PistoriusBalls Special

Sentencing is complete and I was going to let it lie, but this just cried out for PistoriusBalls recognition and seemed a fitting way to end the series.

Important information. Great counting. Unique angle.

PistoriusBalls Gold.

On Ched Evans

Ugh. Here’s one I didn’t want to write…
But Evans’ recent release from prison, together with this thoughtful piece by Jacques Rousseau, have prompted me to jot down some thoughts.

I’d very deliberately stayed well away from this topic for many reasons. Not least of these reasons is that (as you will probably learn below), I am still undecided on exactly where I stand on the subject. But there are other reasons too.
As ever, please feel free to debate or question anything I write, but let’s keep it reasonable, shall we?

Also, for full disclosure, I’m a lifelong Sheffield United fan, although I’ve come to the realisation that my feelings on this matter may (incredibly) somehow transcend that.

The Ched Evans thing has been covered ad nauseum all over the place for a long while now, but suffice to say that he was a successful, well-liked striker at United and also an international for Wales. He was arrested over an incident at a hotel in May 2011 and was convicted of rape in April 2012.  Having been released from prison this week, debate rages over whether United should re-employ him.

What follows is more a collection of thoughts than any coherent argument either way. It’s an emotive subject which has divided fans of the club and, seemingly, the entire nation. I’m not expecting everyone to agree with me.

> There is a petition of 150,000 signatures, urging United not to re-employ Evans. Of course, while demonstrating some degree of public feeling, this shouldn’t have any effect on the decision that United make. People are free to share their opinions on any matter, but the value of a digital signature on an online petition shouldn’t be over-estimated. I’d wager that half of those supporting any online petition actually have very little idea what they were clicking.

But then, even a properly audited, hard-copy petition shouldn’t sway the Blades’ decision on this matter. It’s one thing to make your feelings known; it’s quite another to expect everyone to act upon them.

> Some people are unhappy that some United fans were heard chanting Ched Evans’ name at the recent Bradford City game. The Daily Mail made a story out of this because the match was live on Sky. In fact, this chanting has been going on at most United games, but they weren’t live on Sky, so nobody cared. Of course, the Daily Mail are up in arms about the fact that:

Police took no action.

But I’m guessing that their hands were tied by the fact that no-one had actually done anything wrong.
Firstly, I’m quite sure that there were worse chants at football matches on the weekend, but the Daily Mail didn’t report on those ones. And secondly, looking for intelligent, meaningful comment in football chants will near always leave you disappointed.

> Evans still maintains his innocence. Jacques has a good point on this:

According to The Telegraph, the “woman said throughout the trial that she had no memory of the incident. Evans maintains his innocence, claiming that the sex was consensual.” Yet, the court found him guilty, so as I say above, that’s the basis on which we need to proceed.

Exactly. If our starting point is that the court got it wrong, then we are on shaky ground not just in this case, but on every other judicial decision as well. That said, given the “no memory” quote above, I have never understood how Evans’ co-defendant, Clayton MacDonald, was acquitted. But, as I say, I – we – have to accept the court’s decision or suddenly everything falls apart.

> Evans’ is still challenging the court decision:

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has said its investigation into the case could begin within weeks… It says it is acting, in part, because of “issues raised” by Evans’s legal team.

Of course, if he does get the conviction overturned, his name will never be cleared. Mud sticks.
Equally, no matter what, his victim’s life has also been ruined. There are no winners here.

> Evans is apparently going to make a “profound and personal” statement in the coming week. Don’t expect this to include remorse for a crime he says he didn’t commit. The Daily Mail will be up in arms about this.

> He’s served his time. You might not think so, but if one has to accept the court decision, then one has to accept the sentencing too. Otherwise, at what point do we agree that he has been punished enough? Never, some would argue, but that’s a foolish and fanciful idea. There are sentencing guidelines and if you have a problem with them, you need to take things up with the sentencing guidelines people, not pick and choose which cases you’re going to disagree with.
If you’ve committed a crime, should that automatically mean that you are permanently unemployable from that moment onwards? That simply wouldn’t work. Or is it just for certain crimes? In which case, who gets to choose which ones and why do we bother with having a legal system?
And yes, should he be re-employed (by any club), Evans would be in line to earn a very decent wage, but if that is the reason that you are objecting to his reinstatement, then you are opening a can of worms and my well-documented vermiphobia means that I don’t want to be involved, thank you very much.

> The Professional Footballers Association supports Evans’ reinstatement. That’s not at all insignificant.

> With that PFA blessing, I’m quite sure that if United don’t re-employ him, someone else will sign him up. Will those campaigners then forever hold Sheffield United close to their hearts for making such a “courageous decision”? Would that matter to the Blades? Would this really make a stand against violence against women?
And then, would Evans be a poisoned chalice for any other club? Would anyone really walk away from any club that signed him? Would they care? If I had a quid for the number of times I’ve heard football fans make empty threats like that, I wouldn’t need to do science. Or anything else, for that matter.

