Rocket-footed kolarov
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 2,839
BoyBlue_1985 said:aguero93:20 said:actually the finding was not guilty on criminal charges, guilty on civil charges(the fa use the same standards as a civil court), there's two different standards used here, to be guilty on criminal charges it has to be beyond reasonable doubt (place, motive, physical evidence etc.), whereas civil charges is on the balance of probability (over 50% likelihood). most racist and public order offences are punished with civil convictions and a fine.zola said:Like talking to a brick wall but try an understand...
<a class="postlink" href="http://news.sky.com/story/959809/john-terry-found-not-guilty-of-racist-abuse" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.sky.com/story/959809/john-t ... cist-abuse</a>
Is he a racist though? He is a severe **** of a human being and more than likely said something to Anton Ferdinand but I dont look at him as a racist, many flaws to his brain and personality other than that though
Simple answer is we don't know whether he is. If he is, then on the scale of how racist he is then it isn't very high, he isn't a member of a white supremacist organisation or a lynch mobber. Other than the one incident is there anything else from his conduct to point towards him at least having racist views? Courts/tribunals don't convict people of being racists, as much as a pathetic view it is, people are entitled to have that view.
People can always change their views as well, Mark Wahlberg was convicted of a racially motivated attack in which he blinded a man but he usually escapes criticism for this.