THE man head tek him — or what? You mean he couldn’t control himself? So, what if he was attracted to the young lady and wanted to get to know her better? What inna that to cause all the argument? That is the man-response to the furore setting fire all over the place.

“The boys” are not amused by the female response to the cricketer’s attempt to sweet-up a young journalist who was on air when he wanted to express his burning desire to let her know how he wanted to get closer to her over drinks. “The boys” see nothing wrong with that. So what is all the fuss about; they’re asking in the bar, at the club, and the other places where they roost like roosters? They see nothing wrong. If a man “see a ting” and decides to mek a move, why all the fuss?

There have always been and will be differences in the way the two deal with certain issues.

That “Mister Cricket” is regarded as a buttu by some, for making a pass at a young journalist — heard by an audience far and wide — while she was carrying out her duties in a live broadcast.

What if he had been at the wicket when a sex-crazed female fan wanted him to put aside his responsibilities to put question to him instead? Some women are not at all amused. On the other hand, there are women here who confessed to media that they saw nothing wrong done by “Mr Cricket”. Could it be that some of us are so accustomed to the way we have been treated that it didn’t matter? Let the man do whatever he wants!

From all that is being said around town and country, anywhere and everywhere, from distant Australia where the bizarre date-seeking began, and from there spread across the oceans, there has been condemnation of “Mr Cricket” and his apparent inability to know that there is a time and place for different things.

The Aussies are not amused. Since the news reached a yaad, Jamdown people have been responding with mixed emotions. As far as “the boys” are concerned, there’s nothing wrong in “checking a chick”. They don’t see what the furore is about. Women, however, would like him to know that it is “outta-orderniss” to embarrass women like that. They are not impressed by the bull inna heat attitude which some believe is said to be part of black culture. Others dismiss it as rubbish.

If “the boys” don’t see anything wrong with this, it could reflect a shortage of self-respect, according to some voices. The media has been speaking out on what is seen as an insult to a young woman in her professional space.

“Mr Cricket” has finally apologised, but he faces a fine of $10,000 in Australian currency. In Jamaican money, he would have to pay $847,410 — one Aussie dollar equalling $84.74. Monkey Money?

There’s also been an apology, with “Mr Cricket” calling the incident “a simple joke”, adding, “I don’t know how it reached this far. This reaction reminds me of the response of a rural Jamaican patriarch who, when offered an apology by someone who tried to make amends for a wrong, dismissed it as “Yuh nuh fi sorry. Yuh nuh fi dweet”.

Talking of amends: Imagine what will be the ‘mashala’ if and when the cases brought against Bill Cosby come in with a guilty verdict. Is it really true that he drugged and then violated several women? Did he do it? The world isn’t prepared to laugh as we all used to in the heyday of his comedy. Old-timers warn again, “What is joke to you is death to me.”

If his wife is forced to testify against him, would he survive this final disgrace? How are the mighty fallen!

GUN CONTROL

US President Barack Obama was not afraid to shed tears at a White House meeting earlier this week as he tried to get the American populace to buy into the need for gun control to stop the bloodshed and pain caused by the wave of murder unleashed even on the youngest.

Why shouldn’t there be special measures to save lives? The president has been advocating, but to little or no avail. Obama was so moved that he wiped away tears, in public. Will he be able to stop the suffering?

How much consideration are we Jamaicans giving to the fact that more and more guns are being acquired locally as citizens want to fend off the work of evildoers?

Does everybody know how to handle such weapons? How many citizens know that the Firearm Licensing Authority is also concerned that more firearms are finding their way into the hands of responsible persons as well as those who live outside of the law? It is said that almost 4,000 more guns have been added over each year.

Stringent measures for safety are part of the responsibility which goes with the trade. I’ve learnt that to get a gun licence owners have to undergo strict training; not only in how to use a weapon, but how to do so wisely. The police are involved in the training procedures. The director of public prosecution can be part of the process to ensure that legal measures can be taken when needed, especially where there are weapons in households with children. Protective measures are obligatory. A recent mishap — quite recently, too — involved a child of seven years of age, who handled a gun without knowing what to do. This led to the loss of her young life. Imagine the pain and distress!

Full investigations have been conducted and evidence collected for presentation in court as needed. A senior police officer emphasised over and again that safety training is a must. There are ways to maintain safety. A gun is not a toy. If you are in doubt how to ensure safety, speak to your local police who will pass on the knowledge and identify the skills necessary to protect you and your family. Better be safe than sorry.

Barbara Gloudon is a journalist, playwright and commentator. Send comments to the Observer or gloudonb@yahoo.com.