On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 9:05:58 AM UTC+1, steve hague wrote:
> On 07/06/2021 04:13, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 17:51:49 -0700 (PDT), chandelle <ra...@samura.ai>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:03:33 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> My point exactly. Everyone has a right to his views, including criticism of racism, which anyone with a smidgen of decency should. I'm, however, categorically against (a) laws that aim to gag the airing of views just because someone else gets offended and (b) sanctions such as penalties, suspensions and dismissals for holding a view, howsoever loathsome it may be.
> >>> If an employer hires someone who subsequently publicly expresses those
> >>> loathsome views, the employer may suffer reputational damage, which
> >>> can end up causing the business considerable financial harm.
> >>
> >>
> >> The employer shouldn't. Each person is an individual and doesn't represent the company itself. Furthermore, when you avail an organisation's services or buy their products, you do so for what they offer, not because of the individual views of its employees. As a ready example, the bloke who was in a way the face of Subway got arrested a decade or so ago because some child porn was found on his laptop. Did anyone stop eating at Subway because of that? Not that I've heard of. And if they did, I'd regard it as absurd.
> >
> > You're entitled to think society is absurd.
> >
> > Businesses who behave as though they think society is absurd, though,
> > tend to stop being businesses after a certain length of time.
> >
> > Law firms, for instance, which discover that a partner has acquired an
> > unpleasant public reputation know that a number of potential clients
> > will seek the services of other firms while that partner taints their
> > reputation. When a business seeks to attract customers because it has
> > great people working for it, it isn't a great selling point if it is
> > public knowledge that one of the partners is a loathsome toad. You may
> > consider it absurd that people seeking professional advice prefer to
> > seek it from people they believe to be sane and reasonable rather than
> > subscribers to the kind of delusional beliefs that the imbecile so
> > regularly professes, but I can say that it would certainly affect
> > decisions that I personally might make in that regard.
> >
> > If fellow employees discover that their colleague is a loathsome toad
> > and start treating him as though he is a loathsome toad, that may not
> > be very nice of them, but it does rather pose a problem for the
> > business. Should the loathsome toad be in a position of responsibility
> > involving performance assessment or work assignment, it is quite
> > likely that those who are the objects of his derision or prejudice are
> > liable to start complaining about the loathsome toad and appealing
> > against the loathsome toad's decisions. Even in the unlikely event
> > that the loathsome toad's decisions have been completely unaffected by
> > his loathsome personality, it will absorb a great deal of management
> > time to investigate each complaint and go through the necessary
> > procedures. If on the other hand it turns out that the loathsome
> > toad's prejudices have affectd his decision-making, there will be
> > legal costs and compensation to be paid, as well as the rescinding of
> > previous actions.
> >
> > And those to whom he reports will probably weigh what they now know
> > about the loathsome toad when they consider what the loathsome toad
> > tells them. If the toad's job is to diagnose faults in hardware, they
> > may well consider what he says to be useful, but should it involve
> > personnel decisions, they might start considering it less reliable.
> > Having an employee on whose information they do not feel they can rely
> > is not a good way to run a company.
> >
> > Continuing to employ loathsome toads is bad for business. You may
> > consider that absurd, but there we are.
> >
> > You appear to believe that the right to speak freely means that there
> > should be no consequences for doing so. Why on earth should saying
> > things be the only actions a human being can take without there being
> > consequences? Everything else we do is usually considered to be our
> > responsibility, and we are often held accountable for what we have
> > done. Sometimes by state actors such as the police and judiciary but
> > much more often by the people with whom we interact. We stop liking
> > them, trusting them, wanting to be in their company or be married to
> > them because of what they do, and in a huge number of those cases it
> > is because of something they said. And nowadays, it can easily be
> > because of old posts they made on FB or Twitter.
> >
> > Human nature may well be absurd. Maybe people should not be
> > judgmental, but you're battling against tens of thousands of years of
> > evolution which have led homo sapiens to be judgmental a lot of the
> > time.
> >
> > Ignoring human nature is not normally a successful strategy for living
> > in a society. If you want to go and live alone on an otherwise
> > uninhabited island and not communicate with anyone else, then you can
> > happily say whatever you like without there being consequences.
> > Otherwise, exercising your right to free speech may elicit a reaction.
> > That you may not like the reaction is because you have misjudged how
> > your audience is likely to react, or you have correctly judged the
> > response and decided to go ahead anyway, in which case the adverse
> > reaction is that which you have brought upon your own head.
> >
> > You can argue the toss over whether actions taken in a specific case
> > are reasonable. Human nature being what it is, mistakes can and will
> > be made by those reacting to a particular instance of an exercise of
> > free speech. But to expect that there should on no account be any
> > reaction by any affected party - and that is party affected in the
> > real world, not excluding party or parties whom you in your wisdom do
> > not think should be affected in an ideal world - is, I would put to
> > you, completely absurd.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> All of which may well be true, but I thank God that the stupid things I
> said and did as a teenager haven't come back to bite me on the bum.
> Robinson bowled well and batted well. His barely articulate ramblings as
> an 18 year old shouldn't detract from that.
> Steve Hague

agree. if the ECB was wise they would make Robinson the poster boy of their
latest pc campaigne, something like "i was a racist and sexist 18yrold but look
at me now playing for the multicultural and ideological sound england team
of 11 white englishmen. " ;)

its probably this latest campaign that has resulted in such a ban becos the ECB
fear being labled hypocrites if they dont.

