Four days ago, London turned off its analogue TV signal as part of the digital switchover. This also spelt the end for Ceefax, the television-based text service hailed by some as the precursor to the Internet. Although we still have a number of similar features available through the BBC’s red button service, it’s just not the same. It’s clean, crisp, has fancy colours and doesn’t freeze on you. It’s just not the slow and retro service of old!
A number of people have posted articles recently reminiscing about Ceefax. At a risk of coming across as being even geekier and nostalgic than normal, here are some fond Ceefax memories of my own:
Backchat
I guess this was a primitive version of Twitter. Basically, you had a bunch of teenagers who in less characters than a text message, could comment on whatever topic they wanted to. Was very informative (and bizarre at times) and also made me aware of various upcoming bands. So those who mock my tastes in music should blame Ceefax!
Bamboozle
Although this was introduced by Ceefax’s rival, Teletext, this still deserves a mention. A crude and clunky quiz page, Bamboozle was strangely addictive and in the days before Wikipedia, the ultimate source for pointless facts and useless trivia.
The weather map (see picture above)
This was truly inspired. The gaudy colour scheme, the enormous pixels, and the fact it left out the part of the South coast where I lived. Yet we were still massively reliant on Ceefax weather in my household. Given the reliability of the BBC Weather website at times, we might still be better off with this Ceefax version…
News and sport headlines
Anyone who knows me remotely well will know how obsessed I am with the BBC Sport website and my Sky Sports News mobile app. However, back in the day I relied on Ceefax to keep me posted on the latest news. I can easily remember the numbers of the main pages I used to go. 302 for football, 340 for cricket, and 360 for motorsport (as yes I know it's worrying that I still remember this)
Invision sports updates
Genius feature that posted the latest sports scores in the corner of the screen while you were watching normal telly. Helped resolve several arguments at home when I’d want to follow the cricket but when someone else in the house wanted to watch the news, Noel’s House Party or Keeping up Appearances…
Anyway, time for me to stop reminiscing. I fear that I have a lot to do to get my street cred back…
Sunday, 22 April 2012
Tuesday, 10 April 2012
Labour, just give us a shadow budget.
The news has recently been dominated by tit-for-tat politics, particularly over how to manage the economy. Much of the battle between Cameron and Miliband has been about who can deliver the better sound bite or one-liner, and who can provide the emptier piece of rhetoric.
The fact is that there’s very little that differentiates Labour and the Conservatives right now. Both are dominated by people from similar socio-economic and academic backgrounds, and are both chasing the same narrow band of middle class voters. Yet Labour still insist they are fundamentally different to the Conservatives without offering hard policy to show this. But there’s one simple action that Labour could take if they really want to show how different they are: produce a shadow budget.
Many of my Labour supporting friends will still maintain that Labour offers something tangibly different to the Conservatives. Speaking as someone with no real party allegiance I find this very difficult to agree with. Yes, we hear about a Labour push for shallower cuts and the increased taxation of higher earners. Nevertheless, they’ve failed to show that if elected tomorrow, they would reverse any of the fundamental elements of the Coalition’s economic policy. The following quote from Mary Ann Sieghart in the i last week provides a good summary:
Conservatives and Liberal Democrats say, “We understand your pain but there’s no alternative, and it’s going to have to get worse.” Labour says, “We understand your pain but we can only fiddle about at the edges to help you.”
That said, one move could change the whole situation – Labour giving us a shadow budget. If Labour really believes that the Coalition’s approach is wrong and that alternative tactics are better, then then why not produce something concrete (and evidence based) saying so? Labour surely has lots to gain from publishing a shadow budget? If they do it properly, they can show themselves as being economically competent, in touch with the opinions of the public, and offering a fundamentally different approach to the Coalition.
Annoyingly though, everyone knows that Labour won’t be producing a shadow budget anytime soon. There are only two reasons for this that I can think of. Firstly, Labour are playing it far too safe and are not willing to take the risk and leave themselves open to scrutiny.
