Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Michael Volpe

GET UPDATES FROM Michael Volpe
 

The FA: Above the Law and Beneath Contempt

Posted: 04/10/2012 01:00

When the FA assembled its learned John Terry star chamber, chaired by an as yet anonymous QC, we can be in no doubt that justice was going to "seen to be done".

The utterly mendacious and despicably worded charge that they lay at his feet had nothing to do with upholding the dignity of the game; if it was, Anton Ferdinand would have endured the same kangaroo court for his part in the slanging match at Loftus Road. But the FA had made clear from the start that despite the findings of a court of law, John Terry was going to be branded a racist; and to compound their duplicity, they have withheld the written details of their "guilty verdict" although the "lenience" of the punishment would suggest the race element contributed minimally to the verdict. We shall see.

But the desired effect has been achieved. A procession of hacks, no doubt gnashing their teeth with rage and indignation when the judge delivered his verdict at the court trial have had a revival. Their bilious vilification of Terry has risen Phoenix-like from the ashes of the judicial process and they have felt able to hold forth on the righteousness of the FA's path.

"See, we told you he was a racist!"

Articles are written, interviews are given and all with the assumption that Terry DID say those infamous words with malice. Damian Collins MP, within minutes, was on the BBC saying, astonishingly, that "no matter what a court of law says, John Terry must accept that what he did was unacceptable". Read that again; "no matter what a court of law says". And the witch hunt is not reserved solely for John Terry because there are sentinels crawling all over the media, ready to pounce on anybody who has the gall to point out the unsettling precedent this case sets.

One supposes it is to be expected from fans of other clubs but the attacks, foot-stamping and finger pointing emanates from many quarters. The (more frequently-than-is-healthy-for-him) hysterical Patrick Collins launches into tirades at Roy Hodgson for having the temerity to comment on John Terry in anything less than hateful terms.

The FA's action was "highly civilised" according to the poet laureate of football pundits. This journalist, who has always sought to set himself apart from his contemporaries with his florid prose (and by extension portray himself as a mind of substance) has joined the mob, attacking anybody who dares to point out the error of a kangaroo court behaving in a way that allows a man, declared innocent by due process, to be re-branded in the most extreme ways. He shamelessly cites civility in his defence of a hearing that has ridden roughshod over principles that are a fundamental pillar of what gives this country a right to call itself civilised in the first place.

He and many others, like frustrated children unable to control their tempers, have decided to jettison the sense of propriety they would normally claim until blue in the face because the temptation to "get" John Terry was just mouthwateringly, incalculably powerful. Even those purporting to take a less partisan stance on Terry have accepted the absolute veracity of the FA verdict; John Barnes treated Talksport listeners to a fifteen minute rant on the subtleties of racism during which he was actually defending John Terry but through it all spoke with the assumption that he did indeed racially abuse Anton Ferdinand.

The Independent, in a headline that one suspects could eventually see them disabused of cash, trumpeted "Leader, Legend, Racist". Daniel Taylor of the Guardian, in banging the drum for Rio Ferdinand's inclusion in the England squad makes reference to Terry as having received pitfiul punishment for "calling someone a f.. g black c...t". Really Daniel? I think you will find he was not found to have "called" anybody any such thing. Only Martin Samuel, both before the court trial and since, has maintained any sense of dignity and respect for what is right.

So it is official. The findings of a panel of hastily assembled individuals working on the basis of "probability" rather than evidence and facts and in contravention of their own clearly stated rules are above the law. This small group, cajoled, harried and heavily influenced by the politics of a sport's ruling body can usurp the authority of hundreds of years of systemic justice and valued principles of innocence until proven guilty. They carry more credibility than the rule of a judge and five days of evidence and witness statements. They want to cast a stain on an individual and so they will and that individual, who has faced his accusers in a court of law, is now, on a global scale, branded a racist. And the mob cheers them on.

It has become more important than anything else to get "toxic Terry". This isn't about football any longer. It is not about racism in football either. I am more convinced than ever that the cause of anti-racism has been damaged by the case because I have had to endure more mindless anti "PC" rants from football fans than at any time I can remember. They too have had a second wind; here is proof that the PC Brigade, as they put it, get their own way, whatever the cost.

An endless procession of one dimensional and clearly racist individuals are having a field day on internet sites, in pubs and on the terraces. The FA and those encouraging them to pursue a man they have the most irrational dislike for have done us all a great disservice. It isn't about whether you like or dislike John Terry - that is almost totally irrelevant any longer. The pursuit of Terry has been to satisfy a prejudice and has put a monumental dent in the side of the anti-racism cause.

Here is what it boils down to; did Terry say what he said as he is accused of saying it? No, according to a court of law. It doesn't matter if he really DID say it maliciously. It wasn't proven. The FA have no right, either morally or in any other way, to seek to assuage the anger of the injured party and their supporters just because the accused is a deeply unpopular individual. We have a process and it was fully observed and pursued.

Anything else is medieval and uncivilised.

A version of this article appeared on www.bluetinted.com

 

Follow Michael Volpe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mikeohp

FOLLOW UK SPORT
When the FA assembled its learned John Terry star chamber, chaired by an as yet anonymous QC, we can be in no doubt that justice was going to "seen to be done". The utterly mendacious and despicably...
When the FA assembled its learned John Terry star chamber, chaired by an as yet anonymous QC, we can be in no doubt that justice was going to "seen to be done". The utterly mendacious and despicably...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 25
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
paul679
02:23 PM on 10/04/2012
One thing is a constant: the F.A. never ever do the right thing. Time and time again, when they have to step up to the plate, they get it all wrong.

Untenable, useless, in denial and totally devoid of common-sense.
04:23 PM on 10/04/2012
If you ran the FA, how would you have done it differently Paul?

