Handling the Problem…

The whole Thierry Henry/handball/Irish thing continues to rumble on days after the match finished amid high emotions. The trouble is, everyone is looking to blame somebody. For me, Henry cannot be blamed. Yes, he handled the ball, and if the referee had blown up then he would have been caught and he wouldn’t have made a fuss about it. The handball is within the new spirit of the game, win by any means, even if it means cheating (be that in the form of a dive, a handball or any other means). Henry cannot, in all reality, have been expected to give up the chance of his last World Cup when it was apparent he had got away with his act. Nor would he have been able to show his face in his own country any time soon had France gone on to lose. Henry did what any other player, across the world would have done, he carried on. Neither the English nor the Irish can have any complaints as both know that they would have done the same had the situation so arisen.

The referee is most obviously to blame, both he, and his linesman failed to spot the handball. In their defence, they were both hampered by bodies in the way. Yet they failed to do what they are being paid for, and as a consequence, will probably not go to the finals. Much like Ireland, their opportunity was taken away when the decision was missed.

Some have sought to blame FIFA, and personally I think that their late decision to seed the play-offs was a disgrace. Once so called ‘big-guns’ had failed in the qualifying rounds, FIFA acted to ensure that the countries that would bring in the most money from TV rights etc were aided as best they could be. Portugal and France qualified, Russia, despite this help, failed. I cannot help but wonder if the same decision would have been made if it had been, for example, England instead of France. I somehow doubt it. I personally think Sepp Blatter is a fool who is destroying football rather than developing it, and the actions of FIFA in this instance leave a bitter taste in the mouth.

Amidst all this, England are struggling to maintain a serious bid for the 2018 World Cup. With their heirarchy in apparent disarray and the bid still stalling (apparently), I’m not too sure that any British bid is likely to be successful whilst Blatter is at the helm and anglophile Platini is involved in UEFA. Whilst the clowns are in charge of the circus, the show falls to the ground. International footballing bodies need to take a good long look at themselves, and then those in charge do the honourable thing and step down, so that people who understand the sport can save it from sporting ignomy.

Lest We Forget…

And this from the BBC…

The Pressure of the Poppy…

In the Independent today there is a piece by sometime funny-man, and, if we’re honest only known for being on Have I Got News For You, Mark Steel. In this piece, entitled “Why should I be pressured into wearing a poppy?”, Steel ponders why there is a pressure for people to wear poppies at this time of year.

Some of the points he makes are valid ones, and naturally for a comic he runs with some ideas to their absolute logical conclusion. The whole piece is here to read. But then he gets involved in discussing Haig, and his role in the war and subsequent creation of the poppy as a symbol of remembrance. And, as befitting someone who really has no idea what he is writing about, Steel harps on about Haig being “as responsible as almost anyone for the slaughter”. Which has the unfortunate implication that Haig was in some way responsible for the origins of the war. Which, of course, he wasn’t. And of course there was nothing he could have done to quell the death rate in a war which saw the technology to kill them develop at an unprecedented rate.

Steel criticises Haig for being religious too. Which is merciful because if he hadn’t been, more men would have died. Which is ignorant, stupid and foolish. So Haig was religious. So what? It was perhaps something he needed to be in order to help him through the war.

Steel’s suggestions regarding the government and the current wars are nothing more than foolish, and missing the entire picture. In short his piece is a painful misunderstanding of both the current war and the Great War. It is difficult to know whether Steel was  being deliberately moronic in a comedic manner, or whether these views are actually his own. Either way it is just a bad article in a reputable paper.

The Week That Was…

There were two notable news stories this week. Except that the first wasn’t really that notable unless you’re a history geek like myself. I don’t want to really discuss this story in much detail except to say that it seems that it is much easier now to be a public fool than it ever was in the past. The Internet, which Menzies credits for revolutionising history (which, undoubtedly is true – check out one of the best First World War sites written by one of my own course predecessors for evidence of this), also makes it easier to be made to look very, very stupid, as Menzies himself has done. Of course Menzies has attempted a disclaimer by admitting he knows nothing, but he seems to show a fundamental understanding of what history is. It is not, in any way, about simply about writing down a few soundbite statements and then hoping there will be a few documents somewhere which will support you. It is, instead, about the whole process of investigation, exploration and interpretation. It is about going into an investigation with an open mind, not a pre-conceived idea of what you expect to find. The end product is incidental to the process of exploring history.

Anyway, moving swiftly onto the next big idiot of the week, Nick Griffin. Whilst the newspapers have been splashed cover to cover with his sloped-gaze of general bigotry and ignorance, Griffin has finally proved himself publically to be the racist, stupid prat we had all known he was. He has come out of the Question Time debacle, and all he has got to show for it is a complaint to the BBC that there were people protesting against him.

Well, not quite all, because apparently, according to a YouGov poll, some 22% of the population would now consider voting BNP. However, if pushed, only 3% would do so tomorrow. Just for the sake of the maths, 3% of the 1,314 people who were surveyed is just over 39 people. Which, in all fairness, is somewhere near what they were polling prior to the programme.

Now Peter Hain can get all worked up that the BBC has given exposure to a party which it shouldn’t be doing. However, I’m guessing that if the majority of the eight million people who watched the programme (plus those of us who watched it on IPlayer later) actually listened to Griffin, then we all know that (a) the BNP have very little in the way of policy beyond racial cleansing, and (b) Griffin was made to look like a complete idiot by everyone in that studio. Especially by Bonnie Greer. Plus, can someone please tell me how his history of the English people seems to ignore the fact that as a people we were colonised by Germans?

Griffin was not given the opportunity to vent his soundbites which he had obviously rigorously prepared beforehand, nor was he allowed to look like his words had an ounce of rationality to them. He was hopelessly out of his depth, and was shown to be nothing more than the voice for a racist few. Which, incidently, are still going to be present regardless of whether Griffin was here or not. If nothing else the programme shows that the BNP do not have supporters as much as the other parties have people who will not vote for them. I’ve said it before, but it is the job of these parties to demonstrate just what they can do for these people who feel so disillusioned that they vote BNP in protest rather than anything else. Once these people have been convinced, the BNP will struggle along with the few people who still think it is right that colour, race or ethnicity should have anything to do with anything.

I’ve championed free speech and a platform policy before and I will continue to do so as it provides ample opportunity to show people the ‘truth’ about those up on the stage. The ‘truth’ is that following Thursday’s events, the BNP are nothing more than a confused racist organisation fronted by a strange little man with a warped version of history, and an even more warped understanding of what the Ku Klux Klan actually is. Don’t fear him, he has nothing which we should be afraid of. Continue showing him up, making him look stupid, and continue working out how to win back voters.

Finally on this, Britain is not like Germany in the 1930’s for the simple reason that we have a monarch. Just a thought for the few doom-mongers who seem paralysed by the fear of the BNP.

The Real World…

I was back in Birmingham for the first time in about three months last weekend, catching up with friends and reminding myself of the student life. After a more than filling curry, conversation moved onto politics, as it invariably does.

It was little more than I was expecting. Whilst my mates are unashamedly left wing in political outlook, it was the comment that Cameron, Boris et al do not live in the “real world” which stuck in my mind the most. It seems a strange comment, given the limited “real world” experience of the commentator. I sat there and kept quiet, avoiding a debate I simply could not be bothered with at that point.

It is true that students do have many problems, issues and complexities with which they have to deal. I’m aware of that, with my own experience as a part-time student continuing, and indeed, set to continue for the forseeable future. However it seems odd to me that a student, who has spent all of his adult life in education of some variety or other, should suggest that the folk of the Tory party do not live in the real world. I don’t profess to know quite what the “real world” is other than some notion used to lazily define the everyday man. I do know that a student with such a limited life experience cannot claim to understand what the real world is, let alone use it as the basis for dismissing the Tory party. I accept that he dislikes the Tories, but that suggestion was both odd and ill-considered.

By all means have a view of the world, but do not claim to have views representative of the “real world” as a) the label is misnomic and b) it is very unlikely that you do.

Road Rage…

Having not blogged for what feels like an eternity, I felt I ought to do my best in a rare moment of peace to write something.

This rare moment of peace comes after the forty minutes drive home I have from work most days. Tonight’s drive brought a moment of clarity to me. I get road rage. I don’t know why, but, when I’m alone in my car I get incredibly irate with other drivers.

There are numerous reasons why, and I think I should outline a few.

The first problem I have with other road users is their speed. I can appreciate driving slowly in 30 or even 40mph zones. But to continue driving at the same speed on a national limit main road is just frustrating. Then there are the folk who drive at 33mph in a 30 zone. They know the limit is 30 but want to have a certain sense of rebelliousness, so go just over, and then hover at that same speed. Why? Why not simply go the whole hog and speed, or drive accurately at the speed limit? What’s the point of driving at 33mph?

Then there are the good folk who you sit behind at traffic lights. These are the folk who will wait until the very last minute before putting their indicators on and turning. Why? Why not put your indicator on whilst we are sat in the queue and give me some notice that you plan to turn?

This leads me onto those people who simply think the indicator is another knob on the dashboard, not to be messed with. It’s not optional, if you plan to turn, let me know! I’m not a psychic and don’t know if you are planning to turn. It’s not really that hard to flick the switch to let the person behind you know that you’re planning to turn, is it?

There are other problems I have with some drivers, but I cannot be bothered to write about them now. Maybe at some other point. Until then, I think my road rage will continue as there remains some really rubbish road users.

Go West…

Instead of this being some homage to the Village People, it is instead a small commentary on the magnificence of the West Wing, a drama I have been late getting into, but am very much firmly addicted to now.

I am halfway through series four and have tonight watched an excellent ‘personal’ episode entitled “The Long Goodbye”. I will not reveal storylines or anything here, but suffice it to say, it was a very well done piece.

There is however, one thing which annoys me as I sit in my room watching the antics of the West Wing staffers. Well, actually there are many things, but there is one over-riding annoyance. The opening titles are not consistant. And I don’t know why. I understand why certain actors were placed in certain positions within the opening credits, but my concern is that for some characters the titles go “black and white photo followed by moving images taken from the show” and for others the two are reversed. I’m really unsure as to why this is, whether it was a simple case of lazy editing when first the titles were made, or whether there is some greater meaning.

I’m sure in cyberspace somewhere there is someone as sad as me who has picked this up and run with it further than I have. I cannot be bothered to look for such a person/webpage, but I’m sure they are there somewhere. Probably next to “lemonlyman.com” on google’s search results page.

Shedding a Light…

A while ago I wrote about the levels of graffiti in and around Sheffield station produced by one ‘Bloodaxe’. I couldn’t fathom the motives for his apparently methodical covering of every immovable object around the station. It seemed so mindless, so pointless.

On Saturday, whilst waiting for my shift at work to begin I was reading the Indy and its numerous inserts, including the magazine. In the mag there was an article about “covert ’street bombers’”. Those folk who go out and scrawl graffiti onto buildings, walls, power boxes or trains. It was a hugely interesting read. It began with tranquility, with the ‘bombers’ pausing, stopping to take in their surroundings, plan their actions, and appreciate the quietness of a train track in the depths of night.

Naturally the writer of the piece reflects public opinion when she wrote that the increased governmental offensive against these ‘bombers’ was being successful, however the nagging feeling is that we are meant to sympathise with these people. But there is more to it than that. Not only are we meant to sympathise, we are meant to be aware that these people do not care whether we sympatise with them. “They do not seek or want your approval”. That is what we are told. That is what we should understand.

Philby tries, unsuccessfully, to explain why they do it. She gives us reasons which are not reasons at all, they do not want to be famous, like Banksy (who, it is suggested, is not really part of the same movement at all, and has instead moved away from everything which makes the street artists do what they do), nor do they crave approval. They do it for the rush, the thrill of breaking the law. They try to offer new perspectives of the world, try to give meanings to inanimate objects. They do it to make a point (the main proponent of the piece, Fuel, recalls his feelings when he graffitied a train with a message about the war in Iraq), they do it because they can.

