https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/03/05/yorkshire-racism-hearing-unanswered-questions/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
Yorkshire racism hearing – the unanswered questions

As the hearing heads into its second week, Telegraph Sport assesses the vital missing pieces after three days of testimony

By
Nick Hoult,
CHIEF CRICKET CORRESPONDENT and
Tom Morgan,
SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT
5 March 2023 • 9:20am
Azeem Rafiq arrives for the third day of the CDC Panel Hearing at the International Arbitration Centre, London. A panel of the Cricket Discipline Commission will hear disciplinary proceedings brought by the England and Wales Cricket Board
The Yorkshire racism hearing is expected to come to an end this week CREDIT: PA /James Manning

The Yorkshire racism hearing will resume on Monday with a private session for final submissions before the public hearing starts again on Tuesday.

After three days of dramatic testimony in London, Telegraph Sport looks at some of the unanswered questions which could prove crucial in the case.

Is Adil Rashid’s recollection convincing enough to sway the CDC?
Christopher Stoner, KC, acting for Michael Vaughan, questioned why Rashid had gone from having no recollection of the alleged comment to releasing a statement to a journalist on the eve of the DCMS hearing backing up Rafiq's claims on the "you lot" comment. Rafiq told the original Yorkshire inquiry that Rashid had suffered a "memory failure".

Rashid was also asked about evidence from Matthew Wood, the personal development manager for the Professional Cricketers’ Association who worked with Yorkshire players. Wood’s witness statement said he asked all the Yorkshire players if they had experienced racism in the light of the Rafiq allegations. Rashid said he had not experienced any.

Rashid said: "I cannot recall the conversation because we speak to so many people." Stoner asked Rashid if Rafiq had pressurised him to give evidence or threatened to report him to the ECB for anything. Liz Neto, the former Yorkshire HR manager, said in a series of phone conversations Rashid had admitted to being pressurised by Rafiq to corroborate the Vaughan accusation. Ajmal Shahzad, one of the four Asian players at Trent Bridge that day, who said he had no memory of the Vaughan comment, told ECB investigators Rashid had told him he was being blackmailed by Rafiq. "No, I wasn't pressured at all,” said Rashid, who had earlier admitted to being close to Shahzad.

Under intense questioning, Rashid struggled to remember the exact words said by Vaughan and offered a different answer to his statement.

Rashid: "There's too many of you lot, we need to do something about it." Stoner: "That's your recollection here and now. Is that correct?" Rashid: "Yes." Stoner: "Because just so you're aware that is not what is alleged against Michael Vaughan. It is 'there are too many of you lot, we need to have a word about it'.

Read more at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/03/05/yorkshire-racism-hearing-unanswered-questions/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 15:04:28 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/03/05/yorkshire-racism-hearing-unanswered-questions/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
> Yorkshire racism hearing – the unanswered questions
>
> As the hearing heads into its second week, Telegraph Sport assesses the vital missing pieces after three days of testimony
>
> By
> Nick Hoult,
> CHIEF CRICKET CORRESPONDENT and
> Tom Morgan,
> SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT
> 5 March 2023 • 9:20am
> Azeem Rafiq arrives for the third day of the CDC Panel Hearing at the International Arbitration Centre, London. A panel of the Cricket Discipline Commission will hear disciplinary proceedings brought by the England and Wales Cricket Board
> The Yorkshire racism hearing is expected to come to an end this week CREDIT: PA /James Manning
>
> The Yorkshire racism hearing will resume on Monday with a private session for final submissions before the public hearing starts again on Tuesday.
>
> After three days of dramatic testimony in London, Telegraph Sport looks at some of the unanswered questions which could prove crucial in the case.
>
> Is Adil Rashid’s recollection convincing enough to sway the CDC?
> Christopher Stoner, KC, acting for Michael Vaughan, questioned why Rashid had gone from having no recollection of the alleged comment to releasing a statement to a journalist on the eve of the DCMS hearing backing up Rafiq's claims on the "you lot" comment. Rafiq told the original Yorkshire inquiry that Rashid had suffered a "memory failure".
>
> Rashid was also asked about evidence from Matthew Wood, the personal development manager for the Professional Cricketers’ Association who worked with Yorkshire players. Wood’s witness statement said he asked all the Yorkshire players if they had experienced racism in the light of the Rafiq allegations. Rashid said he had not experienced any.
>
> Rashid said: "I cannot recall the conversation because we speak to so many people." Stoner asked Rashid if Rafiq had pressurised him to give evidence or threatened to report him to the ECB for anything. Liz Neto, the former Yorkshire HR manager, said in a series of phone conversations Rashid had admitted to being pressurised by Rafiq to corroborate the Vaughan accusation.. Ajmal Shahzad, one of the four Asian players at Trent Bridge that day, who said he had no memory of the Vaughan comment, told ECB investigators Rashid had told him he was being blackmailed by Rafiq. "No, I wasn't pressured at all,” said Rashid, who had earlier admitted to being close to Shahzad.
>
> Under intense questioning, Rashid struggled to remember the exact words said by Vaughan and offered a different answer to his statement.
>
> Rashid: "There's too many of you lot, we need to do something about it." Stoner: "That's your recollection here and now. Is that correct?" Rashid: "Yes." Stoner: "Because just so you're aware that is not what is alleged against Michael Vaughan. It is 'there are too many of you lot, we need to have a word about it'.

If that is the case, why did Stoner (according to the Telegraph two days earlier, as posted here by RH) ask Meena Botros whether he had 'spoken to any Yorkshire players, besides Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad, about Azeem Rafiq’s central allegation that, at Trent Bridge on June 22, 2009, Vaughan told the county’s south Asian contingent, “There’s too many of you lot, we need to do something about that?”', which is much closer to Rashid's version than the version that Stoner now claims Rafiq alleged? ISTM that Stoner is himself struggling to remember the exact words that are alleged.

