-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
JT - Captain. Leader. Legend. Qunt
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
jts1882
Dean Richards
Agreed. But this time I suspect that he and others are a bit tinkled off by being criticised by the Chelsea executive.
He is also right about Chelsea having "some of the most impassioned supporters around". He is not making claims on how many. And "impassioned" covers a lot of things including deluded, racist, etc.
Jurgen the German
Tommy Harmer
^ About time. They've done nothing but mollycoddle and enable those two up until this point.
Southcote Spur
Jason Dozzell
I know this is probably an old cliche, but I bet the Chel$ki managers' screensaver on their computer has the following statement working its way across the screen:
Rule 1 - John Terry and Ashley Cole are never wrong.
Rule 2 - If the above are proved to be wrong, rule 1 applies.
There are few people in this world who I really detest, but these two are definately in this small select band! (I wouldn't walk across the road to p*** on them if they were on fire!)
Rule 1 - John Terry and Ashley Cole are never wrong.
Rule 2 - If the above are proved to be wrong, rule 1 applies.
There are few people in this world who I really detest, but these two are definately in this small select band! (I wouldn't walk across the road to p*** on them if they were on fire!)
Hotshot-Tottenham
Dean Richards
have i read the reports right? wasn't it an independent panel, not the FA itself passing the Cole judgement?
Jurgen the German
Tommy Harmer
You're right, I just meant in general, the FA are tacos, incompotent tacos at that.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Yes, the FA were effectively the prosecution.
The FA can be criticised for a lot of things but they have handled the Suarez and Terry incidents fairly well. They may have taken too long, but made sure they got it right and gave the players a chance to present their defences.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Very well said. Its remarkably direct and especially damning coming in an editorial from a major newspaper.
The bit about the FA briefing journalists about their coverage of Hodgson's remarks would qualify the FA for tacohood. Perhaps Ashley can use it for his defence.
John Terry verdict has left Chelsea with pressing questions to answer
The FA's three-man commission criticised the 'unreliable evidence' of Ashley Cole and the club secretary in trying to support their captain
The judgment of the Football Association's commission into John Terry's racial abuse of Anton Ferdinand amounts to a damning indictment of the Chelsea and, at the time, England captain himself, of his team-mate Ashley Cole and of Chelsea's handling of the whole ugly affair.
The three-man commission, chaired by a barrister, Craig Moore, examined the defence Terry has advanced, throughout his criminal trial and the FA's investigation into his use of racist words to Ferdinand, and said directly they did not believe him.
They found Cole, who changed his witness statement after the FA first interviewed him about the incident, to have been unreliable and to have amended the statement only to give Terry a stronger defence. Cole's reaction on Twitter, which many immediately assumed self-destructed his England career two international caps short of 100, could not have been further from remorse or apology.
"Hahahahaa, well done #fa I lied did I," Cole tweeted defiantly. Referring to the FA, he added: "#BUNCHOFtacoS."
Cole apologised two hours later – not for advancing unreliable evidence to a hearing into racial abuse but for insulting the FA. He said he had tweeted "in the heat of the moment".
Chelsea's secretary, the vastly experienced administrator David Barnard, was also disbelieved. The commission found he had asked the FA to amend Cole's statement, not because it better reflected the truth, but that his "clear purpose" was simply to strengthen Terry's defence.
Many in the wider public, including black footballers and anti-racism campaigners, will see a bewildering discrepancy between the commission's devastating findings, that Terry's story about his insulting of Ferdinand was untrue, and the four-match ban they imposed, the minimum for racial abuse. The panel accepted mitigation for Terry against imposing a longer ban, which included the Premier League chairman, Sir Dave Richards, providing a good character reference detailing Terry's charity work. There is also a puzzle about the FA's insistence that it was not alleging Terry is racist, and the panel's complete acceptance of that view, when it found him guilty of calling Ferdinand a "fudging black ****".
This time, unlike at Westminster magistrates court, where Terry was acquitted in July of committing a racially aggravated public order offence for the same incident, it was found that he said those words as an insult. In court, throughout one of the most dispiriting chapters in English football's modern history, Terry and his barrister, George Carter-Stephenson QC, had maintained a defence that the chief magistrate, Howard Riddle, described as "unlikely" even when acquitting Terry.
Terry's defence after he realised he had been caught on camera clearly mouthing those words to Ferdinand, was tortuous. But it was supported by Cole, with the help of Barnard and Chelsea football club, the current champions of Europe. Terry claimed that in their dismal, posturing confrontation during Chelsea's match at Queens Park Rangers on 23 October last year, he believed Ferdinand had accused him of calling Ferdinand a "fudging black ****". So Terry claimed that, when filmed saying those words, he was just repeating them back in a way that rejected Ferdinand's accusation. Cole gave evidence, in court on oath and in a statement to the commission, to support that defence.
