So Boris Johnson has finally woken up to the fact that the Withdrawal Agreement signed with the EU last December is a duff deal and should be torn up. It has only taken him eight and a half months to agree with me (see Reasons To Be Cheerful - or Entangled, 8 December 2017, the day said agreement was published).
Boris now says the UK "stumbled and collapsed" into the Northern Ireland backstop arrangement which commits the UK to "in the absence of agreed solutions....maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union...." (a quote from the Agreement and my blog).
I said then "So the onus remains entirely on us to bring forward ideas to fix the potentially unfixable. The EU side can just refuse to agree to anything they or the Republic don't like. They don't have to do anything other than say "non"...... And, potentially to infinity, the UK is trapped maintaining "full alignment" with the single market and customs union. This gives the EU side the most enormous lever in future negotiations. I'm sure they won't hesitate to use it." This, I said, left us trapped in the Hotel California, checked out but unable to leave.
Now I don't actually believe Boris is dim, this must all have been obvious to him then. But it didn't suit him to say so. OK, hypocrite, rather than thick, I'll go for. I guess he is wondering if the time might now be "right". Cometh the hour....
Well time is certainly running short. What should we do? It's pretty clear to me that the Chequered Compromise, as I've been calling it, is as dead as Monty Python's parrot. The EU won't buy it, at least not without much further compromise on the UK side. And it won't remotely command a majority in the Commons. So why does Theresa carry on flogging this dead duck, amusingly compared to Count Ducula on Question Time last night as, like Dracula it seems to be "undead" and, at the same time, a laughing stock. I guess she feels there's still a chance, however remote, that the EU might blink first and agree to something like it and she's invested a lot of credibility in it.
But if they don't I actually agree with Boris that the best answer is a Canada Dry ("plus plus" or whatever) free trade agreement as that would actually mean we had left, free of the sovereignty denying ECJ, free to decide what we want to do on immigration, trading standards etc. Which might be to align with the EU in some cases but at least it will be our choice rather than their dictat.
And Ireland? I accept that Canada Dry leaves a problem if the EU will not accept checks away from the border, even though I believe they do this for the Spain-Canary Isles border that isn't (i.e. they are one country but the mainland is in the Customs Union and the Canaries aren't, so it isn't entirely analogous but it does seem to be relevant). But if I won't accept the Scottish tail wagging the UK dog, why should I accept the Irish? We simply go to the solution I have previously advocated - we don't have border checks but if the Irish Republic is told to by the EU then there's nothing we can do about that. Yes, it might hasten the day of a united Ireland which I would have resisted in the past but now the Republic is joining the modern, secular, world there wouldn't seem to be much to fear for the north. And the north seems to have decided it can't work together to govern itself anyway, having broken the world record last month for the length of time an elected assembly has gone without a government. (There has been no Stormont sitting since January 2017). So one could argue the north is essentially giving up the right to self determination.
I feel certain that, after the softening up period Theresa has given us in which business and the markets have begun to consider the cliff edge of a no-deal, a solution based on an agreed free trade deal would be greeted positively. The EU can hardly say no as it's one of their off the shelf models and doesn't prejudice the single market. And it probably could command a majority in the Commons, unless Labour succeed in a three-line whip against it intended only to force a General Election, given that the DUP may have a dummy throwing hissy fit.
And, ironically, it's what the EU probably fear most - an independent Britain, entirely free to forge its own trade deals, set its own tax rates and leave the sclerotic EU behind in its wake. It's why they want to bind us close and to hamper our ability to manoeuvre.
For those of you wanting a second referendum, I'm sorry. I read several weeks ago that you're timed out: the earliest possible date, given the necessary Parliamentary schedule for an Act and the notice necessary, was then Thursday 28 March. So the most you can have is a referendum about rejoining. And I don't accept that it's sensible to ask a multiple choice question on the lines of "do you want deal A, deal B, deal C, no deal exit or remain" which would be a skewed question intended only to split the leave vote. Of course Leavers can't agree on the best solution, that's normal where there are multiple options.
That of course is all just my opinion. But I was taken by how solid the Question Time audience was last night. It was presented from Bishop Auckland and, by the sound of it, having predominantly voted leave they clearly felt we should, well, leave. Simple really.
So Theresa: time to switch horses. Or make way. But for Boris? Hmmm....
Saturday, 29 September 2018
Friday, 28 September 2018
Further thoughts on the Tiger revival
Two other points I meant to make in my recent post Tiger on the prowl. The first was how different Tiger looks now he's playing like Eldrick rather than Baldrick.
I was reminded of the other by Sky commentator Ewan Murray, when he compared Woods's comeback to that of Muhammd Ali. Ali famously regained the world heavyweight title when he beat George Forman in The Rumble in the Jungle. I can still hear Harry Carpenter's commentary in my head: "He's won it back at the age of 32!" which was considered old for a boxer then. Mrs H will vouch that I had already said that Woods's return to glory was Ali-esque. There may be comebacks in sports I don't follow which bear comparison but the only other return to which I can compare Woods's rejuvenation is a Dr Who regeneration. And at the age of 42, which is fairly old for a golfer - only 22 of the recognised majors have been won by someone aged 42 or over in 446 attempts, several of those being more than a century ago.
So it would still be amazing if Woods was to win the 4 more majors he needs to equal Jack Niclaus's 18. But there's a chance....
I was reminded of the other by Sky commentator Ewan Murray, when he compared Woods's comeback to that of Muhammd Ali. Ali famously regained the world heavyweight title when he beat George Forman in The Rumble in the Jungle. I can still hear Harry Carpenter's commentary in my head: "He's won it back at the age of 32!" which was considered old for a boxer then. Mrs H will vouch that I had already said that Woods's return to glory was Ali-esque. There may be comebacks in sports I don't follow which bear comparison but the only other return to which I can compare Woods's rejuvenation is a Dr Who regeneration. And at the age of 42, which is fairly old for a golfer - only 22 of the recognised majors have been won by someone aged 42 or over in 446 attempts, several of those being more than a century ago.
So it would still be amazing if Woods was to win the 4 more majors he needs to equal Jack Niclaus's 18. But there's a chance....
Wednesday, 26 September 2018
Tiger on the prowl, Everton make me scowl
At his age Tiger Woods's comeback from severe injury is already one of the greatest in the history of sport. While the story now rolls on to the Ryder Cup we are left with the tantalising thought for 2019 - could he win another Major? If his near miss at Carnoustie in July wasn't enough, his convincing win, front running like the Tiger of old at the PGA Tour Championship confirmed that the answer is yes, he could. Will he? It's going to be fascinating finding out.
While being an admirer of Woods's enormous talents as a golfer I was never an admirer of Woods as a person. But the new version of Tiger is easier to warm to. Two slow-mo replays from the weekend caught my eye. On the first tee Woods greeted Rory McIlroy with a firm but warm handshake, a smile and - unlike the old days - an exchange of pleasantries. (I do mean pleasantries, that's not a euphemism). But as the camera lingered, the smile faded and the stare went icier as Woods thought about the task at hand. And, just like days of yore, he proceeded to strangle the life out of a competitor who seemed to shrink from the opportunity of beating the master in his intimidating bright red shirt, which he traditionally wears on the final day of a competition. Except, while doing it, there were some smiles and conversation between the two rivals, at least once the round came towards its conclusion, with McIlroy no longer a threat.
