The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Recently the English cricket team faced fierce controversy from both the ICC and the English people concerning their one-day international tour of Zimbabwe. It was of strong belief that the team should refuse to play in protest of the country’s extreme dictator, Robert Mugabe.
Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe with open discrimination to white people, torturing and killing them as well as forcing them to leave the country. He has done the same with those who oppose him and redistributes their land among his supporters, which then becomes unused and wasted. As such, in his period of power, he has destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy and ruled not for the people, but himself – what wealth there is being distributed among him and his henchmen.
It is therefore perfectly understandable that the public questioned whether or not the team should have gone at all. How is it that England can play cricket while innocent people are being tortured in the same country? Especially considering that each match they play will grant money to the tyrant Mugabe. It would not just be overlooking the terrible acts being carried out in Zimbabwe, it would be practically condoning it.
The British government have not made matters any better, presenting no solution to the problem and assuming a submissive laissez-faire stance, relying on the players to decide whether or not they should go. Is it fair to put this amount of responsibility on our national team? The English side want to play cricket, not be burderned with the pressures of complicated political debate.
To make matters worse, the ICC (within whom England as a nation is woefully under-represented) stated that if the English team fail to honour their commitments and play in Zimbabwe, they will face penalties and fines in the region of millions of pounds. Unfortunately it was most likely this and not the moralistic obligations of a team heralding from a country that promotes peace and freedom as human rights that made up the minds of the majority of the players.
Should England have gone? No. We cannot overlook and certainly cannot appear to publically condone such violations of human rights in England itself or the rest of the world. Can the team be forgiven? Definitely. The position they were put in was as unfair as it was unnecessary – there should not have been such irrational pressures from the ICC and the government should have taken control. The problem now is whatever immediate and long term repercussions this visit will have. What, for example, would happen if the team were forced to meet Robert Mugabe? Can we be sure of their safety? Unfortunately it has come to the point where only time will tell.
Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe with open discrimination to white people, torturing and killing them as well as forcing them to leave the country. He has done the same with those who oppose him and redistributes their land among his supporters, which then becomes unused and wasted. As such, in his period of power, he has destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy and ruled not for the people, but himself – what wealth there is being distributed among him and his henchmen.
It is therefore perfectly understandable that the public questioned whether or not the team should have gone at all. How is it that England can play cricket while innocent people are being tortured in the same country? Especially considering that each match they play will grant money to the tyrant Mugabe. It would not just be overlooking the terrible acts being carried out in Zimbabwe, it would be practically condoning it.
The British government have not made matters any better, presenting no solution to the problem and assuming a submissive laissez-faire stance, relying on the players to decide whether or not they should go. Is it fair to put this amount of responsibility on our national team? The English side want to play cricket, not be burderned with the pressures of complicated political debate.
To make matters worse, the ICC (within whom England as a nation is woefully under-represented) stated that if the English team fail to honour their commitments and play in Zimbabwe, they will face penalties and fines in the region of millions of pounds. Unfortunately it was most likely this and not the moralistic obligations of a team heralding from a country that promotes peace and freedom as human rights that made up the minds of the majority of the players.
Should England have gone? No. We cannot overlook and certainly cannot appear to publically condone such violations of human rights in England itself or the rest of the world. Can the team be forgiven? Definitely. The position they were put in was as unfair as it was unnecessary – there should not have been such irrational pressures from the ICC and the government should have taken control. The problem now is whatever immediate and long term repercussions this visit will have. What, for example, would happen if the team were forced to meet Robert Mugabe? Can we be sure of their safety? Unfortunately it has come to the point where only time will tell.
Page:
Mugabe's probably right anyway.
He wants everyone to be gangster and ghetto mofo homies.
We're all just "stupid white guys" we're nothing compared to them.
Go the mofo homies!!
Yeah.
[What was that about? I don't evne know myself]
He wants everyone to be gangster and ghetto mofo homies.
We're all just "stupid white guys" we're nothing compared to them.
Go the mofo homies!!
Yeah.
[What was that about? I don't evne know myself]
Father Crilly wrote:
> And then someone will replace him.
Yes, but we won't have to moan at Mugabe anymore.
> And then someone will replace him.
Yes, but we won't have to moan at Mugabe anymore.
