Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Ollie Robinson , suspended

135678

Posts

  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 62,399 Lives Here
    edited June 2021

    webboo said:

    pangolin said:

    webboo said:

    Bit of an anomaly. Unless he'd gone down for 4 years any conviction he'd received 10 years ago would be spent as far as his employer is concerned.
    A few stupid tweets gets him suspended though.


    He would be barred from certain professions though.
    Playing cricket?
    I guess we'll find out!
    No we won't because he has no convictions.
    My point was that if he had been convicted of a criminal offence, it would all be over and done with. But a few stupid tweets...
    But it wouldn’t if he had been convicted of a criminal offence. However in his career of choice you can be suspended for bringing the game in to disrepute or the like.

    Unless you get sent down for more than 4 years your conviction is spent after at the most, 7 years.

    So to reiterate, even if 10 years ago he had committed an offence heinous enough to get 3 years in the big house, at this time he wouldn't need to disclose it to his employer.
    But a few tweets made 10 years before being taken on by his present employer, the ECB, gets him a suspension.
    You’re beginning to understand the sort of challenges younger people have growing up in a world with social meedja.

    Most are quite responsible.
  • focuszing723focuszing723 Posts: 4,258

    What I don't get, is what the hell do people think will happen who post their lives on the internet? He was 19, but surely he realised what he was posting would be considered controversial?

    I'm a bit sick of people not taking responsibility for their actions. Akin to the masses buying stuff from Amazon and China, then moaning about tax and human rights. Well guess what, you directly contributed to the situation!


    You must have been born at 9 months and 35 years, if you expect teenage blokes to weigh up what they say, or think about any consequences.
    At 19 you should have the sense to know you are posting your thoughts to the World via the internet, especially on a format as twitter where it's obvious the posts aren't deleted.
    Well, lets hope that 10 years from now, sanctimony isn't on the no-no list.
    Well, lets hope in ten years people start to take some responsibility for their actions.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 15,903
    edited June 2021

    webboo said:

    pangolin said:

    webboo said:

    Bit of an anomaly. Unless he'd gone down for 4 years any conviction he'd received 10 years ago would be spent as far as his employer is concerned.
    A few stupid tweets gets him suspended though.


    He would be barred from certain professions though.
    Playing cricket?
    I guess we'll find out!
    No we won't because he has no convictions.
    My point was that if he had been convicted of a criminal offence, it would all be over and done with. But a few stupid tweets...
    But it wouldn’t if he had been convicted of a criminal offence. However in his career of choice you can be suspended for bringing the game in to disrepute or the like.

    Unless you get sent down for more than 4 years your conviction is spent after at the most, 7 years.

    So to reiterate, even if 10 years ago he had committed an offence heinous enough to get 3 years in the big house, at this time he wouldn't need to disclose it to his employer.
    But a few tweets made 10 years before being taken on by his present employer, the ECB, gets him a suspension.
    You’re beginning to understand the sort of challenges younger people have growing up in a world with social meedja.

    Most are quite responsible.

    What about in 10 years time when stuff that is acceptable now is verboten?

    edit

    This is the closest I get to social meedja and I ain't in the job market so give no fucks.. But it beats me why kids share so much. And don't get me started on those that then get all arsey about invasion of privacy.
  • focuszing723focuszing723 Posts: 4,258
    I don't know as usual I can see both sides of the argument. I guess it's just another example of refining a civilised society.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 19,912


    As to your second point. Ever bought a bike part on the internet? I wonder what caused the demise of the LBS?

    In my case, 6 months of inactivity when asked to sort out a simple replacement part.
    Bought the parts online, watched a Youtube video and found out it ain't difficult.
    The end.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • blazing_saddlesblazing_saddles Posts: 19,954

    webboo said:

    pangolin said:

    webboo said:

    Bit of an anomaly. Unless he'd gone down for 4 years any conviction he'd received 10 years ago would be spent as far as his employer is concerned.
    A few stupid tweets gets him suspended though.


