cp40 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 disgrace- wasting police time , they could have been catching radical Muslims and hoying them out the country. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveItIfWeBeatU Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20315169 How a leading human rights lawyer put football under the spotlight By Dan Roan BBC sports news correspondent Who'd be your footballing Newcomer of the Season? Who has sprung from relative obscurity to outright celebrity? No doubt the likes of Michu, Santi Cazorla, Kevin Mirallas and Raheem Sterling would all receive plenty of votes. But surely none has had a greater, more sudden impact on the current footballing landscape, nor inspired as many column inches, than a certain Peter Herbert. It's hard to believe that just a month ago very few in the sport had even heard of The Society for Black Lawyers. Now the organisation and its chairman are front and centre of the game's discourse. But in Herbert's case, of course, it would be wrong to mistake prominence with popularity. In recent days, he's been described as a sensationalist member of the thought-police. Condemned as a politically-correct, naive, agenda-chasing, publicity-seeking, bandwagon-jumping, johnny-come-lately with no knowledge of the sport he criticises. Herbert caused a stir when, last month, in the wake of John Terry being banned for just four matches after he was found guilty of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand, he revealed his role in talks over a separatist Black Footballers' Association. For many, this marked Herbert out as a divisive figure, encouraging a dangerous 'us and them' mentality. But it was two subsequent episodes that really ensured Herbert would come under fire. First, he reported Mark Clattenburg to the police over Chelsea's allegations the referee used a racist term towards Jon Obi Mikel. And then he described Spurs fans as 'casual racists' over their use of the 'Y-word', giving them two weeks to cease the chants before referring the matter, once again, to the police. It's unlikely that Herbert is too bothered by all the criticism he's received as a result. This is, after all, one of the leading human rights lawyers of his generation, one of a very small number of black judges, a veteran of 30 years' worth of campaigning against institutional racism, and for greater racial equality in the criminal justice system. This is a man who's taken on opponents that make the footballing establishment look positively tame in comparison. The son of a white mother and African father, Herbert was brought up in the Northumberland mining town of Ashington, home of the Charlton brothers. The only mixed-race child at his school, the teenage Herbert was the victim of merciless verbal and physical racial abuse, an ordeal that helps to explain his subsequent determination to speak out against discrimination at every opportunity. Described as "exceptionally driven and robust" by one person who has worked with him, Herbert went on to become an internationally-renowned defence barrister, working on some of the most high-profile murder and terrorist cases of recent decades, representing one of the social work managers in the Victoria Climbie Inquiry, and appointed Lead Counsel by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Having made submissions to several Judicial Inquiries, namely the Home Affairs Select Committee on Racial Attacks in 1992 and the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry in 1998, Herbert was also a recipient of the American Bar Association's Human Rights Award. But while Herbert may be exceptionally well qualified to talk about issues of race, many feel he's gone about it in entirely the wrong way. Herbert's tendency to say what he thinks has got him into trouble before. In 2004 the Bar Council's disciplinary committee found him guilty of breaching its Code of Conduct which bans barristers from voicing personal opinions to the media in cases they're currently acting, a decision he called a "travesty of justice" by a "kangaroo court". Herbert was reprimanded and advised as to future conduct. But could it be that the outspoken Herbert is in fact exactly what the game needs to shake it out of any complacency it may still have towards discrimination? Some I've spoken to in football's anti-racism movement say they agree with almost all of what Herbert says. The SBL's 10-point plan demanding football's authorities get much tougher on racism certainly strikes a chord with most people after Terry's four-match suspension, and the drawn-out process to get there. The boycott of Kick It Out's Week of Action recently by senior black players told you all you needed to know about the frustration many feel towards the FA and PFA. While the Terry and Suarez cases provided the spark, much of their resentment lay in the sport's continuing inability to address under-representation of ethnic minorities in dugouts and boardrooms. Some black players feel that KIO, with its shoestring budget, obvious inability to criticise the very organisations that co-fund it, and without a strong voice since the departure of former director Piara Powar, is failing to engage with