The second replay was of Justin Rose, beaming ear to ear as he lifted the FedEx Cup, seized from Woods's grasp by Rose's birdie on the last hole. I should just point out to those who don't follow golf closely that the Tour Championship is a one off event at the end of the US PGA season but is also part of the FedEx Cup series. So Woods won the Tour Championship but Rose pipped him - by one shot gained on the very last hole - to the Fed Ex Cup. Of course Rose was beaming - the FedEx comes with a first prize of $10 million. But what's this? Just behind the oversize trophy one could see Woods was also smiling broadly. Probably not how the mark one Tiger would have reacted.
Whether Woods has really had a Damascene conversion as a human being is difficult to tell. But there does seem to have been a huge impact from the fact that he can now not only play golf again but compete at the highest level after he would have settled just to be free of pain from his injuries. We are all, in many ways, the sum of our experiences.
Now there's even talk of pairing him with his new best buddy Phil Mickelson, despite the fact that it was a complete train wreck last time it was done by an American Ryder Cup captain in 2004. Mickelson has said that this was because the players weren't given much notice that they would be playing together. For the foursome (or "alternate shot" as the Amercians call it) the two players use the same ball and take turns to play it. So they have to agree on a ball to use. Tiger uses a low spin ball, Phil a high spin ball. Mickelson's pre-tournament practice was therefore entirely dedicated to familiarising with Tiger's choice of ball.
I'm sure that's true but, as all the world knew Woods was wont to refer to Mickelson as "phony Phil", I'm sure it wasn't remotely the half of it. Woods seemed to take exception to Mickelson's reputation as a "good guy", which was perhaps due in part to the fact that he would spend generous amounts of time signing autographs for fans after his rounds. Whereas Woods, who some years later confessed to being a sex addict, obviously had reasons not to hang around, playing the field instead of the crowd presumably.
The new found Woods and Mickelson friendship may be taken a step further in Paris before they contest a winner takes all $9 million exhibition match in Las Vegas in November. Have they, like any normal folk might, agreed behind the scenes to share the dosh with maybe 30% going to the loser? I'd bet not. Tiger might have smiled at Rose picking up the FedEx but it clearly still hurt a bit that he'd missed out on the $10M jackpot. I'll be giving that piece of tacky theatre a miss in favour of waiting for the first major of 2019, the US Masters in April.
Tiger might not be scowling as much these days but Everton are bringing a frown to my brow. After an opening fixture list that was, until last weekend's away match at Arsenal, considered easy they have only 6 points from 6 Premier League games - which is relegation form. They actually played well against Arsenal: they pressed high, played with energy and made more chances than the home team. They were caught twice in 3 minutes just before the hour mark but the second Arsenal goal was clearly offside and would have been disallowed if VAR had been in use. And Arsenal were arguably fortunate not to play the entire second half with ten men as midfielder Lucas, already on a yellow card, clearly caught Everton's Digne late in the closing stages of the first half. Jon Moss may be one of the Premier League's better refs but it's no coincidence that there were no British referees at the summer's World Cup. So unlucky maybe, but teams at the bottom of the league often seem to be "unlucky".
Meanwhile one footballer catching the eye in the Premier League makes me wonder "what if"? Joao Moutinho is getting rave reviews for Wolves and scored at Old Trafford at the weekend. Moutinho joined Wolves in the summer. The reason for the "what if?" is that Everton made a bid for Moutinho in 2008 when he was 22. He was a player David Moyes (remember him?) identified as being one who could take Everton to the mythical "next level". Everton had a pretty decent squad at the time, with skilful midfielders Arteta, Osman and Pienaar to supply a potent strike force of Tim Cahill and Yakubu. Moutinho's club wouldn't do business and Everton finished fifth for the second season in a row. Moyes was on to something. I'm not sure about Marco Silva. I hope he earns the five years Moyes had already had at Everton by the time he put that 2007-9 Everton team together. Watching Silva's team may be an improvement on the lastvtwo seasons but he needs to start getting some wins.
While being an admirer of Woods's enormous talents as a golfer I was never an admirer of Woods as a person. But the new version of Tiger is easier to warm to. Two slow-mo replays from the weekend caught my eye. On the first tee Woods greeted Rory McIlroy with a firm but warm handshake, a smile and - unlike the old days - an exchange of pleasantries. (I do mean pleasantries, that's not a euphemism). But as the camera lingered, the smile faded and the stare went icier as Woods thought about the task at hand. And, just like days of yore, he proceeded to strangle the life out of a competitor who seemed to shrink from the opportunity of beating the master in his intimidating bright red shirt, which he traditionally wears on the final day of a competition. Except, while doing it, there were some smiles and conversation between the two rivals, at least once the round came towards its conclusion, with McIlroy no longer a threat.
The second replay was of Justin Rose, beaming ear to ear as he lifted the FedEx Cup, seized from Woods's grasp by Rose's birdie on the last hole. I should just point out to those who don't follow golf closely that the Tour Championship is a one off event at the end of the US PGA season but is also part of the FedEx Cup series. So Woods won the Tour Championship but Rose pipped him - by one shot gained on the very last hole - to the Fed Ex Cup. Of course Rose was beaming - the FedEx comes with a first prize of $10 million. But what's this? Just behind the oversize trophy one could see Woods was also smiling broadly. Probably not how the mark one Tiger would have reacted.
Whether Woods has really had a Damascene conversion as a human being is difficult to tell. But there does seem to have been a huge impact from the fact that he can now not only play golf again but compete at the highest level after he would have settled just to be free of pain from his injuries. We are all, in many ways, the sum of our experiences.
Now there's even talk of pairing him with his new best buddy Phil Mickelson, despite the fact that it was a complete train wreck last time it was done by an American Ryder Cup captain in 2004. Mickelson has said that this was because the players weren't given much notice that they would be playing together. For the foursome (or "alternate shot" as the Amercians call it) the two players use the same ball and take turns to play it. So they have to agree on a ball to use. Tiger uses a low spin ball, Phil a high spin ball. Mickelson's pre-tournament practice was therefore entirely dedicated to familiarising with Tiger's choice of ball.
I'm sure that's true but, as all the world knew Woods was wont to refer to Mickelson as "phony Phil", I'm sure it wasn't remotely the half of it. Woods seemed to take exception to Mickelson's reputation as a "good guy", which was perhaps due in part to the fact that he would spend generous amounts of time signing autographs for fans after his rounds. Whereas Woods, who some years later confessed to being a sex addict, obviously had reasons not to hang around, playing the field instead of the crowd presumably.
The new found Woods and Mickelson friendship may be taken a step further in Paris before they contest a winner takes all $9 million exhibition match in Las Vegas in November. Have they, like any normal folk might, agreed behind the scenes to share the dosh with maybe 30% going to the loser? I'd bet not. Tiger might have smiled at Rose picking up the FedEx but it clearly still hurt a bit that he'd missed out on the $10M jackpot. I'll be giving that piece of tacky theatre a miss in favour of waiting for the first major of 2019, the US Masters in April.
