Is There A Public Bias When It Comes To Terry?

I find it very difficult to have a conversation / debate when the topic is John Terry, racism, and his ban. A lot of the time I get shouted down, scowled at, and accused of being biased when I try and defend Terry, or point out the flaws within the FA disciplinary panel. Perhaps I am a little biased; indeed, as a Chelsea fan, I try and look into the defence of John Terry more than most do. That said, I also take into account all the evidence that stands against him. However, while I calmly stand back allowing myself to be told I am biased (and sometimes worse things), I can’t help but think that there is a great deal more bias coming from the opposite direction.

Some people tell me I am in the minority; that doesn’t mean I’m wrong. Some people tell me I’m nothing but a typical Chelsea fan; that doesn’t mean I’m wrong either. The fact of the matter is that John Terry’s defence in court was more than plausible, something that not many people outside the media or Chelsea fan base recognise.

Despite the nine month police investigation that examined every possible accusation and defence, and that eventually found Terry not guilty, the FA still decided it was right for him to be punished. I’m not here to talk about the differences in legal procedures between the courts and FA disciplinary panel. Rather to point out the overwhelming amount of condemnation Terry has received, without any thought lent to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, his defence is truthful.

It was Dan Levene that gave me the motivation to write this. He recently went through the FA reasoning for finding Terry guilty, and found, as he put it, 10 glaring errors / fallacies with their report. If you are interested, you can read the full article here.

Well, if you look at the points Dan made with his criticism, you can’t really claim that any of his findings were wrong! Predictably though, he was immediately met with criticism (not abuse) from fans and fellow journalists for his perspective on the case. This led him to give this response, which I would very much recommend you read if you haven’t already.

It’s difficult for me to add to what Dan has said here. It was very brave journalism from him to, as he said, not “follow the pack” and write what everyone else was writing. How frustrating it must be, to be told that you are wrong, because nobody else has written the same thing as you.

I don’t think there is an “agenda” when it comes to Terry, or anything surrounding Chelsea (although I know that there are some Chelsea fans that would think there is). An agenda suggests that the media and public are intentionally and consciously opposing Terry. What I do think is that, over the years that Terry has been at Chelsea, a subconscious disliking of him has grown, to the point that judgement becomes clouded, and logic becomes prejudiced. (This can be put down to his on and off the pitch drama). That said, he is certainly not the only English international who has failed in his personal life, yet he is the only one who seems to have it held against him. Don’t even get me started on Giggs.

If anyone else who has chosen to examine both sides of the argument is called biased, then maybe those making this accusation should look at themselves and consider whether they have looked at Terry’s side of the story in this saga, and indeed at mine, Dan’s and anyone else’s alternative perspective on the matter.

I’m not trying to tell everyone that Terry is innocent with this blog (he has been found, and may well be, guilty), although naturally with an article such as this it will seem like that at times. I just want to say that there is a need for the public to combat there own subconscious bias. I shall try and do the same with my own.

KTBFFH!