Clattenburg inquiry

Paulie W

Apparently the Society of Black Lawyers have responded angrily to the Met's decision to drop their inquiry into Clattenburg's alleged racism by critcising both Chelsea and the FA.

The SBL Chair, Peter Herbert, said in a statement: "It would appear that there is a cosy little agreement between Chelsea FC and the FA not to report these matters to the Metropolitan Police but to have them dealt with solely by the FA.

"The FA have a dreadful record of indifference on hate crime generally; failing to challenge anti-Semitism at Tottenham Hotspur and at other grounds; eventually finding John Terry made a racist remark but remarkably found him not to be a "racist"; whilst the derisory penalty of a four- or eight-match ban [Luis Suárez] is believed to be a suitable punishment for what in any other industry would be summary dismissal for gross misconduct."

It's hard to argue with this but it struck me that in most industries you would be dismissed for the kind of general abuse that footballers routinely submit their fellow players to without the need for any kind of racist epithet . I have a friend who was summarily fired, and escorted from the building by security, for calling a colleague a f*cking c*nt; and another for a much milder tirade of abuse.

Anyway, my point: football's problem is not only racism but also a culture that makes abusive exchanges the norm; yet this issue seems not to be addressed. Had Terry been shown to have called Ferdinand just a f*cking c*nt he would have received no ban and no fine.

Ben6899

Paulie W wrote:

Apparently the Society of Black Lawyers have responded angrily to the Met's decision to drop their inquiry into Clattenburg's alleged racism by critcising both Chelsea and the FA.

It's not really any of their business though, is it?

bompington

It could just be my prejudices, but I strongly suspect that the average professional referee has a significantly greater degree of professionalism than you average footballer. Apart from anything else, the amount of abuse they get must require a huge amount of self-restraint to tolerate.
Based on that admittedly unscientific reasoning, I strongly suspect that Clattenberg is extremely unlikely to have said anything untoward.
I definitely agree that the lack of respect for each other, refs, and the punters who one way or another are paying their wages, is appalling.

CiB

I may be wrong, but I understood that Clatto said something along the lines of 'Spanish tw@'. Call me old fashioned but that doesn't sound like anything that should concern the society of black lawyers. Nor should the Spurs thing either - Radio 5 had a long discussion on this on Friday (I heard it all whilst doing the bike) and the gist of it is that Spurs fans sing 'Y-d Army" (hyphenated by me as that's just what we have to do these days) as a means of claiming ownership of that word,and that there is a view not wholly supported by Spurs fan both Jewish and non-Jewish by faith that use of the Y word as we must call it, is not A Good Thing.

Is it me? Everybody seems desperate to identify racism under every stone these days. At risk of everything (oh f*ck it) when I grew up racists were ignorant thugs who made it their business to intentionally attack verbally & physically those of a different race. These days Alan Hansen gets pilloried for saying 'coloured', not having been in receipt of the relevant community's latest proclamation on what words are good and what words are bad.

Doubtless DDD will be along shortly to educate me on these matters.

t4tomo

First point, the Met police have dropped the case because they have no evidence and no victim - no chelsea players have made a complaint to the police.

second point; why is this taking so long to sort out. Either Clattenberg said something wrong or he didn't. He is miced up and the two assistants and the 4th assitant can all hear what he said. Interview them and surely its an open & shut case.

I'd be very surprised if Clattenberg has said something racist and at the moment he's being hung out to dry by a ditherring FA. It should have all been dealt with within the week after it happened.

pangolin

t4tomo wrote:

second point; why is this taking so long to sort out. Either Clattenberg said something wrong or he didn't. He is miced up and the two assistants and the 4th assitant can all hear what he said. Interview them and surely its an open & shut case.

Wunnunda

No friend of the FA but IMO not their fault this time. Chelsea went 'nuclear' on this too early and it was that eejit from the SBL (IIRC) that got the Met. involved, not Chelsea.

If Chelsea had just had a few words behind the scenes on the day this would have been sorted. They didn't and that was that. The FA, once the Met. got involved, had to delay their inquiry (just as in the Terry case) so not really their fault.

(If Clattenberg said what I've heard he said then a lot of people are going to look really foolish over this whole thing, and the FA, the Met. and Clattenberg won't be among them).

t4tomo

Have an apostrophe on me. Weird picture btw

rubertoe

Wunnunda wrote:

No friend of the FA but IMO not their fault this time. Chelsea went 'nuclear' on this too early and it was that eejit from the SBL (IIRC) that got the Met. involved, not Chelsea.

