The most recent episode of the Racism Monologues has finally come to a conclusion, for most parties at least, and now the debate begins as to what effect it has had on the Anti-Racism drive as a whole. Questions are being raised on Chelsea’s actions, the integrity of witnesses, the actions of the referee’s association and the FA, and here are my thoughts on all of these.
I believe that this incident and what subsequently occurred should be seen as a genuine step forward in the fight against racism, but still leaves a lot to be desired in the way it is handled as an issue. Why? Simple, an allegation was made, reported through the correct channels by those involved, investigated thoroughly and efficiently, and a conclusion drawn, all within the relatively short period of 4 weeks. This is a vast improvement on the two previous cases that have gone before the FA, and hopefully sets the standard moving forward.
From the beginning the whole process showed signs of progress. An allegation was made ” in good faith”. To those questioning the validity of that, picture the scene. In a cacophony of noise at Stamford Bridge, a Geordie was speaking to a Nigerian and a Spaniard, and was overheard by a Brazilian (it’s almost the start of a joke). It is completely plausible that someone who doesn’t speak English as a first language could be mistaken as to what he heard, in that noise, by someone with such a strong dialect. To that end, I don’t believe there is “blame” to be shouldered by those who allege the offence occurred.
Next, Chelsea acted wholly appropriately as Employers, by reporting the allegation to the correct authorities. This they are obliged to do by the Equalities Act which is in place so that a full investigation can take place. Whatever motivation is perceived from the outside about ‘tit for tat‘ because of decisions made during the match, or deflections in the wake of the Terry/Ferdinand saga, they are immaterial. A failure to report the incident would’ve seen them in contravention of the Act, just like Gillingham were in the Mark McCammon case. Also, had they not reported it and then the information found its way to the press through another source, it’s highly likely they would’ve been accused of a cover up and more fuel added to the fire that has recently engulfed the club.
Next, the FA investigated the whole situation with relative speed, even re-interviewing witnesses when new evidence came to light. It seems that all have been happy with the FA’s process, and that the conclusion is fair.
All in all, the process has shown that no-one should be afraid to report allegations of abuse. They will be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. Equally, someone wrongly accused can have faith that the process is thorough enough, and not afraid, to vindicate them of any wrong doing.
Where this process fell down was at two points. Firstly, the allegation was put to the press by Chelsea FC before any formal process had been concluded. This meant that a huge media frenzy whipped up around Mark Clattenburg and his family. He has stated how this was the most stressful period of his life and I can only imagine how. There must be a way of formalising this reporting process which can reduce the amount of speculation and intrusion. Neither are helpful to any parties involved or the actual process of the investigation. It is highly plausible that someone can be tainted by unfounded allegations and this is where the media must shoulder some responsibility. As much effort as went into creating the headlines, interviews and speculation around Mark Clattenburg’s future, the same should go into his vindication and ensuring his name is adequately cleared. The referees association did the right thing by taking him off the list, subsequently sheltering him from the attention of the media as much as possible. I don’t know if that is their policy, but it is something that was definitely beneficial. It would help all involved if some kind of agreement was reached that incidents were given a certain berth until they were concluded. It is only at this time that they become relevant anyway, anything said before is just surmising and conjecture.
The second flaw was the intervention by Mr Peter Herbert. Reporting this incident to the police, and then publicising it, was of no benefit to anyone involved in the case, or the cause itself. How anybody can report an incident to the police when their evidence source is the Daily Mail is beyond me. This interference was extremely unhelpful, especially when the whole thing was progressing through the correct channels. He stepped in with very emotive, antagonistic comments around a case that he had no knowledge of, and the case itself hadn’t come to any kind of conclusion. We must trust that the FA would report any findings to the police if it were necessary, and this can only be done after they have investigated events.
Mr Peter Herbert
At the end of what must have been a very long month in the Clattenburg house, I don’t think emotions should be attached to this case, other than the sense of relief that I’m sure Mark is feeling. Our view has to be in terms of the process, and that view is one of satisfaction. It was dealt with far better than previous attempts, but there are still improvements to be made.