More worryingly though, I think there’s a second factor at play. Labour can’t offer anything tangibly different to the Coalition and the party knows this. Because of this, they’ll make politics a competition about empty rhetoric and personality, not about policy or ideology. Then again, hasn’t politics always been like this?
The fact is that there’s very little that differentiates Labour and the Conservatives right now. Both are dominated by people from similar socio-economic and academic backgrounds, and are both chasing the same narrow band of middle class voters. Yet Labour still insist they are fundamentally different to the Conservatives without offering hard policy to show this. But there’s one simple action that Labour could take if they really want to show how different they are: produce a shadow budget.
Many of my Labour supporting friends will still maintain that Labour offers something tangibly different to the Conservatives. Speaking as someone with no real party allegiance I find this very difficult to agree with. Yes, we hear about a Labour push for shallower cuts and the increased taxation of higher earners. Nevertheless, they’ve failed to show that if elected tomorrow, they would reverse any of the fundamental elements of the Coalition’s economic policy. The following quote from Mary Ann Sieghart in the i last week provides a good summary:
Conservatives and Liberal Democrats say, “We understand your pain but there’s no alternative, and it’s going to have to get worse.” Labour says, “We understand your pain but we can only fiddle about at the edges to help you.”
That said, one move could change the whole situation – Labour giving us a shadow budget. If Labour really believes that the Coalition’s approach is wrong and that alternative tactics are better, then then why not produce something concrete (and evidence based) saying so? Labour surely has lots to gain from publishing a shadow budget? If they do it properly, they can show themselves as being economically competent, in touch with the opinions of the public, and offering a fundamentally different approach to the Coalition.
Annoyingly though, everyone knows that Labour won’t be producing a shadow budget anytime soon. There are only two reasons for this that I can think of. Firstly, Labour are playing it far too safe and are not willing to take the risk and leave themselves open to scrutiny.
More worryingly though, I think there’s a second factor at play. Labour can’t offer anything tangibly different to the Coalition and the party knows this. Because of this, they’ll make politics a competition about empty rhetoric and personality, not about policy or ideology. Then again, hasn’t politics always been like this?
Sunday, 1 April 2012
Five forgotten footballing musical hits from yesteryear
Most football songs, with the exception of World in Motion, Three Lions and possibly Vindaloo, tend to be flash in the pan hits which people forget about within a couple of weeks of their release. In no particular order, here I re-introduce Extending the Lunch Break readers to five forgotten footballing musical hits (of varying quality) from yesteryear.
1) Come on You Reds – Manchester United and Status Quo (1994)
Oddly, this is one of my earliest musical memories. I remember having really mixed feelings about this song when it first came out. I was hugely anti-Man United at the time but thought this was an amazing tune (note I was aged 7 when this was released). Would Status Quo count as an acceptable guilty pleasure?
2) Du the Dudek - The Trophy Boyz (2005)
This was written in honour of Jerzy Dudek’s performance in the 2005 Champions League Final. The song has a strange Timmy Mallett feel to it yet reached No. 37 in the UK charts. It also spurned a dance craze across UK clubs that lasted about two days.
3) Sven Sven Sven - Bell & Spurling (2001)
Only twice in my life have I ever thought that England were true world-beaters. The first was when we beat Holland 4-1 during Euro 96. The second was when we beat Germany 5-1 in 2001 which this Bell & Spurling track commemorates. Some good one liners here, as well as some very dubious ones. “Oliver Kahn. Ein, zwei, drei, vier, fünf that’s five in Ger-man...” Indeed.
I’m a big fan of this track and think it is really under-rated. Not only is it a good football track but I think it’s a good credible song regardless. That said, many have criticised my musical tastes in the past...
5) Pass and Move (It's the Liverpool Groove) - Liverpool FC & The Boot Room Boys (1996)
Nearly as criminal as the cream suits they wore at Wembley that year (see photo above), this dreadful song was released to coincide with Liverpool’s appearance at the 1996 FA Cup Final. That said, John Barnes is typically amazing on this track and just about saves the whole thing.
