Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Chelsea captain John Terry denies racism allegations to the Court of Football Banter. Not since Nancy Grace made the jump to TV has the word "c*nt" been heard in a courtroom so many times   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 52
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

440 clicks; posted to Sports » on 11 Jul 2012 at 8:17 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-11 09:54:42 PM  
There are several guys in the Premier League that really look like they deserve a good punching. Samir Nasri, Luis Suarez, Carlos Tevez, and John Terry, who is only slightly behind giant asshole Joey farking Barton.

I imagine that a lot of people say that about Robin van Persie, too, and I could kinda see that.
 
2012-07-11 09:58:22 PM  
Oh, and Rooney. How the hell did I forget Rooney. Who else did I miss?
 
2012-07-11 10:03:07 PM  
i know racisms needs to be stopped, but this is such tripe- and wasting a lot of money and time.
 
2012-07-11 10:07:15 PM  
One of the things that I love most about Britain is how Brits use the word c*nt all the time.

British Mother: "Supper's ready you little c*nts!"
 
2012-07-11 10:09:13 PM  
Europe sucks, racially abused? Really?
 
2012-07-11 10:09:23 PM  

jakomo002: One of the things that I love most about Britain is how Brits use the word c*nt all the time.

British Mother: "Supper's ready you little c*nts!"


dehumanize yourself?
/police
 
2012-07-11 11:32:16 PM  

jakomo002: One of the things that I love most about Britain is how Brits use the word c*nt all the time.

British Mother: "Supper's ready you little c*nts!"


You'll love this (very NSFW language)

/great movie
 
2012-07-11 11:53:45 PM  

DoctorRock: Terry, 31, has pleaded not guilty to a racially aggravated public order offence of calling Ferdinand, 27, a "farking black coont" during the televised QPR v Chelsea game at Loftus Road on 23 October last year.

am i missing something? this guy is being prosecuted for saying "black coont"? i have to be missing something here....


Well, that's the allegations at least. Apparently, you can get a very serious fine in the UK for the first time you say that to someone (and it seems that you don't have a right to a jury trial, either).

Terry claims that he said something to the effect of, "Wait, do you think I called you a black coont?" which was corroborated by his teammate, Ashley Cole. Terry's done a lot of work over the years fighting racism in the game and had a bunch of people come out to testify on his behalf saying that they've never heard him say anything racist. Ferdinand has said that he didn't hear the alleged slur at the time but looked at a video on Youtube after.
 
2012-07-12 12:31:53 AM  

DoctorRock: Terry, 31, has pleaded not guilty to a racially aggravated public order offence of calling Ferdinand, 27, a "farking black coont" during the televised QPR v Chelsea game at Loftus Road on 23 October last year.

am i missing something? this guy is being prosecuted for saying "black coont"? i have to be missing something here....


Yeah, they can throw you in prison for talking shiat basically. I wonder how the conviction rates on this break down by race.
 
2012-07-12 12:35:28 AM  
Doesn't the farking black coont need to prove in a court of law that he isn't in fact, a farking black coont?
 
2012-07-12 12:36:22 AM  
Nancy Grace is a c*nting c*nt, if such a thing is even possible.
 
2012-07-12 12:43:12 AM  

Unfreakable: Oh, and Rooney. How the hell did I forget Rooney. Who else did I miss?


If I weren't an Arsenal fan, I'd want to cock-punch Szczesny repeatedly.

Others on the list:
Samir Nasri (I know you named him, but he deserves extra, don't you think?)
Bellamy
Joe Hart
Andy Carroll
 
2012-07-12 12:57:09 AM  

DoctorRock: am i missing something? this guy is being prosecuted for saying "black coont"? i have to be missing something here....


There's a reason we went to war with Britain & included the freedom of speech in our Constitution (eventually).
 
2012-07-12 01:16:33 AM  
Apparently Terry is going for the insanity defense.
 
2012-07-12 02:04:33 AM  
The leftist thought police at work. You have the freedom to speak so long as you toe the party line. To see this propagating to the internet, check out the UN Human Rights Counsel's resolution on internet freedom. Hint: when "freedom" is in the title of a resolution/law, it means no freedom. (likewise for "affordability" etc)
 
2012-07-12 02:16:05 AM  
As a Chelsea fan in the US, I only get to see whatever the Brit press spits out on this subject, but I'm guessing that my boy Terry is coming out somewhere ahead of the douche Ferdinand twins.