mike

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:05:56 +0100, steve hague
<stevehague82@gmail.com> wrote:

>All of which may well be true, but I thank God that the stupid things I
>said and did as a teenager haven't come back to bite me on the bum.
>Robinson bowled well and batted well. His barely articulate ramblings as
>an 18 year old shouldn't detract from that.

I wasn't specifically commenting on the Robinson case.

I too am profoundly grateful that I didn't grow up in an era when my
teenage twattery didn't get preserved for the ages, but today's kids
don't have that luxury.

As I said earlier in this discussion, I'd have been satisfied with an
apology and acknowledgement that he'd been a twat as a teenager, which
he has already delivered and would for me be the end of the matter.
From what Joe Root has said, the England team and immediate team
management are of the same view.

However, the ECB are in a different position. They are under threat of
legal action over their treatment of umpires and there are other
issues highlighted by various ex-players and officials which are the
subject of inquiry. They have to tread on eggshells when dealing with
these matters.

Contrary to one of the points chandelle has been making, county
professional cricketers are regarded as public representatives of
their employers, and it says so in their contracts of employment.

The issue which the ECB's lawyers have is whether or not Ollie
Robinson was under contract at the time of the tweets. If he was, and
nothing was done about it at the time, then the ECB and Yorkshire (for
whom he may or may not have been under contract) are at legal risk.
The precise timeline of tweets and what sort of arrangments were in
place at the time is apparently unclear. For that reason, they have to
suspend him until the extent of their own liability is known.

His current county have done nothing wrong and there is no allegation
that he has done anything wrong while under contract to them, so he
can happily play for them.

You may well consider that the ECB are being excessively defensive,
but they no doubt pay considerable sums to m'learned friends for their
advice, and they would be reckless not to follow it.

Cheers,

Mike

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 20:29:43 -0700 (PDT), chandelle <rama@samura.ai>
wrote:

>https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/57335528
>
>I'm sure he's had to apologise because of a perceived threat of a fine by the ECB.
>
>We live in an awful woke world where gagging and PC enforced by law are rife. Just as we're free to call out or killfile racist gits like the one here on UKSC, he too should be equally free to spew his bile. To gag or threaten racists only engenders hypocrisy, with views of public figures having little resemblance to true, private views or behaviours.
>
>Nearly each of us loathes racism (I know I do) but I loathe PC and censorship equally.
>
>
>
>
>
What did he say in the tweets?
Everyone seems to know accept me.

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 5:04:30 PM UTC+1, max.it wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 20:29:43 -0700 (PDT), chandelle <ra...@samura.ai>
> wrote:
> >https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/57335528
> >
> >I'm sure he's had to apologise because of a perceived threat of a fine by the ECB.
> >
> >We live in an awful woke world where gagging and PC enforced by law are rife. Just as we're free to call out or killfile racist gits like the one here on UKSC, he too should be equally free to spew his bile. To gag or threaten racists only engenders hypocrisy, with views of public figures having little resemblance to true, private views or behaviours.
> >
> >Nearly each of us loathes racism (I know I do) but I loathe PC and censorship equally.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> What did he say in the tweets?
> Everyone seems to know accept me.
> max.it
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Mon, 07 Jun 2021 04:13:02 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 17:51:49 -0700 (PDT), chandelle <rama@samura.ai>
>wrote:
>
>>On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:03:33 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>> >
>>> >My point exactly. Everyone has a right to his views, including criticism of racism, which anyone with a smidgen of decency should. I'm, however, categorically against (a) laws that aim to gag the airing of views just because someone else gets offended and (b) sanctions such as penalties, suspensions and dismissals for holding a view, howsoever loathsome it may be.
>>> If an employer hires someone who subsequently publicly expresses those
>>> loathsome views, the employer may suffer reputational damage, which
>>> can end up causing the business considerable financial harm.
>>
>>
>>The employer shouldn't. Each person is an individual and doesn't represent the company itself. Furthermore, when you avail an organisation's services or buy their products, you do so for what they offer, not because of the individual views of its employees. As a ready example, the bloke who was in a way the face of Subway got arrested a decade or so ago because some child porn was found on his laptop. Did anyone stop eating at Subway because of that? Not that I've heard of. And if they did, I'd regard it as absurd.
>
>You're entitled to think society is absurd.

Albert Camus [sp] promotes a viable reason to think society is absurd.

