England's Summer of Cricket 2021

by Duty281 Fri 14 May 2021, 9:39 pm

First topic message reminder :

2nd June-14th June: Two tests v New Zealand

23rd June-26th June: Three T20s v Sri Lanka
29th June-4th July: Three ODIs v Sri Lanka

8th July-13th July: Three ODIs v Pakistan
16th July-20th July: Three T20s V Pakistan

4th August-14th September: Five Tests v India

by king_carlos Wed 09 Jun 2021, 3:14 am

Perhaps this is all just more reason to select Darren Stevens for England. Unless a distant pen pal has kept decades old incriminating carrier pigeon letters that Darren sent them as a child we should be absolutely fine to get Stevens in the side.

by GSC Wed 09 Jun 2021, 5:16 am

Luke Fletcher is in pretty good form, get him in the side

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed 09 Jun 2021, 8:20 am

On the actual cricket, some whispers I've seen reported;

- Bracey took a knock on his hand in nets, and might be a doubt for Thursday - which means Billings would play
- Very likely one of Leach/Bess plays, more likely Leach...but with NZ having 3 left handers in their top 6, maybe they would consider Bess? (Leach's record vs LHB is quite terrible)

- Kane Williamson is nursing a sore elbow, so NZ have a decision to make on him
- Santner not likely to be fit enough to play
- Potentially going to rest Southee and one other seamer with a view to the WTC final

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 09 Jun 2021, 8:28 am

Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:By 'the mob', is that your disparaging term for people who don't like racism/sexism?

'The mob' is my term for people who trawl social media and choose to be offended at juvenile jokes/humour from a time long ago, and then seek to damage, and possibly end, these players' careers.

As I alluded to previously, my view would be different if Robinson (or any of these players), for example, had posted actual extremist viewpoints, not some juvenile jokes. The former would need to be investigated; the latter doesn't need to be.

As I also alluded to, a person should never apologise to the mob because they'll never stop. Robinson did (though he was practically forced to) and now the mob has moved on other targets. The ECB has put itself in a gordian knot as a result. The ECB must now suspend James Anderson, and ask him to make a public apology, and carry out an investigation, otherwise they are guilty of favouritism.

It would have been quicker to say 'yes it is'.

by guildfordbat Wed 09 Jun 2021, 8:53 am

GSC wrote:Luke Fletcher is in pretty good form, get him in the side

And Ronnie.

by guildfordbat Wed 09 Jun 2021, 9:09 am

Duty281 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57407788

The mob has closed in. Morgan, Anderson, Buttler all under the spotlight. I had heard holier than thou Root was possibly implicated by the emergence of some 'laddish' tweets (since deleted), as well as about half a dozen other England players, but no mention in this BBC article.

The ECB has now tied itself in a gordian knot through their earlier stupidity, hence my concerns posted earlier about 'strange precedents' being established.

If they don't suspend and force numerous England players to make public apologies, then they have treated Ollie Robinson in a disproportionate and grossly unfair manner. If they do act consistently and suspend and force numerous England players to make public apologies, it'll make the ECB a laughing stock, plus it'll be difficult to field a team for Thursday's test.

Duty is right that the ECB is tying itself in knots. I fear that the unacceptability of a player's social media comments will not be determined by what he has written but his seniority in the team.

As I posted previously, the ECB has acted badly from even before the start of the current Robinson situation. Robinson's bad boy image from earlier years was well known. If they are so concerned now, why wasn't some rudimentary due diligence undertaken prior to his selection?

by GSC Wed 09 Jun 2021, 9:23 am

The honest answer is they didn't care until it blew up on social media

by Duty281 Wed 09 Jun 2021, 11:52 am

king_carlos wrote:
Duty281 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57407788

The mob has closed in. Morgan, Anderson, Buttler all under the spotlight. I had heard holier than thou Root was possibly implicated by the emergence of some 'laddish' tweets (since deleted), as well as about half a dozen other England players, but no mention in this BBC article.

The ECB has now tied itself in a gordian knot through their earlier stupidity, hence my concerns posted earlier about 'strange precedents' being established.

If they don't suspend and force numerous England players to make public apologies, then they have treated Ollie Robinson in a disproportionate and grossly unfair manner. If they do act consistently and suspend and force numerous England players to make public apologies, it'll make the ECB a laughing stock, plus it'll be difficult to field a team for Thursday's test.

As with all things it needs to be on a case by case basis though? In order that I've seen them reported we've got:

- Robinson's tweets which include explicit comments about Muslims being suicide bombers (tweeted as a young adult)
- Morgan, Buttler and McCullum's tweets where they implicitly disparage Indian fans who don't speak English perfectly despite it being in many cases their 3rd language (tweeted as adults)
- The unnamed players tweet which includes a racial slur denigrating Chinese people (tweeted as a minor)
- Anderson's tweet telling Broad he has a 'lesbian haircut' (tweeted as an adult)

Those are 4 different cases that will require different responses on a case by case basis surely?

I actually remember the Morgan, Buttler and McCullum stuff as a friend showed me them (I don't actually have a Twitter account) back when they were being made. I'd be very happy to see them apologise for it as I remember thinking at the time that they were being ungrateful a*** holes. A large part of the reason players such as those three could command bigger salaries than cricket had ever seen was T20 cricket taking off in India. To belittle fans who idolised them for not being able to write them adoring English messages in perfect syntax was truly pathetic.

