Serving up a treat

Hello again, cyber friends. As usual, I find myself apologising for an extended absence from subjecting you to my occasionally well thought out prose musing on the finer points of life. And for the most part, my idle ramblings on whatever enters my head. As much as I would like to inform you that my latest hiatus has been due to a hectic work schedule or a spell of globe trotting, the reality is simply that I have been waiting for the necessary inspiration to write about some interesting topics.

Well, since I was last here, what new things have we discovered? The scandal sheets have been full of stories of philandering footballers, writing with exclamations of moral indignation when footballers playing away from home, to use an appropriate analogy, is a tradition associated with the occupation for longer than the wearing of shin pads or the exchanging of penants before kick off. It was the exchange of a handshake that caught the press’s attention recently, although as it transpired, the handshake was not forthcoming. We will come on to the thorny subject of Bridge versus Terry in a future blog, along with some other topics affecting the beautiful game at the moment.

Outside of the national sport, the nation has been captivated by the coverage of the Winter Olympics. Well, that statement is certainly true if the nation in question is Canada. Given that Britain’s credentials in winter sports generally stop at their gold medal performances in the apres-ski beer consumption on the nursery slopes of St Moritz and of de-icing the car windscreen on a biting December morning in readiness for the school run, then Amy Williams’s gold medal in guiding the fastest tea tray in the west down the sliding slopes of Whistler was about all the mother nation could hope for. Although, I am sure the inquests into our paltry medal total have already begun. We invented snow, don’t you know?

Anyway, enough waffling from me. Let’s get down to business and waffle some more.


6 Music a sign of BBC running scared of its enemies
The recent news that the BBC has decided to discontinue the broadcasting of its 6 Music station has raised some eyebrows among media commentators. As well as closing its cult digital music station, the BBC has also announced further cutbacks with around half of its programme websites expected to close, as well as the Asian Network radio station also ceasing to broadcast.

The loyal followers of 6 Music have, understandably, been dismayed by the news of its closure, pointing to the millions of pounds that the BBC have spent on their premises relocation to Manchester. Meanwhile, the hardened cynics to whom progress is a dirty word, have observed that if all of the people that purport to listen to 6 Music had done so on a regular basis, then their beloved channel would not be going off air. Both schools of thought may merit consideration, but neither are contributory factors in why the BBC has reached this decision.

The BBC's decision to cut back on its output has nothing to do with cost savings. It also has very little to do with profitability, or even broadcast ratings. Just because 6 Music attracted comparatively small fry in terms of audience share, that is not a reason to pull the plug. When the channel was first broadcast some 5 years ago, the BBC would not have envisaged the station being a huge ratings winner. The station's music policy and the very deliberate placement of the station as a niche audience puller was a conscious decision, with the anticipation that the station would attract a small, but perfectly formed audience, but which would gather momentum over time through word of mouth.

So, you will be asking, if money wasn't the driving force behind the BBC's cutting back of services, then what was the motivating factor? Well, it would appear to me as though the main factor that has led to the BBC reaching this decision is fear. Fear of what exactly? Fear of change? Fear of competitors? Well, fear of a change in the political landscape would be my personal interpretation on the matter.

Within around two months time, the nation will have to go to the polls as the Labour Government's maximum five year term of office will expire on 6 May. At present, opinion polls vary, but in the main, it is suggested that the Conservatives' are enjoying a 5 to 8 point lead over the Labour Party. In real terms, if the electorate was to vote the same way on polling day, then the likelihood is that the Conservatives would win the most seats but would not have enough to claim an overall majority, therefore meaning the formation of a Hung Parliament.

A Hung Parliament would not concern the BBC's bigwigs as much as the prospect of a Conservative Government being formed, which looked like a formality only a few months ago. For some time, it has been well known that as and when the Conservatives next take power, one of the principle tasks they wish to undertake is to make the BBC a less powerful corporation and to muzzle the activities it is involved in. Their argument, as champions of a free market, open to many competitors, is that the BBC has become too big a player in its market and has moved away from its remit to provide a public service and instead has the structure and constitution of a corporate business. Their wide presence across the media, the Conservatives feel, is a prohibitive barrier for other organisations to realistically compete in the media market, and it is also leads to a danger of a lack of impartiality in media reporting. For some reason, there has long been a perception among some people of blue blooded stock that the BBC leans towards the lily livered liberal section of society, although there has never been any firm evidence of this.

All in all, you would have to say that the BBC in actual fact has been a victim of its own success. The corporation has shown itself to be a good innovator that has set trends across a wide variety of media platforms. You need only look at the success of its iPlayer, success that has manifested itself in the fact that all of the BBC's main competitors have now introduced a similar service to watch recent programmes broadcast by their network via their website. Imitation is indeed the highest form of flattery. Due to the BBC's ability to manoeuvre itself in so many pies, this has brought resentment from its commercial competitors, whose revenue is solely generated through advertising, rather than the licence fee in the case of the BBC.

The unique way in which the BBC is funded continues to be a source of irritation and anger among the more right aligned of the print media titles. The Conservative Party, who gather many of their traditional voters from readers of these newspapers, have spotted a convenient bandwagon to jump on (Conservatives, bandwagon, never) and so have promised that the BBC's spending and corporate governance will be top of their agenda should they assume power in May. Whilst newspapers like the Daily Mail and Telegraph have long held an anti-BBC agenda on the grounds that they object to anything that reduces the amount of disposable income that one could spend on something meaningful like a loft conversion or a pony, it is noticeable that one of the BBC's most vocal critics has been The Sun, which claims that the BBC is not politically impartial. The pungent, intoxicating stench you can detect is that of grade A hypocrisy.

As much as The Sun regards itself as the voice of the people and its powerful editorials and headlines ensure that a fair section of its readers tap into this self-promotion, the truth of the matter is that The Sun is the megaphone for the opinions and agendas of its proprietor, Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch is a Capitalist and all of his public comments are deliberately measured for what will provide him with the best opportunity for Capitalist gain. The Sun is quite deliberately targeted at working class, blue collar workers with only a limited amount of intellect and ability to form their own opinions and so consequently, it is people from this demographic that go on to Facebook and set up groups allied to The Sun's right wing viewpoint that preys upon other like minded individuals to sign up.

The purpose of this article is not to beatify the BBC and its hierarchy, but merely to point out that its detractors are looking after number one when they criticise the corporation. In a time when some businesses are failing, the BBC remains a very successful business model, but this appears to be part of the problem. Because the BBC is a public funded organisation, people seem to think that this means its constitution should be such that it should not be governed by making a profit, and yet there is not a business in any sector, including the voluntary sector, that can be sustainable unless it is making a surplus. That Rupert Murdoch and his equally charmless son James have been so vocal in attacking the BBC because its presence restricts what activity Sky can carry out almost makes me want to reach for the Kleenex. Neither Murdoch is interested in what's best for the market or what is best for the consumer, their only motivation is what is best for Team Murdoch and for the Sky corporation.

The point of the matter is that the reason for the BBC's decision to cut back on its website output and to close 6 Music and the Asian Network has little to do with cost cutting and also little to do with ratings, but has everything to do with the fear that the hostility that the Conservative Party has shown the BBC will ensure that if they take power that they will make sure that the BBC is reformed and held more accountable than it presently is. "Quite right too" you can hear the Daily Mail tubthumpers bellowing. "Not before time" they add over in the air conditioned offices of News International. But, who exactly wins in this situation?

The BBC has taken the view that by closing 6 Music, a commercial organisation could come in and acquire the station and the brand and enable it to be moved forward in a way that the BBC couldn't, because to them it was just a niche station in quite a wide radio portfolio. But, this is a case of executives making a decision without understanding the audience that the station was set up for in the first place. Although 6 Music was only moderately successful in terms of the size of its audience, the station had a cult following and its ethos was very much as the antithesis to the plethora of mainstream pop music stations that are available via digital radio. Although I was not a regular listener to 6 Music, one of the reasons for its listeners being loyal to the network is that it gives unsigned acts airplay and it also gives its presenters more autonomy over the selection of music for their show. Musicians such as Jarvis Cocker and Elbow's Guy Garvey have presented shows on 6 Music where they have played an eclectic range of music that is influential to their sound and because the station has veered away from having a set playlist, it gives the presenter more licence to play the type of music they want to play.

Transferring the 6 Music in-house music policy to a commercial setting just simply would not work because a commercial radio station has other priorities, namely advertising. Although in theory the digital revolution gives the radio listener a far more extensive choice of stations and musical genres to listen to, the overall presentation of commercial radio is very formulaic and while various radio stations like to have their listeners believe that the music is their primary focus, there is no disguising the fact that the main consideration for these stations is the advertising mark-up. Three or four sets of adverts an hour plus additional product placement in the form of an auction style competition or a regular sponsor for the travel reports is the lifeblood for commercial radio stations in a massively saturated market.

As much as the brand name of "6 Music" would initially be a selling point for any commercial organisation that bought the station and the brand, ultimately the acquisition of the brand would be worthless unless the core values of the original station were upheld, and this simply is not compatible with the market forces involved in commercial radio. As discussed, commercial radio stations are governed by their advertisers and advertisers are more likely to go where they can get more listeners at key times. As depressing as it is to consider, mainstream is what the advertisers will choose because, by the nature of the word, mainstream means a higher and more accessible audience. Confronted with the choice of advertising on a station that is playing Robbie Williams and Lady GaGa to half a million listeners a week or advertising on a station that is playing the latest hot new act from the London folk rock scene or is playing 1960s album tracks by Bob Dylan to less than half of that audience size, the sad reality is that "Have A Break, Have A Kit Kat" will be aired to the highest audience portion.

The 6 Music listener would be less sad about the inability of the station to find suitable advertising because they are presently happy that they do not have advertising interrupting the music while it remains in the BBC family. This is another reason why it is hard to envisage the station working in a commercial format. The only way that it could really be incorporated into the commercial sector would be for an existing provider in the market to acquire the station and add it to their portfolio.

The only station I can see doing this is Absolute Radio, which is part of the Times of India media empire. Absolute, as well as having its main station, also has a specialist rock and a specialist 1980s music station. Although structurally it is feasible for Absolute to throw its hat in the ring, it has a very rigid and formulaic music policy and it is hard to see how it could continue to run 6 Music with the type of creative programming that it presently enjoys, or for it to have such a focus on unsigned acts. Acts like Florence & The Machine and Marina & The Diamonds have enjoyed exposure on Absolute, but only after they had been broken some months before on other stations. If Absolute took 6 Music on, it would likely just make it into a clone of the XFM indie station that can be heard in London. This would be all the more strange given that Absolute closed a specialist indie station just a few months ago in order to make way for its 80s music station.

In a time when mainstream tastes are catered for at every whim by countless radio stations within the commercial sector, it is a crying shame that the BBC has buckled under the pressure of its detractors and got rid of a niche service which, while not bringing in huge ratings, was never set up with that intention and which cannot be readily imitated with any great success by commercial rivals. It is ironic in some senses that the very people who condemn the BBC for forgetting its roots as a public service broadcaster have been responsible for influencing the corporation in ditching one of its services that was very much broadcasting a public service to grateful listeners, albeit they were a comparatively small audience. It seems strange that the BBC is choosing to axe 6 Music when, if any type of cull was necessary, it may have been better served to dump Radio 1 Xtra, a station that costs far more and which is offering a service already catered for by several commercial rivals. It also happens to employ Tim Westwood as one of its resident DJs and that alone should be good reason for taking an axe to the station.

The Director General of the BBC, Mark Thomson, may feel that making these changes will be enough to appease the dissenting voices in the Conservative Party, who if they had their way would force the BBC into mass cuts which would probably result in such a strain on spending that repeats of My Family would have to be shown on BBC1 every night of the week. First of all, the BBC Trust needs to ratify Thomson's recommended changes and that is by no means guaranteed. But even if it does, should the Tories get into office, I very much doubt these changes alone will be sufficient to satisfy the doubters. Thomson is likely to move on and get another executive position somewhere else, much like his counterpart at ITV, Adam Crozier managed to and then it will be somebody else's turn to keep out the enemy.

In the long run, the only way these people will back down is if the licence fee is discontinued, which could become a possibility once the digital switchover is completed as this could then pave the way to an opt-in/opt-opt out type of subscription television. In the short term, 6 Music's workers and listeners seem to be the unwitting casualties in someone else's war.

New balls please
The ongoing British sporting debacle that is the failure of its Davis Cup team recently reached a new low with Great Britain humbled by the mighty Lithuania in their Euro-Africa zone clash. This result left Britain requiring a victory against Turkey later in the year, in order to avoid relegation to the bottom division of the competition next year and face the possibility of a match against such superpowers as Iceland or Andorra. In fact, it says much for the malaise that faces Britain's team that their next opponents Turkey were defeated in their last tie by Ireland, a country that traditionally produces tennis players as often as Australia produces world champion bobsleighers.

As ever, a scapegoat for British failure was quickly identified and sure enough, it was John Lloyd, the Davis Cup captain who understandably carried the can for a humiliating result, a result that also happened to be Britain's fifth successive loss in a Davis Cup tie under his watch. Lloyd's ousting from office was inevitable because he was directly involved in picking the players that took to the court against Lithuania and so he had to take ownership for the defeat. However, whatever failings Lloyd had should not mask far greater and deeper deficiencies with British tennis which explain why a country with over 60 million inhabitants should continue to fail in producing high calibre players through its own system.

One man who has attracted criticism is Roger Draper, the chairman of the Lawn Tennis Association, the man who was charged with reforming the coaching structure of tennis in the United Kingdom. Draper seems to be another from the Adam Crozier and Mark Thomson school of soundbite, plenty of ideas, but less evidence of any meaningful action. Draper certainly has some vocal critics, not least the Brightonian comedian and tennis lover, Tony Hawks. Hawks, who coincidentally wrote the excellent "Around Ireland With A Fridge", is the patron of the campaign "Tennis For Free", a worthy campaign that tries to give children free access to tennis courts in a similar way to how they are available in the United States. Hawks's spat with Draper stems from the fact that he asked the LTA to promote his campaign, but found that support was in short supply.

The LTA have spent significant sums of money on reform under Draper's tenure and have pleaded for patience on their return on investment, but it is hard to be so sympathetic to this attitude when the LTA spent great sums of money on the hiring and subsequent pay of Andy Murray's coach Brad Gilbert, who would split with Murray acrimoniously within 18 months. Given the prize money that Murray amassed from his growing number of ATP titles, surely it was not unreasonable to expect him to pay for his own coach, rather than for the LTA to set aside the money for this purpose, creating a black hole in the coffers.

Very few top class British players have emerged in the past 20 years, in either the men's or the women's game. Of those that have, Andy Murray spent many of his teenage years being schooled in Spain and so his present status among the current tennis elite owes barely anything to the British coaching system and everything to his mother's determination for Murray to achieve the best tennis education possible. Meanwhile, the 2008 Wimbledon Girls' champion Laura Robson spent most of her early life in Australia. Rewind a few years and Greg Rusedski reached the final of the US Open, but was only representing Britain as a flag of convenience, with his schooling having been on the hard courts of Montreal and Toronto. Of British top 20 players in the last 20 to 25 years, only Tim Henman was genuinely a product of the homegrown system. In his case, he was helped by being born into an affluent, middle class Home Counties family and where tennis was in the genes. It was Henman's grandmother who was the first to serve underarm at Wimbledon.

The class divide is one of the reasons for the continued failure of Britain to produce quality tennis players, although it is far from the only one. Tennis is an expensive sport to play, when compared to other sports. A parent can pay for their child to play football for the cost of buying a ball from the local sports shop, given that the goalposts will already have been paid for in the form of a rucksack or a few coats. Cricket can initially be played with a block of wood and a soft ball with the aforementioned rucksack used as the wicket. But, apart from the possible origins of playing Swingball in the garden, tennis is a costly sport to play due to the cost of getting a court, buying the racquet and if a child is prodigious enough to play competitively, there is the cost of engaging a coach. This is where Tony Hawks' Tennis For Free campaign has its undoubted merits.

While lack of money may end up with certain talented tennis players being lost to the game, I think that the attitude that people have to the game of tennis in this country is another fundamental reason for its continued shortage of a meaningful production line. You will only need to visit your local park on a Sunday morning to see what is wrong with the attitude to the sport in this country. Kids are being kept off the court by a couple of sweaty middle aged blokes, sometimes playing with a John McEnroe vintage wooden racquet who are playing the game with no movement, but gently exchanging rallies from the edge of the baseline and will be serving the ball from inside the service line, without even throwing the ball up to serve authentically.

Now, I am not suggesting that middle aged men should be banned from playing tennis. Far from it, in fact I think that tennis is an excellent way of keeping fit. My point is that there is a lack of intensity in the way the game is played. It is a leisure pursuit for many and because it is a gentle way of passing the time on the weekend before burning off the calories in the bar, people do not really approach the sport in the way it was intended to be played, that is as an athletic sport. Apart from the point that the Sunday morning player often lacks the physique to be an athlete, or is recovering from the previous night's excesses in any event, I think the parks player is often wary about throwing themselves around an unforgiving, concrete court.

While these types of player are hogging the tennis courts at weekends, children are waiting to get a game and if their first direct experience of seeing the game in the flesh is to see a singles or a doubles rubber being played with little energy or enthusiasm, it does not encourage them to stick with the sport themselves and consequently, tennis' loss ends up becoming football's or X-Box 360's gain.

It would help, also, if the public's attitude to tennis improved. In the eyes of many misinformed people, tennis is played for just a fortnight a year on the grass courts of SW19 in late June and early July. Whatever happens before and after in the calendar year is of little consequence. We also have a knack of criticising even the best players that have come out of Britain. Tim Henman was often regarded as a failure and a bottler by some of the British public because he never won Wimbledon, and yet he reached the semi-finals there four times and was once ranked the world's number 4. With the ability he had, Henman reached the absolute apogee that he could expect to ascend to. He was playing at a time when a scud missile first serve was a crucial weapon to possess and Henman's serve lacked the power or consistency needed to land enough killer first serves in against the best opponents.

Look now at Andy Murray, who has enjoyed an excellent couple of years and reached two Grand Slam finals, both of which he lost to the best player of all time, Roger Federer. Yet, for all his tournament successes, you sense that the British public is largely indifferent to Murray and will not change their mind until and if he wins Wimbledon. Murray's Scottish heritage and surlyness is one reason that the public does not connect with him, but there have been far more spiky players in the history of the game who the same public loved. Jimmy Connors for example. A chap called McEnroe too. It does seem a peculiarly British trait that we knock our own sportsmen, especially where those that attract the flak happen to be the best that we have.

The whole infrastructure of tennis in this country, from the way the game is taught in schools, to the public facilities available, right through to the coaching structure clearly requires radical overhaul in order for the game to move forward into the twenty-first century. The stuffy, country club mentality of the tennis committees across the country looks likely to be the greatest barrier to change being actioned and until change is embraced, the same culture of failure and the same negative attitudes to tennis and how it is played will continue in to the next generation.

Tennis is a fantastic sport and its greatest tournament is held in Britain. It is tragic that we continually fall short in producing good players worthy of the tournament. Any success that Andy Murray and Laura Robson achieve in the coming few years should be greatly received, and hopefully this would provide inspiration for children to pick up a racquet and feel compelled to emulate them, much in the way that Sweden enjoyed a boom time in men's tennis after Bjorn Borg's sustained success. But in the short term, any achievements that Murray and Robson muster will be down to them and their coaching staff and will only paper over the seismic cracks in the current running of the sport.

Policies need to be clearer than personalities
While the media are excited at the prospect of a mandatory calling of a General Election any week now, I am finding myself all the more disengaged from the current political landscape. As tends to be the way, the United Kingdom is following the lead of the United States and it appears that the spin doctors advising each of the three main political parties have advised them that in a tight situation, this election will be won by personalities rather than by policies. This has led to the uncomfortable sight in recent weeks of both David Cameron and Gordon Brown being interviewed about their personal lives, rather than asking them to explain their idealologies and their plans for running the country if elected in May.

