Terry stripped of England captaincy

[Gamma]

i guess i misunderstood. is terry talking about.

[Assasin]

it is a trend. If your intergrity is in question and everybody around you also have the same problem it is hard to ignore and lead.

If him behavior was great then, it would be different.

[Paul Marin]

i see it as no different from when public officials are accused or charged with criminal or unsavory behaviour, take for instance the guy who has been charged with perverting the course of justice, he has resigned from his public appointment and stated his innocence and his intent to fight the charges.

i would not be in favour dropping him from the england side, but taking the captaincy sure, it is not right it is a privilege

I agree there is no "right" to the captaincy, but racism in my mind is a really really serious charge and the frustration for me is that if he is indeed guilty, the fine is a paltry 2500 pounds. BUT - if he is NOT guilty, then what do you do? Reinstate him?

To me, we as a society want it both ways - "innocent until proven guilty" but also "until 'proven innocent'...you're guilty". Utter nonsense.

That said, I accept and agree that the FA can do what they want on the balance of the circumstances, so if the charge in and of itself leads to disruption then it is understandable. But Lazie said there is PROOF that he said something RACIST to Anton as the reason for taking the armband, not the disruptive nature of the circumstances. I would rather we all be very careful about our choice of words with such a serious accusation.

The problem is that the average football fan and third party, will forever stain Terry with racism, regardless of the facts now or if proven innocent after trial. That's not right.

[Paul Marin]

if he didn't say something racist, why blur his mouth?

Is this sentence racist? "I didn't call you a "black c--t", you f-ing knob". Isn't it understandable that the words "black c--t" can be used in a non-racial way but that the TV people don't want to offend viewers, like how the obscure "f-ing" all the time?

After investigating, why did the authorities decide to charge him?

So to your mind, if someone is charged, they are guilty? Charges happen all the time based on reasonable evidence, but why have a court if the charge by itself proves anything?

[Lazie]

Is this sentence racist? "I didn't call you a "black c--t", you f-ing knob". Isn't it understandable that the words "black c--t" can be used in a non-racial way but that the TV people don't want to offend viewers, like how the obscure "f-ing" all the time?




So to your mind, if someone is charged, they are guilty? Charges happen all the time based on reasonable evidence, but why have a court if the charge by itself proves anything?

I see you batting hard. The police decided to charge him BECAUSE THEY FOUND ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CHARGE HIM. I never said he was innocent or guilty ... the courts will decide that.

Dem blur the man's mouth .... it is clear he was saying something not fit for air play. He claimed he said X .... Anton and his team mates said otherwise. A man in his position should think before him talk ... the FA took too long to stip him. Better late than never.

[Gamma]

To me, we as a society want it both ways - "innocent until proven guilty" but also "until 'proven innocent'...you're guilty". Utter nonsense.

with you on that. the "presumption of innocent until proven guilty" is a fallacy. we need fi dash that whey.

the privilege remains that, if he is a distraction for the wrong reasons then yes they have every right to do as they see fit.

[Assasin]

question.
You think him and RIO can co-exist round a the back deh???

[Paul Marin]

I see you batting hard. The police decided to charge him BECAUSE THEY FOUND ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CHARGE HIM. I never said he was innocent or guilty ... the courts will decide that.

Dem blur the man's mouth .... it is clear he was saying something not fit for air play. He claimed he said X .... Anton and his team mates said otherwise. A man in his position should think before him talk ... the FA took too long to stip him. Better late than never.

Your exact words were "from TV replays proved he did say something racist to Anton ...the armband should have been taken from him."

Show me that evidence again. Again, since you won't answer a simple question directly, I ask again, is this sentence "racist"?

"I didn't call you a "black c--t" you f--ing knob?"

From the position you're taking, I can only surmise that your answer is "Yes", and if so, I only hope you're never accused of something this serious on the basis of such "proof".

We can do better than this - we can't do to them what they did to us. Very disappointing...we should know better.

[Paul Marin]

To me, we as a society want it both ways - "innocent until proven guilty" but also "until 'proven innocent'...you're guilty". Utter nonsense.

with you on that. the "presumption of innocent until proven guilty" is a fallacy. we need fi dash that whey.

the privilege remains that, if he is a distraction for the wrong reasons then yes they have every right to do as they see fit.

I agree that the armband can be stripped because of the distractive nature of the circumstances, but not because there is a presumption of guilt which is what Lazie seemed to be advocating ('the replay proved he said something racist'). That's my only issue: don't mischaracterize an accusation as guilt. They are not the same thing.

[Paul Marin]

question.
You think him and RIO can co-exist round a the back deh???

Nope. But I doubt Rio will be in the Euro squad.

[Lazie]

Your exact words were "from TV replays proved he did say something racist to Anton ...the armband should have been taken from him."

Show me that evidence again. Again, since you won't answer a simple question directly, I ask again, is this sentence "racist"?

"I didn't call you a "black c--t" you f--ing knob?"

From the position you're taking, I can only surmise that your answer is "Yes", and if so, I only hope you're never accused of something this serious on the basis of such "proof".

We can do better than this - we can't do to them what they did to us. Very disappointing...we should know better.

Is that what he said? They blurred his mouth. He claimed thats what he said, the QPR players said something different. Yuh gonna believe him over the others?

Gwaan bat!

[Peter R]

That's why they'e going before the magistrate... do you think based on your feeling and what you claim the QPR players say that it is a slam dunk for the prosecution? In court they will have to prove without doubt (in theory anyway) that he is indeed guilty to fine or sentence him. That video evidence will be crucial

[Paul Marin]

Is that what he said? They blurred his mouth. He claimed thats what he said, the QPR players said something different. Yuh gonna believe him over the others?

Gwaan bat!

Really? You're definitely spinning yourself dizzy with your spin machine. So what did the QPR players say he said Lazie? Show me proof that they said he said ANYTHING abusive at all. If they did, then fine. I'll man up.

Anyway, if you want to see what he said, here you go, no blurring necessary - note that part of the sentence is obscured by another player's head so until evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" is presented and corroborated, you are only spewing venom unless you are some kind of expert lip reader and can see through another man's head. Not cool. And by the way - note that this is Sky footage, so why didn't they obscure this one Lazie? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofoao...eature=related

Secondly, here is the opinion of a commentator on Sky Sports regarding the whole affair:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H47GT...tailpage#t=44s

NOTE WHAT THE MAN SAYS: "these accusations have not been made by Anton Ferdinand or anyone at QPR..." so tell me again, where did you get your "facts"? You are not advancing an educated discussion and are taking a hard line position based on dogma I presume. Very disappointing.

Anyway, me a wait pon fi u facts... :yawn: I know you can't produce them...these irrelevant things called facts. As I said before, don't do to them what they did to us. We have to be bigger than that.

And just for the benefit of others who care for fact, the only thing that Anton to his credit has said is that he put his own report into the FA and is leaving it to them. He has made no public claim that Terry called him anything, so until then, Lazie is only dealing in conjecture. Here's what Anton said:

"Today (Monday 31st October 2011) I finalised my statement with the Football Association with regards to the incident that occurred last Sunday at Loftus Road in our Barclays Premier League fixture against Chelsea. I have very strong feelings on the matter, but in the interests of fairness and not wishing to prejudice what I am sure will be a very thorough inquiry by the FA, this will be my last comment on the subject until the inquiry is concluded."

Until the man is found guilty in a court of law, he has to be innocent. Also, note that the charge is NOT by the FA, but by the police.