Those in glass houses....n/g

[Gills 58]

It's quite common when you call multi national's call centre in India, the Asian person answering the phone quotes an English name.
If they are being asked to do this as part of their employment isn't that racist?
Surely this is no different to 'dave or kevin',

My guess is that this is a form of racist patronising behaviour set by the employer to please the caller from the UK, and supposedly make it easier for the caller when a "British" name is used. I would rather they used their actual name and cringe a bit when they use the fake one.

 

[GillsBluenose]

Well said. Sad and predictable that people pile in to dismiss the original issue because the "whistleblower" has also done wrong in the past. This "glass houses" is bs.

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I and as is Buddha, etc, but as I said before, Asia is a continent rife with racism and you can add intolerance of each others religions to that.

The idea that every walk of life in the UK is institutionally racist is laughable, as is jogills' assertion that Rafiq was not calling individuals racist. The BBC and corporate sponsors certainly saw it that way, judging by their actions.

I cheered when the news about Rafiq's own form of racism came out yesterday. Of course, he apologised immediately but so did most of the people he accused, but of course the powers that be do not accept that and forgive them so easily. So suggesting that someone being reluctant to spend money is because they are a Jew? Really?

If anything is bs it is Rafiq's hypocrisy.

 

[jogills]

The Mendy story is certainly about slipshod journalism at the very least. It betrays an approach to the reporting of such incidents involving an alleged black man, which tips over into nasty and ingrained stereotypes. Did any of the journalists post the picture deliberately? We will never know but the fact that three players have been identified with the same person is grim. We are way beyond the time when publicly labelling black men as sexual predators passed without comment and a good thing too. this misreporting harks back to that era and does real harm, it's not a missed apostrophe.

 

[ThreeSixes]

The Mendy story is certainly about slipshod journalism at the very least. It betrays an approach to the reporting of such incidents involving an alleged black man, which tips over into nasty and ingrained stereotypes. Did any of the journalists post the picture deliberately? We will never know but the fact that three players have been identified with the same person is grim.

Benjamin Mendy is black, that's a statement of fact, not an allegation. The question is whether or not he is guilty of the multiple rapes.

I've no idea whether the journalists posted the wrong picture on purpose (2 in France and 1 in the UK), but why would they? It doesn't make any sense to do so. I don't know why you are asking the question though, when you have already declared this issue to be deeply troubling? Are you now trying to work out WHY it is deeply troubling?

 

[jogills]

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I and as is Buddha, etc, but as I said before, Asia is a continent rife with racism and you can add intolerance of each others religions to that.

The idea that every walk of life in the UK is institutionally racist is laughable, as is jogills' assertion that Rafiq was not calling individuals racist. The BBC and corporate sponsors certainly saw it that way, judging by their actions.

I cheered when the news about Rafiq's own form of racism came out yesterday. Of course, he apologised immediately but so did most of the people he accused, but of course the powers that be do not accept that and forgive them so easily. So suggesting that someone being reluctant to spend money is because they are a Jew? Really?

If anything is bs it is Rafiq's hypocrisy.

Rafiq described the use of racist terms and language. He acknowledged that some of those, who used them, did so without appreciating the effect. That is quite different from calling someone a racist. He stated that everyone deserves a second chance and he accepted apologies.

The term institutional racism does not appear to me to have an easy or widely agreed definition. It is a term I try not to use and which doesn't sit well in ordinary conversation. I don't need any term, or definition to recognise groups, organisations and situations where the use of casually racist terms, exclusion and coded language mean some are treated worse than others on the basis of race.

 

[jogills]

I have just come across this definition of institutional racism attributed to Sir William Macpherson.

William Macpherson referenced collective failure and “processes, attitudes and behaviours which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and makes sensestereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people”.

That makes sense to me but it's still not a term I look to use in general conversation and discussion. I certainly don't think it makes much sense to call a country institutionally racist.

