Yorkshire Cricket Club

[egg]

5 hours ago, Turkish said:

Looks like he had a vodka  and coke with her. I though he was forced to drink alcohol against his will by his team mates?

His credibility is shot to pieces. 

[AlexLaw76]

19 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Sounds like quite an unpleasant character tbh. 

conincidence?

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/council/rotherham-council-under-fire-refusing-late-night-cafe-license-2928395

Edited 21 November, 2021 by AlexLaw76

[Turkish]

10 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

conincidence?

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/council/rotherham-council-under-fire-refusing-late-night-cafe-license-2928395

I played golf earlier with a couple of fella with connections in sport in the area, cricket, golf, rugby and football, they tell me he is pushing this as he’s skint and needs to make so quick cash. It’s well know in Yorkshire sport apparently that he is not the victim he’s making out to be but due to the sensitive nature of it no one will be honest 

Edited 21 November, 2021 by Turkish

[The Cat]

I know someone who works in cricket. They described him in a very unfavorable way, something which is apparently well known by those in the game.

It's certainly a very messy situation which has ended up dragging a load of people in. Not sure anyone is coming out of it very well.

Cricket was always viewed as a gentleman's game but it appears that is not so as there's been loads of examples of unsavoury behaviour in recent times.

 

[The Left Back]

I usually only read when in the Lounge but can't walk past these unchallenged opinions.

On 21/11/2021 at 20:16, Turkish said:

I played golf earlier with a couple of fella with connections in sport in the area, cricket, golf, rugby and football, they tell me he is pushing this as he’s skint and needs to make so quick cash. It’s well know in Yorkshire sport apparently that he is not the victim he’s making out to be but due to the sensitive nature of it no one will be honest 

In the history of oppression, victim smearing/blaming has to be one of the most commonly used tools to justify the past and condone the present.  To be honest I'd let it go if I believed the source to be unbiased but I'm afraid @TurkishI have doubts about your impartiality.  Apologies if you feel this is unwarranted; it comes from (far too much) time spent reading your contributions on this forum.

20 hours ago, The Cat said:

I know someone who works in cricket. They described him in a very unfavorable way, something which is apparently well known by those in the game.

It's certainly a very messy situation which has ended up dragging a load of people in. Not sure anyone is coming out of it very well.

Cricket was always viewed as a gentleman's game but it appears that is not so as there's been loads of examples of unsavoury behaviour in recent times.

 

See above - this sounds like more victim smearing/blaming.  not necessarily by you @The Cat but certainly by the person you mention. The idea that someone in cricket is having a swipe at someone who is accusing cricket of being institutionally racist is perhaps the least surprising thing I've read on here today, but in my view merely adds credence to the victim's claims.  I've worked with two county sides as well as the England Lions and the accusations do not surprise me.  I imagine the discrimination to be nuanced and not necessarily noticed (and certainly not condoned), but that doesn't mean it's not there, nor that the don't victims suffer as a result. And I would describe all the cricketers I worked with as pretty standard, decent, mainstream young men.

[Turkish]

2 hours ago, The Left Back said:

I usually only read when in the Lounge but can't walk past these unchallenged opinions.

In the history of oppression, victim smearing/blaming has to be one of the most commonly used tools to justify the past and condone the present.  To be honest I'd let it go if I believed the source to be unbiased but I'm afraid @TurkishI have doubts about your impartiality.  Apologies if you feel this is unwarranted; it comes from (far too much) time spent reading your contributions on this forum.

See above - this sounds like more victim smearing/blaming.  not necessarily by you @The Cat but certainly by the person you mention. The idea that someone in cricket is having a swipe at someone who is accusing cricket of being institutionally racist is perhaps the least surprising thing I've read on here today, but in my view merely adds credence to the victim's claims.  I've worked with two county sides as well as the England Lions and the accusations do not surprise me.  I imagine the discrimination to be nuanced and not necessarily noticed (and certainly not condoned), but that doesn't mean it's not there, nor that the don't victims suffer as a result. And I would describe all the cricketers I worked with as pretty standard, decent, mainstream young men.

Photographic evidence of a someone who claimed they were forced to drink alcohol against taking a large swing out of a bottle of vodka isn’t “victim smearing” pal

[saint1977]

13 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Photographic evidence of a someone who claimed they were forced to drink alcohol against taking a large swing out of a bottle of vodka isn’t “victim smearing” pal

It’s not just one player though is it, even if some of his alleged and actual conduct is less than ideal itself. Naved and Rashid also heard some of it and they hardly need the money being elite players and having played franchise cricket for large sums! There’s also the allegations at Essex and there’s no mitigation at present for that, but further photographic evidence condemned at the time of a young Muslim batsman soaked batsman in beer by his team mates during their title win at Lords. 

