Clattenburg inquiry

Come and join in the banter: discuss here anything you want, whether bike related or not!
Paulie W
Posts: 1462
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 21:08 pm
Contact:

Clattenburg inquiry

Postby Paulie W » Wed Nov 14, 2012 14:16 pm

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.

User avatar
Ben6899
Posts: 4921
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 19:49 pm

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby Ben6899 » Wed Nov 14, 2012 14:24 pm

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?
Ben

Bikes: Starley JKS R1 | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Islington CC: http://www.islington.cc

User avatar
bompington
Posts: 4684
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:18 am

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby bompington » Wed Nov 14, 2012 14:26 pm

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.

User avatar
CiB
Posts: 5785
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 08:24 am

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby CiB » Wed Nov 14, 2012 14:35 pm

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
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 21:27 pm

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby t4tomo » Wed Nov 14, 2012 14:35 pm

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.
Bianchi Infinito CV
Bianchi Via Nirone 7 Ultegra
Brompton S Type
Carrera Vengeance Ultimate Ltd
Gary Fisher Aquila '98
Front half of a Viking Saratoga Tandem

User avatar
pangolin
Posts: 1472
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 14:06 pm

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby pangolin » Wed Nov 14, 2012 14:38 pm

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.


Image
Genesis Croix de Fer

Wunnunda
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:19 pm

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby Wunnunda » Wed Nov 14, 2012 14:46 pm

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
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 21:27 pm

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby t4tomo » Wed Nov 14, 2012 14:49 pm

Have an apostrophe on me. Weird picture btw
Bianchi Infinito CV
Bianchi Via Nirone 7 Ultegra
Brompton S Type
Carrera Vengeance Ultimate Ltd
Gary Fisher Aquila '98
Front half of a Viking Saratoga Tandem

User avatar
rubertoe
Posts: 3965
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 17:14 pm

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby rubertoe » Wed Nov 14, 2012 14:49 pm

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?
"If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got."

PX Kaffenback 2 = Work Horse
B-Twin Alur 700 = Sundays and Hills

User avatar
Blacktemplar
Posts: 694
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 17:22 pm

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby Blacktemplar » Wed Nov 14, 2012 14:52 pm

So where's the crime then?

Is Juan Mata not Spanish?

Is he not (IMO) a tw@t?

Case dropped.

:wink:
"Get a bicycle. You won't regret it if you live"
Mark Twain

Wunnunda
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:19 pm

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby Wunnunda » Wed Nov 14, 2012 14:56 pm

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?

User avatar
Il Principe
Posts: 10401
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:37 am

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby Il Principe » Wed Nov 14, 2012 15:08 pm

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!

User avatar
antfly
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 15:10 pm

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby antfly » Wed Nov 14, 2012 15:10 pm

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.
Last edited by antfly on Wed Nov 14, 2012 15:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Smarter than the average bear.

Wunnunda
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:19 pm

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby Wunnunda » Wed Nov 14, 2012 15:13 pm

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
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 21:27 pm

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby t4tomo » Wed Nov 14, 2012 15:53 pm

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.
Bianchi Infinito CV
Bianchi Via Nirone 7 Ultegra
Brompton S Type
Carrera Vengeance Ultimate Ltd
Gary Fisher Aquila '98
Front half of a Viking Saratoga Tandem

User avatar
Cornerblock
Posts: 3191
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby Cornerblock » Wed Nov 14, 2012 15:57 pm

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:

User avatar
Cornerblock
Posts: 3191
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby Cornerblock » Wed Nov 14, 2012 16:16 pm

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
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:19 pm

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby Wunnunda » Wed Nov 14, 2012 16:24 pm

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.

User avatar
MTB-Idle
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 19:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby MTB-Idle » Wed Nov 14, 2012 20:54 pm

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.
FCN = 4

User avatar
First Aspect
Posts: 1585
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:15 pm

Re: Clattenburg inquiry

Postby First Aspect » Wed Nov 14, 2012 22:45 pm

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.


Return to “Commuting Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: HebdenBiker, mrfpb and 3 guests