Hello again readers. Well, Christmas draws ever closer. As if the masses of people traffic around Brighton City Centre was not enough of a clue, then turning on the radio to hear 'Fairytale Of New York', 'Last Christmas' and 'Christmas Wrapping' gave the game away. Hope you are enjoying the Christmas build-up and are not too stressed, and for any budding secret Santas who might be reading, some socks and smellies always come in handy.
But enough of the prologue. Last weekend when I was writing about my notional list of items and people who I would send into Room 101 if I was ever given the opportunity, I knew there was bound to be something obvious that I left off the list which would come to mind afterwards. It was quite intuitive of me, as it goes, because checking my e-mails a couple of days later resulted in being confronted with one of my absolute pet hates.
I am referring to the "chain e-mail". You know the sort of thing, "please read this story of complete bad luck and melancholy through to its end, otherwise if you don't, you must hold yourself responsible should some terrible misfortune happen to you, and by the way make sure you send this to 10 really lucky recipients from your e-mail address book otherwise you will feel terribly guilty". My normal reaction to receiving an e-mail of this type is to delete it and to ask the sender the next time I see them what exactly possessed them to forward it to me in the first place, knowing that my reaction was going to be to either ignore it or send it into the great trash can in cyberspace's sky. In this instance though, I was so angry by the sanctimonious and frankly one-eyed attitude of the piece that had been forwarded to me that I thought it would provide perfect inspiration for a future blog. Let's hope my instincts were right.
First of all, I should point out that the offending piece of writing had not been written by the person who sent it to me. Their only crime in this situation was to forward an e-mail to me that had been forwarded several times in a chain from when it had initially been produced. Nonetheless, I would like to know why exactly they chose me as the lucky recipient of such a propagandic (if that's not a word, it should be!), ill thought out and ill informed rant of unsurpassed hysteric drivel.
So what was it that got me so hot under the collar? The e-mail was a short piece of narrative by an unnamed person, presumably their anonymity had been carefully retained in order to ensure they never find themselves on the National Society of Village Idiots' Christmas card list. The narrative previewed a forthcoming transcript of a letter that had supposedly been sent into a national newspaper. The newspaper was not named, but given the overtly intolerant and jingoistic tone of the letter, it is quite plausible that it could be the same newspaper that this author was scathing of on this blog space just last weekend. If that was the case, I imagine the author of the piece probably won £50 for being the star letter on its day of publication.
I have copied and pasted the e-mail I received in its entirety below in italics, so that readers can form their own opinions. One thing I would like to point out before pasting this piece across though is that the pasting does not quite capture the mood and emphasis of the original transcript, which saw words and sentences underlined, put in capital letters, and put in large font sizes as though to really force home the point that is being made. Anyway, this is what was said:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will we still be the Country of choice and still be Gt Britain if we continue to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries that came to live in Britain because it is the Country of Choice?????? Think about it . .
All I have to say is, when will they do something about MY RIGHTS? I celebrate Christmas, but because it isn't celebrated by everyone, we can no longer say Merry Christmas. Now it has to be Season's Greetings. It's not Christmas holiday, it's Winter Break. Isn't it amazing how this winter break ALWAYS occurs over the Christmas holiday? We've gone so far the other way, bent over backwards to not offend anyone, that I am now being offended. But it seems that no one has a problem with that. This says it all!
This is an editorial written by anBritish citizen, published in a National newspaper He did quite a job; didn't he? Read on, please!
IMMIGRANTS,NOT BRITS MUST ADAPT.I am tired of this nation worrying about whether weare offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on the 7th of the 7th we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majorityof Brits. However, the disgust about the attacks hadbarely settled when the 'politically correct! ' crowd began complaining aboutthe possibility that our patriotism was offending others.
I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Britain, Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. (The Danes, Romans ect.)
However, there are a few things that thosewho have recently come toour country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of the Brits being amulticultural communityhas served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Britain's we have our own culture, ourown society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.
We speak ENGLISH, not Indian, Urdu, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language Therefore, if you wish to become partof our society, learn the language!'Land of Hope & Glory' is our motto.
This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented.It is certainly appropriate to display iton the walls of our schools. If Godoffends you, then I suggest youconsider another part of the world as your new home, because God is partof our culture.
If the 'Union Jack' flag offends you, oryou don't like our QUEEN, then youshould seriously consider a moveto another part of this planet. Weare happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we reallydon't care how you did things whereyou came from. This isOUR COUNTRY,our land, and our lifestyle. Our Laws give every citizen theright to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so!
But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag,our lifestyle our government, or ourway of life, I highly encourage youtake advantage of one other great BRITISH freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.
It is Time for Gt. Britain to Speak up If you agree -- pass this along;if you don't agree -- delete it! anon..AMEN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there concludes the party political broadcast from the British Nationalist Party. Just as with the Daily Mail, some of its targets and observations certainly have some legitimacy and there is no doubt that the ever more cosmopolitan landscape and demographics found in this country do present some challenges in the future. I am sure many readers will identify with some of the points that are made. But my problem is that the author has completely overexaggerated in some of his (or maybe her) commentary in order for making maximum effect and to lead its readers around to his way of thinking by using powerful language and underlining and capitalising words. There is a word for that sort of behaviour, it is called brainwashing.
I think possibly the best way of pulling this person's argument apart and showing up its shortcomings is to allow me the liberty to comment on each of the paragraphs. That way I can hopefully show that while the writer has a basis for some of their complaints and ramblings, much of what they have said has been blown out of proportion and only succeeds in getting people wound up over some issues that have been misrepresented. Here comes the rant back:
Will we still be the Country of choice and still be Gt Britain if we continue to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries that came to live in Britain because it is the Country of Choice?????? Think about it . .
Right, I have thought about it and all I can say is, what on earth are you talking about? What changes are being forced on us? The Government in this country is responsible for setting the laws for living here, so if any changes are being enforced on us, they are responsible for setting them, not people moving to the country. This sounds to me like a rant about religious sects, which through reading on, has some basis as an assumption.
All I have to say is, when will they do something about MY RIGHTS? I celebrate Christmas, but because it isn't celebrated by everyone, we can no longer say Merry Christmas. Now it has to be Season's Greetings. It's not Christmas holiday, it's Winter Break. Isn't it amazing how this winter break ALWAYS occurs over the Christmas holiday? We've gone so far the other way, bent over backwards to not offend anyone, that I am now being offended. But it seems that no one has a problem with that. This says it all!
Talk about an overreaction. Now, let's be honest here, how many people have ever had anyone wish them "season's greetings" or "a good a winter break"? I cannot think of anybody of any race, colour or creed who has ever wished me the tidings of the season in such words, including people who don't celebrate Christmas. In fact, it is only on Christmas cards where I have seen such greetings ever expressed. I agree that there is a problem in some circles where people manufacture words and phrases so as not to offend a small minority of easily sensitive people, but I think these are the wheels of bureaucracy that are turning, more than anything else.
This is an editorial written by an British citizen, published in a National newspaper He did quite a job; didn't he? Read on, please
Good to realise that our friend who is so appalled by the country falling apart sees his grasp of English falls apart too. You don't use "an" before a word unless the following word begins with a vowel. And if by "he did quite a job" you mean "he did quite a job of making a prat of himself", you may well be right. Otherwise, maybe not.
IMMIGRANTS,NOT BRITS MUST ADAPT.I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on the 7th of the 7th we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majorityof Brits.
Quite a sweeping statement there. I would like to know how exactly our correspondent measures this surge in patriotism. More people going through the gates at Buckingham Palace? More people hanging up a Union Jack in their window? More people holding a street party? I think the terrorist attacks of 7 July 2005 (if this guy is such a devout Brit, why is he using American terminology?) did not really result in a surge of patriotism, more an immediate surge of defiance that we should not allow terrorists with fanatical beliefs to pose a threat to our daily lives that resulted in the atrocity of people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I do not see this as tupthumping patriotism though and this pattern of defiance was only really noticeable in the after shocks of those terrorist attacks because the realisation had dawned that this country was not safe, this was not just the sort of thing "that happened in America".
However, the disgust about the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct! ' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.
That's hardly a new complaint is it? This is the sort of thing that has been talked about for years, that the English don't celebrate St George's Day enough, that English culture is not celebrated enough. This has got nothing to do with the terrorist attacks, it is a long established psyche. The writer is right in saying that we are too politically correct for our own good sometimes, but unfortunately there are a section of people who attach themselves to the Union Jack and the Cross of St George who we have to thank for this tainting by association. That does not make it right or legitimate to make patriotism wrong, in fact we should do our best to wrestle the flag back from those clowns who have bloodied the flag. In order to do that though, we need to be less apathetic about what our culture is in this country and clear and what we should celebrate. In short, it is not until political correctness rears its ugly head, that many of the people in this country rid themselves of this apathy and say that we should be proud of our national identity more. So, we are all to blame for us not being patriotic enough!
I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Britain, Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. (The Danes, Romans ect.) However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.
This sounds a bit like the "I'm not a racist/sexist...but" kind of lines. Read on then.
This idea of the Brits being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Britain's we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.
This is an argument that has been mentioned before, but how true is it? In his last point, the writer has pointed out that our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. Also, one of the finest selling points of living in this country, namely the English language, has evolved over time due to immigrants arriving on these shores and influencing it. Britain has been invaded by the Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans and each of these visitors who arrived without an invite brought their vocabulary with them and added to our language and in doing so, have contributed to a little piece of British culture. I mention the English language because it appears the author might need to familiarise himself with it, as it is "Britons", not "Britain's". But I digress. The point is that the world is evolving, we might not like that, but it is a fact of life. Just as the Saxons and Vikings added to the British culture, so too have the Jamaican immigrants that moved to the country in the 1950s and 1960s, and the influx of Poles more recently. Without them, this country would not have experienced the phenomenon that is Reggae Reggae Sauce, or would not have any builders who get the job finished on time or within budget.
We speak ENGLISH, not Indian, Urdu, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!
Christ on a bike, the irony! So here we are telling people to learn our language when they come and visit our shores and yet, hand on heart, how many of us properly make an effort to learn the language when we go on holiday abroad? If an opportunity exists to shout very loudly, speak very slowly or point to the item on the menu or the shelf souvenir of choice, then that opportunity will invariably be taken at the expense of speaking dialogue in the native tongue. And while we are at it, does the author's plea to learn English apply to people in Wales who speak Welsh, people in Cornwall who speak Cornish, or people in Northern Ireland who speak Gaelic? Because the last time I checked, all of these places formed part of the United Kingdom too. In this day and age, foreign nationals who move to the country have to undertake a British Identity test before they are granted citizenship. The funny thing is, often they end up knowing more about Britain's heritage, its queens and kings and its quirky laws than what a pretty sizeable amount of the home population knew to start off with. This is basically Norman Tebbit's "which cricket team would you support" speech under another guise. That was deemed out of order when it was spoken 25 years ago and so this rant deserves the same amount of contempt.
'Land of Hope & Glory' is our motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented.It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.
I am sure there are more interesting things to display on the walls of schools, children's artwork, photographs of the school football team, old photographs of teachers sporting sideburns or combovers, a coat of arms, that kind of thing. In fact, I imagine the graffiti in the boy's toilets is probably more interesting than this motto. Nonetheless, one thing interests me about this passage. Up until now, the author has spoken about the British identity, and not offending Brits. Land of Hope and Glory is not the British national anthem, it is the English national anthem. As a proud Englishman, one thing that has always annoyed me has been that when England play a football match, it is "God Save The Queen" that gets played, when really it should be "Land of Hope and Glory". So is the author's problem that Britain or England is losing its identity? And if he doesn't seem to know what the national anthem is, does that help in establishing an identity in the first place?
If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.
Hmm. The author seems to conveniently forget that only about 10 per cent of the population go to church, which would suggest God is less part of our culture than he would like to have us believe. And I take umbrage with being asked to consider moving to another part of the world. People are perfectly entitled to believe that as organised religion has been the root cause of most wars that have broken out from the time of the Crusades until now and resulted in more greed and intolerance than any other phenomenon, as human beings we have the absolute right to not partake in it without fear of being criticised as being unpatriotic, especially as dwindling church attendance outside of weddings, Christenings and midnight mass would indicate that religion actually counts for very little in terms of what people's understanding of "Being British" means to them.
If the 'Union Jack' flag offends you, or you don't like our QUEEN, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.
That seems a little bit excessive really. I mean, there are a fair number of British nationals who are opposed to the monarchy and who would have an elected governor who has overall control. I am not one of these people on the grounds that we could end up with President David Cameron or President Alistair Darling, but I do believe in people having a freedom of choice, you know that very thing which this author believes is being eroded. Basically, the author is saying that if people question some parts of our culture and our heritage then they should be muzzled, seen and not heard, put in the tower. But, unless people challenge perceptions and "the ways things are", nothing in life ever evolves. We could still live in a country where women don't have the vote or where the horse and cart is the preferred mode of transport. Also, I note the author's comment about the Union Jack. Apart from wondering whether negative comments about the flag's colour scheme would be welcomed, I note that the author is referring to the flag of the United Kingdom, rather than the flag of England, having spoken early about the English national anthem. And we wonder why we have an identity problem.
We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from.
Ignorance is a bliss isn't it? So we must always rely on being our own pioneers, our own innovators, our own geniuses and be too stubborn to accept ideas from "Johnny Foreigner". And let's remind ourselves, where exactly did that get our car industry? And come to think of it, the England football team seem to be playing much better since an Italian with an iron fist and outstanding tactical brain took over its management from a rather inept wet fish who was English godamnit. Oh well, at least he had nice teeth. Must be those Polish dentists. The world doesn't stand still, progress is impossible to supress. If we have no desire to change and keep things as they are, then as a nation we get left behind. We might be an island but cannot allow insularity to remain unchallenged. Insularity breeds ignorance bleeds complacency.
This is OUR COUNTRY,our land, and our lifestyle. Our Laws give every citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so!
Or if the author has his way, people will be allowed their opinion until they are asked to leave the country. A command democracy, I'm sure it was very popular in 1252, and maybe still is in Zimbabwe.
But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag,our lifestyle our government, or our way of life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great BRITISH freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.
Yes, how dare you come over whinging, that's our job! How about the people that live here, what if they don't like any of the above? Do they have to hop on the Eurostar or take a jumbo across the water? For someone who is championing free speech, our correspondent does not seem very responsive to negative feedback, does he?
It is Time for Gt. Britain to Speak up. If you agree -- pass this along;if you don't agree -- delete it! anon..AMEN
Or better still, provide a critical analysis of it with an Internet audience of millions (or maybe 8) and let them decide what their feeling is. After all, this is a democracy.
There you go, that's the piece in full. Now, my problem with this piece is that the validity of some of the themes explored within our writer's rant have been marred by the writer making mountains out of mole hills, much like I accused the Daily Mail of doing in the piece that I wrote last weekend. Sometimes when people question whether our sovereignty as a country has been eroded through the increased immigrant population and their own beliefs and values, I think there is some logic in people being concerned about how the country will evolve in 40 or 50 years time. Evolution is inescapable of course, but we must be careful of the sceptre of political correctness that looms ever more on our daily landscape. People should be tolerant of religious, political and lifestyle beliefs, regardless of what our own are.
But there is a collective responsibility to ensure that cuts both ways. There are always going to be fanatics out there, splinter groups if you like, who will like to exert more authority and preach over what we should or should not do. What is important is to ensure that as this country evolves, it does so whilst ensuring protection and respect for everyone. Unfortunately, the problem is that where you have a population from so many backgrounds, the "one size fits all" kind of model is going to have its weaknesses. Everybody is equal, only some are more equal than others. Some will always have greater status, greater wealth, greater hair, and inequality leads to jealousy which leads to intolerance, which as discussed earlier, has formed the basis for many an armed conflict. The dimensions of the country are changing, we are not an Arian race and we should not strive to be that as that ambition somewhere else in Western Europe resulted in two world wars in the twentieth century.
Political correctness is a problem which affects all of us at some time or another, and I cannot say as though I know of anyone who embraces its being. What we must be clear on, however, is that immigrants who move to this country are not responsible for it existing. As with many things over time, this particular phenomenon started off in the United States and it has gathered legs in the United Kingdom in the last decade or so as a result of faceless bureaucrats who sit in statutory departments in their air conditioned offices, sipping their green teas, worrying over how a very small minority of people might react to the wording of something on the grounds of sexism, racism, ageism etc. And their precise reason for their worry is that someone, somewhere in the real world will make a kneejerk reaction and make a legal claim. There is no minefield like insurance claims and given that we live in a society where litigation is actively encouraged thanks to our unscrupulous friends at Injury Lawyers 4 U and the like through their television commercials, it is little wonder that these faceless Nigels and Colins in their charcoal suits and with their shiny desk tidies are concerned. So if you want to find someone to blame for our current social climate, blame the guy that played Johnny Allen in EastEnders!
Instead of bemoaning our state of the nation and complaining about how our rights as citizens are being eroded, maybe we should actually put our grievances to good use and be proactive. Therein lies the problem. Everyone likes a moan about how things are going awry, but when it comes to actually doing something about it, the rebels inside us retreat into our shells. Maybe it is because the cynics in us know our limitations and do not think we can change the world. But the point is that it is only through people protesting, canvassing, petitioning, that our laws and our societies can be changed in the way that we would like them to be, the way in which most people can be encompassed, integrated and respected.
E-mails like the one I received I suppose at least succeed in getting people to think about things from a more rounded and balanced point of view, but much like the tabloid of the Antichrist which I spoke of just last week, it also paints a distorted picture of our society and our country. Since time began, this has been a country that has had a turnover of immigrants and which has evolved as new immigrants have arrived and brought their own beliefs, clothing, food and language, all of which have left an indelible prints on our society and culture. Immigrants of the future will do the same and it is naive to expect that not to be the case, especially given the rapid rate of change in modern life. Instead of beating ourselves up about how bad this might be, perhaps we should also look at some of the positives that will come from that evolution, of which I am sure there will be a number.
Around the world, we find ourselves in a society where people want to travel more to understand the world they live in more and to enjoy life changing experiences. This can only be a good thing, whatever the "Plane Stupid" activists at Stansted thought last week (has a pressure group ever had a more apt name?) because travel broadens the mind, encourages people to see the bigger picture and to rid themselves of insularity and fixations.
Given that we now live in a society where travel is promoted and where it has never been easier, thanks to the freedom of movement of labour laws in the European Union member states and other international laws, over time the world as a whole will be populated by happy wanderers who want to live in different surroundings to the ones they grew up in and consequently, there will be a greater influx of people living in the United Kingdom who were not born here than ever before, just as there will be in France, Germany and Australia. With this, there will also be more people who leave our shores and those of France, Germany and Australia to go and live in another country where perhaps employment prospects are greater, the weather is more reliable or they can sample a better quality of life. Of course, the cynics will say the departures are because people are becoming unhappy with the way the country is going and will vote with their feet. And yes, that will be true for many.
But I think it is also a fact of modern life that more people have a pleasure seeker and an adventurer in them somewhere which they want to release and the only way to do this is to go and live in another country. Travel is a great eye opener to people and as well as enabling them to escape humdrum lives and partake in a pleasurable odyssey, it also provides a wonderful education. If only they would come back one day and say what they have learnt from their journey, and then we could put it to good use in moving the country forward. But until then, let's rely on immigrants arriving with a fresh pair of eyes and telling us what works well and what does not. There's no room for complacency or contentment if we want this crazy island of ours to always prosper and be a significant player in the world. The world keeps turning and so we must welcome fresh perspectives and ideas, declining the ones that do not work practically but taking note of the ones that do. Evolution was never meant to be painless but it is necessary if our times on this planet are to be significant.
So, perhaps I should just drop a line to the man who wrote the letter in the first place. But then, that will be me off his Christmas card list. Or perhaps, he will send me one with "Happy Winter Break" on it. The ultimate insult. But still, who would have thought that an idle forwarding of a harmless e-mail could provide so much inspiration for providing a free opinion? So thank you, anonymous e-mail sender and Daily Mail reader. You have at least provided a platform for some discussion on this subject. Nonetheless, I would like to reiterate that chain e-mails are not big or clever in any shape or form, so just think before you click those forward and send buttons. Thank you.
Sunday 14 December 2008
Thursday 11 December 2008
Bring on the Spurs
Well it is drawing ever closer to another weekend and at this time of the year, out of sync with the weather, the Premier League football season really hots up. There are some good matches taking place both in England's top flight and on the continent this weekend, with the greatest of all "derby" matches taking place in Spain on Saturday night with Barcelona playing host to Real Madrid.
Madrid have just changed their manager and former Tottenham manager Juande Ramos who was so ignominiously removed from his post just a few weeks ago has now taken over the reins at Europe's self-appointed top club. And speaking of Tottenham, they provide the opposition to Manchester United this weekend in what looks like the top billing Premier League match of the weekend at White Hart Lane.
I always look forward to Manchester United matches against Tottenham and that's not just because United have a fantastic record against the team from round the Seven Sisters Road, although it certainly helps. Spurs, like United, have generally always been a team that likes to play passing football and this usually results in open matches with both teams passing the ball well and using width. Added to which, I have always known Spurs supporters with whom to share some banter.
This time around, I have rather mixed feelings about the match. On the one hand, I think that once again it will be a good spectacle to watch. However, I think this will be a difficult match for United and not a match to be taken lightly. Spurs have picked up tremendously well in recent weeks under the stewardship of Harry Redknapp and whereas many of their players were drained of their confidence under Ramos, Redknapp has come in and given players belief in their ability again.
I am particularly worried about the absence of Patrice Evra for Manchester United. Evra was recently hit with a four match ban for a fracas with an overzealous steward in a match at Chelsea last season but in fact, he is serving a five match suspension as he was already sitting out the match at White Hart Lane due to picking up five yellow cards so far this season. Evra is an important player to United as his energy and overlapping runs down the left flank can very quickly turn defensive situations into attacking ones for his team. In his absence, he is likely to be replaced by jack of all trades, master of none John O' Shea, who even ended up in goal in a match at White Hart Lane a couple of seasons ago. O' Shea neither has Evra's pace, nor his positional sense, given the acres of space he afforded the Aalborg striker he was meant to be marking on Wednesday night, leading to their second goal.
Evra's absence is likely to result in a field day for Aaron Lennon. Lennon is the kind of greased lightning winger who will always polarise opinion because while some will marvel at his pace, others will bemoan his sometimes abject final ball. I've always tended to be of the opinion that if a winger has natural pace, that is the main thing as you can work on improving the other aspects of his game and no defender in top flight football really relishes playing against someone blessed with blistering pace. For that reason, I'm a fan of Lennon's and it is no surprise to me to see him blossoming under Harry Redknapp. Redknapp's strength as a manager is being a good man motivator, knowing how to get the best out of individuals and he has clearly recognised that Lennon is the kind of player that needs constant assurance.
I recall Manchester United's match against Tottenham in the FA Cup last season which United won 3-1 from a goal down and Lennon played in direct opposition to Evra in the match that day and gave United's left back a torrid time, setting up Robbie Keane's goal and generally causing a nuisance. Now, making a mug of a full back is what anyone wants to see from their team's wing players, but Lennon did not make any old full back look like a slouch, Patrice Evra is a very quick player himself and in my humble opinion, is the best left back that United have had in the 22 years I have supported them. If Lennon could make life difficult for such a good player, now that he has returned to form, what will he do if he is up against a mediocre utility man who has been short of games this season?
There are also a couple of other issues that United have to deal with for this match. Firstly, Cristiano Ronaldo is also suspended, as a result of his ill advised handball in the Manchester Derby which led to his second yellow card and an early bath in that match. It will be interesting to see who Ferguson chooses to replace the 2008 Ballon D'or winner for this match. My expectation is that he may give the industrious Park Ji-Sung a start. The South Korean has had a good campaign for United so far when he has been given the opportunity and he certainly cannot be accused of not pulling his weight.
Then there is the headline story of the day, namely that Dimitar Berbatov is returning to White Hart Lane for the first time since his summer departure. Given that Robbie Keane was booed by sections of the crowd when he returned with Liverpool a few weeks ago, considering the acrimonious way in which Berbatov left Spurs to join United, the Bulgarian is bound to receive a hostile reception from the Spurs crowd. From United's point of view, what would concern me is how Berbatov deals with this. Berbatov sometimes has a tag of being a player who goes missing in away matches and this tag is not altogether unwarranted. United need Berbatov to impose himself right from the start in this match and when the boos ring in his ears, he should let this galvanise him.
Given that Berbatov did not feature at all against Aalborg in the midweek match, that suggests to me that Ferguson will be starting him at White Hart Lane. But if it were me picking the team, I would be half tempted to leave Berbatov on the bench and start with Carlos Tevez. Tevez missed a couple of chances against Aalborg it's true, but there has been much to admire in his play when he has been given the opportunity in recent weeks and his commitment to the team is excellent. I know that there is some talk that Tevez could be off in January as his "owner" is unhappy that he is not getting a regular starting place and Tevez is still only on loan to United, but I think United should do everything in their power to hang on to him. Tevez scored United's late equaliser in this corresponding fixture last season and I think with a start this time around, this could be the ideal sort of match for him.
Berbatov will not be the only former Spurs player in United's line-up on Saturday. Michael Carrick did not feature against Aalborg but should return for the weekend. Both he and Darren Fletcher have enjoyed good seasons in the centre of United's midfield and both should feature at White Hart Lane. It was good, however, to see Paul Scholes return for United in the second half of their draw against Aalborg. It is no secret that the ginger magician is one of my all-time favourite United players and with him now 34 years of age, every match he plays brings home the realisation that he will not be gracing the pitch for that much longer. Scholes had been out for several weeks with a ligament injury which at his age could have kept him out for a long time. But it was testament to Scholes's appetite for the game and the remarkable way in which he has looked after himself that not only did he return to fitness much sooner than anticipated, but his energy levels in the 2nd half against Aalborg would have made a player ten years younger proud. Scholes has a good goalscoring record against Spurs, so I expect him to feature at some point on Saturday evening.
As I mentioned earlier, this is a match that I think United could have done with the fixture computer picking out for them a few weeks ago when Spurs were really struggling. Since Harry Redknapp took over, he has seen his team lose just twice and from the day he took over when his new club had scored just 2 points and were rock bottom of the Premier League, his team are now up to the comparatively dizzy heights of fifteenth following their win at Redknapp's former paymasters West Ham earlier this week.
Over the years, I have probably been guilty of doing Harry Redknapp a bit of a disservice. He has always been a bit of a wide boy and I suppose part of me has always had this picture in my head of him trying to market dodgy footballers in close proximity to a yellow three wheeled van. But while Redknapp's comparisons to Derek Trotter are not without foundation, clearly there is more to his managerial talents than just being able to spot a bargain.
You know the saying about getting better with age like a good red wine, well I think Redknapp is about the right vintage. I would say he has had the best years of his managerial career since he turned 55 some five years ago. He had his setbacks at West Ham but in the last five years or so, he got Portsmouth promoted from the Championship and established them as a Premier League club and got them to sign players of international experience such as Sol Campbell, David James and Jermain Defoe. And his crowning glory at that club was winning last season's FA Cup, Portsmouth's first major honour for over 50 years. OK, he had a brief and unsuccessful spell at Southampton between his two spells at Portsmouth, but Redknapp's heart was never in that move and he only went there out of spite towards Portsmouth's slippery former chairman Milan Mandaric with whom Redknapp had fallen out.
Redknapp is very old school with his methods, but that does not need to be a bad thing, it's a case of horses for courses and in his current surroundings, at the current time, he is the perfect antidote for Tottenham. They have got through several managers in the past five or six years and for all that time they have had a Director of Football at the club who would set the agenda so far as transfers were concerned and managers had to work under them. Redknapp very much sticks to the Frank Sinatra mantra, that is to do it "My way" or not do it at all and given Spurs's general lack of success under their years of the previous structure, it might well be that this more simple structure is better suited to them. Redknapp as a plain speaking Londoner certainly has the common touch with the supporters at White Hart Lane, given that they are pretty plain speaking themselves.
On the pitch, Redknapp will have quickly summised that his team are heading in the right direction but that he still needs a few reinforcements before his team is back where he and the club's supporters would like it to be, namely in the top 5. There are a few areas that need addressing in order for this to happen. Spurs's keeper Gomes has come from the Dutch league and is not used to being put under so much pressure from opposition forwards and so far he has been badly exposed. His decision making in coming for balls has been quite some way off the mark, to the point where he has been a risk to his own team mates' welfare. I would expect Spurs to sign a keeper in January, at least to give him some competition.
Elsewhere, I would expect Redknapp to be looking at bringing in a centre back and possibly a full back given injuries and lack of options at the back. Spurs are still reliant on Ledley King and given that he is unlikely to ever be in a position where he can play two games a week again, this is a problem. In midfield, they seem a bit short of a really imposing anchoring player who can be the heartbeat of the team and protect the back line. They are generally fine when in possession but when they lose possession, this can leave them exposed to the counter attack. I am also not entirely convinced by the signing of David Bentley. £16 million was a lot of money to spend on a right sided midfielder given that Spurs already had a better player in that position on their books and who is currently playing in that position while Bentley has been moved out of position. The loss of Berbatov and Keane over the summer and of Defoe last season has also meant Spurs are short of a regular and reliable goalscorer.
I do not doubt that Redknapp will see Spurs some way safe by the end of the season, but I hope that Spurs's progress is curtailed with a defeat on Saturday. United should have some unfinished business with Redknapp given that his Portsmouth team were responsible for knocking Manchester United out of last season's FA Cup at the quarter-final stage. Portsmouth would go on to win the competition while Manchester United would win the Premier League and the Champions League. But United dominated Portsmouth in that cup tie and really should have beaten them, and looking back, had United won that match, they would have had a fantastic chance to complete their second Treble, following on from the one in 1999. That Treble was unprecedented, so I can only wonder on what superlatives would have been conjured up had a second Treble come to fruition in 2008. Ifs and buts I suppose.
On a more important level in the here and now, United need the 3 points as they will not be in action in the following round of Premier League matches due to their participation in the World Club Championship, a reward for winning last season's Champions League. That will mean playing catch-up and with a homecoming match at Stoke City on Boxing Day, which does not look like the ideal match in which to be dusting off the cobwebs, United really need to take 3 points at White Hart Lane in order to ensure they are not putting too much pressure on themselves heading into the New Year. United are not quite at their fluent best at the moment and are giving teams chances.
With Evra and Ronaldo both missing and Wayne Rooney not at the level of form he was at during the early weeks of the season since returning from a spell on the sidelines, this looks like an opportunity for Spurs to get something out of the game and I can personally see a strong possibility of a repeat of last season's 1-1 scoreline in this fixture.
Madrid have just changed their manager and former Tottenham manager Juande Ramos who was so ignominiously removed from his post just a few weeks ago has now taken over the reins at Europe's self-appointed top club. And speaking of Tottenham, they provide the opposition to Manchester United this weekend in what looks like the top billing Premier League match of the weekend at White Hart Lane.
I always look forward to Manchester United matches against Tottenham and that's not just because United have a fantastic record against the team from round the Seven Sisters Road, although it certainly helps. Spurs, like United, have generally always been a team that likes to play passing football and this usually results in open matches with both teams passing the ball well and using width. Added to which, I have always known Spurs supporters with whom to share some banter.
This time around, I have rather mixed feelings about the match. On the one hand, I think that once again it will be a good spectacle to watch. However, I think this will be a difficult match for United and not a match to be taken lightly. Spurs have picked up tremendously well in recent weeks under the stewardship of Harry Redknapp and whereas many of their players were drained of their confidence under Ramos, Redknapp has come in and given players belief in their ability again.
I am particularly worried about the absence of Patrice Evra for Manchester United. Evra was recently hit with a four match ban for a fracas with an overzealous steward in a match at Chelsea last season but in fact, he is serving a five match suspension as he was already sitting out the match at White Hart Lane due to picking up five yellow cards so far this season. Evra is an important player to United as his energy and overlapping runs down the left flank can very quickly turn defensive situations into attacking ones for his team. In his absence, he is likely to be replaced by jack of all trades, master of none John O' Shea, who even ended up in goal in a match at White Hart Lane a couple of seasons ago. O' Shea neither has Evra's pace, nor his positional sense, given the acres of space he afforded the Aalborg striker he was meant to be marking on Wednesday night, leading to their second goal.
Evra's absence is likely to result in a field day for Aaron Lennon. Lennon is the kind of greased lightning winger who will always polarise opinion because while some will marvel at his pace, others will bemoan his sometimes abject final ball. I've always tended to be of the opinion that if a winger has natural pace, that is the main thing as you can work on improving the other aspects of his game and no defender in top flight football really relishes playing against someone blessed with blistering pace. For that reason, I'm a fan of Lennon's and it is no surprise to me to see him blossoming under Harry Redknapp. Redknapp's strength as a manager is being a good man motivator, knowing how to get the best out of individuals and he has clearly recognised that Lennon is the kind of player that needs constant assurance.
I recall Manchester United's match against Tottenham in the FA Cup last season which United won 3-1 from a goal down and Lennon played in direct opposition to Evra in the match that day and gave United's left back a torrid time, setting up Robbie Keane's goal and generally causing a nuisance. Now, making a mug of a full back is what anyone wants to see from their team's wing players, but Lennon did not make any old full back look like a slouch, Patrice Evra is a very quick player himself and in my humble opinion, is the best left back that United have had in the 22 years I have supported them. If Lennon could make life difficult for such a good player, now that he has returned to form, what will he do if he is up against a mediocre utility man who has been short of games this season?
There are also a couple of other issues that United have to deal with for this match. Firstly, Cristiano Ronaldo is also suspended, as a result of his ill advised handball in the Manchester Derby which led to his second yellow card and an early bath in that match. It will be interesting to see who Ferguson chooses to replace the 2008 Ballon D'or winner for this match. My expectation is that he may give the industrious Park Ji-Sung a start. The South Korean has had a good campaign for United so far when he has been given the opportunity and he certainly cannot be accused of not pulling his weight.
Then there is the headline story of the day, namely that Dimitar Berbatov is returning to White Hart Lane for the first time since his summer departure. Given that Robbie Keane was booed by sections of the crowd when he returned with Liverpool a few weeks ago, considering the acrimonious way in which Berbatov left Spurs to join United, the Bulgarian is bound to receive a hostile reception from the Spurs crowd. From United's point of view, what would concern me is how Berbatov deals with this. Berbatov sometimes has a tag of being a player who goes missing in away matches and this tag is not altogether unwarranted. United need Berbatov to impose himself right from the start in this match and when the boos ring in his ears, he should let this galvanise him.
Given that Berbatov did not feature at all against Aalborg in the midweek match, that suggests to me that Ferguson will be starting him at White Hart Lane. But if it were me picking the team, I would be half tempted to leave Berbatov on the bench and start with Carlos Tevez. Tevez missed a couple of chances against Aalborg it's true, but there has been much to admire in his play when he has been given the opportunity in recent weeks and his commitment to the team is excellent. I know that there is some talk that Tevez could be off in January as his "owner" is unhappy that he is not getting a regular starting place and Tevez is still only on loan to United, but I think United should do everything in their power to hang on to him. Tevez scored United's late equaliser in this corresponding fixture last season and I think with a start this time around, this could be the ideal sort of match for him.
Berbatov will not be the only former Spurs player in United's line-up on Saturday. Michael Carrick did not feature against Aalborg but should return for the weekend. Both he and Darren Fletcher have enjoyed good seasons in the centre of United's midfield and both should feature at White Hart Lane. It was good, however, to see Paul Scholes return for United in the second half of their draw against Aalborg. It is no secret that the ginger magician is one of my all-time favourite United players and with him now 34 years of age, every match he plays brings home the realisation that he will not be gracing the pitch for that much longer. Scholes had been out for several weeks with a ligament injury which at his age could have kept him out for a long time. But it was testament to Scholes's appetite for the game and the remarkable way in which he has looked after himself that not only did he return to fitness much sooner than anticipated, but his energy levels in the 2nd half against Aalborg would have made a player ten years younger proud. Scholes has a good goalscoring record against Spurs, so I expect him to feature at some point on Saturday evening.
As I mentioned earlier, this is a match that I think United could have done with the fixture computer picking out for them a few weeks ago when Spurs were really struggling. Since Harry Redknapp took over, he has seen his team lose just twice and from the day he took over when his new club had scored just 2 points and were rock bottom of the Premier League, his team are now up to the comparatively dizzy heights of fifteenth following their win at Redknapp's former paymasters West Ham earlier this week.
Over the years, I have probably been guilty of doing Harry Redknapp a bit of a disservice. He has always been a bit of a wide boy and I suppose part of me has always had this picture in my head of him trying to market dodgy footballers in close proximity to a yellow three wheeled van. But while Redknapp's comparisons to Derek Trotter are not without foundation, clearly there is more to his managerial talents than just being able to spot a bargain.
You know the saying about getting better with age like a good red wine, well I think Redknapp is about the right vintage. I would say he has had the best years of his managerial career since he turned 55 some five years ago. He had his setbacks at West Ham but in the last five years or so, he got Portsmouth promoted from the Championship and established them as a Premier League club and got them to sign players of international experience such as Sol Campbell, David James and Jermain Defoe. And his crowning glory at that club was winning last season's FA Cup, Portsmouth's first major honour for over 50 years. OK, he had a brief and unsuccessful spell at Southampton between his two spells at Portsmouth, but Redknapp's heart was never in that move and he only went there out of spite towards Portsmouth's slippery former chairman Milan Mandaric with whom Redknapp had fallen out.
Redknapp is very old school with his methods, but that does not need to be a bad thing, it's a case of horses for courses and in his current surroundings, at the current time, he is the perfect antidote for Tottenham. They have got through several managers in the past five or six years and for all that time they have had a Director of Football at the club who would set the agenda so far as transfers were concerned and managers had to work under them. Redknapp very much sticks to the Frank Sinatra mantra, that is to do it "My way" or not do it at all and given Spurs's general lack of success under their years of the previous structure, it might well be that this more simple structure is better suited to them. Redknapp as a plain speaking Londoner certainly has the common touch with the supporters at White Hart Lane, given that they are pretty plain speaking themselves.
On the pitch, Redknapp will have quickly summised that his team are heading in the right direction but that he still needs a few reinforcements before his team is back where he and the club's supporters would like it to be, namely in the top 5. There are a few areas that need addressing in order for this to happen. Spurs's keeper Gomes has come from the Dutch league and is not used to being put under so much pressure from opposition forwards and so far he has been badly exposed. His decision making in coming for balls has been quite some way off the mark, to the point where he has been a risk to his own team mates' welfare. I would expect Spurs to sign a keeper in January, at least to give him some competition.
Elsewhere, I would expect Redknapp to be looking at bringing in a centre back and possibly a full back given injuries and lack of options at the back. Spurs are still reliant on Ledley King and given that he is unlikely to ever be in a position where he can play two games a week again, this is a problem. In midfield, they seem a bit short of a really imposing anchoring player who can be the heartbeat of the team and protect the back line. They are generally fine when in possession but when they lose possession, this can leave them exposed to the counter attack. I am also not entirely convinced by the signing of David Bentley. £16 million was a lot of money to spend on a right sided midfielder given that Spurs already had a better player in that position on their books and who is currently playing in that position while Bentley has been moved out of position. The loss of Berbatov and Keane over the summer and of Defoe last season has also meant Spurs are short of a regular and reliable goalscorer.
I do not doubt that Redknapp will see Spurs some way safe by the end of the season, but I hope that Spurs's progress is curtailed with a defeat on Saturday. United should have some unfinished business with Redknapp given that his Portsmouth team were responsible for knocking Manchester United out of last season's FA Cup at the quarter-final stage. Portsmouth would go on to win the competition while Manchester United would win the Premier League and the Champions League. But United dominated Portsmouth in that cup tie and really should have beaten them, and looking back, had United won that match, they would have had a fantastic chance to complete their second Treble, following on from the one in 1999. That Treble was unprecedented, so I can only wonder on what superlatives would have been conjured up had a second Treble come to fruition in 2008. Ifs and buts I suppose.
On a more important level in the here and now, United need the 3 points as they will not be in action in the following round of Premier League matches due to their participation in the World Club Championship, a reward for winning last season's Champions League. That will mean playing catch-up and with a homecoming match at Stoke City on Boxing Day, which does not look like the ideal match in which to be dusting off the cobwebs, United really need to take 3 points at White Hart Lane in order to ensure they are not putting too much pressure on themselves heading into the New Year. United are not quite at their fluent best at the moment and are giving teams chances.
With Evra and Ronaldo both missing and Wayne Rooney not at the level of form he was at during the early weeks of the season since returning from a spell on the sidelines, this looks like an opportunity for Spurs to get something out of the game and I can personally see a strong possibility of a repeat of last season's 1-1 scoreline in this fixture.
Sunday 7 December 2008
A newspaper full of hate and bile
Well hello again readers of this blog. I trust you have all had a good weekend and that the pre-Christmas panic stations have not set in just yet. I can honestly say that I have not done anything remotely Christmassy yet, not bought any presents, not written any cards, zippo. But more of that another time.
For those people reading this blog and as people who know me will testify, I am not someone who has a lot of pet hates. Nothing really riles me that much and I am generally quite a laid back, tolerant person. However, there are some selected items and people that are certainly on my list in the unlikely event of me ever being invited onto Room 101 to banish my pet hates. Instruction manuals with diagrams that are impossible to understand and which seem to have instructions in every language except English are a shoe-in for the shortlist.
Also a certainty for the list are adverts for "no win no fee" lawyers, Injury Lawyers For You, that sort of thing. You want to know why the world is getting more politically correct? Well, it's because firms are scared of compensation claims in the claims culture that is so actively promoted by these legal firms who seem to take up such a vast percentage of TV adverts during the daytime. People that use text or MSN Messenger speak in everyday conversation also have to be banished to oblivion, there simply cannot be any justification for a person verbally saying "LOL" or "LMAO" when conversing on the bus, train or in the office. I also have a personal dislike of Sellotape given that in my experience I seem to often waste at least a quarter of the reel through the product sticking to itself.
And then of course there are the people that make even the most mild mannered, laid back person seethe with anger the moment they appear on television. Fortunately Jim Davidson doesn't appear on TV very often these days so we can put a line through him. However, the hideous cretin Paul Daniels still seems to appear on some adverts and so he needs to be here (incidentally the aforementioned Davidson did actually banish Daniels to Room 101 when he appeared on the show, so he has made himself useful once). And then there are the parasites who always seem to appear on TV at the first sign of somebody else's misfortune. I am particularly thinking here of Max Clifford and Piers Morgan.
Morgan leads us however to the institution in British life which I reserve a particular level of dislike to above any other. Ironic really, given that this institution has done more to promote hate and marginalisation of anybody and anything that does not fit into Middle England's ideal world. Yes folks, sitting at number 1 on my absolute list of things that must go into Room 101 is Britain's most hate and bile filled newspaper which only reserves good words for itself. I am of course referring to the Daily Mail.
So what do I particularly have against the Mail? Hell, where do I start? I think that it is the most propaganda filled newspaper in the country, which is always full of negative headlines. If it isn't railing against asylum seekers, it is railing against those that take advantage of the benefit system. If it rails against neither of those groups, it rails against political correctness or against big brother watching us. And when it doesn't do that, it tries to get people sacked without reporting the full facts and generally bitches about celebrities looking too thin, too fat, or having a bad hair day in the way that a group of giggly college girls would in the student common room. Or, it criticises newsreaders for wearing short skirts on the news.
Now, I am not saying that some of these topics are not worthy of being tackled critically. My problem is that the Mail never provides a balanced argument on anything and in fact only serves to scare monger and blow things out of proportion. Clearly there is a problem with asylum in this country but it is not as cut and dried as the Mail reports it. Some of the sensationalist headlines and reporting it provides on the subject pigeonhole every asylum seeker as being akin to something we would scrape off of our shoes, when really there are some people who have genuine, harrowing reasons to seek asylum here. It is also worth noting that a good number of people from overseas who take residence here add tremendous value to the labour market by taking on jobs, particularly within unskilled sectors that a good many British nationals do not have the inclination to do. My point is that the Mail's sensationalist approach tars everybody with the same brush and so its less informed readers will in turn tar everybody with the same brush, resulting in unsavoury scenes where groups of Little Englanders assemble outside asylum seeker detention centres to protest about them being in their backyard, as though they are among the same level of pondlife as paedophiles and rapists. Clearly this is a bad misrepresentation for those who are just being detained while their residency is being validated.
Equally, the benefits system is clearly there to serve an important purpose for those who are genuinely incapacitated through ill health or because they are caring for someone else who is ill. Obviously the problem is that wherever you have a system designed to be fair, there will be those who will take advantage for their own means and who often regard their benefits as paying better than actually working for a living. Those that cheat the system clearly need to be dealt with, but that does not make the principle of a benefits or welfare system wrong. What is required is an evaluation of the benefits system and a clear strategy around tackling those who abuse it with iron rather than kid gloves.
The Mail seems to have quite a scattergun, draconian approach to tackling its recurring series of hot potatoes. It offers up a regular dosage of scare mongering but does not seem to offer anything by way of insightful, solution based commentary. Rather than be insightful, the Mail's editorial and lead commentators tend to deal more in the inciteful. Very rarely does the paper have anything positive to say and just seems to deal in a constant stream of moral outrage, the sort of which seemed to be confined to Points Of View with letters from the likes of "Disgusted in Tunbridge Wells".
At the heart of things though, the Daily Mail holds itself up as a newspaper that opposes a nanny state, does not like any form interference in our lives and likes people to have a freedom of choice. Not bad principles at all if you stick to them. However, the Mail conveniently forgot these principles when it came to seizing the opportunity to find an Everest sized story steeped in moral outrage out of what was initially just a small molehill.
I am of course, referring to the Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand lewd phone calls situation. Now, I think everybody realises that Ross and Brand overstepped the mark of what were acceptable parameters for comedy. But, anyone would think that the pair of them had committed the crime of the century given the amount of press hysteria that it generated. A full week passed after the episode had been broadcast on Radio 2 before the story broke in the newspapers, and it was the Mail that broke the story. From there, all hell broke loose and outrage frenzy that the Mail generated resulted in the BBC receiving over 30,000 complaints.
It is worth bearing in mind, however, that at the time of the transmission, the programme received the grand sub-total of 2 complaints. And neither of these complaints were in relation to the lewd content of Ross and Brand's telephone messages for Andrew Sachs but because Jonathan Ross swore, albeit in a programme that went out at 9:15 on a Saturday night. So how on earth did 2 complaints snowball to 30,000? And how many of the 30,000 complainants had actually heard a full transmission? It is true that a number of people could have retrospectively complained about the broadcast by listening to a podcast of the show in the days that followed. But I very much doubt that the people who complained would have been avid users of a podcast facility and I expect of those that did, most only had the sudden urge to do so when they saw an opportunity to complain via the outraged pages of the Daily Mail.
The two newspapers that made the biggest song and dance over the story were the Mail and The Sun. The Sun building the story up for far greater than it was worth was not that surprising however, given that a scandal at the BBC is bound to be jumped on by a newspaper that so happens to be owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also so happens to be the magnate of one of the Beeb's chief competitors, Sky. Nothing like kicking your rivals while they are down and milking a scandal affecting them for all it is worth. But The Mail's location of its moral compass seemed to be more geared around providing its readers with a convenient platform to complain about society's ills.
The Mail has long been an opponent of the BBC chiefly because it is opposed to the licence fee. And what better amunition to support its stance against this BBC tax than to emphasise the folly of the fee contributing towards the highest paid employee's £6 million a year salary when that employee then goes and brings shame on himself and his bosses. I do not wish to use this article to talk about the arguments for or against a licence fee other than to say that a licence that works out at £11.62 a month is pretty decent value when compared to subscription based television and when it pays for the BBC's wide range of programming output including its excellent natural history programmes, documentaries, current affairs output and top drama and comedy, not to mention its commitment to innovation, BBC iPlayer being a very good example. The Mail's main argument against a licence fee is that it is a forced tax which pays for, what in its mind, is viewing for the minority and which differs from its political agenda. The Mail being the champion of middle England doesn't like any form of tax and so the BBC with its licence fee is a sworn enemy.
A line I have seen spun by Mail columnists in both print and also when they have appeared on television is that the BBC "no longer represents the interests of public service broadcasting". Absolutely right it doesn't, because while Mail columnists may like to cling on those halcyon days of newsreaders speaking with a stiff upper lip, weather forecasters having to use magnetic symbols rather than computer generations in order to show the next day's weather outlook and those terribly quaint Pathe news reels telling everybody in patronising tone about a state visit from the US President of the time, their perception of what public service broadcasting is and what it should be is as dead as a dodo. Time has moved on and in order to stay ahead of the game and remain innovative and reach the changing demands of its audience, so the BBC has had to adjust accordingly. So while Mail columnists will tell you that the BBC have wasted their time by plugging BBC Three and BBC Four because nobody watches them, the BBC are clearly mindful of a digital revolution. In 2012, the analogue signal is turned off for good, meaning that anyone who owns a television will have access to these channels, and so consequently, over time their audience figures will rise. Also, given that programmes such as Gavin and Stacey and Lead Balloon started out on BBC3 and are now being shown on the two main BBC channels, that would suggest enough people watched them on BBC3 in the first place to suggest there would be a demand for a bigger audience to watch these programmes.
The Mail's hate campaign against Ross shows no sign of abating. They want blood and clearly they will not stop campaigning until Ross is eventually forced out of the BBC. There are two reasons for their dislike of Ross. Firstly, he earns £6 million a year and they do not think he is worth it. Secondly, he is very fiercely protective of his private life and on more than one occasion now, he has taken out injunctions through his lawyers to prevent newspapers or glossy magazines from showing photographs of him on holiday with his family or playing with his children in the park. After Andrew Sachs's privacy was invaded courtesy of the most expensive prank calls in history, this leads the newspapers to smell some hypocrisy in the air and the hacks don't like hypocrisy, unless of course it is perpetrated by the newspapers and then it just gets swept under the carpet or an apology appears on page 23.
Back on the salary for a second, the key thing to note here is that Jonathan Ross did not ask to be paid £6 million. The BBC offered it to him as at the time that his contract was negotiated, a rival network were prepared to offer Ross a king's ransom to acquire his services. Market forces were at work, but clearly as the BBC regarded Ross as their trump card, rightly so in my opinion, then they were absolutely right to pay the going rate in order to ensure that they retained his services. Obviously, Ross has put himself and his employers in a difficult position now because to many, the justification for paying that salary went the moment he informed Andrew Sachs of whose bed his granddaughter had been in. Nonetheless, there is one thing above all that I do not like about the Mail's pursuance on this matter.
The bugbear that I have is that the Daily Mail believes itself to be a champion of fairness and of democracy. Right, fair enough. However, thanks to the Mail's vehement campaign to get its readers to contact the BBC and complain about the broadcast, it has resulted in a situation where viewers and listeners who would never ordinarily watch or listen to Ross's broadcasts have forced him off air and this has deprived the legions of fans of Wossy who do watch his chat show, film programme and listen to his Saturday morning Radio 2 show from being able to do so because the "moral majority" have helpfully decided that there is no place for him on the BBC, despite the fact that they don't watch or listen to his broadcasts anyway. Quite what form of democracy this is I do not know, but it does seem that viewers have been penalised by a bunch of do-gooders. And I thought that the Mail didn't like do-gooders either.
Ross, I am sure will be back once his suspension is served at the end of January, but it will take a long time before he is able to restore himself to being the kingpin of light entertainment because he is always just one mild flirtation, one utterance of an obscenity or one near the knuckle punchline away from offending some Mavis or Dorothy in Curtaintwitcherland and then prompting the next witch-hunt. It seems ironic, that given that the Daily Mail is a champion of free speech that we find ourselves at the moment in a situation where anybody who says anything remotely controversial, even when it is obviously in jest, find themselves being subjected to calls to be sacked by those faceless people who seem to think they are our moral guardians. A classic example of this came with Jeremy Clarkson recently, never a man to be taken at face value, but who found himself with his head on the block after he made an off the cuff remark about lorry drivers on an episode of Top Gear. Clearly Clarkson was just making a cheap gag, but there was no need for people to get on their high horse.
I hold the Daily Mail responsible for whipping up this recent spate of moral outrage. Maybe it is a sign of the times that because the country is feeling the pinch and we are heading for a recession that people feel they have more of a right to air their grievances, but I think that the constant stream of inflammatory headlines and tarty editorials that the Mail runs are contributory factors for this hysteria.
One last thing about Ross before we move on. I happened to read the Daily Mail early last week and turned to Richard Littlejohn's column. Littlejohn is the type of jumped up, little Englander columnist who typically writes for the Mail and the only thing balanced about him is that he wears a chip on both his shoulders. Anyway, in his column he declared his disgust that The Guardian newspaper was giving away free wrapping paper that had supposedly been designed by Jonathan Ross, ending with the throwaway line "What next, free Gary Glitter pyjamas?" A cheap shot and surely whatever one thinks of Ross or what he has done, comparing him to a convicted paedophile goes way over the boundary of acceptable banter. Ross will not need the money, even with his current suspension, but if he read these remarks by Littlejohn, I think he would be well within his rights to take legal action against both Littlejohn and the newspaper over comments that could be construed as a defamation of character.
As part of my preparation for writing this article, I have read articles from the Mail during the course of this week, although I would like to point out that I have not wasted any money on purchasing this glorified Izal at any point. When reading the paper, I tried to think of words that would sum up the writing style of the paper and the tone of its articles. Plenty of words sprang to mind, but I cannot say that any of them were particularly positive and I will keep a few of them back as this is a family blog. Among the cleaner words that I felt were particularly apt were vitriolic, misleading, inflammatory, gloomy, spiteful, bitchy, vengeful, nauseating and abhorrent.
There was one particularly nauseating piece I recall reading on the same day as the Littlejohn remark which was a double page spread on Britney Spears. Britney is kind of gold dust for the Daily Mail and its readership. A girl from a poor background in the US's deep south, who found fame at a young age but who has fallen upon hard times and who fell in with the wrong crowd and has seen her children taken away from her. The Mail likes a good story about irresponsible parenting and the cult of fallen celebrity so its star studded crew of bitchy female writers can sit in judgement and make unkind remarks, presumably for no other reason than that they envy the subject's looks or lifestyle, if not what that lifestyle has made them.
The piece on Ms Spears was partly in relation to her miming act on the X Factor which I am not in a position to comment on given that I don't watch programmes where the judges regard themselves as bigger stars than the contestants, hence why I have also gone off of Strictly Come Dancing. But anyway, the bit which I found particularly distasteful in the Mail's piece was its description of Britney "possibly going mad".
Now, there are clearly a number of contributory factors that have led to Britney Spears's life spiralling out of control, her drink and drug dependencies certainly being significant factors and I would say that these may have been a bi-product of her finding fame at a young age and being pushed into being a child performer by her parents. But, what is certainly a fact is that Britney Spears has been diagnosed with a mental health condition and has received treatment for this. She has suffered from manic depression, or bipolar disorder as it is more commonly referred to now, and I gather she also suffered from symptoms of personality disorder, which if I understand mental health treatments correctly, is currently one form of mental illness that is not treatable through prescribed medication.
The Daily Mail's use of the word "mad" I felt was grossly inappropriate and it is use of strong, emphatic words like "mad", "insane", "lunatic", "psycho" and "nutter" when referring to people suffering from a mental health condition that results in people perceiving someone who is mentally ill as being a second class citizen, incapable or a danger to society. Everyone generalises and makes snap judgements to some degree or another in life as it is a defence mechanism, people have their principles and assessments which they have to ensure their safety and those of the people they are close to. That much is understood, but the use of such powerful, emotive and derogatory words and phrases does at times result in people being labelled and stigmatised. One in five people will at some point suffer a psychotic or neurotic episode in their life. Does that mean that one in five of us are mad or insane or crazy? Of course not. Mental health problems take many forms and there are many circumstances that trigger them, bereavement, relationship breakdowns, financial difficulties, violence, unemployment, addictions, to name but a few examples. These are common everyday problems that affect all of us at some point and so all of us are potentially fragile to a breakdown, especially as life in general is more pressurised and stressful than 15 or 20 years ago.
By the Mail referring to the madness of Britney Spears, it marginalised not just her but anyone out there who is dealing with or who has overcome a mental health condition. It should not worry Britney so much as I doubt she is a regular reader of the Daily Mail, but I am sure there were other people reading that article thinking that the Mail's ill advised use of language which was used just to produce a rather tactless and tasteless piece who will have been less than impressed by the Mail devaluing them and taking people back to Victorian times of the mentally ill being detained in "mad houses" with squalid conditions, akin to being in prison.
When the Mail is not being derogatory or inflammatory, it finds a way of being utterly trivial over completely irrelevant matters. A classic example was to be found in today's edition of the Mail On Sunday where it reported that a mother of an eight year old child was outraged to find out that the Nintendo Scrabble game that she had recently purchased her young Herbert was programmed so that the computer opponent could lay swear words, including the word "tits". Clearly, the mother and the Mail both know their anatomy but seem a little less clued up on their ornithology because the great thing about the English language is that so many words have separate meanings and the way that language evolves, over time I am sure that further meanings will enter the language. OK, maybe the designers of the game could have thought of programming in a swear filter wherever children were playing the game, but I am sure that young Herbert has heard worse language in the school playground. And that's just the teachers.
As a keen online Scrabble player myself, I have played many games in the past where I have laid much filthier words than what Herbert's artificial intelligence opponent laid in the knowledge that if the word is in the official Scrabble dictionary, it is a word and if it will get me some all important points on a triple word score then I will sacrifice some of my clean cut image in order to satisfy my competitive instincts. Given that the Mail and some of its tabloid companions are forever bemoaning the lack of competitiveness in schools because of "health and safety" and "mental scarring" and other such reasons, maybe we should encourage child players to broaden their vocabulary extensively in order to be competitive at Scrabble. After all, I bet a good number of us amateur Scrabble players started out by looking up a few choice vulgarities in the dictionary.
I could go on for hours about why I dislike the Daily Mail and what it stands for, but I think by now you probably understand the gist of my reasoning. It is a newspaper that yearns for and appeals to a Britain that no longer exists, almost like an Arian race. It is a newspaper that does not like people sticking their nose into other people's affairs and likes everyone to have a freedom of choice, and yet it has shown time and again the hypocrisy of its stance by constantly being a voyeur in other people's affairs and casting its self-righteous judgements and sometimes, this has removed other people's freedoms.
Added to which it is a newspaper that blows everything out of proportion with its constant scare mongering and outrage on the same cycle of recurring themes. That is not to say that these themes should not be explored, clearly we live in an imperfect country and an imperfect society. But the Mail's far right, draconian attitude just produces sensationalist headlines but nothing by way of advising on possible practical solutions. The Daily Telegraph is a newspaper whose politics lean to the right and makes no apologies for it, but it does at least analyse and rationalise. The Mail is just a vehicle for intolerant scribes with intolerant opinions. Consequently, people take what they read in the Mail as a true reflection when many times it presents a distorted picture. When this distorted picture is helping to form opinions, sometimes hysterical ones, particularly at a time of instability, then this is something to be concerned about.
I have come to the conclusion that the people who the editorial team of the Daily Mail are aiming its newspaper at are the very paper you would least wish to live next door to. The person who is always twitching the curtains commenting on what you or Mrs Smith at number 56 is up to. The person who asks you turn your music down even when it is mid-afternoon. The person who objects to you having a shed because it might block the light. The person who forever parks too far down and blocks you right in. The person who is obsessed by property prices and no doubt keeps the best biscuits for themselves at the local Residents' Association Meeting. We treat people of this ilk with contempt when we come across them in real life, therefore it is about time we treat their newspaper of choice with the contempt it deserves too and only purchase it in times of emergency. Namely, when we run out of Andrex.
For those people reading this blog and as people who know me will testify, I am not someone who has a lot of pet hates. Nothing really riles me that much and I am generally quite a laid back, tolerant person. However, there are some selected items and people that are certainly on my list in the unlikely event of me ever being invited onto Room 101 to banish my pet hates. Instruction manuals with diagrams that are impossible to understand and which seem to have instructions in every language except English are a shoe-in for the shortlist.
Also a certainty for the list are adverts for "no win no fee" lawyers, Injury Lawyers For You, that sort of thing. You want to know why the world is getting more politically correct? Well, it's because firms are scared of compensation claims in the claims culture that is so actively promoted by these legal firms who seem to take up such a vast percentage of TV adverts during the daytime. People that use text or MSN Messenger speak in everyday conversation also have to be banished to oblivion, there simply cannot be any justification for a person verbally saying "LOL" or "LMAO" when conversing on the bus, train or in the office. I also have a personal dislike of Sellotape given that in my experience I seem to often waste at least a quarter of the reel through the product sticking to itself.
And then of course there are the people that make even the most mild mannered, laid back person seethe with anger the moment they appear on television. Fortunately Jim Davidson doesn't appear on TV very often these days so we can put a line through him. However, the hideous cretin Paul Daniels still seems to appear on some adverts and so he needs to be here (incidentally the aforementioned Davidson did actually banish Daniels to Room 101 when he appeared on the show, so he has made himself useful once). And then there are the parasites who always seem to appear on TV at the first sign of somebody else's misfortune. I am particularly thinking here of Max Clifford and Piers Morgan.
Morgan leads us however to the institution in British life which I reserve a particular level of dislike to above any other. Ironic really, given that this institution has done more to promote hate and marginalisation of anybody and anything that does not fit into Middle England's ideal world. Yes folks, sitting at number 1 on my absolute list of things that must go into Room 101 is Britain's most hate and bile filled newspaper which only reserves good words for itself. I am of course referring to the Daily Mail.
So what do I particularly have against the Mail? Hell, where do I start? I think that it is the most propaganda filled newspaper in the country, which is always full of negative headlines. If it isn't railing against asylum seekers, it is railing against those that take advantage of the benefit system. If it rails against neither of those groups, it rails against political correctness or against big brother watching us. And when it doesn't do that, it tries to get people sacked without reporting the full facts and generally bitches about celebrities looking too thin, too fat, or having a bad hair day in the way that a group of giggly college girls would in the student common room. Or, it criticises newsreaders for wearing short skirts on the news.
Now, I am not saying that some of these topics are not worthy of being tackled critically. My problem is that the Mail never provides a balanced argument on anything and in fact only serves to scare monger and blow things out of proportion. Clearly there is a problem with asylum in this country but it is not as cut and dried as the Mail reports it. Some of the sensationalist headlines and reporting it provides on the subject pigeonhole every asylum seeker as being akin to something we would scrape off of our shoes, when really there are some people who have genuine, harrowing reasons to seek asylum here. It is also worth noting that a good number of people from overseas who take residence here add tremendous value to the labour market by taking on jobs, particularly within unskilled sectors that a good many British nationals do not have the inclination to do. My point is that the Mail's sensationalist approach tars everybody with the same brush and so its less informed readers will in turn tar everybody with the same brush, resulting in unsavoury scenes where groups of Little Englanders assemble outside asylum seeker detention centres to protest about them being in their backyard, as though they are among the same level of pondlife as paedophiles and rapists. Clearly this is a bad misrepresentation for those who are just being detained while their residency is being validated.
Equally, the benefits system is clearly there to serve an important purpose for those who are genuinely incapacitated through ill health or because they are caring for someone else who is ill. Obviously the problem is that wherever you have a system designed to be fair, there will be those who will take advantage for their own means and who often regard their benefits as paying better than actually working for a living. Those that cheat the system clearly need to be dealt with, but that does not make the principle of a benefits or welfare system wrong. What is required is an evaluation of the benefits system and a clear strategy around tackling those who abuse it with iron rather than kid gloves.
The Mail seems to have quite a scattergun, draconian approach to tackling its recurring series of hot potatoes. It offers up a regular dosage of scare mongering but does not seem to offer anything by way of insightful, solution based commentary. Rather than be insightful, the Mail's editorial and lead commentators tend to deal more in the inciteful. Very rarely does the paper have anything positive to say and just seems to deal in a constant stream of moral outrage, the sort of which seemed to be confined to Points Of View with letters from the likes of "Disgusted in Tunbridge Wells".
At the heart of things though, the Daily Mail holds itself up as a newspaper that opposes a nanny state, does not like any form interference in our lives and likes people to have a freedom of choice. Not bad principles at all if you stick to them. However, the Mail conveniently forgot these principles when it came to seizing the opportunity to find an Everest sized story steeped in moral outrage out of what was initially just a small molehill.
I am of course, referring to the Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand lewd phone calls situation. Now, I think everybody realises that Ross and Brand overstepped the mark of what were acceptable parameters for comedy. But, anyone would think that the pair of them had committed the crime of the century given the amount of press hysteria that it generated. A full week passed after the episode had been broadcast on Radio 2 before the story broke in the newspapers, and it was the Mail that broke the story. From there, all hell broke loose and outrage frenzy that the Mail generated resulted in the BBC receiving over 30,000 complaints.
It is worth bearing in mind, however, that at the time of the transmission, the programme received the grand sub-total of 2 complaints. And neither of these complaints were in relation to the lewd content of Ross and Brand's telephone messages for Andrew Sachs but because Jonathan Ross swore, albeit in a programme that went out at 9:15 on a Saturday night. So how on earth did 2 complaints snowball to 30,000? And how many of the 30,000 complainants had actually heard a full transmission? It is true that a number of people could have retrospectively complained about the broadcast by listening to a podcast of the show in the days that followed. But I very much doubt that the people who complained would have been avid users of a podcast facility and I expect of those that did, most only had the sudden urge to do so when they saw an opportunity to complain via the outraged pages of the Daily Mail.
The two newspapers that made the biggest song and dance over the story were the Mail and The Sun. The Sun building the story up for far greater than it was worth was not that surprising however, given that a scandal at the BBC is bound to be jumped on by a newspaper that so happens to be owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also so happens to be the magnate of one of the Beeb's chief competitors, Sky. Nothing like kicking your rivals while they are down and milking a scandal affecting them for all it is worth. But The Mail's location of its moral compass seemed to be more geared around providing its readers with a convenient platform to complain about society's ills.
The Mail has long been an opponent of the BBC chiefly because it is opposed to the licence fee. And what better amunition to support its stance against this BBC tax than to emphasise the folly of the fee contributing towards the highest paid employee's £6 million a year salary when that employee then goes and brings shame on himself and his bosses. I do not wish to use this article to talk about the arguments for or against a licence fee other than to say that a licence that works out at £11.62 a month is pretty decent value when compared to subscription based television and when it pays for the BBC's wide range of programming output including its excellent natural history programmes, documentaries, current affairs output and top drama and comedy, not to mention its commitment to innovation, BBC iPlayer being a very good example. The Mail's main argument against a licence fee is that it is a forced tax which pays for, what in its mind, is viewing for the minority and which differs from its political agenda. The Mail being the champion of middle England doesn't like any form of tax and so the BBC with its licence fee is a sworn enemy.
A line I have seen spun by Mail columnists in both print and also when they have appeared on television is that the BBC "no longer represents the interests of public service broadcasting". Absolutely right it doesn't, because while Mail columnists may like to cling on those halcyon days of newsreaders speaking with a stiff upper lip, weather forecasters having to use magnetic symbols rather than computer generations in order to show the next day's weather outlook and those terribly quaint Pathe news reels telling everybody in patronising tone about a state visit from the US President of the time, their perception of what public service broadcasting is and what it should be is as dead as a dodo. Time has moved on and in order to stay ahead of the game and remain innovative and reach the changing demands of its audience, so the BBC has had to adjust accordingly. So while Mail columnists will tell you that the BBC have wasted their time by plugging BBC Three and BBC Four because nobody watches them, the BBC are clearly mindful of a digital revolution. In 2012, the analogue signal is turned off for good, meaning that anyone who owns a television will have access to these channels, and so consequently, over time their audience figures will rise. Also, given that programmes such as Gavin and Stacey and Lead Balloon started out on BBC3 and are now being shown on the two main BBC channels, that would suggest enough people watched them on BBC3 in the first place to suggest there would be a demand for a bigger audience to watch these programmes.
The Mail's hate campaign against Ross shows no sign of abating. They want blood and clearly they will not stop campaigning until Ross is eventually forced out of the BBC. There are two reasons for their dislike of Ross. Firstly, he earns £6 million a year and they do not think he is worth it. Secondly, he is very fiercely protective of his private life and on more than one occasion now, he has taken out injunctions through his lawyers to prevent newspapers or glossy magazines from showing photographs of him on holiday with his family or playing with his children in the park. After Andrew Sachs's privacy was invaded courtesy of the most expensive prank calls in history, this leads the newspapers to smell some hypocrisy in the air and the hacks don't like hypocrisy, unless of course it is perpetrated by the newspapers and then it just gets swept under the carpet or an apology appears on page 23.
Back on the salary for a second, the key thing to note here is that Jonathan Ross did not ask to be paid £6 million. The BBC offered it to him as at the time that his contract was negotiated, a rival network were prepared to offer Ross a king's ransom to acquire his services. Market forces were at work, but clearly as the BBC regarded Ross as their trump card, rightly so in my opinion, then they were absolutely right to pay the going rate in order to ensure that they retained his services. Obviously, Ross has put himself and his employers in a difficult position now because to many, the justification for paying that salary went the moment he informed Andrew Sachs of whose bed his granddaughter had been in. Nonetheless, there is one thing above all that I do not like about the Mail's pursuance on this matter.
The bugbear that I have is that the Daily Mail believes itself to be a champion of fairness and of democracy. Right, fair enough. However, thanks to the Mail's vehement campaign to get its readers to contact the BBC and complain about the broadcast, it has resulted in a situation where viewers and listeners who would never ordinarily watch or listen to Ross's broadcasts have forced him off air and this has deprived the legions of fans of Wossy who do watch his chat show, film programme and listen to his Saturday morning Radio 2 show from being able to do so because the "moral majority" have helpfully decided that there is no place for him on the BBC, despite the fact that they don't watch or listen to his broadcasts anyway. Quite what form of democracy this is I do not know, but it does seem that viewers have been penalised by a bunch of do-gooders. And I thought that the Mail didn't like do-gooders either.
Ross, I am sure will be back once his suspension is served at the end of January, but it will take a long time before he is able to restore himself to being the kingpin of light entertainment because he is always just one mild flirtation, one utterance of an obscenity or one near the knuckle punchline away from offending some Mavis or Dorothy in Curtaintwitcherland and then prompting the next witch-hunt. It seems ironic, that given that the Daily Mail is a champion of free speech that we find ourselves at the moment in a situation where anybody who says anything remotely controversial, even when it is obviously in jest, find themselves being subjected to calls to be sacked by those faceless people who seem to think they are our moral guardians. A classic example of this came with Jeremy Clarkson recently, never a man to be taken at face value, but who found himself with his head on the block after he made an off the cuff remark about lorry drivers on an episode of Top Gear. Clearly Clarkson was just making a cheap gag, but there was no need for people to get on their high horse.
I hold the Daily Mail responsible for whipping up this recent spate of moral outrage. Maybe it is a sign of the times that because the country is feeling the pinch and we are heading for a recession that people feel they have more of a right to air their grievances, but I think that the constant stream of inflammatory headlines and tarty editorials that the Mail runs are contributory factors for this hysteria.
One last thing about Ross before we move on. I happened to read the Daily Mail early last week and turned to Richard Littlejohn's column. Littlejohn is the type of jumped up, little Englander columnist who typically writes for the Mail and the only thing balanced about him is that he wears a chip on both his shoulders. Anyway, in his column he declared his disgust that The Guardian newspaper was giving away free wrapping paper that had supposedly been designed by Jonathan Ross, ending with the throwaway line "What next, free Gary Glitter pyjamas?" A cheap shot and surely whatever one thinks of Ross or what he has done, comparing him to a convicted paedophile goes way over the boundary of acceptable banter. Ross will not need the money, even with his current suspension, but if he read these remarks by Littlejohn, I think he would be well within his rights to take legal action against both Littlejohn and the newspaper over comments that could be construed as a defamation of character.
As part of my preparation for writing this article, I have read articles from the Mail during the course of this week, although I would like to point out that I have not wasted any money on purchasing this glorified Izal at any point. When reading the paper, I tried to think of words that would sum up the writing style of the paper and the tone of its articles. Plenty of words sprang to mind, but I cannot say that any of them were particularly positive and I will keep a few of them back as this is a family blog. Among the cleaner words that I felt were particularly apt were vitriolic, misleading, inflammatory, gloomy, spiteful, bitchy, vengeful, nauseating and abhorrent.
There was one particularly nauseating piece I recall reading on the same day as the Littlejohn remark which was a double page spread on Britney Spears. Britney is kind of gold dust for the Daily Mail and its readership. A girl from a poor background in the US's deep south, who found fame at a young age but who has fallen upon hard times and who fell in with the wrong crowd and has seen her children taken away from her. The Mail likes a good story about irresponsible parenting and the cult of fallen celebrity so its star studded crew of bitchy female writers can sit in judgement and make unkind remarks, presumably for no other reason than that they envy the subject's looks or lifestyle, if not what that lifestyle has made them.
The piece on Ms Spears was partly in relation to her miming act on the X Factor which I am not in a position to comment on given that I don't watch programmes where the judges regard themselves as bigger stars than the contestants, hence why I have also gone off of Strictly Come Dancing. But anyway, the bit which I found particularly distasteful in the Mail's piece was its description of Britney "possibly going mad".
Now, there are clearly a number of contributory factors that have led to Britney Spears's life spiralling out of control, her drink and drug dependencies certainly being significant factors and I would say that these may have been a bi-product of her finding fame at a young age and being pushed into being a child performer by her parents. But, what is certainly a fact is that Britney Spears has been diagnosed with a mental health condition and has received treatment for this. She has suffered from manic depression, or bipolar disorder as it is more commonly referred to now, and I gather she also suffered from symptoms of personality disorder, which if I understand mental health treatments correctly, is currently one form of mental illness that is not treatable through prescribed medication.
The Daily Mail's use of the word "mad" I felt was grossly inappropriate and it is use of strong, emphatic words like "mad", "insane", "lunatic", "psycho" and "nutter" when referring to people suffering from a mental health condition that results in people perceiving someone who is mentally ill as being a second class citizen, incapable or a danger to society. Everyone generalises and makes snap judgements to some degree or another in life as it is a defence mechanism, people have their principles and assessments which they have to ensure their safety and those of the people they are close to. That much is understood, but the use of such powerful, emotive and derogatory words and phrases does at times result in people being labelled and stigmatised. One in five people will at some point suffer a psychotic or neurotic episode in their life. Does that mean that one in five of us are mad or insane or crazy? Of course not. Mental health problems take many forms and there are many circumstances that trigger them, bereavement, relationship breakdowns, financial difficulties, violence, unemployment, addictions, to name but a few examples. These are common everyday problems that affect all of us at some point and so all of us are potentially fragile to a breakdown, especially as life in general is more pressurised and stressful than 15 or 20 years ago.