I don’t mind a public complainants own conduct being scrutinised but this is far bigger than that. And yes, evidence of say antisemitism needs picking up and dealing with equally, but it doesn’t make the 1960s language directed at the players any less unacceptable.

The Robinson mess in the summer should have been a warning bell to get the Yorkshire situation resolved earlier and so the conversations happened but without the spectacle in the HoC and political football, with more of a focus on education which is how we tackle it. 

[The Left Back]

44 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Photographic evidence of a someone who claimed they were forced to drink alcohol against taking a large swing out of a bottle of vodka isn’t “victim smearing” pal

I didn't say it was.  But "they tell me he is pushing this as he’s skint and needs to make so quick cash. It’s well know in Yorkshire sport apparently that he is not the victim he’s making out to be but due to the sensitive nature of it no one will be honest" is. 

[Turkish]

10 hours ago, The Left Back said:

I didn't say it was.  But "they tell me he is pushing this as he’s skint and needs to make so quick cash. It’s well know in Yorkshire sport apparently that he is not the victim he’s making out to be but due to the sensitive nature of it no one will be honest" is. 

How do you know it’s not true?

[Turkish]

10 hours ago, saint1977 said:

It’s not just one player though is it, even if some of his alleged and actual conduct is less than ideal itself. Naved and Rashid also heard some of it and they hardly need the money being elite players and having played franchise cricket for large sums! There’s also the allegations at Essex and there’s no mitigation at present for that, but further photographic evidence condemned at the time of a young Muslim batsman soaked batsman in beer by his team mates during their title win at Lords. 

I don’t mind a public complainants own conduct being scrutinised but this is far bigger than that. And yes, evidence of say antisemitism needs picking up and dealing with equally, but it doesn’t make the 1960s language directed at the players any less unacceptable.

The Robinson mess in the summer should have been a warning bell to get the Yorkshire situation resolved earlier and so the conversations happened but without the spectacle in the HoC and political football, with more of a focus on education which is how we tackle it. 

I didn’t mention any other players

[The Left Back]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

How do you know it’s not true?

If we were playing chess I would describe this as the Turkish defence.  I don’t know it’s not true as much as you don’t know that it is.  Let’s not play that game.

I am happy you responded back though.  You are a fellow Saint and a major contributor to this forum so I wanted to give you the courtesy of explaining why I believe you were victim shaming/blaming and also why I think your story needed challenging.

I use the word story because that’s what we’re dealing with here and, in my view, stories are more powerful weapons than bullets and guns, because they can be re-told and used to both right wrongs but also to spread propaganda.  We tend to re-tell the stories that confirm our beliefs, opinions and biases, and ignore (or sometimes challenge) those that don’t.

So when I read your story this is what I saw:

“I played golf earlier with a couple of fellas with connections in sport in the area, cricket, golf, rugby and football” = This is not my story, so don’t blame me for it, but it comes from a credible source.

“they tell me he is pushing this as he’s skint and needs to make so quick cash” = he’s a liar and a fraudster 

“It’s well know in Yorkshire sport apparently that he is not the victim he’s making out to be” = He is not the victim of bullying, harassment or racism from Yorkshire Sport because Yorkshire sport said so.

“but due to the sensitive nature of it no one will be honest” = he’s using the background of racism and white fragility to exploit the situation for his own benefit without fear of being challenged or called out.

I am happy to own my beliefs, opinions and biases, and it’s safe to say that I will not be re-telling this story.
 
But it’s already been re-told to you and by you.  In my imagination stories like this are flowing round the golf clubs, pubs and wherever in Yorkshire (and beyond).  People re-tell them, embellish them; they need to believe they are true.  And of course they might be.  Or they might not.

This is not new territory.  Victim blaming/shaming, as a subset of propaganda wars, has been around as long as we have.  Stories of crusades and colonialization, war and oppression.  More recently you could study the Lawrence enquiry or watch Uprising.  If you prefer something a little whiter, read the Taylor report or watch The Accused.

And the reason I wanted to challenge the story is because I saw it as dangerous.  Let me try and explain with an example.  Here’s a story.