If Chelsea had just had a few words behind the scenes on the day this would have been sorted. They didn't and that was that. The FA, once the Met. got involved, had to delay their inquiry (just as in the Terry case) so not really their fault.

(If Clattenberg said what I've heard he said then a lot of people are going to look really foolish over this whole thing, and the FA, the Met. and Clattenberg won't be among them).

What did you hear?

Blacktemplar

So where's the crime then?

Is Juan Mata not Spanish?

Is he not (IMO) a tw@t?

Case dropped.

Wunnunda

One of the Chelsea players (Mikel?) was bitching about a decision, Clattenberg waved him away and said "I don't give a monkeys" as a throw away comment?

il_principe

Wunnunda wrote:

No friend of the FA but IMO not their fault this time. Chelsea went 'nuclear' on this too early and it was that eejit from the SBL (IIRC) that got the Met. involved, not Chelsea.

If Chelsea had just had a few words behind the scenes on the day this would have been sorted. They didn't and that was that. The FA, once the Met. got involved, had to delay their inquiry (just as in the Terry case) so not really their fault.

(If Clattenberg said what I've heard he said then a lot of people are going to look really foolish over this whole thing, and the FA, the Met. and Clattenberg won't be among them).

To be fair to Chelsea they were in an impossible situation - clearly they can't ignore claims of racism from an employee(s), but know they will be vilified if they report it. I doubt Clattenberg said anything racist. The suggestion that he said 'don't give a monkey's' makes sense, easy to see how a player for whom English isn't the first language could have misheard, misconstrued. Especially when racism in football is on people's minds. It's a throwaway phrase, but saying the word Monkey to a black player probably wasn't the best idea!

antfly

Wunnunda wrote:

One of the Chelsea players (Mikel?) was bitching about a decision, Clattenberg waved him away and said "I don't give a monkeys" as a throw away comment?

Wow, if that's what happened he should be reinstated immediately and everyone should apologise to him. It's a farce and the police are right to have nothing to do with it. I think it is ridiculous and offensive to black people to suggest nobody should use the word monkey around them.

Wunnunda

Of course Chelsea had to do something, no question, but they really needed to count to ten before going public in the way that they did. Chelsea, of all clubs, should know how quickly these things can get out of control.

(BTW - don't forget, some of their players invaded the officials changing room on the day).

t4tomo

Wunnunda wrote:

Of course Chelsea had to do something, no question, but they really needed to count to ten before going public in the way that they did. Chelsea, of all clubs, should know how quickly these things can get out of control.

(BTW - don't forget, some of their players invaded the officials changing room on the day).

which apparently is near the press room, hence the complaints were overheard by someone from the press who was then onto chelsea press officer to confirm or deny. I have some simpathy for chelsea (but not much) as to not say anything would then invite the charge tehy didn't take racism seriously, especially sensitive given their support of alleged racist thug and chelsea captain, John Terry.

The FA did not have to wait for the Met police befoere investigating and acting.

cornerblock

Wunnunda wrote:

One of the Chelsea players (Mikel?) was bitching about a decision, Clattenberg waved him away and said "I don't give a monkeys" as a throw away comment?

I've heard this too, but as none of us are privy to the real story it's just a theory being bandied about. If the word monkey has been used in a totally innocent way and then been overheard by players whose grasp of the English language is basic, then it might explain how the matter has got this far. I'd would like to think though that the players making the claim have been asked more than once if it's possible that they may have heard the word in the 'don't give a monkeys' context. Especially as Bruce Buck the chairman is a lawyer, although worryingly, he being an American claims to have never heard of the expression 'couldn't/don't give a monkeys'.

I do think Chelsea have found themselves in a tricky situation. Straight after they have supported John Terry during his trial and FA hearing, how would it have looked if they had just ignored a black players claim that he'd heard racist language being directed towards a black team mate? I think those black players might have felt, quite rightly, that there were double standards being shown by the club. So I think Chelsea had little choice but to report what the player(s) claims were and be seen to be supporting them.

As for the SBL, less said the better. The man is a fool. When asked, after talk of a seperate black players union,if it would be right for white players to set up a separate union, his reply? They already have, it's called the BNP. :shock: :roll:

cornerblock

Wunnunda wrote:

(BTW - don't forget, some of their players invaded the officials changing room on the day).

