|
|
Post by amberaleman on Nov 15, 2012 23:05:44 GMT
I don't often rush to defend the FA. Nor would I normally dream of having a go at at the Chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers. But I do think Peter Herbert has made, well, a bit of a herbert of himself with his comments on the Clattenburg affair. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20321225To claim that the FA is insitutionally racist, and that incidents of alleged racism on the pitch should routinely be referred to the police, rather suggests that Mr Herbert doesn't know much about football or have much understanding of the criminal justice system. Disgusting though racist abuse is, the police do probably have better things to do with their time than investigate allegations that will often boil down to one person's word against another with a noteworthy shortage of impartial witnesses. The FA has its own set of laws and disciplinary codes that apply during matches and, except in the most extreme cases, there should be no need for the police to become involved. That the FA abhor racism has been illustrated on numerous occasions, including the robust complaint to UEFA about abuse of black players during the recent U21 match in Serbia. Luis Suarez and John Terry were banned for eight and four games respectively after being found - only on the balance of probablilty - to have made racist comments on the field of play. Were these punishments derisory, as Herbert claims? A player sent off for serious foul play will generally serve a three match suspension, a lighter punishment than either Suarez or Terry received. Yet serious foul play can result in an opponent being badly injured, and, in the worst cases, may end that player's career. Racist abuse is deplorable but it's hardly going to put anybody in hospital. The Terry case shows up the idiocy of invoking the sloth-like criminal justice system for this type of public order offence. Acquitted in court - because the crime couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt - he was subsequently investigated and found guilty by the FA, nearly a year after the incident took place. Surely it would have been better to have just left the matter to the FA in the first place. As for Clattenburg, is it plausible that an experienced referee, in a highly charged Premier League match being broadcast live on TV, would have been stupid enough to make a racist remark to one of the players? It's no surprise that the police dropped that one. By saying that the FA should have been the ones to bring in the Old Bill, Herbert reveals a very flimsy grasp of reality. |
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Nov 16, 2012 15:46:15 GMT
I disagree. Using racial language against someone can be construed as a criminal offence, and as such necessitates police action. The FA may have its own set of disciplinary codes but they are not above, or exempt from criminal law - and as for saying the leader of the black society for lawyers or wherever he's from doesn't have a grasp of the criminal justice system, well, really?
Put it this way. Say I have a disagreement with a black customer at work (let's assume I'm white in this scenario, and also because I am) and shout what Suarez shouted 8 times towards my black ccustomer. If my employers decided to do nothing but support me, until the shopping centre where my employer is based wades and suspends me for a while, still with pay, and then I'm back in the shop (or wherever) after a cooling off period would you call that legitimate justice? I wouldn't. I'm sure the black person and his family would want that employee removed from their position. Suarez is still free to earn, Liverpool fans still celebrate his goals, Suarez is still an employee and paid handsomely by Liverpool FC with the blessings of the FA.
The FA doesn't abhor racism. It doesn't give a monkeys. It just shuffles towards the issue limply as it does every other issue its faced over the past however long. Never assume every case 'is one word against another' - you may just have a credible witness, a television recording etc.
I've got a feeling the reason the Clattenberg thing has been dropped quickly as because he didn't actually say anything and this is some sort of Chelsea style politicking to cause a crisis in precedent among the governing bodies for what happened to Terry. Wouldn't surprise me, how can Clattenberg be racist towards Juana Mata? They both look like they could've come from the same family.
So yeah, if what it takes is every time a racist comment is made a report to the Police report goes in perhaps there'd be a culture of fear among racists not to so blithely throw around bigoted insults. It won't solve the problem, they'll still be racists. The Police don't have anything better to do with their time, it's a racist remark, illegal and if there is a complaint from an injured party they're paid a decent wage to investigate it. Leave the search for credible witnesses and evidence up to them.
