Ollie Robinson/Twitter

Someone's first reaction to Robinson playing well and achieving his dream, was to dig on his twitter. After doing so, they found comments from 9 years ago, presumably there was nothing in the last 9 years of tweets that they found unacceptable. He is now banned from playing. It's getting beyond a parody now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

Well put :thumbup: you hit the nail on the head

---

So anything done as an immature teenager should be forgiven then?

Posted in error

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

So anything done as an immature teenager should be forgiven then?

---

That is not what I said in the post Blue Matt was responding to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

That is not what I said in the post Blue Matt was responding to.

---

Quote:

---

not necessarily the right thing to suspend him for saying these things when he was an immature teenager

---

I don’t think his punishment needs to be any worse than it is but it’s crazy how many people seem to write off any wrong doing here because he’s an “immature teenager” using “learned behaviour” but go completely against that belief in other cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

So you seem to agree that people weren't arguing that what Robinson wrote should be defended, indeed there seems general agreement that it was offensive and wrong.

What they were doing was saying that it was not necessarily the right thing to suspend him for saying these things when he was an immature teenager, who may have different views now (of course his views may not have changed, and if that was proved he should never play for England again).

I don't therefore think that anyone saying that they don't think suspending him in this case is a racist apologist unless at the same time they also defend what he said.

---

I think you're tying yourself in knots a bit there Elwood - you agree that there were racist tweets, but then seek to excuse/defend Robinson, to me that means, by the definition of the word I posted on here, you're being an apologist for him.

What you say would have far more merit in my opinion if Robinson was, say, thirteen or fourteen when he made those tweets (that is, at an age where he could reasonably be expected not to fully understand the implications of what he was saying) - he wasn't though, he was eighteen.

In fact, off the top of my head, I'm struggling to come up with anything which precludes someone aged eighteen from being considered an adult. They are considered an adult for the purposes of the law, they can have legally have sex, they can marry, they can drink in a pub, gamble in a casino, watch "adult" films in a cinema, they can vote and they can become an MP. In short, eighteen appears to be the cut off age where someone is considered to be old enough to live with the consequences of their actions - they are thought to be an adult.

The England and Wales Cricket Board have found themselves in a very awkward position in the past week, they are in a situation where there are no easy answers, but just consider the consequences of them doing nothing to Robinson except slapping his wrist (which, effectively, is what you and others are arguing).

Robinson was the same age as the youngest player to ever be selected in a senior test match for England when he wrote those tweets. Bolton born Haseeb Hameed was one year older than Robinson was when he made a very impressive beginning to his test career in India in 2016. Since then Hameed has had a terrible time due to loss of form, but he's come back well enough to have earned a recall to the test squad this summer, so he was in the same dressing room as Robinson this week.

I can only guess as to what Hameed's reaction would have been if the suits had decided to take no further action against Robinson because he was "young and immature" when he said what he did. Similarly, what would Moeen Ali (who I think has been an absolute credit to the UK's Asian heritage population during his international cricket career) or Adil Rashid, or Robinson's Sussex team mate Joffra Archer have thought? Maybe they all would be fine with it, but very significant numbers of law abiding Britons who are not white would, I'm sure, not have been and could you really blame them?

What would Craig Overton, who served a two match ban in 2015 for racially insulting an opponent when he was twenty one (is that too young and immature for him to take full responsibility for what he said in your book?), and is another who shared the dressing room with Robinson this week have made of it if he had not been banned for at least one match? I'm going to be a bit of a racism apologist here myself now and say that I feel that there is an argument (albeit a weak one) to say that as Overton's offence was a spur of the moment thing borne out of frustration on the sporting field, his punishment should be lighter than Robinson's because there was an element of premeditation to what he did that is not present in the Overton case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

So anything done as an immature teenager should be forgiven then?

