/ Society of Black Lawyers

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Hugh J - on 22 Nov 2012
I may have missed something, but they do appear to be somewhat conspicuous by their absence/silence today! There is no mention of today's news on their website, but then I can't find anything whatsoever about CLattenburg there.

Perhaps it is because their actions and allegations over the Clattenburg debacle were so massively misplaced as to be counterproductive to their cause? Perhaps Herbert has realised he'd be better off just keeping his reactionary mouth shut on this one, before he causes anymore damage? Though I doubt anything they may say about this will carry much weight now - unless it's just to apologise to Clattenburg, which they should do (but won't).
whispering nic - on 22 Nov 2012
In reply to Hugh J:
Baking powder?
John Rushby - on 22 Nov 2012
In reply to Hugh J:

Good, the case brought by the Society of Black Lawyers was so obviously undermining to the very real cause of racism as to be laughable.

Howay yer fukkun monkey lads an al.

Will their next crusade be to stop black people from being hung in Hartlepool?
stroppygob - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to John Rushby: '

or at least well hung.
andy - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to Hugh J: His "reactionary mouth"? Odd use of the word - what does it mean in this context?
Steve John B - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to andy: "Mouth" - it's the hole in his head what he speaks from.
Hugh J - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to andy: Perhaps so, I was trying to point out that maybe he should have engaged his brain before putting his mouth into gear! Instead, (as a notable barrister) he "reacted" by jumping on this highly suspect accusation for political purposes. Added to this, he later condemned the FA as being "institutionally racist" - an association that is at least trying to do something, even if it's perhaps not enough - unlike FIFA or UEFA who do virtually nothing and comparing them to the Met at the time of the Stephen Lawrence investigation!. I would say that's pretty "reactionary".

As one analyst has put it "a huge own goal" that has in fact damaged not only his reputation personally, but perhaps also that of his worthy cause.
iccy - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to Hugh J:

He's fighting for the cause and not really interested in the football politics. I totally understand where he's coming from - if there's been an accusation of racism why shouldn't it be dealt with by the police? Personally I believe Chelsea had a responsibility to more fully understand the accusation before making it formal. If there wasnít any evidence (i.e. player nearest the referee didnít hear him say what he was accused of saying) why was it ever reported to the FA?

When Herbert first raised it to the police I thought he was just attention seeking to build his career. Heís driven the cause of justice throughout his career and he hasnít shied away from contentious issues. He may have annoyed people, but thereís no disagreeing that his methods have intensified the pressure on developing a more effective way to deal with racism in sport.
Hugh J - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to andy: So Andy, have you actually got anything relevant to say on this matter, apart from questioning a debatable use of English or like Mr Herbert, are you just going to STFU?
andy - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to Hugh J:
> (In reply to andy) I would say that's pretty "reactionary".
>

I would say you don't know what reactionary means.

In reply to Steve John B:
> (In reply to andy) "Mouth" - it's the hole in his head what he speaks from.

You're getting it mixed-up with his arse...
In reply to andy:
> (In reply to Hugh J)
> [...]
>
> I would say you don't know what reactionary means.

He says things to spark a reaction. Sounds about right to me.
tony on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
> (In reply to andy)
> [...]
>
> He says things to spark a reaction. Sounds about right to me.

That's not what reactionary means.

Maybe Mr Herbert is busy in court or something, although since the news broke last night, you would think he might have had time to issue some kind of statement. I'd be interested to know whether the Society of Black Lawyers is a genuinely representative organisation, or just a mouthpiece for Mr Herbert. The whole thing sounded like a mess, and I don't see that his involvement helped anyone, so maybe a period of silence would be good.
GrahamD - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to iccy:

> He's fighting for the cause and not really interested in the football politics. I totally understand where he's coming from -

I don't. A barrister publicly jumping to a 'guilty' verdict before any sort of trial is totally out of order.
Skyfall - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to tony:

Mr Herbert was on the BBC News this morning.
Hugh J - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to tony: Yes, silence is probably a good option at the moment, though I think an apology is probably in order, even if this is just in private to Mr Clattenburg. However, due to pride and/or other motives, I doubt very much whether this will happen, but I could be wrong of course.

I guess what really irks me is that there was a massive reaction when Clattenburg was accused, but only what appears to be a side note when these accusations are proven/deemed to be incorrect. Is this the media just not being interested anymore or is it a sign of them not wanting to tread on eggs? It's also the the damage that has been done to Clattenburg's reputation that irks me. How many people will now think, "Oh, he's that racist ref" whenever they hear his name mentioned? And before you answer, one is one too many! Some may say, that compared to centuries of oppression and discrimination (and worse), it is very little. This is certainly true. But, as one of those oppressed once said, ďAn eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.Ē Mr Herbert needs to stand up and show that he is above arrogance, that he is the complete opposite to the evil that he is campaigning against and apologise to a fellow human being.

And as for Andy, I guess the answer to my question is "no", so please STFU. Maybe I should have used the word reactionist instead, but (apart from you) who gives a f...?
Hugh J - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to JonC: So, what did he have to say? Sorry?
andy - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
> (In reply to andy)
> [...]
>
> He says things to spark a reaction. Sounds about right to me.