Riddle ruled that, though it was "highly unlikely" Ferdinand had accused Terry in such terms, nevertheless it was "possible" Terry believed he had. Therefore there was sufficient doubt about whether Terry used the words as a racist insult, so necessitating a not guilty verdict.
The commission, whose other two members were Maurice Armstrong, head of the Huntingdonshire FA, and the former Blackburn Rovers winger turned lawyer Stuart Ripley, did not believe Terry. Nor did they believe Cole or Barnard. Such disciplinary proceedings under the FA's rules require not a criminal standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt, but the measure in civil legal actions, the balance of probabilities. On that basis the commission were more forthright than expected. Essentially they decided that ever since Terry was caught on camera mouthing those words he has been lying about how he said them.
"The commission is quite satisfied," the judgment said, "that there is no credible basis for Mr Terry's defence that his use of the words 'fudging black ****' were directed at Ferdinand by way of forceful rejection and/or inquiry. Instead, we are quite satisfied, and find on the balance of probabilities, that the offending words were said by way of insult." So there it finally was, after all.
Cole's role in this story was as sidekick to Terry in presenting that defence. He found himself damagingly discredited. Cole had stated in court that he had seen Ferdinand mouth a word beginning with B, which could have been "Bridge" or "black". Although Riddle described Cole's evidence as "far from compelling" he did say it added to the doubt that required a not guilty verdict.
The commission not only disbelieved Cole, they found that he and Barnard together had "retrospectively" asked the FA to amend Cole's witness statement, to insert that he thought Ferdinand might have used the word "black". This was "highly material" new evidence, the commission said, which Riddle had not had before reaching his verdict.
It emerged that, when Cole was interviewed by the FA's head of off-field regulation, Jenni Kennedy, and her then colleague, Adam Sanhaie, on 28 October last year, Cole had not mentioned that Ferdinand may have used the word "black" during the altercation, only the word "Bridge". That did not support Terry's defence, that Ferdinand had accused Terry of calling him a "fudging black ****" and Terry was only repeating it back. The FA sent Cole his witness statement on 2 November. The following day Barnard wrote to the FA, saying he had talked to Cole, who wished to add the word "black".
Barnard made his own statement on 13 September this year, shortly before the commission hearing. He stated that he had heard Cole, in his original interview, mentioning the word "black" and that the FA had failed to include that reference in Cole's first draft statement.
The commission were seriously unimpressed by that, and by Barnard's and Cole's efforts after the player's interview to get the word "black" into his evidence about what Ferdinand had said. The judgment says the commission had "considerable doubts" over the reliability of Cole's evidence.
Even more woundingly they stated they believe Riddle may also have had more doubts had he seen the FA's notes and that Barnard had provided a similar explanation.
The commission stated it had "significant doubts" about the evidence of Barnard, the long-serving Chelsea secretary who was formerly secretary at Wimbledon. They concluded the "clear purpose" of Barnard seeking to get the word "black" into Cole's statement was because it would "provide direct support" for Terry.
So this most ugly of episodes ended with a damning 63-page judgment, concluding that John Terry, captain of Chelsea and 78 times capped by England, racially abused another footballer, then consistently lied about it. And his club, throughout it all, has always supported him and kept him as their captain.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/oct/05/john-terry-verdict-chelsea?CMP=twt_gu
The FA's three-man commission criticised the 'unreliable evidence' of Ashley Cole and the club secretary in trying to support their captain
The judgment of the Football Association's commission into John Terry's racial abuse of Anton Ferdinand amounts to a damning indictment of the Chelsea and, at the time, England captain himself, of his team-mate Ashley Cole and of Chelsea's handling of the whole ugly affair.
The three-man commission, chaired by a barrister, Craig Moore, examined the defence Terry has advanced, throughout his criminal trial and the FA's investigation into his use of racist words to Ferdinand, and said directly they did not believe him.
They found Cole, who changed his witness statement after the FA first interviewed him about the incident, to have been unreliable and to have amended the statement only to give Terry a stronger defence. Cole's reaction on Twitter, which many immediately assumed self-destructed his England career two international caps short of 100, could not have been further from remorse or apology.
"Hahahahaa, well done #fa I lied did I," Cole tweeted defiantly. Referring to the FA, he added: "#BUNCHOFtacoS."