Mav wrote:
> That's a fairly slanted article.
>
> This is digressing into complicated issues that are besides the
> point. What matters is that Britain is a country that believes in
> human rights and promotes such liberty for its people. It used to be
> another way but now things are different.
Things are different are they? And what about the war with Iraq, The way the Iraqis are detained and interogated for days on end made to kneel in the same spot without sleep, no thats not abusing human rights is it! I think you need to open your eyes a bit more and smell the bacon. Your problem is you think because it's the UK we don't do bad no more, well it's attitudes like yours why the UK is hated around the world.
> That's a fairly slanted article.
>
> This is digressing into complicated issues that are besides the
> point. What matters is that Britain is a country that believes in
> human rights and promotes such liberty for its people. It used to be
> another way but now things are different.
Things are different are they? And what about the war with Iraq, The way the Iraqis are detained and interogated for days on end made to kneel in the same spot without sleep, no thats not abusing human rights is it! I think you need to open your eyes a bit more and smell the bacon. Your problem is you think because it's the UK we don't do bad no more, well it's attitudes like yours why the UK is hated around the world.
kevstar wrote:
> Do you want more reasons or are you just oblivious to whats going on?
> To say we don't exploit poor country's is rubbish.
That's a fairly slanted article.
This is digressing into complicated issues that are besides the point. What matters is that Britain is a country that believes in human rights and promotes such liberty for its people. It used to be another way but now things are different.
> Do you want more reasons or are you just oblivious to whats going on?
> To say we don't exploit poor country's is rubbish.
That's a fairly slanted article.
This is digressing into complicated issues that are besides the point. What matters is that Britain is a country that believes in human rights and promotes such liberty for its people. It used to be another way but now things are different.
And then someone will replace him.
Mugabe's like 90 anyway.
He'll die soon.
He'll die soon.
Mav wrote:
> Britain is a democratic, multi-ethnic society where people have the
> right to freedom of speech without facing persecution. Large
> corporations may exploit people in poorer countries, this much is
> known by most people, but they have no affiliation with the
> government and there are also companies like fair trade who do the
> opposite.
>
> It's unfair to say we haven't learnt a lesson just because there is
> controversy concerning the working conditions and terms some
> companies give to their employees in poorer countries.
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C4451189-111488%2C00.html[/URL]
Do you want more reasons or are you just oblivious to whats going on? To say we don't exploit poor country's is rubbish. I'm just glad they stood up for themselves and said no to a deal which would have exploited them even more. Just remember when the poor country's get there subsidies, it's normally under the conditions that the rebuilding of buildings go to American companies e.g. If a poor country found oil, America (or another rich country) would subsidize that country the means to dig the oil on condition that it's american companies who get the contracts for the work.
> Britain is a democratic, multi-ethnic society where people have the
> right to freedom of speech without facing persecution. Large
> corporations may exploit people in poorer countries, this much is
> known by most people, but they have no affiliation with the
> government and there are also companies like fair trade who do the
> opposite.
>
> It's unfair to say we haven't learnt a lesson just because there is
> controversy concerning the working conditions and terms some
> companies give to their employees in poorer countries.
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C4451189-111488%2C00.html[/URL]
Do you want more reasons or are you just oblivious to whats going on? To say we don't exploit poor country's is rubbish. I'm just glad they stood up for themselves and said no to a deal which would have exploited them even more. Just remember when the poor country's get there subsidies, it's normally under the conditions that the rebuilding of buildings go to American companies e.g. If a poor country found oil, America (or another rich country) would subsidize that country the means to dig the oil on condition that it's american companies who get the contracts for the work.
Britain is a democratic, multi-ethnic society where people have the right to freedom of speech without facing persecution. Large corporations may exploit people in poorer countries, this much is known by most people, but they have no affiliation with the government and there are also companies like fair trade who do the opposite.
It's unfair to say we haven't learnt a lesson just because there is controversy concerning the working conditions and terms some companies give to their employees in poorer countries.
It's unfair to say we haven't learnt a lesson just because there is controversy concerning the working conditions and terms some companies give to their employees in poorer countries.
