You'd think that since El Gordo claims to be a decent sort of chap he'd have a word with his man on the Commons Business Select Committee. Perhaps he'd like to tell Lindsay Hoyle to stop making such ridiculous remarks about the price of fuel at the pumps.
Lindsay told The Telepraph: " it's a complete disgrace".
Yeah! No shit, Sherlock.
And stated that "crude oil has gone up this year, but nothing like the rise in petrol prices. Motorists are being legally mugged at the forecourt by petrol companies."
What the phuck?! Legally mugged at the forecourt by petrol companies?
Lindsay, I'll give you a little breakdown of what us consumers are really paying for - just in case you need reminding.
If a litre of unleaded cost 108.9p, it would be split in the following way:
DUTY: 56.19p PRODUCT: 30.37p VAT: 14.2p RETAILER/DELIVERY: 8.24p
I can't be bothered to work out the exact percentages, but it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that less than one third of what we're spending actually goes towards fuel in my tank. Moreover tax, in one form or another, accounts for roughly 60 percent of the amount we're all forking out for fuel. How is this right?
I'd have to ask Hoyle who we're really being mugged by. To my mind, it isn't the Petrol Companies...
El Gordo talks about unemployment figures, and his track record of getting people back into work. It won't be long before we're all out of work because we can't afford to bloody well get there. Public transport is expensive, unreliable, and of poor quality, so why would we want to use that?
Anyway. Onto other El Gordo/General Election matters.
One of our best parlimentary orators since Churchill, William Hague, outlined in his 2009 conference speech exactly what El Gordo and his cronies have 'acheived' since 1997. It doesn't make pleasant reading:
- £22,500 of debt for every child born in Britain
- 111 tax rises from a government that promised no tax rises at all
- The longest national tax code in the world
- 100,000 million pounds drained from British pension funds
- Gun crime up by 57%
- Violent crime up 70%
- The highest proportion of children living in workless households anywhere in Europe
- The number of pensioners living in poverty up by 100,000
- The lowest level of social mobility in the developed world
- The only G7 country with no growth this year
- One in six young people neither earning nor learning
- 5 million people on out-of –work benefits
- Missing the target of halving child poverty
- Ending up with child poverty rising in each of the last three years instead
- Cancer survival rates among the worst in Europe
- Hospital-acquired infections killing nearly three times as many people as are killed on the roads
- Falling from 4th to 13th in the world competitiveness league
- Falling from 8th to 24th in the world education rankings in maths
- Falling from 7th to 17th in the rankings in literacy
- The police spending more time on paperwork than on the beat
- Fatal stabbings at an all-time high
- Prisoners released without serving their sentences
- Foreign prisoners released and never deported
- 7 million people without an NHS dentist
- Small business taxes going up
- Business taxes raised from among the lowest to among the highest in Europe
- Tax rises for working people set for after the election
- The 10p tax rate abolished
- And the ludicrous promise to have ended boom and bust
- Our gold reserves sold for a quarter of their worth
- Our armed forces overstretched and under-supplied
- Profitable post offices closed against their will
- One of the highest rates of family breakdown in Europe
- The ‘Golden Rule’ on borrowing abandoned when it didn’t fit
- Police inspectors in 10,Downing Street
- Dossiers that were dodgy
- Mandelson resigning the first time
- Mandelson resigning the second time
- Mandelson coming back for a third time
- Bad news buried
- Personal details lost
- An election bottled
- A referendum denied
So when listening to El Gordo and wondering whether or not to vote Labour, think of this list. Ask yourself if you'd like another five years of this? I'd rather phone Philip Nitschke, or maybe check into a Swiss death clinic...
Tuesday 16 March 2010
If I Ever End Up Incapable...
Euthanise me!
It's my choice, is it not? That nice Australian Dr. Philip Nitschke was in Londinium today providing info on how to do oneself over to interested folk. Good on him!
I can remember discussing the joys of euthanasia with the debating society at my secondary school. My view hasn't changed. Course, this is a personal view, and yours may differ.
So, here we go.
Now that I am of sound mind (sort of) and am able to make educated decisions regarding my life, why should I be stopped from putting down in some legal terms what I want done with me in the event of me turning into a cabbage? You know, like we do with Power of Attorney, and (pardon the pun) Pay-as-You-Go Funeral arrangements?
I cannot think of anything worse than being a burden on my friends and loved ones. I believe this is my life and I choose to live it in a manner that I see fit. Who else has the right to decide what happens when it comes to my death? Doctors sort of do already when they withdraw treatment. Well, I want to be able to sign a piece of paper that outlines what happens to me in the event of me being incapable. And I want to do it now. It's not for everyone, I accept that. But I believe it's my choice.
Now, someone tell me what's wrong with that?
It's my choice, is it not? That nice Australian Dr. Philip Nitschke was in Londinium today providing info on how to do oneself over to interested folk. Good on him!
I can remember discussing the joys of euthanasia with the debating society at my secondary school. My view hasn't changed. Course, this is a personal view, and yours may differ.
So, here we go.
Now that I am of sound mind (sort of) and am able to make educated decisions regarding my life, why should I be stopped from putting down in some legal terms what I want done with me in the event of me turning into a cabbage? You know, like we do with Power of Attorney, and (pardon the pun) Pay-as-You-Go Funeral arrangements?
I cannot think of anything worse than being a burden on my friends and loved ones. I believe this is my life and I choose to live it in a manner that I see fit. Who else has the right to decide what happens when it comes to my death? Doctors sort of do already when they withdraw treatment. Well, I want to be able to sign a piece of paper that outlines what happens to me in the event of me being incapable. And I want to do it now. It's not for everyone, I accept that. But I believe it's my choice.
Now, someone tell me what's wrong with that?
Monday 8 March 2010
Venables - Have We The Right to Know?
Er, no.
If you've read my previous entries on this here blog, you'll already know that I have my own ideas on how I would deal with Venables. However, whether we like it or not, we do not exercise the death penalty in this country, nor does a life sentence really mean what we'd like it to mean.
So, the matter in hand.
Now that the fuss over the whole issue seems to have died down a bit, I think it's safe now to offer my considered opinion. We can't have it both ways in this country. I'm a firm believer in allowing the law to deal with everyone fairly, regardless of their history. In that respect, Jon Venables is absolutely entitled to a fair trial over whatever it is he is alleged to have done. I don't say that for the sake of it. It takes a bit of deeper thought. It's easy for everyone to jump on the bandwagon and media hype surrounding the subject and say that we all have the right to know who he is and what he's done.
We don't.
I'm a bit tired of people peddling the 'it's in the public interest' line. There's a simple differentiation that needs to be understood. Just because something is interesting to the public, does not make it in the public interest. What do we stand to gain by finding out Venables' new identity? What do we stand to gain by finding out what he is alleged to have done? Some self satisfaction and the right to say 'I told you so'?
If you consider the whole picture, you have to back Jack Straw's decision that we will not find out what he's supposed to have done, or even who he is. The events of last week go to prove two things: Firstly, that innocent people can get caught up in media hype, and end up being on the end of utterly false allegations, and secondly; that if Venables' identity and alleged crimes were all over the media, he could not possibly receive a fair trial - innocent or otherwise.
You have to separate the events of 1993, and the events of 2010. Of course, that is never going to be easy. The level of public revulsion for the murder of James Bulger is completely understandable, and I am of the opinion that they should never have been released in the first place. However it is undoubtedly sensationalist to suggest that Venables is more evil than other murderers purely on the basis that he was involved in the abduction and murder of another child. Those of us who buy newspapers and react to the reports in the media buy into this sensationalism, and take it as fact. It isn't.
In order for the whole issue to be dealt with properly, justice needs to be served on Venables, and if found guilty of any serious crime, the weight of the law should fall on him so heavily that he never is never at liberty again. It should be enough to know that the law in this country will deal with him as it deems reasonable.
The public at large want to know who he is for invalid reasons. Justice is not served by vigilantism or lynch mobs - it's not how we work in the UK. Everyone says that he deserves to be strung up, or murdered himself. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Justice has to be served on Venables - but it most certainly has to be served fairly.
If you've read my previous entries on this here blog, you'll already know that I have my own ideas on how I would deal with Venables. However, whether we like it or not, we do not exercise the death penalty in this country, nor does a life sentence really mean what we'd like it to mean.
So, the matter in hand.
Now that the fuss over the whole issue seems to have died down a bit, I think it's safe now to offer my considered opinion. We can't have it both ways in this country. I'm a firm believer in allowing the law to deal with everyone fairly, regardless of their history. In that respect, Jon Venables is absolutely entitled to a fair trial over whatever it is he is alleged to have done. I don't say that for the sake of it. It takes a bit of deeper thought. It's easy for everyone to jump on the bandwagon and media hype surrounding the subject and say that we all have the right to know who he is and what he's done.
We don't.
I'm a bit tired of people peddling the 'it's in the public interest' line. There's a simple differentiation that needs to be understood. Just because something is interesting to the public, does not make it in the public interest. What do we stand to gain by finding out Venables' new identity? What do we stand to gain by finding out what he is alleged to have done? Some self satisfaction and the right to say 'I told you so'?
If you consider the whole picture, you have to back Jack Straw's decision that we will not find out what he's supposed to have done, or even who he is. The events of last week go to prove two things: Firstly, that innocent people can get caught up in media hype, and end up being on the end of utterly false allegations, and secondly; that if Venables' identity and alleged crimes were all over the media, he could not possibly receive a fair trial - innocent or otherwise.
You have to separate the events of 1993, and the events of 2010. Of course, that is never going to be easy. The level of public revulsion for the murder of James Bulger is completely understandable, and I am of the opinion that they should never have been released in the first place. However it is undoubtedly sensationalist to suggest that Venables is more evil than other murderers purely on the basis that he was involved in the abduction and murder of another child. Those of us who buy newspapers and react to the reports in the media buy into this sensationalism, and take it as fact. It isn't.
In order for the whole issue to be dealt with properly, justice needs to be served on Venables, and if found guilty of any serious crime, the weight of the law should fall on him so heavily that he never is never at liberty again. It should be enough to know that the law in this country will deal with him as it deems reasonable.
The public at large want to know who he is for invalid reasons. Justice is not served by vigilantism or lynch mobs - it's not how we work in the UK. Everyone says that he deserves to be strung up, or murdered himself. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Justice has to be served on Venables - but it most certainly has to be served fairly.
Monday 1 March 2010
South Oxhey Choir - An Inspiration
Hello again, everyone.
Thought I'd write another little something on a happier note this time.
You may have seen the TV Series 'The Choir - Unsung Town' on BBC2 a while back.
The Real Life Series focused on the residents of South Oxhey, a large council estate south of Watford and Gareth Malone's attemps to form a choir from its residents. I've lived in South Oxhey for 30 odd years, and while it's had its problems and even now is far from perfect, to me it's home and it always will be.
I wanted to put into words what the choir means to me, and there's no better medium than my little old bloggykins.
I've played guitar for many years, done the usual gigs on stage in front of 200 or so people, and I have a huge and varied music collection. Music is a passion of mine, it really is. Funny then that until I saw the TV series, I never even gave singing in a choir a thought. I popped along to a rehearsal that SOC holds every Tuesday in what is my old Primary School assembly hall, and I'm so glad I did.
So what does it do for a man?
The opportunity to meet various likeminded folk is always a bonus, you can probably tell that I'm not backward in coming forward! Most of all it fills a person with confidence. You have to let your inhibitions go, and not be frightened of making mistakes in front of lots of people. It teaches discipline, patience, new languages, posture, breathing, teamwork, and restores your pride. It also opens up a world of music and various styles that otherwise you may never have given a second glance.
Inhibition is the enemy of creativity and success. I've been fortunate to have met so many new people who accepted me immediately as part of what feels like an extended family. I now socialise with people who live two minutes away from me who, until September, I didn't even know existed. Rehearsal night is something to look forward to, because I get to see my new friends and catch up, have a good old chinwag and a giggle. I don't care how daft I look sitting in my car at traffic lights practicing our material over and over again. Choir has allowed me the privilege to perform at Watford Colusseum in front of an audience of over 1,000 people. At Easter we are going to sound absolutely amazing in the undeniable majesty of St Albans Abbey. It truly does open up a whole new world.
We are lucky in that Gareth Malone, our illustrious choirmaster, decided to stay with us after the TV series was finished, and he's still here today. He is a true inspiration to us all. His love for music and choral singing shines through in everything he does. Clearly Gareth is an extremely talented, dedicated man who has a personality so infectious that we can't help but do what he asks of us to the very best of our ability. He's also a self-effacing kind of bloke, and I know he'd hate for me to say so, but I feel indebted to him for making everything just seem a bit more worthwhile.
If you get the opportunity, join a choir. I promise you'll love it.
Thought I'd write another little something on a happier note this time.
You may have seen the TV Series 'The Choir - Unsung Town' on BBC2 a while back.
The Real Life Series focused on the residents of South Oxhey, a large council estate south of Watford and Gareth Malone's attemps to form a choir from its residents. I've lived in South Oxhey for 30 odd years, and while it's had its problems and even now is far from perfect, to me it's home and it always will be.
I wanted to put into words what the choir means to me, and there's no better medium than my little old bloggykins.
I've played guitar for many years, done the usual gigs on stage in front of 200 or so people, and I have a huge and varied music collection. Music is a passion of mine, it really is. Funny then that until I saw the TV series, I never even gave singing in a choir a thought. I popped along to a rehearsal that SOC holds every Tuesday in what is my old Primary School assembly hall, and I'm so glad I did.
So what does it do for a man?
The opportunity to meet various likeminded folk is always a bonus, you can probably tell that I'm not backward in coming forward! Most of all it fills a person with confidence. You have to let your inhibitions go, and not be frightened of making mistakes in front of lots of people. It teaches discipline, patience, new languages, posture, breathing, teamwork, and restores your pride. It also opens up a world of music and various styles that otherwise you may never have given a second glance.
Inhibition is the enemy of creativity and success. I've been fortunate to have met so many new people who accepted me immediately as part of what feels like an extended family. I now socialise with people who live two minutes away from me who, until September, I didn't even know existed. Rehearsal night is something to look forward to, because I get to see my new friends and catch up, have a good old chinwag and a giggle. I don't care how daft I look sitting in my car at traffic lights practicing our material over and over again. Choir has allowed me the privilege to perform at Watford Colusseum in front of an audience of over 1,000 people. At Easter we are going to sound absolutely amazing in the undeniable majesty of St Albans Abbey. It truly does open up a whole new world.
We are lucky in that Gareth Malone, our illustrious choirmaster, decided to stay with us after the TV series was finished, and he's still here today. He is a true inspiration to us all. His love for music and choral singing shines through in everything he does. Clearly Gareth is an extremely talented, dedicated man who has a personality so infectious that we can't help but do what he asks of us to the very best of our ability. He's also a self-effacing kind of bloke, and I know he'd hate for me to say so, but I feel indebted to him for making everything just seem a bit more worthwhile.
If you get the opportunity, join a choir. I promise you'll love it.
In all fairness...
I feel terrible for Aaron Ramsey. I really do. A serious injury like he has sustained is a dreadful thing, there can be no argument. But...
And there is a very large but...
I feel dreadful for Ryan Shawcross, too.
When all things are equal, you have to look at the facts in the harsh light of day. There is much wrong with football, and we could harp on about video replays and the offside rule for years. You may think that this is about to be some psychotic anti-Arsenal, anti-Arsene Wenger rant, but read on, for you may be surprised.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I'm afraid I fall on the side of Stoke City manager Tony Pulis when it comes to when and where someone should air them. It's not right that immediately after a game - even if it's a dull 0-0 draw - that a microphone is shoved under a manager's nose. The questions are invasive and designed to get a reaction from managers and players, and that can't be right. We accept that people say and do daft things in the heat of the moment, so would it not be a better idea to allow the heat of the moment to pass before asking a manager what they think about the latest wrong decision or dodgy tackle?
Probably.
But we all know that is what happens. Managers know it. Players know it. And we as punters know it. We love it - it gets us talking. So, on to my points.
I'm going to start with Rafa Benitez, the odd man of Liverpool. It seems to me that after every game he is critical of something. The thing is, he dodges the issue at hand with what he clearly considers to be his charm and wit. I think he brings the game into disrepute by sarcastically not saying very much at all. 'Everything the referee did was fine'. Why say anything at all if you don't mean it? Would he like to be treated like that? To have every move scrutinised and criticised to such an extent that eventually he was unable to do right for doing wrong? He's fortunate in that he has so far managed to maintain support from the terraces, or he'd be out on his ear. History, of course, is firmly in the past. The attitude that there is somehow some God-given right to success because of past achievements is wholly unacceptable, and that's the very attitude he puts across.
The facts at Liverpool are really quite plain. It's entirely down to Rafa Benitez and his clearly not so good management skills that Liverpool are only hanging on to fourth spot by the skin of their teeth. Allowing Xabi Alonso to leave was a disaster. That was a mistake, Rafa, and everyone makes them. Even you.
Now, on to Mr Wenger and what I perceive to be his failings. Wenger's failings are few and far between, but to deny that he doesn't have one huge flaw is just ridiculous. You don't have to necessarily like someone in order to have respect for them. Wenger is Arsenal's most successful manager in the modern era. You have to respect him for his achievements, for the way in which his team plays the game, and for his nouse in the transfer market to some degree. But I find myself rapidly losing respect for him because he sometimes says some patently ridiculous things.
What happened on Saturday to Aaron Ramsey was just bloody awful, and when you witness something like that you have to put your tribalism aside. As I've said, I feel desperately sorry for him. I also feel sorry for Ryan Shawcross. No professional footballer is going to go into a challenge like that with the malicious intent to break someone's leg. We are dealing in split seconds here and I think we'd agree that there was no malicious intent on the part of Ryan Shawcross. His reaction to the incident made it perfectly obvious that he hadn't meant it. Mistimed? Yes. Horrific? Absolutely. Does he deserve to be publicly vilified? Absolutely not.
Serious injury is a part of football. As a Spurs fan I can remember the challenge on Gary Stevens that pretty much ended his career. I can remember John Fashanu's horrendous elbow on Gary Mabbutt. Jan Wouters on Paul Gascoigne at Wembley in 1993. Ben Thatcher on Pedro Mendes not so long back. There are thousands of examples of malice in football, but what happened on Saturday was not one of them.
I do not agree with Arsene Wenger that his players aren't protected enough, and I do believe in coincidence. Arsenal play attractive, top quality football - we'd be utterly daft to deny it. But God knows it hasn't always been that way! I struggle most with Arsene Wenger's habit of publicly slagging off everyone and everything that doesn't conform to his current idea of how the game should be played. For a man who for fourteen years has presided over a team with one of the worst disciplinary records in the Premier League, it is absolutely astounding that he should accuse other players and clubs of kicking his team off the park.
I wholeheartedly stand by this point of view: It is an absolute miracle that, although an immensely talented footballer, Patrick Vieira's behaviour in an Arsenal jersey did not result in him having seriously injured someone. Arsene Wenger would be much more credible had he acknowledged and accepted that. He didn't at the time, and he hasn't since. This is precisely why he is in absolutely no position to take the moral high ground on matters of discipline. Afterall, what's good for the goose?
Wenger carries on about what is and isn't acceptable as if he is The Chosen One in terms of football management. What is unacceptable is that Wenger has consistently defended the indefensible and never offered even mild public criticisism of his own players for their misdemeanours on a football pitch. If you aren't going to do at least that, you have no right to criticise players from other teams, and the constant 'I didn't see it' cop out is not good enough when it's one of your own who is in the wrong.
I can understand why Wenger, Arsenal, and their fans are upset with what happened on Saturday. But just ask yourself this: If one of your boys was half a second late on Shawcross on Saturday, and it was his leg that had been broken in equally horrendous circumstances, would you want your player banned for life? Would you want his reputation being brought into question? Would you want someone with the same clout as Arsene Wenger passing judgement on him?
At least Tony Pulis had the good common sense and decency to come out and give an honest view on the matter, without avoiding the issue by saying he didn't see it.
There are some things that are indefensible on a football pitch. I'm a Spurs fan, but I would never shy away from saying that Paul Gascoigne was a fucking idiot in the 1991 FA Cup Final - footballing genius or not. Moreover, one of the worst tackles I've ever seen on a football pitch was Tottenham full back Mauricio Tarrico's effort against some poor Evertonian a few years back. It's impossible to defend behaviour like that. So why try? But at the same time I accept that accidents happen. Was Luka Modric nobbled deliberately by Lee Bowyer earlier this season? Course not. It was an accident, and accidents happen as often as coincidences.
Everything has to be put into perspective. The managers of our beloved teams are not always right. We'd all do well to make up our own minds instead of standing behind people who have opinions that are so clearly flawed.
And there is a very large but...
I feel dreadful for Ryan Shawcross, too.
When all things are equal, you have to look at the facts in the harsh light of day. There is much wrong with football, and we could harp on about video replays and the offside rule for years. You may think that this is about to be some psychotic anti-Arsenal, anti-Arsene Wenger rant, but read on, for you may be surprised.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I'm afraid I fall on the side of Stoke City manager Tony Pulis when it comes to when and where someone should air them. It's not right that immediately after a game - even if it's a dull 0-0 draw - that a microphone is shoved under a manager's nose. The questions are invasive and designed to get a reaction from managers and players, and that can't be right. We accept that people say and do daft things in the heat of the moment, so would it not be a better idea to allow the heat of the moment to pass before asking a manager what they think about the latest wrong decision or dodgy tackle?
Probably.
But we all know that is what happens. Managers know it. Players know it. And we as punters know it. We love it - it gets us talking. So, on to my points.
I'm going to start with Rafa Benitez, the odd man of Liverpool. It seems to me that after every game he is critical of something. The thing is, he dodges the issue at hand with what he clearly considers to be his charm and wit. I think he brings the game into disrepute by sarcastically not saying very much at all. 'Everything the referee did was fine'. Why say anything at all if you don't mean it? Would he like to be treated like that? To have every move scrutinised and criticised to such an extent that eventually he was unable to do right for doing wrong? He's fortunate in that he has so far managed to maintain support from the terraces, or he'd be out on his ear. History, of course, is firmly in the past. The attitude that there is somehow some God-given right to success because of past achievements is wholly unacceptable, and that's the very attitude he puts across.
The facts at Liverpool are really quite plain. It's entirely down to Rafa Benitez and his clearly not so good management skills that Liverpool are only hanging on to fourth spot by the skin of their teeth. Allowing Xabi Alonso to leave was a disaster. That was a mistake, Rafa, and everyone makes them. Even you.
Now, on to Mr Wenger and what I perceive to be his failings. Wenger's failings are few and far between, but to deny that he doesn't have one huge flaw is just ridiculous. You don't have to necessarily like someone in order to have respect for them. Wenger is Arsenal's most successful manager in the modern era. You have to respect him for his achievements, for the way in which his team plays the game, and for his nouse in the transfer market to some degree. But I find myself rapidly losing respect for him because he sometimes says some patently ridiculous things.
What happened on Saturday to Aaron Ramsey was just bloody awful, and when you witness something like that you have to put your tribalism aside. As I've said, I feel desperately sorry for him. I also feel sorry for Ryan Shawcross. No professional footballer is going to go into a challenge like that with the malicious intent to break someone's leg. We are dealing in split seconds here and I think we'd agree that there was no malicious intent on the part of Ryan Shawcross. His reaction to the incident made it perfectly obvious that he hadn't meant it. Mistimed? Yes. Horrific? Absolutely. Does he deserve to be publicly vilified? Absolutely not.
Serious injury is a part of football. As a Spurs fan I can remember the challenge on Gary Stevens that pretty much ended his career. I can remember John Fashanu's horrendous elbow on Gary Mabbutt. Jan Wouters on Paul Gascoigne at Wembley in 1993. Ben Thatcher on Pedro Mendes not so long back. There are thousands of examples of malice in football, but what happened on Saturday was not one of them.
I do not agree with Arsene Wenger that his players aren't protected enough, and I do believe in coincidence. Arsenal play attractive, top quality football - we'd be utterly daft to deny it. But God knows it hasn't always been that way! I struggle most with Arsene Wenger's habit of publicly slagging off everyone and everything that doesn't conform to his current idea of how the game should be played. For a man who for fourteen years has presided over a team with one of the worst disciplinary records in the Premier League, it is absolutely astounding that he should accuse other players and clubs of kicking his team off the park.
I wholeheartedly stand by this point of view: It is an absolute miracle that, although an immensely talented footballer, Patrick Vieira's behaviour in an Arsenal jersey did not result in him having seriously injured someone. Arsene Wenger would be much more credible had he acknowledged and accepted that. He didn't at the time, and he hasn't since. This is precisely why he is in absolutely no position to take the moral high ground on matters of discipline. Afterall, what's good for the goose?
Wenger carries on about what is and isn't acceptable as if he is The Chosen One in terms of football management. What is unacceptable is that Wenger has consistently defended the indefensible and never offered even mild public criticisism of his own players for their misdemeanours on a football pitch. If you aren't going to do at least that, you have no right to criticise players from other teams, and the constant 'I didn't see it' cop out is not good enough when it's one of your own who is in the wrong.
I can understand why Wenger, Arsenal, and their fans are upset with what happened on Saturday. But just ask yourself this: If one of your boys was half a second late on Shawcross on Saturday, and it was his leg that had been broken in equally horrendous circumstances, would you want your player banned for life? Would you want his reputation being brought into question? Would you want someone with the same clout as Arsene Wenger passing judgement on him?
At least Tony Pulis had the good common sense and decency to come out and give an honest view on the matter, without avoiding the issue by saying he didn't see it.
There are some things that are indefensible on a football pitch. I'm a Spurs fan, but I would never shy away from saying that Paul Gascoigne was a fucking idiot in the 1991 FA Cup Final - footballing genius or not. Moreover, one of the worst tackles I've ever seen on a football pitch was Tottenham full back Mauricio Tarrico's effort against some poor Evertonian a few years back. It's impossible to defend behaviour like that. So why try? But at the same time I accept that accidents happen. Was Luka Modric nobbled deliberately by Lee Bowyer earlier this season? Course not. It was an accident, and accidents happen as often as coincidences.
Everything has to be put into perspective. The managers of our beloved teams are not always right. We'd all do well to make up our own minds instead of standing behind people who have opinions that are so clearly flawed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)