four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/343215.html
I hate this side of cricket.
I hate this side of cricket.
I don't know what to think really. In a way I think they should stick with it, in a way I don't.Something of a lose-lose situation indeed. Ah well, this govornment hasn't got that much left to lose any more, I hope they make the climbdown.
Kinda wish this Twenty20 championship thingy had been held over here last year after all.
Agreed. England getting banned would show how ridiculous this whole thing is.Don't think the government should back down. The whole thing is farcical tbh
It doesn't. Everyone knows there is nothing to be gained from fighting China. To expect someone to do so is plain ignorant.Agree with the point regarding China. The inconsistency prevents England emerging from this with complete credit.
And the international isolation is really hurting Mugabe, is it? He is sitting on his fat ass with enough food while the country starves.It doesn't. Everyone knows there is nothing to be gained from fighting China. To expect someone to do so is plain ignorant.
Lots of the cheaper NBI to LHR Packages stop over in Dubai or in Qatar, and I guess the case is the same with JHB.for most representatives, it's easier to fly to DBX than to LHR [heahrow] ..... for .e.g. DXB is like 3 hrs from BOM, while LHR is some 8 hrs. similar flying times for others in the sub-continent .... those flying from OZ n NZ would appreciate a meeting in Dubai too, if flying time is a priority .... may be it's the same case for those in Africa
There's no such thing as an ethical foreign policy. No country in history has ever attempted to take consistent moral stances about things happening in other nations. What you describe is normal foreign policy practice and it is a dman sight better than the alternatives. Nations take moral stances when they either have something to be gained or are in a position to do what is considered to be the morally right thing without repercussions. Can you imagine what would happen if Britain or any other nation antagonised China too much? there is very little the international community can do about the situation there. It is up to the Chinese to sort it out for themselves. The same is true of the growth of fundamentalist Islam- Muslims must solve the problem themselves. In the case of Zimbabwe, it is clearly possible to take action in order to secure the future of that country. They don't have any WMDs pointed at Jo'burg or at Washington. The army is a joke. They have nothing nations can't get anywhere else. They don't have a billion consumers.And the international isolation is really hurting Mugabe, is it? He is sitting on his fat ass with enough food while the country starves.
The ICC should be ashamed here, but I love how England/India/Australia (and every other country) love to take a high and mighty moral stand against weak countries. If you're going to take a moral stand, I'd completely applaud and respect you if you took it consistently. Expel and ban Chinese diplomats with whats been happening in Tibet, but obviously we all know that will never ever happen. Zimbabwe is weak, so its very easy to show off your moral compass to the world and use them as an example.
In any case, ICC can't do anything because it is forbidden to do anything by its very rules. They need to change the rules to say in case of exceptional internal circumstances, the board reserves the right to permanently strip Test status from a member board. It's unseemly to allow Chingoka to fly around the world talking great things about Zimbabwe cricket while his country's cricket, and the country itself is in shambles.
I don't disagree that no one has ever taken a consistent stand. That doesn't mean you shouldn't call people out on it.There's no such thing as an ethical foreign policy. No country in history has ever attempted to take consistent moral stances about things happening in other nations. What you describe is normal foreign policy practice and it is a dman sight better than the alternatives. Nations take moral stances when they either have something to be gained or are in a position to do what is considered to be the morally right thing without repercussions. Can you imagine what would happen if Britain or any other nation antagonised China too much? there is very little the international community can do about the situation there. It is up to the Chinese to sort it out for themselves. The same is true of the growth of fundamentalist Islam- Muslims must solve the problem themselves. In the case of Zimbabwe, it is clearly possible to take action in order to secure the future of that country. They don't have any WMDs pointed at Jo'burg or at Washington. The army is a joke. They have nothing nations can't get anywhere else. They don't have a billion consumers.
Anyhow I have said before that if anything the British government banning the tour would put the ICC in a tougher position than the ECB. The ICC could not punish the ECB by taking the 2020WC away, for a decision taken by the British government, without causing international uproar. It would be grotesquely unfair on cricket in Britain to do that. I don't think that the governments of the other cricketing nations (leave aside their cricketing bureaucrats) would stand for it. The ICC would become a true international laughing stock (though it is pretty much already), and worse, would be seen to be supportingthe interests of a dictator ahead of those of a democrqacy, and the interests of a corrupt and malfunctioning board over a properly run one. So the British government should ban the tour and force the ICC's hand, make them put up or shut up. That's what I would do if I was in the FCO anyway.
Pretty much was thinking what Chubb wrote TBH.There's no such thing as an ethical foreign policy. No country in history has ever attempted to take consistent moral stances about things happening in other nations. What you describe is normal foreign policy practice and it is a dman sight better than the alternatives. Nations take moral stances when they either have something to be gained or are in a position to do what is considered to be the morally right thing without repercussions. Can you imagine what would happen if Britain or any other nation antagonised China too much? there is very little the international community can do about the situation there. It is up to the Chinese to sort it out for themselves. The same is true of the growth of fundamentalist Islam- Muslims must solve the problem themselves. In the case of Zimbabwe, it is clearly possible to take action in order to secure the future of that country. They don't have any WMDs pointed at Jo'burg or at Washington. The army is a joke. They have nothing nations can't get anywhere else. They don't have a billion consumers.And the international isolation is really hurting Mugabe, is it? He is sitting on his fat ass with enough food while the country starves.
The ICC should be ashamed here, but I love how England/India/Australia (and every other country) love to take a high and mighty moral stand against weak countries. If you're going to take a moral stand, I'd completely applaud and respect you if you took it consistently. Expel and ban Chinese diplomats with whats been happening in Tibet, but obviously we all know that will never ever happen. Zimbabwe is weak, so its very easy to show off your moral compass to the world and use them as an example.
In any case, ICC can't do anything because it is forbidden to do anything by its very rules. They need to change the rules to say in case of exceptional internal circumstances, the board reserves the right to permanently strip Test status from a member board. It's unseemly to allow Chingoka to fly around the world talking great things about Zimbabwe cricket while his country's cricket, and the country itself is in shambles.
Anyhow I have said before that if anything the British government banning the tour would put the ICC in a tougher position than the ECB. The ICC could not punish the ECB by taking the 2020WC away, for a decision taken by the British government, without causing international uproar. It would be grotesquely unfair on cricket in Britain to do that. I don't think that the governments of the other cricketing nations (leave aside their cricketing bureaucrats) would stand for it. The ICC would become a true international laughing stock (though it is pretty much already), and worse, would be seen to be supportingthe interests of a dictator ahead of those of a democrqacy, and the interests of a corrupt and malfunctioning board over a properly run one. So the British government should ban the tour and force the ICC's hand, make them put up or shut up. That's what I would do if I was in the FCO anyway.