    He would be barred from certain professions though.
    Playing cricket?
    I guess we'll find out!
    No we won't because he has no convictions.
    My point was that if he had been convicted of a criminal offence, it would all be over and done with. But a few stupid tweets...
    But it wouldn’t if he had been convicted of a criminal offence. However in his career of choice you can be suspended for bringing the game in to disrepute or the like.

    Unless you get sent down for more than 4 years your conviction is spent after at the most, 7 years.

    So to reiterate, even if 10 years ago he had committed an offence heinous enough to get 3 years in the big house, at this time he wouldn't need to disclose it to his employer.
    But a few tweets made 10 years before being taken on by his present employer, the ECB, gets him a suspension.
    You’re beginning to understand the sort of challenges younger people have growing up in a world with social meedja.

    Most are quite responsible.

    What about in 10 years time when stuff that is acceptable now is verboten?

    This was kind of the point I was also making.

    With no "statute of limitations" on social media musings, to which revisionary social attitudes then get applied, plus hindsight, to justify whatever sanction gets meted out, nobody is safe................ever.



    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 10,297

    ...nobody is safe................ever.

    Bzzzt. One should add "unless one is a philandering, corrupt, narcissistic liar who finagles his way into a position of Prime Minister."
  • ProssPross Posts: 32,826
    Second, unnamed, player now being investigated for using a racist term in a Tweet when they were 16.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 62,399 Lives Here
    edited June 2021

    webboo said:

    pangolin said:

    webboo said:

    Bit of an anomaly. Unless he'd gone down for 4 years any conviction he'd received 10 years ago would be spent as far as his employer is concerned.
    A few stupid tweets gets him suspended though.


    He would be barred from certain professions though.
    Playing cricket?
    I guess we'll find out!
    No we won't because he has no convictions.
    My point was that if he had been convicted of a criminal offence, it would all be over and done with. But a few stupid tweets...
    But it wouldn’t if he had been convicted of a criminal offence. However in his career of choice you can be suspended for bringing the game in to disrepute or the like.

    Unless you get sent down for more than 4 years your conviction is spent after at the most, 7 years.

    So to reiterate, even if 10 years ago he had committed an offence heinous enough to get 3 years in the big house, at this time he wouldn't need to disclose it to his employer.
    But a few tweets made 10 years before being taken on by his present employer, the ECB, gets him a suspension.
    You’re beginning to understand the sort of challenges younger people have growing up in a world with social meedja.

    Most are quite responsible.

    What about in 10 years time when stuff that is acceptable now is verboten?

    edit

    This is the closest I get to social meedja and I ain't in the job market so give no fucks.. But it beats me why kids share so much. And don't get me started on those that then get all arsey about invasion of privacy.
    I think you do give a f*ck which is why you think this is unacceptable.

    I mean, firstly, the guy's only been suspended for a few games. Slap on the wrist, basically.

    I recon 100s of people a day get slaps on the wrist for posting things they shouldn't have on social meedja by their own company.

    I guess it's part of a wider feeling that I've read elsewhere that corporates (and we'll extend the cricket lot into this category for a moment) are outwardly very liberal in their ostensible politics - rainbow logos for pride month, hot on diversity etc, and a lot of people feel alienated by that.

    (at this point of course i'd point to the fact that it's retired people who are more likely to find this troubling rather than the people of working age and the people working in these firms, but let's avoid the hobby horse).

    I think generally one needs to moderate what you say in the public space, wouldn't you say?

    You probably wouldn't be shouting holocaust jokes in the middle of a busy public square, however hilarious you think they are, and I guess you need to treat social media the same. If you did and a jew came up and gave you an earful, you would maybe curse your bad luck that they heard your joke but you'd also think "well, maybe I shouldn't say it in public".

    Just because you're on the internet in your bedroom with your trousers round your ankles doesn't mean you're not doing things in public.

    The internet sees where you go and what you do in the same way people in real life can see where you go and what you do.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 19,912



    I guess it's part of a wider feeling that I've read elsewhere that corporates (and we'll extend the cricket lot into this category for a moment) are outwardly very liberal in their ostensible politics - rainbow logos for pride month, hot on diversity etc, and a lot of people feel alienated by that.

