Michael Vaughan Axed - Cancel Culture Gone Beyond a Joke? 🙄

Now there's some breaking news of someone who's been cancelled, and I'm wondering if cancel culture has now just gone way too far. I'm wondering now if it's trial by media and guilty until proven innocent. Now there's a specific thing that's going on in the UK right now about an ex-England cricket captain. So his name is Michael Vaughan. He was an Ashes winner, and he's now a commentator for the BBC. And there's an investigation going on around some claims of racism against Yorkshire Cricket Club and Michael Vaughan, who's an ex-Yorkshire and England player. Now, this is what's happened, and let's discuss this. I think cancel culture is becoming a beast, a two-headed monster. I think it's something we really need to discuss. And I mean, imagine getting cancelled. My friend Shao Asmond has just had her Instagram and her Facebook account shut down. No explanation, no warning. She's got tens of thousands of followers and customers, and bang, shut down. You know, no reason, no explanation, no customer service person to discuss. Just done. Shut. Banned. Why? So Michael Vaughan has been basically cancelled by the BBC. Now the BBC will probably say he's taking a break or whatever, but Michael Vaughan earns his livelihood commentating on sport as an Ashes winner, and now he's been cancelled and can't commentate on the Ashes, which would probably be the apex of his commentating career. So let me tell you the exact thing that's going on right now in the news. Let me know in the comments what you think about this cancel culture. Has it gone too far, or do you believe it's right? So, um, Michael Vaughan will not be involved in the BBC's coverage of the ashes in Australia. Um, at the moment, Azim Rafiq is claiming that Michael Vaughan made racist comments. Racism is obviously a hugely serious issue. Um, it's not been proven that he has or proven that he hasn't made those statements, Michael Vaughan. If Azim has experienced racism, that needs to be dealt with really seriously. It's wiping through Yorkshire Cricket Club right now, and the truth needs to come out. That's a separate issue. I'm not talking about that, just to let you know. However, if someone's been accused of something, like for example Azim Rafiq has accused Michael Vaughan of racism, but Michael Vaughan denies, denies, denies, and there's no evidence yet to support or suggest that he has made any racist comments, and then he gets cancelled by the BBC and he can't do his job and he can't get paid and he can't comment on the ass ashes, which is the apex of a commentator's career. Now, this actually might damage his reputation completely. He may lose his commentary job. Like my friend Gerald Ratner, he made a speech, made a little joke, it was taken out of context by the media, and his complete career was ruined, and his share value went down by £500 million for something he didn't even really do. He made one flippant joke and bang, the media ruined him. And I just wonder if this cancel culture is going too freaking far the other way. Now, if Michael Vaughan has been proven to make racist comments, of course punish, ban, fine, do what you need to do. I would obviously support that. But there is no proof that Michael Vaughan has made these remarks. He has vehemently denied them, and here's the statement. So, um, former England captain Michael Vaughan will not be involved in the BBC's coverage of the Ashes. He was named in the Yorkshire's report into Azim Rafiq's claims of racism during his time at the club. Vaughan said he's very disappointed, which I can imagine he feels a lot stronger than that. And wants to be part of the solution, listening, educating himself, and helping to make a more welcoming sport for all. Now, if you think about it, wouldn't it be better for the sport? Wouldn't it be better for racism within the sport if Vaughan was allowed to commentate on the BBC? Because he's not actually guilty yet, and it feels like it's now in the world of media and sport, guilty until proved innocent. But shouldn't it be innocent until proved guilty. So now he's like, you know, this scapegoat by the BBC, you know, maybe inadvertently. But, um, but what about if he was the commentator and the issues were addressed and discussed? Because, you know, they discussed Black Lives Matter a lot on Sky Sports, and Michael Holding was really expressive about Black Lives Matter. And actually probably did a fricking lot of good, because he was strong and emotional about it, and Sky gave him the airtime to do that. And BBC have basically cancelled someone who isn't yet proved to be guilty and now aren't giving, you know, the media the chance to address this publicly. So actually, I think, one, they've missed a massive trick to actually help with racism and promote less racism within the sport, but two, maybe ruin someone's career. Trial by media. Someone has said he's so loud for no reason. No, I'm not so loud for no reason. It's freaking wrong. It's really wrong. And if you think I'm wrong, let me know in the comments. If you think cancel culture has gone too far, please share