*Official* - Road to India in England 2011

[zaremba]

You seem to take it personally when people attack the BCCI. You shouldn't. It's not an attack on the Indian team or fans.

This.

 

[Cevno]

Which was given to us by FIFA as a thank you for the Great Britain vs Rest of the World match played at Hampden in 1949 - the gate receipts of which saved FIFA from bankruptcy.

Which kind of emphasises the point i was making.

 

[Jacknife]

Well now you know how the rest of us feel anytime you post. If I wanna rant, I'll rant.

Totally agree.

 

[Jacknife]

indeed, and prosper utseya and chigumbura had exactly what to do with the farmer displacements in zimbabwe? Or with other domestic issues in zim which seemingly uk is taking an exception to?

how anyone's going to benefit by taking away their membership? basically english govt. through ecb wanted to use cricket as a tool to score a political point, which other members voted down.

if you are talking corruption pervading their board as a reason for calling them to be kept away, the likes of india and pakistan would have to be suspended first.

When you are talking about a cricket board with direct links to ZANU-PF and Mugabe, it isn't just about corruption though is it. We are talking about a group who have been involved in countless Human rights crimes over the years and is a corrupt the core government, that uses intimidation and torture to rule. So it's insincere to compare this to India or Pakistan.

 

[Shri]

Ishant to do better than Broad with the ball in this series. Calling it before anyone else.

 

[Bun]

When you are talking about a cricket board with direct links to ZANU-PF and Mugabe, it isn't just about corruption though is it. We are talking about a group who have been involved in countless Human rights crimes over the years and is a corrupt the core government, that uses intimidation and torture to rule. So it's insincere to compare this to India or Pakistan.

mugabe afaik, is the recognised ruler of zimbabwe. he may be a despot, tyrant and all that. having brought up in an environment where we see politicians meddle with cricket boards working every now and then, I don't see any odds in zcb having links to the ruling party.

talking of human rights abuse, china has been accused of that, I didnt see english govt. refusing to send their teams to olympics 08 or that they imposed any sanctions on them, or pressed for their exclusion from olympics.

there is nothing but political agenda driving the propaganda against zimbabwe, and while it may have legit reasons, cricket shouldn't be used as a tool to further that. the cricketers have nothing to do with how mugabe is treating his citizens, and that's purely their domestic matter as well. you see, perceptions vary across people to people, some might feel it's ok to interfere in domestic affairs of others, if they perceive some injustice is meted out, others recognise the sovereignity of the other party, raise a voice or two, but ultimately take no direct action.

That's to do with cultural differences and you ought to understand and tolerate it. not everyone share the perception of yours, no matter what your conviction in this regard.

 

[Hasimir Fenring]

Not all of them. Some of them will be British citizens.

Given the historic employment rights Irish citizens have had, as well as EU employment law, wouldn't the overseas player thing be relatively easy to challenge in the courts?

It should be. EU citizens have the right to work anywhere in the EU. I think football's quota system was over-ruled by EU law, so cricket would be in the same boat. Non-EU players though, are different, which is partly why we see so many of them carrying EU passports.

 

[Jacknife]

mugabe afaik, is the recognised ruler of zimbabwe. he may be a despot, tyrant and all that. having brought up in an environment where we see politicians meddle with cricket boards working every now and then, I don't see any odds in zcb having links to the ruling party.

talking of human rights abuse, china has been accused of that, I didnt see english govt. refusing to send their teams to olympics 08 or that they imposed any sanctions on them, or pressed for their exclusion from olympics.

there is nothing but political agenda driving the propaganda against zimbabwe, and while it may have legit reasons, cricket shouldn't be used as a tool to further that. the cricketers have nothing to do with how mugabe is treating his citizens, and that's purely their domestic matter as well. you see, perceptions vary across people to people, some might feel it's ok to interfere in domestic affairs of others, if they perceive some injustice is meted out, others recognise the sovereignity of the other party, raise a voice or two, but ultimately take no direct action.

That's to do with cultural differences and you ought to understand and tolerate it. not everyone share the perception of yours, no matter what your conviction in this regard.

Who the **** are you, to tell me, I ought to understand and tolerate the bull**** that's happened in Zimbabwe because it's cultural differences. My mum is Zimbabwean, so it makes me half Zimbabwean and that gives me the right. I'm leaving this here before I say something.

 

[Bun]

Who the **** are you, to tell me, I ought to understand and tolerate the bull**** that's happened in Zimbabwe because it's cultural differences. My mum is Zimbabwean, so it makes me half Zimbabwean and that gives me the right. I'm leaving this here before I say something.

atleast you could.ve read it properly before bursting into flames.

what I meant is to tolerate other icc members' view on not mixing cricket with politics, and not tolerate mugabe regime as such. there is a not ao subtle diff between the two.

to give u a really watered down parallel, one is like taking action against a drunkard who comes home and beats up his kids and wife, and another is to expel his kid from school because his father.s wrongdoings.

 

[Top_Cat]

In theory, there's a case for not banning them, sure. The big problem is that, in practice, there's a great example across the border of where a boycott actually worked. Don't think it's controversial to say that taking away South Africa's ability to play sport on the international stage took away from them the primary thing which made them world-class as a country. Take that away and you take away a nation's pride in those achievements. The people did what was necessary to get it back which was to effect a change from the international obscenity that was Apartheid.