    The flip side of this is that I've worked for a few huge blue chip companies and I have experienced first hand the difference between how they present themselves and how they actually work behind the door.
    Image is everything.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 62,399 Lives Here
    pblakeney said:



    I guess it's part of a wider feeling that I've read elsewhere that corporates (and we'll extend the cricket lot into this category for a moment) are outwardly very liberal in their ostensible politics - rainbow logos for pride month, hot on diversity etc, and a lot of people feel alienated by that.

    The flip side of this is that I've worked for a few huge blue chip companies and I have experienced first hand the difference between how they present themselves and how they actually work behind the door.
    Image is everything.
    No disagreement there.

    I squirm when my very anti-woke boss gives it all the woke pro-diversity chat in pitches.
  • Ben6899Ben6899 Posts: 9,603
    I'm trying to determine if those who thing he's done nothing wrong are the same people who are up in arms about footballers taking the knee before kick-off...
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 19,912
    Are things improving in any meaningful way if image is more important than actions?
    Bullying, racism and sexism always existed behind closed doors. All we are doing is painting the doors nice colours.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 24,650
    there's a touch of the Quinn Simmons affair here....
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • ilovegraceilovegrace Posts: 677
    Ben6899 said:

    I'm trying to determine if those who thing he's done nothing wrong are the same people who are up in arms about footballers taking the knee before kick-off...

    In my case. Yes definitely.
    However, with regard to the abject matter. I am not talking about righ or wrong. I am talking about forgiveness.
  • MattFalleMattFalle Posts: 10,096

    Ben6899 said:

    I'm trying to determine if those who thing he's done nothing wrong are the same people who are up in arms about footballers taking the knee before kick-off...

    In my case. Yes definitely.
    However, with regard to the abject matter. I am not talking about righ or wrong. I am talking about forgiveness.
    what are you on about?

  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 16,251
    Ben6899 said:

    I'm trying to determine if those who thing he's done nothing wrong are the same people who are up in arms about footballers taking the knee before kick-off...

    I think he has done wrong but due to the historical nature of the transgressions it could have been dwelt with by an apology and a public reminder of his responsibilities.

    If footballers want to take a knee so be it but fans equally have the right to boo them.
  • MattFalleMattFalle Posts: 10,096

    Ben6899 said:

    I'm trying to determine if those who thing he's done nothing wrong are the same people who are up in arms about footballers taking the knee before kick-off...

    In my case. Yes definitely.
    However, with regard to the abject matter. I am not talking about righ or wrong. I am talking about forgiveness.
    so you're anti peaceful anti racism protesting but pro racist and sexist cricketer?
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 19,912
    MattFalle said:

    Ben6899 said:

    I'm trying to determine if those who thing he's done nothing wrong are the same people who are up in arms about footballers taking the knee before kick-off...

    In my case. Yes definitely.
    However, with regard to the abject matter. I am not talking about righ or wrong. I am talking about forgiveness.
    what are you on about?

    He/She is acknowledging the wrong actions but wants him to play against NZ.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 62,399 Lives Here
    edited June 2021

    Ben6899 said:

    I'm trying to determine if those who thing he's done nothing wrong are the same people who are up in arms about footballers taking the knee before kick-off...

    I think he has done wrong but due to the historical nature of the transgressions it could have been dwelt with by an apology and a public reminder of his responsibilities.

    If footballers want to take a knee so be it but fans equally have the right to boo them.
    I think a lot of people are delighting in the mecca for far-right extremists taking a symbolic stance against racism.
  • Ben6899Ben6899 Posts: 9,603

    If footballers want to take a knee so be it but fans equally have the right to boo them.


    As long as they don't mind looking like racist snowflakes, I agree.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  • blazing_saddlesblazing_saddles Posts: 19,954
    Pross said:

    Second, unnamed, player now being investigated for using a racist term in a Tweet when they were 16.

    Not only no statute, but no age limitations, either, which is much more of a concern, imo.
    Especially as the reform option doesn't seem to be on the table.
    Lets hope all those 13 year olds are weighing up the future consequences of their tweets.

