Jump to content

Generic small time football blather thread


Guest You FCB Get Out Of Our Club
 Share

Recommended Posts

That's a bit like saying I'm not a shoplifter and never have been. But I just stole this kettle in a moment of weakness. But let me off cos I'm honestly not a shoplifter and won't do it again.

It's not really. That's far more straightforward whereas racism has almost infinite levels, from an old person who might still say 'darkie' to someone who kills someone because of the colour of their skin and everything in between.

The law can't be subjective, it's black and white for a reason. Solicitors try to exploit grey areas but what's wrong for one man is wrong for another, regardless of his history or background

If the law can't be subjective, then how come each case that gets to trial is tried on its merits, argued by professionals on both sides, then judged by judge and/or a jury or a set of magistrates. A criminal case like this is subjective by definition.

Are you really this fucking thick? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

No its not. Just look at the many varying murder trials and the totally different outcomes from life to walking free.

 

Yeah, you have to establish whether the law has been broken in the first place. That's what a court case is for. The case doesnt look at whether the bloke accused of murder Is an upstanding member of society or has killed 3 bloke's previously. It's moot. That's why previous offences aren't allowed to be used in the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That he called Ferdinand a black cunt. That's it. It's not a case to establish if he's racist. Just that he used racist language.

 

Agreed. But the debate has been on here "is this really a criminal offence?" and thats where the grey area is, not the ins and outs of the case. The law is wrong iyam. You cant legislate against someone calling someone else a name, however offensive. Its bollocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's not really. That's far more straightforward whereas racism has almost infinite levels, from an old person who might still say 'darkie' to someone who kills someone because of the colour of their skin and everything in between.

 

If the law can't be subjective, then how come each case that gets to trial is tried on its merits, argued by professionals on both sides, then judged by judge and/or a jury or a set of magistrates. A criminal case like this is subjective by definition.

Are you really this fucking thick? :lol:

 

Seen above alex/hank/fap/flap

 

Since when was the case about finding out if Terry is a racist. It about establishing whether he called ferdinand a black cunt. If its found he did then he's guilty, black and white, regardless of if he is a racist or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The case doesnt look at whether the bloke accused of murder Is an upstanding member of society

What's the purpose of character witnesses then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. But the debate has been on here "is this really a criminal offence?" and thats where the grey area is, not the ins and outs of the case. The law is wrong iyam. You cant legislate against someone calling someone else a name, however offensive. Its bollocks.

 

So there should be nothing illegal about a gang of white skinheads racially abusing a 10 year old black kid on his way home from school?

 

The law wasn't designed to protect millionaire footballers but it has to apply in all cases, we can't decide who should be protected by it and who shouldn't.

Edited by ewerk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seen above alex/hank/fap/flap

 

Since when was the case about finding out if Terry is a racist. It about establishing whether he called ferdinand a black cunt. If its found he did then he's guilty, black and white, regardless of if he is a racist or not.

 

That's not the point of the case though, ffs. The point of it is to establish whether he said the words and more importantly, what the intention of the words were. That's not black and white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you have to establish whether the law has been broken in the first place. That's what a court case is for. The case doesnt look at whether the bloke accused of murder Is an upstanding member of society or has killed 3 bloke's previously. It's moot. That's why previous offences aren't allowed to be used in the case.

 

I think you mis understand. See Alexs ( He's Back :lol: ) post above. Explains it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you have to establish whether the law has been broken in the first place. That's what a court case is for. The case doesnt look at whether the bloke accused of murder Is an upstanding member of society or has killed 3 bloke's previously. It's moot. That's why previous offences aren't allowed to be used in the case.

Yes they can. If it shows a pattern of behaviour or if it's evidence of the defendant propensity to lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when was the case about finding out if Terry is a racist.

I'd suggest that's relevant. Unlike most of the answers you've given to the points I've raised. :razz:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd suggest that's relevant. Unlike most of the answers you've given to the points I've raised. :razz:

 

We will have to agree to disagree then. The case wants to establish if he said the words, voluntarily (not repeating what Ferdinand said). I'm sure Terry is calling all of his black friends as witnesses to prove he isn't racist but it doesn't change the outcome if he's proved to have said it. He's caught red handed, its on video tape. The only possible defence he has is that he repeated it in incredulity. Any fucking judge and jury can see the look on his face when he says it though. He hasn't got a leg to stand on.

 

I genuinely have never met someone as passively aggressive as you btw. You staying around this time or are you going to lurk for another few weeks and come back under another new name. I've known 15 year old girls who are less attention seeking you strange man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will have to agree to disagree then. The case wants to establish if he said the words, voluntarily (not repeating what Ferdinand said). I'm sure Terry is calling all of his black friends as witnesses to prove he isn't racist but it doesn't change the outcome if he's proved to have said it. He's caught red handed, its on video tape. The only possible defence he has is that he repeated it in incredulity. Any fucking judge and jury can see the look on his face when he says it though. He hasn't got a leg to stand on.

All that just illustrates what everyone is trying to tell you, i.e. about the subjective nature of this case and cases like it tbh. You're tying yourself up in knots as usually just by being contrary. A quick look at your last half a dozen posts would tell anyone reading them that you don't even agree with yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that just illustrates what everyone is trying to tell you, i.e. about the subjective nature of this case and cases like it tbh. You're tying yourself up in knots as usually just by being contrary. A quick look at your last half a dozen posts would tell anyone reading them that you don't even agree with yourself.

 

It really doesn't. But believe that if it makes you feel better. Tying yourself up in knots/Answer the question/Straw man argument. You should trademark some of these

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of sex offenders/paedophiles etc. Not as to whether someone has used racist language in the past.

 

So, when I said, "It depends on the case" what did you think I meant?

 

(fwiw the cps states it as follows:

 

Admissibility

 

There is a two stage test for admissibility:

1. The evidence must be admissible through one or more of the seven gateways set out in section 101 Criminal Justice Act 2003:

(a) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible;

(
B)
the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross examination and intended to elicit it;

© it is important explanatory evidence;

(d) it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution, which includes:
  • whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged, except where such propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence(section 103(1)(a) Criminal Justice Act 2003);

  • whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful, except where it is not suggested that the defendant's case is untruthful in any respect (section 102(1)(
    B)
    Criminal Justice Act 2003);

(e) it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant;

(f) it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant; or

(g) the defendant has made an attack on another person's character.

2. The evidence is admissible if it falls within section 101(1) (a) (B) © (e) and (f) Criminal Justice Act 2003. Where the evidence falls with section 101(d) or (g) it is admissible unless, on application by a defendant, it has such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

 

If that helps)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really doesn't. But believe that if it makes you feel better. Tying yourself up in knots/Answer the question/Straw man argument. You should trademark some of these

The reason I use phrases like that in regard to you is because you either change the subject or just completely avoid the question when I or someone else points out an obvious fallacy in what you've just said. Again, just read the previous page. Or the day before when I made a point about the role of the press in stuff like this and you responded by making out I was defending Terry. I don't know who you think you're fooling like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I use phrases like that in regard to you is because you either change the subject or just completely avoid the question when I or someone else points out an obvious fallacy in what you've just said. Again, just read the previous page. Or the day before when I made a point about the role of the press in stuff like this and you responded by making out I was defending Terry. I don't know who you think you're fooling like.

 

You don't just reserve them for me tbf, anyone and everyone that disagrees with you gets similar treatment. I'm not sure I've ever seen you admit you are wrong in 12 years of me posting on here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.