ChatterBank7 mins ago
Ollie Robinson Cricket Suspension
41 Answers
I was born in the 60s so grew up with no internet, social media etc. I had naive views on all sorts of stuff at the age 18, 19 but would I have shared it on social media today, personally, probably not because I am not a fan of social media in general. What do you think, should Ollie have his cricket future come to an end?
Answers
Show me a twenty-
18:36 Mon 07th Jun 2021
there's a lot of folk who think this ban is just for one match and that Ollie will come out of it with more strength, motivation and determination. After all, he was the only England bowler who got the ball to swing in this last test - but then look at the team not there including Stokes, Woakes and Croaks, sorry Tom Curran.....
Show me a twenty-eight-year-old who has lived a normal life in modern society who has done something at eighteen that he would not do now, and I'll show you a liar.
To pillory this young man simply because his immature stupidity can be tracked by means of social media to which he never gave a thought when he was shooting his narrow-minded inexperienced peer-led nonsense posing as a balanced view of the world around him, is to be the Thought Police to an utterly alarming degree.
To infer that because he held unplesant views as an immature teenager means that he must be held to account becuase he is a 'role model' now is to shoe-horn him into a personna as a shining example of wokeism that he may neither share, or should have to share.
I find the entire notion of 'role models' to be fatuous and self-defeating.
He is rightly famous for his skills as a cricketer - to expect him to be some sort of social ambassador for the lofty views of the blazers at HQ is unreasonable and unfair.
Why don't we delve into what they did and said at eigteen, and see how sqeaky any of them were then, or indeed are now.
Visiting the follies of youth on an adult because he happens to be both skilful and famous is utterly unreasonable - we don't do it to other people, why should sports men and women have to be examined and pilloried in this fashion?
He has apologised, which is absolutely right, but he can't take back what he said, and everyone should simply accept this for what it is - youthful stupidity which should have been left where it was, in his past.
We've all got one - we can't hold up dedicated sportsmen who represent their country and decide that they have to account for what they did when they were barely out of school.
It's unreasonable, and I wouldn;t blame him if he told them he would never lift a bat for England again - it would serve them right.
There are plenty of other countries who accept the silliness of youth without expecting a grownup to pay for it in public with humiliation and the scoffing superiority of stuffed shirts who run our cricket.
Me - I'd walk away tomorrow, if he doesn't, they should be seriously grateful, retaining his skills is more than they deserve.
To pillory this young man simply because his immature stupidity can be tracked by means of social media to which he never gave a thought when he was shooting his narrow-minded inexperienced peer-led nonsense posing as a balanced view of the world around him, is to be the Thought Police to an utterly alarming degree.
To infer that because he held unplesant views as an immature teenager means that he must be held to account becuase he is a 'role model' now is to shoe-horn him into a personna as a shining example of wokeism that he may neither share, or should have to share.
I find the entire notion of 'role models' to be fatuous and self-defeating.
He is rightly famous for his skills as a cricketer - to expect him to be some sort of social ambassador for the lofty views of the blazers at HQ is unreasonable and unfair.
Why don't we delve into what they did and said at eigteen, and see how sqeaky any of them were then, or indeed are now.
Visiting the follies of youth on an adult because he happens to be both skilful and famous is utterly unreasonable - we don't do it to other people, why should sports men and women have to be examined and pilloried in this fashion?
He has apologised, which is absolutely right, but he can't take back what he said, and everyone should simply accept this for what it is - youthful stupidity which should have been left where it was, in his past.
We've all got one - we can't hold up dedicated sportsmen who represent their country and decide that they have to account for what they did when they were barely out of school.
It's unreasonable, and I wouldn;t blame him if he told them he would never lift a bat for England again - it would serve them right.
There are plenty of other countries who accept the silliness of youth without expecting a grownup to pay for it in public with humiliation and the scoffing superiority of stuffed shirts who run our cricket.
Me - I'd walk away tomorrow, if he doesn't, they should be seriously grateful, retaining his skills is more than they deserve.
Ellipsis - // Like any employer, the cricket authorities are right to suspend him while they do their own research and come to their own conclusions. //
Wha, exactly do you think they have to 'investigate' and 'conclude'?
Are they going to strap him into a chair and shine lights into his eyes and ask him if he is a racist, until he gives them the answer they want to hear?
I have already outlined the facts as they are - they are not going to change, 'investigated' or not.
Wha, exactly do you think they have to 'investigate' and 'conclude'?
Are they going to strap him into a chair and shine lights into his eyes and ask him if he is a racist, until he gives them the answer they want to hear?
