Ollie Robinson , suspended

Dorset_Boy

pblakeney said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/mayoroflondon/status/1402229715386122241?s=21

I’m often asked why I support Liverpool given I’m a Londoner. The truth is I went to games at my local clubs, Chelsea and Wimbledon as a kid, but when I visited their grounds I was racially abused and my elder brothers even chased away by the National Front.

That led me to support a team I got to know from the safety of my front room, on TV, from the other end of the country.

Is his support of Liverpool one for the irony thread?
And in no way am I condoning what he encountered, but I suspect the same was sadly true at pretty much every club in the country and across Europe at that time.

It will be interesting to see how things develop of the forthcoming matches.

Born in 1970. As a kid Chelsea were nobodies and Liverpool dominated Europe.
Not to dismiss any racist experiences, but, glory hunter.

Very true!
He was born 5 years too late to support Chelsea as FA cup winners, and as you say Liverpool dominated from about 1975 onwards, particularly with King Kenny.

pblakeney

"McClean could not countenance any involvement in generating funds that could go to a former solider who fired into the crowd in Derry."

Seems straightforward enough, and hard to argue against.

skyblueamateur

pblakeney said:

"McClean could not countenance any involvement in generating funds that could go to a former solider who fired into the crowd in Derry."

Seems straightforward enough, and hard to argue against.

Similar to Matic - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46099843

I just find it a non-issue. Wear a poppy if you would like, don't wear a poppy if you feel that way inclined.

Going the football in the 80's and 90's I don't recall poppy's on shirts etc. May be wrong though.

I think the RBL do a sterling job but surely freedom of choice needs to be respected.

MattFalle

surrey_commuter said:

elbowloh said:

skyblueamateur said:

FWIW I think McClean is a bit of a d1ck but I don't get the whole moral outrage and witch hunt. The left and right are both guilty of it while branding each other snowflakes and gammons.

I literally had non-issue with McLean, it should be a choice whether to wear one or not.

Surely the war was fought for freedom to protect your rights.

That is not the war he is protesting about

yup.

i can't see a problem in his actions.

elbowloh

rick_chasey said:

I guess he didn't visit liverpool fc very much...

I have plenty of times and never saw any racist behaviour like I have at certain other clubs.

Ben6899

Yeh it's a huge miss to say that the atmosphere and mindset of the fans, at all football grounds, are the same.

Highbury/Emirates and Elland Road, as an example comparison, are worlds - no, universes - apart. Absolutely no comparison.

morstar

rjsterry said:

pileyk said:

Go back on topic for a sec... I think the only way to solve the 'teenage twitter' problem or general internet shitpost issue is for people to grow a skin and not take offence to any words that are said in such a casual medium. ITS TEH INTERNETZ..

Now if he was doing a formal TV or newspaper interview and made these comments, yeah there should be a consequence. But if he wants to say the same thing on twitter, facef**k or any other internet forum then it really shouldn't matter. The internet is being taking too seriously by too many people.

If I say some overtly offensive comments I may be trolling, I may be serious, I may be just having a laugh, who knows but I should be allowed to say it, at least online, without repercussions. We have become such a pathetic PC society these days.

So you want to be insulated from the consequences of your actions. And yet you think it is everyone else that has gone soft. Well it's a view, I suppose.

But that’s ultimately what all this anti woke stuff comes back to.

We want to be able to say offensive things and not have to justify them or face the consequences.

The free speech is already there. People want immunity from the consequences of exercising it in ways that are clearly likely to offend others.

rick_chasey

Ben6899 said:

Yeh it's a huge miss to say that the atmosphere and mindset of the fans, at all football grounds, are the same.

Highbury/Emirates and Elland Road, as an example comparison, are worlds - no, universes - apart. Absolutely no comparison.

So I have seen the cross section of Chelsea fans pretty much every match day until 2018 as I lived 200m from Stamford Bridge for 6 years.

I've also seen the away fans.

The away fans from pretty much all the big clubs were all as bad as each other.

The only worse fans were the Dynamo Kiev fans who seemed to want to hide down all the residential back streets waving knives about. No idea how that didn't kick off.

The only respectable fans I saw from the away fans were Fulham (unsurprisingly), and Norwich.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Ben6899 said:

Yeh it's a huge miss to say that the atmosphere and mindset of the fans, at all football grounds, are the same.

