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

Greetings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Ringing tills, splattering eggs and pigs in Photoshop

Hello again.

Well, so much has happened since I last sat at this keyboard. We have seen the world's first £80 million footballer, of which there will be more discussion in a moment. Also, we have seen the less than encouraging developments of 2 BNP candidates being elected to the European Parliament, which I will also cover further down. And then, just when you thought it had disappeared off the radar this week there was news that the swine flu pandemic had reached a grade 6. This was quite surprising news to me. I mean, who honestly realised that pigs could play the piano?

Perhaps the most bizarre story of the week concerned the revelations that the one millionth word had entered the English dictionary. It turned out that the word in question really wasn't a word at all but some technical geek speak in the form of web2.0. Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought that words needed to exclusively contain letters of the alphabet in order to qualify as a word and they also needed to consist of one word, not a series of words tagged together. Does that mean that you could nominate one of the blank tiles in Scrabble as a number in future play? Me thinks these crazy boffins haven't thought this one through.

Anyway, it has been a week of many stories worth discussing, so let me now do that very thing.

1. Everybody has their price
Well, news that there is an economic crisis does not appear to have reached the power brokers in the world of football, with Real Madrid currently throwing money around with reckless ease in the manner that a wedding party reveller would throw around confetti. In the past week, Real have spent the grand sum of £139 million on the signing of two admittedly prodigious footballing talents, Brazilian midfield playmaker Kaka and the jewel in Manchester United's crown in recent seasons, Cristiano Ronaldo.

To the footballing layperson, such figures must seem preposterous. To the average football fan struggling to make ends meet, let alone be able to afford to watch their favourite team live, it must seem just as obscene. And I suppose really, from an ethical standpoint, it is. How can one justify such vast amounts of money being thrown around for anyone in what essentially is an entertainment industry? The bald facts, however, are that top football clubs are multi-million pound corporate businesses just in the same way that ICI or Cable and Wireless are, and it is a dog-eat-dog world out there, where clubs will be prepared to sell their soul to the devil, or pay vast amounts of money to the Red Devils in order to seek to gain competitive advantage.

Fans of American sports, particularly American Football and NBA basketball will point to the American model of sport as being the benchmark for addressing the vast inequalities in the distribution of wealth that exist in club football. It was an irony not lost on the media this week that for £20 million more than it cost Real Madrid to sign Cristiano Ronaldo, the whole club of Newcastle United football club could be bought, right down to the last breeze blocks. However, it is hard to envisage the American model of equality ever working in European football. For one, there is a very powerful cartel among Europe's leading football clubs that would never allow such a system to be introduced.

Secondly, it is hard to see a transfer system being imposed where at the end of the season, the best players would be forced to go to a lesser team. In the US, the weaker teams get the top picks out of the upcoming college players for the next season. There is no such college system that exists in Europe, because players go straight into football at the age of 15 and 16 and abandon their studies. Expecting established players to move to lesser clubs in order to address the discrepancies in the league is a nice ideal and all that, but the chances of it ever happening in European football are the same as Charlton Athletic's average score last season, nil.

There will come a point in time where the gap between the haves and have nots are such that, I would expect League One and League Two in English football will become a semi-professional outfit, in order for the clubs at that level to survive. There are 92 clubs in English football and given the disparity in the distribution of wealth in the league pyramid, the time will come where several clubs in the lower leagues are going to be forced to the wall unless player wages come down. You only need to look at the problems that relegated teams from the English Premier League have had in recent seasons. The three relegated teams from the Championship in season 2008/09 were Southampton, Charlton and Norwich. All three of those clubs were in the Premier League as recently as the 2004/05 season. But failure to return to the top flight at the first attempt meant that they lost their parachute payments and consequently, each club has been plunged into a financial black hole. In Southampton's case, they have been unable to pay their players during the past two months, during which time they have fallen into administration.

Leaving this aside for the moment, let's get back to considering the sale of Cristiano Ronaldo and the merits of his move to both the buying and selling parties. Eyes will be raised about why a player would leave a club that has won its domestic championship in each of their last three seasons, as well as having reached two successive Champions League finals would leave to join a team that has gone three years without winning a trophy and has not won the Champions League trophy since 2002. On the surface, you would think that such a move would be a backward step for a player that has aspirations to be regarded as the best player in the world. Certainly you would if you have an allegiance to Manchester United, as the author has no desire to hide!

It is not quite simple as that, however. Real Madrid are not like any other club in world football, something that I came to appreciate at first hand when I toured their ground on a friend's stag trip just over a year ago. What really strikes you when you walk around Madrid's museum is the incredible history that the club has. Wherever you go around the museum, you are reminded of the club's glorious past and its former heroes, right back to Ferenc Puskas and Alfredo Di Stefano in the 1950s and 1960s right up to more modern heroes like Zinedine Zidane, Raul and David Beckham. Real have not always been the top club in Europe, in fact they went over 30 years without winning the European Cup before eventually winning it again in 1998. But even during those barren years, they could still attract some of the best players in the world at that time.

There is always an allure among the top players to play for Real Madrid at some point in their careers, particularly for those with more Narcissus tendencies as Cristiano Ronaldo has tended to demonstrate in his career to date. Ronaldo certainly wants to win the big pots, but there is a part of him that craves the attention and the adoration that goes with being a world class individual talent. Madrid as a club have always embraced players with star quality, not least because of the lucrative marketing opportunities that this generates. Sales of replica shirts with Ronaldo or Kaka on the back are as much of an attraction to Real's power brokers as results on the pitch.

The recent re-election of Florentine Perez as Real Madrid's President has played a part in Real's purchasing power. The presidential system may be somewhat alien to people that only sport in this country, but what happens is that Spain's top clubs elect a president every few years and much like a president in a political sphere has a manifesto that is set out to appeal to the electorate, so the footballing equivalents have their manifestos that make or break their candidacy. Except that theirs are not so much manifestos as wishlists, or rather, a list of guarantees. Perez's winning manifesto will have been along the lines of "If you elect me, I will buy you Kaka, Ronaldo and Ribery". Well, as Meat Loaf once broke glass from ten paces in emphasising, two out of three ain't bad.

Real's purchasing power is all well and good, but it would fair to argue that it will not guarantee them success on the pitch. After all, during Perez's previous spell as President, Real were the very definition of "Galacticos". This word has negative connotations in that it describes that Real had a group of all stars in the shape of Zidane, Raul, Beckham, the original Ronaldo, Roberto Carlos and Luis Figo and yet for all this, their success on the pitch was less than dominant. They failed to win the Champions League during David Beckham's time at the club, while both Valencia and Barcelona claimed Spanish titles as often as they did themselves.