Tiger might not be scowling as much these days but Everton are bringing a frown to my brow. After an opening fixture list that was, until last weekend's away match at Arsenal, considered easy they have only 6 points from 6 Premier League games - which is relegation form. They actually played well against Arsenal: they pressed high, played with energy and made more chances than the home team. They were caught twice in 3 minutes just before the hour mark but the second Arsenal goal was clearly offside and would have been disallowed if VAR had been in use. And Arsenal were arguably fortunate not to play the entire second half with ten men as midfielder Lucas, already on a yellow card, clearly caught Everton's Digne late in the closing stages of the first half. Jon Moss may be one of the Premier League's better refs but it's no coincidence that there were no British referees at the summer's World Cup. So unlucky maybe, but teams at the bottom of the league often seem to be "unlucky".
Meanwhile one footballer catching the eye in the Premier League makes me wonder "what if"? Joao Moutinho is getting rave reviews for Wolves and scored at Old Trafford at the weekend. Moutinho joined Wolves in the summer. The reason for the "what if?" is that Everton made a bid for Moutinho in 2008 when he was 22. He was a player David Moyes (remember him?) identified as being one who could take Everton to the mythical "next level". Everton had a pretty decent squad at the time, with skilful midfielders Arteta, Osman and Pienaar to supply a potent strike force of Tim Cahill and Yakubu. Moutinho's club wouldn't do business and Everton finished fifth for the second season in a row. Moyes was on to something. I'm not sure about Marco Silva. I hope he earns the five years Moyes had already had at Everton by the time he put that 2007-9 Everton team together. Watching Silva's team may be an improvement on the lastvtwo seasons but he needs to start getting some wins.
Thursday, 13 September 2018
Should the Catholic Church disband itself?
Religion wasn't one of the topics I intended to write about when I started this blog. Not just because it's classically a subject to avoid but partly because, having been steadfastly in the agnostic category for the most part since I was a teenager, whenever I thought much about the topic I decided it was in the "too difficult" tray, along with its related question "why are we all here?"
But Stephen Hawking's obituaries made me ponder Why are we here? (22 March) and a review of John Gray's book Seven Types of Atheism made me posit Why We Can't Know Why We Are Here (28 April). I then read Yuval Noah Harari's fabulous book Sapiens, which I highly recommend, on holiday. It is thought provoking on many levels but he happens to provide a useful (and neutral) idiot's guide to religion as a concept and also to many of the main religions. Subsequently a friend has recommended another super and thought provoking book called The Language of God by Francis Collins. It is subtitled "A scientist presents evidence for belief". And not just any old scientist - Collins lead the team that deciphered the human genome. And another friend has provided me with a short but fundamental pamphlet What was God doing before Creation? which begs the answer "God only knows" but actually delves into the scientific realm from the theological perspective.
I'm still slowly trying to digest the jumble of ideas and hypotheses - c'mon, cut me some slack, there's been football, cricket and golf to contend with, as well as loads of work on the house and garden, let alone Brexit!
I will return to these more fundamental concepts one day but today I am addressing an entity which is related to religion and for some is the embodiment of it - an interesting phrase as I mean the Roman Catholic Church, with it's belief in transubstantiation. I nearly added "weird" before belief there, but that might reveal my prejudices and, I accept, could be offensive to Catholics even if they understand why non-Catholics might think that.
Indeed, I have considered more than once deleting the draft of this post as it may easily upset or offend some of my readers. However, as my friends know, I am nothing if not opinionated, so here goes. Warning: this will be a lengthy rant.
The Catholic Church has had a lot of bad press lately, though it perhaps has deserved far more than it has got in recent years as the mind blowing global extent of the child abuse scandal has become ever more apparent. I first meant to write about this earlier this year having picked up the local free paper from my original manor and reading its lead story about a Catholic priest charged with possessing indecent images of children*. Father Thomas Wood of Our Lady's and St Gregory the Great churches in Lydiate was caught in a US investigation into paedophiles using videoconferencing facilities and the British authorities were tipped off. Although Wood had the prescience to throw away his iPad (how did he know - friends "upstairs?") police found three temporary internet files on his hard drive which proved he had viewed child abuse videos including joining 50 people looking at a girl aged 8 to 10 years being raped by a man. Egregiously sordid but not too surprising, I suppose. What did surprise me was that the judge, saying that Wood had written "one of the most powerful statements of mitigation the court has ever considered" did not hand down the expected short jail sentence but a three year community order**. (Er, didn't he just work in the community anyway??) But even more surprising was the fact that Wood was also Judicial Vicar of Liverpool, handling all legal duties for the RC church in the diocese, ranging from marriage to new saints. It is no surprise that such people were able to hide in plain sight in the RC church when they occupied such roles. And one begins to understand how come so few of them were ever dealt with properly when their behaviour came to notice, generally being shuffled off to another parish to prey on a different flock.
This particular case isn't one of the worst, as there was no evidence of direct harm being committed. But it was very local to an area I know well. And just a microcosm of the global problem for the Catholic church. As Bryan Appleyard summarised:***
Abusive clerics are a worldwide phenomenon. Earlier this month we heard from an inquiry that Britain's two grandest Catholic schools - Ampleforth in North Yorkshire and Downside in Somerset - had harboured abusers. Chile, Argentina, France, Australia and many other countries have been affected. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court last week released the report of a grand jury that concluded after a two-year investigation that the church had covered up the abuse of at least 1,000 children by more than 300 priests in the state. "Priests were raping little boys and girls, and the men of God who were responsible for them not only did nothing; they hid it all. For decades" the report said, "monsignors, auxiliary bishops, bishops, archbishops, cardinals have mostly been protected; many, including some named in this report, have been promoted."
As Appleyard said, one child abused is a scandal, 1,000 is a crime against humanity. But wait a minute: that was 1000 in Pennsylvania alone by some 300 priests over a 70 year period. So given that problems have surfaced worldwide, across the decades, simple extrapolation suggests the figure must be many, many times more.
Despite the scale of this, Appleyard also noted that the RC church seemed to be weathering the storm worldwide, though not in that hitherto most Catholic of countries, Ireland, where the scandal seems to have materially shifted an already slowly changing atmosphere. The scales have fallen from the eyes of the Irish and, as a nation, they now see the Catholic Church in a very different light. When the Pope celebrated mass at Dublin's Phoenix Park a few weeks ago the throng was expected to be 60 % lower than for the last papal visit in 1979. In the event it was lower still as 100,000 didn't turn up, although it was plooting doon (but it's Ireland, so they're used to that).
Appleyard visited Ireland before the Pope and reported his taxi driver saying that, of his five uncles, three were abused by the Catholic Brothers, a Catholic teaching community. "The church has lost it's stranglehold, it's been tamed" said the taxi driver. Another journalist was quoted as saying that the Church leaders regarded clerical offenders as the real victims, not the children. The priests were seen as suffering from an "illness". In the 1970s and 80s the offenders were sent away for therapy and returned to parishes, supposedly "cured", where they committed more abuse.
