People that live in glass houses..

I think Gally is losing it lately. So what if I made a stereotypical joke about a Jew? You can make as many jokes as you like about me. White middle aged, Essex man, Tory voting, business owning, capitalist, furlough appreciating Gammon. I'll take them all. There's enough people out there actively looking for insults or racial stereotyping without me looking to add to the growing crowd of the professionally offended.

You creamed your pants over Rafiq and now your hypocrisy is in the open. Do not try to excuse your behaviour.

Poor Mottie. Caught red handed.

Oh No!. It's Mottie last gambit - the tough man act. Come on if you think you're hard enough. :mrgreen:

Don't tell me you were on the terraces at West Ham?
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
This makes no sense. You start out by defending or excusing the use of the term as being a joke and then Rafiq who also made the same type of Joke its not acceptable.

The point is, if it's not acceptable for others from his point of view then he is just as bad as those he complains about.

Personally I don't see an issue with it, but I do see an issue with hypocrisy.
 
The point is, if it's not acceptable for others from his point of view then he is just as bad as those he complains about.

Personally I don't see an issue with it, but I do see an issue with hypocrisy.

We have hit the nail on the head.

It needs to be looked at on a case by case basis, whether something is racist or not.

Take for example the links I provided - I thought they were questionable the naming of dogs, you came clearly down on the side of it isn't but neither of us had enough information to determine either way. So you for whatever reason decided they were not from your perspective, but someone else could from theirs. I simply couldn't draw enough of a conclusion.

Which is why when its pointed out to determine if something is racist or not requires what is being said, who is saying it and to whom.
 
We have hit the nail on the head.

It needs to be looked at on a case by case basis, whether something is racist or not.

Take for example the links I provided - I thought they were questionable the naming of dogs, you came clearly down on the side of it isn't but neither of us had enough information to determine either way. So you for whatever reason decided they were not from your perspective, but someone else could from theirs. I simply couldn't draw enough of a conclusion.

Which is why when its pointed out to determine if something is racist or not requires what is being said, who is saying it and to whom.

Agreed,

At the end of the day it needs a common sense approach. People are too easily offended these days.

I do like these sketches quite a lot

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...man_hosts_woke_support_group_on_bbc_show.html

For balance


Rafiq has clearly been the subject of racial abuse, from what I've read some of the players took things too far and were bang out if order and I felt sorry for Rafiq being in that position, one incident stands to my mind where he was talking to a girl in the night club and one of the players said don't talk to him hes a ****. That's terrible and I can't see in what way they could ever be determined as banter.

But there is some accusations against people by Rafiq that aren't clear cut and shouldn't have been part of his statement, the accusations have serious consequences and he wasn't in a position to know 100% the name for the dog or blys way of training. (Obviously my opinion but is to not be considered right or wrong)
 
Sponsored Links
It is not the same thing - OK roots are the same thing, but what has been raised is the problem of institutional racism that holds people back and often prevents them even being able to play a part in society. While making a joke is also bad, a joke is a one-off event and does not imply that a person would also be actively persecute and discriminate against a whole group of people.

Yes, both are wrong. But one should not mean the other should not be tackled.

Geoff Palmer, a black cricketer and academic, was on the news today. When he first went to school in London and was rejected and designated "educationally subnormal", then his skills in cricket was recognised and he got offered a place at grammar school, which gave him an education that he would have also been deprived of, which led to a career in education and science.

I have seen this happen in work too - a black guy joined the company, and the known racist in the office was constantly moaning how useless he was, and the boss sacked him. He went on to work for another company and do very well.

Institutional racism is the problem, but institutions are made of individuals.

Not sure where I am going with this, so will stop and put the kettle on.
 
It doesn’t make any difference

Azeem Rafiq hasn’t done this for personal gain, he is doing it for others.

it is for the overall good for society.
It does make a difference. It reduces the credibility of the accusations that he's made.

However, there is obviously a problem at Yorkshire and possibly in wider cricket. The question for me is whether this is a historic or current problem. The world has moved on considerably in the last few years and should we be penalising people now for things they did 10-15 years ago when casual racism was more prevalent?

