Happy Christmas!

A heartfelt thank you for following. It's good to know you, even if it is in a twitter kinda way!

I hope you have a wonderful Christmas and enjoy the time spent with friends and family. None of us is here forever so make the most of it. Be generous to the older members of the entourage. Generous with your time and patience and love. Delight in the kids and make it special for them.

Don't overcook the sprouts, with a little care they can be perfectly cooked - 10 minutes in boiling salted water, no need to put a cross in the stem. Then, to make the most of them, quietly throw them away before being tempted to put them on the plate.

Perhaps spare a thought, or a smile or a kind word for those less fortunate.

I hope 2012 is a great and special year for you.

Best wishes.

Mark

Just a small, humble and probably hugely unpopular comment before bed if I may? Many would agree that prof. footballers are spoiled/pampered these days. I wonder if the same is true of us fans? Chel$ki fans had nothing to cheer about for donkey's years. Now they're having a go at AVB after a couple of defeats and a draw.

AFC had some fallow years to say the least before AW took office. Now it seems we're demanding excellence and a win every time we take the field. Criticising every minor slip-up.

I think it would do us good to remember that there are two teams playing and both are striving every sinew for a win. And it is not our God-given right to win everything.

Life is about highs and lows - without the lows, the peaks are not as high or as stimulating. If you're a Man-U fan, the only way is down after the last few years. They expect/demand to win. A good mind-set but if you always expect to win - and you simply cannot win always - then only failure is out of the ordinary.

I'd rather be in a place where winning is desperately wanted but not certain. Where defeat is a distinct possibility. And where victory becomes a really worthwhile and valued achievement - out of the ordinary and special.

When people are throwing stupid money at winning, I think we should be proud to support a club that is trying on the basis of fair play, on the field and financially over the long term rather than striving for a quick gain and blowing everyone else out of the water financially.

It would soon get very boring if we had the biggest wallet and that guaranteed winning everything all the time. Winning is only an achievement if it is done against a background of good and fair competition.  Winning 'against the odds' is much sweeter than if the win is expected all the time like it has been at Man-U and will become at Riyadh Rovers (Man Citeh) and Chelski because of the financial skewing of the level playing field. I should also say here that United have won on this basis in recent years and deserve our respect.

All this is why I personally am proud to support Arsenal - we want it with a passion, but we will never buy it unfairly, we will never cheat in order to win, we will respect strong competition and, in the end, we will enjoy our victories because they have been achieved on the basis of fairness and genuine endeavour.

COYG

So, would you prefer an Arsenal win or a defeat that proves you right?

To say it's been a difficult few months to be an Arsenal fan is like saying the sinking of the Titanic was a minor naval incident.

Last week I commented about a fellow Gooner tweeter who seemed to be so down in the dumps, so depressed about Arsenal, that I felt I had to say something, kindly meant, about cheering up or looking on the bright side - I mentioned 'getting a grip'. Thankfully he took it in the spirit in which it was meant and all was well.

Then on Saturday, during Arsenal's embarrassing 4-3 defeat to Blackburn Rovers he sent me a DM asking 'do you still think I need to get a grip - we're in deep shit etc etc'. It was almost as if he preferred the fact that Arsenal were being beaten, because it proved his point, rather than winning because that would undermine his negative outlook. When some fans are of a mind that they'd prefer a defeat so that it underlines or justifies their stance then something is going seriously wrong.

And don’t get me wrong here, I’m not criticising him. I can fully understand how he feels after months of frustration and, seemingly, mismanagement at The Emirates.

  

While I have continuously tweeted about Wenger being the best manager we've ever had and that he needs our backing now, more than ever, one can, I think, understand how some people might be beginning to see an increasing amount of evidence on the side of my depressed friend and that my own optimistic attitude is based more on hope than reality.

I have commented before that being an Arsenal fan does not come with an ‘unfollow’ button. It is a lifetime commitment and is non-negotiable. Many people have been tweeting about what it is to be a 'true fan' and supporting the club come what may and I completely agree with that.  However some people have also been saying that anyone who questions the team or the manager or the board is effectively a traitor to the cause and, therefore, an enemy who should be abused.

With all due respect, it’s not quite as simple as that.

I think that one can still be a fan and be able to point out some of the shortcomings of the club, particularly after what has happened at Arsenal in the last few months. This does not necessarily mean that they want Arsenal to lose any games or to have any bad luck – but just that they care about the ongoing success of the club – and I think that’s fair enough.

Surely if you cannot comment when your team looks like it has effectively retreated from being at the forefront of the European game* as well as being a serious contender in the ‘best league in the world’ (the Premiership), to being an ‘also ran’ in just a few short months, then when would these ‘real fans’ suggest is the appropriate time to comment? Or should one just walk away and not give a fuck?

It was obvious that last year’s Premiership was a ‘soft’ league in relative terms and that the big money clubs would be spending big this summer in order to revitalise their title hopes. It was also obvious that we would not be able to compete financially with Riyadh Rovers (Man City) or Chel$ki but that, therefore, we would need to have a good plan, be well organised, be ready to move quickly and be ready to make the necessary money available to make the plan work. Essentially, we would need to be smarter and better organised than our rivals (not all of whom have billionaire backers by the way) in order to be able to ‘push on’ in terms of the quality of the side and its ability to compete this year on all fronts.

However, looking from the outside, it seemed like there was no plan. Or if there was, the club has done an amazing job of making it look like there wasn’t.

It was also obvious that Cesc and Na$ri would go, causing a major problem in terms of quality, but their departure would bring in a considerable amount of money for replacements. Now here’s the thing: I know that they didn’t go until the end of the window but that doesn’t mean we couldn’t buy any replacements before they were sold. I’m sorry I don’t care what the club is saying about this. We are not a two-bit taxi company that has to put the last fare into the petrol tank in order to take on the next job. We are a £1.3 billion global sports brand. If we cannot forward finance a deal to buy a couple of £30 million plus, world class players in order to maintain our position at the top of the world game, then what the fuck are we doing and what is the level of our ambition?

Sadly the result of this inaction in the summer and the subsequent ‘trolley dash’ on deadline day is that we are now going from game to game, hoping to win but not really being confident because we simply do not have the ‘special’ quality that Arsenal have always had in recent years.  We have reached the ‘tipping point’ whereby every defeat convinces a few more fans that we are going in the wrong direction and adds to the manager’s problems in terms of criticism. When you’re playing great football and have fantastic players who are committed to the team and will die for the cause, the odd defeat is no big deal.

However, when you are struggling because you do not have the quality, when the (poor) performance is not about confidence or luck but about ability – then it’s a different matter. At that point it’s got to be about the quality of the team that has been assembled by the club, the board and the management. Sorry but I don’t think there is any getting away from this.

Like I say, I remain a committed fan of the club and I am not calling for anyone to go. I think we’d be mad to get rid of Wenger right now.

But I am struggling to see how the team can win enough games to keep the fans happy or how it can achieve the position in the league that the fans demand.  I personally will continue to support the team wherever it finishes in the league, but sadly, it is really starting to feel like we are only one or perhaps two embarrassing defeats away from the point where change will start to become inevitable. I am also looking on the forthcoming games we have against top sides with dread rather than excitement and optimism.

Wenger is clearly annoyed by the current situation where his performance is being questioned. This is the first time I can remember Arsenal having to wheel out the chief exec to support him. And hitting back at criticism in the media, after a win against Shrewsbury, rather than winning the league, is both unjustified and dangerous, since it gives them (the media) stored ammunition for future failures.

We have been spoiled at Arsenal over the years in comparison with most other clubs and Wenger has perhaps spoiled us the most. He is clearly a great manager, one of the most influential the game has ever seen. However, I’m increasingly doubtful that we’ll be spoiled by the current team.

I think Wenger has to change. Has to admit that he/they fucked up this summer, ask for our understanding and support and then get on with turning the situation around. He is loved by the vast majority of Arsenal fans and if he is honest, in this way, they will back him (mostly, not sure about my twitter friend!). However if he carries on being arrogant, carries on claiming to be right about everything and that he has never made any mistakes, then frankly, in my opinion, his days are numbered because he simply has not got the quality of players to ride out the storm this year by achieving positive results.

Maybe it’s me who needs to get a grip.

*(The only team to beat Barca in the CL last year and, at the time, closer than any other team in Europe to playing the ‘total football’ that the Catalans have made famous)

if you want the same story but a different order of words...

Then read my new blog. oh and please retweet this, so as many people who already know this stuff as possible, can be equally bored with it.

No names and no pack drill - I am not targeting or singling out any blogger, nor am I trying to cause offense but how often are you pointed in the direction of a 'new blog', particularly in the sporting field, in which you already know everything that is recorded therein?

'Big game last night' - I know.

'Difficult opposition, they were champions in their league last year' - yes I know.

'We took the lead in the first half' - yes, like everyone else who is ever likely to read this blog, I was watching/listening too.

'Would have been nice to hold on for a win' - yes that's kinda what we were aiming for I'd hazard a guess.

'But they got an equaliser near the end' - drumming fingers..yes, like I say, I was watching too.

'Still we'd probably have taken that at the start' - yes, away to the best side in our draw in the Champion's League and our players not yet on first name terms after the transfer deadline trolley dash..

'So there you have it, don't miss my next blog about where bears shit and what religion the Pope practices'

Thanks.

Lock 'em up and cut their benefits but don't then think the job's done

I have blogged elsewhere about what I described as the 'Fuck you' society (apologies for French) that we seem to live in these days. Not condoning in any way those involved in the recent, totally unacceptable riots in London, Birmingham and elsewhere, but trying to understand in a small way, their mindset. Not a popular position to take when everyone was shouting for them to be locked up and the key thrown away - as well as cutting benefits and even evicting people from their (council) homes.

Since then many have been imprisoned and some of the sentences seem to me to be very harsh, almost certainly a case of 'pour encourager les autres' (apologies, see above!). No doubt many of these sentences will be quietly reduced in the coming weeks and months as rationality regains some influence - I hope so.

One young guy who was interviewed said that 'it's all about greed' and that 'we have been told, time and time again by this society, that greed is good.' I happen to agree with him. These people were not 'stealing Trevelyan’s corn so the young might see the morn', but nicking tellies and trainers - they are not on the bread-line by any means and that, the point of this blog, is part of the problem in some ways. Please don't condemn me as a raving right-winger for that last comment, please hear me out!

Just very briefly, my contention is that the rioters have seen rich greedy people avoiding tax; greedy MPs falsifying expenses; fat cat public sector leaders making cuts to public services while taking double-digit pay increases and premier league footballers earning more in a week than highly qualified and hard-working nurses will earn in ten years. In the face of this conspicuous greed, essentially these so-called leaders of society or role models saying 'fuck you' to everyone else, I can understand some people. Misguided perhaps, returning the compliment.

There are of course criminal elements to the rioting, gang activity etc., but my concern is really about those normally law-abiding people who got involved and are now being severely punished. Yes if they committed a crime they should be punished but I humbly suggest that catching and charging these people is not the absolute solution to what is a much wider problem. Of course we cannot have lawlessness on our streets, whether people are rioting under the flag of tuition fees or social depravation and we also cannot have the police standing watching people stealing booty - that was mad. Nor should we tolerate benefits cheats and I am glad to see Cameron taking an initiative on this. But I have a serious question to ask you:

There are young girls in a town near where I live for whom 'starting a family' is seen as a genuine career option. And just to provide some sort of counterbalance to my earlier 'breadline' comment, I am on their side. Brought up on benefits by a mother who took the same option, probably when she was under age and who was also copying her own mother, these girls can, by having a child, jump the council house waiting list and secure considerable welfare benefits, without having to do a single day's work or make any contribution in taxes, National Insurance etc.

