I suggest you read my comment again! That's not what he wants at all. A round of apologies would just be whitewashing over the problem. Pun intended.

He wants a change in the culture. A culture we have all been part of. Whilst some of us have learned and, at least tried, to modify our behaviour, others haven't.

I have no idea whether he will receive any kind of compensation, but it is cynical beyond belief to suggest that was his primary motivation.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

My father did too. I don't think, though, that was racism.

War experiences can leave people scarred for life. One resident of a care home I owned was terrified of anyone who appeared Asian, just because of his war time experiences.

I don't think any attempt is, or will be, made to forced anything. What is being done is to have a public debate, try to educate and encourage cultural change.

It won't work with everybody. You have only to read this thread to understand that, but it should work with enough to make a difference.

We can still find programmes, which use stereotyping as a basis for their humour, funny. They just need to be viewed in the correct context. History doesn't need to be rewritten. It's a brighter future which is the aim.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I don’t know the reason but there aren’t many Asians are on Palace’s books either.

I am right, persecution for beliefs isn't acceptable first, second or third. The fact that you are willing to accept it over bs conceptual that can never be squarely enforced shows just how dangerous your nonsense is.

Are your stats on south Asians even proportionally correct? More south Asians have joined IS than the British Army? Perhaps you should get out of your incredibly white Cornwall and ask them what the answers are.....perhaps swap your Cornwall for Oldham and give them a leg up.

Besides do you go around asking why a far higher percentage of non whites are playing in the England team than is representative for England?

Why not? Surely you're not a hypocrite to only focus one way.

Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Nov 2021 6.59pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

You post that like there was ever any doubt as to what the outcome would be.

Cricket relies on sponsorship and sponsors are spineless money orientated sheep.

This is not a trial to discover what is true, just an exercise in appearances. It is about the power of money and the fear of losing your livelihood and reputation. It is about politicians looking like they care about 'racism'.

The truth never mattered, just like it doesn't matter to you.

Excuse the length of this post.

I wanted to make a point on this, as my first instinct was the same as Dan's observation above.

I agree that Rafiq's 'previous' doesn't mean he didn't experience, or has any less right to call out, racist treatment at Yorkshire CCC.

However...

If everything Rafiq says about Yorkshire is accurate then we have to some extent to address the age-old and unfortunate problem of distinguishing, after the event and out of context, between abuse and 'banter'.

This is a nightmare to do, and there are plenty of people who refuse to. Some will pass off even the worst abuse as playful banter, whilst others (equally unreasonably) do the polar opposite. For me, anyone refusing to recognise the possibility of some graded distinction between the extremes is not only failing to solve the problem at hand, but is also contributing to a different, wider one.

Ultimately, if you want to fairly judge individual people (which is quite important) then you have to try to tease out the facts and context (including intention) of each of the acts Rafiq recounts, as well as the impacts. This is where the difficulty arises. We can only rely on the evidence of the individuals, and how they describe their experiences, especially when it comes to the potentially critical matters of context and tone. The integrity of the witness becomes paramount, therefore. Are they a reasonable person, whose judgement one can fully trust?

Now include Rafiq's recently uncovered 'previous'. Two things arise:

Firstly, simply: Is Rafiq's judgment sound? He seemingly alleges a culture of racism, without any distinction of category within that. Perhaps it's not his job to distinguish between a bad joke, something that someone else (Asian or otherwise) might find reasonable but which he doesn't, dirty low-down bullying, or even racial supremacist or separatist mindsets, especially if the sum total is awful anyway, but individual people and instances are named in his evidence so they should be addressed individually if possible. Also, there will inevitably be recommendations for improvements after this, and solutions are only effective if the problems are properly identified, and not oversimplified.

So, has Rafiq been able or willing to distinguish between a person making a joke designed to include him in the group, another making one less clearly intended to include him, one making a joke at his expense, and one intending to degrade and humiliate him? Any of these things might be hurtful and require action, but they are not the same. Can he tell the difference? If not, and if he puts all his negative experiences at Yorkshire (which seem so awful when he recounts them, but which may have been said in a range of tones, contexts and settings by very different people for different reasons) into the same narrow category marked 'Racism in Action', and none of them into categories marked 'Ill-Advised Humour' or 'Just Talking S***e, Don’t Take Seriously’ but yet he indulges in (at very best) that same brand of humour or s***-talking himself, then there is an issue.

That issue is not hypocrisy, but credibility. He becomes a less obviously reasonable and fair person whose account not of the facts but of the context I can trust in full.

If on the other hand, he does recognise the difference, then why is he apologising so fully for what would seem quite plainly to be a joke in private made ten years ago? If he said 'Yeah I wrote that message, but it was a joke in the context of a private conversation with someone I trusted to know that I'm not racist' then frankly I'd trust his judgement regarding the things that were said to him at Yorkshire a lot more. His apology just makes me concerned that he sees all racist language as equal and without category - that his approach is too simplified to be relied upon.

Secondly, more importantly, what does this do to the mindset of the investigating bodies (be that select committee, ECB, the media, social media or the public)?

Should Rafiq face penalties for his own errors? Possibly. Do we accept that they were just poorly considered ‘banter’? Dunno. Does the fact that he is an Asian Muslim cast his anti-Semitic comments in a different, darker light? Possibly? His apology seems genuine, but should he be asked to confirm his position on the validity of the creation of a Jewish State, or do we just leave that off the menu and ask for that sort of policy-position statement when other types of racism are alleged? If so, why?

If Marie van der Zyl, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews (Not sure what that means - is she entitled to speak for others simply because she shares their racial category?) can find that: “Azeem Rafiq has suffered terribly at the hands of racists in cricket so he will well understand the hurt this exchange will cause to Jews who have supported him. His apology certainly seems heartfelt and we have no reason to believe he is not completely sincere”, then can some of the people Rafiq names not also offer a heartfelt and sincere apology, and would that be sufficient?

The notion that there is only racism and non-racism, that there is no need to trouble ourselves with nuance, intention, and vague and blurry subcategories, or to wrestle with inconsistencies and paradoxes within that simplified approach is upheld by some at all costs, and has the force of law to some extent precisely because the nuances are too fine and varied to regulate for. Surely, however, that simplified mindset cannot survive the realities of the real world when the highest-profile victim of the day is also a guilty party?

Rafiq should have justice, but not blindly so. The same complexities that surround his actions must be recognised in the actions of those he accuses, for everyone's sake.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (19 Nov 2021 7.39pm)