Guest Posted 15 November 2012 Posted 15 November 2012 Yep and we all know the fa is above the law. Ask john not a racist in the laws eyes terry. But john the racist terry in the court of fa. Burden of proof.
breadandcheese Posted 16 November 2012 Posted 16 November 2012 Dress it up how you want jt walked free from a court of law. Why do the fa think they are above it. They waited for the courts outcome. Then felt pressured to show leadership. Cant wait to see what nonsense they come up with this time. I hate that dress of truth. As stated above, the judge in the criminal court discredited Terry's version of events, so Mr Terry did not exactly have a glowing reference of innocence. The FA tribunal which works to a much lower burden of proof found him guilty because on balance, he was found guilty. Terry admitted using the phrase "****ing bl*ck c*nt". That inconvenient dress of truth. This thread is about Clattenburg, so I'll leave it at that, but I await the FA's judgement, which I suspect will exonerate him.
marko Posted 22 November 2012 Posted 22 November 2012 Shock horror! http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20420934
breadandcheese Posted 22 November 2012 Posted 22 November 2012 At least Clattenburg should get a big payday from his defamation suit, but the FA should dock Chelsea points for their behaviour. The irony in all this is that Clattenburg, found innocent, was stood down from four matches. Terry, found guilty, was given a four match ban.
Captain... Posted 22 November 2012 Posted 22 November 2012 I can't see why black players shouldn't have their own union or a black section of the PFA but is self imposed apartheid really a step forward? Because they are no different to white players.
Matt Posted 22 November 2012 Posted 22 November 2012 Right I'm not justifying it, I'm not saying its right and I'm certainly not saying people are making the racism up however I'm sick to the back teeth of the racism debate. However I heard reported on the news the FA havn't charged Clattenburg because "they didn't have evidence to support the claim" but I have just learnt that Mikel has been charged on using abusive or foul language well hang on if they didn't have enough evidence to charge or make a decision on whether Clattenburg did or didn't use racist language how can they charge Mikel for using abusive or foul language. On the same rant as much as I hate John Terry how can they charge him on a racist charge when the courts didn't have enough evidence and how did the FA get any evidence and/or come to the conclusion of charging him for racism?
marko Posted 22 November 2012 Posted 22 November 2012 Right I'm not justifying it, I'm not saying its right and I'm certainly not saying people are making the racism up however I'm sick to the back teeth of the racism debate. However I heard reported on the news the FA havn't charged Clattenburg because "they didn't have evidence to support the claim" but I have just learnt that Mikel has been charged on using abusive or foul language well hang on if they didn't have enough evidence to charge or make a decision on whether Clattenburg did or didn't use racist language how can they charge Mikel for using abusive or foul language. On the same rant as much as I hate John Terry how can they charge him on a racist charge when the courts didn't have enough evidence and how did the FA get any evidence and/or come to the conclusion of charging him for racism? The Mikel charge relates to him going to Clattenburg's dressing room after the match. Also, Mikel's guilt is pretty clear cut in the fact he doesn't dispute the charge, but he wants a hearing to put forward mitigating factors for his outburst. With regard to JT, even the courts said his defence was "unlikely" - basically a lie - but criminal cases have a higher burden of proof for finding guilt. Whereas the FA have a lower burden of proof and an independent panel - not the FA - found him guilty on that lower standard.