I accept that they haven't been perfect, but very rarely do you find perfect solutions to things like this.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Michael Volpe
06:19 PM on 10/04/2012
What they should have done is charge both Terry and Ferdinand for the disrepute - they both admitted schoolyard abuse of each other and the race element, given it had been tried in a court should have been omitted. By not charging Ferdinand and by giving the excuse that future "victims" would be dissuaded from coming forward, they were indicating, absolutely, that the entire hearing was about re-trying Terry for the alleged racial abuse. That is unforgivable on several levels as I have pointed out.
02:04 PM on 10/04/2012
What a suprise, the author is a Chelsea fan who doesn't think the FA had any business pursuing Terry. You can always rely on the faithful being just that, regardless of the reality.

"...a man, declared innocent by due process..." I think you'll find that 'not guilty' isn't the same as 'innocent'. This is not semantics but is an important distinction that many people - the author of the article inluded - don't understand. How many people believe that OJ Simpson was 'innocent'?

The Independent panel's 'standard of proof' is lower than that of a criminal court. That does not mean they don't consider facts and evidence. It is possible to consider the same set of facts & evidence, but come to different verdicts because the required level of proof is stricter in one case than the other. Again, OJ Simpson was found not guilty of the 'crime' (beyond resonable doubt), but was then found liable in a civil court (balance of probabilities).

Suggesting that the bile being spewed by racists in pubs is a reason not to pursue it is simply asinine. Nobody has been 'turned' racist by this saga. They were already racist to begin with and nothing would change that. If Terry had said "..I called him a 'FBC', so what?", such people would cheer gleefully. Chelsea is notorious for having a healthy following amongst such individuals.

Not enough time and words allowance to pick the bones, but it just isn't that creditworthy anyway.
02:43 PM on 10/04/2012
Hardly a rational comment. By your thinking a court of law verdict, means nothing. So anybody found not guilty by a criminal court, could still be guilty, and should be punished, especially if he plays for Chelsea, his name is John Terry and was England's captain.
04:13 PM on 10/04/2012
My comment is perfectly rational. I didn't say that the court's verdict "means nothing" - where have you read this? The court's verdict simply means that that Judge didn't see enough evidence to be convinced of his guilt, bearing in mind that the evidence had to prove him guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

If you read the magistrate's judgement, he actually makes it quite clear that, as with many people, he did not believe Terry's defense/explanation. The point however, is that Terry did not have to prove his innocence - it is the prosecution that have to prove his guilt, and they did not quite present enough evidence to do that on the day so to speak.

That doesn't mean Terry didn't do it..
05:54 PM on 10/04/2012
Legally it is not, as yet, that a person has to prove his innocence, but as you well know, the prosecution has to prove his guilt. If after a court trial the person is found 'not guilt' ,to state he is still guilty has to be proven or it is libel. You state Chelsea has a healthy following of racists, indeed !
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Michael Volpe
03:54 PM on 10/04/2012
I think you have merely confirmed the point I am making. You may claim to have both an understanding and a belief in the justice system (despite its faults perhaps) but what you are in effect saying is what we believe matters rather more than what we can prove. That, I would contend, is the central core principle and unfortunately, it may mean that some we percieve to be guilty "get away with it". Because the FA test evidence to a much lesser degree, that seems to be fine when the miscreant is unpopular and in this case, despite their own rules, it is clear they have used that lower burden in order to criminalise Terry. However, this is very much akin to you going to a hospital, having a leg xrayed and finding it unbroken but the doctor saying "well, never mind that, I think it is broken". The issue here is that Terry underwent a full examination in a court of law. You cannot simply dismiss that because the finding of the court did not please you. I make that explicitly clear in the piece. You cannot believe in a justice system only when it suits you.
04:54 PM on 10/04/2012
As explained above, I am not dismissing the court's verdict but explaining its natural limitations, which are clear to me (probably because I was legally trained), but which do not always seem clear to much of the general public. I am the one who is very much taking it for what it is - imperfect.

"...it is clear they have used that lower burden in order to criminalise Terry":- the panel has always made its decisions on the balance of probabilities so far as I recall. They didn't change the rules to 'get' Terry and I trust that you don't mean to insinuate this as there's no basis for it. Terry signed up to the FA's own private rule book when he decided to play Association Football. He cannot then pick & choose when those rules that he signed up for should apply to him. If he wants to say "I don't care what the panel thinks because the court found me not guilty...", he is free to do that.

Not really sure where your 'broken leg' analogy is going. Surely it is the doctor's who still has to interpret what he sees in the x-ray 'evidence'? If he says its broken (i.e. like the panel), that doesn't stop another doctor (i.e. the magistrate) coming to a different conclusion.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Michael Volpe
11:04 AM on 10/04/2012
The QC is now known and not anonymous (he was when I wrote the piece!) Craig Moore.
08:51 AM on 10/04/2012
Excellent, properly balanced comment. I can't recall any other individual in British public life having sustained such a vindictive, one-eyed level of abuse for so long. It seems that John Terry is a creature apart in the opinion of anyone with a personal agenda. He's an instant headline no matter how often he's found not guilty. Sadly, this provides an easy hook for lazy or incompetent journalism and PC flacks desperate for exposure. JT has conducted himself with dignity and courage throughout this ordeal, showing up the FA and his accusers by comparison for what they truly are. Thankfully, Chelsea FC now has John's full attention. It's where his legacy will remain honestly written, supported unanimously by his teammates and a resume of football's leading managers.
03:42 PM on 10/04/2012
One of the best articles I've read about the F.A.'s contemptible treatment of John Terry. I think J.T. has little choice and will have to take legal action against the F.A. and the media for calling him a racist.