Quote Originally Posted by Elwood Blues View Post
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.