Long term problem solving? Discourage racists from following the game, make them pariahs, have the FA bring anti racism charities under a funding umbrella (such as the excellent North East based show racism the red card) and educate the next generation of football fans/players. You don't get it in rugby, you don't get it in cricket so nobody should expect it in football.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sultan of Cannock- SRFC on Nov 19, 2012 12:24:59 GMT
Suarez is still free to earn, Liverpool fans still celebrate his goals, Suarez is still an employee and paid handsomely by Liverpool FC with the blessings of the FA. And John Terry for that matter! That's where the playing field is not level for Mark Clattenburg. If he's found guilty, he's finished. how can Clattenberg(sic) be racist towards Juana Mata? They both look like they could've come from the same family. Careful. It would, indeed, look incongruous for Clattenburg to show colour prejudice to Juan Mata, but colour prejudice is only one aspect of racism. It's possible to be racist against others of the same colour if they are from / descended from people who are from a different country. It is also possible to be racist against people of one's own race who associate with/intermarry with people of another race that one happens to dislike as to the racist mind, such people are traitors to their own race and as traitors forfeit the right to be "one of us". I've got a feeling the reason the Clattenberg thing has been dropped quickly as because he didn't actually say anything and this is some sort of Chelsea style politicking to cause a crisis in precedent among the governing bodies for what happened to Terry. Wouldn't surprise me, I think that this is thingy-up rather than conspiracy, that Chelsea have hit out emotionally and publically without really thinking it through properly. They certainly left themselves open to ridicule by The Now Show last week ( "You can't just go round making accusations against people... unless they're a referee and you're a football club that's just lost a game") However, if it does prove to be malicious then Chelsea should be expelled from the Premier League. Using racial language against someone can be construed as a criminal offence, and as such necessitates police action. There was some hoo-ha a while ago about racist words or deeds having been perpetrated if that was the perception of the plaintiff. Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times likes to bang on about the case of a man arrested by Central Scotland police for allegedly "revving his car engine in a racist manner". This is where the likes of Mr Herbert come in. There's a potentially rich seam for the silks to mine here.  The way he's intervened over Spurs' Jewish fanbase dubbing themselves "The Yid Army" just plants a seed of doubt in my mind as to whether or not Mr Herbert is a bit of a self-publicist or just trying to promote his association. I wonder if he's ever watched an episode of Boondocks and what he makes of it? Incidently, a while ago i heard on Radio 5Live a programme where fans were asked to phone in with their funny chants. A Reading fan called in about a South Korean player they'd had about whom they'd sung "He shoots! He scores! He'll eat your labradors!" and it was broadcast as a bit of fun. Surely a vile, racist, slur against a guy from the Far East?  Look at the tweeter who dubbed Ashley Cole a "choc ice" because he stuck up for his white buddy rather than automatically side with people of his own colour. Is that person a racist or not? Don't recall hearing Mr Herbert's thoughts on that one. There's so many nuances and grey areas it's unreal. The FA doesn't abhor racism. It doesn't give a monkeys. Careful! A clever lawyer like Mr Herbert may just detect a whiff of racism in that remark. Well gor blimey gavnah, knock me dahn wivva fevva!  |
|
|
|
Post by Col ISIHAC. on Dec 5, 2012 22:07:28 GMT
Yon Mr C was found not to have a case to answer - this should be remembered and I don't see any retraction or lessening in stance fromMr Herbert? Who - and this CAN be stated; works on behalf of an organisation with a racial bias. Oh yes and begorrah he does; the clue is in the name. Now; that's not a racial slur just a statement of fact.
Wonder how he would approach a prosecution where the plaintiff was bringing a case based upon what a mate THOUGHT he heard someone else say in among thousands of generally raucous people one afternoon...Certainly raised his profile though didn't it.
The one single positive is that refs will now be wired properly for sound. Not as publicly as the egg chasing variety of both codes; and wow does that assist in the explanation of decisions... but footy refs will be recorded. Shame that the players aren't - anyone who has reffed at any level will know the level of verbal abuse meted out on any given Saturday to Mr Badger. ;-)
And while we ponder this and other recent pondersomes; Spurs. Did I read that someone somewhere wanted to ban Spurs fans from labelling themselves Yids? When for decades this has been their monicker! Oi! What is football coming to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sultan of Cannock- SRFC on Dec 7, 2012 21:27:25 GMT
The one single positive is that refs will now be wired properly for sound. Not as publicly as the egg chasing variety of both codes; and wow does that assist in the explanation of decisions... but footy refs will be recorded. It was once mooted- probably one of Blatter's daft ideas like making women's teams wear beach volleyball kit  - that footie refs should explain their decisions to the crowd as NFL and CFL refs across the pond. Couldn't see that one working! The Rugby Football League actually trialled it about 30 years back and i happened to be at the particular match, a Fulham game played at Chiswick. Unfortunately, the ref's mic was able to pick up the fans reactions and relayed those around the ground, too. The RFL quietly dropped the idea, probably for fear of multiple prosecutions under the broadcasting act.  Again, back in the 1980's, when Channel 4 covered the NFL, they decided to show us what the ref could see when he relayed his decisions to the crowd. As he told them them that he was giving a 15 yard penalty against their team, San Francisco 49ers fans leapt to their feet, pointing at him and and chanting BULLSH*T! BULLS*T! Mr Zebra over there has it just as hard as Mr Badger over here. |
|
The way he's intervened over Spurs' Jewish fanbase dubbing themselves "The Yid Army" just plants a seed of doubt in my mind as to whether or not Mr Herbert is a bit of a self-publicist or just trying to promote his association. I wonder if he's ever watched an episode of Boondocks and what he makes of it? 
Look at the tweeter who dubbed Ashley Cole a "choc ice" because he stuck up for his white buddy rather than automatically side with people of his own colour. Is that person a racist or not? Don't recall hearing Mr Herbert's thoughts on that one. There's so many nuances and grey areas it's unreal.
- that footie refs should explain their decisions to the crowd as NFL and CFL refs across the pond. Couldn't see that one working! 