I watched parts of both Brown's interview with the boorish Piers Morgan and Cameron's interview with Sir Trevor McDonald, which also featured a testimony from Cameron's wife on why her dearly beloved is the best man to run the country and in which she constantly referred to him as "Dave". Whether Cameron calls his wife Trigger I cannot say, although he did not do so during the programme. Neither interview really offered any great insight into the party leaders' personalities other than that they had a distinct lack of one, but I dare say Piers Morgan will feel he landed a potent body punch when he asked Brown if he and his wife had become members of the mile high club when they first romanced one another on a flight.

What the political strategists need to realise is that personalities are in pretty short supply in politics these days and while it is true that the next Prime Minister will be the one that connects with the electorate the most, this connection will be largely determined by who provides evidence of the most convincing policy, rather than who can come up with the best one liner, who can pull the funniest face or who can cook an omelette quicker. Mind you, Gordon Brown versus David Cameron on the Omelette Challenge might make Saturday Kitchen compulsive viewing in the run-up to the election.

The depressing aspect of politics at the moment is that it is just weeks before an election and still all of the main parties seem unclear on what their election winning policies actually are. Prime Minister's Question Time is pure theatre, an opportunity for Cameron and Clegg to attack the Prime Minister and to point out all of the present administration's wrongs, but neither have actually explained what it is that their prospective Governments would do differently. It is for this very reason that the polls show that the Conservative lead in the polls is now anticipated to be around 5 to 6 per cent, whereas at one point last year at the height of the recession, they had a 20 point lead. This advantage has been cut drastically not because Gordon Brown has done anything inspirational, but because David Cameron has done little to convince the British public that he and his Government would offer a better alternative. If Cameron fails to get the Conservatives elected in the current political climate, it will be an indictment on his lack of clarity concerning policy.

It could also be the case that the print media underestimated some of their readers (or misunderestimated it, as George W Bush might say). The Sun has nailed its colours firmly to the mast and is fully behind the Conservatives again after its unholy alliance with the Labour Party was severed last year. Since changing horse, The Sun has given Gordon Brown seven barrels of the horns effect treatment, without ever quite giving David Cameron an equal measure of the halo effect.

Some of The Sun's criticism of Brown's Government has had justification, but some of it has also misjudged the public mood. The story of Mrs Janes, the bereaved mother of a soldier that had been killed in Afghanistan was a case-in-point. The Sun made a big deal out of the point that Brown had misspelt the bereaved mother's name in a handwritten letter of condolence that was sent to her, when in actual fact, Brown had not misspelt her name but his handwriting was not particularly legible and so this made it appear as though her name was spelt wrong. The Sun certainly scored an own goal when they then went and spelt Mrs Janes's name wrong on their website's discussion board section. But they were guilty of misreading public attitudes and forgot that many of their own readers are illiterate or dyslexic and so their attitude towards Brown was offensive to them.

More recently, Labour received another boost when it transpired that the charity that had blown the whistle on Gordon Brown's reputed physical and verbal bullying of his staff happened to have Conservative patrons, who no doubt expected to benefit from this story breaking. Nothing like manipulating your position for political capital. It was just the small matter that by throwing the story out to the public domain, it compromised the confidentiality of the person that had reported the allegation in confidence in the first place. The public will have noted incidents like this, and as with the expenses scandal, will have concluded that all political persuasions are as corruptible as each other.

As speculated on above, the forthcoming election appears to have the makings of producing a Hung Parliament, with no one party in overall control, but with the Conservatives likely to have the most seats. Such a result would thrown open the possibility of a certain amount of horsetrading among all the main political parties on the key policy issues and in the short term, it could be the way to restore some political integrity. The Italian Government, however, is not a ringing endorsement for a coalition style Government, although that may be due more to the volatility of the Italian political culture than the weakness of the system.

The biggest winners though are likely to be the Nationalist parties. In times of trouble, people become naturally more insular and in both Wales and Scotland where devolved national Governments are in place and where Conservative votes are rarer than Iceberg lettuces, it is likely that the voters will show their disdain for the national Government by increasing the vote for Plaid Cymru and the SNP respectively. The nearest equivalent to a Nationalist party in England is the UK Independence Party, which is a watered down version of the BNP except without the membership restrictions. I was going to say without the racism, but given Nigel Farage's recent outburst about Belgium in the European Parliament, that may not be altogether true. Despite certain credibility problems, UKIP will attract a reasonable portion of the vote among Euro sceptics and there are places where they could come second in the count, although I would be surprised if they won any seats.

It is to be hoped that the forthcoming Prime Ministerial televised debates provide some opportunity for the triumverate of candidates to bare their teeth in a figurative sense, if not a cringeworthy, airbrushed poster campaign literal sense. People have suggested that Nick Clegg could be the lucky beneficiary from those debates as he has less to lose than messrs Cameron and Brown due to the lack of awareness there is in his existence by the British public. This lack of awareness was backed up this week by a survey in which more people were aware of the racehorses Kauto Star and Denman than they were of Clegg. A good story, although the papers that carried the story tended to gloss over the bit that said the survey was carried out by Ladbrokes, one of the UK's premier turf accountants. One suspects that Ladbrokes take more bets on popular racehorses than they do on the Liberal Democrats winning the General Election. The only difference between Kauto Star and Denman and the party leaders is that one of the latter is guaranteed to finish first past the post.

The death of Michael Foot a few weeks ago and the subsequent obituary columns were a timely reminder of how politics has changed. Foot was an honourable man, but an unelectable party leader, and yet he was a man who always put substance and principles over style. Looking at politics now, the philosophy has been turned on its head to the point that many politicians are reticent to actually stand up for what they really believe in because of the harm it could have on their ambitions. Despite being an aberration so far as being a prospective Prime Minister was concerned, Foot at least had honour. That is not a trait that has yet to be evidenced by the three princes who would be king.

Life is just a box of chocolates

Happy New Year everyone. I hope 2010 has been good to you all so far and that you are not experiencing the New Year blues. Scientists claim that the week just gone is the most depressing of the year. Let's look at the positives, another week and most of us should have received our first pay packet of the new decade and it isn't too long now until summer comes.

Well, I trust you have all been sticking rigidly to your New Year's resolutions and have become finer citizens as a result. Me, well, I didn't make any resolutions. That way I figured that there was no expectation and I wouldn't feel guilty if I had already broken them by the time the Christmas decorations came down.

As ever quite a few things have been going on to talk about. But the blog title may give a clue as to what the main topic of discussion will be.

Cadbury's being bought by Kraft
The main talking point in the business pages over the past week or so has been the news that the Cadbury's confectionery group has been bought out by Kraft, the American foods company with a vast portfolio of brands, but which is possibly most well known for its Philadelphia cheese spread brand. Kraft had been an active suitor of Cadbury's for several months and they had made a number of "hostile" takeover bids, which Cadbury's management had previously rebuffed. However, a bid of around £12 billion ultimately proved too enticing to shareholders who voted for the takeover to be accepted, no doubt having visions of the killing they could make on their shares. One wonders whether a Wispaing campaign prompted the sudden change of heart.

The general consensus of opinion appears to be that this is a victory for cut-throat Capitalist gains but a kick in the teeth for British industry and for Cadbury's staff. Cadbury's is intrinsically linked to the West Midlands area in which it originated and its Bournville operation is one of Cadbury's strongest emblems. The Bournville name is so associated with Cadbury's that they even lended its name to one of its small chocolate bars. To this day, the firm remains one of the leading employers in the West Midlands and so this takeover by an American company, renowned for closing plants in order to improve efficiency leaves many staff pondering their job security. Just a few years after the closure of Rover, the spectre of potential unemployment hangs large over England's second city.

On first impressions, it would seem that Cadbury's were coerced into selling themselves due to the guerilla style tactics adopted by Kraft. Certainly, it would seem that the hierarchy within Cadbury's did all they could to resist the lure of their American cousins. Months of stand offs took place with the irresistible force of Kraft's intentions coming to no avail against the immovable object of Cadbury's. This begs two questions. What was it that meant Kraft kept persisting? What was in it for them, especially considering the great expense to which Kraft were prepared to go in order to snare Bournville's finest? Secondly, what was it that changed for Cadbury's? What do they get from their union with the powerful American firm?

Dealing with the first question first, Kraft know that the power of the Cadbury's brand will enable them to conquer new markets. Cadbury's has such a powerful brand identity the world over and its portfolio of chocolate bars attract loyalty in many far flung outposts. Think of chocolate and the name of Cadbury's is one of the first words that you would associate with the brown foodstuff. Kraft, by contrast, has relatively minimal presence in the confectionery markets. It acquired Terry's, the English confectioner famous for its Chocolate Orange and All Gold products, in 1993 but with due respect, Terry's is a comparatively small fish against the Leviathan prsence that Cadbury's has in the global chocolate market. Cadbury's previous acquisition of chewing gum producers also allows Kraft to enter another market it does not presently operate in.

The Cadbury's name is all powerful and the quality of its products is well renowned but the principles of the company which are ingrained in the company are what makes it special. Thomas Cadbury, like Joseph Rowntree his fellow confectioner, was a Quaker who believed in Puritan principles of giving back something to people in society who were deprived. Hence these names being given to charitable trusts that still operate to this day. Although the Rowntrees name still appears on many chocolate bars, they have been part of the Nestle empire for the past decade, a Nestle name that is much maligned due to its perceived Capitalist attitudes.

People will see that there is a danger of Cadbury's heading the same way now that it has been acquired by Kraft. However, I think Kraft should do well to remember the power of the Cadbury's brand and what it stands for. Although Cadbury's is now part of the Kraft "family", many of Cadbury's leading branded goods are just so associated with the Cadbury's name that they should adopt a standalone approach to the branding of these products. Using the Cadbury's name will enable Kraft to enter new markets and new regions and so Kraft's marketing men should ensure that they make the most of the good name they have acquired for the princely sum of £12 billion.

