BS: Two Men

Subject: BS: Two Men
From: Vic Smith
Date: 17 Jul 20 - 10:22 AM

THE FIRST MAN - At the height of the Covid-19 epidemic, with the country under full lockdown, drove from London to Durham, then decided a day out at Barnard Castle was in order before driving back to London.

THE SECOND MAN - He is a successful international sports star. With the lockdown restrictions now being considerably lessened made an authorised drive from a venue in Southampton to a venue in Manchester where he was due to play next. Not on his direct route but he called into his home in Brighton on the way,

THE FIRST MAN suffered no sanction against him. In fact he was allowed to hold a press conference in the garden of 10 Downing Street to somehow claim that that travel restrictions did not apply to him.

THE SECOND MAN was withdrawn from the team of which he is one of the most succesful members, asked to quarentine himself and treated like some kind of pariah.

This difference is confusing. To me, the behavior of the first man is more reprehensible than that of the second man. Am I missing something here?

Subject: RE: BS: Two Men
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 17 Jul 20 - 11:45 AM

FACTS

FIRST MAN - His case was subject to an investigation by Durham Police and the conclusion was that in driving from London to Durham he broke no laws, and that he followed guidelines in relation to special circumstances. At no time did FIRST MAN put anyone else at risk - only reprehensible to you because you are who you are and he is who he is.

SECOND MAN - Was fully aware that the team squad he plays/played for and the team squad his side were playing were in effect and through necessity "Bubbled" with no outside contact. It was on that premise the Test Series was sanctioned - In effect he put the whole enterprise at risk - He knew he was in the wrong and as far as I can see he has accepted his punishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Two Men
From: GUEST,Stumped
Date: 17 Jul 20 - 12:20 PM

Vic Smith regarding your SECOND MAN.

"He is missing this match but that is for medical protocol reasons, and not as punishment, and Giles will decide whether he should be suspended for the final Test of the series.

England feared the nightmare scenario of Archer having been infected with coronavirus, which would have put in doubt the rest of the international summer following warnings the game would incur £380million losses if England could not fulfil their fixtures."

I would have thought that a professional sportsman would have more nous than that, and certainly more respect for his sport and his fellow team mates.

Subject: RE: BS: Two Men
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Jul 20 - 12:41 PM

I don't like football or tory advisers...

So my entirely unbiased objective opinion is..

the footballer is not as powerful and important enough to our PM
to be allowed to get off scot-free...

Though both have a mass of loyal apologists in our great British public,
who reckon the sun shines out their arses...

Subject: RE: BS: Two Men
From: Jos
Date: 17 Jul 20 - 02:42 PM

Footballer?

Subject: RE: BS: Two Men
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Jul 20 - 02:55 PM

Jos - a fair enough mistake..

I can't give a monkey's about cricket either...

Subject: RE: BS: Two Men
From: Jos
Date: 17 Jul 20 - 03:08 PM

That's OK. I'm no sports fan either.

Subject: RE: BS: Two Men
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 20 - 07:45 PM

Perhaps someone could tell me what "not being a sports fan" has to do with this.

Subject: RE: BS: Two Men
From: Jos
Date: 18 Jul 20 - 01:59 AM

It has to do with whether we (at least pfr and I) know anything about what SECOND MAN was doing and why it might be important.

Subject: RE: BS: Two Men
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Jul 20 - 02:30 AM

I just ain't cricket.

AND the FIRST MAN put the running (ha, bloody ha!) of the country at risk, and didn't the buffo in charge suffer? So who (FIRST & SECOND MAN) would have been carrying? And who was visiting old people?

Not being a sports fan (aka cricketista) means we can pronounce with a soupçon less bias.

Had it been soccer, now that is a different bowl of soupçon. Politicians are so afraid to denegrate football, that such infringments would qualify for the Cummings and Govings getout clause.

Subject: RE: BS: Two Men
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Jul 20 - 02:41 AM

we still do not have all the facts, what was the second man doing, was he bowling a maiden over?was he tickling one down the leg side, did he bowl a china man. presumably the first man was reading the diary of a nobody

Subject: RE: BS: Two Men
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Jul 20 - 02:43 AM

vic, there is no need to mention the sex of the offenders that is sexist, it is more correct to say two people

Subject: RE: BS: Two Men
From: Vic Smith
Date: 18 Jul 20 - 06:00 AM

vic, there is no need to mention the sex of the offenders that is sexist, it is more correct to say two people

But surely if I had written 'people' I could have been accused of being humanist and discriminatory against other hominids. I did not want to offend them.
On the other hand if I had said two primates, what would all the ungulates, arachnids, piscines etc. have thought.
Neither do I want to offend any single cell amoebae or the various species of moss and lichen.

I considered all these points very carefully before settling on calling them two men..... because, after all, that is what they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Two Men
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Jul 20 - 09:43 AM

😂