Jump to content

Black Lives Matter


2112
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

OK here goes.

I have  been reading Sky News online and it appears (if they have reported the facts correctly ) that the cricketer Azeem Rafiq has accepted a six figure sum from Yorkshire County Cricket Club following allegations of institutional racism at Headingley.
This was following a report which was leaked which suggested that the use of the “P” word was made in the context of friendly banter.

Let us just get this into context and proportionally. This, if true, means that this chap has benefited financially to the tune of at least £100,000 ( and possibly up to £999,999 )due to a racist slur directed at him.

This surely just gives grist to the mill of those who say political correctness has gone mad and potentially gives rise to a division that racists can exploit.

It will also give rise to accusations that he pursued all this for financial gain, which to be honest would on the facts presented be hard to argue against.

Maybe he will give some or all of this money to anti racism or other good causes but that’s not really the point.

Yorkshire Cricket Club have conducted a report and  identified their failings.

Surely a sincere apology to Mr Rafiq,an action plan put in place to address the issues and a meaningful  contribution to anti racist causes would be more appropriate.

 

Surely the better scenario would be for Azeem Rafiq to refuse the money but insist it goes towards an anti racist cause

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2021 at 9:25 PM, The Voice of Reason said:

OK here goes.

I have  been reading Sky News online and it appears (if they have reported the facts correctly ) that the cricketer Azeem Rafiq has accepted a six figure sum from Yorkshire County Cricket Club following allegations of institutional racism at Headingley.
This was following a report which was leaked which suggested that the use of the “P” word was made in the context of friendly banter.

Let us just get this into context and proportionally. This, if true, means that this chap has benefited financially to the tune of at least £100,000 ( and possibly up to £999,999 )due to a racist slur directed at him.

This surely just gives grist to the mill of those who say political correctness has gone mad and potentially gives rise to a division that racists can exploit.

It will also give rise to accusations that he pursued all this for financial gain, which to be honest would on the facts presented be hard to argue against.

Maybe he will give some or all of this money to anti racism or other good causes but that’s not really the point.

Yorkshire Cricket Club have conducted a report and  identified their failings.

Surely a sincere apology to Mr Rafiq,an action plan put in place to address the issues and a meaningful  contribution to anti racist causes would be more appropriate.

 

Yorkshire have conducted an "investigation" and produced a report. A report that has not been released. A summary was released on the day of a cancelled test message which suggests they released on a day when it would not make the headlines. They have also missed deadlines for forwarding the full report to bodies and not complied with court requirements in respect of forwarding the full report. That does look a bit suspicious.

The summary report finds that 7 of 43 allegations were upheld yet apparently not a single disciplinary measure was taken against anybody. Not even apparently a simple warning.

As for the "banter" none of us where there so no idea of the context but the easiest offence when somebody is accused of being abusive to another person is that it was not abuse but banter or a joke.  It is reported that in respect of the "P" word the investigation decided it was not reasonable for Azeem to have been offended” and that such words fell under the banner of "good-natured banter between friends”.

The "P" word has been seen for a fair period as derogatory and a racial slur so I find it slightly surprising that when an individual who has been addressed in such a manner should not have been offended by it. At best with one person saying it was banter and the other they found it offensive they could have been neutral on the point unless they had any supporting evidence.

The BBC have a good summary https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/59166142

This is also worth a read https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2021/nov/01/yorkshire-cricket-are-institutionally-racist-for-me-there-is-no-other-conclusion

Yorkshire appear to be finally trying to address issues, after apparently trying to sweep the matter under the carpet, but only because of outside pressures including sponsors pulling out of deals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

Yorkshire have conducted an "investigation" and produced a report. A report that has not been released. A summary was released on the day of a cancelled test message which suggests they released on a day when it would not make the headlines. They have also missed deadlines for forwarding the full report to bodies and not complied with court requirements in respect of forwarding the full report. That does look a bit suspicious.

The summary report finds that 7 of 43 allegations were upheld yet apparently not a single disciplinary measure was taken against anybody. Not even apparently a simple warning.