Finally, I'm getting sick people saying Robinson's comments were 'juvenile jokes'. For that defence to hold any water it relies on two things. One, that the tweets fall under what most would consider 'juvenile behaviour', which I don't believe casual racism does or should. Two, that the person in question is a juvenile, which Robinson wasn't. He was an adult. A young adult but still an adult.

Trying to brush Robinson's tweets away by saying they were juvenile jokes when A) they weren't just 'juvenile jokes' and B) Robinson wasn't a even juvenile makes about as much sense as me trying to excuse eating a teammates snickers at the weekend by bringing up my pregnancy cravings despite the fact that A) I'm not pregnant and B) I don't even have a womb.

They may carry different responses on a case-by-case basis when the investigation is finished, but before that the ECB has already established the precedent through how they deal with the issue: suspend the player in question while an 'investigation' is carried out; cajole the player into making a public apology on video; 'investigate' the misdemeanours in question.

The end result may be different, but those three steps have already been established. If the ECB don't suspend James Anderson and get him to make an apology, and the other players involved, then they will be guilty of favouritism and Robinson will have a legitimate grievance.

And of course they were 'juvenile jokes'. Juvenile, in this instance, not referring to the age of the person, but to immaturity and naivety, as Robinson's actions were.

by Duty281 Wed 09 Jun 2021, 12:03 pm

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:On the actual cricket, some whispers I've seen reported;

- Bracey took a knock on his hand in nets, and might be a doubt for Thursday - which means Billings would play
- Very likely one of Leach/Bess plays, more likely Leach...but with NZ having 3 left handers in their top 6, maybe they would consider Bess? (Leach's record vs LHB is quite terrible)

- Kane Williamson is nursing a sore elbow, so NZ have a decision to make on him
- Santner not likely to be fit enough to play
- Potentially going to rest Southee and one other seamer with a view to the WTC final

Should be a Kiwi win, unless they go about resting some of their strike bowlers. England's batting line-up is a mess, and possibly an even greater mess if Bracey's out, while preparation has no doubt been scrambled by off-the-field events.

by **hampo17** Wed 09 Jun 2021, 12:05 pm

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:On the actual cricket, some whispers I've seen reported;

- Bracey took a knock on his hand in nets, and might be a doubt for Thursday - which means Billings would play
- Very likely one of Leach/Bess plays, more likely Leach...but with NZ having 3 left handers in their top 6, maybe they would consider Bess? (Leach's record vs LHB is quite terrible)

- Kane Williamson is nursing a sore elbow, so NZ have a decision to make on him
- Santner not likely to be fit enough to play
- Potentially going to rest Southee and one other seamer with a view to the WTC final

It'll be interesting to see if Bess plays, he's the unnamed player that has been discussed in recent days, and the tweets are available on twitter.

If you're unsure or haven't seen them. He called Dhoni stupid for having so many bats and said the Indian national anthem was the funniest he'd heard. As I said to someone on twitter, the latter is not racist, offensive yes, but not racist.

by guildfordbat Wed 09 Jun 2021, 12:14 pm

Duty's last post on the Robinson situation is unarguable and shows what a hole the ECB have dug for themselves and all concerned.

by king_carlos Wed 09 Jun 2021, 12:39 pm

Duty281 wrote:They may carry different responses on a case-by-case basis when the investigation is finished, but before that the ECB has already established the precedent through how they deal with the issue: suspend the player in question while an 'investigation' is carried out; cajole the player into making a public apology on video; 'investigate' the misdemeanours in question.

The end result may be different, but those three steps have already been established. If the ECB don't suspend James Anderson and get him to make an apology, and the other players involved, then they will be guilty of favouritism and Robinson will have a legitimate grievance.

And of course they were 'juvenile jokes'. Juvenile, in this instance, not referring to the age of the person, but to immaturity and naivety, as Robinson's actions were.

Anderson's "lesbian haircut" tweet for instance is clearly completely different to Robinson's multiple racist tweets though. It's not unreasonable to say that one's players actions were of a significance and severity to demand suspension pending investigation but others may not have been of a severity to demand suspension pending an investigation.

Saying all require identical response is like saying all people suspected or accused of any crime should be held without bail regardless of the severity. In the case of many accused violent offenders being held without bail pending investigation may be entirely sensible. In the case of a shoplifter that got caught stealing a family pack of quavers it would be futile.

I still reject the idea that Robinson was cajoled into apologising. We've no idea that's what happened and you repeatedly stating it presumes that Robinson isn't remorseful for being casually racist as a young adult and didn't want to display remorse for being casually racist as a young adult. If that's the case then it would still be a big issue in the present day. If he is sincerely remorseful and is no longer casually racist then it wouldn't be a big an issue in the present day. Hopefully the latter is the case and we can all move on, watch Robinson grow as a cricketer and bloke. Hence the investigation.

As for the last line. Casual racism isn't normal or acceptable acts for immature and naive people to be involved in. That is the point I'm making. Casual racism isn't equivalent to drinking too much bottom shelf vodka and throwing up on your parents sofa.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 09 Jun 2021, 12:52 pm

It’s fine for a bigoted person to decide it’s just juvenile so not offensive. I bet the people he’s mocked openly with his platform agree that it’s fine that people keep making juvenile jokes and just “banter” it off as long as the jokers themselves are fine.

