Social Media Furore and the ECB

Just because no one is even talking about Kane Williamson being injured in the other thread, so overtaken is it with my Marxist wokeness.

Ollie Robinson and anyone else who may be swept up in this, as well as the ECB’s actions, can be discussed here.

You're a f*cking communist, Ziggler!

Dolph - thank you setting up this thread and allowing the other thread ''to get on with the game''.

A few quick comments:

1. Dobell's ''amnesty'' solution - as posted by JD - seems workable and may be a way of getting everyone out of this dreadful rabbit hole.

2. I did though have far less sympathy with the ECB than Dobell. He referred to the issue having been thrown at them. Imo and as said more than once before, it wasn't just Robinson who landed them with it. The ECB well knew of Robinson's history of misdemeanours and should have carried out some basic due diligence before selecting him. Either they're hopelessly incompetent or now crying crocodile tears and feigning concern.

3. Carlos in particular comes across to me (as he did to Duty) as being more concerned with racial slurs than those relating to sexual appearance and/or preference and regarding the former as more serious. Even assuming I'm right there, I have no issue with it. Carlos' concerns and the seriousness of them are for Carlos and quite right too. However, I'm uneasy with a sports governing body adopting the same approach. If Robinson should be banned for at least one Test whilst racial comments are investigated, there is no valid reason why the same shouldn't apply if different comments of concern made by others are to be investigated. As also said previously, I do suspect and fear that matters are going to be overly influenced by the seniority of the player concerned rather than what he wrote.

4. I found some of your comments, Dolph, to Duty unpleasant and unhelpful to a debate where views differ and nuances can be significant (references to 'basic stuff' and 'turd').

Echo guildford's approval of the thread move.

I can see there are some clear differences among posters on this issue - understandable. But I hope we can all remain civil while putting forth our views as honestly and forthrightly as we do ?

I've already stated that I consider the ECB over reacted in the first place but I know many disagree vehemently. I confess I haven't searched out all or any of the Robinson posts ; but the couple that were widely quoted (which were utterly crass and unpleasant ) , are certainly likely to offend a large part of the population - and probably did , to anyone who happened to encounter them, nearly a decade ago.  
The fact that they went viral on the very day the team was making a quite ostentatious gesture of inclusiveness was obviously a huge embarrassment to the governing body - which was doubtless why they brought out the big stick so quickly. My feeling though is that any distress caused to sections of the community - and undermining of the message of cultural unity - was caused less by the stupid actions of an immature young man many years ago than by the sad individual who chose to deliberately rebroadcast the stuff at a time calculated to cause maximum (ill) effect.

If Robinson were still the rather nasty minded thuggish idiot as those tweets might have suggested at the time then surely he should - on character grounds , which do count - never have been considered for selection. I'm pretty sure he isn't or we'd have heard it by now. So I reckon punishing him today for his earlier actions is unfair and I have not changed that view. I think a reprimand and his apology should have been enough to settle the matter ;  but obviously it is done now - at least the initial suspension. I hope he can get over it all but if he ever does make it back into the team I fear we can stand by for the whole ugly business to be raked over again , to no one's benefit.

Moving on to the "other" stuff now being brought out. First the Anderson crack - which seems far less significant as it is not a racial slur : and I would question whether it is even going to seriously bother anybody at all regardless of their own sexual preference. Some people may take offence : but some people take umbrage if they hear a mild expletive uttered in public. Really this one is a non-issue.

Morgan and Buttler apparently posted some critical stuff about Indian/English fans ? Since I haven't read the quotes I can't judge at all. But as there hasn't been an uproar I presume there was nothing too disrespectful , though biting a hand that does a lot towards feeding them seems pretty ungrateful.  Hopefully nothing serious as we really don't need the white ball team deprived of the leadership group ! I imagine they might cop some jeers from part of the crowd when next they step out ; but unless there is more to this I cannot see it requiring a huge investigation.

And lastly - well I do hope lastly - the case of an unnamed player who tweeted something nasty when aged 15. If you think , as I do , that Robinson can be partially excused due to immaturity , then this one also falls into the category of "as long as he's grown out of it , move on".  His subsequent behaviour obviously will be looked into , which is fair enough.