>Businesses who behave as though they think society is absurd, though,
>tend to stop being businesses after a certain length of time.
>
>Law firms, for instance, which discover that a partner has acquired an
>unpleasant public reputation know that a number of potential clients
>will seek the services of other firms while that partner taints their
>reputation. When a business seeks to attract customers because it has
>great people working for it, it isn't a great selling point if it is
>public knowledge that one of the partners is a loathsome toad. You may
>consider it absurd that people seeking professional advice prefer to
>seek it from people they believe to be sane and reasonable rather than
>subscribers to the kind of delusional beliefs that the imbecile so
>regularly professes, but I can say that it would certainly affect
>decisions that I personally might make in that regard.

I hate that bastard but he's gonna get me off with (whatever) or he's
a complete shitebag but he's a wizard with my accounts.

>If fellow employees discover that their colleague is a loathsome toad
>and start treating him as though he is a loathsome toad, that may not
>be very nice of them, but it does rather pose a problem for the
>business. Should the loathsome toad be in a position of responsibility
>involving performance assessment or work assignment, it is quite
>likely that those who are the objects of his derision or prejudice are
>liable to start complaining about the loathsome toad and appealing
>against the loathsome toad's decisions. Even in the unlikely event
>that the loathsome toad's decisions have been completely unaffected by
>his loathsome personality, it will absorb a great deal of management
>time to investigate each complaint and go through the necessary
>procedures. If on the other hand it turns out that the loathsome
>toad's prejudices have affectd his decision-making, there will be
>legal costs and compensation to be paid, as well as the rescinding of
>previous actions.

That guy is a total cunt, but he's bringing in the dosh and if I yap
about his personal opinions, I'll come last.

>And those to whom he reports will probably weigh what they now know
>about the loathsome toad when they consider what the loathsome toad
>tells them. If the toad's job is to diagnose faults in hardware, they
>may well consider what he says to be useful, but should it involve
>personnel decisions, they might start considering it less reliable.
>Having an employee on whose information they do not feel they can rely
>is not a good way to run a company.

If the toad values his position, he will choose the best victim
regardless of his toadish opinions and treat them with the same
toadness. Every toad has his reason.

>Continuing to employ loathsome toads is bad for business. You may
>consider that absurd, but there we are.

I would have to ask here, what business? I have worked in places where
everyone else except me was a former paramilitary prisoner of some
variety. I'm not making a false comparison, I have lived under the
bias and prejudice that you are pointing out.

>You appear to believe that the right to speak freely means that there
>should be no consequences for doing so. Why on earth should saying
>things be the only actions a human being can take without there being
>consequences? Everything else we do is usually considered to be our
>responsibility, and we are often held accountable for what we have
>done. Sometimes by state actors such as the police and judiciary but
>much more often by the people with whom we interact. We stop liking
>them, trusting them, wanting to be in their company or be married to
>them because of what they do, and in a huge number of those cases it
>is because of something they said. And nowadays, it can easily be
>because of old posts they made on FB or Twitter.

When you say like, do you mean the little thumbs up icon. or do you
mean like them less after reading the offending social media blurt?

>Human nature may well be absurd. Maybe people should not be
>judgmental, but you're battling against tens of thousands of years of
>evolution which have led homo sapiens to be judgmental a lot of the
>time.

I'm not sure that evolution caused humans to be judgemental , I'd
guess that the finger pointing began with religion.

>Ignoring human nature is not normally a successful strategy for living
>in a society. If you want to go and live alone on an otherwise
>uninhabited island and not communicate with anyone else, then you can
>happily say whatever you like without there being consequences.
>Otherwise, exercising your right to free speech may elicit a reaction.
>That you may not like the reaction is because you have misjudged how
>your audience is likely to react, or you have correctly judged the
>response and decided to go ahead anyway, in which case the adverse
>reaction is that which you have brought upon your own head.

That's foot in mouth disease, it can only be treated by a social
sanction.

>You can argue the toss over whether actions taken in a specific case
>are reasonable. Human nature being what it is, mistakes can and will
>be made by those reacting to a particular instance of an exercise of
>free speech. But to expect that there should on no account be any
>reaction by any affected party - and that is party affected in the
>real world, not excluding party or parties whom you in your wisdom do
>not think should be affected in an ideal world - is, I would put to
>you, completely absurd.

Who has been affected?