One of the principal reasons for Real's failure to dominate either their domestic league or European football back in the early part of this decade was that they only purchased star attacking players. To Perez's mind, defensive players do not put bums on seats and so he will not sanction big money purchases of top notch stoppers. It is true that supporters prefer to see the great attacking players show off their skills, but it is a fact of the game that the best teams need to be balanced, as witnessed by Barcelona's recent victory in the Champions League final. So, while Real throwing money at top class attacking players is all well and good, until they sort out their vulnerable defence and make their midfield stronger, their chances of conquering Europe will not be huge. This is a team that has not even made the last four of the Champions League since 2003.

Their great rivals both in Spain and on the European stage will be Barcelona and it is hard to imagine the Catalonians relinquishing their supremacy any time soon. Not only do Barcelona possess arguably the best player on the planet currently in Lionel Messi, but they have the most balanced team and particularly have a midfield that is unstoppable when in possession of the ball, as their lead protagonists Xavi and Andres Iniesta showed in the Champions League final recently. No team has successfully defended the Champions League since that format was introduced in 1992, but this Barcelona team is definitely good enough to be capable of achieving that feat. So Real signing two players, even of such high class that Ronaldo and Kaka possess is no guarantee of success.

The question you ask then is, were Manchester United right to accept Real's £80 million bid for Cristiano Ronaldo, given that the player has been such a crucial factor in Manchester United's recent success on the pitch. My answer to this would have to be an emphatic yes. Every player has his price and in Real's case, they have actually paid beyond Ronaldo's true value. The biggest problem that Manchester United will face in replacing Ronaldo is that, in essence, they will need to sign two players to replace him because on the one hand, they will need to sign a pacy, tricky right wing player, but in addition to that they will also be needing to sign a forward that is able to score a significant amount of goals, especially as United are also likely to lose Carlos Tevez during the coming weeks.

But United will no doubt be intending to reinvest the vast majority of the money they recoup from the Ronaldo sale into bringing in reinforcements for the new season, plus they should have around another £20-25 million to spend from this season's transfer budget as well as the seemingly imminent sale of striker Frazier Campbell to Hull City. A budget of around £105 million would be enough for United to sign a right wing player and a centre forward, as well as strengthening in other positions where players are required. This will be particularly so in midfield where both Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes are heading towards their retirement, while Owen Hargreaves has serious injury doubts and Anderson has much to prove. The only danger is that the footballing world will now know of United's newly generated income and consequently, will hike up the price of any player that they covet.

The sale of Ronaldo ultimately was justified because it has been clear from the player's body language over the past season that he has been kept at Old Trafford under duress. Just last summer speculation was rife that Ronaldo would be heading to the Bernabeu, but it took all of Sir Alex Ferguson's powers of persuasion to keep the Portuguese flyer at Old Trafford. The past season has done little to allay fears that Ronaldo's heart lay in Madrid. It would be churlish to suggest that this was evident because Ronaldo did not play as well last season as in the previous two campaigns, because there simply was no way he could top those campaigns. However, his dissatisfaction was evident in his posturing and frustration towards team mates and it became clear that he was far from happy when discarding his tracksuit when he was substituted in United's win near the end of the season against Manchester City and just about signed his resignation note when openly criticising Sir Alex Ferguson's tactics in the aftermath of United's defeat in the Champions League final.

The mantra at Manchester United has always been that no one player is bigger than the club and time and again that has proven to be the case. Eric Cantona's retirement was supposed to be the end of United's domination and yet two years later, the team achieved the still unprecedented treble. David Beckham's departure to Madrid after being caught by a flailing boot was supposed to be a hasty move from which United would never recover and yet United simply replaced him with Ronaldo. Ruud Van Nistelrooy's sale at the end of the 2005/06 season was meant to be a disaster, especially when United did not replace him with a ready made replacement. And yet, in the three seasons since the big Dutchman left Old Trafford, his former employers have won three consecutive league titles. During Van Nistelrooy's five season stay in Manchester, they had won the title only once.

All of this tells us that the sale of one player, however influential, does not mean the demise of Manchester United. Instead, what it means is that the team takes stock and other players will take more responsibility. Just as Beckham and Van Nistelrooy's sales gave Cristiano Ronaldo more licence to become the crucial player he has been to United's cause these past two or three seasons, so now the baton of progress is passed to some of United's other players.

I think this is an excellent opportunity for Wayne Rooney to prove what a quality performer he is. Rooney has just enjoyed a top class campaign for both club and country and Ronaldo's sale is likely to mean that he is afforded more opportunity to play in his best position and to have the team built around his strengths. I also expect next season to be a defining campaign for Dimitar Berbatov, after a first campaign at Old Trafford in which many felt he went through the motions. Expect his contribution to come to the fore in 2009/10. Above all though, just remember that Manchester United and Sir Alex Ferguson are at their most dangerous when they are a wounded animal.

2. Silent majority only have themselves to blame
There are times in life when you see something in the news and you make a grim forecast of an event that will follow and you take no satisfaction from being proved right when that very event comes to fruition. Unfortunately, this was one such week when that scenario came to pass when the news broke that the British National Party had won two seats in the European Parliament. Pardon the pun, but this development hardly left me feeling egg-static.

As I argued on these pages some weeks ago, there was always a danger that the European elections would give a platform to the cranks and loonies of the world , not least because of the current outpourings of protest voting. Sadly though, it would seem that the electorate's approach to protest voting was not so much to vote with their feet as to superglue their seated positions to their comfy armchairs and DFS sofas. I have thought for some time that apathy is a national dish in the UK and it came fully served with coleslaw for the Euro elections, with just a paltry thirty seven per cent of the eligible electorate bothering to show up to put their cross in the box.

It reminds me of an article I read way back in the autumn of 2000 when I was in my final year of studying at university and one day I recall collecting some information for an assignment I was doing on European Integration, a subject that I have always had a passing interest in. There I was in the computer room one rainy November afternoon, idly discussing some information that would be useful to put into an assignment, when I stumbled across a nugget of information on the Internet that has stayed with me ever since. The piece of information was that people aged between 18 and 35 were more likely to vote in the Big Brother final (which at the time had only been going for one series) than they were to vote in a European election. I mean, what does it say when people can choose between voting to keep a bunch of misfits and cranks in an overpopulated house but would rather choose who wins a reality TV series!

Frivolity aside, this is a disturbing insight into people's sense of priority and it is every bit as relevant now in 2009 as it was back when this trend had identified back at the start of the decade. The cult of mini celebrity has grown larger with each passing year and every one of us is consumed by the power of celebrity every time we pick up a newspaper or turn on a television, even if the newspaper of choice is a broadsheet. Even Newsnight feels compelled to discuss celebrity and all its trappings every now and again, much to the legendary Jeremy Paxman's rolling eye disgust.

Public apathy towards politicians is nothing new but it has been significantly heightened by the recent expenses shenanigans and also the continual economic difficulties that the United Kingdom faces. Therefore, public discontent was always likely to play a huge part in the European election results. Unfortunately, the most ugly aspects of the recent self-pity Britain tone that has been carried by the newspapers and the broadcast media reared its ugly head when you look at some of the trends from last weekend's elections.

