Terry made one stupid remark. Suarez kept it up for a whole argument. Not the same.

Funny how any perceived slight is “racist” though.

Yep, we can all call him a racist now.
Racist,
Racist,
Racist.

I hear your a racist now Father.

Burn the witch!

Try this one Martin; Suarez was fined 40,000 STG for his racial abuse towards Evra yet Nickolas Bendtner was fined 100,000 for showing a portion of his Paddy Power jocks
following a goal in the Euros a few
months later! Shows where the priorities are in football!

Joey Barton is a convicted thug he beat a 16 year old up, Not a great example.

This is irrelevant. I was comparing the two bans handed down by the FA for the respective incidents. I’m still recovering from your previous comment.

@ Alan Gilmore. Irrelevant tell that to the kid who got the beating of Barton and ended up on hospital food for a week.

I doubt you managed to remain on the debating team at school for too long – they probably couldn’t handle your continual arguing about something going on outside the window.

To Alan Gilmore, when you throw mud you lose the argument so back to school for you.

Fair enough :)

@Richard Lennon. Introducing extraneous information doesn’t help your debate. Stick to the argument/point.

I think Bartons ban was too long because one time Martiin Keown pushed Van Nistelrooy after he missed a penalty.

I’d be more trouble for him than it’s worth to take it to court – the paper has a fairly decent case that it’s expressing its opinion of him based on the facts of the case (he’d have to prove his actions couldn’t be interpreted as racist). Obviously, ethically, it’s an incredibly over the top and sensationalist thing to do… but is anyone really surprised that a newspaper would do it?

I always thought being racist made someone an idiot since its not based off intelligent thinking? Hm.

Correct, being a racist would make you an idiot. But my point is, he’s not racist.

Yes he is.

Slander is spoken Mark, if its written its Libel.

It’s defamation and I hope with every fibre of my being that he sues the independent to the point of closure.

The standard of proof in a criminal trial is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. That the criminal trial couldn’t prove the charge will be why he got off. Civil proof is on balance of probabilities, a lesser proof.

Damn, I was halfway through that point before the machine decided to end it. To finish, just because he used seemingly racist language, does not prove that he is racist. It may prove that he is lacking education, it may prove that he is too quick to resort to racial attacks when he should know better, but it does not seem to prove that he feels superior to another race. If anything it shows his insecurity.

He is in a position of responsibility and had the power to influence many, in this case young men. That’s why the punishment is severe. Phil Hogan should take note , institutionalised racism has to be checked otherwise it go license to the mob to act out.

Given he was England captain at the time, the punishment is no where near severe enough.

The FA don’t have to prove that Terry is racist, only that he referred to race in the context of an insult. See FA rule E3(2).

He may be uneducated but hes not braindead. Lack of education is no excuse for being racist just as being highly educated doesn’t mean someone is automatically not a racist.

Lack of eduction doesn’t mean it’s okay to be a racist, now you’re just making excuses for him

Unfortunately there are many intelligent racists. They are the ones that deliberately set out to dehumanise on the basis of ethnicity as in the Bosnian war. .. Or any war for that matter. Dehumanisation begins with jokes and racist remarks. Bernard Manning was very good at portraying the Irish as drunken and stupid at the height of IRA activity in the UK. Actually most British TV comedy was racist in the 70s.

You can not like anyone, but once you bring colour into it, that changes it. I dont like Mugabe either, but its still wrong to call him racist names.

Are you serious? He was seen and convicted making racial remarks. What does he need to do for you to seem him a racist? Dare I ask?

Alan he was not convicted….he was found not guilty in Westminster Magistrates Court of a racially-aggravated public order offence with the prosecution unable to prove the words he said to Ferdinand were being used as an insult.

So what is this article about? I agree he was found not guilty in court but we can all make up our own minds. The FA have found him guilty of racial abuse and that’s good enough for me.

He will appeal and will win, unless the FA can prove what he said. Something the Magistrates Court could not do.

Sorry there Mark, the FA aren’t trying to convict him of a criminal offense and therefore don’t need to prove whether the words were used with intent to insult. He can be banned on the grounds of using racially derogatory word. Which he did.

It is a criminal offence to racially abuse someone, why do you think he was up in the Magistrates Court?

As per my last comment Mark. He was up in court for racially abusing someone but was cleared because they couldn’t prove that he was launching a racial attack. But the FA aren’t investigating whether the words he used were criminal, they were investigating whether he used racially derogatory words. He did use racially derogatory words and therefore deserves his ban. It’s very simple really.

@mark he was up in court because a member of the public made a complaint to the police which started the process

Irish and English people are both white? How is that racist? It’s called prejudiced not racist. When someone gets mad at black person and starts using racial slurs that shows their true colors. It doesn’t matter if he has a black friend or was just “mad”. When people are mad they usually say what they really think/feel.

Kevin, Are you sure Irish and English are both white.

So racism is somehow worse the prejudice against another white person from another country because of the country they come from? Makes no sense.

@Denise – Is that suppose to be funny or “smart” sarcasm? @Stefan – Did I say that? It’s like saying a Nigerian is racist against a Kenyan.

The Suarez case wouldn’t even have got to the steps of the court.

John Terry the wife cheater, marriage destroyer, addicted gambler. Role model, must be innocent

Simply due to a lower burden of proof applying in the FA situation. He was acquitted in Court because there was a sliver of doubt, despite the Magistrate saying Terrys explanation was “unlikely”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/27/fa-john-terry-luis-suarez?CMP=twt_gu

On the word of one man? The video evidence is there for all to see and Terry has not denied the words he used, but the context in which he used them. A context which even the Magistrate in the criminal case described as unlikely. The only thing flimsy about it is the excuse Terry came up with, which led to reasonable doubt and therefore his acquittal.