max.it
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 1:39:37 AM UTC+1, max.it wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2021 04:13:02 +0100, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk>
> wrote:
> >On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 17:51:49 -0700 (PDT), chandelle <ra...@samura.ai>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:03:33 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >My point exactly. Everyone has a right to his views, including criticism of racism, which anyone with a smidgen of decency should. I'm, however, categorically against (a) laws that aim to gag the airing of views just because someone else gets offended and (b) sanctions such as penalties, suspensions and dismissals for holding a view, howsoever loathsome it may be.
> >>> If an employer hires someone who subsequently publicly expresses those
> >>> loathsome views, the employer may suffer reputational damage, which
> >>> can end up causing the business considerable financial harm.
> >>
> >>
> >>The employer shouldn't. Each person is an individual and doesn't represent the company itself. Furthermore, when you avail an organisation's services or buy their products, you do so for what they offer, not because of the individual views of its employees. As a ready example, the bloke who was in a way the face of Subway got arrested a decade or so ago because some child porn was found on his laptop. Did anyone stop eating at Subway because of that? Not that I've heard of. And if they did, I'd regard it as absurd.
> >
> >You're entitled to think society is absurd.
> Albert Camus [sp] promotes a viable reason to think society is absurd.
> >Businesses who behave as though they think society is absurd, though,
> >tend to stop being businesses after a certain length of time.
> >
> >Law firms, for instance, which discover that a partner has acquired an
> >unpleasant public reputation know that a number of potential clients
> >will seek the services of other firms while that partner taints their
> >reputation. When a business seeks to attract customers because it has
> >great people working for it, it isn't a great selling point if it is
> >public knowledge that one of the partners is a loathsome toad. You may
> >consider it absurd that people seeking professional advice prefer to
> >seek it from people they believe to be sane and reasonable rather than
> >subscribers to the kind of delusional beliefs that the imbecile so
> >regularly professes, but I can say that it would certainly affect
> >decisions that I personally might make in that regard.
> I hate that bastard but he's gonna get me off with (whatever) or he's
> a complete shitebag but he's a wizard with my accounts.
> >If fellow employees discover that their colleague is a loathsome toad
> >and start treating him as though he is a loathsome toad, that may not
> >be very nice of them, but it does rather pose a problem for the
> >business. Should the loathsome toad be in a position of responsibility
> >involving performance assessment or work assignment, it is quite
> >likely that those who are the objects of his derision or prejudice are
> >liable to start complaining about the loathsome toad and appealing
> >against the loathsome toad's decisions. Even in the unlikely event
> >that the loathsome toad's decisions have been completely unaffected by
> >his loathsome personality, it will absorb a great deal of management
> >time to investigate each complaint and go through the necessary
> >procedures. If on the other hand it turns out that the loathsome
> >toad's prejudices have affectd his decision-making, there will be
> >legal costs and compensation to be paid, as well as the rescinding of
> >previous actions.
> That guy is a total cunt, but he's bringing in the dosh and if I yap
> about his personal opinions, I'll come last.
> >And those to whom he reports will probably weigh what they now know
> >about the loathsome toad when they consider what the loathsome toad
> >tells them. If the toad's job is to diagnose faults in hardware, they
> >may well consider what he says to be useful, but should it involve
> >personnel decisions, they might start considering it less reliable.
> >Having an employee on whose information they do not feel they can rely
> >is not a good way to run a company.
> If the toad values his position, he will choose the best victim
> regardless of his toadish opinions and treat them with the same
> toadness. Every toad has his reason.
> >Continuing to employ loathsome toads is bad for business. You may
> >consider that absurd, but there we are.
> I would have to ask here, what business? I have worked in places where
> everyone else except me was a former paramilitary prisoner of some
> variety.

'course you have , Lazarus, ;'course you have... RH

On 07/06/2021 17:04, max.it wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 20:29:43 -0700 (PDT), chandelle <rama@samura.ai>
> wrote:
>
>> https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/57335528
>>
>> I'm sure he's had to apologise because of a perceived threat of a fine by the ECB.
>>
>> We live in an awful woke world where gagging and PC enforced by law are rife. Just as we're free to call out or killfile racist gits like the one here on UKSC, he too should be equally free to spew his bile. To gag or threaten racists only engenders hypocrisy, with views of public figures having little resemblance to true, private views or behaviours.
>>
>> Nearly each of us loathes racism (I know I do) but I loathe PC and censorship equally.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> What did he say in the tweets?
> Everyone seems to know accept me.
>

AFAICS nothing that every other teenager hasn't done.

I always go by the quote 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'...

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On 07/06/2021 18:38, RH wrote:

Robert, what offends me more is not what he said, but the hollow
virtue-signalling apology he was forced to make.

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 3:53:15 PM UTC+10, Paul Hyett wrote:
> On 07/06/2021 18:38, RH wrote:
>
> Robert, what offends me more is not what he said, but the hollow
> virtue-signalling apology he was forced to make.

His comments were offensive. How do you know he's not genuinely sorry for them?

On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 6:53:15 AM UTC+1, Paul Hyett wrote:
> On 07/06/2021 18:38, RH wrote:
>
> Robert, what offends me more is not what he said, but the hollow
> virtue-signalling apology he was forced to make. >
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

It was straight out of the Cultural Revolution handbook- humiliate the victim through abject public confession . It is noteworthy that the liberal bigots in the ng have disgraced themselves by at best ignoring the atrocity and at worst celebrating i. They are the foot soldiers of totalitarianism. RH

On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 5:54:13 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> It was straight out of the Cultural Revolution handbook

When do I get my copy?! :(

On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 9:35:15 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 5:54:13 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> > It was straight out of the Cultural Revolution handbook
> When do I get my copy?! :(