The biggest winners from the European elections were the Conservative Party and the UK Independence Party, while the Green Party enjoyed some moderate success. The Labour Party were the party that took the biggest fall from the election, and that was to be expected in the current climate. The other party that also suffered in the Euro elections were the Liberal Democrats, and on first impressions, their failure was more surprising given that their party was far less tarnished by the expenses row than either the Labour Party or the Conservatives.

On closer scrutiny though, there is a clear and sadly insular reason for these two parties bearing most of the public's ire. Both parties are primarily supporters of integration in the European Union and it appears that one of the current hot potatoes with the people that actually did vote is the thorny issue of immigration. You sense that the phrase "British jobs for British people" that Gordon Brown so unwisely uttered a few months ago has remained in the public consciousness. It would seem that when people mention immigration, they are often not making any distinction between people who are quite legally living and working in Britain as foreign nationals and those that are living here without conforming to the rules.

This rather xenophobic attitude seems to be a bi-product of the fever of self-pity that I have previously made reference to. People feel threatened because their jobs are in danger, while foreign nationals could possibly stand to benefit most from their predicament. Rather than wallowing in self-pity, however, some of these people should escape their comfort zone, stop thinking the world owes them a living and ask themselves why it is that people from overseas are being considered for their jobs? Yes, money does come into it, naturally so at a time of recession, but it certainly is not the only reason. Particularly within manufacturing and construction industries, foreign nationals may have skills that the incumbents do not possess or have no desire to learn.

When things go wrong, people are all too quick to look for scapegoats and targets to blame for their predicament rather than looking in the mirror and seeing what they could do differently to improve their prospects. Now, this is where the BNP come in. Their typical voter, so we are informed, is a young, working class person living in an area where poverty is high and education standards are low and people are likely to form their opinions on the world from their own struggles and from the editorial in The Sun. Because they live in an area where prospects are low, let's say somewhere like Burnley, which is a traditional BNP stronghold which has also traditionally seen jobs in factories, the average young person with no prospects is likely to blame their lot on Johnny Foreigner.

One has to wonder, however, if some of these people could be more proactive about their plight, either by undertaking the necessary skills training in order to qualify for a trade, or by being willing to move to another area where job opportunities are greater. At times of recession, much of the unemployment is structural, with certain parts of the country being affected more than others. Therefore, if people in these areas were prepared to be more flexible then their prospects would be far more enhanced.

The Freedom of Movement of Labour is a compulsory element to being signed up to the European Union and because of this imposition, those that have been affected most negatively by the current economic crisis are railing against the United Kingdom being part of an integrated Europe and would like a referendum at the very least. It does seem to me, however, that people forget that this freedom is in fact a two way arrangement. Just as our borders have been opened up to nationals from the EU's other 26 member states, so the borders to Poland, Estonia, Denmark, the Czech Republic et al are open to Brits. Surely the opportunity to enrich oneself on a personal level by immersing themselves in another culture and learning another language is something to be considered as a positive life changing experience? Or do we want to always want to hang on to the island mentality of only looking inwards?

So, let's get back to the BNP. Was the election of their two candidates to the European Parliament a sign that xenophobia and insularity is on the rise and that people are looking out for number one? I think that is true up to a point, but I think a context also needs to be applied. The two areas in which the BNP had candidates elected did not see a steep rise in BNP votes. In fact, in one area where the BNP were elected, the BNP's total votes were down in comparison to 2004. It just so happened that the overall turnout was also down and so they had a sufficient share of the vote in order to gain a seat. Incidentally, you would not see a better argument against proportional representation than these European elections.

In total, the BNP acquired six per cent of the vote across Britain, but let's remind ourselves that this was in fact six per cent of thirty-seven per cent that actually turned out to vote. So in actual fact, less than two per cent of the eligible voting population wilfully voted for Nick Griffin and his band of not entirely merry men. Fair to say, therefore, that the BNP's agenda was not pulled over the eyes of the vast majority of the nation.

It does remain pertinent, however, to look at how and why a party with such sinister motives can attract enough of the vote in order to have elected members and therefore what lessons more established parties can learn from this development. The self-pity Britain factor and animosity towards immigrants comes into the equation. So too, does the current mistrust of the established order among the leading political parties and figures. There are other elements too. I think that some more misguided people saw the media's and senior politician's pleas for people not to vote for a far right party as red rag to a bull and it symbolised the action of voting against the establishment. If that was the case, it was a foolhardy way of making the point. Equally, some other misguided voters possibly saw the BNP as representing the views of those that despise political correctness and the causes of political correctness. The irony here is that the BNP's views have in some part caused some of the political correctness that exists in the UK with their vitriolic opinions.

The strange part is that when it comes to actual policies that the BNP are willing to admit to, their policies are aligned much less with the far right and more with the far left. This is a party that claims to support nationalisation and the abolition of the monarchy. Neither of these are policies that are traditionally favoured by those with blue blood but are more in keeping with the fervent socialist wing of Old Labour. Of course, it is these very same people who have been most affected by the recession and feel the most amount of self-pity to their plight, hence it would be natural for the BNP to target such a vulnerable group.

It is to be hoped that when the General Election comes around, either in the autumn this year or in the spring of 2009, that the main political parties have managed to get their acts together and realise that the public are fed up with the old order making the same promises and the same mistakes and taking advantage of the privileges that come with the jobs they are elected to, with some notable exceptions. Pigs might fly I suppose, but the alternative is too gruesome to ponder. But, if sixty-three per cent of the voting nation cannot be bothered to turn up to vote, unfortunately the silent majority only have themselves to blame for what we are given.

3. Knowledge should come before point scoring
The recent Government reshuffle saw its share of controversial appointments, particularly in view of there being two high profile posts created for people that are not elected MPs, in addition to an elevation for Lord Mandelson of Slimeville, a man for whom the phrase "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" has never been more apt. It was the appointment of Sir Alan Sugar, soon to be rebranded as Lord Sugar, that appears to have generated most controversy and had most column inches devoted to it.

Sugar, it is known, is both a champion of entrepreneurship and a long standing ally of Gordon Brown's and of the Labour Government. His recent media profile has been significantly enhanced and exposed through his involvement in The Apprentice, which after five series continues to sustain its popularity. Sugar, being the wily operator that he is, has never missed the opportunity to make the most of this newly gained profile and put it to use for the greater good of the business community by travelling the country to promote entrepreneurship and apprentice schemes. Say what you like about Sugar as a person, but this is certainly putting something back into business.

The news of Sugar's appointment as the new Enterprise Czar does throw up some interesting challenges and questions, not least about whether Sugar will be able to continue his involvement in the programme that helped give him this platform in the first place. Sugar's credentials for the newly created role should not be in any doubt if he is being assessed purely from a knowledge and an experience perspective. The man worked his way up from nothing in order to become a multi-millionaire and is far more aware of the pitfalls and challenges that face any small business that is starting up. This is insight that the average civil servant in Westminster simply cannot provide.

