Jump to content

John Terry


CI

Recommended Posts

What do you mean 'IMO'? He's either been found guilty or he hasn't. There's no opinion about it.

This is a debating forum, and its all about opinions, you have yours, I'll have mine. Not a difficult concept really

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try and find it, the initial defence was that he'd said blind but treys statement said that the quality of the video and the head that goes across the screen takes away the context of what he said, the video they are investigating is from a different angle and they've only released stills of it

like I said before poppygate and the prolongation of the investigation suggests to me they are going to throw the book at him but want these games out of the way first

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean 'IMO'? He's either been found guilty or he hasn't. There's no opinion about it.

This is a debating forum, and its all about opinions, you have yours, I'll have mine. Not a difficult concept really

Eh?

MG asked "Has he been found guilty?" that is a yes/no answer, there is no opinion about it. He never asked for your opinion, he asked for an answer based on a fact. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
"The decision was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and after careful consideration of all the evidence I am satisfied there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute this case.

"Mr Terry will appear before West London magistrates' court on 1 February 2012. He is now summonsed with a criminal offence and has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice his trial."

The CPS also released the full text of the charge against Terry, which reads: "On 23rd October 2011 at Loftus Road Stadium, London W12 you used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress which was racially aggravated in accordance with section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Contrary to section 31 (1) © of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998."

link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He'll obviously have a very good lawyer, could he get off dispite the evidence?

**cough** Gerrard **cough**

Now come on. You know full well that Gerrard was minding his own business, having a few drinks and a dance in the pub/club with his mates, when that naughty man started attacking Steven Gerrard's hands with his face and body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He'll obviously have a very good lawyer, could he get off dispite the evidence?

Does the evidence necessarily point to his guilt on the charge put forward, though?

I could see a line of argument that concentrates on the public order aspect rather than what he specifically said or whether or not he is a racist cock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â