For someone who likes to present himself as an intellectual wordsmith, you do struggle with quite simple ideas sometimes.

You can name someone, as an example of something collective, without accusing them individually of anything. It's really not complicated. It's the collective that's accused!

Then you deviate, yet again, and use another tedious, very distasteful, and completely unacceptable, ad hominem.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but the only thing I have been diagnosed with is prostate cancer. Of course, as well as being a failed teacher, you are a physician who is so skilful they can make a diagnosis over the web.

The ONLY place I ever get accused of dishonesty is here, by you and the tiny group who hang on your coat-tails. Those with any kind of objectivity, even those who disagree with me politically, know why that is.

It isn’t because The Times has subscriber only content.
Storm in a teacup or not Michael Vaughan was still suspended from his job following this lack of media savvy.

Of course, it is. It is in my own sport. It's part of the fun where the teasing is relentless.

However, there have to be boundaries. In my own sport plenty of people have disabilities, but we would never tease them about them. Many games are mixed sex and whilst sexist joking abounds it is always within unwritten, but well understood, limits.

Racist comments, even when spoken as light-hearted intended banter, have to be outside the boundaries. Perhaps 50 years ago they wouldn't have been, but things have moved on, and they are no longer.

Yorkshire cricket clearly haven't yet moved on and remain with their feet of clay stuck in the past.

As, it seems, are you and several others posting here.

Paedo? She was a 16 year old, who said she was 17. Very young and certainly not something to be encouraged, as they are still legally a child, but beyond the age of consent.

As he wasn't seeking any credibility over his own behaviour, there was nothing to lose. He identified a problem, which has been accepted exists and will now be dealt with.

He has succeeded in that, so whatever people think of him now is rather meaningless.

It seems to me that some people are desperately seeking to establish some kind of false equivalence, presumably so they can discredit Rafiq and along with that the problem he has highlighted.

Why would they do that? Perhaps because they don't like the cultural problem being highlighted like this, and the promises being made to fix it.

Why wouldn't they like this? Perhaps because they share the attitudes which lie at the base of the culture. Judging on some of the comments found in the tread, that's it only building site banter, etc etc, there is plenty of evidence that is probably true.

Of course, it is. It is in my own sport. It's part of the fun where the teasing is relentless.

However, there have to be boundaries. In my own sport plenty of people have disabilities, but we would never tease them about them. Many games are mixed sex and whilst sexist joking abounds it is always within unwritten, but well understood, limits.

Racist comments, even when spoken as light-hearted intended banter, have to be outside the boundaries. Perhaps 50 years ago they wouldn't have been, but things have moved on, and they are no longer.

Yorkshire cricket clearly haven't yet moved on and remain with their feet of clay stuck in the past.

As, it seems, are you and several others posting here.

That might be true if he was still working for Yorkshire and they were undertaking an internal investigation.