Come here to laugh at Chavs

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Smoked Salmon

Finest human being of all time
coalhada said:
"The court heard that Mr Terry maintains he was only sarcastically repeating words that Mr Ferdinand wrongly thought he had used."

Oh, the sarcastic racism defence.
That's so stupid it goes right round the other side and becomes clever, then stupid again.
That's fucking brilliant. Without a doubt one of the worst defences I have heard (and I've heard some whoppers on the civil side of things). "Yeah, sorry mate, you mistaking thought I'd said n*gger so that made it alright to use the word".

I know why it's being argued, namely that under the Public Order Act it required to be of a threatening, abusive and insulting nature. By pretending that it was a sarcastic repeat of something he was just being accused of, it's an attemot to get around the idea of malicious use. I think it's a pretty poor argument though.
 
If the "sarcasm" defence works then the courts are more fucked up than I thought. Also love how face to face racial abuse on a football pitch = £2500 yet some twat on twitter does it to/about a celebrity then gets bird. I don't want to live on this planet anymore (as long as I can still get streams to watch Spurs)
 

Smoked Salmon

Finest human being of all time
bensonrecon said:
If the "sarcasm" defence works then the courts are more fucked up than I thought.
Well, it's not just about the defence, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that the offence did actually take place so the case can fail for reasons other than Terry's bullshit defence.
 
I hope there's a couple of Spurs supporters in the jury. Although they probably had to declare if they had strong views on football, much like in the 'Arry/Rosie47 case.
 
Smoked Salmon said:
bensonrecon said:
If the "sarcasm" defence works then the courts are more fucked up than I thought.
Well, it's not just about the defence, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that the offence did actually take place so the case can fail for reasons other than Terry's bullshit defence.

True. Just to me considering they have admitted that he did say what is alledged then surely the entire case rests on why and how. The goading excuse would be ridiculous if done in an assault "levels of force" stance and with Anton saying he didn't know he had been abused till after the match then the sarcasm line of defence then rests solely on Terry trying to prove it while trying to justify it was fair.

Just find it bizarre that the amount of money his solicitors must be on that they couldn't come up with a better line of defence
 

Smoked Salmon

Finest human being of all time
bensonrecon said:
True. Just to me considering they have admitted that he did say what is alledged then surely the entire case rests on why and how.
Yup
Just find it bizarre that the amount of money his solicitors must be on that they couldn't come up with a better line of defence
It will be his counsel who has likely come up with that line of defence. In any event, all the money in the world is irrelevant if your case is a stinker. You can only polish a turd so much.
 

LLB Part Deux

"The man who fucked up TFC" - Mick Cooper
So, even without a jury, I guess all the defence need to do is introduce an element of doubt that Terry 'meant it' as racist abuse.

I reckon he'll get off.
 

Smoked Salmon

Finest human being of all time
LLB Part Deux said:
So, even without a jury, I guess all the defence need to do is introduce an element of doubt that Terry 'meant it' as racist abuse.

I reckon he'll get off.
Pretty much. I think it will boil down to how many witnesses they have in support of Ferdinand's assertions. If you have half a dozen players lined up clearly attesting to a racial slur said with malice then I think it'spretty cut and dried. But if it's more a case of Fredinand's word against CunTerry's then I think there's much greater scope for the element of doubt to be introduced.

Ultimately it will be up to a single judge to decide.
 

tricky

Supporter
Man up and LOL
LLB Part Deux said:
So, even without a jury, I guess all the defence need to do is introduce an element of doubt that Terry 'meant it' as racist abuse.

I reckon he'll get off.
As he has been charged with s31(c) of crime and disorder act (ostensibly the 'racially aggravated' s5 Public Order Act offence), the 'sarcasm' element would appear to be particularly targeting the mens rea element under s6(4) of 'intent' under POA1986.

Also reckon he'll get off, he's too stupid to intend any insult deliberately as far as I can tell. And yes it probably does mean that his highly paid solicitors have come up with a defence which stands a chance of working.

Won't mean he isn't a racist though, just not a convicted one. And that is where perception is far greater than any fine or judgement against him.

nb. Is it me or are there a few legal types around here?

:ap:
 

tricky

Supporter
Man up and LOL
Abbey Yid said:
Surprised nobody's mentioned his previous (against us).
Hence taken as read that the fact he has racist undertones is undeniable. But as above, it requires proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt', and the evidence (more than just player, usually unambiguous video reference) has to be there to secure a conviction.

The cunt is still a, well, cunt of the highest order, with reference to all of his baseline 'morality' and his 'family values'.

He's the sort of person who could make me stop supporting football if more like him surfaced and became the benchmark for 'successful players' (the tragedy being it's inevitability I suppose).
 

Smoked Salmon

Finest human being of all time
tricky said:
LLB Part Deux said:
So, even without a jury, I guess all the defence need to do is introduce an element of doubt that Terry 'meant it' as racist abuse.

I reckon he'll get off.
As he has been charged with s31(c) of crime and disorder act (ostensibly the 'racially aggravated' s5 Public Order Act offence), the 'sarcasm' element would appear to be particularly targeting the mens rea element under s6(4) of 'intent' under POA1986.

Also reckon he'll get off, he's too stupid to intend any insult deliberately as far as I can tell. And yes it probably does mean that his highly paid solicitors have come up with a defence which stands a chance of working.

Won't mean he isn't a racist though, just not a convicted one. And that is where perception is far greater than any fine or judgement against him.

nb. Is it me or are there a few legal types around here?

:ap:

The reason I think it's a bullshit defence is that s6(4) contains an alternate, namely that a person can be guilty of the offence if he is aware that the action may be disorderly. Now, to me, even if it's sarcasm, you'd have to be a pretty stupid person not to know that the use of a racial slur, even if said sarcastically, in the company of black players, can create disorder.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

What do you reckon?
 

Smoked Salmon

Finest human being of all time
Habanero said:
The real winners in this case will be the highly paid lawyers.
contrary to popular belief a lot of lawyers are not as highly paid as you think, have huge billing targets and see most of the profits they make go to their firms rather than in their pockets.
 

Thelonious

The Fighting Cock
Thelonious World Peace
Smoked Salmon said:
Habanero said:
The real winners in this case will be the highly paid lawyers.
contrary to popular belief a lot of lawyers are not as highly paid as you think, have huge billing targets and see most of the profits they make go to their firms rather than in their pockets.
I bet Terry's lawyer lives hand to mouth. :ade:
 
Top Bottom