![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksKind of a "no shit sherlock?" morning for the newspapers, isn't it? Nothing so wonderful/sickening/depressing as watching the media whip itself into an unheard-of degree of moral outrage about something they either don't understand or which they should have know was coming anyway.
But, well, maybe the media just reflects the population at large on these two. First the News of the World "exposes" the fact that the Pakistan cricket team is subject to certain external influences. Considering the fact that members of the Pakistan cricket team have been stomped on for this at least twice since 2001, this is a genuine "no shit, sherlock" and immediately goes on the Birks "no shit, sherlock" "honours board" for the month.
This seems to tie in with some British view of sport that it is "different". So, players are expected to play for their country for "pride", even though they are professionals. They are not meant to be subject to external financial influences because, even though they are professionals, at heart it is a "game". And, although cheating in business is expected, cheating in games for financial reasons is, well, morally wrong. Luckily, in this instance, it is also illegal. Wouldn't it be nice if a dive to get a penalty was a criminal offence under some kind of "attempt to gain a pecuniary advantage by deception" law? After all, if staying in the Premiership is worth a million quid to a player, surely attempting to deceive the referee in such a fashion qualifies as some kind of criminal financial offence?
The second appearance on the NSS hounours board for the month is (a) the announcement that NHS Direct will go the way of the dodo and (b) the outrage from the general population, let alone Labour politicians. I said that this would happen the second any cuts became "real" rather than "hypothetical", and so it comes to pass.
Radio 5 got a chap who used NHS Direct to explain why it was a useful service -- his main argument appeared to be that it saved him embarrassment when discussing a "personal" condition. Hmm, I think that even the Beeb might have found a better case for keeping NHS Direct alive.
I'm not sure how many times people will have to be told this, but the argument that "it does a useful service" just isn't good enough. The arguments that "it saves money in the long run" or that "it's an investment for the future" also don't cut the mustard. We are in the total shit here. We have been spending money that we haven't got on "useful" services for decades (think January and February when Homer was mayor of Springfield, before the money ran out). Yes, NHS Direct is a very nice thing to have. It's a very useful service. It does very good things for lots of people. None of which, I fear to say, matters a toss at the moment. Because we haven't got any money. I'm amazed that there aren't people on the right actually arguing that the NHS is a luxury that we can no longer afford. Because, well, that's really how serious the situation is.
And we really are getting into the situation where we have to say things as bad as "life expectancy in this country has been extended by spending money that we haven't got". In other words, some adults have lived longer and, yes, some children have survived, at the expense of future adults' life expectancy and future children's survival. That's how much we have borrowed from the future.
When the situation is put as starkly as that, NHS Direct appears rather less of an absolutely vital service. Think intensive care units for new-born babies being closed. Think halving the number of ambulances on the streets. Think really bad shit like that.
No-one likes being the bringer of bad news. No-one ever gets thanked for telling people harsh truths. That's because people are in the main still not bright enough to realize that the person bringing the bad news is not by definition the person who made the bad news happen. And people like even less to be told "the reason that this is happening is all your fault, because if you didn't retire at 60 with an inflation-proofed pension, if you had carried on being a productive member of society, then perhaps NHS Direct would still be a luxury that we could afford. But you didn't, you thought that after a mere 40 years work that entitled you to 40 years of non-work. Well, sorry guv, but the numbers don't add up." Instead, they have to say that it's the fault of the banks, big business, "wasteful" government spending (whatever that is -- I'm sure that there isn't a single government expense that some group, somewhere, will tell you is absolutely vital).
Even Boris Johnson doesn't seem able to cope with these harsh realities. Crossrail, properly functioning underground trains, anything that smacks of investment for the future, is probably doomed. For a decade or so it's a matter of immediate return, not a "comfortable society". Like I say, we've spent away our right to comfort. I just would have hoped that we would have been a bit more realistic about the fact than the Greeks. Apparently not.
________________
But, well, maybe the media just reflects the population at large on these two. First the News of the World "exposes" the fact that the Pakistan cricket team is subject to certain external influences. Considering the fact that members of the Pakistan cricket team have been stomped on for this at least twice since 2001, this is a genuine "no shit, sherlock" and immediately goes on the Birks "no shit, sherlock" "honours board" for the month.
This seems to tie in with some British view of sport that it is "different". So, players are expected to play for their country for "pride", even though they are professionals. They are not meant to be subject to external financial influences because, even though they are professionals, at heart it is a "game". And, although cheating in business is expected, cheating in games for financial reasons is, well, morally wrong. Luckily, in this instance, it is also illegal. Wouldn't it be nice if a dive to get a penalty was a criminal offence under some kind of "attempt to gain a pecuniary advantage by deception" law? After all, if staying in the Premiership is worth a million quid to a player, surely attempting to deceive the referee in such a fashion qualifies as some kind of criminal financial offence?
