If the process goes as I hope, and expect, no-one will lose their careers. There will be new guidance and over-sight alongside a "truth and reconciliation" procedure, held in private, during which people can speak freely and then move forward.

If it was a culture that was to blame, then any individual caught up in it, isn't.

Only those unable to divest themselves of their past have anything to fear. Forgiveness now. Not in the future.

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.

You forgot to add the 'Imagine' lyrics to the end of that.

We will see won't we....I think you making the requirement at the end is telling. I also don't think you're accurate at all.

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

It was in The Times.

[Link]

People need to think of the consequences, in the mist of all this puritanical virtual signalling I honesty don't think they are.

Banter is a part of cricket from the local clubhouse to the England team. All that is going to be achieved is distrust and separation....this will exclude not include.

I certainly think that genuine abuse should be sensibly sorted out by people on the ground when it happens......Also players really need to be better judges as to who can take a joke and who can't.....They face the rather unpleasant reality that if they fall out with certain players that they can use the race card against them....that will lower trust.

It should definitely have never reached this stage....careers have already been unavoidably damaged and I can't see how anybody honest could conclude otherwise.

From what has emerged and what I've read I don't think Rafiq is ethical. There may be various levels of truth to what he says but I don't think he's given anyone the benefit of the doubt and has turned up stuff to eleven.

He has used the race card to hurt people while claiming that he's the victim and in the current race climate I think it's stuff that those in power bend to....or shall I say kneel to. They may perhaps actually want to hear it as it as they can score easy virtual signalling points off of it.

As for what's real, fair and balanced. I don't think that we live in a society that puts that first anymore.

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

That isn't the Times, but thanks anyway.

It seems this wasn't part of his testimony to the committee, but as a consequence of a witness statement he gave to an employment tribunal. Now backed up by other witnesses.

He says people should be given a second chance, but that outright denial, after others have confirmed what he claimed, isn't tenable.

When put in an awkward spot by a journalist, he gave the reply he did. This was only asking Vaughan to apologise and he, perhaps unwisely, then answered the follow-up question, on what the BBC should do if he didn't, without too much thought it seems.

Rafiq is not a skilled politician who is used to fielding trick questions. The committee handled him gently and coaxed answers from him. I think his true position was stated then.

Hopefully it's a storm in a teacup. vaughan may genuinely not remember what Rafiq does clearly. If that was the prevailing culture, that wouldn't be surprising.

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.

For someone who likes to present himself as an intellectual wordsmith, you do struggle with quite simple ideas sometimes.

You can name someone, as an example of something collective, without accusing them individually of anything. It's really not complicated. It's the collective that's accused!

Then you deviate, yet again, and use another tedious, very distasteful, and completely unacceptable, ad hominem.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but the only thing I have been diagnosed with is prostate cancer. Of course, as well as being a failed teacher, you are a physician who is so skilful they can make a diagnosis over the web.

The ONLY place I ever get accused of dishonesty is here, by you and the tiny group who hang on your coat-tails. Those with any kind of objectivity, even those who disagree with me politically, know why that is.

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.