Highbury/Emirates and Elland Road, as an example comparison, are worlds - no, universes - apart. Absolutely no comparison.

So I have seen the cross section of Chelsea fans pretty much every match day until 2018 as I lived 200m from Stamford Bridge for 6 years.

I've also seen the away fans.

The away fans from pretty much all the big clubs were all as bad as each other.

The only worse fans were the Dynamo Kiev fans who seemed to want to hide down all the residential back streets waving knives about. No idea how that didn't kick off.

The only respectable fans I saw from the away fans were Fulham (unsurprisingly), and Norwich.

But you acknowledge there is a different between being loud, drunken louts and being racists often connected to the NF that Khan was talking about right?

Even back in the 80s when things were really bad (I'm too young to remember the 70s but think it was as bad or worse) there were clubs where the violence was 'Firms' out for a few drinks and a bit of a punch up whilst others were virtually neo-nazis. Chelsea always had a bit of a reputation for the latter.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Ben6899 said:

Yeh it's a huge miss to say that the atmosphere and mindset of the fans, at all football grounds, are the same.

Highbury/Emirates and Elland Road, as an example comparison, are worlds - no, universes - apart. Absolutely no comparison.

So I have seen the cross section of Chelsea fans pretty much every match day until 2018 as I lived 200m from Stamford Bridge for 6 years.

I've also seen the away fans.

The away fans from pretty much all the big clubs were all as bad as each other.

The only worse fans were the Dynamo Kiev fans who seemed to want to hide down all the residential back streets waving knives about. No idea how that didn't kick off.

The only respectable fans I saw from the away fans were Fulham (unsurprisingly), and Norwich.

But you acknowledge there is a different between being loud, drunken louts and being racists often connected to the NF that Khan was talking about right?

Even back in the 80s when things were really bad (I'm too young to remember the 70s but think it was as bad or worse) there were clubs where the violence was 'Firms' out for a few drinks and a bit of a punch up whilst others were virtually neo-nazis. Chelsea always had a bit of a reputation for the latter.

I have a very clear recollection of being on a bus on the kings road heading home and a bunch of West Ham fans outside were making their eyes slitty and hurling abuse at the Chinese woman next to me who was on the window side. Banging on the window, etc. I swapped seats with her and one of the guys threw his drink at the window and called me a c*nt.

The Chelsea fans had a habit of making hissing sounds on the tube whenever Spurs played. The tube generally was quite tricky, especially mid-week as all the fans mixed with each other and with commuters (like me).

I know a lot of respectable die-hard Chelsea fans and I often wonder why. They must turn a blind eye to it all as it's really in-your-face.

pblakeney

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

pileyk said:

Go back on topic for a sec... I think the only way to solve the 'teenage twitter' problem or general internet shitpost issue is for people to grow a skin and not take offence to any words that are said in such a casual medium. ITS TEH INTERNETZ..

Now if he was doing a formal TV or newspaper interview and made these comments, yeah there should be a consequence. But if he wants to say the same thing on twitter, facef**k or any other internet forum then it really shouldn't matter. The internet is being taking too seriously by too many people.

If I say some overtly offensive comments I may be trolling, I may be serious, I may be just having a laugh, who knows but I should be allowed to say it, at least online, without repercussions. We have become such a pathetic PC society these days.

So you want to be insulated from the consequences of your actions. And yet you think it is everyone else that has gone soft. Well it's a view, I suppose.

But that’s ultimately what all this anti woke stuff comes back to.

We want to be able to say offensive things and not have to justify them or face the consequences.

The free speech is already there. People want immunity from the consequences of exercising it in ways that are clearly likely to offend others.

Actions have consequences. Either own the actions and face the consequences, or don't do the actions. ITS TEH INTERNETZ is not an excuse. Don't say anything on the internet that you wouldn't say publicly in the pub.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

pileyk said:

Go back on topic for a sec... I think the only way to solve the 'teenage twitter' problem or general internet shitpost issue is for people to grow a skin and not take offence to any words that are said in such a casual medium. ITS TEH INTERNETZ..

Now if he was doing a formal TV or newspaper interview and made these comments, yeah there should be a consequence. But if he wants to say the same thing on twitter, facef**k or any other internet forum then it really shouldn't matter. The internet is being taking too seriously by too many people.