---

When it was discovered he issued a apology ( yes maybe it was to save face and his career ) he could not have done anything more

I think its safe to say the lad isnt the biggest racist in the world, afterall he might have made another racist tweet in the last 8 - 9 years, he hasnt

you say " I don’t think his punishment needs to be any worse than it is " but others do, what happens if the people who think that he should never play for england again get their way ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

When it was discovered he issued a apology ( yes maybe it was to save face and his career ) he could not have done anything more

I think its safe to say the lad isnt the biggest racist in the world, afterall he might have made another racist tweet in the last 8 - 9 years, he hasnt

you say " I don’t think his punishment needs to be any worse than it is " but others do, what happens if the people who think that he should never play for england again get their way ?

---

Apart from Michael Carberry, a former England opener, I've not heard anyone arguing he should be banned for life - Craig Overton was banned for two games for what he did, that seems a fair precedent to use with Robinson. Someone like Carberry represents one side of the argument, whereas you and a few others in this thread represent the other, why not go for something in the middle of the two?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

When it was discovered he issued a apology ( yes maybe it was to save face and his career ) he could not have done anything more

I think its safe to say the lad isnt the biggest racist in the world, afterall he might have made another racist tweet in the last 8 - 9 years, he hasnt

you say " I don’t think his punishment needs to be any worse than it is " but others do, what happens if the people who think that he should never play for england again get their way ?

---

If anyone else made tweets like that they’d be sacked within a week so if people get their way he won’t be being treated differently because he’s good at a niche sport.

You must be furious about this lad going to prison for 10 weeks - https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...-teen-20644989

In terms of the fact he was 18 at the time, for me the only reason that's important is in the context of him not having any 'form' over the next 9 years. I think an 18 year old should take full responsibility for their actions. I don't think a 27yr old should be punished for tweets made at 18, that haven't been followed up since. Ollie Robinson was a complete wanker at the age of 18, thats part of the reason he is 27 before getting into the test side. People don't mature at the same rate, his maturing process obviously came post 18.

If they were recent history I'd support a 2 game ban, but these tweets were 9 years ago

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

If anyone else made tweets like that they’d be sacked within a week so if people get their way he won’t be being treated differently because he’s good at a niche sport.

You must be furious about this lad going to prison for 10 weeks - https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...-teen-20644989

---

Personally I'd hope that people can see a difference between braindead tweets, and karate kicking a 74yr old man into a river. Struggling to believe you're actually being serious here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

In terms of the fact he was 18 at the time, for me the only reason that's important is in the context of him not having any 'form' over the next 9 years. I think an 18 year old should take full responsibility for their actions. I don't think a 27yr old should be punished for tweets made at 18, that haven't been followed up since. Ollie Robinson was a complete wanker at the age of 18, thats part of the reason he is 27 before getting into the test side. People don't mature at the same rate, his maturing process obviously came post 18.

If they were recent history I'd support a 2 game ban, but these tweets were 9 years ago

---

If Robinson had say committed a crime say an assault at 18 and only been identified now do you think we should say ah but hes been a good lad since so lets forget about it.

I think the ECB are doing the right thing. Full investigation and if hes done nothing since is clearly remorseful and not the person he was then probably a short ban.

I dont want his career ruined but then I havent been affected like Michael Carberry , and the others that Robinson thought it so funny to mock.

I dont think just saying forget about it would do the player any favours either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hilts

If Robinson had say committed a crime say an assault at 18 and only been identified now do you think we should say ah but hes been a good lad since so lets forget about it.

I think the ECB are doing the right thing. Full investigation and if hes done nothing since is clearly remorseful and not the person he was then probably a short ban.

I dont want his career ruined but then I havent been affected like Michael Carberry , and the others that Robinson thought it so funny to mock.

I dont think just saying forget about it would do the player any favours either.

---

The trouble with the examples like that though is that I just don't think they fit. Say he had been convicted of assault at 18, had a suspended sentence or whatever. People would I imagine , be perfectly happy for him to play. Or what if this moron who 'discovered ' the tweets had done it 2 years ago?

Those tweets were seemingly reflective of his personality at that stage of his life. Thats why he couldn't hold down a county contract. He was a complete prick, and didn't deserve to be around professional cricket at that age.

