Rafiq

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Rafiq

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 58 of 77 < 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 >

Stirlingsays 22 Nov 21 11.25pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle 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. A highly enjoyable post. Thank you. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

22 Nov 21 11.25pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

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.

A highly enjoyable post.

Thank you.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Nov 21 11.32pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays 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. Of course, it is. It is in my own sport. It's part of the fun where the teasing is relentless. However, there have to be boundaries. In my own sport plenty of people have disabilities, but we would never tease them about them. Many games are mixed sex and whilst sexist joking abounds it is always within unwritten, but well understood, limits. Racist comments, even when spoken as light-hearted intended banter, have to be outside the boundaries. Perhaps 50 years ago they wouldn't have been, but things have moved on, and they are no longer. Yorkshire cricket clearly haven't yet moved on and remain with their feet of clay stuck in the past. As, it seems, are you and several others posting here. 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.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 22 Nov 21 11.32pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

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.

Of course, it is. It is in my own sport. It's part of the fun where the teasing is relentless.

However, there have to be boundaries. In my own sport plenty of people have disabilities, but we would never tease them about them. Many games are mixed sex and whilst sexist joking abounds it is always within unwritten, but well understood, limits.

Racist comments, even when spoken as light-hearted intended banter, have to be outside the boundaries. Perhaps 50 years ago they wouldn't have been, but things have moved on, and they are no longer.

Yorkshire cricket clearly haven't yet moved on and remain with their feet of clay stuck in the past.

As, it seems, are you and several others posting here.

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.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Nov 21 11.37pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle It isn’t because The Times has subscriber only content. Storm in a teacup or not Michael Vaughan was still suspended from his job following this lack of media savvy. Suspension whilst things are investigated is hardly unusual, and it enables people to concentrate on dealing with things effectively. 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.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 22 Nov 21 11.37pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

It isn’t because The Times has subscriber only content.
Storm in a teacup or not Michael Vaughan was still suspended from his job following this lack of media savvy.

Suspension whilst things are investigated is hardly unusual, and it enables people to concentrate on dealing with things effectively.

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.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 22 Nov 21 11.42pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Suspension whilst things are investigated is hardly unusual, and it enables people to concentrate on dealing with things effectively. That might be true if he was still working for Yorkshire and they were undertaking an internal investigation.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

22 Nov 21 11.42pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Suspension whilst things are investigated is hardly unusual, and it enables people to concentrate on dealing with things effectively.

That might be true if he was still working for Yorkshire and they were undertaking an internal investigation.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 23 Nov 21 12.25am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Of course, it is. It is in my own sport. It's part of the fun where the teasing is relentless. However, there have to be boundaries. In my own sport plenty of people have disabilities, but we would never tease them about them. Many games are mixed sex and whilst sexist joking abounds it is always within unwritten, but well understood, limits. Racist comments, even when spoken as light-hearted intended banter, have to be outside the boundaries. Perhaps 50 years ago they wouldn't have been, but things have moved on, and they are no longer. Yorkshire cricket clearly haven't yet moved on and remain with their feet of clay stuck in the past. As, it seems, are you and several others posting here. There are people who differ politically with me that I regard as honest and worth listening to when it comes to ethical questions....even if I might not agree with their take on them. While I don't wish to appear too harsh, but in my experience, I can't say that you are one of those people. Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Nov 2021 12.26am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

23 Nov 21 12.25am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Of course, it is. It is in my own sport. It's part of the fun where the teasing is relentless.

Racist comments, even when spoken as light-hearted intended banter, have to be outside the boundaries. Perhaps 50 years ago they wouldn't have been, but things have moved on, and they are no longer.

Yorkshire cricket clearly haven't yet moved on and remain with their feet of clay stuck in the past.

As, it seems, are you and several others posting here.

There are people who differ politically with me that I regard as honest and worth listening to when it comes to ethical questions....even if I might not agree with their take on them.

While I don't wish to appear too harsh, but in my experience, I can't say that you are one of those people.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Nov 2021 12.26am)

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Helmet46 Croydon 23 Nov 21 7.31am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Is it abuse? Seems an overly strong term to me. Unwise, possibly illegal, but she wasn't forced, she was offered, and she accepted. we ought not divert the thread by opening up the Pandora's box you mention, or it will go right off the tracks. That has its own, well-used thread. I am not pointing fingers! I don't think we ought to be even thinking about trying to find a balance between widespread institutional racism and any individual's mistakes. The scales lean overwhelmingly in one direction. Maybe abuse is a strong word but she was under 18 (she was 16) and was therefore a minor in the eyes of the law. And they were both drinking, so a little bit of hypocrisy thrown in. You’re right and I don’t disagree - the scales are massively skewed in terms of ‘scale’ but there’s more to balance than that. For example you call what he has done a ‘mistake’ - so anti semitism is a mistake - whereas it is implied that what Hales and others have done is racism. To me it’s ALL racism and should be called out and dealt with accordingly. But that Pandora’s box does need to be opened because I personally think the abject failure to report widely what happened in Rochdale was a conscious decision and I have a concern that this failure to report was on grounds of race (but, yes, maybe not opened on this thread). It does throw a light on a much bigger picture across the whole piece here and that is what I mean by balance. It is also what I mean by a path to anarchy if you don’t treat, investigate and report all cases with the same gusto. (That’s where the US is heading, in my view). However I also appreciate that what I am seeking is some kind of nirvana and all the time we have a society where some people lack balance and will consider one mans racism to be another’s mistake, it’ll not change. Edited by Helmet46 (23 Nov 2021 7.55am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Helmet46

