Writer: DJDUTTS 
Date:Friday November 12 2010
Time: 10:46AM
Disgraceful Spurs' fans have brought shame upon their club as some mindless 'fans' have attacked and beaten up our Captain's Dad.
Ted Terry, 56, suffered a 'serious head wound' when the pathetic hooligans attacked him at a train station. Bloody mindless thugs.
According to reports, one thug with a blue and white Tottenham Hotspur scarf wrapped round his hand pushed Ted's head into a metal post.
John Terry is 'stunned and upset' by the attack, the Sun reports.
'Ted suffered a nasty wound to the back of his head that required a lot of stitches. He is upset he was attacked by so-called football fans purely because his son plays for a rival team. John is also very shocked about what has happened,' one family friend said.
Ted, now recovering at home in Chafford Hundred, Essex, was targeted at Upminster station last Saturday by Spurs fans returning from their team's 4-2 defeat at Bolton.
The hooligans are thought to have recognised Ted Terry because of publicity in the press earlier this year.
Cops investigating the attack are being hampered in their investigation because Mr Terry Senior has refused to give them a statement.
Very interesting if you ask me, but whatever way you see it, these mindless Spurs idiots have brought shame upon their club and, in my opinion, are nothing but weak, pathetic fools who obviously have no life.
I'd love to say I'm sorry for displaying my feelings so strongly, but I'm not.
Vital Chelsea on:
Vital Chelsea on:
Chelsea v Everton Preview (Saturday May 18 2013)
Should Rafa Join the Lap of Honour? (Saturday May 18 2013)
Running Scared! (Saturday May 18 2013)
Air-Miles, Smiles and Chaos Reigns (Saturday May 18 2013)
Torres Linked to Fiorentina! (Saturday May 18 2013)
Chelsea Interested in Ronaldo? (Saturday May 18 2013)
Shrek! Wanted at CHELSEA! (Saturday May 18 2013)
Mourinho Back to Earth (Saturday May 18 2013)
Breaking News (Friday May 17 2013)
The Second Roman Army! (Friday May 17 2013)
| 1. | syed230183_chelseafc | 469 |
| 2. | HGH Magic | 341 |
| 3. | Ken4CFC | 324 |
| 4. | Desmondadonis | 205 |
| 5. | @Mq | 202 |
| 6. | The Persian | 182 |
| 7. | 3nity | 182 |
| 8. | Humza_96 | 137 |
| 9. | Blu_run | 107 |
| 10. | SpanishBlue | 105 |
| Latest Results | ||||
| Aston Villa | 1 | - | 2 | Chelsea |
| Chelsea | 2 | - | 2 | Spurs |
| Man Utd | 0 | - | 1 | Chelsea |
| Chelsea | 2 | - | 0 | Swansea |
| Liverpool | 2 | - | 2 | Chelsea |
| Fulham | 0 | - | 3 | Chelsea |
| Team | P | W | D | L | GD | Pts |
| 1. Man Utd | 37 | 28 | 4 | 5 | +43 | 88 |
| 2. Man City | 37 | 23 | 9 | 5 | +33 | 78 |
| 3. Chelsea | 37 | 21 | 9 | 7 | +35 | 72 |
| 4. Arsenal | 37 | 20 | 10 | 7 | +34 | 70 |
| 5. Spurs | 37 | 20 | 9 | 8 | +19 | 69 |
| 6. Everton | 37 | 16 | 15 | 6 | +16 | 63 |
| 7. Liverpool | 37 | 15 | 13 | 9 | +27 | 58 |
| Shaun Maloney Man Of The Match v Arsenal
» Wigan : 19/05/2013 01:34:00
|
| Wigan Athletic - The 12th Man - 19/05/13
» Wigan : 19/05/2013 01:25:00
|
| Jay Relishing Stoke Challenge
» Southampton : 18/05/2013 17:00:00
|
| Barmpot Decision - I'm Not Frustrated - Honest
» Wigan : 18/05/2013 16:49:00
|
| Issues Resolved - Time To March On
» Southampton : 18/05/2013 15:22:00
|
| Shaun Maloney - Vital Latics POTS - The Video
» Wigan : 18/05/2013 14:46:00
|
| We Deserve To Finish Higher
» Aston Villa : 18/05/2013 14:31:00
|
The chances are that he was doing a 'deal' that went wrong - all the nonsense about ONE of his attackers wearing a Spurs scarf is just misdirection.
what's sad to see is how many Chelsea fans have rushed to defend him and accuse ALL Spurs fans - but then I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
"Cops investigating the attack are being hampered in their investigation because Mr Terry Senior has refused to give them a statement. Very interesting if you ask me..."
what exactly is it that you find interesting? That a drug dealer refuses to 'co-operate' or that it's a completely unsubstantiated allegation?? One where given the time the supposed attack took place hasn't had one witness come forward to back up his 'story'...?
You obviously haven't read the article above, as what else is it other than a Chelsea fan 'clamouring to defend the person who was attacked' without a single shred of evidence of what he was doing there, nor why more tellingly why he refuses to co-operate with the Police - which is highly suggestive of he's desperate to hide his reasons for being there in the first place - what possible other reason can there be?
Now I don't know about you or other Chelsea fans but if I was a victim of a supposedly unprovoked attack, I'd be willingly co-operating with the Police - wouldn't you?
Exactly what is Ted Terry hiding?
Have I made it simple enough for you to understand why this article has caused the reaction is has?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23687460-drunk-chelsea-fans-broke-my-jaw-in-unprovoked-attack.do
http://followeverton.com/2009/06/04/chelsea-thugs-attack-evertonian-philip-heron-our-message/
and let's not forget the organised thuds of Chelsea either:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3073148/We-help-expose-17-Chelsea-Cardiff-soccer-thugs.html
this type of generalisation, as well as the ill-conceived comments later on the article seem purposedly designed to provoke a backlash - I personally don't condone an 'unprovoked attack' (if that is what it was).....but you're being selective, if you want to condemn those that think beating up a drug dealer is acceptable, perhaps you could start by stating that the 'article' is without foundation, with collaboration and unnessarilly provokative and seeks to paint ALL Spurs fans with the same brush......perhaps we should also do the same given Chelsea fans recent history (see my links above) of violent unprovoked drunken attacks - which looks to me as if Chelsea have an endemic ongoing issue of thuggery...
Like you, I too wouldn't condone an unprovoked attack on anyone, but drug dealers in particular, causes some people to believe that they are the lowest of the low and that they deserve everything they get for peddling the stuff they do...so whilst you continue to be selective, all you're proving is that you too are being hypocritical in the stance you're taking. Perhaps if you showed that your moral stance stretched to condemning the generalisations in the article, your positon and stance along with your moral indignation would be credible.
Defending them only lowers your own profile, guys.