Missing the Nancy Grace ref though. Was there the grave of a deceased toddler to dance on?
 
2012-07-12 03:36:47 AM  

dosboot: The leftist thought police at work. You have the freedom to speak so long as you toe the party line. To see this propagating to the internet, check out the UN Human Rights Counsel's resolution on internet freedom. Hint: when "freedom" is in the title of a resolution/law, it means no freedom. (likewise for "affordability" etc)


Keep your ill-informed John Terry in the Politics tab.

thxkgb
 
2012-07-12 03:38:59 AM  

CognaciousThunk: As a Chelsea fan in the US, I only get to see whatever the Brit press spits out on this subject, but I'm guessing that my boy Terry is coming out somewhere ahead of the douche Ferdinand twins.

Missing the Nancy Grace ref though. Was there the grave of a deceased toddler to dance on?


I think it's generally going over for what it is: A farking waste of public funds and the courts.
 
2012-07-12 04:20:14 AM  

Unfreakable: Oh, and Rooney. How the hell did I forget Rooney. Who else did I miss?


Rio Ferdinand. Oh and Samir Nasri a 2nd time, just for good measure. I disagree with you on Suarez though. He made an egregious error last year but he's generally known as being a pretty decent guy. Plus you could say "hello" to Patrice Evra and his response would be "WHAT! DID YOU JUST CALL ME A N***ER???"
 
2012-07-12 06:38:15 AM  

bubbaprog: DoctorRock: am i missing something? this guy is being prosecuted for saying "black coont"? i have to be missing something here....

There's a reason we went to war with Britain & included the freedom of speech in our Constitution (eventually).


The rights laid out in the constitution were effectively copied directly from the already existing English Bill of Rights enacted in 1689, including freedom of speech. The issue was never about gaining new rights so much as a feeling amongst the colonists that they weren't enjoying rights to which they felt they were already entitled after the passing of the Bill. In some ways it's instructive to view the War of Independence as a (delayed, due to geography) continuation of the 17th Century English Civil War.

/Also, John Terry is a coont.
 
2012-07-12 07:20:51 AM  

chixdiggit: I disagree with you on Suarez though. He made an egregious error last year but he's generally known as being a pretty decent guy.


Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy
 
2012-07-12 07:25:18 AM  

689908: chixdiggit: I disagree with you on Suarez though. He made an egregious error last year but he's generally known as being a pretty decent guy.

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy


You missed this one.
 
2012-07-12 08:11:12 AM  
I don't understand where it was racist at all. Black was merely a descriptor of the type of coont he was. Unless coont is now a race.

Seriously though. Is Ferdinand not black? Is "black" a pejorative term now? If he called him a farking coont, leaving out the word black, would that have been acceptable? None of this makes any sense to me, so if someone can shed light on why so serious, I'd really appreciate the help.
 
2012-07-12 08:20:43 AM  

689908: chixdiggit: I disagree with you on Suarez though. He made an egregious error last year but he's generally known as being a pretty decent guy.

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy


I just watched the handball incident (2nd video) and I have a few items of note:

1) A handball at the goal line doesn't make someone an asshat.
2) There was a Ghana player clearly offside at the start of the play.
3) Two different Uruguayan players tried to handball that ball, so they were probably coached to do it.
4) It should have been an automatic goal, not a penalty shot.
 
2012-07-12 08:27:59 AM  

dillengest: bubbaprog: DoctorRock: am i missing something? this guy is being prosecuted for saying "black coont"? i have to be missing something here....

There's a reason we went to war with Britain & included the freedom of speech in our Constitution (eventually).

The rights laid out in the constitution were effectively copied directly from the already existing English Bill of Rights enacted in 1689, including freedom of speech. The issue was never about gaining new rights so much as a feeling amongst the colonists that they weren't enjoying rights to which they felt they were already entitled after the passing of the Bill. In some ways it's instructive to view the War of Independence as a (delayed, due to geography) continuation of the 17th Century English Civil War.

/Also, John Terry is a coont.


There are / were significant differences between the English Bill of Rights and the US Constitution / Bill of Rights. The most significant is that the English Bill of Rights only restricted what the monarch could do; there were no restrictions on what Parliament can do. The results of which is that the Parliament has basically eliminated the right to bear arms and has put into place curtails on free speech such as being able to fine someone without a jury trial if they call someone else a "black coont".