To go back to my questions, I asked what would be in it for Cadbury's by them entering into this marriage of convenience with Kraft. Well, it would seem that although Cadbury's is largely the market leader for confectionery in the UK and a fair chunk of continental Europe, in other parts of the world, such as the Americas and the Far East, it finds itself lagging behind Mars in terms of market share. Although Kraft does not have much experience in the confectionery markets, it has good background knowledge of these regions due to the success of some of its other food products. This knowledge appears to be the vote swinger and could present a number of new opportunities for Cadbury's and for the diversification of the brand into new products.

There are concerns though, both for those directly affected by this deal and those indirectly so. Kraft have shown in the past that they are quite willing to make efficiency cuts and relocations in order to save money. Terry's chocolates for example are no longer produced in the original home town of the confectioner, York, but instead they are produced in the world's very hotbed of chocolate products, Poland. Rumour has it that Kraft agreed a deal to set up chocolate factories in downtown Krakow in exchange for 100 plumbers to be dispatched to the West Midlands, although this may just be a myth. Job cuts are likely to occur at some point, but there must be particular concern that the iconic Bournville could be closed down. Personally, I doubt this will happen, certainly not in the short term. Bournville is an important part of the Cadbury's brand and so if the plant is to be phased out, it will be done over time. That doesn't mean to say there won't be redundancies there. I expect this will be inevitable. What I do envisage happening is that other factories could be closed and it is certainly feasible that some relocations to Eastern Europe or Asia could be part of the strategy.

On a wider point, it is a sad reality that there are very few British companies with a global profile that still exist due to their swallowing up by foreign direct investment. The British car market ceased to be some time ago, but within the banking and utility sectors there are very few major players that are wholly British owned now. This is something that we bemoan, after all Britain invented all of these things, didn't they? Chocolate? Tick. Banks? Ah yes. Cars? Of course, that Henry Ford was Dagenham born and bred. Ah, hang on.

Speaking of banks, the news that Kraft had been lent some money by the Royal Bank of Scotland to part finance their takeover was greeted with uproar in some quarters because of RBS being in Government hands and this deal seemingly not being in the national interest. Realistically though, the RBS would have had no business vetoing this deal. Regardless of whether a bank is privately or publicly owned, its only consideration when lending money should be whether the transaction poses too great a risk to them. So long as Kraft showed concrete evidence that its adoption of Cadbury's posed no major risk to its long term financial sustainability then RBS were perfectly entitled to lend its customer the money it needed. Once banks start getting involved in ethical concerns and not on what is a financially viable project then you get problems and that is why banks failed in the first place, hence some of them being put up for public ownership.

While it is sad that Cadbury's employees face an uncertain future due to the corporate muscle that Kraft have exercised, it does not need to be the end of the Cadbury's story. There are too many identifiable products that are so intrinsically part of the Cadbury's family and the fabric and ethos that added up to the Cadbury's name is too powerful for Kraft to shed after 200 years of heritage. Sadly there are casualties in every war, but it would be counter-productive for Kraft to be too gung-ho in its approach. Apart from the not inconsiderable financial motivations, it was for reasons of synergy that this union came to pass and the knowledge of markets that Kraft and Cadbury's can both impart is likely to ensure that both names continue to flourish for the foreseeable future, even if the ownership is no longer in British hands.

Jonathan Ross leaving the BBC
The news of Jonathan Ross's departure from the BBC did not elicit a great deal of surprise, although it did receive plenty of press and Internet message board scrutiny in the days that followed the announcement. The main question was whether Ross chose to leave before he was pushed in order to pursue greater autonomy and possibly far greater riches in pastures new, or alternatively, whether the BBC chose not to renew Ross's contract beyond the summer because they felt Ross's continued presence left them with a permanent souvenir, a millstone around the neck, from the absurdly overblown Sachsgate affair.

Whilst we can only speculate on the conversations and events that led to this privately conducted parting of the ways that was so paradoxically played out in the public eye, it would seem reasonable to conclude that Ross took his decision to leave before he was pushed, or before he was told in no uncertain terms that there would be no deal. By commenting that he never negotiated a new deal, this makes it appear that Ross made the decision to leave and that the BBC were willing to let their most prosperously remunerated employee move on to more creative freedom with no hard feelings.

The truth of course, is somewhat different to the euphemistic and cordial ending that Ross and the BBC execs would like to pass off as the gospel. From the BBC point of view, Ross's continued stay at the BBC after so many other names implicated in the Sachs affair sacrificed themselves has meant that the one time TV researcher has become a continual elephant in the room and it has been becoming increasingly apparent from the media coverage amongst the BBC's most hostile enemies that Ross would have remained so for as long as he was on the BBC payroll and appearing across their network.

From Ross's end, the aftermath of Sachsgate and the culture of compliance that it created is that he has been stifled of creative freedom. In short, he has been muzzled and an off-the-cuff performer like Ross is not going to work well in such conditions. Firstly, his chat show was heavily edited upon Ross's return from suspension at the beginning of last year, with neither Ross or his guests allowed to swear even mildly on the show. Although there have still been some very interesting and amusing interviews conducted, Ross's interview style has suffered a little for becoming too stiff, with Ross not always able to relax and be himself.

Furthermore, it is likely that the straw that broke the camel's back was the decision to pre-record Ross's Saturday morning Radio 2 show. Personally, I thought this was a big mistake and it was a decision that neither Ross nor his radio show have recovered from. The great selling point of Ross's show was the spontaneity and energy that his live radio programme offered. Yes, at times there were caustic comments and banter that would have upset the type of people that go out of their way to look for offence. But the show was the perfect way to lie in on a Saturday morning and get you in the mood for the weekend. Once the show became pre-recorded, the edginess and spontaneity associated with the show was drained out.

In public, Ross seemed unabashed so far as this was concerned and even said that it was good that he could pre-record the show as he could spend more time with his children at the weekend. In private though, you somewhat suspect that Ross knew this arrangement could not be sustained. There was no comeback and the longer he stayed at the BBC, the more he would be muzzled. A parting was to be inevitable, the question would just be when.

This is not a bad time for Jonathan Ross to make a career change. Ross is 50 years old this year and he can look upon himself as one of television's great survivors, given that he first appeared on our screens over 20 years ago as the host of Channel 4's late night chat show "The Last Resort". Ross is sometimes perceived as an arrogant man by some sections of the public, but the name of his first television project is actually a prime example of his self-depracating nature, given that he only stepped in front of the camera when everyone else who had been asked had said no.

Due to the current economic situation that is being faced the world over, I think you will see a shift from the days when top light entertainment and comedy stars will enter in to "golden handcuffs" arrangements with networks and you will see more performers wanting the autonomy to pick and choose what projects they take on with whom without being tied to a contract. The BBC continues to have some performers that are in a tied arrangement, most notably Graham Norton, but I would anticipate there being a reduction in these arrangements over the course of time.

There has been some talk that Jonathan Ross's future may be outside of this country and that he may particularly be courted Stateside. After all, Ross has interviewed many of Hollywood's A-listers on both his chat show and on the Film programme and appears to have a good rapport with his subjects. I can see this school of thought, especially as the template for Ross's chat show is far closer to the type of talk show that David Letterman and Jay Leno have presented over the pond than it is to the more conventional, stiff Parky-esque British template of chat. However, Ross is a huge animal lover who owns three dogs as well as a number of other exotic pets and so I doubt he would want to contemplate putting pets in quarantine in order to crack America for a sustained period. Maybe like Cat Deeley he could divide his time between both countries, but I think there will be other projects to occupy his time closer to home.

From looking around the message boards, it seems that Ross has made a lot of enemies with the British public and it may take time for him to rebuild his reputation. Perhaps with that in mind, his best approach may be to avoid ubiquity in the months after his BBC contract expires in the summer but instead to pick and choose his projects carefully. There are certain types of show that Ross has not really ventured into before, such as travel programmes and game shows (apart from the famous Only Fools & Horses Christmas special) and I could see his agent being approached to ask for Ross's involvement in these types of show. The programme that Ross did on Japanese culture for BBC3 a few years ago was both informative and entertaining and I could see him using his wit and irreverence to good effect in travelog type programmes in the way Clive James used to.

Ross's main passions though are the movies and comics and so you would expect his future career projects to have a focus on these subjects. The BBC may have dumped Ross for now, but there is definitely a market for other networks to approach Ross with a view to him presenting a film interview type programme. Some of Ross's best interviews have been with film stars and his knowledge of the big screen is exceptional. Just because the door at the BBC has closed, I very much doubt that we have seen the end of the Jonathan Ross story. It might just be that like Noel Edmonds, he spends some time in the wilderness before enjoying a renaissance in his mid-50s as a result of landing a project that is a hit with the British public, as Edmonds managed with Deal Or No Deal.

At the moment, Ross is a convenient emblem for what is wrong with the country among people who are down on their luck. Just as the bankers are despised for being paid obscene bonuses when their investments have failed, so Ross's stock has dropped because he has been identified as overpaid, overrated and over here. Overexposure is more of an issue now than in the past due to the intense cult of celebrity that exists in the media. But you do not just become a bad performer overnight and a change of environment with greater licence to be himself again might just give the great JR the kickstart his career is in need of.

Now is our autumn of discontent

Hello again readers. Hope you have been keeping well since I last posted on these pages and that you enjoyed lighting a few sparklers and indulging in some trick or treating. Well, there have been some newsworthy developments since I last let myself loose at the keyboard, so let's get down to business.


Joe on....

Royal Mail reaching agreement with workers so avoiding further strikes until after Christmas
Common sense appears to have prevailed on this score. From what I have read and what I have heard of the reasons for the dispute, I do feel that the Royal Mail workers have had valid grievances with their management, particularly in view of the management's proposed plans to replace existing workers with machines that can do their jobs for "efficiency" purposes. Such a move is not restricted to Royal Mail of course, and all businesses have a duty to try and run efficiently. Nonetheless, in times of economic uncertainty, it is quite natural that fears of redundancies are going to be raised.

However, the industrial action has not done anyone any favours and was becoming a very messy affair. The sympathies that the general public had with postal workers was dissipating with every strike due to the inconvenience that the public have faced on days when strikes have taken place. The affair has also been very damaging to Royal Mail's reputation with businesses and custom has been lost due to the unreliable service offered all the while industrial action has been occurring. While the consumer does not presently have the choice of using any carrier other than Royal Mail, this is not the case for businesses, where there are an abundance of couriers that can carry mail and packages. Having lost customers while industrial action has been taking place, peace now breaking out between Royal Mail managers and staff is unlikely to result in these customers returning.