this video. I think it's really important to discuss. Now, I was thinking about not doing this video. I discussed this with a friend of mine for many hours last night. I sat up late with my wife last night talking about this because it is sensitive and there are other issues at play. But, you know, I couldn't help not do it. Now, I'm actually not addressing the racism issue here. I don't know about that. I'm not qualified to speak about that. I think it's horrendous, any racism, and I can't imagine what it's like being, you know, in cricket and experiencing racism, and that needs to go. But has the media not missed a trick to actually help? Because surely, if there is any issue of racism, we need to publicize it. We need to, like Michael Vaughan says, educate each other into the solution, give it the airtime that it needs, which to be fair is what Asim Rafiq is trying to do, but he's gone from Michael Vaughan accusing him of stuff and can't prove it. Now, this is what, um, Piers Morgan said. Now, I didn't say this, Piers Morgan said this, but Piers Morgan said, so let me get this straight, the BBC has effectively found Michael Vaughan guilty of something he vehemently denies Uh, there's no way that they can prove he did it, uh, after allegations from someone who spewed antisemitic slurs but hasn't been banned by the BBC. Now, um, Rafiq has been found to have slurred antisemitic comments. I don't know about that, and that could have been a long time ago. I'm not really a fan of people's, you know, crimes and trial by social media from 10 and 15 and 20 years ago. I'm not really a fan of that. You know, we all make mistakes, but the point is someone who's been proven to make a racist comment hasn't been cancelled, but someone who hasn't been proven has been cancelled. Trial by media, trial by BBC, guilty until found innocent. It's not right because you could ruin his freaking career and you could ruin his life. And my friend Gerald Ratner, his career was ruined and his life was ruined for for 10 years because he made a little joke that they freaking lied about in the media and exaggerated. Anyway, let me know what you think in the comments. I'm going to carry on with the news. So Vaughan has been canceled— well, they won't say canceled. In fact, let me tell you what the BBC have said. Um, while he's involved in a significant story in cricket, for editorial reasons, we do not believe that it would be appropriate for Michael Vaughan to have a role in our Ashes team or wider coverage of sport at the moment. So you can say nice words, but Michael Vaughan has been cancelled by the BBC on radio and TV for allegations that cannot be proven, and that could frickin' ruin his career and ruin his reputation. How is that right? Now, on the other side of it, is it a sponsor's right to cancel someone at any time? Is it a media company's right to cancel or pause or postpone or take a break of people representing their brand. Now I guess in Michael Vaughan's contract there'll be something that makes it okay for BBC to park him. You know, it's like with Nike and, um, Lance Armstrong. You know, Lance Armstrong was obviously found guilty of drug use in cycling. Um, of the— I believe some of the sponsors went back and, um, sued him for bringing them into disrepute and all the money they spent. But he was proven to be guilty. And Michael Vaughan isn't yet. And by the way, if he is, then that's of course a fitting punishment. Um, but it seems weak to me. While Michael Vaughan is in a significant story in cricket, for editorial reasons, we do not believe that it will be appropriate for Michael Vaughan to have a role in our Ashes team or wider coverage of sport at the moment on radio and TV. Cancelled. Guilty until proven innocent. And Piers Morgan has said, so let me get this straight, the BBC has effectively found Michael Vaughan guilty of something he vehemently denies but has no way to prove that he didn't do it. Trial by media, guilty and proved innocent. This is what cancel culture is. This is completely wrong, completely wrong. Okay, now they go on to say, we require our contributors to talk about relevant topics, and his involvement in the Yorkshire story represents a conflict of interest. How is it a conflict of interest? How is it a conflict of interest that Michael Vaughan's going to comment on cricket in the Ashes? I don't see that. Um, now anyway, I don't want to talk about the racist comments or statements. This isn't about racism. Um, this is about canceling someone who has not yet proven to be guilty of something. Vaughan wrote in his Daily Telegraph comment that he vehemently denies making this comment. Um, and his career could be ruined now. And it's the right way— is this the right way to deal with it? So quick question, let me know. Uh, number 1, do you think it's right that someone gets canceled from media or their job for something they've not yet been proven to do? Do you think media have the right and the power, and should they have the right and the power, to cancel someone, to ruin someone's career? Is this becoming trial by media and guilty until proven innocent? You know, how