If anyone has any other forgotten football songs that they’d like to remind me of then I’d love to hear from you!
Monday, 19 March 2012
Are charity appeals for developing countries missing the point?
A report from the Charities Aid Foundation in 2011 found that many of the larger charities had been particularly badly hit by this recession. It is hardly surprising then that we see so many hard-hitting charity appeals in order to raise money for projects in the developing world. As a result, we’re donating money to charities thinking that we’re buying food, medicines and clothes for individuals in desperate situations. But I feel these appeals are missing the point. Clearly addressing these issues are important but if we really want to make a real and long-lasting difference in the developing world, we need to be raising money for two other things which are considerably less glamorous: fridges and roads.
It’s worth pointing out that this isn’t a new idea at all. Indeed, I first came across the idea that charities should pay more attention to road construction in an episode of The West Wing.
Giving money to help buy food, provide vaccinations, or indeed to build schools and hospitals merely scratches at the surface of what needs doing. There’s little point in sending food aid to a country if it merely sits in a remote central depot and a) goes off very quickly or b) there’s no way of ensuring that the general population can gain access to it. For that reason it’s even more important for efforts to be concentrated on improving roads and refrigeration units. Likewise, little good will be achieved by sending in money to build schools and hospitals if the road system is so poor that hardly anyone can access the new facilities.
However, from what I’ve seen (which admittedly might not be representative of what’s out there), you see very few prominent charity appeals asking us to donate money for infrastructure building projects. Instead, they focus on more ‘glamorous’ things such as providing farm animals, building houses, and buying clothes to name but a few.
Clearly there’s a role for campaigns relating to these issues but is it right that charity appeals focus nearly exclusively on them? Are the most pressing issues being neglected? Fortunately, according to a close friend of mine who helps write appeals for one of the major international charities, some organsiations have a more nuanced approach. For this charity at least, money goes according to where those on the ground believe it's needed, and not necessarily on the things that the general public hear about in appeals and might base their donations on.
Charities inevitably campaign on what they know will grab our attention (it’s not unreasonable for them to do so). If we were really interested in roads and fridges then charities would surely play on this. But why are we so averse to coughing up for such things? Perhaps it’s to do with the fact that we know that the money would land up going to multinationals who would be most likely to win road construction projects. Even though it might be the most beneficial way of helping a poorly developed country, perhaps we’re still unwilling to fund such a move simply because we don’t want to further line the pockets of big firms.
More generally perhaps, maybe it says much about us as members of society. With the odd praiseworthy exception, we only give to charities only to make ourselves feel better, not because helping others most effectively is our primary concern. But then again, does that matter…?
It’s worth pointing out that this isn’t a new idea at all. Indeed, I first came across the idea that charities should pay more attention to road construction in an episode of The West Wing.
Giving money to help buy food, provide vaccinations, or indeed to build schools and hospitals merely scratches at the surface of what needs doing. There’s little point in sending food aid to a country if it merely sits in a remote central depot and a) goes off very quickly or b) there’s no way of ensuring that the general population can gain access to it. For that reason it’s even more important for efforts to be concentrated on improving roads and refrigeration units. Likewise, little good will be achieved by sending in money to build schools and hospitals if the road system is so poor that hardly anyone can access the new facilities.
However, from what I’ve seen (which admittedly might not be representative of what’s out there), you see very few prominent charity appeals asking us to donate money for infrastructure building projects. Instead, they focus on more ‘glamorous’ things such as providing farm animals, building houses, and buying clothes to name but a few.
Clearly there’s a role for campaigns relating to these issues but is it right that charity appeals focus nearly exclusively on them? Are the most pressing issues being neglected? Fortunately, according to a close friend of mine who helps write appeals for one of the major international charities, some organsiations have a more nuanced approach. For this charity at least, money goes according to where those on the ground believe it's needed, and not necessarily on the things that the general public hear about in appeals and might base their donations on.
Charities inevitably campaign on what they know will grab our attention (it’s not unreasonable for them to do so). If we were really interested in roads and fridges then charities would surely play on this. But why are we so averse to coughing up for such things? Perhaps it’s to do with the fact that we know that the money would land up going to multinationals who would be most likely to win road construction projects. Even though it might be the most beneficial way of helping a poorly developed country, perhaps we’re still unwilling to fund such a move simply because we don’t want to further line the pockets of big firms.
More generally perhaps, maybe it says much about us as members of society. With the odd praiseworthy exception, we only give to charities only to make ourselves feel better, not because helping others most effectively is our primary concern. But then again, does that matter…?
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
We're in a recession, so why the lack of politicised music?
I’ve had a lot of uni work over the past couple of weeks and as a result, I’ve
been heavily reliant on Pink Floyd to help me concentrate. One of the things that’s really struck me is how politically outspoken their music is compared to what’s around right now. I find this particularly puzzling given that we’re in the midst of one of the longest and deepest recessions for several generations.
Traditionally, recessions coincide with a rise in politicised mainstream music. Some artists use their music to overtly express their political views. Others become social commentators, using music to moan about the state of society. Some examples below show this well-established link.
Mid-1970s: Here you not only had bands like Pink Floyd bemoaning the socio-economic state of the country, but you also had the rise of anti-establishment punk rock with the likes of the Sex Pistols and The Clash.
Early 1980s: Bands emerged in the early Thatcher years who were critical of the state of society. You think of The Smiths, The Jam, and UB40 for example.
Early 1990s: Much of the work by the Manic Street Preachers strongly advocate leftist ideas, Oasis’ Definitely Maybe talks of the troubles facing young adults at the time, plus Public Enemy became popular this side of the pond.
Clearly then, recessions tend to help produce popular politicised music. The current recession though seems to be the exception. The biggest British musicians of recent times have been the likes of Coldplay, Adele, Amy Winehouse, and Take That. All have seen commercial and critical success yet they’ve tended to write more about personal turmoil and love rather than commenting on society more generally.
I’m not saying the lack of politicised music is inherently bad. Certainly it hasn’t stopped me enjoying recently released music. It’s just interesting that this recession hasn’t seen much political music. I was discussing this with a friend the other day, and she suggested that Rupert Murdoch and Simon Cowell might be to blame for this. I’m not entirely convinced that Murdoch is relevant here but there’s definitely some mileage with the Cowell argument. With X Factor, people of all backgrounds may now simply see music as a way of quickly becoming famous and not some form of artistic expression. X Factor’s also flooded the music industry with artists producing safe and chart-happy songs that sell by the bucket load. As a result, there’s less space for more left-field music that may be more controversial.
Given how bad this recession has been, I’m surprised that there’s hardly any prominent politicised music around right now. I don’t see this changing anytime soon, unless Little Mix’s forthcoming album decides to break all the normal X Factor rules...
been heavily reliant on Pink Floyd to help me concentrate. One of the things that’s really struck me is how politically outspoken their music is compared to what’s around right now. I find this particularly puzzling given that we’re in the midst of one of the longest and deepest recessions for several generations.
Traditionally, recessions coincide with a rise in politicised mainstream music. Some artists use their music to overtly express their political views. Others become social commentators, using music to moan about the state of society. Some examples below show this well-established link.
Mid-1970s: Here you not only had bands like Pink Floyd bemoaning the socio-economic state of the country, but you also had the rise of anti-establishment punk rock with the likes of the Sex Pistols and The Clash.
Early 1980s: Bands emerged in the early Thatcher years who were critical of the state of society. You think of The Smiths, The Jam, and UB40 for example.
Early 1990s: Much of the work by the Manic Street Preachers strongly advocate leftist ideas, Oasis’ Definitely Maybe talks of the troubles facing young adults at the time, plus Public Enemy became popular this side of the pond.
Clearly then, recessions tend to help produce popular politicised music. The current recession though seems to be the exception. The biggest British musicians of recent times have been the likes of Coldplay, Adele, Amy Winehouse, and Take That. All have seen commercial and critical success yet they’ve tended to write more about personal turmoil and love rather than commenting on society more generally.