As for Carberry, I feel for him. There was something going on with the way the selectors looked at him. He was an absolutely brilliant batsman across all formats. My thoughts at the time were that you ideally needed to be a white south African to play cricket for England, if you were a white South African you didn't even have to be very good at the game to get into the England side(kieswetter and lumb being the prime examples). If you were a white British player you had to pull up trees, black british like Carberry could have averaged 100 and still wouldn't have got a sniff.

But nothing has ever happened to the selectors, nobody has ever gone back to them and questioned them on their policies or their personal 'criteria' . One of the few good things about 18yr old braindead knuckle draggers is that they don't tend to be near the levers of power. The people who closed the door to the likes of carberry are the ones who deserve to be in the firing line

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

Personally I'd hope that people can see a difference between braindead tweets, and karate kicking a 74yr old man into a river. Struggling to believe you're actually being serious here

---

dont worry, he isnt being serious

has a pattern of discussion its :sherlock: sensible discussion - idiotic example of something that even the people arguing the same side as him think " wtf " - a personal insult just to prove he has ran out of idea's


you wait till his " mate " Rudy comes along to agree with him against you :hehe::hehe: then you know you have made it on CCMB :thumbup:

I probably should have checked the whole story out before diving in. He's missing this game as 'suspended under investigation ' rather than being banned for a game. With the quick turnaround between tests it seems fair for him to miss this one. The ecb would be failing in their responsibilities if they didn't investigate this properly before allowing him back in. Quite shameful really that boris and dowden have decided to jump in and condemn what is essentially an employment disciplinary investigation.

here is one, did punishment have to be him missing a test / series ? ? ? could he have spent his spare time ( how ever many hours were deemed fit as punishment ) going around schools educating children on the power of social media and how negative remarks can effect lives

I noticed he has been " given time off " by sussex for his mental heath and wellbeing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

here is one, did punishment have to be him missing a test / series ? ? ? could he have spent his spare time ( how ever many hours were deemed fit as punishment ) going around schools educating children on the power of social media and how negative remarks can effect lives

I noticed he has been " given time off " by sussex for his mental heath and wellbeing

---

Why do you think that he's in any position to tell kids what's right and wrong? It's always school kids and the military that are you touted as a tool to rehabilitate poor behaviour!

A question for you. What would your reaction be if this was an 18 to year old British born Muslim, who just so happened to be a very good cricketer and was representing England, but had posted inflammatory tweets about the British military invading Muslim countries and attacking British foreign policy? How would you react to that, and how do you think the right wing media would react? You reckon it would be a case of ' Stupid Boy' because I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

Why do you think that he's in any position to tell kids what's right and wrong? It's always school kids and the military that are you touted as a tool to rehabilitate poor behaviour!

A question for you. What would your reaction be if this was an 18 to year old British born Muslim, who just so happened to be a very good cricketer and was representing England, but had posted inflammatory tweets about the British military invading Muslim countries and attacking British foreign policy? How would you react to that, and how do you think the right wing media would react? You reckon it would be a case of ' Stupid Boy' because I don't.

---

I guess they'll learn that it doesn't matter what you do as a kid, or even at 18.

Many of us were fortunate in growing up at a juncture in when our immature behaviour and comments were not recorded, either deliberately or otherwise. No-one in their right minds condones racism but we also have to avoid the pitchfork mentality that is all-pervading these days. Measured responses rather than hysterical ones are required. End of sermon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

In terms of the fact he was 18 at the time, for me the only reason that's important is in the context of him not having any 'form' over the next 9 years. I think an 18 year old should take full responsibility for their actions. I don't think a 27yr old should be punished for tweets made at 18, that haven't been followed up since. Ollie Robinson was a complete wanker at the age of 18, thats part of the reason he is 27 before getting into the test side. People don't mature at the same rate, his maturing process obviously came post 18.