There're also a bunch of protections that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights afford that aren't in the English Bill of Rights.
 
2012-07-12 08:29:23 AM  

Bruce Campbell: I don't understand where it was racist at all. Black was merely a descriptor of the type of coont he was. Unless coont is now a race.

Seriously though. Is Ferdinand not black? Is "black" a pejorative term now? If he called him a farking coont, leaving out the word black, would that have been acceptable? None of this makes any sense to me, so if someone can shed light on why so serious, I'd really appreciate the help.


Racial problems in Europe in general and European football in particular are way worse than anything we regularly see in the United States.
 
2012-07-12 08:29:46 AM  

meanmutton: I just watched the handball incident (2nd video) and I have a few items of note:


The handball was a brilliant move. It won them the match. He should be applauded for it.
 
2012-07-12 08:35:22 AM  

MugzyBrown: meanmutton: I just watched the handball incident (2nd video) and I have a few items of note:

The handball was a brilliant move. It won them the match. He should be applauded for it.


Which is why I believe that a handball at the goal line that clearly stops a goal should just be an automatic goal instead of a penalty shot.
 
2012-07-12 08:40:15 AM  
Which is why I believe that a handball at the goal line that clearly stops a goal should just be an automatic goal instead of a penalty shot.

Well the pentalty is a penalty shot and the player ejected from the game w/o being replaced, which is pretty harsh and would have been a bad move early in the match.

But with no time left in the game, to have the awareness is great. Many players wouldn't have done it.
 
2012-07-12 08:53:21 AM  

Bruce Campbell: Is "black" a pejorative term now?


Within the context of calling someone a "f*cking black c*nt", yes it is.

Bruce Campbell: If he called him a farking coont, leaving out the word black, would that have been acceptable?


Yes. Players do that to referees all the time and never get punished.

meanmutton: 1) A handball at the goal line doesn't make someone an asshat.


Of course not, the rules encourage such behaviour (similar to the situation where Ashley Young dived against QPR and got the guy sent off. Had Young been punished it would have been a yellow. Why wouldn't Young or Suarez do what they did in their respective situations? They had everything to gain and nothing to lose.) It doesn't make him a decent guy either (applies to both).
 
2012-07-12 09:06:14 AM  

meanmutton: MugzyBrown: meanmutton: I just watched the handball incident (2nd video) and I have a few items of note:

The handball was a brilliant move. It won them the match. He should be applauded for it.

Which is why I believe that a handball at the goal line that clearly stops a goal should just be an automatic goal instead of a penalty shot.


Even with extra officials right by the goal in big tournaments, top FIFA refs can't judge whether or not ball crossed the line in some key situations. How do you expect a normal crew to know the difference between what would have been a goal or what would only have hit the bar & come back? Considering conventional wisdom says a penalty kick should be converted 90% of the time, I don't see the solution you're proposing being better (or less contraversal) than the existing rules...
 
2012-07-12 09:19:55 AM  

TheMatchHare: meanmutton: MugzyBrown: meanmutton: I just watched the handball incident (2nd video) and I have a few items of note:

The handball was a brilliant move. It won them the match. He should be applauded for it.

Which is why I believe that a handball at the goal line that clearly stops a goal should just be an automatic goal instead of a penalty shot.

Even with extra officials right by the goal in big tournaments, top FIFA refs can't judge whether or not ball crossed the line in some key situations. How do you expect a normal crew to know the difference between what would have been a goal or what would only have hit the bar & come back? Considering conventional wisdom says a penalty kick should be converted 90% of the time, I don't see the solution you're proposing being better (or less contraversal) than the existing rules...


They have a clear rule like that in hockey (a penalty which would normally result in a penalty shot that occurs when the goalie is out of the net results in an automatic rule) and there's not been any controversy to my knowledge.

To me, though, you can make a clear rule that's easier to adjudicate than "did the ball go in" and take away the guess of where the ball is going -- for instance, a handball by a defensive player inside the six yard box when there are no other defenders between him and the goal.
 
2012-07-12 09:26:14 AM  

Unfreakable: There are several guys in the Premier League that really look like they deserve a good punching. Samir Nasri, Luis Suarez, Carlos Tevez, and John Terry, who is only slightly behind giant asshole Joey farking Barton.

I imagine that a lot of people say that about Robin van Persie, too, and I could kinda see that.