Whilst the piece was a hugely interesting read (it can be found here), I was left with the nagging feeling that this wasn’t the point of Mr Bloodaxe’s trawlings. There was no message, no agenda, no attempt at colour or art. It was just a tag. He isn’t a street bomber in the same way that those described in the article are. He’s a tagger, in essence, very different; yet to the simple, the same as those who draw the images with a passion, an enjoyment, a feeling of euphoria achieved not by taking drugs but by large, yet usually inoffensive, vandalism.

Congratulations…

I was going to write a piece tonight on an interesting question which I heard tonight whilst watching The West Wing (yes, I am playing catch-up a little as I missed the boat when it was on the TV. I am currently making my way through season 4). However, my own general fatigue coupled with my feeling of injustice mean I’m going to write briefly about something else. I will return to my West Wing musings at some other point.

Like  many people I suppose, I am a creature of habit. When it comes to the interweb I have certain websites I check daily, usually in the same order. I checked these sites tonight, and found this story on the BBC. Yes, it seems that the England Ladies have made it to the final of a major tournament in dramatic fashion (an extra time victory over the Dutch). This should be applauded. They have done well to get this far in a major tournament (whilst they were amongst the favourites, the Germans, Italians and Swedish were more fancied before the tournament commenced).

I then moved onto Skysports.com, the next website stop on my list. As a major sporting site, I was expecting some form of acknowledgment of the achievements of the Ladies on the site’s home page. I was disappointed to see that this wasn’t there. So I dug around for ten minutes, looking for a match report, a post-match interview, just something about this match, and the achievement. I searched the website for both “women’s football” and “england ladies”. Neither produced any relevant hits (although for the former there were a few pieces on the state of the womens game in the UK).

I am shocked that Sky Sports, a reputable, multi-national media outlet has nothing on its website to record the achievement of the England Ladies team. Now I know that womens sport is less well observed in this country than the mens forms, but for there to be nothing on the website is just appalling. I’m disappointed that there is no TV coverage this year of the Women’s Euros, as there was (I think) a few years ago on the Beeb. Women’s sport needs to be encouraged, to be watched, and the only way that this can happen is if it is in the mainstream, there for all to see. If this isn’t going to happen then the next best thing is internet exposure on mainstream websites. The BBC have done this, Sky Sports hasn’t. This is hugely frustrating, and perhaps is indicative of a larger problem within the sporting world relating to gender and various sports (witness the recent, and ongoing, athletics furore; the issues regarding women boxing at the Olympics; even the coverage of England Ladies’ cricketing successes this summer). The media have a huge role to play in the representation of women’s sport. Currently they are failing these sportswomen who strive to succeed, and, it seems, have much more international success than their male counterparts.

Ed: as a subscript, I have left some comments in the Sky Sports feedback form on the site, and await a reply. I will post the response as and when I get one.

Televise That…

And so, it seems, I was wrong. In part. And it’s not often I say that. I wrote, back in July that Mandleson was considering a TV debate, and how it’s something I would like to see, but not something I thought would happen as I didn’t think Brown or the Labour party would fare well out of it. Nor did I think the Lib Dems would get a look in.

Then I saw an advert today whilst watching Sky Sports, it was on behalf of Sky News, and it encouraged me to sign a petition. Now I sit up a bit when I see such requests on TV in advert form, as it is obvious that some thought has gone into this advert, rather than a chain email being passed around. The petition, available here to sign, is for a live TV debate with the three main political leaders. Apparently, since it was set up at the start of this month, Clegg and Cameron have both agreed, in principle, to the idea. Brown, as I suppose we’ve come to expect, is dragging his heels.

I’ve just put my name to it, and it seems I was the 6861st person to sign the petition, which goes to show just how popular this thing is. Which returns me to my original humble thoughts. I was wrong, I didn’t think this thing would happen. However I’m delighted to say I was wrong as it means that there will be some form of political engagement on a national level where the credentials of the party leaders are examined and scrutinised. From here the nation as a whole can begin to judge who the next PM should be. This is an important step on the road towards public re-engagement, it should be the first step of many made by MP’s over the course of the next few months.