Chelsea regret rushing to accuse Clattenburg

[Dunny]

Dunny: When we are talking about this case, let it be about this case nuh man? I am not into discussing the John Terry and Ferninand case, as that was investigated as it ought to be and appropriate actions were taken. Terry was wrong and he was punished, both by the FA and the club.

As I also said on many occasions here, the club received a complaint they had no reason to think it was not credible. The onus is not on Chelsea to investigate, but to report it to the FA and let them do the investigation. If the FA could find that the evidence was there to punish the alleged offender, then I would think they would. Conversely, if they could not find convincing evidence, they had to dismiss the case against the man. This however does not mean there was no racial abuse.

That statement almost made me puke! Dunny, you are so blinded with bias against Chelsea that a statement like this coming from you is just unbearable.

It is a case of damned if they do report the incident and damned if they don't. On one hand there are the the likes of the Black Lawyers Association and others who are pushing the case and watching to see what the club will do and on the other, there are the likes of you who would rather see the incident swept under the carpet and we continue our merry making with football as usual. It is really sad...

Tilla you are trying to defend the indefensible, where have i said this incident should be swept under the carpet? I am one of the most die hard campaigners against racism Boss so there is no way i would want a racist incident to be swept under the carpet, however there is a correct way of dealing with these sensitive issues. These kind of allegations can ruin lives so before you come out and shout it out to the world you have to make sure there is a strong case that is all i am saying. Lets leave this subject now and lets move on. We can have a chat over a beer in Brazil 2014.

[Paul Marin]

my friend Paul, si why mi say you always have to consider the man innocence as well? Sad state of affair.

Dunny now them can't talk to you.

Sass...yu head tuff eehn? I have never said he was guilty (or innocent); my beef has always been with the FA. Even if he was guilty, my point is that he would not have been charged absent irrefutable evidence. They will NEVER take the word of a player over the ref. The good news is that they say the will now record games.

[Paul Marin]

that is a two way street... i.e. fa needs to do better in running the league...not talking clattenbrrg now... fa has to help refs do a better job... i see where they will now record the chatter... if one good thing came out of this thats it... no more me seh, he seh..

Unfortunately, they won't be recording the players...just the refs. The technology exists to do so without having to "mic" the players.

[Paul Marin]

Dunny: If the FA could find that the evidence was there to punish the alleged offender, then I would think they would. Conversely, if they could not find convincing evidence, they had to dismiss the case against the man. This however does not mean there was no racial abuse.

I have said before that charges of racism should be held to the highest standard - evidence should be irrefutable and broadly applied to all in football, whether they are groundskeepers or the head of the FA. Unfortunately, my distrust of the FA has reached rock bottom. I no longer believe they are unbiased or without an agenda.

Accordingly, I submit that the FA's standard of proof required to charge Clattenburg (or any ref or administrator) would be higher than the standard of proof required to charge a player. I don't have any evidence to support that argument, but I bet the proverbial "fly on the wall" would back me up. They are not an honest organization so I would red card all of them who pay lip service to banning racism yet only fund KIO with £30k a year; less than a day's wages for JT.

Anyway, I am glad for Clattenburg and give him the benefit of the doubt. Racism or racial abuse isn't something we should accuse or charge people with lightly and "proof" should be beyond reasonable doubt.

[Rockman]

Tilla, Chelsea could've for whatever regret filing the complaint but maintain a gripe. The apologetic manner in which Chelsea voices its regrets begs the question,on what grounds was the complaint officially filed?
gamma was again miles ahead when he said Mikel has some explaining to do,the only chance of this issue laying to rest is his explanation,these official findings/rulings and club apology means nothing.

[Assasin]

"Anyway, I am glad for Clattenburg and give him the benefit of the doubt. Racism or racial abuse isn't something we should accuse or charge people with lightly and "proof" should be beyond reasonable doubt."

It late but you just a see it.

[Paul Marin]

"Anyway, I am glad for Clattenburg and give him the benefit of the doubt. Racism or racial abuse isn't something we should accuse or charge people with lightly and "proof" should be beyond reasonable doubt."

It late but you just a see it.

Sass - I have been TOTALLY consistent on this across the JT, Suarez and Clattenburg cases. Where I have advocated innocence until PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt. My beef has always been with the FA's double standards. It beats me how you still cyant see that.

[Peter R]

Just seeing what Sass? the second part of Paul's quote above has ALWAYS been his position stated a gazillion times on the forum, ad nauseam almost... it was his stated position from whenever, but came to the fore here during the Suarez situation, just ask Gamma... where were you all this time?

[Paul Marin]

Tilla, Chelsea could've for whatever regret filing the complaint but maintain a gripe. The apologetic manner in which Chelsea voices its regrets begs the question,on what grounds was the complaint officially filed?
gamma was again miles ahead when he said Mikel has some explaining to do,the only chance of this issue laying to rest is his explanation,these official findings/rulings and club apology means nothing.

