. Terry was found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the court but was guilty on the balance of probabilities by the FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 chief magistrate Howard Riddle, said TV footage did not show the complete exchange, meaning it was impossible to be sure exactly what was said. ‘In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty,’ he said. Which confirms what I said. I've made it easier for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Thought Torres could've been back to athletico this summer, but now they have signed Villa think Chelsea are stuck with him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2013 Anton Ferdinand still dislikes Terry. Is it acceptable to hold a grudge for 2 years or not?If someone had called me a "**** black word removed" and then lied about it and, I assume, never apologised... then I'd probably still dislike them after 2 years. If I was black, obviously. Otherwise it would just be a bit weird.Didn't he say "Do you think I called you a "**** black word removed?" because I didn't call you that" which is a clever way of throwing the words 'at' the person without directly calling them that.So there, Stevo, ya big honky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Anton Ferdinand still dislikes Terry. Is it acceptable to hold a grudge for 2 years or not? If someone had called me a "**** black word removed" and then lied about it and, I assume, never apologised... then I'd probably still dislike them after 2 years. If I was black, obviously. Otherwise it would just be a bit weird. Didn't he say "Do you think I called you a "**** black word removed?" because I didn't call you that" which is a clever way of throwing the words 'at' the person without directly calling them that. So there, Stevo, ya big honky. presumably if I as an outraged do gooder third party now report this to the Met police , an expensive time consuming court case would follow ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2013 presumably if I as an outraged do gooder third party now report this to the Met police , an expensive time consuming court case would follow ??No, a honky calling a honky a honky is perfectly OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 presumably if I as an outraged do gooder third party now report this to the Met police , an expensive time consuming court case would follow ?? No, a honky calling a honky a honky is perfectly OK. you would think so wouldn't you .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2013 you would think so wouldn't you .... Out on a session abusing a security guard, you're right, it's probably not what I'd go with first That said, it's laughable to call it racially motivated when they were both the same race using a word for that race. Summary : White person arrested for calling a white person white. Do people even really know what racism means anymore? It's a serious question because if they don't (and they don't actually appear to) then the real stuff gets glossed over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2013 chief magistrate Howard Riddle, said TV footage did not show the complete exchange, meaning it was impossible to be sure exactly what was said. ‘In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty,’ he said. Which confirms what I said. I've made it easier for you It is you that need the help. You said the court said he didn't do it. That is incorrect. As the statement you have provided shows, the judge said the footage wasn't complete so it wasn't possible to be sure exactly what he said. So no the court didn't say he didn't the court said they couldn't be sure either way, reasonable doubt. So he was found not guilt, that is not the same as the court saying he didn't do it. It is a subtle but marked difference. It is guilty Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) sigh So he was found not guilt, that is not the same as the court saying he didn't do it. we can do this all night courts have to prove guilt , if they can't then the person is innocent ... we had this discussion way way back before the trail when I told you he was innocent and you asked me how I knew .. my nswer then was because he hadn't been found guilty .. fast forward however many months and he still hasn't been found guilty Edited July 12, 2013 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 He was found guilty. He was banned for 4 matches and fined over £200k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 He was found guilty. He was banned for 4 matches and fined over £200k. not by a court of law .... which was what we were discussing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 chief magistrate Howard Riddle, said TV footage did not show the complete exchange, meaning it was impossible to be sure exactly what was said. ‘In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty,’ he said. Exactly, no way to prove he didn't do it and Anton is still pretty upset about it 2 years later. missed this earlier but that was the strange thing at the time for me Ferdinand didn't react at the time , had a meeting with the Terry after the game , appeared to accept Terry's version of the events and shook hands with him he even told the FA at his interview on the 28th Oct that he did not accuse Terry of making a racist remark. then suddenly Ferdinand seems to change his mind .. it's almost as if pressure was put on him to do so ? and as you say , 2 years down the road is still upset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2013 sigh So he was found not guilt, that is not the same as the court saying he didn't do it. we can do this all night courts have to prove guilt , if they can't then the person is innocent ... we had this discussion way way back before the trail when I told you he was innocent and you asked me how I knew .. my nswer then was because he hadn't been found guilty .. fast forward however many months and he still hasn't been found guilty No he hasn't but still the court didn't find him innocent either as the very quote you provided demonstrated, there is a difference. The court didn't find that he didn't do it, read the quote you provided. chief magistrate Howard Riddle, said TV footage did not show the complete exchange, meaning it was impossible to be sure exactly what was said. ‘In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty,’ he said. It isn't my fault you used the wrong terminology again which why I commented, if you'd said the court found him not guilty I wouldn't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted July 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted July 12, 2013 Oh for the Scottish verdict.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts