I'm not sure how up you all are with the recent events surrounding the trial of Graham James. I'm certain you've all heard something about it.
In the wake to of the latest ruling, Pat Hickey wrote an article on the matter that has proven to be his most provocative writing ever. Of course, it is the opinion of most that choosing to be provocative in the way he did was simply in bad taste and a distraction from the issues.
I thought about weighing in on the matter, but on reflection was feeling woefully unqualified to do so. Luckily, the piece I would have loved to have my name on has been penned by long-time commenter here and new member of Habs Eyes on the Prize, Andrew Berkshire. I strongly recommend reading it through as it sensitively paints a picture of the Hickey debacle.
I am not one to read Pat Hickey much anyway, but this is causing me to take a clearer break from his writing. I understand what his view was, but I object to the fact he gave air to it, and I am turned off by the way he refuses to admit bad judgment in the matter.
Where do you the commenters sit on this?
Mr. Berkshire's post at EOTP was the first I've really heard of it. I'm absolutely stunned at Hickey's lack of couth (for lack of a better term), and overjoyed that someone took the time to sum it up. I happen to agree with AB. I happen to be so disgusted with Hickey that I'll never read him again.
ReplyDelete