I have already outlined the facts as they are - they are not going to change, 'investigated' or not.
Returning to the notion of a 'role model' - I remember when Paul McCartney was being questioned about his use of marijuana - this was back in the day when it was actually shocking for someone to admit such a thing.
The reporter - mindful of the 'role model' garbage that was already in place, advised Mr McCartney that he 'had a responsibility' to the audience for his music.
Quick as a wink, Paul responded - "No, YOU have the responsibility - I won't tell anyone if you don't."
The fact that this exchange was filmed, and I as a member of the audience to whom Paul was seen to have a 'resonsibility' saw it and understood the point being made, meant I also understood the crushing irony of questining someone about something in view of a camera, and trying to make his private behaviour which was being exposed as he spoke, somehow his own fault for derailing the morals of the nation.
For the record - I did go on to try marijuana, but it was absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Paul Mccartney tried it.
Like all drug triers, i did it because my friends were doing it and I wanted to know what it was like.
If anyone today becomes a racist, it will not be because Ollie Robinson is being accused of being one, and they are following him as a 'role model', it will be because that is what their friends are doing, and peer pressure trumps 'role modelling' any day of the week.
The reporter - mindful of the 'role model' garbage that was already in place, advised Mr McCartney that he 'had a responsibility' to the audience for his music.
Quick as a wink, Paul responded - "No, YOU have the responsibility - I won't tell anyone if you don't."
The fact that this exchange was filmed, and I as a member of the audience to whom Paul was seen to have a 'resonsibility' saw it and understood the point being made, meant I also understood the crushing irony of questining someone about something in view of a camera, and trying to make his private behaviour which was being exposed as he spoke, somehow his own fault for derailing the morals of the nation.
For the record - I did go on to try marijuana, but it was absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Paul Mccartney tried it.
Like all drug triers, i did it because my friends were doing it and I wanted to know what it was like.
If anyone today becomes a racist, it will not be because Ollie Robinson is being accused of being one, and they are following him as a 'role model', it will be because that is what their friends are doing, and peer pressure trumps 'role modelling' any day of the week.
Ellipsis - // Obviously I think you're wrong, andy, check my first post which is completely at odds with yours. And which you countered by saying there was nothing more to investigate, so obviously you know more than the cricket authorities. //
Much better, now we're communicating.
I don't think there is 'nothing more' to investigate, i think there is nothing to 'investigate' full stop.
What does anyone, no, since we are discussing, let's make this between you and I - what do you think they could 'investigate' from ten years ago, when the only evidence of the individual's mindset at that time is evidenced by his naivity in placing it on a system the records it for all eternity.
And they key point is - his mindset at the time - which clearly bears not the slightest hint of resemblence to how he thinks now.
When I remember some of the opinions I spouted to anyone listening, and quite a few people who weren't, I blush to the roots of what's left of my hair, and thank everything that such nonsense is safely buried in the minds of people who don;t care now, and probably didn;t care then, and if they do, for a fleeting second, they will put it down to my rampant imaturity manifesting itself in the front of being a know-all about everything.
Some people think I haven 't changed all that much!!
But like all adults, of course I have.
My views are now considered and thought through, and I can back each and every one of them in an argument with all comers.
That's what maturity does - it allows you to abandon the stupid ignorance of what you thought was right, and replace it with what you know is right.
The fact that Mr Robinson has appologised for his thoughts then shows that he is no different - except that because he is famous, and from the social media age, his immaturity is being used as a weapon against him.
It's shameful, and the people doing it should be old enough and wise enough to know better, and stop it now.
Much better, now we're communicating.
I don't think there is 'nothing more' to investigate, i think there is nothing to 'investigate' full stop.
What does anyone, no, since we are discussing, let's make this between you and I - what do you think they could 'investigate' from ten years ago, when the only evidence of the individual's mindset at that time is evidenced by his naivity in placing it on a system the records it for all eternity.
And they key point is - his mindset at the time - which clearly bears not the slightest hint of resemblence to how he thinks now.
When I remember some of the opinions I spouted to anyone listening, and quite a few people who weren't, I blush to the roots of what's left of my hair, and thank everything that such nonsense is safely buried in the minds of people who don;t care now, and probably didn;t care then, and if they do, for a fleeting second, they will put it down to my rampant imaturity manifesting itself in the front of being a know-all about everything.
Some people think I haven 't changed all that much!!
But like all adults, of course I have.
My views are now considered and thought through, and I can back each and every one of them in an argument with all comers.
That's what maturity does - it allows you to abandon the stupid ignorance of what you thought was right, and replace it with what you know is right.