The ones being mocked? Who cares, eh? As long as English Cricket doesn’t lose a player for a test or two, a punishment some may never get over.

Worth noting two games of Stokes’ ban was for a video mocking Harvey Price (I believe). Favouritism then.

Worries me that the fallout from this for some people is “now they have to suspend more players.” Good, if they need to learn and show others what’s on and what’s not. If they have any real pride or dignity, they’d apologise and learn gratefully from their mistakes, leave the immature doubling down to the desperate little racists who can’t handle the word no.

by Soul Requiem Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:03 pm

Should players be banned for posts they made 8/9 years ago? Definitely not.

by Duty281 Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:03 pm

king_carlos wrote:
Duty281 wrote:They may carry different responses on a case-by-case basis when the investigation is finished, but before that the ECB has already established the precedent through how they deal with the issue: suspend the player in question while an 'investigation' is carried out; cajole the player into making a public apology on video; 'investigate' the misdemeanours in question.

The end result may be different, but those three steps have already been established. If the ECB don't suspend James Anderson and get him to make an apology, and the other players involved, then they will be guilty of favouritism and Robinson will have a legitimate grievance.

And of course they were 'juvenile jokes'. Juvenile, in this instance, not referring to the age of the person, but to immaturity and naivety, as Robinson's actions were.

Anderson's "lesbian haircut" tweet for instance is clearly completely different to Robinson's multiple racist tweets though. It's not unreasonable to say that one's players actions were of a significance and severity to demand suspension pending investigation but others may not have been of a severity to demand suspension pending an investigation.

Saying all require identical response is like saying all people suspected or accused of any crime should be held without bail regardless of the severity. In the case of many accused violent offenders being held without bail pending investigation may be entirely sensible. In the case of a shoplifter that got caught stealing a family pack of quavers it would be futile.

I still reject the idea that Robinson was cajoled into apologising. We've no idea that's what happened and you repeatedly stating it presumes that Robinson isn't remorseful for being casually racist as a young adult and didn't want to display remorse for being casually racist as a young adult. If that's the case then it would still be a big issue in the present day. If he is sincerely remorseful and is no longer casually racist then it wouldn't be a big an issue in the present day. Hopefully the latter is the case and we can all move on, watch Robinson grow as a cricketer and bloke. Hence the investigation.

As for the last line. Casual racism isn't normal or acceptable acts for immature and naive people to be involved in. That is the point I'm making. Casual racism isn't equivalent to drinking too much bottom shelf vodka and throwing up on your parents sofa.

If you want to use a criminal justice analogy that would be the wrong one. The ECB have established a precedent for how they're going to investigate - suspend the player, apology from the player, investigate, final action. Just like the police follow a time-honoured path in their investigations - gather information, arrest, question, charge or release. The police wouldn't differ in that path, neither should the ECB.

You appear to have taken greater offence at Robinson's racial jokes than Anderson's 'lesbian' joke. That's fine, but other people may take greater offence at what Anderson said than Robinson's copied and pasted jokes. I see no difference between the two in terms of offence.

I believe Robinson was cajoled into apologising because the apology was well-organised by the ECB - statement prepared, method of delivery prepared etc. Robinson came straight off the field, was told what had happened, and told to read out the statement. I doubt he would have remembered the tweets in question, and I think any genuine apology wouldn't have been so rushed.

I don't disagree with you on the normality front, but as I've said before numerous types of humour are deemed to be offensive and I wouldn't like to class something as 'unacceptable' on that score.

by Duty281 Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:11 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I bet the people he’s mocked openly with his platform agree that it’s fine that people keep making juvenile jokes and just “banter” it off as long as the jokers themselves are fine.

The ones being mocked? Who cares, eh?

Out of curiosity, how does this viewpoint square with your running of the forum's 'Cumquat Cup', where you mock, make jokes at the expense of, or outright abuse certain individuals?

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:26 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I bet the people he’s mocked openly with his platform agree that it’s fine that people keep making juvenile jokes and just “banter” it off as long as the jokers themselves are fine.

The ones being mocked? Who cares, eh?

Out of curiosity, how does this viewpoint square with your running of the forum's 'Cumquat Cup', where you mock, make jokes at the expense of, or outright abuse certain individuals?

It’s beautiful because one is a juvenile thread mocking people for their actions as individuals and another is racism and bigotry.

I also expect if I were an international sportsman then I would be punished. But I’m not. I have been punished at work for calling Steven Gerrard a kumquat on twitter though. I accepted the reasoning too, even if I disagreed.

by Soul Requiem Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:30 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I bet the people he’s mocked openly with his platform agree that it’s fine that people keep making juvenile jokes and just “banter” it off as long as the jokers themselves are fine.

The ones being mocked? Who cares, eh?

Out of curiosity, how does this viewpoint square with your running of the forum's 'Cumquat Cup', where you mock, make jokes at the expense of, or outright abuse certain individuals?

It’s beautiful because one is a juvenile thread mocking people for their actions as individuals and another is racism and bigotry.

I also expect if I were an international sportsman then I would be punished. But I’m not. I have been punished at work for calling Steven Gerrard a kumquat on twitter though. I accepted the reasoning too, even if I disagreed.

