Is anyone actually, really surprised that England lost out to Russia (and all the other competing bids, as it happens) in the race to host the World Cup finals in 2018? Not disappointed - I suspect millions of us are experiencing that emotion; no, surprised, because I'm not.
By common consent, we appear to have submitted the best technical and commercial bid to host the tournament, but ended up receiving just two votes out of a possible twenty-two in the first ballot - one of which was our own, apparently(!) and were consequently eliminated at that stage.
Was it a form of revenge against the repeated exposures of alleged corruption, (simply type the words 'FIFA corruption' into Google and you get pages of links, such as here, here, here and here), amongst FIFA officials by our media, as suggested in the linked article by Mark Palios and David Davies?
Very possibly, although Graham Taylor – he of the turnip head – dismisses that theory, suggesting, "England have had little or no influence. We are considered to be arrogant and know-alls."
I suspect it may be a combination of the two, with a little palm-greasing thrown in for good measure; but whatever the reason, we were resoundingly rejected by all but one of those entitled to vote and that is despite our sending the next but one King of England, the Prime Minister and, in David Beckham, one of the most iconic sports stars this country has ever produced, to pitch for us at the final presentations in Zurich.
Well, so be it. As a football fan, I hope that the Russians stage an excellent tournament that we can all enjoy in seven and a half years’ time. Ditto the Qataris – a country with a smaller landmass than the Falkland Islands and daytime summer temperatures of 50 degrees Celsius - in 2022.
Meanwhile, I sincerely hope that Messrs Blatter, Warner and co are going to conduct themselves like Caesar’s wife from now on; because I can guarantee that every investigative journalist in this country is currently working out how to further expose them as the deceitful, grubby criminals they really are.
And please, let's not delude ourselves that we have any hope of hosting the competition again in 2030 - the next time we'll be able to bid. Leave it to the corrupt narco-states and third world tyrannies with which the FIFA voting panel have so much in common.
Showing posts with label hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hypocrisy. Show all posts
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Episcopal hypocrisy and the bankruptcy of republicanism
What is it about republicans which forces them to support their position by levelling puerile personal insults at members of the Royal Family?
My own answer to that that question is that their arguments are so bankrupt and devoid of logic that childish personal abuse is all they have to support their infinitesimally small minority view.
Take for example, the drivel written about the recent Royal engagement by the Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Rev ‘Pete’ Broadbent, on his Facebook and Twitter pages, in which he likens Prince William and Kate Middleton to “shallow celebrities”, adding that the Royal Family was full of “broken marriages and philanderers”. That may or may not be true, but philanderers or not, those in glass houses should beware of throwing stones, because I cannot remember any Royal sex abuse scandals, whereas the Church of England positively bristles with them such as here, here, here and here, to name but four.
Not content with blackguarding the happy couple personally, he goes on to suggest – and remember, this is a Bishop of the Church of England making these remarks - that their marriage will not last above seven years; hardly the position one would expect from a senior member of the church in which William and Kate will marry, is it?
I wonder how many other ‘ordinary’ couples’ relationships he has openly suggested will not last more than seven years, even if he may well have thought it?
But he reserves his true bile for William’s parents, observing that, “I managed to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll, and hope to avoid this one too.”
Let me remind you again that the author of these remarks is a Bishop in the Church of England; the church of which the Queen is the Supreme Governor, as all her predecessors have been since Henry VIII’s split with Rome in the early Sixteenth Century. So isn’t ‘Pete’ Broadbent – who was appointed to his bishopric by the very Queen he effects to despise – nothing more than a hypocrite?
Because, if he feels so strongly about his republicanism, I’m sure he could easily resign his episcopacy, go back to calling himself ‘Pete’ without it being a glaring and grating affectation and find himself a more egalitarian church in which to worship.
Or could it be that he enjoys the ‘fawning deferential nonsense’ shown to him as a bishop of the established church and so clings on to his position for personal aggrandisement?
I don’t pretend to know the answer, but I do know that peevish personal attacks such as Broadbent’s recent splenetic nonsense, serves only to display the bankruptcy of the republican argument, so I suppose as an ardent monarchist, I should thank him for his contribution to the royal cause.
My own answer to that that question is that their arguments are so bankrupt and devoid of logic that childish personal abuse is all they have to support their infinitesimally small minority view.
Take for example, the drivel written about the recent Royal engagement by the Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Rev ‘Pete’ Broadbent, on his Facebook and Twitter pages, in which he likens Prince William and Kate Middleton to “shallow celebrities”, adding that the Royal Family was full of “broken marriages and philanderers”. That may or may not be true, but philanderers or not, those in glass houses should beware of throwing stones, because I cannot remember any Royal sex abuse scandals, whereas the Church of England positively bristles with them such as here, here, here and here, to name but four.
Not content with blackguarding the happy couple personally, he goes on to suggest – and remember, this is a Bishop of the Church of England making these remarks - that their marriage will not last above seven years; hardly the position one would expect from a senior member of the church in which William and Kate will marry, is it?
I wonder how many other ‘ordinary’ couples’ relationships he has openly suggested will not last more than seven years, even if he may well have thought it?
