Suarez's case was conducted behind closed doors-ish.

Terry's was in the public domain.

That's the only difference as far as I can see.

The FA say it might not end with the not guilty verdict but it surely will.

Fix.

Two entirely different areas of law with two entirely different burdens of proof.
.....

And herein lies one of the major talking points.

Two men, same profession, same league, same offence - punished differently. How can that be possible?

It would be a bit like a fan reporting a bad tackle to the police.

Plus both Terry and Ferdinand used foul language, not a crime in itself, but the racist terms were used by Terry.

For the judge to come out and say it couldn't be proven he used the term in aggression is laughable.

NO 'PROOF' OTHER THAT HEARSAY BY 'WITNESSES' NOT EVEN WITHIN EARSHOT AND YOU BLOODY KNOW IT condemned Suarez to his fate!

So you tell ME what the bloody difference is 'cos I fail to see it!

comment by Lucas The Destroyer - Borini Is World (U11770)
posted 1 minute ago
Stop being stupid albert.

...............

Sonny, let it go, you are making yourself look very silly and way out of your depth.

The crux of the matter is he admitted to using the word negro to Evra who is black, thus breaking the rule that I highlighted, to help your fans with their ignorance.

==============


Just to help you with your obvious ignorance he said he used the SPANISH word negro.

Suarez admitted he called Evra negro,Terry admitted using racist language,but said he was only repeating verbatim what he was accused of saying to Ferdinand.
If the FA investigate the matter then they would need the same proof as the civil courts did in proving that Terry was not replying to an accusation but in fact he racially abused Ferdinand.

How are they going to do that

Robert, that word means he goes around stabbing black people.

'but said he was only repeating verbatim what he was accused of saying to Ferdinand.'

Still used it.

Try again, please.

Just to help you with your obvious ignorance he said he used the SPANISH word negro.

Spanish word negro which I take means black.Check up the FA rules book,referring to a players skin colour is against the rules of the FA.So Suarez is still bang to rights

John Terry should now be charged by the FA. He should then be found 'guilty' and banned for a minimum of eight games and fined a minimum of 40k

IF suarez was not guilty...why did he not appeal....go to CAS?

Ask for it to be a public trial?

Hmmm.

Terry always said he was innocent...today backed that up

comment by wishiwasinliverpool (U2432)
posted 56 seconds ago
'but said he was only repeating verbatim what he was accused of saying to Ferdinand.'

Still used it.

Try again, please.

-------------------------------------------

His defence is simple,he says he asked Anton 'are you saying I said ******* ****** ******* ' if that's the case he isn't racially abusing Anton at all,or can't you understand that

Wishi....are you saying the magistrate is a Chelsea fan

His defence is simple,he says he asked Anton 'are you saying I said ******* ****** ******* ' if that's the case he isn't racially abusing Anton at all,or can't you understand that

----------------



How many times do people need to be told?!

Just to help you with your obvious ignorance he said he used the SPANISH word negro.

........................

That really helped him didn't it? It still broke the rule I highlighted for you, even in translation.

He was as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of pooh.

And you really deep down inside, know it.

'His defence is simple,he says he asked Anton 'are you saying I said ******* ****** ******* ' if that's the case he isn't racially abusing Anton at all,or can't you understand that'

Hilarious!

HE WAS ON ONE!

It was proved he used foul language at the time, therefore aggression was a factor.

The word sprang out of his lips. End of story!

'Wishi....are you saying the magistrate is a Chelsea fan'

He's proving the law is a bloody a s s

It was proved he used foul language at the time, therefore aggression was a factor.
-----------------

It's irrelevant that he used the language if he was asking AF if that was what he said. Try to keep up.

He was as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of pooh.

And you really deep down inside, know it.


=============


No deep down inside we know that one of your players is a cheating lying

That's what we know....

His defence is simple,he says he asked Anton 'are you saying I said ******* ****** ******* ' if that's the case he isn't racially abusing Anton at all,or can't you understand that'

Hilarious!

HE WAS ON ONE!

It was proved he used foul language at the time, therefore aggression was a factor.

The word sprang out of his lips. End of story!

----------------------------------------------------

I think if I was accused of racially abusing someone and I knew I was innocent then I too would probably swear and feel agitated.

Do you understand human nature?

Liverpool fans dont seem to realise that these were two completely separate incidents. Did you really expect Terry to be found guilty just because Suarez was? Get a grip for goodness sake.

No deep down inside we know that one of your players is a cheating lying

-----------------------------------

Always the victims never your fault.

No deep down inside we know that one of your players is a cheating lying

.............................

Hardly lying when Suarez admitted to using the word Negro.

I think you are a bit foolish here son. Totaly unable to read and understand facts.

Keep your head in the sand kid, we will keep laughing at how simple minded you are.

'I think if I was accused of racially abusing someone and I knew I was innocent then I too would probably swear and feel agitated.

Do you understand human nature?'

Uh-hu.

Which is why Suarez refused to shake Evra's hand, could you understand that?

I would've wrung his bloody neck!

'Did you really expect Terry to be found guilty just because Suarez was?'

No.

For Terry plays for England and Suarez doesn't.

Amen.