So online abuse is permitted in certain situations?

by Duty281 Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:31 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I bet the people he’s mocked openly with his platform agree that it’s fine that people keep making juvenile jokes and just “banter” it off as long as the jokers themselves are fine.

The ones being mocked? Who cares, eh?

Out of curiosity, how does this viewpoint square with your running of the forum's 'Cumquat Cup', where you mock, make jokes at the expense of, or outright abuse certain individuals?

It’s beautiful because one is a juvenile thread mocking people for their actions as individuals and another is racism and bigotry.

I also expect if I were an international sportsman then I would be punished. But I’m not. I have been punished at work for calling Steven Gerrard a kumquat on twitter though. I accepted the reasoning too, even if I disagreed.

Well it's also bigotry by the same definition, as well as being juvenile, but thank you for admitting the hypocrisy of your action.

by king_carlos Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:33 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I bet the people he’s mocked openly with his platform agree that it’s fine that people keep making juvenile jokes and just “banter” it off as long as the jokers themselves are fine.

The ones being mocked? Who cares, eh?

Out of curiosity, how does this viewpoint square with your running of the forum's 'Cumquat Cup', where you mock, make jokes at the expense of, or outright abuse certain individuals?

Are any of the people in CC being mocked based on their race or ethnicity? I'm not in the most recent CC but I'd be astounded if that was the case. If not then that's the pretty clear distinction between one being racist and the other not...

by Soul Requiem Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:34 pm

king_carlos wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I bet the people he’s mocked openly with his platform agree that it’s fine that people keep making juvenile jokes and just “banter” it off as long as the jokers themselves are fine.

The ones being mocked? Who cares, eh?

Out of curiosity, how does this viewpoint square with your running of the forum's 'Cumquat Cup', where you mock, make jokes at the expense of, or outright abuse certain individuals?

Are any of the people in CC being mocked based on their race or ethnicity? I'm not in the most recent CC but I'd be astounded if that was the case. If not then that's the pretty clear distinction between one being racist and the other not...

So abuse is ok if it's not directed at someones ethnicity?

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:35 pm

Soul Requiem wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I bet the people he’s mocked openly with his platform agree that it’s fine that people keep making juvenile jokes and just “banter” it off as long as the jokers themselves are fine.

The ones being mocked? Who cares, eh?

Out of curiosity, how does this viewpoint square with your running of the forum's 'Cumquat Cup', where you mock, make jokes at the expense of, or outright abuse certain individuals?

It’s beautiful because one is a juvenile thread mocking people for their actions as individuals and another is racism and bigotry.

I also expect if I were an international sportsman then I would be punished. But I’m not. I have been punished at work for calling Steven Gerrard a kumquat on twitter though. I accepted the reasoning too, even if I disagreed.

So online abuse is permitted in certain situations?

I mean, you are being so trite and disingenuous but fine.

Yes, to an extent. I know the people involved are taking it in the right spirit, justifying why they dislike someone and not generalising or attacking a group of people. They are interested in actions and words, not race and racism.

It’s ok for you to hate me individually. And to actively dislike me based on things I do or say. It would not be ok to hate me for being white.

This is basic stuff.

by Duty281 Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:37 pm

king_carlos wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I bet the people he’s mocked openly with his platform agree that it’s fine that people keep making juvenile jokes and just “banter” it off as long as the jokers themselves are fine.

The ones being mocked? Who cares, eh?

Out of curiosity, how does this viewpoint square with your running of the forum's 'Cumquat Cup', where you mock, make jokes at the expense of, or outright abuse certain individuals?

Are any of the people in CC being mocked based on their race or ethnicity? I'm not in the most recent CC but I'd be astounded if that was the case. If not then that's the pretty clear distinction between one being racist and the other not...

I don't think so, but I was replying directly to the quoted post which is irrespective of race/ethnicity.

DZ seemed to think that it was wrong that people were being mocked openly under the guise of humour, and he lamented that no seemed to care about the plight of the people who were being mocked. A strange post to make from someone who does exactly that thing under the guise of humour.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:38 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I bet the people he’s mocked openly with his platform agree that it’s fine that people keep making juvenile jokes and just “banter” it off as long as the jokers themselves are fine.

The ones being mocked? Who cares, eh?

Out of curiosity, how does this viewpoint square with your running of the forum's 'Cumquat Cup', where you mock, make jokes at the expense of, or outright abuse certain individuals?

It’s beautiful because one is a juvenile thread mocking people for their actions as individuals and another is racism and bigotry.

I also expect if I were an international sportsman then I would be punished. But I’m not. I have been punished at work for calling Steven Gerrard a kumquat on twitter though. I accepted the reasoning too, even if I disagreed.

Well it's also bigotry by the same definition, as well as being juvenile, but thank you for admitting the hypocrisy of your action.

No, it isn’t. A definition you’ve made up, it seems.

It’s juvenile, but so is 80% of conversation on this forum.

Take your comment, for example. You’ve made up something I’ve admitted (I haven’t) and been juvenile in doing so. I’m not gonna ban you or punish you, so it looks like I can see the difference between genuinely offensive and just being a turd.

by Duty281 Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:38 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I bet the people he’s mocked openly with his platform agree that it’s fine that people keep making juvenile jokes and just “banter” it off as long as the jokers themselves are fine.

The ones being mocked? Who cares, eh?

