Police drop Clattenburg enquiry

[beorhthelm]

You What?
I got asked at work yesterday if I wanted a cup of tea or coffee, I replied that "I didnt give a monkeys!" was a being disrespectful to the tea makers? A bit flippant perhaps...

yep, flippant and a little disrespectfull. this is what we are told, there was alot of stuff at the time about how he routinely swears at players and generally aggressive. seems to have been forgotten though. i didnt say it was worthy of interview by police, just suggesting that he's not a saint being suggested. everyone is projecting the Terry case on to this, i wonder the responce if a Man U, Newcastle or any other teams player had complained? there seems to be an assumption that there wasnt a comment made worthy of Mikel/Ramires complaint. seems to me most likly there was a misunderstood comment made, and its was inflated in the inflammed circumstances.

 

[User removed 4]

Surprised you're getting involved then if the 2 previous incidents didn't interest you? I would have thought anyone commenting on the 2 previous cases through consistency would be also commentating on this case? Why do you believe this is a club thing? Even Bushy a Chelsea fan is in agreement that Chelsea have probably called it wrong. Not sure what your point is?

I dont think chelsea have called it wrong at all, i suspect that ramires and mikel misheard or didnt understand clattenburg, can you imagine the field day the press and people like yourself would have had if it later came out that chelsea had refused to act on complaints of racism made by their own players ? I also agree with CAM that its quite frankly laughable how opiniuons have changed on how "robust and transparent we must be on tackling racism " now that its chelsea who are the supposedly injured party.

 

[The Large One]

Regarding the police, the central issue is that no-one involved in the incident has said anything to the police.

Instead a separate party - the Society of Black Lawyers - went, got an investigation moving, and now that the police have decided not to continue because no-one has come forward and for lack of evidence, they're accusing Chelsea and the FA of a cover-up.

BBC Sport - Mark Clattenburg: Chelsea FA accused of cover-up

Assuming that there is a victim in all this, the SBL bloke appears to have forgotten this, and is marching full-steam ahead with his own agenda, irrespective of anyone else's point of view. Having read that piece, I'm struggling to work out - aside from the whole concept of tackling racism - what their (valid) point in this matter is.

 

[The Large One]

yep, flippant and a little disrespectfull. this is what we are told, there was alot of stuff at the time about how he routinely swears at players and generally aggressive. seems to have been forgotten though. i didnt say it was worthy of interview by police, just suggesting that he's not a saint being suggested. everyone is projecting the Terry case on to this, i wonder the responce if a Man U, Newcastle or any other teams player had complained? there seems to be an assumption that there wasnt a comment made worthy of Mikel/Ramires complaint. seems to me most likly there was a misunderstood comment made, and its was inflated in the inflammed circumstances.

Oh, give over.

The referees indulge in the vernacular on the pitch every bit as much as the players, and most give as good as they get. They're not all stiff-arsed headmasters and policemen, looking down on players as unruly schoolchildren. The best ones know when to get involved in the on-pitch banter, and when to lay down the law.

 

[Jim D]

yep, flippant and a little disrespectfull. this is what we are told, there was alot of stuff at the time about how he routinely swears at players and generally aggressive. seems to have been forgotten though. i didnt say it was worthy of interview by police, just suggesting that he's not a saint being suggested. everyone is projecting the Terry case on to this, i wonder the responce if a Man U, Newcastle or any other teams player had complained? there seems to be an assumption that there wasnt a comment made worthy of Mikel/Ramires complaint. seems to me most likly there was a misunderstood comment made, and its was inflated in the inflammed circumstances.

Ah yes - the John Terry defence. The only difference here is that JT carried on playing for the next few months but the ref (who earns massively less than the player) has been stood down.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I dont think chelsea have called it wrong at all, i suspect that ramires and mikel misheard or didnt understand clattenburg, can you imagine the field day the press and people like yourself would have had if it later came out that chelsea had refused to act on complaints of racism made by their own players ? I also agree with CAM that its quite frankly laughable how opiniuons have changed on how "robust and transparent we must be on tackling racism " now that its chelsea who are the supposedly injured party.

Sorry Bushy, but if you suspect Ramires and Mikel likely misheard or didn't understand Clattenburg, then you must in turn believe Chelsea made the wrong call in so quickly making this complaint i.e. an hour after the heat of the game?

There is a huge difference in Chelsea making their complaint within hours of the game finishing, and publicly I might add, than them waiting a couple of days, interviewing their players individually and taking a calm but informed course of action. It is an incredibly serious accusation to have made with very little evidence, and as you say, probably misheard or misunderstood.

Instead on the night they say both Mata and Mikel were racially abused, then within 24 hours and their lawyers getting involved they retract the Mata accusation because even the bloody player himself didn't hear anything!?

Come on, it's not been handled well has it!?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Oh, give over.