Where Sugar's problems lie are that however much he would like to believe otherwise, his new role is a politically affiliated one. Sugar's claim that his role was "politically neutral" is an uncharacteristically naive comment from the usually wise sage. His role involves him sitting in the House of Lords as a Labour peer, working for the Labour Government, advising the said Government on policy to put forward in order to support small businesses. Sugar will argue that he is offering his support in an advisory capacity to a Government that sought him out, but his role in the House of Lords is one where he is representing the Labour Party and putting forward their motions. What he would like his role to be presented as, is in fact somewhat different to the reality.

As ever, the Conservative Party are opportunistically looking for a bandwagon to jump on and a small number of their MPs have put together a petition to ask that Sugar be removed from his job as chief hirer and firer on The Apprentice. While I can understand that there is a potential conflict of interest between Sugar's television role on the BBC, which likes to take maximum efforts to remain politically impartial, and his new role with the Government, am I alone in finding this bunch of blue blooded moralists actions just ever so slightly petty? I dare say the Daily Mail will be calling for honours for each of them, but then again, what the Daily Mail says is very rarely in keeping with what is for the greater good of the country.

I still believe that the next General Election will be held in the autumn, rather than next spring, which would mean, therefore, that by the time the next series of The Apprentice airs, the likelihood is that there will have been a change of Government and with it, Sugar's role with the Labour Government will have come to an end. This would mean that any political influence he could have had just by being on television would have been all over before it started. But putting this scenario aside for one moment, what is actually to be gained by removing Sugar from the television schedules? Who ends up winning the end game? Certainly not the television viewers who tune in to watch his brusk manner on The Apprentice. And his role as a business mentor would be much diminished if his role on television was no longer there. I do not imagine people would be tuning in to BBC Parliament to see him addressing the House of Lords.

As I said earlier, Sugar was certainly naive to take on his new role with the Government without paying more careful consideration to the effect this would have on his role with the BBC and his stewardship of The Apprentice, which we are led to believe he enjoys far more than his board room demeanour would sometimes suggest. But those that are slinging arrows in his direction need to realise that people finding their way in business need a mentor to look up to, someone who is in the media profile.

By taking Sugar off air, it is depriving people of access to a potential mentor when they are finding their way in setting up a small business. Just as Sir Richard Branson is a role model for many young entrepreneurs through his constant media presence, so Sugar too has become a mentor for many, as have the Dragons from television's Dragons' Den because they are all there in our living rooms. Take these people out of the media and who is there for the young aspiring businessman or woman to look up to?

Hopefully the BBC can see fit to overlook the cheap calls from the Conservative Party and beyond for Sugar to hear the words he has so often uttered at deluded, wannabe apprentices. Meanwhile, it is hoped that Sugar's Governmental role can become a more low key, advisory one where his attendance in the House of Lords is rarely needed and so the need to the stick to beat him with can be withdrawn for the foreseeable future. I get the impression, however, that this storm is going to continue erupting for some time.

4. A load of old balls
It would seem that Conservative MPs are making constructive use of their time in preparing for Government. Not content with trying to get a reality television personality sacked, another MP has really cut to the heart of the issues that truly matter to the British public at large. Take a bow Tony Baldrick, sorry Tony Baldry, Tory MP for North Lincolnshire, who claims that the use of soft balls in youth cricket is ruining the game at schools level.

To continue with the cricketing terminology, this line of thought left me stumped thinking 'Howzat' exactly. Firstly, is it really the best use of parliamentary time when we are in the midst of an economic crisis and MPs have been claiming on duck islands to raising this concern in the House of Commons? But beyond this, I am wondering how exactly Mr Baldry thinks that using a tennis ball or a wind ball is likely to be harmful to schools cricket? I would have thought that of far greater concern to the future of the game at schools level are the amount of school playing fields being sold off in order to make a tidy profit.

As with any sport that a child starts playing at a young age, it is unlikely that you are going to start off using the standard apparatus right from the start. I would expect most kids that take up cricket first play it in their back garden with a plastic bat and a tennis or soft ball, with a jacket acting as the stumps. This is partly for their own protection and partly for the well-being of Mrs Jones at number 42's greenhouse window. Once children start playing bat and ball sports at school, be it cricket or be it rounders, baseball or stoolball (if you live outside of Sussex or Kent you probably won't know what that is) then gradually the tennis ball will be replaced by either a wind ball or a hard ball depending on the age group and the proximity of the science lab to the playing fields.

This is just a gradual development, just as it is with any other sport. Children aren't likely to use a regulation grade 5 leather football until they are 10 or 11 years old. I remember the first time I used one at a similar age and it was nearly enough to put me off football for good as I remember that making a valiant save left me with a bloodied mouth from where the ball hit me full in the face. Similarly, I would expect that most children first learn to play tennis with a plastic racquet and a swingball in the back garden unless they are the product of very wealthy parents!

What does not change, regardless of what apparatus are used, are the rudiments of the technique required to play the sport. OK, so learning to bowl leg spin is perhaps more difficult when using a tennis ball or a wind ball than it is with a Kookaburra cherry, but the technique required to bowl it is exactly the same. A young budding cricketer can still execute cover drives with a plastic bat picked up from Brighton Pier as much as they can with a far heavier Gunn & Moore willow version. In fact, it makes sense to learn the technique of the game with the apparatus that you feel comfortable with before using the more "grown-up" equipment when you have become acclimatised and have honed your technique. A young golfer isn't going to start out by using a driver but by driving the green with an 8 iron at Roedean pitch and putt.

Let's not forget that cricket is at its most popular on the Asian sub-continent, in India and Pakistan, two countries where there is a significant divide between the rich and the poor, as was illustrated in India's case by the recent movie Slumdog Millionaire. In both of these countries, the game is often learnt by children using a taped up ball, while in the Caribbean, young West Indian cricketers first play the game on the beach using a rubber ball that has a skidding effect off of the sand. Seemingly, such experiences has not deterred the likes of Sachin Tendulkar, Wasim Akram or Brian Lara becoming world class cricketers and is more likely to have put hairs on their chests.

It concerns me at times that we are too concerned with exposing children to the realities of their chosen sports at too early an age, which in fact, has the effect of not nurturing the crucial aspect of skills. Football is a prime example of this. For so many years, representative leagues have played their Sunday morning matches from under-9s or under-11s level upwards on full size pitches. I think this has a detrimental effect because often it can mean the game passes some members of the team by. At a young age, the game should be more about giving children exposure on the ball and being constantly involved in matches rather than having so much emphasis on running. The time to focus on the athletic side of the game should come much later, when the teams get to their teenage years.

Those that are charged with running youth football in this country should get on the telephone to the BBC and ask if they have a DVD of a documentary that the BBC aired over ten years ago. The documentary was about Ajax's coaching academy and youth setup and was fronted by Gary Lineker, back in his very early days as a sports broadcaster. What was striking about the documentary was that Ajax's youth teams did not play on full size pitches until they were fifteen years old, but that every Ajax team from the under-10s right up to the senior team played the game "the Ajax way", using the same system and formation and played with an emphasis on skills.

