The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[Gingerfinch]

At the end of the day the entire matter is based around a single word deviod of context, personally I actually don't think someone sending something offensive about someone else is a serious matter at all. As adults we should be able to get over it.

---------------------------------------

So, you would be ok if one of your employees sent a text to a competitor, calling you a useless tosser?

I have actually commentated on this before Ginger, I've never sacked anyone for making personal comments about any member of my staff - the obvious exception would be if they were discriminatory in nature, something that has never happened - however I have sacked people for passing on company information to other people. All that has always mattered to me is whether or not people can have a working relationship when they're on my time or in other words whether people are capable of acting like adults.

But KP wasn't sacked was he? I thought (could be well wrong) that all he had to do was apologise (and mean it) and he was back in the side. The ECB were correct in disciplining him IMO. What's gone on since, is a mystery to me.

Well being left out of the side and being stripped of a central contract is about as close to being sacked as an England cricketer can be. Thankfully the actual content of what has happened since everyone decided to sit down and deal with matters has been left out of the public domain.

Is that because he never offered a PROPER apology?

[Arthur Crabtree]

Seems to be a few journalists/etc around, who, having fed off this KP story for the past few weeks, are now suggesting that it could have all been settled quietly with a bit of common sense...

[Making_Splinters]

A reasonable interpretation of an event we understand to have happened, i.e. the meeting at which Pietersen was confronted by the ECB with a description of the nature of the texts as the ECB considered them to be (however they came by that information), is that the ECB’s description of them tallied so well with Pietersen’s knowledge of them that he felt unable to issue a denial.

All other issues, particularly opinions as to context, seem peripheral and logical somersaults merely a distraction.

Seeing as no one knows what actually happened that is also nothing but an opinion on context.

Let us have a more convincing theory of the reason for Pietersen’s denial then.

As already pointed out, D/L, if your asked to say that what ever the content was could not be considered offensive then as we all know it is an impossible situation to get out of. Seeing as you don't actually know how the entire situation was carried out you're also doing nothing but speculating and as I previous said, if you choose your own start and end point you can make any correlation you want to.

[D/L]

A reasonable interpretation of an event we understand to have happened, i.e. the meeting at which Pietersen was confronted by the ECB with a description of the nature of the texts as the ECB considered them to be (however they came by that information), is that the ECB’s description of them tallied so well with Pietersen’s knowledge of them that he felt unable to issue a denial.

All other issues, particularly opinions as to context, seem peripheral and logical somersaults merely a distraction.

Seeing as no one knows what actually happened that is also nothing but an opinion on context.

Let us have a more convincing theory of the reason for Pietersen’s denial then.

As already pointed out, D/L, if your asked to say that what ever the content was could not be considered offensive then as we all know it is an impossible situation to get out of. Seeing as you don't actually know how the entire situation was carried out you're also doing nothing but speculating and as I previous said, if you choose your own start and end point you can make any correlation you want to.

You don't have one then?

[Making_Splinters]

At the end of the day the entire matter is based around a single word deviod of context, personally I actually don't think someone sending something offensive about someone else is a serious matter at all. As adults we should be able to get over it.

---------------------------------------

So, you would be ok if one of your employees sent a text to a competitor, calling you a useless tosser?

I have actually commentated on this before Ginger, I've never sacked anyone for making personal comments about any member of my staff - the obvious exception would be if they were discriminatory in nature, something that has never happened - however I have sacked people for passing on company information to other people. All that has always mattered to me is whether or not people can have a working relationship when they're on my time or in other words whether people are capable of acting like adults.

But KP wasn't sacked was he? I thought (could be well wrong) that all he had to do was apologise (and mean it) and he was back in the side. The ECB were correct in disciplining him IMO. What's gone on since, is a mystery to me.

Well being left out of the side and being stripped of a central contract is about as close to being sacked as an England cricketer can be. Thankfully the actual content of what has happened since everyone decided to sit down and deal with matters has been left out of the public domain.

Is that because he never offered a PROPER apology?

And what consitutes a proper apology at the end of the day Ginger? As pointed out above no one actually knows what's gone on since all parties finally decided to get behind closed doors, in fact no one even knows what the terms and conditions even are any more.

[Gingerfinch]

ms

A personal one perhaps?

[Making_Splinters]

A reasonable interpretation of an event we understand to have happened, i.e. the meeting at which Pietersen was confronted by the ECB with a description of the nature of the texts as the ECB considered them to be (however they came by that information), is that the ECB’s description of them tallied so well with Pietersen’s knowledge of them that he felt unable to issue a denial.

All other issues, particularly opinions as to context, seem peripheral and logical somersaults merely a distraction.

Seeing as no one knows what actually happened that is also nothing but an opinion on context.

Let us have a more convincing theory of the reason for Pietersen’s denial then.