Cole apologised two hours later – not for advancing unreliable evidence to a hearing into racial abuse but for insulting the FA. He said he had tweeted "in the heat of the moment".
Chelsea's secretary, the vastly experienced administrator David Barnard, was also disbelieved. The commission found he had asked the FA to amend Cole's statement, not because it better reflected the truth, but that his "clear purpose" was simply to strengthen Terry's defence.
Many in the wider public, including black footballers and anti-racism campaigners, will see a bewildering discrepancy between the commission's devastating findings, that Terry's story about his insulting of Ferdinand was untrue, and the four-match ban they imposed, the minimum for racial abuse. The panel accepted mitigation for Terry against imposing a longer ban, which included the Premier League chairman, Sir Dave Richards, providing a good character reference detailing Terry's charity work. There is also a puzzle about the FA's insistence that it was not alleging Terry is racist, and the panel's complete acceptance of that view, when it found him guilty of calling Ferdinand a "fudging black ****".
This time, unlike at Westminster magistrates court, where Terry was acquitted in July of committing a racially aggravated public order offence for the same incident, it was found that he said those words as an insult. In court, throughout one of the most dispiriting chapters in English football's modern history, Terry and his barrister, George Carter-Stephenson QC, had maintained a defence that the chief magistrate, Howard Riddle, described as "unlikely" even when acquitting Terry.
Terry's defence after he realised he had been caught on camera clearly mouthing those words to Ferdinand, was tortuous. But it was supported by Cole, with the help of Barnard and Chelsea football club, the current champions of Europe. Terry claimed that in their dismal, posturing confrontation during Chelsea's match at Queens Park Rangers on 23 October last year, he believed Ferdinand had accused him of calling Ferdinand a "fudging black ****". So Terry claimed that, when filmed saying those words, he was just repeating them back in a way that rejected Ferdinand's accusation. Cole gave evidence, in court on oath and in a statement to the commission, to support that defence.
Riddle ruled that, though it was "highly unlikely" Ferdinand had accused Terry in such terms, nevertheless it was "possible" Terry believed he had. Therefore there was sufficient doubt about whether Terry used the words as a racist insult, so necessitating a not guilty verdict.
The commission, whose other two members were Maurice Armstrong, head of the Huntingdonshire FA, and the former Blackburn Rovers winger turned lawyer Stuart Ripley, did not believe Terry. Nor did they believe Cole or Barnard. Such disciplinary proceedings under the FA's rules require not a criminal standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt, but the measure in civil legal actions, the balance of probabilities. On that basis the commission were more forthright than expected. Essentially they decided that ever since Terry was caught on camera mouthing those words he has been lying about how he said them.
"The commission is quite satisfied," the judgment said, "that there is no credible basis for Mr Terry's defence that his use of the words 'fudging black ****' were directed at Ferdinand by way of forceful rejection and/or inquiry. Instead, we are quite satisfied, and find on the balance of probabilities, that the offending words were said by way of insult." So there it finally was, after all.
Cole's role in this story was as sidekick to Terry in presenting that defence. He found himself damagingly discredited. Cole had stated in court that he had seen Ferdinand mouth a word beginning with B, which could have been "Bridge" or "black". Although Riddle described Cole's evidence as "far from compelling" he did say it added to the doubt that required a not guilty verdict.
The commission not only disbelieved Cole, they found that he and Barnard together had "retrospectively" asked the FA to amend Cole's witness statement, to insert that he thought Ferdinand might have used the word "black". This was "highly material" new evidence, the commission said, which Riddle had not had before reaching his verdict.
It emerged that, when Cole was interviewed by the FA's head of off-field regulation, Jenni Kennedy, and her then colleague, Adam Sanhaie, on 28 October last year, Cole had not mentioned that Ferdinand may have used the word "black" during the altercation, only the word "Bridge". That did not support Terry's defence, that Ferdinand had accused Terry of calling him a "fudging black ****" and Terry was only repeating it back. The FA sent Cole his witness statement on 2 November. The following day Barnard wrote to the FA, saying he had talked to Cole, who wished to add the word "black".
Barnard made his own statement on 13 September this year, shortly before the commission hearing. He stated that he had heard Cole, in his original interview, mentioning the word "black" and that the FA had failed to include that reference in Cole's first draft statement.
The commission were seriously unimpressed by that, and by Barnard's and Cole's efforts after the player's interview to get the word "black" into his evidence about what Ferdinand had said. The judgment says the commission had "considerable doubts" over the reliability of Cole's evidence.
Even more woundingly they stated they believe Riddle may also have had more doubts had he seen the FA's notes and that Barnard had provided a similar explanation.