This is a made-up story.  It is not true.  I am using it to make a point.

“I received private mails earlier from a couple of fellas on this forum. They tell me Turkish is an active member of a white supremacist organisation. It’s well known on the forum apparently that he is not the normal, rational person he’s making out to be but due to the risk of being banned from the forum no one will be honest.” 

This is a made-up story.  It is not true.  I am using it to make a point.

This story has three effects:
1.    It confirms the biases of those people who already believe something like that could be true.  They re-tell this story, they may even add their own embellishments, calling on previous comments you’ve made. The people I tell the story to are like me so they believe it too and re-tell it some more
2.    It enrages those who either know the real you or have similar views to you.  They either ignore it but resentfully, or challenge it – often in a way that draws more accusations from those they are challenging.  Perhaps they are met with “How do you know it’s not true?” It confirms the feeling they have that they are righteous.
3.    It sort of silences you.  Because any response you might offer can be met with something like “well you would say that, wouldn’t you.”

Also this story lets me off the hook completely.  I am simply the messenger, the vessel through which this stuff flows.  I take no accountability for its accuracy (though it’s clear what my beliefs, opinions and biases are because I am re-telling it so gleefully).   I am not to blame.

It’s a long ramble and I hope you make sense of it.  I wanted to share it here because I worry about how topics like this can ever get resolved, when social media enables unchallenged stories to run rife through society.  I like to see the best in people and I still hold on to hope that your motivations on these sorts of threads are honourable.  But as I’ve said a couple of times, I am not always totally convinced about your intentions.  I keep trying to stay in dialogue with you, despite the advice of others, because you are a loud voice here; one that I sometimes enjoy, and sometimes disagree with.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, The Left Back said:

If we were playing chess I would describe this as the Turkish defence.  I don’t know it’s not true as much as you don’t know that it is.  Let’s not play that game.

I am happy you responded back though.  You are a fellow Saint and a major contributor to this forum so I wanted to give you the courtesy of explaining why I believe you were victim shaming/blaming and also why I think your story needed challenging.

I use the word story because that’s what we’re dealing with here and, in my view, stories are more powerful weapons than bullets and guns, because they can be re-told and used to both right wrongs but also to spread propaganda.  We tend to re-tell the stories that confirm our beliefs, opinions and biases, and ignore (or sometimes challenge) those that don’t.

So when I read your story this is what I saw:

“I played golf earlier with a couple of fellas with connections in sport in the area, cricket, golf, rugby and football” = This is not my story, so don’t blame me for it, but it comes from a credible source.

“they tell me he is pushing this as he’s skint and needs to make so quick cash” = he’s a liar and a fraudster 

“It’s well know in Yorkshire sport apparently that he is not the victim he’s making out to be” = He is not the victim of bullying, harassment or racism from Yorkshire Sport because Yorkshire sport said so.

“but due to the sensitive nature of it no one will be honest” = he’s using the background of racism and white fragility to exploit the situation for his own benefit without fear of being challenged or called out.

I am happy to own my beliefs, opinions and biases, and it’s safe to say that I will not be re-telling this story.
 
But it’s already been re-told to you and by you.  In my imagination stories like this are flowing round the golf clubs, pubs and wherever in Yorkshire (and beyond).  People re-tell them, embellish them; they need to believe they are true.  And of course they might be.  Or they might not.

This is not new territory.  Victim blaming/shaming, as a subset of propaganda wars, has been around as long as we have.  Stories of crusades and colonialization, war and oppression.  More recently you could study the Lawrence enquiry or watch Uprising.  If you prefer something a little whiter, read the Taylor report or watch The Accused.

And the reason I wanted to challenge the story is because I saw it as dangerous.  Let me try and explain with an example.  Here’s a story.

This is a made-up story.  It is not true.  I am using it to make a point.

“I received private mails earlier from a couple of fellas on this forum. They tell me Turkish is an active member of a white supremacist organisation. It’s well known on the forum apparently that he is not the normal, rational person he’s making out to be but due to the risk of being banned from the forum no one will be honest.” 

This is a made-up story.  It is not true.  I am using it to make a point.

This story has three effects:
1.    It confirms the biases of those people who already believe something like that could be true.  They re-tell this story, they may even add their own embellishments, calling on previous comments you’ve made. The people I tell the story to are like me so they believe it too and re-tell it some more
2.    It enrages those who either know the real you or have similar views to you.  They either ignore it but resentfully, or challenge it – often in a way that draws more accusations from those they are challenging.  Perhaps they are met with “How do you know it’s not true?” It confirms the feeling they have that they are righteous.
3.    It sort of silences you.  Because any response you might offer can be met with something like “well you would say that, wouldn’t you.”