If they were recent history I'd support a 2 game ban, but these tweets were 9 years ago

---

Be careful now
You're talking sense and some on here don't like that.
They think that every 18 yo is a mature wellrounded adult.
I have coached youngster from 6 to 18 and there is a vast difference in maturity in boys of the same age.
We can't just brush under the carpet what he did but I think educating is the way to go not suspension but the pitchforks are out with certain people on here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Many of us were fortunate in growing up at a juncture in when our immature behaviour and comments were not recorded, either deliberately or otherwise. No-one in their right minds condones racism but we also have to avoid the pitchfork mentality that is all-pervading these days. Measured responses rather than hysterical ones are required. End of sermon.

---

Well said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willo1927

Be careful now
You're talking sense and some on here don't like that.
They think that every 18 yo is a mature wellrounded adult.
I have coached youngster from 6 to 18 and there is a vast difference in maturity in boys of the same age.
We can't just brush under the carpet what he did but I think educating is the way to go not suspension but the pitchforks are out with certain people on here.

---

I probably should have checked the whole story out before diving in. He's missing this game as 'suspended under investigation ' rather than being banned for a game. With the quick turnaround between tests it seems fair for him to miss this one. The ecb would be failing in their responsibilities if they didn't investigate this properly before allowing him back in. Quite shameful really that boris and dowden have decided to jump in and condemn what is essentially an employment disciplinary investigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I think you're tying yourself in knots a bit there Elwood - you agree that there were racist tweets, but then seek to excuse/defend Robinson, to me that means, by the definition of the word I posted on here, you're being an apologist for him.

What you say would have far more merit in my opinion if Robinson was, say, thirteen or fourteen when he made those tweets (that is, at an age where he could reasonably be expected not to fully understand the implications of what he was saying) - he wasn't though, he was eighteen.

In fact, off the top of my head, I'm struggling to come up with anything which precludes someone aged eighteen from being considered an adult. They are considered an adult for the purposes of the law, they can have legally have sex, they can marry, they can drink in a pub, gamble in a casino, watch "adult" films in a cinema, they can vote and they can become an MP. In short, eighteen appears to be the cut off age where someone is considered to be old enough to live with the consequences of their actions - they are thought to be an adult.

The England and Wales Cricket Board have found themselves in a very awkward position in the past week, they are in a situation where there are no easy answers, but just consider the consequences of them doing nothing to Robinson except slapping his wrist (which, effectively, is what you and others are arguing).

Robinson was the same age as the youngest player to ever be selected in a senior test match for England when he wrote those tweets. Bolton born Haseeb Hameed was one year older than Robinson was when he made a very impressive beginning to his test career in India in 2016. Since then Hameed has had a terrible time due to loss of form, but he's come back well enough to have earned a recall to the test squad this summer, so he was in the same dressing room as Robinson this week.

I can only guess as to what Hameed's reaction would have been if the suits had decided to take no further action against Robinson because he was "young and immature" when he said what he did. Similarly, what would Moeen Ali (who I think has been an absolute credit to the UK's Asian heritage population during his international cricket career) or Adil Rashid, or Robinson's Sussex team mate Joffra Archer have thought? Maybe they all would be fine with it, but very significant numbers of law abiding Britons who are not white would, I'm sure, not have been and could you really blame them?

What would Craig Overton, who served a two match ban in 2015 for racially insulting an opponent when he was twenty one (is that too young and immature for him to take full responsibility for what he said in your book?), and is another who shared the dressing room with Robinson this week have made of it if he had not been banned for at least one match? I'm going to be a bit of a racism apologist here myself now and say that I feel that there is an argument (albeit a weak one) to say that as Overton's offence was a spur of the moment thing borne out of frustration on the sporting field, his punishment should be lighter than Robinson's because there was an element of premeditation to what he did that is not present in the Overton case.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

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

---

Did you say things like that as an 18 year old, just out of interest.

No did you?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

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.

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

Common sense prevails at last

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

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?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

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........... :hehe: :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

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........... :hehe: :hehe:

---

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!