Appleyard noted that the betrayal and staggering hypocrisy had proved toxic for the RC Church in Ireland. Where once almost the entire population attended Mass, it's now down to 30% - still high by international standards but falling and with ageing congregations. Appleyard met a group of thirty-somethings who just shrugged when the church came up. They may go to weddings and funerals. but that's it. He pointed out to them that they had turned into Anglicans!
The Pope has, of course, apologised. In Ireland towards the end of August he said "The Failure of ecclesiastical authorities - bishops, religious superiors, priests and others - adequately to address these repugnant crimes has rightly given raise to outrage and remains a source of pain and shame for the Catholic community. I myself share these sentiments". But what, Holy Father, are you going to DO to adequately address these crimes?
The apology didn't just come across to me as mealy-mouthed and insufficient. Colm O'Gorman is director of Amnesty International Ireland. O'Gorman's childhood was destroyed by a priest who raped him for more than two years. He saw it as an exercise in diversion and blame-shifting. "The Pope spoke about the pain and shame of the Catholic community. Is he actually suggesting that ordinary Catholics should feel shame for the cover-up of abuse by the institution? I lived with shame for decades because of what happened to me. I'm not interested in the Pope's shame and distress. What I want is for him to tell the truth and take responsibility for the cover-up. How is the Vatican going to hold anyone to account for a cover-up it won't even acknowledge or take responsibility for?" ****
In just about any other area of activity the Pope, as CEO of his organisation, would quit. And the organisation would be so tainted it probably could not survive in its present form. If it was a company it would go out of business or be taken over. If it was a public body it would be restructured under entirely new management or disbanded.
To be fair to the Irish Tsaioseach (and I'm usually not), Leo Varadkar said "There can only be zero tolerance for those who abuse innocent children or who facilitate that abuse. We must now ensure that from words flow actions".****
In case I'm being unfair to His Holiness I checked reports of the Pope Francis's response to the Grand Jury report which was given in an open letter to the world's 1.2 billion Catholics. It's widely covered but the report I read was in the Independent***** which makes it clear that the Pennsylvania cases occurred mainly before 2002 when US Catholic bishops adopted strict guidelines towards sexual abuse reports including immediately contacting the police and removing accused clergy. The Pope's letter refers to "implementing zero tolerance and ways of making all those who perpetrate or cover up these crimes accountable". (Er, just make them accountable here on Earth chum, let's not wait for the Last Judgement eh?) "We have delayed in applying these actions and sanctions that are so necessary, yet I am confident that they will help to guarantee a greater culture of care in the present and the future". This sounds pretty weak and very unspecific to me for someone who is supposed to believe he is infallible. (I realise that is in matters of doctrine, but think on Frank and try a bit better to get it right on this stuff as well, won't you?)
What fascinates me about all this is that, as sniggering schoolboys, we just knew, or thought we did, that this stuff went on. That didn't just include Catholic priests, with their vows of celibacy, but also private boys' schools, where we were convinced many pupils risked having a sore backside from a variety of actions. And, by Jove, the received stereotype had a huge element of truth in it!
I am glad to see that, in our country, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has the Roman Catholic Church on its list of investigations, as indeed is the Anglican Church - which has had its own abuse cases - though in the latter case at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It would certainly seem more sensible to be looking there than at the hapless BBC, employer of the egregious Jimmy Savile, though there was also a degree of turning a blind eye there.
To be clear, I am not intending to be anti-religion or anti-Christian here. I am attacking an institution that claims to represent the Almighty on Earth and, on its track record, I am simply unconvinced that the Roman Catholic church deserves to survive in its current form. The actions it has taken seem minimal and insufficient to me. This ain't a confessional where you can say a few Hail Marys and all sins are forgiven: by God maybe but not by society. Trust cannot be regained until the RC church shows it means business on the behaviour of its clerics: for example by investigating back through records and taking evidence over a reasonable time frame, then actually turning over to the police those priests the church hierarchy suspect have abused children rather than waiting for complaints to be laid and booting out others who covered things up. It's just not good enough to pretend that these are isolated cases involving individual mavericks and that its all in the past. There are too many cases, they have been routinely covered up and it looks blatantly institutionalised. All of the Catholic Church's active bishops in Chile offered their resignations when called to Rome earlier this year. Why just Chile?
If the RC church and other churches will not reform themselves they must be compelled to change. They must be made to answer to the authorities in the here and now. The government would take a dim view of almost any other type of institution which was so malevolently dysfunctional.
I had felt that the IICSA was a waste of time and money. But it might actually have a worthwhile job to do in making recommendations about what sanction to take against organisations that just will not conduct themselves properly when it comes to protecting vulnerable people over whom they have power and influence. Taking sanctions against an established religious institution would be controversial and, in the UK, would have echoes of the dissolution of the monastries. Well so be it. Brought it on yourselves.
What would Jesus have thought, I wonder? Oh, forgot, he was into forgiveness. As you can see, I'm not, for me it has to be won. Suffer little children to come unto me. But not, for God's sake, unaccompanied to the local priest.....
* Aintree and Maghull Champion 28 February 2018
** Liverpool Echo 21 March 2018
*** This devout Ireland is dying, Sunday Times 19 August 2018
**** Apathy and anger greet Pope. Sunday Times 26 August 2018
***** Pope addresses Catholic Church sexual abuse report in open letter, The Independent 20 Aug 2018
But Stephen Hawking's obituaries made me ponder Why are we here? (22 March) and a review of John Gray's book Seven Types of Atheism made me posit Why We Can't Know Why We Are Here (28 April). I then read Yuval Noah Harari's fabulous book Sapiens, which I highly recommend, on holiday. It is thought provoking on many levels but he happens to provide a useful (and neutral) idiot's guide to religion as a concept and also to many of the main religions. Subsequently a friend has recommended another super and thought provoking book called The Language of God by Francis Collins. It is subtitled "A scientist presents evidence for belief". And not just any old scientist - Collins lead the team that deciphered the human genome. And another friend has provided me with a short but fundamental pamphlet What was God doing before Creation? which begs the answer "God only knows" but actually delves into the scientific realm from the theological perspective.
I'm still slowly trying to digest the jumble of ideas and hypotheses - c'mon, cut me some slack, there's been football, cricket and golf to contend with, as well as loads of work on the house and garden, let alone Brexit!
I will return to these more fundamental concepts one day but today I am addressing an entity which is related to religion and for some is the embodiment of it - an interesting phrase as I mean the Roman Catholic Church, with it's belief in transubstantiation. I nearly added "weird" before belief there, but that might reveal my prejudices and, I accept, could be offensive to Catholics even if they understand why non-Catholics might think that.
Indeed, I have considered more than once deleting the draft of this post as it may easily upset or offend some of my readers. However, as my friends know, I am nothing if not opinionated, so here goes. Warning: this will be a lengthy rant.
