Ollie Robinson/Twitter

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Ollie Robinson/Twitter

No I was not tying myself in knots Bob.

If you read my post carefully you will see that I have not expressed my view on the Robinson situation, indeed I used terms such as "people weren't and also "they" whenever I referred to anyone supporting the view that he should not be suspended.

I was therefore not defending him for him but seeking to point out that the people who were defending him were doing so because they were against the punishment not because they supported racism. They may have been "Robinson apologists" but not "racist apologists".

I you really want my view (instead of presuming to know what my views are which you have form for in my case and others as well) they are that I can agree with what the ECB has done in suspending him pending investigation as long as they pull their fingers out and get it sorted out quickly.

Rather than give a long answer to the rest of your epistle I will just say I am in in agreement with this comment I saw which I think in its way covers the subject

"If he has done something like that nine years ago, and since then he has learnt and he has done nothing like that and he has changed his ways in recent years, then I don't think you should come down too hard on him,

I was a young man once, I did a lot of rubbish as a youngster, and as you go through life you learn and recognise ‘Oh, perhaps what I did at 18 doesn’t apply now, I can’t behave like that now’"

Over to you. but please try not to put words in my mouth in future

Well, I'm glad you finally outlined what you thought because it was not clear beforehand. If I'm guilty of jumping to conclusions (and I'm still not 100 per cent sure I did), I apologise, but then I can say the same about you. I have taken care not to call anyone in this thread, or Ollie Robinson for that matter, a racist, but, clearly, there was an instance of racism from him at one time, so what I have been saying is that people who seek to excuse or defend him when it comes to that instance of racism are apologists.

I have never said they are "racist apologists", but they are racism apologists. I think there is a, subtle, difference between the two because the first one carries the suggestion that the apologist is a racist themselves, whereas I hope the second one is suggestive of someone who is being an apologist for an act of racism because that is what meant when I said some in this thread were being apologists for racism..

I'd read what Michael Holding had to say on the matter and, for me, it all boils down to what he means by "I don't think you should come down too hard on him". I can confirm that i "did a lot of rubbish as a youngster", but that rubbish never stretched to putting downright offensive opinions into the public domain of the type Robinson did at an age when he was, to all intents and purposes, considered to be an adult. Because of that, I'm firmly of the opinion that Robinson should have been suspended or omitted from at least the test following his debut.

I've said that there is the precedent here of the Craig Overton case where he served a two game ban and would argue that such a punishment is not coming down too hard on Robinson in the way that, say, a four game one might be. However, if it is decided that missing the current test is sufficient punishment for him, then so be it - the important thing is that he has served a punishment for what he did which, for the reasons I mentioned when I talked about the four players Robinson may well play international cricket for England with in the future, had to be imposed.

[Hilts]

Re: Ollie Robinson/Twitter

No I was not tying myself in knots Bob.

If you read my post carefully you will see that I have not expressed my view on the Robinson situation, indeed I used terms such as "people weren't and also "they" whenever I referred to anyone supporting the view that he should not be suspended.

I was therefore not defending him for him but seeking to point out that the people who were defending him were doing so because they were against the punishment not because they supported racism. They may have been "Robinson apologists" but not "racist apologists".

I you really want my view (instead of presuming to know what my views are which you have form for in my case and others as well) they are that I can agree with what the ECB has done in suspending him pending investigation as long as they pull their fingers out and get it sorted out quickly.

Rather than give a long answer to the rest of your epistle I will just say I am in in agreement with this comment I saw which I think in its way covers the subject

"If he has done something like that nine years ago, and since then he has learnt and he has done nothing like that and he has changed his ways in recent years, then I don't think you should come down too hard on him,

I was a young man once, I did a lot of rubbish as a youngster, and as you go through life you learn and recognise ‘Oh, perhaps what I did at 18 doesn’t apply now, I can’t behave like that now’"

Over to you. but please try not to put words in my mouth in future

No they dont need to get their fingers out and sort it out quickly.

They need to make sure they do a thorough investigation.

Theres been complaints in the past about racism in cricket and we have no idea what the consequences of Robinsons behaviour back then. What affect did it have on say young asian cricketers at the clubs Robinson was at. Has Robinson apologised to any young cricketers who may have been affected by those tweets?

The ECB are going to need to speak to those around Robinson at the time up to now.

No tweets for 9 years. We dont know if thats because he was told he was asking for it putting his cr@p and social media.

They need to make sure he hasnt continued acting like a pr!ck.

Thats going to involve speaking to lots of people.

Hopefully the result is Robinson stopped acting like a tw@t 9 years ago.

If thats the case then I agree with Michael Holding.

[Elwood Blues]

Re: Ollie Robinson/Twitter

Well, I'm glad you finally outlined what you thought because it was not clear beforehand. If I'm guilty of jumping to conclusions (and I'm still not 100 per cent sure I did), I apologise, but then I can say the same about you. I have taken care not to call anyone in this thread, or Ollie Robinson for that matter, a racist, but, clearly, there was an instance of racism from him at one time, so what I have been saying is that people who seek to excuse or defend him when it comes to that instance of racism are apologists.

I have never said they are "racist apologists", but they are racism apologists. I think there is a, subtle, difference between the two because the first one carries the suggestion that the apologist is a racist themselves, whereas I hope the second one is suggestive of someone who is being an apologist for an act of racism because that is what meant when I said some in this thread were being apologists for racism..

I'd read what Michael Holding had to say on the matter and, for me, it all boils down to what he means by "I don't think you should come down too hard on him". I can confirm that i "did a lot of rubbish as a youngster", but that rubbish never stretched to putting downright offensive opinions into the public domain of the type Robinson did at an age when he was, to all intents and purposes, considered to be an adult. Because of that, I'm firmly of the opinion that Robinson should have been suspended or omitted from at least the test following his debut.