On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 13:47:47 UTC, David North wrote:
> On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 15:04:28 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/03/05/yorkshire-racism-hearing-unanswered-questions/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
> > Yorkshire racism hearing – the unanswered questions
> >
> > As the hearing heads into its second week, Telegraph Sport assesses the vital missing pieces after three days of testimony
> >
> > By
> > Nick Hoult,
> > CHIEF CRICKET CORRESPONDENT and
> > Tom Morgan,
> > SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT
> > 5 March 2023 • 9:20am
> > Azeem Rafiq arrives for the third day of the CDC Panel Hearing at the International Arbitration Centre, London. A panel of the Cricket Discipline Commission will hear disciplinary proceedings brought by the England and Wales Cricket Board
> > The Yorkshire racism hearing is expected to come to an end this week CREDIT: PA /James Manning
> >
> > The Yorkshire racism hearing will resume on Monday with a private session for final submissions before the public hearing starts again on Tuesday.
> >
> > After three days of dramatic testimony in London, Telegraph Sport looks at some of the unanswered questions which could prove crucial in the case.
> >
> > Is Adil Rashid’s recollection convincing enough to sway the CDC?
> > Christopher Stoner, KC, acting for Michael Vaughan, questioned why Rashid had gone from having no recollection of the alleged comment to releasing a statement to a journalist on the eve of the DCMS hearing backing up Rafiq's claims on the "you lot" comment. Rafiq told the original Yorkshire inquiry that Rashid had suffered a "memory failure".
> >
> > Rashid was also asked about evidence from Matthew Wood, the personal development manager for the Professional Cricketers’ Association who worked with Yorkshire players. Wood’s witness statement said he asked all the Yorkshire players if they had experienced racism in the light of the Rafiq allegations. Rashid said he had not experienced any.
> >
> > Rashid said: "I cannot recall the conversation because we speak to so many people." Stoner asked Rashid if Rafiq had pressurised him to give evidence or threatened to report him to the ECB for anything. Liz Neto, the former Yorkshire HR manager, said in a series of phone conversations Rashid had admitted to being pressurised by Rafiq to corroborate the Vaughan accusation. Ajmal Shahzad, one of the four Asian players at Trent Bridge that day, who said he had no memory of the Vaughan comment, told ECB investigators Rashid had told him he was being blackmailed by Rafiq. "No, I wasn't pressured at all,” said Rashid, who had earlier admitted to being close to Shahzad.
> >
> > Under intense questioning, Rashid struggled to remember the exact words said by Vaughan and offered a different answer to his statement.
> >
> > Rashid: "There's too many of you lot, we need to do something about it." Stoner: "That's your recollection here and now. Is that correct?" Rashid: "Yes." Stoner: "Because just so you're aware that is not what is alleged against Michael Vaughan. It is 'there are too many of you lot, we need to have a word about it'.
> If that is the case, why did Stoner (according to the Telegraph two days earlier, as posted here by RH) ask Meena Botros whether he had 'spoken to any Yorkshire players, besides Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad, about Azeem Rafiq’s central allegation that, at Trent Bridge on June 22, 2009, Vaughan told the county’s south Asian contingent, “There’s too many of you lot, we need to do something about that?”', which is much closer to Rashid's version than the version that Stoner now claims Rafiq alleged? ISTM that Stoner is himself struggling to remember the exact words that are alleged.

.... or the Telegraph got it wrong previously.

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:50:59 PM UTC, David North wrote:
> On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 13:47:47 UTC, David North wrote:
> > On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 15:04:28 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/03/05/yorkshire-racism-hearing-unanswered-questions/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
> > > Yorkshire racism hearing – the unanswered questions
> > >
> > > As the hearing heads into its second week, Telegraph Sport assesses the vital missing pieces after three days of testimony
> > >
> > > By
> > > Nick Hoult,
> > > CHIEF CRICKET CORRESPONDENT and
> > > Tom Morgan,
> > > SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT
> > > 5 March 2023 • 9:20am
> > > Azeem Rafiq arrives for the third day of the CDC Panel Hearing at the International Arbitration Centre, London. A panel of the Cricket Discipline Commission will hear disciplinary proceedings brought by the England and Wales Cricket Board
> > > The Yorkshire racism hearing is expected to come to an end this week CREDIT: PA /James Manning
> > >
> > > The Yorkshire racism hearing will resume on Monday with a private session for final submissions before the public hearing starts again on Tuesday.
> > >
> > > After three days of dramatic testimony in London, Telegraph Sport looks at some of the unanswered questions which could prove crucial in the case.
> > >
> > > Is Adil Rashid’s recollection convincing enough to sway the CDC?
> > > Christopher Stoner, KC, acting for Michael Vaughan, questioned why Rashid had gone from having no recollection of the alleged comment to releasing a statement to a journalist on the eve of the DCMS hearing backing up Rafiq's claims on the "you lot" comment. Rafiq told the original Yorkshire inquiry that Rashid had suffered a "memory failure".
> > >
> > > Rashid was also asked about evidence from Matthew Wood, the personal development manager for the Professional Cricketers’ Association who worked with Yorkshire players. Wood’s witness statement said he asked all the Yorkshire players if they had experienced racism in the light of the Rafiq allegations. Rashid said he had not experienced any.
> > >
> > > Rashid said: "I cannot recall the conversation because we speak to so many people." Stoner asked Rashid if Rafiq had pressurised him to give evidence or threatened to report him to the ECB for anything. Liz Neto, the former Yorkshire HR manager, said in a series of phone conversations Rashid had admitted to being pressurised by Rafiq to corroborate the Vaughan accusation. Ajmal Shahzad, one of the four Asian players at Trent Bridge that day, who said he had no memory of the Vaughan comment, told ECB investigators Rashid had told him he was being blackmailed by Rafiq. "No, I wasn't pressured at all,” said Rashid, who had earlier admitted to being close to Shahzad.
> > >
> > > Under intense questioning, Rashid struggled to remember the exact words said by Vaughan and offered a different answer to his statement.
> > >
> > > Rashid: "There's too many of you lot, we need to do something about it." Stoner: "That's your recollection here and now. Is that correct?" Rashid: "Yes." Stoner: "Because just so you're aware that is not what is alleged against Michael Vaughan. It is 'there are too many of you lot, we need to have a word about it'.
> > If that is the case, why did Stoner (according to the Telegraph two days earlier, as posted here by RH) ask Meena Botros whether he had 'spoken to any Yorkshire players, besides Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad, about Azeem Rafiq’s central allegation that, at Trent Bridge on June 22, 2009, Vaughan told the county’s south Asian contingent, “There’s too many of you lot, we need to do something about that?”', which is much closer to Rashid's version than the version that Stoner now claims Rafiq alleged? ISTM that Stoner is himself struggling to remember the exact words that are alleged.
> ... or the Telegraph got it wrong previously.

Does this count as hearsay? It is true that there are various people giving various versions around an event which is problematical in itself,m but as their versions vary could this not be considered hearsay in which case the evidence should be struck out ?

"What is an example of hearsay?
This is called hearsay. The court must hear from the person themselves to consider it as evidence. For example, if you are a witness in a trial, you cannot give the following evidence, "My mother told me she saw the accused at 3pm". This is evidence of a statement made out of court and is hearsay.25 Jan 2023"

RH

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:17:19 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> This is called hearsay. The court

What court?

At times hearsay is admissible evidence.

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 11:20:23 AM UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:17:19 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > This is called hearsay. The court
> What court?
>
> At times hearsay is admissible evidence.

