Engerland

[Andrewmaha]

I've said this before, but Id love to see a one strike and you are out policy applied to all England players - doesnt even have to be a criminal offence, just any behaviour that sets a bad example to young children growing up.


If all players know that racism, violence, adultery, drink driving, drugs, etc, etc, mean that you will never play for England again, then it might actually encourage them to take the additional responsibility to not only ensure they dont actively misbehave, but also ensure that they do not put themselves into positions where such things may be brought out.

Then we can have a squad that we can get behind, rather than the current bunch of reprobates....

Ridiculous holier than thou attitude. They are footballers not applicants for the General Synod!

Couldn't agree more with you prb.
etc etc - er what, dropping litter, going 2 mph over the speed limit, failure to buy a TV licence?
Perhaps we can do without any footballers, politicians, bankers etc etc

Dropping litter, going 2 mph over the speed limit, failiure to buy a TV licence is hardly comparable to racism, drugs, violence etc that we read about on a regular basis.

You won't find Chris Huhne pin ups on the bedroom walls of many teenagers. However the same cannot be said for Rooney, A.Cole, Terry &amp co.

I'm with Mooro on this one on the basis of what he is implying about role models.

[John Byrne's Underpants]

I thought this might stir up a good old ding dong!

The argument that John Terry is effectively being convicted by being stripped of the captaincy is nonsense in my view. the argument of innocent until proven guilty is a perfectly reasonable concept but has nothign to do with an argument about JT remaining as England captain or being available for selection even.

In any job, the employer has the responsibility to protect employees from discrimination.
In any job, the employer has the right to protect the credibility and good name of their business.
In any job, every employee has the responsibility to not behave in a manner which might be likely to adversely impact either of the above 2 scenarios.

It is normal for any employee accused of an offence such as this to be suspended, pending the outcome of a hearing. That JT has been charged, underlines that even further.

Suspending JT, which is removing the captaincy (and would be removing his availability for selection if the FA had a backbone) is normal and proper, and gives no indication of guilt whatsoever.

Suspension from duty is a neutral event.

If JT had honour to match his gob, he would have made himself not available for selection pending the outcome.

How on Earth is Rio ferdinand to be expected to play alongside John Terry. It is ridiculous.

In all honesty, I think JT should have been suspended at Chelsea as well.

If JT clears his name, he then would get to come back with his name unsullied.

Would it be normal to suspend someone from their employment if the offence wasn't directly related to the job? Sure if an accountant is accused of fiddling the books then fair enough, suspend them, but I'm not sure this is the same thing. I'm no expert on employment law though!

By suggesting that Rio Ferdinand shouldn't be expected to play along side John Terry is already suggesting guilt in some form isn't it? If JT is subsequently proven to be innocent, should they suddenly become best mates? What will have changed exactly?

As for clearing his name and being unsullied, in reality that will never happen, even if he's cleared of all charges. Maybe he should have probably voluntarily stood down as captain and avoided all this drama but he's not exactly the smartest is he?

I can't believe I'm actually defending the guy.

[GodalmingYellow]

I thought this might stir up a good old ding dong!

The argument that John Terry is effectively being convicted by being stripped of the captaincy is nonsense in my view. the argument of innocent until proven guilty is a perfectly reasonable concept but has nothign to do with an argument about JT remaining as England captain or being available for selection even.

In any job, the employer has the responsibility to protect employees from discrimination.
In any job, the employer has the right to protect the credibility and good name of their business.
In any job, every employee has the responsibility to not behave in a manner which might be likely to adversely impact either of the above 2 scenarios.

It is normal for any employee accused of an offence such as this to be suspended, pending the outcome of a hearing. That JT has been charged, underlines that even further.

Suspending JT, which is removing the captaincy (and would be removing his availability for selection if the FA had a backbone) is normal and proper, and gives no indication of guilt whatsoever.

Suspension from duty is a neutral event.

If JT had honour to match his gob, he would have made himself not available for selection pending the outcome.

