COMMENT: It's time to rid ourselves of Fabio Capello

Fabio Capello hasn't been the most popular of England football managers, and far from the best, but, with his comments about John Terry and the captaincy he has, it seems, broken his contract with the F.A. and should be sacked immediately.

Fabio Capello has been England manager for 4 years now. He followed in the wake of the lamentable Steve McClaren and so, in comparison, a rotting pig's head would have been able to do a better job.

In his time as manager, which, let's be honest, is really a very part-time job, he's been pocketing a whacking £6 million pounds per year (yes, £6 million part-time, not pro rata) but hasn't found the time to learn English in order to be able to talk to the press or instruct the team without reliance on a translator.

Also in his time, England have qualified for two major tournaments. For a strong footballing nation, qualification should be the default. The team have given many poor performances, struggled to beat mediocre and poor teams and were a disgrace in the 2010 World Cup.

Yesterday, he was interviewed by Italian TV and said he was unhappy that the FA had removed the captaincy from John Terry, who has been charged with racially abusing a fellow player last October.

Hang on a minute, Mr. Capello, in any other workplace if a worker was accused of racially abusing a co-worker he'd be suspended until the matter was resolved. It is an outrage that Terry, a disposable character, has been allowed to hang on to the captaincy so long, and it is,similarly, monstrous that he is still being selected by Chelsea, the tea news playing for when the alleged offence took place.

many will argue that the British legal system means that John Terry is innocent until proven guilty. That is true. Until the case is heard in court we have to assume Terry's innocence and it is the role of the prosecution to prove his guilt in the matter, but in employment law when a serious allegation like this is made a suspension comes into operation.

Capello's support for Terry is bizarre. he selected him as his full-time skipper but had to take away the captain's armband when Terry had, shall we say, issues in his private life that unsettled the England changing room. In his place, Capello appointed known drug cheat Rio Ferdinand, but, as soon as he could here-appointed Terry. Why on earth would you do that? According to reports Terry is as unpopular on terraces as he is with the team.

Capello's contract ends this summer and he's already said he's off after the Euro 2012 championships. It's very likely that he's broken the terms of his contract with a very public criticism of his employers but, even if he hasn't, I think it's time to replace him with a new manager.

Who will the new manager be? Well, the tabloid's favourite, Harry Redk app, would seem as much of a liability as Terry Venables was. He may not be everyone's first choice, but I'd choose Ray Wilkins - calm, experienced and a master tactician.

As for Capello, who cares. he's been very poor. Even if he hasn't breached his contract (I smaintain there's a very good chance he has) the pay off now would be very small. It's time to look to the future.

Ciao bella, Fabio!



~ ~ ~ ~ ~

John Terry's punishment:
http://pimpmycadence.blogspot.com/2012/02/opinion-john-terrys-punishment.html

John Terry's racism charge:
http://pimpmycadence.blogspot.com/2012/02/comment-john-terrys-racism-charge.html

Racism in the UK:
http://pimpmycadence.blogspot.com/2011/12/opnion-racism-in-uk.html

2012 Superbowl Commercials

OPINION: John Terry's punishment

The fact the maximum penalty John Terry can receive for his race hate is a fine of £2,500 highlights a couple of issues which parliament need to address.

1) Race hate crimes need to have more serious punishments. A fine of £2,500 is simply not sufficient.

2) Fines need to be as a percentage of income/worth NOT a flat tariff for everyone. £2,500 is a month's salary for many. For John Terry it is less than a morning's work. This is wrong.

3) Court cases cost a lot and, currently, this is paid by the tax payer. Court costs SHOULD be recouped from the guilty.

4) Any crime which has an anti-social element, as the race hate charges Terry has been accused of, must have a custodial sentence. Anti-social behaviour means you should give up your place in society for a fixes period of time.

5) This isn't Terry's first scrape with the legal system. Clearly his previous punishments were insufficient. Two strikes and you're out, now matter what the crime is.