 

[Nobby_66]

Macpherson's definition is spot on, if an organisation is institutionally racist, doesn't mean its members go round racially abusing minority members (which is what a lot of the public think about the police).
Thing is, it means you can have a country that is institutionally racist. We keep hearing that education, jobs etc etc are harder to achieve for black people in this country so there is obviously something within those institutions that holds black people back over here. Its not intentional and its not malicious, its just the way it is and needs changing. Surely this makes every country institutionally racist until such a time that anyone from any race can live in any country on a 100% equal footing with the indigeounous race?

We have to be very careful how we throw the accusation of racism around. You may remember the link I posted about a police officer disciplined because he suggested he might eat more curry after seeing a news story about an Indian guy who lived to be over 100, ridiculous. Is that racism? If so, everyone would be guilty of some sort of racism during their lifetime. 58 mentions above how he cringes at past language used by him but he shouldn't. The fact that he (along with those of us that are honest enough to admit it) recognises it as inappropriate is a sign that things are improving. Context, ignorance and honest mistakes should not be vilified, these are all things that we learn from and as long as someone isn't overtly racially abusing someone, they should be allowed to make these mistakes and be corrected so they can learn. As I said in an earlier post, if we can't talk about our mistakes with those who feel offended we will never learn and the problem will be pushed underground and never solved. It's a bit like a marriage, you only truly get to know the other half when you have lived together, pissed each other off a few times but worked out what each other likes and dislikes, I think some people honestly feel like every problem has to be sorted here and now but changing views and opinions takes time.

 

[ThreeSixes]

That makes sense to me but it's still not a term I look to use in general conversation and discussion. I certainly don't think it makes much sense to call a country institutionally racist.

If not a country, do you think a sport (e.g. cricket) can be institutionally racist?

 

[jogills]

If not a country, do you think a sport (e.g. cricket) can be institutionally racist?

I stand corrected by Nobby on this but in my everyday mind calling a whole country institutionally racist isn't very helpful and casts the net too wide. I certainly think a county cricket association can be institutionally racist. How many of them are, I don't know. How many would it take to declare the sport institutionally racist, I don't know. It is only by listening to witnesses, in the broadest not the legal sense, that we gain knowledge and understanding.

You ask what interest anyone would have in deliberately confusing pictures of Edouard, Benjamin and Ferlan Mendy. First consider what Edouard said:

" Edouard Mendy said their use was "highly symbolic".
"Sad to see that in 2021, in France as well as in England, for some, black people have neither names nor distinct faces," the Senegal international wrote on Instagram.
"These 'mistakes' of photos appear anecdotal, but actually they are quite the opposite, they are highly symbolic.
"It's not that complicated to differentiate two faces, especially when the football jersey is of valuable help!"

Second consider the corrupt Met officer, Det Sgt Derek Ridgewell, who went to prison for framing people. The most notable case was that of The vOval Four. I defy anyone reading the background to that case not to dentify a whole series of tropes and stereotypes regarding black men and crime. Many of us will have used them at soime time over the intervening years. That is the real damage caused.

If you want an easy hit that avoids having to address UK issues then look at the deliberate use of race in the pre French election fever with Eric Zamour bidding up the ante for all other candidates. I could easily imagine the Mendy "confusion" helping that cause.

 

[SteveTreacle]

He stated that everyone deserves a second chance and he accepted apologies.

I heard a clip of an interview with him on Wednesday afternoon and he was very gushing about his proposals that those who abused him (allegedly in some cases) would be forgiven, if they apologised, and should be able to move on. The cynic in me wonders whether he remembered the skeletons in his closet when making that statement in the way he did?

 

[jogills]

I heard a clip of an interview with him on Wednesday afternoon and he was very gushing about his proposals that those who abused him (allegedly in some cases) would be forgiven, if they apologised, and should be able to move on. The cynic in me wonders whether he remembered the skeletons in his closet when making that statement in the way he did?

Don't be silly Steve, had he remembered those tweets he'd have kept schtum and removed them. There is and has been an awful lot of such language and I suspect that none of us has avoided it altogether. Rafiq's tweets are a good example of how pervasive casual racism is.

As to Joe Root:

"To be clear, Root is a good man," said Rafiq. "He's never engaged in racist language."