> We wouldn’t be fighting over this if we were talking about a window cleaner or a sheet metal worker. And while that might seem unfair, I do see why. Footballers are (rightly?) seen as role models and are idolised by many kids.
Of course, they’re rarely perfect in that capacity. Biting, fighting, drunk driving, bringing a gun to training: you name it, (and by “it”, I generally mean “something utterly stupid and regularly illegal”), they’ve done it. Has this had any effect on the kids that follow their every move? Has there been a recent outbreak of tooth-related assaults in Montevideo?
I haven’t seen it.

Of course, that’s not to say that I wouldn’t rather have more positive role models for our youth. And yes, I do get that this is part of a wider thing concerning violence against women. But then, our roads would be a safer place without the likes of Stéphane Sessègnon, Mesut Özil and Carlos Tevez. And yet they’re all still playing and allegedly influencing the future behaviour of young people today.

The fact is that kids want to be like the players on the pitch, not off it. That’s what matters to them. Just as I don’t expect any young West Brom fan to go out drink-driving in the future and then turn around and say “Well, Stéphane Sessègnon did it when I was a lad”, nor do I expect local rape statistics to increase simply because Ched Evans starts playing football again.

All in all, while I’m struggling to come to a firm decision one way or the other on this, I think I have to come down on the side of re-employing Evans. I recognise that some people will certainly find this opinion distasteful or even unacceptable, but we have a legal system and it’s there for a reason. He was found guilty and he was sentenced to a custodial sentence for his crime. In that respect, it’s done.
You might argue that Evans hasn’t accepted his guilt, but that is perfectly within his rights. That same  legal system says that as the defendent in this case, he’s perfectly entitled to question the verdict against him.
Just suppose for a second that he actually isn’t guilty (and for immediate clarification, I’m not suggesting that that’s the case). Suppose you were in his position. Wouldn’t you use everything at your disposal to attempt to clear your name? How far down that road do we allow him to go before we tell him to give up and accept his guilt? And when we do that, what difference does it really make, given that he has already served 2½ years in prison?

It’s a horrible crime, it’s a horrible situation and it’s horribly divisive.
As I say, I didn’t ever want to write this post and I don’t feel any better for having done so.

Nigel & Julius

I arrived here in the UK just in time to see (not literally) Nigel Farage’s UKIP party win their first seat in the UK Parliament. It was a bit of a cheat, really, given that the the guy who got elected was already the MP for the area, merely for a different party. That said, unlike the situation in SA, he had to be re-elected under the UKIP banner, and he was. They now control 1/650th or about 0.15% of the UK political landscape. But that’s only if you choose to look at the number of MPs. Because even though the traditional main three parties have just held their respective conferences, all I’ve seen on the TV here is Nigel and UKIP. Repeatedly.

And, if this infographic below is true (and I haven’t had time to check on the veracity of it because that’s not what I’m here for), then my viewing experience could well be easily explained.

wpid-wp-1413185711142.jpegQuestion Time being a much-watched and much-debated TV programme here, this is important.

The thing is this: despite their unpleasant policies and lack of any workable plan should they be elected (or maybe actually because of that?), UKIP have shaken the political landscape here and they have become the media darlings because of it. They don’t have a presence in Parliament (save for that one brand new seat), but they are the go-to party for opinion and soundbites which are going to get the viewers to your news programme, paper or website. And coming from SA, that situation seems rather familiar.

Of course, Julius Malema and his EFF have a few seats in the SA Parliament. But it’s still a tiny presence. And yet their vocal, no holds barred, sabre-rattling approach to everything has repeatedly made them headline news. But they’ve actually achieved nothing through it. Has Jacob Zuma paid the Nkandla money back? No. Has Baleka Mbete resigned? No. And yet, the EFF still get the headlines, despite not actually adding anything positive to the parliamentary mix.

OMG! They shouted! They chanted! Floyd stuck up his middle finger! They walked out of parliament again!
So did they get all their demands satisfied?
Er…. no.

There’s a common thread here, despite the vastly differing politics of Nigel and Julius: people are very unhappy with their incumbent government and the incumbent government seems to be doing nothing to remedy that situation. Suddenly, there’s a power vacuum and that’s something that these populist, radical parties have stepped in to exploit. And they’re exploiting it well, because while they’re not in power they can make a lot of noise and a lot of promises without actually having to back any of it up or be taken to account. They can react quickly to individual incidents, switch polices and respond with no comeback, save for the mainstream political parties (who would try to shout them down anyway, and who no-one is listening to anyway, of course) the media (who love the devil-may-care attitude because it brings them more readers or viewers).

The next general election for both countries is going to leave a very different political landscape. And that’s fine, because that’s how democracy works. But, much like that Trevor Mallach letter, it would be better if we went into these things making decisions based on facts and not on what the media spin. Right now, the EFF and UKIP are getting all the positive press coverage while having to do nothing to back it up. Would either of them actually be able to successfully run a country (or even an opposition party) given the chance?

I can’t see it, personally – although the media might want me to think differently.

Why Top Gear willl get into trouble, kumquat may

To quote this story, please use the hashtag #kumquatgate. 

