A few days ago Tony Moybray, the West Brom manager, suggested what many fans have suspected for some time when he made clear that some referees are too chummy with certain top players.
I remember well when Norwich were in the Premiership that tackles were not met with even punishment when playing top teams. Referees would stand having long chats with Rooney, Henry, Lampard and others whilst being happy to waive a yellow card the first time a "star" player was tackled.
Tony Moybray did not say that referees were biased, for to do so would incur an FA charge, but I do not blame him at all for thinking that is is the case, even if he is forbidden to say it.
Another example of this "big team", "star player" bias has just been seen on Sky TV with a Stoke player being sent off for no more than a hard but not dangerous tackle on England international Shaun Wright-Phillips, whilst Shaun Wright-Phillips two footed lunge ( a straight red car) followed by a retaliation kick out at the Stoke player (again another straight read card) was ignored and he received no punishment.
Fans from most premiership club suspect that refs show bias towards the big teams and stats tend to show this to be true with The Real Result website showing the Sky 4 (Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea) to be 6 points better of than they should be.
It's about time referees stopped showing institutional bias and stopped referring to "Frank" or "Wayne" and instead referred to everyone in the same way, be they a Stoke reserve player who is not a household name or an England international whose wife appears on ITV 2.
Update : Today (Sunday 1st Feb), just a day after Rory Delap was sent of for Stoke, Steven Gerrard (England International) committed the exact same offence in a match and ... was simply told off by the referee with no card being produced. Another example of stunning double standards.
1/31/2009
1/29/2009
Time to re-educate judges ?
A few days ago two men guilty of raping a woman with learning disabilities then throwing caustic soda at her were given ludicrously low sentences for their sickening crimes. The attorney general has now called for a review of their sentences.
Today those responsible for protecting the killer of Rhys Jones, those responsible for giving him the gun and those who provided a false alibi were given sentences ranging from probation up to seven years. The person given seven years will be out of prison in just three years. They were reported to have cheered the sentences they were given, winking to people in court and were heard laughing as they were led away. Quite clearly they could not believe the ludicrously light sentences they were given. Clearly the judge that gave out this sentences lives on a different planet from everyone else.
The question is though, what faith do people have in our justice system when judges apply such appalling sentences on people who have committed such awful crimes ? What message does this sent to criminals ? Isn't it time for some judges to be retired or retrained ?
Today those responsible for protecting the killer of Rhys Jones, those responsible for giving him the gun and those who provided a false alibi were given sentences ranging from probation up to seven years. The person given seven years will be out of prison in just three years. They were reported to have cheered the sentences they were given, winking to people in court and were heard laughing as they were led away. Quite clearly they could not believe the ludicrously light sentences they were given. Clearly the judge that gave out this sentences lives on a different planet from everyone else.
The question is though, what faith do people have in our justice system when judges apply such appalling sentences on people who have committed such awful crimes ? What message does this sent to criminals ? Isn't it time for some judges to be retired or retrained ?
Anecdotes and Alcohol
Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, tried to explain his decision to advise that alcohol for for under 15s should be prohibited by parents, by using some of the most bizarre reasoning I have heard in recent years.
Firstly he tried to debunk the arguments that many people give that a little bit of alcohol for teenagers can make teens more responsible with alcohol later on by arguing that some people, some children, some adults, cannot differentiate between right and wrong so this blurs things, then he went on to state that some people do not know what a small amount is or they don't actually seek to control or limit children's alcohol intake. In effect he was saying that because a few, the ignorant and those who don't care, fail to control their children or have children that cannot be controlled, all parents should exercise prohibition of alcohol to children. A worrying argument in itself.
Then Sir Liam tried to make the medical point about alcohol. When pressed by Nicky Campbell as to what damage a small glass of alcohol for a 14 year old would cause, Sir Liam had no real answer other than to repeat his previous argument that those who drink to excess would damage their brains. So in effect small amounts do NOT cause damage, but as with anything, large amounts might. Again, this argument was weak and does not add up.
So Nicky Campbell made the point about millions of responsible parents who give their children small amounts of alcohol and have children who do not turn out to be binge drinkers. Sir Liam's response was that anecdotal evidence about "middle class parents" was not something that a real judgment could be made on, and instead he returned to his argument about people who don't apply rules or standards for their children.
Okay, anecdotes are no way to make policy, but I think we all know someone brought up around careful alcohol use who turned out not to be an alcoholic, but Sir Liam does not care for this.
So what did Sir Liam do next to justify himself ? He used a personal anecdote about his visit to France and having a meal with a French family to make a general assumption about British children compared to French ones because of one conversation.
For goodness sake Sir Liam, don't lecture us on anecdotes being no basis on which to make policy then use an anecdote to prove your arguments are correct.
I have to say Sir Liam's whole argument was full of holes and was basically all about stopping the majority doing something responsibly because a few do not follow good advice.
Firstly he tried to debunk the arguments that many people give that a little bit of alcohol for teenagers can make teens more responsible with alcohol later on by arguing that some people, some children, some adults, cannot differentiate between right and wrong so this blurs things, then he went on to state that some people do not know what a small amount is or they don't actually seek to control or limit children's alcohol intake. In effect he was saying that because a few, the ignorant and those who don't care, fail to control their children or have children that cannot be controlled, all parents should exercise prohibition of alcohol to children. A worrying argument in itself.
Then Sir Liam tried to make the medical point about alcohol. When pressed by Nicky Campbell as to what damage a small glass of alcohol for a 14 year old would cause, Sir Liam had no real answer other than to repeat his previous argument that those who drink to excess would damage their brains. So in effect small amounts do NOT cause damage, but as with anything, large amounts might. Again, this argument was weak and does not add up.
So Nicky Campbell made the point about millions of responsible parents who give their children small amounts of alcohol and have children who do not turn out to be binge drinkers. Sir Liam's response was that anecdotal evidence about "middle class parents" was not something that a real judgment could be made on, and instead he returned to his argument about people who don't apply rules or standards for their children.
Okay, anecdotes are no way to make policy, but I think we all know someone brought up around careful alcohol use who turned out not to be an alcoholic, but Sir Liam does not care for this.
So what did Sir Liam do next to justify himself ? He used a personal anecdote about his visit to France and having a meal with a French family to make a general assumption about British children compared to French ones because of one conversation.
For goodness sake Sir Liam, don't lecture us on anecdotes being no basis on which to make policy then use an anecdote to prove your arguments are correct.
I have to say Sir Liam's whole argument was full of holes and was basically all about stopping the majority doing something responsibly because a few do not follow good advice.
Green PPC opens his mouth and shows his ignorance
The local news this evening featured a Green PPC spouting on about how unfair it is that councillors do not have the right to overrule a planning inspector.
Let's be clear about this, the planning inspector applies the law of the land and like it or not, this should be the basis on which planning applications are made.
Does this dim Green want a return to the bad old days when applications could be turned down on a whim with no way of redress ?
Sadly it was just blatant populism from the Green and showed exactly why he is a Green and not in a party capable of winning a parliamentary seat.
Let's be clear about this, the planning inspector applies the law of the land and like it or not, this should be the basis on which planning applications are made.
Does this dim Green want a return to the bad old days when applications could be turned down on a whim with no way of redress ?
Sadly it was just blatant populism from the Green and showed exactly why he is a Green and not in a party capable of winning a parliamentary seat.
1/28/2009
Why are banks offering such expensive loans
I got a letter today from my bank offering me a car loan.
Now you would imagine that with interest rates at an all time low a need for banks to restart lending in order to kick start the economy, that bank loans ought to be cheaper than they were in the past. However the rate highlighted as the typically APR was 0.6% higher than the rate I could have got last year.
Is it any wonder that consumer spending is stalled and nobody wants to buy a new car when car loans are so much more expensive.
Now you would imagine that with interest rates at an all time low a need for banks to restart lending in order to kick start the economy, that bank loans ought to be cheaper than they were in the past. However the rate highlighted as the typically APR was 0.6% higher than the rate I could have got last year.
Is it any wonder that consumer spending is stalled and nobody wants to buy a new car when car loans are so much more expensive.
Putting the "Great" back in to "Great" Britain
If there is one thing that really gets my back up it is people who say that something "puts the Great back in to Great Britain", seemingly totally unaware that the name "Great Britain" refers to the island we live on, not actually the name of our country.
Watching the news tonight I saw some bloke making this statement when talking about HMS Daring, the new Royal Navy destroyer.
Perhaps it is a sad reflection on our country at the moment that this chap actually believed what he was saying.
Watching the news tonight I saw some bloke making this statement when talking about HMS Daring, the new Royal Navy destroyer.
Perhaps it is a sad reflection on our country at the moment that this chap actually believed what he was saying.
1/26/2009
The Russel Brand good news the Daily Mail won't want to print
On BBC Look East this evening they reported on a charity that helps to rehabilitate people addicted to drugs who are having their government funding cut by 30%, despite a 40% increase in the number of people seeking treatment. Faced with closure, the Bury St Edmunds Charity "Focus 12" has been saved by comedian Russell Brand who has given them £30,000 and has pledged to raise £60,000 per year every year from now on for the charity.
Possibly the sort of good news the Daily Scum won' t be interest in.
Possibly the sort of good news the Daily Scum won' t be interest in.
Impartiality is hard won but easily lost - Why the BBC is right
I am heartily sick of the campaign against the BBC from the usual suspects, but also people who should know better after the BBC put its impartiality in front of taking sides in the Gaza conflict.
Now before anyone jumps in to attack me they ought to check my record on the Gaza conflict. I was and remain deeply critical of Israel, believe they were wrong to attack, I believe they have committed war crimes and I think those who supported without reservation Israel should be ashamed of themselves.
Those pro Gaza groups and politicians now protesting forget that the BBC was the only news organisation in the world getting regular news reports from its own journalists based in Gaza during the conflict. Compare the BBC's coverage of the conflict compared to the US networks and you will see why the BBC was regarded internationally as the TV station that gave the whole news as opposed to the Israeli news. Were it not for the BBC's ability to get to places where other news organisations couldn't go, the real story of Gaza may not have been told and Israel would have been able to hide evidence of its war crimes. This is the real message which has been lost by those berating the BBC over the weekend.
Eighteen months ago the BBC trust said the BBC was too willing to hand over its channels to the DEC when it ran an appeal for Darfur whilst the channel was also found to be lacking impartiality when episodes of the Vicar of Dibley ignored the idea of a plot and instead became adverts for Make Poverty History. If the BBC can be found to be wrong for supporting Make Poverty History it shows just what a fine line the BBC would have been treading if it had run the DEC disaster appeal.
I am, perhaps, most disappointed by the number of Lib Dem MPs who have joined the bandwagon against the BBC, but who ever it is signing motions or printing stories, remember that Sky News too shared the BBCs concerns whilst ITV, Channel 4 and Five had much to gain by making the BBC seem alone in its decision. If you were watching ITV News you would imagine that Sky News did not exist as the BBC are painted as the "only" channel not running the appeal.
If the BBC had run the appeal, what would have happened next time a major world event occurred where the BBC might have had the ability to expose the truth but were denied the opportunity because they were not trusted ? We'd have blamed the BBC for ruining its reputation.
Now before anyone jumps in to attack me they ought to check my record on the Gaza conflict. I was and remain deeply critical of Israel, believe they were wrong to attack, I believe they have committed war crimes and I think those who supported without reservation Israel should be ashamed of themselves.
Those pro Gaza groups and politicians now protesting forget that the BBC was the only news organisation in the world getting regular news reports from its own journalists based in Gaza during the conflict. Compare the BBC's coverage of the conflict compared to the US networks and you will see why the BBC was regarded internationally as the TV station that gave the whole news as opposed to the Israeli news. Were it not for the BBC's ability to get to places where other news organisations couldn't go, the real story of Gaza may not have been told and Israel would have been able to hide evidence of its war crimes. This is the real message which has been lost by those berating the BBC over the weekend.
Eighteen months ago the BBC trust said the BBC was too willing to hand over its channels to the DEC when it ran an appeal for Darfur whilst the channel was also found to be lacking impartiality when episodes of the Vicar of Dibley ignored the idea of a plot and instead became adverts for Make Poverty History. If the BBC can be found to be wrong for supporting Make Poverty History it shows just what a fine line the BBC would have been treading if it had run the DEC disaster appeal.
I am, perhaps, most disappointed by the number of Lib Dem MPs who have joined the bandwagon against the BBC, but who ever it is signing motions or printing stories, remember that Sky News too shared the BBCs concerns whilst ITV, Channel 4 and Five had much to gain by making the BBC seem alone in its decision. If you were watching ITV News you would imagine that Sky News did not exist as the BBC are painted as the "only" channel not running the appeal.
If the BBC had run the appeal, what would have happened next time a major world event occurred where the BBC might have had the ability to expose the truth but were denied the opportunity because they were not trusted ? We'd have blamed the BBC for ruining its reputation.
1/25/2009
An odd sort of spectacle
A few months ago Wells-Next-The-Sea in North Norfolk woke up one cold spring morning to find a sheep had been kicked to death by a number of teenagers. The police got involved, arrest were made, and the people of Wells felt sickened that such people exist in our society.
After reading THIS, it makes you wonder whether these youths might be labelled as talented in some countries ?
After reading THIS, it makes you wonder whether these youths might be labelled as talented in some countries ?
What is it with civil libertarians and Twitter ?
I love the whole argument that so many people have (and I share) that ID cards, CCTV cameras and many other things the government want to use to track us are infringing our rights, yet then so many of these people then get Twitter, which seems to be a system to allow people to snoop in to your life and let everyone know where you are, what you are doing, what you had for tea, and is the very antithesis of the privacy argument.
I know that people can volunteer what information they put on to Twitter and I know that it does not do any harm, and I also know I will get people shouting me down for saying this, but it just seems to be at odds with the whole privacy argument.
I know that people can volunteer what information they put on to Twitter and I know that it does not do any harm, and I also know I will get people shouting me down for saying this, but it just seems to be at odds with the whole privacy argument.
Will Labour out-sleaze the Tories by the time the next election happens ?
Anyone old than 30 years of age will remember how in the period from 1993-1997 the word "sleaze" became almost permanently attached to the word "Tory" as the Tory party lurched from one self inflicted wound to another. When I read some young Conservative blogs I just wonder how keen they would be to be Conservative if they could actually remember what a Tory government was like. However, Labour seem to be in some sort of competition with the Tories to "out-sleaze" them before they are, hopefully, kicked out of office some time next year.
The latest from Mr Brown's sleaze merchants is that some Labour Lords are being accused of offering to put for amendments to government bills for a fee.
Truly appalling and another reason why the Tories can still rely on a comfortable lead in the polls this year as it seems that governments in crisis cannot help but shoot themselves in the foot.
The latest from Mr Brown's sleaze merchants is that some Labour Lords are being accused of offering to put for amendments to government bills for a fee.
Truly appalling and another reason why the Tories can still rely on a comfortable lead in the polls this year as it seems that governments in crisis cannot help but shoot themselves in the foot.
1/24/2009
How low will the Roman Catholic church go ?
The Pope has brought shame on the Roman Catholic Church, it is reported, by letting back in to the Catholic church a Bishop who denies the existence of gas chambers and believes only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews actually perished at the hands of Nazi Germany.
In other words, the Pope is giving his blessing to a holocaust denier.
On the back of comments he made just a few weeks ago which most would describe as homophobic, you have to wonder what damage his words are doing to the Roman Catholic church as a whole.
What a skewed list of priorities the Pope has.
In other words, the Pope is giving his blessing to a holocaust denier.
On the back of comments he made just a few weeks ago which most would describe as homophobic, you have to wonder what damage his words are doing to the Roman Catholic church as a whole.
What a skewed list of priorities the Pope has.
What purpose does David Pleat serve ?
ITV have something of a love affair with David Pleat, a former football manager who is best known for his conviction for kerb crawling more than him winning trophies. It seems that someone at ITV thinks that David Pleat is the ideal sidekick to a commentator. I disagree.
Surely a co-commentator should be able to pronounce foreign players names ? Surely the ability to pronounce English players names correctly ought to be a prerequisite for any so called football expert ? Obviously not for ITV though.
What is the point of ITV running a first class broadcast if their co commentator cannot say the name Luka Modric without calling him "Mod -Rick".
Surely a co-commentator should be able to pronounce foreign players names ? Surely the ability to pronounce English players names correctly ought to be a prerequisite for any so called football expert ? Obviously not for ITV though.
What is the point of ITV running a first class broadcast if their co commentator cannot say the name Luka Modric without calling him "Mod -Rick".
What do the israel apologists and BBC haters do now ?
Since Israel started its campaign and war crimes in Gaza, there have been numerous Israel apologists and BBC haters on various blogs choosing to use the BBC's news coverage as evidence that the BBC is biased against Israel and that the BBC is evil.
Now, with the BBC refusing to broadcast an appeal for aid to be sent to Gaza, where are the BBC haters and Israel apologists now ?
The big problem for the BBC haters is that they always hold up Sky as an example to compare the BBC against. However, Sky have also refused to broadcast the appeal, thus removing this angle of attack.
Now, with the BBC refusing to broadcast an appeal for aid to be sent to Gaza, where are the BBC haters and Israel apologists now ?
The big problem for the BBC haters is that they always hold up Sky as an example to compare the BBC against. However, Sky have also refused to broadcast the appeal, thus removing this angle of attack.