Mao's back in fashion, sort off, so just get a copy of his little red book. RH

In message <uzDvI.51712$ie1.31224@fx03.ams4>, Vidcapper
<vidcapper1@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On 07/06/2021 17:04, max.it wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 20:29:43 -0700 (PDT), chandelle <rama@samura.ai>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/57335528
>>>
>>> I'm sure he's had to apologise because of a perceived threat of a
>>>fine by the ECB.
>>>
>>> We live in an awful woke world where gagging and PC enforced by law
>>>are rife. Just as we're free to call out or killfile racist gits like
>>>the one here on UKSC, he too should be equally free to spew his bile.
>>>or threaten racists only engenders hypocrisy, with views of public
>>>figures having little resemblance to true, private views or behaviours.
>>>
>>> Nearly each of us loathes racism (I know I do) but I loathe PC and
>>>censorship equally.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> What did he say in the tweets?
>> Everyone seems to know accept me.
>>
>
>AFAICS nothing that every other teenager hasn't done.

What!? If the tweets were as reported in the Telegraph, and helpfully
posted by RH here when the story first broke, then they were absolutely
vile. They were not anything that I could imagine any half-way decent
teenager posting. Even in the different culture of fifty-odd years ago,
had the Internet existed back them neither myself nor any of my friends
would have dreamt of posting anything like that. Hopefully the claims
that he has matured and is a much better person now are true.

>
>I always go by the quote 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'...
>

I tend not to be in favour of stone-throwing or of "cancel culture", but
if the ECB had taken no action it would have exposed their anti-racism
stance as being pure hypocrisy and would have set an alarming precedent.
Hopefully their disciplinary hearing can be convened quickly, though. It
wouldn't be right for Robinson to be suspended for months on end before
his case is considered. Assuming that his apology is genuine, then a ban
of one or at most two Tests (including this week's match) seems about
right.
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon

On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 1:51:24 AM UTC-4, Paul Hyett wrote:

> >
> AFAICS nothing that every other teenager hasn't done.
>
> I always go by the quote 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'....
>
>
>
> --
>
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

You must have kept some vile company as a teen then. These things were hardly universal in the 1980s when I was a teen, and I am sure were a lot less so in the 2010s. I guess if you are in some subculture where racism and islamophobia are acceptable, you're going to think this is true for everyone.

On 08/06/2021 09:57, John Hall wrote:
>>>>
>>> What did he say in the tweets?
>>> Everyone seems to know accept me.
>>>
>>
>> AFAICS nothing that every other teenager hasn't done.
>
> What!? If the tweets were as reported in the Telegraph, and helpfully
> posted by RH here when the story first broke, then they were absolutely
> vile. They were not anything that I could imagine any half-way decent
> teenager posting. Even in the different culture of fifty-odd years ago,
> had the Internet existed back them neither myself nor any of my friends
> would have dreamt of posting anything like that. Hopefully the claims
> that he has matured and is a much better person now are true.

I was merely talking in terms of posting inappropriate things, with the
benefit of hindsight, rather than the specifics of Ollie's tweets.
>
>>
>> I always go by the quote 'Let he who is without sin cast the first
>> stone'...
>>
>
> I tend not to be in favour of stone-throwing or of "cancel culture", but
> if the ECB had taken no action it would have exposed their anti-racism
> stance as being pure hypocrisy

I can't speak for the ECB, but many organisations stance *is* pure
virtue signalling.

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 7:00:39 AM UTC+1, Paul Hyett wrote:
> On 08/06/2021 09:57, John Hall wrote:
> >>>>
> >>> What did he say in the tweets?
> >>> Everyone seems to know accept me.
> >>>
> >>
> >> AFAICS nothing that every other teenager hasn't done.
> >
> > What!? If the tweets were as reported in the Telegraph, and helpfully
> > posted by RH here when the story first broke, then they were absolutely
> > vile. They were not anything that I could imagine any half-way decent
> > teenager posting. Even in the different culture of fifty-odd years ago,
> > had the Internet existed back them neither myself nor any of my friends
> > would have dreamt of posting anything like that.

I believe you but I cant say I'm surprised to find that teenagers are
saying this or posting this. We didnt have social media in the 1970s
and 1980s, 1990s but the culture of sports teams at schools and
colleges was often very yobbish both racist and sexist, often
encouraged by the games masters or coaches in charge or the
students themselves. Rugger was the worst followed by footy,
cricket was much more pleasant which is probably why it
became my sport of choice.