Croydon 23 Nov 21 7.31am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Is it abuse? Seems an overly strong term to me. Unwise, possibly illegal, but she wasn't forced, she was offered, and she accepted.

we ought not divert the thread by opening up the Pandora's box you mention, or it will go right off the tracks. That has its own, well-used thread.

I am not pointing fingers!

I don't think we ought to be even thinking about trying to find a balance between widespread institutional racism and any individual's mistakes. The scales lean overwhelmingly in one direction.

Maybe abuse is a strong word but she was under 18 (she was 16) and was therefore a minor in the eyes of the law. And they were both drinking, so a little bit of hypocrisy thrown in.
You’re right and I don’t disagree - the scales are massively skewed in terms of ‘scale’ but there’s more to balance than that. For example you call what he has done a ‘mistake’ - so anti semitism is a mistake - whereas it is implied that what Hales and others have done is racism. To me it’s ALL racism and should be called out and dealt with accordingly.
But that Pandora’s box does need to be opened because I personally think the abject failure to report widely what happened in Rochdale was a conscious decision and I have a concern that this failure to report was on grounds of race (but, yes, maybe not opened on this thread). It does throw a light on a much bigger picture across the whole piece here and that is what I mean by balance. It is also what I mean by a path to anarchy if you don’t treat, investigate and report all cases with the same gusto. (That’s where the US is heading, in my view).

However I also appreciate that what I am seeking is some kind of nirvana and all the time we have a society where some people lack balance and will consider one mans racism to be another’s mistake, it’ll not change.

Edited by Helmet46 (23 Nov 2021 7.55am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 23 Nov 21 7.47am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Paedo? She was a 16 year old, who said she was 17. Very young and certainly not something to be encouraged, as they are still legally a child, but beyond the age of consent. As he wasn't seeking any credibility over his own behaviour, there was nothing to lose. He identified a problem, which has been accepted exists and will now be dealt with. He has succeeded in that, so whatever people think of him now is rather meaningless. It seems to me that some people are desperately seeking to establish some kind of false equivalence, presumably so they can discredit Rafiq and along with that the problem he has highlighted. Why would they do that? Perhaps because they don't like the cultural problem being highlighted like this, and the promises being made to fix it. Why wouldn't they like this? Perhaps because they share the attitudes which lie at the base of the culture. Judging on some of the comments found in the tread, that's it only building site banter, etc etc, there is plenty of evidence that is probably true. As you can see from my posts on this thread, my issue is with the hypocrisy (imo) of Rafiq.
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 23 Nov 21 7.47am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Paedo? She was a 16 year old, who said she was 17. Very young and certainly not something to be encouraged, as they are still legally a child, but beyond the age of consent.

As he wasn't seeking any credibility over his own behaviour, there was nothing to lose. He identified a problem, which has been accepted exists and will now be dealt with.

He has succeeded in that, so whatever people think of him now is rather meaningless.

It seems to me that some people are desperately seeking to establish some kind of false equivalence, presumably so they can discredit Rafiq and along with that the problem he has highlighted.

Why would they do that? Perhaps because they don't like the cultural problem being highlighted like this, and the promises being made to fix it.

Why wouldn't they like this? Perhaps because they share the attitudes which lie at the base of the culture. Judging on some of the comments found in the tread, that's it only building site banter, etc etc, there is plenty of evidence that is probably true.

As you can see from my posts on this thread, my issue is with the hypocrisy (imo) of Rafiq.

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 23 Nov 21 7.54am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Is it abuse? Seems an overly strong term to me. Unwise, possibly illegal, but she wasn't forced, she was offered, and she accepted. we ought not divert the thread by opening up the Pandora's box you mention, or it will go right off the tracks. That has its own, well-used thread. I am not pointing fingers! I don't think we ought to be even thinking about trying to find a balance between widespread institutional racism and any individual's mistakes. The scales lean overwhelmingly in one direction. Buying a rum and coke for a 17 year old is illegal. If it was beer, wine or cider and it was with the airline meal, possibly not, although tenious [Link] Edited by Spiderman (23 Nov 2021 10.30am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 23 Nov 21 7.54am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Is it abuse? Seems an overly strong term to me. Unwise, possibly illegal, but she wasn't forced, she was offered, and she accepted.

we ought not divert the thread by opening up the Pandora's box you mention, or it will go right off the tracks. That has its own, well-used thread.