It is good news, however, that further strikes now appear to have been averted until after Christmas. Disruption to postal deliveries at the time of year when consumers use the post in its greatest volume during the course of the year would have resulted in a complete loss of sympathy for the posties' plight among the public at large and the damage to Royal Mail's reputation would then be beyond the point of no return. As it is, much work needs to be done to restore this reputation and while there is currently a temporary peace, this may prove to be an uneasy one in the long run if managers do not acceed to the union's demands or if the two parties are not willing to meet each other halfway.

One thing that would appear to be a certainty now is that, in the very likely event of a Conservative Government being elected next spring, the Royal Mail service will be fast tracked to privatisation. David Cameron has been very critical of the Government's laissez faire stance in the handling of the postal strikes and he has adopted an aggressive tone rather than one that would suggest he would look to be conciliatory should the disputes spill over into next year. Privatisation has always been a favoured policy of the Conservatives and anything that removes barriers to entry and encourages a free market is music to their ears. Whether these freedoms would be at the cost to employee relations remains to be seen, but the industrial action that has already taken place has already ensured that Royal Mail's reputation as a business has taken a battering.

The Daily Mail's comments about Stephen Gately
Another month and another story of a Daily Mail columnist making vitriolic and vindictive comments. That such comments were made would not normally be newsworthy given that the creation of negative energy is almost a reflex action among Daily Mail's largely middle England leading article writers. However, the Mail surpassed itself this time by breaking one of the unwritten ethical codes. Namely, to speak ill of the dead.

Stephen Gately had not even been taken from this world for a week when Jan Moir chose to share her ill thought out words with a couple of million Daily Mail readers. Choosing to criticise aspects of a dead person's lifestyle in a constructive way might well have been acceptable had a few months passed by, but Moir's comments came within one week of Gately's demise and her critique was anything but constructive.

While it is natural to find it unusual that a supposedly healthy 33 year old man should die so suddenly without any prior warning signs, it should also be remembered that a post-mortem had been carried out which had concluded that Stephen Gately had died of natural causes, as a result of a build-up of fluid in his lungs. This would seem to have been a very rare condition, but one which, unbeknown to Gately himself, would have meant he had a ticking time bomb inside his body which meant that at any time he could go to sleep at night and not wake up in the morning, as appears to have happened.

By questioning the events that had occurred in the hours prior to Gately's death, where Gately had been out socialising with his civil husband and with a Bulgarian gentleman who ended up finding Gately deceased, Jan Moir not only showed a lack of respect to the parties concerned and their families, but she also appeared to call into question the verdict of the post-mortem without being qualified to counter this verdict with any personal or professional insight. Unless Moir has had previous experience of having been a pathologist prior to becoming a Fleet Street scribe then she is not qualified in any way to call into question a qualified medical opinion.

Moir came out on the defensive after the Press Complaints Commission website buckled under the strain of complaints once her opinions became public knowledge. She was adamant that she was not homophobic and that she had previously been a fervent supporter of gay marriage. Leaving aside that previous Moir musings would suggest that her stance on these subjects is slightly different to how she perceives them to be, I think that there is a danger that this episode is seen as abhorrent most for a lack of tolerance towards other people's sexual lifestyle preferences, when the greatest crime was to speak ill of a dead person when they had not even been buried or cremated at the time of going to the press.

It is perhaps understandable, however, that homophobic overtones were particularly highlighted in the aftermath of these comments becoming public domain. The popular press has reported that intolerance towards homosexuals is on the increase and have used some recent unsavoury events in Trafalgar Square as an example of this. In truth, I'm not sure whether intolerance is really becoming more prevalent again, more that it has remained there under the surface among a minority of society. One has to remember that homosexuality remained illegal in the UK until the end of the 1960s and while tolerance has come on leaps and bounds in the past 40 years, acceptance of lifestyle changes among some more cynical sections of the public remains difficult to swallow. The battle is being won, but Moir's diatribe and Nick Griffin's recent comments that some people found same sex couples kissing "repulsive" (pots, kettles Nick, pots, kettles son!) have highlighted the end victory is still some way off.

Nick Griffin's performance on Question Time
It was reported in the immediate aftermath of Griffin's controversial appearance on Question Time that 22 per cent of people surveyed would consider voting for the British National Party. While this revelation no doubt resulted in some considered observers spitting their morning coffee out in worry and disgust, I was not unduly concerned by this statistic.

Surveys are not always a reliable way of gauging the public's opinion. For a start, we are not privy to how the question was phrased to suit the agenda. If the question was phrased in such a way to make the question a leading question that would prompt a particular response, then it is perhaps not surprising that over 1 in 5 of those surveyed would not rule out putting a cross in the box of the British National Party when next confronted with a ballot paper. Added to which, what these reports do not tell us is either the size of the audience sampled or the location of where they were sampled.

If 5,000 people were surveyed across a number of the UK's largest cities, then there may be greater cause for concern. The fact that the results were announced so soon after the programmed was aired, however, would suggest that the sample audience was not high. If only 50 people were surveyed, then it would only require 11 people to say they would be willing to vote for the BNP in order for the 22 per cent to be met. If the questions were asked on the streets of Burnley or Blackburn on the Friday morning after the transmission, one expects the results would also be more distorted than if the survey was conducted in Plymouth.

Having watched the programme, I do not see how Griffin's performance can have significantly aided his credibility. Whilst Griffin's nervousness was understandable under the circumstances, his lack of charm and somewhat evasive attitude will surely not have won him many new admirers. Some of what Griffin said was also tantamount to scoring an own goal. His comments about being acquainted with someone that was aligned to a "non-violent section of the Ku-Klux Klan" bordered on the comedic, all the more so given that Griffin seemingly did not appear to realise what was wrong with what he had said. Griffin did little to dispel the notion that far from seeking to represent an electorate that is down on its luck and lacking a voice in a changing Britain, his agenda is merely self-serving and a means of promoting his own prejudices.

Griffin felt that the programme had showed him in a bad light and that he had been subjected to a lynch mob. Really though, what was Griffin expecting when being offered a platform to appear on the programme? Given that many people did not want Griffin to appear in the first place, he should be grateful to have been given a forum to put his views across. That he did not use this forum effectively is no-one's fault other than his own. It would seem that Griffin felt that the audience had been deliberately cherry picked in order to take him to task, given the nature of his extreme views. But, surely Griffin must have known what he was letting himself in for when he agreed to appear.

The Question Time audience is not deliberately chosen, the audience for its shows is comprised of people that buy tickets. Once it was publicised that a bigot with white supremacist views would be appearing on Question Time, it surely comes as no surprise that a reasonable percentage of the audience that purchased a ticket would be from ethnic minority groups diametrically opposed to Griffin's viewpoints. If that reality was not to Griffin's liking, well hard cheese. In truth though, while the audience's contempt for Griffin was largely overt, the brickbats he faced were relatively tame.

The only sympathy that the public may have felt towards Griffin was how he was treated with contempt by his fellow panellists. Jack Straw's allowed himself to become too emotional in the early exchanges on the programme and that led to a hammy and weak performance from the Government's representative thereafter. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats' representative Chris Huhne largely cut an anonymous, peripheral figure. The only panellist that emerged with an enhanced reputation from the show was the Conservative representative Baroness Warsi, attired with a large poppy, who not only put Griffin in his place but also informed Straw of how Labour's immigration policies had impacted upon the BNP gaining popularity in the first place.

The issue of immigration is a very delicate and thorny subject and it is one which clearly needs addressing sensibly and rationally. This is perhaps something to talk about in more detail some other time. But in summary for now, the suggestion of it being time to "close the door" in terms of the UK's national borders would not be practical, legal or beneficial in the long term. It does not help when national newspapers run stories suggesting the population will increase by 15 million within 20 years, when there is no concrete evidence to suggest that it will. We live in a voyeuristic, material driven world and while more people will come to live in the United Kingdom, so too people will choose to emigrate to warmer, fairer isles.

The current wave of protectionism and looking after number one that people feel due to the current uncertainty economically provides some explanation as to why the BNP have been some people's protest vote party of choice. But, the fact is that they remain a minority party who represent fewer than 2 per cent of the population. Griffin's appearance on Question Time will have increased awareness of the BNP's actual agenda and Griffin's lack of coherent answers to the questions that needed asking will surely have done little to aid his or his party's popularity.

Russell Slade's sacking as Brighton manager
On first consideration, Slade's sacking would appear a trifle harsh. Only six months ago, the former Yeovil Town manager had saved Brighton from relegation to League Two after it had appeared a near certainty with only six games to go. Four wins from Brighton's final six matches ensured that the great escape became a reality.

The problem that Slade perhaps faced was one of perception. His managerial career hitherto had been spent at such unfashionable footballing outposts as Yeovil, Grimsby and Scarborough. It mattered not that Slade had led Yeovil to a League One play-off final nor that he had led Scarborough to the fourth round of the FA Cup and a narrow defeat to Chelsea, but his name was not a high profile one. Had he come into the Brighton job with some previous experience at Premier League and Championship level then his stay of execution would likely have been longer.

Brighton's season has not gone to plan so far, although any pundits that had Brighton down amongst the promotion candidates were always sadly misguided. In a division that contains a number of former Premier League teams among its number, a top half consolidatory finish for Brighton this season would be an acceptable campaign. Until the Falmer Stadium opens for business in the summer of 2011, Brighton simply have to ensure they remain at League One level.

It is this critical requirement which also contributed to Slade's departure. Brighton simply cannot contemplate starting life at Falmer as a League Two club, as this would be seriously damaging to their finances. Although Brighton have two thirds of the league campaign still to run to climb away from danger, they recently spurned an opportunity to take points from back-to-back home matches against mid-table opposition. Brighton instead took only one point from those two matches, conceding five goals in the process. The board decided to act in the knowledge that Brighton now face four consecutive matches against former Premier League teams in Southampton, Leeds, Charlton and Norwich. By the time those matches are completed, it is likely Brighton will be embedded in the League One relegation zone.

