A lot of fuss, and a court case costing millions. I'd be interested if anyone knows.
So what is John Terry alleged to have said?
(39 posts) (16 voices)
Just found out.
I just read the report on The Guardian, it seems far from clear-cut. And as there's a trial underway, I guess we shouldn't really discuss it!
Good point wayland. I've already sharpened my pencil, ready for the verdict.
I usually find a few paragraphs in a newspaper or a couple of min's TV coverage gives me all I need to know when deciding guilt or innocence.
A Five Day trial though!?
You'd think he'd be more bothered about being called a 'C**T' regardless of what colour it was !
I think we have to be careful of contempt of c***t
Subjudice, isn't it NickB? There should really be a media blackout.
oohhh-wayland said bl*ckout!
TBH, I’ve never seen a black c**t, except in a dissecting room. Pink, red, purple, but not black.
From what I understand from news reports from the court, He called Anton Ferdinand a f**king black c**t because he refered to JT's fling with his team mates lady friend. In my book, sleeping with a friends other half makes you a c**t no matter what colour you are.
Ooooh...interesting. I didn't realise there was a c**t scale.
Is it like karate where you get a different colour belt the higher up the scale you get? Or in the Mason's where you get a silly name like Lord Commander of the Inner C**t Ring?
You only get a purple c**t after copulating with Nordic Gods. Just saying.
I've read the trial report in the Telegraph. Whilst I realise it is a serious issue, I cannot help but laugh at the quotes- the thought of all these lawyers and witnesses saying 'c**t' in court.
I wonder who broke cover first in referencing 'c**t', rather than 'the c-word'? Whether one side was waiting for the other to say it first? A mental picture of Rumpole of the Bailey peering down inscrutably beneath his wig and curtly instructing the witness to 'Speak up!'.
Finally, Anton Ferdinand trying to describe the tiers of c**t insult:
“When someone calls you a c***, that is one thing but when they bring your colour into it, it takes it to another level and it’s very hurtful.”
Good job he didn't grow up in a small Shropshire market town full of beery/leery farm hands.
He would have taken 'fucking black cunt' as a term of endearment.
More tiresome attention seeking from the fragile Ferdinands
No doubt sees the pantomime-villanous Terry as a nice little earner (can you say that or is it libel)
If you are going to dish out unpleasant remarks then you should at least be prepared to take them back.
Fancy being lectured on morality by a Premiership footballer.
I get the impression that Ferdinand has been quite open about it having been he who instigated the spat.
And wasn't the complaint made by a member of the public rather than Ferdinand? If a complaint is made, and after investigation the CPS thinks there's a case to answer, then it's little to do with Ferdinand other than appearing as a witness.
And as for using c*** in court, right from the start of my degree they have given us scenarios and cases to present which use language such as that.
Basically, if we get used to it at Uni, we're less likely to snigger when in court for real.
I'm 41, have years of experience in presentation, and I still snigger every time. I should probably avoid court work.
Do you think you'll get pigeon holed as a Cunt Titterrer Jeni?
I do hope so Id.
I think you're right Jeni about the CPS getting involved after a complaint by a member of the public. Similar cases have generally been dealt with 'within football' when the complainant is a footballer - eg the Evra/Suarez incident was handled by the FA.
I'm not condoning what Terry is alleged to have said by any means but personal insulting of opponents is commonplace in sport at all levels. Some call it 'banter' to make it sound inoffensive but if it oversteps the mark, complaints should be made and it should be investigated.
But do we really need a highly expensive court case to determine whether to fine John Terry a maximum fine of what to him would be small change, based on a complaint from a member of the public who managed to lip-read Sky's super-slow-motion coverage of the incident from his armchair? It seems to me to be completely out of proportion.
don't you think it's time to resurrect the Victorian arts of phrenology and 'spot the villain by his facial characteristics'? I mean, John Terry really does look like a rat-faced little racist, so why not move straight to conviction. At a time of austerity we ned to be more creative around taking costs out of the legal system.
I've heard John Terry in interviews.
Now if the lip-reader had indentified 'facking black caant', he might have had a point; but I genuinely don't think Terry is capable of annunciating the deeper U sound, he remains in cockerney-pseudo-falsetto.
And thats a legal argument I would pay to hear, your honour.
@Jeni, do you think that would be taken into account in chambers when they're handing out the cases?