Rafiq claims that Root was present when such language was used by others. Root says he doesn't remember that and Rafiq says he may well not have done because it made little impression on him. Ballance has more questions to answer.

 

[ThreeSixes]

You ask what interest anyone would have in deliberately confusing pictures of Edouard, Benjamin and Ferlan Mendy. First consider what Edouard said:

" Edouard Mendy said their use was "highly symbolic".
"Sad to see that in 2021, in France as well as in England, for some, black people have neither names nor distinct faces," the Senegal international wrote on Instagram.
"These 'mistakes' of photos appear anecdotal, but actually they are quite the opposite, they are highly symbolic.
"It's not that complicated to differentiate two faces, especially when the football jersey is of valuable help!"

Second consider the corrupt Met officer, Det Sgt Derek Ridgewell, who went to prison for framing people. The most notable case was that of The vOval Four. I defy anyone reading the background to that case not to dentify a whole series of tropes and stereotypes regarding black men and crime. Many of us will have used them at soime time over the intervening years. That is the real damage caused.

If you want an easy hit that avoids having to address UK issues then look at the deliberate use of race in the pre French election fever with Eric Zamour bidding up the ante for all other candidates. I could easily imagine the Mendy "confusion" helping that cause.

The second example has literally nothing to do with this issue and is taking the thread even further off course, so I'll disregard it and concentrate on the first.

I follow football, and know that Benjamin Mendy plays outfield for Man City and Edouard Mendy is Chelsea's goalkeeper. If you showed me their headshots though, I would have no idea which was which. Similarly I know that Callum Hudson-Odoi and Ruben Loftus-Cheek play for Chelsea, but I couldn't tell you what they looked like. You can only differentiate between 2 faces if you know what the people look like. He maybe comes across as a bit arrogant if he expects everyone to know his face?

There would have to be a similar, "white player charged with multiple rapes mixed up with another white player with the same surname" to see whether there was anything to his suggestion. I don't know whether there ever will be, so it is surely just guesswork? Iit has to be much more likely to be a genuine mistake though, than anything more sinister to do with race? We don't even know the colour of the journalists involved

 

[ThreeSixes]

As to Joe Root:

"To be clear, Root is a good man," said Rafiq. "He's never engaged in racist language."

Rafiq claims that Root was present when such language was used by others. Root says he doesn't remember that and Rafiq says he may well not have done because it made little impression on him. Ballance has more questions to answer.

Then why would he describe Joe Root's comments as "hurtful" and "strange"?

 

[MedwayModernist]

He’s basically accused Root of lying. Root,
when asked, has said he hasn’t overheard racism at Yorkshire and Rafiq has categorically said that Root was there and in the room in dressing rooms and on social nights when he received racist abuse and that’s he’s “hurt” that Root doesn’t agree with him. Given today’s revelations and Root’s diplomatic record on and off of the pitch, I know who I’m more inclined to believe.

I know you lefties were rubbing your hands at the events at Yorkshire and today’s stain on the accuser must be a bit of a blow, but pay fucking attention yourself.

“Rooty is a good man, he’s never engaged in racist language. “[But] I found [his comments] hurtful. He was Gary’s flatmate. He was involved in social nights out during which I was called a ****. He might not remember [the incidents of racism] but it shows how normal it was that even a good man like him doesn’t see it for what it is.”

 

[SteveTreacle]

The Mendy story is certainly about slipshod journalism at the very least. It betrays an approach to the reporting of such incidents involving an alleged black man, which tips over into nasty and ingrained stereotypes. Did any of the journalists post the picture deliberately? We will never know but the fact that three players have been identified with the same person is grim. We are way beyond the time when publicly labelling black men as sexual predators passed without comment and a good thing too. this misreporting harks back to that era and does real harm, it's not a missed apostrophe.

Or it could just be a cock-up down to a lack of professionalism and proof-reading/checking, which presumably is what happened in the Watkins case and the analogy I make above (which has conveniently been ignored), which, in my opinion, is a pretty much identical situation, yet there wasn't any any angle to engineer the the offence alleged in the Mendy situation (beyond the personal damage by associated to poor old H's reputation!). Namely, in the case of a misreporting and misidentity in the press of a couple of white guys, it's just a cock-up, but as it involves black footballers, it must be down to racism!