The commission stated it had "significant doubts" about the evidence of Barnard, the long-serving Chelsea secretary who was formerly secretary at Wimbledon. They concluded the "clear purpose" of Barnard seeking to get the word "black" into Cole's statement was because it would "provide direct support" for Terry.
So this most ugly of episodes ended with a damning 63-page judgment, concluding that John Terry, captain of Chelsea and 78 times capped by England, racially abused another footballer, then consistently lied about it. And his club, throughout it all, has always supported him and kept him as their captain.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/oct/05/john-terry-verdict-chelsea?CMP=twt_gu
Hotshot-Tottenham
Dean Richards
as i understand it the Police made them wait until the court case was over before being allowed to start their investigation.
jts1882
Dean Richards
The FA chose to suspend their investigation and wait until the police and courts finished. They didn't have to, although I can see why they did.
Initially they did nothing while expecting the court case to be held in February/March. The problem arose when Chelsea persuaded the judge to postpone the trial until the end of the season as it would be disruptive having their players taking time off to give evidence. Once the FA knew that the trial was after Euro2012 they realised Terry couldn't be captain while facing trial for racist abuse. That led to Capello's resignation. It makes me sick to think that our season was disrupted to make things convenient for Chelsea, Terry and Cole and that possibly that's why Hazard signed for them and not us.
Jurgen the German
Tommy Harmer
So when does his ban start? He hasn't decided whether he's going to appeal yet has he? Personally I hope he misses our game, he played a blinder at the lane last season.
Football Association chairman David Bernstein has revealed that Ashley Cole apologised to him personally on Monday night over his offensive Twitter message.
Bernstein also stressed that England manager Roy Hodgson will decide whether the Chelsea full-back plays against San Marino in Friday's World Cup qualifier.
But he has hinted that Cole will not be offered the England captain's armband when he makes 100th appearance for his country.
Cole was charged with misconduct by the FA on Monday over his Twitter outburst on Friday when he referred to the governing body as a 'bunch of t****' in response to the independent regulatory commission's damning judgement on his evidence in the John Terry racial abuse verdict.
Bernstein, speaking to Radio 5 Live ahead of the official opening of the National Football Centre at St George's Park in Burton, revealed that Cole had followed up his apology to the FA on Friday with a personal apology.
'He apologised immediately on Friday and he came to see me last night and apologised to me personally,' said Bernstein.
'He showed real contrition. He said he was really sorry.
'He is free to play for England over the coming matches. It is up to the manager to decide whether he plays or not.'
Cole was given until 4pm on Thursday to respond to the FA charge. the timing far from ideal given the deadline is barely 24 hours before England face San Marino at Wembley.
With Bernstein confirming it is up to Hodgson to decide whether or not to play Cole, the only threat to his chances of winning a 99th cap would appear to be if the England manager opts to rest him ahead of the crucial trip to Poland four days later.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2214952/Ashley-Cole-says-sorry-FA-chairman-David-Bernstein-Twitter-outburst.html
:ross: at the highlighted part.
Bernstein also stressed that England manager Roy Hodgson will decide whether the Chelsea full-back plays against San Marino in Friday's World Cup qualifier.
But he has hinted that Cole will not be offered the England captain's armband when he makes 100th appearance for his country.
Cole was charged with misconduct by the FA on Monday over his Twitter outburst on Friday when he referred to the governing body as a 'bunch of t****' in response to the independent regulatory commission's damning judgement on his evidence in the John Terry racial abuse verdict.
Bernstein, speaking to Radio 5 Live ahead of the official opening of the National Football Centre at St George's Park in Burton, revealed that Cole had followed up his apology to the FA on Friday with a personal apology.
'He apologised immediately on Friday and he came to see me last night and apologised to me personally,' said Bernstein.
'He showed real contrition. He said he was really sorry.
'He is free to play for England over the coming matches. It is up to the manager to decide whether he plays or not.'
Cole was given until 4pm on Thursday to respond to the FA charge. the timing far from ideal given the deadline is barely 24 hours before England face San Marino at Wembley.
With Bernstein confirming it is up to Hodgson to decide whether or not to play Cole, the only threat to his chances of winning a 99th cap would appear to be if the England manager opts to rest him ahead of the crucial trip to Poland four days later.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2214952/Ashley-Cole-says-sorry-FA-chairman-David-Bernstein-Twitter-outburst.html
:ross: at the highlighted part.
So the FA is going to do nothing whatsoever about Cole bringing the game into disrepute by lying in court? They've already decided that's what they think he's done, shouldn't he be charged for it?