People that live in glass houses..

[AngleEyes]

Only when there are no more racist older people in positions of power will institutional racism start to be driven from society.

I don't think that is sufficient. What is needed, as was discussed on Question Time last night, there is a need for anti-racists, people, hopefully everyone, who do not tacitly condone racism.
If you ignore bad behaviour it is accepting that behaviour as normal.
Sadly there are many on here who not only do not object to racist comments, they actively support and condone that behaviour and the authors of those comments. And that includes mods, etc.

If the object of the ridicule was someone with disability, etc, most would criticise such behaviour vehemently. Why then is such behaviour so easily accepted or ignored when the object of ridicule is someone's skin colour or heritage or nationality?

 

[AngleEyes]

the fact that there appears to be at least a historic problem with racism in cricket.

It isn't just cricket, nor just football, those aspects of society have simply been highlighted by eminent victims.
They are symptomatic of society in general.

 

[AngleEyes]

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?

You are still refusing to make the difference between those that made racist comments in the past (for whatever reason) and now apologise sincerely and publicly, and those that deny their racist comments and make no apology.

And let's not forget the current PM, who has also made racist comments, denies they were or are racist, and refuses to apologise.

 

[SirGalahad]

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.

https://twitter.com/Organised_Chao5/status/1456651770231500801

It may add context but whatever your opinion of his tweets the notion he has been cancelled is more culture war terminology.

If Rafiq claims are to be diminished because of what he wrote then are Vaughans claims of innocence also diminished?

 

[SirGalahad]

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?

Should we have let Jimmy Saville off because times were different back then? That's a weak argument.

 

[Lower]

https://twitter.com/Organised_Chao5/status/1456651770231500801

It may add context but whatever your opinion of his tweets the notion he has been cancelled is more culture war terminology.

If Rafiq claims are to be diminished because of what he wrote then are Vaughans claims of innocence also diminished?

Vaughan'ss claims of innocence are certainly diminished by those tweets. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Lower]

Should we have let Jimmy Saville off because times were different back then? That's a weak argument.

No, very different thing. Sexual abuse has never been socially acceptable.

Nor am i saying that people should be let off. I don't think that the likes of Churchill should be considered a racist because his views were actually quite progressive for the time, but both Vaughan and Rafiq would have been aware that the things they said weren't right, they just weren't held to the same standard then as we expect now. I do think that it should be acceptable to apologise for historic behaviour that was not considered so unacceptable then, and not be permanently branded as a racist.

For example, the old Englishman, Irishman, Scotsman type jokes were not considered racist around a decade ago, but you rarely hear anyone tell those sort of jokes nowadays.

I grew up in a city which has always been very multicultural, and will freely admit hearing, laughing at, and probably telling racist jokes when i was young. It was what people commonly did at the time. But i have never racially abused anyone and never knowingly discriminated against anyone on grounds of their skin colour, race, religion or any other characteristic.

Ironically, where i grew up the racism was directed at the white kids.

 

[Mottie]

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!

Ah shuuddup you hypocrite. What’s your trade mark other than being a ****?

 

[AngleEyes]

Nor am i saying that people should be let off. I don't think that the likes of Churchill should be considered a racist because his views were actually quite progressive for the time,

Oh dear, the "it was acceptable then, so we mustn't criticise it now" argument.
So you're quite comfortable with slavery and the damage it has done to societies all over the world?
That it's only modern day slavery that is wrong?
That those that profited from slavery were national heroes?

That history should never be judged on today's values?
That it is wrong to see history from other's perspectives?

 

[fillyboy]

Contrary to what you may think, i do not worship at the church of Bojo.

Heretic.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

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?

Do you not understand - it is what all politicians do? The public just hope and vote for the most convincing liar, in the hope that they will deliver some of their promises - it has always been thus.

 

[fillyboy]

Should we have let Jimmy Saville off because times were different back then? That's a weak argument.

I thought 'we' did let him off.

 

[JP_]

I thought 'we' did let him off.

Yes, that was the whole problem. Everybody in the business knew what he was doing, nurses knew what he was doing, but everybody just ignored it, because the institution would never take action against him.

Totally mad, and a good reminder of how corrupt a seemingly noncorrupt nation can be when it suits.

 

[JohnD]

Do you not understand - it is what all politicians do? The public just hope and vote for the most convincing liar, in the hope that they will deliver some of their promises - it has always been thus.

Prime Minister Johnson has succeeded in convincing his supporters and the apathetic that there's no point in trying to improve things and to build a decent nation.

He is wrong.

edit

Many people have the good sense to recognise that running the country is a serious job that needs someone competent and honest.

Only a fool would want the job entrusted to a notorious lying buffoon, taking a break from his main career of writing humorous fiction and misleading propaganda, treating it as a part-time prestige performance, and surrounded by second-class acolytes because he got rid of or ignores everyone who is honest and sensible.

 

[Mottie]

You creamed your pants over Rafiq

Eh?