But he reserves his true bile for William’s parents, observing that, “I managed to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll, and hope to avoid this one too.”
Let me remind you again that the author of these remarks is a Bishop in the Church of England; the church of which the Queen is the Supreme Governor, as all her predecessors have been since Henry VIII’s split with Rome in the early Sixteenth Century. So isn’t ‘Pete’ Broadbent – who was appointed to his bishopric by the very Queen he effects to despise – nothing more than a hypocrite?
Because, if he feels so strongly about his republicanism, I’m sure he could easily resign his episcopacy, go back to calling himself ‘Pete’ without it being a glaring and grating affectation and find himself a more egalitarian church in which to worship.
Or could it be that he enjoys the ‘fawning deferential nonsense’ shown to him as a bishop of the established church and so clings on to his position for personal aggrandisement?
I don’t pretend to know the answer, but I do know that peevish personal attacks such as Broadbent’s recent splenetic nonsense, serves only to display the bankruptcy of the republican argument, so I suppose as an ardent monarchist, I should thank him for his contribution to the royal cause.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Nick and Ed - hypocrites or the converted?
Watching the Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance last night on the television, I was struck by the fact that both Nick Clegg and Ed Milliband, each of them self-proclaimed atheists, had the gall to join in with the act of worship, including the singing of hymns.
At least Milliband had the decency to look uncomfortable to the point of embarrassment as he perfunctorily mouthed the words, but Clegg appeared to be joining in with some gusto.
I am not an atheist, but I recognise it as a perfectly respectable position to hold; indeed many of my friends subscribe to that view themselves. But am I alone in finding it more than a little hypocritical to loudly proclaim your atheism and then to take an active part in what was a clearly religious ceremony, more than likely for reasons of political expediency?
Wouldn't both of them been better advised to simply stand there in respectful silence? Doing so would certainly have been a great deal more comfortable for Red Ed...
At least Milliband had the decency to look uncomfortable to the point of embarrassment as he perfunctorily mouthed the words, but Clegg appeared to be joining in with some gusto.
I am not an atheist, but I recognise it as a perfectly respectable position to hold; indeed many of my friends subscribe to that view themselves. But am I alone in finding it more than a little hypocritical to loudly proclaim your atheism and then to take an active part in what was a clearly religious ceremony, more than likely for reasons of political expediency?
Wouldn't both of them been better advised to simply stand there in respectful silence? Doing so would certainly have been a great deal more comfortable for Red Ed...
Saturday, September 18, 2010
If you must oppose the Pope's visit...
Whilst I am not a Roman Catholic, I have to nail my colours to the mast and observe that I welcome the visit by the Pope to these shores.
As such, I regret the stance adopted by various famous atheists, such as Sephen Fry and Professor Dawkins who, it seems to me is becoming something of a professional, if not obsessive, proponent of his own godless creed, in noisily opposing the visit. They remind me of nothing so much as spoilt children throwing their toys out of their prams when they don't get their own way. I think it makes them look childish and small minded; which is why I fully agree with the opinion expressed by Ian O'Doherty in this article published in the Irish Independent.
It is plainly the opinion of a committed and convinced atheist; but whilst having that in common with Fry and Dawkins, his mature observations about the Pope's visit makes theirs look shrill and childish.
As such, I regret the stance adopted by various famous atheists, such as Sephen Fry and Professor Dawkins who, it seems to me is becoming something of a professional, if not obsessive, proponent of his own godless creed, in noisily opposing the visit. They remind me of nothing so much as spoilt children throwing their toys out of their prams when they don't get their own way. I think it makes them look childish and small minded; which is why I fully agree with the opinion expressed by Ian O'Doherty in this article published in the Irish Independent.
It is plainly the opinion of a committed and convinced atheist; but whilst having that in common with Fry and Dawkins, his mature observations about the Pope's visit makes theirs look shrill and childish.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Kevin Myers asks why the English are universally disliked...
Regular, or even semi-regular visitors will have gathered that I haven't posted for well over a week. Once again, I'm afraid the twin conspirators of work, both formal and domestic have combined to deprive me of the necessary time to compose even my rambling and structureless.
However, not for the first time, my favourite columnist, Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent, has ridden to the rescue with another one of his neatly observed articles, in which he discusses the antipathy towards England and the English not just by his fellow Irishmen, but by virtually every other nation on earth, even our so called 'special' friends.
Hits the nail squarely on the head, in my view; but what do you think?
However, not for the first time, my favourite columnist, Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent, has ridden to the rescue with another one of his neatly observed articles, in which he discusses the antipathy towards England and the English not just by his fellow Irishmen, but by virtually every other nation on earth, even our so called 'special' friends.
Hits the nail squarely on the head, in my view; but what do you think?
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Kevin Myers on mob mentality and hypocrisy...
By way of a gentle reintroduction to my ramblings, I've once again linked to an article by the ever-excellent Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent, in which he lampoons both the bloodlust of the (Irish) mob - it could just as easily be an English one, frankly - and the hypocrisy of those criticising middle-aged white men as sexual bigots.
Spot on, as always.
Spot on, as always.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
