Anything But Cricket

Jackers - I agree that sectarian politics is a bad thing, whether in Northern Ireland, Christian Nationalists in the States or the Muslim groups you mention here. Whether it is as much of an issue as the Mail and so on report is open to question, I think, also how long term it would last if the Gaza situation eases, as it's not just fundamentalists who want to make some sort of protest about that.

As far as I could see, there was no equivalent to the West Midlands candidate in Manchester or West Yorkshire either, so perhaps the West Midlands, rather than London, is the exception at Mayoral level. I suppose his success in gathering votes might encourage more of the same elsewhere in the future though. On the other hand, if the result is to present power to the party you dislike more, it becomes a bit of an own goal. So I suspect in the longer term it may be an issue in a few local authority areas rather than at regional or national level.

It’s quite clear Khan aims to give minorities preferential treatment. Note preferential and not equal.

He refused to criticise the BLM riots and has so far been silent on the pro terrorist marches (apart from deflecting and using them to criticise “Islamophobia”). When white people take part in protests, he’s the first to pipe up.

He also deflects any valid criticism of him as being from the “far right”.

The dwarf is an absolute moron.

Vauxhall wrote:It’s quite clear Khan aims to give minorities preferential treatment. Note preferential and not equal.

He refused to criticise the BLM riots and has so far been silent on the pro terrorist marches (apart from deflecting and using them to criticise “Islamophobia”). When white people take part in protests, he’s the first to pipe up.

He also deflects any valid criticism of him as being from the “far right”.

The dwarf is an absolute moron.

Khan's won 3 Mayor elections now beating Zac Goldsmith, Shaun Bailey and Susan Hall - he is effectively the tallest dwarf

We just need the pint sized loser in number 10 to call a general election now.

Vauxhall wrote:It’s quite clear Khan aims to give minorities preferential treatment. Note preferential and not equal.

He refused to criticise the BLM riots and has so far been silent on the pro terrorist marches (apart from deflecting and using them to criticise “Islamophobia”). When white people take part in protests, he’s the first to pipe up.

He also deflects any valid criticism of him as being from the “far right”.

The dwarf is an absolute moron.

Khan's comment was about white men. So those with preferential treatment would include women, who last time I looked constituted roughly half the population, thus not a minority.

If you recast the argument just in terms of gender and use different language, would it really have been wrong to say "there is a disproportionately low number of women in X; should we try and fix it?". You may respond "so what - why is that a problem?" and it won't always be as there can be good reasons for imbalances. For example teaching probably fits in well with a period of motherhood within your working life. But surely it is undeniable that there have been significant barriers to women getting into certain careers, at least in the past/ Passing a law which says "thou shalt not discriminate" doesn't remove all those barriers, at least not overnight. So it is not entirely outrageous to suggest that if barriers exist which are preventing equality, you do something to address that. To one person that is rebalancing the scales, to another it is preferential treatment. You may think that that was never justifiable, or you may think it was once but not now (in which case, at what point did it change?)

Another example. Too few county cricketers come from state schools. Would it be preferential treatment for counties to have a more active programme of contact with state schools than they have with private schools, or would it be an attempt at balancing the scales?

The moment that race comes into the equation, all hell breaks loose. I find it quite telling that nearly all the comments (not just here) have zeroed in on "white" rather than "men".

The comparison with "too many footballers are black" is facile, given that those making the decisions on footballer recruitment are disproportionately white. That doesn't stop them having preconceptions about black and white youth footballers (they certainly did in the '60s and '70s) but you can't accuse them now of recruiting in their own image.

Just to note, I'm not particularly defending Khan, and definitely not his choice of words, but I do think there is a lot more nuance in this than his critics are allowing.

I think most people are sick and tired of every issue being a political football, rather than public servants just doing a good job for the tax payer. They all seem to be Gillian Keegan types who think they are doing a wonderfull job in need of praise whilst everything is falling down around them (literally with the education minister and raac concrete)

Couldn't they put the Lion King on somewhere outside London?

VicNorth wrote:Couldn't they put the Lion King on somewhere outside London?

Surely the north has suffered enough, Vic.

adelaide wrote:

Vauxhall wrote:It’s quite clear Khan aims to give minorities preferential treatment. Note preferential and not equal.

He refused to criticise the BLM riots and has so far been silent on the pro terrorist marches (apart from deflecting and using them to criticise “Islamophobia”). When white people take part in protests, he’s the first to pipe up.

He also deflects any valid criticism of him as being from the “far right”.

The dwarf is an absolute moron.

