The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[#Brown]

"Even if for a moment we agree that what Broad / Swann did was banter or something trivial compared to KPs antics, its just stoking the fire and completely irresponsible behaviour. If they genuinely want to resolve the situation, they should tell these to shut up, but clearly thats not happening."

They haven't said anything.

"In that case, they allowing criticism of one active player by another active team member seems to go against the ethos of sanctity of dressing room etc which KP has apperently broken..."

Not when you take into context what he actually said.

Apples and oranges Dilbert.

[Making_Splinters]

"

Not when you take into context what he actually said.

And of course no one knows - aside from the South Africans and KP - what KP actually said.

[#Brown]

Oh yes MS you're right, but I was actually referring to what Swann said in his book.

[D/L]

...If you read my posts on this thread, you will see I am never saying KP is right or innocent. So please put my arguements in that perspective and then respond.

Repeatedly saying that the texts had been described as “mere banter” and not “serious” is not defending Pietersen’s behaviour, then? The obvious answer to that is that the South Africans were not the target of those texts.

Repeatedly drawing parallels with the Swann and Broad “issues”, when there is no comparison in terms of seriousness, is not defending Pietersen also?

My response is that you must have a different definition of the word “defend” to mine.

[Dilbert]

Repeatedly saying that the texts had been described as “mere banter” and not “serious” is not defending Pietersen’s behaviour, then? The obvious answer to that is that the South Africans were not the target of those texts.

The “mere banter” and not “serious” comments came from the SA camp, and no one else, including ECB said it was not that way. I was not on this board from 14th evening, before KP gave his aoplogy, so I made my comments before that.

Repeatedly drawing parallels with the Swann and Broad “issues”, when there is no comparison in terms of seriousness, is not defending Pietersen also?

Well, Swann criticised his teammate in his book, now whatever else you say, if you are saying something bad, its bound to create bad blood between team members. And ECB, Flower, Strauss dont seem to care.
Broads closeness to the twitter parody acct owner, and the fact that he knew a lot of "dressing room info" implicates Broad, even though he himself denies it. Again, no one (ECB, Flower, Strauss) seems to be much bothered about how that info came out. This, as per me, shows that KP was not much liked in the team, hence they nailed him on everything he did, whereas the blue eyed boys got away with what they did.

My response is that you must have a different definition of the word “defend” to mine.

Thats your opinion...

[Dilbert]

...If you read my posts on this thread, you will see I am never saying KP is right or innocent. So please put my arguements in that perspective and then respond.

Repeatedly saying that the texts had been described as “mere banter” and not “serious” is not defending Pietersen’s behaviour, then? The obvious answer to that is that the South Africans were not the target of those texts.

Repeatedly drawing parallels with the Swann and Broad “issues”, when there is no comparison in terms of seriousness, is not defending Pietersen also?

My response is that you must have a different definition of the word “defend” to mine.

Also, how do your arguements imply I am saying KP is right or innocent?
This is what I said -

I have never defended his behaviour. What I find "stupid" is the double standards in case of Broad and Swann.

Defending his behaviour would be saying what he did was right, or he should not be punished.

[Kim]

Twitter account didnt seem to include a scrap of inside info to me. Happy to be corrected by anyone who paid more attention to it though

[Dilbert]

Twitter account didnt seem to include a scrap of inside info to me. Happy to be corrected by anyone who paid more attention to it though

From what I gathered reading different posts here, he had posted something which was only privy to dressing room. Broad was implicated because he was with him, and Hales was his 1st follower.

Regd Hales, why would you follow a parody account immediately unless you know who has set it up and why?

A lot of circumstantial evidence shows them in bad light, although theres no proof and ofcourse Broad has denied any involvement. Surprisingly, Hales hasnt. Just like KP did initially. If he has, I apologise.

[Kim]

Knowing the acount exists and providing insider info for it are two very very different things.

[Dilbert]

Knowing the acount exists and providing insider info for it are two very very different things.

Well, the thing is, why would you follow a parody account minutes after it getting created?
1. It was created by Broads roomie
2. Its 1st follower was Hales
3. Broad posts a pic of himself with the creator immediately after this acct is created, putting him in the vicinity at the time of creation of the parody account
4. The posts on that account apperently had some info which was privy to the dressing room only and ridiculed KP. Which made KP furious.

If you still cant see the links, lets not discuss this further.

[Kim]

What I can see is that youve said the account included insider information - a serious charge - when it didnt as far as I can tell.

I knew the account existed straight away - its how twitter works.

Pic of Broad and the guy? Didnt see it. I thought he posted a picture of socks.

Kps anger was because he thought a team mate was doing the posting. He was wrong.

[Gingerfinch]

Dilbert

Broad has denied it and KP didn't.

Now, Broad may be lying but what can the ECB do without proof?

[SaintPowelly]

For everyone going on about Swanns book, you do realise that before it was published it would of been proof-read by the ECB.

In that case, they allowing criticism of one active player by another active team member seems to go against the ethos of sanctity of dressing room etc which KP has apperently broken...

Swanns book wasnt written mid-match and only for the opposition to read.

[D/L]

...If you read my posts on this thread, you will see I am never saying KP is right or innocent. So please put my arguements in that perspective and then respond.

Repeatedly saying that the texts had been described as “mere banter” and not “serious” is not defending Pietersen’s behaviour, then? The obvious answer to that is that the South Africans were not the target of those texts.

Repeatedly drawing parallels with the Swann and Broad “issues”, when there is no comparison in terms of seriousness, is not defending Pietersen also?

My response is that you must have a different definition of the word “defend” to mine.

Also, how do your arguements imply I am saying KP is right or innocent?
This is what I said -

I have never defended his behaviour. What I find "stupid" is the double standards in case of Broad and Swann.

Defending his behaviour would be saying what he did was right, or he should not be punished.

My final response, as this is a bit tiresome - defending it can also include trying to make light of it, with the repeated mentions that the South African camp had, wrongly, played down the content of the texts and the implication that others had behaved as badly as Pietersen. That is clearly nonsense.

[Red Devil]

For everyone going on about Swanns book, you do realise that before it was published it would of been proof-read by the ECB.

In that case, they allowing criticism of one active player by another active team member seems to go against the ethos of sanctity of dressing room etc which KP has apperently broken...

Swanns book wasnt written mid-match and only for the opposition to read.

So - having a go at someone for the whole world to read (for a profit) is better then having a private moan to a couple of friends (even if they are playing for the opposition at the time)?