The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[OffStumpYorker]

Well we now have it confirmed that Morris and Flower are set to meet KP and disguss his future as part of an England side.

Interesting to see that the Daily Mail have gotten away scott free for publishing lies about the content of the texts.

Presumably, if they were lies, Pietersen’s legal team will soon be on the case. Let’s see if they are…

The Mail has issued a retraction already.

can you post a link to that MS as I cant see anything on thier website.

[Dilbert]

Adi, KP apologised about "sending" a text.
The Mail apologised (or did they) about lying what the texts said.

[D/L]

Well we now have it confirmed that Morris and Flower are set to meet KP and disguss his future as part of an England side.

Interesting to see that the Daily Mail have gotten away scott free for publishing lies about the content of the texts.

Presumably, if they were lies, Pietersen’s legal team will soon be on the case. Let’s see if they are…

The Mail has issued a retraction already.

can you post a link to that MS as I cant see anything on thier website.

I'd be interested to see the precise wording of this alleged retraction too.

[Making_Splinters]

Well we now have it confirmed that Morris and Flower are set to meet KP and disguss his future as part of an England side.

Interesting to see that the Daily Mail have gotten away scott free for publishing lies about the content of the texts.

Presumably, if they were lies, Pietersen’s legal team will soon be on the case. Let’s see if they are…

The Mail has issued a retraction already.

can you post a link to that MS as I cant see anything on thier website.

DDB posted this earlier.

I know you're joking but I posted this somewhere else yesterday and it's funny how many didn't know that the Daily Mail had retracted the round the wicket texts.

As Sportsmail explained on Monday, Pietersen did not, for example, tell South Africa's bowlers in the texts to go round the wicket.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricke ... z24sx6i2gQ

[meninblue]

Let us assume they retracted if at all there is truth in it. But question is why did KP apologize if he thought they were not nice texts.

[OffStumpYorker]

Well we now have it confirmed that Morris and Flower are set to meet KP and disguss his future as part of an England side.

Interesting to see that the Daily Mail have gotten away scott free for publishing lies about the content of the texts.

Presumably, if they were lies, Pietersen’s legal team will soon be on the case. Let’s see if they are…

The Mail has issued a retraction already.

can you post a link to that MS as I cant see anything on thier website.

DDB posted this earlier.

I know you're joking but I posted this somewhere else yesterday and it's funny how many didn't know that the Daily Mail had retracted the round the wicket texts.

As Sportsmail explained on Monday, Pietersen did not, for example, tell South Africa's bowlers in the texts to go round the wicket.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricke ... z24sx6i2gQ

it got lost in the noise though its not the mail backtracking more KP staying he didnt text team tactics or suggestions about strauss to the SA team. Theres a slight difference in the context.

[D/L]

Well we now have it confirmed that Morris and Flower are set to meet KP and disguss his future as part of an England side.

Interesting to see that the Daily Mail have gotten away scott free for publishing lies about the content of the texts.

Presumably, if they were lies, Pietersen’s legal team will soon be on the case. Let’s see if they are…

The Mail has issued a retraction already.

can you post a link to that MS as I cant see anything on thier website.

DDB posted this earlier.

I know you're joking but I posted this somewhere else yesterday and it's funny how many didn't know that the Daily Mail had retracted the round the wicket texts.

As Sportsmail explained on Monday, Pietersen did not, for example, tell South Africa's bowlers in the texts to go round the wicket.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricke ... z24sx6i2gQ

Not a retraction by the Mail of the reporting of offensiveness in the texts (“provocative” to use Pietersen’s description), then.

However, if the Mail were lying about this, no doubt there will soon be the announcement of legal action.

I won’t be holding my breath.

[Making_Splinters]

Not a retraction by the Mail of the reporting of offensiveness in the texts (“provocative” to use Pietersen’s description), then.

However, if the Mail were lying about this, no doubt there will soon be the announcement of legal action.

I won’t be holding my breath.

Didn't say it was, D/L. Just pointing out that the paper themselves have said that the player did not do what they and others have used to beat him with.

Calling someone whatever is a world of difference away from telling the opposition what the teams tactics are or player's weaknesses are at the end of the day. Personal differences can be resolved and are every day in the real world, a complete breach of trust however is not something people can get around.

[D/L]

Not a retraction by the Mail of the reporting of offensiveness in the texts (“provocative” to use Pietersen’s description), then.

However, if the Mail were lying about this, no doubt there will soon be the announcement of legal action.

I won’t be holding my breath.

Didn't say it was, D/L. Just pointing out that the paper themselves have said that the player did not do what they and others have used to beat him with.

Calling someone whatever is a world of difference away from telling the opposition what the teams tactics are or player's weaknesses are at the end of the day. Personal differences can be resolved and are every day in the real world, a complete breach of trust however is not something people can get around.

As others have said, M_S, I don’t think South Africa really needed any advice on player weaknesses so, whilst the significance of the information given would have been close to zero, this does not make the act, had it been carried out, any less reprehensible.

Many will think the personal remarks alleged to have been made are a far more serious matter. It is interesting that the Mail seems to have felt no need to retract this part of its reporting.

[Making_Splinters]

Not a retraction by the Mail of the reporting of offensiveness in the texts (“provocative” to use Pietersen’s description), then.

However, if the Mail were lying about this, no doubt there will soon be the announcement of legal action.

I won’t be holding my breath.

Didn't say it was, D/L. Just pointing out that the paper themselves have said that the player did not do what they and others have used to beat him with.

Calling someone whatever is a world of difference away from telling the opposition what the teams tactics are or player's weaknesses are at the end of the day. Personal differences can be resolved and are every day in the real world, a complete breach of trust however is not something people can get around.