OK. Which condition do you wish to invoke:

Section 114(1) CJA 2003 provides four circumstances in which hearsay evidence is admissible in criminal proceedings:

The CJA or any other statutory provision makes it admissible;
It is one of the common law exceptions preserved by section 118 (see below)
All parties to the proceedings agree to it being admissible; or;
The court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to be admissible.

More on hearsay here
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/07/jake-berry-matt-hancock-power-drunk-covid/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

RH

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:31:36 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> Section 114(1) CJA 2003 provides four circumstances in which hearsay evidence is admissible in criminal proceedings:

Which criminal proceedings?

On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 11:31:36 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 11:20:23 AM UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:17:19 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > This is called hearsay. The court
> > What court?
> >
> > At times hearsay is admissible evidence.
> OK. Which condition do you wish to invoke:
>
> Section 114(1) CJA 2003 provides four circumstances in which hearsay evidence is admissible in criminal proceedings:
>
> The CJA or any other statutory provision makes it admissible;
> It is one of the common law exceptions preserved by section 118 (see below)
> All parties to the proceedings agree to it being admissible; or;
> The court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to be admissible.
>
> More on hearsay here
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/07/jake-berry-matt-hancock-power-drunk-covid/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
>
> RH

Try here idiot
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271979/2321.pdf

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 15:56:22 -0800 (PST), Najeeb ybo
<najeebybo@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 11:31:36 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 11:20:23?AM UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:17:19?PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> > > This is called hearsay. The court
>> > What court?
>> >
>> > At times hearsay is admissible evidence.
>> OK. Which condition do you wish to invoke:
>>
>> Section 114(1) CJA 2003 provides four circumstances in which hearsay evidence is admissible in criminal proceedings:
>>
>> The CJA or any other statutory provision makes it admissible;
>> It is one of the common law exceptions preserved by section 118 (see below)
>> All parties to the proceedings agree to it being admissible; or;
>> The court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to be admissible.
>>
>> More on hearsay here
>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/07/jake-berry-matt-hancock-power-drunk-covid/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
>>
>> RH
>
>Try here idiot
>https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271979/2321.pdf

Given that this is an ECB disciplinary procedure and not a criminal
trial, the village idiot is barking up an entirely irrelevant tree, as
per usual.

The whole procedure is a ghastly mess and the ECB have fucked it up
badly. I can see no point in sanctioning retired players, nor do I see
the point in now sanctioning the club when they've already cleared the
Augean stables and incurred considerable losses in doing so.

The remaining people who are guilty are all currently employed by the
ECB, are incompetent, useless, and a complacent waste of space. Not
that this procedure will identify or blame them.

Cheers,

Mike

On 07/03/2023 11:17, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:50:59 PM UTC, David North wrote:
>> On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 13:47:47 UTC, David North wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 15:04:28 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/03/05/yorkshire-racism-hearing-unanswered-questions/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
>>>> Yorkshire racism hearing – the unanswered questions
>>>>
>>>> As the hearing heads into its second week, Telegraph Sport assesses the vital missing pieces after three days of testimony
>>>>
>>>> By
>>>> Nick Hoult,
>>>> CHIEF CRICKET CORRESPONDENT and
>>>> Tom Morgan,
>>>> SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT
>>>> 5 March 2023 • 9:20am
>>>> Azeem Rafiq arrives for the third day of the CDC Panel Hearing at the International Arbitration Centre, London. A panel of the Cricket Discipline Commission will hear disciplinary proceedings brought by the England and Wales Cricket Board
>>>> The Yorkshire racism hearing is expected to come to an end this week CREDIT: PA /James Manning
>>>>
>>>> The Yorkshire racism hearing will resume on Monday with a private session for final submissions before the public hearing starts again on Tuesday.
>>>>
>>>> After three days of dramatic testimony in London, Telegraph Sport looks at some of the unanswered questions which could prove crucial in the case.
>>>>
>>>> Is Adil Rashid’s recollection convincing enough to sway the CDC?
>>>> Christopher Stoner, KC, acting for Michael Vaughan, questioned why Rashid had gone from having no recollection of the alleged comment to releasing a statement to a journalist on the eve of the DCMS hearing backing up Rafiq's claims on the "you lot" comment. Rafiq told the original Yorkshire inquiry that Rashid had suffered a "memory failure".
>>>>
>>>> Rashid was also asked about evidence from Matthew Wood, the personal development manager for the Professional Cricketers’ Association who worked with Yorkshire players. Wood’s witness statement said he asked all the Yorkshire players if they had experienced racism in the light of the Rafiq allegations. Rashid said he had not experienced any.
>>>>
>>>> Rashid said: "I cannot recall the conversation because we speak to so many people." Stoner asked Rashid if Rafiq had pressurised him to give evidence or threatened to report him to the ECB for anything. Liz Neto, the former Yorkshire HR manager, said in a series of phone conversations Rashid had admitted to being pressurised by Rafiq to corroborate the Vaughan accusation. Ajmal Shahzad, one of the four Asian players at Trent Bridge that day, who said he had no memory of the Vaughan comment, told ECB investigators Rashid had told him he was being blackmailed by Rafiq. "No, I wasn't pressured at all,” said Rashid, who had earlier admitted to being close to Shahzad.
>>>>
>>>> Under intense questioning, Rashid struggled to remember the exact words said by Vaughan and offered a different answer to his statement.
>>>>
>>>> Rashid: "There's too many of you lot, we need to do something about it." Stoner: "That's your recollection here and now. Is that correct?" Rashid: "Yes." Stoner: "Because just so you're aware that is not what is alleged against Michael Vaughan. It is 'there are too many of you lot, we need to have a word about it'.
>>> If that is the case, why did Stoner (according to the Telegraph two days earlier, as posted here by RH) ask Meena Botros whether he had 'spoken to any Yorkshire players, besides Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad, about Azeem Rafiq’s central allegation that, at Trent Bridge on June 22, 2009, Vaughan told the county’s south Asian contingent, “There’s too many of you lot, we need to do something about that?”', which is much closer to Rashid's version than the version that Stoner now claims Rafiq alleged? ISTM that Stoner is himself struggling to remember the exact words that are alleged.
>> ... or the Telegraph got it wrong previously.
>
> Does this count as hearsay?

Well, what's reported by the Telegraph is hearsay, because they are
telling us (whether accurately or not) what Rafiq, Rashid, etc, said
that they heard. What Rafiq and Rashid said that they heard is not
hearsay, because they are claiming to have heard it from Vaughan themselves.