The Catholic Church has had a lot of bad press lately, though it perhaps has deserved far more than it has got in recent years as the mind blowing global extent of the child abuse scandal has become ever more apparent. I first meant to write about this earlier this year having picked up the local free paper from my original manor and reading its lead story about a Catholic priest charged with possessing indecent images of children*. Father Thomas Wood of Our Lady's and St Gregory the Great churches in Lydiate was caught in a US investigation into paedophiles using videoconferencing facilities and the British authorities were tipped off. Although Wood had the prescience to throw away his iPad (how did he know - friends "upstairs?") police found three temporary internet files on his hard drive which proved he had viewed child abuse videos including joining 50 people looking at a girl aged 8 to 10 years being raped by a man. Egregiously sordid but not too surprising, I suppose. What did surprise me was that the judge, saying that Wood had written "one of the most powerful statements of mitigation the court has ever considered" did not hand down the expected short jail sentence but a three year community order**. (Er, didn't he just work in the community anyway??) But even more surprising was the fact that Wood was also Judicial Vicar of Liverpool, handling all legal duties for the RC church in the diocese, ranging from marriage to new saints. It is no surprise that such people were able to hide in plain sight in the RC church when they occupied such roles. And one begins to understand how come so few of them were ever dealt with properly when their behaviour came to notice, generally being shuffled off to another parish to prey on a different flock.
This particular case isn't one of the worst, as there was no evidence of direct harm being committed. But it was very local to an area I know well. And just a microcosm of the global problem for the Catholic church. As Bryan Appleyard summarised:***
Abusive clerics are a worldwide phenomenon. Earlier this month we heard from an inquiry that Britain's two grandest Catholic schools - Ampleforth in North Yorkshire and Downside in Somerset - had harboured abusers. Chile, Argentina, France, Australia and many other countries have been affected. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court last week released the report of a grand jury that concluded after a two-year investigation that the church had covered up the abuse of at least 1,000 children by more than 300 priests in the state. "Priests were raping little boys and girls, and the men of God who were responsible for them not only did nothing; they hid it all. For decades" the report said, "monsignors, auxiliary bishops, bishops, archbishops, cardinals have mostly been protected; many, including some named in this report, have been promoted."
As Appleyard said, one child abused is a scandal, 1,000 is a crime against humanity. But wait a minute: that was 1000 in Pennsylvania alone by some 300 priests over a 70 year period. So given that problems have surfaced worldwide, across the decades, simple extrapolation suggests the figure must be many, many times more.
Despite the scale of this, Appleyard also noted that the RC church seemed to be weathering the storm worldwide, though not in that hitherto most Catholic of countries, Ireland, where the scandal seems to have materially shifted an already slowly changing atmosphere. The scales have fallen from the eyes of the Irish and, as a nation, they now see the Catholic Church in a very different light. When the Pope celebrated mass at Dublin's Phoenix Park a few weeks ago the throng was expected to be 60 % lower than for the last papal visit in 1979. In the event it was lower still as 100,000 didn't turn up, although it was plooting doon (but it's Ireland, so they're used to that).
Appleyard visited Ireland before the Pope and reported his taxi driver saying that, of his five uncles, three were abused by the Catholic Brothers, a Catholic teaching community. "The church has lost it's stranglehold, it's been tamed" said the taxi driver. Another journalist was quoted as saying that the Church leaders regarded clerical offenders as the real victims, not the children. The priests were seen as suffering from an "illness". In the 1970s and 80s the offenders were sent away for therapy and returned to parishes, supposedly "cured", where they committed more abuse.
Appleyard noted that the betrayal and staggering hypocrisy had proved toxic for the RC Church in Ireland. Where once almost the entire population attended Mass, it's now down to 30% - still high by international standards but falling and with ageing congregations. Appleyard met a group of thirty-somethings who just shrugged when the church came up. They may go to weddings and funerals. but that's it. He pointed out to them that they had turned into Anglicans!
The Pope has, of course, apologised. In Ireland towards the end of August he said "The Failure of ecclesiastical authorities - bishops, religious superiors, priests and others - adequately to address these repugnant crimes has rightly given raise to outrage and remains a source of pain and shame for the Catholic community. I myself share these sentiments". But what, Holy Father, are you going to DO to adequately address these crimes?
The apology didn't just come across to me as mealy-mouthed and insufficient. Colm O'Gorman is director of Amnesty International Ireland. O'Gorman's childhood was destroyed by a priest who raped him for more than two years. He saw it as an exercise in diversion and blame-shifting. "The Pope spoke about the pain and shame of the Catholic community. Is he actually suggesting that ordinary Catholics should feel shame for the cover-up of abuse by the institution? I lived with shame for decades because of what happened to me. I'm not interested in the Pope's shame and distress. What I want is for him to tell the truth and take responsibility for the cover-up. How is the Vatican going to hold anyone to account for a cover-up it won't even acknowledge or take responsibility for?" ****
In just about any other area of activity the Pope, as CEO of his organisation, would quit. And the organisation would be so tainted it probably could not survive in its present form. If it was a company it would go out of business or be taken over. If it was a public body it would be restructured under entirely new management or disbanded.
To be fair to the Irish Tsaioseach (and I'm usually not), Leo Varadkar said "There can only be zero tolerance for those who abuse innocent children or who facilitate that abuse. We must now ensure that from words flow actions".****
In case I'm being unfair to His Holiness I checked reports of the Pope Francis's response to the Grand Jury report which was given in an open letter to the world's 1.2 billion Catholics. It's widely covered but the report I read was in the Independent***** which makes it clear that the Pennsylvania cases occurred mainly before 2002 when US Catholic bishops adopted strict guidelines towards sexual abuse reports including immediately contacting the police and removing accused clergy. The Pope's letter refers to "implementing zero tolerance and ways of making all those who perpetrate or cover up these crimes accountable". (Er, just make them accountable here on Earth chum, let's not wait for the Last Judgement eh?) "We have delayed in applying these actions and sanctions that are so necessary, yet I am confident that they will help to guarantee a greater culture of care in the present and the future". This sounds pretty weak and very unspecific to me for someone who is supposed to believe he is infallible. (I realise that is in matters of doctrine, but think on Frank and try a bit better to get it right on this stuff as well, won't you?)
What fascinates me about all this is that, as sniggering schoolboys, we just knew, or thought we did, that this stuff went on. That didn't just include Catholic priests, with their vows of celibacy, but also private boys' schools, where we were convinced many pupils risked having a sore backside from a variety of actions. And, by Jove, the received stereotype had a huge element of truth in it!
I am glad to see that, in our country, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has the Roman Catholic Church on its list of investigations, as indeed is the Anglican Church - which has had its own abuse cases - though in the latter case at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It would certainly seem more sensible to be looking there than at the hapless BBC, employer of the egregious Jimmy Savile, though there was also a degree of turning a blind eye there.
To be clear, I am not intending to be anti-religion or anti-Christian here. I am attacking an institution that claims to represent the Almighty on Earth and, on its track record, I am simply unconvinced that the Roman Catholic church deserves to survive in its current form. The actions it has taken seem minimal and insufficient to me. This ain't a confessional where you can say a few Hail Marys and all sins are forgiven: by God maybe but not by society. Trust cannot be regained until the RC church shows it means business on the behaviour of its clerics: for example by investigating back through records and taking evidence over a reasonable time frame, then actually turning over to the police those priests the church hierarchy suspect have abused children rather than waiting for complaints to be laid and booting out others who covered things up. It's just not good enough to pretend that these are isolated cases involving individual mavericks and that its all in the past. There are too many cases, they have been routinely covered up and it looks blatantly institutionalised. All of the Catholic Church's active bishops in Chile offered their resignations when called to Rome earlier this year. Why just Chile?
