The grass in my garden is growing ... I image the grass in the specially prepared garden of ECB Home for Lost Causes and Nasty Things We Do Not Want Aired in Public is already about 12 inches high and will be even longer by the time all this gets done.Well tbsteve , strangely enough my wife and I were talking exactly about the Vaughn incident in the car coming back from Trent Bridge and we're in basic agreement with what you are saying . A message spoken with one meaning can be interpreted or' heard' with a completely different meaning. If the police ask 3 witnesses to describe an incident (years later as in Rafiq's case) they would probably get three different versions unless there's collusion . Would they remember what they actually saw/heard or what having spoken to another witness ,what they thought they saw/heard . I think there's also the example about an Army planning an attack . The message radiod was ' Send reinforcements we're going to advance' but it was 'heard' as ' Send 3 and Fourpence , we're going to a dance'
Now I've never spoken to Vaughn and he's not everyone's cup of tea . However I can imagine him making a a friendly, humorous larger than life comment to the group being' I'm the ex-England captain' but not being racist. One or more of them might have heard it (One certainly didn't , Shazad I think) Another might have said , did you hear what he said? No and repeated it (or what he thought he heard) etc etc .Vaughn's adamant he said nothing racist .Why would I not believe him?
As far as rough justice is concerned , it works two ways (possibly the wrong way against Vaughn as it's difficult to prove what you didn't say) . In the case of Rafiq I am being somewhat ironic as it's not a level playing field , especially when you are allowed (invited?) to give evidence under Parliamentary Privilege , you can say whatever you like without any outside cross-examination . And nobody can sue you for defamation. In essence it's a bit of a Kangaroo court but a legal one . Boris Johnson was invited to repeat his 'Jimmy Saville allegations against Starmer out side Parliament but has declined .
Although I'm not a lawyer it's never stopped me giving legal advice. the rough justice is that I don't think the ECB (or it's disciplinary committee) has the power to take action against a fish and chip shop owner in Barnsley concerning historical racist tweets for which he has made a very public apology and has been perceived to be remorseful. Nor do they have power to take action for his £000 of gambling debts that were paid off( but not by him) , nor for drinking late into the night in a Scarborough Pub when he was playing for Yorkshire the next day , nor for trying to ply an underage girl with alcohol on a plane , nor tweets to the same girl. Nor for him being a bit of a porker at times ( it's not bullying to tell a professional athlete that they should lose some weight)
The Parliamentary Select Committee and the ECB have made up their minds about Rafiq . They're now going after YCCC and several unnamed individuals against whom there is already a perception of wrongdoings Mr Rafiq has been proved to have suffered to their satisfaction.
Now they're going to give everyone a fair trial and then hang them (out to dry) The ECB will of course be protecting itself against accusations of inaction.