From the desk of Roland Rocchiccioli – 13 February

Are you one of those yobbos who boos sporting champions because you think it is funny and part of the experience?

I’VE got news for you! It is ill-mannered, disrespectful, and ill-bred – a descriptive which, regrettably, has disappeared from the modern lexicon but should be reinstated.

A radio colleague confessed to booing at sporting events, arguing it was, “All in good fun!” However, he was less receptive to the notion of him being booed by 100,000 people. In feeble defence, he said, “If they’re being paid that much money they should expect it; anyway, it’s included in the ticket price!”

The spectacle of world number two tennis player, Daniil Medvedev, being booed during, and at the end of the game, while being interviewed by the former number one world champion, Jim Courier, was, by any standard of civil reckoning, a bloody disgrace.

I have worked with a raft of those who are the best in the world. While I am not star-struck, I am mightily in awe of their achievement. They are examples of the 10,000 hours theory. The majority of people with a talent will work at it for the required 8000 hours, which makes you better than most, but not as good as some. Those with dogged determination go the additional 2000 hours. They are the ones who become the world champions of their chosen endeavour.

Most people are mediocre – getting by with God’s help and a pinch of judgement.

London to a brick, the majority of those who persistently boo are mediocre. Could their antisocial behaviour be a manifestation of ill-breeding and jealousy?

 

Life is difficult. It takes great courage to face the world with all its vagaries. For some it is more difficult than others.

Always, there has been those individuals for whom the tribulations of mundane life are so overwhelming they could not survive without social security. They are entitled to every consideration; however, to contend they are – collectively – our most vulnerable is not entirely accurate.

Generically, it has a basis in truth, but specifically, it is erroneous. Some long-term recipients are as vulnerable as the Great Wall of China. There are those, and in ever increasing numbers it seems, who have, with time, learned to work the system to their advantage.

It was not ever thus. Previously, idiosyncratic behaviour was less obvious; there was societal pressure for conformity. Those who elected to operate outside of clearly defined parameters were labelled, not disparagingly, ‘no-hopers’ and ‘wanderers’. They were less obvious and certainly not as vocally demanding. I recall, Billy Woof-Woof was a hermit to whom my mother delivered a roast Sunday dinner every week.

Properly, in days of yore, children were the responsibility of parents. Mine were divorced; however, when it came time for boarding school, my father sold his only asset, a house, for £250. He was one of only several in the town, and regardless of the financial burden, considered it the right and proper thing for him to do.

Technology has altered our lives, irrevocably. Entrenched social mores have changed, seismically, but not necessarily for the better. We live in an age of entitlement. We have become so politically correct we are afraid to articulate simple home truths.

No-one owes us anything. There is an insidious philosophy: do as little as possible, for as long as possible, and expect as much as possible in return.

There is a rupture which cannot continue. The system is broken. It must be repaired. We must find a method for a societal balance.

Roland can be contacted via [email protected].