This is the first sensible article I have read about the whole incident. I think you could possibly be more scathing of both Chelsea FC for their “leak” of the alleged incident and more so of Mr Peter Herbert. I listened to his interview on the Richard Keys and Andy Gray show. To me it felt as if he was intent on using the incident to raise his own profile. And some of his comments during that interview (likening the FA to the BNP) did nothing but harm to his already thin argument as to why he was even involved in the case.
Chelsea let themselves down by going to the press to announce their allegation against Mr Clattenburg. Whether it was a clear offense or as the case more complicated they should not have annouced to the press what was happening within hours.
Something also interesting that has arisen from the incident is that referees microphones will now be recording throughout the game. Might this see some players thinking twice before verbally abusing a referee? Might we see players seeing red (as it says in the rules) for launching into a tirade at a referee. Probably not but you never know!
Loved reading that and agree totally with it.
A fantastic article, I find it quite sad tho that as we nearly enter 2013 we have to talk about such incidents as racism in sport or normal daily life. In the case of the mark clattenberg or any other incidents with refs, maybe its time to take a leaf out of rugby league and be able to hear, what the ref says to the players. I know tempers to be lost in a high pressure situation and swearing does happen on a football pitch, but when you watch rugby league or union when a ref speaks the player listens and millions at home would listen too maybe following there lead would stop the Chelsea incident happening again
one of the things that has angered me most about this whole sorry incident is the free publicity given to the Society of Black Lawyers and how they have jumped on the bandwagon. Now forgive me if im wrong but if i was to start a society of white lawyers I would branded racist and vilified.
An opportunist and nothing else is how I would describe Peter Herbert in regards to his actions.
As Craig above has said its time for the referees to be miked up so the crowd can hear what he is saying – works really well in rugby but of course this would involve football embracing technology that doesnt put billions into the pockets.
what do you think about mikel, the alleged victim, being the only one who was charged in this case? the fa chose not to charge anton ferdinand for his role in the terry altercation because it might put people off from coming forward in future. why the contradiction?
Very plausible article one of, if not the best i have read about this incident. Keith, from my understanding the two scenarios are different. Terry did admit himself in court of using racial language to Anton Ferdinand but said it was sarcasm. The reason he was not criminally charged i think is because there was no witness to corroborate his admission (Ashley Cole said otherwise). But in the Clattenberg’s case he was not guilty of using any such racist word accused of. The FA had to chargeTerry as using a racial language is not acceptable regardless of the circimstance like they did to Suarez. Hope that helps.
Mr. Carlisle, when I first heard of this incident I, like most observers, assumed that Ramirez had misheard Clattenburg and that Chelsea had pursued the matter partly because of the Terry ban. (Perhaps the latter assumption is a little cynical.) As I understand (in the sense of Mihir Bose’s use of that word) Mikel went to speak to Clattenburg but was unable to discuss the matter due to the usual intransigence of referees to talk to players about anything. Perhaps, if Clattenburg had been willing to talk to Mikel then all could have been resolved at the time; that is, an amicable resolution could have been attained in four minutes rather than four weeks.
Prospect have asked for compensation from Chelsea. Chelsea can afford to pay compensation, but if, in general, an unproven accusation leads to compensation, surely that will deter people from reporting racism.
A very balanced piece on a subject that has been damaged by an understandable excess of emotion.
Racism in football (and life in general) is a very real issue. Unfortunately the struggle to eliminate it isn’t helped by the media and Mr Peter Herbert, for whom racism is good for business.
“Firstly, the allegation was put to the press by Chelsea FC before any formal process had been concluded”
Yes, but elements of the press were already running with the rumour leading Chelsea to eventually confirm it. Under the circumstances what else could they do? As PFA chairman you would greatly enhance your reputation by checking the sequence of events with the club before you comment again.
“The second flaw was the intervention by Mr Peter Herbert. Reporting this incident to the police, and then publicising it, was of no benefit to anyone involved in the case, or the cause itsel”
Peter Herbert’s interventions have been consistent throughout. He deserves credit for having the courage of his convictions to remind the police of their responsiblities in cases like this. The parallels with John Terry’s case are striking. However, I am not aware that you expressed, in Terry’s case, any misgivings about the anonymous report to the police followed by a criminal prosecution. If I’m wrong about that, apologies in advance.