Brighton's wretched form at their unloved temporary home, Withdean Stadium is a major reason for their current struggles. Five defeats from eight home matches this campaign is a tale of woe. It has not helped that Brighton's plight has been one of self-destruction with several red cards having been brandished to Brighton players this season. This has led to Brighton rarely having a settled team, particularly in defence, where injuries have also taken their toll. While discipline is an individual responsibility, where there is a recurring problem, this suggests that there is a shortcoming that the manager is not addressing. Slade maybe required more time to stamp his authority in this regard, but football being the cut-throat, results oriented business it now is, Slade was not to be afforded this time.

As ever, when a manager's sacking is announced, there is a frenzy of activity about who will replace him and there has been the usual mixture of crazy, leftfield choices and managers who are out of work simply because they repeatedly left a trail of failure and destruction in their previous jobs. The best candidate for the job, Steve Coppell, has sadly ruled out a return to Brighton, with the job at Hull City possibly being what he has designs on. With Coppell crossed off the list, Dennis Wise appears to be a favourite with the Brighton chairman Tony Bloom, but Wise is a difficult man to warm to. Gareth Southgate's recent sacking by Middlesbrough makes him a candidate but his comparative managerial greenness is not ideal in the predicament Brighton find themselves in, added to which, his playing connections with Crystal Palace will not be forgiven easily.

Beyond these names, there have been some other suggestions put forward, ranging from the delusional suggestion that Alan Curbishley would take the job to a clutch of mediocre lower division managers being linked to the post. Personally, I think Brighton ideally need to go for a manager that has had a couple of previous managerial jobs and who is used to managing at League One level, rather than someone that played and managed at a higher level and who would find difficult to relate to players of a limited ability. Exeter City's Paul Tisdale is a bright, young manager who has done well with limited resources at the Devonian club, but whether Brighton would be able to prise Tisdale away from the South-West, or indeed whether Brighton would be willing and able to pay compensation for his services are another matter.

What is important is that Brighton get a manager appointed quickly. The longer Brighton go on without making an appointment, so they become more of a ship without an anchor. Results need to be forthcoming immediately and the last thing any new manager needs is to be playing catch-up. The next incumbent will at least be able to bring in some fresh blood when the transfer window opens in January, as well as ship out players that are surplus to his requirements. That way, whatever the end result is in May 2010, by then the next manager will have moulded their own team.

The king is dead

Afternoon guys and girls.

I hope you have been enjoying the summer weather of the last week or so. Although, for those foolhardy souls who made the trip to Glastonbury, I hope that you went suitably prepared with umbrella and Wellies! The height of summer also means the annual pilgrimage to SW19 and the sounds of a yellow ball being whacked on graphite and the sight of Union Jack adorning socialites sipping Pimms and eating strawberries on Murray Mount.

I will speak more about Wimbledon in the next instalment of this blog, but the last couple of days have really been dominated by one story in the news, the sad demise of Michael Jackson. So, it is only right and proper for this blog to talk about the one time King of Pop.

Yesterday I was travelling to work on the train, some 7 or 8 hours after the reports of Michael Jackson's death were confirmed. As I was travelling, while reading one of the papers that had run a late edition to report Jackson's death, a thought entered my head. In my very nearly 31 years on this planet, there can have been so few occasions when a news story of a death of a famous person or of a world atrocity could have had such an impact.

As a child of 1978, I was born the year after Elvis Presley died and so therefore missed out on experiencing the mass outpouring of grief that accompanied the demise of the previous title holder of the King of Pop. I would only have been two years old at the time of John Lennon's murder outside the Dakota Building in New York City in 1980 and so obviously I do not recall that event either. Bob Marley's death from cancer a year later was also far too early in my childhood to register as a memory.

Since those times, there have been no massive deaths from popular culture that have made an impact on a global scale. I can remember Freddie Mercury's death in 1991, but even though I was only 13 at the time, I can recall that this was not unexpected, as by then the public were aware that he was HIV positive. The only comparable death in the public eye in terms of its magnitude would have been that of Princess Diana's back in 1997. It is amazing to think that her death was so long ago because the aftermath of hysteria and almost enforced grieving from the media remains clear in the memory. I can recall that it took nearly a week for the television and radio schedules to get back to normal after her death, with radio stations in particular playing a looped playlist of sombre and funereal tracks for several days afterwards.

Diana's death reached hysteric levels in this country because she was a British glamour icon and people identified with the demise of an English rose. There has also always been a sympathy for someone who is taken from this mortal coil before their due time and because of Diana's previous circumstances, having been through a divorce and seemingly on the way to finding happiness, the public was able to express much sympathy and sadness at the perceived cruelty of her demise.

Other than Diana's death, the only other world event to happen in my lifetime that really forced you to stop what you were doing and watch was 9/11. This is the single most monumental world event I can remember in my lifetime and the reason for this was that the shocking images that people round the world saw meant people's reality was changed forever. Up until then, people's school of thought was that such events and such images could be seen "only in Hollywood". But this was no film script, no Tom Cruise or Harrison Ford blockbuster. The events people were seeing had really happened, aircraft had been crashed into buildings and the atrocities were real. I could live to be 100 and I do not think I will ever see a more poignant or life affirming news event.

The one difference between the death of Diana and the planes crashing into the Twin Towers compared to the news of Michael Jackson's death breaking was that I was not in front of a television to follow the story in the first two cases, whereas with Jackson, what had already been a surreal day for me on a personal level, ended surreally as well by hearing of his reported death and then having this confirmed as events unfolded on the news channel I flicked over to watch. With regards to Princess Diana, I was in bed by the time the car crash had been reported and then latterly when her death was confirmed. I did not hear of her death until the following morning.

In the case of 9/11, it really was one of those "you remember exactly where you were and what you were doing" moments and on the day in question, I was at work and had been required to go over to another office in the afternoon to sit on an interview panel to interview a temporary member of staff who the company I was with at the time were wanting to come in and start running a new project until a permanent person was in place.

The interview was fairly unmemorable but after it finished, I had to walk back to the office where I worked to pick up some belongings I had left there before heading home. On the ten minute walk back, I remember walking past a newsagents with the local newspaper's placard outside. The words on it were few but the impact was immediate. "Planes hit Twin Towers" it said. My immediate thought was "That's surely caused some damage". As I walked up a side street back to the office, I was conscious that every house I passed had the BBC news on in the living room. I just wanted to go and collect my belongings and get home as quickly as possible to see what had happened. When I did, the images and the knowledge of the atrocities were truly shocking.

The death of Michael Jackson is certainly not in the same ball park as far as its wide reaching effects and the magnitude it had. But in terms of deaths of famous people, cultural icons if you like, in my recollected lifetime hitherto, only Princess Diana's death is in any way comparable in terms of its impact. Why is this? I mean, Michael Jackson's death in itself was not entirely surprising. He had had struggles with his health for fifteen years or more and Jackson's surgery and lifestyle choices had taken their toll on his physical and mental wellbeing. When it was announced earlier in the year that Jackson would be performing 50 shows at the O2 Arena, I do not believe I was alone in voicing cynicism that these shows might not happen. That this prophecy has been fulfilled in such tragic circumstances, however, is something that this soothsayer is neither happy to have forecast nor one that he expected to turn out in this way.

People might also wonder how it is that Jackson's death can have dominated the news agenda in the way that it has at a time of other pressing matters around the world, especially when Jackson's stock has fallen significantly in recent years, with his appearances in the newspapers usually being for more sinister implications associated with his private life, rather than for any positive accomplishments in his professional life. After all, Jackson had not recorded any new material since 2001.

Let's consider a few things though. First of all, am I alone in not being too bothered if the fallout from Michael Jackson's death is given priority on the news over yet more tedious reports of MPs having fiddled their expenses? Yes, it is quite shocking that MPs can get away with flipping second homes, more than that in fact, it is a fraudulent offence to which you hope the offenders will be brought to book. But the revelation that MPs are shady characters that will take advantage of a system that they regulated is about as earth shattering as discovering that the world is round. The story has just run and run in recent weeks, far beyond its natural saturation point. Discovering that an MP made a claim for a packet of biscuits or peppermint tea is really not newsworthy.

The wider point to be considered though is that if you ask the big media giants, Reuters or Sky News or the BBC for example, what influences what news stories you cover, their answer will be a simple one. Their response will be "our audience's demands will determine what news we give to them". With that in mind, consider this. On Thursday night, in the light of one news agency announcing the first rumours of Michael Jackson's death, inquisitive web users made a beeline for the world's most popular search engine to find out news, so much so that it resulted in said search engine crashing, buckling under the weight of its enquirers' insatiable demands for updates.

Of course, the moralists and the people with the highest brows in society will turn their noses up at this and scoff that this is a sign of standards diminishing in society. Hmm, maybe there are some grains of truth in there somewhere. But we live in a celebrity obsessed society. Go into your average household and at least one person will be reading a glossy celebrity magazine or reading the gossip pages of a tabloid newspaper, showing pictures of some F-list celebrity falling in or out of a taxi after excessive fuelling. The attitude of newspaper editors and media executives can be found in the lyrics to "Going Underground" by The Jam - The public gets what the public wants.

But this was the death of no run of the mill celebrity. This was not the death of a reality television star or a soap actress, both of which have brought the guarantee of a front page headline in recent times. Michael Jackson has dominated the media coverage and resulted in the mass level of World Wide Web hits over the past 48 hours because quite simply he was a global icon and megastar, who was identifiable the world over, even allowing for his plastic surgery over the years. OK, his star has fallen and diminished and his reputation has been sullied by revelations of his private life and the allegations and court cases that went with this. But look at the evidence, Google broke under the strain just two nights ago and his concert tickets sold out in no time at all.

I was talking to a couple of people at work yesterday and also holding court on a website forum I use discussing Michael Jackson's death and one of the things that I tapped into was that even if you are not an ardent fan of Michael Jackson and you are either a casual fan that just a copy of his Greatest Hits at home (a group which I would include myself in), or you do not like his music at all, Jackson's music in some way will remind you of an event or a time in your life that you can recollect when you hear his music or which your mind will have gone back to when you heard of his death. I think this is a phenomenon that readers of the human mind refer to as association.