That's not what it means. Nor is it "someone who reacts" (which is what I think the OP was getting at).

andy - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to Hugh J:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> And as for Andy, I guess the answer to my question is "no", so please STFU. Maybe I should have used the word reactionist instead, but (apart from you) who gives a f...?

No, actually you shouldn't have - I don't think you know what that means either. Perhaps if you tried playing nicely then people wouldn't pick you up on your misuse of English...

And do I have an opinion on the Society of Black Lawyers chap? Not strongly, no - I think they are right to push for police investigation where there's an allegation of someone breaking the law though.
iccy - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to GrahamD:
> (In reply to iccy)
>
> [...]
>
> I don't. A barrister publicly jumping to a 'guilty' verdict before any sort of trial is totally out of order.


As far as I'm aware he didn't jump to a guilty verdict. His position was that an accusition of racism was an issue that should have been dealt with through the formal legal channels rather than through the FA.
ads.ukclimbing.com
andy - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to iccy:
> (In reply to GrahamD)
> [...]
>
>
> As far as I'm aware he didn't jump to a guilty verdict. His position was that an accusition of racism was an issue that should have been dealt with through the formal legal channels rather than through the FA.

That's how I read it - he feels the punishment Suarez and Terry received was insufficient and he linked that to the fact the FA didn't refer the Clattenburg matter to the police. He didn't say anything about Mark Clattenburg directly.
Mike Stretford - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to iccy:
> (In reply to GrahamD)
> [...]
>
>
> As far as I'm aware he didn't jump to a guilty verdict. His position was that an accusition of racism was an issue that should have been dealt with through the formal legal channels rather than through the FA.

I'd say he was a little too eager to get involved. The whole thing got farcical when Chelsea made the allegations to the media instead of the police.
andy - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to Papillon:
> (In reply to iccy)
> [...]
>
> I'd say he was a little too eager to get involved.

I'd probably agree - but I think he was using this as a reason to reopen the debate on Suarez and Terry than Clattenburg himself. Unless I missed it he never accused Clattenburg of anything, other than as a reference to another case that he felt should have been referred to plod (which it sounds like it shouldn't have, but only because Chelsea should have been more circumspect than they were).

The New NickB - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to andy:

Thoughtful piece by Clarke Carlisle here.

http://clarkecarlisle.wordpress.com/
Hugh J - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to The New NickB: Yes, a good article with some carefully thought out principles (or is it principals Andy?).

"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."

I now have a slightly different point of view. Both Chelsea and Herbert should apologise to Clattenburg and it should be made publicly. Chelsea for going to the press, thereby causing the media frenzy in the first place and Herbert, primarily because a barrister should know better. As the article says, as much effort by the media should go into ensuring that Clattenburg's name is adequately cleared.
fxceltic on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to Hugh J: I'd have felt better if anyone from the society of black lawyers had actually been present to witness the supposed incident.
Skyfall - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to Hugh J:
> (In reply to JonC) So, what did he have to say? Sorry?

If my memory serves me correctly (which it might not be as I was only listening with one ear), despite repeated questioning he would not apologise as he thought that they did the right thing in both this specific case and in the wider context of trying to bring the issue to the fore.

I can see it from his perspective, certainly on the wider point. On the more narrow specifics of the current case; I don't suppose he would want to apologise and effectively admit they'd made an error even if he felt they'd had misjudged it (particularly with his lawyers hat on). I am sure Clattenburg (sp?) will feel quite hacked off but it's up to him to make an issue of it an, if he has a valid complaint, he may even seek compensation. In fact, aren't the Prof Ref's body already making sounds about this?

You seem to be very wound up about this for some reason but, in a strange way, it really may do Clattenburg no harm at all as he has appeared to come out of this as the victim with no one seeming to give much credence to the original claim and many people (such as Fergie, god bless 'im) coming out and lending support.
Wide_Mouth_Frog - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to Hugh J:

What did the society of white lawyers have to say about all this?
andyathome - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to Wide_Mouth_Frog:
> (In reply to Hugh J)
>
> What did the society of white lawyers have to say about all this?

Fek all. They were too busy banking the fees paid to them by anybody and drinking their Chateau Lafitte
andyathome - on 23 Nov 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
> (In reply to andy)
> [...]
>
> He says things to spark a reaction. Sounds about right to me.

I think you'll find that that is something like 'provocative'. A 'reactionary' is someone who reacts to, or against, change. A 'reactionary' statement might be something along the lines of 'we should never 'ave let all them blacks into the country; place 'as gorn to the dogs; know wot I mean...'. Or similar stuff about human rights.

johncoxmysteriously - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to tony:

> I'd be interested to know whether the Society of Black Lawyers is a genuinely representative organisation, or just a mouthpiece for Mr Herbert.

The latter. As a barrister, Mr Herbert is a total failure. He's just a rent-a-gob, well worth ignoring at every opportunity.

jcm
The New NickB - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to Hugh J:

It's principles!
The New NickB - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to andyathome:

Knee jerk felt like the right term to me!
Enty - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Apparently Herbert has offered to pay compensation to Clattenberg for his libelous comments.

When asked how much he wanted, Clattenberg said a Monkey would do........


E

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.