- How about the new lassie, Ms B for this one?
- I'd advise against it. Titters at cunt, don't you know.
- Really? Good God, what are they churning out these days!
Id, it's always possible.
However, I strongly suspect that as most Sheriffs in these here parts, (apols, got a bit Wild West there) are
dusty old duffersapproaching retirement age, I'd be seen as little more than a flibberty-jibbet.
As well as being a ridiculous scenario - seriously, what a waste of energy - does anyone else not think that the calling of 'a case' is the racist part of this?
If called a fat ****, then I might be offended if I thought being fat was something to be ashamed of.
If called a smart ****, then I might be offended by the ****, but chances are, I'd be pleased about the smart part enough to ignore it.
If called a [insert colour/race adjective here] **** - now what? Either I'm ashamed of the race/colour connotation, in which case I'm offended, but also simultaneously admitting that that tag is something to be ashamed of. OR, I have pride in the identity and culture attached to that tag, in which case it isn't offensive (apart from the ****, which, let's be honest, is just banter for footballers).
Ergo, the only racist part about this entire case is the fact that someone, probably a 'white' man (is that racist? I said white - oooh), has deemed it racist to describe a black man as black - therefore that someone is the racist for interpreting what is just an adjective as a negative term. No?
Obviously, this is me, having been brought up to think that black is a colour/adjective and not a negative descriptor unlike certain other words that he could have used. For me this entire case is just advertising, incorrectly, that colour does matter. Sure, they are saying that racism is wrong, but they are still advocating that using the colour of someone's skin is derogatory - in this case intensified by the ****.
Just me? (and breathe...)
Firstly, lets get out of the way the fact that both characters involved seem pretty abusive and unpleasant, so hard to feel any form of sympathy with either of them.
Main point- its interesting that the preamble abuse, which could be dressed up as taunting and insulting language regarding someones personal, emotional life (which I accept is dignifying 'You fucked Bridge's missus, you cunt' with language rather more flowery than it deserves)is merely stated as part of the evidence- Ferdinand isn't facing any sort of official sanction for using Foul and Abusive Language, or taunts of a sexual nature, or invasion of privacy, or any other way of categorising the nasty potty-mouth.
It seems because Terry utterred one particularly trigger-word within their vulgar dialogue, the full force of the law is unleashed.
Would the same be true if he said 'You play like a girl' (sexism) or 'you're a gay bastard' (homophobia...which I'm willing to bet happens with great regularity on the football field) or possibly in Old Firm matches, I suspect religion might get a mention occasionally?? How about nationalism...'You're an english cunt'...would that hit the headlines?
Just how to we categorise these insults? It seems racsism is the current defcon 1, but I wonder where the others rank and will they always rank below?
Thankfully, sectarian abuse only ever happened between Old Firm players and supporters.
Even more thankfully, due to the cunting dollop of a mess that is/was Rangers, those abuses are at an end for a while.
Despite traditionally religious differences between other Scottish teams, none of the others (predominantly east coast) teams indulge in what has been Scottish footballs greatest shame. (Other than their playing, before some wag points that one out)
There is little in the way of racist abuse in Scottish football thankfully.
Agree entirely ID, this is part of what I was getting at. A ranking of isms. Even within isms. Black was a trigger word - yet no other - would pink, white, maroon have been? Positive discrimination is my least favourite type - the worst form of hypocrisy. This is also why I can't understand how insults can be ranked by anyone other than the subject of the abuse. One man's adjective is another man's heartache. (see DVO/Murray comments for examples (not post itself))
Is discriminately discriminating is the UK's favourite pastime? Farcical.
I share a similar and passionate loathing of positive discrmination kga.
My uncle never gave an inch playing draughts, it was a genuine achievement when I finally beat him.
I would hate to feel I was appointed/not appointed merely because of what I looked like; and I think positive discrimination actually merely serves to preserve awareness of differences.
Meritocracy for me.
Absolutely Id, I'd hate to be forever wondering if I'd only been given a job because I fulfilled a demographic requirement as opposed to being the best person for a job.
You mean you really think that birds (never mind middle-aged Scotch birds) can do complicated clever talking, and you're on that course on merit, rather than quota filling?
Bless you, Peaches.
Well, I hate it unless it benefits me...
You must log in to post.