It makes puts the virtue signallers in a quandary though. They've 'cancelled' Michael Vaughan for some comments that he is alleged to have made in 2009. What are they going to do with Azeem Rafiq? Does the fact that he's been on the end of racist abuse make it ok for him to be racist towards the Jews? Is antisemitism less serious racism?
 
How do I put this ... cricket attracts a certain part of our society that might be more likely to be racist. Public schools, independent schools, the aristocracy, are in general more likely to play cricket, and they traditionally have a sense of superiority and entitlement. Then there is the British history of cricket and playing the colonies, which could well continue to feed this problem. Racism might also be more prevalent in the upper echelons cricket, more so than with football, for example, where players are often largely all from poorer, working class families, and everybody is equal in poverty.

But saying all that, I have known upper class racists, wealthy middle-class church going racists, and working class racists. So, in short, racism is everywhere, the key is, how is it managed by the board of directors, managers etc. Only when there are no more racist older people in positions of power will institutional racism start to be driven from society.

And it all goes back to the old problem - most racists never admit that they have racist thoughts.
 
It does make a difference. It reduces the credibility of the accusations that he's made.

But then why don't you apply that same principle to Bojo lies?

You know he's lied and you know he lies so why do you still believe what he says next?
 
It makes puts the virtue signallers in a quandary though. They've 'cancelled' Michael Vaughan for some comments that he is alleged to have made in 2009.

Another view is have you read what Vaughan has posted on twitter, he was given the benefit of his position and privilege for so long.
 
But then why don't you apply that same principle to Bojo lies?

You know he's lied and you know he lies so why do you still believe what he says next?
No, i don't believe everything Bojo says, and yes, when he makes mistakes like he did over Owen Patterson, it does affect his credibility.

However, i don't think he needs to fall on his sword and resign in the same way that Azeem Rafiq's comments about the racism may affect his believability, but it doesn't detract from the fact that there appears to be at least a historic problem with racism in cricket.

Contrary to what you may think, i do not worship at the church of Bojo.
 
Another view is have you read what Vaughan has posted on twitter, he was given the benefit of his position and privilege for so long.
No, i haven't. I don't read twitter, but if there is something that you think would change my perspective, please post a link and i will read it.
 
Oh Mottie.

Caught in your own dog ****.
Yep, mottie is a rather sad prejudiced old ignorant fool...

His post saying "So what if I made a stereotypical joke about a Jew?" also shows up his total hypocrisy...

But then that is his trade mark!
 
It does make a difference. It reduces the credibility of the accusations that he's made.
Only in the eyes of those looking to excuse or deny racism.
It's very easy to forget what one said about ten years ago, perhaps while one was trying to merge into the crowd (lie with dogs and you get fleas).
Many people fall into the same trap of adopting the dominant culture in order to be accepted.
Then when it is pointed out, one is genuinely contrite and makes a full public and sincere apology.
 
Last edited:
However, there is obviously a problem at Yorkshire and possibly in wider cricket. The question for me is whether this is a historic or current problem. The world has moved on considerably in the last few years and should we be penalising people now for things they did 10-15 years ago when casual racism was more prevalent?
You mean about the time that Rafiq made a racist comment? Which you now seek to pillory him for.

It makes puts the virtue signallers in a quandary though. They've 'cancelled' Michael Vaughan for some comments that he is alleged to have made in 2009. What are they going to do with Azeem Rafiq? Does the fact that he's been on the end of racist abuse make it ok for him to be racist towards the Jews? Is antisemitism less serious racism?
Of course it's no less serious.

Did Michael Vaughan apologise publicly and sincerely for his comments? Or did he deny he made such a comment?
See the difference?
 
You mean about the time that Rafiq made a racist comment? Which you now seek to pillory him for.
I'm not hauling anyone over the coals. I'm making the point that Rafiq's complaints about racism are undermined when he made racist comments himself around the same time and that double standards are being applied.

I'm also questioning whether we should be hauling people over the coals now for things that weren't considered to be so bad at the time. Casual racism was more accepted back then.

If the racism is current or recent, then yes. But is it right for Rafiq to be making historic accusations about racism when he was also being racist in a different direction around the same time?
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top