Membership pack and card

adelaide wrote:"DEI encompasses people of different ages, races, ethnicities, abilities, disabilities, genders, religions, cultures and sexual orientations." - which incidentally includes old white geezers but let's take it as anyone but old white geezers for the sake of argument.

SWC - Why would you expect (guarantee, even) ZERO increase in membership from any of those groups? I presume that Surrey CCC has members from all those groups now. Though maybe they won't stick around much longer if they come onto this forum and see some of what gets posted!

Jackers - I don't know about you but just because something isn't laid down in law doesn't automatically mean it shouldn't be done.

If I were to respond in any more depth that would be getting perilously close to "Anything but Cricket" territory so I'll stop there.


I'm struggling to see which of my contributions on this thread you're referring to. I can only assume it's my response to the "transition plan" (which may or may not have been tongue-in-cheek!).

It reminds me of the all-too prescient Jasper Carrott gag a while back: "first it was against the law, then it was seriously frowned upon, then it was allowed, now it's being encouraged......well, I'm getting out before they make it compulsory!"

adelaide wrote:"DEI encompasses people of different ages, races, ethnicities, abilities, disabilities, genders, religions, cultures and sexual orientations." - which incidentally includes old white geezers but let's take it as anyone but old white geezers for the sake of argument.

SWC - Why would you expect (guarantee, even) ZERO increase in membership from any of those groups? I presume that Surrey CCC has members from all those groups now. Though maybe they won't stick around much longer if they come onto this forum and see some of what gets posted!

Jackers - I don't know about you but just because something isn't laid down in law doesn't automatically mean it shouldn't be done.

If I were to respond in any more depth that would be getting perilously close to "Anything but Cricket" territory so I'll stop there.

Adelaide. It was me that said it's not a legal requirement to have Diversity Officers and the like. Before DEI we had managers to sort out these problems, now we have officers and the like who create them

But look, just today the BBC removed one of my cricket posts because I questioned the use of the woke terms "Nightwatcher" and "Thirds"". Reason given? "It is leading the conversation into other areas". No, the BBC is about as woke an organisation as you can get, they don't like licence fee payers questioning them".

But your right: if this topic is to continue you know which thread it goes on. If you've forgotten, ask Alexa!

Chinaman wrote:
But your right: if this topic is to continue you know which thread it goes on. If you've forgotten, ask Alexa!

Sir Winston Churchill wrote:Adelaide, you are way too gullible for your own good. If you honestly believe that Surrey's DEI includes one jot of consideration towards old white men then you are as mad the woman who gets paid to run the bloody thing. I will go so  far as to give you another of my "100% certains" that this is the case.

Its not rocket science to work out that the true target people of DEI will never buy a membership of Surrey CCC. It is for the fairies to think that having a policy written by some woke lefty that appertains to under privileged or people of colour or gay or bi or whatever, that slings money at them will make these people so engaged with SCCC that they will forever be grateful and therefore buy life membership of our cricket club.

This DEI is exactly as I have said. Its woke rubbish that makes people like you and Slipper feel worthy. It empowers your feelings of were all in it together nonsense.
Honestly, its cobblers.

adelaide wrote:

Chinaman wrote:
But your right: if this topic is to continue you know which thread it goes on. If you've forgotten, ask Alexa!

indeed. You should however note that I never ever initiate these exchanges on any thread. I am guilty of reacting to posts on the same thread they are made. In this case it started with points made about the activities and communications of SCCC - fair enough - but as usual this turned into the usual generalised anti-woke sentiments, which belong on the other thread, if they belong anywhere. If it isn't posted all over the place, it won't get responded to all over the place.

RB wrote:My card hasn’t arrived after all.

Sir Winston Churchill wrote:My blooming card hasn't arrived yet, so I hall be all over the place tomorrow trying to get in using the sodding App.

It really is not good enough.

Sir Winston Churchill wrote:My blooming card hasn't arrived yet, so I hall be all over the place tomorrow trying to get in using the sodding App.

It really is not good enough.