    Interestingly, it's the Jason Mohammad's morning telephone debate on Radio Wales.
    No surprises that the debate has become polarised around the racist tweet, with the majority sexist "jokes" pretty much ignored.
    One other thing quickly became clear: few taking part had actually read the offending tweets.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 24,650


    If footballers want to take a knee so be it but fans equally have the right to boo them.

    We equally have a right to question if they might be racist when they boo an anti-racism protest...

    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 20,944

    Ben6899 said:

    I'm trying to determine if those who thing he's done nothing wrong are the same people who are up in arms about footballers taking the knee before kick-off...

    I think he has done wrong but due to the historical nature of the transgressions it could have been dwelt with by an apology and a public reminder of his responsibilities.

    If footballers want to take a knee so be it but fans equally have the right to boo them.
    The irony is that without the booing, taking a knee by footballers is just a bit weird. The booing is what makes it make sense. Without the booing, it's not an act of defiance against anything.
  • ProssPross Posts: 32,826

    Pross said:

    Second, unnamed, player now being investigated for using a racist term in a Tweet when they were 16.

    Not only no statute, but no age limitations, either, which is much more of a concern, imo.
    Especially as the reform option doesn't seem to be on the table.
    Lets hope all those 13 year olds are weighing up the future consequences of their tweets.

    Interestingly, it's the Jason Mohammad's morning telephone debate on Radio Wales.
    No surprises that the debate has become polarised around the racist tweet, with the majority sexist "jokes" pretty much ignored.
    One other thing quickly became clear: few taking part had actually read the offending tweets.
    This seems to be fairly standard in such debates "I haven't seen it / read it but here's my opinion anyway".

    I'm still very much torn on it but agree with Mark Ramprakash who said this morning that the ECB should probably do a bit more due dilligence when handing out new caps. If they (and other sport governing bodies etc.) did this it could save them the embarassment of getting ambushed and also provide the chance for them to discuss the issues in private with the person before it becomes a public matter. They could even issue a preemptive "Ollie has made us aware that he made some comments on Twitter as a teenager that he now realises were ill-advised and offensive. He apologises for this poor judgement and has confirmed he is committed to our policies in relation to equality".
  • Ben6899Ben6899 Posts: 9,603
    ddraver said:


    If footballers want to take a knee so be it but fans equally have the right to boo them.

    We equally have a right to question if they might be racist when they boo an anti-racism protest...


    Jesus wept. Does his mum know he has a telly in his room?
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  • ProssPross Posts: 32,826
    My only issue with the 'taking the knee' before all games is that it is potentially getting to the stage where it is just something that players do and that most are not even giving any thought to why they are doing it. Has it just become a pre-match ritual like the singing of the national anthems or the walking along the line shaking hands with each other?
  • MattFalleMattFalle Posts: 10,096
    pblakeney said:

    MattFalle said:

    Ben6899 said:

    I'm trying to determine if those who thing he's done nothing wrong are the same people who are up in arms about footballers taking the knee before kick-off...

    In my case. Yes definitely.
    However, with regard to the abject matter. I am not talking about righ or wrong. I am talking about forgiveness.
    what are you on about?

    He/She is acknowledging the wrong actions but wants him to play against NZ.
    he/she just wants to ignore the racism and sexism because he/she thinks that as an Engerlan cricketer his racism and sexism is fine.
  • elbowlohelbowloh Posts: 7,078

    .

    I guess it's part of a wider feeling that I've read elsewhere that corporates (and we'll extend the cricket lot into this category for a moment) are outwardly very liberal in their ostensible politics - rainbow logos for pride month, hot on diversity etc, and a lot of people feel alienated by that.

    Not just corporates Rick. I rode through Westminster yesterday, down Whitehall and along Victoria Street. Many government departments were also flying the rainbow flag.

    Also, its been in the news about departments either pulling out of or considering pulling out of the Stonewall diversity programme, which of course means they have to be in the programme now!
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame
    Tall....
    www.seewildlife.co.uk
  • MattFalleMattFalle Posts: 10,096
    ddraver said:


    If footballers want to take a knee so be it but fans equally have the right to boo them.

    We equally have a right to question if they might be racist when they boo an anti-racism protest...

    now this bloke is, as theysay in the trade, a total balloon head.
Sign In or Register to comment.