You really need to take the sensationalist clap trap the tabloids print with a large pinch of salt, and not just repeat it as though it were gospel. 'Invaded?' :roll: Deary me, what were they wearing camouflage combat gear? Is this from the same rubbish bit of journalism that claimed 'John Terry left the referees room dripping in sweat'. When from what I've heard he wasn't even there.

Wunnunda

Not bothered about the red-tops - they'll always find a way to exaggerate. 'Invaded' ? Alright 'entered' if it makes you happier. It did happen though. And it shouldn't have done. Chelsea could easily have made their point quietly and (IMO) more effectively by at least establishing what was said, and how much could be proven, before going public in the way they did.

mtb-idle

t4tomo wrote:

Wunnunda wrote:

Of course Chelsea had to do something, no question, but they really needed to count to ten before going public in the way that they did. Chelsea, of all clubs, should know how quickly these things can get out of control.

(BTW - don't forget, some of their players invaded the officials changing room on the day).

which apparently is near the press room, hence the complaints were overheard by someone from the press who was then onto chelsea press officer to confirm or deny. I have some simpathy for chelsea (but not much) as to not say anything would then invite the charge tehy didn't take racism seriously, especially sensitive given their support of alleged racist thug and chelsea captain, John Terry.

The FA did not have to wait for the Met police befoere investigating and acting.

I think you will find that a court found him innocent.

First.Aspect

Il Principe wrote:

To be fair to Chelsea they were in an impossible situation - clearly they can't ignore claims of racism from an employee(s), but know they will be vilified if they report it. I doubt Clattenberg said anything racist. The suggestion that he said 'don't give a monkey's' makes sense, easy to see how a player for whom English isn't the first language could have misheard, misconstrued. Especially when racism in football is on people's minds. It's a throwaway phrase, but saying the word Monkey to a black player probably wasn't the best idea!

They weren't in a difficult position. Someone caved to pressure and emotion before anyone had the chance to clear it up. Unfortunately, rather than find out whether it should be made public before making it public, they just went ahead and made it public. It will follow the person in question around for the rest of his career. I don't think football or footballers come out of this very well at all.

The Society of Black Lawyers has, unfortunately for them, chosen a non-issue upon which to launch an unjustified and baffling assault on anyone who happens to be there. They might have a point, but we'll never know if this is the most persuasive they can be.

As to whether the term "a cheeky monkey" can somehow be racist. No. For christ's sake lets just get a grip shall we?

I was once told I ws a racist for saying, "call a spade a spade". It took me some time and a bit of internet research to convince the accuser that calling a 16th century garden implement a a 16th century garden implement was not, in fact, racist.

rjsterry

First Aspect wrote:

I was once told I ws a racist for saying, "call a spade a spade". It took me some time and a bit of internet research to convince the accuser that calling a 16th century garden implement a a 16th century garden implement was not, in fact, racist.

What? Sorry, no, you're going to have to expand on the reasoning behind that one.

I do remember my boss trying to explain the expression "not as green as he's cabbage-looking" to a Spanish employee - he never really got it, but to be fair, so many expressions don't actually make sense, but are just understood to have a certain meeting by convention.

First.Aspect

Yup.

The objection was to the word "spade". By the same reasoning, its literally necessary to call a spade a shovel. Quite how its possible to play cards I don't know. I mean you can't call the queen a queen because that's homophobic and referring the ace of spades is a criminal offence.

Its just an example of these things getting a bit out of hand.

cornerblock

First Aspect wrote:

As to whether the term "a cheeky monkey" can somehow be racist. No. For christ's sake lets just get a grip shall we?

I don't think anyone is claiming the term can somehow be racist. The suggestion is that maybe a Brazilian has heard the word monkey being used in a harmless way but not having a perfect grasp of the English language has assumed that the word was being directed as an insult. I believe from the players time in Portugal he was aware that the word monkey can be used as a racist slur. Maybe, just maybe he hasn't been in England long enough to also realise that we use the word monkey in many innocuous ways too.

As to Chelsea having a choice, yes it's always better to count to ten, but if serious allegations are being made then they have to follow procedure and make their complaint known. Once made there is no way the press would not become aware of it. At the moment Chelsea seem to be in position of damned if they do, damned if they don't.