366/36 - Snowy rooftops

Click here for today's Project 366:

Snowy rooftops

Snow maiden

Super bowel

OPINION: RBS 6 Nations

Today sees the start of the 2012 6 Nations tournament. Five weekends of fixtures spread through February and March.

The tournament was founded back in 1883 and has very slowly expanded to its current number of participants. In fact, it's been 12 years since Italy became the 6th nation. It can't be healthy for the sport, or the teams, to keep having the same teams play each other. It's in danger of getting as pointless as international cricket.

After last year's Rugby World Cup, I can't help feeling that too little is being done to expand the global reach of the game, and definitely not enough is being done to strengthen the nations that do play internationally but not at the same standard as the 6 nations teams.

There aren't many things that rugby union can learn from football but I do wonder whether a re-organisation of the European game, along the lines that football does, might benefit everyone.

I suggest that the 6 Nations is scrapped. It serves little purpose other than a cash cow for the national unions. This is wrong because there are other nations, not that much worse than Italy, who miss out.

To replace the 6 Nations I suggest that there is a European championship (like Euro 2012) that is held midway between the World Cup and, in the year before the Euro tournament and the year before the World Cup, there should be a qualifying tournament. No more automatic qualification for the "big" nations.

My suggested format would widen the interest in rugby union, help strengthen the next tier of nations, and keep the big nations on their toes. There'd be a broader range of opponents and fantastic experience for the likes of Romania, Germany, Georgia and Spain.

I fear the 6 Nations has become a pointless parade that is self serving. Change is needed to foster the future of the sport.

COMMENT: National Libraries' Day

Today is Narional Libraries' Day in the UK, though you'd be excused if you were unaware of this fact, it's not had a huge amount of publicity - which is odd, given the amount of coverage, twittering, campaigns, etc. that happened last year when cuts to library services were announced.

Public libraries are long overdue an overhaul. They live in a cosy, caring late Victorian age with little sense that the world has changed.

Sure, most have computers and Internet access, many lend CDs and DVDs, some now offee ebooks loans, and there's been various other innovations that have moved libraries slowly forward in time but, really, is the modern public library fit for purpose? And do we get value for money for the amount of tax payers money paid into these institutions?

I'd suggest that the various technological changes are a superficial sheen that mask the fact that, in reality, most public libraries are the same as they have been for over a century.

Let's look at what's on the shelves.

Why should my taxes be used to allow someone to read a Katie Price or Jilly Cooper novel? Why should libraries stock any pulp fiction? Novels are so cheap these days I don't see any justification for libraries paying for copies. Perhaps novels as ebooks - at a fee - makes sense but libraries stocking large amounts of storybooks is just a silly waste of money.

Then there's the net access offered in libraries. Maybe the expense should be put into helping everyone have Internet access at home?

I can see an argument for chikdren's books in libraries, they get through a lot very quickly, but this could, and should, be done via their nursery and school.

The idea of libraries lending CDs and DVDs, an idea which must have seemed revolutionary when it began, is just preposterous in the modern world. Music and video are so easily and cheaply accessible everywhere there can be no justification for libraries to offer them. Librarians may as well just stand behind their counter and burn £10 notes.

I think there is a place for towns and cities to have a library but it needs to be fundamentally different from the wasteful system we currently have.

I'd suggest an Information Hub - that would include Citizen's Advice Bureau, Council Information, a reference library, etc. Scrap the wastefulness, scrap the things that can't be justified or are easily available cheaply, or free, elsewhere and focus on things that make sense.

Libraries are still firmly rooted in the society of beneficial industrialists and where books weren't available so easily and cheaply. Times have changed. It's time that libraries caught up and stopped wasting tax payers' money.

COMMENT: Reforming the NHS

I do find it strange that those campaigning for the government to "drop the bill" on NHS reforms are so blinkered in their view of the NHS.

