“CAN ye no’ take a joke?” alongside the faux crumpled, offended face. How many times have we encountered this in the workplace or in social settings?

For me, I’ve honestly lost count: When telling a male former colleague that another co-worker was pregnant: “We should sterilise the lot of them. Hahahha.”

When discussing a lack of representation in a workplace: “Oh come on, the place is over-run with Sikh women.”

When discussing immigration in the pub: “Don’t worry, you’ll be fine. You’re not like the other P***s.” Hilarious guys.

It often appears harmless and a bit of fun because it’s delivered with a smile, but when the recipient isn’t enjoying it, it’s no longer banter. More than that, when it’s not challenged it’s indicative of a wider problem where the person doing the slagging gets to decide what’s offensive to the recipient, rather than the recipient, and therein can lie an even wider systemic failure.

This appears to be what’s going on in the case of Azeem Rafiq, a young Yorkshire cricketer of Pakistani heritage, who was repeatedly called a P***, and subjected to other abuse by a team member who is still at the club.

Despite admitting in September that there was “no question” Azeem Rafiq had been the victim of racial harassment and bullying, and issuing a “profound and unreserved apology” to the player, the Yorkshire County Cricket Club announced last week that none of the current employees would face any disciplinary action.

They had heard evidence that the cricketer had broken down in tears when subjected to the name-calling, but decided that the use of the P word was just “banter”.

They said: “The panel does not accept that Azeem was offended by (the) comments, either at the time they were made or subsequently” and that Azeem might be “expected to take such comments in the spirit they were intended.”

They concluded that it was, “not reasonable for Azeem to have been offended.” In other words, the panel would decide what was offensive to Azeem. The player who allegedly made the comments has reportedly admitted using the P word but says he had no idea, despite seeing Azeem break down, that he was causing offence and would have stopped if Azeem asked.

For those of you smiling wryly in recognition, you’ll know exactly how difficult it is to say “Stop it” for fear of being accused of having a sense of humour bypass, or just being branded plain awkward. Our instinct is to jolly along, fit in, be one of the gang, especially in a team environment.

When I was Azeem’s age, I’d have jollied along too, but now I point out the inappropriateness of a comment even if it is explained away as just “bantz”.

The flow of the conversation always comes to a handbrake stop, and all eyes swivel in my direction, but once I’ve named what I find offensive and why, and it continues to happen, I know it’s more than a slip-up or a one-off.

Yes, it’s difficult, but ignorance can’t be an excuse any longer.

Yorkshire Cricket Club however have gone to, what my 10-year-old nephew would call ‘next level trolling’ of Azeem Rafiq. In a breath-taking example of diversion, Azeem was himself accused by the panel of “offensive, racially derogatory comments” when he referred to a player of Zimbabwean heritage as “Zimbo from Zimbabwe”.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t remember the last time I saw “Zimbo” sprayed across a wall, with the word ‘out’ after it. Nor for that matter, can I think when I last saw “Scotty” or “Kiwi” sprayed across a wall, as many people have argued with me over the years. It amazes me that this argument still appears in the comments sections: “I don’t mind if you call me Scotty”. Sigh.

And it comes as no surprise that, in an organisation where this sort of ‘banter’ was allowed to go unchallenged, other issues are now being pointed out. The club also admitted that a former coach ‘regularly’ using racist language in 2012, that there were jokes made around religion between 2016 and 2018 which made individuals uncomfortable about their religious practices, and that in 2018 the club failed to follow its own racism policy and investigate Azeem’s complaint.

So-called banter is often the most obvious sign that an organisation has deep, systemic issues with discrimination, and that’s a good reason not to simply dismiss it as such.

On social media yesterday Azeem made the point: “One person’s banter is another person’s demise.”

I’m not advocating a banter ban. There’s nothing worse than working in a dry, sterile environment where people can’t have a good old giggle. The last team I worked with was full of jokes, laughter, and fun but in the 18 months I worked there, there was never a need to generate banter that made anyone else feel small or uncomfortable, or joke about a particular characteristic of someone’s or single out their beliefs or background.

It was an organisation I had worked with before many years ago, and the one thing that was new was that everyone had had to undergo various types of training. The unconscious bias training covered workplace banter and where it crosses a line. I know such training has taken a few knocks recently but, it seems to me that the Yorkshire County Cricket Club Panel could have done with an all-day session.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.