--
David North

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 5:25:52 AM UTC, David North wrote:
> On 07/03/2023 11:17, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:50:59 PM UTC, David North wrote:
> >> On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 13:47:47 UTC, David North wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 15:04:28 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/03/05/yorkshire-racism-hearing-unanswered-questions/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
> >>>> Yorkshire racism hearing – the unanswered questions
> >>>>
> >>>> As the hearing heads into its second week, Telegraph Sport assesses the vital missing pieces after three days of testimony
> >>>>
> >>>> By
> >>>> Nick Hoult,
> >>>> CHIEF CRICKET CORRESPONDENT and
> >>>> Tom Morgan,
> >>>> SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT
> >>>> 5 March 2023 • 9:20am
> >>>> Azeem Rafiq arrives for the third day of the CDC Panel Hearing at the International Arbitration Centre, London. A panel of the Cricket Discipline Commission will hear disciplinary proceedings brought by the England and Wales Cricket Board
> >>>> The Yorkshire racism hearing is expected to come to an end this week CREDIT: PA /James Manning
> >>>>
> >>>> The Yorkshire racism hearing will resume on Monday with a private session for final submissions before the public hearing starts again on Tuesday.
> >>>>
> >>>> After three days of dramatic testimony in London, Telegraph Sport looks at some of the unanswered questions which could prove crucial in the case.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is Adil Rashid’s recollection convincing enough to sway the CDC?
> >>>> Christopher Stoner, KC, acting for Michael Vaughan, questioned why Rashid had gone from having no recollection of the alleged comment to releasing a statement to a journalist on the eve of the DCMS hearing backing up Rafiq's claims on the "you lot" comment. Rafiq told the original Yorkshire inquiry that Rashid had suffered a "memory failure".
> >>>>
> >>>> Rashid was also asked about evidence from Matthew Wood, the personal development manager for the Professional Cricketers’ Association who worked with Yorkshire players. Wood’s witness statement said he asked all the Yorkshire players if they had experienced racism in the light of the Rafiq allegations. Rashid said he had not experienced any.
> >>>>
> >>>> Rashid said: "I cannot recall the conversation because we speak to so many people." Stoner asked Rashid if Rafiq had pressurised him to give evidence or threatened to report him to the ECB for anything. Liz Neto, the former Yorkshire HR manager, said in a series of phone conversations Rashid had admitted to being pressurised by Rafiq to corroborate the Vaughan accusation. Ajmal Shahzad, one of the four Asian players at Trent Bridge that day, who said he had no memory of the Vaughan comment, told ECB investigators Rashid had told him he was being blackmailed by Rafiq. "No, I wasn't pressured at all,” said Rashid, who had earlier admitted to being close to Shahzad.
> >>>>
> >>>> Under intense questioning, Rashid struggled to remember the exact words said by Vaughan and offered a different answer to his statement.
> >>>>
> >>>> Rashid: "There's too many of you lot, we need to do something about it." Stoner: "That's your recollection here and now. Is that correct?" Rashid: "Yes." Stoner: "Because just so you're aware that is not what is alleged against Michael Vaughan. It is 'there are too many of you lot, we need to have a word about it'.
> >>> If that is the case, why did Stoner (according to the Telegraph two days earlier, as posted here by RH) ask Meena Botros whether he had 'spoken to any Yorkshire players, besides Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad, about Azeem Rafiq’s central allegation that, at Trent Bridge on June 22, 2009, Vaughan told the county’s south Asian contingent, “There’s too many of you lot, we need to do something about that?”', which is much closer to Rashid's version than the version that Stoner now claims Rafiq alleged? ISTM that Stoner is himself struggling to remember the exact words that are alleged.
> >> ... or the Telegraph got it wrong previously.
> >
> > Does this count as hearsay?
> Well, what's reported by the Telegraph is hearsay, because they are
> telling us (whether accurately or not) what Rafiq, Rashid, etc, said
> that they heard. What Rafiq and Rashid said that they heard is not
> hearsay, because they are claiming to have heard it from Vaughan themselves.
>
> --
> David North

I brought in the question off hearsay for two reasons:

1. This affair may well end up in a court cases (s) where hearsay is relevant.

2. To illustrate how unffair the EC hearings were and are.,..

RH

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 5:25:52 AM UTC, David North wrote:
> On 07/03/2023 11:17, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:50:59 PM UTC, David North wrote:
> >> On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 13:47:47 UTC, David North wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 15:04:28 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/03/05/yorkshire-racism-hearing-unanswered-questions/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
> >>>> Yorkshire racism hearing – the unanswered questions
> >>>>
> >>>> As the hearing heads into its second week, Telegraph Sport assesses the vital missing pieces after three days of testimony
> >>>>
> >>>> By
> >>>> Nick Hoult,
> >>>> CHIEF CRICKET CORRESPONDENT and
> >>>> Tom Morgan,
> >>>> SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT
> >>>> 5 March 2023 • 9:20am
> >>>> Azeem Rafiq arrives for the third day of the CDC Panel Hearing at the International Arbitration Centre, London. A panel of the Cricket Discipline Commission will hear disciplinary proceedings brought by the England and Wales Cricket Board
> >>>> The Yorkshire racism hearing is expected to come to an end this week CREDIT: PA /James Manning
> >>>>
> >>>> The Yorkshire racism hearing will resume on Monday with a private session for final submissions before the public hearing starts again on Tuesday.
> >>>>
> >>>> After three days of dramatic testimony in London, Telegraph Sport looks at some of the unanswered questions which could prove crucial in the case.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is Adil Rashid’s recollection convincing enough to sway the CDC?
> >>>> Christopher Stoner, KC, acting for Michael Vaughan, questioned why Rashid had gone from having no recollection of the alleged comment to releasing a statement to a journalist on the eve of the DCMS hearing backing up Rafiq's claims on the "you lot" comment. Rafiq told the original Yorkshire inquiry that Rashid had suffered a "memory failure".
> >>>>
> >>>> Rashid was also asked about evidence from Matthew Wood, the personal development manager for the Professional Cricketers’ Association who worked with Yorkshire players. Wood’s witness statement said he asked all the Yorkshire players if they had experienced racism in the light of the Rafiq allegations. Rashid said he had not experienced any.
> >>>>
> >>>> Rashid said: "I cannot recall the conversation because we speak to so many people." Stoner asked Rashid if Rafiq had pressurised him to give evidence or threatened to report him to the ECB for anything. Liz Neto, the former Yorkshire HR manager, said in a series of phone conversations Rashid had admitted to being pressurised by Rafiq to corroborate the Vaughan accusation. Ajmal Shahzad, one of the four Asian players at Trent Bridge that day, who said he had no memory of the Vaughan comment, told ECB investigators Rashid had told him he was being blackmailed by Rafiq. "No, I wasn't pressured at all,” said Rashid, who had earlier admitted to being close to Shahzad.
> >>>>
> >>>> Under intense questioning, Rashid struggled to remember the exact words said by Vaughan and offered a different answer to his statement.
> >>>>
> >>>> Rashid: "There's too many of you lot, we need to do something about it." Stoner: "That's your recollection here and now. Is that correct?" Rashid: "Yes." Stoner: "Because just so you're aware that is not what is alleged against Michael Vaughan. It is 'there are too many of you lot, we need to have a word about it'.
> >>> If that is the case, why did Stoner (according to the Telegraph two days earlier, as posted here by RH) ask Meena Botros whether he had 'spoken to any Yorkshire players, besides Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad, about Azeem Rafiq’s central allegation that, at Trent Bridge on June 22, 2009, Vaughan told the county’s south Asian contingent, “There’s too many of you lot, we need to do something about that?”', which is much closer to Rashid's version than the version that Stoner now claims Rafiq alleged? ISTM that Stoner is himself struggling to remember the exact words that are alleged.
> >> ... or the Telegraph got it wrong previously.
> >
> > Does this count as hearsay?
> Well, what's reported by the Telegraph is hearsay, because they are
> telling us (whether accurately or not) what Rafiq, Rashid, etc, said
> that they heard. What Rafiq and Rashid said that they heard is not
> hearsay, because they are claiming to have heard it from Vaughan themselves.
>
> --
> David North