Out of curiosity, how does this viewpoint square with your running of the forum's 'Cumquat Cup', where you mock, make jokes at the expense of, or outright abuse certain individuals?

It’s beautiful because one is a juvenile thread mocking people for their actions as individuals and another is racism and bigotry.

I also expect if I were an international sportsman then I would be punished. But I’m not. I have been punished at work for calling Steven Gerrard a kumquat on twitter though. I accepted the reasoning too, even if I disagreed.

So online abuse is permitted in certain situations?

I mean, you are being so trite and disingenuous but fine.

Yes, to an extent. I know the people involved are taking it in the right spirit, justifying why they dislike someone and not generalising or attacking a group of people. They are interested in actions and words, not race and racism.

It’s ok for you to hate me individually. And to actively dislike me based on things I do or say. It would not be ok to hate me for being white.

This is basic stuff.

Personally, I don't think that would be OK.

by king_carlos Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:39 pm

Duty281 wrote:You appear to have taken greater offence at Robinson's racial jokes than Anderson's 'lesbian' joke. That's fine, but other people may take greater offence at what Anderson said than Robinson's copied and pasted jokes. I see no difference between the two in terms of offence.

I believe Robinson was cajoled into apologising because the apology was well-organised by the ECB - statement prepared, method of delivery prepared etc. Robinson came straight off the field, was told what had happened, and told to read out the statement. I doubt he would have remembered the tweets in question, and I think any genuine apology wouldn't have been so rushed.

I don't disagree with you on the normality front, but as I've said before numerous types of humour are deemed to be offensive and I wouldn't like to class something as 'unacceptable' on that score.

You see no difference in terms of offence between lesbian haircut and a tweet about someone being a suicide bomber solely because they are muslim? Headscratch

Personally I do see a difference and I don't think it's unreasonable to view some acts as significant enough to warrant suspension pending long term decision and others as not significant enough to warrant suspension.

I believe Robinson already apologised to his teammates during the days play so would have been aware well before making the apology at the end of play. It seemed to me the statement was prepared simply to prevent him being in press conference getting bombarded with questions he didn't know how to answer and potentially digging himself a deeper hole.

Craig Overton's recent 'I was teammates with Azhar Ali so I can't be racist' comments spring to mind with how easy it is to keep digging for guys who don't fully understand these issues.

Dolph makes a good point re favouritism with Stokes getting a ban for the video in which he mocked Harvey Price.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:41 pm

Duty281 wrote:
king_carlos wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I bet the people he’s mocked openly with his platform agree that it’s fine that people keep making juvenile jokes and just “banter” it off as long as the jokers themselves are fine.

The ones being mocked? Who cares, eh?

Out of curiosity, how does this viewpoint square with your running of the forum's 'Cumquat Cup', where you mock, make jokes at the expense of, or outright abuse certain individuals?

Are any of the people in CC being mocked based on their race or ethnicity? I'm not in the most recent CC but I'd be astounded if that was the case. If not then that's the pretty clear distinction between one being racist and the other not...

I don't think so, but I was replying directly to the quoted post which is irrespective of race/ethnicity.

DZ seemed to think that it was wrong that people were being mocked openly under the guise of humour, and he lamented that no seemed to care about the plight of the people who were being mocked. A strange post to make from someone who does exactly that thing under the guise of humour.

Juvenile lies again.

I think it’s wrong to mock people for their race, and I think it’s wrong for you to decide what is perfectly acceptable for them and to brush things away because you appear to believe a joke is just a joke and cannot be problematic.

I’m not even sure you can decide they aren’t offensive and also for it to be ignored cos it’s from his youth (18) or 9 years ago. The latter doesn’t matter if the former is true.

by Duty281 Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:42 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I bet the people he’s mocked openly with his platform agree that it’s fine that people keep making juvenile jokes and just “banter” it off as long as the jokers themselves are fine.

The ones being mocked? Who cares, eh?

Out of curiosity, how does this viewpoint square with your running of the forum's 'Cumquat Cup', where you mock, make jokes at the expense of, or outright abuse certain individuals?

It’s beautiful because one is a juvenile thread mocking people for their actions as individuals and another is racism and bigotry.

I also expect if I were an international sportsman then I would be punished. But I’m not. I have been punished at work for calling Steven Gerrard a kumquat on twitter though. I accepted the reasoning too, even if I disagreed.

Well it's also bigotry by the same definition, as well as being juvenile, but thank you for admitting the hypocrisy of your action.

No, it isn’t. A definition you’ve made up, it seems.

It’s juvenile, but so is 80% of conversation on this forum.

Take your comment, for example. You’ve made up something I’ve admitted (I haven’t) and been juvenile in doing so. I’m not gonna ban you or punish you, so it looks like I can see the difference between genuinely offensive and just being a turd.

OK, well you are being hypocritical, I thought your post was a realisation of that. You can't openly mock people while at the same time lament the plight of mocked people, that would be hypocritical.

I don't think anything on here has been bigoted, I was making light fun of your earlier definition.

by Soul Requiem Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:43 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
I mean, you are being so trite and disingenuous but fine.

Yes, to an extent. I know the people involved are taking it in the right spirit, justifying why they dislike someone and not generalising or attacking a group of people. They are interested in actions and words, not race and racism.

It’s ok for you to hate me individually. And to actively dislike me based on things I do or say. It would not be ok to hate me for being white.