The fact that Mr Robinson has appologised for his thoughts then shows that he is no different - except that because he is famous, and from the social media age, his immaturity is being used as a weapon against him.
It's shameful, and the people doing it should be old enough and wise enough to know better, and stop it now.
Ellipsis - // Let's not make this between you and I. Been there, done that, can't be bothered to do it again. I just post my opinion, you post yours, that's it. //
Fair enough - you think they should 'investigate', I think there is nothing to 'investiate' - we'll see if anyone else wants to agree with either or neither of us.
But at least I respect your view, even if I don't agree with it, and I'd like to hope that you respect mine in the same way.
Fair enough - you think they should 'investigate', I think there is nothing to 'investiate' - we'll see if anyone else wants to agree with either or neither of us.
But at least I respect your view, even if I don't agree with it, and I'd like to hope that you respect mine in the same way.
it won't end his career, they'll have him back as soon as is seemly. It will be particularly ironic if in the meantime he's replaced by the more overtly racist Overton.
However, it's not just about something he wrote years ago, it's about something that was still there to be read last week. The moral is that if you're about to hit the big time you should ask yourself about posts that might come back to haunt you, and remove them.
As for his apology, that was very obviously public relations hooey and he was unable to look regretful at all. The courts are full of defendants weepily apologising to their victims; but how many do it until they get caught?
However, it's not just about something he wrote years ago, it's about something that was still there to be read last week. The moral is that if you're about to hit the big time you should ask yourself about posts that might come back to haunt you, and remove them.
As for his apology, that was very obviously public relations hooey and he was unable to look regretful at all. The courts are full of defendants weepily apologising to their victims; but how many do it until they get caught?
jno - // The moral is that if you're about to hit the big time you should ask yourself about posts that might come back to haunt you, and remove them. //
Really?
I think the moral is - let's aim for a society where we don;t start picking up the random thoughts of someone from a decade ago simply because they are now a famous sports personality - because that would be unfair to the point of immorality.
Never mind having to go back through your past and delete something you regretted, but probably didn't remember saying, let's have a world where that actually doesn't matter, because we don't hold people to account like that, famous or not.
Really?
I think the moral is - let's aim for a society where we don;t start picking up the random thoughts of someone from a decade ago simply because they are now a famous sports personality - because that would be unfair to the point of immorality.
Never mind having to go back through your past and delete something you regretted, but probably didn't remember saying, let's have a world where that actually doesn't matter, because we don't hold people to account like that, famous or not.
andy, there's nothing immoral about callign racists to account.
Remember - this is a guy who put out a racist tweet and then, just to drive the point home, put the hashtag #racist at the end of it.
The cricket board is trying to make its sport more inclusive. It will not do this by saying "oh, he may have been old enough to vote and old enough to join the army but he was a poor innocent mite who didn't know what he was writing."
Remember - this is a guy who put out a racist tweet and then, just to drive the point home, put the hashtag #racist at the end of it.
The cricket board is trying to make its sport more inclusive. It will not do this by saying "oh, he may have been old enough to vote and old enough to join the army but he was a poor innocent mite who didn't know what he was writing."
// more woke cobras, radio rental.//
foo dat maaaaan !
has anyone er researched the offensive disgusting juvenile emails ?
One is: "I am sure the man opposite me has Ebola"
and the contemporary events were - a paed with Ebola had flown to Liberia ( where dat den?) - knowing he was infected, and took 500 with him.
( caused an outbreak in Liberia as the index case which killed 500)
AND the returnees were let thro Heathrow when they should have been quarantined. One rang up Glasgow A+E a day or so later and said she was running a temp - and was told to hop on a bus and they would look at her in Cas ! (*)
so to a certain extent I thought Ollie justified
(*)the fact that someone had been told to parade thro the streets of Glasgow with Ebola was later covered up in later proceedings - by the prosecution
[
foo dat maaaaan !
has anyone er researched the offensive disgusting juvenile emails ?
One is: "I am sure the man opposite me has Ebola"
and the contemporary events were - a paed with Ebola had flown to Liberia ( where dat den?) - knowing he was infected, and took 500 with him.
( caused an outbreak in Liberia as the index case which killed 500)
AND the returnees were let thro Heathrow when they should have been quarantined. One rang up Glasgow A+E a day or so later and said she was running a temp - and was told to hop on a bus and they would look at her in Cas ! (*)
so to a certain extent I thought Ollie justified
(*)the fact that someone had been told to parade thro the streets of Glasgow with Ebola was later covered up in later proceedings - by the prosecution
[
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
News44 mins ago
Film, Media & TV48 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.