Captain... Posted 22 November 2012 Posted 22 November 2012 Right I'm not justifying it, I'm not saying its right and I'm certainly not saying people are making the racism up however I'm sick to the back teeth of the racism debate. However I heard reported on the news the FA havn't charged Clattenburg because "they didn't have evidence to support the claim" but I have just learnt that Mikel has been charged on using abusive or foul language well hang on if they didn't have enough evidence to charge or make a decision on whether Clattenburg did or didn't use racist language how can they charge Mikel for using abusive or foul language. On the same rant as much as I hate John Terry how can they charge him on a racist charge when the courts didn't have enough evidence and how did the FA get any evidence and/or come to the conclusion of charging him for racism? I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make. Clattenberg: There is no evidence that he said anything, according to BBC article it was Ramires who thought he heard something, asked Mikel if he had heard the same, Mikel hadn't but went off on one swearing at the ref, but he didn't hear anything, the only person who did was Ramires and even he wasn't sure what he heard. Mikel abused the ref and has admitted doing so Terry was filmed using the words black cvnt, the FA finds people guilty on the balance of probabilities, legal cases require a much higher burden of proof and as unlikely as Terry's defence was there was no concrete evidence to prove it, which is why the Suarez case never went to a criminal court, it was Evra vs Suarez and there was no way they could convct Suarez as there was no actual evidence.
Super_horns Posted 22 November 2012 Posted 22 November 2012 So Mikel will just get the usual 3 match ban I guess and will they have Clattenburg as a ref again!?
marko Posted 22 November 2012 Posted 22 November 2012 So Mikel will just get the usual 3 match ban I guess and will they have Clattenburg as a ref again!? Yes, they've said he will be considered for Chelsea games.
Jaspa Posted 22 November 2012 Posted 22 November 2012 Reds union want Chelsea to apologise now Does anyone remember what happened in that match, and now the results proceeding ?
anotherharboroughfox Posted 22 November 2012 Posted 22 November 2012 Reds union want Chelsea to apologise now Does anyone remember what happened in that match, and now the results proceeding ? So because he made a couple of bad decisions in that game, he doesn't deserve an apology for being accused of being a racist and miss 4(?) weeks of reffing? or I've misinterpreted your post completely if the ' ' was directed at Chelsea.
Jaspa Posted 22 November 2012 Posted 22 November 2012 So because he made a couple of bad decisions in that game, he doesn't deserve an apology for being accused of being a racist and miss 4(?) weeks of reffing? or I've misinterpreted your post completely if the ' ' was directed at Chelsea. It's just a funny series of events, there must be some absolutely seathing faces in the Chelsea camp But to say Chelsea where a little hard done by in that game would be an understatement, and now they come out of it looking the bad party with little mention of the actual match All this racism malarkey is getting on my tits tho
Guest MattP Posted 23 November 2012 Posted 23 November 2012 Hopefully some punishment for Ramires and Mikel now, terrible what they have put this guy through.
Walker Posted 23 November 2012 Posted 23 November 2012 Another shameful day for Chelsea Football Club.
rico Posted 6 December 2012 Posted 6 December 2012 Mikel suspended for 3 games and fined £60k http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mikel-suspended-stormy-man-utd-match-175303804.html
DB11 Posted 8 December 2012 Posted 8 December 2012 Referees trade union, Prospect, has slammed the "leniency" of the three-game ban handed to John Obi Mikel for confronting Mark Clattenburg. A Football Association independent regulatory commission handed down the ban and a fine of £60,000 after the Chelsea midfielder admitted the charge. The FA said in a statement that the punishment would have been "significantly stronger" but for the fact Mikel had believed he had been racially abused by Clattenburg. However, Prospect criticised the length of Mikel's ban, which rules him out of domestic action until Boxing Day. "Prospect, the referees trade union, today expressed dismay at the lenient punishment handed down by the FA Regulatory Commission to Chelsea player John Obi Mikel," the statement read. "It is vital that officials were given real respect and this decision regrettably gave entirely the wrong message. "A player in parks football found guilty of behaviour like Mikel's would have faced a long-term ban." National secretary Alan Leighton claimed Mikel's behaviour deserved a heavier sanction despite the mitigating circumstances. "For entering the referees dressing room and threatening and intimidating the referee to the extent that he feared for his safety the penalty was no longer than had the player been sent off for serious foul play," Leighton said. "This did absolutely nothing to further the Respect campaign." Leighton added that "far too much weight had been given to the mitigating factor and that Mikel's behaviour merited a strong deterrent penalty".
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.