I’m not saying the lack of politicised music is inherently bad. Certainly it hasn’t stopped me enjoying recently released music. It’s just interesting that this recession hasn’t seen much political music. I was discussing this with a friend the other day, and she suggested that Rupert Murdoch and Simon Cowell might be to blame for this. I’m not entirely convinced that Murdoch is relevant here but there’s definitely some mileage with the Cowell argument. With X Factor, people of all backgrounds may now simply see music as a way of quickly becoming famous and not some form of artistic expression. X Factor’s also flooded the music industry with artists producing safe and chart-happy songs that sell by the bucket load. As a result, there’s less space for more left-field music that may be more controversial.
Given how bad this recession has been, I’m surprised that there’s hardly any prominent politicised music around right now. I don’t see this changing anytime soon, unless Little Mix’s forthcoming album decides to break all the normal X Factor rules...
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Surely Hope Powell's worth considering for the vacant England job?
It’s that time again. England are looking for a new manager so cue the usual hysteria about who should be leading the national team. Collectively, it seems like we want an experienced, respected, English coach who is known to motivate players and has a proven track record for success. As ever, at first glance there doesn’t appear to be anyone who meets all these criteria (the only piece of silverware that Harry Redknapp has won is one FA Cup). However, the one manager who most closely fits the bill has barely been mentioned – Hope Powell!
I’m aware that some of you won’t know who I’m talking about here. Hope Powell has been the manager of the England Women’s team since 1998 and will also be coaching Team GB’s Women’s Football Team at London 2012. You might now think that I’m just joking around when I suggest that Powell should also be considered for the vacant post. Initially this might have been the case but given her experience and track record, I’m convinced that she has an equal right to be talked about in relation to the job as managers like Redknapp, Hiddink, Pearce and Mourinho. Here are a few reasons why:
Englishness: Absurdly, the media and football following public have decided that the next England manager has to be English. Redknapp’s passion for England has won him many supporters but Hope Powell’s record is equally noteworthy. Capped 66 times by England (with 35 goals), vice-captain for country, and England manager for nearly 15 years. Surely this underlines her commitment to her country?
Reputation and respect: Again, the football world wants a figure in charge that is widely respected within the game and therefore can command the authority of players and staff. Hope Powell’s credentials speak for themselves. OBE, CBE, inducted into the English Football Hall of Fame, and the first woman to be awarded the UEFA Pro Licence (which is more than many other English managers hold). Clearly this is manager that is hugely respected within the wider footballing community.
Pre-existing FA relationship: Stuart Pearce has been linked with the job primarily as he’s already in the FA coaching set up and would therefore be a steady appointment from within. But, note that Hope Powell’s been in the FA set up for far longer…
International experience: Advocates of Guus Hiddink and Roy Hodgson point to their prior experience of managing international football. Yet Powell also has this in abundance. She’s led England to the quarter-finals of the 2005 Euros and the 2007 World Cup, and the final of the 2009 Euros.
Coaching achievements: Although Powell’s achievements above are clearly notable, some will say that she should not be considered as she’s not won any silverware. But neither has Guus Hiddink at international level. Plus Harry Redknapp’s only silverware is one FA Cup so Hope Powell’s records hardly fares too badly in comparison.
Bringing through youth: Again, Harry Redknapp’s fans will point to the number of young players that he developed at both West Ham and Spurs, a vital quality for an England manager. However, it’s also worth noting that alongside her senior level duties, Hope Powell oversees the England Women’s set up from Under 15s to Under 21s, showing that she’s equally able to bring through the next generation of England players.
Now I appreciate that there’s no chance that Hope Powell will be talked about in relation to the vacant England post. Nonetheless, this article has revealed two things. Firstly, the England job goes to whoever’s fashionable at the time, not to the person who’s necessarily most qualified. Otherwise, why isn’t Hope Powell being considered in the same way as Harry Redknapp?
Secondly, how is it that such an experienced and decorated manager has not been remotely touted with the major manager roles in English football? In 2011, Chelsea appointed an inexperienced AVB with minimal track record as manager yet Hope Powell, a very successful and widely respected manager did not even get a look in. Makes you wonder what more she will have to achieve before the big names come calling.
I’m aware that some of you won’t know who I’m talking about here. Hope Powell has been the manager of the England Women’s team since 1998 and will also be coaching Team GB’s Women’s Football Team at London 2012. You might now think that I’m just joking around when I suggest that Powell should also be considered for the vacant post. Initially this might have been the case but given her experience and track record, I’m convinced that she has an equal right to be talked about in relation to the job as managers like Redknapp, Hiddink, Pearce and Mourinho. Here are a few reasons why:
Englishness: Absurdly, the media and football following public have decided that the next England manager has to be English. Redknapp’s passion for England has won him many supporters but Hope Powell’s record is equally noteworthy. Capped 66 times by England (with 35 goals), vice-captain for country, and England manager for nearly 15 years. Surely this underlines her commitment to her country?
Reputation and respect: Again, the football world wants a figure in charge that is widely respected within the game and therefore can command the authority of players and staff. Hope Powell’s credentials speak for themselves. OBE, CBE, inducted into the English Football Hall of Fame, and the first woman to be awarded the UEFA Pro Licence (which is more than many other English managers hold). Clearly this is manager that is hugely respected within the wider footballing community.
Pre-existing FA relationship: Stuart Pearce has been linked with the job primarily as he’s already in the FA coaching set up and would therefore be a steady appointment from within. But, note that Hope Powell’s been in the FA set up for far longer…
International experience: Advocates of Guus Hiddink and Roy Hodgson point to their prior experience of managing international football. Yet Powell also has this in abundance. She’s led England to the quarter-finals of the 2005 Euros and the 2007 World Cup, and the final of the 2009 Euros.
Coaching achievements: Although Powell’s achievements above are clearly notable, some will say that she should not be considered as she’s not won any silverware. But neither has Guus Hiddink at international level. Plus Harry Redknapp’s only silverware is one FA Cup so Hope Powell’s records hardly fares too badly in comparison.
Bringing through youth: Again, Harry Redknapp’s fans will point to the number of young players that he developed at both West Ham and Spurs, a vital quality for an England manager. However, it’s also worth noting that alongside her senior level duties, Hope Powell oversees the England Women’s set up from Under 15s to Under 21s, showing that she’s equally able to bring through the next generation of England players.
Now I appreciate that there’s no chance that Hope Powell will be talked about in relation to the vacant England post. Nonetheless, this article has revealed two things. Firstly, the England job goes to whoever’s fashionable at the time, not to the person who’s necessarily most qualified. Otherwise, why isn’t Hope Powell being considered in the same way as Harry Redknapp?
Secondly, how is it that such an experienced and decorated manager has not been remotely touted with the major manager roles in English football? In 2011, Chelsea appointed an inexperienced AVB with minimal track record as manager yet Hope Powell, a very successful and widely respected manager did not even get a look in. Makes you wonder what more she will have to achieve before the big names come calling.
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Why the FA's decision on John Terry is nonsensical
So, John Terry was back in the news again this weekend, this time being stripped of the England captaincy ahead of his trial for allegedly racially abusing QPR defender Anton Ferdinand. Reading between the lines of their statement on this, the FA are simultaneously trying to show that they take accusations of racism seriously, but that they also respect the legal conventions of a defendant being innocent until proven guilty. I argue that rather than coming across as being strong and proactive, the FA instead made a decision that makes it look weak and indecisive.
Before I progress any further it’s worth pointing out that I have no real allegiance to John Terry here. Certainly I’m not a Chelsea fan looking to stand in his corner. On the other hand though, I don’t think Terry’s good enough to get into the England XI and therefore for footballing reasons, I wouldn’t have him as England captain. All that interests me is seeing an appropriate decision being made in relation to John Terry’s immediate future with England- something which this latest move hasn’t done.