The second appearance on the NSS hounours board for the month is (a) the announcement that NHS Direct will go the way of the dodo and (b) the outrage from the general population, let alone Labour politicians. I said that this would happen the second any cuts became "real" rather than "hypothetical", and so it comes to pass.
Radio 5 got a chap who used NHS Direct to explain why it was a useful service -- his main argument appeared to be that it saved him embarrassment when discussing a "personal" condition. Hmm, I think that even the Beeb might have found a better case for keeping NHS Direct alive.
I'm not sure how many times people will have to be told this, but the argument that "it does a useful service" just isn't good enough. The arguments that "it saves money in the long run" or that "it's an investment for the future" also don't cut the mustard. We are in the total shit here. We have been spending money that we haven't got on "useful" services for decades (think January and February when Homer was mayor of Springfield, before the money ran out). Yes, NHS Direct is a very nice thing to have. It's a very useful service. It does very good things for lots of people. None of which, I fear to say, matters a toss at the moment. Because we haven't got any money. I'm amazed that there aren't people on the right actually arguing that the NHS is a luxury that we can no longer afford. Because, well, that's really how serious the situation is.
And we really are getting into the situation where we have to say things as bad as "life expectancy in this country has been extended by spending money that we haven't got". In other words, some adults have lived longer and, yes, some children have survived, at the expense of future adults' life expectancy and future children's survival. That's how much we have borrowed from the future.
When the situation is put as starkly as that, NHS Direct appears rather less of an absolutely vital service. Think intensive care units for new-born babies being closed. Think halving the number of ambulances on the streets. Think really bad shit like that.
No-one likes being the bringer of bad news. No-one ever gets thanked for telling people harsh truths. That's because people are in the main still not bright enough to realize that the person bringing the bad news is not by definition the person who made the bad news happen. And people like even less to be told "the reason that this is happening is all your fault, because if you didn't retire at 60 with an inflation-proofed pension, if you had carried on being a productive member of society, then perhaps NHS Direct would still be a luxury that we could afford. But you didn't, you thought that after a mere 40 years work that entitled you to 40 years of non-work. Well, sorry guv, but the numbers don't add up." Instead, they have to say that it's the fault of the banks, big business, "wasteful" government spending (whatever that is -- I'm sure that there isn't a single government expense that some group, somewhere, will tell you is absolutely vital).
Even Boris Johnson doesn't seem able to cope with these harsh realities. Crossrail, properly functioning underground trains, anything that smacks of investment for the future, is probably doomed. For a decade or so it's a matter of immediate return, not a "comfortable society". Like I say, we've spent away our right to comfort. I just would have hoped that we would have been a bit more realistic about the fact than the Greeks. Apparently not.
________________
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
It's just not crook-bat
Date: 2010-09-01 12:21 pm (UTC)"M'lud, it is true that my 18 year old client overstepped the line ... ha ha ... in this case. He is prepared to take the consequences, and suffer the ultimate penalty as provided for in the laws of cricket: that is to say, the provision of an extra run to the opposition, together with the obligation to add a further ball to the over in question. May it please the court; this penalty has already been exacted.
"It has been suggested by many in the media that my client's actions might materially have affected the match in question. Some, perhaps those of a less informed nature, have gone so far as to suggest that, had my client bowled a Mr Trott out, rather than deliver the so-called "no ball," the very result of this match might well have been overturned.
"My client fully accepts this proposition. Indeed, I would go further. My client is enthusiastically convinced that cricket is, above all, a game in which the outcome may depend upon the effects of a single ball.
"Consequently, my client submits that he deliberately overstepped the crease by an apparently excessive amount, in order to court derision and a false sense of security in Mr Trott's mind. The laws of cricket being as they are, my client was fully aware that such an action would not reduce the number of effective balls to be delivered in that over.
"I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that my client's sole intention was to set his opponent up to be clean-bowled on the next delivery. Use of strategy in this way has long been a feature of what I believe our American friends call "base ball." In "base ball" it is considered quite appropriate intentionally to deliver a "pitch" in such a way that the umpire shall require a further "pitch."
"The fact that my client's next ball was a wobbly piece of shit that bounced twice before reaching Mr Trott and was subsequently despatched to the boundary with some celerity does not obviate the clear strategic intention in this case. Far from being censured, my young client should in fact be applauded for his perspicacious appreciation of the ebb and flow in a "Test Match."
"Notwithstanding the generous contribution of Mr Majeed towards Generators-R-Us (a wholly-owned subsidiary of ZardariCorp), my client is adamant that his choice was based on the laws of cricket, and the laws of cricket alone."
I mean, of course it's bollocks. But I've seen worse bollocks than this stand up in an English court.