This is basic stuff.

What the justification behind effectively calling Michael Mcintyre a **** or the McCanns?

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:45 pm

At the end of the day, all I’m doing is supporting the ECB’s decision to suspend and investigate. Which includes reviewing their own practices.

Precedent from Stokes might mean a game or two. I suspect it will be a time served situation.

by Duty281 Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:48 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
king_carlos wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I bet the people he’s mocked openly with his platform agree that it’s fine that people keep making juvenile jokes and just “banter” it off as long as the jokers themselves are fine.

The ones being mocked? Who cares, eh?

Out of curiosity, how does this viewpoint square with your running of the forum's 'Cumquat Cup', where you mock, make jokes at the expense of, or outright abuse certain individuals?

Are any of the people in CC being mocked based on their race or ethnicity? I'm not in the most recent CC but I'd be astounded if that was the case. If not then that's the pretty clear distinction between one being racist and the other not...

I don't think so, but I was replying directly to the quoted post which is irrespective of race/ethnicity.

DZ seemed to think that it was wrong that people were being mocked openly under the guise of humour, and he lamented that no seemed to care about the plight of the people who were being mocked. A strange post to make from someone who does exactly that thing under the guise of humour.

Juvenile lies again.

I think it’s wrong to mock people for their race, and I think it’s wrong for you to decide what is perfectly acceptable for them and to brush things away because you appear to believe a joke is just a joke and cannot be problematic.

I’m not even sure you can decide they aren’t offensive and also for it to be ignored cos it’s from his youth (18) or 9 years ago. The latter doesn’t matter if the former is true.

I see your point of view, but I don't think any type of humour should be off the table. Certain humour will offend others, but other people will enjoy it. Peep Show is one of my favourite sitcoms, but I have a friend who finds it offensive and detestable because it has r*** jokes. I don't enjoy Frankie Boyle or Jimmy Carr so I avoid them, but I know other people do.

I can only decide offence relative to me, as can anyone else. Someone might be offended at your running of the 'Cumquat Cup' and think you should be silenced and forced to apologise, you would presumably disagree.

9 years ago is somewhat relevant because you're banning someone in the present day for actions they committed when they were a different person.

by king_carlos Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:51 pm

Soul Requiem wrote:
king_carlos wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I bet the people he’s mocked openly with his platform agree that it’s fine that people keep making juvenile jokes and just “banter” it off as long as the jokers themselves are fine.

The ones being mocked? Who cares, eh?

Out of curiosity, how does this viewpoint square with your running of the forum's 'Cumquat Cup', where you mock, make jokes at the expense of, or outright abuse certain individuals?

Are any of the people in CC being mocked based on their race or ethnicity? I'm not in the most recent CC but I'd be astounded if that was the case. If not then that's the pretty clear distinction between one being racist and the other not...

So abuse is ok if it's not directed at someones ethnicity?

Cumquat Cup is posters saying I don't like this celebrity because he grinds my gears for these reasons. Hardly classes as abuse does it?

Someone not liking Bono because he wears sun glasses indoors and someone saying Muslims are suicide bombers obviously aren't comparable.

Pretty obvious that the reason I've drew the distinction of something being racist or not is due to the debate surrounding Robinson's being one largely revolving around racism.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:51 pm

Soul Requiem wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
I mean, you are being so trite and disingenuous but fine.

Yes, to an extent. I know the people involved are taking it in the right spirit, justifying why they dislike someone and not generalising or attacking a group of people. They are interested in actions and words, not race and racism.

It’s ok for you to hate me individually. And to actively dislike me based on things I do or say. It would not be ok to hate me for being white.

This is basic stuff.

What the justification behind effectively calling Michael Mcintyre a **** or the McCanns?

This is a cricket thread, so I apologise to those waiting for that to return.

Anyway. Michael McIntrye clearly annoys people. Unless you’re really giving the word Kumquat that much power, it’s basically just means, in this context, someone I hate a bit. The alliteration in the title was important, as is people being mature enough about a swear word.

The McCanns was the only one I came close to stopping, but I actually find it quite interesting. People don’t really hate the McCanns that much, they hate the media, the “tabloidification” of the case and it’s reporting, two rich people, the way it describes sad truths about portrayals of people in the media and bias towards a section of society. I also could lean on the taste of others to either vote for them or not, argue against it in the comments.

With that in mind, they are still being mentioned for their individual actions. It’s ok to dislike Samuel L Jackson for how he comes across in the media and the characters he plays, his acting ability yada yada. It’s not ok to dislike him for his skin colour. Welcome to things you already know.

by JDizzle Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:54 pm

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ollie-robinson-controversy-amnesty-may-offer-solution-as-english-cricket-catches-up-with-society-s-shifting-values-1265598

George Dobell’s article on the situation and I think his solution is a good one. An amnesty, provided they are happy everyone around the team no longer holds any troublesome views, so any tweets from the past are consigned to the dustbin and that stops anything else coming to light as they can say it was dealt with.

Also encouraging some of the offending players to volunteer with relevant charities offers more to everyone then banning someone every time an ancient tweet appears.

by Duty281 Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:54 pm

king_carlos wrote:
Duty281 wrote:You appear to have taken greater offence at Robinson's racial jokes than Anderson's 'lesbian' joke. That's fine, but other people may take greater offence at what Anderson said than Robinson's copied and pasted jokes. I see no difference between the two in terms of offence.

