Date: 2nd February 2012 at 2:15am
Written by:
John Terry spits at Carlos Tevez during the Champions League final

John Terry spits at Carlos Tevez during the Champions League final

News that England captain John Terry will not face trial for his alleged racial abuse of Anton Ferdinand has been met with shock and disappointment by many and plunged England’s Euro 2012 preparations into confusion.

The national side now faces the prospect of being led by a man who could conceivably return from the tournament and then be convicted of racially abusing a fellow professional. Then there’s the point of how can Rio Ferdinand realistically play alongside someone who’s awaiting trial for racially abusing his younger brother? How can black players feel happy being led by someone who’s accused of using racist insults at another player? In fact how can any professional, black or white be happy about the whole situation?

“Innocent until proven guilty” is the mantra of not just the Terry supporters but also the pseudo liberal faction seeking to give everyone a ‘fair trial.’ Well here’s where the plot thickens, for starters that rule may apply in the eyes of the law, but does it apply in the court of public opinion, does it mean that Terry is actually innocent of the charges? Does it mean that Terry didn’t call Ferdinand a “f*cking black c*nt”?

The presumption of innocence is a legal rule that applies to the criminal justice system, the fact that there are pending criminal charges mean the prosecution have determined in all likelihood Terry is guilty. In the past pending criminal charges have been more than sufficient grounds for suspending someone from employment or refusing to allow them to hold an office.

Terry may be guilty and he may not, but the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service believe they have enough evidence to take the Chelsea skipper to trial tells its own story. The fact that Sky TV are forced to blur out the footage of Terry’s rant at Ferdinand seems pretty ominous as does the fact that the entire Queens Park Rangers team were unwilling to shake Terry’s hand.

When it comes to the “innocent until proven guilty” argument another problem is that hasn’t been the way the FA have dealt with matters in the past. When Alan Smith was called into the England squad back in 2003, he was subsequently removed when the FA realised the police were charging him with throwing a bottle back into the crowd at Elland Road during a clash with United.

Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer were suspended from representing the England team by the FA while they awaited trial for the alleged assault of an Asian student named Sarfraz Neijeb.

Rio Ferdinand was suspended by the FA pending his drug test hearing, a move that almost caused the entire squad to strike ahead of the Euro 2004 qualifier against Turkey.

It seems other players have been suspended from the England team before their trials or hearings have been seen, yet Terry is allowed to represent his country while his is still pending.

What’s even worse are the nature of Terry’s charges, he’s not just accused of abusing a fellow professional but of racially abusing them, an act which is abhorrent to any right thinking decent individual. Should Terry be found guilty, then we now face the prospect of watching a man who captained our nation, be convicted of using racist abuse.

Let’s not forget that even if Terry isn’t found guilty it doesn’t necessarily mean he didn’t call Ferdinand what he’s been charged with, simply that there isn’t enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even if Terry is found not guilty and even if he didn’t actually say what he’s been accused of, is that going to stop there being severe rifts in the England dressing room at Euro 2012?

No matter what some may claim about Gary Cahill and Joleon Lescott, the fact is a fit Rio Ferdinand, deserves to be in the England squad and surely that would cause a problem for dressing room harmony.

The FA have bungled badly by not suspending Terry from the England team as soon as he was charged, banking on the trial being before the Euros.

The fact that the trial has been set at such a later date due to Terry’s Chelsea team mates not being available until after the season merely adds to the air of ridiculousness surrounding the entire affair.

Terry deserves a fair trial, yes, but does he deserve to lead his country or even play for it, while awaiting his trial, others haven’t been afforded such accommodation so why should he?

For more United loving views follow me on twitter @jaymotty
and the site that features much better writers than I @RFFH

Also like us on Facebook


37 responses to “One Rule For John Terry One Rule For Everyone Else”

  1. Sir Cecil says:

    The video shows Terry saying (albeit only through lip-reading): Hey! I n…(obscured by passing player).. a b***k c**t” followed immediately by “kn*b head”.
    Watch the video and see. If anything, it suggests Terry’s assertion that he said “Hey! I never called you a… etc”. The timing of the obscured part of the video also fits Terry’s side of the story.
    But think on this. His follow up of “kn*b head” would only be used if Terry’s claim is true. There would be no point in following up an original insult with a lesser one. Say the two versions to yourself and see which sounds the more likely:
    A) Hey! You b*** c**t…. you kn** head”
    or B) Hey! I didn’t call you a bl**K c**t, you kn*b head.
    Any half-intelligent person will know which is the likelier.
    Aside from that, we’re talking here of someone charged with saying (mouthing) something NO-ONE heard. It’s too preposterous for words. On trial because of lip-reading! No player, official, spectator heard any insult, and LIP MOVEMENT is being tried here, not abuse. Abuse by nature cannot be abuse if no-one heard it. It’s a farce. Just like the article that this is a response to. Grow up!

  2. Sir Cecil says:

    B) above should read “Hey! I never called you…” (rather than “didn’t”). Watch the video. It’s clear enough.

    • Justin Mottershead says:

      He could be saying “I never touched you, you f….” Or “I’ll f*cking do you, you f*cking black c*nt,” theres a hundred things he could of said in that half a second which is obscured, but what is obvious is what he DID say. Also where is the point where Anton Ferdinand says “you called me a f*cking black c*nt” if what you say is true?