By the Mail referring to the madness of Britney Spears, it marginalised not just her but anyone out there who is dealing with or who has overcome a mental health condition. It should not worry Britney so much as I doubt she is a regular reader of the Daily Mail, but I am sure there were other people reading that article thinking that the Mail's ill advised use of language which was used just to produce a rather tactless and tasteless piece who will have been less than impressed by the Mail devaluing them and taking people back to Victorian times of the mentally ill being detained in "mad houses" with squalid conditions, akin to being in prison.
When the Mail is not being derogatory or inflammatory, it finds a way of being utterly trivial over completely irrelevant matters. A classic example was to be found in today's edition of the Mail On Sunday where it reported that a mother of an eight year old child was outraged to find out that the Nintendo Scrabble game that she had recently purchased her young Herbert was programmed so that the computer opponent could lay swear words, including the word "tits". Clearly, the mother and the Mail both know their anatomy but seem a little less clued up on their ornithology because the great thing about the English language is that so many words have separate meanings and the way that language evolves, over time I am sure that further meanings will enter the language. OK, maybe the designers of the game could have thought of programming in a swear filter wherever children were playing the game, but I am sure that young Herbert has heard worse language in the school playground. And that's just the teachers.
As a keen online Scrabble player myself, I have played many games in the past where I have laid much filthier words than what Herbert's artificial intelligence opponent laid in the knowledge that if the word is in the official Scrabble dictionary, it is a word and if it will get me some all important points on a triple word score then I will sacrifice some of my clean cut image in order to satisfy my competitive instincts. Given that the Mail and some of its tabloid companions are forever bemoaning the lack of competitiveness in schools because of "health and safety" and "mental scarring" and other such reasons, maybe we should encourage child players to broaden their vocabulary extensively in order to be competitive at Scrabble. After all, I bet a good number of us amateur Scrabble players started out by looking up a few choice vulgarities in the dictionary.
I could go on for hours about why I dislike the Daily Mail and what it stands for, but I think by now you probably understand the gist of my reasoning. It is a newspaper that yearns for and appeals to a Britain that no longer exists, almost like an Arian race. It is a newspaper that does not like people sticking their nose into other people's affairs and likes everyone to have a freedom of choice, and yet it has shown time and again the hypocrisy of its stance by constantly being a voyeur in other people's affairs and casting its self-righteous judgements and sometimes, this has removed other people's freedoms.
Added to which it is a newspaper that blows everything out of proportion with its constant scare mongering and outrage on the same cycle of recurring themes. That is not to say that these themes should not be explored, clearly we live in an imperfect country and an imperfect society. But the Mail's far right, draconian attitude just produces sensationalist headlines but nothing by way of advising on possible practical solutions. The Daily Telegraph is a newspaper whose politics lean to the right and makes no apologies for it, but it does at least analyse and rationalise. The Mail is just a vehicle for intolerant scribes with intolerant opinions. Consequently, people take what they read in the Mail as a true reflection when many times it presents a distorted picture. When this distorted picture is helping to form opinions, sometimes hysterical ones, particularly at a time of instability, then this is something to be concerned about.
I have come to the conclusion that the people who the editorial team of the Daily Mail are aiming its newspaper at are the very paper you would least wish to live next door to. The person who is always twitching the curtains commenting on what you or Mrs Smith at number 56 is up to. The person who asks you turn your music down even when it is mid-afternoon. The person who objects to you having a shed because it might block the light. The person who forever parks too far down and blocks you right in. The person who is obsessed by property prices and no doubt keeps the best biscuits for themselves at the local Residents' Association Meeting. We treat people of this ilk with contempt when we come across them in real life, therefore it is about time we treat their newspaper of choice with the contempt it deserves too and only purchase it in times of emergency. Namely, when we run out of Andrex.
Friday 5 December 2008
The playlist - 5 December 2008
As an occasional feature, I thought I would share with you the music that I listen to while I am writing my blogs and generally pottering around on the computer. I have well over 2,000 tracks on my iTunes to choose from and this includes quite a range of songs from different genres, some mainstream, some less well known, some new music and some older tunes.
Through checking my iTunes usage while working at the computer this morning and yesterday, all of the following songs were played. I hope I can provide some inspiration for some of you to go out and download some of these tracks, as there are some real gems to be listened to here.
PLAYLIST
Elbow: The Fix
Elbow: One Day Like This
Coldplay: Life In Technicolor II
Coldplay: Lovers In Japan (Osaka Sun mix)
Coldplay: Lost! (original version)
Coldplay: Talk
Coldplay: Violet Hill
Coldplay: Green Eyes
Coldplay: Fix You
Coldplay: Shiver
Killers: Human
Killers: Spaceman
Killers: Joy Ride
Killers: This Is Your Life
Killers: Neon Tiger
Killers: The World We Live In
Killers: Read My Mind
Killers: All These Things That I've Done
Killers: Smile Like You Mean It
Waterboys: All The Things She Gave Me
Waterboys: Whole Of The Moon
Waterboys: Fishermen's Blues
Waterboys: Strange Boat
Bluetones: Slight Return
Snow Patrol: How To Be Dead
Razorlight: Golden Touch
Razorlight: Wire To Wire
Primal Scream: Country Girl
Morrissey: First Of The Gang To Die
Stone Roses: Mersey Paradise
The Coral: Bill McCai
Oasis: I'm Outta Time
The Rasmus: In The Shadows
Muse: Hysteria
Neill MacColl/Kathryn Williams: Weather Forever
Madness: Lovestruck
Specials: Ghost Town
Fun Boy Three: Our Lips Are Sealed
Pretenders: Kid
Pretenders: I Go To Sleep
Sharleen Spiteri: It Was You
Semisonic: Closing Time
Smashmouth: Walking On The Sun
Simple Minds: Up On The Catwalk
Simple Minds: Someone Somewhere In Summertime
Metallica: Nothing Else Matters
Zombies: She's Not There
Queen: A Kind Of Magic
Onerepublic: Stop & Stare
New Order: True Faith
Nerina Pallot: Everybody's Gone To War
Kooks: You Don't Love Me
Kaiser Chiefs: Never Miss A Beat
James: Laid
Chemical Brothers: Galvanize
Badly Drawn Boy: Silent Sigh
Crowded House: Even A Child
Aztec Camera: Somewhere In My Heart
Blur: Out Of Time
Through checking my iTunes usage while working at the computer this morning and yesterday, all of the following songs were played. I hope I can provide some inspiration for some of you to go out and download some of these tracks, as there are some real gems to be listened to here.
PLAYLIST
Elbow: The Fix
Elbow: One Day Like This
Coldplay: Life In Technicolor II
Coldplay: Lovers In Japan (Osaka Sun mix)
Coldplay: Lost! (original version)
Coldplay: Talk
Coldplay: Violet Hill
Coldplay: Green Eyes
Coldplay: Fix You
Coldplay: Shiver
Killers: Human
Killers: Spaceman
Killers: Joy Ride
Killers: This Is Your Life
Killers: Neon Tiger
Killers: The World We Live In
Killers: Read My Mind
Killers: All These Things That I've Done
Killers: Smile Like You Mean It
Waterboys: All The Things She Gave Me
Waterboys: Whole Of The Moon
Waterboys: Fishermen's Blues
Waterboys: Strange Boat
Bluetones: Slight Return
Snow Patrol: How To Be Dead
Razorlight: Golden Touch
Razorlight: Wire To Wire
Primal Scream: Country Girl
Morrissey: First Of The Gang To Die
Stone Roses: Mersey Paradise
The Coral: Bill McCai
Oasis: I'm Outta Time
The Rasmus: In The Shadows
Muse: Hysteria
Neill MacColl/Kathryn Williams: Weather Forever
Madness: Lovestruck
Specials: Ghost Town
Fun Boy Three: Our Lips Are Sealed
Pretenders: Kid
Pretenders: I Go To Sleep
Sharleen Spiteri: It Was You
Semisonic: Closing Time
Smashmouth: Walking On The Sun
Simple Minds: Up On The Catwalk
Simple Minds: Someone Somewhere In Summertime
Metallica: Nothing Else Matters
Zombies: She's Not There
Queen: A Kind Of Magic
Onerepublic: Stop & Stare
New Order: True Faith
Nerina Pallot: Everybody's Gone To War
Kooks: You Don't Love Me
Kaiser Chiefs: Never Miss A Beat
James: Laid
Chemical Brothers: Galvanize
Badly Drawn Boy: Silent Sigh
Crowded House: Even A Child
Aztec Camera: Somewhere In My Heart
Blur: Out Of Time
Thursday 4 December 2008
Sports Personality Of The Year
Now that December has begun, the gritters are out in force in the north of England and already the doors of advent calendars are being opened are around the country, it means another end of year tradition is nearly upon us again. Yes, the BBC Sports Personality of the Year is about to be decided and for once, it should make for very interesting viewing.
Earlier this week, the BBC announced a shortlist of ten which the British voting public can vote for on the night of the ceremony, which is on Sunday week, 14 December. As you would expect, given the British Olympians' fantastic performance at the Beijing Games, the shortlist consists of several gold medal winners. From the pool, there is swimming's golden girl Rebecca Adlington, while Olympic 400 metre champion Christine Ohururogu makes the shortlist for the second year in succession. Sailor Ben Ainslie is rewarded for his third successive gold medal winning Games with a nomination as well, but the sport that has the strongest representation is cycling, unsurprising given how well Great Britain did in the velodrome at the Games. Chris Hoy is one of four candidates who use pedal power, with road race winner Nicole Cooke, Rebecca Romero and Bradley Wiggins completing cycling's quartet of candidates.
Despite the year being dominated by the Olympics and Britain's golden summer in the Far East, there are three sporting figures who make the shortlist as reward for their achievements during the year. Lewis Hamilton leads the charge and is the bookmakers' favourite to go one better on his second place finish last year having won Formula 1's World Drivers' Championship on the final lap of the final race of the season in what is only his second season in motor sport's blue riband competition. Meanwhile, last year's winner Joe Calzaghe finds himself on the shortlist again having stretched his unbeaten fight record to 46 bouts with his recent victory over Roy Jones Junior. Completing the magic ten is Andy Murray, reward for an excellent campaign which has seen Murray rise to number 4 in the world rankings, win two Masters Series tournaments and reach his first Grand Slam final on his favoured hard courts at the US Open.
Looking at the candidates, all of them have enjoyed an excellent year and all have achieved what they have this year through hard work, dedication and no shortage of sacrifices. Hamilton having made history by winning F1's Drivers' Championship in his second season and in doing so becoming the youngest ever winner of that coveted prize is justifiably the favourite and he would be a worthy winner if he does end up landing the prize. Yet, for all that, I feel Hamilton will have several more opportunities to win this accolade given his rich talent and ruthless determination, especially as he develops more mental maturity and experience makes him stronger. As long as he has a competitive car and a clean bill of health, I expect him to be capable of winning several more Drivers' Championships, even allowing for the strong competition he faces in his sport from the likes of Fernando Alonso, Kimi Raikkonen, Felipe Massa, Sebastien Vettel and Robert Kubica. Hamilton will define another sporting year and be in contention again. That is not to disparage his excellent achievement this year, but to say that the defining sporting achievements and memories so far as this sporting year are concerned were made in Beijing.
Of the seven Olympians who have been nominated on the shortlist, the achievements of three in particular I feel stand out from the crowd. Firstly in the pool, Rebecca Adlington's double gold medal haul was the stuff of dreams. Coming into the Games, Adlington was seen as a medal prospect by those within the Olympic swimming camp, but her previous performances did not provide any pointers for what was to come. Firstly, Adlington won the 400 metres Freestyle with a determined finish and just got home for gold. This was not Adlington's favoured event and so her victory was all the more unexpected. In winning, Adlington became the first British woman to win an Olympic gold medal in the pool since Anita Lonsborough in 1960.
But, then came her crowning glory. She won the gold medal in the 800 metres freestyle, one of the endurance events so far as competition swimming is concerned. I remember watching the final live in the early hours of the morning and what I saw was one of the most remarkable feats of this sporting year. Adlington led the race all the way and she blew the rest of the field to shreds. It showed great confidence and audacity on her part to have the belief in her body to make all the running, knowing that she would have enough left in the latter stages to get home. But, it worked spectacularly well and in winning her second gold, Adlington broke Janet Evans' world record by nearly three seconds. At the time, this was her sport's longest standing world record and it had stood for 20 years. Adlington did not just break the record, she shattered it, and unless Adlington breaks the record again herself, you would think it would be some time before anyone else breaks her record.
Adlington at just 19 is quite likely to still be around in 2012 to add to her gold medal haul and that may present her with another opportunity to win this award. But it is worth bearing in mind that Adlington was not widely expected to achieve the success she had in Beijing and so in four years time, she may not have the same level of form or fitness required to get the golds again. On the whole, swimmers tend to peak at an early age and this is particularly the case where female swimmers are concerned. Sharron Davies won a silver medal at the Moscow Olympics when she was just 17 years old and she retired from her sport at the age of 20, before making a comeback several years later. Adlington is a young woman in the limelight now with all the trappings that go with it. The intrusion on her privacy may see her wish for a quieter life, or it is possible that having made the sacrifices in order to reach the top of her sport, she might wish to retreat and do the things that other 19-20 year old girls do.
It is hard to say where her future will take her, but Adlington will surely find it difficult to top the year she has just had. Added to which, she will also appeal to those observers who point out that the trophy is called "Sports Personality Of The Year". Sometimes, there are a contingent, I must say that I am not one myself, but there are a contingent who would disregard some of the great sporting achievers for this trophy because their focused, ruthless approach to winning means that they appear surly or dull and therefore short of a personality. Whatever floats your boat, but in Adlington's case she ticks all the boxes. Not only is she a very determined athlete who has achieved great success, but she also comes across a very bubbly, down to earth girl who seems like great fun. If people are using this human quality as a criteria for winning this award then Adlington is surely a major contender.
The other two Olympians who deserve special mention are both from the velodrome. Chris Hoy won three gold medals at the Beijing Games in total, including two in individual competition as well as an additional gold in the team sprint competition. This haul of golds added to the gold that Hoy had already won at the Athens games in 2004 as well as a silver medal in Sydney in 2000. Such an amount of golds put Hoy in the realms of British Olympic legends status, along with five time Olympic gold medal winner Sir Steve Redgrave. Hoy will be 36 in 2012 and although the physical demands of training for his sport could have caught up with him by then, so long as Hoy's body holds up and his single mindedness remains intact, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Hoy could win gold medal number five in London and then get a tap on the shoulder from the postage stamp head of the day.
It was interesting to see that the aforementioned Redgrave had championed Hoy as his winner of the award for this year. I am sure that Redgrave sees in Hoy a man made of the same stuff as he was in his competitive days. Both compete in physically demanding sports that require total dedication, getting up early on cold mornings with a stiff back to go training. Hoy, like Redgrave, seems to be held up as the benchmark in his sport who everyone else looks up to and is inspired by. Whether Hoy wins this award or not, he will leave a fantastic legacy in his sport when he retires and will encourage the next generation of Olympians to pass their cycling proficiency test and get on the saddle competitively.