I believe Robinson was cajoled into apologising because the apology was well-organised by the ECB - statement prepared, method of delivery prepared etc. Robinson came straight off the field, was told what had happened, and told to read out the statement. I doubt he would have remembered the tweets in question, and I think any genuine apology wouldn't have been so rushed.

I don't disagree with you on the normality front, but as I've said before numerous types of humour are deemed to be offensive and I wouldn't like to class something as 'unacceptable' on that score.

You see no difference in terms of offence between lesbian haircut and a tweet about someone being a suicide bomber solely because they are muslim? Personally I do see a difference and I don't think it's unreasonable to view some acts as significant enough to warrant suspension pending long term decision and others as not significant enough to warrant suspension.

I believe Robinson already apologised to his teammates during the days play so would have been aware well before making the apology at the end of play. It seemed to me the statement was prepared simply to prevent him being in press conference getting bombarded with questions he didn't know how to answer and potentially digging himself a deeper hole.

Craig Overton's recent 'I was teammates with Azhar Ali so I can't be racist' comments spring to mind with how easy it is to keep digging for guys who don't fully understand these issues.

Dolph makes a good point re favouritism with Stokes getting a ban for the video in which he mocked Harvey Price.

No, I don't, because other people may find one more offensive than the other, as you are currently doing. That's the point. Offence is subjective.

I agree that Robinson was never going to do a Cummings-esque press conference, but he could have apologised in his own time without it being so rushed and insincere.

by BamBam Wed 09 Jun 2021, 1:56 pm

@Dolph I knew you should have allowed us to nominate other posters

by Duty281 Wed 09 Jun 2021, 2:00 pm

king_carlos wrote:Cumquat Cup is posters saying I don't like this celebrity because he grinds my gears for these reasons. Hardly classes as abuse does it?

Calling Elon Musk a pr**k or Julia Hartley Brewer a 'horrible scumbag of a woman' is obviously abusive.

by Duty281 Wed 09 Jun 2021, 2:02 pm

BamBam wrote:@Dolph I knew you should have allowed us to nominate other posters

I'd be disappointed if I didn't win by a Labour-1997-esque landslide.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 09 Jun 2021, 2:03 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
king_carlos wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I bet the people he’s mocked openly with his platform agree that it’s fine that people keep making juvenile jokes and just “banter” it off as long as the jokers themselves are fine.

The ones being mocked? Who cares, eh?

Out of curiosity, how does this viewpoint square with your running of the forum's 'Cumquat Cup', where you mock, make jokes at the expense of, or outright abuse certain individuals?

Are any of the people in CC being mocked based on their race or ethnicity? I'm not in the most recent CC but I'd be astounded if that was the case. If not then that's the pretty clear distinction between one being racist and the other not...

I don't think so, but I was replying directly to the quoted post which is irrespective of race/ethnicity.

DZ seemed to think that it was wrong that people were being mocked openly under the guise of humour, and he lamented that no seemed to care about the plight of the people who were being mocked. A strange post to make from someone who does exactly that thing under the guise of humour.

Juvenile lies again.

I think it’s wrong to mock people for their race, and I think it’s wrong for you to decide what is perfectly acceptable for them and to brush things away because you appear to believe a joke is just a joke and cannot be problematic.

I’m not even sure you can decide they aren’t offensive and also for it to be ignored cos it’s from his youth (18) or 9 years ago. The latter doesn’t matter if the former is true.

I see your point of view, but I don't think any type of humour should be off the table. Certain humour will offend others, but other people will enjoy it. Peep Show is one of my favourite sitcoms, but I have a friend who finds it offensive and detestable because it has r*** jokes. I don't enjoy Frankie Boyle or Jimmy Carr so I avoid them, but I know other people do.

I can only decide offence relative to me, as can anyone else. Someone might be offended at your running of the 'Cumquat Cup' and think you should be silenced and forced to apologise, you would presumably disagree.

9 years ago is somewhat relevant because you're banning someone in the present day for actions they committed when they were a different person.

His actions in the present day are taken into account. He’d have been taken off the field of play if he’d tweeted that in the lunch break. And not by the ECB, by his teammates or opponents.

There are levels of “humour” that aren’t acceptable. Jokes that would purposefully incite people to come by your house and kill you would be unacceptable. Bigoted jokes are unacceptable. I’m not massively eager to discuss r*** jokes, but I can see a difference between targeting people as “being this means you’re this” and a joke with a premise involving r***.

I also don’t think every misstep should be punished. I was a little annoyed to hear Lee Dixon apologise once on NBC football coverage cos he mentioned the manager having a fag, Dixon not aware that Americans would only see that in the context of a slur. It was a very genuine misunderstanding and in no way offensive from him.

I can understand if someone did register complaints. I would explain the position and, if it helped, include in a post that it is all a stupid comment on ourselves and “hatred” of people we don’t know or have any personal relation with. Ollie Robinson has the choice to stand by what he said, make his own “unapology” or defend himself as someone who feels no need to be sorry for his past stupidity. Very easily. He may well be hated for it, but he has the right and opportunity.

by BamBam Wed 09 Jun 2021, 2:04 pm

Duty281 wrote:
king_carlos wrote:Cumquat Cup is posters saying I don't like this celebrity because he grinds my gears for these reasons. Hardly classes as abuse does it?