Khan's comment was about white men. So those with preferential treatment would include women, who last time I looked constituted roughly half the population, thus not a minority.

If you recast the argument just in terms of gender and use different language, would it really have been wrong to say "there is a disproportionately low number of women in X; should we try and fix it?". You may respond "so what - why is that a problem?" and it won't always be as there can be good reasons for imbalances. For example teaching probably fits in well with a period of motherhood within your working life. But surely it is undeniable that there have been significant barriers to women getting into certain careers, at least in the past/ Passing a law which says "thou shalt not discriminate" doesn't remove all those barriers, at least not overnight. So it is not entirely outrageous to suggest that if barriers exist which are preventing equality, you do something to address that. To one person that is rebalancing the scales, to another it is preferential treatment. You may think that that was never justifiable, or you may think it was once but not now (in which case, at what point did it change?)

Another example. Too few county cricketers come from state schools. Would it be preferential treatment for counties to have a more active programme of contact with state schools than they have with private schools, or would it be an attempt at balancing the scales?

The moment that race comes into the equation, all hell breaks loose. I find it quite telling that nearly all the comments (not just here) have zeroed in on "white" rather than "men".

The comparison with "too many footballers are black" is facile, given that those making the decisions on footballer recruitment are disproportionately white. That doesn't stop them having preconceptions about black and white youth footballers (they certainly did in the '60s and '70s) but you can't accuse them now of recruiting in their own image.

Just to note, I'm not particularly defending Khan, and definitely not his choice of words, but I do think there is a lot more nuance in this than his critics are allowing.

Zoomed in on “white” because Khan mentioned “white”. But you’ve managed to write 3 paragraphs deflecting on to the ‘men’ bit.

Would it be racist to say “too many in x profession are black men”? Yes or no?

I was at Brixton Academy last night and draught beer prices range from £7.15-8 for foreign mass produced muck in a plastic glass. An American next to me asked the bar staff if they served any English beer, no was the answer, Brooklyn IPA, Carlsberg, San Miguel and Guinness on offer!

Not sure how these prices compare with The Oval pricing. (they don't add £1 for their cups)

The Black Keys were excellent btw, Noel Gallagher came on stage with the band for the encore.

Unsustainable amount of security on show, was talking to someone I know who stewards at the Oval and all the other units that the security firm (Showsec) manage (eg Roundhouse, Kentish Town Forum, Hammersmith Apollo) are massively undermanned with inexperiened staff, with all the managers at Brixton.

Why aren't they called the White Keys? Are they racist? Are they? Are they?

Two-tier note choices.

VicNorth wrote:Why aren't they called the White Keys? Are they racist? Are they? Are they?

I'd imagine they probably are, white keys matter too!

It is likely that black-skinned men are well-represented in professional football due to the fact that they are disproportionately represented in the types of socio-economic backgrounds that tend to produce professional footballers.

VicNorth wrote:It is likely that black-skinned men are well-represented in professional football due to the fact that they are disproportionately represented in the types of socio-economic backgrounds that tend to produce professional footballers.

When black people are underrepresented in certain professions: must be due to ‘racism’

When white people are underrepresented in certain professions: must be due to ‘other factors’

Vauxhall wrote:When black people are underrepresented in certain professions: must be due to ‘racism’

When white people are underrepresented in certain professions: must be due to ‘other factors’

Or in both cases it could sometimes be a mixture of both?

White people are underrepresented in care home work but dies anyone seriously think that it is down to racial discrimination in that industry rather than the reluctance of "regular" (to use SWC's terminology) Brits to do that kind of job for that kind of money?

White people are underrepresented in part of the football industry (players) but overrepresented in another (management). It's possible that the managers have preconceptions about the abilities of black footballers that favour their recruitment but it seems a bit unlikely given fifty years' experience.

Not sure whether white people are underrepresented amongst doctors but I suspect that there are large variations in the representation of different non-white groups. There could be some racism in there, or it could reflect different expectations at school, at home and within the group itself.

Khan was talking specifically about engineering, I think. When I was at school, hardly any girls did maths or science in the sixth form. The expectation for girls was pretty obvious in the practical subjects in earlier years; girls did domestic science, needlework and shorthand, boys did woodwork and technical drawing. We have moved quite a long way since then but that didn't happen because we all said "we've got equality - what's the problem?". It happened through extremely active encouragement (and questioning of gender roles). If that was needed for women, might it not also be a good idea for other underrepresented groups? And note that it doesn't have to be a response to actual racism; it may be preconceptions ("it's not for the likes of us") amongst the underrepresented group itself - but it would still be worth tackling.