Cynics will no doubt point to Ajax's lack of success in the past decade or so as testament that this approach no longer works. That would be a myopic point of view, however, as the main reason for Ajax's lack of success has been that they have had to sell their best players. They have still continued to nurture players of a high standard, with two of the current generation of Dutch stars in Rafael Van Der Vaart and Wesley Sneijder having risen through their ranks. Given that for a country with such a small population, the Netherlands have continued to produce technically gifted player after technically gifted player, there is a lot that this country can learn from their skills based schooling.

So, in summing up, it can be shown that Mr Baldry has missed the point and that his argument is in putting him on a sticky wicket, so to speak. The right honourable MP for North Lincolnshire should therefore think before he opens his mouth in future, unless he would like to be characterised as his soundalike's root vegetable of choice in a future tabloid publication.

5. Comedy is defined by audience and context
There was some discussion in the newspapers this week about the lack of female comedy performers, particularly on the stand-up circuit, within the public gaze. This discussion came in the light of Victoria Wood's observations that female comics made up a very small number on television comedy panel shows, such as Mock The Week and Have I Got News For You, where the male dominated panels tend to try and hog the limelight.

Ms Wood's observation that female comics make up a very small percentage of television panel shows is an accurate one. However, it could also be equally argued that the percentage of women appearing on such programmes is in fact representative of the number of female performers currently to be found on the stand-up comedy circuit. If you were to ask the average man or woman in the street to name ten female comedy performers, I think they would struggle unless they were a dedicated follower of the comedy circuit. Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders would be named, as would Catherine Tate and the aforementioned Victoria Wood, and quite probably Jo Brand. But the last two excepted, none of the others are really stand-up comediennes as such. If you asked this same hypothetical audience to pick Jo Caulfield or Lucy Porter out of an ID parade, I would expect there to be results almost as hilarious as their material.

So I suppose the question to be asked is whether female performers do not appear on panel shows purely because this is representative of their numbers on the circuit, whether it is due to some performers not wishing to appear on such panel shows where testosterone reins supreme or simply because they are not regarded as funny enough. My answer to this would be a combination of all three of these factors. There are only a finite number of renowned female stand-ups doing the rounds, there are some performers who are likely to be intimidated by dominating male comedians on television and there are some female comics whose humour is not best suited to a television audience, but is more suited to the edgy surroundings of a stand-up club or a theatre. This last point can, naturally, also apply to male comedians.

I think the important words when judging how funny a comedienne is and how suitable they are for the medium of television are audience and context. A lot of material that comediennes use in their routines is understandably aimed at a female audience and not unexpectedly, the target of much their humour are men folk. This is likely to appeal to the humour of a female audience but is often likely to make the male members of the audience cringe, particularly where a raw nerve is struck and the subject matter is delicate or embarrassing. Someone like Jo Brand, for example, is highly regarded by female comedy fans but quite often a figure of hate among male counterparts, primarily because her material is perceived to have an anti-male agenda. It is for a very similar reason that Loose Women is a television programme enjoyed by women as a guilty pleasure but often hated by men, although interestingly, that does not seem to deter male viewers from watching.

On television, panel shows like Mock The Week and Have I Got News For You have a broad, mainstream appeal and so they are not aimed at one particular gender over another, although it would not be unreasonable to forecast that there are likely to be more male viewers watching these shows than there will be female ones. The content of these shows, however, is a more topical output and so the kind of territory that a female comic will enter in their stand-up routines is likely to be reduced. Whereas there have been a number of male stand-up performers who have a certain amount of political overtones to their comedy and rely heavily on social commentary, female comics tend to focus more on feelings and interactions, as the female audience identifies more with this type of comedy.

There are certainly some very funny comediennes on the circuit, but I think there are reasons why there are not more of them to be found, particularly in terms of those that enter the public consciousness. One of the main problems, I feel could be one of self-esteem or perception. There is a tendency to judge women in a lot of fields by their appearance, and this is particularly true within any visual performing arts. Some wannabe comics may feel that they will judged as much by their appearance as they will be by their material. Others may feel pressure to look a certain way in order to be taken seriously, or may feel that some people believe the old stereotype of a comedienne being bitter and twisted and deprived of sex as still ringing true.

It possibly does to some narrow minded people, but the whole point of comedy is that it is supposed to challenge narrow minded views. Therefore, when someone goes to watch Lucy Porter, who is a very attractive and also a quite bubbly, likeable comedienne, you are drawn into thinking that she is too nice to be a comedienne and she talks to her audience in much the same way that you imagine she talks to her friends in the pub. The great thing about this is that Porter can actually make some quite outrageous, crude and bitchy comments about people in her act but get away with it than some other harsher comediennes would not be able to, simply because she is delivering the barbs in a witty and friendly way with her audience.

Porter is one of the few women that have made an appearance on Mock The Week and more than held her own with her male counterparts and perhaps a few of her female counterparts need to follow her lead and be adaptable to the audience. There are other female stand-ups who have a good following and who produce witty material, such as Shappi Korshandi and Zoe Lyons, but the acid test for whether their comedy will transfer to a television audience is how the context of their humour will transfer to a more mainstream audience than the ones they are used to performing to in a stand-up club. On the plus side though, if no-one finds them funny on television, they just will not be booked again rather than having to deal with hecklers or the rotten fruit treatment.

6. Humble pie for Ramsey's just desserts
If celebrities had an official rating, in much the same way that Public Limited Companies have a share price, there is little doubt that Gordon Ramsay's stock will have plummeted in the past few months. First of all, the clean cut family image that television's premier chef had cultivated through his F Word programmes was placed in tatters with the sordid tabloid revelations of his extra marital affairs. More recently came news of his wealth having taken a hit during the credit crisis, while there were also problems with one of his London restaurants.

Just when it could not get any worse for the well coiffured chef par excellence, Ramsay found himself hitting a new low this week after an ill advised Photoshop based attack on Australian chat show host, Tracy Grimshaw, in which Ramsay made disparaging comments about her before producing a Photoshop production mixing a pig's head with a female body and then comparing his digital artwork to the aforementioned chat show host. It is a sign that you have overstepped the mark when an Australian audience is offended and even the Australian Prime Minister got involved and referred to Ramsay as a "low life". Worse still, Ramsay found himself having to apologise to his mother for his churlish remarks.

Ramsay, much like Jeremy Clarkson, appears to be someone who polarises opinion in much the same way as Marmite. There are those that champion Ramsay as a genius of his craft and a standard bearer in his chosen profession. His critics, however, present Ramsay as a surly bully, who manipulates the media in order to raise his profile. You somewhat expect that if you were to take fifty per cent from column A and fifty per cent from column B, you would not be far from the truth.