Calling Elon Musk a pr**k or Julia Hartley Brewer a 'horrible scumbag of a woman' is obviously abusive.

Elon maybe doesn't deserve it.

That's a compliment for someone as awful as Julia

by BamBam Wed 09 Jun 2021, 2:07 pm

Duty281 wrote:
BamBam wrote:@Dolph I knew you should have allowed us to nominate other posters

I'd be disappointed if I didn't win by a Labour-1997-esque landslide.

You're a minnow compared to most of the rugby section

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 09 Jun 2021, 2:08 pm

Duty281 wrote:
king_carlos wrote:Cumquat Cup is posters saying I don't like this celebrity because he grinds my gears for these reasons. Hardly classes as abuse does it?

Calling Elon Musk a pr**k or Julia Hartley Brewer a 'horrible scumbag of a woman' is obviously abusive.

Lamentable at best, but at least justified and not blanketed. And both are open for disagreement. But it would be far worse to say all women were scumbags because of relating her as all women now.

No one having a laugh on those threads would deny they are not being nice or that it brings into question their own personality. Clearly some believe there is a difference between being not very nice to a person and being racist.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 09 Jun 2021, 2:09 pm

I’m gonna make an Ollie Robinson/ECB social media problems thread. If we could carry on there, or at least not get annoyed if I move comments over, that would be grand.

by king_carlos Wed 09 Jun 2021, 2:10 pm

BamBam wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
BamBam wrote:@Dolph I knew you should have allowed us to nominate other posters

I'd be disappointed if I didn't win by a Labour-1997-esque landslide.

You're a minnow compared to most of the rugby section

Beshocked would surely be in with a brilliant shout.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 09 Jun 2021, 2:11 pm

https://www.606v2.com/t70229-social-media-furore-and-the-ecb#3978281

Might not need it, but still cleans things up a bit.

by king_carlos Wed 09 Jun 2021, 2:17 pm

Add Daren Stevens and Chris Woakes to the squad.

1.Burns
2.Sibley
3.Crawley
4.Root
5.Pope
6.Bracey (wk)
7.Woakes
8.Stevens
9.Leach
10.Stone
11.Broad

Job's a good 'un.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed 09 Jun 2021, 2:27 pm

Actual cricket now...Williamson out and Latham installed as captain, would suggest no Southee as he was vice-captain at Lords.

by king_carlos Wed 09 Jun 2021, 2:54 pm

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Actual cricket now...Williamson out and Latham installed as captain, would suggest no Southee as he was vice-captain at Lords.

Presumably Boult in for Southee then.

Williamson is a big blow for any side but the NZ batting is still much stronger.

Interesting that Will Young will bat at 3 rather than bringing back Tom Blundell who did pretty well opening. Whilst Conway obviously had a marvelous debut most of his FC runs have come at 3. I can only think that NZ have already decided that Blundell will slot straight into Watling's role after the WTC final and as such are concentrating on finding others at the top.

by Duty281 Wed 09 Jun 2021, 3:50 pm

Cricinfo thinking this for the teams:

England (possible): 1 Rory Burns, 2 Dom Sibley, 3 Zak Crawley, 4 Joe Root (capt), 5 Ollie Pope, 6 Dan Lawrence, 7 James Bracey (wk), 8 Craig Overton, 9 Jack Leach, 10 Stuart Broad, 11 James Anderson

New Zealand (possible): 1 Tom Latham (capt), 2 Devon Conway, 3 Will Young, 4 Ross Taylor, 5 Henry Nicholls, 6 BJ Watling (wk), 7 Colin de Grandhomme, 8 Matt Henry, 9 Kyle Jamieson, 10 Ajaz Patel / Ruchin Ravindra, 11 Trent Boult.

New Zealand's team is quite clear-cut with Southee, Santner and Williamson all out, and Boult and Henry coming back into proceedings. England finally seeing sense and playing with an actual spinner, but it could be Overton or Stone coming in for Robinson, as Wood is unlikely to be put in for two consecutive tests.

Weather's beautiful through the five days, though if all five days are played one session's worth of play will probably be lost to slow over-rates. England haven't lost a home series for 7 years (v Sri Lanka when Anderson fell almost at the last), but I think NZ are good favourites to end that.

by msp83 Wed 09 Jun 2021, 4:00 pm

Huge blow for New Zealand that Kane Williamson, their captain, and one of the best batters in the world is ruled out of this contest. He has been battling this injury for a while, they wouldn't have wanted to risk him before the WTC final... Was hoping they would have given young Ravindra an opportunity as he can bowl some spin as well. Blundell was a stop-gap opener, he's going to slot in for Watling later on, and they need to identify good top order options. They've had a long-running problem at the top regarding Latham's opening partner until in fact Blundell offered a stop-gap fix. Conway has had a great start, now they would want to find someone for the middle order, Taylor isn't getting any younger it should be remembered.
Boult should be coming in for Southee, and they might give an opportunity to Henry who might come in for Jamieson. Don't think they should rest Wagner though. He's a one format player, and had a rusty start to the first test before getting back some rhythm in the 2nd innings. And if England continue with the flat track strategy, Wagner might be even more crucial with the old ball.

by Sponsored content