Rockman - I am beginning to worry about you. Are you trying to drive people crazy or what? What is so hard to understand about Chelsea's position? As Tilla has said 10,000 times, they were OBLIGATED under the FA's RULES to report the incident, whether it was Mikel's imagination, fact or fiction, it was the FA's job to investigate, not theirs so to say that the club's apology means nothing is ridiculous. Not issuing one would have been worse.

(P.S. As PR alluded, I will have to change your name to Rockwall or may be even Rockhead )

[Assasin]

Paul the innocence come before the FA, The problem is you never said "if he was innocent" it was almost like you didn't care. Regardless of the FA, Regardless of the police, regardless of the player, the refs innocence come first because if proven innocent as he did, he was dragged through the mud.

[Peter R]

Sass, anyone who is accused of a crime or misdemanour or whatever it is called, will have some amount of negativity attached to them... what you are saying the way I understand it does not reflect how things work in the FA... you are expecting the accuser to investigate before he can accuse... the reality is that if the accuser believes with reasonable certainty that he's been wronged he will accuse and then the process will continue from there. If they're involved, the DPP (public prosecutor/police) will investigate and then proceed; the FA does the same thing, EXCEPT their burden of proof is different (lower) than in the criminal system.

While Chelsea could probably have done things differently, maybe... if you want justice then the accuser should not be deterred from bringing certain things to light, and I am speaking in general terms and not specific situations. If the accuser is found to be malicios and inventive in their accusation then they too should pay a high price. In that regard, the FA is correct IMO to investigate Mikel to see if he in fact fabricated this story.

Clattenberg is exonerated completely by my understanding. I think (if he is a good ref) he will bounce back just as Jt and Suarez have from their respective situations, and THEY were found guilty by the FA. If Clattenberg has sense he will accept the facts as they are/were and move on. Just my opinion.

[Lazie]

Sass, anyone who is accused of a crime or misdemanour or whatever it is called, will have some amount of negativity attached to them... what you are saying the way I understand it does not reflect how things work in the FA... you are expecting the accuser to investigate before he can accuse... the reality is that if the accuser believes with reasonable certainty that he's been wronged he will accuse and then the process will continue from there. If they're involved, the DPP (public prosecutor/police) will investigate and then proceed; the FA does the same thing, EXCEPT their burden of proof is different (lower) than in the criminal system.

While Chelsea could probably have done things differently, maybe... if you want justice then the accuser should not be deterred from bringing certain things to light, and I am speaking in general terms and not specific situations. If the accuser is found to be malicios and inventive in their accusation then they too should pay a high price. In that regard, the FA is correct IMO to investigate Mikel to see if he in fact fabricated this story.

Clattenberg is exonerated completely by my understanding. I think (if he is a good ref) he will bounce back just as Jt and Suarez have from their respective situations, and THEY were found guilty by the FA. If Clattenberg has sense he will accept the facts as they are/were and move on. Just my opinion.

The fact of the matter is, as soon as lyad Obi made the claim, there were some here that were quick to believe him. Now mi see the spinners in concert. Mine unuh tumble ovah.

[Paul Marin]

Paul the innocence come before the FA, The problem is you never said "if he was innocent" it was almost like you didn't care. Regardless of the FA, Regardless of the police, regardless of the player, the refs innocence come first because if proven innocent as he did, he was dragged through the mud.

I give up. You either can't read or you are being deliberately selective or provocative. Last time - the man's innocence or guilt is not my beef. I have said - 10M times that in cases of racism, proof should be beyond reasonable doubt, not the FA's standard of "balance of probabilities"- so Clattenburg's innocence has always been presumed until irrefutable evidence suggests otherwise. That has been a CONSTANT position of mine across ALL these racism cases.

For the LAST TIME - my issue is with the FA. Their STANDARD for charging a REF (or administration official) is DIFFERENT than for charging a player BECAUSE IT IS IN THEIR INTERESTS, not because they care about stamping out racism. OTHERWISE, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THEIR PALTRY CONTRIBUTION OF ONLY £30K A YEAR TO "KICK IT OUT"?

Now lef mi mek me go get ready for an important meeting.

[Peter R]

Call a name or names nuh?

The truth is that the same reaction by others (mi nuh have no name fi call ) occurred when Evra and A Ferdinand made their accusations, i.e. they were quick to believe the accuser.

In those cases they were found guilty, Clattenberg was found innocent... apart from that, what is the diff???

Oh and BTW, I am a fast bowler, not a spinner... get it right!! LOL

[Lazie]

Call a name or names nuh?

The truth is that the same reaction by others (mi nuh have no name fi call ) occurred when Evra and A Ferdinand made their accusations, i.e. they were quick to believe the accuser.

In those cases they were found guilty, Clattenberg was found innocent... apart from that, what is the diff???

Check the thread. http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...877#post387877