I believe in freedom of speech, I just wish that those who have that luxury would use it sensibly. I fully recognise that they don’t have to – that’s what freedom of speech is all about – but that’s what I’d like.
Jeremy Clarkson is a good example. Sometimes Jeremy Clarkson gets in trouble for saying naughty things. Things he’s allowed to say, legally. Just things that you’d think he would have the sense to choose not to say.
But then again, sometimes I think Jeremy Clarkson’s previous actions in this regard have made Jeremy Clarkson into an easy target for people who don’t like Jeremy Clarkson. And it’s that sort of person who has complained about Jeremy Clarkson nicknaming the Nissan Qashqai (I’ve driven one, by the way: terrible), the Nissan Kumquat.

…one Top Gear fan complained to the BBC in February about Clarkson’s choice of words. According to an appeal made to the BBC Trust, the complainant, “said that Jeremy Clarkson was ‘pronouncing Nissan Qashqai as Nissan Kumquat and [he] would like to know why”. He said he had a car of this type himself and no one on the programme had explained why they were not saying the name correctly.

Fantastic. Not only does this waste time, effort and money, it also trivialises any legitimate complaints made about Clarkson, Top Gear, or indeed any other show on the BBC or any other media outlet.

But of course, things didn’t end there:

 BBC Audience Services responded a few days later, “explaining that ‘Kumquat’ was a nickname Jeremy had given the car, and had referred to the Nissan Kumquat for quite a few seasons”. The viewer was unhappy with the response saying, “his question as to why the car was given the nickname ‘Kumquat’ had not been answered.”

This guy is obviously a bit of a twat. And I thought long and hard (not really) about whether he might read this and find that offensive and I actually decided that I really don’t care either way. I suspect that the people at the BBC who had to deal with Mr Twat also share my feelings.

The BBC explained in a letter that: “It’s simply a nickname for the vehicle, a play on words. Obviously the two words share a phonetic syllable similarity thus like Jeremy does with literally countless car names, he jokingly substituted one with the other, the kumquat of course being an exotic fruit.”

Eish. Why does this need explaining to him? How is it that difficult? Well, at least that’s the matter sorted now, finall… wait… he’s not given up yet, has he?

No. No, he hasn’t:

In April, after two months of what the BBC described politely as a “high number and length of calls” made to the corporation, the viewer appealed to the BBC Trust. In its September appeals roundup the trust went into five pages of detail about the case, concluding that it had decided not to put it to appeal as: “Decisions relating to the use of a wordplay in how to describe a car, or which presenter should work on a programme were editorial and creative matters that rested with the BBC.”

[my emphasis]

This is the downside of free society. Yes, there’s Clarkson’s previous foolishness as I mentioned above, but then there’s this here Mr Twat who chooses to get offended at anything and everything (as is his right) and then write, phone and generally badger the BBC about it (as is also, unfortunately, his right).

Just as Jeremy Clarkson’s disappointing decisions regarding what should come out of his mouth regarding bridges, nursery rhymes and so on, does no favours for those fighting for free speech in these trying times (nor for the BBC), Mr Twat’s desperation to find offence in the mention of a small, orange, Asian fruit belittles those decrying genuine harassment, racism, this-ism and that-ism or whatever other stuff happens when people don’t understand the sometimes paper-thin divide between free speech and hate speech. And long sentences. They’re also bad.

I strongly dislike Mr Twat.

Ebola: Headlines vs Facts

I’m not saying that the Ebola situation is in any way “good”, nor am I saying that it is “under control”. But those facts aside, we still need some degree of perspective.
And stuff like this doesn’t help with that approach:

Ebola ‘could become airborne’: United Nations warns of ‘nightmare scenario’ as virus spreads to the US
Exclusive: Anthony Banbury, chief of the UN’s Ebola mission, says there is a chance the deadly virus could mutate to become infectious through the air

 

And technically, I suppose, he’s correct. In the same way that I “could” win tomorrow’s lottery. It “could” happen, but actually it’s “not going to” happen.
And you only have to read the piece to see how his words have been… ironically… mutated to fit the article’s agenda.

Because then, further down the article, this:

Although experts agree that the risks from Ebola are severe they do not believe the virus could become airborne.
Professor David Heymann CBE, chairman of Public Health England and professor of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said no virus transmitted by bodily fluids – as Ebola is – had ever mutated to airborne transmission.

Note the somewhat smaller typeface. And the lack of drama. That’s simply because when everyone is writing about Ebola, you need to make your piece stand out if you want it to be read and:

Experts say there’s ‘no danger’ of Ebola becoming airborne

 

just doesn’t cut the mustard in terms of attracting readers to your column, your site and its adverts.

Really, you’d expect better of the Telegraph. Although perhaps not of 2Oceansvibe.

UPDATE: Katherine Rushton tweeted her article like this:

Hmm. Business Editor writes Microbiology story.

Hmm.

 

UPDATE 2: WHO

Speculation that Ebola virus disease might mutate into a form that could easily spread among humans through the air is just that: speculation, unsubstantiated by any evidence.

This kind of speculation is unfounded but understandable as health officials race to catch up with this fast-moving and rapidly evolving outbreak.

“Speculation, unsubstantiated by any evidence.”
Again. Not great for The Telegraph.