The referees indulge in the vernacular on the pitch every bit as much as the players, and most give as good as they get. They're not all stiff-arsed headmasters and policemen, looking down on players as unruly schoolchildren.

I'm not sure they do, to be honest. They don't have to be David Elleray, all pompous & stiff upper lip, to be reasonably civil & earn the respect of the players. Just because the players hurl every abusive word under the sun at them doesn't mean they use it back, in the same way that a police officer might *think* you're a total dick when he deals with you while you're drunk & abusive, but he wouldn't necessarily say it.

It's about responding to players in a language they understand, without undermining your own credibility as an official by doing the very thing (swearing) that you're handing our cards to them for.

 

[The Large One]

I'm not sure they do, to be honest. They don't have to be David Elleray, all pompous & stiff upper lip, to be reasonably civil & earn the respect of the players. Just because the players hurl every abusive word under the sun at them doesn't mean they use it back, in the same way that a police officer might *think* you're a total dick when he deals with you while you're drunk & abusive, but he wouldn't necessarily say it.

It's about responding to players in a language they understand, without undermining your own credibility as an official by doing the very thing (swearing) that you're handing our cards to them for.

Well, yes - it's not the tone I was referring to, more the quantity or even quality of riposte.

Mine was a comment in response to 'I don't give a monkey's...' being disrespectful. If a player is grizzling about a lack of respect from the fact that a referee isn't concerned with their opinion, that's their problem. In fact, who would give a monkey's about that?

 

[El Presidente]

I dont think chelsea have called it wrong at all, i suspect that ramires and mikel misheard or didnt understand clattenburg

It is easy with a Geordie, I once met a young lady from there who, after a couple of cheeky Vimto's, asked me to "tickle ma noo-noo then give me a bonnie plating", and I thought she was talking about her favourite TeleTubby........

 

[Brovion]

As has been mentioned Clattenburg MAY have said "I don't give a monkeys", which we all know to be a British slang expression meaning that you don't care. Interestingly Bruce Buck, the Chelsea chairman, claims never to have heard of the expression and says he doesn't know what it means.

 

[Common as Mook]

Surprised you're getting involved then if the 2 previous incidents didn't interest you? I would have thought anyone commenting on the 2 previous cases through consistency would be also commentating on this case? Why do you believe this is a club thing? Even Bushy a Chelsea fan is in agreement that Chelsea have probably called it wrong. Not sure what your point is?

I'm getting involved because it's hilarious watching you and others so brazenly contradict yoursleves because you happen not to like the club involved. All your "probablys" are genuinely funny to read.

I dislike Chelsea as much as the next man and I'm pleased there was due process in punishing Suarez and Terry but I'm also intelligent enough to divorce my like/dislike of clubs from the matter at hand.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

The SBL need to calm down, the have got on a bandwagon and are now targeting everyone, they will claim Brighton are being racist for having a white Seagull soon enough.

As for Chelsea this isnt the first time they have done this, nor backed down after having no proof, they should be punished properly and not given the slap on the wrist they normally get.

 

[RNSeagull]

Really the whole matter has been mishandled by both the club and the FA - it's got nothing to do with it being Chelsea, i thought Liverpool were wrong to defend Suarez. The idea that its alright where he comes from was mitigation not a defence in itself.
As for Terry again he admitted using racist language - with the defence that he was repeating back a slur should have been taken in mitigation rather than as a reason for using racially unacceptable language (the fact that his defence IMHO was laughable, isnt really the point.)

The whole mattered should have been handled internally by Chelsea - considering how potentially explosive the matter is and the current uproar over racism in football. They should have made sure that the players involved were willing to give evidence (Mata appears not to have even been asked) prior to making the allegations public.
Of course once the allegations are made the FA must investigate using a Fair, Just, transparant process.

As for the criminal allegations, the society for black lawyers appear to be using football as a bandwagon to push their own political agendas. I dont believe that football is any different from any other element of society, Everyone is a little bit racist, because thats human nature - we're programmed to be suspicious of anyone who doesnt look like us or fit into our social group. The difference is when you use that to predjudice your dealings with someone solely on that basis. I dont believe it does football as a whole or professional footballers any good to suggest splinter groups (Ie a black PFA.) As a whole the only way to get rid of racism from society and sport is to stand together.
It strikes me that Peter Herbert is more trying to publish his own views on launching a American style Civil rights movement in the UK using involvement in sport and frivilous police charges to get media headlines. It appears spurs fans are the latest on his hitlist

Peter Herbert is getting it wrong with Spurs warning over 'Y word' | Mail Online

with regards to Clattenburg's " I dont give a monkeys" I meant more that it depends on the tone and who your talking too. It comes across completely different if said to someone who you know and work with regularly compared to a complete stranger. If he does swear and behave agressively then maybe its something that the clubs should have complained about formally before this. However maybe that sort of attitude is sometimes needed to referee at the highest level? Pierluiga Collina seemd to get respect not just because he was a good ref, but with that shaven head and eyes he looked like he'd send you off then see you in the car park after to sort you out if you dared answer back! That wouldn seem to be agressive behaviour but it also worked for him.

and in answer to the original question - No, I doubt anyone will ever know exactly what was allegedly said and by whom.