There were only two decisions that the FA could make. The first would be to work on the assumption that Terry is innocent until proven guilty. On that basis, no action should be taken against John Terry until after his trial, and the FA should continue to fully back their man. By stripping Terry of the captaincy but still keeping him in the squad, they’re creating the impression that they think Terry is guilty but are afraid to publicly admit so. This is hardly the way to deal with someone who’s meant to be treated as if he’s done nothing wrong - especially when you consider that Liverpool were unwavering in their support for Luis Suarez up until his racism-related FA hearing.
The only other approach that the FA could have taken would have been to drop Terry immediately from the England squad until after his trial. The FA rightly has to be seen to take a zero-tolerance stance towards racist incidences. But, in only taking away some of Terry’s privileges as an England player, the FA are making themselves out to be doing this half-heartedly. It is also worth noting the divisiveness that Terry’s presence might have within a racially mixed England squad, one of whose most senior members is the brother of Anton Ferdinand. Instead, all this FA decision does is suggest a malleable approach to their supposed zero-tolerance stance towards racism which in turn may destabilize the entire team.
In this instance, the FA had to make a clear decision but instead have made a move that on the one hand, shows an unwillingness to support their player, and on the other, suggests that they are uncertain on their zero-tolerance policy towards racism. For what it’s worth, I personally would have kept Terry as captain (as much as I wouldn’t want to). The FA has a duty to uphold legal conventions which in this case means treating Terry for now, as if he’s done nothing wrong. That said, I would have fully understood the FA if they had decided to drop Terry entirely given the severity of the accusations levelled against him. After all, a precedent had already been set with Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate not being considered for selection prior to their 2002 trial for assaulting an Asian student.
It was a tough decision for the FA but that’s what was needed – a real decision – not this half-baked thing that they’ve come up with. Either back your man fully, or don’t do so at all.
Before I progress any further it’s worth pointing out that I have no real allegiance to John Terry here. Certainly I’m not a Chelsea fan looking to stand in his corner. On the other hand though, I don’t think Terry’s good enough to get into the England XI and therefore for footballing reasons, I wouldn’t have him as England captain. All that interests me is seeing an appropriate decision being made in relation to John Terry’s immediate future with England- something which this latest move hasn’t done.
There were only two decisions that the FA could make. The first would be to work on the assumption that Terry is innocent until proven guilty. On that basis, no action should be taken against John Terry until after his trial, and the FA should continue to fully back their man. By stripping Terry of the captaincy but still keeping him in the squad, they’re creating the impression that they think Terry is guilty but are afraid to publicly admit so. This is hardly the way to deal with someone who’s meant to be treated as if he’s done nothing wrong - especially when you consider that Liverpool were unwavering in their support for Luis Suarez up until his racism-related FA hearing.
The only other approach that the FA could have taken would have been to drop Terry immediately from the England squad until after his trial. The FA rightly has to be seen to take a zero-tolerance stance towards racist incidences. But, in only taking away some of Terry’s privileges as an England player, the FA are making themselves out to be doing this half-heartedly. It is also worth noting the divisiveness that Terry’s presence might have within a racially mixed England squad, one of whose most senior members is the brother of Anton Ferdinand. Instead, all this FA decision does is suggest a malleable approach to their supposed zero-tolerance stance towards racism which in turn may destabilize the entire team.
In this instance, the FA had to make a clear decision but instead have made a move that on the one hand, shows an unwillingness to support their player, and on the other, suggests that they are uncertain on their zero-tolerance policy towards racism. For what it’s worth, I personally would have kept Terry as captain (as much as I wouldn’t want to). The FA has a duty to uphold legal conventions which in this case means treating Terry for now, as if he’s done nothing wrong. That said, I would have fully understood the FA if they had decided to drop Terry entirely given the severity of the accusations levelled against him. After all, a precedent had already been set with Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate not being considered for selection prior to their 2002 trial for assaulting an Asian student.
It was a tough decision for the FA but that’s what was needed – a real decision – not this half-baked thing that they’ve come up with. Either back your man fully, or don’t do so at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)