Mav wrote:
>
> Well back when it was under British rule (and actually called
> Rhodesia), there were farms and lands owned by white people but
> worked on and slaved over by the blacks. Slowly, however, as time
> progressed and human rights were realised, the British gave the land
> to the natural inhabitants and the country was renamed Zimbabwe.
> Mugabe (I think) was then elected, and he began a vendetta against
> the whites, stealing land and weatlth, and torturing and killing
> these people. This eventually branched out to discrimination against
> all who oppose him, and today half the expected population are not
> alive and the cities are plagued by chronic food shortages.
>
> Going back, there isn't an excuse for such exploitation on our part,
> but today we live in more civilised times because we have learnt from
> our mistakes. Mugabe continues to ignore that, yet we acknoledge our
> past injustices against the Zimbabwean people - I therefore wouldn't
> say there's any justification for Mugabe's actions or hypocrisy on
> our part to be found in that. Yes, there's a lesson, but we've learnt
> it. He hasn't.
Rubbish: What do you think globalization is doing? It's exploiting every poor country, learn't from our mistakes I think not. Rich Country's to greedy to pay the minimum wage exploit poorer country's by giving them work for much less.
>
> Well back when it was under British rule (and actually called
> Rhodesia), there were farms and lands owned by white people but
> worked on and slaved over by the blacks. Slowly, however, as time
> progressed and human rights were realised, the British gave the land
> to the natural inhabitants and the country was renamed Zimbabwe.
> Mugabe (I think) was then elected, and he began a vendetta against
> the whites, stealing land and weatlth, and torturing and killing
> these people. This eventually branched out to discrimination against
> all who oppose him, and today half the expected population are not
> alive and the cities are plagued by chronic food shortages.
>
> Going back, there isn't an excuse for such exploitation on our part,
> but today we live in more civilised times because we have learnt from
> our mistakes. Mugabe continues to ignore that, yet we acknoledge our
> past injustices against the Zimbabwean people - I therefore wouldn't
> say there's any justification for Mugabe's actions or hypocrisy on
> our part to be found in that. Yes, there's a lesson, but we've learnt
> it. He hasn't.
Rubbish: What do you think globalization is doing? It's exploiting every poor country, learn't from our mistakes I think not. Rich Country's to greedy to pay the minimum wage exploit poorer country's by giving them work for much less.
kevstar wrote:
> We were doing it to them all thoose years ago and it's only now there
> paying for it, a lesson for us all, history never forgets no matter
> how long it is when deaths are involved.
Well back when it was under British rule (and actually called Rhodesia), there were farms and lands owned by white people but worked on and slaved over by the blacks. Slowly, however, as time progressed and human rights were realised, the British gave the land to the natural inhabitants and the country was renamed Zimbabwe. Mugabe (I think) was then elected, and he began a vendetta against the whites, stealing land and weatlth, and torturing and killing these people. This eventually branched out to discrimination against all who oppose him, and today half the expected population are not alive and the cities are plagued by chronic food shortages.
Going back, there isn't an excuse for such exploitation on our part, but today we live in more civilised times because we have learnt from our mistakes. Mugabe continues to ignore that, yet we acknowledge our past injustices against the Zimbabwean people - I therefore wouldn't say there's any justification for Mugabe's actions or hypocrisy on our part to be found in that. Yes, there's a lesson, but we've learnt it. He hasn't.
> We were doing it to them all thoose years ago and it's only now there
> paying for it, a lesson for us all, history never forgets no matter
> how long it is when deaths are involved.
Well back when it was under British rule (and actually called Rhodesia), there were farms and lands owned by white people but worked on and slaved over by the blacks. Slowly, however, as time progressed and human rights were realised, the British gave the land to the natural inhabitants and the country was renamed Zimbabwe. Mugabe (I think) was then elected, and he began a vendetta against the whites, stealing land and weatlth, and torturing and killing these people. This eventually branched out to discrimination against all who oppose him, and today half the expected population are not alive and the cities are plagued by chronic food shortages.
Going back, there isn't an excuse for such exploitation on our part, but today we live in more civilised times because we have learnt from our mistakes. Mugabe continues to ignore that, yet we acknowledge our past injustices against the Zimbabwean people - I therefore wouldn't say there's any justification for Mugabe's actions or hypocrisy on our part to be found in that. Yes, there's a lesson, but we've learnt it. He hasn't.
Page: