Joe Blogs: September 2010

Greetings.

I trust the summer recess has been good to you all. The summer was good while it lasted, which as usual, was for all of a fortnight. And plenty has happened while I have abstained from rambling in these parts. We have a new coalition Government which largely led to condemnation (did you see what I did there?).

Staying on the political scene, a former premier decided to release his memoirs recently and was seemingly keen to stress that dossiers were not the only thing he had occasion to sex up. The publication of his book provoked riotous scenes at a book signing event in Dublin. Such violent behaviour had not been witnessed in the Emerald Isle's chief Metropolis since the Great Guinness Shortage of 1987.

And in a summer where there have been scenes of harrowing poverty in certain parts of the world, it has been good to see that the British press has, as ever, provided people with a true sense of perspective by devoting most of its column inches to philandering footballers and a woman whose idea of a cheap laugh was to put a cat in a wheelie bin. It was quite appropriate that the woman in question came from Coventry, given that her detractors did not need to send her very far in their condemnation. Perhaps she should get a job as an RSPCA inspector. I mean, in the history of inappropriate jobs, it would be about as appropriate as, say, making a world leader who committed to 2 conflicts in the Middle East a peace envoy for the region. I can assure all my readers, however, that no animals have been subjected to cruelty in writing of the latest instalment of this blog.

Right, well duty calls. So let's get down to business.

9 years and what have we learnt?
I sit here writing this blog as 12 September is soon to become 13 September, but it was Saturday's date that has left a lasting impression on everyone. September 11, 9/11 as the Americans call it. 911 is of course the American emergency services number and it is somewhat poignant to recall how members of the emergency services made incredible sacrifices almost 9 years to the day in the commercial heart of New York City.

Every generation has those "I remember where I was when..." days that defines their era, that provides an association to a particular moment in their life. I would think people currently in their 40s and 50s would put the day of Elvis Presley's death in that category. People in their 60s could possibly recall where they were when they heard of the news of JFK's assassination by Lee Harvey Oswald on a grassy knoll in Dallas. More recently, the death of Michael Jackson being announced last year via the various breaking news channel brought an almost surreal twist to what, in essence, was not a huge shock.

To say that 9/11 was one of those days though does not really do it justice. It has probably been the most significant, defining news event of all of our lives. It is said that when America sneezes, the United Kingdom catches a cold, but it would not just have been the UK that caught the contagion that fateful day 9 years ago. The whole world had their eyes transfixed on their television screens, made only too aware of their own vulnerability in a dangerous world.

It goes without saying that I remember exactly where I was on 11 September 2001 and what I was doing. I remember the afternoon in almost precise detail. Back then, I was a slip of a lad at 23 years and 1 month old and had graduated from university earlier that summer and like many graduates, hoped that my scroll would lead me to shiny and prosperous places the other side of the rainbow. I had started work in my new job a few weeks earlier, except that my place of work was not altogether new as I had previously completed a work placement with my employers while at university.

On that afternoon, some 9 years ago, I found myself asked to carry out a job for which I barely felt qualified. I was to participate on an interview panel to interview an interim manager of the organisation's fledgling catering project. Given that my culinary skills have never quite matched those of Gordon Ramsay or even Rusty Lee, this was something of an unusual request. The interview itself was largely forgettable in the detail except that the person interviewed was successful in their recruitment and held the fort until a permanent manager was found, a manager who I believe remains in that job to this day.

What happened after the interview should have been mundane but it was the first glimpse I had into the reality that while my working day had been comparatively unusual, it would not be changing the path of my life. The interview had been taking place at my organisation's head office which was not where I usually worked. I had to go and retrieve some belongings from my usual office and collect the post before making my way home. The usual office was just slightly more than a 10 minute walk from head office. For the hardened Brightonians amongst you, it was situated next to the site of the old Co-op department store off the London Road.

The first consciousness I had of the life changing events across the pond was when I strolled past a newsagents along my walk back to the office. Outside was a newspaper placard with the headline 'plane hits Twin Towers'. Normally the words on newspaper placards tend to pass me by, but there was something about the power of these few, short words that resonated in me. I just remember thinking 'that's got to have caused some damage'.

The possibility that a big event was taking place was reinforced as I walked up the side street en route back to the usual office. The road, (which again for the Brightonians amongst you, was Upper Lewes Road), is a completely residential road with rows of terraced houses and where a lot of the properties' front doors are not shielded from the main road by a garden path, and therefore you get a good glimpse of people's living rooms. On that afternoon, nearly every living room of every property I had occasion to glance at had a television on and from what I could make out, nearly every one of them seemed to have their television tuned to the BBC News. There was also a remarkable quietness on the streets; there was barely anybody around, which given that this was around 4:45 pm on an early September afternoon a week after children had gone back to school did not seem quite right. By this time, I realised that something dramatic must have been unfolding and I should get home and see what the extent of the developments were.

There are thousands of images that people will recall from that horrific day and the moments when they first watched the scenes of atrocity on their television. What particularly stays with me is that Arsenal were playing a Champions League football match on the television that night in Mallorca, which in their infinite wisdom, UEFA allowed to go ahead despite nobody being in the mood for the contest given the more significant events in New York. Thankfully, UEFA saw sense the next day and all of the matches scheduled for the Wednesday night, including Manchester United's match in Greece, were rightly postponed.

Nine years on from this life affirming day, when ordinary New Yorkers reported to their offices for what they expected to be a fruitful Tuesday at work only to never be able to return home to tell their loved ones of their achievements and the deals of the century they clinched during the day, it is pertinent to ask what has the world learnt from what happened that day and what the future holds. One has to say that the uncertainty and terror that gripped the world then remains as much of a problem now, albeit perhaps the sources of both is more widespread than it was in 2001.

What has become more apparent is that the "Special Relationship" that the United Kingdom believes it enjoys with the US is not as mutually beneficial as it would like to hope it is. Indeed, closeness with the US has exposed the UK to greater risk of terror on its shores due to it being damned by association by those opposed to the US's values, or perceived lack of them. This was tangibly demonstrated by the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005, a day which I also remember with clarity. I remember going for a job interview in London less than a fortnight later which was held a stone's throw away from The Oval tube station. A couple of days after my interview, an explosion was detonated at that very tube station.

The anniversary of 9/11, as well as the release of Tony Blair's memoirs serve as a reminder of the great work and sacrifices that British troops have made to attempt to keep the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, many of these servants to their country have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country and become martyrs, statistics of a Government atrocity chart. The grey numbers do not do justice to their work, fighting for a cause they believed in, if not necessarily in conflicts they agreed with.

The two key conflicts which the UK have committed their troops to post-9/11 have been in Iraq and Afghanistan and in both cases, there seems to be no sign of the original objectives for taking troops to those countries being met. The purpose of being in Iraq was misreported at the time and while removing an evil dictator by using what was tantamount to illegal force may be seen as a victory by some, the initial reservations that I had of there being no coherent exit strategy and no thought given to what backlash there could be after Saddam Hussein was overthrown appear to remain as salient now as they were in 2003.

I think that there was an expectation that all Iraqi people would be eternally grateful to the western forces for overthrowing the oppressive regime running their country, forgetting that to a good many people, Saddam Hussein and his henchmen were regarded as heroes, standing up to the might of overbearing western forces who were sticking their nose in a trough that was not theirs. Added to which, many Iraqis would have lost their livelihoods during the course of the conflict which damaged land and crops and so the average Iraqi who earned his living from his or her country's natural resources saw their prospects of future prosperity greatly diminished, not enhanced from the events leading to Saddam's very public execution. And yet these people were expected to just be grateful? Hmm, doesn't sound very plausible, does it?

And then we have Afghanistan, where the UK's presence in the aftermath of 9/11 was to try to aid in the tracking down of Osama Bin Laden. Nine years on, and Bin Laden is still at large, presumed to still be alive, but whose presence is only confirmed by occasional speeches appearing on AlJazeera and via YouTube. The real fight is taking place with the Taliban and with splinter groups who have made their way across the border from Pakistan. The clock is ticking and yet no-one appears to be any nearer to resolving the original issues, all the while barely a week passes without there being a news report of another atrocity of a British serviceperson on Afghan shores.

Despite there being no resolution in sight in these Middle Eastern countries and no sign of short term wholesale withdrawals of troops, the United Kingdom still seems happy to provide unwielding support to the United States in their tackling of the enemy of the day who does not share their Capitalist ideals. This suggests that 9/11 and what followed with the July bombings in London in 2005 has not completely taught us of the perils of getting drawn into other people's battles. The next generation of possible terror comes from countries whose potential hording of nuclear weapons is not known but should not be under-estimated. If China or North Korea have a serious grudge against an overzealous enemy, they could have the nuclear warhead that could cause lasting damage, so the UK must be selective in any future causes it chooses to fight. The danger is if the United States elects a Republican candidate in 2 years time. Barack Obama's popularity ratings are low in his home country right now, primarily because of the global recession. Should Obama be usurped in 2 years time, however, the alternative could spell bad news for those who prefer a peaceful existence.

The behaviour of the American pastor, Terry Jones, only further inflames religious tensions between Muslim devotees and the Western world. In fact, as his namesake from a certain British comedy troupe might attest to, he is not the Messiah just a very naughty boy. Jones' bugbear about a mosque being situated in the World Trade Center regeneration area of New York was flawed on the grounds that it is accusing Islam and all of its followers of being responsible for, and damned by associated with the 9/11 bombings. This type of generalisation does nobody any favours and it is why people in their everyday surroundings display negative behaviour in the company of their fellow citizens from an Islamic persuasion, at least on a sub-conscious level. By this I mean that when we have been on a train journey and we see a bearded Arabian gentleman get up from his seat, carrying his backpack and walking through the double doors, a good many of us will, sometimes without realising it at the time, keep our gaze focused on where they are going. There will always be an innocent explanation, usually involving the carrying out of essential bodily functions, but this is the impact that Terry Jones and other self-appointed spokespeople have in our everyday lives. If there's no smoke, there should be no fire.

You would hope and wish that the office workers who perished in the rubble in 2001 did not die in vain and that the lifelong trauma that emergency crews suffered that day would at least lead people to learning some lessons. But, can any of us say that life is any more certain now than it was then? The net has widened so far as potential future feuds are concerned, while existing ones seem no nearer to a peaceful conclusion. People may not think about the dangers facing them on a daily basis, but the culture of fear has definitely intensified in the years since 9/11 and fear and ignorance added to fundamental cultural or religious differences are the ingrained characteristics in every conflict of note ever fought, right back to the Battle of Hastings. The difference is that back then the enemy came armed with a crossbow, now their weapon of choice is not known for certain, but the not knowing only adds to the fear.

The 9 years have been a paradox in that the world has advanced so much, and yet the challenges remain as complex as they were then and the lessons heeded appear minimal.

Hague should man up
It seems to be the season to be slinging mud at the moment, with the popular press printing a series of exposes on celebrities involved in acts of debauchery and treachery. Even the broadsheets have been getting in on the act, with the Daily Telegraph highly prominent in the press coverage of William Hague's sharing of a hotel room with an advisor. In case you missed this earth shattering story, in reality, it was a mistral in a Wedgwood.

According to what we were told, Hague shared a room with his "special advisor" (special advisor, nudge nudge, wink wink) when he had an overnight stay in Birmingham after one of the televised pre-electoral leader debates. The pair shared a twin room rather than each getting their own single room. On the surface this just seems like a cost cutting initiative when you can imagine that every last hanger-on with the three political parties would have been booking up rooms for an overnight stay in England's second city.

There will be those that find two men sharing a room an unusual circumstance. Yet, why is this exactly? There was a time when this was quite an innocent occurrence. Lest we forget that Morecambe and Wise shared a bed for comic effect in many of their sketches and yet I do not recall there being any sexual liaison suggested about these long standing comic partners. You will say of course that people would know that they were acting, it was not for real, but there are those that believe that soap operas are real, so surely someone, somewhere must have sniggered, must have wondered if Eric really did have a thing for his little Ern, but I am not aware of anyone believing this.

I have shared a hotel room on a few occasions on overnight stays with male friends without, at least to my knowledge, there being any amusement or rumour. On a holiday once in the glorious city of Prague, I shared a room with my holiday companion in which twin beds were provided. Upon arriving in the room, the first 5 minutes were spent trying to find suitable enough distance between the 2 beds so that we would not disturb one another with our post-Staropramen and dumplings influenced snoring.

William Hague's mistake in this situation was not that he shared a room with an aide, which seems pretty trivial the more you think about it, but that he chose to tackle the issue in quite a confrontational way, resulting in those that wanted to believe he was gay actually having more amunition for their argument. Hague has always tried to present himself with a slightly faux, regular alpha male image. The tough Yorkshire lad from humble beginnings who could drink 14 pints if the occasion demanded. You kind of sensed that he was striving to relive his early 20s when rather than enjoying a cocktail of pints and kebabs, he was more likely propping up the bar at the Conservative Club discussing the possible reform of the House of Lords.

Mentioning that he and his wife had been trying, unsuccessfully, to produce offspring seemed a really unnecessary disclosure which compromised his wife's privacy after what surely for her had been a distressing ordeal. And this compromise achieved absolutely nothing other than getting people to gossip more fervently than they had before.

It would have helped also, if Hague had taken more care over his attire when photo opportunities arose. Allowing himself to be caught on camera wearing a tight fitting, plain long-sleeved white T-shirt and baseball cap while in the company of his aide, wearing a cheesy grin was not a smart move. In fact, the photograph could only have been made camper had Graham Norton and Gok Wan hovered into the background while wearing spandex, dancing to the tune of YMCA.

What is particularly disturbing about this episode is why Hague is ashamed to be suggested as being a homosexual by a very small minority of ill informed nobodies. Why does Hague feel this undermines the ability for him to his job or makes him a potential figure of ridicule, when he holds other traits that are more likely to make him a social outcast and for which he should feel a sense of shame; namely that he is a Conservative MP. It also calls into question why one's sexuality is of crucial importance to the media other than providing the source of idle gossip, or indeed why someone's sexuality is of any relevance to the job they are undertaking. There are several MPs from within Hague's own party who are openly gay and it does not seem to have impaired their progress untowardly within the Westminster corridors.

William Hague has shown himself to be a heavyweight figure in British politics over the past decade or so and has generally fostered respect on all sides of the house, despite his party allegiance and his quirky persona. Given this level of respect, Hague really should not have got embroiled in full scale confrontation with the press concerning the rumour mill because he has now only added credence to nasty rumours where no genuine foundations previously existed.

Cricket in a fix
From William Hague to William Hill. The sports pages that have not focused on the extra curricular activities of Wayne Rooney have focused on the spot fixing allegations concerning the three Pakistani cricketers alleged to have bowled no balls at specific times in the fourth test against England on the hallowed turf of Lord's.

For those of you not up on cricketing terminology; and let's face it, cricket is a sport that polarises people more than most between those that feel a day's play is a less appealing alternative than a paint drying convention and those that feel the games subtleties and idiocyncracies make it a thing of beauty; what is being suggested is that three Pakistani cricketers conspired so that bowlers would put the whole of their front foot over the crease when delivering the ball, thereby invalidating the delivery and allowing a punter somewhere in deepest Asia to make a killing if the illegal delivery occurred at the time of the punter's choosing.

The three Pakistani cricketers alleged to be involved in the conspiracy included the Pakistan captain Salman Butt, plus two Pakistan seam bowlers, Mohammad Asif and 18 year old Mohammad Aamir, who had caught the eye during England's innings in the Lord's test match by taking 6 wickets during the first 2 sessions of the match. It was also Aamir who unwittingly seemed to give the game away by being shown to bowl a no-ball where his front foot was not just over the line, but almost halfway up the pitch. At least his colleague Mohammad Asif had only narrowly put his foot over the line, showing that he knew exactly what was required.

It is important to emphasise that nothing has been proven against the Pakistani trio as yet, however damning the News of the World's video evidence would appear to be and how it fits with when no-balls were bowled during the match. It is also important to distinguish between "spot fixing" which is the crime alleged to have been perpetrated in the Lord's test match and "match fixing", where a team supposedly conspires to throw a match in order to produce monetary reward either for themselves or a third party. That is not to condone the actions of the perpetrators if they are found guilty, but a distinguishment does need to be made, particularly because of the circumstances within this particular test match.

On the first day, England had endured one of their typical batting collapses with the Pakistani bowlers taking full advantage of the low cloud cover on an overcast day in St John's Wood. The aforementioned Mohammad Aamir had produced a golden spell of bowling, taking six wickets as England had stumbled to 102 for 7 just after lunch on the first afternoon. If Pakistan could skittle the three remaining England wickets quickly, Pakistan would have a session and a half to bat themselves and likely make mincemeat of the England total. Given what was to be exposed by the News of the World, what happened next would only arouse suspicion amongst the cynics.

Pakistan did not take three quick wickets, in fact they did not take another wicket for the rest of the day. Eventually, Pakistan did take a wicket, but it was not until after lunch the following day by which time England had added another 331 runs and both Jonathan Trott and Stuart Broad had scored huge centuries. Broad finally perished for 169, having played the innings of his life and produced a score he is never likely to surpass given that he is more renowned as a bowler. South African born Trott was last man out for England having scored 184. The innings that these two players had produced had turned the whole match on its head, with England posting an imposing score of 446 for their first innings which would barely have been conceivable just 24 hours earlier.

This massive partnership between Trott and Broad completely demoralised Pakistan and during the course of the second afternoon, their team lost 14 wickets. Firstly they were bowled out for a paltry 74 runs and as they were so far behind England's first innings total were asked to follow on. They did so and found themselves 41 for 4 by the close of play on day 2, staring down the barrel of a heavy innings defeat. By the time the third day's play commenced on Sunday morning, The News of the World had released their allegations both in print and via video media and England wrapped up a crushing victory with muted celebrations when Pakistan were bowled out for 147 just after lunch. An excellent score at snooker, but a sub-standard one in test cricket.

It is easy to see, given the nature of the allegations and given the previous history of controversy surrounding Pakistan, how people could believe that Pakistan had conspired to throw the match. It maybe true that certain Pakistan players had been made aware of the story about to break in the Sunday press and they took their eye off the ball, to speak in appropriate cricketing parlance. But I think this does not take into account the match situation. Pakistan had put England in trouble when the conditions favoured their swing bowlers. England started to get themselves out of trouble when the sun came out on the first day, which meant conditions became less favourable for the bowlers and the longer messrs Trott and Broad stayed in and were seeing the cherry like a football, so the Pakistan bowlers became more erratic as they became tired and demoralised.

The possibility that Pakistan could have contributed to the throwing of the match should not be completely dismissed, but there is no real evidence to suggest that their capitulation was anything more than a classic example of the schizophrenic make-up of their nation's cricketers. Both Pakistan, and to a certain extent India, have always been countries that have had two faces when playing the game and you can never be certain of whether Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde will be in town on any given day. The manner of Pakistan's meek surrender was certainly unfortunate given the timing of the spot fixing allegations becoming public knowledge, but it just seemed to show all the classic signs of Pakistan giving up the ghost when the match got away from them rather than appearing to be a deliberate attempt to make financial gain.

There have been calls in the aftermath of this scandal to review the place of betting in sport, with critics of the vice accusing it of intoxicating sport with the rife aftertaste of corruption. There is no question that betting does expose sport to the dangers of illegal fixing. Serial gamblers who wish to make a killing have their contacts and have their ways of influencing outcomes to make individual gain. This has been seen in horse racing over the years, a sport that is possibly only matched in the mainstream by boxing for its potential for corruption.

People that are suggesting that betting should be banned, however, are missing a fundamental point. That point is that the gamblers who are betting on the timing of no-balls in cricket matches and other specific outcomes are often people who are betting in countries where gambling is illegal, therefore they are betting "underground". Betting cartels in South East Asia are particularly rife and are notorious for making a killing on unusual outcomes. Followers of Premier League football will recall that in the latter part of the 1990s, three top flight matches in London were abandoned due to floodlight failure, which it transpired was influenced by a Malaysian betting sting. Although cricket is not played in Malaysia, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that major bets could have been placed there, although it is equally feasible that bets were placed underground in Pakistan, which being an Islamic country does not recognise gambling as an acceptable pastime.

It is also interesting to note that the whistleblower in this story happened to be a gentleman called Mazhar Majeed, who apart from being a man who seemingly likes a flutter on two flies crawling up a wall also happens to be chairman of Croydon Athletic football club, who play in the Ryman League division one. Seemingly the FA's plan to ensure that all football club owners in this country are passing a fit and proper ownership test is working impeccably. Majeed was shown on camera by the News of the World informing its readers of the precise moments when his plan was carried out to order by Pakistan's bowlers. It is somewhat sickening to think that Majeed could have profited twice from this fiasco, firstly by winning his bet on the contrived timing of the no-balls and secondly by selling his story to the Murdoch corporation to blow the whistle on his windfall.

The world's moralists have poured scorn on the Pakistani cricketers incriminated and have encouraged the cricketing authorities to throw the book at the offenders if they are found guilty of wrongdoing. It is hard to see there being any alternative to a long term ban for the offenders if guilt is proven. However, while it is not the intention of this blog to offer excuses for immoral behaviour, it is worth considering the social, economic and safety factors that could sway a young Pakistani cricketer to risk their career in order to make a short term financial gain.

As the harrowing scenes of the recent Pakistani floods have shown, Pakistan is a poverty stricken country that is vulnerable to natural disaster, as well as being a volatile, socially damaged nation. Unlike in England where most leading cricketers come from affluent and privileged backgrounds, in Pakistan several of its leading players come from slums and shanty towns. The riches that cricketers can make from their profession can help keep a roof over the heads of their families and give them access to clean water. With this in mind, it is not hard to understand how a persuasive, quick talking businessman offering a large sum of a cash in order to overstep a white line on three occasions could prove too great a temptation.

But there is also another consideration to make, which is what could happen if the request was turned down. If the player just told the fixer they wanted no part of their scam and hung up the telephone, do they know who they are dealing with? As we know, money corrupts individuals and it can turn people to violent crime. A rejection of the fixer's advances could potentially not only put the individual player's personal safety in jeopardy, but also that of their family. In an ideal world, the player would just have the strength to say no and report what had happened to the Team Manager or the captain. But in this situation, the captain has been implicated himself, so it is unlikely that a young player like Mohammed Aamir would have been lent a sympathetic ear.

What does not help Pakistan and their players right now is that they are already ostracised by the cricket community. A lot of this is, sadly, of their own making due to previous indiscretions and they currently are unable to play home test matches because of the serious social unrest in their country which means that opposing teams will not risk their safety by touring the country. But it is the ban on Pakistani players from the Indian Premier League that is particularly crippling Pakistan's top players. From what I can see, this ban is effectively a restraint on trade made by the Indian cricketing authorities for no other reason than good, old fashioned prejudice. The IPL hypes itself as the greatest showcase of its sport, featuring all the world's best players but because Pakistan are the noisy neighbour that could end up trashing the party, the authorities have decided to ban them from attending. Given how lucrative the IPL is for a cricketer to carry out six weeks work at about 4 hours a time, it is clear to see how Pakistan's top players are missing out while their counterparts from other countries are cashing in.

Imposing any blanket ban on betting on sporting events is a non-starter and it would end up doing more harm than good, because as was discussed earlier, a lot of the major fixing scandals have occurred from betting cartels in places where gambling is illegal and therefore not properly regulated. What should be looked at in countries where gambling is legal and has clear regulations is the impact of spread betting. Spread betting is where a punter can bet on almost outcome or occurrence in a given sport. This is particularly common in football betting and so could include the number of throw-ins in a match, the number of corners or yellow cards, or the minute in which the first goal was scored.

The problem with spread betting is that it can lead to potential examples of spot fixing, as in the case of the Pakistani no-balls, without having a direct impact on the actual result of the match. I recall a football match between Manchester United and West Ham on the final day of the 1996/97 Premier League season which was effectively a dead rubber as the Red Devils had already won the Premier League title and the Hammers were safe from relegation. At the start of the match, West Ham kicked off and their forward Paul Kitson kicked the ball straight out of play 3 seconds after kick off. There was no team-mate in the vicinity of where the ball went out to whom he could have been intending his pass and so Manchester United were awarded a cheap throw-in, while people at the time speculated that Paul Kitson or an associate could have won a tidy sum on the timing of the first throw-in. One suspects there must have been many more of these types of incident in football and in other sports over the years which have passed without investigation.

Spread betting seems to be a way of nerds making money. Prior to becoming compulsive gamblers, I am imagining that the typical spread better used to turn up their local rail terminus with a notepad and Bic. When you consider that the type of bet that Mr Majeed and his associates was supposedly placed on Pakistan bowlers wasting a delivery with a foot fault at an allotted time in the match, you would think that if anyone was to set foot into Betfred or Ladbrokes in this country wishing to place a similar bet, the precise nature of the bet would arouse suspicion and the customer would be politely advised of where the door was. Where gambling is not properly regulated, unusual betting patterns are not recognised and this only increases the risk of lucrative fixes. This is the best argument for ensuring gambling is legal and stringently regulated.

A sight to put you off your breakfast
They have been re-arranging the furniture again on the Titanic, or at least the sinking ship that is breakfast television. GMTV finally bowed out after 17 years of comfy sofa chat in order to make way for the brave new world of a revolutionary breakfast programme, Daybreak, which is such a diversion from its predecessor that it seems to have retained most of the reporters that had worked on GMTV. The great mystery is that GMTV managed to last 17 years. I mean, I would have thought they would have run out of furniture as I assumed that whenever there was a set change it was because Eamonn Holmes had eaten the upholstery.

Strangely, Daybreak does not seem to differ at all from GMTV except that the rebranded show has decided to go for two marquee names to front the programme. Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley, fresh from their departure from the BBC, find themselves waking the nation up with their mixture of whimsical chat and pouting to the cameras. You decide who provides which service better. Personally, not being the best morning person, I prefer to see a photogenic face when I am coming around and getting my eye in and Chiles' bulldog chewing a wasp features are perhaps better served for evenings as he is likely to scare small children and thereby make sure they go to bed on time.

I found it strange that Daybreak dispensed with the services of the frosty but downright sexy Emma Crosby whilst retaining a place for Kate Garraway, albeit a demotion to their Showbiz Editor, which one would assume also means a demotion in pay. Crosby never seemed to be warmed to by the largely female audience on GMTV which I can only speculate was because they thought Crosby was the kind of girl that wouldn't think twice of stealing their spouse. There was something of a glint in her eye that sugggested mischief, but to me at least, Daybreak have traded down by replacing Crosby with Christine Bleakley, although I am sure Frank Lampard disagrees with me.

So what of Daybreak's dream ticket? Chiles and Bleakley were greater than the sum of their parts on The One Show, but then there was no real expectation on them there. Chiles served a very long apprenticeship at the BBC before coming to the attention of a primetime audience, but his laid back style is far more suited to a BBC audience where no adverts curtail the broadcasts. Chiles is already missed on Match Of The Day 2 which was infinitely more watchable on a Sunday night than Gary Lineker's cliquey gentleman's club version on a Saturday night primarily because of Chiles' bar room banter where he knew exactly what questions the average football supporter would want to ask a football pundit. In his place, the BBC have given his former slot to the abysmal Colin Murray, who looks like a child left in charge of Bournville and only adds to the long list of Radio 1 DJs who make for moronic television presenters.

Chiles could do no wrong at the BBC and as well as being the perfectly laid back choice of host for The One Show and Match of the Day 2, he showed a great gift for observational humour on The Apprentice: You're Fired programme which seemed like a tailor made televisual vehicle for him. With the next series of The Apprentice scheduled before the end of the year, it will be interesting to see who the BBC replace Chiles with on this show. My prediction is that the former Blue Peter presenter Richard Bacon will get the gig, who lacks the gift for self-effacement that Chiles always used to possess.

Now, you will notice I say "used to possess". I cannot help but wonder whether Chiles has started to believe his own hype in recent times. Every time I have seen him since he has defected to ITV, he has seemed to be playing the galleries for laughs, whereas his style once came very naturally. His presentation on ITV's World Cup coverage seemed a little bit forced, spending so much time laughing at North Korean players' warm-up routines that he left little time for the game that was being screened to have any meaningful pre-match analysis. My early impressions from what I have seen of Daybreak so far is that Chiles again seems to be trying to dominate the show with cheap humour. Ironically, it seems he is trying to borrow from the Big Breakfast, a show fronted by his nemesis and the man who forced him out of the BBC, Chris Evans.

Bleakley was always the straightwoman in the Chiles-Bleakley axis on The One Show and it would appear that this is the role that the tangerine perma-tanned Ulsterwoman will be providing on Daybreak. Bleakley seems to be quite content to sit in the background and play second fiddle to Chiles' erratic line of questioning, but if reading the autocue effectively is the key part of your brief, there is no doubt that Bleakley carries out this duty to the best of her ability. Again though, I question whether morning television makes best use of Bleakley's abilities and after 13 years working for the BBC mainly at a regional level, the fast paced nature that fronting a breakfast programme on a commercial network requires does not seem ideally suited to her.

So what of the show that the pair left behind? I have always been intrigued by the success that The One Show has enjoyed because, to my mind, it just seems like a classic example of cheaply assembled, formulaic television. You get the sense that most of the show's budget goes on hiring a high profile guest but the actual content of the programme is confused, not least because the format of the show allows for little time for the guest to contribute anything meaningful. Authors expect to come on to plug their new book, recording artists expect to plug their new CD and comedians expect to plug their tour dates, but perhaps do not expect to be asked for their opinion on the hazards of rising damp or for their favourite type of confection, or to experience the mild inconvenience of sharing a sofa with Gyles Brandreth. One can only conclude that the success of the programme is dependent upon the presenters.

The BBC's choice of replacement presenters for the departing Chiles and Bleakley was certainly a risk, but in a way they are sticking with the tried and tested. Jason Manford provides the comedic angle, although he has played his role quite straight in the early weeks of his involvement on the show. Manford is a decent stand-up comedian, although there are funnier stand-ups of his type, such as Lee Mack who are around on the circuit. You get the impression, however, that Manford who is father to a couple of young children is wanting to cut back on the hard grind of touring and is therefore looking to carve out a career in the mainstream, just as many stand-ups have done before.