 

[User removed 4]

It is easy with a Geordie, I once met a young lady from there who, after a couple of cheeky Vimto's, asked me to "tickle ma noo-noo then give me a bonnie plating", and I thought she was talking about her favourite TeleTubby........

my ex sister and brother in law met at a noisy party, he is from castlemilk in glasgow , she is from chelmsford, he was sat down and she said " are you comfy ?" he genuinely thought she said "where d'you come fae ?". Wheteher he tickled her noo noo that night i dont know.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I'm getting involved because it's hilarious watching you and others so brazenly contradict yoursleves because you happen not to like the club involved. All your "probablys" are genuinely funny to read.

I dislike Chelsea as much as the next man and I'm pleased there was due process in punishing Suarez and Terry but I'm also intelligent enough to divorce my like/dislike of clubs from the matter at hand.

It's in the papers everyday, updated on the online media almost twice a day. It's pretty hard to ignore. Even you've been drawn into this thread, and I think I've probably made not 5 comments on the whole saga in total, including this one!

 

[Brovion]

my ex sister and brother in law met at a noisy party, he is from castlemilk in glasgow , she is from chelmsford, he was sat down and she said " are you comfy ?" he genuinely thought she said "where d'you come fae ?". Wheteher he tickled her noo noo that night i dont know.

It's like that old Scottish joke isn't it? What's the difference between Bing Crosby and Walt Disney? Bing sings and Walt dis nae.

Sorry, carry on ...

 

[Albumen]

]The difference being, everyone saw both Suarez and Terry say the insults on numerous video's and TV repeats[/B] - and you didn't need to be professional lip-readers either! The evidence in both those cases wasn't really refuted, Suarez claimed a cultural difference, Terry admitted saying it but in a supposed different context.

What is different with this incident is everyone is all too aware that Chelsea were on the end of a couple of bad decisions, lost the game, and effectively lost the plot. 3 other mic'd officials didn't hear anything, it turns out it's probably only 1 or at best 2 players say they supposedly heard Clattenburg say something, and none of the camera's etc. can even work out at what point this was even supposed to have happened.

I doubt the investigation is still on going in reality, I suspect what is happening now is the FA working out what they are going to do with Chelsea. They have made a serious public allegation about the integrity of a match official, stormed the officials room after the game, all with seemingly no evidence whatsoever. They should have slept on it, allowed the emotions of the game to die down, and written to the FA explaining what they thought they 'might' have heard, not made a direct accusation. Instead it's announced publicly in the heat of the moment, one accusation has already been retracted and judging from Bruce Bucks statement yesterday, they already know they are in the shit over this one.

Perhaps you yourself are blinded, afterall, I seem to recall you do actually hate one particular club, so if the shoe fits....

Erm, there is no video/audio evidence at all against Suarez. It was simple Evra (and then Fergusons) words vs Suarez after he openly admitted he used the word (not 9 times) which is common in south america. Evra changed his story too. There's even a photo of the argentinian team with a massive banner saying 'get well' then the word for one of their black friends. Suarez should have known not to use it but hes a footballer so the brains arent all there. The FA handled it awfully, then the Terry case was unbelievably lenient in comparison, but which has lead to Chelsea being, in my opinion, utter ***** to Clattenberg. I don't think they did enough to make sure of the facts before going public with it.

 

[beorhthelm]

The referees indulge in the vernacular on the pitch every bit as much as the players, and most give as good as they get.

maybe they do, but then they (collectivly) shouldnt moan on about players lack of respect shown. we have talk about the Rugby player/ref held as a model, they certainly dont swear at the players. its a bit of a seperate issue anywho.

Ah yes - the John Terry defence. The only difference here is that JT carried on playing for the next few months but the ref (who earns massively less than the player) has been stood down.

and i dont believe Clattenberg should have been suspended, though there would have been a massive furore if they hadn't. i just find it funny how when it was Terry no wanted to give the benefit of the doubt (innocent and until proven guilty etc) but with Clattenburg they do. i'm really playing devils advocate here and drawing the expected responce.

 

[Common as Mook]

The SBL need to calm down, the have got on a bandwagon and are now targeting everyone, they will claim Brighton are being racist for having a white Seagull soon enough.

As for Chelsea this isnt the first time they have done this, nor backed down after having no proof, they should be punished properly and not given the slap on the wrist they normally get.

It's fair enough that you think this, but it's a prime example of what I'm talking about. It's impossible to debate this reasonably without hyberbole like this from Spurs or other fans

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

It's fair enough that you think this, but it's a prime example of what I'm talking about. It's impossible to debate this reasonably without hyberbole like this from Spurs or other fans

you are more than likely correct.