Also this story lets me off the hook completely.  I am simply the messenger, the vessel through which this stuff flows.  I take no accountability for its accuracy (though it’s clear what my beliefs, opinions and biases are because I am re-telling it so gleefully).   I am not to blame.

It’s a long ramble and I hope you make sense of it.  I wanted to share it here because I worry about how topics like this can ever get resolved, when social media enables unchallenged stories to run rife through society.  I like to see the best in people and I still hold on to hope that your motivations on these sorts of threads are honourable.  But as I’ve said a couple of times, I am not always totally convinced about your intentions.  I keep trying to stay in dialogue with you, despite the advice of others, because you are a loud voice here; one that I sometimes enjoy, and sometimes disagree with.

Answering "i dont" would have done pal.

I live in Yorkshire mate and as i mentioned played golf with a couple of people who are well connected in Sport in the area. I simply shared what they told. Sorry it doesn't fit with what you want to believe. 

[The Left Back]

7 hours ago, Turkish said:

Answering "i dont" would have done pal.

I live in Yorkshire mate and as i mentioned played golf with a couple of people who are well connected in Sport in the area. I simply shared what they told. Sorry it doesn't fit with what you want to believe. 

Thanks for strengthening my belief and confirming a couple of the opinions I had about you.  

I'll waste no more of my time or yours on this.

PS I'm not your pal or your mate.  Is that just a quaint turn of phrase or something more passive-aggressive?

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, The Left Back said:

Thanks for strengthening my belief and confirming a couple of the opinions I had about you.  

I'll waste no more of my time or yours on this.

PS I'm not your pal or your mate.  Is that just a quaint turn of phrase or something more passive-aggressive?

Thanks for confirming my opinion on you too. Too bad you dont like other people views. 

[hypochondriac]

What the hell is white fragility? 

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What the hell is white fragility? 

I think it's something you accuse white people of when they have an view on something you dont like.

[aintforever]

30 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What the hell is white fragility? 

Think it’s referring to the more fragile among us who get all defensive when confronted with issues of racial inequality.

For example, when the BLM stuff was going on most normal people’s first thought was probably; fair enough, the cop shouldn’t have murdered the guy so you can understand people getting angry and wanting to promote the idea that black lives matter. The more fragile’s first thought was to get all defensive  “what about white lives.” That sort of stuff.

[RedArmy]

10 hours ago, The Left Back said:

If we were playing chess I would describe this as the Turkish defence.  I don’t know it’s not true as much as you don’t know that it is.  Let’s not play that game.

I am happy you responded back though.  You are a fellow Saint and a major contributor to this forum so I wanted to give you the courtesy of explaining why I believe you were victim shaming/blaming and also why I think your story needed challenging.

I use the word story because that’s what we’re dealing with here and, in my view, stories are more powerful weapons than bullets and guns, because they can be re-told and used to both right wrongs but also to spread propaganda.  We tend to re-tell the stories that confirm our beliefs, opinions and biases, and ignore (or sometimes challenge) those that don’t.

So when I read your story this is what I saw:

“I played golf earlier with a couple of fellas with connections in sport in the area, cricket, golf, rugby and football” = This is not my story, so don’t blame me for it, but it comes from a credible source.

“they tell me he is pushing this as he’s skint and needs to make so quick cash” = he’s a liar and a fraudster 

“It’s well know in Yorkshire sport apparently that he is not the victim he’s making out to be” = He is not the victim of bullying, harassment or racism from Yorkshire Sport because Yorkshire sport said so.

“but due to the sensitive nature of it no one will be honest” = he’s using the background of racism and white fragility to exploit the situation for his own benefit without fear of being challenged or called out.

I am happy to own my beliefs, opinions and biases, and it’s safe to say that I will not be re-telling this story.
 
But it’s already been re-told to you and by you.  In my imagination stories like this are flowing round the golf clubs, pubs and wherever in Yorkshire (and beyond).  People re-tell them, embellish them; they need to believe they are true.  And of course they might be.  Or they might not.

This is not new territory.  Victim blaming/shaming, as a subset of propaganda wars, has been around as long as we have.  Stories of crusades and colonialization, war and oppression.  More recently you could study the Lawrence enquiry or watch Uprising.  If you prefer something a little whiter, read the Taylor report or watch The Accused.