Alongside Manford, the BBC have again invaded their regional television pool of talent and have selected Alex Jones, who looks disturbingly like a Welsh identikit version of her predecessor. Jones has looked quite accomplished in her new role to date, although it is worth remembering that she has a number of years of television presenting experience behind her, which means she should be able to guide Manford who is more used to sitting the other side of the coffee table as a guest. The pairing shows early promise but the problem they face is one of association. The One Show is always about the presenters rather than its loose fitting content and for many they will be damned by association. To many, that programme will be remembered as a Chiles-Bleakley vehicle and the new pair will need to take ownership at an early stage in order to retain the core viewers.

Chiles' departure because of the BBC's decision to hire Chris Evans for one night a week was a curious case of throwing your toys out of the pram and one can only conclude that Chiles felt that Evans' presence was a threat to his long term future. I mean, looking at it simplistically, how could Chiles complain about being asked to work one night less a week? But Evans' decision to join The One Show and the BBC's decision to approach him for that programme were both equally curious. Evans hardly needs the money that fronting one 30 minute primetime television show a week would provide him with and he already has plenty on his plate by presenting a 2 and a half hour breakfast show for five days a week. Evans is known in the business for choosing his projects carefully. He mentions in his autobiography how he rejected the chance to present Deal Or No Deal before the show was offered to Noel Edmonds.

Yet, it seems to me that Evans has signed up to present a show that is not the best vehicle to showcase his talents. For starters, The One Show is only on for 30 minutes. There was a spell where the BBC extended the programme to an hour on a Friday night, but it seems they have discontinued with that experiment. In order to get best use out of Evans though, the programme needs to be longer than 30 minutes. You also would think that the brief for the Friday show will need to change. If the show follows the same pattern as the other 4 nights per week and just takes the form of a magazine show discussing items such as health, local history and the arts, I can see Evans very quickly becoming bored. This is a man who once launched people's weekends with a highly energised, risk taking show which had the biggest guests and the best music of its era. If TFI Friday was the perfect warm-up for a Friday night out, then The One Show is the perfect warm-up for an early night. Then again, maybe this is just a telling sign of the ageing process.

With Jonathan Ross having left the BBC in readiness for a defection to ITV next year, the BBC had a spare Friday night entertainments slot available. Ross' show was produced by the former producer of TFI Friday and the show was heavily influential on the format of that programme, which was a successful vehicle for Ross for many years before the fallout from Sachsgate lowered his stock. With this in mind, Evans would have been the perfect host of any replacement show on a Friday night, but as he is older and wiser now, it could have been a cleaner and more family oriented programme than TFI Friday. The One Show occupies the right time slot on a Friday night for this type of show, but the wrong kind of format. Instead, the BBC have decided to move Graham Norton's show to Fridays and have made him the king (or should that be the queen) of Friday nights, when I would say that his show was better suited to the slot it was in already at 10:30 on a Monday night.

The good news for the BBC is that the prototype for a perfect Friday night entertainments show is out there at the moment. The bad news is that ITV have already launched it and it is being hosted by Paul O'Grady. O'Grady's defection from Channel 4, allied with Jonathan Ross' departure from Auntie means that ITV have the services of two of the best light entertainment talents in the country at their disposal, while also have the added bonus of having offloaded the hideous Piers Morgan, who has bizarrely landed a slot presenting Larry King's former chat show in the United States. O'Grady is a great family entertainer with a sharp wit and a true appreciation of his audience and he now has what looks like the right type of programme and time slot on a Friday night with his new live chat show to truly establish himself as one of the televisual elite and leave the BBC trailing in ITV's wake.

My advice to the BBC would be to reduce The One Show as we know it to being a 4 nights per week project, leaving the 7:00 pm slot on Fridays free for a new light entertainment and music extravaganza. Evans should be the man to host the new show and he could perhaps have a younger sidekick to present the show with him. I would leave Alex Jones free to focus on One Show duties and would instead look to someone like Lauren Laverne, who seems free of a lot of the hubris that the BBC's main music presenters have and seems like someone who does not take herself too seriously. The show should go out live and run for an hour at least, maybe even an hour and a half which then would leave time for three guests, plus at least three music acts, as well as some comic segments. The show should loosely set out to be a cross between Top Of The Pops, TFI Friday and Later With Jools Holland.

Music, guests and family entertainment is what Friday primetime viewing calls for, not cowboy builders, strangely shaped vegetables and Dominic Littlewood.

That's your lot for now, or if you are an onion, that's chalot. I hope to be back with some more musings on life's finer and trivial points again soon.

Joe Blogs

Sunday 26 September 2010

Playlist update - playlists 15 to 18

Sunday 12 September 2010

No pets have been harmed in the writing of this blog!

Saturday 11 September 2010

Playlist update

Loaded Web

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me