The third person I will single out is not as heralded as much as either Adlington or Hoy, but her achievement is every bit as remarkable. I am talking about Rebecca Romero, who won gold in the women's individual pursuit at the Beijing Games. This was a sensational achievement for Romero, given that she had only been participating in the sport for two years. Four years earlier, Romero had been part of Britain's Olympic rowing team where she won silver as part of the quad sculls team. She was forced to retire from rowing soon afterwards due to injury but then took up cycling in 2006. The rest is history.
In the final of the pursuit in Beijing, she defeated fellow Briton Wendy Houvenaghel for the gold medal and in doing so became the first British woman in modern times to win Olympic medals in two completely different sports. She was recently asked whether she would compete in a third sport in 2012 and said she was giving it strong consideration. Should Romero go ahead and do this and end up getting a medal of any colour, she could rightly consider herself among Britain's finest ever Olympians.
Romero is not everyone's cup of tea personality wise. To many people, she is seen as aloof, over-opinionated and selfish. I dare say she probably has all of these traits. Even by her own admission, she said that one thing she prefers about cycling to rowing is that she prefers competing in an individual sport so that she is only accountable to herself and her own performance. These are words that perhaps do not sit well with everybody. But two things. Firstly, give credit to Romero for her honesty in saying this. Some people simply are more suited to working individually than working in a team. Secondly, the very traits which rub some people up the wrong way are likely to also be contributory factors in her being the single minded winner that she is. Take away some of these traits and you take away her edge. And without that edge, her extraordinary achievements would probably not have happened.
Of the rest of the candidates not already mentioned, Joe Calzaghe had his glory in winning this accolade last year and his subsequent victories over Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones Junior further confirm his place among boxing's greats. But he was validated for an extraordinary career in winning this award last year and so given the remarkable achievements elsewhere, he is unlikely to win again this year, even allowing for his increased popularity with the public. Andy Murray has had a breakthrough year which has seen him establish himself as a genuine contender for winning Grand Slam tournaments, certainly on hard surfaces. But he now needs to take things to the next level and win a Slam in order to win this award. I am pretty certain that provided he stays fit, his time will come. Christine Ohururogu showed great guts to win her gold medal in the 400 metres but a section of the public still regard her as a "drugs cheat" because of her three missed tests and this was reflected in her lack of support when up for the award last year. Given her competition this time around, it is hard to see her faring much better this time.
In all likelihood, I expect Lewis Hamilton to win the public votes and therefore take the main prize. But in terms of who I would vote for, I would look to vote for whose achievement defined this sporting year, and by the same token, which sportsperson was most defined by this year. This leads me back to the Olympics and so for me, it is a straight choice between Hoy and Adlington. I suppose for some people, the fact they compete in "minority" or "non-mainstream" sports will count against them. I find this quite a sad and myopic reflection that people look at achievements in this way. Just because these sports are not on the television every week does not make them any less worthy, and let's face it, there are some more mainstream sports where British success has been sadly lacking in recent times.
It is a tough call because I think both Hoy and Adlington have had a remarkable year and both would be worthy winners for what they have achieved. If coerced to make a choice though then I would choose Rebecca Adlington. Having never been much of a swimmer myself, I have always had a healthy respect for those that reach the pinnacle of achievement in the pool and as a sports fan, when I watched Adlington break the world record in the 800 metres freestyle in Beijing, I thought I had witnessed something extremely special. She had destroyed a top class field and shattered a long standing world record. Adlington may never have another year like 2008, just as Jonathan Edwards never matched his magnificent triple jump performances of 1995 in his career thereafter. Chris Hoy's multiple gold medal haul certainly deserves recognition too, but maybe the twilight in 2012 will bring about a fitting finale. Messrs Hamilton and Murray will both define a sporting year one day, while Calzaghe defined the sporting year of 2007.
Deciding who should win the big prize should seem a doddle though when compared to deciding who should win the Overseas Sports Personality of the Year. For me, there are three outstanding candidates, all of whom have very justifiable reasons for why they should win the award. Firstly, there is Rafael Nadal, who has enjoyed his most successful year in the sport to date and brought about a shift in the power structure at the top of the men's game. Nadal won his fourth straight French Open on the clay of Roland Garros, thereby confirming himself as the undisputed king of that surface, in many people's eyes he is the finest clay court player of all time. If winning in Paris was a formality, winning his first title at Wimbledon was anything but. Nonetheless, Nadal made it third time lucky against his great rival Roger Federer in the final in what surely was the greatest tennis match of all time. This victory confirmed Rafael Nadal as the new world number 1 and as if all this was not enough, Nadal capped off his year by winning the gold medal in the Olympics.
Nadal is now established as one of the world's top athletes and watching him charging around court at times is pure poetry. But the frightening thing is that his best is probably yet to come. If he avoids injury, he could set all kinds of records in the French Open. But he also now looks like the man to beat at Wimbledon too, although his enduring rivalry with Federer will be renewed again next year with Federer eager to show that his relatively disappointing 2008 was a blip and that he is not a fading force just yet. For Nadal to really demonstrate his greatness, he needs to put in more of a show in the hard court Slams. He has yet to advance past the semi-finals of either the Australian or US Opens and that will surely be an area he will look to improve upon next year. Even so, Nadal has had an incredible year and would be a worthy Overseas Personality of the Year, especially for his part in the epic sporting contest of the year.
Having declared my admiration for top swimmers, it will come as no surprise that I advocate Michael Phelps as a genuine candidate for this award. Phelps simply has confirmed himself as one of the greatest Olympians of all time, having won eight gold medals in Beijing to add to the six that he had won in Athens. There will be some snobbery in certain quarters with people saying that it was easy for Phelps to win so many gold medals because of the number of events and strokes there are to compete in, but I disagree with that line of thought and in fact I think it makes his achievement all the more special. Including all the heats, semi-finals and then the finals that Phelps must have swum in in order to win his gold medals, he must have participated in over 20 races during the course of the Beijing Olympics. Factor in that this involved swimming over a number of different distances and changing from stroke to stroke and that Phelps's eight gold medals also resulted in him or his team breaking the world record in seven events and the Olympic record in the other, you get some idea at how phenomenal Phelps's achievement was.
That Phelps is now regarded as the greatest swimmer of all time is a no-brainer. He just needs to count his medals in order to prove that he is. But by winning so prolifically in front of a world audience, he has become a sporting icon and his success and status significantly transcends his sport. Just as Mark Spitz's seven gold medals at the Munich Olympics of 1972 have kept him in the pages of Olympic folklore since he retired, so Michael Phelps will still be mentioned in 30 years time and probably 50 years time. Given that the number of swimming events are likely to be reduced rather than increased in future Olympics, it is going to be a very long time before Phelps sees his medal haul surpassed by another swimmer. Not bad at all for a man who when he was a child was picked on for wearing a brace on his teeth.
Nadal and Phelps's achievements this year would win this award in the vast majority of years. In fact, credit too to Padraig Harrington who became the first European to successfully defend the Open Championship golf title for over 30 years and followed that up by also winning the US PGA Championship. His achievements in another year would have received greater recognition. But this has been no ordinary sporting year and there is one bolt from the blue who will in all likelihood ensure that messrs Nadal, Phelps and Harrington will not be adorning their mantlepiece this year with the Overseas Personality award.
This bolt, of course is Usain Bolt. At the start of the year, it is unlikely that too many eyes will have been cast on Bolt having the Olympics that he ended up having. Tyson Gay and Bolt's compatriot Asafa Powell came into 2008 as the two sprinters who most seasoned followers of the sprint events would have identified as the chief candidates and when Bolt broke the 100 metres world record in the run-up to the Olympics, it was the first time that his name had come into the wider public consciousness. But this world record was just a prelude for what was to come.
Bolt's 100 metres victory and world record at Beijing seems relatively routine now, yet to think back to it, what is all the more remarkable is how Bolt eased up towards the line with the race won and yet still ended up breaking the world record. It is frightening to think what sort of time Bolt could record over 100 metres if he ran flat out, but one can only hope that in time Bolt runs a race where he does run flat out so we can see what time he could clock under those circumstances. Needless to say, I think it would result in a world record that would take a long time to beat.
If the casual nature in which Bolt won the 100 metres was not enough, his victory in the 200 metres will linger long in the memory. One of my sporting heroes when I was younger was Michael Johnson and I can recall the night that he won the 200 metres at the Atlanta Olympics and shattered the world record to boot. It was the night of my eighteenth birthday and I remember coming home from a few celebratory coming of age beverages to see Johnson make history running in his gold spikes. That night he ran 200 metres in 19.32 seconds and I remembered thinking that in order to run that time, if you split the race into two halves, in at least one half he would have had to have shattered the 100 metres record of the time, which was quite something given that Johnson never ran the 100 metres.
I expected that by the time anyone broke Johnson's 200 metres record, I would be at least double the age I was at the time when he set the record. But I had reckoned without anyone as incredible as Bolt coming along and clearly setting his eyes not just on winning the race but breaking the record. Bolt ran the race of his life in the 200 metres final and showed more intensity in running this race than he did in the 100 metres. It was as though he knew he could run 100 metres but that the 200 metres would require more of an effort. The extra effort he put in saw him shave two one-hundredths of a second off of Johnson's twelve year record and one of athletics' most difficult records to break had been taken. One great athlete from a previous generation had seen his record taken by a great athlete from a new generation. Perfect symmetry, as Keane might say.
Bolt rounded off his incredible Olympics by anchoring the Jamaican 4 x 100 relay team to gold and another world record and in completing this hat-trick of golds and world records, became the first male track and field athlete since Carl Lewis in 1984 to win three separate golds in the course of the same Olympics. His results and records speak for themselves and at 22, you would hope and expect that this is just the beginning of the Usain Bolt story. By the time he has finished, he has the potential to rewrite the record books time and again, and set a daunting target for whoever follows him.
But it is not just Bolt's medals and his times that should see him win this accolade. It is the manner in which he has done it. He is an icon for his sport at a time when his sport has been crying out for one. His approach to racing has been so refreshing and so laid back, you would be forgiven for thinking he was just out having a casual training run given how calm and sure of himself he was on the track. Bolt's personable character allied with his extraordinary achievements have provided his sport and his country with a true icon and given how athletics has been badly tarnished by drugs cheats in recent years, Bolt's success and profile provides athletics with a much needed shot in the arm which hopefully will see more athletics followers reignite their love for the sport and give youngsters a hero to aspire to. For his country too, Bolt's success will rekindle the Jamaican public's love for its sport after a barren few years so far as team sports have been concerned.
Above all though, when I think back on the sporting year of 2008, as much as I will remember the Nadal-Federer final at Wimbledon as the best tennis match of all time and as much as I will long remember Michael Phelps's astonishing achievements in the pool, above all I will remember it for seeing Usain Bolt tear up the pages of history on the track, leaving everyone trailing in his wake and setting records that I am sure will only serve as a platform for the rest of his career, which by the time he has finished, will stand the test of time. And Bolt did it all with what seemed to me like a naive enjoyment of what he was doing and of life itself. It sends out a fantastic message if you can enjoy your work and Bolt did that in front of a television audience of many millions. For that reason, I hope he wins the main award, although I certainly respect the merits of both Nadal and Phelps taking this award.
So, Adlington for the main award and Bolt for the Overseas Personality would be my personal choice and if Manchester United could land the Team of the Year award for their Premier League and Champions League double, then things would be perfect. Nonetheless, I think the British Olympic cycling team are just as deserving having exceeded all expectations in Beijing and showing that Britain at this time is the nation to fear in the velodrome. The investment in infrastructure and in the individual riders that has come as a result of Lottery funding has paid dividends twentyfold and in years to come, Britain will surely achieve further success as a result of the next generation of cyclists being inspired by the efforts of Chris Hoy, Bradley Wiggins, Rebecca Romero, Victoria Pendleton, et al.
Whether my personal selections end up winning the awards this year or not, after a few years in the doldrums, the sporting success of the year should at least ensure that Sports Personality of the Year is a showpiece event again this year and that the programme for once does not drag. Long may the sporting success continue, as in times of difficulty and depression elsewhere, it does at least provide people with something to momentarily cheer them up when Britain does well.
Earlier this week, the BBC announced a shortlist of ten which the British voting public can vote for on the night of the ceremony, which is on Sunday week, 14 December. As you would expect, given the British Olympians' fantastic performance at the Beijing Games, the shortlist consists of several gold medal winners. From the pool, there is swimming's golden girl Rebecca Adlington, while Olympic 400 metre champion Christine Ohururogu makes the shortlist for the second year in succession. Sailor Ben Ainslie is rewarded for his third successive gold medal winning Games with a nomination as well, but the sport that has the strongest representation is cycling, unsurprising given how well Great Britain did in the velodrome at the Games. Chris Hoy is one of four candidates who use pedal power, with road race winner Nicole Cooke, Rebecca Romero and Bradley Wiggins completing cycling's quartet of candidates.
Despite the year being dominated by the Olympics and Britain's golden summer in the Far East, there are three sporting figures who make the shortlist as reward for their achievements during the year. Lewis Hamilton leads the charge and is the bookmakers' favourite to go one better on his second place finish last year having won Formula 1's World Drivers' Championship on the final lap of the final race of the season in what is only his second season in motor sport's blue riband competition. Meanwhile, last year's winner Joe Calzaghe finds himself on the shortlist again having stretched his unbeaten fight record to 46 bouts with his recent victory over Roy Jones Junior. Completing the magic ten is Andy Murray, reward for an excellent campaign which has seen Murray rise to number 4 in the world rankings, win two Masters Series tournaments and reach his first Grand Slam final on his favoured hard courts at the US Open.
Looking at the candidates, all of them have enjoyed an excellent year and all have achieved what they have this year through hard work, dedication and no shortage of sacrifices. Hamilton having made history by winning F1's Drivers' Championship in his second season and in doing so becoming the youngest ever winner of that coveted prize is justifiably the favourite and he would be a worthy winner if he does end up landing the prize. Yet, for all that, I feel Hamilton will have several more opportunities to win this accolade given his rich talent and ruthless determination, especially as he develops more mental maturity and experience makes him stronger. As long as he has a competitive car and a clean bill of health, I expect him to be capable of winning several more Drivers' Championships, even allowing for the strong competition he faces in his sport from the likes of Fernando Alonso, Kimi Raikkonen, Felipe Massa, Sebastien Vettel and Robert Kubica. Hamilton will define another sporting year and be in contention again. That is not to disparage his excellent achievement this year, but to say that the defining sporting achievements and memories so far as this sporting year are concerned were made in Beijing.
Of the seven Olympians who have been nominated on the shortlist, the achievements of three in particular I feel stand out from the crowd. Firstly in the pool, Rebecca Adlington's double gold medal haul was the stuff of dreams. Coming into the Games, Adlington was seen as a medal prospect by those within the Olympic swimming camp, but her previous performances did not provide any pointers for what was to come. Firstly, Adlington won the 400 metres Freestyle with a determined finish and just got home for gold. This was not Adlington's favoured event and so her victory was all the more unexpected. In winning, Adlington became the first British woman to win an Olympic gold medal in the pool since Anita Lonsborough in 1960.
