Yorkshire Racism Enquiry

I don't want to open a can of worms here, but would be very interested to hear views on this. I know Surrey is not involved, but there is a potential knock on effect on all cricketers I believe.

For what it's worth: It seems rather odd that the only bloke turning up is a certain Michael Vaughan. Also the guy who started it all is hardly squeaky clean by all accounts. And you know what was said or wasn't said back in 2010 in a sportsman's dressing room environment (ever been in one after a game?) is pushing the debatable "racist" agenda a bit far in my mind.

Don't think anyone is going to come out of this one smelling of roses.

I think the charges against individuals are a bit of a distraction here. It's the club that really matters. Yorkshire does not seem to have dealt adequately with Rafiq's allegations of - what to call it? casual racism? - at the time and for years afterwards, hence him eventually going public. The legal report that Yorkshire commissioned seemed to minimise everything. Now we learn that large tranches of apparently relevant emails were deleted from everywhere, which should be pretty much impossible by accident in any substantial business. Not too hard to work out why that may have happened. It's very much a mess of their own making. Rafiq is not "the guy who started it all" - that's a bit like victim blaming - it's those who allowed the culture to fester.

The allegations made don't just refer to the dressing room but also to travelling to and from the ground, training and social environments, so they should not be dismissed as being made in the heat of the moment under pressure. There is the good old "only banter" argument but I think we all know that some of the banter from fifty years ago (think Lonsdale Skinner's claims about Fred Titmus) is way out of order now; standards can and should change over time, even in a dressing room.

The "you lot" remark which Vaughan is supposed to have been made is an interesting example. If it was made, I would be pretty sure that it was intended as a bit of humour and not to be offensive. However, if you have had those words or similar said to you repeatedly in your life by people who clearly are seeking to be offensive, you are going to have a completely different take on it.

If Rafiq was difficult and not a very nice person then fine, call him out on that but that doesn't justify racial insults or (as the letter from the Sixteen apparently implied) justify paying less attention to the issues that he raised.

Good points but I do have a problem with someone making accusations who is possibly no better than those he is accusing. Apparently always complaining about something.

If a white cricketer had admitted he had previously made racist comments, and then complains that say a black man had been racist to him, he would’ve been laughed out of the place (and quite right too).
Rafiq is not a nice bloke and is a grade A hypocrite making some good money despite his own checkered history. It’s all a one way street that stinks of politically correct apologetics.

Sir Winston Churchill wrote:If a white cricketer had admitted he had previously made racist comments, and then complains that say a black man had been racist to him, he would’ve been laughed out of the place (and quite right too).
Rafiq is not a nice bloke and is a grade A hypocrite making some good money despite his own checkered history. It’s all a one way street that stinks of politically correct apologetics.

I'm not sure that the money Rafiq has made makes up for the stress and personal attacks he has experienced. The net result of that is that anyone, even the nicest bloke, who is in a similar position will decide it's not worth rocking the boat because something they might have done in their younger days will be disinterred (we've all done something, we're all part hypocrite because it's part of the human condition). So challenging racist comments (in any direction) and worse goes out of the window - no thanks. If that makes me politically correct, fine.

As far as I am aware. Rafiq's anti-semitic posts and other misdeeds were away from work. What came the other way was in or around the workplace. If it had been dealt with properly years ago by YCCC, they wouldn't be in the mess they are today and we wouldn't have players being charged either.

Why didn’t he go public with this when he was playing cricket?

Why did he wait for the money to run out before being “brave”?

Racist calls other people racist is hardly as big of a news story as George Dobell the race baiter would have you believe.

Unfortunately "years ago" rightly or wrongly this stuff went on. Remember too the players involved were at lot younger and more immature including Rafiq. I don't think it's that relevant whether his misdeeds were in or out of the workplace. But should men be punished and charged over what they may or may not have did 13 years ago? Yes I agree the club were at fault, but does it warrant dragging all this up now and ruining careers and staining the game. I'm not comfortable with that. And look, racist comments, define. Is "you lot" a racist comment for instance? It depends in the context in which it's used. People call the police "you lot" even now for example. I don't think that's racist in any form. Maybe a bit of forgiveness and less hypocrisy and woke culture would be better used here. Real racism is a long way from this. Take a look around the World.

If nobody ever says anything about it then what went on "years ago" would carry on for ever.