 

[ThreeSixes]

“Rooty is a good man, he’s never engaged in racist language. “[But] I found [his comments] hurtful. He was Gary’s flatmate. He was involved in social nights out during which I was called a ****. He might not remember [the incidents of racism] but it shows how normal it was that even a good man like him doesn’t see it for what it is.”

Do you think that is true? You are obviously a good man and a non-racist, but if you were in a group where a person called another a ****, would you not remember it? And if you are in a group where racism was so normal that it seemingly wasn't even noticed any more but you did nothing about it, could you still call yourself a good man, and a non-racist?

 

[SteveTreacle]

Rafiq claims that Root was present when such language was used by others. Root says he doesn't remember that and Rafiq says he may well not have done because it made little impression on him. Ballance has more questions to answer.

That we can agree on. I want to hear Ballance, Bumble, Hales, Gale, Root, Vaughan and all those mentioned questioned and forensically challenged on the allegations against them (in the interest of the accuser, the accused and cricket in general). I also want to see Rafiq properly forensically challenged and questioned by someone who will do a better job than the lame effort the parliamentary panel did, which was effectively a case of them believing everything he said before he even entered the room and just being encouraged to present his testimony which was effectively regarded as fact by many after the testimony with the reputation of the accused in tatters without them having had a chance to defend themselves (and it may be of course that they have no defence, but let's hear it first).

 

[Nobby_66]

I stand corrected by Nobby on this but in my everyday mind calling a whole country institutionally racist isn't very helpful and casts the net too wide. I certainly think a county cricket association can be institutionally racist. How many of them are, I don't know. How many would it take to declare the sport institutionally racist, I don't know. It is only by listening to witnesses, in the broadest not the legal sense, that we gain knowledge and understanding.

You ask what interest anyone would have in deliberately confusing pictures of Edouard, Benjamin and Ferlan Mendy. First consider what Edouard said:

" Edouard Mendy said their use was "highly symbolic".
"Sad to see that in 2021, in France as well as in England, for some, black people have neither names nor distinct faces," the Senegal international wrote on Instagram.
"These 'mistakes' of photos appear anecdotal, but actually they are quite the opposite, they are highly symbolic.
"It's not that complicated to differentiate two faces, especially when the football jersey is of valuable help!"

Second consider the corrupt Met officer, Det Sgt Derek Ridgewell, who went to prison for framing people. The most notable case was that of The vOval Four. I defy anyone reading the background to that case not to dentify a whole series of tropes and stereotypes regarding black men and crime. Many of us will have used them at soime time over the intervening years. That is the real damage caused.

If you want an easy hit that avoids having to address UK issues then look at the deliberate use of race in the pre French election fever with Eric Zamour bidding up the ante for all other candidates. I could easily imagine the Mendy "confusion" helping that cause.

Agreed, it's not helpful at all and is pretty pointless as it pretty much applies to all. I was just using the fact to highlight how careful we have to be when labelling people as "racist". Its a term that can ruin people's lives when really they may just be misinformed or, for want of a better word, ignorant.
Our race relation training is ongoing and the words we're "allowed" to use change all the time. How is it fair to expect someone in a less informed job than me to keep up? Mistakes will be made but they must be used to highlight learning needs rather than used as a stick to beat someone with.
As for the Mendy thing, I don't assume for one minute that this was a deliberate act of racism, merely lazy research. I remember Gary Steven being (telephone) interviewed on Talksport a few years ago and about two minutes into the interview, it became clear that the station's researcher had called Gary Stevens by mistake. He had a bit of a moan but it was never picked up by other media. Is mistaken identity racist when it involves a black guy but not a white one? Again, ridiculous and another example of people seeing racism when it's not there IMO.

 

[MedwayModernist]

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.

I hate to go all Tarian - but please see my retorts in bold.

FYI I'm answering in good faith.

 

[MedwayModernist]

Valenciagills post seems to have disappeared so perhaps he's done something.

I reported it for the overt racism it was.