Yorkshire Racism Enquiry

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66339035

Well what do we think of this? Hidden at the bottom of the cricket news on the BBC.

Looks like they've done a Durham on them with 48 point deduction. Terrible for today's players who have nothing to do with the questionable Rafiq accusations.

Division 3 anyone.

Oh absolutely. Anything the ECB can do to interfere with the integrity of the county championship they will do. The crimes are nothing to do with the players currently earning points for Yorkshire, or the members paying to support them. Why not just ban those individuals who were culpable from any appointment in cricket for 10 years as well as the club fine.

The only consolation for Yorkshire is that they were probably unlikely to get promoted this season as things stood, and the deduction can't relegate them any further. It would have been far worse if the points deduction had been applied to next year's competition.

Well yes. It took Durham 5 years or so to get back into where they are now because of the wretched ECB whose closet is no doubt filled with unsavoury things. Who punishes them.
Whatever your view is on the Rashid accusations (racism or dressing room banter) he is not a very nice person by all accounts who was always moaning about something. Move on and stop digging up spurious stuff from 15 years ago. Some people have nothing better to do it seems to me than penalise people for questionable who said what to who nonsense.

Throwing the Kitchen sink at Yorkshire. I Surprised the haven’t Relegated them to The Minor Counties League.Feel sorry for the non racist members.Imagine he is very upset.

Cos cricket's for eveyone at Surrey.

Chinaman wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66339035

Well what do we think of this? Hidden at the bottom of the cricket news on the BBC.

Looks like they've done a Durham on them with 48 point deduction. Terrible for today's players who have nothing to do with the questionable Rafiq accusations.

Division 3 anyone.

In reality its absolutely nothing like the punishment given to Durham.

Cee Gee wrote:

Chinaman wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66339035

Well what do we think of this? Hidden at the bottom of the cricket news on the BBC.

Looks like they've done a Durham on them with 48 point deduction. Terrible for today's players who have nothing to do with the questionable Rafiq accusations.

Division 3 anyone.

In reality its absolutely nothing like the punishment given to Durham.

Indeed, because no relegation could be involved, promotion was unlikely and the Blast completed (no penalty for the One Day Cup shows what the ECB think of that competition!).

The reason for punishing the club was because the club made such a pig's ear of investigating the complaints in the first place. You may not agree with that, or regard it as unimportant because it weas "just banter" but it is hard to see how you can punish the club without affecting the current players or the members.

BTW, I find the idea that it was just banter, and that the people on the receiving end should get a life or whatever, rather odd. Would those who think that now have been saying the same about attitudes in the 1960s here, or in the Deep South for yonks? Probably not but there would have been equivalents saying that at the time (most of us squirm now at the Black and White Minstrel show but not many did at the time). At what point do they think stuff became sufficiently inoffensive and unimportant to be regarded as just banter? I think you have to b consistently on the receiving end to judge.

Cee Gee wrote:

Chinaman wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66339035

Well what do we think of this? Hidden at the bottom of the cricket news on the BBC.

Looks like they've done a Durham on them with 48 point deduction. Terrible for today's players who have nothing to do with the questionable Rafiq accusations.

Division 3 anyone.

In reality its absolutely nothing like the punishment given to Durham.

Well I know Durham were deducted the same amount of points, and of course it was the ECB that ultimately got them into the financial shite as they spent a fortune in making the ground into a Test venue as the ECB wanted, and then they accused them for financial mismanagement. And now they don't even hold tests. The first one I think was against Sri Lanka in early May! I think that's right from memory.

Yep. It strikes me this virtue signalling in a way. Ever been in a sports dressing room? I have and it's not always tickety boo as we'd like it. And it's often the way something is said or directed that could be offensive or indeed not. 1960s attitudes wouldn't go down well in today's society, but the pendulum has swung so far the other way that the woke culture is dictating to the masses how they want us to live our lives. Too many seem to take offence over  something. Maybe people haven't got enough to occupy their time so would rather make others miserable. ECB perhaps?  As for rewriting history to fit into today's "ideas", mmm, perhaps better to leave it there! As Adelaide often rightly reminds me, this is a cricket site first and foremost.