As for the "banter" none of us where there so no idea of the context but the easiest offence when somebody is accused of being abusive to another person is that it was not abuse but banter or a joke.  It is reported that in respect of the "P" word the investigation decided it was not reasonable for Azeem to have been offended” and that such words fell under the banner of "good-natured banter between friends”.

The "P" word has been seen for a fair period as derogatory and a racial slur so I find it slightly surprising that when an individual who has been addressed in such a manner should not have been offended by it. At best with one person saying it was banter and the other they found it offensive they could have been neutral on the point unless they had any supporting evidence.

The BBC have a good summary https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/59166142

This is also worth a read https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2021/nov/01/yorkshire-cricket-are-institutionally-racist-for-me-there-is-no-other-conclusion

Yorkshire appear to be finally trying to address issues, after apparently trying to sweep the matter under the carpet, but only because of outside pressures including sponsors pulling out of deals.

 

There was never any doubt that Azeem was racially abused but thanks for the further details. 

My question in all this is the proportionality of the six figure sum he received to the abuse he was given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

There was never any doubt that Azeem was racially abused but thanks for the further details. 

My question in all this is the proportionality of the six figure sum he received to the abuse he was given.

How can any of us judge? We have not seen the full Yorkshire report, we have not seen the evidence that was to be put before a tribunal. Azeem Rafiq has stated that the treatment he received left him close to taking his own life. How do you quantify that financially?

It should also be remembered that he was initially offered £100,000 by Yorkshire CCC on condition he signed a NDA. That basically looks like money to keep quiet. It was only when the sh1t hit the fan in the last few weeks resulting in a couple of the YCCC executives resigning that the new people at the top appear to be trying to seriously address the matter https://www.espn.co.uk/cricket/story/_/id/32583655/yorkshire-settle-employment-tribunal-azeem-rafiq-lord-patel-takes-helm 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lost Login said:

How can any of us judge? We have not seen the full Yorkshire report, we have not seen the evidence that was to be put before a tribunal. Azeem Rafiq has stated that the treatment he received left him close to taking his own life. How do you quantify that financially?

 

Well that’s a question that the courts and tribunals have to grapple with on a regular basis when they make their awards.

No doubt in similar situations , and I am not saying this is the case here, legal advisers may advise that the victim of such abuse amplify the distress caused, as a negotiating tool to achieve the maximum result ( It’s their job and no doubt the bigger sum awarded the more they get)

Yes we’ve not seen the full report and the evidence that was to be put before a tribunal.

All that is in the public domain is that Azeem was called the “P” word and that he has received a six figure sum as some sort of compensation. Which taking court awards as a benchmark would seem generous to say the least.
 



Which is why I have questioned the proportionality. 
 

If it’s a punitive award why not give some or all of it to the Cricketing Board or whatever it is, in the same way that football clubs whose “fans” are found guilty of racist behavior are fined and those fines go to the governing body ( as I understand it)

 

Edited by The Voice of Reason
Extra sentence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Well that’s a question that the courts and tribunals have to grapple with on a regular basis when they make their awards.

No doubt in similar situations , and I am not saying this is the case here, legal advisers may advise that the victim of such abuse amplify the distress caused, as a negotiating tool to achieve the maximum result ( It’s their job and no doubt the bigger sum awarded the more they get)

Yes we’ve not seen the full report and the evidence that was to be put before a tribunal.

All that is in the public domain is that Azeem was called the “P” word and that he has received a six figure sum as some sort of compensation. Which taking court awards as a benchmark would seem generous to say the least.

Which is why I have questioned the proportionality. 

If it’s a punitive award why not give some or all of it to the Cricketing Board or whatever it is, in the same way that football clubs whose “fans” are found guilty of racist behavior are fined and those fines go to the governing body ( as I understand it)

It is not true that "All that is in the public domain is that Azeem was called the “P” word and that he has received a six figure sum as some sort of compensation." For a start at least 7 of 43 complaints about racial harassment and abuse were upheld by Yorkshire CCC own enquiry and initially he was offered the money to keep quiet. YCCC could hardly make him a smaller offer when they removed that requirement as that would have meant they were trying to buy his silence.