It's not illegal, it's just playing the system - a system that has become completely skewed over several parliaments to 'help' the poorest in our society - BUT IT'S NOT HELPING. 

Of course, in the short term it helps her, she can eat, keep warm in the winter, live in a dry, actually quite nice 'decent home': Evidence suggests that she can probably afford to smoke and go out for the odd drink and have Sky. If you asked her she would probably say that she 'does OK', has a reasonably nice life. She is accountable to no one, doesn't have to get up and go out to work in the morning. Doesn't have to do anything really, except have sex at the outset in order to secure her 'career'.

Outraged of Tunbridge Wells (that's not the town by the way) would say that this is disgusting. 'How can we allow this in our modern society?' The point is, it's not her fault. She's just playing the system. And if she wants to better herself by getting a job, going out to work and become a valued member of our so-called 'society' then she can of course.  

But how many girls who left school at 14 when pregnant and therefore didn't get any qualifications and who has no CV at all, no work experience, will be able to walk into a job paying more than the at least £300 a week she needs to just match the benefits she is already getting? £300 a week is £15,600 a year net, so she'd need to walk into a £20 grand job just to stand still. And why would she. What possible incentive is there for her to do this even if she could which is virtually impossibility. No pun intended but I think the word 'virtually' is redundant in that last sentence.

The bottom line is that this situation is both real (tens of thousands of our population live like this) and clearly not their fault.  The fault lies with the system that is creating an underclass and lost lives by trying to help people.  I don't have the answer, but I do know that we, collectively, have a massive problem to solve in this country.

Why is it just the affluent that can get away with greed?

A young student by the name of Yohannes Scarlett was interviewed on Newsnight last night, and whilst he was largely obliterated by a combination of more gobby, better prepared, more street-wise and media-savvy fellow panelists, nonetheless made a point that I have not really heard on any other blogs about this situation to date: He agreed that the looting was not about politics or cuts and that a lack of discipline at home was an issue, with some kids 'needing a slap' occasionally.

However the major issue behind the riots in his opinion, is greed. He added, "remember this is a society that runs on greed. That sees 'greed as good'".

I find his point difficult to dispute.

I do not in any way condone the behaviour of these mindless thugs who have simply been out 'nicking stuff' in a completely selfish way, without regard or respect for their own communities and in a way which is effectively 'shitting on their own doorstep'.

However, when they (and we) see failure in the banking sector being rewarded by 6, 7 and 8-figure bonuses for individuals while everyone else suffers; when we see barely literate professional footballers being paid more in a week than a qualified nurse will earn in 10 years; when so-called community leaders in local government close libraries but accept double-digit pay rises for themselves, we are seeing the affluent in our society effectively saying 'fuck you' to these young people and indeed to the rest of us.

As I say, I do not condone these looters in any way, but I think I can understand something: I think while we have, for years, said 'fuck you' to these lost people, they are now saying 'fuck you too'.

In the short-term I hope these looters will be locked up and made to understand that the law is sacrosanct.  However, I also hope that we might see this as a wake-up call and evidence that we do really need to address some of these wider issues in our society. I hesitate to use the phrase 'Broken Britain' since it has party political connections, but fixing this problem is critical for people of all backgrounds and political colours. Critical to a prosperous and law-abiding future for this country.

I am a Tory voter who, broadly speaking, believes that Blair and Labour have essentially fucked the economy and left Cameron et. al. with no choice but to try to restore financial solvency and credibility to this country.  I believe in creating an environment in which hard work pays and rewards the individual but also (please note) that the better off in society should contribute to looking after the health and wellbeing of those less able than themselves - i.e I am not a Tea Party-style right winger.

However I do believe that the welfare state has been allowed to billow completely out of control, to the point where many families simply have no incentive to work and where many young people (young girls in particular) see starting a family as a viable, realistic, even desirable career option, allowing them to by-pass social housing waiting lists and settle down to a reasonably comfortable life on benefits, with no need to got out to work.  This is simply not a recipe for the development of a stakeholder-based society in which everyone has roles and responsibilities and a sense of value and pride and has therefore, in my view, contributed crucially to riots/stealing carried out by a disconnected, 'lost' youth who have no sense of law or respect for authority or societal values.

I am also of the view that the looters who have been decimating areas of our city centres for the past several nights should be more robustly challenged by the police (who seem to have been afraid to tackle them for some reason, possibly the threat of future human rights prosecution?) and should be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law - with a combination of custodial and properly organised community work in order that they put right some of the damage they have caused.

My fervent hope is that if these terrible scenes can have a positive legacy it is that our politicians will now understand that the need to fix society in this country is not a slogan, but one of the most pressing realities we now face.

Time for Cameron to 'man up'?

It seems to me that all new Governments start out with ideals and a zest for action, with ideas and a 'can do' attitude.  There are usually some low hanging fruit following on from a previously bankrupt administration in terms of actions and policies and making a difference - 'they got bogged down but it's OK, we're here now, with sharpened tools and motivated ministers: Relax everyone, things will now get better, much better.'

The devil, residing quietly in the detail, smiles indulgently.

It normally takes a few years for the reality that is the civil service, together with their allies in other major public sector bodies like the NHS and Education to take complete control of the agenda and quite often they allow a new regime to win a few minor battles on policy, a few new initiatives that create positive headlines. But in the end it's like a small group of clever, motivated and agile flies, trying to move a massive boulder.

They keep trying, don't get me wrong. They try everything and anything, money, publicity, threats, the moral high ground, they try to undermine the rock, to wobble it, to take away its foundations, they cajole it to move, persuade it, flatter it. But the rock is just bigger, more solid and much more permanent than they are, so eventually they give up on this big difficult stuff and instead move on to easier tasks. They ban hunting, or introduce a freedom of information bill or go to war or sell forests or build runways or railway lines - in short, anything that doesn't involve the impossible task of moving the rock.

And yet. And yet. The rock continues to consume vast amounts of money to operate - exponential amounts as far as the health service is concerned, and health outcomes do continue to improve because of advances in technology and medical science, albeit at a vastly inflated price to everyone. The last government poured £millions into healthcare with little result. Doctors pocketed the extra money and now put in fewer hours of work. Why? Because they could. The checks and balances were not properly worked out and they took advantage of that.  Technological advances mean that this sector is effectively strapped to a vehicle that has an upward trajectory such that poor individual performance is completely offset by gains elsewhere. In other words doctors or even entire hospitals can under-perform spectacularly, but the overall upward momentum is guaranteed by technological advances that consume ever more money but cannot be refused because of the positive statistics compared to the outcomes secured by other forms of investment.

Think of it like the oil industry. Because demand is so universal, so inelastic, the 'industry' can perform as badly as it likes, can be as inefficient as it likes (can take out full page ads in the FT for £20grand a pop talking about 'Beyond Petrolium) but it will still secure massive income because there is no alternative.

Education continues to be (seen as) the most important thing a government can provide: more money is put in, day after day, but outcomes do not improve markedly. But we cannot address this properly for fear of harming the outcomes of our kids - and we all have kids and aspirations for them, so they too are like oil. Not negotiable and not even 'tinkerable' let alone properly changed for the better.  The risk of failure is simply too great.

So we continue to accept a health service that is poorly run and inefficient because it's the best we can do. We continue to put up with an education sector that, if it were a commercial enterprise, would have gone bust every year for decades because of piss poor performance. It is failing our kids and thereby, our country, but is, it seems, too big to move, too big to change.

It's time for this Government to 'man up' and tackle these big ticket items and to stop asking people with vested interests to advise it on policy.  It is time for the change that was promised and time for this government to retrieve these issues from the 'too difficult' drawer and to address them properly once and for all.  Otherwise they will, quite rightly be judged as being full of hot air and spin and PR and ultimately ineffectual.

You have this one chance Mr Cameron, to really make your name on a world and historic stage. It's a big as Thatcher transforming the country by standing up to the miners and it's just as necessary today as that was then. It's time to bring the health service into the modern age with deeds and not just spin and aspiration.  It's time to stand up to the teaching unions - the last refuge of militant laziness - and bring genuine reform and truly modern outcomes for our kids.

Don't blow it.

Are we going down without a fight?

Perhaps one shouldn't blog at this time of night, especially on a day in which Arsenal seem to be in some sort of meltdown but since noone reads this stuff this is really about getting this off my chest. Excuse my french but frankly, I can't help wondering what the fuck is going on at the Emirates. I know that most of this is coming out via the media and not directly from the club itself and you could argue that maintaining a dignified silence while the real negotiations are taking place behind the scenes is a good policy. But it is starting to look as if our rivals are running rings round us both in the boardrooms and in the media and our silence is becoming deafening.

It is now true that we cannot compete financially with many of our rivals and after a relatively 'soft' season in the Premiership the likes of Chel$ki, Citeh and Man-U know that they have to spend big in order to compete next season. The difference is that they can spend big - they can shop in the Harrods of world football whereas we're looking for the sale in John Lewis. Where we have always been able to punch above our weight in the past is by bringing on younger players and putting them into a system that is more than a match for our rivals - we are (were) closer to the 'total football' displayed by Barca than anyone else in the Premiership last year. But if we cannot keep the top quality 'core' of that team and build upon it, especially by shoring up what was a woeful defense towards the end of the season, then we are not just looking at another season without a trophy, we're looking at a situation in which we'll have to let the big three (financially) go ahead and be left competing to be the best of the rest against the likes of Liverpool, Spuds, Villa et al.

We cannot go on building a young team for the future and then selling that future every time the big money men come calling.  We've fucked up (again apologies, see previous) contractually with Nasri, we've not yet plugged the defense and it looks like we might have to (have to? why for god's sake) accept the departure of Cesc for less than the £45-75 million that he's worth (given the value of other transfers recently).

If we don't secure some big name players and quickly, we'll be seen by the world as a second rate team. A selling club. A training ground for the top clubs, rather than being a top club. I hope that our silence is an indication of quiet confidence with big news in the pipeline, but I fear that we're about to squander, again, the potential that has been so carefully nurtured by Wenger at the club.

Frustrating and worrying times to be a Gooner.

so, if he didn't do it...?

So, Tory MP Andrew Bridgen was yesterday 'released' from suspicion of having committed a sexual assault on a 29 year old woman who was reportedly connected to the Lib Dems in a report I read last week. Scotland Yard said that they have now dropped the case and no further enquiry or action is envisaged.

Is that it then? Did he do it but the police judged that, it being his word against hers, there would be no chance of a successful prosecution?

Perhaps the millionaire MP paid her to drop the charges?

Perhaps she sobered up and realised what she had done and admitted that her claims were false?

This wasn't a page 17 column 5 two-inches of 'newsprint' story, but front page in every newspaper and on the broadcast media and now it seems it has completely been dropped. Surely that cannot be right.  If it's a cover-up we should be told about it. If she lied to police in order to get this guy arrested then she should be named and prosecuted for at the very least wasting police time.

I don't give a stuff about the individuals involved in this case, the political parties involved etc., but the principle that an accused can be named in the media when the accusation is made but then, if the allegation is subsequently proved to be false, the accuser is niether named nor charged with any crime, must br wrong. It cannot be right in a fair society that reputations, relationships, marriages and public standing can be ruined by false allegation, without there being some jeopardy for the accuser.

I realise that women often find it difficult to make such accusations and that it can be a very intrusive and difficult process taking a case to prosecution, but if the accusation is false, motivated by malice or drink or perhaps some financial reward, then the perpetrator must face some kind of punnishment that goes at least some way towards matching the massive damage that can be sustained by the accused in such a case.

There have been a number of cases of teachers having their careers, marriages, lives ruined by false accusations by female students.  The law should be changed in this area so that justice can not only be done, but be seen to be done.

Can America please find a credible candidate?

On the one hand you have Clinton. yes he had his pecadilloes, but on a world stage he was - and still is - pure class. Understanding the world outside of the US and understanding the needs of the many in America and not just the few who have 'made it'. Obama is the same but better, more a man of the people and more welcomed by the international community as a just and reliable friend, a man who takes decisions and makes policy on the basis of fairness rather than small-minded and usually big-business ethics (or lack thereof).

We Brits have many many faults, that's a given, but we have welcomed Obama, believed in him, because we recognise his innate fairness, even-handedness, humility and belief in doing what's best for everyone, not just the 'fuck you' brigade. Not just the 'I'm alright jack' fraternity. Not the 'I've upped my income, up yours' suits. And I'm what you might call a conservative in the UK by the way.

But all nations and economies need strong and credible opponents to ensure that they are kept honest. To ensure that they continue to do the right things. To call them to account when required. Absolute power corrupts and all that.

With all due respect, Sarah Louise Palin on a Harley as a potential leader of the free world is a terrifying joke. Please, America, get your act together. We need you to, not just for the UK, but for the world and its future.

Oh the torment

I'm just so cut up about poor Natashia's torment about her 8-year affair with her brother in law Ryan Giggs as reported in the News of the Screws today.  Don't get me wrong, I think that Giggs is largely to blame and I have not read the gory details but I have to admit to being completely baffled by this and other recent so-called 'scandals'. Not just Giggs, but businessmen, bankers, slebs, film stars.. WHAT is wrong with these people? Both sides.

It seems clear to me that some women go into these relationships with a clear view that they will then sell their story to a tabloid. Some may take 8 years to come to that realisation and some will only act when the thing turns sour in order to gain some revenge. What I cannot understand is the sheer 'transactional' nature of the relationship if it ends up in the paper. Sure relationships fail, people fall out of love, but what sort of a society have we created when that failure leads to the threat of exposure and financial and reputational gain or loss?

From a completely Machiavellian viewpoint, if you earn £100,000 a week, can't you just 'provide' a couple of week's wages to induce memory loss? (I don't expect to win many admirers for that comment but be practical).

If the man involved is a predator using his status and wealth, and if he derives his wealth from the media and profile then he deserves what he gets. End of.

But don't the women involved realise that what they're doing is tantamount to blackmail? Or worse, that their actions are labeling them as members of the oldest profession?

The whole thing stinks to high heaven but the really sobering thing is that we, the public have created the environment in which this sort of behaviour is welcomed, demanded, lapped up.

And I'm spending time writing about it. shit.

Is Murray turning into Henman? And do we prefer it if he is?

Have to whisper this I think, but is Andy Murray tuning into the new Henman as far as British tennis is concerned? I'm not an expert on much, if anything, but it seems to me that Andy is becoming the perennial 'nearly man' just as 'Tiger Tim' (has there ever been a sillier moniker?) did in years past?

He's clearly a better player in today's non-serve-and-volley game - a shame on both counts in my view - but is he really any nearer to winning a slam? Yes he's been to semis and to finals, but he's not really been close to winning the title (if that can be said of a two-horse race, and I think in his case it can). And whilst all of the top players say that 'it's only a matter of time' for Andy, time is not waiting for him and others seem to be either moving ahead of him, or coming up fast and overtaking him. Many top players also said the same about Tim.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love him to win (love it), and it is a shame for him that he is in an era when Rafa and Roger and Novak are playing stunning tennis, but it seems to me that whilst he has 99.9% of what it takes, it's the last 0.1% that delivers greatness. And if you think my comparison is silly, only Pete Sampras won more matches at Wimbledon than Henman during Tim's prime years.

I hope I'm wrong, but on the other hand I'm not sure what we Brits would make of a true tennis winner. There'd be mass confusion in Britain.  The Scots would certainly claim him as all Scottish (quite rightly) and the English would then probably find a way to knock him down. We seem to prefer our winners really to be valiant losers if at all possible.  We certainly would not want a Brit to be winning easily.  That would be very poor form. But hey, we don't need to worry on that score do we?

all tied up in language

An American tweeter whom I follow described a recent European championship game which ended in a 2-1 win for Germany over Austria stating that Austria played well enough for the game to have been a tie. I gently (and with humour) pointed out that if it had finished 1-1 it would have been a 'draw', and not a tie as far as we on this side of the pond are concerned. He, typically, took my comment in good faith with a smile but it got me thinking. Nothing new to see differences in the same language depending upon where one lives, but actually, if you think about it, the game was a tie.  A cup tie. If it had finished with scores level it would have been a draw and if it had been in a knockout competition, this would have meant that both teams would then have gone forward into the 'draw' for the next round. And the replay, given added importance, would then have been an even greater 'draw' for the fans to watch. Then one of the teams would need to have won the replay in order to win the 'tie' and progress into the next round of the competition. So they would have won the 'tie' and gone on into the draw for the next round, arguably 'drawing' even bigger crowds as the competition increases.

In test cricket, you can play a match for five whole days and end up with neither team winning - and the result could either be a draw or a tie, but not both. A draw would be if they ran out of time for one team to win.  A tie would be if both teams finished on the same scores, in this case it would be a tie rather than a draw. And, perhaps surprisingly to many on the other side of the pond, whilst the draw could certainly provide a more exiting game than if one team had won, a 'tie' almost certainly would be much more exciting than either a win or a draw.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on winners, losers and drawers, although the latter tends to be where one keeps one's socks.

The sun may be coming out

Congrats to Barca, great team and a great performance this evening.

By contrast, I have been depressed by the performance of my team, Arsenal in recent weeks and also more than a little concerned by the fact that our main rivals will likely spend more money than we will in the coming months - Man-U, Citeh and Chel$ki will all spend more and Liverpool are looking good too.

However, what I have seen tonight has given me renewed hope: We are much more like Barca than any of those other teams - we even beat them in London this year, and in a 'fair and square' contest. We can, with our footballing philosophy and style compete with Barca where many others simply cannot and whilst we do need to fix some problems (much discussed so I won't go there again), we do retain the style that has just been acclaimed by the footballing world as being the best they've ever seen. We're close at least, and closer than anyone else in the EPL.

The problem, it seems to me, is not competing with Barca or Man-U or Chel$ki or Citeh or Spuds - we can do that - it's beating the likes of Stoke and Bolton who don't show any respect for the Beautiful game we are trying to play.  We almost need two teams - one for the top quality matches and one for the long-ball slogs.  We have the former - I truly believe that we do - but we don't have the latter and that is really what's costing us.

Comments?

how high is the bar?

Is it just me?

As a Tory I was (am) pleased that the LibDems joined the coalition for the good of the country, to help counter the situation we faced which was, as Lliam Byrne, Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury said: 'I'm afraid there is no money'.  Labour, far from ending 'boom and bust' had just effectively created the biggest 'bust' in history: yes there were other factors at play but the main problems of debt were created not on the world stage, but in London. We were not victim, but architect of this massive problem for the world. And to their credit the LibDems recognised this. It seems to me that during the negotiations the fact that Labour were not interested in forming a coalition and would rather be in opposition, knowing that they had effectively fucked the country, was also a factor.  LibDems being keen to have any kind of influence at long last, and I don't blame them for that at all.  They had a win-win situation.

OK we now know that they had to 'swallow' some of their previously-held principles such as student fees (which were introduced by Labour by the way) and that they took a major kicking for that.  They singularly failed to communicate that as the minor partner, they could not get everything they wanted in order to deflect that criticism but that they could bring some of their more popular issues to the fore instead. That was good for the Tories, they could do what they needed to do and put the blame on the LIBDems. Not in an obvious way - we're supposedly partners in this - but that's what happened and the public as usual completely missed that point - see local election results.

So the cuts will be happening soon and the LIbDems are being blamed for them, almost universally.  That is an amazing gain for the Tories - the LibDems are being decimated in the country in terms of votes and supporters while the Tories do what needs to be done and are largely blameless. wow!

All of which browsing brings me to my point: Is it just me, or whilst the reputation, make up and motivation of the LIbDems seems to be reasonably and perhaps selflessly good in theory, is the actual make-up of the party flawed?

Forget about policy and belief and principle. I'm talking about the reality of the people in the party. They can bumble along as the third party, saying what they want because they will never have to deliver on their uncosted and not-real-world policies. They can get good media coverage for populist but completely unrealistc views. They can say almost what they like as a party, get good copy and not be held responsible as individuals, as people. There is no spotlight on the people, the individuals behind the rhetoric. It's an easy life, taking pot shots at the Government without any danger of being held accountable.  Until now.

Now they are having to put their heads above the parapet. stand up an be counted as people rather than anonymous shadows. And in my humble opinion, they are being found wanting. Does it go back as far a Jeremy Thorpe? perhaps it does but I would not want to kick them for that. But the eyes of the world are normally averted from the LibDems and, therefore, they are not used to scrutiny.

And when the spotlight is unusually focused on them what do we find? Simon Hughes (it's never talked about but it's there). David Lawes (a similar issue - and I'm not in any way anti gay, but anti cover up). Cable thinking he can 'chat up and impress' a pretty girl rather than being professional - stupid old man at best. Huhne thinking he is above the law (he will have to go eventually, kicking and screaming into jail I think).Lembit Opec.  Twat.

Tories are not exempt from this scrutiny and many have failed, but in my opinion the majority of them 'got over the bar' in terms of quality and I am just not sure that members of the LibDems party have done so. Now that they are being focused upon. Shame really.

You can hide but you can't run

'Who will throw the first stone?'

A strong question still, after more than 2000 years (and probably much earlier).  Who, among us is whiter than white? Unblemished by weakness, a paragon of virtue, able without conscience, to throw that first stone? Presumably thrown at a criminal, beyond doubt, someone who deserves to suffer or to die.  And who decides that? Who makes the laws, writes the history, takes the glory, or the blame?

Certainly not me and probably not you either.  So while we're choosing our stones, buying six flats and a bag of gravel (Life of Brian), perhaps we should look in the mirror, admit our failings, perhaps even apologize for our own sins and show some mercy and generosity?

Trouble is, if we all did that then anyone could get away with anything, without punishment for wrongdoing.  And then where would we be? where would the rule of law be? where would our innate sense of fairness be?

But the villain might be a vicious murderer or rapist or kidnapper. Might also be a woman who has inadvertently allowed her ankle to be seen by a man, or to have driven a car or to have gone to school when it is not allowed in that country.  Are you buying some 'pointy' stones yet? 

My apologies, I didn't intend to drift so much off the point of this blog but the above is worth thinking about in my humble opinion.  One final thought in this area, since I seem to have touched on what i believe are medieval and religion-driven laws, is this: name me one religion, anywhere in the world, that has been 'good' or 'positive' for women?

OK I admit, far to much preamble, I will clearly split this next bit from this blog and use it in it's own right, if you're reading the full version, my apologies:

The thing is this: The background is that Ryan Giggs has been at the centre of mega media coverage these past few days for a sexual relationship he has had with a woman who is not his wife.  The wife of his kids in what was hitherto regarded as a loving family relationship. He tried to cover this up through his wealth - he was able to pay for an injunction to stop the media from reporting his failings.  Unfortunately for him, he has not succeeded and has been found out. If he had admitted his failing, apologized and come clean, we would almost certainly now be following a different story, have paused to say 'silly boy' and have moved on.

He would have had to face the consequences of course, but he could perhaps have done so in a quiet and private way and who knows what he might have agreed with his wife, away from the spotlight of the media. In my opinion he might have been able to save his marriage (and he may still do, who knows?).  He could surely argue that a 'fling' with someone who was only in the relationship in order to make money from it, was not as important as a committed relationship, with kids involved. and she may have understood this. 

By trying to gag the media, to stop them getting the story, he has made the whole thing uncontrolable. And he has increased the attention on his failure by a million percent.  (I am not a fan of the 'we give 110% brigade', you can only give 100% as a maximum but this is different). He has exasserbated the problem massively by trying to control the media, by trying to stop them doing what they do.

Ron Davies MP tried to do the same with the same results. It became a much bigger story because he tried to stop it. One can understand that the revelation would be damaging to him and his political career, but to try to cover it up was to make it a much bigger story.  The media will get there in the end, you have to understand that and live with it and behave accordingly.

In my humble opinion, Chris Huhne is doing the same now. Thinking that one is more important than the press is always doomed to fail.  Admit and try to move on, or be pillaried because you tried to be above the media is just stupid.

Tiger Woods..? Don't get me started! But the same is true. You will not outrun the media, especially if you try to control them and actually, now that Twitter is on the case you have even less chance.  Your best bet is to accept, take your kicking (hopefully briefly) and move on.  Better still, love your wife and kids and keep temptation securely in your trousers.

Libya

So the Americans don’t want to be involved.  The Brits have said, explicitly, that we’re not about regime change, just protecting civilians.  The French, in at the start and on the front foot perhaps for the first time since Napoleon, want everyone to be ‘gung ho’ about smashing Gaddafi’s regime.

Then there are the Libyan ‘civilians’ calling down air support, complaining bitterly when they can’t hear fighter planes in the sky, as if they’d paid for the fuel and the arms they’re carrying.  Like NATO is their own private air force.  And NATO, reluctant, but being pushed around by the US and UK/France to take the lead and take responsibility for the air strikes against Gaddafi.

And all this after the organisation that was set up to do this kind of work, the United Nations (UN) had singularly failed to do so, commanding not enough respect or influence over its members to get anything meaningful done – echoes of the failed League of Nations between the wars, which arguably contributed to the outbreak of WW (together with many other factors of course).

If we (the Brits) are now saying that this is not going to be over until Gaddafi is ousted, then policy has changed considerably: I would argue that it has changed enough for the whole subject to be re-visited by the UK parliament.  Clearly the last Labour Government would not have contemplated this – indeed they went against all advice in order to go to war in the first place in IRAQ, but the Tories have set great store by the fact that this action (enforcing the no-fly zone) was both right and ‘legal’ (a clear ‘nod’ towards the previous Labour regime’s actions).

I would argue that if we have changed the goals of this operation, the legality of it, in relation to UN resolution 1973, is no longer so certain and we must, therefore, take another look if the Coalition government is not to be dogged like their predecessors have been over their sojurn (ongoing) in the Middle East.

One thing that this second look might also consider, is the make-up of the ‘Civilians’ that we’re protecting and now actively supporting (proposing to anyway): are we sure we want them as near neighbours to Europe? Are we sure that in return for our support and help, they will be at least on respectful, friendly terms, regardless of whatever means of government they eventually install?
Are these people really campaigning for democracy? Are they that sophisticated? Or are they simply trying to secure better lives for themselves and their kids? I believe it’s the latter but I would certainly not criticise them for that – we all do the same thing in whatever ways we can after all. But the danger must be that they have been motivated to rebel and to demonstrate and to turn out for these completely understandable reasons, without their goals being in any way achievable.
Sure, a few leaders of the movement will secure a massive uplift in their lives when they get their hands on the levers of power, but will the lives of the ordinary people (brave people no doubt) who have got them there really change? Will the situation revert back to the power and corruption of those new people in power just as it has done since the Crusades of the 12th Century? Why is this time different?
It’s different because of new media and social media and the internet and better universal communications of course, but have the fundamentals changed? Is it not still the case that vested interests and nepotism and power and control, as the driving forces in all of these ‘wobbling’ countries will emerge anew, just with different characters at the helm? And the same characters under the yolk of different rulers?
And remember that these different rulers understand the power of modern communications – these are what got them their break in the first place – manipulating tens nay hundreds of thousands to demonstrate.  They might well feel that they need even more draconian powers in order to control tribal – and disappointed – masses in the future.
I’m not saying it’s easy, or that there is a simple solution – or even a solution at all, short of occupation and imposing our laws and values on people who don’t want them. God forbid another empire approach but we seem to be trying to apply our values and beliefs on people that we don’t really understand and who certainly don’t share our values or our views on fairness and ‘society’.
And now we’re sending in ‘advisors’ not to fight but to ‘help’ whatever that means. And we have shown our hand, that this will not be over until Gaddafi goes. Whoever said that – and it is now the universal mantra – is not a good poker player or even a good diplomat. It means, effectively, that we are at war with Gaddafi. Tell me it doesn’t?
It’s suddenly not as straightforward as it seemed when the ‘civilians’ were in danger of being swept away by Gaddafi. From a practical point of view, if the UK Government doesn’t revisit this in terms of legality and legitimacy it will be committing the same mistakes as the Blair Government and will, justifiably in my view, be subject to the same criticism that it has so pointedly aimed at Blair. It’s time to take a new look at this whole situation, not just because of Libya, but because there may well be many other similar situations coming forward in the very near future – Bahrain, Syria, Jordan, Egypt et al.

Arsenal - what does success look like for next season?

Just as the young lad with the welding goggles replied - 'I'm not a real welder mister', so I am not really a blogger or indeed an expert on very much at all. Certainly not the minutiae of transfer targets or the vagaries of 442 or 433 or 451, but I am a football fan, an Arsenal fan to be exact, and it's been a tough few weeks to say the very least.

I should also say that while I love the game, and my team above all others, I do not enjoy the tribalism that often seems to go with it and would certainly not ever use the term 'scum' in relation to any opponent or opposing teams' supporters. Sure, I enjoy the odd light-hearted banter at the expense of the 'Spuds' or Chel$ki etc., but not in a vehement or violent way like some do. But hey, each to their own I suppose.

So whilst the Black scarf brigade - perhaps 'squad' would be more accurate - and others are predictably debating the end of the world and the possible 'ousting' of the manager after yet another season without silverwear, I was wondering what success might look like next season?

Firstly, I think Wenger is the best man for the job - there is only one manager in the Premiership who is anywhere near as good as him, and he won't be coming to the Emirates anytime soon. Looking further afield, I don't see anyone else at the moment who would represent an improvement on who we are, IMHO lucky to have right now.  Guardiola? Mourihno? Not out of the question, but also not very likely to come.

But, and as @rioferdy5 might say about PiersMorgan, it's a big 'but'. You might think that only the winning of a trophy next year will be enough for AW to keep his job - even if it is only the Carling Cup, and that might not be enough for the faithful. It's difficult to judge what the best case scenario would be - the Premiership is clearly the most difficult title to win, but we've done that. Many Gooners would swap that for the Champion's League trophy which we haven't.  Difficult to call and I too am undecided.  It would be a fantastic problem to have of course.

But how likely is it that Arsenal can win anything next season?  One would have to say that this season has been one of the 'softest' for years. Man-U have not been great but have been very strong at the business end.  Chelsea have been poor by recent standards but will finish above us. Man-City have been sporadic, never really sparkling, but again will likely finish above us.

All will spend more than Arsenal in the summer: Citeh by a massive margin with Chel$ki very close behind them. United will undoubtedly build and might be Champions League winners which would help them to attract the best.  Liverpool now seem to be ominously back on track.

Next year will be much more difficult for Arsenal than this year.

The danger (for Wenger) is that the fans will measure the success, or otherwise, against the standards of this season. Not an easy prospect for him or the club.

In my non-expert opinion if AW sorts out the problems we all know about - positions including keeper, centre-back, a Viera-style centre midfielder and a 20-goals a season striker but most importantly attitude and commitment, then (and I hesitate to say this) I think the fans will be happy, even if we don't win a trophy next season. I'd even say that if he doesn't sort these issues out, and we were to win something like the Carling/FA cup through luck, that I'd be joining the calls for him to go.

I guess it remains to be seen. And that's why he's paid the big bucks. But he has the biggest challenge yet next year in my opinion - priority must be to put the fight back in the dog. Tony Adams would have gone berserk about attitude during the last ten games. We need to get to the position where he would have been proud of the team's attitude, win lose or draw next season.

Who is on your side?

Trepidation sums up how I feel about this blog. Very few people (followers) will see it and whilst that is, in my view, a shame, it is also a comfort because it would surely be unpopular amongst a wider audience and those who will certainly disagree with it tend to be both vociferous and quick to judge and with many 'mates' to call on to denounce any conflicting views of others.

I recently commented on an Israeli discussion page stating, whilst trying to be as even handed as possible, that while I completely agree with the right of Israel to exist and to defend its borders, and that I abhor the extremism and violence perpetrated by the likes of Hamas and others, Israel, above all other states in the world, should also surely recognise the rights of the Palestinians to have their own, internationally recognised homeland. And that Israel should also be held account to accept the internationally agreed resolutions that they should not continue to create illegal settlements against the agreements of the whole world, including the US and the UK, which are clearly a provocation.  My expressed opinion was (and is) that both sides should comply with international law rather than ignoring it and that only then would we be able to secure peace on the basis of trust and fairness.  Niaive of course but nonetheless a view based on principle and hope.

After what I felt was a reasoned and fair view, I was immediately branded a 'racist' and a 'holocaust denier' by others on the blog.  When I am neither of those reprehensible things.

It sometimes seems to me that discussion is not really about right or wrong, but about how many supporters one might have - for a cause, without ever thinking about the argument at issue - and I think that the reaction to my views in many ways proves my original point.

The protagonists on both sides are simply not interested in peace or fairness but only in their own interests.  I have found that there are some people in this life who cannot do a deal, cannot come to an agreement, unless the people with whom they have dealt are seen to have lost out on the deal. They are not interested in a fair, equitable agreement but in 'stuffing' their partner/opponent and then crowing about it. There is no such thing as a win-win in their eyes, only a me-win-they-lose scenario. If we find peace in the Middle east (for example) it will surely be a win-win situation, but with these people at the forefront it will never happen. Even if the vast majority want fairness and peace and to go about their daily lives unencumbered by political or religious crap:

If you don't vote for freedom we'll impose it by military might. And if you don't support Israel, blindly, without question, and against the rights of another culture to survive, we will withdraw our funding of the country and you'll go bust - America. Sad. Outrageous. how can we, as a species, let this happen?

All of which was not what I started out to discuss. sigh, more to follow

let the silent majority speak!

Why are we using a rare referendum to offer judgement on AV? It's like asking people to vote about who uses the swings in the park when the park is going to be turned into a supermarket.

We have the means, in this day and age, to gather opinions from people - and not just the people who are motivated by a single issue because it affects their view (NIMBYs and we are all NIMBYs I concede) - but the hitherto silent majority who might actually support a new development, new roads, infrastructure etc., in order that their kids might have opportunities.

It is costing £millions to facilitate a referendum on something that most people don't understand and don't care about and, crucially, that will not make much of a difference either way, despite what the various advocates tell you.

And at the same time we are not consulting about the EU and our massive contributions to it for relatively little in return. Or the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which is plainly not about efficiency but about keeping inefficient French farmers in their current lifestyles. Ask the people and they might vote to maintain these positions, but they might not, why are we not investigating these issues which are far more important to our daily lives?

Or war in Iraq - we didn't have a choice did we? A million people in the UK marched against it (not in my name etc) but were ignored.  Surely more important than AV - rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.  Or the current situation in Libya, which has changed from protecting the civilians, to regime change without any meaningful consultation with the people who are paying for it.

How much would it cost to set up a micro site to gauge public opinion on these and other issues? Governments of both colours are keen to have everyone 'online' presumably so that  they can communicate cheaply with the entire population eventually. But communication is a two-way street. Why are they so scared about feedback? Why will no Government allow a referendum unless they are sure of the outcome?  These people work for us, not the other way around.

I'm not saying that Facebook or twitter should rule the world.  If public opinion ruled the waves in the UK, we'd have hanging back. But surely we should consider public opinion more, when we have the means to do so rather than having this ridculous AV referendum?