If I say some overtly offensive comments I may be trolling, I may be serious, I may be just having a laugh, who knows but I should be allowed to say it, at least online, without repercussions. We have become such a pathetic PC society these days.

So you want to be insulated from the consequences of your actions. And yet you think it is everyone else that has gone soft. Well it's a view, I suppose.

But that’s ultimately what all this anti woke stuff comes back to.

We want to be able to say offensive things and not have to justify them or face the consequences.

The free speech is already there. People want immunity from the consequences of exercising it in ways that are clearly likely to offend others.

Actions have consequences. Either own the actions and face the consequences, or don't do the actions. ITS TEH INTERNETZ is not an excuse. Don't say anything on the internet that you wouldn't say publicly in the pub.

Glad at least some of us agree.

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Ben6899 said:

Yeh it's a huge miss to say that the atmosphere and mindset of the fans, at all football grounds, are the same.

Highbury/Emirates and Elland Road, as an example comparison, are worlds - no, universes - apart. Absolutely no comparison.

So I have seen the cross section of Chelsea fans pretty much every match day until 2018 as I lived 200m from Stamford Bridge for 6 years.

I've also seen the away fans.

The away fans from pretty much all the big clubs were all as bad as each other.

The only worse fans were the Dynamo Kiev fans who seemed to want to hide down all the residential back streets waving knives about. No idea how that didn't kick off.

The only respectable fans I saw from the away fans were Fulham (unsurprisingly), and Norwich.

But you acknowledge there is a different between being loud, drunken louts and being racists often connected to the NF that Khan was talking about right?

Even back in the 80s when things were really bad (I'm too young to remember the 70s but think it was as bad or worse) there were clubs where the violence was 'Firms' out for a few drinks and a bit of a punch up whilst others were virtually neo-nazis. Chelsea always had a bit of a reputation for the latter.

I have a very clear recollection of being on a bus on the kings road heading home and a bunch of West Ham fans outside were making their eyes slitty and hurling abuse at the Chinese woman next to me who was on the window side. Banging on the window, etc. I swapped seats with her and one of the guys threw his drink at the window and called me a c*nt.

The Chelsea fans had a habit of making hissing sounds on the tube whenever Spurs played. The tube generally was quite tricky, especially mid-week as all the fans mixed with each other and with commuters (like me).

I know a lot of respectable die-hard Chelsea fans and I often wonder why. They must turn a blind eye to it all as it's really in-your-face.

Lived in Putney for a few years and occasionally forgot about a match. Can confirm Fulham Broadway tube station full of fans is really unpleasant and has contributed to my general loathing of all things football. I guess as so little was/is done to kerb this behaviour, trying to ignore it feels like the only alternative sometimes.

Jezyboy

pblakeney said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

pileyk said:

Go back on topic for a sec... I think the only way to solve the 'teenage twitter' problem or general internet shitpost issue is for people to grow a skin and not take offence to any words that are said in such a casual medium. ITS TEH INTERNETZ..

Now if he was doing a formal TV or newspaper interview and made these comments, yeah there should be a consequence. But if he wants to say the same thing on twitter, facef**k or any other internet forum then it really shouldn't matter. The internet is being taking too seriously by too many people.

If I say some overtly offensive comments I may be trolling, I may be serious, I may be just having a laugh, who knows but I should be allowed to say it, at least online, without repercussions. We have become such a pathetic PC society these days.

So you want to be insulated from the consequences of your actions. And yet you think it is everyone else that has gone soft. Well it's a view, I suppose.

But that’s ultimately what all this anti woke stuff comes back to.

We want to be able to say offensive things and not have to justify them or face the consequences.

The free speech is already there. People want immunity from the consequences of exercising it in ways that are clearly likely to offend others.

Actions have consequences. Either own the actions and face the consequences, or don't do the actions. ITS TEH INTERNETZ is not an excuse. Don't say anything on the internet that you wouldn't say publicly in the pub.

I don't think the internet is really comparable to a pub.

For one thing, the conversations around in t'pub are often forgotten the next day.

