TEXAN Billionaire Sir Alan Stanford, who was recently charged over a 7 billion dollar fraud, used the little known cricket defence to successfully have himself ruled unfit to stand trial in the USA. Sir Alan sponsored a breakaway cricket competition with hundreds of millions of his own (i.e. his investor’s) money.
In a landmark decision which has massive implications for anyone facing prosecution in America, the U.S. Court found that Sir Alan could not possibly have been compos mentis, once the American judges had explained to them the rules of cricket. The leading judge said “Excuse me?!” A second judge on the panel commented “Could you repeat that please.” The third member simply fell asleep.
“ Anyone exhibiting an obsessive interest in this bizarre practice (cricket) cannot possibly be held as responsible for their own actions” stated the judgement.
Actually Sir Alan has been ruled temporarily unfit to stand trial due to addiction to anti-depressants, and thanks to his crack highly paid legal team. Compare that to Gary McKinnon, the English Asperger’s syndrome sufferer who hacked into U.S. military computers and whom the U.S. government is determined to extradite, despite medical evidence citing the mental damage that would occur if the man was sent abroad for trial. Perhaps Mr McKinnon should start popping tranquilisers, or even take up cricket.
Double standards continued with the sacking of Andy Gray for his off camera antics and sexist comments. We live in a world gone mad where any private comments are recorded and used in a nineteen eighty four fashion against any that do not conform to the imposed norms. No one can condone Mr Grays comments or actions, but the poor lineswoman who was the object of his off camera remarks – which were not intended for her or the public to hear – has now been thrown into a floodlight of a different kind and not of her choosing.
She was let off from officiating at the next two matches, and I dread to think the flack she will receive from the real idiot contingent who will leap on this and be looking and praying for her to make the slightest slip.
It would not surprise me if she was forced to give up her passion of officiating at football matches altogether through the sheer stress of it all. Mr Gray’s comments were foolish but he never thought some spy would be hacking in on him.
What next, reporting on one’s thoughts? That whistle blower deliberately used the footage without the slightest regard for its wider consequences, for their own personal ends.
The Daily Telegraph entrapped politicians by masquerading as constituents, simply to sell more copy in the short term, and in the long term have hindered free communication by MPs and the press for fear of being leaked, and now comments which though made at work, were made in private, are being made public with the loss of this man’s livelihood.
Sexist maybe, but who actually complained?
Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye, but at the moment it smacks of a witch hunt by dangerous holier than thou, politically correct types, who are more pernicious and damaging to society than the boyish, twittish comments of Mr Gray.
Double standards because whereas men cannot comment, even in jest, about women, women can continually tut, roll their eyes and complain about “men” without being accused of being chauvinists.
I put this to my wife, but what does she know? She’s just a little woman and like all females is more concerned with makeup and shopping than…or is that being chauvinist?
Besides, my wife thinks that the whole Andy Gray affair has been blown totally out of proportion and that someone simply wanted shot of him and used what they could to do it. I don’t know, but I think she’s right. She usually is.