> >Hopefully the claims
> > that he has matured and is a much better person now are true.
> I was merely talking in terms of posting inappropriate things, with the
> benefit of hindsight, rather than the specifics of Ollie's tweets.
> >
> >>
> >> I always go by the quote 'Let he who is without sin cast the first
> >> stone'...
> >>
> >
> > I tend not to be in favour of stone-throwing or of "cancel culture", but
> > if the ECB had taken no action it would have exposed their anti-racism
> > stance as being pure hypocrisy
> I can't speak for the ECB, but many organisations stance *is* pure
> virtue signalling.
>

and who are the people 'investigating' all this for the ECB? Surely they
should be checked out to make sure they havnt ever said or done anything
racist or sexist? Given the office culture of bullying which exists inside
many organisations, it would be remarkable if they were all squeaky clean
themselves in this regard.

mike

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 00:58:01 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 7:00:39 AM UTC+1, Paul Hyett wrote:
>> On 08/06/2021 09:57, John Hall wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>> What did he say in the tweets?
>> >>> Everyone seems to know accept me.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> AFAICS nothing that every other teenager hasn't done.
>> >
>> > What!? If the tweets were as reported in the Telegraph, and helpfully
>> > posted by RH here when the story first broke, then they were absolutely
>> > vile. They were not anything that I could imagine any half-way decent
>> > teenager posting. Even in the different culture of fifty-odd years ago,
>> > had the Internet existed back them neither myself nor any of my friends
>> > would have dreamt of posting anything like that.
>
>I believe you but I cant say I'm surprised to find that teenagers are
>saying this or posting this. We didnt have social media in the 1970s
>and 1980s, 1990s but the culture of sports teams at schools and
>colleges was often very yobbish both racist and sexist, often
>encouraged by the games masters or coaches in charge or the
>students themselves. Rugger was the worst followed by footy,
>cricket was much more pleasant which is probably why it
>became my sport of choice.
>
>> >Hopefully the claims
>> > that he has matured and is a much better person now are true.
>> I was merely talking in terms of posting inappropriate things, with the
>> benefit of hindsight, rather than the specifics of Ollie's tweets.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I always go by the quote 'Let he who is without sin cast the first
>> >> stone'...
>> >>
>> >
>> > I tend not to be in favour of stone-throwing or of "cancel culture", but
>> > if the ECB had taken no action it would have exposed their anti-racism
>> > stance as being pure hypocrisy
>> I can't speak for the ECB, but many organisations stance *is* pure
>> virtue signalling.
>>
>
>and who are the people 'investigating' all this for the ECB? Surely they
>should be checked out to make sure they havnt ever said or done anything
>racist or sexist? Given the office culture of bullying which exists inside
>many organisations, it would be remarkable if they were all squeaky clean
>themselves in this regard.
>
>mike

You nailed it there last paragraph.
My mate joined PSNI, he must have got in on the very last minute of
the recruitment upper age limit. He told me that since the pandemic he
has noticed that people hate each other, they backstab, spy on and
make reports and complaints about each other, family neighbours and
strangers.He said that it happen very often before the virus, but tell
talery has been really common since.
I think even Henderson would agree that totalitarianism begins with
virtue signalling and then moves on to the stasi.

If what you are being told doesn't match with what you are
experiencing then question it.
Last Saturday a large anti NI protocol was being held in Portadown.
Reports were of 4000+ attendees, PSNI had been issuing statements all
week asking the organisers to contact them. I was in the area last
Saturday and I saw the protest. I reckon there were 400 attendees
tops. The talk is still of the big protest last Saturday with 4000 at
it, even though it is totally untrue people still believe what they
have been told. Create the herd and then split the herd into easy to
control units

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 1:18:07 PM UTC+1, max.it wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 00:58:01 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 7:00:39 AM UTC+1, Paul Hyett wrote:
> >> On 08/06/2021 09:57, John Hall wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> What did he say in the tweets?
> >> >>> Everyone seems to know accept me.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> AFAICS nothing that every other teenager hasn't done.
> >> >
> >> > What!? If the tweets were as reported in the Telegraph, and helpfully
> >> > posted by RH here when the story first broke, then they were absolutely
> >> > vile. They were not anything that I could imagine any half-way decent
> >> > teenager posting. Even in the different culture of fifty-odd years ago,
> >> > had the Internet existed back them neither myself nor any of my friends
> >> > would have dreamt of posting anything like that.
> >
> >I believe you but I cant say I'm surprised to find that teenagers are
> >saying this or posting this. We didnt have social media in the 1970s
> >and 1980s, 1990s but the culture of sports teams at schools and
> >colleges was often very yobbish both racist and sexist, often
> >encouraged by the games masters or coaches in charge or the
> >students themselves. Rugger was the worst followed by footy,
> >cricket was much more pleasant which is probably why it
> >became my sport of choice.
> >
> >> >Hopefully the claims
> >> > that he has matured and is a much better person now are true.
> >> I was merely talking in terms of posting inappropriate things, with the
> >> benefit of hindsight, rather than the specifics of Ollie's tweets.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I always go by the quote 'Let he who is without sin cast the first
> >> >> stone'...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I tend not to be in favour of stone-throwing or of "cancel culture", but
> >> > if the ECB had taken no action it would have exposed their anti-racism
> >> > stance as being pure hypocrisy
> >> I can't speak for the ECB, but many organisations stance *is* pure
> >> virtue signalling.
> >>
> >
> >and who are the people 'investigating' all this for the ECB? Surely they
> >should be checked out to make sure they havnt ever said or done anything
> >racist or sexist? Given the office culture of bullying which exists inside
> >many organisations, it would be remarkable if they were all squeaky clean
> >themselves in this regard.
> >
> >mike
> You nailed it there last paragraph.
> My mate joined PSNI,
'course he di, Lazarus, 'course he did.... RH
> I think even Henderson would agree that totalitarianism begins with
> virtue signalling and then moves on to the stasi.