It is hard to argue that Asian people don't have a fondness for munching curries.

The suspicion is that the ECB has (as in so many other cases) got this badly wrong, as has Yorkshire.

The Leeds Employment Tribunal ruled that Ian Dews and others were unfairly dismissed by Yorkshire (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-10581861/Four-ex-Yorkshire-employees-sacked-aftermath-racism-scandal-challenge-countys-decision.html and https://www.thehrdirector.com/legal-updates/legal-updates-2022/employees-sacked-yorkshire-county-cricket-club-following-azeem-rafiq-racism-scandal-win-unfair-dismissal-claim/ and https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/629f62d78fa8f5039a1bd721/Mr_I_Dews_and_Others_v_The_Yorkshire_Cricket_Club_LImited_-_1800858_2022_-_No_Hearing.pdf).

That of course doesn't mean there was no racism, but it makes it even more confusing as to what might have happened.

Given how badly (and incompetently) the ECB has behaved over the last few years (decades), I wouldn't trust anthing they say.

SimonH wrote:The suspicion is that the ECB has (as in so many other cases) got this badly wrong, as has Yorkshire.

The Leeds Employment Tribunal ruled that Ian Dews and others were unfairly dismissed by Yorkshire (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-10581861/Four-ex-Yorkshire-employees-sacked-aftermath-racism-scandal-challenge-countys-decision.html and https://www.thehrdirector.com/legal-updates/legal-updates-2022/employees-sacked-yorkshire-county-cricket-club-following-azeem-rafiq-racism-scandal-win-unfair-dismissal-claim/ and https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/629f62d78fa8f5039a1bd721/Mr_I_Dews_and_Others_v_The_Yorkshire_Cricket_Club_LImited_-_1800858_2022_-_No_Hearing.pdf).

That of course doesn't mean there was no racism, but it makes it even more confusing as to what might have happened.

Given how badly (and incompetently) the ECB has behaved over the last few years (decades), I wouldn't trust anthing they say.

I think "unfair dismissal" means that procedures were not followed (a familiar theme in all of this at YCCC) rather than judgement of the merits of the case. Even if someone has done something undoubtedly beyond the pale the process by which they are hung, drawn and quartered has to be fair and seen to be fair. In this case finding the dismissal unfair doesn't of itself say anything about whether the individuals' behaviour was racist, or wrong in some other way.

I think punishment had to be dished out for Yorkshire fouling up their own enquiry (cover-up) into the issue, deleting evidence etc. The culprits have moved on so the ECB, sensibly, has enforced punishments that will have minimal effect next season as long as noses are kept clean. The ECB had to take strong action in these circumstances.

It’s more than just process … having had to deal with a few of these claims, the dismissal is only fair (ie. legal) if the employer has & follows a fair process, acts fairly & reasonably, and has good reason to terminate. Of course I’ve no idea what actually happened, but a good guess is someone at Yorkshire panicked and sacked them on the basis of the allegations, without investigating properly. Having seen that happen, lots of people understandably refused to co operate with the ECB’s absurd CDC.

SimonH wrote:It’s more than just process … having had to deal with a few of these claims, the dismissal is only fair (ie. legal) if the employer has & follows a fair process, acts fairly & reasonably, and has good reason to terminate. Of course I’ve no idea what actually happened, but a good guess is someone at Yorkshire panicked and sacked them on the basis of the allegations, without investigating properly. Having seen that happen, lots of people understandably refused to co operate with the ECB’s absurd CDC.

The "quick win" is process, so that's the first thing that gets considered and (if successful on that) other factors don't get looked at. Whether it was panic on YCCC's part or a feeling that they had to react to pressure irrespective of proper procedure (you will lose the Test...) from the ECB is arguable but it left a procedural open goal.