them, and to speak out enough on behalf of them or their communities. Black players complain that they rarely see or hear from KIO's staff. Herbert appeared therefore to have timed his arrival on the scene perfectly. And yet, despite their frustrations, which players have actually come out and publicly backed Herbert and his concept of a Black Players' Association? Not one. Herbert's problem is that football isn't the Metropolitan Police or the Judiciary. It doesn't respond to his version of shock and awe. It's inherently conservative, fiercely independent, and doesn't take kindly to outsiders telling it what to do. But while Herbert's efforts to forge an organisation to represent black players may fail, there's little doubt he's made the game stop and ask itself: why there are so many black players, but so few black managers or directors; why the notion of reporting an allegation of racist abuse to the police without witnessing it yourself is, according to some, so outlandish, even when the landmark MacPherson Report enshrines the right of people to do exactly that; why so many think it so wrong for Chelsea to complain to the FA once one of their players has come to them with an allegation of racial abuse (does the fact that it involves a referee mean it should just be swept under the carpet?); why the mere concept of a body that would speak on behalf of a group of players that feel under-represented is regarded with such horror; why asking fans to cease chanting a term that many Jews find highly offensive is seen as unnecessary interference; why those in the grassroots of the game who complain to their County FAs about cases of racist abuse find themselves waiting months before anything happens; why, unlike the rest of society, those accused of racial abuse aren't suspended pending the outcome of their respective investigations. Tough questions, but ones which deserve answers. Herbert may not be an ex-footballer. He may not have as much credibility or recognition among the fans as Garth Crooks or Paul Elliott. Indeed, he freely admits he's only been to four matches in his entire life. But he speaks at a time when the government wants to see football do a lot more when it comes to the thorny issue of racism. Think fooball has done enough to combat the problem? Think Herbert's opinions are an irrelevance now the dark days of terrace abuse have thankfully faded? Ask Anton Ferdinand what he thinks. Or Marvin Sordell. Or Danny Rose. Or the youngsters who play for Leicester Nirvana. They claim they were racially abused and subject to monkey noises during a recent under-15 fixture. Herbert and the SBL have taken up their case for free, and the Leicestershire Police are investigating. Those who run, play and follow football have every right to disagree with the views of Herbert. But they'd be wise not to ignore him. The battle to rid the game of discrimination and racism is far from won. Society of Black Lawyers' action plan for football • a minimum six to nine-month ban for racial abuse, rising to a five-year ban for a third offence • any fines going directly to Kick It Out to fund grassroots anti-racism initiatives • the creation of representative associations for black players, managers and coaches • guidance for referees to send off players using racist abuse and the power to call off games where the crowd is using such abuse • a 20% quota at all levels of the FA, PFA, clubs as well as football agents and referees • racial abuse to be a matter of gross misconduct incorporated into players' contracts • clubs to invest in the personal education of all players, including university or college education • recording referees and assistants during matches to pick up any possible abuse by players • a system for reporting racial incidents to be set up with details of such incidents, both on and off the pitch, published each year Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chubby Jason Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I just turned off SSN because they promised they would be right back to bring me the reaction of the Society for Black Lawyers to the Clattenberg bollocks. Enough is enough with these attention seeking wankers please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyPalAl Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I hope Clattenburg gets a good reception at his next match. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuneaton Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I hope Clattenburg gets a good reception at his next match. hopefully not at stamford bridge! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Luque Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Decent looking action plan from the Society of Black Lawyers, but not a fan of quotas in general... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorJ_01 Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Chelsea should be punished for this shit. Shameful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Mark Clattenburg: Chelsea & FA accused of cover-up Chelsea and the Football Association have been accused of a "cover-up" for not referring alleged comments by referee Mark Clattenburg to the police. The Metropolitan Police has dropped its investigation into a complaint that Clattenburg used "inappropriate language" towards two Chelsea players. The complaint was made to the police by the Society of Black Lawyers. "It sounds remarkably like a football cover-up," the society's chairman Peter Herbert told BBC Radio 5 live. Clattenburg timeline 13 Nov: Police drop Clattenburg inquiry 13 Nov: Clattenburg claim takes game into uncharted territory 12 Nov: Clattenburg to miss third week 5 Nov: Clattenburg misses second weekend 2 Nov: Clattenburg row 'taking too long' 31 Oct: Chelsea lodge Clattenburg protest 31 Oct: Ref dialogue 'should be audible' 29 Oct: Chelsea make Clattenburg claim 29 Oct: Ref Clattenburg 'is not a racist' 29 Oct: Assistants 'key' for Clattenburg 28 Oct: Officials ruined game - Di Matteo 28 Oct: Chelsea 2-3 Man Utd "It sounds remarkably like the football industry wanted to have this issue swept under the carpet." Chelsea made a formal complaint against Clattenburg on 29 October following their 3-2 home defeat by Manchester United. A day later the FA opened an investigation into the allegation, part of which was that Clattenburg used racial language. Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police began its own probe based on a written complaint by Herbert - not Chelsea or the FA. It is understood Chelsea did not give evidence to the police because they felt the FA was the appropriate body to deal with the matter. On Tuesday, the police investigation was discontinued because "no victims have come forward" and "without a victim and/or any evidence that any offence has been committed, the matter cannot currently be investigated". The FA confirmed its investigation would proceed, but Herbert is furious that neither the governing body nor Chelsea have taken the matter to the police. "We strongly suspect that the FA and/or Chelsea have failed to provide this information to the Metropolitan Police in order for them to conduct a proper investigation," he said. ho is Peter Herbert? Dan Roan BBC sports news correspondent "It's hard to believe that just a month ago very few in the sport had even heard of The Society for Black Lawyers. Now the organisation and its chairman are front and centre of the game's discourse." "The information we had is that there are 'no victims'. Well, if there are no victims, what on earth has been referred to the FA in the first place? "What on earth are the FA and Chelsea playing at then? Are they having some cosy exchange of statements between themselves and not giving it to the police? "We're going to ask the borough commander for an explanation. Was there any co-operation? Was any evidence given? If none was given by the FA or Chelsea we want to raise that issue with the Minister of Sport." Herbert is particularly critical of the FA's decision not to involve the police once Chelsea made their complaint. "If the Metropolitan Police are not provided with statements what are they supposed to do?" he added. "If a football club has registered a complaint with the FA, we would expect the FA to refer this matter to the Metropolitan Police. "The FA does not have the tools to investigate race-hate crime. We think that until the FA gets its house in order complaints like this should be investigated by the police. "It really does beggar belief that the primary football authorities in the country do not understand the seriousness of hate crime." I'm off to report Peter Herbert for sexual harrassment, there's no evidence but that's never stopped him. I'll then accuse him of a cover up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Decent looking action plan from the Society of Black Lawyers, but not a fan of quotas in general... I'm of the same opinion. Shame Herbert has gone off the deep end over this Clattenburg shite. Accusing Chelsea of being part of an institutional cover up is borderline mental. They wouldn't have made the initial complaint if that was the case Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 What a spectacular tosser this Herbert feller is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I do think Chelsea are afraid to report Clattenberg for fear of a backlash from other refs. This is definitely a factor in their decision making process. The previous article made a lot of sense, imo. There might not be evidence of overt racism in the game but covertly it probably still exists. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The point about refs being recorded is also excellent. We see it in other sports. This would clear up a lot of issues and I think would help solve a lot of the abuse that players give to refs because the world would hear it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The point about refs being recorded is also excellent. We see it in other sports. This would clear up a lot of issues and I think would help solve a lot of the abuse that players give to refs because the world would hear it. Pretty much why they won't do it. Remember what happened last time Rooney got too close to a mic on the pitch? You'd have players Fing and blinding on TV at 2pm on a Sunday, you'd have awkward questions about why big team's players weren't getting booked and sent off and I think footballers are too thick and entitled to learn to speak to the ref like rugby players even after repeated punishment. Plus a load of ex-pros will write op eds about how it's a man's sport and swearing is part of the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 That Herbert is such an arsehole. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 On Tuesday, the police investigation was discontinued because "no victims have come forward" and "without a victim and/or any evidence that any offence has been committed, the matter cannot currently be investigated". I hope someone receives a bill for the cost of police time wasted on this farce. Oh wait, we already did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 What a spectacular tosser this Herbert feller is. That Herbert is such an arsehole. He's done some brilliant work in his career, but he's blatantly latching onto the couple of recent incidents in football to further his own agenda. Pretty poor really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The point about refs being recorded is also excellent. We see it in other sports. This would clear up a lot of issues and I think would help solve a lot of the abuse that players give to refs because the world would hear it. Pretty much why they won't do it. Remember what happened last time Rooney got too close to a mic on the pitch? You'd have players Fing and blinding on TV at 2pm on a Sunday, you'd have awkward questions about why big team's players weren't getting booked and sent off and I think footballers are too thick and entitled to learn to speak to the ref like rugby players even after repeated punishment. Plus a load of ex-pros will write op eds about how it's a man's sport and swearing is part of the game. It was horrific when they last tried it (early 90s, wasn't it?) - the abuse was extraordinary. TBH, I'd be happy for them to try it again. You don't need to broadcast it live at first, but eventually it could become like rugby. We're talking about grown men here, they should be able to rein themselves in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The point about refs being recorded is also excellent. We see it in other sports. This would clear up a lot of issues and I think would help solve a lot of the abuse that players give to refs because the world would hear it. Pretty much why they won't do it. Remember what happened last time Rooney got too close to a mic on the pitch? You'd have players Fing and blinding on TV at 2pm on a Sunday, you'd have awkward questions about why big team's players weren't getting booked and sent off and I think footballers are too thick and entitled to learn to speak to the ref like rugby players even after repeated punishment. Plus a load of ex-pros will write op eds about how it's a man's sport and swearing is part of the game. It was horrific when they last tried it (early 90s, wasn't it?) - the abuse was extraordinary. TBH, I'd be happy for them to try it again. You don't need to broadcast it live at first, but eventually it could become like rugby. We're talking about grown men here, they should be able to rein themselves in. No, we're talking about footballers. You know, those thick, pampered twats who think the sun shines out of their collective behind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 bit media hungry this Herbert fella Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Swearing is part of the game to be fair. However, when talking to referees it should be stamped out. I'm sure rugby players swear just not when talking to the referee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 David Bond @DavidBondBBC FA has decided NOT to bring disciplinary charges against Mark Clattenburg following allegations of inappropriate language made by Chelsea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 David Bond @DavidBondBBC FA has decided NOT to bring disciplinary charges against Mark Clattenburg following allegations of inappropriate language made by Chelsea. Now it's time to bring charges against Chelsea for bring the game and an official into disrepute. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 related Chelsea’s John Obi Mikel has been charged by The FA for an alleged breach of FA Rule E3 in relation to his side’s game against Manchester United on 28 October 2012. It is alleged that in or around the Match Officials’ changing room at the end of the fixture, Mikel used threatening and/or abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour. The player has until Friday 30 November 2012 to respond to the charge. http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2012/nov/john-obi-mikel-charged.aspx Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 David Bond @DavidBondBBC FA has decided NOT to bring disciplinary charges against Mark Clattenburg following allegations of inappropriate language made by Chelsea. Now it's time to bring charges against Chelsea for bring the game and an official into disrepute. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameritoon Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I wasn't quick to criticize Chelsea, but man what a bunch of cunts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now