Police drop probe into complaint against Clattenburg

[Lazie]

LONDON (Reuters) - London's Metropolitan Police have dropped an investigation into a complaint made against referee Mark Clattenburg for alleged inappropriate language towards a Chelsea player last month.

The European champions lodged a complaint with the FA over language allegedly directed at their Nigeria midfielder John Obi Mikel by Clattenburg during the home Premier League defeat by Manchester United on October 28.

That prompted the Society of Black Lawyers to lodge a written complaint with the police.

"Enquiries were made and no victims have come forward," the Metropolitan Police said in a statement on Tuesday.

"Without a victim and/or any evidence that any offence has been committed, the matter cannot currently be investigated.

"If the situation changes and a victim and/or evidence to support an allegation of a crime comes to police attention then further enquiries will, if appropriate, be made."

Clattenburg has not been selected to referee Premier League matches for three consecutive weekends following the claims.

(Reporting by Tom Pilcher, Editing by Ken Ferris)

[Paul Marin]

It makes sense that the Metropolitan Police would drop the charge if all of this is true; however it will be interesting to see on what grounds the FA's investigation continues...

[Rockman]

He wasn't charged, it was an investigation to determine if he should be,as to why the investigation was halted is waaaay over my head.The mere fact that the FA has not concluded its investigation makes the halting of one by the police premature because one investigation may very well aid the other.

[Tilla]

The mere fact that the FA has not concluded its investigation makes the halting of one by the police premature because one investigation may very well aid the other.

Could it be that the burden of proof in the criminal case (police) is greater than that of the FA?

[Rockman]

It still has to be determined,we do not know where the evidence(if any)in the FA investigation would lead.
Case in point, a witness might be reluctant to appear in a criminal matter but not so in non criminal proceeding.

[Paul Marin]

It still has to be determined,we do not know where the evidence(if any)in the FA investigation would lead.
Case in point, a witness might be reluctant to appear in a criminal matter but not so in non criminal proceeding.

It doesn't mean they can't reopen it if the FA find something worthwhile.

[Dunny]

When the verdict arrive from the FA it will show up Chelsea football club for exactly what they are..........................

[Paul Marin]

When the verdict arrive from the FA it will show up Chelsea football club for exactly what they are..........................

Just so there is a record - what is it that they exactly are?

[Tilla]

Paul, don't even listen to Dunny. He has a severe case of bias against Chelsea that he cannot be trusted to put forth anything which is remotely rational.

[Rockman]

It is part of the investigation to reveal things that are hidden,such as unmasking a witness.
The problem here is one can easily attribute the reluctance to continuing the investigation to the police not prioritizing racism investigations, especially when a foreigner is the victim and a native is the alleged perpetrator.

[Peter R]

The JT incident has shown that the burden of proof in the police case is higher... the "victim", probably feels that the FA will "convict" much faster than the cops and so he has not presented himself to the police ..maybe???

[Paul Marin]

The JT incident has shown that the burden of proof in the police case is higher... the "victim", probably feels that the FA will "convict" much faster than the cops and so he has not presented himself to the police ..maybe???

You are touching on a key and central point that exposes the folly behind the FA's approach to adjudication of serious matters. They have a standard of proof for what would be otherwise deemed a criminal offense that is far below that of the criminal courts.

Like the US civil courts, the FA uses a balance of probabilities standard, however, they are the only ones that can bring a charge against a player (or other football person), which is a parallel with most countries' criminal courts. For example, even though Evra was the *star-lyad-witness*, it was the FA that brought the charge against Saint Suarez.

Both the FA and Evra HAD TO MAKE very clear and unequivocal statements that Suarez was NOT A RACIST (because this would trigger criminal and libel repurcussions) but they went on to say he used "racist language" and "racially abused" Evra. Don't ask me to parse the differences, it is their world, not mine. Anyway, as any punter could have foreshadowed, the net effect on Suarez was the same as if they did call him a racist - you only have to hear the singing by opposing fans everytime Suarez hits the field to know that.

The FA needs (in my opinion) to use a higher standard of proof for charges that are potentially criminal in nature to maintain consistency and to ensure that potentially frivolous charges are not leveled against the innocent. Still, even if a witness comes forward against Clattenburg, the FA won't charge him as I originally predicted. It is not in their own interests. They are a corrupt organization.