But the problem with that is the varying claim,s of what was said and when. It is not crystal clear who said what when . RH

On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 05:25:51 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 07/03/2023 11:17, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:50:59?PM UTC, David North wrote:
>>> On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 13:47:47 UTC, David North wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 15:04:28 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/03/05/yorkshire-racism-hearing-unanswered-questions/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
>>>>> Yorkshire racism hearing – the unanswered questions
>>>>>
>>>>> As the hearing heads into its second week, Telegraph Sport assesses the vital missing pieces after three days of testimony
>>>>>
>>>>> By
>>>>> Nick Hoult,
>>>>> CHIEF CRICKET CORRESPONDENT and
>>>>> Tom Morgan,
>>>>> SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT
>>>>> 5 March 2023 • 9:20am
>>>>> Azeem Rafiq arrives for the third day of the CDC Panel Hearing at the International Arbitration Centre, London. A panel of the Cricket Discipline Commission will hear disciplinary proceedings brought by the England and Wales Cricket Board
>>>>> The Yorkshire racism hearing is expected to come to an end this week CREDIT: PA /James Manning
>>>>>
>>>>> The Yorkshire racism hearing will resume on Monday with a private session for final submissions before the public hearing starts again on Tuesday.
>>>>>
>>>>> After three days of dramatic testimony in London, Telegraph Sport looks at some of the unanswered questions which could prove crucial in the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Adil Rashid’s recollection convincing enough to sway the CDC?
>>>>> Christopher Stoner, KC, acting for Michael Vaughan, questioned why Rashid had gone from having no recollection of the alleged comment to releasing a statement to a journalist on the eve of the DCMS hearing backing up Rafiq's claims on the "you lot" comment. Rafiq told the original Yorkshire inquiry that Rashid had suffered a "memory failure".
>>>>>
>>>>> Rashid was also asked about evidence from Matthew Wood, the personal development manager for the Professional Cricketers’ Association who worked with Yorkshire players. Wood’s witness statement said he asked all the Yorkshire players if they had experienced racism in the light of the Rafiq allegations. Rashid said he had not experienced any.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rashid said: "I cannot recall the conversation because we speak to so many people." Stoner asked Rashid if Rafiq had pressurised him to give evidence or threatened to report him to the ECB for anything. Liz Neto, the former Yorkshire HR manager, said in a series of phone conversations Rashid had admitted to being pressurised by Rafiq to corroborate the Vaughan accusation. Ajmal Shahzad, one of the four Asian players at Trent Bridge that day, who said he had no memory of the Vaughan comment, told ECB investigators Rashid had told him he was being blackmailed by Rafiq. "No, I wasn't pressured at all,” said Rashid, who had earlier admitted to being close to Shahzad.
>>>>>
>>>>> Under intense questioning, Rashid struggled to remember the exact words said by Vaughan and offered a different answer to his statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rashid: "There's too many of you lot, we need to do something about it." Stoner: "That's your recollection here and now. Is that correct?" Rashid: "Yes." Stoner: "Because just so you're aware that is not what is alleged against Michael Vaughan. It is 'there are too many of you lot, we need to have a word about it'.
>>>> If that is the case, why did Stoner (according to the Telegraph two days earlier, as posted here by RH) ask Meena Botros whether he had 'spoken to any Yorkshire players, besides Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad, about Azeem Rafiq’s central allegation that, at Trent Bridge on June 22, 2009, Vaughan told the county’s south Asian contingent, “There’s too many of you lot, we need to do something about that?”', which is much closer to Rashid's version than the version that Stoner now claims Rafiq alleged? ISTM that Stoner is himself struggling to remember the exact words that are alleged.
>>> ... or the Telegraph got it wrong previously.
>>
>> Does this count as hearsay?
>
>Well, what's reported by the Telegraph is hearsay, because they are
>telling us (whether accurately or not) what Rafiq, Rashid, etc, said
>that they heard. What Rafiq and Rashid said that they heard is not
>hearsay, because they are claiming to have heard it from Vaughan themselves.