This mind set is true for me, as I am sure it is for many of you out there. I expect there are plenty of couples who will have chosen a Michael Jackson track as the backing music to the first dance at their wedding, or who may even have conceived to one of his past classics. To people of my age and I would say people currently aged between 30 and 50, Jackson's music may well have featured in the soundtrack to their lives growing up.

Personal moments of Michael Jackson association for me would be thus. Being at junior school back around 1987-1988, I can remember classmates in the school playground copying Jackson's Moonwalk dance moves. I can remember a birthday party where this author decided to caricature Jackson's vocals on Bad. Needless to say my efforts matched the song title and my only prior poison had been orange juice. Well, I was only 10 years old at the time! Fast forward a few years to my final year at school and I can remember another party, this time where the poison on offer was harder. At this party, I can remember some joker putting one of Michael Jackson's albums on the CD player and playing a track that featured breaking glass sound effects, in order to preturb the girl whose party it was, who was out of the room at the time, into thinking that a real glass had been shattered. Incidentally, if anyone can tell me what Michael Jackson track I am referring to, I would be very grateful as it is something of an unsolved mystery to me. Thinking of the timeline, I think it might be off of the Dangerous album, but I am not completely sure.

My point is that these sorts of personal memories will ring true for those of you reading this blog and for many other people out there, certainly among people currently in their 30s right up to people even in their early 50s. Just as people of a certain age will have recollected their youth when Elvis Presley died, so now people will remember their halcyon days of youth when hearing of Michael Jackson's death. Back in times when Top of the Pops was a staple part of the television schedules, people will have grown up watching Jackson's latest video featuring at number one. The visual medium was something that Jackson tapped into and the release of Thriller, two years after MTV America first aired, was an example of someone using the right media at the right time.

Of course, detractors will report that Jackson was not really a pioneer in this field and that the pioneering music video that opened the door to its wider use as part of the package when releasing a new single was to be found back in 1975 when Queen released Bohemian Rhapsody. It is true to say that Bo Rhap was the first proper music video to be widely associated with its composition (although Bob Dylan and The Beatles had used film some 10 years before) but Michael Jackson raised the bar and took advantage of the new visual media. Without Bohemian Rhapsody or Another Brick In The Wall, maybe MTV would never have had a reason for being. But what Jackson did was see that MTV had arrived and reinvent the whole concept of the music video. Thriller was not so much a pop video as a short film and was put together on a budget more expensive than some Hollywood blockbusters.

Then there are those that apply the school of thought that Jackson is not really a musician on the grounds that "he can't play an instrument". Not only is this incorrect, as Jackson was certainly a proficient piano player, but it ignores the fact that the human voice is an instrument within, an instrument that both requires natural gifts and nurturing. Purists may argue that Jackson was not a great vocalist in a technical sense but he was certainly a showman and the vocal range that he used in his back catalogue over the years was extensive. It also ignores the possibility that Jackson intended to use his dance moves as an instrument, an interpretation of his lyrics and the tempo of his songs.

Wherever you look in the current pop music climate, Jackson's influences are to be found, both in a musical sense and from a choreographical perspective. If you look at the current R&B scene and even the rap scene, there are several artists who borrow from Jackson's work, the beats, the arrangements, the dance routines. Look at Take That. Here is a band that spends hours practising specially crafted dance routines and which uses complicated sets for their stage performances. Who are they borrowing from in adopting this approach? A Mr M. Jackson features highly. His influences cross over to just about every musical genre, from soul and R&B right over to rock and Indie music.

Of course, part of what has made the Michael Jackson story what it is has been the story of him having all the talent in the world but leading, what to all intents and purposes, appears to have been a reclusive life that he did not enjoy. Like some other stars who found fame at a young age and who were pushed into show business by their parents, such as Britney Spears, Drew Barrymore and Macaulay Culkin, Jackson has led a tumultuous life in the public gaze from an early age and the childhood he was seemingly deprived of at its natural age, he has sought to cling on to in aspects of his adult life. This is something that has led to unsavoury perceptions among many and it would be remiss to accept that some of Jackson's behaviour over the years would constitute acceptable conduct as far as social norms are concerned. However, it is very important to remember that Jackson has never been found guilty of any crime and for as long as the judicial system operates an innocent until proven guilty policy, then any judgements people make are being made on hearsay and rumours rather than any concrete proof. The phrase "no smoke without fire" is one of the most dangerous catch phrases in common usage.

Jackson's lifestyle choices and decision making have at times been naive and misguided at best and this is not just confined to his conduct around children. His insecurities that led to his constant changing of his appearance and then his regular wearing of masks will have, in some way, contributed to the deterioration in his health and ultimately to his untimely death. 50 is no age to die, especially when you consider that Madonna, some two weeks older than Jackson, remains in peak fitness while Bono at 49 years old is still bounding around stage like a man 20 years younger on U2's latest world tour.

Jackson is the latest in a long line of flawed geniuses who have been bestowed with great natural gifts and talents but who have been consumed by other demons that they have never been able to conquer. In these times of Britain's Got Talent and the X-Factor, young men and particularly women crave fame without necessarily having the rudimentary requirements of a talent. Jackson did have this talent and certainly had the fame, but the fame he achieved was a pyrrhic victory and one which sadly proved to be his undoing, as ill health led to more medication and more medication surely led to more side effects, which in turn, led to, seemingly the last devastating cardiac arrest that he endured.

So what of the aftermath of Jackson's death? It would seem that the media are keen to point the fingers of blame at his doctor and at organisers of the concerts that he was due to perform in London, just next month. This is probably a natural process wherever such a big name person has died, but in truth, it does not help anybody because unless the post-mortem proves otherwise, we can only ever assume that Jackson's death was as a result of natural causes, his heart arrested and he could not be resuscitated. However, because of this finger pointing, we can expect the story of Jackson's demise to continue to be played out in the public eye for some time to come, even if it does not produce quite the levels of hysteria associated with Princess Diana's death.

Whatever Jackson's faults that have been touched upon earlier, whatever the sordid allegations and connotations, the simple facts are that there will not be many occasions in our lifetime when a defining figure's passing makes such an impact through the media. The death of a monarch or of a US president would certainly eclipse it, but it is hard to think of anyone else's passing that would. The reason I feel that this is the case is that for so many people, Jackson's music is a reminder of a past moment in their life, a significant event, a recollection of a time of happiness or possibly sadness, but also a realisation of more innocent times, innocent times no longer afforded to them because of responsibilities.

Jackson's legacy will be his back catalogue, much the same as it will always be for Elvis, The Beatles, Buddy Holly and any other stars long after their demise. If today's news that Jackson had 100 pre-recorded tracks left in a vault at his home are true, then his influence can carry on, albeit in a posthumous sense. We can only speculate on what Jackson would have achieved musically had he lived long into his 50s, but maybe we can still find out. At the very least, with Quincy Jones still around, there is surely the possibility of a Beatles Anthology-esque album or two emerging.

As for his grieving fans, expecting to see him in London in a matter of weeks, well if the O2 have any sense then they should consider going ahead with at least some of the concerts, albeit with Jackson's appearance only being via previous video footage. This may still be enough for plenty of admirers to still attend, while others can claim their full refunds. And it could also be an opportunity for some of the great and the good to stop by for the night and pay their own special tribute to the man who was supposed to be the headline act.

Whatever way you look at it, the past week has been a surreal week and Jackson's death whilst not on the surface really being a seismic shock, has nonetheless, registered a greater impact than his fading star suggested it should do. Thanks for the memories.

Free speech has its drawbacks

Well, Happy New Year everyone. I hope you had a Christmas that did not leave you too stuffed and has left with you with a sufficient bank balance in order to negotiate the January sales. I hope that 2009 is a rewarding and healthy one for you all.

Apologies for the lack of blogs in the past three weeks or so. Time has been at a premium with the usual pre-Christmas rush of things to do and people to see. I was not helped either by going down with the 'flu for about a week before Christmas. Plenty of it going around it would seem.

There are a few things which I would like to talk about that have been in the news of late and I hope that I will get opportunity to discuss some of these matters in future blog posts.

First things first though. Is it just me or is there a media frenzy these days for the media in any form, be it newspapers, magazines, websites, radio programmes or television programmes to get our opinion on absolutely everything, be it serious topical debate or the completely inane? Turn on Breakfast or GMTV in the morning and to kill the two minutes before cutting to the regional news or the weather and you will get Bill and Sian or Ben and Kate reading out a selection of texts to do with people's opinions on the important story of the day or on something completely trivial, followed by a sentence like "keep your texts coming in" or "we would like to know what you think". Obviously the BBC and ITV have to make money out of texts now that their money making opportunities from suspect competitions have been restricted.

Or, if you turn on the radio, there are entire radio stations devoted to topical debate which would not survive unless the average white van driver or painter and decorator didn't phone in to discuss the state of the economy between jobs. There are also vast numbers of websites out there with discussion forums where people can debate a wide spectrum of topics, depending on what tickles their fancy. Expertise and knowledge of the subject in hand appears to be an optional requirement.

The question is though, does this open invitation for such opinion actually help to have a meaningful debate on important issues, or does it just provide a platform to people who lack the debating skills or indeed the knowledge of the debated subject and which in the end turns the debates into nothing more than pantomimes? Discussions on TV tend to encourage the controversial so to provoke argument, but meaningful conclusions can rarely be drawn from such debates. All the TV companies are looking for are flash points because these will draw people in, everyone likes an old fashioned tear-up, after all and these draw the viewers in. But discussions tend to be rushed so the next topic can be discussed and so no debate ever really reaches a satisfactory conclusion.

Perhaps the worst offenders though are newspaper websites. One daily newspaper encourages its readers to "join the debate", although from memory, the newspaper in question happens to be one that plays with the minds of its readers by scare mongering. But even the quality newspapers provide its readers with the opportunity to contribute comments to any story that they publish online, usually with the proviso that the reader is signed up as a member of their website. This is not a difficult process, as it asks only for your name, e-mail address and for you to provide a username and password, so even someone with the level of intelligence that George W. Bush possesses would be able to sign up.