The most succinct explanation of the recession
I overheard two financial advisers chatting in the changing rooms at the gym yesterday and one of them gave the most succinct explanation of the recession that I have heard.
"The difference between this recession and the one in 1990 was in 1990 I had lots of mortgages to sell, but no clients. This time I have loads of people wanting mortgages, but none to offer them"
1/23/2009
Two adverts that are a waste of time
Two adverts strike me as being the most annoying on TV at the moment, but for very different reasons.
The first is NatWest advertising that they have "advisers in over 1000 branches who give free money saving advice". This is the same NatWest who are owned by RBS, who in turn are now 70% owned by the taxpayer because they were so shoddy at making investments in the first place. It's a bit like taking advice on childcare from the mother of Shannon Matthews !
The second advert that annoys me is the one urging people to become teachers. As a teacher I welcome anything that promotes the profession. However, they were reporting on the radio the other day that there had been a marked jump in applications for teaching courses and there seems to be little need for an advertising campaign when there are no shortages of applications. More than that, its a total waste of taxpayers money.
The first is NatWest advertising that they have "advisers in over 1000 branches who give free money saving advice". This is the same NatWest who are owned by RBS, who in turn are now 70% owned by the taxpayer because they were so shoddy at making investments in the first place. It's a bit like taking advice on childcare from the mother of Shannon Matthews !
The second advert that annoys me is the one urging people to become teachers. As a teacher I welcome anything that promotes the profession. However, they were reporting on the radio the other day that there had been a marked jump in applications for teaching courses and there seems to be little need for an advertising campaign when there are no shortages of applications. More than that, its a total waste of taxpayers money.
Celebrity Big Brother - Ulrika wins !!!! What the F*ck ?
I cannot believe that Ulrika Jonsson has won Celebrity Big Brother.
A number of work colleagues watch the show and I don't know one that wanted her to win, and listening to the audience outside the Big Brother house, nobody in the crowd wanted her to win.
I guess it could proves one thing.
That if you don't vote your opinions don't count.
A number of work colleagues watch the show and I don't know one that wanted her to win, and listening to the audience outside the Big Brother house, nobody in the crowd wanted her to win.
I guess it could proves one thing.
That if you don't vote your opinions don't count.
1/22/2009
Tired of media trained spokesmen ?
I am sick to death of media trained PR spokesmen for trade bodies giving pre-prepared evasive answers to questions in defence of the indefensible.
A classic example was today on BBC breakfast news when a spokesman for the trade body representing supermarkets ignored every question he was asked in relation to the Dispatches Channel 4 documentary about "value" own brand products.
The constant repetition of the line "Our customers like out products" and "sales of our value range products is rising", ignored questions asking why own brand products contained so little nutritional value.
Media training by companies has proved to be the death of actual answers to real questions. Sadly, like our politicians, they tell us nothing.
A classic example was today on BBC breakfast news when a spokesman for the trade body representing supermarkets ignored every question he was asked in relation to the Dispatches Channel 4 documentary about "value" own brand products.
The constant repetition of the line "Our customers like out products" and "sales of our value range products is rising", ignored questions asking why own brand products contained so little nutritional value.
Media training by companies has proved to be the death of actual answers to real questions. Sadly, like our politicians, they tell us nothing.
1/21/2009
Warning - Celebrity Big Brother Comment
A quick comment.
Why was La Toya Jackson so obsessed with watching the inauguration of Barack Obama when she made the point early on in the series that she was a Jehovah's Witness ? Surely JW's don't vote ?
Why was La Toya Jackson so obsessed with watching the inauguration of Barack Obama when she made the point early on in the series that she was a Jehovah's Witness ? Surely JW's don't vote ?
Stockwell on ITV
ITV showed a well made docu-drama this evening showing the shocking way in which the police cocked up at almost every level well killing Jean Charles de Menezes on Stockwell tube.
What ITV did gloss over was the fact that the court now accepts that those police officers lied when they said
1) That Jean Charles de Menezes jumped barriers at the station.
2) They shouted clear warnings to him.
3) They said he walked towards them in a threatening manner.
The question remains why the police can effectively assassinate someone on the London underground, why officers can tell lies to court yet the rule of law does not apply to them.
What ITV did gloss over was the fact that the court now accepts that those police officers lied when they said
1) That Jean Charles de Menezes jumped barriers at the station.
2) They shouted clear warnings to him.
3) They said he walked towards them in a threatening manner.
The question remains why the police can effectively assassinate someone on the London underground, why officers can tell lies to court yet the rule of law does not apply to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)