I am not pointing fingers!

I don't think we ought to be even thinking about trying to find a balance between widespread institutional racism and any individual's mistakes. The scales lean overwhelmingly in one direction.

Buying a rum and coke for a 17 year old is illegal. If it was beer, wine or cider and it was with the airline meal, possibly not, although tenious

[Link]

Edited by Spiderman (23 Nov 2021 10.30am)

Alert a moderator to this post

becky over the moon 23 Nov 21 8.12am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Of course, it is. It is in my own sport. It's part of the fun where the teasing is relentless. However, there have to be boundaries. In my own sport plenty of people have disabilities, but we would never tease them about them. Many games are mixed sex and whilst sexist joking abounds it is always within unwritten, but well understood, limits. Racist comments, even when spoken as light-hearted intended banter, have to be outside the boundaries. Perhaps 50 years ago they wouldn't have been, but things have moved on, and they are no longer. Yorkshire cricket clearly haven't yet moved on and remain with their feet of clay stuck in the past. As, it seems, are you and several others posting here. Would those be the boundaries of sexism set by the men, or the women? Or do the women merely tolerate this as 'part of the culture'? Has anyone ever asked them? If it's not acceptable for racism, why is it acceptable for sexism in 2021? A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

becky

over the moon 23 Nov 21 8.12am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Of course, it is. It is in my own sport. It's part of the fun where the teasing is relentless.

However, there have to be boundaries. In my own sport plenty of people have disabilities, but we would never tease them about them. Many games are mixed sex and whilst sexist joking abounds it is always within unwritten, but well understood, limits.

Racist comments, even when spoken as light-hearted intended banter, have to be outside the boundaries. Perhaps 50 years ago they wouldn't have been, but things have moved on, and they are no longer.

Yorkshire cricket clearly haven't yet moved on and remain with their feet of clay stuck in the past.

As, it seems, are you and several others posting here.

Would those be the boundaries of sexism set by the men, or the women?

Or do the women merely tolerate this as 'part of the culture'?

Has anyone ever asked them?

If it's not acceptable for racism, why is it acceptable for sexism in 2021?

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Helmet46 Croydon 23 Nov 21 8.15am
Originally posted by becky Would those be the boundaries of sexism set by the men, or the women? Or do the women merely tolerate this as 'part of the culture'? Has anyone ever asked them? If it's not acceptable for racism, why is it acceptable for sexism in 2021? Ouch! It won’t be sexism, it’ll be a ‘mistake.’ Edited by Helmet46 (23 Nov 2021 8.15am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Helmet46

Croydon 23 Nov 21 8.15am

Originally posted by becky

Would those be the boundaries of sexism set by the men, or the women?

Or do the women merely tolerate this as 'part of the culture'?

Has anyone ever asked them?

If it's not acceptable for racism, why is it acceptable for sexism in 2021?

Ouch!
It won’t be sexism, it’ll be a ‘mistake.’

Edited by Helmet46 (23 Nov 2021 8.15am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Nov 21 8.51am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle That might be true if he was still working for Yorkshire and they were undertaking an internal investigation. Maybe because his work is almost exclusively on cricket and this concerns cricket. Suspension, on full pay, to enable both sides to fully consider the matter, consult, mediate and negotiate as quickly as possible, is often in everyone's interests. 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.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 23 Nov 21 8.51am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

That might be true if he was still working for Yorkshire and they were undertaking an internal investigation.

Maybe because his work is almost exclusively on cricket and this concerns cricket. Suspension, on full pay, to enable both sides to fully consider the matter, consult, mediate and negotiate as quickly as possible, is often in everyone's interests.

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.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Nov 21 8.58am
Originally posted by becky Would those be the boundaries of sexism set by the men, or the women? Or do the women merely tolerate this as 'part of the culture'? Has anyone ever asked them? If it's not acceptable for racism, why is it acceptable for sexism in 2021? Very, very revealing comment! Why do you assume that all the sexist comments are by men towards women? I can assure you that they aren't. Not by a very long chalk. The boundaries are set by decent people using common sense. This is real banter, intended to produce smiles, and not offence or hurt. Most people understand the difference very well. It's a huge shame that some don't. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (23 Nov 2021 9.00am) 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.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 23 Nov 21 8.58am

Originally posted by becky

Would those be the boundaries of sexism set by the men, or the women?

Or do the women merely tolerate this as 'part of the culture'?

Has anyone ever asked them?

If it's not acceptable for racism, why is it acceptable for sexism in 2021?

Very, very revealing comment!

Why do you assume that all the sexist comments are by men towards women?

I can assure you that they aren't. Not by a very long chalk.

The boundaries are set by decent people using common sense. This is real banter, intended to produce smiles, and not offence or hurt. Most people understand the difference very well. It's a huge shame that some don't.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (23 Nov 2021 9.00am)

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.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 58 of 77 < 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Rafiq

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors