It seems the lists of scored off names on the electoral registers used at the polling places for the Glenrothes by-election have gone missing, possibly in Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court.

So; no-one can now check the total votes counted against the numbers who actually turned up to vote.

While it is unlikely that anyone would take the risk of being found out in such an enterprise the loss of the lists is an embarrassment to say the least and opens the possibility of ballot boxes having been stuffed with papers for whom there were no voters. It’s not beyond the bounds of thought to suppose that Fife Labour were so scared of losing that they would do something like this.
But it is Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court we’re talking about here.

Conspiracy or cock-up?

Take your pick.

I heard Kirsty Wark use the phrase “all is not lost” on The Book Quiz this week.
Oh, Kirsty.

You see: all is lost (semantically) if the phrase is taken to mean “there’s some hope, still” because what all is not lost actually means is everything is exactly as it ought to be and therefore there isn’t and – never has been – a problem.
“All isn’t lost” can only mean nothing is lost; hence everything is fine. (Either that or all does not mean all.)

The phrase that really does mean “there’s some hope, still” is slightly different and would more accurately read, “not all is lost.”

Consider an equivalent construction to “all is not lost;” the statement “all policemen are not six feet tall.”
This means no policeman can be six feet tall, because all are not that height; hence every policeman must be some other height than six feet.

Whereas, to say “not all policemen are six feet tall” means that some- perhaps even most – may be six feet tall but others can be of a different height.

It is “not all is lost” that means some is lost but not that everything is. Not all.

Hope that’s cleared things up.

Nice to see it’s not only in the Scottish Third Division you get some bizarre refereeing decisions.

I refer of course to yesterday’s Liverpool-Chelsea game.

No more than five or so yards in front of the referee’s eyes Steven Gerrard made a dangerous, studs-up lunge on a Chelsea player, made firm contact with that player’s shin and then had the effrontery to complain about the consequent free-kick. He didn’t even get booked! The moaning git ought to have been sent off – for the dissent as much as for the challenge (which itself merited the sanction.)

Frank Lampard then challenged for, and got, the ball, was clattered by a Liverpool player (Alonso?) coming in late, but it was Lampard who was sent off.

Bosingwa assaulted a Liverpool player – his studs straight into the back of his opponent – right in front of the linesman (assistant referee? I think not) and hee-haw happens.

The second of these decisions arguably changed the game. The first could have done if the ref had been brave enough to send Gerrard off; as he deserved.

Some of these high profile players seem to think the laws of the game do not apply to them.

As for the refs: at least be consistent, eh? Anything Lampard did, or the ref might have thought he did, was no worse than Gerrard already had.

The Rock, 31/1/09

Lack of clean sheets is doing for our chances.

When you’re trying to be in contention and go 1-0 up at home inside 5 mins against a team around you in the league, you really ought to win.

Chappie has been making signings, though. Hope one is a tackling midfielder.

I was mildly surprised to see Liam Cusack leaving. I know he wasn’t getting a game but he looked good whenever I saw him play.

We’re consistent only in being inconsistent.

The play-offs, then.