For somebody who seems to want to give the impression that they are only questioning the amount in a neutral manner that seems far from the case.  You have made a suggestion that the individual exaggerated the case, stated that the award was generous to say the least, suggested that the award may have been punitive when you have no idea of the loss of earnings.

As for your suggestion that some money should go to the cricketing board, well firstly the ECB are not exactly a body with an exemplary record but the cases you use as an example are cases where a governing body has taken action against a club. I struggle to think of an employment case where an individual who has won the case has been required to pay over part of the award to a governing body.     

Your first post appeared to play down the matter as simply being a bit of banter and you are still simply referring to it as being a matter of Azeem just being called the ""P". It does come across to me that you seem to be upset about this award  for some reason. Could it possibly be because the award was to somebody who it non white as that is the strong impression I am getting from your posts.  

Edited by Lost Login
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lost Login said:

    

Your first post appeared to play down the matter as simply being a bit of banter and you are still simply referring to it as being a matter of Azeem just being called the ""P". It does come across to me that you seem to be upset about this award  for some reason. Could it possibly be because the award was to somebody who it non white as that is the strong impression I am getting from your posts.  

You really are a nasty piece of work 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

If it’s a punitive award why not give some or all of it to the Cricketing Board or whatever it is, in the same way that football clubs whose “fans” are found guilty of racist behavior are fined and those fines go to the governing body ( as I understand it)

The relationship between YCCC and Azeem Rafik is not comparable to the relationship between Football Clubs and their fans.

Azeem Rafik was employed by YCCC.

As for the compensation he has received it was not a figure decided by an employment tribunal as YCCC decided to settle the matter outside of the tribunal (presumably they didn't want further details being made public or knew they were going to lose). 

The compensation would likely be based around loss of earnings and compensation for injury to feelings.  An award for injury to feelings is based on the vento bands which you can look up.

You can look up the average awards at employment tribunals online.  The highest award in 2019/20 for instance was £265,719.

I don't understand why you seem to have an issue with the settlement figure.  Its not an unusual. 

Edited by manxman1980
Spelling correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

The relationship between YCCC and Azeem Rafik is not comparable to the relationship between Football Clubs and their fans.

Azeem Rafik was employed by YCCC.

As for the compensation he has received it was not a figure decided by an employment tribunal as YCCC decided to settle the matter outside of the tribunal (presumably they didn't want further details being made public or knew they were going to lose). 

The compensation would likely be based around loss of earnings and compensation for injury to feelings.  An award for injury to feelings is based on the vent bands which you can look up.

You can look up the average awards at employment tribunals online.  The highest award in 2019/20 for instance was £265,719.

I don't understand why you seem to have an issue with the settlement figure.  Its not an unusual. 

OK

Thanks for your measured response.

I think we’ll leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

You really are a nasty piece of work 

Says the poster who suggested a person that was found to have been subject racial harassment and abuse may have exaggerated the case to get higher compensation and suggested the award was generous. The same poster who appears to give credence to the claim that the use of the “P” word was friendly banter. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

Says the poster who suggested a person that was found to have been subject racial harassment and abuse may have exaggerated the case to get higher compensation and suggested the award was generous. The same poster who appears to give credence to the claim that the use of the “P” word was friendly banter. 

 

If you read my post correctly you will see that I said I was not saying any exaggeration of the case occurred here.

The award does seem generous to me when compared with say awards for industrial accidents where limbs are lost etc That is why I started the discussion little knowing it would lead to implications of racist motives.

But as Manxman80 has explained such an award is not unusual and I accept that

Nor did I give any credence to the claim that the use of the P word was friendly banter. This was in the Sky News report that I quoted. I have never opined that the use of such a word is friendly banter. My own opinion is exactly the opposite.

The implication you made using these falsehoods is both scurrilous and hurtful and I would be obliged if you would retract it.

I don’t intend to discuss this further.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...