Hearsay explained.
https://tinyurl.com/ecbyorkshire

max.it

In message <k6qkiuFtrrgU1@mid.individual.net>, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>On 07/03/2023 11:17, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:50:59?PM UTC, David North wrote:
>>> On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 13:47:47 UTC, David North wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 15:04:28 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/03/05/yorkshire-racism-hear
>>>>>ing-unanswered-questions/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
>>>>> Yorkshire racism hearing – the unanswered questions
>>>>>
>>>>> As the hearing heads into its second week, Telegraph Sport
>>>>>assesses the vital missing pieces after three days of testimony
>>>>>
>>>>> By
>>>>> Nick Hoult,
>>>>> CHIEF CRICKET CORRESPONDENT and
>>>>> Tom Morgan,
>>>>> SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT
>>>>> 5 March 2023 • 9:20am
>>>>> Azeem Rafiq arrives for the third day of the CDC Panel Hearing at
>>>>>International Arbitration Centre, London. A panel of the Cricket
>>>>>Discipline Commission will hear disciplinary proceedings brought by
>>>>>the England and Wales Cricket Board
>>>>> The Yorkshire racism hearing is expected to come to an end this
>>>>>week CREDIT: PA /James Manning
>>>>>
>>>>> The Yorkshire racism hearing will resume on Monday with a private
>>>>>session for final submissions before the public hearing starts
>>>>>again on Tuesday.
>>>>>
>>>>> After three days of dramatic testimony in London, Telegraph Sport
>>>>>looks at some of the unanswered questions which could prove crucial
>>>>>in the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Adil Rashid’s recollection convincing enough to sway the CDC?
>>>>> Christopher Stoner, KC, acting for Michael Vaughan, questioned why
>>>>>Rashid had gone from having no recollection of the alleged comment
>>>>>to releasing a statement to a journalist on the eve of the DCMS
>>>>>hearing backing up Rafiq's claims on the "you lot" comment. Rafiq
>>>>>told the original Yorkshire inquiry that Rashid had suffered a "memory failure".
>>>>>
>>>>> Rashid was also asked about evidence from Matthew Wood, the
>>>>>personal development manager for the Professional Cricketers’
>>>>>Association who worked with Yorkshire players. Wood’s witness
>>>>>statement said he asked all the Yorkshire players if they had
>>>>>experienced racism in the light of the Rafiq allegations. Rashid
>>>>>said he had not experienced any.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rashid said: "I cannot recall the conversation because we speak to
>>>>>many people." Stoner asked Rashid if Rafiq had pressurised him to
>>>>>give evidence or threatened to report him to the ECB for anything.
>>>>>Liz Neto, the former Yorkshire HR manager, said in a series of
>>>>>phone conversations Rashid had admitted to being pressurised by
>>>>>Rafiq to corroborate the Vaughan accusation. Ajmal Shahzad, one of
>>>>>the four Asian players at Trent Bridge that day, who said he had no
>>>>>memory of the Vaughan comment, told ECB investigators Rashid had
>>>>>told him he was being blackmailed by Rafiq. "No, I wasn't pressured
>>>>>at all,” said Rashid, who had earlier admitted to being close to Shahzad.
>>>>>
>>>>> Under intense questioning, Rashid struggled to remember the exact
>>>>>words said by Vaughan and offered a different answer to his statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rashid: "There's too many of you lot, we need to do something
>>>>>about it." Stoner: "That's your recollection here and now. Is that
>>>>>correct?" Rashid: "Yes." Stoner: "Because just so you're aware that
>>>>>is alleged against Michael Vaughan. It is 'there are too many of
>>>>>you lot, we need to have a word about it'.
>>>> If that is the case, why did Stoner (according to the Telegraph two
>>>>days earlier, as posted here by RH) ask Meena Botros whether he had
>>>>'spoken to any Yorkshire players, besides Adil Rashid and Ajmal
>>>>Shahzad, about Azeem Rafiq’s central allegation that, at Trent
>>>>Bridge on June 22, 2009, Vaughan told the county’s south Asian
>>>>contingent, “There’s too many of you lot, we need to do
>>>>something about that?”', which is much closer to Rashid's version
>>>>than the version that Stoner now claims Rafiq alleged? ISTM that
>>>>Stoner is himself struggling to remember the exact words that are alleged.
>>> ... or the Telegraph got it wrong previously.
>> Does this count as hearsay?
>
>Well, what's reported by the Telegraph is hearsay, because they are
>telling us (whether accurately or not) what Rafiq, Rashid, etc, said
>that they heard. What Rafiq and Rashid said that they heard is not
>hearsay, because they are claiming to have heard it from Vaughan
>themselves.
>

I assumed that by "hearsay" RH was referring to "...why did Stoner
(according to the Telegraph two days earlier, as posted here by RH) ask
Meena Botros whether he had 'spoken to any Yorkshire players, besides
Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad, about Azeem Rafiq’s central
allegation..."

If Meena Botros repeated to the court what he claimed that any Yorkshire
players had told him, I suppose that might count as hearsay. And while
this isn't a court of law, I'd imagine that they would want to follow
the same rules regarding admissible evidence, if their conclusions are
to be accepted by both sides. (I see from my paper this morning that
Vaughan has said that, if found "guilty", he will take the matter to the
courts.)
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 10:08:49 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <k6qkiu...@mid.individual.net>, David North
> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >On 07/03/2023 11:17, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:50:59?PM UTC, David North wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 13:47:47 UTC, David North wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 15:04:28 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/03/05/yorkshire-racism-hear
> >>>>>ing-unanswered-questions/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
> >>>>> Yorkshire racism hearing – the unanswered questions
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As the hearing heads into its second week, Telegraph Sport
> >>>>>assesses the vital missing pieces after three days of testimony
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By
> >>>>> Nick Hoult,
> >>>>> CHIEF CRICKET CORRESPONDENT and
> >>>>> Tom Morgan,
> >>>>> SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT
> >>>>> 5 March 2023 • 9:20am
> >>>>> Azeem Rafiq arrives for the third day of the CDC Panel Hearing at
> >>>>>International Arbitration Centre, London. A panel of the Cricket
> >>>>>Discipline Commission will hear disciplinary proceedings brought by
> >>>>>the England and Wales Cricket Board
> >>>>> The Yorkshire racism hearing is expected to come to an end this
> >>>>>week CREDIT: PA /James Manning
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Yorkshire racism hearing will resume on Monday with a private
> >>>>>session for final submissions before the public hearing starts
> >>>>>again on Tuesday.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After three days of dramatic testimony in London, Telegraph Sport
> >>>>>looks at some of the unanswered questions which could prove crucial
> >>>>>in the case.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is Adil Rashid’s recollection convincing enough to sway the CDC?
> >>>>> Christopher Stoner, KC, acting for Michael Vaughan, questioned why
> >>>>>Rashid had gone from having no recollection of the alleged comment
> >>>>>to releasing a statement to a journalist on the eve of the DCMS
> >>>>>hearing backing up Rafiq's claims on the "you lot" comment. Rafiq
> >>>>>told the original Yorkshire inquiry that Rashid had suffered a "memory failure".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rashid was also asked about evidence from Matthew Wood, the
> >>>>>personal development manager for the Professional Cricketers’
> >>>>>Association who worked with Yorkshire players. Wood’s witness
> >>>>>statement said he asked all the Yorkshire players if they had
> >>>>>experienced racism in the light of the Rafiq allegations. Rashid
> >>>>>said he had not experienced any.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rashid said: "I cannot recall the conversation because we speak to
> >>>>>many people." Stoner asked Rashid if Rafiq had pressurised him to
> >>>>>give evidence or threatened to report him to the ECB for anything.
> >>>>>Liz Neto, the former Yorkshire HR manager, said in a series of
> >>>>>phone conversations Rashid had admitted to being pressurised by
> >>>>>Rafiq to corroborate the Vaughan accusation. Ajmal Shahzad, one of
> >>>>>the four Asian players at Trent Bridge that day, who said he had no
> >>>>>memory of the Vaughan comment, told ECB investigators Rashid had
> >>>>>told him he was being blackmailed by Rafiq. "No, I wasn't pressured
> >>>>>at all,” said Rashid, who had earlier admitted to being close to Shahzad.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Under intense questioning, Rashid struggled to remember the exact
> >>>>>words said by Vaughan and offered a different answer to his statement.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rashid: "There's too many of you lot, we need to do something
> >>>>>about it." Stoner: "That's your recollection here and now. Is that
> >>>>>correct?" Rashid: "Yes." Stoner: "Because just so you're aware that
> >>>>>is alleged against Michael Vaughan. It is 'there are too many of
> >>>>>you lot, we need to have a word about it'.
> >>>> If that is the case, why did Stoner (according to the Telegraph two
> >>>>days earlier, as posted here by RH) ask Meena Botros whether he had
> >>>>'spoken to any Yorkshire players, besides Adil Rashid and Ajmal
> >>>>Shahzad, about Azeem Rafiq’s central allegation that, at Trent
> >>>>Bridge on June 22, 2009, Vaughan told the county’s south Asian
> >>>>contingent, “There’s too many of you lot, we need to do
> >>>>something about that?”', which is much closer to Rashid's version
> >>>>than the version that Stoner now claims Rafiq alleged? ISTM that
> >>>>Stoner is himself struggling to remember the exact words that are alleged.
> >>> ... or the Telegraph got it wrong previously.
> >> Does this count as hearsay?
> >
> >Well, what's reported by the Telegraph is hearsay, because they are
> >telling us (whether accurately or not) what Rafiq, Rashid, etc, said
> >that they heard. What Rafiq and Rashid said that they heard is not
> >hearsay, because they are claiming to have heard it from Vaughan
> >themselves.
> >
> I assumed that by "hearsay" RH was referring to "...why did Stoner
> (according to the Telegraph two days earlier, as posted here by RH) ask
> Meena Botros whether he had 'spoken to any Yorkshire players, besides
> Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad, about Azeem Rafiq’s central
> allegation..."
>
> If Meena Botros repeated to the court what he claimed that any Yorkshire
> players had told him, I suppose that might count as hearsay. And while
> this isn't a court of law, I'd imagine that they would want to follow
> the same rules regarding admissible evidence, if their conclusions are
> to be accepted by both sides. (I see from my paper this morning that
> Vaughan has said that, if found "guilty", he will take the matter to the
> courts.)

