Improbable, implausible and contrived.

[Gromit]

Is how the Independent assessor summed up John Terry's defence of misconduct charges..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...t/0/football/19842795

But the magistrate in a criminal court acquitted him.

Do you think he might have been a Chelsea fan?

[daffy654]

I would hardly call the assessor independent if he works for the FA.

[youngmafbog]

Is it just one mans opinion ?

Clearly thinks himself better than the Law.

[ludwig]

I'm sure the magistrate was completely objective, just like the liverpudlian jury that found Gerrard not guilty of assaulting that mancunian bloke.

I suppose the difference is that the FA can pretty much do what they like because it's their court their rules, whereas a real court has a different burden of proof meaning he could get off basically on a technicality.

If only the FA tribunal was deciding whether we should deport Abu Hamza or not.

[bazwillrun]

The FA are just that, FA !...they have made a hash of it all and now want to be seen as the arbiters of justice and get their two bobs worth of PC in

The FA are and always have been a bunch of pen pushing self serving Salad Chefs

[bert_h]

Oh, come on. It's perfectly clear that the court of law required one standard of proof, and the FA court another - "beyond reasonable doubt" versus "balance of probabilities". Different rules, different results.

[FredPuli43]

It makes sense, in legal terms. O J Simpson was acquitted of murder but the victim's family was able to pursue him succesfully through the civil court on exactly the same accusation and, on the same principle, the FA could pursue Terry in the disciplinary proceedings.

It's interesting to note that lawyers themselves don't have this distinction in standards of proof. A barrister facing such a charge of misconduct would be tried by the professional body using the same high standard of proof used in a criminal trial. It's tempting to say that what had to be proved in the criminal case against Terry is subtly different as to fact, intent, and the effect on bystanders, from what is required in the FA proceedings, but, reading the report, it appears that the FA tribunal found facts contradict the findings in the criminal case.

[Ric.ror]

Do I sense a hint of sarcasm there Ludwig?

I do hope so

[Octavius]

I'm not fully up to speed with all this, but is it not the case that in court he was charged with 'racial abuse' and by the FA charged with 'abusive language'? One could not be proven beyond reaonable doubt, whereas the other could.

[Zeuhl]

<But the magistrate in a criminal court acquitted him.>

But that same magistrate in his 'not guilty' summing-up also judged that Terry used the language he did, described his explanation as 'ludicrous' and described him as an 'unreliable witness'

It was just that the evidence criteria for the criminal offence of racial abuse were not met.

So the FA judgement was foreseeable - because use of that language is forbidden under their rules and indeed is supposed to be a straight Red Card anyway!