If the RC church and other churches will not reform themselves they must be compelled to change. They must be made to answer to the authorities in the here and now. The government would take a dim view of almost any other type of institution which was so malevolently dysfunctional.
I had felt that the IICSA was a waste of time and money. But it might actually have a worthwhile job to do in making recommendations about what sanction to take against organisations that just will not conduct themselves properly when it comes to protecting vulnerable people over whom they have power and influence. Taking sanctions against an established religious institution would be controversial and, in the UK, would have echoes of the dissolution of the monastries. Well so be it. Brought it on yourselves.
What would Jesus have thought, I wonder? Oh, forgot, he was into forgiveness. As you can see, I'm not, for me it has to be won. Suffer little children to come unto me. But not, for God's sake, unaccompanied to the local priest.....
* Aintree and Maghull Champion 28 February 2018
** Liverpool Echo 21 March 2018
*** This devout Ireland is dying, Sunday Times 19 August 2018
**** Apathy and anger greet Pope. Sunday Times 26 August 2018
***** Pope addresses Catholic Church sexual abuse report in open letter, The Independent 20 Aug 2018
Tuesday, 28 August 2018
Up the Duff
More on Brexit....
I wrote about David Owen's beguiling idea that we stay in the EEA for a limited transition period by enforcing what he sees as our right to do so, but switching to the EFTA pillar, from the EU pillar (see post of 13 August).
The problem with this for Mrs May isn't just that she didn't think of the idea, but that it leaves the position open for that transition state to become permanent if there is a change of UK government before the transition is completed. Whereas dealing with the transition through the Withrawal Agreement puts a definitive end to the transition state. So it's all about the Tories making sure they "deliver Brexit".
My attention has also been drawn to an analysis of the state of play in the Brexit farce by Andrew Duff, who was a LibDem MEP from 1999 to 2014. His paper, Brexit: Beyond The Transition, was published by European Policy Centre Paper on 21 August*.
The whole paper is well worth reading for an overview of the status of the negotiations and next steps (if you're a sad git did you say?) It's written sympathetically to the Chequered Compromise (as I call it) but among many points that are well argued, three aspects struck me in particular. Firstly, what happens if Parliament rejects any deal negotiated with Barnier:
To date, the debate at Westminster has been curiously disconnected from the reality of the EU talks. Once an Article 50 deal is tabled for scrutiny, however, it should become clear that this is the EU’s final offer. Having laboured hard to deliver two versions of a new settlement for Britain, the rest of the EU is in no mood and in no fit state to devise a third. In 2016 the EU offered David Cameron a deal on continued membership which was rejected in the referendum. If Parliament refuses the EU’s 2019 offer of an association agreement, there will be no going back to the drawing board: Europe has run out of tolerance with the British. If no deal is reached in the Article 50 talks, or if the deal reached is subsequently rejected by the British Parliament, the EU’s contingency plans will be put into operation and it will extricate itself from the UK as best it can on 29 March. Soon afterwards, in any event, normal business will be suspended in Brussels until the new Parliament and Commission is elected and Mr Tusk’s successor takes his place in December.
I've seen the argument before that any deal will be considered final and not further negotiable by the EU but I hadn't fully digested the point that the EU elections and formation of a new administration inevitably means that not much will happen on the EU front for several months after March.
Secondly, on the "People's Vote" idea:
Advocates of a ‘people’s vote’ have yet to explain what question they wish to put to a referendum. Some want it to decide between the Withdrawal Agreement and no deal. Others want a referendum to choose between no deal and the status quo. Yet others want multiple choice questions. All are deceptive. The first option is not acceptable to Parliament; the second is no longer acceptable to the EU; the third is a joke. In effect, referendum voters would be put in an invidious position. The campaign would not turn on the quality of Mr Barnier’s treaty. The argument on the streets, in fact, would be about nationalism, xenophobia and democratic betrayal. The pound would tank. The fragile UK constitution would be put under further immense strain, with the certainty that parliament at Westminster would again emerge emasculated and its discredited political parties split asunder. The nation would end up even more divided in terms of social class, generation and province, potentially pitching into a revolutionary situation. Instead of toying with populism, it would be better for politicians of all persuasions to shoulder their responsibility for the national interest. Parliament should not veto the Barnier deal.
Although there are some vocal advocates I also just can't see how a second referendum would come about. And thirdly, how things move forward after that:
Once Brexit is done, Mr Barnier’s Task Force 50 will be disbanded and serious negotiations for the association agreement will commence under new EU management. A general election in Britain no later than May 2022 will determine Britain’s future as a European country. The options will include continuing to develop the association agreement or to apply again to join the European Union as a full member state
Hmm. I don't like the sound of Br-re-entry.... that really would put the cat amongst the pigeons in terms of heightening the tension between remainers and leavers and fomenting despondency and division. Basically, it would leave us up the duff, Andrew.
* http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_8720_brexitbeyondthetransition.pdf?doc_id=2043
I wrote about David Owen's beguiling idea that we stay in the EEA for a limited transition period by enforcing what he sees as our right to do so, but switching to the EFTA pillar, from the EU pillar (see post of 13 August).
The problem with this for Mrs May isn't just that she didn't think of the idea, but that it leaves the position open for that transition state to become permanent if there is a change of UK government before the transition is completed. Whereas dealing with the transition through the Withrawal Agreement puts a definitive end to the transition state. So it's all about the Tories making sure they "deliver Brexit".
My attention has also been drawn to an analysis of the state of play in the Brexit farce by Andrew Duff, who was a LibDem MEP from 1999 to 2014. His paper, Brexit: Beyond The Transition, was published by European Policy Centre Paper on 21 August*.
The whole paper is well worth reading for an overview of the status of the negotiations and next steps (if you're a sad git did you say?) It's written sympathetically to the Chequered Compromise (as I call it) but among many points that are well argued, three aspects struck me in particular. Firstly, what happens if Parliament rejects any deal negotiated with Barnier:
To date, the debate at Westminster has been curiously disconnected from the reality of the EU talks. Once an Article 50 deal is tabled for scrutiny, however, it should become clear that this is the EU’s final offer. Having laboured hard to deliver two versions of a new settlement for Britain, the rest of the EU is in no mood and in no fit state to devise a third. In 2016 the EU offered David Cameron a deal on continued membership which was rejected in the referendum. If Parliament refuses the EU’s 2019 offer of an association agreement, there will be no going back to the drawing board: Europe has run out of tolerance with the British. If no deal is reached in the Article 50 talks, or if the deal reached is subsequently rejected by the British Parliament, the EU’s contingency plans will be put into operation and it will extricate itself from the UK as best it can on 29 March. Soon afterwards, in any event, normal business will be suspended in Brussels until the new Parliament and Commission is elected and Mr Tusk’s successor takes his place in December.
I've seen the argument before that any deal will be considered final and not further negotiable by the EU but I hadn't fully digested the point that the EU elections and formation of a new administration inevitably means that not much will happen on the EU front for several months after March.