And the reason I wanted to challenge the story is because I saw it as dangerous.  Let me try and explain with an example.  Here’s a story.

This is a made-up story.  It is not true.  I am using it to make a point.

“I received private mails earlier from a couple of fellas on this forum. They tell me Turkish is an active member of a white supremacist organisation. It’s well known on the forum apparently that he is not the normal, rational person he’s making out to be but due to the risk of being banned from the forum no one will be honest.” 

This is a made-up story.  It is not true.  I am using it to make a point.

This story has three effects:
1.    It confirms the biases of those people who already believe something like that could be true.  They re-tell this story, they may even add their own embellishments, calling on previous comments you’ve made. The people I tell the story to are like me so they believe it too and re-tell it some more
2.    It enrages those who either know the real you or have similar views to you.  They either ignore it but resentfully, or challenge it – often in a way that draws more accusations from those they are challenging.  Perhaps they are met with “How do you know it’s not true?” It confirms the feeling they have that they are righteous.
3.    It sort of silences you.  Because any response you might offer can be met with something like “well you would say that, wouldn’t you.”

Also this story lets me off the hook completely.  I am simply the messenger, the vessel through which this stuff flows.  I take no accountability for its accuracy (though it’s clear what my beliefs, opinions and biases are because I am re-telling it so gleefully).   I am not to blame.

It’s a long ramble and I hope you make sense of it.  I wanted to share it here because I worry about how topics like this can ever get resolved, when social media enables unchallenged stories to run rife through society.  I like to see the best in people and I still hold on to hope that your motivations on these sorts of threads are honourable.  But as I’ve said a couple of times, I am not always totally convinced about your intentions.  I keep trying to stay in dialogue with you, despite the advice of others, because you are a loud voice here; one that I sometimes enjoy, and sometimes disagree with.

Dangerous 

[Turkish]

21 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Think it’s referring to the more fragile among us who get all defensive when confronted with issues of racial inequality.

For example, when the BLM stuff was going on most normal people’s first thought was probably; fair enough, the cop shouldn’t have murdered the guy so you can understand people getting angry and wanting to promote the idea that black lives matter. The more fragile’s first thought was to get all defensive  “what about white lives.” That sort of stuff.

You’d struggle to find a single person who thought the cops were right to kill him. But what people had a problem with was people running around attacking police and smashing up a city in country thousands of miles away. It’s amazing how some people are happy to criticise the police for using violence against criminals but then support people using violence against the police forces thousands of miles away 🤣

[aintforever]

23 minutes ago, Turkish said:

You’d struggle to find a single person who thought the cops were right to kill him. But what people had a problem with was people running around attacking police and smashing up a city in country thousands of miles away. It’s amazing how some people are happy to criticise the police for using violence against criminals but then support people using violence against the police forces thousands of miles away 🤣

You’ve misunderstood as usual. The fragiles didn’t think the killing was right, they just had a different response to the BLM shit that followed. No right minded person supports violence against the police, but most understood why emotions were high and why many felt the BLM message was important.

[hypochondriac]

57 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Think it’s referring to the more fragile among us who get all defensive when confronted with issues of racial inequality.

For example, when the BLM stuff was going on most normal people’s first thought was probably; fair enough, the cop shouldn’t have murdered the guy so you can understand people getting angry and wanting to promote the idea that black lives matter. The more fragile’s first thought was to get all defensive  “what about white lives.” That sort of stuff.

What's skin colour got to do with anything? Seems a bit racist to me. 

[aintforever]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

What's skin colour got to do with anything? Seems a bit racist to me. 

I’ve no idea, that’s the first time I’ve heard of it.

[Plastic]

On 19/11/2021 at 11:42, Dman said:

The bloke is a grade A wanker. That’s probably why he was ‘picked’ on, not because of his skin colour. 
 

I seem to be inside the quote and I can’t change it on my stoopid iPhone but - spot on.

Edited 24 November, 2021 by Plastic

[hypochondriac]

17 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I’ve no idea, that’s the first time I’ve heard of it.

Is it black fragility if you have darker coloured skin and disagree with BLM? Seems like quite an offensive term tbh. 

[The Left Back]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

What the hell is white fragility? 