As already pointed out, D/L, if your asked to say that what ever the content was could not be considered offensive then as we all know it is an impossible situation to get out of. Seeing as you don't actually know how the entire situation was carried out you're also doing nothing but speculating and as I previous said, if you choose your own start and end point you can make any correlation you want to.

You don't have one then?

Don't have what D/L? Seeing as no one actually knows anything solid about what happened then you're doing nothing but speculating as am I. If the ECB asked was the content of the messages potentially offensive then you end up in a situation where it is impossible to say that they were not. Speculation at the end of the day is never convincing unless you happen to want it to be.

[Making_Splinters]

ms

A personal one perhaps?

To whom Ginger? Strauss isn't in the team anymore so it hardly seems relevant.

[Gingerfinch]

ms

A personal one perhaps?

To whom Ginger? Strauss isn't in the team anymore so it hardly seems relevant.

huh? It's relevant to me and he was still there at the time, anyway.

[D/L]

There is speculation and there is inference and interpretation, essentially very similar in meaning, but with different emphases on credibility, I suppose.

I’ve yet to see a more credible interpretation of Pietersen’s denial than the one I’ve put forward.

Any road up, if there really could be no offence construed from these texts then, yes, it is perfectly possible to say they contained nothing offensive and, surely, Pietersen would have done so.

[Making_Splinters]

There is speculation and there is inference and interpretation, essentially very similar in meaning, but with different emphases on credibility, I suppose.

I’ve yet to see a more credible interpretation of Pietersen’s denial than the one I’ve put forward.

Any road up, if there really could be no offence construed from these texts then, yes, it is perfectly possible to say they contained nothing offensive and, surely, Pietersen would have done so.

Which comes back to the context and the original intent doesn't it D/L, something that you've decided is a distraction when it is clearly actually the central point.

Seeing as you're essentially doing nothing but deciding for yourself how things happened then making an inferance upon that then for someone who doesn't actually agree with your "interpetation" then it holds no more credibility than anything else. At the end of the day whether you want to present your inferance as credible it doesn't matter does it, seeing as no one actually knows the content of the messages or even the question that was asked of KP then you're left with nothing more than arguments that hold up based on internal consistancy.

[Arthur Crabtree]

The truth as I see it is the ECB, probably rightly had to act with a heavy hand to quell the danger of the IPL vs England team commitments, but it seems they jumped full barrel at any opportunity to isolate the player, then used his career as the hangman's noose around his neck to make him jump himself and justify their actions.Its clear to see, whatever you stance, that the bargaining position is with the ECB also.

Thats what pissed me off most about the whole issue, the fact that I believe strongly that the ECB have thrown their weight behind bad or incomplete hearsay evidence and are using a persons career as leverage over the actual truth or resolution... its simply got to the point where the truth doesnt matter anymore, more about being proved right without regard to the team.

This post has such a wonderful clarity about the affair that it is a shame that the ECB will never see it. The most relevant comment I've seen on the subject, anywhere!

[hopeforthebest]

There is speculation and there is inference and interpretation, essentially very similar in meaning, but with different emphases on credibility, I suppose.

I’ve yet to see a more credible interpretation of Pietersen’s denial than the one I’ve put forward.

Any road up, if there really could be no offence construed from these texts then, yes, it is perfectly possible to say they contained nothing offensive and, surely, Pietersen would have done so.

Which comes back to the context and the original intent doesn't it D/L, something that you've decided is a distraction when it is clearly actually the central point.

Seeing as you're essentially doing nothing but deciding for yourself how things happened then making an inferance upon that then for someone who doesn't actually agree with your "interpetation" then it holds no more credibility than anything else. At the end of the day whether you want to present your inferance as credible it doesn't matter does it, seeing as no one actually knows the content of the messages or even the question that was asked of KP then you're left with nothing more than arguments that hold up based on internal consistancy.

If KP called Strauss a "doos" what context could there be that excuses that?

[Kim]

The truth as I see it is the ECB, probably rightly had to act with a heavy hand to quell the danger of the IPL vs England team commitments, but it seems they jumped full barrel at any opportunity to isolate the player, then used his career as the hangman's noose around his neck to make him jump himself and justify their actions.Its clear to see, whatever you stance, that the bargaining position is with the ECB also.

Thats what pissed me off most about the whole issue, the fact that I believe strongly that the ECB have thrown their weight behind bad or incomplete hearsay evidence and are using a persons career as leverage over the actual truth or resolution... its simply got to the point where the truth doesnt matter anymore, more about being proved right without regard to the team.

This post has such a wonderful clarity about the affair that it is a shame that the ECB will never see it. The most relevant comment I've seen on the subject, anywhere!

Funny isnt ithow people see things differently,? I think its a speculative pile of, Ill say tosh that bears no relation to reality and to the actual events that happened.

Ah well. Agree to differ etc,,,

[Arthur Crabtree]

Ha, ha, ha. Keep it coming.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/se ... en-cricket