Secondly, on the "People's Vote" idea:
Advocates of a ‘people’s vote’ have yet to explain what question they wish to put to a referendum. Some want it to decide between the Withdrawal Agreement and no deal. Others want a referendum to choose between no deal and the status quo. Yet others want multiple choice questions. All are deceptive. The first option is not acceptable to Parliament; the second is no longer acceptable to the EU; the third is a joke. In effect, referendum voters would be put in an invidious position. The campaign would not turn on the quality of Mr Barnier’s treaty. The argument on the streets, in fact, would be about nationalism, xenophobia and democratic betrayal. The pound would tank. The fragile UK constitution would be put under further immense strain, with the certainty that parliament at Westminster would again emerge emasculated and its discredited political parties split asunder. The nation would end up even more divided in terms of social class, generation and province, potentially pitching into a revolutionary situation. Instead of toying with populism, it would be better for politicians of all persuasions to shoulder their responsibility for the national interest. Parliament should not veto the Barnier deal.
Although there are some vocal advocates I also just can't see how a second referendum would come about. And thirdly, how things move forward after that:
Once Brexit is done, Mr Barnier’s Task Force 50 will be disbanded and serious negotiations for the association agreement will commence under new EU management. A general election in Britain no later than May 2022 will determine Britain’s future as a European country. The options will include continuing to develop the association agreement or to apply again to join the European Union as a full member state
Hmm. I don't like the sound of Br-re-entry.... that really would put the cat amongst the pigeons in terms of heightening the tension between remainers and leavers and fomenting despondency and division. Basically, it would leave us up the duff, Andrew.
* http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_8720_brexitbeyondthetransition.pdf?doc_id=2043
Friday, 24 August 2018
Role models?
After England, with its clean cut manager and captain, rehabilitated football as a sport with the wider British public in this summer's World Cup, rugby and cricket are vying to take over football's crown as the sport of undesirables and the kicking boy for the media.
In cricket's case the wheels of justice ran very slowly so the Ben Stokes saga will be played out over more than a year. One might call it a "timeless test", but only if you are a cricketing nerd. Stokes disgraced himself outside a Bristol nightclub last September and became a media anti-hero mainly due to a CCTV clip appearing promptly on youtube. One wonders how this happens but it isn't the first time (Joey Barton was another). Are people with access to the systems taking copies before the police collect the evidence? I accept this interpretation may be being charitable to the police (Barton clearly thinks the police leaked his meltdown, which was possibly even more spectacular than Stokes's). After all, if it is correct, why aren't the people who post this stuff being charged, as one would have thought it was prejudicial to a fair trial. Though this isn't the most concerning aspect of our legal system at the moment, as the CPS appears to be dysfunctional to the extreme. The Stokes trial is just the latest example of incompetence by the CPS, the not guilty verdict appearing to indicate that the CPS brought the wrong charges. Indeed, they tried to bring other charges at the start of the trial but were understandably given short shrift by the judge, as it could not possibly have been fair to the defence at that stage. With the lamentable failure to understand the first principles of disclosure in other, well publicised, cases one wonders whether anyone at the CPS has actually studied law. (I am, of course, a barrack room expert....)
As for Stokes he still has to appear before the cricketing overlords (should that be Over Lords?) so that will rumble on for some time yet. If they decide a suspension is merited, the fact that Stokes missed the last Ashes series is apparently not relevant as Stokes wasn't suspended then, he just wasn't being picked, which seems a peculiar take on fairness.
In contrast rugby player Danny Cipriani's case for resisting arrest (a mild charge given that he seems to have assaulted a female police officer while resisting arrest in Jersey) was heard almost before he had sobered up. His club took action against him within days and then the rugby authorities also had a go but, despite him attending the hearing in a classic "sod you" outfit (see below - at least he wore a tie to go with his untucked shirt, trainers and presumably borrowed ill fitting jacket) they decided not to go for some kind of triple jeopardy and apply further sanctions while finding him guilty of bringing the game into disrepute by behaving in a manner that "fell below the standard expected of a rugby player". (Er, what standard would that be? Biting, eye gouging, raking and excessive force being staples of the game as far as I can see, let alone no dress sense in Cipriani's case).
Cipriani is now left to wonder whether England boss Eddie Jones will select him or not. I would have had Cipriani in the squad for most of the past decade based on his playing skill, so one wonders whether other factors have kept him out. Jones will have to decide if Cipriani is reliable or disruptive as a member of the England squad.
It's easy to think that players misbehaving is a modern era problem when it was probably just easier to get away with things in the past - this whole business about role models strikes me as a modern era phenomenon. To show it's nothing new, England were without their wicket keeper in the first ever cricket test match in Australia in 1877 as Ted Pooley was in a cell in New Zealand after an altercation at the end of a match on which he had wagered money*. Pooley had previous - he had been suspended by his county after winning a bottle of champagne in a bet with a colleague, drinking it for breakfast and having to be replaced as wicketkeeper after lunch. The plot thickened in New Zealand when the chap Pooley had beaten up for reneging on a bet brought other charges about damage to property. Pooley was bailed for several weeks before being found not guilty. He returned to England a month after his team mates got home.
I've often said that I don't get the whole role model issue about sports stars, saying that they are only role models in terms of their sporting ability, not as people. It shouldn't be difficult to point out to youngsters the problems that aberrant behaviour can cause, as illustrated in spades by Stokes. David Walsh recounted a story** about a very famous but aging tennis star playing on the celebrity circuit who told his then 10 year old son to "f### off" when the lad was presumptious enough to politely ask if he could have the sweaty headband the tennis player had just removed at an invitation tournament. The look on his face made the lad's siblings laugh. Although the 10 year old was only just beginning to learn swear words, Walsh and his family weren't outraged. "Conor would hear worse when he started playing football for Comberton Crusaders under 12s and hearing a tennis star swear didn't exactly scar those within earshot". The story never fails to amuse whenever it is told in Walsh's house. Walsh summarises what I feel admirably:
"It is not our youngsters who demand or expect athletes to be role models. It's us, the parents, hoping that sports stars will do our job".
So now it's clear that rugby players and cricketers are no different from footballers will the press and public lay off diving, cheating, occasionally loutish and hugely overpaid footballers and let ordinary justice take its course when they misbehave? Not a chance. Because of that word "overpaid". The comments tend to be fuelled by self righteous resentment and that's not in short supply.
* http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/539294.html
** David Walsh's Sunday Times column, 19 August
In cricket's case the wheels of justice ran very slowly so the Ben Stokes saga will be played out over more than a year. One might call it a "timeless test", but only if you are a cricketing nerd. Stokes disgraced himself outside a Bristol nightclub last September and became a media anti-hero mainly due to a CCTV clip appearing promptly on youtube. One wonders how this happens but it isn't the first time (Joey Barton was another). Are people with access to the systems taking copies before the police collect the evidence? I accept this interpretation may be being charitable to the police (Barton clearly thinks the police leaked his meltdown, which was possibly even more spectacular than Stokes's). After all, if it is correct, why aren't the people who post this stuff being charged, as one would have thought it was prejudicial to a fair trial. Though this isn't the most concerning aspect of our legal system at the moment, as the CPS appears to be dysfunctional to the extreme. The Stokes trial is just the latest example of incompetence by the CPS, the not guilty verdict appearing to indicate that the CPS brought the wrong charges. Indeed, they tried to bring other charges at the start of the trial but were understandably given short shrift by the judge, as it could not possibly have been fair to the defence at that stage. With the lamentable failure to understand the first principles of disclosure in other, well publicised, cases one wonders whether anyone at the CPS has actually studied law. (I am, of course, a barrack room expert....)