How on Earth is Rio ferdinand to be expected to play alongside John Terry. It is ridiculous.

In all honesty, I think JT should have been suspended at Chelsea as well.

If JT clears his name, he then would get to come back with his name unsullied.

Would it be normal to suspend someone from their employment if the offence wasn't directly related to the job? Sure if an accountant is accused of fiddling the books then fair enough, suspend them, but I'm not sure this is the same thing. I'm no expert on employment law though!

By suggesting that Rio Ferdinand shouldn't be expected to play along side John Terry is already suggesting guilt in some form isn't it? If JT is subsequently proven to be innocent, should they suddenly become best mates? What will have changed exactly?

As for clearing his name and being unsullied, in reality that will never happen, even if he's cleared of all charges. Maybe he should have probably voluntarily stood down as captain and avoided all this drama but he's not exactly the smartest is he?

I can't believe I'm actually defending the guy.

Yes it would be normal to suspend someone if their actions might bring their employer into disrepute, or if it related to another employee even if the actions were outside the workplace. If found to be guilty they could be sacked as well. In the JT case of course the issue is directly related to the profession because the alleged offence took place on the field of play, so the point isn't relevant to this argument.

(On the accountant point, if an accountant is caught fiddling the books it is 20 years in jail and a ban on practising as an accountant. It's the same if the accountant even suspects someone else of fiddling their books and doesn't report it to SOCA).

The point about Rio has nothing to do with implication of guilt. The point is that the alleged victim, Anton Ferdinand, is a close relative of Rio Ferdinand, and so Rio is automatically going to wish to support and believe his relative.

I don't agree with you on the name being unsullied if proven innocent. The reality is that what the court says is what we accept in a democratic society with a (generally) fair judicial system.

[Baboo]

You won't find Chris Huhne pin ups on the bedroom walls of many teenagers. However the same cannot be said for Rooney, A.Cole, Terry &amp co.

I'm with Mooro on this one on the basis of what he is implying about role models.

Everyone should be treated equally. It should not matter whether people are role models or not. We should not discriminate against those in the public eye. Are you saying they should be discriminated against? Just imagine the uproar if someone was to be treated differently because of their sex / religion / race.

[Andrewmaha]

You won't find Chris Huhne pin ups on the bedroom walls of many teenagers. However the same cannot be said for Rooney, A.Cole, Terry &amp co.

I'm with Mooro on this one on the basis of what he is implying about role models.

Everyone should be treated equally. It should not matter whether people are role models or not. We should not discriminate against those in the public eye. Are you saying they should be discriminated against? Just imagine the uproar if someone was to be treated differently because of their sex / religion / race.

I don't get your point, so no I'm not saying they should be discriminated against.

In the first instance I am saying that I agree with Mooro's 'one strike and out proposal'. This is just my opinion as is my belief that footballing authorities do very little to eliminate inappropriate behaviour. If there was a harder line from the authorities then I am convinced that there would be fewer examples of indiscretion, as is the case in Rugby Union.

In the second instance I am questioning the comparison between the comparison between dropping litter and racism. They cannot be compared with each other.

[Baboo]

You won't find Chris Huhne pin ups on the bedroom walls of many teenagers. However the same cannot be said for Rooney, A.Cole, Terry &amp co.

I'm with Mooro on this one on the basis of what he is implying about role models.

Everyone should be treated equally. It should not matter whether people are role models or not. We should not discriminate against those in the public eye. Are you saying they should be discriminated against? Just imagine the uproar if someone was to be treated differently because of their sex / religion / race.

I don't get your point, so no I'm not saying they should be discriminated against.

In the first instance I am saying that I agree with Mooro's 'one strike and out proposal'. This is just my opinion as is my belief that footballing authorities do very little to eliminate inappropriate behaviour. If there was a harder line from the authorities then I am convinced that there would be fewer examples of indiscretion, as is the case in Rugby Union.

In the second instance I am questioning the comparison between the comparison between dropping litter and racism. They cannot be compared with each other.