Perhaps it would be better if people treated twitter conversations like pub bore chat.

pblakeney

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

pileyk said:

Go back on topic for a sec... I think the only way to solve the 'teenage twitter' problem or general internet shitpost issue is for people to grow a skin and not take offence to any words that are said in such a casual medium. ITS TEH INTERNETZ..

Now if he was doing a formal TV or newspaper interview and made these comments, yeah there should be a consequence. But if he wants to say the same thing on twitter, facef**k or any other internet forum then it really shouldn't matter. The internet is being taking too seriously by too many people.

If I say some overtly offensive comments I may be trolling, I may be serious, I may be just having a laugh, who knows but I should be allowed to say it, at least online, without repercussions. We have become such a pathetic PC society these days.

So you want to be insulated from the consequences of your actions. And yet you think it is everyone else that has gone soft. Well it's a view, I suppose.

But that’s ultimately what all this anti woke stuff comes back to.

We want to be able to say offensive things and not have to justify them or face the consequences.

The free speech is already there. People want immunity from the consequences of exercising it in ways that are clearly likely to offend others.

Actions have consequences. Either own the actions and face the consequences, or don't do the actions. ITS TEH INTERNETZ is not an excuse. Don't say anything on the internet that you wouldn't say publicly in the pub.

I don't think the internet is really comparable to a pub.

For one thing, the conversations around in t'pub are often forgotten the next day.

Try having a conversation with a female. 😉

DeVlaeminck

Ben6899 said:

surrey_commuter said:

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.

That's fair enough tbh.

Personally I wouldn't boo - but I don't think action should be taken against those that do.

At the same time it's fair for people to judge those that do boo.

DeVlaeminck

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

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?

This is not applicable to the current England squad if you believe Southgate.

He said in an interview they are united about it - the players shared their experience of racism growing up with each other and the whole team and staff are together in the stance.

But without the boos, is it inherently any different to wearing an armband saying "Kick it out"? I like the fact it's a direct confrontation to their "fans".

Entirely depends what it means to the squad.

I get the impression that the process has been really positive for team building within the squad. It sounds like it was something the whole squad took seriously, sharing stories etc - it is not token to them.

If you look at Rashford's story - these guys haven't had normal upbringings and so whilst white old lads on cycling forums see it as just another gesture, for these guys it can mean everything. I suspect someone like Rashford would much rather the fans cheer for the gesture rather than boo it.

I don't think we are all living in ivory towers Rick. I've spent several days in the last couple of weeks trying to help an 18 year old I know get out of an emergency homeless hostel and she's had an upbringing that would make Rashford's look more than cushy. What is a "normal" upbringing - there isn't really one.

webboo

ballysmate said:

webboo said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

webboo said:

ballysmate 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.

Get convicted of something like theft and you will not get on a course to train as a nurse, doctor or solicitor never mind getting a job with the police. In these cases the convictions are never spent.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

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?

This is not applicable to the current England squad if you believe Southgate.

He said in an interview they are united about it - the players shared their experience of racism growing up with each other and the whole team and staff are together in the stance.

But without the boos, is it inherently any different to wearing an armband saying "Kick it out"? I like the fact it's a direct confrontation to their "fans".

Entirely depends what it means to the squad.

I get the impression that the process has been really positive for team building within the squad. It sounds like it was something the whole squad took seriously, sharing stories etc - it is not token to them.

If you look at Rashford's story - these guys haven't had normal upbringings and so whilst white old lads on cycling forums see it as just another gesture, for these guys it can mean everything. I suspect someone like Rashford would much rather the fans cheer for the gesture rather than boo it.

I don't think we are all living in ivory towers Rick. I've spent several days in the last couple of weeks trying to help an 18 year old I know get out of an emergency homeless hostel and she's had an upbringing that would make Rashford's look more than cushy. What is a "normal" upbringing - there isn't really one.

I meant more we’re unlikely to have experienced many problems with racism against black people.

I guess since I’m white, that’s not really something I would typically experience.

ballysmate

webboo said:

ballysmate said:

webboo said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

webboo said:

ballysmate 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.

Get convicted of something like theft and you will not get on a course to train as a nurse, doctor or solicitor never mind getting a job with the police. In these cases the convictions are never spent.

