Strangely enough, I started this thread in the interest of balance as I am fed up of one sided takes of every subject being championed by the media and "select committees" that allow no balance, believe everything one side says, and have never heard of context so lap up this sort of exaggerated shite.
Just a few facts and assertions that counter Rafiq's account:
1. Not only Joe Root, but one of group of four Asian players he referred to, Amjal Shahzad, said he had NOT heard Michael Vaughan' s alleged comment and went on to say “the senior guys were really good to me, they took me under their wing”.
So because one guy didn't experience it, it means another guy is lying?
2. Adil Rashid, who claims to have heard it, plays for England so could have his pick of counties, and yet for some reason has signed at least three or four new contract renewals with Yorkshire since.
There are 18 professional counties in England, Yorkshire will be one of the best paying, and they happen to exist near where he lives - why should he have to move to avoid racism rather than trying to change it. It also really sounds like Yorkshire were not alone in this attitude, and I imagine that by the end of this far far more counties will have experienced this way more than not. If it's going to be the same wherever you go, better the devil you know I say.
3. I had never heard of Rafiq before this, despite being a cricket follower and having heard of practically all the people he accuses, and yet supposedly he was told, after voluntarily rejoining his so-hated county in 2016, that they would "build the team around him". That didn't work out and he was released in 2018. That wouldn't give him any reason to bear a grudge, I suppose?
If you watched t20 in the 2010s then you'd have heard of him, but this doesn't really matter. Yes you could argue that it would give him reason to bear a grudge, but Yorkshire's own fundamentally flawed inquiry upheld seven of his original complaints. If he was making all this up, they wouldn't have upheld any of his complaints.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_County_Cricket_Club_racism_scandal
4. Rafiq mentioned Jack Brooks who issued apologies to 2 former black colleagues (who are still friends) today. One replied:
"But without
context, misunderstandings and misconceptions are easily made. It upsets me that Jack's character is being questioned over this tweet because I've known him for a long time and have never been made to feel uncomfortable in any conversations we've had.
"I consider Jack to be a good friend and a credit to his family and his profession."
Azeem the whole way through this has said the issue is the institutional racism, rather than the mere instances of someone being racist. Gary Ballance's behaviour is obviously pretty horrible, but he wouldn't have been able to stop Azeem's career, unlike the coaches and head honchos at Yorkshire, like Moxon in particular.
5. If all Rafiq's account is correct and provable, why has he only made his verbal accusations in a setting where he has privilege and can not be sued for slander?
He can be sued for slander or defamation if this proves to be untrue. Libel is the one that relates to written lies. Regardless, Yorkshire's own flawed inquiry found in favour on seven counts, so imagine what an adequate inquiry would find.
The final point I would make is that I am sure a while back that someone posted a list of countries that are statisically proven to be the most racist and the UK was low on the list. I think it was topped by India with the other Asian countries well above us.
This is something to be rightly proud of, but frankly any racism in any country is bad, and we need to be vigilant to weed it out. Azeem is a British born citizen, but was abused during his career to the point he was suicidal. Ignore the colour of his skin, ignore that he has a Pakistani name, ignore that he's a muslim, he's a british citizen who was abused at work to the point he became suicidal. That's wrong and needs to be stamped out. What if it was your son, brother, best mate etc?
What disturbed me most is that one of the media commentators referred to Rafiq as a "very credible witness". I had only heard that term once before. It was how the police referred to "Nick" who turned out to be the fantasist that accused Leon Brittain and Harvey Procter of crimes against kids, and they believed him before investigating properly. Procter is still bitter about that as it made him a pariah. Rafiq seems to have been successful in killing Vaughan's media career, fair or not.
If you took that logic to it's extreme, then you wouldn't be able to trust anything ever anywhere. The fact that you know the name of Leon Brittain who turned out to not be a very credible witness, means the occasions of very credible witnesses who turn out to be unreliable etc is very very low. You're far more likely to hear a story in the news of man bites dog rather than dog bites man ffs.
I am not saying that all Rafiq says are lies but that context has been taken out to suit his arguments and get the media on his side.