Tiresias Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Hmmmm that article is walking a fine line for contempt of court. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Hmmmm that article is walking a fine line for contempt of court. In what way? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 The BBC legal the hell out of everything court-related before publishing or broadcasting it. They do it with the most mundane of local news stories, so there is no chance such a high profile article has not been cleared by one or more legal experts before going on the site. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenBartonCentrePartin Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 needs to cause a substantial risk of serious impediment or prejudice to judicial proceedings to be in contempt of court. That doesn't. The jury will still hear if an application is made which could alter their verdict, doesn't matter if its suggested beforehand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 I think it could because if they choose not to bring up bad character in the case and the jury read the article anyway it could imo considered to bias them. Very minor yeah very likely to create serious prejudice yeah but think it's a bit dodgy. I know how contempt works btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 I thought that Ferdinand didn't actually hear what was said, so what has his character got to do with anything? Terry must be pretty desperate if the best his team can come up with is the legal equivalent of the playground classic "I know you are, you said you are, so what am I!?!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Ferdinand has refused to say what happened publically but has given statements to the police and the FA. All he has said is that he "feels very strongly about the matter" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I think it could because if they choose not to bring up bad character in the case and the jury read the article anyway it could imo considered to bias them. Very minor yeah very likely to create serious prejudice yeah but think it's a bit dodgy. I know how contempt works btw. It's a case at the Magistrates' Court so: a) There won't be a jury. b) Any bad character applications will be heard by a separate bench, as to not risk prejudice of the trial bench. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 If it's summary fair dos, it's not about character applications being heard by jury at all it's about jury reading on the bbc there that they may apply for bad character application and making assumption then he's bad character. Still doubt it, just don't think you're supposed to mention in articles if pros are considering bad character applications. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Not sure how Anton's character excuses Terry being racist (if he was) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 it'll be about whether he's telling the truth presumably Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 If it's summary fair dos, it's not about character applications being heard by jury at all it's about jury reading on the bbc there that they may apply for bad character application and making assumption then he's bad character. Still doubt it, just don't think you're supposed to mention in articles if pros are considering bad character applications. There is no jury ffs. Any applications will be heard pre trial before a separate bench. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 It's not about applications appearing before jury it's about the media printing that they might be applying for it and any jury for the trial reading that much later...There may not be a jury for trial but it's an either way offence isn't it could well go before a jury at some point. Anyway doesn't won't matter anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Whitewash coming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 It's not about applications appearing before jury it's about the media printing that they might be applying for it and any jury for the trial reading that much later...There may not be a jury for trial but it's an either way offence isn't it could well go before a jury at some point. Anyway doesn't won't matter anyway. Mode of trial (ie Crown or Magistrates) has already been heard and deemed suitable for summary jurisdiction. After all it's only a single racial insult. The lower courts powers are clearly sufficient to deal with such a case. This case will not be going before a jury. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 But what about soliciting young girls in a Bentley? Is that lower court? I think not my friend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 But what about soliciting young girls in a Bentley? Is that lower court? I think not my friend. What on earth are you talking about? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 But what about soliciting young girls in a Bentley? Is that lower court? I think not my friend. What on earth are you talking about? John Terry La Pen. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01290/john-terry-transex_1290324c.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR15 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Looks like I'm not sleeping after seeing that picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 It's not about applications appearing before jury it's about the media printing that they might be applying for it and any jury for the trial reading that much later...There may not be a jury for trial but it's an either way offence isn't it could well go before a jury at some point. Anyway doesn't won't matter anyway. Mode of trial (ie Crown or Magistrates) has already been heard and deemed suitable for summary jurisdiction. After all it's only a single racial insult. The lower courts powers are clearly sufficient to deal with such a case. This case will not be going before a jury. Well fair does as I said if it wasn't going before jury didn't realise already decided summary offence, think we were talking cross purposes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 There is no history of institutionalised repression against fat or ginger people, they have never been refused access to education, amenities or services because of their characteristics, or murdered or beaten or marginalised. If what you say has any credibility would Ferdinand have called Terry white as it his characteristic? Using racist language is totally different to calling someone fat or Ginger in my opinion, a whole different league in fact. http://static.themetapicture.com/media/funny-ginger-kid-meme.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 There is no history of institutionalised repression against fat or ginger people, they have never been refused access to education, amenities or services because of their characteristics, or murdered or beaten or marginalised. If what you say has any credibility would Ferdinand have called Terry white as it his characteristic? Using racist language is totally different to calling someone fat or Ginger in my opinion, a whole different league in fact. http://static.themetapicture.com/media/funny-ginger-kid-meme.jpg ] time vote a vote terry for me like Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Trial starts today, the maximum Terry can get is a £2,500 ffs. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18760180 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Apparently Ashley Cole told Anton Ferdinand, when he said something about Terry's affair, "You can't talk to John Terry like that" Don Terry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now