Pretty sure you could get a job playing cricket though.

ballysmate

Any of you Twatterati posted a comment, taking the wee wee out of a dodgy haircut?
Better do a Jimmy Anderson and get it deleted.

kingstongraham

ballysmate said:

webboo said:

ballysmate said:

webboo said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

webboo said:

ballysmate 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.

Get convicted of something like theft and you will not get on a course to train as a nurse, doctor or solicitor never mind getting a job with the police. In these cases the convictions are never spent.

Pretty sure you could get a job playing cricket though.

You can go to prison for match fixing in cricket at aged 19 and be back playing cricket 5 years later.

ballysmate

kingstongraham said:

ballysmate said:

webboo said:

ballysmate said:

webboo said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

webboo said:

ballysmate 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.

Get convicted of something like theft and you will not get on a course to train as a nurse, doctor or solicitor never mind getting a job with the police. In these cases the convictions are never spent.

Pretty sure you could get a job playing cricket though.

You can go to prison for match fixing in cricket at aged 19 and be back playing cricket 5 years later.

But post a dodgy tweet 10 years ago and get suspended.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

ballysmate said:

webboo said:

ballysmate said:

webboo said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

webboo said:

ballysmate 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.

Get convicted of something like theft and you will not get on a course to train as a nurse, doctor or solicitor never mind getting a job with the police. In these cases the convictions are never spent.

Pretty sure you could get a job playing cricket though.

You can go to prison for match fixing in cricket at aged 19 and be back playing cricket 5 years later.

But post a dodgy tweet 10 years ago and get suspended.

A dodgy tweet *that’s left up*

You can always delete them.

ballysmate

So, his sin now isn't what he tweeted but that he didn't delete it?

MattFalle

Ffs - he's only been suspended.

not sacked from his ECB contract

not fined

not put in prison

just been told he can't play for a couple of weeks but still allowed to collect his ECB salary.

pblakeney

The equivalent of being sent to your room to consider your actions.

Spending all that time on the X-Box...

blazing_saddles

Hohoho, seems the floodgates have opened.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57407788

On Tuesday, Wisden said it uncovered a tweet containing a racist term but had "obscured" the identity of the player, who was under 16 when it was posted.
It then said it was looking into reports a second England player posted historical "offensive material", before tweets by Eoin Morgan, James Anderson and Jos Buttler were highlighted.

None bigger in the cricket world. I expect more will come to light , which is a bit of a headache for the ECB.
I bet the twitter bloodhounds are currently sniffing through the ancient tweets of many a high profile UK athlete.

ballysmate

MattFalle said:

Ffs - he's only been suspended.

not sacked from his ECB contract

not fined

not put in prison

just been told he can't play for a couple of weeks but still allowed to collect his ECB salary.

Don't think he would be centrally contracted, nor incrementally contacted come to that as this is his first test.
So I assume he would be paid on a ad hoc basis with a match fee.
So it has probably cost him money.

ballysmate

blazing_saddles said:

Hohoho, seems the floodgates have opened.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57407788

On Tuesday, Wisden said it uncovered a tweet containing a racist term but had "obscured" the identity of the player, who was under 16 when it was posted.
It then said it was looking into reports a second England player posted historical "offensive material", before tweets by Eoin Morgan, James Anderson and Jos Buttler were highlighted.

None bigger in the cricket world. I expect more will come to light , which is a bit of a headache for the ECB.
I bet the twitter bloodhounds are currently sniffing through the ancient tweets of many a high profile UK athlete.

Here's Morgan and Butler's exchange.
Warning. Those easily offended, please read no further.

England stars Eoin Morgan and Jos Buttler have also been dragged into English cricket's social media storm today as further unsavoury historic tweets went viral.

Screen grabs of Buttler saying 'Well done on double 100 much beauty batting you are on fire sir,' to Alex Hales from August 2017, and messages from Morgan and Brendon McCullum to Buttler the following May, the former commenting 'Sir you're my favourite batsman' and McCullum adding 'Sir, you play very good Opening batting,' also came to light.

It is understood those tweets have been deleted in recent days, although it is uncertain when Anderson's was removed.

https://nation.lk/online/james-anderson-deletes-2010-tweet-telling-stuart-broad-he-has-a-lesbian-haircut-90693.html

orraloon

Yawn. What further omnishambles has Spaffer's Gang fallen into that needs all this deflection?