But, then came her crowning glory. She won the gold medal in the 800 metres freestyle, one of the endurance events so far as competition swimming is concerned. I remember watching the final live in the early hours of the morning and what I saw was one of the most remarkable feats of this sporting year. Adlington led the race all the way and she blew the rest of the field to shreds. It showed great confidence and audacity on her part to have the belief in her body to make all the running, knowing that she would have enough left in the latter stages to get home. But, it worked spectacularly well and in winning her second gold, Adlington broke Janet Evans' world record by nearly three seconds. At the time, this was her sport's longest standing world record and it had stood for 20 years. Adlington did not just break the record, she shattered it, and unless Adlington breaks the record again herself, you would think it would be some time before anyone else breaks her record.
Adlington at just 19 is quite likely to still be around in 2012 to add to her gold medal haul and that may present her with another opportunity to win this award. But it is worth bearing in mind that Adlington was not widely expected to achieve the success she had in Beijing and so in four years time, she may not have the same level of form or fitness required to get the golds again. On the whole, swimmers tend to peak at an early age and this is particularly the case where female swimmers are concerned. Sharron Davies won a silver medal at the Moscow Olympics when she was just 17 years old and she retired from her sport at the age of 20, before making a comeback several years later. Adlington is a young woman in the limelight now with all the trappings that go with it. The intrusion on her privacy may see her wish for a quieter life, or it is possible that having made the sacrifices in order to reach the top of her sport, she might wish to retreat and do the things that other 19-20 year old girls do.
It is hard to say where her future will take her, but Adlington will surely find it difficult to top the year she has just had. Added to which, she will also appeal to those observers who point out that the trophy is called "Sports Personality Of The Year". Sometimes, there are a contingent, I must say that I am not one myself, but there are a contingent who would disregard some of the great sporting achievers for this trophy because their focused, ruthless approach to winning means that they appear surly or dull and therefore short of a personality. Whatever floats your boat, but in Adlington's case she ticks all the boxes. Not only is she a very determined athlete who has achieved great success, but she also comes across a very bubbly, down to earth girl who seems like great fun. If people are using this human quality as a criteria for winning this award then Adlington is surely a major contender.
The other two Olympians who deserve special mention are both from the velodrome. Chris Hoy won three gold medals at the Beijing Games in total, including two in individual competition as well as an additional gold in the team sprint competition. This haul of golds added to the gold that Hoy had already won at the Athens games in 2004 as well as a silver medal in Sydney in 2000. Such an amount of golds put Hoy in the realms of British Olympic legends status, along with five time Olympic gold medal winner Sir Steve Redgrave. Hoy will be 36 in 2012 and although the physical demands of training for his sport could have caught up with him by then, so long as Hoy's body holds up and his single mindedness remains intact, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Hoy could win gold medal number five in London and then get a tap on the shoulder from the postage stamp head of the day.
It was interesting to see that the aforementioned Redgrave had championed Hoy as his winner of the award for this year. I am sure that Redgrave sees in Hoy a man made of the same stuff as he was in his competitive days. Both compete in physically demanding sports that require total dedication, getting up early on cold mornings with a stiff back to go training. Hoy, like Redgrave, seems to be held up as the benchmark in his sport who everyone else looks up to and is inspired by. Whether Hoy wins this award or not, he will leave a fantastic legacy in his sport when he retires and will encourage the next generation of Olympians to pass their cycling proficiency test and get on the saddle competitively.
The third person I will single out is not as heralded as much as either Adlington or Hoy, but her achievement is every bit as remarkable. I am talking about Rebecca Romero, who won gold in the women's individual pursuit at the Beijing Games. This was a sensational achievement for Romero, given that she had only been participating in the sport for two years. Four years earlier, Romero had been part of Britain's Olympic rowing team where she won silver as part of the quad sculls team. She was forced to retire from rowing soon afterwards due to injury but then took up cycling in 2006. The rest is history.
In the final of the pursuit in Beijing, she defeated fellow Briton Wendy Houvenaghel for the gold medal and in doing so became the first British woman in modern times to win Olympic medals in two completely different sports. She was recently asked whether she would compete in a third sport in 2012 and said she was giving it strong consideration. Should Romero go ahead and do this and end up getting a medal of any colour, she could rightly consider herself among Britain's finest ever Olympians.
Romero is not everyone's cup of tea personality wise. To many people, she is seen as aloof, over-opinionated and selfish. I dare say she probably has all of these traits. Even by her own admission, she said that one thing she prefers about cycling to rowing is that she prefers competing in an individual sport so that she is only accountable to herself and her own performance. These are words that perhaps do not sit well with everybody. But two things. Firstly, give credit to Romero for her honesty in saying this. Some people simply are more suited to working individually than working in a team. Secondly, the very traits which rub some people up the wrong way are likely to also be contributory factors in her being the single minded winner that she is. Take away some of these traits and you take away her edge. And without that edge, her extraordinary achievements would probably not have happened.
Of the rest of the candidates not already mentioned, Joe Calzaghe had his glory in winning this accolade last year and his subsequent victories over Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones Junior further confirm his place among boxing's greats. But he was validated for an extraordinary career in winning this award last year and so given the remarkable achievements elsewhere, he is unlikely to win again this year, even allowing for his increased popularity with the public. Andy Murray has had a breakthrough year which has seen him establish himself as a genuine contender for winning Grand Slam tournaments, certainly on hard surfaces. But he now needs to take things to the next level and win a Slam in order to win this award. I am pretty certain that provided he stays fit, his time will come. Christine Ohururogu showed great guts to win her gold medal in the 400 metres but a section of the public still regard her as a "drugs cheat" because of her three missed tests and this was reflected in her lack of support when up for the award last year. Given her competition this time around, it is hard to see her faring much better this time.
In all likelihood, I expect Lewis Hamilton to win the public votes and therefore take the main prize. But in terms of who I would vote for, I would look to vote for whose achievement defined this sporting year, and by the same token, which sportsperson was most defined by this year. This leads me back to the Olympics and so for me, it is a straight choice between Hoy and Adlington. I suppose for some people, the fact they compete in "minority" or "non-mainstream" sports will count against them. I find this quite a sad and myopic reflection that people look at achievements in this way. Just because these sports are not on the television every week does not make them any less worthy, and let's face it, there are some more mainstream sports where British success has been sadly lacking in recent times.
It is a tough call because I think both Hoy and Adlington have had a remarkable year and both would be worthy winners for what they have achieved. If coerced to make a choice though then I would choose Rebecca Adlington. Having never been much of a swimmer myself, I have always had a healthy respect for those that reach the pinnacle of achievement in the pool and as a sports fan, when I watched Adlington break the world record in the 800 metres freestyle in Beijing, I thought I had witnessed something extremely special. She had destroyed a top class field and shattered a long standing world record. Adlington may never have another year like 2008, just as Jonathan Edwards never matched his magnificent triple jump performances of 1995 in his career thereafter. Chris Hoy's multiple gold medal haul certainly deserves recognition too, but maybe the twilight in 2012 will bring about a fitting finale. Messrs Hamilton and Murray will both define a sporting year one day, while Calzaghe defined the sporting year of 2007.
Deciding who should win the big prize should seem a doddle though when compared to deciding who should win the Overseas Sports Personality of the Year. For me, there are three outstanding candidates, all of whom have very justifiable reasons for why they should win the award. Firstly, there is Rafael Nadal, who has enjoyed his most successful year in the sport to date and brought about a shift in the power structure at the top of the men's game. Nadal won his fourth straight French Open on the clay of Roland Garros, thereby confirming himself as the undisputed king of that surface, in many people's eyes he is the finest clay court player of all time. If winning in Paris was a formality, winning his first title at Wimbledon was anything but. Nonetheless, Nadal made it third time lucky against his great rival Roger Federer in the final in what surely was the greatest tennis match of all time. This victory confirmed Rafael Nadal as the new world number 1 and as if all this was not enough, Nadal capped off his year by winning the gold medal in the Olympics.
Nadal is now established as one of the world's top athletes and watching him charging around court at times is pure poetry. But the frightening thing is that his best is probably yet to come. If he avoids injury, he could set all kinds of records in the French Open. But he also now looks like the man to beat at Wimbledon too, although his enduring rivalry with Federer will be renewed again next year with Federer eager to show that his relatively disappointing 2008 was a blip and that he is not a fading force just yet. For Nadal to really demonstrate his greatness, he needs to put in more of a show in the hard court Slams. He has yet to advance past the semi-finals of either the Australian or US Opens and that will surely be an area he will look to improve upon next year. Even so, Nadal has had an incredible year and would be a worthy Overseas Personality of the Year, especially for his part in the epic sporting contest of the year.
Having declared my admiration for top swimmers, it will come as no surprise that I advocate Michael Phelps as a genuine candidate for this award. Phelps simply has confirmed himself as one of the greatest Olympians of all time, having won eight gold medals in Beijing to add to the six that he had won in Athens. There will be some snobbery in certain quarters with people saying that it was easy for Phelps to win so many gold medals because of the number of events and strokes there are to compete in, but I disagree with that line of thought and in fact I think it makes his achievement all the more special. Including all the heats, semi-finals and then the finals that Phelps must have swum in in order to win his gold medals, he must have participated in over 20 races during the course of the Beijing Olympics. Factor in that this involved swimming over a number of different distances and changing from stroke to stroke and that Phelps's eight gold medals also resulted in him or his team breaking the world record in seven events and the Olympic record in the other, you get some idea at how phenomenal Phelps's achievement was.
That Phelps is now regarded as the greatest swimmer of all time is a no-brainer. He just needs to count his medals in order to prove that he is. But by winning so prolifically in front of a world audience, he has become a sporting icon and his success and status significantly transcends his sport. Just as Mark Spitz's seven gold medals at the Munich Olympics of 1972 have kept him in the pages of Olympic folklore since he retired, so Michael Phelps will still be mentioned in 30 years time and probably 50 years time. Given that the number of swimming events are likely to be reduced rather than increased in future Olympics, it is going to be a very long time before Phelps sees his medal haul surpassed by another swimmer. Not bad at all for a man who when he was a child was picked on for wearing a brace on his teeth.
Nadal and Phelps's achievements this year would win this award in the vast majority of years. In fact, credit too to Padraig Harrington who became the first European to successfully defend the Open Championship golf title for over 30 years and followed that up by also winning the US PGA Championship. His achievements in another year would have received greater recognition. But this has been no ordinary sporting year and there is one bolt from the blue who will in all likelihood ensure that messrs Nadal, Phelps and Harrington will not be adorning their mantlepiece this year with the Overseas Personality award.
This bolt, of course is Usain Bolt. At the start of the year, it is unlikely that too many eyes will have been cast on Bolt having the Olympics that he ended up having. Tyson Gay and Bolt's compatriot Asafa Powell came into 2008 as the two sprinters who most seasoned followers of the sprint events would have identified as the chief candidates and when Bolt broke the 100 metres world record in the run-up to the Olympics, it was the first time that his name had come into the wider public consciousness. But this world record was just a prelude for what was to come.
Bolt's 100 metres victory and world record at Beijing seems relatively routine now, yet to think back to it, what is all the more remarkable is how Bolt eased up towards the line with the race won and yet still ended up breaking the world record. It is frightening to think what sort of time Bolt could record over 100 metres if he ran flat out, but one can only hope that in time Bolt runs a race where he does run flat out so we can see what time he could clock under those circumstances. Needless to say, I think it would result in a world record that would take a long time to beat.
If the casual nature in which Bolt won the 100 metres was not enough, his victory in the 200 metres will linger long in the memory. One of my sporting heroes when I was younger was Michael Johnson and I can recall the night that he won the 200 metres at the Atlanta Olympics and shattered the world record to boot. It was the night of my eighteenth birthday and I remember coming home from a few celebratory coming of age beverages to see Johnson make history running in his gold spikes. That night he ran 200 metres in 19.32 seconds and I remembered thinking that in order to run that time, if you split the race into two halves, in at least one half he would have had to have shattered the 100 metres record of the time, which was quite something given that Johnson never ran the 100 metres.
I expected that by the time anyone broke Johnson's 200 metres record, I would be at least double the age I was at the time when he set the record. But I had reckoned without anyone as incredible as Bolt coming along and clearly setting his eyes not just on winning the race but breaking the record. Bolt ran the race of his life in the 200 metres final and showed more intensity in running this race than he did in the 100 metres. It was as though he knew he could run 100 metres but that the 200 metres would require more of an effort. The extra effort he put in saw him shave two one-hundredths of a second off of Johnson's twelve year record and one of athletics' most difficult records to break had been taken. One great athlete from a previous generation had seen his record taken by a great athlete from a new generation. Perfect symmetry, as Keane might say.
Bolt rounded off his incredible Olympics by anchoring the Jamaican 4 x 100 relay team to gold and another world record and in completing this hat-trick of golds and world records, became the first male track and field athlete since Carl Lewis in 1984 to win three separate golds in the course of the same Olympics. His results and records speak for themselves and at 22, you would hope and expect that this is just the beginning of the Usain Bolt story. By the time he has finished, he has the potential to rewrite the record books time and again, and set a daunting target for whoever follows him.
But it is not just Bolt's medals and his times that should see him win this accolade. It is the manner in which he has done it. He is an icon for his sport at a time when his sport has been crying out for one. His approach to racing has been so refreshing and so laid back, you would be forgiven for thinking he was just out having a casual training run given how calm and sure of himself he was on the track. Bolt's personable character allied with his extraordinary achievements have provided his sport and his country with a true icon and given how athletics has been badly tarnished by drugs cheats in recent years, Bolt's success and profile provides athletics with a much needed shot in the arm which hopefully will see more athletics followers reignite their love for the sport and give youngsters a hero to aspire to. For his country too, Bolt's success will rekindle the Jamaican public's love for its sport after a barren few years so far as team sports have been concerned.
Above all though, when I think back on the sporting year of 2008, as much as I will remember the Nadal-Federer final at Wimbledon as the best tennis match of all time and as much as I will long remember Michael Phelps's astonishing achievements in the pool, above all I will remember it for seeing Usain Bolt tear up the pages of history on the track, leaving everyone trailing in his wake and setting records that I am sure will only serve as a platform for the rest of his career, which by the time he has finished, will stand the test of time. And Bolt did it all with what seemed to me like a naive enjoyment of what he was doing and of life itself. It sends out a fantastic message if you can enjoy your work and Bolt did that in front of a television audience of many millions. For that reason, I hope he wins the main award, although I certainly respect the merits of both Nadal and Phelps taking this award.
So, Adlington for the main award and Bolt for the Overseas Personality would be my personal choice and if Manchester United could land the Team of the Year award for their Premier League and Champions League double, then things would be perfect. Nonetheless, I think the British Olympic cycling team are just as deserving having exceeded all expectations in Beijing and showing that Britain at this time is the nation to fear in the velodrome. The investment in infrastructure and in the individual riders that has come as a result of Lottery funding has paid dividends twentyfold and in years to come, Britain will surely achieve further success as a result of the next generation of cyclists being inspired by the efforts of Chris Hoy, Bradley Wiggins, Rebecca Romero, Victoria Pendleton, et al.
Whether my personal selections end up winning the awards this year or not, after a few years in the doldrums, the sporting success of the year should at least ensure that Sports Personality of the Year is a showpiece event again this year and that the programme for once does not drag. Long may the sporting success continue, as in times of difficulty and depression elsewhere, it does at least provide people with something to momentarily cheer them up when Britain does well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