He would really have no choice because his chances of getting another job in cricket including TMS would be effective;y over,. RH

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 4:08:36 AM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> He would really have no choice because his chances of getting another job in cricket including TMS would be effective;y over,. RH

Indeed. Racists are unemployable.

On 08/03/2023 09:59, John Hall wrote:
> In message <k6qkiuFtrrgU1@mid.individual.net>, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>> On 07/03/2023 11:17, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:50:59?PM UTC, David North wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 13:47:47 UTC, David North wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 15:04:28 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/03/05/yorkshire-racism-hear
>>>>>> ing-unanswered-questions/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
>>>>>> Yorkshire racism hearing – the unanswered questions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As the hearing heads into its second week, Telegraph Sport
>>>>>> assesses the vital missing pieces after three days of testimony
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By
>>>>>> Nick Hoult,
>>>>>> CHIEF CRICKET CORRESPONDENT and
>>>>>> Tom Morgan,
>>>>>> SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT
>>>>>> 5 March 2023 • 9:20am
>>>>>> Azeem Rafiq arrives for the third day of the CDC Panel Hearing at
>>>>>> International Arbitration Centre, London. A panel of the Cricket
>>>>>> Discipline Commission will hear disciplinary proceedings brought
>>>>>> by the England and Wales Cricket Board
>>>>>> The Yorkshire racism hearing is expected to come to an end this
>>>>>> week CREDIT: PA /James Manning
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Yorkshire racism hearing will resume on Monday with a private
>>>>>> session for final submissions before the public hearing starts
>>>>>> again on Tuesday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After three days of dramatic testimony in London, Telegraph Sport
>>>>>> looks at some of the unanswered questions which could prove
>>>>>> crucial in the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is Adil Rashid’s recollection convincing enough to sway the CDC?
>>>>>> Christopher Stoner, KC, acting for Michael Vaughan, questioned why
>>>>>> Rashid had gone from having no recollection of the alleged comment
>>>>>> to releasing a statement to a journalist on the eve of the DCMS
>>>>>> hearing backing up Rafiq's claims on the "you lot" comment. Rafiq
>>>>>> told the original Yorkshire inquiry that Rashid had suffered a
>>>>>> "memory failure".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rashid was also asked about evidence from Matthew Wood, the
>>>>>> personal development manager for the Professional Cricketers’
>>>>>> Association who worked with Yorkshire players. Wood’s witness
>>>>>> statement said he asked all the Yorkshire players if they had
>>>>>> experienced racism in the light of the Rafiq allegations. Rashid
>>>>>> said he had not experienced any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rashid said: "I cannot recall the conversation because we speak to
>>>>>> many people." Stoner asked Rashid if Rafiq had pressurised him to
>>>>>> give evidence or threatened to report him to the ECB for anything.
>>>>>> Liz Neto, the former Yorkshire HR manager, said in a series of
>>>>>> phone conversations Rashid had admitted to being pressurised by
>>>>>> Rafiq to corroborate the Vaughan accusation. Ajmal Shahzad, one of
>>>>>> the four Asian players at Trent Bridge that day, who said he had
>>>>>> no memory of the Vaughan comment, told ECB investigators Rashid
>>>>>> had told him he was being blackmailed by Rafiq. "No, I wasn't
>>>>>> pressured at all,” said Rashid, who had earlier admitted to being
>>>>>> close to Shahzad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Under intense questioning, Rashid struggled to remember the exact
>>>>>> words said by Vaughan and offered a different answer to his
>>>>>> statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rashid: "There's too many of you lot, we need to do something
>>>>>> about it." Stoner: "That's your recollection here and now. Is that
>>>>>> correct?" Rashid: "Yes." Stoner: "Because just so you're aware
>>>>>> that is alleged against Michael Vaughan. It is 'there are too many
>>>>>> of you lot, we need to have a word about it'.
>>>>> If that is the case, why did Stoner (according to the Telegraph two
>>>>> days earlier, as posted here by RH) ask Meena Botros whether he had
>>>>> 'spoken to any Yorkshire players, besides Adil Rashid and Ajmal
>>>>> Shahzad, about Azeem Rafiq’s central allegation that, at Trent
>>>>> Bridge on June 22, 2009, Vaughan told the county’s south Asian
>>>>> contingent, “There’s too many of you lot, we need to do something
>>>>> about that?”', which is much closer to Rashid's version than the
>>>>> version that Stoner now claims Rafiq alleged? ISTM that Stoner is
>>>>> himself struggling to remember the exact words that are alleged.
>>>> ... or the Telegraph got it wrong previously.
>>>  Does this count as hearsay?
>>
>> Well, what's reported by the Telegraph is hearsay, because they are
>> telling us (whether accurately or not) what Rafiq, Rashid, etc, said
>> that they heard. What Rafiq and Rashid said that they heard is not
>> hearsay, because they are claiming to have heard it from Vaughan
>> themselves.
>>
>
> I assumed that by "hearsay" RH was referring to "...why did Stoner
> (according to the Telegraph two days earlier, as posted here by RH) ask
> Meena Botros whether he had 'spoken to any Yorkshire players, besides
> Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad, about Azeem Rafiq’s central allegation..."
>
> If Meena Botros repeated to the court what he claimed that any Yorkshire
> players had told him, I suppose that might count as hearsay. And while
> this isn't a court of law, I'd imagine that they would want to follow
> the same rules regarding admissible evidence, if their conclusions are
> to be accepted by both sides.