Gary Neville. And yes, I know he's retired He needs to unretire, get punched in the face, and then re-retire.

Also Phil Jones. I'm not sure if he's really punchable. But he plays for ManU, and he has such a punchable face.
 
2012-07-12 09:28:52 AM  

meanmutton: They have a clear rule like that in hockey (a penalty which would normally result in a penalty shot that occurs when the goalie is out of the net results in an automatic rule) and there's not been any controversy to my knowledge.


Pentalty shots in hockey are about 30-40% effective. Penalties in soccer are 80-90%.

There was a goalie in this situation

In the NHL, if the goalie is down and out and a defender handles the puck in the crease.. even if the puck was about to go in, only a penalty shot will be awarded. If the goalie is down and out and a guy has a wide open stuff in and is tackled or his head literally cut off by a high-stick, a pentalty shot wouldn't even be awarded.
 
2012-07-12 09:48:46 AM  
Terry will get off. He always does. Usually with someone elses girl.
 
2012-07-12 10:02:17 AM  

HaywoodJablonski: Unfreakable: Oh, and Rooney. How the hell did I forget Rooney. Who else did I miss?

If I weren't an Arsenal fan, I'd want to cock-punch Szczesny repeatedly.

Others on the list:
Samir Nasri (I know you named him, but he deserves extra, don't you think?)
Bellamy
Joe Hart
Andy Carroll


Maybe I just have a soft spot for keepers, but why Szczesny? And why Hart?

Anyway, I'm taking that word back. C*NT 4 LIFE
 
2012-07-12 10:08:47 AM  

TheKnownUniverse: Maybe I just have a soft spot for keepers, but why Szczesny? And why Hart?


Szczesny seems all right to me, but Joe Hart has an extremely punchable face. Seriously.

number8: Also Phil Jones. I'm not sure if he's really punchable. But he plays for ManU, and he has such a punchable face.


Leave Phil Jones alone!

www.manutdreds.net
 
2012-07-12 10:15:15 AM  
In other news ...

p.twimg.com

Powell is a central midfielder, apparently. And Sir Alex is still pretending Fletcher might make a comeback. Says he'll still have a role at the club if he doesn't, though.

/By the way, Sir, stop selling my slightly too old, slightly past it cult heroes. Thanks.
 
2012-07-12 10:18:55 AM  

meanmutton:
There are / were significant differences between the English Bill of Rights and the US Constitution / Bill of Rights. The most significant is that the English Bill of Rights only restricted what the monarch could do; there were no restrictions on what Parliament can do. The results of which is that the Parliament has basically eliminated the right to bear arms and has put into place curtails on free speech such as being able to fine someone without a jury trial if they call someone else a "black coont".

There're also a bunch of protections that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights afford that aren't in the English Bill of Rights.


The question of applicability to Parliament could be viewed as one of scale. Initially only the Federal government was bound to the US constitution, while states could do what they wanted. Given that there was only really one 'state' in the case of England, Parliament was essentially a cross between the Federal-level US Congress and a state-level government.

The US situation has somewhat evolved today though, with various amendments (14th, namely) and shifts in interpretation making the constitution far more unique now than it was at inception.
 
2012-07-12 10:31:23 AM  

meanmutton: TheMatchHare: meanmutton: MugzyBrown: meanmutton: I just watched the handball incident (2nd video) and I have a few items of note:

The handball was a brilliant move. It won them the match. He should be applauded for it.

Which is why I believe that a handball at the goal line that clearly stops a goal should just be an automatic goal instead of a penalty shot.

Even with extra officials right by the goal in big tournaments, top FIFA refs can't judge whether or not ball crossed the line in some key situations. How do you expect a normal crew to know the difference between what would have been a goal or what would only have hit the bar & come back? Considering conventional wisdom says a penalty kick should be converted 90% of the time, I don't see the solution you're proposing being better (or less contraversal) than the existing rules...

They have a clear rule like that in hockey (a penalty which would normally result in a penalty shot that occurs when the goalie is out of the net results in an automatic rule) and there's not been any controversy to my knowledge.

To me, though, you can make a clear rule that's easier to adjudicate than "did the ball go in" and take away the guess of where the ball is going -- for instance, a handball by a defensive player inside the six yard box when there are no other defenders between him and the goal.


You're automatically awarding a goal but whether or not it actually would have actually gone in isn't a criteria? That makes no sense.
 