I've said that there is the precedent here of the Craig Overton case where he served a two game ban and would argue that such a punishment is not coming down too hard on Robinson in the way that, say, a four game one might be. However, if it is decided that missing the current test is sufficient punishment for him, then so be it - the important thing is that he has served a punishment for what he did which, for the reasons I mentioned when I talked about the four players Robinson may well play international cricket for England with in the future, had to be imposed.

Thank you for the apology Bob even though it does come with a bit of a sting in the table (why aren't you 100% sure you jumped to conclusions, and why can you say then same about me?)

I meant to say racism not racist apologists and even though you sat there is a subtle difference between the two words, my arguments about your use of the phrase still hold good.

Yes they were Michael Holding's words and I deliberately didn't put his name because I reckon that if one of the message board contributors had used the same language, especially the bits I put in bold, you would have used it as an example of their being a racism apologist!

[Tuerto]

Re: Ollie Robinson/Twitter

No did you?

Oh and do you agree with my quote at the end?

I certainly didn't say stuff like that, although i was brought up in quite different surroundings to most people i know. Racism and bigotry were never on the menu.

As for the quote, i do agree, but only to a point, i do feel a sense of resignation in the quoted words. There are also enough 'if's' in the quote to make me think that the person who said those words would like some evidence to suggest this person has changed.

For the record, i don't want this cricketer to suffer forever, that would be a complete waste, nobody benefits in my opinion. What i would like to see is a real concerted effort by him to prove that he isn't that person anymore, that he has learned from his mistake. 'Sorry' isn't enough in my opinion, especially when a person has been so overt when expressing themselves. If he had anything about him then he would get involved in some kind of education programme, act physically, and own what he has said. That would do more than any pre prepared apology in my opinion.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Ollie Robinson/Twitter

Ollie Robinson available to play immediately (hopefully not against us tomorrow after his nine wickets in an innings at Cardiff!) after serving what amounts to an eight game ban;-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57697159

[J R Hartley]

Re: Ollie Robinson/Twitter

Common sense prevails at last

[life on mars]

Re: Ollie Robinson/Twitter

Great news, welcome back Ollie ( go easy on Glammy )

[chrisp_1927]

Re: Ollie Robinson/Twitter

Luckily for Glamorgan he is one of the Sussex players forced to self isolate.

Feel a bit sorry for him now. He's going to be a bit of a hero for the farage type mob and a target for the Blm mob. Hopefully they'll all bugger off soon and leave him to play cricket.

[Elwood Blues]

Re: Ollie Robinson/Twitter

Thank you for the apology Bob even though it does come with a bit of a sting in the table (why aren't you 100% sure you jumped to conclusions, and why can you say then same about me?)

I meant to say racism not racist apologists and even though you sat there is a subtle difference between the two words, my arguments about your use of the phrase still hold good.

Yes they were Michael Holding's words and I deliberately didn't put his name because I reckon that if one of the message board contributors had used the same language, especially the bits I put in bold, you would have used it as an example of their being a racism apologist!

As this has now resurfaced any chance of answering my question Bob (why aren't you 100% sure you jumped to conclusions, and why can you say then same about me?)

[life on mars]

Re: Ollie Robinson/Twitter

Luckily for Glamorgan he is one of the Sussex players forced to self isolate.

Feel a bit sorry for him now. He's going to be a bit of a hero for the farage type mob and a target for the Blm mob. Hopefully they'll all bugger off soon and leave him to play cricket.

What a sad world we're in .

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Ollie Robinson/Twitter

As this has now resurfaced any chance of answering my question Bob (why aren't you 100% sure you jumped to conclusions, and why can you say then same about me?)

No, I won't bother if you don't mind Elwood - although I don't think he will ever be completely free of what he said in that people will resurrect it from time to time, he's served his suspension now (a longer one than I thought he'd get) and should just be allowed to build on what was a very good first appearance for England.

[Elwood Blues]

Re: Ollie Robinson/Twitter

No, I won't bother if you don't mind Elwood - although I don't think he will ever be completely free of what he said in that people will resurrect it from time to time, he's served his suspension now (a longer one than I thought he'd get) and should just be allowed to build on what was a very good first appearance for England.

Actually what I was getting at was that by saying you are not 100% sure that you jumped to conclusions about what I said you have doubts with my subsequent explanation. Which seems to suggest that you think I have been economical with the actualite in some way.

So yes I do mind on this occasion but guess I won't know now. Just have to be very careful when I respond to your posts in future

[cyril evans awaydays]

Re: Ollie Robinson/Twitter

Actually what I was getting at was that by saying you are not 100% sure that you jumped to conclusions about what I said you have doubts with my subsequent explanation. Which seems to suggest that you think I have been economical with the actualite in some way.

So yes I do mind on this occasion but guess I won't know now. Just have to be very careful when I respond to your posts in future

I think most people realised your sensitivities were offended a few posts back but fair play for confirming it!

[Elwood Blues]

Re: Ollie Robinson/Twitter

I think most people realised your sensitivities were offended a few posts back but fair play for confirming it!

So if I point out that I think Bob was wrong and I am not satisified with his reply I shouldn't respond???

If anyone did it to Bob he'd write a full page on it

Or two...........

[cyril evans awaydays]

Re: Ollie Robinson/Twitter

So if I point out that I think Bob was wrong and I am not satisified with his reply I shouldn't respond???

If anyone did it to Bob he'd write a full page on it

Or two...........

The way I read it you were still seeking satisfaction for an exchange three weeks ago, to which the resurrection of this thread to confirm Robinson's punishment gave you the opportunity. Just came over a bit churlish that's all...no biggie!