Absolutely no comparison between dropping litter and racism at all. But that's part of my point really - once adultery was thrown into the argument I just wondered how far we should go in our check lists of what a top class footballer should do / not have done before we think they are fit to represent us. Harder line? I though many on here were of the view that the Suarez 7 game ban was a bit ott.

[Baboo]

[
I can't believe I'm actually defending the guy.

Nor can I really, if that's what I'm doing.

[John Byrne's Underpants]

Yes it would be normal to suspend someone if their actions might bring their employer into disrepute, or if it related to another employee even if the actions were outside the workplace. If found to be guilty they could be sacked as well. In the JT case of course the issue is directly related to the profession because the alleged offence took place on the field of play, so the point isn't relevant to this argument. (On the accountant point, if an accountant is caught fiddling the books it is 20 years in jail and a ban on practising as an accountant. It's the same if the accountant even suspects someone else of fiddling their books and doesn't report it to SOCA). The point about Rio has nothing to do with implication of guilt. The point is that the alleged victim, Anton Ferdinand, is a close relative of Rio Ferdinand, and so Rio is automatically going to wish to support and believe his relative. I don't agree with you on the name being unsullied if proven innocent. The reality is that what the court says is what we accept in a democratic society with a (generally) fair judicial system.

Fair enough.

My point on Rio Ferdinand was that even if Terry is cleared I don't expect he'll be in Ferdinand's speed dial somehow. However, they may have to play together again in the future. What would be the difference between then and now (Terry not yet guilty)?

Always, after allegations involving somone in the public eye, even if unproven and the person is completely exonerated, there is a degree of rumour, speculation and distrust that remains in some quarters. They're never completely cleared in the minds of some.

[SmileyMan]

I thought this might stir up a good old ding dong!

The argument that John Terry is effectively being convicted by being stripped of the captaincy is nonsense in my view. the argument of innocent until proven guilty is a perfectly reasonable concept but has nothign to do with an argument about JT remaining as England captain or being available for selection even.

In any job, the employer has the responsibility to protect employees from discrimination.
In any job, the employer has the right to protect the credibility and good name of their business.
In any job, every employee has the responsibility to not behave in a manner which might be likely to adversely impact either of the above 2 scenarios.

It is normal for any employee accused of an offence such as this to be suspended, pending the outcome of a hearing. That JT has been charged, underlines that even further.

Suspending JT, which is removing the captaincy (and would be removing his availability for selection if the FA had a backbone) is normal and proper, and gives no indication of guilt whatsoever.

Suspension from duty is a neutral event.

If JT had honour to match his gob, he would have made himself not available for selection pending the outcome.

How on Earth is Rio ferdinand to be expected to play alongside John Terry. It is ridiculous.

In all honesty, I think JT should have been suspended at Chelsea as well.

If JT clears his name, he then would get to come back with his name unsullied.

If you brought this in as England policy, then before every major championship you'd have a slew of unfounded allegations all sorts of shit, either from potential opponents, or up-and-coming English players who just missed the squad. Or blondes working on their behalf. It would be ludicrous.

The cut-off point should be the police charge, not the accusation. Up until that point, the half-educated public should keep their noses out of it.

[GodalmingYellow]

I thought this might stir up a good old ding dong!

The argument that John Terry is effectively being convicted by being stripped of the captaincy is nonsense in my view. the argument of innocent until proven guilty is a perfectly reasonable concept but has nothign to do with an argument about JT remaining as England captain or being available for selection even.

In any job, the employer has the responsibility to protect employees from discrimination.
In any job, the employer has the right to protect the credibility and good name of their business.
In any job, every employee has the responsibility to not behave in a manner which might be likely to adversely impact either of the above 2 scenarios.

It is normal for any employee accused of an offence such as this to be suspended, pending the outcome of a hearing. That JT has been charged, underlines that even further.