It is fair to say that when the NHS was set up, way back in 1948, that it was the crowning glory of Clement Attlee's post-war Labour government, and one the 1946 Act that set it up, is still one of the greatest and most important pieces of legislation any government has ever passed. It doesn't, however, mean that things shouldn't change or that everything that was in the National Health Service Act was right or perfect - far from it.

Some supporting the. "drop the bill" campaign (a glib, overly simplistic sound bite that is typical if Ed Miliband's knee-jerk, gesture politics) seem so blinkered in their view, or just plain stupid, that they want the NHS left alone. They argue that it is fine as it is. They don't want anything changed.

That point of view is moronic. It doesn't exist in the real world. Only absolute idiots would support it. Sadly, many of those who were elected as Labour MPs in 2010 fit that description perfectly.

The NHS is an enormous monolith of waste, leaking tax payers' money quicker than a jug of water poured through a sieve.

The problem is that in the 64 years since it came into existence, governments of different colours have tinkered with it. Tinkering is no good. Tinkering is for the short-sighted. Tinkering is for the amateur wanting a crowd pleasing quick fix, but it isn't for the careful, thoughtful politician who wants to move the NHS into the 21st century.

And that's the problem. The NHS is still firmly rooted in post-Second World War politics. It is embedded in the Twentieth Century. Sure, the machinery of medicine might have changed beyond recognition, the treatments progressed, survival rates improved, etc. but the organisation and administration of the NHS, and it's excessive waste, remain firmly in 1950's Britain.

The idiots calling for Cameron's government to "drop the bill" are correct, in as much as this bill isn't right - it fails to address many of the fundamental flaws of the NHS - but they fail to offer alternatives that show any awareness of what is needed, and, in the whole, they want to bury their head in the sand, do nothing and keep repeating their meaningless (and somewhat dishonest mantra) that "the NHS is the envy of the world"!

The concept of the NHS is the envy of the world but no sane country would want to adopt this dinosaur which eats money at a ridiculous rate - way beyond what can be justified and way beyond what can be afforded.

The NHS needs to be reformed. Proper reform. Root and branch. No more tinkering. Someone needs to sit down with a blank piece of paper and rethink the NHS. No sacred cows. Nothing off-limits.

Without fundamental change the NHS will die a long, slow death and we will all suffer.

The NHS has been a major national asset, but as the nation's do graphic changes, we need a new NHS that is designed for the next 70 years, not the last 70 years.

If you insist on your meaningless gesture politics of who h "drop the bill " is one of the most inane that's fine, but start thinking about alternatives, because the status quo isn't the solution.

It's 2012, not 1948. The world has changed beyond recognition. The NHS needs to catch up, and quickly.

366/35 - The Crescent, Buxton

Click here for today's Project 366 posting:

The Crescent, Buxton

Mozart

Caprice

OPINION: "Foreigners" playing for national teams

With the announcement of the Six Nations teams this week, my Twitter timeline had a fair few England supporters decrying the selection of non-English players. This, of course, isn't a new thing; back in the 70s a lot of the England cricket team were born in South Africa or Southern Rhodesia (as Zimbabwe was then called), and in recent years it has become more common for players in all sorts of sports to change nationality and compete for a new country.

Probably the most infamous example was when Zola Budd, a Soutt African runner, had her papers rushed through to allow her to avoid the sporting boycott her country of birth had placed on it and compete for the UK, a country for which she had little connection or knowledge, but a country who fancied a chance of an extra medal or two at the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles.

Of course, in the UK we have the nonsense of a huge number of sportsmen and women having to decide which constituent part (England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland) they want to represent, and this can come down to the "nationality" of one of their four grandparents. In all sports, if we are to have international teams, the IK should have one national team as the premier elite team, not subdivisions.

We also have the nonsense of someone representing, say, Wales as a schoolboy international but becoming an England full international. Total nonsense.

So, with such a history of people changing nationality, why do some people still have a problem with it? There is, of course, only one possible answer: xenophobia - or, in some cases, racism. Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage would be proud of these Little Englanders and their attitudes to those who don't share the same country of birth, while the rest of have to bite our lips at the blatantly offensive beliefs if these moral Neanderthals.