Suppose all this is basically backing up the Dobell "Amnesty " scheme in a way. Because I do think we need to put a lid on this before it gets totally out of hand.  Elite sportsmen are exposed to the world and I guess therefore need to be a bit more careful in their off field behaviour than the average person : but I hope we do not get to the point where they are all expected to be secular saints in order to ply their trade.  We are all human , and hence less than perfect - but some of us are a bit touchier than others and I for one do not want to see rule by the most easily offended become the norm

Vithushan Ehantharajah has written a good piece on the subject, maybe looking a touch beyond cricket as well as thoughts on the stuff itself.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/olllie-robinson-tweet-ban-racism-b1862058.html

Would agree on the Dobell "solution" as probably being a best way forward, and agree with Guildford's stance of having little sympathy with the ECB - issues in cricket on these subjects are hardly new, plenty have raised the Craig Overton incident as an example of their poor handling, often their words are not really followed up by any actions. Maybe this affair will prompt some actual action/change on their part, and lets hope it does moving forward for the overall better of the game as a whole...although I am saying that rather more in hope than expectation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57432180

Poor guy. Made a scapegoat and hung out to dry, this is the result.

Sometimes you can get away with something without any punishment for a long time, but sometimes it ends up coming back to haunt you. Not got a lot of sympathy.

I have sympathy with Robinson. And I am happy to believe he is genuinely contrite until shown otherwise. And whilst I disagree with the length of time the ECB are taking to deal with it, I don't think not suspending Robinson was an option - and a punishment is necessary, but I would like to see the charity option rather than any extended ban past this Test.

To me (and as previously said it is easy for me not being the target of these tweets to say) Robinson's tweets were far worse than what have been pulled up from Morgan, Buttler, Anderson.

And the issue of race is the dominant one for the ECB to deal with. Only in the past few years we have had; The Overton incident which was swept under the carpet, Azeem Rafiq and Yorkshire and then the allegations from ex umpire John Holder about institutionalised racism at the ECB.

And these aren't one of complaints - they all suggest and point to institutionalised racism throughout the cricket pyramid. That's why I feel just shrugging shoulders and saying Robinson is a changed man wasn't an option for the ECB if they want to start looking to move past those allegations.

Maybe a weird position, but if I were the ECB I'd be harsher on Morgan and Buttler than on Robinson. Robinson's tweets were obviously much worse in isolation, but he wasn't an ECB employee at the time and I don't think it's a good standard to set that an employer can discipline an employee for things they did before working for them, or for things that people say/do outside of work. That said, I also understand and maybe support the argument that Robinson isn't being suspended for  the tweets, instead being suspended while the ECB investigates if there is anything more out there. Morgan and Buttler made explicitly cricket related tweets mocking Indian cricket fans while being employees of the ECB and I think that makes their racist tweets worse as far as an employer is concerned.

James100 wrote:Maybe a weird position, but if I were the ECB I'd be harsher on Morgan and Buttler than on Robinson. Robinson's tweets were obviously much worse in isolation, but he wasn't an ECB employee at the time and I don't think it's a good standard to set that an employer can discipline an employee for things they did before working for them, or for things that people say/do outside of work. That said, I also understand and maybe support the argument that Robinson isn't being suspended for  the tweets, instead being suspended while the ECB investigates if there is anything more out there. Morgan and Buttler made explicitly cricket related tweets mocking Indian cricket fans while being employees of the ECB and I think that makes their racist tweets worse as far as an employer is concerned.

Some good and valid comments there, James. I particularly agree with the wording I've put in bold provided the employee didn't lie about having done it or seek to hide it. As far as I'm aware, that's not the case with Robinson and why I'm so damning about the ECB's lack of due diligence.

guildfordbat wrote:4. I found some of your comments, Dolph, to Duty unpleasant and unhelpful to a debate where views differ and nuances can be significant (references to 'basic stuff' and 'turd').

I like you, Guildford (and I think that's clear, I hope so! Genuinely), but to me that is maybe a bit because you are just leaning to their side with the EBC and Robinson debacle - specifically. Language isn't the only realm of unpleasantness, but spirit and purpose. I know mine was genuine and open. And I have dealt with, on this forum more than anywhere else, disingenuous people fawning stupidity or being purposefully trite to hide rudeness or distract debate. Considering the topic, I think I was much nicer than I needed to be. Which is why I used the tone I did when I did, and I think they are smart enough to see that. It is not exactly out of character, I am relatively sarcastic and a bit rude with most comments, happy or not. I doubt it was seen as too much out of character or control!

Tone cannot hide intent and neither should it excuse it. Considering what they expect people to move on from and shrug off, I am not too worried they were offended. Nor do I actively care, to be honest. they're pretty thick-skinned and I doubt they care too much if I am annoyed by them 

All this said, I should probably be moving this one to somewhere else too. We've had to close one in the rugby (I suggest we all did better with it here, to be honest. Some of the hypotheticals on there were crazy!).

But you know forums and sections. Once one can't, we probably lock the rest. I wouldn't have responded had it not been Guildford as I doubt he'll be too concerned or angry, and if I've spoken out of turn, my PMs are always open and I can be more nuanced there anyway. Aware I didn't deal with this perfectly, but I'll do better than RDW pays me