The spin off for the economy of course is that by widening the candidates you are choosing from you reduce the chance of missing out on some of the best talent.

I'm not giving you yes/no or either/or answers to your questions because I don't think they do a complicated subject justice.

Adelaide - following on from your comments about rugby union and selection for the national team, I wonder if a case has been made or could be made to oppose it on grounds of restraint of trade.

PS I thought here was a more appropriate place to talk rugby in any depth. Cheers.

GB - I'm no lawyer but I suspect that the argument would be that selection for a national team is a privilege rather than a right (and certainly not guaranteed for anyone) and that players are not being deprived of the right to make a living where they choose.

Some players have returned specifically to become eligible again, on the back of media clamour that England must pick them when available, then their domestic form has been less than compelling. I suppose that is a variant of your best defender being the one who has been injured for three months, then when they come back they once again commit the same howlers that you had blanked from your memory.

Did restraint of trade come into play with the Packer circus or the rebel tours to South
Africa? If they did, they did not get very far, at least in the UK.

Adelaide - I agree that selection for a national team is not a right and certainly not a guarantee for anyone. However, without claiming to know all the legal niceties and other important contractual matters for these rugby players, I would have thought that consideration for selection in the national team generally ought to be a right for anyone of that nationality.

That together with the increasing protection UK courts have given to employee rights in recent decades and the significantly greater financial sums available to (or being denied to) professional sportspersons is what made me wonder about a possible restraint of trade case.

Funded by Kerry Packer, in 1977 Tony Greig and a small number of other cricketers did successfully bring a restraint of trade case against the ICC and the TCCB as they then were (I trust The Nightwatchman will understand and allow the use of those initials). The main 'win' was that the TCCB were forbidden from imposing, as they had intended, a ban of playing in county cricket for several years on all those taking part in Packer's World Series.

Jackers - Here's a view from a lawyer. The argument is of course untested in court. Other viewpoints may be available...

https://rugbyandthelaw.com/2024/04/17/england-rugby-rfu-overseas-player-rule-restraint-of-trade-competition-law/

I wonder if the reason it has never been challenged is because individual plyers, clubs even, do not have the money to do so, unlike the Packer organisation. Did the Greig et al case also lift the ban on selection for Tests?

Some of the players copped it later too in response to the rebel tours. Apparently the Freedom Association (remember them?) tried to bring a case on restraint of trade over that too but it was kicked out by the High Court. Nobody directly involved seems to have tried to overturn it, perhaps because (again) you need money to go to law and no ban from county cricket was involved. The West Indian players involved were not only banned for life but apparently also ostracised.

The word "woke" had not made its way across the Atlantic at that time...

Not sure you meant to address this one to me: this discussion concerns whether there is an inalienable legal right to be considered for the national team; I am far more interested in freeing players from the restraints imposed by the national governing body which unreasonably prevent the players representing the counties who nurtured and developed them and who continue to provide year-round coaching, practice, rehabilitation etc.

Its obviously a different issue for each sport, but you wonder WTF the Administrators of Rugby Union are doing. How can you run a sport any worse. The England team is so poor you'd have to be pretty pig headed to snub any star talent you do have.

Jackers wrote:Not sure you meant to address this one to me: this discussion concerns whether there is an inalienable legal right to be considered for the national team; I am far more interested in freeing players from the restraints imposed by the national governing body which unreasonably prevent the players representing the counties who nurtured and developed them and who continue to provide year-round coaching, practice, rehabilitation etc.

Sorry, yes, should have been for GB.

Adelaide - that was a very good article you attached far more eloquently and knowledgeably expanding on the point I had wondered about. Glad it suggested I wasn't barking up the wrong tree.

Agree about costs of going to court being prohibitive. Also, there's the time factor these days. It could now take years for a case to be finalised by which time the individual's playing time could be over anyway.

Greig never played Test cricket after the court case - with Botham emerging, he thought his international career would soon be coming to an end anyway which he gave as the main reason for first signing up with Packer. However, others such as Amiss, Knott and Underwood did play further Tests after their involvement in World Series.

With regard to your closing comment about later West Indies players not only being banned but also ostracised, there's an excellent book 'The Unforgiven - Mercenaries or Missionaries?' by Ashley Gray highlighting the careers of these cricketers and how each of their lives subsequently unfolded. Tragically in some cases.

Weren't many of the West Indians snubbed for years and couldn't play domestic cricket or coach on retirement in latter years?

Sylvester Clarke being one, Barbados loss, Surreys gain.