As for Stokes he still has to appear before the cricketing overlords (should that be Over Lords?) so that will rumble on for some time yet. If they decide a suspension is merited, the fact that Stokes missed the last Ashes series is apparently not relevant as Stokes wasn't suspended then, he just wasn't being picked, which seems a peculiar take on fairness.
In contrast rugby player Danny Cipriani's case for resisting arrest (a mild charge given that he seems to have assaulted a female police officer while resisting arrest in Jersey) was heard almost before he had sobered up. His club took action against him within days and then the rugby authorities also had a go but, despite him attending the hearing in a classic "sod you" outfit (see below - at least he wore a tie to go with his untucked shirt, trainers and presumably borrowed ill fitting jacket) they decided not to go for some kind of triple jeopardy and apply further sanctions while finding him guilty of bringing the game into disrepute by behaving in a manner that "fell below the standard expected of a rugby player". (Er, what standard would that be? Biting, eye gouging, raking and excessive force being staples of the game as far as I can see, let alone no dress sense in Cipriani's case).
Cipriani is now left to wonder whether England boss Eddie Jones will select him or not. I would have had Cipriani in the squad for most of the past decade based on his playing skill, so one wonders whether other factors have kept him out. Jones will have to decide if Cipriani is reliable or disruptive as a member of the England squad.
It's easy to think that players misbehaving is a modern era problem when it was probably just easier to get away with things in the past - this whole business about role models strikes me as a modern era phenomenon. To show it's nothing new, England were without their wicket keeper in the first ever cricket test match in Australia in 1877 as Ted Pooley was in a cell in New Zealand after an altercation at the end of a match on which he had wagered money*. Pooley had previous - he had been suspended by his county after winning a bottle of champagne in a bet with a colleague, drinking it for breakfast and having to be replaced as wicketkeeper after lunch. The plot thickened in New Zealand when the chap Pooley had beaten up for reneging on a bet brought other charges about damage to property. Pooley was bailed for several weeks before being found not guilty. He returned to England a month after his team mates got home.
I've often said that I don't get the whole role model issue about sports stars, saying that they are only role models in terms of their sporting ability, not as people. It shouldn't be difficult to point out to youngsters the problems that aberrant behaviour can cause, as illustrated in spades by Stokes. David Walsh recounted a story** about a very famous but aging tennis star playing on the celebrity circuit who told his then 10 year old son to "f### off" when the lad was presumptious enough to politely ask if he could have the sweaty headband the tennis player had just removed at an invitation tournament. The look on his face made the lad's siblings laugh. Although the 10 year old was only just beginning to learn swear words, Walsh and his family weren't outraged. "Conor would hear worse when he started playing football for Comberton Crusaders under 12s and hearing a tennis star swear didn't exactly scar those within earshot". The story never fails to amuse whenever it is told in Walsh's house. Walsh summarises what I feel admirably:
"It is not our youngsters who demand or expect athletes to be role models. It's us, the parents, hoping that sports stars will do our job".
So now it's clear that rugby players and cricketers are no different from footballers will the press and public lay off diving, cheating, occasionally loutish and hugely overpaid footballers and let ordinary justice take its course when they misbehave? Not a chance. Because of that word "overpaid". The comments tend to be fuelled by self righteous resentment and that's not in short supply.
* http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/539294.html
** David Walsh's Sunday Times column, 19 August
Tuesday, 21 August 2018
Trans formers
The NHS has reported that the number of people over 60 who have undergone gender reassignment surgery is increasing though numbers remain small. Not that small, mind as in the seven years to 2015-16 a total of 75 people aged between 61 and 71 and seven people aged 71 and over had the operation*. As a result Age UK is offering advice to to older people looking to change sex and adjust to their new way of life. I'm not sure whether that is because of the demand or because someone somewhere thinks these numbers are too small...
Be that as it may, I also read about an 85 year old who had became the oldest British male to undergo surgery at the age of 81**. That was startling enough, but what Ruth Rose had to say on one point gave me pause for thought:
Rose said she had spent decades learning to think and behave like a woman. ...... If couples walked holding hands, the man's hand was held forwards and the woman's held back".
So I immediately checked whether Mrs H and I hold hands in what is supposedly the 'normal' way. A first I thought we didn't because I took the above to mean the man's hand faces forwards. On reflection, I think it means that the man's hand is at the front (so the back of the man's hand faces forwards). Just as well, as otherwise we might both have to put our names down for gender reassignment. Though at least we wouldn't need to look for new partners. (Mrs H's comment about how the change could be achieved was significantly more ribald than that....)
The other reason it's just as well is that the alternative to surgery would be to practice holding hands the "other" way. We tried this and it's even harder than the Dele Alli goal celebration "salute", which also makes you feel as if you're trying to turn your arm in a way it just doesn't want to go:
For those of you determined to have a go, there are many sites showing you how to do it (e.g. on BBC here ) but it's definitely harder than tying a bow tie.
More seriously though, one does wonder how the NHS can ever meet all the demands put on it if those demands include gender reassignment surgery for people who might be considered a bit old for a hip replacement. I suppose whether you think the world is mad depends more on you than on the world. Because it plainly is.
* Pensioners get tips on changing gender. Sunday Times 12 August 2018
** I became a woman at the age of 81. Sunday Times 12 August 2018
Be that as it may, I also read about an 85 year old who had became the oldest British male to undergo surgery at the age of 81**. That was startling enough, but what Ruth Rose had to say on one point gave me pause for thought:
Rose said she had spent decades learning to think and behave like a woman. ...... If couples walked holding hands, the man's hand was held forwards and the woman's held back".
So I immediately checked whether Mrs H and I hold hands in what is supposedly the 'normal' way. A first I thought we didn't because I took the above to mean the man's hand faces forwards. On reflection, I think it means that the man's hand is at the front (so the back of the man's hand faces forwards). Just as well, as otherwise we might both have to put our names down for gender reassignment. Though at least we wouldn't need to look for new partners. (Mrs H's comment about how the change could be achieved was significantly more ribald than that....)
The other reason it's just as well is that the alternative to surgery would be to practice holding hands the "other" way. We tried this and it's even harder than the Dele Alli goal celebration "salute", which also makes you feel as if you're trying to turn your arm in a way it just doesn't want to go:
For those of you determined to have a go, there are many sites showing you how to do it (e.g. on BBC here ) but it's definitely harder than tying a bow tie.
More seriously though, one does wonder how the NHS can ever meet all the demands put on it if those demands include gender reassignment surgery for people who might be considered a bit old for a hip replacement. I suppose whether you think the world is mad depends more on you than on the world. Because it plainly is.
* Pensioners get tips on changing gender. Sunday Times 12 August 2018
** I became a woman at the age of 81. Sunday Times 12 August 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)