Personally I find it bizarre that anyone has a loyalty or sense of belonging and kinship to a country that they have inherited purely by an accident of birth. Their mother could have been anywhere when she gave birth to them; nationality is an accident, and to exclude others on grounds of nationality is moronic, at best, and very dangerous, at worst.

The solution is easy, though the loud mouthed and ignorant xenophobes, supported by offensively nationalistic newspapers and an establishment that calls on "national pride" whenever they are at a low ebb. We need to have national teams selected on place of residence and not place of birth or. "legal nationality".

As I said, your place of birth is an accident. However, your place of residence is a choice. I choose to live in the UK, in the same way that Didier Drogba chooses to live in the UK. Sure, I'm unlikely to be chosen to represent any nation at any sport but, if I were, it would be a UK team. Drogba may well have been born in the Côte d'Ivoire but he has chosen to live and work in the UK. If he is to represent any national team it is more logical that he represents the country he has chosen to live in and not the country he moved away from.

Similarly, David Beckham could, at various times in his career, have represented the UK, Spain and the USA - and that way, at least, the GB Olympic team wouldn't have the nonsense of him begging to be selected in the GB Olympic football team in order to help promote Brand Beckham.

Let's stop playing the nationality card. It may have had a place a couple of centuries ago when few travelled around the world, but today nationality by birth is just silly. Nationality by choice is far more sensible, and is a kick in the teeth to all the horrible racists and xenophobes.

366/34 - chocolates

Click here for today 's Project 366 posting:

Chocolates

Jupiter

Gradgrind

COMMENT: Top Totty

Kate Green, the Labour MP for Stretford and Urmston and shadow Equalities spokesperson, has kicked up a fuss in the Palace of Westminster about a beer being served in the Strangers' Bar (the bar where MPs can take guests).

Green's issue with the beer is that its name and logo (pictured below) are inappropriate in parliament. Apparently she was "disturbed" by the image - I do hope she never goes to the beach - she'd go apoplectic!

She might have had a point. Certainly the name of this prize-winning beer, a true British business success, is a little dodgy and one could claim that the logo of a woman in a bikini top is a bit sexist. It's certainly not the worst beer name or logo I've ever seen but, for a moment, let's give Kate Green the benefit of the doubt.

So she notices the beer on sale, and its logo, and makes a complaint. Fair enough.

But no! NOT fair enough! The Strangers' Bar has been selling Top Totty, with the same logo on the pump, FOR FIVE YEARS!

This raises several questions:

1. Has Kate Green not been in the Strangers' Bar for the past 5 years? Does she NEVER have guests in parliament? If she does, has she NEVER taken them for a drink?

2. Perhaps Kate Green HAS been in the Strangers' Bar but has never gone up to the bar to order or pay for drinks?

3. Maybe Kate Green fails to notice anything around her? In that case, maybe she's not safe to drive? Maybe all her faculties aren't working?

4. She must be aware that her little hissy fit has given Top Totty, and Slater's, the Stafford-based company who brew it, the best publicity they could ever have wanted - in ALL the newspapers, on news bulletins everywhere and without costing them a penny. I do hope it doesn't turn our she has shares in the company!

5. Or maybe there's something else, perhaps more sinister, behind a carefully timed complaint, saved for a special occasion?

Who knows what Kate Green's motivation is. I wonder if it's the start of trouble for Miliband from Harriet Harman's covern - the "female only alternative shadow cabinet"?

Her little tantrum has, of course, worked. The beer has been banned from the Strangers' Bar - the end of five years of sales during which Kate Green was in disturbed until yesterday.

Maybe Kate Green should be offended by Famous Grouse whiskey (on animal rights grounds) or Tia Maria (because it sounds foreign) or India Pale Ale (because she somehow finds it racist) or .... the list could go on.

There is one thing Kate Green could object to... the nearly £10,000 per annum that MPs each get in subsidised food and drink in the bars and restaurants in the Pakace of Westminster. But, oh no, the image of a woman in a bikini top is far more "disturbing" than the financial corruption that MPs still benefit from at tax payers' expense.

I suggest an MP who has failed to notice something for five years is less than competent as a human being and hope the electorate in Stretford and Urmston seriously consider other options at the next election.

366/33 - Hat

Click here for today's Project 366 posting:

Hat

Dies Irae

Stiction

Cowboy at the seaside (a film by Simon Hickson)

100WCGU: Wednesday

100 Word Challenge for Grown Ups - Week 29 - Wednesday

Wednesday

by

Robert Steadman

He said it would be done by Thursday.
It wasn't.

He said it would definitely be finished by Friday.
It wasn't.

He said he just needed the weekend.
It would be with me first thing on Monday morning.
I said ok, but was beginning to lose my patience.

Monday arrived and Monday went.
It wasn't done.

He asked for one more chance.
I agreed.

He said it would be complete by Wednesday.
Definitely. Absolutely.
It would be finished by Wednesday.
There was no need to worry any more.

Wednesday arrived.

Wednesday went.

It wasn't completed.

He wasn't good at deadlines.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


100 Word Challenge for Grown Ups - Week 29 - Wednesday

COMMENT: John Terry's racism charge

Today John Terry found that the trial for his alleged use of racist insults against Antonio Ferdinand won't take place until 9th July - just over a week after the Euro 2012 Championships have finished.

Terry has pleaded not guilty to making racist comments in a match between Chelsea and QPR last October. Today, in the Magistrates' Court, he pleaded "not guilty".

Now I realise and accept that, as the law stands, John Terry is currently innocent until proved otherwise. Howev, the police have investigated the accusations and the Criwn Prosecution Service have decided, based on that investigatin, that Terry has a case to answer.

Yes, the fact he has a case to answer doesn't stop him being innocent.It just means he has a case to answer.

But, should Terry go to Poland/Ukraine in June to represent England in the Euro 2012 Championships and, if he does go, should he still captain the England team (a position he only regained in March 2011 having been stripped of it a year earlier due to "troubles" in his private life)?

Personally, I think there are many issues that are raised if Terry is selected and goes:

1. What about his relationship with Les Ferdinand (Antonio Ferdinand's brother) who is likely to be in the England squad?

2. What of the FA's "KICK RACISM INTO TOUCH" campaign?

3. Will Terry's mind be on football or his impending court case?

4. Will he have the support of other black players in the squad?

5. What effect will it have on the FA's credibility?

I'm undecided. I strongly support the notion of innocent until proven guilty but I do wonder whether Terry's inclusion in the squad, let alone being captain, raises too many questions. It's not as if he has an unblemished past - there are several incidents in his past that make him an unsuitable ambassador for the country on the international stage.

I suspect the FA will somehow manage to fudge the issue... and hope he picks up a metatarsal injury in April/May that will prevent him going!

TOP 10: Who else should have their honours taken away?

Now that Sir Fred Goodwin is just plain Mr. Goodwin, I wondered who else should have their titles and baubles removed.

Here's my personal Top 10.

1: Lord Prescott - after all, it was his government who ignored the signs and failed to act to rein in the bankers that lead to the crisis that we're all now in.

2: Sir David Jason - I just find him irritating beyond belief. Perhaps two good performances in his career (Porterhouse Blue and Poridge) but countless identikit performances in unfunny sitcoms.

3: Sir Jimmy Savile - yes, yes, I know he's dead, but I think his title should be removed posthumously - an irritant with lots of unanswered questions.

4: David Beckham OBE - I have no problem with sportsmen and women receiving honours if it is to honour outstanding achievement like a world record, an Olympic or World winner, something like that. Beckham was over-hyped, over-paid and even managed to soil the Commonwealth Games by wearing a sponsorship logo in the ad free opening ceremony. Awful, awful, human being.

5: Gerald Ronson CBE - one of the Guiness Four. He was jailed in connection with the share-trading scandal but made a CBE in 2012.

6: Denise Coates CBE - founder and chief executive of the online gambling company bet365 - representative of an industry that causes so much hardship and devastation to families across the country off the back of gambling on animal abuse.

7: Lord Ashcroft - who personifies so much of what is wrong with British politics.

8: Sir Elton John - he may have had a long career, but he's had very few No. 1s and, well, let's be honest, his knighthood was a populist move to help the rehabilitation of the Windsors after the death of "that woman".

9: All soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines - should we really honour people who kill and maim civilians?

10: Christopher Preddie OBE - a former drug dealer and gang member.

And there are many, many more.... Ronnie Corbett, Bruce Forsyth, Kelly Holmes, etc.

Who would you remove honours fom?

Why call George Osborne "Gideon "?

You hear it and read it all the time; Labour supporters who refer to George Osborne as "Gideon".

Why do they do it?

Isn't it just name calling and bullying?

Ok, ok, George Osborne's birth certificate has him as Gideon but he has, as is his choice, become known as George.

So Gideon is his real name? Yes. But Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are both really named Edward - should we insist that they are always called that? Should Ken Clarke always be Kenneth? Should Maggie Thatcher always be Margaret?

Labour supporters object, quite rightly, to Cameron's name calling and bullying but lose all respect when they call George Osborne Gideon because it is being done to try to make him sound posh, privileged and Tory.

George Osborne wants to be called George. Labour supporters should respect that.

COMMENT: Bully Cameron name calling AGAIN!

What is wrong with David Cameron? Yes, yes, there are plenty of things, but it seems he just can't help himself with silly puerile quips and name calling.

We've had blatant sexism, we've had the "dinosaur" jibe, and today he decides to call Liam Byrne "Baldemort" (a reference to the baddie in Harry Potter, Lord Voldemort, and Liam Byrne's lack of hair) just before he used a quote from Byrne to support his own argument!

And although Cameron wiped the floor, yet again, with Ed MajorFail, he had already been admonished by John Bercow, the Speaker of the House, for calling the Leader of the Opposition a hypocrite - this is considered unparliamentary.

Is it beyond our Prime Minister to behave in a civilised way? Does he need treatment for his addiction to insults and bad mouthing? Or should he just be spending a little more time with his family?

It's not even the first time he's referred to Liam Byrne "Baldemort" - he first used the insult in March 2010, and, even then, it was a line he in led from political blogger Guido Fawkes.

It's time to grow up, Mr. Cameron. Bullying might have been your social weapon at Eton, it may have been de rigeur in the Bullingdon Club during your time at Oxford, it may have got you to climb the Tory party ladder but I, for one, find it unacceptable in a Prime Minister.

366/32 - Can

Today's Project 366 posting:

Can

E.T.

Gamp

REVIEW: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (15)

Everyone over a certain age knows "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" - either from the John le Carré novel or the tremendous television adaptation in which Alec Guiness played George Smiley, the central character in TTSS.



On the surface, it is, of course, a Cold War spy movie, but, with its web of secrets, lies, trust, betrayals, friendship, pacts and paranoia, it could be seen to be a mirror to the complexities in our modern society.

Tomas Alfredson's takes John le Carré's novel and presents it in a very clear shade of stone grey - it oozes tension from start to finish.

Gary Oldman takes the lead as George Smiley, a somewhat mild-mannered MI6 agent who comes out of retirement to try to uncover a mole in the secret British agency known as the "Circus". Vital information is being leaked to the Soviets and Smiley is the man chosen to track him down.

Oldman is outstanding in a measured and underplayed performance rather at tangent to his recent movies. Smiley is unassuming and watchful - the opposite of the Bourne/Bond template of spy to which movie audiences have become accustomed. Oldman will get plenty of nods come awards time, but the ensemble acting is tremendous, as is the atmospheric soundtrack.