As others have said, M_S, I don’t think South Africa really needed any advice on player weaknesses so, whilst the significance of the information given would have been close to zero, this does not make the act, had it been carried out, any less reprehensible.

Many will think the personal remarks alleged to have been made are a far more serious matter. It is interesting that the Mail seems to have felt no need to retract this part of its reporting.

Why would personal remarks be more serious than passing on tactic information to the opposition?

Maybe I'm just not particularly sensitive - or have grown up beyond the school yard - but I've never fired anyone for calling another member of the office an x, y, or z - an exception would be if it was discriminatory in nature though that has not happened. I have fired people for passing on company information to rivals though. Why? Because one is a breach of trust which makes it impossible for someone to continue in my employ, the other is simply a product of being human and making a mistake.

[shankycricket]

Not a retraction by the Mail of the reporting of offensiveness in the texts (“provocative” to use Pietersen’s description), then.

However, if the Mail were lying about this, no doubt there will soon be the announcement of legal action.

I won’t be holding my breath.

Didn't say it was, D/L. Just pointing out that the paper themselves have said that the player did not do what they and others have used to beat him with.

Calling someone whatever is a world of difference away from telling the opposition what the teams tactics are or player's weaknesses are at the end of the day. Personal differences can be resolved and are every day in the real world, a complete breach of trust however is not something people can get around.

As others have said, M_S, I don’t think South Africa really needed any advice on player weaknesses so, whilst the significance of the information given would have been close to zero, this does not make the act, had it been carried out, any less reprehensible.

Many will think the personal remarks alleged to have been made are a far more serious matter. It is interesting that the Mail seems to have felt no need to retract this part of its reporting.

Why would personal remarks be more serious than passing on tactic information to the opposition?

Maybe I'm just not particularly sensitive - or have grown up beyond the school yard - but I've never fired anyone for calling another member of the office an x, y, or z - an exception would be if it was discriminatory in nature though that has not happened. I have fired people for passing on company information to rivals though. Why? Because one is a breach of trust which makes it impossible for someone to continue in my employ, the other is simply a product of being human and making a mistake.

[D/L]

Not a retraction by the Mail of the reporting of offensiveness in the texts (“provocative” to use Pietersen’s description), then.

However, if the Mail were lying about this, no doubt there will soon be the announcement of legal action.

I won’t be holding my breath.

Didn't say it was, D/L. Just pointing out that the paper themselves have said that the player did not do what they and others have used to beat him with.

Calling someone whatever is a world of difference away from telling the opposition what the teams tactics are or player's weaknesses are at the end of the day. Personal differences can be resolved and are every day in the real world, a complete breach of trust however is not something people can get around.

As others have said, M_S, I don’t think South Africa really needed any advice on player weaknesses so, whilst the significance of the information given would have been close to zero, this does not make the act, had it been carried out, any less reprehensible.

Many will think the personal remarks alleged to have been made are a far more serious matter. It is interesting that the Mail seems to have felt no need to retract this part of its reporting.

Why would personal remarks be more serious than passing on tactic information to the opposition?

Maybe I'm just not particularly sensitive - or have grown up beyond the school yard - but I've never fired anyone for calling another member of the office an x, y, or z - an exception would be if it was discriminatory in nature though that has not happened. I have fired people for passing on company information to rivals though. Why? Because one is a breach of trust which makes it impossible for someone to continue in my employ, the other is simply a product of being human and making a mistake.

It is breaching another sort of trust, M_S. I’d concede that it very much depends upon one’s own values as to which is considered the more serious.

[OffStumpYorker]

Not a retraction by the Mail of the reporting of offensiveness in the texts (“provocative” to use Pietersen’s description), then.

However, if the Mail were lying about this, no doubt there will soon be the announcement of legal action.

I won’t be holding my breath.

Didn't say it was, D/L. Just pointing out that the paper themselves have said that the player did not do what they and others have used to beat him with.

Calling someone whatever is a world of difference away from telling the opposition what the teams tactics are or player's weaknesses are at the end of the day. Personal differences can be resolved and are every day in the real world, a complete breach of trust however is not something people can get around.

As others have said, M_S, I don’t think South Africa really needed any advice on player weaknesses so, whilst the significance of the information given would have been close to zero, this does not make the act, had it been carried out, any less reprehensible.

Many will think the personal remarks alleged to have been made are a far more serious matter. It is interesting that the Mail seems to have felt no need to retract this part of its reporting.

Why would personal remarks be more serious than passing on tactic information to the opposition?

Maybe I'm just not particularly sensitive - or have grown up beyond the school yard - but I've never fired anyone for calling another member of the office an x, y, or z - an exception would be if it was discriminatory in nature though that has not happened. I have fired people for passing on company information to rivals though. Why? Because one is a breach of trust which makes it impossible for someone to continue in my employ, the other is simply a product of being human and making a mistake.

To a point I agree with you on the comments, but there are deeper problems here than just the texts, theres what lead upto KP sending those texts, I'm not defenidng him and he deserves to spend a few months thinking about what he wants, if strauss was forced out by these and other things then I really dont think I can support english cricket anymore.

Personally I think the SA team were wrong to leek them and in doing so it was a cold calculation that it would throw England off thier game which worked, and for me thats more reprehensible than KP actually sending them.

[greyblazer]

Ha Clarke is blaming the media now? It is a farce.

[OffStumpYorker]

It appears Strauss deciced before the SA series, and the England players knew ahead of lords that this was the case, hence the 100 bottle of wine for his 100th test.