Ashley Cole 'choc ice' tweet: Police probe racism allegation

[Assasin]

Ashley Cole 'choc ice' tweet: Police probe racism allegations

Ashley Cole said he and Rio Ferdinand were good friends
Continue reading the main story Related Stories

• Is it OK to use the term 'choc ice'? Listen
• Cole defends race charge Terry

A possible racist comment made against Chelsea footballer Ashley Cole is being investigated by Derbyshire Police.
A Twitter user, believed to be from Derbyshire, referred to Mr Cole as a "choc ice" on the social networking site over the weekend.
Manchester United's Rio Ferdinand then replied: "I hear you fella! Choc ice is classic hahahahahaha!!"
A Derbyshire Police spokeswoman said the force had received complaints "regarding alleged racist comments".
"These concerns will be fully investigated to establish whether any criminal offences have been committed," the spokeswoman added.
Derbyshire Police confirmed the original "choc ice" tweet was being investigated, not Mr Ferdinand's reply.
'Type of slang'
The allegation comes days after Chelsea captain John Terry was cleared of a racially aggravated public order offence at Westminster Magistrates Court.
Mr Terry was accused of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand, Rio's brother, during a game in October 2011.
Mr Cole, 31, told the court that his captain was not racist.
The term "choc ice" is understood to mean "black on the outside, white on the inside".
In a statement, issued through his lawyers, Mr Cole said: "Ashley Cole wishes to make it clear that he and Rio Ferdinand are good friends and Ashley has no intention of making any sort of complaint.
"Ashley appreciates that tweeting is so quick it often results in off-hand and stray comments."
Mr Ferdinand later tweeted: "What I said yesterday is not a racist term. It's a type of slang used by many for someone who is being fake."
A Greater Manchester Police spokeswoman said the force would not be investigating Mr Ferdinand's comments.

[Lazie]

See ... the first story I read quoted Ferdinand as saying, ""I hear you fella! Choc ice is classic hahahahahaha!!"


Sunday morning I logged onto this forum and see a thread asking if Rio should be charged. Upon visiting Newsnow there were articles claiming Rio made racists comments against Cole. Now this article is using the quote I first saw. Really now?

[Assasin]

This seems to be going too far now. Maybe them soon start investigate "Roast Breadfruit" post now. While these slangs can have a racial overtone to it, it is also used in other instances. They are going to investigate the poster but not Rio who agree with it?

Isn't this reaching? Can they convict someone in a court of law for that?

[Paul Marin]

See ... the first story I read quoted Ferdinand as saying, ""I hear you fella! Choc ice is classic hahahahahaha!!"

Sunday morning I logged onto this forum and see a thread asking if Rio should be charged. Upon visiting Newsnow there were articles claiming Rio made racists comments against Cole. Now this article is using the quote I first saw. Really now?

It is pretty clear. Rio DID NOT call Cole "Choc Ice"...however, he thought the comment was funny and used the term in his re-tweet as you posted above. However, that was not the end of it. Rio went on to tweet:

“And if I want to laugh at something someone tweets....I will! Hahahahaha! Now stop getting ya knickers in a twist!”

The problem for Rio (if the FA decides to be consistent) is that this appears to be an endorsement of the original tweet which could be deemed offensive. I personally think that Rio should be charged with bringing disrepute to the game for his abject stupidity.

[Paul Marin]

This seems to be going too far now. Maybe them soon start investigate "Roast Breadfruit" post now. While these slangs can have a racial overtone to it, it is also used in other instances. They are going to investigate the poster but not Rio who agree with it?

Isn't this reaching? Can they convict someone in a court of law for that?

So Sass - where do you draw the line. Earlier you were saying the words themselves should be banned. Now you're saying it's going too far. As I see it, if Rio used the term "choc ice" or "roast breadfruit" to describe anyone outside of football, then it is not an FA affair. If it was used to describe someone inside football, then the FA should deal with it. Again, if you don't have a zero tolerance policy and allow gray edges to exist, you are doooooooomed.

[Gamma]

hmmmmm ... so your zero tolernace policy ... how would that extend to someone like...oh...let's just pick a name out of the air .... SUAREZ?

[Paul Marin]

hmmmmm ... so your zero tolernace policy ... how would that extend to someone like...oh...let's just pick a name out of the air .... SUAREZ?

Nice try. You can't charge someone retrospectively. No "zero tolerance" policy existed for either Suarez, Terry, Rio or Stuart Pearce (MBE mind you) for that matter when they committed their alleged infractions. Had a zero tolerance policy existed from day one, none of the names above would have been part of any controversy...including Rio.

[Assasin]

Can the FA or the police ban the "choc ice". IF the FA deem Choc Ice a racial term then ban him but I know think they do. The fact that police is going to spend money to investigate this is going too far, they can't charge anyone and they can't prove that the blogger used it as a racial term.

If they couldn't charge John Terry how are they going to charge the blogger or Rio? Waste of time.

[Paul Marin]

Can the FA or the police ban the "choc ice". IF the FA deem Choc Ice a racial term then ban him but I know think they do. The fact that police is going to spend money to investigate this is going too far, they can't charge anyone and they can't prove that the blogger used it as a racial term.

If they couldn't charge John Terry how are they going to charge the blogger or Rio? Waste of time.

Sass - the CPS did charge JT, they just didn't find him guilty. However, I don't know enough about the law to know how they can interpret the tweeter's use of the term "choc ice"...and from the FA's point of view, they clearly can't do anything to the blogger.

However, even under today's FA rules, Rio's endorsement of the tweet could draw an FA charge.

[Assasin]

sorry if they couldn't find Terry guilty, what is the use of charging the blogger when all he has to say is, it is he didn't use it as a racial term.

Maybe the FA can charge Rio, but it is a waste of resource for the state to investigate the blog.

[Paul Marin]

sorry if they couldn't find Terry guilty, what is the use of charging the blogger when all he has to say is, it is he didn't use it as a racial term.

Maybe the FA can charge Rio, but it is a waste of resource for the state to investigate the blog.

Okay - so we agree on Rio. However, you can't "pick and choose" when it comes to investigating a police complaint. All have to be investigated. That's just how the system works. When you call 911, they can't say "not going over there to Sass's house - waste of time"...they have to come. Whether there is any "there" there...is a different matter.

You may well be right that it is a waste of time, but the tie to the JT case is not an appropriate linkage and is irrelevant just as two murders in different parts of town may be similar, but have to be looked at on their own merit.

[Gamma]

nice try by YOU, under a zero tolerance model would suarez be guilty or not?

[Gamma]

However, you can't "pick and choose" when it comes to investigating a police complaint.

wait deh, are all police complaints investigated?

[Paul Marin]

nice try by YOU, under a zero tolerance model would suarez be guilty or not?

If they found him guilty under a non-zero-tolerance policy, then what makes you think they would have a different outcome? They would have found him guilty even if Jesus and the 12 disciples showed up defending him even though they had no other corroborating evidence other than Evra's lies.

[Paul Marin]

However, you can't "pick and choose" when it comes to investigating a police complaint.

wait deh, are all police complaints investigated?

At the minimum some kind of decision is made to investigate or not. But they have to justify their actions based on the case's own merits and circumstances, not based on what happened elsewhere.