It's a book recommended to me after I had a bust up with a work colleague in the weeks following George Floyd.  Basically I thought he was accusing me of being racist and he (England born of Indian parents) said I was minimising his feelings on the matter - that's not exactly right but close enough, truth be told it was all so heated I got a bit lost in what I was exactly being accused of.  Anyway to cut a long story short I bought the book and gave it a read.  It's totally American-centric in its analysis and I couldn't buy into all of it, but it did have some points that opened my mind up a bit.  I don't want to review the book here, and I'm not advocating it necessarily but it does offer some new thinking on this very old subject.  

I've become more interested in the subject, hence my long rambles earlier.  I'm interested in how we get through this and come out the other side.   I think what I've learned today is that it is not easy to get any sort of meaningful dialogue going on the topic.  It's either violent agreement with those who think like you or trench warfare with those who don't.

[hypochondriac]

23 minutes ago, The Left Back said:

It's a book recommended to me after I had a bust up with a work colleague in the weeks following George Floyd.  Basically I thought he was accusing me of being racist and he (England born of Indian parents) said I was minimising his feelings on the matter - that's not exactly right but close enough, truth be told it was all so heated I got a bit lost in what I was exactly being accused of.  Anyway to cut a long story short I bought the book and gave it a read.  It's totally American-centric in its analysis and I couldn't buy into all of it, but it did have some points that opened my mind up a bit.  I don't want to review the book here, and I'm not advocating it necessarily but it does offer some new thinking on this very old subject.  

I've become more interested in the subject, hence my long rambles earlier.  I'm interested in how we get through this and come out the other side.   I think what I've learned today is that it is not easy to get any sort of meaningful dialogue going on the topic.  It's either violent agreement with those who think like you or trench warfare with those who don't.

Oh right I've heard of Robin diangelo or however you spell her name. I listened to an interview she gave a while ago and she seemed like a bit of a grifter to be honest and a proponent of identity politics and critical race theory which I despise so I'll pass. 

[Turkish]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

You’ve misunderstood as usual. The fragiles didn’t think the killing was right, they just had a different response to the BLM shit that followed. No right minded person supports violence against the police, but most understood why emotions were high and why many felt the BLM message was important.

Funny how lots on here, you included we’re definitely the BLM “protests” though. “Largely peaceful” weren’t they. In fact Soggy refused to admit there was any violence whatsoever until he had no option but too, even then he tried to justify it by saying forget the violence focus on the cause. 🤣🤣

[aintforever]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Funny how lots on here, you included we’re definitely the BLM “protests” though. “Largely peaceful” weren’t they. In fact Soggy refused to admit there was any violence whatsoever until he had no option but too, even then he tried to justify it by saying forget the violence focus on the cause. 🤣🤣

At any sort of protest you often get idiots causing violence or breaking the law - poll tax, student fees, anti capitalist, extinction rebellion - what a few idiots do on a protest is completely separate from the cause. I don’t agree with people glueing themselves to motorways but I am 100% behind what Insulate Britain stand for. Some people just take it too far.

 

[Turkish]

30 minutes ago, aintforever said:

At any sort of protest you often get idiots causing violence or breaking the law - poll tax, student fees, anti capitalist, extinction rebellion - what a few idiots do on a protest is completely separate from the cause. I don’t agree with people glueing themselves to motorways but I am 100% behind what Insulate Britain stand for. Some people just take it too far.

 

Oh that’s all right then!

[Turkish]

I see Micheal Vaughan has given a bit of an awkward interview and apology as well as a few embarrassing tweets from years ago. Although Monty Panaser has come out to say nothing he’s being accused of resonates with him and his experience with him was brilliant. 

Edited 27 November, 2021 by Turkish

[whelk]

Vaughan has done an interview. Many getting excitable about his previous tweets. Not even Joe Root will be clean enough for the BBC. 

 

[whelk]

 

[saint1977]

Thought provoking article on Cricinfo about the sacking of the 16 coaching and fitness team. Seems very harsh on the likes of Grayson who wasn’t at the club after Rafiq had left https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/yorkshire-racism-crisis-sacked-staff-seek-legal-action-after-purge-1292274

Yorkshire CC HR shouldn’t in principle be allowed anywhere that process as they are also currently under investigation for the behaviour and dreadful standards of governance so a conflict of interest https://www.joe.co.uk/news/yorkshire-launch-investigation-after-head-of-human-resources-called-supporter-a-coward-299114

Wouldn’t be surprised if they are though - much laxer standards usually apply in my experience to HR professions than to operational employees, however poor the HR function has been. 

Edited 5 December, 2021 by saint1977