As Botros's answer was, reportedly, "No", there doesn't seem to have
been any hearsay involved there.

--
David North

On 09/03/2023 06:23, David North wrote:
> On 08/03/2023 09:59, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <k6qkiuFtrrgU1@mid.individual.net>, David North
>> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>> On 07/03/2023 11:17, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:50:59?PM UTC, David North wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 13:47:47 UTC, David North wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 15:04:28 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/03/05/yorkshire-racism-hear
>>>>>>> ing-unanswered-questions/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
>>>>>>> Yorkshire racism hearing – the unanswered questions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As the hearing heads into its second week, Telegraph Sport
>>>>>>> assesses the vital missing pieces after three days of testimony
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By
>>>>>>> Nick Hoult,
>>>>>>> CHIEF CRICKET CORRESPONDENT and
>>>>>>> Tom Morgan,
>>>>>>> SPORTS NEWS CORRESPONDENT
>>>>>>> 5 March 2023 • 9:20am
>>>>>>> Azeem Rafiq arrives for the third day of the CDC Panel Hearing at
>>>>>>> International Arbitration Centre, London. A panel of the Cricket
>>>>>>> Discipline Commission will hear disciplinary proceedings brought
>>>>>>> by the England and Wales Cricket Board
>>>>>>> The Yorkshire racism hearing is expected to come to an end this
>>>>>>> week CREDIT: PA /James Manning
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Yorkshire racism hearing will resume on Monday with a private
>>>>>>> session for final submissions before the public hearing starts
>>>>>>> again on Tuesday.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After three days of dramatic testimony in London, Telegraph Sport
>>>>>>> looks at some of the unanswered questions which could prove
>>>>>>> crucial in the case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is Adil Rashid’s recollection convincing enough to sway the CDC?
>>>>>>> Christopher Stoner, KC, acting for Michael Vaughan, questioned
>>>>>>> why Rashid had gone from having no recollection of the alleged
>>>>>>> comment to releasing a statement to a journalist on the eve of
>>>>>>> the DCMS hearing backing up Rafiq's claims on the "you lot"
>>>>>>> comment. Rafiq told the original Yorkshire inquiry that Rashid
>>>>>>> had suffered a "memory failure".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rashid was also asked about evidence from Matthew Wood, the
>>>>>>> personal development manager for the Professional Cricketers’
>>>>>>> Association who worked with Yorkshire players. Wood’s witness
>>>>>>> statement said he asked all the Yorkshire players if they had
>>>>>>> experienced racism in the light of the Rafiq allegations. Rashid
>>>>>>> said he had not experienced any.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rashid said: "I cannot recall the conversation because we speak
>>>>>>> to many people." Stoner asked Rashid if Rafiq had pressurised him
>>>>>>> to give evidence or threatened to report him to the ECB for
>>>>>>> anything. Liz Neto, the former Yorkshire HR manager, said in a
>>>>>>> series of phone conversations Rashid had admitted to being
>>>>>>> pressurised by Rafiq to corroborate the Vaughan accusation. Ajmal
>>>>>>> Shahzad, one of the four Asian players at Trent Bridge that day,
>>>>>>> who said he had no memory of the Vaughan comment, told ECB
>>>>>>> investigators Rashid had told him he was being blackmailed by
>>>>>>> Rafiq. "No, I wasn't pressured at all,” said Rashid, who had
>>>>>>> earlier admitted to being close to Shahzad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Under intense questioning, Rashid struggled to remember the exact
>>>>>>> words said by Vaughan and offered a different answer to his
>>>>>>> statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rashid: "There's too many of you lot, we need to do something
>>>>>>> about it." Stoner: "That's your recollection here and now. Is
>>>>>>> that correct?" Rashid: "Yes." Stoner: "Because just so you're
>>>>>>> aware that is alleged against Michael Vaughan. It is 'there are
>>>>>>> too many of you lot, we need to have a word about it'.
>>>>>> If that is the case, why did Stoner (according to the Telegraph
>>>>>> two days earlier, as posted here by RH) ask Meena Botros whether
>>>>>> he had 'spoken to any Yorkshire players, besides Adil Rashid and
>>>>>> Ajmal Shahzad, about Azeem Rafiq’s central allegation that, at
>>>>>> Trent Bridge on June 22, 2009, Vaughan told the county’s south
>>>>>> Asian contingent, “There’s too many of you lot, we need to do
>>>>>> something about that?”', which is much closer to Rashid's version
>>>>>> than the version that Stoner now claims Rafiq alleged? ISTM that
>>>>>> Stoner is himself struggling to remember the exact words that are
>>>>>> alleged.
>>>>> ... or the Telegraph got it wrong previously.
>>>>  Does this count as hearsay?
>>>
>>> Well, what's reported by the Telegraph is hearsay, because they are
>>> telling us (whether accurately or not) what Rafiq, Rashid, etc, said
>>> that they heard. What Rafiq and Rashid said that they heard is not
>>> hearsay, because they are claiming to have heard it from Vaughan
>>> themselves.
>>>
>>
>> I assumed that by "hearsay" RH was referring to "...why did Stoner
>> (according to the Telegraph two days earlier, as posted here by RH)
>> ask Meena Botros whether he had 'spoken to any Yorkshire players,
>> besides Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad, about Azeem Rafiq’s central
>> allegation..."
>>
>> If Meena Botros repeated to the court what he claimed that any
>> Yorkshire players had told him, I suppose that might count as hearsay.
>> And while this isn't a court of law, I'd imagine that they would want
>> to follow the same rules regarding admissible evidence, if their
>> conclusions are to be accepted by both sides.
>
> As Botros's answer was, reportedly, "No", there doesn't seem to have
> been any hearsay involved there.

Going back to my original question, now that I look at it again, it's
not clear whether Stoner actually used the alleged quote when
questioning Botros, or whether the Telegraph reporter added it in, as
the reporter didn't actually quote Stoner. I would imagine that, if a KC
used a quote, he'd be careful to get it right, so it seems more likely
that the reported added it in and got it wrong.

--
David North