Personally, I have generally held Ramsay in high regard. I am not a great fan of the celebrity chef set per se, and particularly dislike some of the jumped-up twerps that seem to be common amongst that group. The undisputed king of this group is Jamie Oliver, although honourable mentions (if honourable is the right word) also go out to James Martin, Anthony Worrell-Thompson and Hugh Fearnley-Cakestall, or whatever he is called. Ramsay, however, has always stood out from the crowd. He calls a spade a spade, his cookery programmes are interesting, even if they are not altogether politically correct. He understands that the food chain can sometimes be cruel, but that sometimes necessity has to come first. Above all though, there is an intensity and a passion about his food programmes that you do not get when watching some of his rivals in the television chef stakes.

Like all geniuses in their craft though, Ramsay does have a huge ego and he also has the capacity to self-destruct and this has been increasingly noticeable in recent months. Perhaps because of his vast success and the cutting edge nature of his programmes, Ramsay quite possibly felt that he was fireproof and that so long as the public were watching his programmes and buying his cookery books, then he could say and do whatever he liked. For a man of not inconsiderable bluster, this was a perfectly plausible mind set. But as the public have become more aware of his shortcomings and Ramsay's halo has slipped, so now the press have taken a sharp knife from his cutlery drawer and sunk it into his back.

Ramsay would seem to have been guilty of believing his own hype and got himself immersed in the cult of celebrity that has made casualties of lesser mortals. Whether Ramsay has taken his eye off the ball or not, it is to be hoped that he can find a happy medium between remaining the highly proficient, self-confident chef and businessman that backs his instincts while keeping that air of controversy about him, while at the same time, trying to show some more humility to those that have helped him to achieve his fame, not least the public who have watched his shows and been inspired to improve their culinary skills.

Ramsay is not a bad man, but he could be showing some signs of a mid-life crisis, that is being played out in a very public arena.


That's my lot for this evening. Hope you enjoyed reading and I will be back again for some more, hopefully next weekend.

Sporting matters

Good evening.

Hope you have all had good weeks and been enjoying the continued good weather. Perhaps the only people who have not enjoyed the fine spring sunshine and heat of the past few days were those brave souls in some cases dressed up in foliage or superhero costumes pounding 26.5 miles of London's streets in the name of charitable cause. Well done to everyone who raised money for their cause of choice. And suitably, I thought that this week I would focus my blog output predominantly on sporting matters from various arenas. Seconds out, round one. Ding ding.

1. PFA nominations show the case for technology
For those that follow the beautiful game, you often hear the argument that technology should be used to help with making the right decisions in times when the pace of the game and players' adeptness at fooling the match officials becomes more and more of an issue. Indeed, Harry Redknapp advocated this motion just yesterday in response to Manchester United being the beneficiaries of a fortunate penalty decision. Not that you will hear any complaints about that decision in this blog!

However, the most damning case for the use of modern technology in football can be demonstrated by this year's PFA Player of the Year and Young Player of the Year nominations. If you have not seen the awards shortlists, the Player of the Year accolade is being contested by five Manchester United players, Ryan Giggs, Edwin Van Der Sar, Rio Ferdinand, Nemanja Vidic and Cristiano Ronaldo. The sole non-Manchester United nominee is Steven Gerrard. This presents a strange problem in as much as any Manchester United player that votes will be forced to vote for Gerrard as they cannot vote for one of their own players. It is because of this that Gerrard is currently the bookmakers' favourite to win the award, despite the fact that he has been injured for a few weeks now. I rather expect there to be numerous abstentions and spoilt ballot papers around Old Trafford way to stop the Liverpool captain securing a runaway victory.

Quite apart from Manchester United's domination of the Player of the Year shortlist, it seems ridiculous that in times when technology can be used to collect the votes that such an antiquated mode of voting and drawing up the nominees is used because this invariably means that it is not the best player over the whole season that wins the award, but the best player up until the end of January when there are still four months of the season to run and no trophies have been decided. I like to see players awarded for making a tangible difference to their team between winning and losing, but these nominees were drawn up before anyone knew who was winning what and therefore knew who the difference makers were.

Now, admittedly there would be certain obstacles. Footballers as we know are not always renowned for being the sharpest tools in the box and when it comes to technology, the light switch is about as much innovation as some of the more Luddite minded can handle. There is also the problem that the further down the football pyramid you go, so the football season can finish earlier. If you are a member of the PFA though, you are entitled to vote for the Footballer of the Year whether you ply your trade in the Premier League or in the Screwfix League. Therefore, expecting votes to be cast in the final week of the Premier League season would be unrealistic as by then the semi-professional footballers will be partying in Ibiza or riding a camel in the Egyptian desert.

But these barriers can be overcome. Each club has its own PFA representative. All they need to do is input the votes on to a secure Internet or Intranet site on the PFA website. This would not involve collecting forms or even so much as the expense of a first class stamp. It would just mean one person sitting in front of a computer and inputting their team mate's voting preferences. OK, it would contravene the concept of a secret ballot, but knowing who your team mate's favourite footballers of the season are is hardly classified or confidential information.

And for the technophobes, there would be no problem. Just get someone from the PFA to come in after training and show the PFA reps how to use the software system. That way, voting need not take place until the final few weeks of the season when the players who really have demonstrated their quality over the whole campaign can ensure they come out on top.

Looking at the nominees, there is a strong emphasis on the Manchester United players that were pivotal in their team's period of over three months where they did not concede a league goal with Edwin Van Der Sar, Rio Ferdinand and Nemanja Vidic all nominated. Vidic's nomination is certainly warranted as he has been a defensive colossus for United for the vast majority of the season and he was consistently excellent throughout the time United did not concede a goal. Ferdinand as the other half of United's established central defensive partnership is also worthy of inclusion as United have been shaky when he has not played. Van Der Sar's choice, however, is a case of a goalkeeper getting the glory for his defence's achievements. Van Der Sar has not had a bad season by any means, but he has been prone to error as the season has worn on and so his inclusion is because of the plaudits he was receiving at the time the shortlist was drawn up.

United's two other nominees, Ryan Giggs and Cristiano Ronaldo would also polarise opinion with their inclusion. From reading the sports pages of the newspapers, I have been aware for some time that there is a strong contingent among the writers on the game who want to see Ryan Giggs receive the Player of the Year award because of what he has achieved throughout his career, in what they see as a season when there has been no standout candidate. This is all very worthy and corinthian and I am a huge fan of Ryan Giggs's myself. However, Giggs winning this award would be a triumph for sentimentality over realism. Giggs has played in a dozen of United's league matches this season and although he scored a virtuoso and priceless goal in a 1-0 win at West Ham in February, that is not reason enough to give him an award supposedly there to recognise achievement over a whole season. Nonetheless, Giggs should be applauded for his continued importance to Manchester United as the face of the experience.