Now, in one sense this is good because complete strangers can have a debate on any given subject on which they happen to have a mutual interest, if not a shared opinion. But the secret to any such website is that it needs to be moderated. People who post inflammatory remarks or who make comments that deviate from the subject or from the spirit of the use of the comments boxes should have their comments removed. It is not an easy job being a website moderator, as you are seen as a beak, an interfering busybody to compare with traffic wardens or tax collectors. But theirs is a necessary job because otherwise it shows the newspaper whose website it is in a bad light and what started out as a constructive debate turns into a squabble between people of conflicting opinions, but who lack the skills or inclination to debate in a constructive manner.

Generally, the national broadsheet newspapers tend to police the opinion/comments sections of their websites adequately and they encourage free speech while removing anything that is particularly offensive or outrageous. The BBC's website has an even more rigorous process where every post made has to be checked before it is posted on its discussion forums. This goes too far for some people, but clearly free speech is a privilege which some of its beneficiaries choose to abuse through their own ignorance, intolerances or lack of thought.

If you are wondering what particularly stirred me to write about this topic, I would advise you to take a look at The Argus website at www.theargus.co.uk . The Argus, for those who live outside of the Brighton area, is the leading daily newspaper that covers Brighton and Hove and the immediate surrounding area. It reputedly keeps its readers in tune with all the important news in the Brighton area as and when it happens. To give the newspaper its dues, its website does update on a regular basis and any breaking news that occurs during the day very quickly makes it on to their website.

However, if you sense a 'but' coming you would be right. The Argus has become a more sensationalist newspaper in recent years and this is reflected in the way it reports on its stories, often over-dramatising events and also becoming more self-righteous in its editorial pieces, much in the tome you would expect of a national daily tabloid newspaper. If you strip down the nuts and bolts, The Argus has deteriorated in terms of its output in recent years, with over the top headlines, stories of not hugely significant interest and plenty of adverts. I suppose given that people have less time to read the news, this suits them because they can skim read The Argus in a matter of minutes, but it is a sad indictment.

This sensationalist output from The Argus has a knock-on effect as it influences the quality of opinion from its readers and this is particularly evident if you read the comments that get posted in response to the stories carried on The Argus website. I decided to sign up as a member of its discussion forums just before the New Year having been particularly disturbed by the self-righteous and judgemental attitudes voiced by some commentators in response to a story that The Argus had run on its website about a murder victim in the city.

The story related to a man who had been stabbed to death in the early hours in the centre of Brighton. My first reaction on hearing about this was to be shocked that the incident happened about 10 minutes from where I live and in a street that I must walk up and down at least a couple of times a week. Anyway, The Argus reported that people living near the scene had heard a commotion a few minutes earlier and that a drunk sounding person was heard to sing football songs in the vicinity.

Now, no-one can really be sure what led to the circumstances of the man's murder until further evidence comes to light and any prosecution takes place. But, due to The Argus rather helpfully reporting this commotion, it has led to the amateur Poirots amongst The Argus's readership to go online and stick in their two penneth, including saying that the victim "must have asked for trouble", in some way assuming that the victim was singing the songs in question, some asking "why was he out at that time of night?" as the murder supposedly occurred in the early hours of the morning while another upon reading that the victim was unemployed, asked why the victim was out drinking at that time of night when he wouldn't have an income to do so, when there is no firm evidence to suggest the person who had been stabbed had been out drinking, but again this had been assumed on the basis of The Argus's article.

These, and other such thought provoking comments can be found in response to the story that The Argus originally ran on this subject, while a comment from joeinbrighton can also be read which asked that The Argus firstly did more to moderate comments on its website so to put a stop to rent-an-idiot putting the world to rights and secondly which asked those who live in greenhouses not to throw stones and to respect the dead and their family and friends, regardless of how they came to be taken from this world, without resorting to cheap shots and snap judgements. I doubt my intervention will make much difference, but these kinds of comments come about as a result of cheap journalism and media who are all too ready to invite opinion without any attention given to quality control.

In fact, I know that my comments in response to the previous article made no difference as I checked back into the Argus website earlier and read some comments in response to another article, this time about a semi-professional footballer who plays for Eastbourne Borough who was admitted to hospital a few days ago after suffering a wound to his head that caused a clot to his brain. From The Argus story it would appear that the footballer in question, Paul Armstrong, was the victim of an attack or a fight in the vicinity of a pub in Crawley which resulted in him receiving this blow to the head which could have had fatal consequences.

I read this article with some interest as a good friend of mine is a team-mate of Mr Armstrong's at Eastbourne Borough and I had wondered why he had not played in a match that I had been to earlier in the week. I don't know Paul Armstrong personally, although I have met him and he would seem to be a nice guy on the surface, so it was sad to hear of his predicament. I hoped that by reading the comments at the bottom of the article there would be a few well wishers who would wish him a complete and speedy recovery. Sadly, there would appear to be a few villages missing their resident idiot.

Perhaps it is inevitable because footballers get so much negative press these days, sometimes rightly, often not so. You hear plenty of stories of top flight footballers getting into scrapes or being greedy, although strangely the papers very rarely report on the vast amounts of work they do for charitable causes and helping the sick and needy, of which there are plenty of examples. I guess that doesn't fit the agenda of the popular press, but because this doesn't get much press coverage, people's perceptions of footballers are obviously distorted because they are only seeing one side of the story.

Anyway, back to the topic. Hot on the heels of the Steven Gerrard story in the national press last week, people no doubt just read the story as being "footballer gets into a fight". As the incident reportedly happened in Crawley so the Argus tell us, and the team that Mr Armstrong represents were playing in Crawley earlier that day, one commentator to the Argus's comments box indicated that this had incited trouble because "Eastbourne had beaten Crawley earlier in the day", or words to that effect. Quite apart from this being factually untrue, as Crawley actually won the match 1-0, what has this got to do with anything? So if you play football against Crawley, you should not have a night out in Crawley afterwards? Quite apart from wondering where you would go for a night out in Crawley, why should someone's profession dictate where they can or cannot have a drink? Admittedly, if Gary Neville went for a night out in Liverpool, I would advise he sports a disguise in order to protect his safety, but Crawley and Eastbourne do not have a hostile rivalry to compare with Liverpool and Manchester United, or Celtic and Rangers.

Because of the Gerrard story breaking so recently, of which no-one knows the full facts, and the catalogue of previous misdemeanours involving top flight players, readers seem to automatically assume that the footballer caused the trouble and that they shouldn't have been out drinking anyway. A few points to consider here. This incident happened a few hours after a match and the team's next match wasn't for another 4 days. Why shouldn't the player be out having a drink? After the adrenalin rush of a match during the day, I'd imagine many footballers, certainly in the semi-pro ranks like to wind down by having a couple of pints and a curry with friends or loved ones in the evening. That doesn't mean they are going to get raving drunk and pick a fight. Secondly, we are talking about a semi-professional player. These are guys who only earn a smidgeon of their income through kicking a ball on a Saturday afternoon and have other jobs too. When you consider the time they spend training on top of doing their regular jobs and packing in plenty of games in a cramped fixture schedule, semi-professional hardly does many of these players justice. They might not have made the grade as a top flight player but they play for the enjoyment of the game.

With this in mind, windows of opportunity to have a drink and to relax do not come around often during the year. Even over Christmas, semi-pro footballers do not get the luxury of a couple of weeks off that many office workers do because the tradition of football in this country is that Boxing Day and New Year's Day matches are the best attended in the season. They are as much part of the Christmas tradition as turkey sandwiches or tinsel. With a few day's grace and in the aftermath of a match, it really shouldn't be seen as a big deal that a player is out having a drink, or minding his own business. You somehow expect that there are some people who expect players to live the life of a monk between matches, but I would invite them to join the real world.

However Paul Armstrong came to be on the receiving end in this incident, it seems churlish to point the finger at him just because of his profession. Again, the full facts of this have not been reported, but surely the main thing is that someone has been the victim of a crime that has been perpetrated by someone else. Instead of the self-righteous questioning people's lifestyle choices, it would be much better if they just condemned the fact that a simple pleasure such as a night out seems not to be possible sometimes because of the actions of the minority. I would like to wish Paul Armstrong a full and speedy recovery, I wonder if The Argus would like to do the same.

Through flicking through other news stories on The Argus website you will no doubt come across other examples of bright sparks thinking they know it all and judging people without having any idea. They do it because they can, as there are no repercussions. The Argus's website seems sadly lacking in any form of moderation and people seem to be able to say pretty much what they want to, as long as it is not racist. Because there is no moderation and no checking of posts, what deterrent is there for people who want to abuse the privilege of free speech in order to spout absolute garbage?

The Argus have helped to create this monster in this instance through their sensationalist headline writing, although as I said at the beginning, I feel this is part of a much wider trend. There is an insatiable appetite amongst all media for the public's opinions to be heard. But the demand for opinion on a whole raft of subjects far outweighs the actual supply of opinions that are considered, balanced and well thought out. The rest of the opinions are formed as a result of what is read in newspapers or on websites, or which they hear or see on television and this coverage is often distorted or leads its audience to form a certain conclusion, depending on their own agendas. People are either too lazy or not well informed enough to think out of the box and so they assume what they read is gospel and this forms their opinion.

This just creates a vicious circle and so cheap news results in cheap opinions. I think it is what is called Garbage In, Garbage Out in computer programming circles. We live in times where we have less time to absorb the news and so want to take in the news in a snapshot. By taking in our news in digestible chunks, it stands to reason that some of the little crumbs commonly known as the facts get dropped on the cutting room floor somewhere. This, allied with the advent of there being 24 hour news and opinion TV and radio channels who have the same items regurgitating each hour and need opinions to fill time results in opinions becoming cheaper in value, if not in price. After all, a text to complain about the day's hot potato costs at least the standard network rate. And what do you end up having to show for it? As a wise man once said, the worst thing about the world are the people who inhabit it.

Anyway, let me know what you think. E-mails should be free and texts will be charged for at the discretion of your network operator.