many people have been kicked off social media and whatever channels just because they didn't like the narrative? Do you remember when Donald Trump was banned from all social media? You know, this actually gives us quite a nice discussion— was a nice discussion point, topical discussion point. You know, where does the free speech line— where is it drawn? But this— Michael Vaughan's career could be over now. So let me know what you think in the comments. Quick breaking news is that, by the way, Michael Vaughan led, um, England to beat Australia in the Ashes, was an ex-England captain, and now probably the best job that he could ever get in his career, which is commenting on the ashes has been taken away from him because he's been accused of something. Now, you could accuse me of something, I could accuse you of something, anyone could accuse anyone of anything, race or not, it doesn't matter, it could be anything. But if it's not been proven that he's guilty, surely he can carry on doing his job until he is. I mean, you know, it's like if someone's been accused of being a pedophile, they can't probably carry on going to school, they need to be taken out of that environment. But this is not the same thing. Cancel culture, has it gone too far? Let me know what you think. So please hit the share button. I'm going to get in the comments and I'm going to have a chat with you. I think this is really important to discuss because one day this could be us. This could easily be me one day. I know that something I could say inadvertently and all social media, if they decide, could cancel me. Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter, blah blah blah. They could just ban me at any one point, anytime, if I say something that they don't like. You know, is that right? Is it not supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? However, is there also an argument that actually BBC employ Michael Vaughan? BBC's reputation is obviously big around the world, and anything that puts that brand into potential murky waters, do they have the right to park or cancel anyone they want? Like if someone sponsors an athlete like you sponsor Lance Armstrong and then he's, you know, in hot water about drugs and that brings bad brand association, maybe then there's an argument. I mean, do you think the BBC are within their rights to cancel anyone they want at any time, even if they're not proven guilty? Because, look, I don't own the BBC. This could also damage the reputation of the BBC. I just think they could have been more inclusive. So when Black Lives Matter happened, It was absolutely great to see Michael Holding just be given free rein to talk about it. And he went, you know, fully strong on it. And he was like, this is wrong and this has been happening and we've got to stand up and we've got to fight for change and yada. And probably he and other people really got out to the masses, you know, the positive change in educating everyone. Is this not an opportunity here for BBC? Let Michael commentate because he's not been proven guilty and actually give it a bit of airtime and talk about it and discuss it and educate the world. Because isn't it about education? You know, if we cancel people or hate on people or troll people, how's that going to solve the problem? I don't see how it solves the problem. All right, cool. So, um, let me know in the comments what you think. Hit the share button. I really think this is an important moral dilemma that we need to discuss because, by the way, it's easy to say, um, It's nothing really to do with me, it's nothing to do with us, Rob. This isn't anything to do with entrepreneurship and business. But believe you me, if we all want to have a voice and if we all want to be able to communicate on social media, this could happen to any one of us at any time. Sorry, your account is banned. We didn't— we don't tell you why. I've actually had a shadow ban on Insta— no, a shadow ban on Facebook and a shadow ban on YouTube before, and they don't tell you why. So how can you change if you don't know why? And it basically then, it's guilty and we won't even bother proving you innocent. We'll just shadow ban or ban you. We won't talk to you. No, no, no, that's just it. Uh, so then what can you do about it? You can't do anything about it. So there's no education, so there's no improvements. Freaking crazy. Thanks for tuning in on the Facebook Live. Please hit the share button and I'll get in the chat and let's discuss this. I think it's really important. And remember, if you don't risk anything You risk everything. Michael Vaughan's been canceled by the BBC. They've obviously worded it fluffily, um, but he's basically been canceled because he's been accused of something that's not yet been proven to be guilty. Piers Morgan's jumped on it and he's basically said trial by media, guilty until proved innocent. Um, I don't want to talk about the— to me, this isn't a racial discussion, this is a cancel culture discussion, just so you know. So please hit the share button, and remember, if you don't risk anything, you risk everything. I'll see you in the comments.