Chelsea Lodge Complaint Against Mark Clattenberg

mike65

In an ideal he would sue the Society of Black Lawyers but, wisely I expect, he wont.

J. Marston

mike65 wrote: »

In an ideal he would sue the Society of Black Lawyers but, wisely I expect, he wont.

What could he sue the black justice league for? Defamation or something like that?

pistolpetes11

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/13/chelsea-not-hypocrites-mark-clattenburg?CMP=twt_gu

Mr.Crinklewood

amiable wrote: »

Sky are saying the police are no longer investigating

Are they investigating the leg breaking threats?

Red Crow

Why isn't this Peter Herbert guy from the Society of Black Lawyers investigated for thinking people actually give two fcuks about what he or his 2nd Century club has to say? :pac:

Hasn't he not wasted police time with his complaint which has turned out to be unture?

vicwatson

The MET Police drop the investigation into Mark Clattenberg due to lack of evidence

http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/179158.html

Will I Amnt

the_monkey wrote: »

The Racist Clattenburg gets away with it, JT says nothing and the book gets thrown at him.


Ashley Cole does nothing and the book gets thrown at him ---- the anti Chelsea media scum continue their dirty work..

That's funny because I don't remember JT or Ashley Cole being convicted of anything in a court of law.
Why not wait and see what the FA do first and find out what he was supposed to have said before you call him a racist.

CSF

the_monkey wrote: »

The Racist Clattenburg gets away with it, JT says nothing and the book gets thrown at him.


Ashley Cole does nothing and the book gets thrown at him ---- the anti Chelsea media scum continue their dirty work..

:D:D:D

kitakyushu

Eli Manning wrote: »

Why isn't this Peter Herbert guy from the Society of Black Lawyers investigated for thinking people actually give two fcuks about what he or his 2nd Century club has to say? :pac:

Hasn't he not wasted police time with his complaint which has turned out to be unture?

"Needless to say, I had the last laugh".

Beefy78

" 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. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20321225

I really wish these guys would just STFU.

Your Airbag

Beefy78 wrote: »

" 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. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20321225

I really wish these guys would just STFU.

These guys are looking like a pack of clowns. They made the complaint to the police on a matter they have no evidence on, access to or general involvement in on a official basis.

So Chelsea FC themselves didn't want it to go to the Police but the SOBL did. They complain and according to the MET not one person related to the incident came forth with evidence or a further complaint. The MET rightly drop it and the SOBL call it a cover-up. A cover up? You've got to be kidding. They of all people should know you can't charge someone with something when nobody complains or produces evidence yet they still call it a cover up. They should hire Jim Corr to do their PR.

This doesn't prove anything about Clattenburg or his innocence or guilt either. The FA will talk to the players and officials and look at the videos of the match. He still might have said something.

iregk

Beefy78 wrote: »

" 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. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20321225

I really wish these guys would just STFU.

The SOBL! You couldn't make this $hit up could you? It's like something out of a Dave Chapelle sketch, up there with Clayton Bigsby.

amiable

Chair of the Society of Black Lawyers, Peter Herbert, tells BBC 5Live he believes The FA is "institutionally racist''

Your Airbag

Originally Posted by Beefy78
" 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.

iregk wrote: »

The SOBL! You couldn't make this $hit up could you? It's like something out of a Dave Chapelle sketch, up there with Clayton Bigsby.

So the SOBL are accusing Chelsea of a cover up by not referring alleged comments by referee Mark Clattenburgs to the police? So they are essentially accusing Chelsea of covering on Clattenburg behalf even though Chelsea reported him to the FA? :pac:

I mean WTF? literally WTF? They must be the dumbest bunch of lawyers on the planet.

Beefy78

They're seeking to put themselves forward as the authority on this issue. They may be many things but "dumb" is not one of them.

Your Airbag

Beefy78 wrote: »

They're seeking to put themselves forward as the authority on this issue. They may be many things but "dumb" is not one of them.

They are doing a pretty good impression of it with their desperate attention seeking in the press.

greendom

Your Airbag wrote: »

They are doing a pretty good impression of it with their desperate attention seeking in the press.

Representing very wealthy black footballers against the idiocy of the FA, clubs and their fellow players, doesn't sound very dumb to me. Sounds like they may have found a very reach seam to mine.

Your Airbag

greendom wrote: »

Representing very wealthy black footballers against the idiocy of the FA, clubs and their fellow players, doesn't sound very dumb to me. Sounds like they may have found a very reach seam to mine.

What wealthy black footballers are they representing?

The have complained that Chelsea FC are part of a cover up after none of their players or anyone involved in the club helped them with their police complaint, if anything they are now being critical of all players, black included, at CFC because their complaint was ignored by the Club and police. They have complained Tottenham FC a club with a large Jewish following for anti-Semitic chanting.

Black players such as John Barnes have criticised them

“The Society of Black Lawyers should stick to law. “They are lawyers, they should not be getting involved in football, they should be getting involved in legal matters for which [the Clattenburg case] isn’t one.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4644125/John-Barnes-Society-of-Black-Lawyers-should-stick-to-law.html


They are representing no-one but themselves with their media sensationalisim. The only point their interference highlights is the fact that football is self regulated and maybe that should change and its time for an independent governing body to look at disciplinary issues whether it be against player or club but in no way should the SOBL be involved. They are nothing to football and by their very nature are only interested in a small minority of the footballing community.



In the meantime let Chelsea and Spurs deal with their own fans and players.

TheDoc

Pro. F wrote: »

That is not what happened. The FA did not accept Suarez's description of what he had said was a true account. They said they believed that he had said and done things differently from what he had claimed and that they found the true account of what he said to be racist. This changed the whole context of Suarez's use of the word "negro". The FA also didn't just say that Suarez using words like "negro" was automatically racially offensive. They took account of the normal usage in Spanish and in Latin America and they took account of the context of the discussion between himself and Evra.

The hearing found that Suarez's account was inaccurate and that - even though using words like ''negro" could be acceptable in Uruguay and might generally be unacceptable in England - the way Suarez used the words when talking to Evra would be considered racially offensive even in Uruguay.

Never get how people still go on about the Suarez thing, its done, black and white, he was charged.

While granted I doubt hes an ACTUAL racist, and just lost the run of himself. I've had matches with people consistently call me a fat ****, but I doubt they have a burning prejudiced against people bigger then themselves.

Case closed, everyone needs to move on and stop defending the undefendable

TheDoc

Peter Herbert just about made up the mind of every high profile black player in the PL today

"not ..touching...with bargepole..."

amiable

"@neilashton_: Ashley Cole latest name dragged into Clattenburg case. Interviewed Sunday by FA compliance team at the Bridge. More on Mail Online soon."