And, I might add, Mugabe's crimes are definitely not limited to what he's done within Zimbabwe's borders. He's a despot like any other.

 

[GIMH]

Top_**** reminds us all why he should post more.

Makes me a bit gay just reading his posts tttt

 

[honestbharani]

In theory, there's a case for not banning them, sure. The big problem is that, in practice, there's a great example across the border of where a boycott actually worked. Don't think it's controversial to say that taking away South Africa's ability to play sport on the international stage took away from them the primary thing which made them world-class as a country. Take that away and you take away a nation's pride in those achievements. The people did what was necessary to get it back which was to effect a change from the international obscenity that was Apartheid.

And, I might add, Mugabe's crimes are definitely not limited to what he's done within Zimbabwe's borders. He's a despot like any other.

I, for one, don't think it was just sporting alienation that caused them to ditch apartheid at all.. I think the people just realized they were wrong from mounting international pressure, press stuff and everything.. And of course, the protests by people like Mandela.. I really don't think that after 20 years or so of sporting wilderness, they suddenly woke up and realized being allowed to play sport was important to them.


Of course, I am not denying keeping them out of sports sent a messsage but honestly, those sort of political calls I am not completely which is right or wrong, either way...

 

[Top_Cat]

I, for one, don't think it was just sporting alienation that caused them to ditch apartheid at all.. I think the people just realized they were wrong from mounting international pressure, press stuff and everything.. And of course, the protests by people like Mandela.. I really don't think that after 20 years or so of sporting wilderness, they suddenly woke up and realized being allowed to play sport was important to them.

By the same token, they didn't just wake up after 50 years and decide Apatheid was wrong because Thatcher and Reagan said it was bad (especially since their respective countries remained trading partners for the duration of the ban). To deny that sport and specifically cricket had a powerful indirect effect on pressuring the government to rid themselves of Apartheid is to ignore the historical record and the efforts of blokes like Ali Bacher. Yes the law-makers were the ones to directly dismantle the legal framework of Apartheid but considering most countries kept trading economcally with SA, as I said it's pretty uncontroversial that the most intense pressure came via sporting boycotts and associated press.

Internal pressure wasn't enough, Mandela was staunchly anti-violence before realising many years of peaceful protesting didn't do the job. He then formed and ran the armed wing of the ANC. Even then, that wasn't enough because he was pinched and locked-up for life. The sporting ban didn't cause the abolition of Apartheid but did much to precipitate it. The SA government needed to know just how much the entire world disapproved of the Apartheid movement and prior to certain incidents, they could play it off as the blecks just acting up because it was in their nature, a rebellion to be put down. Before those incidents, the South African people had little realisation of the effect of the government policies they were living under had, the level of disapproval and how much support they'd have if they started voting differently not to mention how much they stood to lose if they didn't.

What do you think got more press internationally, Nelson Mandela being imprisoned in 1964 or Basil D'Oliviera's exclusion from the English touring party a few years later? How about the influence of Bradman as head of the ABC deciding that no Australian team would play against South Africa whilst they selected their team with racist policies? The press the the All-Blacks team which were 'permitted' to tour with Maori players got?

 

[Bun]

In theory, there's a case for not banning them, sure. The big problem is that, in practice, there's a great example across the border of where a boycott actually worked. Don't think it's controversial to say that taking away South Africa's ability to play sport on the international stage took away from them the primary thing which made them world-class as a country. Take that away and you take away a nation's pride in those achievements. The people did what was necessary to get it back which was to effect a change from the international obscenity that was Apartheid.

And, I might add, Mugabe's crimes are definitely not limited to what he's done within Zimbabwe's borders. He's a despot like any other.

while by no means I am justifying what mugabe is doing, fair to say, I am not sure apartheid in SA can be quite compared to what's happeneing in zimbabwe. afaik, guys like price, taylor, etc all are zim regulars and they still play.

further, where do we stop judging? there is enough speculation already abt the motives behind invasion of iraq by the combined forces. Or take example of China, where atrocities apparently take place against it''s citizens as well as foreigners, yet england didn't shy away from sending it's squad to the beijing olympics. I think modern Zimbabwe is closer to say a china than apartheid SA.

so selective application of such boycotts, where common consensus is no doubt lacking, isn't a solution.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not going to derail the thread any further but suffice it to say, a fully functional government you can negotiate with and the legal apparatus to make change is different to dealing with a despotic ruler of an impoverished nation with decades of form for such minor charges as 'genocide'.

EDIT: @ GIMH,

 

[Howe_zat]

It amuses me that we have at least four CC threads discussing England v India and this one isn't.

 

[centurymaker]

would india refuse to take the urds for the aus-ind series?? hmmm

 

[Fusion]

As some of you may have noticed, there are some trolls (or possibly just a persistent troll) signing up to bait England/Indian supporters. Would appreciate it if you would report them when they post something inflammatory so we can take action against them right away.

 

[vcs]

Shame the Nasser Hussain thread was closed, was looking forward to bumping it after the Test series.

 

[GIMH]

Can't wait to wipe that smug grin off your face

(Not that I can see your face )