In Cristiano Ronaldo's case, he has won this award for the past two seasons in a landslide. There simply was no other candidate to challenge him for the accolade last season, given that he scored 42 goals from his right wing vantage point, 42 goals that went such a long way towards United winning the Premier League and Champions League. In comparison, Ronaldo's performances this season have not hit the same heights. He came into the campaign with an injury after the European Championships and there have been times this season when the game has appeared to pass him by. That said, Ronaldo is still the top goalscorer in the league this season and in the past two months has often proven to be United's difference maker, even if his contribution has not been as consistently good this season as it was last season. But then, could he ever really expect to match last season's contribution?

There are some notable absentees from the list of nominees that was drawn up. From a Manchester United perspective, it is surprising that Wayne Rooney has been overlooked for both Player of the Year and Young Player of the Year, for which he would still be eligible. Rooney turned the game on its head at the weekend with his performance in the 2nd half against Tottenham and that was not an atypical performance by him over the course of this season as he has continued to energise United. I suppose people have overlooked him for Young Player of the Year because they do not realise he is still eligible as he has been around for so long!

Elsewhere, Frank Lampard has been head and shoulders Chelsea's best player throughout the season and can consider himself unfortunate not to make the cut. Liverpool have had their share of performers this season, as well as the nominated Steven Gerrard. Fernando Torres has been in imperious form in the past two months but missed much of the first part of the season which is why he is missing. Midfielder Xabi Alonso has done much to warrant a mention after the season began with him wondering if he even had a future at Anfield. Meanwhile, in a season which has seen them reach the FA Cup final, Everton could have been represented by the ever consistent Tim Cahill and rock solid Phil Jagielka and may wonder why Belgian midfielder Fellaini did not get on the Young Player of the Year list.

On the young player side, of those nominated Ashley Young and Stephen Ireland look like the best two candidates having been the best players for Aston Villa and Manchester City respectively over the course of the season. Young was instrumental in Villa's push for a top four finish up until a few weeks ago and so I think he should be the best candidate to win this award. Young winning Young Player of the Year sounds right too! Nonetheless, Ireland has shone like a beacon in the Man City team this season, when others that continually failed to deliver. As well as the aforementioned Rooney and Fellaini, Arsenal's Samir Nasri would seem to be the most glaring absentee from this list. Spurs's Aaron Lennon has been in fine form since the turn of the year and is another worthy of consideration.

Personally, my choices for these two awards are Nemanja Vidic and Ashley Young. However, the opinions of professional footballers can often be very different to the ones that the supporter has and so a surprise result should not be ruled out. For the record though, here are my players of the season for each of the Premier League's teams this campaign.

Arsenal: Robin Van Persie
Aston Villa: Ashley Young
Blackburn: Stephen Warnock
Bolton: Matthew Taylor
Chelsea: Frank Lampard
Everton: Tim Cahill
Fulham: Brede Hangeland
Hull: Michael Turner
Liverpool: Xabi Alonso
Manchester City: Stephen Ireland
Manchester United: Nemanja Vidic
Middlesbrough: Sanli Tuncay
Newcastle: Jonas Gutierrez
Portsmouth: Glen Johnson
Stoke: James Beattie
Sunderland: Kenwyne Jones
Tottenham: Aaron Lennon
West Brom: Chris Brunt
West Ham: Valon Behrami
Wigan: Antonio Valencia

2. If the product's good, why change anything?
While football is very much my first sporting love, the first sport I remember watching on television when I was a child was snooker. I was captivated by the game at a very young age, the table, the mixture of colours and the players' outfits. All in all, it just made for a brilliant television spectacle. Indeed, in these days of HD television where every small point of detail shows up in the television picture, there is possibly no other sport that is made so perfectly for a television audience than the green baize.

So, I am currently enjoying one of the finest sporting fortnights of the year with the World Snooker Championship currently taking place at the iconic Crucible Theatre in Sheffield. The intimate venue may not win any awards for being the prettiest venue in the world of sport, nor is it even the largest setting for a snooker tournament. But the memories associated with the place are such that the World Championship just would not be the same if it was held anywhere else. Because I remember watching the tournament as a young child and now continue to do so, the World Championship has a special place in my heart and I always look forward with anticipation to the tournament every year, although due to work I do not get to see all that much play these days. Apart from visiting the New Wembley and seeing a test match at Lord's, I cannot think of any sporting venue I would like to take in more.

My first memories of snooker were in the 1980s during snooker's so called "golden era". Back then, snooker was huge because there was blanket coverage of the game on television back at a time when there were only four television channels and the game was full of larger than life characters who would people on the edge of their seat with their antics, even if the quality of their play was not anything special. The first final I remember was the 1985 renewal which Dennis Taylor famously won on the final black in the early hours of the morning against Steve Davis. I can't quite remember if I stayed up right to the end, but I certainly remember Taylor sinking the black and I was none too happy as I idolised Steve Davis at the time.

Such heady days. I mention all this because currently if you believe the press and you believe Ronnie O' Sullivan, the game is dying. I dispute this because I think the people that proclaim snooker's golden era as being the 1980s are not really snooker fans at all. The game had plenty of characters back in the days of Davis's dominance, but aside from Davis, Alex Higgins at his absolute best, Jimmy White, Dennis Taylor and Cliff Thorburn, none of the players from that era would last five minutes in the game now. The evidence is damning. Last year, there were 68 century breaks made during the World Championship. Go back to the 1980s and you would be lucky to get even half that over the duration of the tournament.

Sure, everyone remembers Hurricane Higgins making crazy shots, head butting officials and soiling plants rather than potting them and they remember Jimmy White's years of gallant failure and Bill Werbeniuk breaking wind as he stretched over the table, but how did any of this add up to good snooker? Willie Thorne is somehow regarded as one of snooker's great characters because he had a shiny bald head and Dennis Taylor seemed to be more famous for his upside down rimmed glasses than for actually winning the World Championship. But people remember these people because they were on their television screens.

The problem snooker has now is partly down to lifestyle choice and partly down to perception. In the modern climate, there are so many other things people can be usefully doing other than watching snooker and they are spoilt for choice in terms of their viewing options. The casual follower is going to be less inclined to tune in now than they were in the past. It also does not help that snooker seems to have a negative perception in some people's eyes. "There aren't enough characters any more" they will cry. "Things aren't like they used to be" others will say and then there will be those that say "I'm only really interested in Ronnie, the rest of them are a bunch of faceless robots". People with that attitude won't be tuning in for the rest of the World Championship with Ronnie having crashed and burnt in round 2.

As a more avid fan of snooker, I do not see things this way. Yes, it is right that Ronnie O' Sullivan is snooker's biggest draw card, he is to his sport what Tiger Woods is to golf or what Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are to tennis, the players that put bums on seats. When they swing a club or serve a tennis ball, the public are hooked. O' Sullivan is captivating not just because of the brilliance of his play but his unpredictability. On his day, he can destroy anybody that is in his path, but on other darker days, the main person he destroys is himself and his frustrations and character flaws make him the genius he is. There is no doubt that O' Sullivan's defence of his world title ending so early in one sense is bad news for the tournament because he keeps people interested.

In saying this though, this does a disservice to everyone else. In fact, with O' Sullivan out of the tournament, it makes this year's World Championship compulsive viewing because just about everyone left in the tournament is capable of winning it. The new bookmakers' favourite Stephen Maguire is testament to this because he has been made favourite despite the fact he has never even made the final at the Crucible before. There are plenty of fantastic players wherever you go, players with contrasting styles, but who each have their own merits.

The quality of the play now compared to 15 or 20 years ago is much better. Back in the 1980s, you knew that Steve Davis would have to play quite badly not to win the tournament, such was his superiority over his rivals. In the 1990s, there was slightly more competition coming through but for the early part of the decade at least, no-one realistically expected anyone of being capable of stopping Stephen Hendry. Compare and contrast this to now when the picture generally is that if O' Sullivan is in the mood, he can clean up, but if he is not then there are so many players in the field who could win the tournament. The pace of the game is much faster too, rather than the pedestrian nature of the players back in the days of Terry Griffiths and Cliff Thorburn.

The trouble is that snooker is not in the public consciousness so much any more. Apart from people have greater choices of programmes to be watching, the game is not on terrestrial TV as much as it used to be and there are fewer tournaments because of the current economic situation with sponsorship harder to come by. People are looking at ways of jazzing up the game and some have said that snooker should copy the template of darts with silly nicknames for the players and grandiose entries to the arena.

While it would be worth looking at ways of making snooker more accessible to a younger audience, I do think that people need to realise that the audiences for darts and snooker are different and if you rebrand snooker too much towards those with a shorter attention span, it will alienate the people most loyal to the game. Darts is a sport with its origins in the pub and the people that watch the game live treat the occasion like they would if they were watching in a pub. In essence though, it is a sport of precision accuracy played by middle aged, obese and sweaty men who can add up. Snooker might not require supreme fitness but it is an endurance test, a game where sublime tactical and technical play is required and a test of one's mental strength, resilience and powers of concentration. If people feel there aren't enough characters in snooker, it is because they do not understand the level of professionalism and dedication in snooker, something that is rare in darts unless you are Phil Taylor.

People continue to bemoan the lack of characters in snooker but in fact there are several capivating characters who will enjoy the limelight in Ronnie O' Sullivan's absence from the rest of the World Championship. The so-called "Jester from Leicester" Mark Selby is always good fun around the table and is full of wisecracks and humour, but also possesses a deadly competitive streak and can lull his opponents into a false sense of security. World number 2 Stephen Maguire is an unfulfilled talent. He has all the talent in the world but his temperament has been known to fail him at key moments and could have the makings of another Jimmy White in not reaching his full potential.

"Wizard of Wishaw" John Higgins is something of a veteran now and he takes the Steve Davis role of being fairly devoid of emotion at the table but being a silent assassin who plays his best snooker under pressure. Beyond them, there are the outrageous potting talents of Aussie Neil Robertson and Welshman Ryan Day and the young pups Mark Allen and Jamie Cope, who both seem to be capable of potting balls off lampshades. Then there's the quarter final to really look forward to between hometown boy Shaun Murphy and seven times world champion Stephen Hendry, who at 40 years old, seems only to play for this tournament now.

Times have moved on from snooker's golden era and realistically, it can never expect to enjoy the same amount of exposure in this country that it once had. But the sport is actually in pretty rude health at the moment with a talented crop of young players coming through and some seasoned pros still eager to prove they can cut at the highest level and the game's global profile is extending, particularly in the Far East but also increasingly in the Middle East.

Just tonight I watched two thrilling matches in the evening session with a match on one table which was a masterclass in break building and winning frames in one visit, while on the other table, there was a tight match between two players with little between them but where mistakes and tension led to frames being stolen from a seemingly unassailable position. Ultimately, if the product is good, as the quality of the snooker is, then it has got a chance. All the glamour and gimmicks in the world just add up to excess packaging.

As for who is going to win the tournament, well, I feel that the draw has opened up nicely for Mark Selby to win his first world crown. He was runner-up to John Higgins in 2007 and he could well face the Scot in the quarter-finals this time. A semi-final place would then await against either Ryan Day or O' Sullivan's conqueror Mark Allen. In the bottom half of the draw, I fancy Shaun Murphy to get past Stephen Hendry in the battle of the former champions. This would likely set him up with a semi against either his old adversary Stephen Maguire, last year's runner-up Ali Carter or Australian swashbuckler Neil Robertson. Maguire blows hot and cold but maybe, just maybe, this is his best opportunity of at least making the final.

3. Haye was not boxing clever
I would not describe myself as the biggest fight fan but more of a casual observer. The glory days of the 1990s are long gone as the vast majority of boxing's showpiece events are now shown on Pay Per View television and at inconvenient times in the morning in order to suit the American audience that comprises much of the world television audience. However, the sport did enter my consciousness this week with the actions of David Haye, heavyweight boxer from South London.

Haye is a world title fighter in the heavyweight section and is shortly going to be fighting the younger of the two Klitschko brothers, both of whom have held world title belts in their time. Haye is known as a cocky individual and is not averse to talking the talk, but in fairness to him, has also walked the walk by holding a world title belt. However, Haye overstepped the boundaries of acceptable sporting banter while promoting his latest bout.

It seems to be as much of a tradition in boxing as the pre-match weigh-in and the staring each other out contest that boxers feel compelled to trash talk one another in the pre-fight press conference and sure enough, Haye did just that by turning up at the press conference wearing a T-shirt which bore an image of the dismembered heads of his opponent and his brother on the front of it. Haye would later say that this tactic was deliberate because he wanted to make Klitschko angry at the insult he was making and therefore make Klitschko indisciplined when it came to the actual fight.

Maybe I'm being slightly old fashioned here, but is this really necessary? I do not recall Joe Calzaghe behaving in this way before any of his 46 professional fights and yet he did not lose any competitive edge. People might mention Muhammad Ali, but the great man would never have aimed such a metaphorically low punch in order to get his point across. What Haye did was cowardly and it was a cheap shot which could in fact rebound on him. Quite apart from possibly facing censure, Klitschko will definitely need no incentive when he goes out to fight Haye, he just needs to keep a photo of Haye wearing the T-shirt on his dressing room wall to pump him up good and proper.

Mind games seem all the rage at the moment with football managers doing their best to put one another off just to grab the smallest competitive advantage. But what does it all achieve when all is said and done? Words are just words, they can come back and bite you when they are not backed up by actions and Haye in trash talking Klitschko and choosing to be confrontational by wearing a T-shirt that was in such poor taste has unwittingly put extra pressure on himself now to win. Maybe he thrives on that kind of pressure, I don't know, but I think his cornerman will need to prepare himself for a busy evening when he gets in the ring with Klitschko.