Suspending JT, which is removing the captaincy (and would be removing his availability for selection if the FA had a backbone) is normal and proper, and gives no indication of guilt whatsoever.

Suspension from duty is a neutral event.

If JT had honour to match his gob, he would have made himself not available for selection pending the outcome.

How on Earth is Rio ferdinand to be expected to play alongside John Terry. It is ridiculous.

In all honesty, I think JT should have been suspended at Chelsea as well.

If JT clears his name, he then would get to come back with his name unsullied.

If you brought this in as England policy, then before every major championship you'd have a slew of unfounded allegations all sorts of shit, either from potential opponents, or up-and-coming English players who just missed the squad. Or blondes working on their behalf. It would be ludicrous.

The cut-off point should be the police charge, not the accusation. Up until that point, the half-educated public should keep their noses out of it.

I don't agree.

Where an accusation is made, a player should be suspended and then the matter investigated. This can usually be done in a matter of a day or two. the difference with the John Terry case is that he has been charged with a criminal offence, and then moaned about the timing of the court case because it interferes with his football. If he hallowed events to run their course, it would be done and dusted by now.

Most normal people don't go around making allegations of criminal offence for no reason, because where these become public and the accuser wastes police time, they get into big trouble. There is no reason to believe that anything different would happen in football.

To my knowledge, adultery is not illegal, and so there would be no reason to suspend a player in respect of &quotblondes&quot, and I'm not even going to bother raising why you've used that term. Players aren't employed to uphold moral sexual standards, whatever they may be.

[Andrewmaha]

So how did the Rio / Terry handshake go on Sunday?

I was watching the mighty Wales turn over the Irish so I cant say I saw it.

[GodalmingYellow]

Yes it would be normal to suspend someone if their actions might bring their employer into disrepute, or if it related to another employee even if the actions were outside the workplace. If found to be guilty they could be sacked as well. In the JT case of course the issue is directly related to the profession because the alleged offence took place on the field of play, so the point isn't relevant to this argument. (On the accountant point, if an accountant is caught fiddling the books it is 20 years in jail and a ban on practising as an accountant. It's the same if the accountant even suspects someone else of fiddling their books and doesn't report it to SOCA). The point about Rio has nothing to do with implication of guilt. The point is that the alleged victim, Anton Ferdinand, is a close relative of Rio Ferdinand, and so Rio is automatically going to wish to support and believe his relative. I don't agree with you on the name being unsullied if proven innocent. The reality is that what the court says is what we accept in a democratic society with a (generally) fair judicial system.

Fair enough.

My point on Rio Ferdinand was that even if Terry is cleared I don't expect he'll be in Ferdinand's speed dial somehow. However, they may have to play together again in the future. What would be the difference between then and now (Terry not yet guilty)?

Always, after allegations involving somone in the public eye, even if unproven and the person is completely exonerated, there is a degree of rumour, speculation and distrust that remains in some quarters. They're never completely cleared in the minds of some.

The difference between then and now would be that if JT were cleared, Anton and Rio would not have a case to complain about.

It may be true that a few would still be suspicious, but the vast majority of people accept the rule of law. Law and opinion shouldn't be influenced by a tiny minority of ne'er-do-wells.

[Baboo]

So how did the Rio / Terry handshake go on Sunday?

I was watching the mighty Wales turn over the Irish so I cant say I saw it.

John Terry didn't play. The issue never arose.

[Snake]

If ÔÇÿArry can be called into Court when heÔÇÖs busy managing one of the best teams in the country then I donÔÇÖt see why a couple of average Prem players could not have been excused their duties to do the same and just get this over and done with well before the summer.

[theox]

GY is correct. If I was accused of racist behaviour (or abuse of any nature) at my place of work I would be suspended immediately. The matter would be investigated quickly and, if referred to the police, I would want it dealt with as quickly as possible so that I could clear my name and get back to work.

JT and his legal team, who clearly thought the situation would be forgotten about for a few months, have delayed the process and thus ended up making it worse.

If he is innocent this could have gone away in a month's time.