2012-07-12 11:00:36 AM  

TheMatchHare:
You're automatically awarding a goal but whether or not it actually would have actually gone in isn't a criteria? That makes no sense.


There is a precedent in rugby, where a team can be awarded a penalty try ("Touchdown" for those who don't get the lingo) due to persistent and cynical infringement, by their opponents, designed to prevent what would otherwise seem to be an inevitable real try. There's no ultimate guarantee the team would have gone on to score anyway, they might have dropped the ball instead, but the point is to have a suitable punishment for cynical play.

It's essentially a "You lot are being a bunch of twats so I'm giving the other team some points" decision.
 
2012-07-12 11:26:08 AM  

689908: TheKnownUniverse: Maybe I just have a soft spot for keepers, but why Szczesny? And why Hart?

Szczesny seems all right to me, but Joe Hart has an extremely punchable face. Seriously.



He has a face?

i.dailymail.co.uk

look out Joey, there's a gnome on your back!
 
2012-07-12 11:33:03 AM  

TheMatchHare: meanmutton: TheMatchHare: meanmutton: MugzyBrown: meanmutton: I just watched the handball incident (2nd video) and I have a few items of note:

(clipping a bit)

To me, though, you can make a clear rule that's easier to adjudicate than "did the ball go in" and take away the guess of where the ball is going -- for instance, a handball by a defensive player inside the six yard box when there are no other defenders between him and the goal.

You're automatically awarding a goal but whether or not it actually would have actually gone in isn't a criteria? That makes no sense.


How's it any less sensible than awarding a penalty kick for a non-card foul occurring in the penalty area? If there's a 90% chance of a penalty kick going in, does it make more sense to award a penalty kick for a handball 17 yards away that had no chance of going anywhere near the net than to award a goal for an intentional handball right in front of the goal on a ball traveling towards the net?
 
2012-07-12 05:50:42 PM  
If a NFL or NBA player racially abused an opponent during a game in the US what would happen?

Btw I agree that this going to court is a ridiculous waste of time and money and Terry will probably be found not guilty at the end of it anyway.
 
2012-07-12 06:53:37 PM  

689908: chixdiggit: I disagree with you on Suarez though. He made an egregious error last year but he's generally known as being a pretty decent guy.

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy

Pretty decent guy


Heh. I'll give you most of those. Not the diving or the handball, mind you. You could label a lot of football players asshats for doing that stuff.

The whole Evra incident (plus the non-handshake) was handled poorly by Suarez and the whole Liverpool organization in general.
 
2012-07-12 08:48:43 PM  

jakomo002: One of the things that I love most about Britain is how Brits use the word c*nt all the time.


Not just Britain, that's how it is in most English speaking countries other than the States which seem to consider that the worst word in the world. Kiwis love the coont word.
 
2012-07-12 10:51:42 PM  

dillengest: TheMatchHare:
You're automatically awarding a goal but whether or not it actually would have actually gone in isn't a criteria? That makes no sense.

There is a precedent in rugby, where a team can be awarded a penalty try ("Touchdown" for those who don't get the lingo) due to persistent and cynical infringement, by their opponents, designed to prevent what would otherwise seem to be an inevitable real try. There's no ultimate guarantee the team would have gone on to score anyway, they might have dropped the ball instead, but the point is to have a suitable punishment for cynical play.

It's essentially a "You lot are being a bunch of twats so I'm giving the other team some points" decision.


The existing rule for soccer would be for a penalty kick to take place, so it's almost identical to being awarded a try in rugby. It's just not automatic points on the board.

meanmutton: How's it any less sensible than awarding a penalty kick for a non-card foul occurring in the penalty area? If there's a 90% chance of a penalty kick going in, does it make more sense to award a penalty kick for a handball 17 yards away that had no chance of going anywhere near the net than to award a goal for an intentional handball right in front of the goal on a ball traveling towards the net?


To be fair, I have no good response to this. I guess I just don't understand why we should get rid of the arbitrary rule we grew up with an equally nonsensical new one :)
 
2012-07-13 09:25:48 AM  
Terry is not guilty. The farking coont.
 
2012-07-13 09:30:09 AM  
 
2012-07-13 09:38:55 AM  

brapbrapbrap: If a NFL or NBA player racially abused an opponent during a game in the US what would happen?


They'd get suspended for a few games but they certainly wouldn't get arrested and prosecuted and denied a jury trial.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report