NO. Both exist but it is not a progression of one to another. The two march together ... RH .

>On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 00:58:01 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:

>>and who are the people 'investigating' all this for the ECB?

Mostly Gerard Elias QC and his legal beagles. The ECB aren't dim: they
know that it has to be conducted by an eminent QC with a long and
distinguished record, not some cricket administrators who are mostly
former players.

Cheers,

Mike

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 3:51:15 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 20:29:43 -0700 (PDT), chandelle <ra...@samura.ai>
> wrote:
> >https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/57335528
> >
> >I'm sure he's had to apologise because of a perceived threat of a fine by the ECB.
> >
> >We live in an awful woke world where gagging and PC enforced by law are rife.
> "Woke" and "PC" are simply what right-wing bigots call politeness and
> civilised behaviour.
>
> That (predominantly) white men have been able to be shits in public
> for so long wihout any comeback doesn't mean it's a bad thing that
> they're now being called out for being shits and that their shitty
> behaviour has consequences.
>
> They've been handing out offensive abuse which at best upsets people
> and at worst leads to murdering and incarcerating people for the
> "crime" of not being white, male, Christian and heterosexual for a
> long time and are upset when people object? Cry me a fucking river.
>
> Of course you have the right to be a shit, but it doesn't come with an
> attendant right to be immune from other people telling you that you're
> a shit.

JFK and FDR are very widely regarded as one of the US' finest Presidents. Both were questionable in how they were in their personal lives. That didn't affect their or their country's reputation one bit, because you elect your President or PM to, well, manage your country the best. It helps if he who represents your country on the world stage is without off-the-field baggage but if people wanted models of propriety, you'd have priests, and not specialists, in most positions.

Anyway, what seems to be okay is one being a racist twit so long as his views aren't publicised. Take RH, the ready example. What he advocates, i.e. the non-selection of 'ethnics' by counties and at other levels without stating that to be a policy notwithstanding their having been born and raised in Britain, is how racism is defined everywhere, viz. the disadvantaging of someone purely because of his race or ethnicity, nothing else. Most of us right-minded ones disagree with and abhor such thoughts but to allow a law to gag or punish him from freely airing his view is IMHO considerably more draconian and dangerous.

On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 4:32:02 PM UTC+10, chandelle wrote:
> Anyway, what seems to be okay is one being a racist twit so long as his views aren't publicised. Take RH, the ready example. What he advocates, i.e. the non-selection of 'ethnics' by counties and at other levels without stating that to be a policy notwithstanding their having been born and raised in Britain, is how racism is defined everywhere, viz. the disadvantaging of someone purely because of his race or ethnicity, nothing else. Most of us right-minded ones disagree with and abhor such thoughts but to allow a law to gag or punish him from freely airing his view is IMHO considerably more draconian and dangerous.

I wonder if there's ANY level of hate speech that you'd outlaw.
And if not, how would you suggest a victim deal with incessant hate speech? for example in the workplace, or at school, or in a hospital?

On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 23:32:01 -0700 (PDT), chandelle <rama@samura.ai>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 3:51:15 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 20:29:43 -0700 (PDT), chandelle <ra...@samura.ai>
>> wrote:
>> >https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/57335528
>> >
>> >I'm sure he's had to apologise because of a perceived threat of a fine by the ECB.
>> >
>> >We live in an awful woke world where gagging and PC enforced by law are rife.
>> "Woke" and "PC" are simply what right-wing bigots call politeness and
>> civilised behaviour.
>>
>> That (predominantly) white men have been able to be shits in public
>> for so long wihout any comeback doesn't mean it's a bad thing that
>> they're now being called out for being shits and that their shitty
>> behaviour has consequences.
>>
>> They've been handing out offensive abuse which at best upsets people
>> and at worst leads to murdering and incarcerating people for the
>> "crime" of not being white, male, Christian and heterosexual for a
>> long time and are upset when people object? Cry me a fucking river.
>>
>> Of course you have the right to be a shit, but it doesn't come with an
>> attendant right to be immune from other people telling you that you're
>> a shit.
>
>
>JFK and FDR are very widely regarded as one of the US' finest Presidents. Both were questionable in how they were in their personal lives. That didn't affect their or their country's reputation one bit, because you elect your President or PM to, well, manage your country the best. It helps if he who represents your country on the world stage is without off-the-field baggage but if people wanted models of propriety, you'd have priests, and not specialists, in most positions.
>
>Anyway, what seems to be okay is one being a racist twit so long as his views aren't publicised. Take RH, the ready example. What he advocates, i.e. the non-selection of 'ethnics' by counties and at other levels without stating that to be a policy notwithstanding their having been born and raised in Britain, is how racism is defined everywhere, viz. the disadvantaging of someone purely because of his race or ethnicity, nothing else. Most of us right-minded ones disagree with and abhor such thoughts but to allow a law to gag or punish him from freely airing his view is IMHO considerably more draconian and dangerous.