The relevance of in/out of the workplace is that the employer has a duty to do something about it. If YCCC had performed that properly the allegations against other individuals to be in the public domain. The reason, Vauxhall, why he didn't go public years ago? Quite possibly lack of self-confidence but also he did try to resolves it internally for several years before giving it up as a bad job.

The principal stain on the game would surely be racism itself rather than the raising of issues around racism.

I agree on context but that context also includes previous life experiences. I can understand why the speaker would see "you lot" as harmless and the recipient see the same remark as having a racist tinge to it. The police analogy is a bit naff as they are a separate organisation. Using it for a minority racial group amongst your colleagues is a bit different. The culture also seems to have permitted a lot worse than "you lot", even just basing it on the evidence that is not questioned.

Of course using these words is a long way from violent racism. There is a story in the paper this morning, though, about how websites which purvey disparaging words about groups without actually arguing for violence still play a part in encouraging those who do wish to take it as far as violence (in a different context Trump's words about the 2020 election surely encouraged Jan 6th even though they never explicitly asked for violence). I have wondered sometimes whether "real racists" think they are somehow representing "the British" (or whatever) as a whole, in which case the more low level racism there is, the more real racism is encouraged. I'm not sure I'm right on that but it's a thought.

Oh come on. Amongst Rafiiqs racism claims was that he was given smaller digs (a free home) than his white counterparts. Utterly ludicrous.
If racism was so rife why in the name of god did he re-join Yorkshire?
This is so out of hand. I feel very sorry for many of those affected. Completely innocent medics at Yorkshire who had never even met him for example.

Look you can't rewrite history. "Years ago" lots of this stuff minor or otherwise was actually acceptable. A short while ago anyone who lived through the 60s should be jailed accordingly to much of today's thinking. I don't think you can disengage the phrase "you lot" whoever it's directed at. It has the same meaning.
To me this just demonstrates a wider malaise in our society: there seems to be a movement by certain groups to put society in some sort of sterile bubble where the woke agenda will protect us from all the nasty so called "racists". Pity they can't find something more positive to occupy their time.
No good will come out of this tenuous enquiry for cricket or any other sport I fear.

Sir Winston Churchill wrote:Oh come on. Amongst Rafiiqs racism claims was that he was given smaller digs (a free home) than his white counterparts. Utterly ludicrous.
If racism was so rife why in the name of god did he re-join Yorkshire?
This is so out of hand. I feel very sorry for many of those affected. Completely innocent medics at Yorkshire who had never even met him for example.

Yet apparently were (if we are talking about the same people) prepared to put their name to a letter saying how awful this person (that they had never met) was.

It's got out of hand primarily because Yorkshire allowed it to do so.

Chinaman wrote:Look you can't rewrite history. "Years ago" lots of this stuff minor or otherwise was actually acceptable. A short while ago anyone who lived through the 60s should be jailed accordingly to much of today's thinking. I don't think you can disengage the phrase "you lot" whoever it's directed at. It has the same meaning.
To me this just demonstrates a wider malaise in our society: there seems to be a movement by certain groups to put society in some sort of sterile bubble where the woke agenda will protect us from all the nasty so called "racists". Pity they can't find something more positive to occupy their time.
No good will come out of this tenuous enquiry for cricket or any other sport I fear.

In one of your earlier posts you said

"Is "you lot" a racist comment for instance? It depends in the context in which it's used."

Now you say

"I don't think you can disengage the phrase "you lot" whoever it's directed at. It has the same meaning."

As you say, a lot of stuff was considered acceptable years ago (except perhaps by the targets?). Assuming that you agree that by and large things have changed for the better, how do you think that has happened without behaviour being challenged? I'm not saying that every challenge must be accepted at face value but I think dismissing it as woke or politically correct and putting the word racists in quotes is not the way to go either. I'm not too keen on the majority telling the minority they have no right to be offended and must just suck it up.

It has the same meaning whether it's racist or otherwise. My point being it's irrelevant whether it's directed to a minority group or the police. Unfortunately some people are offended by anything these days however innocent it may be. Not sure that's a change for the better in my book. Look how the BBC has gone.
Nice to have these debates with you Adelaide, even if we don't agree! Maybe we need to get back to the cricket before someone says FFS......

I can tell you what's racist. Having coaching lessons that are for black kids only...no whites allowed.
Surreys ACE programme is this very scheme. Again if it were whites only it would be on the front page of every newspaper and those organising would be sacked immediately (and quite right too). However discriminating against white kids is actually promoted. Its wrong,wrong,wrong and its happening today.