      • Sir Cecil says:

        Exactly. By your own post you declare that you have no idea who said what to who, and that a hundred options exist. Yet you pontificate here as if you have insights into the matter. In truth, you are just one of those rabble-stirring, hate-mongering loud mouths one sees in old western movies, leading the lynch gang and spewing rubbish.

  3. Kashere2011 says:

    If sua’rez case had been seriously consider as offenced and the fa charged him then handed him a banned,why not of john terry or is it because sua’rez isn’t an England player? is there any sense of justice here,sua’rez says negro,immidiately banned and terry said a f**king black c*nt,he is free to play until the end of the season and also euro2012..liverfool should appeal 4 there banned player as injustice.

    • You are dealing with two different bodies and never the twain should meet. In reality Suarez should have also been prosecuted in the courts also. But the chances of getting a conviction would have been virtually nil as the burden of proof is much higher. Remember Suarez was prosecuted under the FA rules not the law of the land…do not confuse the two. It is not Ferdinand who has accused Terry it was a member of the public this therefore makes it a criminal offence and in the publics interest to prosecute.

  4. RU says:

    I stopped reading the article when I got to the the line “how can Rio Ferdinand play alongside him?”. Well, I can answer that. He won’t, Rio’s England days have well gone now.

  5. I work with a number of lawyers and barristers we have discussed this case many times. One thing they all say is the CPS do not take cases to trial unless they have very good reason to believe they will get a conviction. They also must believe they have sufficient evidence to get a conviction otherwise this case would be dropped a long time ago. Think about the amount cases you read but never get to trial even though it is blatently clear who the guilty party is, why? because the CPS did not believe they would get a conviction due to the lack of quality evidence. Personally thing Terry is an odius individual.

  6. Liam says:

    Suarez, terry, liverpool, the chavs, all a bunch of classless racist muppets.

    Terry shouldnt play for england anyway, he’s slow, egotistical and shite and hasnt got the respect of his team mates.

  7. SwintonReds says:

    Vidic has been missing the whole season for us, so rio, evans and especially smalling have stepped in. We are well clear of chelsea already, and have conceded less goals, but how many chelsea fans would give any of these players credit despite the fact they have all been better defensively than terry this year? They come across as very thickle and naaive.

  8. notagolfer says:

    read this & thought of your poorly researched article. hope this educates you.

    by gary neville.

    After the threat of strike action in 2004, I attended an international board meeting with the PFA’s Brendon Batson and soon after the FA’s policy changed. They let due process take its course when a player was charged with an offence.

    But because racism is such a sensitive issue, they have now bypassed that and written a new rule. Everyone should deplore racism but how are we to judge which offences justify removal of the captain’s armband or expulsion from the squad?

    Drink-driving is serious, but would it be OK if you got caught but had not killed anyone? What about assault? Is it OK if you hit someone just because a percentage of men may well have done the same at some point in their lives? Would we let due process run in those cases but not in John Terry’s?

    • Justin Mottershead says:

      How does this educate me? I’ve already stated in a previous comment that the FA can change their policies as and when they want to, which since I wrote my article they have shown by stripping Terry of the captaincy. If I were you I’d be more concerned with the disgraceful actions of your fans today booing Rio Ferdinand. For what exactly? Maybe you could ‘educate’ me on that.

      • notagolfer says:

        it should educate you (clueless blogger) cos you said:

        “Then there’s your comment on the ‘rule’ being changed. Well actually there are no such rules and they weren’t changed.”

        whereas gary neville (england & man utd player) said:

        “I attended an international board meeting with the PFA’s Brendon Batson and soon after the FA’s policy changed.”

        geddit now genius?

        consider yourself educated.

        • Justin Mottershead says:

          You’ve completely ignored my point about the fans I see. Typical I suppose. A ‘rule’ and a ‘policy’ are two different things. Allow me to ‘educate’ you:

          A rule is something that-whether it’s a structural fact or a business-imposed statement-will not change, or at least stands only a very small chance of changing. Most statements of the form “X cannot be null” represent rules. A policy is more like a business instruction.
          Pragmatically speaking policies are relatively easy to change. Rules, while they may change, are typically more involved.

          That was my point, it was a ‘policy’ that is easy to change not a ‘rule’ that isn’t.

          I’d much prefer you try and educate this ‘genius’ on why Rio was booed.

  9. notagolfer says:

    congratulations on making the trip from stamford bridge to manchester in under an hour btw.

    it took me over an hour to get from the ground to my london home…so it’s very impressive.

    • Justin Mottershead says:

      Couldn’t get a ticket- only around 1 in 5 applicants can. Am I supposed to feel ashamed about that?

  10. notagolfer says:


    your whole article is based on the idea that players couldn’t play for england if they were awaiting trial…”one rule for terry & one rule for everyone else”…

    you give examples of players who were not allowed to play for england while awaiting trial…

    but GARY F*CKING NEVILLE has said that this was a “policy” that was “changed”…because the fa decided to “let due process take its course when a player was charged with an offence”…

    & there are examples like gerrard & carroll who prove that this is so…

    & you still won’t admit you were wrong?

    if you wish to discuss the treatment of rio perhaps you could write an article on why rio why was “booed” then i could comment upon it (if i felt so inclined) but that seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand…which would be the content of this article & your responses to it…

    i’m sure i could bring up utd fans treatment of ashley cole or something…why is he mercilessly booed at old trafford? but that has nothing to do with what we are discussing…nice try tho.

    • Justin Mottershead says:

      I know why he was booed and it’s nothing to do with why Ashley Cole has been booed at Old Trafford.