You seem very confused.

You leapt from a "perceived threat of a fine imposed by the ECB" to
gagging laws.

The ECB are not a law-making body - in cricket, that's reserved to
MCC, and the Laws of Cricket only refer to speech on the field of play
without specifying what counts as offensive enough for umpires to get
involved.

No-one has suggested that Robinson's tweets were illegal. They have
said that they breach his terms and conditions of employment and that
his employers have the right to discipline him for that breach, as
they would for any other breach of his Ts & Cs.

Are you saying that breach of contract is something employers should
ignore?

Cheers,

Mike

On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 12:54:48 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> No-one has suggested that Robinson's tweets were illegal. They have
> said that they breach his terms and conditions of employment and that
> his employers have the right to discipline him for that breach, as
> they would for any other breach of his Ts & Cs.
>
> Are you saying that breach of contract is something employers should
> ignore?

No, I'm saying that such Ts and Cs are wrong and shouldn't exist in the first place. Organisations can put out as loud a banner as they wish to, stating that their employees' personal views don't reflect the organisation's or whatever and leave it at that.

And about your earlier point about businesses being affected, Google right here is an example that proves otherwise. You have many - okay they're not Google employees but are still using a Google platform - routinely spewing venom on Google Groups, with no consequence whatsoever on Google's business.. Ditto with Reddit and other fora. If nobody had such curbs, everyone would be on the same level playing field.

On another matter, how does this contractual relationship in cricket between the ECB and a player come into being - is anyone selected by his county required to sign a contract prior to his debut?

On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 02:08:07 -0700 (PDT), chandelle <rama@samura.ai>
wrote:

>On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 12:54:48 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>
>> No-one has suggested that Robinson's tweets were illegal. They have
>> said that they breach his terms and conditions of employment and that
>> his employers have the right to discipline him for that breach, as
>> they would for any other breach of his Ts & Cs.
>>
>> Are you saying that breach of contract is something employers should
>> ignore?
>
>
>No, I'm saying that such Ts and Cs are wrong and shouldn't exist in the first place. Organisations can put out as loud a banner as they wish to, stating that their employees' personal views don't reflect the organisation's or whatever and leave it at that.

Nonsense. I spent 40 years working for a company which regulated what
I could and couldn't say in public. Mostly, I was not allowed to say
things about the company's business or internal practices, but there
were also clauses about not bringing the company into disrepute by
word or deed. (Since they gave paid time off for the duration of an
election campaign for employees who wished to stand for Parliament for
any party, it certainly didn't disallow political opinions per se.)
Any company worth its salt will have such clauses.

Prominent sportsmen who misbehave in bars or get arrested for assault
or take part in dwarf-throwing competitions (as some rugby players
did) garner huge headlines on the back pages of newspapers. You then
get solemn pronouncements on editorial pages about the terrible
example that these players are setting, and how the relevant sports
authority should do something about it.

If you think that some wishy-washy statement about how the sports
authority doesn't agree with their behaviour but propose to do
absolutely nothing about it will get the newspapers off their backs,
you are astoundingly naive.

>
>On another matter, how does this contractual relationship in cricket between the ECB and a player come into being - is anyone selected by his county required to sign a contract prior to his debut?

Yes. Fielding an uncontracted player in a game under the ECB's
auspices gives rise to all sorts of penalties.

Cheers,

Mike

On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 7:08:08 PM UTC+10, chandelle wrote:
> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 12:54:48 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >
> > No-one has suggested that Robinson's tweets were illegal. They have
> > said that they breach his terms and conditions of employment and that
> > his employers have the right to discipline him for that breach, as
> > they would for any other breach of his Ts & Cs.
> >
> > Are you saying that breach of contract is something employers should
> > ignore?
> No, I'm saying that such Ts and Cs are wrong and shouldn't exist in the first place. Organisations can put out as loud a banner as they wish to, stating that their employees' personal views don't reflect the organisation's or whatever and leave it at that.

Yeah, that's going to work...
If somebody says "Hitler had the right idea about the Jews" obviously his employer won't face any blow back from that and all the other employees - especially the Jewish ones - should be fine with working with him...
>
> And about your earlier point about businesses being affected, Google right here is an example that proves otherwise. You have many - okay they're not Google employees but are still using a Google platform - routinely spewing venom on Google Groups,

That makes it a completely different matter.
A poster is significantly different from an employee

> with no consequence whatsoever on Google's business.

Considering Google's business is almost entirely tracking internet users and selling targeted adds for them that doesn't mean anything.

> Ditto with Reddit and other fora. If nobody had such curbs, everyone would be on the same level playing field.
>
While they aren't perfectly applied pretty much every social media site, company forum etc has terms and conditions for all posters
> On another matter, how does this contractual relationship in cricket between the ECB and a player come into being - is anyone selected by his county required to sign a contract prior to his debut?