Burrell, Munro and one padlock

Melville Cooke, Freelance Writer

SOMEWHERE, somehow I learnt the theory of one padlock.

The premise is that there is no one as officious, overbearing and pseudo-strict as the person who controls one padlock. Just one.

I learnt the truth of that theory some years ago as I observed a man who was responsible for literally one Yale at a ferry crossing between Guyana and Suriname.

We suffered in the sun as he preened prissily, dictating when those embarking could do so well beyond the limits of practicality and decency, the sun glinting from the only thing that gave him some significance on that day and at that time.

Subsequently, I have seen the same principle at work with security guards. In this case, sometimes it is not actually a padlock.

One of the classic examples is parking space. The security guard is the lord of the barrier, the don of the lot and woe be unto he or she who dares challenge that guard's authority to say who parks where and when - if at all.

However, the one padlock syndrome extends beyond low-level functionaries to all corners and heights of our society. Maybe it is from and not to these heights, in true example of trickle-down theory at work (like a leaking sewerage pipe?).

Spiteful child

Recently we have had two classic examples in Captain Horace Burrell of the Jamaica Football Federation (JFF) and my beloved alma mater, Munro College.

So Jamaica lost to Honduras (on an own goal, no less) and it seems the Orient Express got a wrong signal and ended up in Central America, although there is still the thinnest of chances at qualification.

After the French trip in 1998 the expectations were high and naturally there was disappointment all round. That is, however, no excuse for Mr. Burrell firing Clovis de Oliveira in the manner he did.

Sack the man if he is not up to standard, sure, but not at 1:00 a.m., not even allowing him to come back to Jamaica with the team.

Luckily for him, de Oliveira was not on unfamiliar territory geographically and he could get home comfortably. That the decision was ratified by the JFF executive is immaterial.

Mr. Burrell acted like a spiteful child who can't play football, but whose father had bought the Junior League team outfits. When the team didn't win, he took back the jerseys.

Clovis de Oliveira had lost control of the team, it was said. Huh? I thought the Manning and daCosta Cup seasons were beginning, not ending.

And despite the birth certificate juggling of some schools, the gentlemen in Jamaica outfits seem a little old to be playing for high schools.

There are no children on Jamaica's senior football team. If big men wanted to party all night and then play the next day what was de Oliveira supposed to do?

Handcuff them to their beds? Cull the nightclubs and pubs with a cudgel, whack the unwilling over the head and drag them back to their posts like the bosuns of ye old merchantmen reputedly did? That is utter rubbish.

What action will be taken against the indisciplined players? What was the reaction when Simoes took a firm grip on the unruly in his day?

Maybe some of the team members are happy-go-lucky because when the faeces hit the football fans the players are lucky, the coach goes and the JFF is happy.

So we are literally out of the World Cup race. That is no excuse for Mr. Burrell's vengeful action. The former coach should have been allowed to return to Jamaica, pack his bags, say his goodbyes and leave. One Tri-Circle to you, sir.

A side note. We have seen coaches Simoes and de Oliveira go. If we are not successful next time around, at what point do we see the present JFF administration exit stage right, since firing is the order of the day?

In Arce Sitam Quis

Those of us males who were fortunate enough to have attended that remarkable institution, Munro College, will recognise part of the school's motto.

Those who didn't, take heart; its not your fault, space is limited, there is always Cornwall College.

Those of us who listened to Mutty Perkins's show two weeks ago should remember a Rastafarian boy who said he had not been allowed to enter Munro because of his hair.

If it is true that that is the only reason, then it is an unconscionable, inexcusable, cruel, dastardly act, one unworthy of a school where I was taught that every human being was deserving of equal treatment.

Sure, the kitchen staff sometimes seemed to put an extra dollop of chawney in the light skin boys plates and their fried eggs always seemed a wee bit bigger; sometimes among us boys there was some deference to the money boys.

But from the staff there was generally no huge distinction (well, there was that one Art teacher).

I remember when the inimitable Heidi of Coke House shaved his head, a teacher said "In the 60s we had problems with Rastas. Now we are having problems with bald-heads!"

But in 20/20 hindsight vision, it all seems a natural part of the evolution of an institution whose progress could be traced by the number of black or even dark-skinned boys in the yearly senior football team pictures.

What is the problem with a Rastafarian attending Munro, if the hair is the only problem? Is it a fear that the blue and gold will be usurped by the red, green and gold and more fire! will replace MC chawney rice and peas?

Is it a hold-over from the days when Munro College was full of a bunch of white boys carrying stools to and fro?

Not only should the question of that boy attending Munro not arise. He should be exempt from attending chapel if he and his family so desire, in recognition of his religious freedom.

The last time I checked Munro receives Government funding. It is open to all races and religions, as long as the applicant satisfies the academic requirements.

A Yale to the principal of the city set upon a hill - and enough spare keys to spread around for the Board.

Footnote: I notice we are flying the flag at half-mast for the victims of the attacks on New York and Washington. Someone jog my memory. Did we lower the flag for the 27 people killed in West Kingston?

Back to Commentary